Mono VS Bi-Covenantal view

Status
Not open for further replies.

MOSES

Puritan Board Freshman
The WCF is clearly Bi-covenantal

2. The first covenant made with man was a covenant of works, wherein life was promised to Adam; and in him to his posterity, upon condition of perfect and personal obedience.

3. Man, by his fall, having made himself incapable of life by that covenant, the Lord was pleased to make a second, commonly called the covenant of grace; wherein he freely offereth unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ; requiring of them faith in him, that they may be saved, and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto eternal life his Holy Spirit, to make them willing, and able to believe.

I have read quite a few arguments supporting the bi-covenatal view, but I'm intersted in mainly finding our what the arguments are specifically against the mono-covenantal view.

Of course there is the obvious. As Presbyterians (and other Reformed folk) we hold to the WCF and it is not Mono-Covenantal, therefore, that is the simplest argument against it...I'd like to dig a little deeper into the scriptures though.

Definig the terms:
Mono: One
Bi: Two
Covenant: A relationship that God establishes with us and guarantee's by his word

So what are the arguments against the view that God has established only ONE relationship with man (adam) that is guarnatee'd by his word?


Note: Being the bi-covenantal view is the popular view, the WCF's view, it may be asked why I'm even thinking about this anyway. I'll include my reasons in a follow up post.
 
Im not sure but i always thought mono messed with imputation, isnt Federal Vision mono? i think roman shepard made the view popular and i know john piper was considering mono or is or something,
 
Note: Being the bi-covenantal view is the popular view, the WCF's view, it may be asked why I'm even thinking about this anyway. I'll include my reasons in a follow up post.

- Questioning, first, that the Covenant of works was in any way a covenant based on merit. This is an old debate though.
e.g., Anthony Burgess (1608-1664), one of the delegates to the Westminster Assembly, states in his 1647 work, Vindiciae Legis, that "though it were a Covenant of Works, it cannot be said to be a covenant of merit. Adam, though in innocency, could not merit that happiness which God would bestow upon him....if by the help of God Adam was strengthened to do the good he did, he was so far from meriting thereby, that indeed he was the more obliged to God"
e.g.,Scotish Presbyterian James Fisher (1697-1775); the following question and answer in his Catechism
Q. 31. Why could not Adam's perfect obedience be meritorious of eternal life?
A. Because perfect obedience was no more than what he was bound to, by virtue of his natural dependence on God, as a reasonable creature made after his image.

- Questiong, second, that the Covenant of Grace was altogether new, seperate, and distinct from the first covenant (i.e, C.of works). Or, in like manner, that he Covenant of works was abrogated. In both cases, common sense would ask "then why did Christ need to be faithful to the C. of works in meritorous fashion"...If Chrst in anyway fulfilled a covenant obligation on our behalf, then that covenant was always in full force, and it was not abrogated, nor was another covenant needed.

- Questioning, third, that God dealt with Adam differently then the rest of manking. I.e., that God dealt with Adam based on works, and afterwards all other men based on faith. "The Just Shall Live by Faith"...Adam did not live by faith, and thus died. Adam's 'problem' was a lack of FAITH. He stopped believing in God's word and instead believe the lie of Satan. This was a faith problem first and foremost, He sinned, broke God's law, because he had not faith to believe God, who said "if you eat of it you shall surely die"; Adam did not believe this.
Thus, Adam, like all men, related to God (covenant) by FAITH...and would have lived by faith.
2. The first covenant made with man was a covenant of works, wherein life was promised to Adam; and in him to his posterity, upon condition of perfect and personal obedience.
3. Man, by his fall, having made himself incapable of life by that covenant, the Lord was pleased to make a second, commonly called the covenant of grace; wherein he freely offereth unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ; requiring of them faith
Under number 3, why use the word "requiring", and not use the same terminology of number 2 "upon condition of"?
Both of these "two" covenants have the promise of LIFE, but only after meeting a requirement...It is said that "works" was the requirement of the first covenant (which failed), and then, now, it is "faith" that is the requirement of the second covenant.BUT...this is not really true.
IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN FAITH.


