« Merit and Moses: Summary of Their Argument, Part 1 | Main | Merit and Moses: Summary of Their Argument, Part 3 »



Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Byron G. Curtis

Lee, If your summary is fair to your opponents, it's an astonishingly bad argument.


I think that is a very fair summary.

I remember, as I read MM, being struck by the chain of being in the background - that the authors of MM assumed that there was something wrong with being human.


I don't think it is fair to say the authors of MM assume there was something "wrong" with being human, but they certainly do think that the ontological chasm between the infinite God and the finite creature is so great that "strict merit" was impossible even for sinless pre-Fall Adam. The only instance of "strict or proper merit" is Christ's obedience, due to his ontological deity, which Adam lacked.

Phil Ledgerwood

I think anyone arguing against the position, "X is whatever God says it is," needs to check themselves. There is a very fine line between saying, "God has revealed that merit has these two criteria" and "God has to operate by these criteria."

Both statements are wrong, but at least the former gives a head nod to God actually being able to define His own covenantal operations.

The comments to this entry are closed.