In the Loins of Adam: A Realist Interpretation of the Adamic Covenant, Pt. 1

In this series of posts, I want to offer a presentation of the Adamic Covenant from an Augustinian Realist perspective. For those unfamiliar with Realism, and how it pertains to Anthropology, it might be best to contrast it with the more familiar concept of Federalism. To put it succinctly, the difference between these two schools has to do with how they view the nature of Adam's union with the rest of mankind. The question is: In the first Covenant, did Adam represent mankind, or did he constitute mankind? Was the union federal, or was it natural (real)?  

While this may not seem like an important question, I can assure you, the implications of taking either position over the other will affect your whole doctrine of Anthropology. How so? If Federalism is correct, then when Adam sinned, he sinned for us; but if Realism is correct, then when Adam sinned, we sinned in him. Obviously, there's a big difference between these two propositions, and by the time we get to the issues involved with Original Sin, it becomes extremely important. But more on that in a future post.

The Parties of the Covenant   

On the surface of it, the Genesis account seems to show that the parties involved in the Covenant were two persons only. On the one hand, there was God, and on the other hand, there was Adam. However, on further reflection, we realize that the two-person construct fails for at least two reasons. First, as any good trinitarian knows, the God of the Bible is not one person but three persons in one nature. Second, and more to the point of this post, when God instituted the Covenant of Works, Adam was not contracting as an individual person. As question 22 of the Westminster Larger Catechism reminds us, he was acting as a “publick person.” 

It’s important to note that the term “publick” comes from the Latin publicus from the root populus, and simply means “people.” A publick person is one who acts in the common interest of other persons in addition to himself. This relation, however, depends on some preexisting union which serves as a basis for such an arrangement. And according to the Catechism, that preexisting union was the natural and substantial union which Adam had with the race as “the head and root of all mankind.” 

So instead of a two-person construct, I would argue that we should utilize the language of a two-party construct. In this way, we can leave room for the various “unities” involved. On the one hand, there was God, consisting of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and on the other hand, there was the entire human race, acting in the person of the first man. 

The One Or The Many? 

One of the key passages from which this position is derived is Romans 5:12. Here, Paul explains why death passed upon all men as a consequence of one man’s sin. It was because at that time the entire human race was acting as one man.

// Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all sinned // 

From this passage, two things can be established. First, according to Paul, only one sin was responsible for bringing death into the world. That much is clear from the context since the “sin” of verse 12 corresponds to the “one offense” (ενος παραπτωματος) of verse 18.  

Second, all men really participated in that one sin. We know that because when Paul says “all sinned” he puts the verb “sinned” (ημαρτον) in the aorist, active, indicative form. That being the case, we can rule out several interpretations, including those of John Calvin[1] and Charles Hodge.[2]

Calvin's interpretation doesn't fit because the phrase “all sinned” cannot mean “all were made sinful as a consequence of the first sin.” If that's what Paul meant, he would’ve used the passive rather than the active form of the verb. Moreover, Hodge’s interpretation doesn't work because “all sinned” doesn't mean “all were regarded to have sinned, but really did not.” I would argue that to side with Hodge is to compromise more than the just the grammar of the text. On his view, we compromise the very justice of God. (But again, more on that later.) 

To avoid these difficulties, I would say the best interpretation is the one that takes the phrase “all sinned” just the way it comes. As William Shedd puts it, “ἥμαρτον is nothing but sinned, and the force of the aorist is to be retained. A particular historical event is intended: All sinned when sin entered into the world by one man.”[3]

At this point, it is very important to understand exactly what I’m arguing, so let me state it as clearly as I can. For Paul to say that death is the consequence of one sin, and yet that the one sin was committed both by “one man” and “all men,” he can only be teaching what Augustine would later teach: “By the evil will of that one man, all sinned in him, since all were that one man.”[4] 

If you’re having a hard time following, then let me say it this way. In Romans 5:12, Paul identifies the “all” at the end of the verse with the “one man” at the beginning of the verse. And because of that, Paul is teaching us that God entered into the Covenant of Works with Man, not as an individual person, but as a generic unity.