Randoming questionings:
- If a covenant is "a relationship that God establishes with us and guarantee's by his word"....then how is it that there is more then ONE relationship that God has with Man. God created man and consequently related to man, and this relationship is by way of covenant. How many "relationships" does God need?
- Concerning the covenant of works as meritourous: Is this really consistent with the nature of God? Is the God of the bible shown over, and over again dealing with man (relating) based on merit? I don't think so. Ok, then why do we think this is different when we see God relating to adam (man)?

There are/were many other "questionings' that I've had..but this is a start. Maybe my questionings are way off base, but I'm open to biblical correction.
 
Im not sure but i always thought mono messed with imputation, isnt Federal Vision mono? i think roman shepard made the view popular and i know john piper was considering mono or is or something,
<--underline emphasis Moses'

I think FV is accused of being mono, I'm not sure if they are or not. Wilkins denied being mono in his trial.
But...either way, apart from shepard, FV, etc....I THINK that this debate is much, much, older then Shepard or the fv debate.

How would it mess with imputation?
 
Ligon Duncan had this to say:

The current popularity of sundry mono-covenantal approaches (that is, systems that deny the covenant of works/covenant of grace framework of biblical history, whether they are Barthian or Hoeksemanian or Schilderian) exists only because of a widespread lack of familiarity with the more robust historic Reformed tradition on this subject. Furthermore, a serious effort at historical theological reacquaintance with classical bi-covenantal Reformed theology would also prove to be a great boon to current Reformed-Lutheran dialogue on the relation of their law-grace hermeneutic to the Reformed covenant of works-covenant of grace hermeneutic of Pauline polemics.

Covenant Theology is Historic Christianity
 
There were two identical covenants: Both were of grace from God and received through faith alone, as Paul makes clear in Romans. In both, obedience on the part of the believer were (and are) required--rebels are excluded.

The distinction is that in the first, only Jews were admitted into covenant; a Gentile could only enter by first becoming a Jew. The Mosaic law defined the obedience required by which both Jews and would-be-Jews could enter into and maintain that covenant relationship.

In the NT era the works of the law by which one became a Jew and/or maintained his Jewishness were dropped. Gentiles now have the same access as Jews to the same covenant, and that without becoming Jewish. Willful rebellion still excludes one from that covenant. The covenant is merely that God will be our God and we will be His people. Those in willful rebellion are their own gods and thus not His people.

This is my humble opinion. Please someone tell me rather than kick me off of PB if this makes me a federal visionary. If there are any clear scriptures that contradict my understanding, I'll happily receive correction.

My understanding is that FV is mono-covenantal. I think that they are right on this though very wrong on some other things.
 
Last edited:
See also:
Covenant, Justification, and Pastoral Ministry: Essays by the Faculty of Westminster Seminary California. Presbyterian & Reformed, 2007. 465 pp. --which interacts with the ongoing discussion over justification raised by the New Perspectives on Paul and the Federal Vision.

Read review of this by R. Scott Clark here:
Themelios - Issue 33-2
 
Here is a blog I put together when I was contemplating this topic.

A Working Federal Vision Summary from a 1689er

I am working on a very small summary of the Federal Vison from my perspective. So this is not the final summary but something I am working on.

The main problem with the Federal Vision teaching for me is the distortion concerning the efficacy of the sacraments and soteriology. (ie. the covenants, baptism, and the Lord’s Table.) Not all FV people hold to the same view of sola fide. Some distort the view of sola fide but most problematic to me is that most of them deny some form or part of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness or they redefine it. To say it another way, the Federal Vision seems to redefine the view that Christ fulfilled the Covenant of Works which Adam failed to fulfill. They want to make the Covenant between Adam and God one of Grace and therefore a covenant that Adam became apostate from. In other words they make it easier to teach a Covenant member can fall from grace and become apostate. By doing this the Federal Vision proponents also make the Covenant of Grace a covenant that the New Covenant member can become apostate from. Thus the distorted teaching of efficacy in the sacraments and salvation. In the FV view, Baptism is salvific by bringing covenant children or any new Church member into the Covenant of Grace from which they can apostasize from. They make a running theme of Covenant cursing and blessing from Adam to the Apocalypse. The Federal Vision is more focused on Pastoral ministry through the means of grace in the sacraments and how the sacraments are effectual. The Theological implications are not discovered as easily as I have set them out here. I have read some things and had many discussions on this stuff to discover it. In my humble opinion the FV is not a Reformed Baptist Problem because we are not trying to justify any paedo doctrines concerning the sacraments.

