Mono VS Bi-Covenantal view

[Dr. Bob Gonzales]

Guys,

Sorry I've got to run off to a week long theological module in Wyoming. If I can find internet access and the time, I'll try to jump back on to the PB. Otherwise, have a good week and I should be back in another week or so.

Your servant,

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Thanks, Ruben. The thread was short. I should say, in order to avoid any misunderstanding, that I don't agree with a number of the conclusions of Ralph Smith, James Jordan, and company. Nevertheless, I do agree that man's identity as the imago Dei places him immediately in covenantal relationship with his holy Suzerain. So I agree with Vos, Kline, Karlberg, Irons, and Fesko (who all oppose the anti-covenant of works scheme proposed by the FV men) that Adam's creation was intrinsically covenantal and that the primordial covenant, which was inaugurated concurrent with Adam's creation (Gen. 1:26-28) was not a superadditum but an intrinsic part of the creation that God make in six-days.

(Emphasis added)

That is the part I am uncomfortable with. Without the covenant, Adam would have had to say, in the event of perfect obedience, "I am an unprofitable servant: I have done that which it was my duty to do." But to make the covenant concurrent with creation, has the effect of God creating man to be His creditor, as though God owed us something because He made is in His image. The fact is, we owe Him more than the beasts inasmuch as we have been created in His image. That reversal of Creator-creature roles in this one regard seems to me very problematic: and Westminster's beautiful formula of voluntary condescension preserves that very well.

Thanks for drawing this out. I admit that I have not fully studied some of the nuanced ways in which others approach this issue.

I have to admit that I may have been a bit sloppy in reading this point earlier and need to stop and muse on this a bit more as, again, I was focused on the OP and was very busy at the time when I saw this initially.

I've seen your response already, Bob, and will wait for you to return but I'm not sure I see where we must assume that the CoW is implicit in creation itself. I think, as I've re-read what you wrote, you're stating that, because God created man in His image as an analogue, He would be acting contrary to His nature to reward His image with eternal life if His image-bearer was obedient to Him.

I think you see me disagreeing with over whether or not Adam could have obeyed (I do not disagree) or whether God would have rewarded Him for obeying out of Covenantal condescension (I do not). In other words, I agree that Adam would have been rewarded if he had continued in obedience and his reward would be based on God promising to reward him by Covenant.

Where I believe the disconnect is occurring here (and please weigh in Ruben if I'm not precise), is that we are stating that God's creative activity is distinct (not separate) from the CoW, which He announced to Adam. Thus, the dispute is over the fact that the CoW is implicit in the image of man and God's creative activity where we would state that the CoW is explicit in the Word of God as He announced that promise to Adam.

Thoughts?

 

[MOSES]

Concerning Adam's ability to merit eternal, everlasting, heavenly, life:


If Adam could have merited eternal life, then he would have. Surely, Adam, of all men would have. Created in the image of God, the crown of creation, sinless, perfect, ruler of the earth, set in the perfect sinless enviroment, etc. etc.
If any MAN could, then it would have been him. I'll be so bold as to say that even Jesus, as a MAN (only), could not of done it any better then Adam...But. As we all know, Adam did not. He did not because he could not.
But Christ did, because he could. What's the difference?
Christ was not the crown of creation, like Adam...Christ is the creator. Christ was not made in the image of diety, he is diety. The "could" ability of Christ, in meriting eternal life, is not found in his human nature, if so, then again Adam would have...it is found in his nature as the Son of God, very God of very God (which Adam clearly lacked).
Adam did not merit eternal life because he could not...Christ Jesus did because he could.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Concerning Adam's ability to merit eternal, everlasting, heavenly, life:


If Adam could have merited eternal life, then he would have. Surely, Adam, of all men would have. Created in the image of God, the crown of creation, sinless, perfect, ruler of the earth, set in the perfect sinless enviroment, etc. etc.
If any MAN could, then it would have been him. I'll be so bold as to say that even Jesus, as a MAN (only), could not of done it any better then Adam...But. As we all know, Adam did not. He did not because he could not.
But Christ did, because he could. What's the difference?
Christ was not the crown of creation, like Adam...Christ is the creator. Christ was not made in the image of diety, he is diety. The "could" ability of Christ, in meriting eternal life, is not found in his human nature, if so, then again Adam would have...it is found in his nature as the Son of God, very God of very God (which Adam clearly lacked).
Adam did not merit eternal life because he could not...Christ Jesus did because he could.

