Calvinism and Mariah Carey

Reformed folks are probably more familiar with William Carey, sometimes referred to as the father of modern missions. William Carey is famous for saying, "Expect great things from God, attempt great things for God." The following video, however, speculates about possible Calvinistic tendencies of his fellow Carey clansman (clansperson?), Mariah:



Enjoy!

-TurretinFan

H.T. Brought, ironically enough, to my attention by Let My People Read.

The Real Turretin on: The Duty of the King Toward Religion

JetBrane at Iron Ink has provide a quotation from the real Francis Turretin on the subject of the duty of the Christian magistrate. (link) JetBrane goes on to make an application to the so-called R2KT (Radical Two-Kingdom Theology) viewpoint. Without getting embroiled (for now) with that topic, I can of course commend Turretin's comments as an interest read.

-TurretinFan

Science Rejects Free Will

This article (link) is not going to convince anyone, and perhaps it shouldn't. The article basically says that a team of scientists have discovered that they can determine people's decisions (at least some simple ones) before the people themselves can determine their decisions. That suggests something to the effect of determinism. While I enjoy the article, and it is helpful to sort of tweak the noses of my Libertarian Free Will (LFW) advocating friends, there are some problems with it, and I'll be up front about them:

1) Science is notoriously erroneous. It is typically based on induction, and consequently it is frequently revised as new evidence arrives and the old inductions cannot accommodate them.

2) Even within science, the study of the human mind is usually viewed as a "soft" science. It's very difficult to ensure proper controls for studies, and there are some studies that have purported to verify very questionable hypotheses, such as telepathy/clairvoyance.

3) Science can only deal directly with the physical. We have reason to believe that at least some aspect of decisions are conducted in the spiritual realm. Thus, we would not expect that science could fully address the issue of decision-making.

Despite all those caveats, the article is interesting and is something that LFW advocates should be prepared to address.

-TurretinFan

Amazing Prediction

The self-titled "Plain Path Puritan" recently made the following prediction: "I predict a mass conversion of paedo-baptist Reformed Christians at the [so-called] PuritanBoard to Roman Catholicism within the next five years." (brackets in the original) (link)

It's an amazing prediction. It's amazing for this reason: the folks at Puritan Board are among the most conservative of Presbyterians. I'm sure my Roman Catholic readers would be delighted if the prediction came true, but I'm afraid that I'd be falsely raising their hopes if I said there was any chance of it happening.

-TurretinFan

Biblical Evidence for the Veneration of Relics Ignored?

Previously, I discussed (and rebutted) the claim that the Scriptural discussion of the transport of Joseph's bones from Egypt to Canaan was evidence of the veneration of relics in the Old Testament (link). Now, I turn to a second favorite passage that relic-venerators tend to appeal to, as allegedly supporting their position. That passage is the discussion of the resuscitation of a man who touched Elisha's bones.

The Scripture in question is as follows:

2 Kings 13:20-21
20And Elisha died, and they buried him. And the bands of the Moabites invaded the land at the coming in of the year. 21And it came to pass, as they were burying a man, that, behold, they spied a band of men; and they cast the man into the sepulchre of Elisha: and when the man was let down, and touched the bones of Elisha, he revived, and stood up on his feet.

The point of this passage would seem to be an indication of the extreme poverty of the prophet, as well as a testimony to the reality of his divine appointment as a prophet.

1) Note that they buried Elisha. They did not place his bones in a synagogue or in the temple to be venerated.

2) Note that they buried Elisha in a place of the dead. This is confirmed by the fact that men who were burying a man (who is so unimportant as not even to be named in Scripture) found Elisha's sepulcher at hand. Thus, it appears that Elisha's sepulcher was not in a place of great importance, but in a place of the dead.

3) Note that Elisha's sepulchre was open. If it had been a closed sepulchre, it would not have been convenient to dump a body into it. An open sepulchre was an unpleasant and foul thing, even though it had an important purpose. In fact, the Psalmist uses it to provide a negative picture of the sinful man's mouth:

Psalm 5:9 For there is no faithfulness in their mouth; their inward part is very wickedness; their throat is an open sepulchre; they flatter with their tongue.

Notice the comparison there. An open sepulchre, as you can see, has the advantage of not smelling so bad at the mouth of the sepulchre, but inside is death: a carcase. We can deduce that these open sepulchres were either deep (to accomplish this smell prevention issue), and consequently the prophet Jeremiah likens the quiver of mighty men to an open sepulchre:

Jeremiah 5:16 Their quiver is as an open sepulchre, they are all mighty men.

Or possibly the idea is that open sepulchres were in essence mass graves: which would also make sense both in the context of 2 Kings 13 and Jeremiah 5 (although I am inclined to the former view).

Some have suggested that an open sepulchre is basically a crevasse in the earth, a deep, naturally occurring pit into which a body could basically be dumped, thereby saving cost in terms of the time spent having to dig up the earth for burial. This would make sense as well - the idea being in Jeremiah 5 that the mighty men have a basically limitless supply of arrows.

4) The sepulchre was not a rock-face sepulchre, like that in which Jesus was buried. Recall that the man was not simply tossed or placed into the sepulchre, but lowered into the open sepulchre. This "lowered" suggests that the sepulchre opened upward rather than laterally. Again, this confirms that Elijah was not buried in some elaborate tomb designed to honor him, but rather in a low-cost alternative.

Analysis of Verse with Respect to Veneration Hypothesis

With the analysis above in mind, we should examine the verse in view of the hypothesis that it has something to do with venerating relics. Frankly, of course, there is no hint of veneration. Indeed, the idea of placing (even carefully) an apparently dead body on top of Elisha's would seem to show the opposite of veneration for him (dead bodies were unclean).

One might argue that the knowledge that it was the place where Elisha was buried shows some amount of honor, but it is the sort of bare honor that demonstrates that Elisha was at least not buried in an unmarked grave (as contrasted, for example, with the Muslims' practices).

Rather than being used specifically for the purposes of showing veneration, some might argue this as showing the supernatural effects associated with the corpses of holy men.

Leaving aside the issue of whether Elisha was particularly holy, it is interesting to note that the passage does not explicitly say that the man about to be buried was dead. It says he revived, which is ambiguous (both in the original Hebrew and in our English translation) as to whether the man came to life or simply recovered from a state of apparent death (presumably folks wouldn't bury an apparently alive person).

Either way, it is reasonable to infer that one of the reasons for the mention of the revival was to highlight this as a sort of posthumous miracle of Elisha. It is a reasonable inference, but not a necessary one. Regardless of whether it is a correct inference, all that it demonstrates is that God chose to testify to Elisha's gifts in this particular way at this particular time.

In other words, we would have no logical or proper ground to infer a general principle from this isolated and Scripturally unexplained occurrence. It certainly does not teach the veneration of relics, nor does it provide a rational basis for endorsing the superstitious legends that have sprung up around various relics, within churches that engage in relic veneration.

In short, we can reject the theory that 2 Kings 13:20-21 in any way supports relic veneration or the churches that practice such activity. You might think, based on the explanation above, that no one would attempt to use such a clearly unhelpful passage as 2 Kings 13:20-21, but - in fact - we see such happening in papist apologetics (Dave Armstrong, for example, falsely claims that "In the Old Law we read of the veneration of the Jews for the bones of Joseph (Exodus 13:19; Joshua 24:32), and of the prophet Eliseus [Elisha] ...." (quoting with approval from Bertrand Conway) link; See also Steve Ray relying on Joseph and Elisha, Ron aka "Saint under Construction" similarly relying on Joseph and Elisha, and this anonymous article that has received Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur which relies on Elisha while wisely omitting reference to Joseph)

May the God of the Living keep us from this,

-TurretinFan

The Real Turretin on: Perseverance and the Law

Josh Lim at Reformed Blogging, has posted a nice selection from the real Francis Turretin on the relationship between Perseverance of the Saints and the Law. (link) As you can imagine, Turretin insists that certainty of salvation does not give us license to sin freely.

-TurretinFan

Biblical Evidence for Indulgences?

Dave Armstrong (DA), a lay apologist for Rome, asserts that there is "explicit biblical [sic] evidence for all the essential notions behind indulgences" (link to source of discussion) (link to quotation).

Initially, it's worth noting that the explicitness of the "explicit biblical [sic] evidence" is undermined by the fact that it is not for indulgences, but for "all the essential notions behind" indulgences. It seems fair to say that DA has conceded that there is no explicit Biblical evidence for indulgences.

1) How does DA pick the "essential notions behind"?

DA is not very clear in this regard. It is as though he picks them out of a hat. This is not surprising, since the doctrine of Indulgences is not a Biblical doctrine. Thus, if one is going to be limited in how one picks doctrines that are to be called the "essential notions behind."

Of course, given that the doctrine of Indulgences is not itself a Biblical doctrine, one might think that DA would look for essential notions permitting uninspired men to innovate doctrines not taught by the apostles. DA, however, does not do this, as we see when we turn to:

2) What are the "essential notions behind"?