Hope I am making sense….



Here is what Douglas Wilson says about the Covenant of Works.



Furthermore, because the first covenant with Adam was a gracious covenant, coming from a gracious God, with the condition of the first covenant being the covenantal faithfulness of Adam, not merit, FV proponents suggest that believers should recognize the essential unity of the covenants from Adam through Christ. They are all basically the same with the same condition, covenant faithfulness. In addition, FV writers unanimously reject the concept of merit under the covenant of works: “God did not have an arrangement with Adam in the garden based on Adam’s possible merit. Everything good from God is grace. If Adam had passed the test, he would have done so by grace through faith". Douglas Wilson, “Beyond the Five Solas,” Credenda/Agenda 16/2:15



Here is what Dr. R. Scott Clark replied to me concernning my question about the Covenant of Works and the Federal Vision's (Steve Wilkin's) understanding of the prelapsarian view.



The classic Reformed folk tended to use the expressions "covenant of works" and "covenant of life" and "covenat of nature" (and the like) interchangeably.

Works refers to the terms.

Life refers to the goal.

Nature refers to the setting.

It's not that complicated.

Wilkins clearly denies the substance of the covenant of works. According to W. the prelapsarian covenant is legal-gracious and the post-laps. cov. is gracious-legal.

To admit a purely legal prelapsarian covenant does profound damage to the covenant moralist scheme because it entails the sort of law/gospel dichtomy which they abhor and which the Protestant faith embraces.

Wilkins is advocating a "trust and obey" scheme before and after the fall. The Westminster Confession doesn't. Neither do the rest of the Reformed confessions. They have it that Adam was righteous, holy, good and able to obey. He chose not to obey. He sinned. He fell and we with him. He didn't fall from grace. He broke the law. The Wilkins account confuses law and grace. Of course, the Apostle Paul has no such problem.




Some links added 6/5/2007.

Bible Presbyterian Church http://www.bpc.org/synod/2006/070_02.html

Presbyterian Church of America http://pcaac.org/2007GeneralAssembly/Fed Vision Rept 5-11-07.pdf

Mid America Reformed Seminary http://www.midamerica.edu/pubs/errors.pdf

Orthodox Presbyerian Church Report http://opc.org/GA/justification.pdf

Westminster Seminary California Statement Westminster Seminary California faculty

Hope this helps a bit.
 
All one really needs to say has been said by Wilhelmus a'Brakel, on page 355 of volume 1 of A Christian's Reasonable Service:

"Acquaintance with this covenant (he means the covenant of works, LK) is of the greatest importance, for whoever errs here or denies the existence of the covenant of works, will not understand the covenant of grace, and will readily err concerning the mediatorship of the Lord Jesus. Such a person will very readily deny that Christ by His active obedience has merited a right to eternal life for the elect. This is to be observed with several parties who, because they err concerning the covenant of grace, also deny the covenant of works. Conversely, whoever denies the covenant of works, must rightly be suspected to be in error concerning the covenant of grace as well."

When all is said and done, nothing less than the Gospel is at stake in recognizing this distinction, since the question revolves around the "how" of the way in which Adam would have obtained eternal life versus the "how" of how we have to obtain it. Adam would have obtained it by works, but we now obtain it by grace, Jesus Christ having earned it for us.
 
