# Mono VS Bi-Covenantal view



## MOSES

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.


----------



## charliejunfan

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,


----------



## MOSES

MOSES said:


> 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.


----------



## MOSES

charliejunfan said:


> 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?


----------



## Jimmy the Greek

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


----------



## Leslie

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.


----------



## Jimmy the Greek

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


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

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.


----------



## greenbaggins

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.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

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.


----------



## MOSES

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?


----------



## MOSES

greenbaggins said:


> 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


----------



## MOSES

*"merit" vs "wages"*



greenbaggins said:


> "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.


----------



## greenbaggins

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.


----------



## MOSES

greenbaggins said:


> 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.



greenbaggins said:


> 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?


----------



## Contra_Mundum

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.


----------



## MW

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.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

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


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

*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.


----------



## greenbaggins

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.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

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,


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

MOSES said:


> 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.


----------



## MW

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.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Thanks, Matthew. What are their "two antithetical economies"?


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

armourbearer said:


> 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?


----------



## MOSES

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.


----------



## MW

Jerusalem Blade said:


> 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.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

MOSES said:


> 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.
Click to expand...


----------



## MW

Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> 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.


----------



## MOSES

Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> 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.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

MOSES said:


> Dr. Bob Gonzales said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


Shawn, 

As you've probably gathered from my earlier remarks, I don't follow the reasoning that makes a dichotomy between Adam's obligation to keep the moral law and Adam's obligation to fulfill the terms of the creation covenant, namely, to multiply, fill the earth, and subdue it. God created all things "very good" (Gen. 1:31), meaning that they were suited to the very purpose for which they were created. Hence, God's image was endowed with a conscience and all that was necessary to do his heavenly Suzerain's will. Adam's failure (sin) was not merely a breach of the moral law but a breach of the primordial covenant. I stick by my position. "Did not" does not necessitate "could not" unless you're talking about man in his fallen state. If you and I as Christians used that excuse every time we sinned, I don't think God would accept such a lame excuse. 

Cordially,


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

armourbearer said:


> Dr. Bob Gonzales said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


Matthew,

By arguing that Adam could have obeyed God's command but did not does not unduly exalt him. On the contrary, it makes his sin all the more heinous and hell-deserving. On the other hand, if God's original man was inherently defective and created in such a way so as to render his fall inevitable then we both _impugn the work of God_ (who apparently made a defective image of himself) and _lessen the gravity of the first human sin_ (after all, Adam couldn't help it!)


----------



## MOSES

Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> I stick by my position. "Did not" does not necessitate "could not" unless you're talking about man in his fallen state. If you and I as Christians used that excuse every time we sinned, I don't think God would accept such a lame excuse. .



Yea, that is a lame excuse.

But your example does not fit. Sin is not the issue. Adam could not use that excuse, in regards to his sin (we both agree). 
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"...which is what you seem to think I'm donig.


----------



## MW

Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> By arguing that Adam could have obeyed God's command but did not does not unduly exalt him. On the contrary, it makes his sin all the more heinous and hell-deserving. On the other hand, if God's original man was inherently defective and created in such a way so as to render his fall inevitable then we both _impugn the work of God_ (who apparently made a defective image of himself) and _lessen the gravity of the first human sin_ (after all, Adam couldn't help it!)



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.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

Sorry, guys, but I favor the infralapsarian scheme and side with Hodge, Kline, and Irons as more Scriptural. I'll repeat what I said above: 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.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

armourbearer said:


> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> Personally, I think the question is "both." The sacramental trees in the Garden pointed to the sanctions of the covenant (compare Deut. 30:19-20). Had Adam obeyed God's prohibition and refrained from eating from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, he would have gained true wisdom (which is what that tree symbolized) rather than the counterfeit wisdom (the wisdom of this world) gained through eating the fruit. Moreover, he would have been rewarded with the very reality symbolized by the Tree of Life. By creating man as his image, God created a covenantal being analogous to himself and consequently obligated himself to reward fealty with life (as royal grant) and disloyalty with death (as covenant curse). If an _imago Dei _obeys his Maker, that obedience has virtue because it is analogous to the divine Archetype.
Click to expand...


----------



## MW

Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> 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.



In WCF 7, the condescension by way of covenant is post-creation, an added element providing an eschatological goal for man.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

MOSES said:


> But your example does not fit. Sin is not the issue. Adam could not use that excuse, in regards to his sin (we both agree).
> 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"...which is what you seem to think I'm donig.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Failing to merit eternal life for himself and his posterity was part of Adam's sin and breach of covenant. The two are not separate.
Click to expand...


----------



## MW

Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> Personally, I think the question is "both." The sacramental trees in the Garden pointed to the sanctions of the covenant (compare Deut. 30:19-20). Had Adam obeyed God's prohibition and refrained from eating from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, he would have gained true wisdom (which is what that tree symbolized) rather than the counterfeit wisdom (the wisdom of this world) gained through eating the fruit. Moreover, he would have been rewarded with the very reality symbolized by the Tree of Life. By created man as his image, God created a covenantal being analogous to himself and consequently obligated himself to reward fealty with life (as royal grant) and disloyalty with death (as covenant curse). If an _imago Dei _obeys his Maker, that obedience has virtue because it is analogous to the divine Archetype.



Not a word of "merit" in this paragraph, showing that the idea of merit does not naturally follow from the condition of works.


----------



## Herald

Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Personally, I think the question is "both." The sacramental trees in the Garden pointed to the sanctions of the covenant (compare Deut. 30:19-20). Had Adam obeyed God's prohibition and refrained from eating from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, he would have gained true wisdom (which is what that tree symbolized) rather than the counterfeit wisdom (the wisdom of this world) gained through eating the fruit. Moreover, he would have been rewarded with the very reality symbolized by the Tree of Life. By created man as his image, God created a covenantal being analogous to himself and consequently obligated himself to reward fealty with life (as royal grant) and disloyalty with death (as covenant curse). If an _imago Dei _obeys his Maker, that obedience has virtue because it is analogous to the divine Archetype.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bob, I have pondered how long Adam would have had to live obediently in order for the CoW to be fulfilled. I suppose the answer to that question is known only to God. I like your explanation. Gives me something else to ponder.
Click to expand...


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

armourbearer said:


> In WCF 7, the condescension by way of covenant is post-creation, an added element providing an eschatological goal for man.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree. That's why I wrote above, "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*." This point has been argued by Meredith Kline, Mark Karlberg, Lee Irons, and more recently supported by J. V. Fesko.
Click to expand...


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

armourbearer said:


> Dr. Bob Gonzales said:
> 
> 
> 
> Personally, I think the question is "both." The sacramental trees in the Garden pointed to the sanctions of the covenant (compare Deut. 30:19-20). Had Adam obeyed God's prohibition and refrained from eating from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, he would have gained true wisdom (which is what that tree symbolized) rather than the counterfeit wisdom (the wisdom of this world) gained through eating the fruit. Moreover, he would have been rewarded with the very reality symbolized by the Tree of Life. By created man as his image, God created a covenantal being analogous to himself and consequently obligated himself to reward fealty with life (as royal grant) and disloyalty with death (as covenant curse). If an _imago Dei _obeys his Maker, that obedience has virtue because it is analogous to the divine Archetype.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not a word of "merit" in this paragraph, showing that the idea of merit does not naturally follow from the condition of works.
Click to expand...


Since Adam's disloyalty *merited* God's just wrath, we may conclude that Adam's loyalty *would have merited* God's just reward. Why else call it a covenant of works? The Covenant of Grace is built upon a Covenant of Justice.


----------



## MW

Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> I agree. That's why I wrote above, "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*." This point has been argued by Meredith Kline, Mark Karlberg, Lee Irons, and more recently supported by J. V. Fesko.



This reformulation turns reformed theology on its head. Man is certainly created with the capability of covenant obligation, i.e., the moral law is written on his heart; but to say that man is created in covenant with God makes the representative character of Adam something superadded to the covenant.


----------



## MW

Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> Since Adam's disloyalty *merited* God's just wrath, we may conclude that Adam's loyalty *would have merited* God's just reward. Why else call it a covenant of works? The Covenant of Grace is built upon a Covenant of Justice.



And do you argue according to these equally ultimate terms when it comes to election and reprobation? Sin demerits by nature, whereas obedience is due to God by virtue of creation.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

North Jersey Baptist said:


> Dr. Bob Gonzales said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Personally, I think the question is "both." The sacramental trees in the Garden pointed to the sanctions of the covenant (compare Deut. 30:19-20). Had Adam obeyed God's prohibition and refrained from eating from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, he would have gained true wisdom (which is what that tree symbolized) rather than the counterfeit wisdom (the wisdom of this world) gained through eating the fruit. Moreover, he would have been rewarded with the very reality symbolized by the Tree of Life. By created man as his image, God created a covenantal being analogous to himself and consequently obligated himself to reward fealty with life (as royal grant) and disloyalty with death (as covenant curse). If an _imago Dei _obeys his Maker, that obedience has virtue because it is analogous to the divine Archetype.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bob, I have pondered how long Adam would have had to live obediently in order for the CoW to be fulfilled. I suppose the answer to that question is known only to God. I like your explanation. Gives me something else to ponder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bill,
> 
> You've asked a good question. Theologians have debated the length of the "probationary" period. Theologians debate the precise nature of these terms, specifically, the question of the length and the permanence of the prohibition. Some argue that the prohibition would have continued for a significant length of time until man finally reached ethical maturity and gained wisdom, at which point he would be allowed to partake of the Tree of Knowledge. This view is argued by James Jordan, “Merit vs. Maturity,” _The Federal Vision_, 160-165. Jordan even speculates that eating from the Tree of Knowledge would eventuate death for man and open the way for the resurrection. On the other hand, Meredith Kline, _Kingdom Prologue_, 104, argues that the biblical doctrine of federal representation would have necessitated a relatively short and temporary restriction. I am presently inclined to agree with Kline, but I'm not dogmatic.
> 
> Your servant,
Click to expand...


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

armourbearer said:


> Dr. Bob Gonzales said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since Adam's disloyalty *merited* God's just wrath, we may conclude that Adam's loyalty *would have merited* God's just reward. Why else call it a covenant of works? The Covenant of Grace is built upon a Covenant of Justice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And do you argue according to these equally ultimate terms when it comes to election and reprobation? Sin demerits by nature, whereas obedience is due to God by virtue of creation.
Click to expand...


Are you asking me whether I base God's *pre-temporal* election and reprobation on human merit? If so, then no (Rom. 9:11ff.).


----------



## MW

Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> Are you asking me whether I base God's *pre-temporal* election and reprobation on human merit? If so, then no (Rom. 9:11ff.).



No, I am asking if you believe there is equal ultimacy in God's decree of election and reprobation? You have used sin and obedience to argue from the demerit of the one to the merit of the other, which presupposes they function on equal terms in God's purpose.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

armourbearer said:


> Dr. Bob Gonzales said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you asking me whether I base God's *pre-temporal* election and reprobation on human merit? If so, then no (Rom. 9:11ff.).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I am asking if you believe there is equal ultimacy in God's decree of election and reprobation?
Click to expand...


I'm not sure I can answer this question for two reasons: (1) I'm not exactly sure what you're asking by "equal ultimacy"? (2) I'm wondering whether your question is drawing me into an area the Bible has placed off-limits:
NKJ Deuteronomy 29:29 "The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but those things which are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law.​


----------



## py3ak

The question of whether Adam's creation was _intrinsically covenantal_ was discussed before on this brief thread.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

py3ak said:


> The question of whether Adam's creation was _intrinsically covenantal_ was discussed before on this brief thread.



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.


----------



## MW

Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> I'm not sure I can answer this question for two reasons: (1) I'm not exactly sure what you're asking by "equal ultimacy"? (2) I'm wondering whether your question is drawing me into an area the Bible has placed off-limits:
> NKJ Deuteronomy 29:29 "The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but those things which are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law.​



Equal ultimacy claims that election produces eternal life in the same way that reprobation produces eternal death. It is denied on the basis that the *wages* of sin is death whilst eternal life is the *gift* of God. In other words, sin and grace do not function as equal opposites: where sin abounded grace did much more abound. Hence the merit of obedience cannot be drawn from the demerit of sin.

This is not off limits because the Scripture specifically teaches how God's purpose is brought to pass in history.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

The thread focused initially whether or not Adam was in a Covenant of Grace or Works with God. I think the issue has sort of re-focused to an important distinction but it is important to note that neither Matthew nor Bob are arguing against a CoW with Adam but whether or not he could have merited eternal life as Christ did for the Elect. To be clear, Adam was _not_ in the CoG.

That said, Bob, I think we ought to consider also the nature of Romans 5 that compares the worth of Christ's sacrifice to the penalty of Adam's sin. Christ's sacrifice super-abounds where death from Adam abounds. It stands to follow, does it not, that the work of Christ is of incomparably greater value than the work of Adam?


----------



## MW

Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> 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.



I believe Vos should be omitted from this list of adherents. He writes (the Doctrine of the Covenant in Reformed Theology): "*According to the Reformed view the covenant of works is something more than the natural bond which exists between God and man*. The Westminster Confession puts this in such a pointedly beautiful way (VII:1): 'The distance between God and the creatures is so great, that although reasonable creatures do owe obedience unto Him as their Creator, yet they could never have any fruition of Him as their blessedness and reward, but by some voluntary condescension on God’s part, which He hath been pleased to express by way of covenant.'

If we are not mistaken, the instinctive aversion which some have to the covenant of works springs from a lack of appreciation for this wonderful truth. To be sure, if the relationship in which Adam came to stand with God is entirely natural and if there was nothing positive in it, then the covenant theory as an expression of that purely natural relationship must indeed appear rather artificial. *The truth of the matter is that in the covenant of works the natural relationship was made to serve a positive purpose. It is not set aside, but incorporated into something higher.* From this it follows that, where the higher becomes powerless and falls away, the natural relationship nevertheless remains. *As a creature man is subject to God, and, had it not pleased God to reward the keeping of the law with eternal life, the requirement would still be effective.* “Do this!” is still valid, even if it is not followed by: “You shall live.” Thus, it is that in the covenant of grace, too, the participants are exempt from the demand of the law as the condition for eternal blessedness, but not from its demand as being normative for their moral life."