Wrong.

It is apparently obvious to the casual observer that you are not asking in this thread but proposing. Adam could obey.

II. After God had made all other creatures, he created man, male and female, with reasonable and immortal souls, endued with knowledge, righteousness, and true holiness after his own image, having the law of God written in their hearts, and power to fulfill it; and yet under a possibility of transgressing, being left to the liberty of their own will, which was subject unto change. Besides this law written in their hearts, they received a command not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil; which while they kept were happy in their communion with God, and had dominion over the creatures.

The issue on why Adam would have been rewarded for obedience is not on the capacity of Adam to obey. All orthodox agree on this point.

There is a dispute here as to why Adam would have been rewarded if he had obeyed but what is unacceptable is the position that Adam could not not sin (and no this isn't a typo).

Sin is not inherent in the human nature but is the result of the Fall. This is Orthodoxy 101.

 

[MOSES]

Concerning Adam's ability to merit eternal, everlasting, heavenly, life:


If Adam could have merited eternal life, then he would have. Surely, Adam, of all men would have. Created in the image of God, the crown of creation, sinless, perfect, ruler of the earth, set in the perfect sinless enviroment, etc. etc.
If any MAN could, then it would have been him. I'll be so bold as to say that even Jesus, as a MAN (only), could not of done it any better then Adam...But. As we all know, Adam did not. He did not because he could not.
But Christ did, because he could. What's the difference?
Christ was not the crown of creation, like Adam...Christ is the creator. Christ was not made in the image of diety, he is diety. The "could" ability of Christ, in meriting eternal life, is not found in his human nature, if so, then again Adam would have...it is found in his nature as the Son of God, very God of very God (which Adam clearly lacked).
Adam did not merit eternal life because he could not...Christ Jesus did because he could.

Wrong.

It is apparently obvious to the casual observer that you are not asking in this thread but proposing. Adam could obey.

II. After God had made all other creatures, he created man, male and female, with reasonable and immortal souls, endued with knowledge, righteousness, and true holiness after his own image, having the law of God written in their hearts, and power to fulfill it; and yet under a possibility of transgressing, being left to the liberty of their own will, which was subject unto change. Besides this law written in their hearts, they received a command not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil; which while they kept were happy in their communion with God, and had dominion over the creatures.

The issue on why Adam would have been rewarded for obedience is not on the capacity of Adam to obey. All orthodox agree on this point.

There is a dispute here as to why Adam would have been rewarded if he had obeyed but what is unacceptable is the position that Adam could not not sin (and no this isn't a typo).

Sin is not inherent in the human nature but is the result of the Fall. This is Orthodoxy 101.

Your absolutely right...Adam could obey!!!
It is absolutely wrong to have the idea that "Adam could not not sin"

I mentioned this in my last post (which you must not have read)

I'm relating the "could not" to the meriting of eternal life...I am NOT relating the could not to a "could not, not sin"

I'm saying, as are others here, I believe...that Adam could not merit everlasting, eternal, heavenly, spiritual life.

SIN is not the issue...Of course we all agree that he would have continued in life had he not sinned,,,and that he was not in a position where he "could not NOT sin"
It is the eternal life that Christ obtained that is the question to wether or not Adam could have obtained it.
Adam was of the earth,,,earthly
Christ was the man from heaven...heavenly.

The earthly man could not merit the heavenly (eternal life).

 

[Semper Fidelis]

It's the construction of your argument that is problematic, Shawn.

By stating that Adam could not merit eternal life ignores the fact that God made a Covenant with Him. Either you are denying his ability (which you say you are not) or you deny that God promised him life:

II. 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.

 

[MOSES]

It's the construction of your argument that is problematic, Shawn.

By stating that Adam could not merit eternal life ignores the fact that God made a Covenant with Him. Either you are denying his ability (which you say you are not) or you deny that God promised him life:

II. 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.

These are some of the things I brought up when starting this thread...

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.

By stating that Adam could not merit eternal life ignores the fact that God made a Covenant with Him.

It does not, in my opinion...it simply makes us define the terms of the covenant more closely. (e.g, asking the question, what is the type, defintion, or kind of LIFE that was promised...Was it the same eternal, spritual, heavenly life that Christ gives...or was it an earthly blessed life in fellowship with God, or...et. etc.)

