R. C. Sproul on reward in the covenant of works

[Reformed Covenanter]

The names of the two covenants, one of works and one of grace, may be misleading. The names may give the idea that the original covenant lacks any element of grace. That God creates us and gives us the gift of life is already an act of grace. God was under no obligation to create anyone. Once created, we had no claim on God to enter into a covenant with us. God’s promise of life on the condition of obedience has its origin in his grace. Even in the covenant of works the reward promised for obedience is de pactio.

The reward is given, not because the works themselves, due to their intrinsic value, impose an obligation on God to reward them, but because God in his grace offered such a reward as part of an agreement. Theoretically God could have justly and righteously imposed an obligation on his creatures to obey his law without any promise of reward whatsoever. It is the creature’s intrinsic duty to obey his Creator, with or without the prospect of reward.

For the reference, see:

R. C. Sproul on reward in the covenant of works

The names of the two covenants, one of works and one of grace, may be misleading. The names may give the idea that the original covenant lacks any element of grace. That God creates us and gives us…

reformedcovenanter.wordpress.com

 

[Semper Fidelis]

The Confession speaks of God's condescension in both Covenants. This was seen as gracious by the Puritans even under the CoW. What distinguishes the two is not that God is gracious, but the provision of a Mediator in the second Covenant as Adam lost the natural ability to believe and obey God in the Fall. I think this quote from A Puritan theology is a good way of demonstrating a key difference lest both Covenants are seen as "gracious" without the proper distinctions between the two Covenants:

Adam’s Faith

Reformed divines spoke of Adam’s faith in the garden, but at the same time they were always careful to distinguish between Adam’s faith in the covenant of works and his faith in the covenant of grace.82 To be sure, there were similarities, but there were also important differences. According to John Ball, Adam’s faith in both covenants was theocentric. In both contexts his faith is evident from the love he had for God, “because if faith abounds, love abounds.”83 However, the foundation for faith in each respective context differs. The righteousness of nature presupposes a certain type of faith based on mutual love between the Creator and the creature. After the fall, however, faith leans upon the promise made in Christ because man, in himself, falls under the judgment of God. In the next place, faith in the covenant of works is natural, whereas in the covenant of grace it is supernatural.84 Finally, Ball notes that faith in the covenant of works was mutable, and thus, so was Adam’s holiness, but faith in the covenant of grace “is eternal and unchangeable, because it comes from an eternal and unchangeable beginning, the Spirit of Grace.”85 Burgess considers not only whether Adam had faith, but also whether repentance belongs to his being made in the image of God. Adam had a power to believe, “so far as it did not imply an imperfection in the subject.”86 After the fall, Adam needed a greater power to believe in Christ, which some divines called “supernatural” faith as opposed to “natural” faith.87 Concerning repentance, Burgess reasons that it cannot belong to the image of God because “it denoteth an imperfection in the subject … yet as it floweth from a regenerated nature, so far it is reductively the image of God.”88

In addition, Thomas Goodwin notes that some divines regard Adam’s faith in the garden as supernatural, yet he opts for the position that Adam’s faith was only natural. That Adam could converse with God by faith was his natural due. Thus, because he was holy and pure, Adam believed God’s word; he naturally assented to its veracity, and his sanctified reason enabled him to apprehend the words of God, which (again) was his natural due.89

Goodwin then distinguishes between Adam’s natural faith and the supernatural faith required of those in the covenant of grace. In the first place, since Adam’s covenant was natural (foedus naturae), because his justification, reward, and the image of God in him were all natural, according to the terms of the covenant, “it were strange if the principle of faith in him … should be supernatural.”90 Goodwin’s understanding of Adam’s reward influences his next point, that a supernatural faith would have been superfluous for Adam. Adam was not given the promise of heaven or the vision of God there, and so a supernatural faith was unnecessary. Supernatural faith prepares God’s elect for heaven, but Adam had no such “preparation” since the promised reward was only continued life in the garden.91 Consequently, a supernatural faith would have made Adam miserable, for he would have desired to be in heaven with God without possessing the promise of heaven.92 Goodwin’s distinction between natural faith and supernatural faith and his premise that heaven belongs only to those with supernatural faith raise the question of what Adam’s reward would have been based upon his continued obedience in the garden. On this particular question Reformed divines held varying views.

---

82 See Sedgwick, The Bowels of Tender Mercy, 10–11.
83 Ball, The Covenant of Grace, 12.
84 Ball, The Covenant of Grace, 12–13.
85 Ball, The Covenant of Grace, 12–13.
86 Burgess, Vindiciae Legis, 118.
87 See Goodwin, Of the Creatures, in Works, 7:54–60.
88 Burgess, Vindiciae Legis, 118.
89 Goodwin, Of the Creatures, in Works, 7:54–55.
90 Goodwin, Of the Creatures, in Works, 7:56.
91 Goodwin, Of the Creatures, in Works, 7:56.
92 Goodwin, Of the Creatures, in Works, 7:57–58.

 

[cthorn14]

In the same light as the post above:

From C.P. Venema, "Recent Criticisms of the 'covenant of works' in the Westminster Confession of Faith", in Mid-America Journal of Theology, Vol 9., 1993. Available: https://www.grebeweb.com/linden/Venema_Criticisms_of_Cov_of_Works.htm

The language of the WCF, accordingly, keeps clearly before us the fact that no communion with God is possible for man, certainly no communion in which man might enjoy the fullness of life, short of one in which he offers to his Creator a glad-hearted service or obedience. Furthermore, this language clearly distinguishes the first covenant from the covenant of grace on precisely that matter which is most decisive. Though the first covenant was indeed an undeserved bestowal of divine favor, it was a favor shown to a sinless creature who had not yet forfeited through sin any further claim upon God's goodness. There is a real difference between undeserved favor shown a sinless, obedient creature, and the undeserved grace granted the disobedient covenant breaker. The language of the WCF helps to keep the difference between man's status before and after the fall clearly in perspective. God's dealings with man before the fall were not gracious in the strict sense, at least not in the sense in which they were after the fall. In the covenant of grace, the demand and obligation of obedience remains, but God graciously gives a Mediator through whom that demand and obligation are met. What was promised man in the first covenant, on condition of "perfect and personal obedience," to use the language of the WCF, is given to the believer in the covenant of grace through the work of obedience of the second Adam. Only through the free gift of that righteousness which belongs to Christ, the second Adam, does the believer who receives this gift by faith become acceptable to God and again find himself received into his favor as a child (Rom. 5:18-21).

This real difference between the first and second covenants is maintained by and reflected in the WCF's distinction between a covenant of works and a covenant of grace. Though this language may not be complete or altogether satisfactory, it does well preserve the difference between a communion which, to be maintained and unfolded, requires free and heartfelt obedience, and a communion which, to be restored and regained, requires the gracious and merciful granting of eternal life through the work of a Savior. It echoes the Scriptural truth that the life promised man in the first covenant is only restored to man and ultimately realized in eschatological glory in the covenant of grace.