One more thing. If the wages of sin is death. Then the wages of obedience was life in the first Covenant. Wages were earned and not imputed as Christ's righteousness is. He earned it for us by fullfilling the CofW.
 
Just throwing this out there for fun...a little off topic though.

How many Testament's are there? (trick question perhaps)

Only one, being there was only one death and one testator Jesus Christ. Two "will and testaments" would require two seperate testators and their seperate deaths. If there be two testaments, then who are the two testators that died?
 
When all is said and done, nothing less than the Gospel is at stake in recognizing this distinction, since the question revolves around the "how" of the way in which Adam would have obtained eternal life versus the "how" of how we have to obtain it. Adam would have obtained it by works, but we now obtain it by grace, Jesus Christ having earned it for us.
<--Bold emphasis moses'

Where do we find biblically that Adam could obtain eternal life?

"the just shall live by faith"

Everyday that Adam was faithful, living by faith, he had LIFE in its fullest since...he did not, in my opinion, have to OBTAIN it...he already had life in full fellowship with God.
The commandment was not given by God "Do this, and I shall do this" it was simply "Do this"

If Adam could have obtained something MORE then he already had, a reward, for doing a duty that was required...when would that reward have been given? This is where the bi-covenantal view comes up with a doctrine of a "probation period"..right?

Note: in my opinion, on this...Adam's life, in obedience, was WAGES...he was not going to get a "reward"...if he remained faithful then his living life, in fellowship with God, would have been considered wages. Just as his sin also had wages.."the wages of sin is death"
There is no reward for the duty, there is simply wages.
Luke 17:10
10 So you also, when you have done everything you were told to do, should say, 'We are unworthy servants; we have only done our duty
 
Last edited:
"merit" vs "wages"

"Such a person will very readily deny that Christ by His active obedience has merited a right to eternal life for the elect."

Adam would have obtained it by works, but we now obtain it by grace, Jesus Christ having earned it for us.

Did Jesus Christ "merit" it or "earn" it?
The person you quote uses "merit", you use the word "earn" (indicating wages).

Merit, in the Dictionary of Theological Terms, is used along with the word "Reward".

I see a difference between wages earned, and reward...(perhaps I err here).
If Adam continued in faithful duty to God he would have continued earning his due wages, life. Where is it revealed that he was to be rewarded with something over and above the wages of his duty?
And for the second Adam, I agree:
"Christ 'earned' it for us"

Any help on Merit vs Wages here would be much appreciated.
 
Shawn, what you are not allowing for here is the concept of pactum merit, or merit according to agreement. Adam would not have obtained eternal life on the basis of works that had intrinsic merit. However, God had bound himself to give to Adam eternal life (not the fallible, changeable (though innocent) life that Adam had by creation, but the eternal state, the glorified body of which Paul speaks in 1 Corinthians 15) on the basis of Adam's works. Therefore, by virtue of the agreement (pactum), Adam would have merited eternal life. Of course, Jesus did not have to save the fallen humans. Therefore, all that He did was NOT owed to God, and is therefore condign merit.
 
Shawn, what you are not allowing for here is the concept of pactum merit, or merit according to agreement. Adam would not have obtained eternal life on the basis of works that had intrinsic merit. However, God had bound himself to give to Adam eternal life on the basis of Adam's works. Therefore, by virtue of the agreement (pactum), Adam would have merited eternal life. Of course, Jesus did not have to save the fallen humans. Therefore, all that He did was NOT owed to God, and is therefore condign merit.
<--edit, emphasis moses'

I think I understand pactional merit.

by virtue of the agreement (pactum), Adam would have merited eternal life.

I understand this too, but this is only true if such an agreement exists. Pactional merit, pactional debt. God binding himself to give something to Adam if Adam did thus and thus...is all fine and dandy, and all fits quite well in a tity neat little schema. But...only if such an agreement is in fact biblical.

Q. 31. Why could not Adam's perfect obedience be meritorious of eternal life?

A. Because perfect obedience was no more than what he was bound to, by virtue of his natural dependence on God, as a reasonable creature made after his image.
Fisher's Cathechism

Apart from any agreement, would not God, by virture of his nature, require perfect obedience? Why would God of made an agreement to reward Adam for that which was Adam's created duty to begin with?