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

Semper Fidelis said:


> That said, Bob, I think we ought to consider also the nature of Romans 5 that compares the worth of Christ's sacrifice to the penalty of Adam's sin. Christ's sacrifice super-abounds where death from Adam abounds. It stands to follow, does it not, that the work of Christ is of incomparably greater value than the work of Adam?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that Christ not only atoned for our sin and restored us to that condition wherein Adam originally stood (integrity), but he accomplished what the first Adam was endowed by God to accomplish but failed to accomplish. He passed the test and gave those in union with him access to the Tree of Life. Thus, where sin abounded (Adam), grace much more abounded (Christ). But this "grace" (i.e., favor to the hell-deserving) is not merely a pre-temporal phenomenon based on God's arbitrary will. It is, in time and space, predicated upon the satisfaction of God's justice, pacification of God's wrath, and fulfilling of God's creation covenant (CofW). The parallel between Adam and Christ is what leads me to the view that the First Adam theoretically could have kept covenant with Yahweh, the result of which would have been conferred access to the Tree of Life. The contrast in Romans 5, which you cite (i.e., abounding vs. super-abounding) does not necessitate that Adam was incapable of fulfilling the terms of the covenant and thereby meriting the royal grant of Sabbath-rest for himself and his posterity. Rather, as I've tried to explain above, it indicates that Christ did not merely undo the wrong Adam did, but he accomplished the good Adam failed to accomplish.
Click to expand...


----------



## BertMulder

Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> Personally, I think the question is "both." The sacramental trees in the Garden pointed to the sanctions of the covenant (compare Deut. 30:19-20). Had Adam obeyed God's prohibition and refrained from eating from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, he would have gained true wisdom (which is what that tree symbolized) rather than the counterfeit wisdom (the wisdom of this world) gained through eating the fruit. Moreover, he would have been rewarded with the very reality symbolized by the Tree of Life. By creating man as his image, God created a covenantal being analogous to himself and consequently obligated himself to reward fealty with life (as royal grant) and disloyalty with death (as covenant curse). If an _imago Dei _obeys his Maker, that obedience has virtue because it is analogous to the divine Archetype.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If we agree that man, by remaining in the state of rectitude, would be 'rewarded' with eternal life, what was the length of the probationary period? And would this be earthly life or heavenly life? Where do we find these provisions in Scripture?
> 
> Personally I, with Rev. Hoeksema, believe that God did indeed have a covenant with Adam. This covenant has been (especially by Westminster) been named a Covenant of Works. God promised Adam continuous earthly life if he obeyed the probationary command not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. In that sense we are not mono-covenant. However (viewing the CofG and the CofR as essentially one), there is only one covenant of God with man concerning soteriology. Believe that the number of covenants may in fact be less important than the fact that I believe that the covenant of Grace is unilateral.
> 
> By the way, going back to the previous post, by Rev. Keister, I believe...
> Wish to note that I have been reading Brakel, and am much enjoying him, and in broad lines agreeing with much (most) of what he writes. He is, however, sometimes contradicting himself, and it is very important to read him in context and compare Brakel with Brakel. He also has an early concept of a covenant of friendship, and is adamant that there is no conditions on the part of man in the covenant. Thus, with the PRCA, he believes in a unilateral covenant.
> 
> Sorry for this off-topic aside...
Click to expand...


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> That said, Bob, I think we ought to consider also the nature of Romans 5 that compares the worth of Christ's sacrifice to the penalty of Adam's sin. Christ's sacrifice super-abounds where death from Adam abounds. It stands to follow, does it not, that the work of Christ is of incomparably greater value than the work of Adam?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that Christ not only atoned for our sin and restored us to that condition wherein Adam originally stood (integrity), but he accomplished what the first Adam was endowed by God to accomplish but failed to accomplish. He passed the test and gave those in union with him access to the Tree of Life. Thus, where sin abounded (Adam), grace much more abounded (Christ). But this "grace" (i.e., favor to the hell-deserving) is not merely a pre-temporal phenomenon based on God's arbitrary will. It is, in time and space, predicated upon the satisfaction of God's justice, pacification of God's wrath, and fulfilling of God's creation covenant (CofW). The parallel between Adam and Christ is what leads me to the view that the First Adam theoretically could have kept covenant with Yahweh, the result of which would have been conferred access to the Tree of Life. The contrast in Romans 5, which you cite (i.e., abounding vs. super-abounding) does not necessitate that Adam was incapable of fulfilling the terms of the covenant and thereby meriting the royal grant of Sabbath-rest for himself and his posterity. Rather, as I've tried to explain above, it indicates that Christ did not merely undo the wrong Adam did, but he accomplished the good Adam failed to accomplish.
Click to expand...


Bob,

I think you missed what I was trying to note. We agree that Adam was able to not sin. I was simply comparing the quality or excellency of the two individuals as the subject has drifted into the subject of merit. Sort of like Hebrews, Romans 5 demonstrates that Christ is much more excellent than Adam was, even when Adam was in his pristine state. Notice that I compare _value_ above and not ability.


----------



## py3ak

Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> 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.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

Semper Fidelis said:


> Dr. Bob Gonzales said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> That said, Bob, I think we ought to consider also the nature of Romans 5 that compares the worth of Christ's sacrifice to the penalty of Adam's sin. Christ's sacrifice super-abounds where death from Adam abounds. It stands to follow, does it not, that the work of Christ is of incomparably greater value than the work of Adam?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that Christ not only atoned for our sin and restored us to that condition wherein Adam originally stood (integrity), but he accomplished what the first Adam was endowed by God to accomplish but failed to accomplish. He passed the test and gave those in union with him access to the Tree of Life. Thus, where sin abounded (Adam), grace much more abounded (Christ). But this "grace" (i.e., favor to the hell-deserving) is not merely a pre-temporal phenomenon based on God's arbitrary will. It is, in time and space, predicated upon the satisfaction of God's justice, pacification of God's wrath, and fulfilling of God's creation covenant (CofW). The parallel between Adam and Christ is what leads me to the view that the First Adam theoretically could have kept covenant with Yahweh, the result of which would have been conferred access to the Tree of Life. The contrast in Romans 5, which you cite (i.e., abounding vs. super-abounding) does not necessitate that Adam was incapable of fulfilling the terms of the covenant and thereby meriting the royal grant of Sabbath-rest for himself and his posterity. Rather, as I've tried to explain above, it indicates that Christ did not merely undo the wrong Adam did, but he accomplished the good Adam failed to accomplish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bob,
> 
> I think you missed what I was trying to note. We agree that Adam was able to not sin. I was simply comparing the quality or excellency of the two individuals as the subject has drifted into the subject of merit. Sort of like Hebrews, Romans 5 demonstrates that Christ is much more excellent than Adam was, even when Adam was in his pristine state. Notice that I compare _value_ above and not ability.
Click to expand...


Rich,

It seems, especially in your final sentence, that you agree with me that Adam was endowed with *the ability* not only to keep the moral law but to fulfill the covenant mandate. So it seems that you agree that, at least theoretically, Adam *could have* complied with the terms of the covenant. In my present understanding of the way covenants work, once the lesser party has complied with the terms of the covenant the greater party *has obligated himself* by virtue of the covenant relationship to reward loyalty and to punish disloyalty. So I believe Adam's loyalty was *a real possibility* (not merely a mirage) and that had he rendered such, God would have been obligated by his own justice to reward Adam. Yet I also affirm that the work of the Second Adam exceeded that which the First Adam *could have done*. 

Cordially,


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

py3ak said:


> Dr. Bob Gonzales said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


Ruben,

I agree with the WCF language of voluntary condescension. Where I disagree is whether the enactment of the covenant of works was something outside of or distinct from God's creative activity or essentially a part of creation. It is more present belief that the very concept "image of God" carries covenant connotations. God did not have to create an image of himself. The fact that God created his image was an act of pure condescension. But once God created a covenant vassal, He, as the heavely Suzerain, obligated himself to the terms of the covenant. In the same way, God did not have to save sinners. His decision to save was an act of pure condescension. But once God decided to save, Christ's incarnation and blood atonement became, to use the words of Professor Murray, a consequence absolute necessity. God's own justice demanded satisfaction of the terms of the covenant by a son of Adam. 

Cordially,


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

BertMulder said:


> He also has an early concept of a covenant of friendship, and is adamant that there is no conditions on the part of man in the covenant. Thus, with the PRCA, he believes in a unilateral covenant.
> 
> Sorry for this off-topic aside...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bert,
> 
> First, I'm not comfortable with the definition of covenant as "friendship" (I have rev. Engelsma's book, btw). I prefer the following definition which I pull from my notes on an article I wrote on the primordial covenant:
> The standard Hebrew term for “covenant” is berit. Its semantic range is multifaceted and somewhat flexible. Not surprisingly, it is challenging to find one definition that suits every context in which the term is found. At its most basic level, a berit. refers to a formal commitment or obligation that is self-imposed or imposed upon another party or parties. When the commitment or obligation is imposed upon another party, it assumes the form of law or commandment (Exod. 19:5; 24:3-8; Deut. 4:13; 33:9; Isa. 24:5; Pss. 50:16; 103:18). When the commitment or obligation is self-imposed, it takes the form of promise or threat, which is often solemnized with an oath (Gen. 15:17-18; 21:22-27; 26:28-30; Ps. 89:3,28,34) and sometimes accompanied by symbolic gestures or signs. The Bible contains examples of both parity and non-parity covenants. Some human covenants are made among parties that are more or less equals (Gen. 14:13; 31:44; 1 Sam. 20:14-17; 23:18; 1 Kings 5:12 [Heb. 26]; 15:19; Mal. 2:14). On the other hand, there are examples of human covenants involving a superior and inferior. In such cases, the superior usually imposes the terms of the covenant upon the inferior (Josh. 9:6; 1 Sam. 11:1; Ezek. 17:12-18; Jer. 34:8), though in a few cases the inferior may request the terms (1 Kings 15:19; 20:34; Hos. 12:1 [Heb. 2]). Obviously, the covenants between God and man are non-parity in nature.
> 
> Some modern scholars have argued that the concept of a divine-human covenant was a late theological development in Israel. However, recent archaeological discoveries have brought to light numerous similarities between the divine-human covenants of Scripture and ancient Near Eastern suzerain-vassal treaties and royal grants, particularly those dating to the middle part of the second millennium (1400-1200 B.C.). The suzerain-vassal treaty consisted of three basic or primary elements: (1) the suzerain’s preamble and historical prologue by which he introduces himself and reviews his benevolent deeds on behalf of the vassal; (2) the suzerain’s covenant obligations for the vassal to which the vassal must render fealty; (3) the suzerain’s covenant sanctions in which he pledges to reward loyalty with blessings and threatens to punish disloyalty with curses. In the royal grant, the suzerain rewards the vassal usually with land and/or perpetual dynasty for loyalty rendered. Both of these ancient Near Eastern covenant types find striking analogies in the divine-human covenants of OT Scripture.​Second, as you can tell from my definition, I don't agree that there were no human conditions to the covenant. Yes, the terms of the covenant were imposed by Yahweh-Elohim without any consultation with man. So in that sense, I can affirm a "unilateral" or "monopleuric" covenant. Nevertheless, the Lord set* real conditions* which had to be met by mankind. Otherwise, Jesus would not have had to fulfill those conditions as the son of Adam.
> 
> Your servant,
Click to expand...


----------



## 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

py3ak said:


> Dr. Bob Gonzales said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


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

MOSES said:


> 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

Semper Fidelis said:


> MOSES said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


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)


Moses said:


> 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

Semper Fidelis said:


> 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.
Click to expand...


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



moses said:


> 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.





Semper Fidelis said:


> 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

MOSES said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> These are some of the things I brought up when starting this thread...
> 
> 
> 
> moses said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> By stating that Adam could not merit eternal life ignores the fact that God made a Covenant with Him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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"?
Click to expand...


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

MOSES said:


> 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

Semper Fidelis said:


> 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")



Semper Fidelis said:


> 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?



armourbearer said:


> 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

MOSES said:


> 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

armourbearer said:


> MOSES said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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!
Click to expand...


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

Semper Fidelis said:


> 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

armourbearer said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...

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

greenbaggins said:


> 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

greenbaggins said:


> 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

Semper Fidelis said:


> greenbaggins said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


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

greenbaggins said:


> 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

greenbaggins said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> greenbaggins said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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_)
Click to expand...


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

Semper Fidelis said:


> 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

MOSES said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


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

greenbaggins said:


> . 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.


----------



## MOSES

greenbaggins said:


> 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.



One thing that I am curious about in regards to this view.

If Adam could have obtained the glorified, heavenly, eternal life that Christ gained for us, then what would of happened to all of Adam's posterity if he had kept the covenant of works and entered into the glorified state?
Because we know that, according to Jesus, there is no marriage or procreation in the glorified state. Would it of just been Adam and Eve in heaven then and no humanity at all? 
If Adam had kept the covenant and entered into the glorified state, then none of us would ever of been born! 


Note: In Rev. Winzer's view though, that Adam could of gained eternal "earthly" life only, there is not a procreation problem.


----------



## MW

On congruent merit:



greenbaggins said:


> 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.



On pactum merit:



greenbaggins said:


> 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.



Different names, same idea.


----------



## MOSES

Concerning Mono vs Bi-covenantal vews:

I've been reading some of Hoeksema's "Refomed Dogmatics", and he rejects the C. of works, and leans towards the Mono covenant view (His mono leanings seem clear when he say's "God is one and his Covenant is one").

A thought that came to me in regards to the Bi-Covental view:
The bi-covenantal view has in its schema, *a Christless covenant *(covenant number 1)...Thank about it, if to this very day Adam had not yet sinned, there would be no Christ. We would be living in a sinless, but Christless world, there would be no MAN, whose flesh was a part of creation, ruling and reigning as King in heaven. Creation would never reach its eschatological goal, *Christ*.

The promise of the covenant is in Christ. But again, the bi-covenatal view has God's first plan in creation, his first covenant, as a Christless one. 
Now granite, the bi-covenantal view does include Christ, but only as a second option...in the second covenant.

The mono view sees Christ as the promise of the ONE covenant to begin with,,,that the creation was for Christ (sort of speak).
e.g., Was Christ created for the Church...or was the Church created for Christ?

- In the mono view, Christ is the eschatological goal and purpose of the covenant.
- In the bi covenant view, Christ is only option number 2


----------



## greenbaggins

armourbearer said:


> On congruent merit:
> 
> 
> 
> greenbaggins said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On pactum merit:
> 
> 
> 
> greenbaggins said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Different names, same idea.
Click to expand...


Actually, it's not the same idea at all, because congruent merit uses the kind of work that actually would go towards the reward, there just isn't enough of it. With pactum merit, the work has no intrinsic relationship to the reward at all. So, not the same thing at all.