DA writes: "These passages form the biblical [sic] basis for priestly absolution (forgiveness), and broadly speaking, for both papal and Church jurisdiction (by extension, for the power to impose penance -- binding, retaining -- and to grant indulgences -- loosing, forgiving)."

Apparently, the two "essential notions" that DA thinks are behind indulgences are absolution and church jurisdiction. But are these enough to address the essence of indulgences? Surely not.

Before we get to the issue of jurisdiction over penance/indulgences and forgiveness, there is the more fundamental issue of whether a proper category of temporal punishment of sin exists. This category does not have a reason for existence until the doctrine of Purgatory develops, because it is principally Purgatory for which indulgences become of value.

That is to say, the concept of earthly penance is not enough to justify the doctrine of Indulgences, which is based on the concept of temporal punishment for sins. Prior to the development of Purgatory and the concept of temporal punishment for sins, the concept of earthly penance can be viewed simply as a test of sincerity, as discipline (as distinct from punishment) for sins, or both.

Of course, Scripture nowhere makes the eternal/temporal punishment distinction. Christ's righteousness, suffering, and death are attributed to the believer in justification. Thus, as Paul says:

Romans 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

But even if the alleged "essential notions" are not enough to justify the doctrine of Indulgences, let us address the next question:

3) Do DA's claims have support for what they assert?

DA claims that he has provided support for "priestly absolution" and "the power to impose penance ... and to grant indulgences." But, in fact, such concepts are not discussed in the passages he relies upon.

Instead, DA attempts to read his church's doctrines into three texts of Scripture:

A) Matthew 16:19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

B) Matthew 18:18 Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

C) John 20:23 Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.

The first two passages (A and B) speak of the so-called power of the keys - of binding and loosing. But look at what is said: not what is bound on earth will be bound on earth or what is bound on earth will be bound in purgatory -- but rather what is bound on earth shall be bound in heaven.

Furthermore, the two passages (A and B) make no distinction between temporal and eternal punishments. In fact, though they mention earth and heaven they basically place an equals sign between them, such that what is true on earth is true in heaven. Thus, they actually undermine the underlying essential notion that there is a difference between temporal punishment for sins and eternal punishment for sins.

Likewise the third passage (C) makes no distinction between temporal and eternal punishment for sin, simply treating sin as sin. Thus, again, the essential notions behind Indulgences are not supported but undermined.

Furthermore, contrary to DA's claims, the passages do not describe "priestly absolution. " There is no discussion of priests performing the various binding/loosing remitting/retaining mentioned in the three passages.

It should be noted that the concept of a New Testament priesthood as separate from the "laity" is not a Scriptural concept. Nevertheless, there is nothing "explicit" (recall that was DA's claim) in the text that limits the binding/loosing or remitting/retaining to even the category of ordained ministers, other elders, or deacons. In fact, there is no explicit limitation at all.

Now, DA may want to counter that in the text only certain people are addressed and thus implicitly the binding/loosing and remitting/retaining is limited. One problem is that if one wishes to make that argument, one has to be prepared for the fact that there is nothing in the passage provided to avoid taking that implicit limit to its logical conclusion, namely that it was limited to only those people in particular to whom it was given.

Finally, naturally, the explanation of what the binding/loosing remitting/retaining constitutes is simply not explict in the passage (contrary to DA's broad assertions). In fact, in the case of binding/loosing, the passage is not even explicit that the binding/loosing has to do with sin.

In fact, with respect to the first two passages (A and B) there is a reasonable argument to be made that the reference could be to revelation - such that those with the power of the key to bind and loose may have the ability to keep heavenly information secret or reveal it.

The most obvious counter-argument to such a response is that these are the keys of the kingdom of heaven, i.e. that reference is being made to entry into the kingdom of heaven - i.e. to salvation. If this is the case, though, the verse cannot have any relation to Indulgences - which do not provide salvation.

After a brief quotation from Karl Adam (which provides some similar assertions to those of DA without any Biblical evidence), DA quotes from 1 Corinthians 5:3-5 and 2:6-8 and 10-11 and provides the following commentary:

St. Paul in his commands and exhortations to the Corinthians is in entire agreement with the Catholic tenets of penance and indulgences. He binds in 1 Corinthians 5:3-5 and looses in 2 Corinthians 2:6-7,10, acting as a type of papal figure in 2 Corinthians 2:10, much like St. Peter among the Apostles. He forgives, and bids the Corinthian elders to forgive also, even though the offense was not committed against them personally. Clearly, both parties are acting as God's representatives in the matter of the forgiveness of sins and the remission of sin's temporal penalties (an indulgence). In this as in all other doctrinal matters, the Catholic Church is grounded in the Bible, takes seriously all that it teaches, and grapples with all the implications and deepest wellsprings of Truth to be found within the pages of God's Holy Scriptures.

Counting the errors in this paragraph is somewhat laborious, but perhaps it will be edifying:

1) The idea that the cited passages are "in entire agreement with the Catholic tenets of penance and indulgences," is really a red herring. Even supposing that were true, it would only be relevant if those passages were raised as an objection to such doctrines.

2) DA comment that, "He binds in 1 Corinthians 5:3-5," is not supported by Paul using the word for "bind" in that passage. Furthermore, Paul doesn't impose penance on the man, he excommunicates him.

3) DA states: "looses in 2 Corinthians 2:6-7,10," but that is also not supported by Paul using the word for "loose" in that passage. Furthermore, Paul speaks only of forgiveness and not excuse from the suffering of temporal punishments, as in the doctrine of Indulgences.

4) DA states: "acting as a type of papal figure in 2 Corinthians 2:10," but if there is an resemblance between Paul's activity and the supposed activity of a pope, Paul is engaging in the activity - not foreshadowing it.

5) DA states: "much like St. Peter among the Apostles," but there is no suggestion in the text to support an analogy of "Paul is to the Corinthians as Peter is to the other Apostles."

6) DA states, "He forgives, and bids the Corinthian elders to forgive also, even though the offense was not committed against them personally," but the text does not say that they offense was not committed against them personally.

7) DA states: "Clearly, both parties are acting as God's representatives in the matter of the forgiveness of sins and the remission of sin's temporal penalties (an indulgence)," but actually, as noted above, only the forgiveness of sins is mentioned, not the "remission of sin's temporal penalties."

8) DA finally states: "In this as in all other doctrinal matters, the Catholic Church is grounded in the Bible, takes seriously all that it teaches, and grapples with all the implications and deepest wellsprings of Truth to be found within the pages of God's Holy Scriptures." But, in fact DA's comment is misleading on several levels. The teaching of Catholicism is grounded on the authority of the Vatican, not on the authority of the Scripture. It is not a doctrine "grounded in" or otherwise derived from the Bible. It is the not the result of infallible exegesis - in fact it doesn't even claim to be! (i.e. that's not the Vatican's claim) It is not the result of battling with Scripture, as suggested by DA's comment, or - at best - there is absolutely no historical record of such grappling taking place.

Although Dave goes on to quote from a Cardinal of his church, the bulk of the remainder of Dave's article is really related to penance - which DA admits has "developed" over time (though some of the footnotes mention indulgences and their Medieval abuse).

In conclusion, we may safely continue to view Indulgences as not Biblically evidenced, despite Mr. Armstrong's boldly titled blog post.

Thanks be to the God who Justifies,

-TurretinFan

Christian vs. Christian

Please consider praying for peace between the neighboring nations of Georgia (almost 90 "Orthodox") and Russia (at least about 20% "Orthodox" and perhaps higher). Without taking sides on the issue of who started and who is to blame, please consider praying that peace will be restored between these two nations.

-TurretinFan

Cur Deus Homo? Further Response to Horne

Gene Bridges provided the following comments (link) which I have reproduced in part below:

As you noted, stating that the Covenant of Grace is in some way "conditional" or "conditioned" on faith does not lead to it being (a) meritorious or (b) pactum merit. Indeed that's a non sequitur.

Turretin (the real one) went over this as hyper-Calvinism arose among the Supras/High Calvinists of his period. FT distinguished between faith as a meritorious condition and faith as an instrumental condition. We affirm the latter, not the former. Since the reason people believe is due to effectual calling/regeneration and that is only by way of grace that is applied by the Spirit, which comes a result of the atonement, which was accomplished by the Son in obedience to the Father (notice the Trinitarian relation-a relation the FVists often discuss), it is all of grace, as you say. Ergo, while affirming the latter (instrumental conditionality) we deny the former (that the CoG would be meritorious).

FT drew this distinction of conditions in the face of those who were seeking to collapse the decrees, and thus the conditions, into one, and therefore misconstruing the CoG. By collapsing the decrees, there were questions that arose as to the nature of conditions. In their day, they were asking if the CoG is wholly unconditional or conditional. FT's reply was in essence that it is unconditional with respect to merit (being that it is of grace) yet conditional with respect to instrumentality. Sound like a familiar problem today...?

I answer:

Gene, there is a strong interconnect between the issue of faith's role as condition or instrument (as well as the nature/basis of the hypothetical merit of Adam and the actual merit of the active obedience of Christ), and the issue of the atonement.

