# "Pre-fall Grace" Is In Addition, Equal or Not-Equal To "Voluntary Condescension"?



## psycheives (Jul 28, 2015)

Dear Brothers and Sisters,

I hope this can be an edifying discussion that helps shed light on some different views among our Reformed theologians, clarify some issues, and bring greater respect and unity among our brothers. At the same time, let us please take extra care to love one another and maintain a respectful way of speaking to one another. This should not be a "controversial topic" but one that can provide interesting insight into how and why we make certain precise emphases in terminology and are concerned with other formulations. Let us keep this edifying and love the unified body of Christ.

I understand that "grace" has at least 4 common definitions (Berkhof 426-427) and some additional less common definitions. One very common definition is "favor or good-will freely given." Berkhof gave 8 Bible verses as examples that grace is commonly used this way. And in accordance with this definition of grace a great many Reformed theologians have used this "non-salvific definition of grace" in a pre-fall context to describe God's condescension and or God's many blessings to man. Example: John Calvin:



> “At that time, I say, when he had been raised to the highest degree of honour, Scripture attributed nothing else to him than that he was created in the image of God, thereby suggesting that man was blessed, not because his own actions, but by participation in God. What, therefore, remains for man, bare and destitute of all glory, but to acknowledge the God for whose kindness he failed to be grateful when he abounded with the riches of his grace?” (Inst. 2,2,1)



Others that I understand to write of or acknowledge this non-redemptive pre-fall grace include: Thomas Boston, Anthony Burgess, Francis Roberts, Augustine, William Bridge, Thomas Blake, Patrick Gillespie, David VanDrunen, Richard Muller and more.


And yet, Berkhof also acknowledged another definition of grace as "undeserved favor shown to man in a state of sin [demerit]." This definition of grace as including demerit is said to go back to Augustine. And some would certainly argue it goes back to the Bible as well - Berkhof provides about a dozen Bible verses as examples. Certainly, we would ALL deny THIS definition of grace was can be used pre-fall.

My wise brother Bruce had written in another thread: 


> Furthermore, "voluntary condescension" is circumlocution used to safeguard the language of "grace" for favor given that is not merely undeserved, but positively demerited.



I have heard similar statements to Bruce's and so I'm curious as to where this idea that "voluntary condescension" is different from "grace" came from historically, since I have read so many Reformed theologians equate or acknowledge both "voluntary condescension" and "non-redemptive grace" pre-fall? The only theologians I have seen advocating the distinction view are modern theologians and I haven't been able to find any classical Reformers in the 16-18th centuries who held such a view. 

Question 1: Will you please share what theologians have historically differentiated the two and how and why did they distinguish them? I'm hoping for a deeper and more satisfying answer than "only one definition of "grace" exists and that includes "demerit" and so "grace" CAN ONLY be used in a "demerited situation" and so can't be used pre-fall" because the evidence seems to show most historic Reformed theologians (Calvin, Berkhof, etc) and the historical Greek language and Greek lexicons all disagreed with such a hypothesis. What is the difference between "voluntary condescension" and "free favor" that they are attempting to emphasize?

Question 2: Why don't many modern theologians acknowledge BOTH views? What's TRULY wrong with teaching that non-redemptive grace was pre-fall and also that redemptive demerited grace is NOT pre-fall? Would such precise language be biblical and also true to the our Reformed history and to the use of Calvin, Boston, etc? It seems the unity that would come from precise terminology and yet sticking to Biblical formulations and not losing our Reformed heritage (by teaching against Calvin, etc) would seem worth some careful thinking.

Thanks for your sharpening


----------



## MW (Jul 28, 2015)

I would be inclined to speak of pre-fall "grace" as an abstraction and analogy rather than a concept of revelation. It is part of systematics. As far as the history of revelation is concerned, grace is disclosed by covenant to fallen man. Even "covenant" itself is tied to the revelation of grace to sinners. What we call the covenant of works is built on the two Adam theology of the New Testament and the typological nature of creation in pointing forward to the new creation. Because of this historical development we must recognise an "antithetical parallelism" between nature and grace in the system of revelation. "Nature" itself is the stage on which the drama of redemption is acted out. As such mercy accompanied with truth shines about it; but it also has a place for justice and judgment as the dwelling-place of God's throne.


----------



## mvdm (Jul 28, 2015)

These may be helpful in getting at your questions:

http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2015/04/merit-could-adam-merit-anythin.php

http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2015/04/can-humans-merit-before-god-2.php


----------