----------



## MW

greenbaggins said:


> Actually, it's not the same idea at all, because congruent merit uses the kind of work that actually would go towards the reward, there just isn't enough of it. With pactum merit, the work has no intrinsic relationship to the reward at all. So, not the same thing at all.



Condign merit contains "worth," something in the action which requires reward. Congruent merit refers to a reward which is "appropriate." In your view of congruent merit, the reward is appropriate because the store owner *gives a deal*. In your view of pactum merit, you say it is appropriate eternal life should be merited by Adam because God entered into an *agreement* with him to that effect. In conguent merit you focus on the condition while in pactum merit you focus on the promise; but the fact remains the two are referring to the same idea.


----------



## greenbaggins

It is a completely different kind of medium. Or are you going to say (going back to my analogy) that money is the same thing as a grade on an SAT test? In the case of Adam, the difference between pactum and congruent would be the purpose and the power of the work involved. So, Adam's pactum merit does not have the intrinsic purpose of supererogation, since he owes it all anyway. Congruent merit would have that purpose of supererogation, only there wouldn't be enough of it. The reason it is pactum and not congruent is that Adam is a creature, and is bound by the moral law to give all glory to God. So, I repeat, they are not the same thing at all. What you are pointing out is a similarity in the nature of the agreement (acceptance of something not sufficient as if it is). However, congruent merit requires no agreement ahead of time. Pactum merit most certainly does. So, even there, the two are distinct. See Turretin volume 1, pg. 578, where Turretin means pactum merit when he says, 

If therefore upright man in that state had obtained this merit, it must not be understood properly and rigorously (i.e. condignly, LK). Since man has all things from and owes all to God, he can seek from him nothing as his own by right, nor can God be a debtor to him- not by condignity of work and from its intrinsic value (because whatever that may be, it can bear no proportion to the infinite reward of life), but from the pact and the liberal promise of God (according to which man had the right of demanding the reward to which God had of his own accord bound himself) and in comparison with the covenant of grace (which rests upon the sole merit of Christ, by which he acquired for us the right to life).​


----------



## MW

> Congruent merit would have that purpose of supererogation, only there wouldn't be enough of it.



This is where the wheels are falling off. By ascribing some intrinsic "worth" to the merit it is turned into a lesser degree of condign merit. Congruent merit does not possess worth but agreeableness to the reward. It is a different kind of merit, not a lesser degree of worthiness.

The Turretin quotation is worth pondering because it shows the impropriety of using the word "merit" in relation to Adam's obedience.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

*A Closer Look at the Covenant of Works*

Hello, brothers. I’m still at the theological module in Wyoming, but I’ve found some spare moments and Internet access. So I thought I’d reply to some of the latest input. A lot has been added to the discussion since I’ve been away, so forgive me if I don’t address it all. In particular, though, I’d like to try to address some questions raised by Rich, Ruben, and Matthew, as well as to make a few comments about Lane’s comments, much of which I found very helpful and pertinent to the discussion. I’ll try to develop my responses and thoughts under three questions. 

*1. Do the Reformed Confessions and (most importantly) the Scriptures support a mono- or bi-covenantal structure for redemptive history? *

This is, of course, the central question raised by Shawn in this thread. It seems that most of us affirm that the WCF and LBCF teach a bi-covenantal structure (I’m honestly not as familiar with the TFU) and that the Scriptures support such a view. That is, redemptive history can be viewed from the perspective of a Covenant of Works (also called covenant of nature, law, creation, etc.) and a Covenant of Grace. I think we all agree that the former was inaugurated during the pre-lapsarian era (Gen. 1:26-28; 2:15-17) and the latter at the commencement of the post-lapsarian era (Gen. 3:15). It seems that Shawn, in his latest post (#93), questions a bi-covenantal view and proposes that we adopt a mono-covenantal scheme in which “Christ is the eschatological goal and purpose of the covenant.” I see problems with this view, which I’ll try to address below, but I also think there might be an element of truth in a mono-covenantal scheme though my present understandng of such a scheme would probably differ from Hoeksema’s view (see below).

*2. What were the stipulations and sanctions of the Creation Covenant or Covenant of Works?*

“Stipulations” refer to laws, requirements, and expectations. In divine-human covenants, stipulations include both moral and also positive laws. “Sanctions” include punishments or curses for disloyalty vis-à-vis the covenant stipulations, as well as rewards or blessings for loyalty vis-à-vis the covenant stipulations. _So what were the stipulations and sanctions of the Covenant of works? _The pre-lapsarian revelation recorded in Genesis 1-2, as well as later post-lapsarian revelation would seem to indicate the presence of both moral and positive covenant stipulations. The positive covenant stipulations are, perhaps, most conspicuous. God creates the _imago Dei _and commands them to be fruitful, multiply, fill the earth, and subdue it. Genesis 2, which does not provide an additional or variant creation account but rather, in keeping with Hebrew parallelism, zeros in with greater detail upon God’s creation of man and assignment of the human task, providing further detail regarding the nature of man’s royal and priestly task. The Garden of Eden is no mere food plot or idyllic park but a royal garden-sanctuary, in which man, as Yahweh-Elohim’s vice-regent, is commissioned to serve as priest and guardian (2:15-17). 

The sacramental trees (2:9) symbolize the sanctions. The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil symbolizes punishment or curse for covenant disobedience with reference to the covenant stipulations, whereas the Tree of Like symbolizes reward or blessing for fidelity to the covenant stipulations. I don’t think it’s exegetically tenable to portray the Tree of Life sanction as offering nothing more than “earthly” life since the immediate context (3:22) and larger context of Scripture assign it _eternal _significance (Rev. 2:7; 22:2, 14, 19). _So God promised Adam and Eve eternal life upon the condition of their conformity to the covenant stipulations established by God_. Hence, in such an arrangement, *“merit,”* namely, “something that deserves or justifies a reward or commendation” (Random House Unabridged, 2006), *is based on the standards of the covenant*, which itself reflects God’s own justice and goodness. Note carefully that the stipulations of the covenant works are not that Adam must attain a kind of virtue that is ontologically equivalent to God himself. That would be impossible. Moreover, such a stipulation would in fact be the polar opposite of God’s requirement. Yahweh-Elohim commanded Adam not to eat of the Tree of Knowledge for the express purposes of highlighting the Creator-creature distinction and to require that _Adam assume the posture of a covenant servant (vassal) rather than a covenant Sovereign (Suzerain)_. Hence, under the stipulations of the primal covenant of works, “merit” for Adam is defined in terms of his recognition of his creaturehood and his assumption of the role of Yahweh-Elohim’s loyal vassal. Accordingly, the Covenant of Works God made with Adams did not, as Lane pointed out, demand a condign merit, that is, a kind of merit in which Adam crosses the bridge over the ontological chasm that separates him as creature from God as Creator. 

Now here’s where the point at which I’m having some difficulty with the way in which Christ’s relationship to the Covenant of Works is being distinguished from Adam’s. On the one hand, Shawn thinks, “Adam could not keep the covenant of works because he did not” (Posts #26, 30, 33, 63). Not only is this an argument from silence, but also, as I indicated earlier, it casts a shadow over God’s ability to create a being in his image that is not ontologically flawed but equipped for every good work (see Gen. 1:31; 2:25), including the work assigned to him in the Creation Covenant. Moreover, I don’t think most Reformed theologians would follow Shawn’s logic. Consider, for instance, the words of John Owen:We can go no further than what has been established; which is that the fountainhead of our race *if he had remained in his first state of sinlessness, would have, at length, obtained a reward for his fidelity* and that reward would have been the undisturbed enjoyment of God as was revealed in the terms of the covenant” [emphasis added] (Biblical Theology, trans. S. P. Westcott, [Soli Deo Gloria, 1994], 28). ​Furthermore, the covenant under which God placed Adam offered eternal life not as a reward that was predicated upon Adam’s conformity to some kind of metaphysical equality with his Maker but upon the specific stipulations of the covenant itself. In other words, “justice” under the covenant of works is simply conformity to God’s revealed covenant stipulations not the attainment of metaphysical equality with God. In this sense, Adam’s merit was _ex pactum_. So I think I’d have to agree with Matthew that in one sense congruous merit is closely related if not identical to merit _ex pactum_. I might differ, however, in wanting to emphasize, unlike the Medieval nominalists, that God’s covenant was not based on an arbitrary condescension that has no relation to God’s own goodness and justice. As Lee Irons remarks,There is no such thing as non-covenantal, condign merit because *merit is by definition constituted by fulfilling what is stipulated in the covenant*. And there is no such thing as congruent merit which, since it is covenantal, is supposedly not based on strict justice, because *the covenant is by definition the revelation of God’s justice*. Neither merit nor justice exists apart from covenant” [emphasis added] (“Redefining Merit,” 268). ​God created man to be his visible replica, his mirror so to speak. Consequently, had Adam imitated his Father in heaven, Adam’s conformity to his Father’s covenantal standards, which in turn are a revelation of God’s own nature, would provoke a corresponding aesthetic/moral pleasure in the Godhead. Had Adam obeyed the stipulations, God would have seen an accurate reflection of his own moral character and eschatological drive for fullness (which, by the way, God implanted within man’s heart at creation, Eccl. 3:11). And upon seeing his “reflection in the mirror,” so to speak, God’s own nature and creation covenant enactment would constrain him to reflexively reward what his own nature and covenant demands. 

Now here’s a question I have for you men. *What covenant did Christ keep?* If we argue that Christ kept the same covenant that Adam broke, then are we not bound to maintain that both the stipulations as well as the sanctions remain the same? John Owen appears to answer affirmatively when he writes,“But in the new covenant, the very first thing that is proposed, is the accomplishment and establishment *of the covenant of works, both as to its commands and sanction*, in the obedience and suffering of the mediator” [emphasis added] (John Owen, Works, 22:89, 90).​So if we maintain, as some Reformed writers have done, that God offered Adam eternal life as a matter of grace and not justice as stipulated by the covenant, then are we not bound to construe God’s offer to the Second Adam under the same covenant stipulations and sanctions? In other words, if the sanction of eternal life offered in the primal covenant of works is to be construed *as a gift freely bestowed* rather than *as a reward “earned” by means of inward and outward conformity to God’s creation covenant*, which included both moral and positive law, then must not the sanction of eternal life offered to Jesus and his seed be the same as that which characterized God’s covenant with Adam? And if that were the case, would we not be forced to the conclusion that *Jesus did not “earn” eternal life but gained it as a gift of God’s grace not as reward based on the justice revealed in the primal covenant*? 

I think that most of us would instinctively resist the notion that Christ’s obtained eternal life on the basis of God’s sheer grace and irrespective of Christ’s covenant merit. On the contrary, we rightly argue that Jesus the God-man merited eternal life for his seed. _And if Jesus merited that life by fulfilling the same covenant of works under which the first Adam stood, then it seems to me that we must understand the terms under which God placed the First Adam as parallel to the terms under which God placed the Second Adam_. Indeed, I’m encouraged towards this parallel not only by Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15 but also by Philippians 2:5-11. There, Paul describes the kind of obedience Jesus offered not in terms of bridging the ontological chasm between Creator and creature, but rather in terms of assuming the form of a vassal servant who offered an absolute loyalty to His kingly Father—even unto death. This is the polar opposite of the first Adam who not only failed to assume the role of vassal-servant but, at the instigation of the Serpent, did seek to bridge the ontological chasm between Creator and creature, snatching after divinity. *So “merit” under the covenant of works must not be defined in terms of attaining an ontological virtue equal with God but rather in terms of fulfilling the stipulations of the covenant, which called for nothing more and nothing less than perfect submission to Yahweh-Elohim’s moral and positive law*. God’s first royal vice-reject failed to keep these stipulations. God’s second royal vice-regent succeeded in fulfilling these stipulations and has been rewarded with endless life and Sabbath-rest in accordance with the terms of the Edenic covenant. If we do not maintain this parallel, I don’t see how we can speak of bi-covenantalism. It would seem, rather, that we’d have to adopt a tri-covenantal view: one covenant for the First Adam; a different covenant with qualitatively different stipulations for the Second Adam; and the resulting covenant of grace through which God confers the reward of the covenant Head to His Seed.

Before I conclude this section, I’d like to address two objections to this symmetrical parallelism between the first and second Adams. First, Matthew seems to object on the basis of the ontological difference between Adam and Christ. He writes,“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 [sic] 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” (Post #74). ​I agree with Matthew that there’s a typological relationship between Adam and Christ (Rom. 5:14). Hence, from one perspective (supralapsarian), we may insist that “Adam never could have inherited eternal life except as a hypothetical possibility.” Nevertheless, to ground Adam’s inability to keep the primal covenant stipulations that sanctioned eternal life a reward upon Adam’s ontological status as “earthy” is, I think, misguided. The creation covenant was established by God and imposed upon the _imago Dei_ under the assumption that the _imago Dei_ had been divinely equipped with the ethical-religious capacity to fulfill the covenant stipulations. And one cannot merely limit the stipulations that Adam was capable of fulfilling to the moral law. The stipulation of the covenant of works contained, as every historical covenant contains, both moral and positive laws. So Adam had the ability not to sin (thus fulfilling the moral law written on his heart) as well as the ability to fulfill the creation mandate while heeding God’s sacramental probationary prohibition. Yes, Adam was “earthy.” This simply means he never fulfilled the covenant stipulations thereby gaining “heavenly life” for himself and his posterity. But Adam’s “earthiness” has nothing to do with his mere humanity as opposed to Christ’s divinity. Indeed, one might say that Christ was, like the first Adam, “earthy” during his state of humiliation. But having fulfilled the creation covenant stipulations, Christ attained the reward-sanction of “heavenly life” (i.e., resurrection and glorified body) and so will all who stand in union with Him (1 Cor. 15:42-57). 

The second objection is also an ontological one based on Luke 17:10. There, Jesus tells a parable and applies it to his disciples:“And which of you, having a servant plowing or tending sheep, will say to him when he has come in from the field, ‘Come at once and sit down to eat’? But will he not rather say to him, ‘Prepare something for my supper, and gird yourself and serve me till I have eaten and drunk, and afterward you will eat and drink’? Does he thank that servant because he did the things that were commanded him? I think not. So likewise you, when you have done all those things which you are commanded, say, ‘We are unprofitable servants. We have done what was our duty to do’” (Luke 17:7-10, NKJ). ​This passage is commonly applied to Adam and the covenant of works. The argument seems to be that God is the master and Adam is the servant. Should Adam keep God’s moral law (or even positive law), he has no right to expect that God is indebted or obligated to him. He’s simply done his duty and his work bears no virtue of any consequence to his master (see Ruben’s post #71). 