It is interesting to hear Pastor Horne turning as he does in the comments we were discussing (link) to Anselm's "Cur Deus Homo," which is usually thought of as a work on the atonement.

It seems that:

a) He (i.e. Pastor Horne) overlooks the role of sin in necessitating the incarnation. Contrary to Hodge et al., he seems to imagine that it is simply the fact that we are creatures that prevents us from having merit. Thus, he overlooks original sin: both in its effect of imputed guilt and in its effect of total depravity.

b) He also overlooks that Anselm states "Now it is not by any means to be supposed that the good angels were confirmed by the fall of the evil, but by their own merit. For as the good, if they had sinned with the evil, would have been condemned together with them; so the unrighteous, had they remained steadfast with the just, would have been equally confirmed in grace. For if some of them were to be confirmed only by the fall of others, either none would ever be confirmed, or it would be necessary that one should fall, who should be punished for the sake of the confirmation of the others; both of which are absurd." (Cur Deus Homo, Book 1, Chapter XVII) While I do not fully agree with Anselm on this (I do not think confirmation in obedience was according to the merit of obedience, but according to grace) Pastor Horne's appeal to Anselm is clearly erroneous, for Anselm does not build his argument on the theory that creatures qua creatures are unable to obtain merit of any kind.

c) He also overlooks that Anselm states: "So, therefore, when the angel had the power of depriving himself of righteousness, and did not so deprive himself, and had the power of causing himself not to be righteous, and did not so cause himself, he is rightly asserted to have given himself his own righteousness, and to have made himself righteous. In this way, therefore, has he his righteousness from himself, (for a creature can in no other way have it from himself,) and on that account is he to be praised for his righteousness; and he is righteous, not from necessity, but from free will, since that is improperly termed necessity in which there is neither
compulsion nor prohibition." (Cur Deus Homo, Book 2, Chapter X) This, while not using the word "merit," conveys a similar concept. As can be seen from the same chapter, a little further on, when Anselm asks the following penetrating question: "What do you say of God, who cannot sin; (and yet He did not merit this by having had the power of sinning and not sinning) is not He to be praised for His righteousness?"

Likewise, Pastor Horne appears to have the same thing in mind when he argues "Horton, if I recall, is all concerned about protecting Christ’s merit. I don’t see how that can fail to be proper merit without denying the absolute necessity of Christ’s work. There is a history of doing so among some of the Reformed, but I think it is now largely resisted and should be." (source) But in this:

d)He overlooks that the merit of Christ's active obedience in fulfilling the law is pactum merit. It is by the covenant of works that Christ as man deserves life on account of his obedience. That's what makes his death significant. If he did not merit life, he would be dying for himself.

e) He also overlooks that Christ's so-called passive obedience in suffering and dying on the cross can also be viewed pactum merit. It is not pactum merit vis-a-vis the covenant of works, but the covenant of grace. Christ's humiliation is the condition of the covenant of grace (not our faith, as has already been distinguished in the preceding posts on this subject). It should be noted of course, that as Thomas Boston explains:

Secondly, How does the narrow way lead to life ? And,
1st. NEG. Not by way of merit, proper or improper. Proper merit is what arises from the intrinsic worth of the thing done, fully proportioned to the reward. Such is the merit of Christ's obedience and death. But no such merit can be in our works ; for there is no proportion between our obedience and eternal life, whatever the papists pretend; Rom. viii. 18; 2 Cor. iv. 17; and whatever they be, they are due from us to God; Rom. viii. 12; Luke xvii. 10. Improper merit is what arises from paction ensuring such a reward on such a work as the condition thereof; so that the work being performed, the reward becomes a debt. So Adam's perfect obedience would have been meritorious, namely by paction. But no such merit is in our works. Legal protestants advance this, though they do not call it merit, while they pretend that God has promised eternal life on condition of our obedience; thinking it enough to free them from the doctrine of merit, that they do not pretend to an intrinsic worth in the works, proportioned to the reward. But what more do they yield in this, than innocent Adam behoved to have yielded, had he perfected his obedience? Do they not hereby confound the two covenants? for all the difference remains only in degrees, which do not alter the kind. The scripture rejects this as well as the other;
Rom. iv. 4, and vi. 23. Paul would not lippen to it; Phil. iii. 9.

(Thomas Boston, Whole Works of the Late Reverend Thomas Boston, Volume X, p. 376 - 1851 ed.)

Thus, we acknowledge that Christ's death, as the God-man, was (because of the dignity of his person) of infinite intrinsic merit, although we likewise acknowledge that such merit would have been completely without applicable value, if God had not condescended (as legislator) to permit substitution of the offender in the punishment of sin. In contrast, the dignity of a mere image of God is much less demanding only life for life (Genesis 9:6 Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.).

f) Indeed, he overlooks the interconnection between the covenant of works and the covenant of grace. The only way that the death of an innocent man can be pleasing to God is upon the two-fold bases that (a) the innocent man's death is being offered on behalf of someone else and (b) that the someone else is guilty.

g) He overlooks the general impossibility of anyone meriting anything from God in the strict sense. To assert that anyone can merit (in the strict sense) anything from God would seem to be a denial of the impassivity of God. If someone will argue from Christ's deity that impassivity is not implicated, we may likewise note that Christ did all things whatsoever he did in obedience to the will of the Father, which likewise prevents them from being acts of strict merit (though we may note that they were still deserving of glory).

At the end of the day, it is Horne who overlooks why God had to become man: the covenant of works (the law) had to be fulfilled, and so did the covenant of grace. By the merit obtained under the covenant of works, and the substitution permitted under the covenant of grace, Christ merited life for those for whom he died.

It was necessary because Christ's righteousness is the only pure righteousness acceptable to God under the covenants. No other righteousness will do: not the righteousness of the Apostles, of the prophets, or of the greatly blessed and highly favored mother of our Lord - for they were all sinners, both by virtue of Adam's sin (as it is written, Romans 5:19 "For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.") and their own sin (as it is written, Romans 3:23 "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;"). Only Christ's righteousness can save, and it can and does save completely. God graciously accepts Christ's sacrifice on behalf of those for whom it is offered by Christ. Thus, justice is satisfied while mercy is shown.

Praise be to our Loving God,

-TurretinFan

P.S. Perhaps it would of interest to some of my readers to provide a part of a poem by Ralph Erskine:

The law of works we introduce,
As if old merit were in use,
When man could life by doing won,
Ev'n though the work by grace were done.

Old Adam in his innocence
Deriv'd his power of doing hence —
As all he could was wholly due;
So all the working strength he knew,

No merit but of paction could
Of men or angels e'er be told;
The God-man only was so high
To merit by condignity.

Were life now promis'd to our act,
Or to our works by paction tack'd ;
Though God should his assistance grant,
Tis still a doing covenant.

Though Heav'n its helping grace should yield,
Yet merit's still upon the field;
We cast the name, yet still 'tis found
Disclaim'd but with a verbal sound.

If one should borrow tools from you.
That he some famous work might do;
When once his work is well prepar'd,
He sure deserves his due reward:

Yea, justly may he claim his due,
Although he borrow'd tools from you:
Ev'n thus the borrow'd strength of grace
Can't hinder merit to take place.

From whence soe'er we borrow pow'rs,
If life depend on works of ours;
Or if we make the gospel thus
In any sort depend on us;

We give the law the gospel-place,
Rewards of debt the room of grace;
We mix Heav'ns treasure with our trash,
And magnify corrupted flesh.

Gospel Sonnets, pp. 301-02 (1870 ed.), Ralph Erskine

Southern Presbyterian Virtual Library

I suppose that the three great Southern Presbyterian Theologians may be identified as James Henley Thornwell, Robert Louis Dabney, and John Lafayette Girardeau. I have attempted to provide below as complete a virtual library of their works as can be accessed as complete works for free. Obviously, there are fragments from these men scattered in numerous other places on the Internet, and there are additional reprintings of their works that are available at a cost. If any of my readers happens to know of links to additional free, electronic copies of the works of any of these gentlemen, please let me know.

James Henley Thornwell

• The collected writings of James Henley Thornwell (Volume 1)
• The collected writings of James Henley Thornwell (Volume 2)
• The collected writings of James Henley Thornwell (Volume 3)
• The collected writings of James Henley Thornwell (Volume 4)
• The life and letters of James Henley Thornwell (Google 1)
• The rights and duties of masters. (Google 1)
• Fanatism[!]--with little reason, science or common sense, unmasks itself
• Our danger and our duty
• Report on the subject of slavery
• The arguments of Romanists from the infallibility of the church and the testimony of the fathers in behalf of the Apocrypha (Google 1)
• Discourses on truth: delivered in the Chapel of the South Carolina College (Google 1)

Robert Louis Dabney

• Syllabus and notes of the course of systematic and polemic theology
• The sensualistic philosophy of the nineteenth century, considered (Google 1)
• Sacred rhetoric : or a course of lectures on preaching
• A review of Theodosia Ernest, or, The heroine of faith
• A defence of Virginia, (and through her, of the South) in recent and pending contests against the sectional party (Google 1)
• Life and campaigns of Lieut.-Gen. Thomas J. Jackson, (Stonewall Jackson) (Google 1) (Google 2) (Google 3) (Google 4 abr.)