Was there any "pact" that Adam could have appealed to (requested) before God as a "pactional debt" if he had remained obedient?
If so...where is this in scripture?
 
I don't think Adam would have ever pointed to anything "accomplished" and said, "OK, God! I think I've done enough; I'd like my promotion now." Promotion was his reasonable hope.
Eph 4:13 "Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:"
This text is pointing to that which is perfect, a state of being "not able to sin," not merely "able to sin" or fall from righteousness. Heb. 12:23 speaks of "just men, made perfect." The just man is the righteous man. In Adam's case, he was righteous, but being ABLE to SIN, clearly he wasn't perfect in that sense.

I think it plain enough that he had a reasonable hope to be MADE perfect as well, when God's timing was fulfilled. We do not need a TEXT that relates said promise to him, if the result has been explicitly promised to us.


One other thing. The WCF benefits from the "Sum of Saving Knowledge" appended in the Scots edition, due to its explication of the full covenant arrangement, to include the covenant of Redemption. Not that it need be radically divided from the Covenant of Grace, but it helps to explain all of the whole covenant-dealings of God, starting with the intra-Trinitarian dialog in eternity past. With the CoR behind the CoW and CoG (differently behind each), parts such as Adam's "hope," which might not stand out so obviously, can be better seen in relief.

But the bottom line is, our understanding of all the covenant arrangements of God is enhanced by our comprehension of the whole edifice. It is no embarrassment whatever to be systematic theologians. It is our glory to be both biblical and systematic.
 
The answer depends on the covenantal model. There is only one everlasting covenant. This is acknowledged by all. Historically there are two antithetical "economies." This is also acknowledged by all. From that point divergence arises as to the nature of the economies and their relationship to the everlasting covenant.
 
My question in this matter pertains to Herman Hoeksema & the PRC's view of the covenant. I think theirs is mono-covenantal, though one cannot lose one's covenantal membership once genuinely in Christ.

Are Hoeksema, Hanko, et al in error, and wherein does the error lie?

Is their denial of the CoW based on seeing the CoR as the exemplar of covenantal understanding? This has long been a confusion to me.

The 3FU, as well the 1689, do not have the CoW language in them, as does the WCF.

How would a Presbyterian answer the PRC view?

Any clarification would be greatly appreciated!

Steve
 
Was Adam to Merit Reward?

Would God’s conferral of a higher life on Adam and his posterity be based on merit or grace? In theological language, should we conceive of the creation covenant as a “covenant of works”? Some Protestant theologians (including Reformed) reject the idea of human merit and therefore attempt to construe the basis of reward in terms of God’s condescension or grace. For example, James Jordan argues that eschatological life was to be a gracious inheritance that God would bestow upon his image-son, Adam, not on the basis of merit but on the basis of ethical maturity. Jordan also denies that Christ earned eternal life for himself and his seed on the basis of his merit. “Merit Versus Maturity: What Did Jesus Do for Us?” in The Federal Vision, ed. Steve Wilkins and Duane Garner (Monroe, LA: Athanasius Press, 2004), 151-200. Nevertheless, there are good reasons for viewing the creation covenant sanctions as requiring nothing less than absolute faith, loyalty, and obedience, qualities with which Adam as the imago Dei was endowed and could have rendered to God.