But I wonder if it’s appropriate to apply a teaching applied to sinful disciplines in an economy of grace to Adam in a state of integrity in an economy of law. Certainly, as sinners—even as justified sinners—we will enjoy the rewards of redemption not on the basis of our own merit but on the basis of Another’s merit. Moreover, there may be another way to interpret this text. Jesus may be reminding his disciples that they will never attain (as vassal servants) to a status of equality with God (the Supreme Sovereign). Adam violated this principle by seeking to “sit at the Master’s table and eat,” i.e., assume divine prerogatives, rather than following the example of Christ in his state of humility who maintained the posture of a servant without grasping after divine prerogative. 

Whatever the case, I’m not convinced that this text rules out the idea that Adam could have “merited reward” not on the basis of attaining to some kind of virtue ontologically equivalent to God (that would be impossible) but by attaining to *an analogical virtue that corresponded to the stipulations of the covenant of works*, which stipulations were perfectly suited to humanity in his unfallen state. 

I prefer to see the covenant terms Jesus kept as the very same terms God expected Adam to keep. Those covenant terms reflected both God’s goodness and his justice. And conformity to those stipulations would have constituted the merit _ex pactum_, which in turn would have obligated God to confer the sanction of the covenant blessing of life not as a gracious gift to the undeserving but as a reward earned on the basis of conformity to God’s justice as revealed in the Covenant of works. For this reason I agree with Johannes Heidegger who writes,"The further question now arises as to the source from which flows the promise mentioned of eternal and heavenly life for man if he fulfills the law. Is it of he sheer eudokia and judgment (arbitrium) of the divine will, or of theopreparia of the virtues proper in God’s nature, such as principally His goodness and holiness? Those who affirm the former rely on the principle that God is free either to present the innocent creature with life or to annihilate, punish, torture it eternally. This is the hypothesis of most Scholastics. Our view then must clearly be that *it becomes God to return the love of the creature who loves him, and that since a loving God cannot not wish and do well to once beloved, He must give and impart Himself entire to be enjoyed*. Love is an affect of conjunction; as proceeding from Himself, *God cannot fail to approve it as good or to desert it as bad*" [emphasis added] (Heppe, 296).​But this _ex pactum_ merit is not equivalent to the medieval “congruous merit” because it is based on covenant justice rather than God’s arbitrary decision to bless what in fact does not deserve blessing. For this reason, I am not comfortable with depictions of the covenant of creation, like Herman Hoeksema’s, that depict it as essentially gracious. This is to destroy the important distinction between law and grace, the former being the foundation when satisfied upon which the latter can be extended to the ill-deserving. 

*3. Should we view the Covenant of Works as an intrinsic part of man’s creation as the image of God or as a non-intrinsic facet of human existence, which was added later (superadditum)? *

Ruben would like me to offer evidence for viewing the _imago Dei_ as an intrinsically covenant concept. Such evidence would help to support the argument that the covenant of work was not something extrinsic but intrinsic to man’s creation. I'll give it my best shot. 

First, all divine human covenants include both moral law and positive law. Hence, to portray Adam as existing out of covenant with God but under His moral law seems to require an unbiblical dichotomy. Unregenerate pagans will not merely be judged for their failure to live up to God’s moral law (revealed in their conscience) but also for violating the primeval covenant of works. Thus, Isaiah indicts the nations, “The earth is defiled because of the sins of its inhabitants because they have transgressed laws, they have altered statutes, _they have broken the primordial covenant_ [emphasis added] (24:5; author's translation). The failure to fill and subdue the earth for the glory of God is also an offense for which every sinner, pagan or religious will be judged. So the idea of man existing (for a time) out of covenant with Yahweh seems incongruous with what we know about the divine-human covenants of Scripture. As George Mendenhall notes, “The names given the two parts of the Bible in Christian tradition rest on the religious conception that the relationship between God and man is established by a covenant” (George E. Mendenhall, _Law and Covenant in Israel and the Ancient Near East_ [Pittsburgh: The Biblical Colloquium, 1955], 24.). In other words, *God always interacts with humanity in terms of covenant*. So it’s difficult for me to conceive of a scenario where Adam would be perpetually obeying the moral law in abstraction from a divine human covenant. Someone earlier asserted that though Adam perpetually obeyed God’s moral law, God would have been under no obligation to offer a covenant sanction of eternal life. But one might then ask, “What would have happened to Adam?” Would he have died? Obviously not if he continued to obey God’s law. Would he have enjoyed communion with God? I find it difficult to conceive a being constituted to have and desire communion with his Maker standing in a non-covenantal arrangement. 

Second—and this relates to the point above—the concept _imago Dei_ is loaded with royal connotations, which is highly suggestive that Adam was purposely created from the beginning to serve as God’s vice-regent who would advance the divine kingdom on earth until he, in imitation of his Creator, entered into his Sabbath-rest enthronement at the right hand of God. I have developed this point in greater detail in an article that I’d be glad to share with anyone interested (“The Covenantal Context of the Fall: Did God Make a Primeval Covenant with Adam?” _Reformed Baptist Theological Review_ [July 2007], 5-37). In brief, God not only created Adam with a conscience (the _imago Dei_ in imperative mode) but also with an increated yearning for fellowship with his maker and a built in drive for eschatological fullness (Eccl. 3:11). A static existence in Eden would not have been Paradise for Adam. He was created to conquer and subdue in analogy to his great Archetype (Gen. 1:2ff.). Not only does general revelation bear witness to the fact that all men have an innate awareness of God’s moral law, but it also bears witness to the fact that all men desire to live forever and long for a sense of “fulfillment” or “fullness of meaning.” These longings in the unregenerate man are, of course, corrupt and self-centered rather than God-centered. Nevertheless, they point back to the original state of affairs. As God’s image, man was designed to have covenant communion with his maker. Therefore, it seems quite artificial and, in my mind, unnecessary to posit some kind of interim period of a covenantless natural condition wherein man existed merely as a sophisticated creature that was obliged to reflect his Makers holy character but not necessarily to enjoy eternal communion with his Father. Hence, I’m inclined to agree with Lee Irons when he writes,“It is the act of creation itself which is voluntary. But once God freely determined to create a rational being endowed with the divine image in terms of his God-like ethical consciousness and dominion over the creation, *then he was no longer free not to enter into a covenant with this creature*. *For by making man in his own image he constituted him a covenantal being whose very nature longed to attain to the higher status of an eternal and nonforteitable enjoyment of God*” [emphasis added] (“Redefining Merit,” 267). ​Similarly, Michael Horton writes,“*To be created in God’s image is to be in covenant with God*. Though vitiated by human rebellion, this covenant is still in effect. One is either ‘under law’ or ‘under grace’—that is, bound to either the covenant of creation (Adam) or the covenant of grace (Christ)” (God of Promise [Baker, 2006], 93-94). ​Horton even references Cocceius who apparently argued for a creation covenant not only on the basis of an innate conscience but also on the fact of man’s innate longing for eternal life (Heppe, _Reformed Dogmatics,_ 287). How can there exist within mankind an increated longing for eternal life and eschatological fullness (both of which are covenant concepts) if they are extrinsic to man’s natural state? The answer to this question seems, at least to me, patent: God made man a covenantal creature from the beginning. The creation covenant, therefore, was not _superadditum_. Gordon Spykman agrees,“*The covenant is rooted in God’s work of creation*. God covenanted his world into existence. Covenantal relationships are given in, with and for all created reality. *From the beginning creation is unthinkable apart from its covenantal relationship of dependence and responsiveness Coram Deo*” (Reformational Theology [Eerdmans, 1992], 260). ​So though I affirm the WCF’s and LBCF’s language of God’s gracious condescension (7.2), I prefer to locate that divine act of condescension at the very point of God’s creation of his visible replica and covenant steward rather than locating it at some time subsequent to man’s creation. We still are indebted to God for his condescension in making us covenantal creatures rather than rocks, trees, or dumb animals (Rom. 11:35). To him be the glory forever (Rom. 11:36)! 

*Conclusion*: I’ve argued that God created Adam as a covenantal creature. Thus, the covenant of creation (or covenant of works) was inaugurated the moment God created man as his image and is intrinsic to man’s relationship vis-à-vis God and the world around him. Moreover, I’ve argued that the reward-sanction proffered in the covenant of works is based on the principle of divine goodness and justice as revealed in the covenant stipulations. Hence, _just as Adam’s disloyalty and disobedience with respect to the covenant stipulations actually merited God’s wrath and judgment upon the grounds of divine justice, so Adam’s loyalty and obedience with respect to the covenant stipulations would have merited God’s complacence and reward upon the grounds of the principle of divine justice and goodness revealed in the covenant of works_. Similarly, I believe the second Adam was under the same terms as the first. He succeed where the first failed. Consequently, _the Man, Christ Jesus, merited the sanction of endless life and Sabbath-rest enthronement not because he bridged the ontological chasm between humanity and deity but because he, in the capacity of our Federal Head, humbled himself, took of form of a servant, and demonstrated supreme loyalty by sacrificing his own life on the cross in order to ensure completion of his Father’s kingdom-building process to the end that God might be all and all _(1 Cor. 15:24-28). Finally, I affirm bi-covenantalism in the sense that there is a clear distinction between the covenant of works and the covenant of grace (which is also reflected in the law/gospel distinction). Nevertheless, there is a sense in which God meshes the two together. In reality, God’s covenant of grace or covenant of redemption can be viewed as His determination to ensure that the original covenant mandate given to humanity remains intact and on track. In redemption, God does not settle for option two because option one failed. Instead, the creation covenant is transtemporal and will accomplish God's eschatological goal. To ensure this end, God injects grace into his covenantal relationship with humanity and raises up a Second Adam who will succeed where he first failed. Viewed from this perspective, _the covenant of grace can be viewed as an overlay for the creation covenant—grace intruding in order to satisfy God’s justice for covenant infraction and to fulfill the stipulations necessary to qualify the humanity-in-Christ for the covenant reward of life and Sabbath-rest enthronement with God_ (2 Tim. 2:12; Rev. 5:10; 20:6; 22:5). 

Cordially yours,


----------



## py3ak

> The second objection is also an ontological one based on Luke 17:10. There, Jesus tells a parable and applies it to his disciples:
> 
> “And which of you, having a servant plowing or tending sheep, will say to him when he has come in from the field, ‘Come at once and sit down to eat’? But will he not rather say to him, ‘Prepare something for my supper, and gird yourself and serve me till I have eaten and drunk, and afterward you will eat and drink’? Does he thank that servant because he did the things that were commanded him? I think not. So likewise you, when you have done all those things which you are commanded, say, ‘We are unprofitable servants. We have done what was our duty to do’” (Luke 17:7-10, NKJ).
> 
> This passage is commonly applied to Adam and the covenant of works. The argument seems to be that God is the master and Adam is the servant. Should Adam keep God’s moral law (or even positive law), he has no right to expect that God is indebted or obligated to him. He’s simply done his duty and his work bears no virtue of any consequence to his master (see Ruben’s post #71).
> 
> But I wonder if it’s appropriate to apply a teaching applied to sinful disciplines in an economy of grace to Adam in a state of integrity in an economy of law. Certainly, as sinners—even as justified sinners—we will enjoy the rewards of redemption not on the basis of our own merit but on the basis of Another’s merit. Moreover, there may be another way to interpret this text. Jesus may be reminding his disciples that they will never attain (as vassal servants) to a status of equality with God (the Supreme Sovereign). Adam violated this principle by seeking to “sit at the Master’s table and eat,” i.e., assume divine prerogatives, rather than following the example of Christ in his state of humility who maintained the posture of a servant without grasping after divine prerogative.
> 
> Whatever the case, I’m not convinced that this text rules out the idea that Adam could have “merited reward” not on the basis of attaining to some kind of virtue ontologically equivalent to God (that would be impossible) but by attaining to an analogical virtue that corresponded to the stipulations of the covenant of works, which stipulations were perfectly suited to humanity in his unfallen state.



Dr. Gonzalez, no sinner can say that he has done all. That leads me to think that we must apply Christ's words to ourselves, of course, to keep us from an entitlement mentality in the face of God; but also to Adam, who had he not fallen, could have said more truly than any of us, "I have done that which it was my duty to do", but would not therefore have been rewarded without some condescension on God's part.



> I prefer to see the covenant terms Jesus kept as the very same terms God expected Adam to keep. Those covenant terms reflected both God’s goodness and his justice. And conformity to those stipulations would have constituted the merit ex pactum, which in turn would have obligated God to confer the sanction of the covenant blessing of life not as a gracious gift to the undeserving but as a reward earned on the basis of conformity to God’s justice as revealed in the Covenant of works. For this reason I agree with Johannes Heidegger who writes,
> 
> "The further question now arises as to the source from which flows the promise mentioned of eternal and heavenly life for man if he fulfills the law. Is it of he sheer eudokia and judgment (arbitrium) of the divine will, or of theopreparia of the virtues proper in God’s nature, such as principally His goodness and holiness? Those who affirm the former rely on the principle that God is free either to present the innocent creature with life or to annihilate, punish, torture it eternally. This is the hypothesis of most Scholastics. Our view then must clearly be that it becomes God to return the love of the creature who loves him, and that since a loving God cannot not wish and do well to once beloved, He must give and impart Himself entire to be enjoyed. Love is an affect of conjunction; as proceeding from Himself, God cannot fail to approve it as good or to desert it as bad" [emphasis added] (Heppe, 296).
> 
> But this ex pactum merit is not equivalent to the medieval “congruous merit” because it is based on covenant justice rather than God’s arbitrary decision to bless what in fact does not deserve blessing. For this reason, I am not comfortable with depictions of the covenant of creation, like Herman Hoeksema’s, that depict it as essentially gracious. This is to destroy the important distinction between law and grace, the former being the foundation when satisfied upon which the latter can be extended to the ill-deserving.



Isn't saying that Adam and Christ were in precisely the same position with regard to covenant terms a difficult thing to reconcile with the fact that Christ was born _under the law_, and so was circumcised on the 8th day, baptised by John, and so forth, all things that had no application to Adam?