John Lafayette Girardeau

• The life work of John L. Girardeau, D.D., LLd. (this is more of a biography than actually a collection of his works - unfortunately, most of his works seem still not to be freely available)

To the glory of God,

-TurretinFan

Response to Objections Regarding Merit and the Covenant of Works

In Paul's epistles to the Romans and Galatians, Paul drives home a message of the futility of works to provide merit, and the need for grace. This message is an important aspect of the gospel, for those who seek salvation through works will perish:

Romans 9:31-33
31But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness. 32Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone; 33As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

One of the Reformed criticisms of Catholicism is its emphasis on works, i.e. on legalism. On the other hand, Reformed apologists have had to address those erring in the other direction, the antinomians. The Antinomians acknowledge the futility of works, but then improperly conclude that consequently the law is to be ignored.

Less dramatic than either of those departures from orthodox theology is the Arminian position. One of the consistent Reformed criticisms of the Arminian position is that it converts faith into a work, and makes faith the meritorious cause of salvation. Thus, while Arminians would affirm the futility of works for salvation, they inconsistently undo that affirmation by converting faith into a work. It should be noted that some of the papists have done the same more boldly by substituting "faithfulness" (i.e. obedience) in place of faith.

The Arminian error in this regard seems to stem from a lack of appreciation of the relation both between the covenant of works and the covenant of grace, as well as from a lack of appreciation of the difference in the way in which life is received in the two covenants. But it is not Arminians alone that seem to have this problem.

I recently came across comments from two pastors (both of whom signed the Federal Vision Joint Statement - and both of whom apparently are pastors at a PCA church - link) that exhibited something of the same misunderstanding. These men, of course, would not be considered Arminians, and I suspect would be gravely offended if someone were to call them such a name.

Here are their comments:

Jeff Meyers wrote:

If all you mean by “meritorious” is that an act or action fulfills the terms of a particular covenant, then faith is meritorious in the covenant of grace because it is required, according to the terms of the covenant, for attaining eternal life. If Adam’s obedience “would have been the meritorious cause of his obtaining life,” according to the terms of that pre-fall covenant, then our faith is the meritorious cause for obtaining life in the covenant of grace. After all, we’re not talking about “strict merit.” That is one of Mark’s major problems with all this merit talk.

(source)

Mark Horne likewise wrote:

Finally, whether or not the Westminster Standards ought to claim faith is a condition of the covenant of grace, the [sic] do so. This means that faith is pactum merit, and would allow us to say that faith is “improperly” meritorious.

(source - same combox)

The parallel these gentlemen are making (1) demonstrates a misunderstanding of the Westminster standards, and (2) undermines the law/grace distinction.

Rather than reinventing the wheel, I'll provide a quotation:

3. Nevertheless, the good works of sincere believers are, like their persons, in spite of their imperfections, accepted, because of their union with Christ Jesus, and rewarded for his sake. All our approaches to God are made through Christ. It is only through him that we have access to the Father by the Spirit. Eph. ii. 18. "Whatever we do, "in word or deed," we are commanded to "do all in the name of the Lord Jesus." Col. iii. 17.
As to the relation of good works to rewards, it may be observed —
1.) The word "merit," in the strict sense of the term, means that common quality of all actions or services to which a reward is due, in strict justice, on account of their intrinsic value or worthiness. It is evident that, in this strict sense, no work of any creature can in itself merit any reward from God ; because — (a.) All the faculties he possesses were originally granted and are continuously sustained by God, so that he is already so far in debt to God that he can never bring God in debt to him. (b.) Nothing the creature can do can be a just equivalent for the incomparable favour of God and its consequences.
2.) There is another sense of the word, however, in which it may be affirmed that if Adam had in his original probation yielded the obedience required, he would have "merited" the reward conditioned upon it, not because of the intrinsic value of that obedience, but because of the terms of the covenant which God had graciously condescended to form with him. By nature, the creature owed the Creator obedience, while the Creator owed the creature nothing. But by covenant the Creator voluntarily bound himself to owe the creature eternal life, upon the condition of perfect obedience.
It is evident that in this life the works of God's people can have no merit in either of the senses above noticed. They can have no merit intrinsically, because they are all imperfect, and therefore themselves worthy of punishment rather than of reward. They can have no merit by covenant concession on God's part, because we are not now standing in God's sight in the covenant of works, but of grace, and the righteousness of Christ, received by faith alone, constitutes the sole meritorious ground upon which our salvation, in all of its stages, rests. See chapter xi., on Justification.
In the dispensation of the gospel, the gracious work of the believer and the gracious reward he receives from God are branches from the same gracious root. The same covenant of grace provides at once for the infusion of grace in the heart, the exercise of grace in the life, and the reward of the grace so exercised. It is all of grace - a grace called a reward added to a grace called a work. The one grace is set opposite to the other grace as a reward, for these reasons: (a.) To act upon us as a suitable stimulus to duty. God promises to reward the Christian just as a father promises to reward his child for doing what is its duty, and what is for its own benefit alone. (b.) Because a certain gracious proportion has been established between the grace given in the reward and the grace given in the holy exercises of the heart and life; but both are alike given for Christ's sake. This proportion has been established — the more grace of obedience, the more grace of reward — the more grace on earth, the more glory in heaven — because God so wills it, and because the grace given and exercised in obedience prepares the soul for the reception of the further grace given in the reward. Matt. xvi. 27; 1 Cor. iii. 8; 2 Cor. iv. 17.

(A.A. Hodge, A Commentary on the Confession of Faith, commentary on Sections IV-VI of Chapter XVI of the WCF, pp. 226-28, 1870 ed.)

What A.A. Hodge is explaining is that there is:

a) Strict merit (which man can never have); amd
b) Pactum merit (which Adam had).

Neither is applicable to a believer, because the covenant of grace is all of grace. Thus, it is written:

John 1:16 And of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace.

And this is essential to the law/grace division, as John's gospel continues:

John 1:17 For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.

But perhaps some more explanation would be helpful:

In entering upon the exposition of this section, it is proper to remark, that, at the period when our Confession was framed, it was generally held by the most eminent divines, that there are two covenants connected with the salvation of men, which they called the covenant of redemption, and the covenant of grace; the former made with Christ from everlasting, the latter made with sinners in time; the righteousness of Christ being the condition of the former, and faith the condition of the latter covenant. This distinction, we conceive, has no foundation in the Sacred Scriptures, and it has long since been abandoned by all evangelical divines. The first Adam is said to have been a figure of Christ, who is called the second Adam. Now, there was not one covenant made with Adam, the condition of which he was to perform, and another made with his posterity, the condition of which they were to fulfill; but one covenant included both him and them. It was made with him as their representative, and with them as represented in and by him. In like manner, one covenant includes Christ and his spiritual seed. The Scriptures, accordingly, everywhere speak of it as one covenant, and the blood of Christ is repeatedly called "the blood of the covenant," not of the covenants, as we may presume it would have been called, if it had been the condition of a covenant of redemption and the foundation of a covenant of grace. — Heb. x. 29, xiii. 20. By the blood of the same covenant Christ made satisfaction, and we obtain deliverance. — Zech. ix. 11. We hold, therefore, that there is only one covenant for the salvation of fallen men, and that this covenant was made with Christ before the foundation of the world. The Scriptures, indeed, frequently speak of God making a covenant with believers, but this language admits of an easy explication, in consistency with the unity of the covenant. "The covenant of grace," says a judicious writer [Wilson of London], "was made with Christ in a strict and proper sense, as he was the party-contractor in it, and undertook to fulfill the condition of it. It is made with believers in an improper sense, when they are taken into the bond of it, and come actually to enjoy the benefit of it. How it is made with them may be learned from the words of the apostle, — Acts xiii. 34 : 'I will give you the sure mercies of David,' which is a kind of paraphrase upon that passage, — Is. lv. 3 : 'I will make an everlasting covenant with you, even the sure mercies of David.' God makes the covenant with them, not by requiring anything of them in order to entitle them or lay a foundation for their claim to the blessings of it, but by making these over to them as a free gift, and putting them in possession of them, as far as their present state will admit, by a faith of his own operation."
The supposition of two covenants for the salvation of mankind sinners, is encumbered with various difficulties. One is obvious. In every proper covenant, there are two essential parts — a conditionary and a promissory. If, therefore, there be a covenant made with sinners, different from the covenant made with Christ, it must have a condition which they themselves must perform. But though our old divines called faith the condition of the covenant made with sinners, they did not assign any merit to faith, but simply precedence. "The truth is," as Dr Dick has remarked," that what these divines call the covenant of grace, is merely the administration of what they call the covenant of redemption, for the purpose of communicating its blessings to those for whom they were intended; and cannot be properly considered as a covenant, because it is not suspended upon a proper condition." The "Westminster Assembly, in this section, appear to describe what was then usually designated the covenant of grace, as distinguished from the covenant of redemption. But, though they viewed the covenant under a twofold consideration, as made with the Surety from everlasting, and as made with sinners in time, they certainly regarded it as one and the same covenant. "The covenant of grace," say they, "was made with Christ as the second Adam, and in him with all the elect as his seed." The doctrine of our standards on this deeply interesting subject, may be summed up in the following propositions: —
1. That a covenant was entered into between Jehovah the Father and his co-eternal Son, respecting the salvation of sinners of mankind. The reality of this federal transaction, appears from Ps. lxxxix. 3: "I have made a covenant with my chosen, I have sworn unto David my servant." The speaker, in this passage, can be no other but the Lord, who is mentioned in the beginning of the Psalm; and it cannot reasonably be questioned, that the words spoken have their ultimate and principal fulfillment in Jesus Christ, and assert a covenant made with him, of which the covenant of royalty made with David, King of Israel, was typical. In other places of Scripture, though the word covenant does not occur, we have a plain intimation of all the essential parts of a proper covenant. In Is. liii. 10, we have the two great parts of the covenant — the conditionary and the promissory; and the two glorious contracting parties — the one undertaking for the performance of its arduous condition — the other engaging for the fulfillment of its precious promises: "If his soul shall make a propitiatory sacrifice, he shall see a seed which shall prolong their days; and the gracious purpose of Jehovah shall prosper in his hands." — (Bishop Lowth's Translation.)
2. That this covenant was made with Christ, as the head, or representative, of his spiritual seed. This is confirmed by the comparison between Christ and Adam, which is stated by the apostle, — Rom. v.; 1 Cor. xv. 45, 47; which clearly establishes the truth, that Adam and Christ severally sustained a public character, as the federal heads of their respective seeds. Christ and his spiritual seed are called by the same name (Isa. xlix. 3), — a plain evidence of God's dealing with him as their representative in the covenant. Christ is likewise called the Surety of the covenant (Heb. vii. 22); and the promises of the covenant were primarily made to him — Gal. iii. 16; Tit. i. 2.
3. That this covenant originated in the free grace and sovereign will of God. The Scriptures uniformly ascribe this transaction to the good pleasure of Him who worketh all things according to the counsel of his own will, and represent it as conducing to the praise of the glory of his grace. — Eph. i. 3-6. On this account this covenant is, with great propriety, called the covenant of grace, because it originated in the free grace of God, and conveys the blessings of salvation to sinners in a manner the most gratuitous.
4. That this covenant was established from eternity. The covenant of grace is called the second covenant, as distinguished from the covenant of works made with Adam; but though the second in respect of manifestation and execution, yet, with respect either to the period or the order in which it was made, it is the first covenant. The Head of this covenant is introduced (Prov. viii. 23), saying, "I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, ere ever the earth was;" i.e., he was set apart to his mediatory office and work, covenant of grace from everlasting. The promise of eternal life is said to have been given us in Christ "before the world began" (Tit. i. 2); and the covenant is frequently styled an everlasting covenant. — Heb. xiii. 20.
5. In the administration of this covenant, God "freely offereth unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of them faith in him, that they may be saved." Though Christ, in this covenant, represented only a definite number of mankind, who were "chosen in him before the foundation of the world," yet, in the administration of the covenant, a free offer of salvation by Jesus Christ is addressed to sinners of mankind indefinitely and universally. — John vi. 32; Is. lv. 1; Rev. xxii. 17. This offer is not restricted, as Baxterians allege, to sensible sinners, or those who are convinced of their sin, and their need of the Saviour; for it is addressed to persons sunk in total insensibility as to their own miseries and wants. — Rev. iii. 17, 18. This offer is made as really to those who eventually reject it, as it is to those who eventually receive it; for, if this were not the case, the former class of gospel-hearers could not be condemned for their unbelief. — John iii. 18, 19.
That God "requires of sinners faith in Christ that they may be saved," admits of no dispute. The part assigned to faith, however, has been much controverted. Many excellent divines, in consequence of the distinction which they made between the covenant of redemption and the covenant of grace, were led to speak of faith as the condition of the latter covenant. But the term, as used by them, signifies not a meritorious or procuring cause, but simply something which goes before, and without which the other cannot be obtained. They consider faith merely as a condition of order or connection, as it has been styled, and as an instrument or means of obtaining an interest in the salvation offered in the gospel. This is very different from the meaning attached to the term by Arminians and Neonomians, who represent faith as a condition on the fulfillment of which the promise is suspended. The Westminster Assembly elsewhere affirm, that God requires of sinners faith in Christ, "as the condition to interest them in him." But this is very different from affirming that faith is the condition of the covenant of grace. That faith is indispensably necessary as the instrument by which we are savingly interested in Christ, and personally instated in the covenant, is a most important truth, and this is all that is intended by the Westminster divines. They seem to have used the term condition as synonymous with instrument; for, while in one place they speak of faith as the condition to interest sinners in the Mediator, in other places they affirm, that "faith is the alone instrument of justification," and teach, that "faith justifies a sinner in the sight of God, only as it is an instrument by which he receiveth and applieth Christ and his righteousness." As the word condition is ambiguous, apt to be misunderstood, and is frequently employed in an unsound and dangerous sense, it is now disused by evangelical divines.
6. That God promises his Holy Spirit to work in his elect that faith by which they come to have a special interest in the blessings of this covenant. This implies, that a certain definite number were ordained to eternal life, and that all these shall in due time be brought to believe in Christ. — Acts xiii. 48. It also implies, that they are in themselves unwilling and unable to believe (John vi. 44); but God promises to give them the Holy Spirit to make them willing and able. — Ezek. xxxvi. 26. Faith, therefore, instead of being the condition of the covenant of grace, belongs to the promissory part of the covenant. — Rom. xv. 12. It is the gift of God, who worketh in us both to will and to do of his good pleasure.— Eph. ii. 8; Phil. ii. 13.

(Robert Shaw, An Exposition of the Confession of Faith of the Westminster Assembly of Divines, pp. 88-92, Eighth ed. 1867, commentary on Chapter VII, Section III of the WCF)

I would draw the reader's attention particularly to the following excerpt from the above discussion:

Many excellent divines ... were led to speak of faith as the condition of the latter covenant. But the term, as used by them, signifies not a meritorious or procuring cause, but simply something which goes before, and without which the other cannot be obtained. They consider faith merely as a condition of order or connection, as it has been styled, and as an instrument or means of obtaining an interest in the salvation offered in the gospel. This is very different from the meaning attached to the term by Arminians and Neonomians, who represent faith as a condition on the fulfillment of which the promise is suspended. The Westminster Assembly elsewhere affirm, that God requires of sinners faith in Christ, "as the condition to interest them in him." But this is very different from affirming that faith is the condition of the covenant of grace. That faith is indispensably necessary as the instrument by which we are savingly interested in Christ, and personally instated in the covenant, is a most important truth, and this is all that is intended by the Westminster divines.

Perhaps I should conclude this post with a last selection:

5. Lastly, The covenant of grace doth so exclude our boasting, as the covenant of works did not. This is clear from Rom. iii. 27. "Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith." But if any deed or work of ours be the condition of the covenant of grace, in whole or in part, our beading is not excluded, but hath place therein, as in the covenant of works; the difference being at most but in point of degrees: for, according to the Scripture, it is working, or fulfilling the condition of a covenant, that gives the ground of boasting ; Forasmuch as "to him that worketh, the reward is reckoned of debt:" and life being of or by works in the covenant of works, though not in the way of proper merit, but in the way of paction or compact only, this gave men the ground of boasting in that covenant, according to the Scripture. Therefore, so far as life and salvation are of or by any work or deed of ours, as fulfilling the condition of the covenant of grace, our boasting is not excluded, but hath place therein as in the covenant of works. Wherefore, since the covenant of grace is so framed, as to leave no ground for our boasting, no work or deed of ours, but Christ fulfilling all righteousness, even that alone, is the condition of the covenant of grace: and our life and salvation are neither of works, nor by works, as fulfilling the condition of the covenant: Tit. iii. 5. Not by works of righteousness, which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us. Eph. ii. 9. Not of works, lest any man should boast.

(Thomas Boston, A View of the Covenant of Grace from the Sacred Records, p. 74, 1797 ed.)

-TurretinFan

Edwards and the Other Hodge on Merit and the Covenant of Works

Here are two more folks' thoughts on merit and covenant of works:

If this principle be correct, if the law demands entire conformity to the nature and will of God, it follows:

1. That there can be no perfection in this life. Every form of perfectionism which has ever prevailed in the Church is founded either on the assumption that the law does not demand entire freedom from moral evil, or upon the denial that anything is of the nature of sin, but acts of the will. But if the law is so extensive in its demands as to pronounce all defect in any duty, all coming short in the purity, ardor, or constancy of holy affections, sinful, then there is an end to the presumption that any mere man since the fall has ever attained perfection.