The One And The Many 

As I mentioned above, many of the early Reformed theologians defended this position. This can be seen in many ways, one of which is the fact that when they described the union between Adam and his posterity, they used various Latin terms like massa, natura, and essentia, all of which denote the generic unity of the human race. What this shows is that the earliest Protestant Divines were self-consciously Augustinian in their Anthropology. “For the whole mass of the human race is condemned” says Augustine, “for he who at first gave entrance to sin has been punished with all his posterity who were in him as in a root.”[5]

But the Reformed didn’t just follow Augustine blindly. Rather, because they knew from Scripture that God made all the nations of men from one man (Acts 17:26), they could see that all of his posterity was really and necessarily in Adam when he sinned and fell in that first transgression. In this way, they reasoned that the first sin was just as much ours as it was his. According to Zacharias Ursinus, “The offense of Adam is also ours, for we were all in Adam when he sinned, as the Apostle testifies: “We have all sinned in him.”[6]

This exact interpretation of Romans 5:12 was later codified in the Westminster Shorter Catechism, as can be seen by the proof-texts the Assembly listed to substantiate their answer to question sixteen.

• Q. 16. Did all mankind fall in Adam’s first transgression? A. The covenant being made with Adam, not only for himself, but for his posterity; all mankind, descending from him by ordinary generation, sinned in him, and fell with him in his first transgression — Gen. 2:16-17; Rom. 5:12; 1 Cor. 15:21-22.

In the Loins of Adam

While these various terms and expressions were widely used among the Reformed, the most common way of speaking was to say that all men sinned “in the loins of Adam.”

For example, in the earliest issue of his, “Esposilio Catechismi Heidelberg” (p 43), Ursinus writes, “But we all suffer justly the fault of Adam because it is so the fault of Adam, that it is also ours; for we all sinned in sinning Adam, because we were all in his loins."

Likewise, Caspar Olevianus, in his Commentary on the Apostle’s Creed, defines Original Sin as "that transgression in Adam’s loins, and the consequent corruption that I carry around in the flesh.”[7] 

Again, David Pareus, commenting on Romans 5:12, writes: “There is a participation of the sin, for all of his posterity were seminally in his loins, so that all sinned in his sin, as Levi paid tithes in the loins of Abraham.”[8]

Note here that the mention of Levi is a direct reference to Hebrews 7:9-10, giving us conclusive proof that the early Reformers held to a real race-participation in the first sin. For them, this was is the necessary consequence of the natural and substantial unity of all men in Adam.[9] 

The Reformed Consensus

Augustinian Realism was not the position only of a handful of early Reformed theologians. Rather, it was the position of the overwhelming majority of all the Reformed churches in the 16th and 17th centuries. And this can be seen in two ways. 

First, it can be seen by the sheer number of theologians and commentators that used this language of “Adam’s Loins.” While a multitude of quotations could be brought forth, I chose the following sample of citations for the purpose of showing that the consensus of Reformed theologians extended to different times and places. 

Wolfgang Musculus of Dieuze, France (1497-1563): “Some explain the word ἥμαρτον to mean that we are condemned, or virtually constituted sinners, on account of sin; which is, indeed true; but there is no reason why you should not thereby understand the actual sin of Adam, in whom all that existed in his loins have sinned.” (Epistolam Apostoli Pauli; Rom. 5:12) 

Jerome Zanchius of Bergamo, Italy (1516-1590): “Because the whole human race, which is propagated by natural generation from Adam, were in his loins, hence the precept, with its penalty, was not addressed to the person of Adam alone, but also pertained to the whole human race." (De Peccato; De Natura Dei.) 

Anthony Fay of Geneva, Switzerland (1540-1615): “We believe that the sin of Adam, whilst it was the act of an individual, was common to the whole species, inasmuch as Adam was not made a private person, but was constituted by God the fountain of the whole race. For the human race was lying hid in the loins of Adam. Therefore it is not of another's sin that we are reckoned guilty, but of our own; since in Adam we all eat of the forbidden fruit.” (En chirid. Theologic., disp. 37.) 

Samuel Rutherford of Nisbet Scotland (1600-1661): “And truly it is bad divinity for Dr. Crispe to say, ‘As we are actual and real sinners, in Adam, so here, God passeth really sin over upon Christ.’ For we sinned intrinsically in Adam, as parts, as members, as being in his loins, and we are thence “by nature the children of wrath” (Ephes., ii).” (The Trial and Triumph of Faith (Edinburgh: Assembly’s Committee, 1845), 239.) 

Thomas Watson of Cambridge, England (1620-1686): “If when Adam fell, all mankind fell with him; why, when one angel fell, did not all fall? The case is not the same. The angels had no relation to one another, but it was otherwise with us, we were in Adam’s loins; as a child is a branch of the parent, we were part of Adam; therefore when he sinned, we sinned.” (Body of Divinity, Ch. 20, Original Sin). 