> 3. Should we view the Covenant of Works as an intrinsic part of man’s creation as the image of God or as a non-intrinsic facet of human existence, which was added later (superadditum)?
> 
> Ruben would like me to offer evidence for viewing the imago Dei as an intrinsically covenant concept. Such evidence would help to support the argument that the covenant of work was not something extrinsic but intrinsic to man’s creation. I'll give it my best shot.
> 
> First, all divine human covenants include both moral law and positive law. Hence, to portray Adam as existing out of covenant with God but under His moral law seems to require an unbiblical dichotomy. Unregenerate pagans will not merely be judged for their failure to live up to God’s moral law (revealed in their conscience) but also for violating the primeval covenant of works. Thus, Isaiah indicts the nations, “The earth is defiled because of the sins of its inhabitants because they have transgressed laws, they have altered statutes, they have broken the primordial covenant [emphasis added] (24:5; author's translation). The failure to fill and subdue the earth for the glory of God is also an offense for which every sinner, pagan or religious will be judged. So the idea of man existing (for a time) out of covenant with Yahweh seems incongruous with what we know about the divine-human covenants of Scripture. As George Mendenhall notes, “The names given the two parts of the Bible in Christian tradition rest on the religious conception that the relationship between God and man is established by a covenant” (George E. Mendenhall, Law and Covenant in Israel and the Ancient Near East [Pittsburgh: The Biblical Colloquium, 1955], 24.). In other words, God always interacts with humanity in terms of covenant. So it’s difficult for me to conceive of a scenario where Adam would be perpetually obeying the moral law in abstraction from a divine human covenant. Someone earlier asserted that though Adam perpetually obeyed God’s moral law, God would have been under no obligation to offer a covenant sanction of eternal life. But one might then ask, “What would have happened to Adam?” Would he have died? Obviously not if he continued to obey God’s law. Would he have enjoyed communion with God? I find it difficult to conceive a being constituted to have and desire communion with his Maker standing in a non-covenantal arrangement.
> 
> Second—and this relates to the point above—the concept imago Dei is loaded with royal connotations, which is highly suggestive that Adam was purposely created from the beginning to serve as God’s vice-regent who would advance the divine kingdom on earth until he, in imitation of his Creator, entered into his Sabbath-rest enthronement at the right hand of God. I have developed this point in greater detail in an article that I’d be glad to share with anyone interested (“The Covenantal Context of the Fall: Did God Make a Primeval Covenant with Adam?” Reformed Baptist Theological Review [July 2007], 5-37). In brief, God not only created Adam with a conscience (the imago Dei in imperative mode) but also with an increated yearning for fellowship with his maker and a built in drive for eschatological fullness (Eccl. 3:11). A static existence in Eden would not have been Paradise for Adam. He was created to conquer and subdue in analogy to his great Archetype (Gen. 1:2ff.). Not only does general revelation bear witness to the fact that all men have an innate awareness of God’s moral law, but it also bears witness to the fact that all men desire to live forever and long for a sense of “fulfillment” or “fullness of meaning.” These longings in the unregenerate man are, of course, corrupt and self-centered rather than God-centered. Nevertheless, they point back to the original state of affairs. As God’s image, man was designed to have covenant communion with his maker. Therefore, it seems quite artificial and, in my mind, unnecessary to posit some kind of interim period of a covenantless natural condition wherein man existed merely as a sophisticated creature that was obliged to reflect his Makers holy character but not necessarily to enjoy eternal communion with his Father. Hence, I’m inclined to agree with Lee Irons when he writes,
> 
> “It is the act of creation itself which is voluntary. But once God freely determined to create a rational being endowed with the divine image in terms of his God-like ethical consciousness and dominion over the creation, then he was no longer free not to enter into a covenant with this creature. For by making man in his own image he constituted him a covenantal being whose very nature longed to attain to the higher status of an eternal and nonforteitable enjoyment of God” [emphasis added] (“Redefining Merit,” 267).
> 
> Similarly, Michael Horton writes,
> 
> “To be created in God’s image is to be in covenant with God. Though vitiated by human rebellion, this covenant is still in effect. One is either ‘under law’ or ‘under grace’—that is, bound to either the covenant of creation (Adam) or the covenant of grace (Christ)” (God of Promise [Baker, 2006], 93-94).
> 
> Horton even references Cocceius who apparently argued for a creation covenant not only on the basis of an innate conscience but also on the fact of man’s innate longing for eternal life (Heppe, Reformed Dogmatics, 287). How can there exist within mankind an increated longing for eternal life and eschatological fullness (both of which are covenant concepts) if they are extrinsic to man’s natural state? The answer to this question seems, at least to me, patent: God made man a covenantal creature from the beginning. The creation covenant, therefore, was not superadditum. Gordon Spykman agrees,
> 
> “The covenant is rooted in God’s work of creation. God covenanted his world into existence. Covenantal relationships are given in, with and for all created reality. From the beginning creation is unthinkable apart from its covenantal relationship of dependence and responsiveness Coram Deo” (Reformational Theology [Eerdmans, 1992], 260).
> 
> So though I affirm the WCF’s and LBCF’s language of God’s gracious condescension (7.2), I prefer to locate that divine act of condescension at the very point of God’s creation of his visible replica and covenant steward rather than locating it at some time subsequent to man’s creation. We still are indebted to God for his condescension in making us covenantal creatures rather than rocks, trees, or dumb animals (Rom. 11:35). To him be the glory forever (Rom. 11:36)!
> 
> Conclusion: I’ve argued that God created Adam as a covenantal creature. Thus, the covenant of creation (or covenant of works) was inaugurated the moment God created man as his image and is intrinsic to man’s relationship vis-à-vis God and the world around him. Moreover, I’ve argued that the reward-sanction proffered in the covenant of works is based on the principle of divine goodness and justice as revealed in the covenant stipulations. Hence, just as Adam’s disloyalty and disobedience with respect to the covenant stipulations actually merited God’s wrath and judgment upon the grounds of divine justice, so Adam’s loyalty and obedience with respect to the covenant stipulations would have merited God’s complacence and reward upon the grounds of the principle of divine justice and goodness revealed in the covenant of works. Similarly, I believe the second Adam was under the same terms as the first. He succeed where the first failed. Consequently, the Man, Christ Jesus, merited the sanction of endless life and Sabbath-rest enthronement not because he bridged the ontological chasm between humanity and deity but because he, in the capacity of our Federal Head, humbled himself, took of form of a servant, and demonstrated supreme loyalty by sacrificing his own life on the cross in order to ensure completion of his Father’s kingdom-building process to the end that God might be all and all (1 Cor. 15:24-28). Finally, I affirm bi-covenantalism in the sense that there is a clear distinction between the covenant of works and the covenant of grace (which is also reflected in the law/gospel distinction). Nevertheless, there is a sense in which God meshes the two together. In reality, God’s covenant of grace or covenant of redemption can be viewed as His determination to ensure that the original covenant mandate given to humanity remains intact and on track. In redemption, God does not settle for option two because option one failed. Instead, the creation covenant is transtemporal and will accomplish God's eschatological goal. To ensure this end, God injects grace into his covenantal relationship with humanity and raises up a Second Adam who will succeed where he first failed. Viewed from this perspective, the covenant of grace can be viewed as an overlay for the creation covenant—grace intruding in order to satisfy God’s justice for covenant infraction and to fulfill the stipulations necessary to qualify the humanity-in-Christ for the covenant reward of life and Sabbath-rest enthronement with God (2 Tim. 2:12; Rev. 5:10; 20:6; 22:5).



The points about all mankind being judged by a covenant, etc., whether your own or Dr. Horton's, are sufficiently accounted for by the fact that God did in fact make a covenant with Adam. So that does not speak to the nature of man. With regard to the question of vice regency, the fact that God created man _in order to establish a covenant with him_ does not necessitate that the creation was in itself covenantal. Now that may seem like clinging to a position in the face of the evidence, but I don't believe that to be the case. The fact is that we have God _setting out the terms of the covenant_ to the man, explaining what the covenant requires of him. Is it not more natural to see that as the establishment of the covenant?

To Lee Irons I will oppose Riissen, (Heppe, 84):
"God wills some things necessarily, some freely. Himself He wills necessarily; He is the final end and the highest goal, which He cannot not will and love, because He cannot not will His own glory or deny Himself. All other things He wills freely; nothing created is necessary as regards God, but contingent, since because He could have done without them, He wills them all in the sense that He might not have willed them."


----------



## MW

Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> In other words, “justice” under the covenant of works is simply conformity to God’s revealed covenant stipulations not the attainment of metaphysical equality with God. In this sense, Adam’s merit was _ex pactum_.



God has bound Himself by promise to give justification upon the condition of believing and forgiveness upon the condition of confessing, and the Scriptures explicitly teach that the justice of God ensures the result in each case; but no faithful Protestant would dare conclude that these are merited as a result of God having promised them.



Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> Now here’s a question I have for you men. *What covenant did Christ keep?* If we argue that Christ kept the same covenant that Adam broke, then are we not bound to maintain that both the stipulations as well as the sanctions remain the same?



Jesus Christ kept the everlasting covenant, which was prefigured by the Adamic administration. He kept Adam's covenant and more. Because Christ came as Mediator of a better covenant, it is fallacious to argue that Adam's hypothetical obedience necessarily functions the same way as Christ's real obedience.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

armourbearer said:


> Dr. Bob Gonzales said:
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, “justice” under the covenant of works is simply conformity to God’s revealed covenant stipulations not the attainment of metaphysical equality with God. In this sense, Adam’s merit was _ex pactum_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God has bound Himself by promise to give justification upon the condition of believing and forgiveness upon the condition of confessing, and the Scriptures explicitly teach that the justice of God ensures the result in each case; but no faithful Protestant would dare conclude that these are merited as a result of God having promised them.
Click to expand...


Matthew, you and I are obviously operating with two different definitions of "merit." In general, "merit" refers to “something that deserves or justifies a reward or commendation” (Random House Unabridged, 2006). Under the covenant of works, God promised via covenant sanctions to threaten disloyalty with death and loyalty with life. As I said above, in such an arrangement “merit” is based on the standards of the covenant (i.e., _ex pactum_) not on the attainment of ontological virtue that is univocal with divine virtue (condign merit). This latter kind of merit would obviously be impossible for Adam since his virtue would only be *analogical *in nature not univocal. It is a _non sequitur_ that the above construal of Adam's "meriting" reward via obedience would necessitate the believer's "meriting" reward via faith _since Paul distinguishes between justifying faith which "passively" receives forgiveness and imputed righteousness on the basis of Another's obedience and works-reward which is based on "debt" _(Rom. 4:3-17). 



armourbearer said:


> Dr. Bob Gonzales said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now here’s a question I have for you men. *What covenant did Christ keep?* If we argue that Christ kept the same covenant that Adam broke, then are we not bound to maintain that both the stipulations as well as the sanctions remain the same?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus Christ kept the everlasting covenant, which was prefigured by the Adamic administration. He kept Adam's covenant and more. Because Christ came as Mediator of a better covenant, it is fallacious to argue that Adam's hypothetical obedience necessarily functions the same way as Christ's real obedience.
Click to expand...


I'm not arguing that Adam's hypothetical obedience functions in the same way as Christ's real obedience for the obvious fact that Christ had to become obedient unto death, even the death of the cross (Phil. 2:5-8). The primal creation covenant never stipulated that Adam had to atone for the sins of his seed. Hence, Christ had to do something for us that Adam did not, nor could not. But it is my present view that those facets of the primal covenant that Christ fulfilled, he fufilled them in accordance with the stipulations revealed by God and attainable by man in his integrity, not in accordance with a conjectured stipulation of ontologically divine "merit." 

Cordially yours,


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

py3ak said:


> Isn't saying that Adam and Christ were in precisely the same position with regard to covenant terms a difficult thing to reconcile with the fact that Christ was born _under the law_, and so was circumcised on the 8th day, baptised by John, and so forth, all things that had no application to Adam?



Ruben, as I said to Matthew above, I do not argue that Jesus did no more than fulfill the same stipulations of he primal covenant which Adam was obliged to fulfill. Christ not only had to keep the stipulations of the primal covenant but he had to keep the stipulations of the Messianic covenant/New covenant, which required him to shed his blood to attain the redemption of his seed. The primal covenant of works did not require Adam to shed his blood to redeem his progeny. This is a stipulation Adam could not have kept.



py3ak said:


> The points about all mankind being judged by a covenant, etc., whether your own or Dr. Horton's, are sufficiently accounted for by the fact that God did in fact make a covenant with Adam. So that does not speak to the nature of man. With regard to the question of vice regency, the fact that God created man _in order to establish a covenant with him_ does not necessitate that the creation was in itself covenantal. Now that may seem like clinging to a position in the face of the evidence, but I don't believe that to be the case. The fact is that we have God _setting out the terms of the covenant_ to the man, explaining what the covenant requires of him. Is it not more natural to see that as the establishment of the covenant?
> 
> To Lee Irons I will oppose Riissen, (Heppe, 84):
> "God wills some things necessarily, some freely. Himself He wills necessarily; He is the final end and the highest goal, which He cannot not will and love, because He cannot not will His own glory or deny Himself. All other things He wills freely; nothing created is necessary as regards God, but contingent, since because He could have done without them, He wills them all in the sense that He might not have willed them."



In my article entitled "The Covenant Context of the Fall: Did God Make a Primeval Covenant with Adam," RBTR (2007), I argue that the main theme of the creation account(s) is "the kingdom of God." God establishes his kingdom and creates man as His vassal-image to serve as his royal administrator. How does this "kingdom" theme relate to covenant? The biblical _berit_ is “the instrument constituting the rule (or kingdom) of God" (George E. Mendenhall and Gary A. Herion, “Covenant,” _Anchor Bible Dictionary_, ed. David Noel Freedman [New York: Doubleday, 1992], 1:1179). Or to use the words of Gordon Spykman, “Covenant suggests the idea of an abiding charter, while kingdom suggests the idea of an ongoing program. Covenant is more foundation oriented; kingdom is more goal oriented. Covenant may thus be conceived of as kingdom looking back to its origins, but with abiding significance. Kingdom may then be conceived of as covenant looking forward with gathering momentum toward its final fulfillment. Thus nuanced, covenant and kingdom are interchangeable realities" (_Reformational Theology_, 258). ​So the idea of covenant is implicit in God’s creative work and royal mandate to humanity (1:26, 28) and becomes more explicit as the writer transitions to the second creation narrative with the introduction of God’s special covenant name, _Yahweh_. For this reason, I presently find the dichotomy between man's existence as a non-covenantal creature, which supposedly happened for a short period after man's formation from the dust, versus man's existence as a covenantal creature, which supposedly happened later, to be artificial. But I'm still open to be taught otherwise.