The moment God created man as his visible replica, God obligated himself to respond in accordance with the success or failure of Adam to reflect his Father’s character and to carry out his Father’s will. This does not imply that human virtue has the same intrinsic value as divine virtue. It is to say, however, that true human virtue is a replica of divine virtue and will, when perceived by God, provoke a divine response of satisfaction and pleasure. In other words, when God sees an accurate reflection of himself in the mirror (i.e., the imago Dei), He cannot help but exclaim, “Amen!” For this reason, the traditional portrayal of the covenant of works as a special decree bestowed on man after creation (superadditum) whereby God voluntarily condescends and arbitrarily decides to reward that which was in fact lacking in sufficient merit to obligate a reward (see The Westminster Confession of Faith, 7.1) needs to be reformulated. It is true that God was under no obligation to create man as the imago Dei and, therefore, His act of creation may be viewed as one of pure condescension and grace. But once God created man as his image, he was consequently obligated to reward fealty with life and disobedience with death in accordance with his own just nature. Thus, just as we speak of Christ’s atonement as a “consequent absolute necessity” (see John Murray, Redemption Accomplished and Applied [Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1955], 11-12), so we may speak of God’s obligation to respond accordingly to the merit or demerit of his created image as a consequent absolute necessity. Accordingly, the condescension spoken of in the WCF 7.1—when applied to the covenant of works—should be linked with God’s act of creating the imago Dei, a covenantal creature, not to some subsequent post-creative act of God.

For a more in-depth discussion of the concept of merit and its relationship to the covenant of works and the work of Christ, see Lee Irons, “Redefining Merit: An Examination of Medieval Presuppositions in Covenant Theology,” in Creator, Redeemer, Consummator: A Festschrift for Meredith G. Kline, ed. Howard Griffith and John R. Muether (Greenville, SC: Reformed Academic Press, 2000), 253-69; and Mark Karlberg, “The Original State of Adam: Tensions within Reformed Theology,” in Covenant Theology in Reformed Perspective (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock Publishers, 2000), 95-110.

So, does that make me bi-covenantal or mono-covenantal. Yes. That is, both. I believe the covenant of creation or primordial covenant (also called the covenant of works) is transtemporal and remains in force throughout human existence. In fact, all men-even pagans who have never heard the gospel--are not just sinners but covenant breakers in that they have specifically broken the original covenant of creation (see Isaiah 24:5). The protoevangel of Genesis 3:15 initiated God's promise-program of redemptive grace (this is what I think of by the Covenant of Grace), which was progressively revealed in the subsequent historical covenants (Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic, New Covenant) (see Ephesians 2:12). This redemptive promise, which emerges from God's curse on the serpent, becomes an intrusion of redemptive grace into human history by which God himself insures the the terms of the primordial covenant are ultimately fulfilled by the Second Adam, Jesus Christ.

Conclusion: we are saved by works. Not our works, but the meritorious works of another who did what the first Adam was created to do but failed to do. God's redemptive revelation and monergenistic acts of grace whereby he intervened to save man from his sinful plight may be called the covenant of grace through which he himself through Christ satisfied the requirements of his law and also fulfilled the original mandate of the creation covenant, which as that man as vice-regent should be fruitful, multiply, fill the earth with divine visible replicas and subdue all things for the glory of Yahweh-Elohim with the final prospect of Sabbath-enthronement at the right hand of man's holy Suzerain, thus entering into his eternal rest.
 
Last edited:
Steve, the ultimate issue with Hoeksema is his definition of covenant as relationship (see Reformed Dogmatics, pg. 221-222). Gone is the legal definition whereby Adam could reasonably hope (a la Bruce's qualifications) for a higher state. Hoeksema also removes all aspects of conditionality in the covenant with Adam (he does, however, still regard the situation between Adam and God as a covenant), because he equates covenant with election in the pre-fall situation. See John Stek's very helpful article on this in _By Faith Alone_, edited by Gary Johnson and Guy Waters, pp. 178ff.