Second, this can be shown by the fact that even as late as 1675 the Formula Consensus Helvetica, written by Heidegger of Zurich and Turretin of Geneva, utilized this same language. In other words, Augustinian Realism has confessional status. In the two canons that deal directly with the making (and breaking) of the Covenant of Works, the confession argues that (in both cases) man was acting in the unity of human nature. 

First, in Canon X, it says God entered into the covenant “not only with Adam for himself, but also, in him as the head and root with the whole human race.” Then, in Canon XI, we read that, now, man is exposed to God's wrath and curse “on account of the transgression and disobedience which he committed in the loins of Adam.” 

Summary

The Adamic Covenant was made between God and man. But in view of these important historical and theological considerations, neither party should be understood as consisting merely of a single individual. Instead, both God and man are complex unities, and each party must be seen as “the one and the many.” This is the only way Paul could say in Romans 5:12 that all men sinned in the one sin of the one man that brought death into the world. Truly, apart from a clear understanding of what I call a “race-participation in the first sin” such a statement would be utterly incomprehensible. 

Thankfully, it’s not incomprehensible. But as I’ve shown, the Reformed have always understood what Paul is teaching in this text. In fact, they not only understood it, but they've explained it to us clearly and consistently in their writings as well as their confessions. 

It’s no wonder that John Junius, Preacher at Delft, could say with such an amazing sense of confidence that "All the Reformed churches agree, and teach with unanimous consent, in accordance with the sacred scriptures and the universal agreement of antiquity; first, that the sin of Adam was not a personal sin, but of the whole human race, inasmuch as they were all included in the loins of Adam.”[10]

---

Endnotes:

[1] Calvin writes, “Paul distinctly affirms that sin extends to all who suffer its punishment: and this he afterwards more fully declares, when subsequently he assigns a reason why all the posterity of Adam are subject to the dominion of death; and it is even this—because we have all, he says, sinned. But to sin in this case, is to become corrupt and vicious; for the natural depravity which we bring from our mother’s womb, though it brings not forth immediately its own fruits, is yet sin before God, and deserves his vengeance: and this is that sin which they call original.” [John Calvin and John Owen, Commentary on the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2010), 200]

[2] While Hodge argues for the active sense of the verb, he provides an interpretation that betrays the meaning of real participation. Though he pairs together the natural and federal, he has little to say with regard to the former. Thus, Hodge gives a purely representative interpretation: “All sinned in Adam as their head and representative. Such was the relation, natural and federal, between him and his posterity, that his act was putatively their act. That is, it was the judicial ground or reason why death passed on all men. In other words, they were regarded and treated as sinners on account of his sin.” [Charles Hodge, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, New Edition. (Grand Rapids, MI: Louis Kregel, 1882), 236]

[3] William G. T. Shedd, A Critical and Doctrinal Commentary upon the Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1879), 123.

[4] Augustine of Hippo, “On Marriage and Concupiscence,” in Saint Augustine: Anti-Pelagian Writings, ed. Philip Schaff, trans. Peter Holmes, vol. 5, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, First Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1887), 288. 

[5] Augustine, City of God and Christian Doctrine, ed. Philip Schaff, vol. 2, (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1887), 463 

[6] Zacharias Ursinus, Lectures on the Heidelberg Catechism, ed. Eric Bristly, Th.M; (Synod of the Reformed Church in the United States, 2004), 105. 

[7] Caspar Olevianus, An Exposition of the Apostles’ Creed, ed. R. Scott Clark, trans. Lyle D. Bierma, vol. 2, Classic Reformed Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2009), 133. 

[8] David Pareus, as cited in the editor’s footnote, in John Calvin and John Owen, Commentary on the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2010), 201.

[9] W.G.T. Shedd confirms the point when he writes, “The elder Calvinistic theologians say nothing respecting representation. The term is foreign to their thought. The order with them is (1) specific existence in Adam, (2) specific participation in the first sin, (3) imputation of the first sin, and (4) inherence and propagation of original sin” (Dogmatic Theology, 452). 

[10] John Junius, “Antapologia Posthuma”, c. vii., p. 152, as cited in: The Biblical Repertory, ed. James A. Peabody, vol. XI of the Princeton Review (Philadelphia, 1839), 564.

---

Answering the Fool: Exposing the Folly and Hypocrisy of Colin Pearson

Proverbs 26:5 says: “Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.” Recently, I had to put this passage into practice. I had to confront the folly and hypocrisy of a rowdy and seriously misguided internet warrior: Colin Pearson.

