I think Lewis’s point was that for the pagan, blood has to be spilled to propitiate the gods. I agree. I don’t think that’s merit or economics.

Surely you’re clever enough to see the point that Lewis was making. How are we right with the divine? The pagans had a sense of merit. People with a sense of needing to earn God’s favor have a better chance of understanding Christianity. That would not seem to apply to FV.

It’s interesting that the lutroo verbs in the NT go with the go’el kinsman of the Hebrew, who is Avenger and Redeemer. Yahweh paid nothing to Pharaoh when redeeming Israel. We need to be extremely careful in how we understand the redemption language in the NT. It’s about family members rescuing enslaved kin; it’s not about paying for goods.

The “everlasting inheritance” that Christ has gained for us is something that he “purchased” (WCF VIII.5).

The purchase price for this inheritance was “the perfect obedience and sacrifice of [Christ]” (WCF VIII.5).

The payment of this price “fully satisfied the justice of the Father” (WCF VIII.5).

The saints’ perseverance in the faith is attributed to “the efficacy of the merit and intercession of Christ,” his intercession being grounded in “the merit of his obedience and sacrifice on earth” (WCF XVII.2; WLC 55).

Worthy participation in the Lord’s Supper includes our “trusting in his merits” (WLC 174).

Though there is no law, external to God, by which man can bring the Almighty into his debt, Adam would have had a claim upon the promised blessings of the covenant of works had he obeyed the stipulated terms of that covenant. Moreover, our Lord Jesus Christ, as second Adam, is able to claim those blessings (and more) on behalf of his people, grounding his claim on the Father’s promise to impute the benefits of his obedience and sacrifice to his elect. Thus, there is more to Jesus’ work than “an inherent worth”; it is the means by which he earned for sinners what they could never merit on their own.

I’ll try to answer yours. The language of the Standards is one of justice and merit in at least the economic sense. Christ purchased the benefits of redemption. This is a transaction of some kind that requires a certain payment for a certain set of goods. Usually an economic system rests on a legal system that protects private property and involves penalties and sanctions for breaking the laws governing economic exchange. So it looks to me like the language of earning and merit makes perfect sense. I know that when I go to the market to buy butter, I need to have enough money. But in the realm of the moral law, my sin and guilt, the Bible and the WCF tell me that Jesus paid it all.

I think I’ve said enough about the IAOC debate. Your last two questions can be asked of the WCF itself.

The other part of theologizing I left out was that it doesn’t happen in a vacuum but occurs in the context of a church. When certain teachings run afoul of the orthodox consensus, the church typically tries to reign in those aberrant views. You want liberty to theologize in the way that you and other FVer’s do. But when has the church ever operated that way, except maybe in the case of the mainline Protestant denominations where only intolerance seems to be erroneous. Your invocation of theological freedom reminds me of the statement, “Presbyterians and Presbyterians Together,” from a year ago. It seemed to ask, “why can’t we all get along?” The church militant has never gotten along. Just ask the Arians, the Nestorians, the Waldensians, or the Arminians. So I’d encourage you that if you want the kind of freedom you claim, you need to become an independent Presbyterian (sometimes known as a Baptist).

Again, I wonder why you object to the language of merit since even the quotation you used for support from Rollock was chock full of merit. So if Jesus’ active obedience does not “earn” eternal life for you, what does it do for you? What is the verb or phrase-set other than “merit” or “earn” that explains the nature of the benefits that Christ has purchased for me and you?

2) I would love to get beyond this debate. I find little if anything useful about it. But I am not the one railing against those who want to use the IAOC formulations. I don’t think that way of talking about our justification is all that helpful, but I don’t think for one minute that these men should be denied the freedom to theologize in this way. I didn’t write a book or publish an essay or file a complaint against anyone who wants to talk this way. I count them as brothers, even faithful Reformed brothers. I include you, Dr. Hart.

Yes, can’t we get beyond gotchas because the Bible or the confession doesn’t use your/my exact phrases? I wish we would. For heaven’s sake, we can end this sorry debate right now if we would just do that. Remember, I’m not the one engaged in hurling “gotchas” against anyone who phrases things different than me. I and others are being CONDEMNED as Gospel deniers because we won’t parrot certain narrow theological formulations. THAT is the issue.

So does this mean that you will now work to see these study committee condemnations overturned and overruled? I agree that this game of “gotcha” ought to end now.

3) Once again, I confess Christ’s righteousness and perfection. He has been perfectly faithful for me. And I am united to him by the Spirit. I died and my life is now hidden with Christ in God (Col. 3:3). United to him my good works are accepted by the Father (WCF 16.6). To use your words, because of Christ’s active and passive obedience he ascended into heaven to “stand on God’s holy hill.” And all of this for me. It’s all of grace. It’s a pure gift.

Once again, I have no objection to the necessity of the active obedience of Christ for me. What I object to is this odd mechanism based on merit where Jesus’ moral achievements during his life are tallied up, judged to be enough to earn eternal life, and then “imputed” to me.

Once again, I don’t like that way of putting things. And I am not alone in the Reformed tradition. But I have not attacked, condemned, or otherwise even upset others in my presbytery, church, or the Reformed world about their way of theologizing about the IAOC. I would like to see formulations more faithful to biblical categories, but I have never thought nor have I accused those who hold to the IAOC of being unfaithful to the Bible or the Reformed tradition.