Shawn, the argument for just such an arrangement goes like this: 1. the moral law has positive commands and corresponding and inseparable prohibitions (see WLC 99). 2. The moral law has promises and corresponding opposite threats (ibid). 3. The moral law was given to Adam as a covenant of works (WCF 19). 4. Therefore, the prohibition to Adam came with the corresponding opposite positive command to obey God. Furthermore, the threat of death upon disobedience implies the corresponding opposite promise of life for obedience. 5. That Adam was promised a higher state than he had is indicated by close exegesis of 1 Corinthians 15:42-49, where Paul draws a contrast firstly between the post-Fall dead body of the believer (verses 42-44a), and then broadens the contrast to include the pre-Fall body of Adam as contrasted with the glorified body (vv. 44bff). Plainly then, the pre-Fall body of Adam implied that there was a better state, a higher state. The proof-text that Paul draws in (Genesis 2:7) clearly indicates that verse 44b is talking no longer about the post-Fall dead bodies of believers, but about the pre-Fall body of Adam. If there is an Adamic body pre-Fall, then there is a (S)spiritual body. Thus, the very existence of the pre-Fall body of Adam implies the glorified state to which Adam would have looked forward. Therefore, Adam would have been within the terms of the pact to hope for the glorified state wherein he could not sin. The implications of any other position are that Adam would have been under perpetual probation, always able to sin. That is surely not in accordance with the goodness of God, who desires us to be like Him in our final state.
 
Shawn and others,

I appreciate Lane's comments and agree with him that there was an "eschatology" before the fall. A recently published book that, I believe, argues this point cogently (drawing on some of the insights of Geerhardus Vos) is John V. Fesko's Last Things First; Unlocking Genesis 1-3 with the Christ of Eschatology (Mentor Press, 2007). Another book that argues similarly is Gregory K. Beale's The Temple and the Church's Mission: A Biblical Theology of the Dwelling Place of God, New Studies in Biblical Theology, ed. Donald Carson (Inter-Varsity Press, 2004).

Your servant,
 
Just throwing this out there for fun...a little off topic though.

How many Testament's are there? (trick question perhaps)

Only one, being there was only one death and one testator Jesus Christ. Two "will and testaments" would require two seperate testators and their seperate deaths. If there be two testaments, then who are the two testators that died?

If there is only one why is one fading away or done away with? And why is one said to be better and New? Why are there two Adams?

(2Co 3:6) Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.

(2Co 3:7) But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away:

(2Co 3:8) How shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious?

(2Co 3:9) For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory.

(2Co 3:10) For even that which was made glorious had no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that excelleth.

(2Co 3:11) For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious.

(2Co 3:12) Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech:

(2Co 3:13) And not as Moses, which put a vail over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished:

(2Co 3:14) But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ.

(Heb 8:7) For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.

(Heb 8:8) For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:

(Heb 8:9) Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.

(Heb 8:10) For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:

(Heb 8:11) And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.

(Heb 8:12) For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.

(Heb 8:13) In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

There is one Everlasting Covenant.... But there were other Covenants that are not everlasting in the same similitude as the Covenant of Grace. Does the Covenant of Works have everlasting characteristics? Yes, men are condemned by it for time unending. But it is of a different nature than the Covenant of Grace.

The first death was Adam the first. And that was for his own sin. The second death was Christ the second Adam. And that was for my imputed righteousness from Christ which belongs to the elect.
 
Reformed theology contrasts works and grace, not merit and grace. Adam never could merit eternal life because he was of the earth. Jesus Christ could merit eternal life because He is the Lord from heaven.

Hoeksema and the PRC allow for antithesis within their covenant schema and have a well developed understanding of reprobation in the context of covenant, whereas in tha main it usually tends to be confined to an eternal decree. This means that their scheme still provides one everlasting covenant of grace with two antithetical economies.
 
Reformed theology contrasts works and grace, not merit and grace. Adam never could merit eternal life because he was of the earth. Jesus Christ could merit eternal life because He is the Lord from heaven.