Back to the WCF quote...what is meant by "life"?

 

[Semper Fidelis]

It's the construction of your argument that is problematic, Shawn.

By stating that Adam could not merit eternal life ignores the fact that God made a Covenant with Him. Either you are denying his ability (which you say you are not) or you deny that God promised him life:

II. 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.

These are some of the things I brought up when starting this thread...

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.

By stating that Adam could not merit eternal life ignores the fact that God made a Covenant with Him.

It does not, in my opinion...it simply makes us define the terms of the covenant more closely. (e.g, asking the question, what is the type, defintion, or kind of LIFE that was promised...Was it the same eternal, spritual, heavenly life that Christ gives...or was it an earthly blessed life in fellowship with God, or...et. etc.)

Back to the WCF quote...what is meant by "life"?

Not death. Full stop.

Nobody claims that the WCF states that Adam's obedience merited eternal life in itself. What is the basis? A PROMISE. Thus, on the basis of a PROMISE, Adam could have received eternal life.

 

[MOSES]

The nature of Grace

This is what I'm pondering thus far from reading the posts here:

"where sin abounds, grace much more abounds"

Adam was promised life, upon condition of obedience...the nature of this life was earthly, though without sin and death.
Adam sinned, and died (loosing this blessed life of promise and fellowship with God)
Now the nature of God's grace is such, that instead of simply restoring the sinner back to his original pre-fall condition (and the prelapsarian promise of life)...God gives him eternal, heavenly, spiritual life, that "much more abounds" in comparison to the original promise of life. (this is also due to the nature of the second Adam...who was from heaven)
in my opinion, God's grace super-abounds in this view. This is the way I personally see the God of the bible. This shows the nature of God's Grace.


just my

 

[Semper Fidelis]

The nature of Grace

This is what I'm pondering thus far from reading the posts here:

"where sin abounds, grace much more abounds"

Adam was promised life, upon condition of obedience...the nature of this life was earthly, though without sin and death.
Adam sinned, and died (loosing this blessed life of promise and fellowship with God)
Now the nature of God's grace is such, that instead of simply restoring the sinner back to his original pre-fall condition (and the prelapsarian promise of life)...God gives him eternal, heavenly, spiritual life, that "much more abounds" in comparison to the original promise of life. (this is also due to the nature of the second Adam...who was from heaven)
in my opinion, God's grace super-abounds in this view. This is the way I personally see the God of the bible. This shows the nature of God's Grace.


just my

The problem with your is that you're not content to stick to the Confessional view and you're improvising. This latest improvisation reads into Romans 5 something that is not actually stated. In one sense it may appear that I made the same point with respect to the excellency of Christ compared with Adam but, in another sense, you're completely missing the point about what God promised.

You keep making Adam's reward contingent upon his nature instead of God's promise. You're completly ignoring what the Confession states, refusing to hear what others repeately have told you, and, instead, want to insist that Adam could not inherit eternal life because of your improvisation contra what the Confessions teach that God would have granted Him life on the basis of Promise. You actually mimick a Roman Catholic view that sees a metaphysical defect in Adam's constitution and you make salvation itself an ontic issue.

God promised Adam life on obedience. Your answer to God? "No, God, you can't give him life because his nature doesn't merit the life you would give him."

 

[py3ak]

Dr. Gonzalez, I think I do appreciate the precise nature of your position. But I wonder if you can offer any evidence that the imago Dei is an intrinsically covenantal concept? If it is not, I don't see on what basis your position would be supported. While I am glad that we both love the language of voluntary condescension, I think the older formulation of the covenant of works as something added to the creation of man does a better job of maintaining the reality of Romans 11:35, even in the consciousness of the first man himself. And without that (if I may use the term without being misunderstood) extraneous character of the covenant of works, Christ's words in Luke 17:10 are robbed of a great deal of their force.

 

[MOSES]

God promised Adam life on obedience. Your answer to God? "No, God, you can't give him life because his nature doesn't merit the life you would give him."

Quite the contary, in view of the promise (the covenantal "reward") coming only by Christ. In fact, adam (man) did/does recieve the promise of eternal, heavenly, life, despite our nature.