----------



## MW

Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> It is a _non sequitur_ that the above construal of Adam's "meriting" reward via obedience would necessitate the believer's "meriting" reward via faith _since Paul distinguishes between justifying faith which "passively" receives forgiveness and imputed righteousness on the basis of Another's obedience and works-reward which is based on "debt" _(Rom. 4:3-17).



If merit by pact would have been the result of Adam's obedience because God agreed to make Adam's obedience the condition of eternal life, then merit by pact is the result of the believer's confession of sin because God has agreed to make the believer's confession of sin the condition of forgiveness. The apostle expressly states that if we confess our sins God is faithful and *just* to forgive us our sins. No doubt every true Protestant will recoil at the thought of forgiveness of sins being obtained by merit, but in reality the recoil is at the system of "merit" that is being unjustly imputed to the promises of God.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

armourbearer said:


> Dr. Bob Gonzales said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is a _non sequitur_ that the above construal of Adam's "meriting" reward via obedience would necessitate the believer's "meriting" reward via faith _since Paul distinguishes between justifying faith which "passively" receives forgiveness and imputed righteousness on the basis of Another's obedience and works-reward which is based on "debt" _(Rom. 4:3-17).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If merit by pact would have been the result of Adam's obedience because God agreed to make Adam's obedience the condition of eternal life, then merit by pact is the result of the believer's confession of sin because God has agreed to make the believer's confession of sin the condition of forgiveness. The apostle expressly states that if we confess our sins God is faithful and *just* to forgive us our sins. No doubt every true Protestant will recoil at the thought of forgiveness of sins being obtained by merit, but in reality the recoil is at the system of "merit" that is being unjustly imputed to the promises of God.
Click to expand...


Sorry, Matthew, but I still don't follow. Merit by covenant is NOT _the result _of Adam's obedience. Covenantally defined merit was _the stipulation to which Adam's obedience had to conform in order to attain life_. Covenantally defined merit is also _the stipulation to which the Second Adam's obedience had to conform_. That obedience merited the reward of eschatological fullness which believers receive by faith *as a gift of God*_._ Those in union with Christ do in fact, as you suggest above, "merit" God's forgiveness and eternal life on the basis of Christ's covenantal conformity. If I'm in Christ, then God *MUST* be faithful and just to forgive me (1 John 1:9) because He is both faithful and just to fulfill His terms of the covenant to which the Second Adam has obligated God by his atoning death and perfect life. So when you assert, "No doubt every true Protestant will recoil at the thought of *forgiveness of sins being obtained by merit*," I'm surprised you would make an unguarded statement. I would counter, "No doubt Protestants have believed and should believe that *our forgiveness of sins have been obtained by merit*--*the merit of our Federal Head, Jesus Christ*. Someone has to "merit" forgiveness and eternal life by fulfilling covenant stipulations. *There is no such think as grace for sinners apart from the satisfaction of God's justice as revealed in His covenant stipulations and sanctions. *

I hope this clarifies my position.


----------



## py3ak

Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> So idea of covenant is implicit in God’s creative work and royal mandate to humanity (1:26, 28) and becomes more explicit as the writer transitions to the second creation narrative with the introduction of God’s special covenant name, _Yahweh_. For this reason, I presently find the dichotomy between man's existence as a non-covenantal creature, which supposedly happened for a short period after man's formation from the dust, versus man's existence as a covenantal creature, which supposedly happened later, to be artificial. But I'm still open to be taught otherwise.



I suppose it's a different weighing of the evidence. To me, the fact that there are two creation accounts, which represent God in different aspects, one of which is openly covenantal, makes it easier and more natural to believe that God's creation and gracious condescension in making a covenant are distinct things.

I forgot to mention before that stating that God showed gracious condescension in not making me a tree, rock, etc., has been characterized by C.S. Lewis as, strictly speaking, nonsense.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

py3ak said:


> Dr. Bob Gonzales said:
> 
> 
> 
> So idea of covenant is implicit in God’s creative work and royal mandate to humanity (1:26, 28) and becomes more explicit as the writer transitions to the second creation narrative with the introduction of God’s special covenant name, _Yahweh_. For this reason, I presently find the dichotomy between man's existence as a non-covenantal creature, which supposedly happened for a short period after man's formation from the dust, versus man's existence as a covenantal creature, which supposedly happened later, to be artificial. But I'm still open to be taught otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I suppose it's a different weighing of the evidence. To me, the fact that there are two creation accounts, which represent God in different aspects, one of which is openly covenantal, makes it easier and more natural to believe that God's creation and gracious condescension in making a covenant are distinct things.
> 
> I forgot to mention before that stating that God showed gracious condescension in not making me a tree, rock, etc., has been characterized by C.S. Lewis as, strictly speaking, nonsense.
Click to expand...


Ruben, thanks for the further interaction. I concede that Reformed interpreters differ in opinion as the the precise timing of God's inauguration of the primal covenant and whether it should be considered as something _extrinsic_ to creation added later. In fact, the majority of Reformed theologians have probably held the extrinsic view that you presently favor. 

I would, nevertheless, add one more thought that seems to support the view that sees the creation covenant as _intrinsic_ to God's creative activity. In Hebrew narrative, the writer may give two "accounts," the second of which is not a distinct or subsequent account but repeating of some aspect or details of the first account, only now with greater focus and detail (compare Genesis 10 with 11:1-9). 

Hence, the use of the covenant name Yahweh prefacing the more generic Elohim in chapter two does not mean, as the critics contend, two creation accounts and two different gods. nor does it signal an event subsequent to God's creative activity. Rather, it focuses with greater specificity upon Adam's and Eve's creations and their covenantal assignment to fill and subdue the earth as royal priests. The heavenly Suzerain's royal garden is not merely a food plot or an idyllic park.[1] Rather, it is a royal sanctuary where man is to pay homage continually to his divine King,[2] and from which man is to advance God’s kingdom centrifugally over the entire earth.[3] The implication is that man will eventually complete the task and, like his Sovereign, enter an eschatological Sabbath enthronement (Gen. 2:1-3; Heb. 4:1-11).[4]

[1] Of course, the narrative makes clear that the garden did provide an abundance of food (vv. 9, 16), which reflects a suzerain’s royal benevolence (Gen. 43:34; 47:22; 2 Sam. 9:7,13; 19:28; 1 Kgs. 2:7; 2 Kgs. 25:29-30; Psa. 23:5; Jer. 52:33-34). Furthermore, the proper noun “Eden” is probably related to a family of words that have the sense of “pleasure and happiness” (cf., 2 Sam. 1:24; Psa. 36:9; Jer. 51:34). The term translated “garden” is used elsewhere in the OT to refer to an enclosed area fenced-off by a wall or hedge (cf., 2 Kgs 25:4; Neh. 3:15; Jer. 39:4; 52:7; Prov. 24:30-31; Isa. 5:5). This sense is supported by the LXX, which uses a Persian loan word that means “what is walled, what is hedged about, a pleasure garden surrounded by a stone or earthen wall.” Keil and Delitzsch, The Pentateuch, trans. James Martin, Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1986), 1:80-81.

[2] The royal dimension of the garden is highlighted by the fact that ancient Near Eastern kings were known for their palatial gardens where they would entertain honored guests. Several OT passages refer to the “King’s Garden" in Jerusalem (2 Kgs. 25:4; Jer. 39:4; Neh. 3:15), and the book of Esther refers to the palatial gardens of Ahasuerus (1:5; 7:7-8). Some Mesopotamian kings even used the title “Gardener” as a royal epithet. In Tablet IX of the Gilgamesh Epic, the hero travels to the holy mountain Mashu, which appears to be a point of contact between the gods and mortals, and there he encounters the beautifully jeweled “garden of the gods.” See T. Stordalen, Echoes of Eden: Genesis 2-3 and Symbolism of the Eden Garden in Biblical Hebrew Literature (Leuven, Belgium: Peeters, 2000), 94-104,153-155. On the other hand, the many horticultural symbols used to adorn the tabernacle and Solomon’s temple may suggest a cultic dimension for the garden. See Gordon Wenham’s study “Sanctuary Symbolism in the Garden of Eden Story,” Proceedings of the World Congress of Jewish Studies 9 (1986), 19-25.

[3] This is the basic thesis of Gregory Beale’s book The Temple and the Church’s Mission: “[Adam and Eve] were to reflect God’s kingship by being his vice-regents on earth.... _t is plausible to suggest that they were to extend the geographical boundaries of the garden until Eden covered the whole earth…. They were to extend the smaller livable area of the garden by transforming the outer chaotic region into a habitable territory…. God’s ultimate goal in creation was to magnify his glory throughout the earth by means of his faithful image-bearers inhabiting the world in obedience to the divine mandate” (81-82). Beale traces out the many biblical links between the Garden of Eden, the OT Tabernacle/Temple, the NT Church, and the New Heavens and New Earth. He argues persuasively that the Great Commission should be viewed as extension of the creation mandate of Gen. 1 and 2. What the first Adam failed to do, the Last Adam will successfully accomplish, and the holy Garden will cover the earth as the waters cover the sea. See also J. V. Fesko, Last Things First: Unlocking Genesis 1-3 with the Christ of Eschatology (Mentor, 2007). 

[4] Other considerations that indicate a pre-redemptive eschatology include (1) the creation mandate to fill and subdue the earth, which is further elaborated in connection with the Garden of Eden (Gen. 1:26,28; 2:15), (2) the sacramental Tree of Life and the Tree of Knowledge (2:9; 3:22), and (3) the innate God-like drive for eschatological fullness (Eccl. 3:11). As Rowland S. Ward appropriately cautions, “We must not idealise conditions in the world before sin. The state of innocence in paradise is far surpassed by the state of glory in the New Jerusalem. Put another way, we can say there was an eschatology before there was sin.” God & Adam, 23. Emphasis his. For more on this subject, see Howard Griffith, “Eschatology Begins with Creation,” Westminster Theological Journal 49 (1987): 387-396._


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr. Bob Gonzales said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is a _non sequitur_ that the above construal of Adam's "meriting" reward via obedience would necessitate the believer's "meriting" reward via faith _since Paul distinguishes between justifying faith which "passively" receives forgiveness and imputed righteousness on the basis of Another's obedience and works-reward which is based on "debt" _(Rom. 4:3-17).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If merit by pact would have been the result of Adam's obedience because God agreed to make Adam's obedience the condition of eternal life, then merit by pact is the result of the believer's confession of sin because God has agreed to make the believer's confession of sin the condition of forgiveness. The apostle expressly states that if we confess our sins God is faithful and *just* to forgive us our sins. No doubt every true Protestant will recoil at the thought of forgiveness of sins being obtained by merit, but in reality the recoil is at the system of "merit" that is being unjustly imputed to the promises of God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, Matthew, but I still don't follow. Merit by covenant is NOT _the result _of Adam's obedience. Covenantally defined merit was _the stipulation to which Adam's obedience had to conform in order to attain life_. Covenantally defined merit is also _the stipulation to which the Second Adam's obedience had to conform_. That obedience merited the reward of eschatological fullness which believers receive by faith *as a gift of God*_._ Those in union with Christ do in fact, as you suggest above, "merit" God's forgiveness and eternal life on the basis of Christ's covenantal conformity. If I'm in Christ, then God *MUST* be faithful and just to forgive me (1 John 1:9) because He is both faithful and just to fulfill His terms of the covenant to which the Second Adam has obligated God by his atoning death and perfect life. So when you assert, "No doubt every true Protestant will recoil at the thought of *forgiveness of sins being obtained by merit*," I'm surprised you would make an unguarded statement. I would counter, "No doubt Protestants have believed and should believe that *our forgiveness of sins have been obtained by merit*--*the merit of our Federal Head, Jesus Christ*. Someone has to "merit" forgiveness and eternal life by fulfilling covenant stipulations. *There is no such think as grace for sinners apart from the satisfaction of God's justice as revealed in His covenant stipulations and sanctions. *
> 
> I hope this clarifies my position.
Click to expand...


I'm trying to get my head around what you're stating and do appreciate the length to which you're going to make yourself clear.

If I may summarize in a brief way, are you saying that merit would have been imputed to Adam on the basis of the CoW promise made to Him? Is that a fair way of putting it?

In other words, I can see what you're saying about our forgiveness is based upon Christ's merit but from our standpoint our faith is the instrument that procures something for us that we don't merit in ourselves.

In the same way, are you arguing that Adam didn't merit reward in Himself but that reward would have been imputed to Him on the basis of Covenantal faithfulness? He doesn't merit it within himself but it is Covenantally granted.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

Semper Fidelis said:


> Dr. Bob Gonzales said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> If merit by pact would have been the result of Adam's obedience because God agreed to make Adam's obedience the condition of eternal life, then merit by pact is the result of the believer's confession of sin because God has agreed to make the believer's confession of sin the condition of forgiveness. The apostle expressly states that if we confess our sins God is faithful and *just* to forgive us our sins. No doubt every true Protestant will recoil at the thought of forgiveness of sins being obtained by merit, but in reality the recoil is at the system of "merit" that is being unjustly imputed to the promises of God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, Matthew, but I still don't follow. Merit by covenant is NOT _the result _of Adam's obedience. Covenantally defined merit was _the stipulation to which Adam's obedience had to conform in order to attain life_. Covenantally defined merit is also _the stipulation to which the Second Adam's obedience had to conform_. That obedience merited the reward of eschatological fullness which believers receive by faith *as a gift of God*_._ Those in union with Christ do in fact, as you suggest above, "merit" God's forgiveness and eternal life on the basis of Christ's covenantal conformity. If I'm in Christ, then God *MUST* be faithful and just to forgive me (1 John 1:9) because He is both faithful and just to fulfill His terms of the covenant to which the Second Adam has obligated God by his atoning death and perfect life. So when you assert, "No doubt every true Protestant will recoil at the thought of *forgiveness of sins being obtained by merit*," I'm surprised you would make an unguarded statement. I would counter, "No doubt Protestants have believed and should believe that *our forgiveness of sins have been obtained by merit*--*the merit of our Federal Head, Jesus Christ*. Someone has to "merit" forgiveness and eternal life by fulfilling covenant stipulations. *There is no such think as grace for sinners apart from the satisfaction of God's justice as revealed in His covenant stipulations and sanctions. *
> 
> I hope this clarifies my position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm trying to get my head around what you're stating and do appreciate the length to which you're going to make yourself clear.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Rich, thanks for wading through my lengthy posts. I realize that everyone is busy, and I hope my longer posts don't clog the flow. 