The following dialog is made available for the sake of those in the “Truly Reformed” camp, who are familiar with Colin’s online behavior and might be tempted to follow in his ways. When the Bible says, “A fool hath no delight in understanding, but that his heart may discover itself” it’s describing a very immature person. What it really means is that he pretends to have more wisdom than he actually does. In reality, he has little more than a desire to “discover” his own heart, or as another translation puts it: “He delights in airing his own opinions.” Those who’ve been recklessly condemned by Colin can attest: that’s exactly what this man does.

Now, beyond this, I don’t have much more to say. I’m not interested in a long, drawn-out back-and-forth with his cronies. I’m posting this for the reason I mentioned: to expose the folly and hypocrisy that floods the internet these days. It’s sad, but unfortunately true, that people like this often run headlong into the sins of slander and false accusation, sometimes even against their own brothers and co-laborers in Christ. And actually, that’s exactly where this conversation leads; Colin is quick to use words like “heresy,” “wolves,” and “satanic,” to describe his own brothers who serve in other parts of Christ’s Vineyard. And this behavior is nothing new for him.

But — the problem? I call it: “Denominational-ism,” that is, treating one’s particular tradition as if it were the sum and substance of Reformed and even Protestant “orthodoxy.” Denominationalism seeks to elevate one’s own “party” to an unbiblical and even idolatrous level. And it’s a lot more common than we realize. In fact, this is precisely what earned the disciples the correction they received from Jesus (Mk. 9:38-41) and the Corinthians the rebuke they received from the Apostle Paul (1 Cor. 1:12-13). This is the spirit to which I am responding in the following conversation.

Disclaimer: This conversation has been edited to (1) remove the names of innocent parties, (2) remove the comments that are irrelevant to the flow of the discussion, (3) re-format the discussion for a more intelligible presentation, and (4) make minor alterations in spelling, grammar, and wording to bring out the clarity of the intended meaning — without changing the substance of anything that was said.

---

Inquirer: What is the C.R.E.C. ?

Colin Pearson: It’s a big C (W)rec(k)

Paul Liberati: Actually, we're the denomination everyone loves to hate. Well, not everyone. Just those who worship at the altar of Reformed tradition and denominationalism.

Colin Pearson: Paul, Nice slander. Typical of those who defend a fake denomination that protects heretics.

Paul Liberati: Colin Pearson, who is the slander against? Name the person, and then we can talk.

Colin Pearson: Paul, You didn’t name names, but you included anyone who criticizes the CREC. Pretty broad brush you paint with and very serious charges. Guess you’re too cowardly to actually name names. Figures. Typical CREC folks. Blast people with blatant, unmitigated slander and then retreat.

Nathan Beatty: Paul, who worships at that altar?

Paul Liberati: Nathan Beatty and Colin Pearson, I'm not running. If the shoe fits, wear it. If you're the kind of person who thinks that belonging to a certain denomination gives you favor with God, then Yes, I am describing you. You are obviously worshiping at the wrong altar. If you're the kind of person who likes to exalt himself with the notion that you are the Truly Reformed, then Yes, that certainly fits my description. I am talking about you. You are boasting in the wrong thing. Try boasting in the Lord alone, which is what you're supposed to be doing.

It's sad that so many are preoccupied with hating on the CREC. If you want to debate a point of doctrine, I'm right here. But it's more than a bit of irony to hear you say that I'm the one who blasts people with unmitigated slander "and then retreats." Bro, I'm not the one who uses my Facebook status to take cheap shots at other denominations. And then cry when they push back.

Nathan, what substance is there in anything you wrote in the OP? Obviously, there is none. The OP is just another expression of what I mentioned above: a love to hate on the CREC. But like I said: If you guys have something of substance to say, I'm all ears. So, do you want to debate something, or not?

Colin Pearson: Paul, No need to debate. CREC promotes and tolerated FV. Toleration of heresy, a false gospel, is sufficient warrant for criticism. Whine all you want. I’ll say the same thing a thousand times, but you’re the coward that comes out with false accusations.

Paul Liberati: Colin Pearson, have it your way.

Colin Pearson: Paul, no need to rehash what’s been settled. FV is heresy. Always has been. You support and promote heresy by being a part of CREC. Repent of your divisiveness and tolerance of a false gospel.

Paul Liberati: Colin Pearson, thank you for your opinion. But it doesn't carry much weight with me anymore. Not after you blocked me on Facebook for teaching "heresy" concerning the Atonement when all I was arguing for was the universal sufficiency of the death of Christ. Remember when you mistook that for Amyraldianism?