I'm not saying that God could not give him eternal, heavenly life...I'm just limiting it to the actual fact that God did this, fulfilled that promise, ONLY by Christ, and the distinct nature of Christ.
This is the reallity...this is a concrete and historical fact. Where as the "covenant of works" being a promise of eteranal life (which the confession does not say) to Adam by Adam, and not a promise of non-retribution to Adam by Adam...is a presumption.
We can presume that Adam, if he had not sinned would have recieved the same eternal life that Christ gives...But it is only a presumption based on something that never happened.
The reality is that this eternal, spritual, heavenly life came ONLY by Christ. This is a historical, biblical, fact...So presuming that Adam in and of himself (apart from Christ) could have recieved this, is nothing more then presumption.

And, per your accusations of departing from the wcf, I'm still waiting to read where the confession teaches that Adam could have merited the same eternal life, of the same nature, (a heavenly one) that Christ did.
The wcf does not even say "eternal" life.

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

 

[MOSES]

Opinions please.

Is it a grevious error to assume that the life that Adam could have merited under the C.works is of a lessor nature then the life that Christ actually did merit?

or, also.
The nature of the eternal life that Christ merited was promised by God to Adam, but, that promise was not to Adam by Adam...but only to Adam by Christ (That ithis type of life could only have been merited by Christ)

Please note.

This is a learning experience for me.
I am not promoting any view or doctrine...(and in some cases I may just be playing "devils advocate")

You actually mimick a Roman Catholic view that sees a metaphysical defect in Adam's constitution and you make salvation itself an ontic issue.

...hmm. I've never been accused of that before.

Rich, could you expound on this.
Thanks

Even the WCF, in my opinion, makes a distinction between "life" and "eternal life".

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.

the word "life' is used in section 2
the words "eternal life" are used in section 3

Why was not "eternal life" used in section 2?

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.

The question is not whether he could obey God's command; it is acknowledged by all that he was able not to sin. The question is whether his obedience merited the reward of eternal life. The Larger Catechism states it was requisite that Christ should be God that He might give "worth" to His obedience. If Adam, a living soul, could have given "worth" to his obedience then it was not requisite that our Mediator should be God, a quickening spirit. .

Matthew,
Could you expound on this just a little bit?

Thanks so much

 

[MW]

Could you expound on this just a little bit?

How one understands the relationship of type to antitype is fundamental. The type is an earthly representation of an heavenly reality. By definition, the type functions within the realm of nature so as to reflect grace. The type, therefore, expresses an ideal characteristic of the antitype without itself meeting that ideal. As such, not only its qualities, but also its defects, serve to teach something about the ideal being represented.

Adam was a figure of Christ to come. He functioned solely within the realm of nature as a representation of the heavenly dominion and grace which is in the second Adam. To speak of Adam as himself inheriting eternal life is to destroy the figurative relationship between type and Antitype. Adam never could have inherited eternal life except as an hypothetical possibility because he was of the earth and earthy. His failure points to the fact that a man from heaven was needed to usher in the eschatological blessing of eternal life.

Adam was predestined to enjoy eternal life through Jesus Christ. A truly reformed conception of the administration with Adam requires us to perceive it as a temporary economy which looked forward to one greater than Adam in order to bring man into the life and blessedness which was promised in the first covenant. Jesus is Mediator of a better covenant!

 

[CarlosOliveira]

Thanks a lot for this concise and very helpful explanation, Matthew.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Could you expound on this just a little bit?

How one understands the relationship of type to antitype is fundamental. The type is an earthly representation of an heavenly reality. By definition, the type functions within the realm of nature so as to reflect grace. The type, therefore, expresses an ideal characterisitic of the antitype without itself meeting that ideal. As such, not only its qualities, but also its defects, serve to teach something about the ideal being represented.

Adam was a figure of Christ to come. He functioned solely within the realm of nature as a representation of the heavenly dominion and grace which is in the second Adam. To speak of Adam as himself inheriting eternal life is to destroy the figurative relationship between type and Antitype. Adam never could have inherited eternal life except as an hypothetical possibility because he was of the earth and earthy. His failure points to the fact that a man from heaven was needed to usher in the eschatological blessing of eternal life.

Adam was predestined to enjoy eternal life through Jesus Christ. A truly reformed conception of the administration with Adam requires us to perceive it as a temporary economy which looked forward to one greater than Adam in order to bring man into the life and blessedness which was promised in the first covenant. Jesus is Mediator of a better covenant!

OK, I understand what you're saying here and appreciate the distinction.

