Do the Reformed Confessions reject man "meriting" from God?

[psycheives]

I'm attempting to properly understand how we can and cannot use the term "merit" and want understand whether the Reformed Confessions speak to 1) the issue of Adam "meriting" in the COW and 2) Israel "meriting" in the Mosaic Covenant. I am posting two sections related to our Confessions. Will you please help me evaluate these and correct me if I have misunderstood them and also post any additional helpful Confessional citations that might be helpful.

Here, I understand Ursinus to teach that even perfect good works (such as Adam's) could not merit eternal life:

"Evil works condemn. Therefore good works justify. Answer: But evil works are wholly evil, while good works are only imperfectly good, so that these two declarations cannot be opposed to each other in the form in which they are here placed. And even if our works were perfectly good, yet they could not merit eternal life, inasmuch as they are due from us. A reward is due to evil works according to the order of justice; but not unto good works, because we are bound to do them as the creatures of God; but no one can bind God, on the other hand, by any works or means to confer any benefit upon him. Evil works, again, in their very design oppose and injure God, while good works add nothing to his felicity." (Ursinus' Commentary on Heidelberg Catechism Q63: Objection 5)

Here, I understand the WLC to reject the idea that man can "merit" "the outward blessings of this life," especially based on the Deut verse. Does WLC Q193 deny the possibility of "merit" in Moses or have I misunderstood it?

WLC Q. 193. What do we pray for in the fourth petition?
A. In the fourth petition,(which is, Give us this day our daily bread,) acknowledging, that in Adam, and by our own sin, we have forfeited our right to all the outward blessings of this life, and deserve to be wholly deprived of them by God, and to have them [all the outward blessings of this life] cursed to us in the use of them; and that neither they [all the outward blessings of this life] of themselves are able to sustain us, nor we to merit, or by our own industry to procure them [all the outward blessings of this life];1257 but prone to desire, get, and use them unlawfully:

1257 Deuteronomy 8:17-18. And thou say in thine heart, My power and the might of mine hand hath gotten me this wealth. But thou shalt remember the LORD thy God: for it is he that giveth thee power to get wealth, that he may establish his covenant which he sware unto thy fathers, as it is this day.

 

[TheOldCourse]

Strictly speaking, yes they do reject men meriting from God. Turretin is a good place to turn for a fairly extensive discussion of "merit" in the second volume of his Institutes. This is because "merit" is a term of strict justice, and implies that upon meriting something with respect to another person, that person becomes your debtor and is under obligation to you. For good reason the Reformed theologians were unwilling to speak this way of man with respect to God. How can a sovereign Creator become the debtor of his creature? The only merit of man before God is demerit, where we do deserve punishment as a matter of strict justice by our sin.

All of that said, some were willing to speak of "merit" in a more circumscribed and limited sense as comprehended within a covenant. God, having established a covenant with man which promises certain rewards upon fulfillment of the conditions, is in some sense obligated to man to grant those rewards should the conditions be met. The obligation though, is not to the proportion of the duty rendered but to the pact made by God and his own fidelity. Turretin points to Rom 4:4 as an example of this and is willing to use the term merit though qualifying that it is not merit "properly and rigorously" (IET 8th Topic, 3rd Questsion, XVI-XVII). Witsius also is willing to speak of the reward owed within the covenant of works as a "debt" for fulfillment of obligations. So, like Ursinus said, even prelapsarian man cannot merit eternal life on account of his works, but within the context of the covenant of works there is a qualified sense in which you may say so. Generally though, the older writers I've read preferred to speak of it as simply a "reward" and avoid the many connotations of the term "merit", particularly as used in scholastic theology, and so the term should be used carefully.

Within the Covenant of Grace there is certainly no merit except that of our Mediator, Christ Jesus. I'll leave others to address the Mosaic covenant and national Israel question, as that gets us into the rather contentious issue of republication.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

The fundamental question is whether "merit" is proper of Adam prior to the fall. It seems proper to me (given Christ as the Last Adam). And the appropriate qualifying term for Adam's merit would be "pactum" or covenanted (promised) reward, certainly not condign, and especially not congruent. Christ's merit was condign, and so his work is superior to what Adam (in a counterfactual scenario) should have won.

Quotes mainly from Calvin. I don't believe the Reformed churches and their confessions separated from Calvin at all
http://www.puritanboard.com/f77/federal-vision-chapter-5-james-b-jordan-5055/#post68121

Helpful discussion (whole thread) of sorts of merit:
http://www.puritanboard.com/f31/condign-congruent-pactum-merit-66235/

As to merit in association with Moses, I think the notion is purely hypothetical--"as if" anyone might keep this law; and I don't think the church is ever interested in confessing what amounts (in my view) to a "congruent merit" position: that by sufficient law-keeping and ceremonial observance, the work was counted for the people's credit or merit. The lesson of the religion at the heart of the OT faith--rightly understood--was that apart from God's forgiving grace the people could never hope to meet their obligations. Their work/merit could never be their answer.

