Having heard so much here about the Auburn/Federal Vision contraversy, I decided to get a copy of the book, The Federal Vision and read it from the horses' mouths and see what all the fuss is about...
I just finished reading chapter 5 this evening. The title of James B. Jordan's chapter is:
Merit Verses Maturity: What did Jesus Do for Us?
I am shocked, to say the least. I expected what I found in the first four chapters of the book. There is plenty of info on the web that discusses the F.V.'s views on the covenant, the church, election, and the loss thereof ("If they [the elect] later reject the Savior, they are no longer elect - they...lose their elect standing", F.V. pg. 58), the sacraments, etc....
I wasn't expecting Chapter 5.
I was hoping that some of you who have read the book can help me to make sure I understand this position. Here is what I'm getting out of this chapter:
1. He doesn't approve of the "Covenant of Works", because Adam could never have merited eternal life. He may have received eternal/glorified life as a gift of grace, contingent upon obedience,but he could never have become worthy of eternal/glorified life.
2. He believes that God would have allowed Adam to eat of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil once he had reached maturity. In eating of the Tree prior to reaching maturity Adam usurped kingship before it was granted to him. Had Adam fully matured by continued faithfulness, he would have been allowed to eat of the Tree. Once he ate of the tree, he would have died, just as God said, but God would have resurrected him to a more glorious life.
3. He believes that, even if Adam had not sinned, the Second Person of the God-head would still have become incarnate and would still have died. The Bride (though also sinless) would also need to experience death at the Tree of Knowlege (pg. 188) and would then have experienced the Second Ressurection.
4. He denies that the work of Christ merited the glorification of Himself and His Bride ("The language [merits of Christ], however, has the subtle effect of creating the idea that Jesus in His life on earth somehow earned or merited by works His translation into glory. We have seen, however, that such a notion is quite foreign both to the Adamic Covenant and to the rest of the Old Testament." F.V., pg 192).
- He can't be serious???
Is this guy alone on this, or is this the majority position of the F.V.?
Also, concerning Adam being allowed to lawfully eat of the Tree of Knowledge had he persevered, is this something the F.V. guys dreamed up, or has this been the position of anyone else in history?
[Edited on 2-20-2005 by Dan....]
I just finished reading chapter 5 this evening. The title of James B. Jordan's chapter is:
Merit Verses Maturity: What did Jesus Do for Us?
I am shocked, to say the least. I expected what I found in the first four chapters of the book. There is plenty of info on the web that discusses the F.V.'s views on the covenant, the church, election, and the loss thereof ("If they [the elect] later reject the Savior, they are no longer elect - they...lose their elect standing", F.V. pg. 58), the sacraments, etc....
I wasn't expecting Chapter 5.
I was hoping that some of you who have read the book can help me to make sure I understand this position. Here is what I'm getting out of this chapter:
1. He doesn't approve of the "Covenant of Works", because Adam could never have merited eternal life. He may have received eternal/glorified life as a gift of grace, contingent upon obedience,but he could never have become worthy of eternal/glorified life.
2. He believes that God would have allowed Adam to eat of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil once he had reached maturity. In eating of the Tree prior to reaching maturity Adam usurped kingship before it was granted to him. Had Adam fully matured by continued faithfulness, he would have been allowed to eat of the Tree. Once he ate of the tree, he would have died, just as God said, but God would have resurrected him to a more glorious life.
3. He believes that, even if Adam had not sinned, the Second Person of the God-head would still have become incarnate and would still have died. The Bride (though also sinless) would also need to experience death at the Tree of Knowlege (pg. 188) and would then have experienced the Second Ressurection.
4. He denies that the work of Christ merited the glorification of Himself and His Bride ("The language [merits of Christ], however, has the subtle effect of creating the idea that Jesus in His life on earth somehow earned or merited by works His translation into glory. We have seen, however, that such a notion is quite foreign both to the Adamic Covenant and to the rest of the Old Testament." F.V., pg 192).
- He can't be serious???
Is this guy alone on this, or is this the majority position of the F.V.?
Also, concerning Adam being allowed to lawfully eat of the Tree of Knowledge had he persevered, is this something the F.V. guys dreamed up, or has this been the position of anyone else in history?
[Edited on 2-20-2005 by Dan....]