When God promised Adam life on the basis of obedience, what was the substance of the promise based upon? In other words, I've been noting that Adam could not merit life on the basis of obedience (as he was a creature) but was promised it. What is the nature of this promise? Purely hypothetical? I don't know if I'm expressing it well.

I do understand what you're saying. It might even be pointless to ask the question as God's elective decree doesn't really permit hypothetical decrees so maybe I should just quit there but I'm trying to wrap my mind around this.

 

[MW]

When God promised Adam life on the basis of obedience, what was the substance of the promise based upon? In other words, I've been noting that Adam could not merit life on the basis of obedience (as he was a creature) but was promised it. What is the nature of this promise? Purely hypothetical? I don't know if I'm expressing it well.

"Merit" is not possible for a creature who is indebted to his Creator for life and breath and all things. Obedience is what is owed to God. The covenant promise did not set before man a work of supererogation whereby he could deserve something at the hands of his Maker.

There are two levels here -- type and antitype. On the level of type there was real condition imposed on Adam; but the condition itself was earthy. Everything about Eden was earthy. That is the apostle's point in 1 Cor. 15. The life promised to Adam was "earthy" and the death incurred was a dissolution of natural life. But then there is the second level, that of the Antitype. This shows that the earthly life pointed to an heavenly life, and the that physical death was but the outward manifestation of an everlasting psychical destruction. It also shows help being laid upon one fitted to bring creation into eschatological rest -- the Lord from heaven. On this level, where the type points to the antitype, both the life and the condition of entering into it were purely hypothetical to Adam.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

When God promised Adam life on the basis of obedience, what was the substance of the promise based upon? In other words, I've been noting that Adam could not merit life on the basis of obedience (as he was a creature) but was promised it. What is the nature of this promise? Purely hypothetical? I don't know if I'm expressing it well.

"Merit" is not possible for a creature who is indebted to his Creator for life and breath and all things. Obedience is what is owed to God. The covenant promise did not set before man a work of supererogation whereby he could deserve something at the hands of his Maker.

I understand this and have stated the same. I agree. The Confession states that God promised Adam life so the basis of Adam receiving life would have been the promise of God and not Adam's merit.

There are two levels here -- type and antitype. On the level of type there was real condition imposed on Adam; but the condition itself was earthy. Everything about Eden was earthy. That is the apostle's point in 1 Cor. 15. The life promised to Adam was "earthy" and the death incurred was a dissolution of natural life. But then there is the second level, that of the Antitype. This shows that the earthly life pointed to an heavenly life, and the that physical death was but the outward manifestation of an everlasting psychical destruction. It also shows help being laid upon one fitted to bring creation into eschatological rest -- the Lord from heaven. On this level, where the type points to the antitype, both the life and the condition of entering into it were purely hypothetical to Adam.

OK. Got it and it's a good reminder. Adam was promised earthy life for he and his descendants and, hypothetically that would have been earthy life without end but not the inheritance we receive through Christ.

I intuitively understood that the CoW didn't promise the same thing but I appreciate you giving me the words to understand the difference better.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Shawn,

I may have been too hasty in reading into some of the things you were saying. Continue the conversation. I retract the statement about your view sounding Roman Catholic. I read what you wrote earlier in haste.

 

[greenbaggins]

This kind of discussion often falters because of a failure to distinguish the various kinds of merit. Everyone agrees (and even Meredith Kline, I think) that the works of Adam would not have merited because of their intrinsic worth. This is so-called condign merit. An example of condign merit is buying something. The act of giving a certain amount of money for something (however much that something is worth) intrinsically merits possession of said item. Christ's work on the cross is almost universally called condign merit in all the Protestant systems.

There is another kind of merit, called congruent, which we can basically paraphrase as "grace-assisted" merit. This is what would happen if someone didn't have enough money for the item, but the store owner decided to give the person a deal and take the amount of money (which is not enough to cover the cost of the item) for the item anyway. In theology, this would be what Christians get to heaven by in works paradigms. Christians cannot intrinsically merit heaven, but they can, by God's helping grace, do enough works so that God will say it is enough, and forgive the rest. This is congruent merit. Protestants deny this kind of merit all through the loci.