2. It follows also from this principle that there can never be any merit of good works attributable to men in this world. By merit, according to the Scriptural sense of that word, is meant the claim upon reward as a matter of justice, founded on the complete satisfaction of the demands of the law. But if those demands never have been perfectly fulfilled by any fallen man, no such man can either be justified for his works, or have, as the Apostle expresses it, any καύχημα [kauchema, boasting], any claim founded on merit in the sight of God. He must always depend on mercy and expect eternal life as a free gift of God.

3. Still more obviously does it follow from the principle in question that there can be no such thing as works of supererogation. If no man in this life can perfectly keep the commandments of God, it is very plain that no man can do more than the law demands. The Romanists regard the law as a series of specific enactments. Besides these commands which bind all men there are certain things which they call precepts, which are not thus universally binding, such as celibacy, poverty, and monastic obedience, and the like. These go beyond the law. By adding to the fulfillment of the commands of God, the observance of these precepts, a man may do more than is required of him, and thus acquire an amount of merit greater than he needs for himself, and which in virtue of the communion of saints, belongs to the Church, and may be dispensed, through the power of the keys, for the benefit of others. The whole foundation of this theory is of course removed, if the law demands absolute perfection, to which, even according to their doctrine, no man ever attains in this life. He always is burdened with venial sins, which God in mercy does not impute as real sins, but which nevertheless are imperfections.

Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, volume 2, pages 185-86 (1872 ed.)

3. It is in this doctrine that the most essential difference lies between the covenant of grace and the first covenant. The adverse scheme of justification supposes that we are justified by our works, in the very same sense wherein man was to have been justified by his works under the first covenant. By that covenant our first parents were not to have had eternal life given them for any proper merit in their obedience; because their perfect obedience was a debt that they owed God. Nor was it to be bestowed for any proportion between the dignity of their obedience, and the value of the reward; but only it was to be bestowed from a regard to a moral fitness in the virtue of their obedience, to the reward of God's favor; and a title to eternal life was to be given them, as a testimony of God's pleasedness with their works, or his regard to the inherent beauty of their virtue. And so it is the very same way that those in the adverse scheme suppose that we are received into God's special favor now, and to those saving benefits that are the testimonies of it. I am sensible the divines of that side entirely disclaim the Popish doctrine of merit; and are free to speak of our utter unworthiness, and the great imperfection of all our services. But after all, it is our virtue, imperfect as it is, that recommends men to God, by which good men come to have a saving interest in Christ, and God's favor, rather than others; and these things are bestowed in testimony of God's respect to their goodness. So that whether they will allow the term merit or no, yet they hold, that we are accepted by our own merit, in the same sense, though not in the same degree, as under the first covenant.

(Works of President [Jonathan] Edwards, Volume 5 (of 10), pp. 447-48, 1829 ed.)

-TurretinFan

Thoughts / Distinctions on Merit and Adam

Is the Covenant of Works a covenant based on merit? We affirm.

By the covenant of works, we mean that covenant provided to Adam, which takes the form, "do this and live." Thus, when we speak of the covenant of works, we are not distinguishing between the New Testament and the Old Testament, but between the Covenant of Works made with Adam and the Covenant of Grace through Christ (under various administrations, prominently the Mosaic and the Apostolic administrations).

By merit we do not mean merit in a strict sense, for merit in a strict sense would require that man give to God something more than God deserves. God, as Creator, deserves perfect obedience. Thus, it is impossible for man ever to have strict merit in the sight of God.

Nevertheless, there is covenantal or "pactum" merit in the Covenant of Works. Thus, God (by virtue of the covenant of works) bound himself to permit man to live if he obeyed. Thus, we do not refer to merited eternal life except upon condition of eternal obedience.

Thus, we do not deal in respect to this question with the issue of whether Adam would have been confirmed in obedience, if he had endured for a period of time in a state of obedience.

Our reasons for believing that there is merit (broadly defined) in the Covenant of Works is as follows:

1) Adam earned/deserved/merited death. Scripture teaches us that "the wages of sin is death" (Romans 6:23). The concept of wages implies merit, for wages are earned.

2) Christ earned/deserved/merited life. God had promised, if a man would keep God's statutes and judgments "he shall live in them: I am the LORD." (Leviticus 18:5) Christ kept them perfectly, and consequently deserved life.

The two principles serve to explain salvation

1) By Adam's disobedience we have come under the curse of the law, and have further doomed ourselves by our own personal disobedience. (Romans 5:12)
2) Since perfect obedience is the requirement of the law, it is impossible for the demerit (both Adam's as our federal head and our own) to be overcome by through our own merit obtained through the law. (Romans 3:20 and Galatians 2:16)
3) But Christ's death would be a violation of the Covenant of Works, since God promised life to covenant keepers. (Leviticus 18:5)
4) Moreover life for the elect would be a violation of the Covenant of Works, since man deserves death rather than life. (Romans 6:23)
5) Wherefore, Christ voluntarily (John 10:18) took the place (Romans 5:8) of the elect. (Hebrews 12:2)
6) Thereby, He was made sin for us (2 Corinthians 5:21); and
7) We (the elect) were made the righteous of God in Him (2 Corinthians 5:21).

We refer to this as double imputation. Thus, Christ was slain for us. He is our vicarious, substitutionary atonement. By double-imputation he was punished and we are made free. His merit (and life) becomes our merit, and our demerit (and death) became his.

If the covenant of works is not one of meriting life by obedience (Adam failing), then Christ could not merit life by fulfilling the law. But if Christ did not merit life, then God is not strictly just in giving life to the elect. Yet God is just and the justifier of the elect, namely those who believe in Jesus. (Romans 3:26)

Praise be to our Gracious and Just God,

-TurretinFan

The Real Turretin and Pictet on: Christ's Righteousness

Turretin writes:

Such is the perfection of the atonement, that it corresponds to the justice of God revealed in the Word, to the demands of the law, and to the miseries and necessities of those for whom it was made. Had it been in its own nature deficient, and derived its sufficiency only from God’s acceptance of it through mere grace, then the victims under the law might have possessed equal efficacy in making atonement for sin, contrary to Heb. x. 4. Its perfection is derived from its own intrinsic fulness of merit. It is perfect: (1.) In respect to parts; because it satisfied all the demands which the law makes upon us, both in relation to the obedience of life and the suffering of death. By enduring the punishments due to us, it has freed us from death and condemnation. And by its meritorious efficacy, it has reconciled God the Father to us and has acquired for us a title to eternal life. (2.) It is perfect in degree; for Christ has not only done and suffered all that which the law claims of us, but all this in a full and perfect degree; so that nothing more, in this respect, can possibly be desired. The perfection in degree is derived from the infinite dignity of the person who suffered and the severity of the punishment exacted. (3.) Hence follows the perfection in its effects. In respect of God, it has effected an entire reconciliation with him; in relation to sin, it has wrought full expiation and pardon; and in relation to believers, its effects are perfection in holiness and complete redemption, both as to deliverance from death, and as to a title to life and its possession.

(Turretin, On the Atonement of Christ, 1859 ed. p. 68)

And Pictet writes:

And not without reason is this office assigned to faith, before all other graces, because it alone, out of all the others, can subsist or stand with divine grace, seeing that it is employed, as it were, in the mere receiving and aprehending of an object which is placed without it, and because, as Toletus a Papist observes, by faith it is more clearly shewn how man is justified, not by his own merit, but by the merit of Christ, and by it alone is “boasting excluded.”

(Pictet, Christian Theology, p. 370)

Witsius Explains the Righteousness of Christ

Herman Witsius
The Economy of the Covenants Between God and Man
Book II, Chapter V

XI. But we must proceed a step further, and affirm, moreover to that the obedience of Christ was accomplished by him, be believed, that it was in our room, in order thereby to obtain for us a right to eternal life. The law, which God will have secured inviolable, admits none to glory but on condition of perfect obedience, which none was ever possessed of but Christ, who bestows it freely on his own people. This is what the apostle declares, Rom. v. 16: "But the free gift of Jesus Christ is of many offenses unto justification:" that is, though we want those works, for which the reward may be due; nay, though for so many sins we may have deserved an eternal curse; nevertheless, there is something sufficient, not only for abolishing many offenses, but likewise to be the meritorious cause of righteousness; namely, the obedience of one; and it becomes ours by gratuitous gift. More clearly still, ver. 19, "For as by one man's disobedience many were made [constituted] sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made [constituted] righteous." The former "one man" was Adam, the root and federal head of mankind. By his disobedience, all mankind, as belonging to him, were involved in the guilt of the curse: and as he sustained the person of all, what he did amiss is accounted as done by all. The other is the "one man" Christ, who neither sinned in and with Adam, nor had the dominion of sin and death passed upon him, and who is worthy to be both lord and head, a second Adam, and the origin and source of the inheritance to be devolved on his brethren. He is possessed of an obedience, even to the whole law of God, which enjoined him to have a perfect love for the glory of his Father, and for the salvation of his brethren. By that obedience, the collective body of those who belong to him are constituted righteous; that is, are judged to have a right to eternal life, no less than if every one had performed that obedience in his own person.