Colin Pearson: Paul, sorry that the whole of Protestant and Reformed orthodoxy is an insufficient warning to heed.

Paul Liberati: Colin Pearson, the entirety of Protestant Christianity? Okay, prove that.

Colin Pearson: Paul, name the Protestant who defines faith as necessarily obedient.

Paul Liberati: Colin Pearson, you need to give me more than that to work with. First, explain what "faith as necessarily obedient" means. Second, show me that we actually teach it according to the explanation you provide.

Colin Pearson: Paul, it means defining saving faith as, in essence, including obedience. This is taught by the FV joint statement as well as every proponent of FV.

Paul Liberati: Colin Pearson, can you quote the FV joint statement, please?

Colin Pearson: Paul,

“We deny that the faith which is the sole instrument of justification can be understood as anything other than the only kind of faith which God gives, which is to say, a living, active, and personally loyal faith. Justifying faith encompasses the elements of assent, knowledge, and living trust in accordance with the age and maturity of the believer. We deny that faith is ever alone, even at the moment of the effectual call.”

You would be aware of this if you had taken the time to read the reports of every Reformed church against FV before jumping into the wolves’ den.

Paul Liberati: Colin Pearson, I see nothing in the statement you provided that has not been stated even more forcefully by well-known Protestant Divines:

// We absolutely deny that we can be justified by that faith which can be alone; that is, without a principle of spiritual life and universal obedience, operative in all the works of it, as duty doth require. For those who assert it must be Antinomians, and I know not what; such as oppose or deny the necessity of universal obedience, or good works. If they mean those who believe that faith alone is on our part the means, instrument, or condition of our justification, all the prophets and apostles were so, and were so taught to be by Jesus Christ. But if they mean those who affirm that the faith whereby we are justified is alone, separate, or separable, from a principle and the fruit of holy obedience, they must find them out themselves, for we know nothing of them. For we allow no faith to be of the same kind or nature with that whereby we are justified, but what virtually and radically contains in it universal obedience, as the effect is in the cause, the fruit in the root, and which acts itself in all particular duties. Yea, we allow no faith to be justifying, or to be of the same kind with it, which is not itself, and in its own nature, a spiritually vital principle of obedience and good works //

— John Owen

Colin Pearson: Paul, of course, you pick one part of the quote that no one disputes. Please actually take the time to study why every Reformed church has condemned FV instead of continuing the same satanic obfuscation that they have for decades.

“Living trust in accordance with the age and maturity of the believer” makes works part of the definition of faith, rather than a product of faith. This is made clear in the writings of Leithart, Lusk, etc., which you can find in plain detail in the reports you won’t bother reading. I’m not going to do your homework for you anymore. You’re an adult.

Nathan Beatty: Paul,

// If you're the kind of person who thinks that belonging to a certain denomination gives you favor with God, then Yes, I am describing you //

But that's not what you accused people of. You accused people of worshipping at the altar of Reformed tradition and Denominationalism. I'm curious who does that. I don't think I actually know anyone like this…

Colin Pearson: Paul,

“Yes, we do have the same obligation that Adam (and Abraham, and Moses, and David, and Jesus) had, namely, the obedience of faith. And, yes, covenant faithfulness is the way to salvation, for the “doers of the law will be justified” at the final judgment. But this is all done in union with Christ, so that “our” covenant faithfulness is dependent on the work of the Spirit of Christ in us, and our covenant faithfulness is about faith, trusting the Spirit to will and to do according to His good pleasure.”

— Leithart

Notice his conflation of faith and works to be actually the same thing, covenant faithfulness is doing the law, but this is about faith and trusting the Spirit to work in and through us to obey. Not faith the open hand that grasps Christ, but faith, which is itself working. This incorporates works into the definition of faith and conflates sanctification with justification.

Compare his statement on “the doers of the law” (Rom. 2:13) to that of literally any Protestant:

“Will be pronounced just before God's judgment seat: which is true indeed if anyone could be found that had fulfilled the law: but seeing that Abraham was not justified by the law, but by faith, it follows that no man can be justified by works.”

— Geneva Bible

“Now we do not deny but that perfect righteousness is prescribed in the law: but as all are convicted of transgression, we say that another righteousness must be sought. Still more, we can prove from this passage that no one is justified by works; for if they alone are justified by the law who fulfill the law, it follows that no one is justified; for no one can be found who can boast of having fulfilled the law.”