There is a third kind of merit, which is what I believe Adam would have had had he obeyed. The basis for Adam's receiving the promised eternal life was his own works. But this was by agreement. Hence, the third kind of merit, which is called pactum merit, merit according to pact, merit according to agreement. To go back to the example of buying something, supposing a father told his son that if the son got a 1600 on his SAT score (the old SAT, now!), then the father would buy the son a car. If the son were to take his 1600 SAT score to the store in order to purchase the car, the dealer would laugh at him. A 1600 SAT score is not the right medium of exchange to give for a car. However, the father agreed that if the son got such a score, the car would result and be in the son's possession. Going back to Adam, we find that his obedience was owed to God. This means that Adam's works could not have merited heaven intrinsically. They were owed anyway. That rules out condign merit. And certainly congruent merit is wrong to describe Adam's works, since perfection was required by the agreement. There was no grading on a curve in the garden. That leaves merit according to pact. God bound Himself to give Adam eternal life (as in the glorified state) on condition of personal and perfect obedience. The basis for the giving of eternal life to Adam was Adam's non-condign-meriting works. Therefore, I conclude that Adam would have merited eternal life by the agreement, and not by virtue of some imagined quality of the works themselves. It should be noted that Turretin defines this kind of merit as an improper kind of merit, not merit strictly so-called, but merit improperly so-called.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

This kind of discussion often falters because of a failure to distinguish the various kinds of merit. Everyone agrees (and even Meredith Kline, I think) that the works of Adam would not have merited because of their intrinsic worth. This is so-called condign merit. An example of condign merit is buying something. The act of giving a certain amount of money for something (however much that something is worth) intrinsically merits possession of said item. Christ's work on the cross is almost universally called condign merit in all the Protestant systems.

There is another kind of merit, called congruent, which we can basically paraphrase as "grace-assisted" merit. This is what would happen if someone didn't have enough money for the item, but the store owner decided to give the person a deal and take the amount of money (which is not enough to cover the cost of the item) for the item anyway. In theology, this would be what Christians get to heaven by in works paradigms. Christians cannot intrinsically merit heaven, but they can, by God's helping grace, do enough works so that God will say it is enough, and forgive the rest. This is congruent merit. Protestants deny this kind of merit all through the loci.

There is a third kind of merit, which is what I believe Adam would have had had he obeyed. The basis for Adam's receiving the promised eternal life was his own works. But this was by agreement. Hence, the third kind of merit, which is called pactum merit, merit according to pact, merit according to agreement. To go back to the example of buying something, supposing a father told his son that if the son got a 1600 on his SAT score (the old SAT, now!), then the father would buy the son a car. If the son were to take his 1600 SAT score to the store in order to purchase the car, the dealer would laugh at him. A 1600 SAT score is not the right medium of exchange to give for a car. However, the father agreed that if the son got such a score, the car would result and be in the son's possession. Going back to Adam, we find that his obedience was owed to God. This means that Adam's works could not have merited heaven intrinsically. They were owed anyway. That rules out condign merit. And certainly congruent merit is wrong to describe Adam's works, since perfection was required by the agreement. There was no grading on a curve in the garden. That leaves merit according to pact. God bound Himself to give Adam eternal life (as in the glorified state) on condition of personal and perfect obedience. The basis for the giving of eternal life to Adam was Adam's non-condign-meriting works. Therefore, I conclude that Adam would have merited eternal life by the agreement, and not by virtue of some imagined quality of the works themselves. It should be noted that Turretin defines this kind of merit as an improper kind of merit, not merit strictly so-called, but merit improperly so-called.

This is sort of what I was driving at above and trying to determine in an interaction with Matthew.

Do you believe the life that Adam was promised in the CoW was the same kind or quality of eternal life that Christ merits for the elect?

That is to say that the Confession (and Scriptures) make clear that Adam was promised life upon obedience. I don't think it's very meaningful for some to note that it doesn't say eternal life because death is a result of sin and Adam (and his posterity) would have never died. Would it simply have been an earthly paradise existence where there is no death and no sorrow but not necessarily the type/quality of eternal life in Christ?

I'm not sure what the OP is still driving at here in terms of mono- vs bi- covenantalism at this point because it's clear that the end of man would have been much different had the CoW succeeded. Granted, this is a hypothetical but there are clearly still two covenants and not one.

Unless, of course, we don't treat the hypothetical fulfillment of the CoW as anything that can be considered real because the decree of God doesn't permit hypothetical decrees but only the decree.