*** Emphasis in original. Edited by TurretinFan (2008) to modernize spelling -- found at pages 178-79 of Volume 1 of the 1837 edition of this eminent work in systematic theology ***

Wisdom Chapter 14 - Test of Irony

The following is chapter fourteen from the uninspired book of Wisdom.

1 Again, one preparing himself to sail, and about to pass through the raging waves, calleth upon a piece of wood more rotten than the vessel that carrieth him. 2 For verily desire of gain devised that, and the workman built it by his skill. 3 But thy providence, O Father, governeth it: for thou hast made a way in the sea, and a safe path in the waves; 4 Shewing that thou canst save from all danger: yea, though a man went to sea without art.

5 Nevertheless thou wouldest not that the works of thy wisdom should be idle, and therefore do men commit their lives to a small piece of wood, and passing the rough sea in a weak vessel are saved. 6 For in the old time also, when the proud giants perished, the hope of the world governed by thy hand escaped in a weak vessel, and left to all ages a seed of generation.

7 For blessed is the wood whereby righteousness cometh.

8 But that which is made with hands is cursed, as well it, as he that made it: he, because he made it; and it, because, being corruptible, it was called god. 9 For the ungodly and his ungodliness are both alike hateful unto God. 10 For that which is made shall be punished together with him that made it.

11 Therefore even upon the idols of the Gentiles shall there be a visitation: because in the creature of God they are become an abomination, and stumblingblocks to the souls of men, and a snare to the feet of the unwise. 12 For the devising of idols was the beginning of spiritual fornication, and the invention of them the corruption of life. 13 For neither were they from the beginning, neither shall they be for ever.

14 For by the vain glory of men they entered into the world, and therefore shall they come shortly to an end. 15 For a father afflicted with untimely mourning, when he hath made an image of his child soon taken away, now honoured him as a god, which was then a dead man, and delivered to those that were under him ceremonies and sacrifices. 16 Thus in process of time an ungodly custom grown strong was kept as a law, and graven images were worshipped by the commandments of kings. 17 Whom men could not honour in presence, because they dwelt far off, they took the counterfeit of his visage from far, and made an express image of a king whom they honoured, to the end that by this their forwardness they might flatter him that was absent, as if he were present.

18 Also the singular diligence of the artificer did help to set forward the ignorant to more superstition. 19 For he, peradventure willing to please one in authority, forced all his skill to make the resemblance of the best fashion. 20 And so the multitude, allured by the grace of the work, took him now for a god, which a little before was but honoured. 21 And this was an occasion to deceive the world: for men, serving either calamity or tyranny, did ascribe unto stones and stocks the incommunicable name.

22 Moreover this was not enough for them, that they erred in the knowledge of God; but whereas they lived in the great war of ignorance, those so great plagues called they peace. 23 For whilst they slew their children in sacrifices, or used secret ceremonies, or made revellings of strange rites; 24 They kept neither lives nor marriages any longer undefiled: but either one slew another traiterously, or grieved him by adultery. 25 So that there reigned in all men without exception blood, manslaughter, theft, and dissimulation, corruption, unfaithfulness, tumults, perjury, 26 Disquieting of good men, forgetfulness of good turns, defiling of souls, changing of kind, disorder in marriages, adultery, and shameless uncleanness.

27 For the worshipping of idols not to be named is the beginning, the cause, and the end, of all evil. 28 For either they are mad when they be merry, or prophesy lies, or live unjustly, or else lightly forswear themselves. 29 For insomuch as their trust is in idols, which have no life; though they swear falsely, yet they look not to be hurt. 30 Howbeit for both causes shall they be justly punished: both because they thought not well of God, giving heed unto idols, and also unjustly swore in deceit, despising holiness. 31 For it is not the power of them by whom they swear: but it is the just vengeance of sinners, that punisheth always the offence of the ungodly.

Now I ask you which is more ironic: that I (not believing this passage to be the Word of God) accept this passage as generally true, or that others (believing this passage to be the Word of God) nevertheless claim that the prohibition on idols did not last for ever (as stated in verse 13) but ceased after the Incarnation. Which is more ironic, that I believing this to be uninspired believe it teaches the truth (generally) or that they believing it to be inspired nevertheless do not follow its teachings, but make and use in worship images both purporting to be of God and of holy men.

-TurretinFan

Chinese Government Distributing Bibles

I ran across this interesting blog post at the Theologica blog(link). The post explains that the Chinese government (!) will be distributing 10,000 bilingual Chinese/English Bibles in the Olympic village. I hope that many of those Bibles will not make back home, but will be redistributed to the billion or so Chinese folks who have not read it. I know 10,000 is an insignificant number among so many people, but it is a start.

Praise be to God for this concession from the government of the world's largest nation,

-TurretinFan

Response to Paul Hoffer

Paul Hoffer, who submits to the dictates pope Benedict XVI, has a misleading article entitled, "A Protestant Proving the Superiority of Scriptural Revelation by Quoting from the Deuterocanonical Book of Wisdom of Solomon." (link to Mr. Hoffer's article)

Let's handle the headline first.

1) The "Protestant" who cited Scripture is me, but the "Protestant" who was proving the Superiority of Scriptural Revelation was Carl F. H. Henry.

2) I quoted Scripture, not the the apocryphal book entitled the "Wisdom of Solomon." In fact I quoted from the inspired books of the Epistle to the Hebrews, and Paul's Epistle to the Romans.

3) I did not quote those passages, in this case, to prove the Superiority of Scriptural Revelation, but simply to distinguish Special Revelation (Scripture and other Prophecy) from General Revelation (aka the light of Nature).

Now, let's turn to the body of Mr. Hoffer's post. After essentially reproducing my post in its entirety, Mr. Hoffer remarks:

Does anyone else find it ironic that the proof texts for the notion that Scriptural Revelation has priority over general revelation that Turretinfan, a Protestant who follows the dictates of John Calvin, offers the reader are two passages where St. Paul is quoting from the Deuterocanonical book of Wisdom of Solomon (Rom. 1:18-23=Wisdom 13:1-9; Hebrews 1:1-4=Wisdom 7:26)?

I answer:
A) Again, note that these are not presented as "proof texts" (though they may well prove the matter, that was not the point) for Carl F.H. Henry's statement, but simply to educate the reader as to the difference between general and special revelation.
B) Although Mr. Hoffer may follow the dictates of Benedict XVI, Pastor Calvin is simply a persuasive authority on Scripture. He was a wise man, but only Scripture has the ability to bind my conscience, not even the words of such a great Christian man as John Calvin.
C) The Apostle Paul was the author of Romans, but the tradition that Paul was the author of Hebrews is questionable at best. There is, in fact, a good Scriptural argument against Pauline authorship of Hebrews, but I do not wish to sidetrack this post with that argument.
D) Paul and the Author of Hebrews do not quote from the Book of Wisdom in the passages of Scripture I quoted.
i) Romans 1:18-23 does not quote Wisdom 13:1-9

Romans 1:18-23
18For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; 19Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: 21Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

Wisdom 13:1-9
1Surely vain are all men by nature, who are ignorant of God, and could not out of the good things that are seen know him that is: neither by considering the works did they acknowledge the workmaster; 2But deemed either fire, or wind, or the swift air, or the circle of the stars, or the violent water, or the lights of heaven, to be the gods which govern the world. 3With whose beauty if they being delighted took them to be gods; let them know how much better the Lord of them is: for the first author of beauty hath created them. 4But if they were astonished at their power and virtue, let them understand by them, how much mightier he is that made them. 5For by the greatness and beauty of the creatures proportionably the maker of them is seen. 6But yet for this they are the less to be blamed: for they peradventure err, seeking God, and desirous to find him. 7For being conversant in his works they search him diligently, and believe their sight: because the things are beautiful that are seen. 8Howbeit neither are they to be pardoned. 9For if they were able to know so much, that they could aim at the world; how did they not sooner find out the Lord thereof?

Undoubtedly, there is a similarity of theme between the two, but the relation is not Paul quoting the Wisdom of Solomon. In case you think the issue is the translation (both are taken from the King James Version above), I have provided the Greek original and Latin Vulgate translations below.

ii) Likewise Hebrews 1:1-4 is not quoting from Wisdom 7:26.

Hebrews 1:1-4
1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, 2Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; 3Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high; 4Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.

Wisdom 7:26 For she is the brightness of the everlasting light, the unspotted mirror of the power of God, and the image of his goodness.

Again, there is some similarity between the description of "Wisdom" in the book of Wisdom and the description of Jesus in the book of Hebrews, but the author of the latter is not quoting from the former. Again, in case you think the issue is the translation (both are taken from the King James Version above), I have provided the Greek original and Latin Vulgate translations below in the respective Greek and Latin appendices.
E) Even if Paul and the author of Hebrews had quoted from the uninspired book popularly called the "Wisdom of Solomon," that would not be particularly significant. After all, Paul wrote to Titus:

Titus 1:12 One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, The Cretians are alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies.