— Calvin

“The scope of the apostle is not simply to show how sinners are now justified in the sight of God; but to show what is requisite to justification according to the tenor of the law, and that is, to do all that is written therein, and to continue so to do. And if there be any man that can bring such perfect and constant obedience of his own performing, he shall be justified by God; but inasmuch as no man, neither natural nor regenerate, can so fulfill the law, he must seek for justification in some other way.”

— Poole

The unified voice of everyone standing in opposition to the false gospel of Rome understands and declares that the doers of the law will never be justified since there are none. Leithart et al. take the road to Rome and mix faith and works in justification, not merely as a forensic declaration but also a lifelong process ending in the final justification of Rome.

For another example, Doug Wilson states that justification is by faith alone, yet he says this faith is a “living faith,” and elsewhere he defines works as the “life” of faith, which make works part of faith. So his justification by faith alone is actually justification by faith and works, according to his own definitions of those terms.

Paul Liberati: Nathan Beatty,

// You accused people of worshipping at the altar of reformed tradition and denominationalism. I'm curious who does that. I don't think I actually know anyone like this //

Just keep reading this conversation, and you'll see that you do.

Paul Liberati: Colin Pearson,

// Living trust in accordance with the age and maturity of the believer makes works part of the definition of faith, rather than a product of faith //

No, it doesn’t. It simply acknowledges that the faith of believers varies in maturity. If you look at the FV statement, it says (explicitly) that there are three things that are part of the definition of faith: Assent, Knowledge, and Trust. This is standard Reformed doctrine.

They call it a “living trust” just to emphasize that faith must be "itself" and “in its own nature” a living principle of obedience. And this is precisely what our Divines have argued. Read Owen again:

// Yea, we allow no faith to be justifying, or to be of the same kind with it, WHICH IS NOT ITSELF, AND IN ITS OWN NATURE, a spiritually vital principle of obedience and good works //

As far as the Leithart quote, you are showing your desperation. There is nothing un-Protestant about saying that covenant faithfulness is “the way to salvation.” Obviously, what he has in mind is the aspect of final salvation since he mentions the final judgment. That much should be obvious.

What’s even more obvious (and now I’m doing your homework) is that saying obedience and good works are “the way of salvation” is thoroughly *Reformed. I mean, Which Reformed theologian has not taught that good works are necessary in order to obtain salvation? And not just as an incidental means, but as an active instrumental cause? Here are just a few:

“Good works are an instrumental cause of the possession of life eternal, for by these as by media, and by the legitimate path, God leads us into the possession of eternal life.”

– Jerome Zanchi, Whether Good Works are the Cause of Eternal Salvation

“Are [good works] required as the means and way for possessing salvation? This we hold. For although works may be said to contribute nothing to the acquisition of salvation, still they should be considered necessary to the obtainment of it, so that no one can be saved without them.”

— Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology

“Good works are understood to have a causative power for eternal life in three ways… 2. That they might have an inferior and causal instrumental power conferred upon them by the grace of God, just as running is a cause of the crown which is received, contending a cause of the victory, and diet a cause of health. Neither may one be said to distinguish accurately here between a means and a cause, or between a way and a cause: for while good works are means, they are not passive, but active: a means here is an inferior cause.

– Samuel Rutherford, Whether good works are necessary as causes of justification, and therefore also of salvation

“Suppose a person freely justified by the grace of God, through faith in the blood of Christ, without respect unto any works, obedience, or righteousness of his own; we do freely grant: (1) That God doth indispensably require personal obedience of him; which may be called his evangelical righteousness. (2) That God does approve of and accept, in Christ, this righteousness so performed. (3) That hereby that faith whereby he is justified is evidenced, proved, manifested, in the sight of God and men. (4) That this righteousness is pleadable unto an acquitment against any charge from Satan, the world, or his own conscience. (5) That upon it he shall be declared righteous at the last day, and without it none shall so be.”

—John Owen, The Works of John Owen, Vol. 5

Now, the Leithart quote you provided is much more careful and reserved than were any of the above men. With Philippians 2:12-13 in mind, he carefully qualifies our covenant faithfulness in several ways. First, he puts the term “our” in scare quotes. Second, he describes the faithfulness we exhibit as being “all done in union with Christ” and “dependent on the work of the Spirit of Christ in us.” And third, he shows that the faithfulness that he’s referring to is the result of “faith” itself when he says that we are “trusting the Spirit to will and to do according to His good pleasure.”