> If I may summarize in a brief way, are you saying that merit would have been imputed to Adam on the basis of the CoW promise made to Him? Is that a fair way of putting it?



More precisely, I would argue that the covenant merit imputed or credited to Adam would have been predicated on both the goodness and justice of God as revealed in the covenant stipulations and sanctions. The CofW did not oblige Adam to attain to ethical virtue that would be _univocal with divine virtue_ but only _analogous to divine virtue_ (Lev. 19:2; Matt. 5:48) since Adam was not created to be equal with God but only an analogue or visible replica of God. 



> In other words, I can see what you're saying about our forgiveness is based upon Christ's merit but from our standpoint our faith is the instrument that procures something for us that we don't merit in ourselves.



I agree that faith (in the passive sense) is the alone instrument of justification that procures something that, according to the stipulations and sanctions of the Covenant of Grace, we don't merit in ourselves. 



> In the same way, are you arguing that Adam didn't merit reward in Himself but that reward would have been imputed to Him on the basis of Covenantal faithfulness? He doesn't merit it within himself but it is Covenantally granted.



Like nearly all Christian theologians, I would deny that Adam's virtue could ever be equivalent in value to divine virtue. Moreover, I would even argue that Adam's potential faith and obedience would themselves ultimately be "gifts" or "endowments" from God. So in those senses, I would agree that Adam couldn't have merit in himself. What I am trying to argue (imperfectly, no doubt) is that *the ground or basis* for the reward sanction of eternal life under both the Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Grace is basically the same--_conformity to the divine law and fulfillment of the divine commission_. What makes the Covenant of Grace different in my mind is not that the ground or basis of the reward-sanction has changed. Even under the Covenant of Grace we are still saved on the basis of works--but not our works! Rather, *the works of the Second Adam* are imputed to us and serve as *the basis* of God's bestowal of eternal life. Simple faith, which Paul portrays in antithesis to our works, becomes the instrument or, if one prefers, the condition by which Christ's covenant fidelity becomes ours. So when it's all said and done, God's original plan for humanity will not have failed, At the Great Assize, God *will reckon* the new humanity *to have successfully fulfilled the original creation covenant stipulations* by virtue of *its union with the Second Adam*.

I hope these comments provide greater clarity regarding my present conception of covenant merit and on the way the two covenants relate to each other. I hope that your input and questions along with the contributions of Matthew, Ruben, Shawn, and others will sharpen my understanding and help me modify areas were my thinking or articulations may be imprecise or inaccurate. 

Gratefully,


----------



## py3ak

Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> py3ak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr. Bob Gonzales said:
> 
> 
> 
> So idea of covenant is implicit in God’s creative work and royal mandate to humanity (1:26, 28) and becomes more explicit as the writer transitions to the second creation narrative with the introduction of God’s special covenant name, _Yahweh_. For this reason, I presently find the dichotomy between man's existence as a non-covenantal creature, which supposedly happened for a short period after man's formation from the dust, versus man's existence as a covenantal creature, which supposedly happened later, to be artificial. But I'm still open to be taught otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I suppose it's a different weighing of the evidence. To me, the fact that there are two creation accounts, which represent God in different aspects, one of which is openly covenantal, makes it easier and more natural to believe that God's creation and gracious condescension in making a covenant are distinct things.
> 
> I forgot to mention before that stating that God showed gracious condescension in not making me a tree, rock, etc., has been characterized by C.S. Lewis as, strictly speaking, nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ruben, thanks for the further interaction. I concede that Reformed interpreters differ in opinion as the the precise timing of God's inauguration of the primal covenant and whether it should be considered as something _extrinsic_ to creation added later. In fact, the majority of Reformed theologians have probably held the extrinsic view that you presently favor.
> 
> I would, nevertheless, add one more thought that seems to support the view that sees the creation covenant as _intrinsic_ to God's creative activity. In Hebrew narrative, the writer may give two "accounts," the second of which is not a distinct or subsequent account but repeating of some aspect or details of the first account, only now with greater focus and detail (compare Genesis 10 with 11:1-9).
> 
> Hence, the use of the covenant name Yahweh prefacing the more generic Elohim in chapter two does not mean, as the critics contend, two creation accounts and two different gods. nor does it signal an event subsequent to God's creative activity. Rather, it focuses with greater specificity upon Adam's and Eve's creations and their covenantal assignment to fill and subdue the earth as royal priests. The heavenly Suzerain's royal garden is not merely a food plot or an idyllic park.[1] Rather, it is a royal sanctuary where man is to pay homage continually to his divine King,[2] and from which man is to advance God’s kingdom centrifugally over the entire earth.[3] The implication is that man will eventually complete the task and, like his Sovereign, enter an eschatological Sabbath enthronement (Gen. 2:1-3; Heb. 4:1-11).[4]
> 
> [1] Of course, the narrative makes clear that the garden did provide an abundance of food (vv. 9, 16), which reflects a suzerain’s royal benevolence (Gen. 43:34; 47:22; 2 Sam. 9:7,13; 19:28; 1 Kgs. 2:7; 2 Kgs. 25:29-30; Psa. 23:5; Jer. 52:33-34). Furthermore, the proper noun “Eden” is probably related to a family of words that have the sense of “pleasure and happiness” (cf., 2 Sam. 1:24; Psa. 36:9; Jer. 51:34). The term translated “garden” is used elsewhere in the OT to refer to an enclosed area fenced-off by a wall or hedge (cf., 2 Kgs 25:4; Neh. 3:15; Jer. 39:4; 52:7; Prov. 24:30-31; Isa. 5:5). This sense is supported by the LXX, which uses a Persian loan word that means “what is walled, what is hedged about, a pleasure garden surrounded by a stone or earthen wall.” Keil and Delitzsch, The Pentateuch, trans. James Martin, Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1986), 1:80-81.
> 
> [2] The royal dimension of the garden is highlighted by the fact that ancient Near Eastern kings were known for their palatial gardens where they would entertain honored guests. Several OT passages refer to the “King’s Garden" in Jerusalem (2 Kgs. 25:4; Jer. 39:4; Neh. 3:15), and the book of Esther refers to the palatial gardens of Ahasuerus (1:5; 7:7-8). Some Mesopotamian kings even used the title “Gardener” as a royal epithet. In Tablet IX of the Gilgamesh Epic, the hero travels to the holy mountain Mashu, which appears to be a point of contact between the gods and mortals, and there he encounters the beautifully jeweled “garden of the gods.” See T. Stordalen, Echoes of Eden: Genesis 2-3 and Symbolism of the Eden Garden in Biblical Hebrew Literature (Leuven, Belgium: Peeters, 2000), 94-104,153-155. On the other hand, the many horticultural symbols used to adorn the tabernacle and Solomon’s temple may suggest a cultic dimension for the garden. See Gordon Wenham’s study “Sanctuary Symbolism in the Garden of Eden Story,” Proceedings of the World Congress of Jewish Studies 9 (1986), 19-25.
> 
> [3] This is the basic thesis of Gregory Beale’s book The Temple and the Church’s Mission: “[Adam and Eve] were to reflect God’s kingship by being his vice-regents on earth.... _t is plausible to suggest that they were to extend the geographical boundaries of the garden until Eden covered the whole earth…. They were to extend the smaller livable area of the garden by transforming the outer chaotic region into a habitable territory…. God’s ultimate goal in creation was to magnify his glory throughout the earth by means of his faithful image-bearers inhabiting the world in obedience to the divine mandate” (81-82). Beale traces out the many biblical links between the Garden of Eden, the OT Tabernacle/Temple, the NT Church, and the New Heavens and New Earth. He argues persuasively that the Great Commission should be viewed as extension of the creation mandate of Gen. 1 and 2. What the first Adam failed to do, the Last Adam will successfully accomplish, and the holy Garden will cover the earth as the waters cover the sea. See also J. V. Fesko, Last Things First: Unlocking Genesis 1-3 with the Christ of Eschatology (Mentor, 2007).
> 
> [4] Other considerations that indicate a pre-redemptive eschatology include (1) the creation mandate to fill and subdue the earth, which is further elaborated in connection with the Garden of Eden (Gen. 1:26,28; 2:15), (2) the sacramental Tree of Life and the Tree of Knowledge (2:9; 3:22), and (3) the innate God-like drive for eschatological fullness (Eccl. 3:11). As Rowland S. Ward appropriately cautions, “We must not idealise conditions in the world before sin. The state of innocence in paradise is far surpassed by the state of glory in the New Jerusalem. Put another way, we can say there was an eschatology before there was sin.” God & Adam, 23. Emphasis his. For more on this subject, see Howard Griffith, “Eschatology Begins with Creation,” Westminster Theological Journal 49 (1987): 387-396._
Click to expand...

_

Dr. Gonzalez, thanks for the additional information, all of which is very interesting. I must admit I don't see how any of it actually militates against my view. Of course the two creation accounts are not in conflict; but in one we see man created, with no mention of a covenant. In another we see him created and a covenant with him spelled out in some detail. It's quite natural to take the second account as giving us the more detailed account and therefore the more precise chronology.

I agree with much of the rest of what you posted. Interestingly, a post-Christian novelist has a similar theme in his major fantasy work -that all the land should become as Andelain._


----------



## MW

Two points I cannot reconcile with regard to Adamic merit.

First, If pactum merit is nothing more than God being obliged to reward what He has promised on certain conditions, then every condition of the covenant of grace will imply merited benefits. This includes faith, repentance, obedience, perseverance, etc. The Bible repeatedly makes promises to these and other graces. Undoubtedly the graces are the gift of God, but any hypothetical obedience of Adam would have been the gift of God also. So the idea of pactum merit would lead to the conclusion that all conditional promises of Scripture entail merited reward. The conclusion is unacceptable to the fundamentals of Protestantism.

Secondly, it is fallacious to argue that the hypothetical reward of Adam operated in the same way as the real reward of Christ. According to Hebrews 13:20, 21, Jesus Christ was raised from the dead by the blood of the everlasting covenant. It is true that He fulfilled the stipulations of the covenant of works, but His obedience was to the covenant of grace not to the covenant of works per se. According to Hebrews this is a better covenant with better promises and a better Mediator.


----------



## toddpedlar

greenbaggins said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> greenbaggins said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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_)
Click to expand...


This is excellent, Lane. I believe Boston drives at this point as well in the Fourfold State, but it's been so long since I've read it that I can't recall if he makes the same comparison. I think sometimes we lack recognition of how "good" Adam was in his created state - that the only thing he lacked was the inability to sin. I don't see how we can see Adam's life prior to the Fall as anything less than this. In our eternal, glorified state, it seems to me reasonable from the Scriptural account - the whole of it - to assume that we will differ from Adam's created state only in this one particular - that we will be unable to sin.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

armourbearer said:


> Two points I cannot reconcile with regard to Adamic merit.
> 
> First, If pactum merit is nothing more than God being obliged to reward what He has promised on certain conditions, then every condition of the covenant of grace will imply merited benefits. This includes faith, repentance, obedience, perseverance, etc. The Bible repeatedly makes promises to these and other graces. Undoubtedly the graces are the gift of God, but any hypothetical obedience of Adam would have been the gift of God also. So the idea of pactum merit would lead to the conclusion that all conditional promises of Scripture entail merited reward. The conclusion is unacceptable to the fundamentals of Protestantism.
> 
> Secondly, it is fallacious to argue that the hypothetical reward of Adam operated in the same way as the real reward of Christ. According to Hebrews 13:20, 21, Jesus Christ was raised from the dead by the blood of the everlasting covenant. It is true that He fulfilled the stipulations of the covenant of works, but His obedience was to the covenant of grace not to the covenant of works per se. According to Hebrews this is a better covenant with better promises and a better Mediator.



Matthew, your questions are good and may indicate that I need to do a better job of articulating my position. I think we each may be operating with different concepts of "covenant merit" and of the way in which the covenant of works and covenant of grace interface. I'm currently at a theological module in Wyoming, so my time has been limited. Lord willing, I'll have more time to reply when I get home next week. Thanks for your patience.


----------



## Archlute

Bob Gonzales said:


> Moreover, I would even argue that Adam's potential faith and obedience would themselves ultimately be "gifts" or "endowments" from God.



This sounds a bit like the _donum superadditum_ of RC theology. You probably mean to say something else by it, but I just wanted to clarify.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

armourbearer said:


> Dr. Bob Gonzales said:
> 
> 
> 
> Personally, I think the question is "both." The sacramental trees in the Garden pointed to the sanctions of the covenant (compare Deut. 30:19-20). Had Adam obeyed God's prohibition and refrained from eating from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, he would have gained true wisdom (which is what that tree symbolized) rather than the counterfeit wisdom (the wisdom of this world) gained through eating the fruit. Moreover, he would have been rewarded with the very reality symbolized by the Tree of Life. By created man as his image, God created a covenantal being analogous to himself and consequently obligated himself to reward fealty with life (as royal grant) and disloyalty with death (as covenant curse). If an _imago Dei _obeys his Maker, that obedience has virtue because it is analogous to the divine Archetype.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not a word of "merit" in this paragraph, showing that the idea of merit does not naturally follow from the condition of works.
Click to expand...


Sorry, dear brother, but I don't fall for the "not a word of ... in this" context hermeneutic. In fact, there's not a word of "covenant" (_berit_) in either creation account, ch. 1 or ch. 2, yet, as Walther Eichrodt has astutely observed, “The crucial point is not—as an all too naïve criticism seems to think—the occurrence or absence of the Hebrew word" (_Theology of the Old Testament,_ trans. J. A. Baker (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1961), 1:17-18. 

God obviously predicated death as a sanction upon the condition of disobedience. Since I believe the reader should view the relational framework portrayed in the creation narrartive(s) in terms of a divine-human covenant, then I infer from the sacramental Tree of Life the oppositive sanction and stipulation, viz, eternal life predicated on unserving, heart-felt, faith-generated obedience. The semantic parallels between God's creation covenant stipulations and sanctions reverberate in the covenantal text I cited above--Deut. 30:19-20. Moreover, Paul seems to make a connection between "works" and "merit" when he writes, "Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt" (Rom. 4:4). 