Yet no one believes that the pre-Christian Cretan poet Epimenides authored Holy Scriptures. If Paul drew on uninspired pagan poets, it would be no surprise that Paul might draw on uninspired Hellenstic Jewish writers as well. Thus, even if Paul were quoting or even merely plagiarizing Wisdom, it would really have no particular bearing on the canon issue, as Mr. Hoffer seems inclined to suggest.

In short, with all due respect to Mr. Hoffer, I don't find any real merit in his post.

-TurretinFan

Latin Appendix

Romans 1:18-23
18revelatur enim ira Dei de caelo super omnem impietatem et iniustitiam hominum eorum qui veritatem in iniustitiam detinent 19quia quod notum est Dei manifestum est in illis Deus enim illis manifestavit 20invisibilia enim ipsius a creatura mundi per ea quae facta sunt intellecta conspiciuntur sempiterna quoque eius virtus et divinitas ut sint inexcusabiles 21quia cum cognovissent Deum non sicut Deum glorificaverunt aut gratias egerunt sed evanuerunt in cogitationibus suis et obscuratum est insipiens cor eorum 22dicentes enim se esse sapientes stulti facti sunt 23et mutaverunt gloriam incorruptibilis Dei in similitudinem imaginis corruptibilis hominis et volucrum et quadrupedum et serpentium

Wisdom 13:1-9
1vani sunt autem omnes homines quibus non subest scientia Dei et de his quae videntur bona non potuerunt intellegere eum qui est neque operibus adtendentes agnoverunt quis esset artifex 2sed aut ignem aut spiritum aut citatum aerem aut gyrum stellarum aut nimiam aquam aut solem et lunam rectores orbis terrarum deos putaverunt 3quorum si specie delectati deos putaverunt sciant quanto dominator eorum speciosior est speciei enim generator haec omnia constituit 4aut si virtutem et opera eorum mirati sunt intellegant ab ipsis quoniam qui haec constituit fortior est illis 5a magnitudine enim speciei et creaturae cognoscibiliter poterit horum creator videri 6sed tamen adhuc in his minor est querella et hii enim fortassis errant Deum quaerentes et volentes invenire 7etenim cum in operibus illius conversentur inquirunt et persuasum habent quoniam bona sunt quae videntur 8iterum autem nec his debet ignosci 9si enim tantum potuerunt scire ut possent aestimare saeculum quomodo huius Dominum non facilius invenerunt

Hebrews 1:1-4
1multifariam et multis modis olim Deus loquens patribus in prophetis 2novissime diebus istis locutus est nobis in Filio quem constituit heredem universorum per quem fecit et saecula 3qui cum sit splendor gloriae et figura substantiae eius portansque omnia verbo virtutis suae purgationem peccatorum faciens sedit ad dexteram Maiestatis in excelsis 4tanto melior angelis effectus quanto differentius prae illis nomen hereditavit

Wisdom 7:26 candor est enim lucis aeternae et speculum sine macula Dei maiestatis et imago bonitatis illius

Greek Appendix

Romans 1:18-23
18 αποκαλυπτεται γαρ οργη θεου απ ουρανου επι πασαν ασεβειαν και αδικιαν ανθρωπων των την αληθειαν εν αδικια κατεχοντων 19διοτι το γνωστον του θεου φανερον εστιν εν αυτοις ο γαρ θεος αυτοις εφανερωσεν 20τα γαρ αορατα αυτου απο κτισεως κοσμου τοις ποιημασιν νοουμενα καθοραται η τε αιδιος αυτου δυναμις και θειοτης εις το ειναι αυτους αναπολογητους 21διοτι γνοντες τον θεον ουχ ως θεον εδοξασαν η ευχαριστησαν αλλ εματαιωθησαν εν τοις διαλογισμοις αυτων και εσκοτισθη η ασυνετος αυτων καρδια 22φασκοντες ειναι σοφοι εμωρανθησαν 23και ηλλαξαν την δοξαν του αφθαρτου θεου εν ομοιωματι εικονος φθαρτου ανθρωπου και πετεινων και τετραποδων και ερπετων

Wisdom 13:1-9
1Μάταιοι μὲν γὰρ πάντες ἄνθρωποι φύσει, οἷς παρῆν θεοῦ ἀγνωσία καὶ ἐκ τῶν ὁρωμένων ἀγαθῶν οὐκ ἴσχυσαν εἰδέναι τὸν ὄντα οὔτε τοῖς ἔργοις προσέχοντες ἐπέγνωσαν τὸν τεχνίτην, 2ἀλλ᾿ ἢ πῦρ ἢ πνεῦμα ἢ ταχινὸν ἀέρα ἢ κύκλον ἄστρων ἢ βίαιον ὕδωρ ἢ φωστῆρας οὐρανοῦ πρυτάνεις κόσμου θεοὺς ἐνόμισαν. 3ὧν εἰ μὲν τῇ καλλονῇ τερπόμενοι ταῦτα θεοὺς ὑπελάμβανον, γνώτωσαν πόσῳ τούτων ὁ δεσπότης ἐστὶ βελτίων, ὁ γὰρ τοῦ κάλλους γενεσιάρχης ἔκτισεν αὐτά· 4εἰ δὲ δύναμιν καὶ ἐνέργειαν ἐκπλαγέντες, νοησάτωσαν ἀπ᾿ αὐτῶν πόσῳ ὁ κατασκευάσας αὐτὰ δυνα τώτερός ἐστιν· 5ἐκ γὰρ μεγέθους καὶ καλλονῆς κτισμάτων ἀναλόγως ὁ γενεσιουργὸς αὐτῶν θεωρεῖται. 6ἀλλ᾿ ὅμως ἐπὶ τούτοις μέμψις ἐστὶν ὀλίγη, καὶ γὰρ αὐτοὶ τάχα πλανῶνται θεὸν ζητοῦντες καὶ θέλοντες εὑρεῖν· 7ἐν γὰρ τοῖς ἔργοις αὐτοῦ ἀναστρεφόμενοι διερευνῶσιν καὶ πείθονται τῇ ὄψει, ὅτι καλὰ τὰ βλεπόμενα. 8πάλιν δ᾿ οὐδ᾿ αὐτοὶ συγγνωστοί· 9εἰ γὰρ τοσοῦτον ἴσχυσαν εἰδέναι ἵνα δύνωνται στοχάσασθαι τὸν αἰῶνα, τὸν τούτων δεσπότην πῶς τάχιον οὐχ εὗρον;

Hebrews 1:1-4
1πολυμερως και πολυτροπως παλαι ο θεος λαλησας τοις πατρασιν εν τοις προφηταις επ εσχατων των ημερων τουτων ελαλησεν ημιν εν υιω 2ον εθηκεν κληρονομον παντων δι ου και τους αιωνας εποιησεν 3ος ων απαυγασμα της δοξης και χαρακτηρ της υποστασεως αυτου φερων τε τα παντα τω ρηματι της δυναμεως αυτου δι εαυτου καθαρισμον ποιησαμενος των αμαρτιων ημων εκαθισεν εν δεξια της μεγαλωσυνης εν υψηλοις 4τοσουτω κρειττων γενομενος των αγγελων οσω διαφορωτερον παρ αυτους κεκληρονομηκεν ονομα

Wisdom 7:26 ἀπαύγασμα γάρ ἐστιν φωτὸς ἀιδίου καὶ ἔσοπτρον ἀκηλίδωτον τῆς τοῦ θεοῦ ἐνεργείας καὶ εἰκὼν τῆς ἀγαθότητος αὐτοῦ.

Why Does Scripture have Epistemic Priority? Carl F. H. Henry Explains

"The scriptural revelation takes epistemological priority over general revelation, not because general revelation is obscure or because man as sinner cannot know it, but because Scripture as an inspired literary document republishes the content of general revelation objectively, over against sinful man's reductive dilutions and misconstructions of it."

-Carl F. H. Henry (God Revelation, and Authority, vol. 1, 1999, p. 223)

What is general revelation? It is the revelation discussed here:

Romans 1:18-23
18For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; 19Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: 21Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

This is in stark contrast to special revelation, which is the kind of revelation discussed here:

Hebrews 1:1-4
1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, 2Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; 3Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high; 4Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.

Praise be to God for not leaving us with general revelation alone!

-TurretinFan

What Calvinism Is Not!

Many of Calvinism's most vocal critiques could learn a thing or seven from Gordan Runyan's latest post at Reformed Mafia (link). Gordon explains what TULIP:

T => Total Depravity = Really and truly dead in sin => R
U => Unconditional Election = Only cause of salvation to be found in God => O
L => Limited Atonement = Substitutionary and definite atonement => S
I => Irresistible Grace = Enlivening power of God on dead sinners => E
P => Perseverance of the Saints = Salvation is eternal life => S

(or ROSES, by another name)

is not. Frankly, given the number of misconceptions out there, this post is worth its weight in gold.

-Turretinfan