Clearly then, your attempt to substantiate the charge of “heresy” is an exercise in desperation and futility. It’s clear that you need to study primary source material for yourself instead of assuming that the criticisms that you’ve read online are accurate. By regurgitating what other men have said, you are displaying a sinful party spirit (Mk. 9:38-41) rather than the spirit of a Berean (Acts 17:11).

// Compare his statement on “the doers of the law” (Rom. 2:13) to that of literally any Protestant //

This is irrelevant. A man can substantiate his theological position by any combination of proof texts. The important thing is what he is affirming, not which passages he uses to support what he is affirming. That’s why not all Reformed denominations require their ministers to subscribe to the proof texts of their confessions.

// Doug Wilson states that justification is by faith alone, yet he says this faith is a “living faith,” and elsewhere he defines works as the “life” of faith, which make works part of faith //

No, it doesn't. You're only seeing what you want to see. I also find it curious that you didn't provide the quote itself. But honestly, I have to say: You should probably quit while you’re ahead. You’ve already embarrassed yourself enough on this thread by showing that you’re more interested in toeing your party line than anything else. Unfortunately, that’s caused you to commit the grievous sins of slander and false accusation against your brothers in Christ.

Colin Pearson: Paul, it defines “trust” as “living trust in accordance with the age and maturity of the believer.” This means there are different levels of faith, that grow and mature. This maturity includes works, as shown explicitly by Leithart.

Paul Liberati: Colin Pearson, wanna bet? Why don't you write to Leithart and ask him?

Colin Pearson: Paul, No thanks. I’m comfortable in submission to the judgment of the faithful ministers who identified FV as heresy.

Paul Liberati: Colin Pearson, why don't you rather submit to the Church Courts that exonerated Peter Leithart from all charges of heresy? By refusing to do this, you show your hypocrisy and twisted party spirit.

Nathan Beatty, there you have it. Nothing more needs to be said in defense of my original comment.

I bid you men Farewell.

Is A Christian Education Required?

OBJECTION: It is not necessary to give our children a full Christian education. The command to raise them in the fear and admonition of the Lord only requires parents and churches to add the "theological" aspect to the education that they receive in public school.

ANSWER: All education is theological. God is the Creator and therefore the Source of all truth and all knowledge. He created math, ordains history, gives literary gifts to men, and all scientific investigation is but the exploration of His world (Prov. 25:2).

This means that, ultimately, every pursuit of knowledge without an acknowledgement of God Himself is vain and useless (Ecclesiastes). The Bible says that all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are found in Christ Jesus. He is the Word, Wisdom, Reason, and yes, Logic of God through Whom and for Whom all things were created. To leave Christ out of any part of our learning is a denial of the most fundamental truth of the universe, that Jesus Christ is the "telos" of all human education.

If we as Christians say that our consciences are bound by the Word of God, then we need to consider the implications of the cumulative revelation of the following passages: Deuteronomy 6:4-9, Ephesians 6:4, Luke 6:40, and Matthew 18:6. When you put all of that together, it becomes very clear what the Lord expects us to do with our covenant children. Remember, education is discipleship, which is why Martin Luther once declared:

"I would advise no one to send his child where the Holy Scriptures do not reign supreme. Every institution that does not unceasingly pursue the study of God's Word becomes corrupt. Because of this we can see what kind of people they become in the universities and what they are like now. I fear that the schools will prove the very gates of hell unless they diligently labor in explaining the Holy Scriptures and engraving them in the heart of the youth."[1]

______________________________

Notes:

[1] Martin Luther, To the Christian Nobility of the German States (1520)

What Acts 16:34 Really Says

According to the grammar of Acts 16:34, the Jailer is the only one who believed in God, and yet his entire household was baptized. In fact, there are four verbal declarations in this verse and all of them are written in the singular form.[1]

1. ἀναγαγών is a second aorist active participle in the nominative SINGULAR masculine form. It means, "when he had brought."

2. παρέθηκεν is an aorist active indicative verb in the 3rd person SINGULAR form. It means, "he set."

3. ἠγαλλιάσατο is an aorist middle indicative verb in the 3rd person SINGULAR form. It means, "he rejoiced."

4. πεπιστευκὼς is a perfect active participle in the nominative SINGULAR masculine form. It means, "that he had believed."