Matthew,

I agree that Reformed theology has, generally, recognized the law/gospel distinction. But is it true to say that Reformed theology has made no contrast between merit and grace? What of these words of Charles Hodge regarding Adam and Christ:
Perfect obedience was the condition of the covenant originally made with Adam. Had he retained his integrity he would have merited the promised blessing. For to them that works the reward is not of grace but of debt. In the same sense the work of Christ is the condition of the covenant of redemption. It was the meritorious ground, laying the foundation in justice for the fulfillment of the promises made to him by the Father" [emphasis added] (Systematic Theology [Eerdmans, 1993], 2:364-65).
Lee Irons agrees with Hodge and argues,
The covenant of works is just that, a covenant of meritorious works.... This parallelism between the two Adams demands that we see divine justice as the ground of both. For if the first Adam could not earn eternal life on the condition of meritorious obedience, then neither could the Last [emphasis added] ("Redefining Merit: An Examination of Medieval Presuppositions in Covenant Theology," in Creator, Redeemer, Consummator: a Festschrift for Meredith G. Kline [Reformed Academic Press, 2000], 268).
Certainly, human virtue can only be viewed as analogous to divine virtue. Hence, even the eternal reward that Adam would have merited would have corresponded to divine "rest" but would not have been identical to divine rest. The notion, however, that the imago Dei could have no analogical merit would seem to impugn God's own handiwork. As I said in the earlier post, had the First Adam accurately reflected his heavenly Suzerain's holy character, he would have convoked within the Godhead a reflexive "Amen!"

I'm aware that some Reformed theologians have viewed the Covenant of creation as something added in addition to creation (superadditum) in which God agrees to reward human obedience which in fact is, for all intents and purposes, worthless to Him by virtue of a pact. But as Irons argues I've referenced above, this view finds its roots in Medieval nominalism and should be discarded. What are your thoughts?
 
Last edited:
Thanks everyone for the responses thus far. I am still reading through them and do not want to respond hastily without really contemplating what has been said.

quickly though, this seemed to just jump out at me.
For if the first Adam could not earn eternal life on the condition of meritorious obedience, then neither could the Last

The thing is...The First Adam did not earn eternal life, and the last Adam did!
So, clearly apart from any argument on the first Adam, the last Adam could.

This is overly simplistic I'm sure. But the very proof that Adam could not, was that he did not. The very proof that the last Adam (Christ) could, is that he did. So, I'm not buying the argument in quotes.
 
Thanks, Matthew. What are their "two antithetical economies"?

Election and reprobation. They teach God establishes His covenant with the elect race in Christ in the line of succeeding generations, and this is antithetical to the race of the reprobate which develops in sin along generational lines.
 
This is overly simplistic I'm sure. But the very proof that Adam could not, was that he did not. The very proof that the last Adam (Christ) could, is that he did. So, I'm not buying the argument in quotes.
How does "did not" necessitate "could not"? That comes dangerously close to saying that the fact of Adam's sin implies the necessity of Adam's sin on account of his (defective) human nature. Moreover, it was not merely God who atones for our sins and fulfills the primordial covenant mandate--it is the God-man, Christ Jesus.
 
But is it true to say that Reformed theology has made no contrast between merit and grace? What of these words of Charles Hodge regarding Adam and Christ:

From the traditional perspective this was an innovation, although some see it as a breakthrough. The Larger Catechism asks a pertinent question -- Why was it requisite that the Mediator should be God? It is a question worth pondering, because it seems to me that an undue exaltation of Adam might have the negative effect of depreciating the person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ.
 
How does "did not" necessitate "could not"? That comes dangerously close to saying that the fact of Adam's sin implies the necessity of Adam's sin on account of his (defective) human nature. Moreover, it was not merely God who atones for our sins and fulfills the primordial covenant mandate--it is the God-man, Christ Jesus.

Sin is not the issue, in regards to the "could not" (the "could not" being meriting eternal, everlasting, heavenly, spiritual, life...that which Christ did merit). Because even if Adam did not sin, he still could not have merited this, as is the opinion of some. So I don't think that does come "dangerously close" to what your saying it does.
Note: of course, Adam's sin is absolute proof that Adam "DID NOT"

If some one "did not" accomplish something it could be easily assumed that he "did not" because he "could not"

Adam did not merit eternal life because he did not, and, he did not because he could not.
I don't think we have any reason to say:
"For if the first Adam could not earn eternal life on the condition of meritorious obedience, then neither could the Last"
Unless we have some sort of strong evidence that proves that Adam "did not" even though he could.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top