 

[greenbaggins]

Yes, the kind of life Adam was promised is the kind of life Christ merited condignly for the elect, namely, the glorified state. I believe this is proven by a careful reading of 1 Corinthians 15.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Yes, the kind of life Adam was promised is the kind of life Christ merited condignly for the elect, namely, the glorified state. I believe this is proven by a careful reading of 1 Corinthians 15.

Interesting...

Do you think the WCF supports that? In other words, the language is sort of terse in stating that Adam was promised life upon obedience.

Do you believe the differences (that it doesn't say eternal life) are merely omissions without a difference?

I have a hard time seeing how Adam would have inherited what we would have but also have a hard time seeing how his reward could just be "fleshly".

Do you think Christ's resurrected body is simply a restoration of the type of body Adam enjoyed prior to the Fall or would Adam have received a glorified body?

Also, the nature of our glorified state is heirs through the Son. Is that what Adam would have had?

There are so many hypotheticals that this line of inquiry seems perilous but I'm just having difficulty equating the two types of eternal life as being precisely the same.

 

[greenbaggins]

Yes, the kind of life Adam was promised is the kind of life Christ merited condignly for the elect, namely, the glorified state. I believe this is proven by a careful reading of 1 Corinthians 15.

Interesting...

Do you think the WCF supports that? In other words, the language is sort of terse in stating that Adam was promised life upon obedience.

Do you believe the differences (that it doesn't say eternal life) are merely omissions without a difference?

I have a hard time seeing how Adam would have inherited what we would have but also have a hard time seeing how his reward could just be "fleshly".

Do you think Christ's resurrected body is simply a restoration of the type of body Adam enjoyed prior to the Fall or would Adam have received a glorified body?

Also, the nature of our glorified state is heirs through the Son. Is that what Adam would have had?

There are so many hypotheticals that this line of inquiry seems perilous but I'm just having difficulty equating the two types of eternal life as being precisely the same.

WCF 7.3 says that Jesus freely offers unto sinners life. In the context of section 2, that has to be the same life. In order for us to acquire it, we now have to be saved. But the life that Jesus now offers is the life that He Himself possesses. Therefore, the life that Jesus offers is the same life that Adam would have acquired. Adam did not have the glorified state prior to the Fall. If he were glorified, he would not have fallen, since part of the glorified state is the inability to sin or even be tempted (Augustine's non posse peccare)

 

[MOSES]

There is a third kind of merit, which is what I believe Adam would have had had he obeyed. The basis for Adam's receiving the promised eternal life was his own works. But this was by agreement. Hence, the third kind of merit, which is called pactum merit, merit according to pact, merit according to agreement. To go back to the example of buying something, supposing a father told his son that if the son got a 1600 on his SAT score (the old SAT, now!), then the father would buy the son a car. If the son were to take his 1600 SAT score to the store in order to purchase the car, the dealer would laugh at him. A 1600 SAT score is not the right medium of exchange to give for a car. However, the father agreed that if the son got such a score, the car would result and be in the son's possession. Going back to Adam, we find that his obedience was owed to God. This means that Adam's works could not have merited heaven intrinsically. They were owed anyway. That rules out condign merit. And certainly congruent merit is wrong to describe Adam's works, since perfection was required by the agreement. There was no grading on a curve in the garden. That leaves merit according to pact. God bound Himself to give Adam eternal life (as in the glorified state) on condition of personal and perfect obedience. The basis for the giving of eternal life to Adam was Adam's non-condign-meriting works. Therefore, I conclude that Adam would have merited eternal life by the agreement, and not by virtue of some imagined quality of the works themselves. It should be noted that Turretin defines this kind of merit as an improper kind of merit, not merit strictly so-called, but merit improperly so-called.

This makes good sense. I agree that anything that Adam would have gained, in regards to merit, would have been by Pactum Merit.

With the example of the father agreeing to give the kid a car if he scored 1600 on the sat...I would have one question, which is probably the same question the kid would have asked his dad:
"What kind of car?"

So, with Adam, the promise was "life". What kind of life? If it is the same eternal life that Christ gives, then another question comes up: "when would Adam have recieved this life?"

In a way I suppose it is glaringly obvious what kind of life, just from the mere fact that God does give eternal, heavenly life, to man (i.e., the elect). That must be what God promised Adam, if that is in fact what God does give, right?