 

[Mihai]

Hi Psyche,

Reading Ursinus in context, doesn't he comment on HC63 which discusses reward for people saved in Christ? This does not seem to have anything to do with the prelapsarian state of Adam. You may well remember that Ursinus does have a doctrine of a prelapsarian covenant of works. He is not discussing merit in that context but in the context of sinners saved by grace, who should not be deceived into thinking that if evil works condemn, then good works would justify. And his comment of "no one" being able to "bind" God is certainly valid for Adam too, but neither the doctrine of CoW, nor the doctrine of republication (or re-promulgation of CoW in Mosaic, as Turretin likes to say) do not hold that man can bind God.

On the contrary, the CoW doctrine of High Reformed Orthodoxy, and the various views on republication teach that GOD has bound himself to reward the obedience of men. This is what human merit is: obedience that meets the conditions of the covenant. Christ obtained merit as our representative within a covenant where merit was required, but not even Jesus bound the Father to anything, instead he obeyed the requirements of an existing covenant initiated by the Father.

"God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law, so that He might redeem those who were under the Law"

 

[Peairtach]

Hi Psyche,

Reading Ursinus in context, doesn't he comment on HC63 which discusses reward for people saved in Christ? This does not seem to have anything to do with the prelapsarian state of Adam. You may well remember that Ursinus does have a doctrine of a prelapsarian covenant of works. He is not discussing merit in that context but in the context of sinners saved by grace, who should not be deceived into thinking that if evil works condemn, then good works would justify. And his comment of "no one" being able to "bind" God is certainly valid for Adam too, but neither the doctrine of CoW, nor the doctrine of republication (or re-promulgation of CoW in Mosaic, as Turretin likes to say) do not hold that man can bind God.

On the contrary, the CoW doctrine of High Reformed Orthodoxy, and the various views on republication teach that GOD has bound himself to reward the obedience of men. This is what human merit is: obedience that meets the conditions of the covenant. Christ obtained merit as our representative within a covenant where merit was required, but not even Jesus bound the Father to anything, instead he obeyed the requirements of an existing covenant initiated by the Father.

"God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law, so that He might redeem those who were under the Law"

Christ, being not only man, but also God, fully and condignly merited salvation for His people according to the terms of the CoG.

In fact, I should say, that it was beyond condign merit ( condign+), in the sense that the value of His work could save not only the elect but all mankind if they would have Him, and more hypothetical worlds of men besides.

Within the CoG,, on the basis of that condign merit of Christ, God is happy to graciously reward - by pactum "merit" - the imperfect yet sincere good works of His people which they were predestined to do in Christ.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2

 

[jwright82]

We must always remember the context of merit in light of the covenant itself. Per WCF 7:1 every covenant is already itself a "freely condescension" on God's part, so it's gracious in that sense. God graciously permits us to merit his favor in the CoW but we have sinned. So God graciously permits his son to merit his favor in our place in the CoG. That is every covenant is gracious in that God freely bounds himself for us because he didn't have to to begin with. I hope that helps.

 

[mvdm]

"All reward from the side of God originates in grace; no merit, either of condignity or of congruity, is possible. True religion, accordingly, cannot be anything other than a covenant: it has its origin in the condescending goodness and grace of God. It has that character before as well as after the fall." ~ Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics Vol. II, p.570

 

[mvdm]

" Roman Catholic theology speaks of merit in three distinct ways. It speaks
of condign merit, which is so meritorious as to impose an obligation for
reward. It also speaks of congruous merit, which, though it is not as high
as condign merit, nevertheless is “fitting or congruous” for God to reward
it. Congruous merit is achieved by performing good works in conjunction
with the sacrament of penance. A third type of merit is supererogatory
merit, which is merit above and beyond the call of duty. It is the excess
merit achieved by saints. This merit is deposited into the treasury of merit
from which the church can draw to apply to the account of those lacking
sufficient merit to progress from purgatory to heaven.

Protestant theology denies and “protests” against all three forms of merit,
declaring that the only merit we have at our disposal is the merit of Christ.
The merit of Christ comes to us by grace through faith. Grace is the
unmerited favor of God. It is an action or disposition of God toward us.
Grace is not a substance that can inhabit our souls. We grow in grace, not
by a quantitative measure of some substance in us, but by the merciful
assistance of the Holy Spirit who dwells within us, acting graciously
toward us and upon us. The means of grace God gives to assist us in the
Christian life include Scripture, the sacraments, prayer, fellowship, and the
nurture of the church." ~ R.C. Sproul: "Essential Truths of the Christian Faith, Question 69"

 

[mvdm]

Psyche, here are some additional confessional provisions categorically rejecting our meriting any temporal or eternal reward:

“without any merit of mine” (Heidelberg Catechism 60)
“The reward comes not of [our] merit” (Heidelberg Catechism 63)
“but nor for merit--for what could we merit” (Belgic Confession, art. 24)
“not to any merit of their own” (Canons of Dort 2.7)
“we cannot by our best works merit pardon of sin” (Westminster Confession of Faith 16.5)
“upon the efficacy of the merit and intercession of Christ” (Westminster Confession of Faith 17.2)

 

[GulfCoast Presbyterian]

Christ’s Merits Affirmed And Ours Denied In The Reformed Confessions

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

This is a section from the 'Merit and Moses' OPC paper that was presented to the OPC.

https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.com/2015/04/04/two-different-definitions-of-merit/

It discusses some of the issues at hand with a redefinition of the confessional understanding of Covenant Merit which in terms has been redefined to only mean 'Simple Justice' as defined by others.