It should also be noted that the prepositional phrase “with all his house” (πανοικὶ) is not attached to πεπιστευκὼς (he had believed) but to ἠγαλλιάσατο (he rejoiced). This means that the text does not say that the jailer believed with all his house, but the jailer rejoiced with all his house. And according to the text, the reason he did that was that he himself came to believe in God. The best translation of this passage is given in the ESV because it follows the Greek text almost word for word. It reads, "Then he brought them up into his house and set food before them. And he rejoiced along with his entire household that he had believed in God."

From these observations, it is clear that it is the jailer alone who did the bringing, setting, rejoicing, and believing since each of these verbs is in the singular form.

OBJECTION: All the members of the Jailer's household must have been adults since the apostles spoke the word of the Lord “to all that were in his house” (v. 32).

ANSWER: It does not follow that if the Word is spoken to a person, he must be an adult, for there are numerous instances where the Word of God was spoken to children:

• Deuteronomy 31:12 says, “Gather the people together, men, and women, and children, and thy stranger that is within thy gates, that they may hear, and that they may learn, and fear the LORD your God, and observe to do all the words of this law.”

• Joshua 8:34-35 says, “And afterward he read all the words of the law, the blessings, and cursings, according to all that is written in the book of the law. There was not a word of all that Moses commanded, which Joshua read not before all the congregation of Israel, with the women, and the little ones, and the strangers that were conversant among them.”

OBJECTION: But the fact that the members of the Jailer's household "rejoiced" (v. 34) proves that there were no infants in that household since infants cannot rejoice.

ANSWER: We have already shown that his rejoicing was singular, though it was done in the presence of his family. [2] Further, we should note that infants both can and do rejoice, as the following passage indicates:

• Luke 1:44: “As soon as the voice of your salutation sounded in my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy.”

• See also Deuteronomy 16:11-14, Matthew 21:16, Psalms 22:9, and 2 Timothy 3:15 as proof that infants and small children can “rejoice”, “hope in God”, sing “perfect praises” to Jesus Christ, and “know the Holy Scriptures.”

---

Notes:

[1] The full text reads: ἀναγαγών τε αὐτοὺς εἰς τὸν οἶκον αὑτοῦ, παρέθηκεν τράπεζαν καὶ ἠγαλλιάσατο πανοικὶ πεπιστευκὼς τῷ θεῷ

[2] If Luke wanted to indicate that the family also rejoiced, he could have used the term καὶ (and/also), just as he did in verse 33 to indicate that the rest of the family was also baptized "he was baptized, and (καὶ) all his."

Water Baptism in John 3:5?

OBJECTION: When Jesus said that a man must be born of water and the Spirit, his statement had nothing to do with baptism. The water was just a metaphor about the need for cleansing.

ANSWER: The larger context of our Lord's statement is against this interpretation. In the background of his reference to water and the Spirit was the fact that, up to this point, Nicodemus and the rest of the Pharisees had rejected the baptism of John (cf. Lk. 7:30; 20:1-8). In fact, baptism seems to be one of the major themes of the first several chapters of the Gospel of John:

• In chapter 1, John the Baptist comes baptizing with real water. His main message is that although he himself only applies the water, it is actually Jesus who applies the Holy Spirit (cf. Mt. 3:11).

• In chapter 2, Jesus puts water into the six stone waterpots that were used for Jewish baptisms, that is, Old Testament purification rites. Then, he turns that water into wine (a symbol of his blood) to show that, in baptism, our sins are washed away by the blood of Christ.

• In chapter 3, Jesus tells Nicodemus that all the Pharisees must be born of water and the Spirit. This is why he speaks in the plural in verse 7. He does not say: "You must be born again" but rather "Ye must be born again." This refers back to their rejection of John's baptism.

But baptism doesn't just occupy the context prior to our Lord's Statement. It continues to be the primary subject in view even after it. In fact, right after the conversation with Nicodemus, the narrative continues with instances and controversies regarding baptism (v. 22ff). In this case, John's disciples broke out into an open dispute regarding the topic of "purification" (v. 25). Why? Because they saw that Jesus was also beginning to baptize (v. 26).

• In chapter 4, we see another reference to baptism with the woman at the well. In verses 1-4 we see that the baptizing activity of Christ was also rejected by the Pharisees, so he left Judea and went to Samaria. There, he told the woman that drinking the water that he provides leads to eternal life.

Interestingly, the reference to drinking points us back to the waterpots in John chapter 2, reminding us that those who drink the water that Jesus gives are cleansed by his sacrificial blood. But there is more. The cleansing takes place by his blood and Spirit, both of which we drink when we are baptized. For as Paul says: "By one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit" (1 Cor. 12:13).