Furthermore, one should note that Jesus, as the second Adam, not only had to pacify divine wrath but he also had to satisfy divine justice in order to undo what Adam did as well as to accomplish what Adam failed to accomplish for his offspring. So I do not find it a huge leap of inference to conclude that the original covenant of works demanded _both comformity to the moral law (which itself constitituted the bedrock of the covenantal relationship between God and man) but also fulfillment of the divine mandate, namely, to multiply, fill, and subdue the earth for the glory of God_. Had the First Adam succeeded, he would have "merited" (by fulfilling the terms of the covenant which required that he reflect his Father's glory as analogue vice-regent) the royal eschatological grant of eternal life for himself and his posterity. Hence, Adam's "reward" would have been grounded both on God's goodness and also on God's justice. 

I think the sticking point for you and me is our use of the term "merit." I'm well aware of the medieval debate over condign vs. congruous merit. It's important to remember, however, that that debate over human merit took place within the framework of soteriology--where it most certainly does not belong. My definition or understanding of the kind of merit demanded by the creation covenant is different from both condign merit and also congruous merit as defined by the schoolmen. 

On the one hand, God did not expect Adam to merit his favor or reward condignly, that is, in the sense of attaining a kind of virtue that would be ontologically and univocally equal to divine merit. Nor did God superimpose a secondary construct over his creation-relation to mankind called a pactum or covenant, whereby God arbitrary decides to condescend and grant a costly and extravagant reward (i.e., eternal life) upon the condition of Adam's fulfilling a deed that, in the divine reckoning, was in fact a worthless, meaningless heap of manure by virtue of the huge chasm between God and man. This is a nominalistic view of merit. Rather, the merit demanded by the creation covenant is defined by the covenant itself, which in turn is a revelation of God's goodness and justice. Adam was never required to attain to a virtue ontologically and univocally equal to his Maker. Rather, as the _imago Dei_, Adam was required by covenant to reflect God's likeness analogically. Hence, the creation covenant or covenant of works that promised life predicated such reward on a faith, love, and obedience that analogously reflected divine virtue. Thus, analogical merit, not condign or congruous, is what the creation covenant demanded. And had Adam obeyed God law and fulfilled his Father's will in accordance with the dictates of that creation covenant, he would have obliged God by consequent necessity to keep covenant and reward fealty with life as a matter of justice and not grace. 

That's my present understanding of the creation covenant and the question of merit. 

Cordially,


----------



## MW

Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr. Bob Gonzales said:
> 
> 
> 
> Personally, I think the question is "both." The sacramental trees in the Garden pointed to the sanctions of the covenant (compare Deut. 30:19-20). Had Adam obeyed God's prohibition and refrained from eating from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, he would have gained true wisdom (which is what that tree symbolized) rather than the counterfeit wisdom (the wisdom of this world) gained through eating the fruit. Moreover, he would have been rewarded with the very reality symbolized by the Tree of Life. By created man as his image, God created a covenantal being analogous to himself and consequently obligated himself to reward fealty with life (as royal grant) and disloyalty with death (as covenant curse). If an _imago Dei _obeys his Maker, that obedience has virtue because it is analogous to the divine Archetype.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not a word of "merit" in this paragraph, showing that the idea of merit does not naturally follow from the condition of works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, dear brother, but I don't fall for the "not a word of ... in this" context hermeneutic. In fact, there's not a word of "covenant" (_berit_) in either creation account, ch. 1 or ch. 2, yet, as Walther Eichrodt has astutely observed, “The crucial point is not—as an all too naïve criticism seems to think—the occurrence or absence of the Hebrew word" (_Theology of the Old Testament,_ trans. J. A. Baker (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1961), 1:17-18.
Click to expand...


Brother, It has been a while since we discussed this, which accounts for the misunderstanding -- "not a word" referred to your eloquent paragraph in which you capably spoke of the reward of Adam's obedience without reverting to the idea of "merit." You carefully noted that God obligated Himself. I was not alluding to the biblical absence of the word, which should suffice to bury the speculation of "merit" in oblivion. The fact that Gen 1, 2, itself does not use the word "covenant" at least makes us cautious with regard to reading the concept into the passage, while we can acknowledge covenant as a meta-concept as a result of canonical teachings such as the two Adam structure of Pauline thought. The same cannot be said of "merit" because the Scriptures clearly distinguish Christ as the Lord from heaven and therefore competent to merit pneumatic life for His people. Blessings!


----------



## Christusregnat

armourbearer said:


> I was not alluding to the biblical absence of the word, *which should suffice to bury the speculation of "merit" in oblivion*.



Rev. Winzer,

I am interested to know what exactly you intended by the term "merit" as used above. For instance, what is the relation between the term "merit" as you will explain, and the compatible concepts of debt, wages, etc.

Cheers,


----------



## MW

Christusregnat said:


> I am interested to know what exactly you intended by the term "merit" as used above. For instance, what is the relation between the term "merit" as you will explain, and the compatible concepts of debt, wages, etc.



I take "merit" in its usual sense of "deserving," "earning;" it means the person has done something which is worthy to be rewarded and entitles the person to a reward as something that is owed to him. Adam could not merit life for himself and his posterity because he was a "living soul" who owed his existence to God. Only a "Quickening Spirit" could do that which deserved the reward of life.


----------



## Christusregnat

armourbearer said:


> Christusregnat said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am interested to know what exactly you intended by the term "merit" as used above. For instance, what is the relation between the term "merit" as you will explain, and the compatible concepts of debt, wages, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I take "merit" in its usual sense of "deserving," "earning;" it means the person has done something which is worthy to be rewarded and entitles the person to a reward as something that is owed to him. Adam could not merit life for himself and his posterity because he was a "living soul" who owed his existence to God. Only a "Quickening Spirit" could do that which deserved the reward of life.
Click to expand...


Rev. Winzer,

What do you make of Paul's statement in Romans 2:



> 6 Who will *render *to every man according to his deeds: 7 To them who by *patient continuance in well doing* seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life: 8 But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, 9 Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile; 10 But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile: 11 For *there is no respect of persons with God*.



As I'm sure you are aware, the term "render" means to pay back a debt which is owed. The emphasis of Paul in this passage is to prove that all men are condemned under the covenant of works (I'm assuming that this is a given regarding this passage; please correct me if I'm wrong).

That said, doesn't Paul indicate that the impartially considered merits are rendered to every man according to his works? In other words, if you perfectly, personally and perpetually obeyed the law, wouldn't God repay you with eternal life?

Cheers,


----------



## MW

> As I'm sure you are aware, the term "render" means to pay back a debt which is owed. The emphasis of Paul in this passage is to prove that all men are condemned under the covenant of works (I'm assuming that this is a given regarding this passage; please correct me if I'm wrong).



To render is simply "to give back;" the concepts of merit and demerit are read into the word. In the case of demerit it is acceptable because sin receives its just desert; but believers do not receive what their works deserve when God rewards their labours, therefore it is unacceptable to read the concept of merit into the term. So Calvin: "But there is not so much difficulty in this verse, as it is commonly thought. For the Lord, by visiting the wickedness of the reprobate with just vengeance, will recompense them with what they have deserved: and as he sanctifies those whom he has previously resolved to glorify, he will also crown their good works, but not on account of any merit: nor can this be proved from this verse; for though it declares what reward good works are to have, it does yet by no means show what they are worth, or what price is due to them. *And it is an absurd inference, to deduce merit from reward.*”


----------



## Christusregnat

armourbearer said:


> To render is simply "to give back;" the concepts of merit and demerit are read into the word. In the case of demerit it is acceptable because sin receives its just desert; but believers do not receive what their works deserve when God rewards their labours, therefore it is unacceptable to read the concept of merit into the term. So Calvin: "But there is not so much difficulty in this verse, as it is commonly thought. For the Lord, by visiting the wickedness of the reprobate with just vengeance, will recompense them with what they have deserved: and as he sanctifies those whom he has previously resolved to glorify, he will also crown their good works, but not on account of any merit: nor can this be proved from this verse; for though it declares what reward good works are to have, it does yet by no means show what they are worth, or what price is due to them. *And it is an absurd inference, to deduce merit from reward.*”



That's an interesting thought by Calvin, but doesn't answer the basic meaning of the term. Also, I think he's not assuming that this passage is discussing the Covenant of Works; he seems to be referring the impartial rendering of God to be to the believer; I don't think this passage can give this meaning, as the overall thought seems to be condemnation, and why the Jews are guilty under the Law's sentence, since they have not kept the law.

Render is rendered elsewhere:



> Matthew 5:6 Verily I say unto thee, Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till *thou hast paid* the uttermost farthing.


Clearly a reference to repaying a debt.



> Matthew 5:33 Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but *shalt perform* unto the Lord thine oaths:


The reference is to fulfilling one's obligations.




> Matthew 6:4 That thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret himself *shall reward* thee openly.


This could be a passage with similar import to what Calvin reads in Romans 2; and which, I might add, makes your point that "render" can carry a range of meaning, which includes non-merit. However, I don't think Matthew 6 and Romans 2 are referring to the same concept of strict justice, or impartial judgment that I see in Romans 2.

Verses could be multiplied. I think what I see in scripture is that in situations of legal obligation, "render" has the connotation of paying back what one has merited. The langue of impartial justice in Romans 2:6, 11 seem to imply a strict-justice reading, rather than a mercy-justice rendering.

Cheers,


----------



## MW

Christusregnat said:


> That's an interesting thought by Calvin, but doesn't answer the basic meaning of the term. Also, I think he's not assuming that this passage is discussing the Covenant of Works; he seems to be referring the impartial rendering of God to be to the believer; I don't think this passage can give this meaning, as the overall thought seems to be condemnation, and why the Jews are guilty under the Law's sentence, since they have not kept the law.



As to the understanding of the passage, it is undergirt by the truth that there is no respect of persons with God, verse 11; hence it cannot be something which is distinctive to the covenant of works, but must also apply to the covenant of grace.

But however the passage is understood, it is still an absurd inference to deduce merit from reward because it is a matter of fact that God rewards every man according to his works. Matt. 16:27, "For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall *reward* [render to] every man according to his works."



Christusregnat said:


> Verses could be multiplied.



They could, and they would all show that context determines whether the concept of merit is to be read into the term.


----------



## Christusregnat

armourbearer said:


> As to the understanding of the passage, it is undergirt by the truth that there is no respect of persons with God, verse 11; hence it cannot be something which is distinctive to the covenant of works, but must also apply to the covenant of grace.



Paul's point to the Jews is that they rest on the law for salvation, but they don't really understand what the law requires. If you want to be saved by the law, fine. Just understand that it requires personal, perfect and perpetual obedience. The first instance of sin brings death.

In this context, Paul's use of the "no respect of persons" is to reinforce the fact that God will repay obedience with justification, and disobedience with condemnation. This is not referring to the covenant of grace. It *cannot* be.


----------



## MW

Christusregnat said:


> This is not referring to the covenant of grace.



This would make God a respecter of persons under the covenant of grace; that can't be right.


----------



## Christusregnat

armourbearer said:


> Christusregnat said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is not referring to the covenant of grace.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This would make God a respecter of persons under the covenant of grace; that can't be right.
Click to expand...


I'm not sure I follow; would you mind explaining to me how an impartial verdict in justification according to works means that God is a respecter of persons in the CoG?


----------



## MW

Christusregnat said:


> I'm not sure I follow; would you mind explaining to me how an impartial verdict in justification according to works means that God is a respecter of persons in the CoG?



The apostle expressly undergirds his teaching by appealing to the impartiality of God. He is teaching this is how God acts towards all men because there is no respect of persons with God. To say that God acts towards men differently under the covenant of grace is to impute partiality to Him -- God forbid! Thankfully there is no need to make such an imputation because the fact remains that God rewards believers according to their good works.


----------



## Christusregnat

armourbearer said:


> Christusregnat said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure I follow; would you mind explaining to me how an impartial verdict in justification according to works means that God is a respecter of persons in the CoG?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The apostle expressly undergirds his teaching by appealing to the impartiality of God. He is teaching this is how God acts towards all men because there is no respect of persons with God. To say that God acts towards men differently under the covenant of grace is to impute partiality to Him -- God forbid! Thankfully there is no need to make such an imputation because the fact remains that God rewards believers according to their good works.
Click to expand...


If God does not act differently toward men under the covenant of grace, then we are all still under the covenant of works. 

Affirming that the Covenant of Works has merit does not logically imply that God does not reward the good works of believers. There is no respect of persons with God; even if you're a Jew, if you want to rest on the Law, you have to have perfect obedience, which God will reward with eternal life. This is merit.

Cheers,


----------



## MW

Christusregnat said:


> If God does not act differently toward men under the covenant of grace, then we are all still under the covenant of works.



The Lord Jesus Christ fulfilled the obligation and suffered the penalty of the covenant of works. God's demands have not been lessened. The law of faith does not make void the law but rather establishes its claims and jurisdiction.



Christusregnat said:


> Affirming that the Covenant of Works has merit does not logically imply that God does not reward the good works of believers.



But imposing the concept of "merit" onto the word "reward" does logically imply that believers "merit" the "reward" of God by their good works.


----------



## Christusregnat

armourbearer said:


> Christusregnat said:
> 
> 
> 
> If God does not act differently toward men under the covenant of grace, then we are all still under the covenant of works.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Lord Jesus Christ fulfilled the obligation and suffered the penalty of the covenant of works. God's demands have not been lessened. The law of faith does not make void the law but rather establishes its claims and jurisdiction.
Click to expand...


Amen!



armourbearer said:


> Christusregnat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Affirming that the Covenant of Works has merit does not logically imply that God does not reward the good works of believers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But imposing the concept of "merit" onto the word "reward" does logically imply that believers "merit" the "reward" of God by their good works.
Click to expand...


As I stated, the term "repay" or "reward" has a semantic range that includes grace rewards, and justice rewards. Please re-read my former posts. My contention is that Paul, in Romans 2, is speaking of justice rewards for obedience and disobedience; justification or condemnation by works, in order to refute the Jews' vain confidence in their obedience to the law.

You have yet to answer whether or not Paul is dealing with man's attempt to keep the law for justification in Romans 2. If he is, then the concept of merit is clearly taught in this passage. The wages of the covenant of works are meritorious.

Cheers,


----------



## MW

Christusregnat said:


> You have yet to answer whether or not Paul is dealing with man's attempt to keep the law for justification in Romans 2.



It is not possible to confine this passage to Jews seeking to be justified by the law because he categorically includes the judgment of those who are without law. It is clearly referring to the standard of judgment which is applied by God to the lives of all men (note verse 1, "O man"), and which shall be manifested at the final judgment -- Verse 16, "In the day..."


----------