But, I can only get my head around this in view of Christ. It seems to me that that promise was the promise of Christ, and not seperate from Christ. That "pactum merit" was not promised to Adam by Adam...but was promised to Adam by Christ (i.e., the promise was made to Adam, but...the merit was to be done by the second Adam)

Does this make any sense? Does this lead into a mono covenantal view?


Back to the example of the kid getting a car from Dad if he scores 1600 on the SAT:
Well, what if the kid does not score 1600...acording to this agreement, then the kid will NOT get the car...period. It would be a breaking of the "pact" if the Dad still gives the kid a car.
OK...what about Adam. Adam is like the kid who did not score 1600 on the sat. But, he gets the car anyhow. Why, because he still, even though he failed, get's eternal life.

That does not make sense to me. God, in this way, seems to be breaking the "pact"...(giving the kid the car anyhow)
The only way it makes sense to me is that the agreement, had room in it, or had the terms in it in such a way that Christ is in view. That the promise and the conditions are not seperate from Christ, but that Christ is very much in the foreground (not the background).
Again, would looking at it this way be mono-covenantal?

Thanks for the interaction everyone.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Yes, the kind of life Adam was promised is the kind of life Christ merited condignly for the elect, namely, the glorified state. I believe this is proven by a careful reading of 1 Corinthians 15.

Interesting...

Do you think the WCF supports that? In other words, the language is sort of terse in stating that Adam was promised life upon obedience.

Do you believe the differences (that it doesn't say eternal life) are merely omissions without a difference?

I have a hard time seeing how Adam would have inherited what we would have but also have a hard time seeing how his reward could just be "fleshly".

Do you think Christ's resurrected body is simply a restoration of the type of body Adam enjoyed prior to the Fall or would Adam have received a glorified body?

Also, the nature of our glorified state is heirs through the Son. Is that what Adam would have had?

There are so many hypotheticals that this line of inquiry seems perilous but I'm just having difficulty equating the two types of eternal life as being precisely the same.

WCF 7.3 says that Jesus freely offers unto sinners life. In the context of section 2, that has to be the same life. In order for us to acquire it, we now have to be saved. But the life that Jesus now offers is the life that He Himself possesses. Therefore, the life that Jesus offers is the same life that Adam would have acquired. Adam did not have the glorified state prior to the Fall. If he were glorified, he would not have fallen, since part of the glorified state is the inability to sin or even be tempted (Augustine's non posse peccare)

Thanks Lane. Things to think about as I've been diving into some Systematic Theology lately.

 

[greenbaggins]

Interesting questions, Shawn. I do think that if Jesus is in view in the CoW already with regard to the specific terms, then we have collapsed the two covenants into one. Of course, from the perspective of eternity, God always planned these events to happen. But from a position of hindsight it is difficult to avoid having Christ in the first covenant. However, what happens with Christ is a repair of the covenant of works with a new a federal head in Adam's place. But to us who are in Adam, it is of grace. The basis of the CoW was Adam's works, which was broken by Adam, not by God. God does not just "give the car to us anyway." He makes a new covenant whereby we have a Mediator to fix our problem. And yes, it is eternal life He gives us.

 

[MOSES]

I'm not sure what the OP is still driving at here in terms of mono- vs bi- covenantalism at this point

Hey Rich..
my last post may help you see how, in my thinking, this relates to mono vs bi-covenantalism.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I'm not sure what the OP is still driving at here in terms of mono- vs bi- covenantalism at this point

Hey Rich..
my last post may help you see how, in my thinking, this relates to mono vs bi-covenantalism.

Well, we've sort of gone in a couple of twists and turns. Matthew won't be back until Sunday evening at the earliest and I'd be curious how he's going to weigh in because his view seems to indicate that Adam would not have earned eternal life.

Assuming Adam and Christ would have earned the same type of eternal life, however, it's not as if God is breaking the first covenant by giving life to Adam anyway.

Adam broke the first Covenant and God did punish. He didn't simply grant an immediate reward. The gracious nature of God is that He had another Covenant to save Adam and His posterity from the immanent death they were to receive at His hand.

I've got a bunch of things to do today so I have to run.

 

[MOSES]

. I do think that if Jesus is in view in the CoW already with regard to the specific terms, then we have collapsed the two covenants into one.

Yes...I agree, and that is how all of this may relate to "Mono vs Bi-covenantalism"

I don't as of yet have an exact view on this stuff, I'm just contemplating the different aspects of all of this. Everyone's interaction has been greatly appreciated.