# WCF 7 - OF God's covenant with Man



## fredtgreco (Mar 31, 2004)

Thanks to Matthew, this is easier to list the text.

So go here to see the text of WCF 7 and let's discuss:

http://www.apuritansmind.com/Creeds/WestminsterConfession/Chapter7WestminsterConfession.htm


----------



## JohnV (Mar 31, 2004)

[quote:eb789e741c]
I. The distance between God and the creature is go 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.(a)

II. The first covenant made with man was a covenant of works,(b) wherein life was promised to Adam, and in him to his posterity,(c) upon condition of perfect and personal obedience.(d)[/quote:eb789e741c]

Is Common Grace usually counted under the Covenant of Works or under the Covenant of Grace? In other words, could it be that there is yet some residual effects of the original Covenant of Works in man that shows itself as Common Grace? Is there yet some condescension on God's part upon unbelievers, and what form does it take? What Covenant does Common Grace fall under?


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Mar 31, 2004)

God's Indicriminate Providence (i.e. common grace better titled) would be formally set under the CoG. That does not mean God does not providentially uphold all things, but the term originated under Calvin's conceptions more fully as &quot;God's Fatherly Love.&quot; This, then moves us from the Adamic Covenant (God as Creator) to the CoG (God as Creator and Redeemer). 

JohnV, not to toot the horn, but here's the toot:
The Two Wills of God, CM McMahon
Does God Really Have Two wills? This is a 350 Page Digital Book covering the concepts surrounding God's Will and whether or not the Bible demonstrates that He has Two Wills or One Will. Does He love the non-elect? Is He good to all men? Is common grace really grace? What did Calvin, Augustine, Edwards, Owen and others say about this? 

http://www.apuritansmind.com/TwoWillsBookCD.htm


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Mar 31, 2004)

[quote:d83a3b7c17][i:d83a3b7c17]Originally posted by JohnV[/i:d83a3b7c17]
[quote:d83a3b7c17]
I. The distance between God and the creature is go 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.(a)

II. The first covenant made with man was a covenant of works,(b) wherein life was promised to Adam, and in him to his posterity,(c) upon condition of perfect and personal obedience.(d)[/quote:d83a3b7c17]

Is Common Grace usually counted under the Covenant of Works or under the Covenant of Grace? In other words, could it be that there is yet some residual effects of the original Covenant of Works in man that shows itself as Common Grace? Is there yet some condescension on God's part upon unbelievers, and what form does it take? What Covenant does Common Grace fall under? [/quote:d83a3b7c17]
Excellent question John  Got me thinkin...


----------



## JohnV (Mar 31, 2004)

[quote:2eb5538614][i:2eb5538614]Originally posted by webmaster[/i:2eb5538614]
God's Indicriminate Providence (i.e. common grace better titled) would be formally set under the CoG. That does not mean God does not providentially uphold all things, but the term originated under Calvin's conceptions more fully as &quot;God's Fatherly Love.&quot; This, then moves us from the Adamic Covenant (God as Creator) to the CoG (God as Creator and Redeemer). [/quote:2eb5538614]

If Common Grace falls under the CoG, then is it irresistible as well, like saving grace? And if it falls under the CoW, then is it a providential grace to all in that all men can know that they are in want of knowledge, righteousnesss, and holiness (i.e., the attributes of the image of God in them )? 

All men have fallen in this respect, and are utterly depraved; but that has not erased their need for these attributes. If it falls under the CoG, then it may be that some men do not know that they are in the image of God; and it may be that it is a grace only to some unbelievers, but not necessarily all. 

However, if it falls under the CoW, then it must be that all men know, but also that it is not necessarily a grace in every sense. 

The option that I have left out is that it can fall under both without contradiction. But that is harder to explain. But if I am not mistaken, it is then rightly counted as being under the CoG as a beneficent grace even to unbelievers, in that the rain (i.e. mercy, knowledge, justice, etc. ) falls indiscriminately on the unjust as well as the just; but a saving knowledge and an eternal justice and mercy awaits only those to whom special grace is given. 


[quote:2eb5538614]JohnV, not to toot the horn, but here's the toot:
The Two Wills of God, CM McMahon
Does God Really Have Two wills? This is a 350 Page Digital Book covering the concepts surrounding God's Will and whether or not the Bible demonstrates that He has Two Wills or One Will. Does He love the non-elect? Is He good to all men? Is common grace really grace? What did Calvin, Augustine, Edwards, Owen and others say about this? 

http://www.apuritansmind.com/TwoWillsBookCD.htm [/quote:2eb5538614]

I will give an extra toot for you. I hope to be taking you up on these fine offers one day.


----------



## JohnV (Apr 1, 2004)

Asking it in another way (but now it may be going off topic; this may better fit in the Apologetics dept. ):
Is General Revelation part of the original Covenant of Works, while Special Revelation is part of the Covenant of Grace? Salvation comes through the Word, it is God's grace to man; but the knowlege of God is universal. 
[quote:22577e7367] We know Him by two means: First, by the creation, preservation, and government of the universe; which is before our eyes as a most elegant book, wherein all creatures, great and small, are as so many characters leading us to see clearly the invisible things of God, even his everlasting power and divinity, as the apostle Paul says (Rom. 1:20). All which things are sufficient to convince men and leave them without excuse. Second, He makes Himself more clearly and fully known to us by His holy and divine Word, that is to say, as far as is necessary for us to know in this life, to His glory and our salvation. [i:22577e7367]Belgic Confession, art. II[/i:22577e7367][/quote:22577e7367]
Both revelations are equal in dignity, but the latter has the greater definition. In fact, the latter is issued as grace from God. Is the knowledge of God in general revelation also a grace, a grace common to all men, by creation?

I believe it is. If so, then we understand,
[quote:22577e7367]III. Man, by his fall, having made himself incapable of life by that covenant, the Lord was pleased to make a second,[5] 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,[6] and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto eternal life his Holy Spirit, to make them willing, and able to believe.[7][/quote:22577e7367]
to mean that the Covenant of Grace is founded within the Covenant of Works:

-the Covenant of Works is a covenant with all men while the Covenant of Grace is only with the redeemed. 

-the Covenant of Grace is fulfilled only for the elect, and so also the fulfilling of the Covenant of Works is fulfilled only for the redeemed;

-the Covenant of Grace is fulfilled in Christ, and that in doing this He has also fulfilled the Covenant of Works for us. 

This understanding puts the full onus on man for his guilt, and yet the full accomplishment of justification on Christ. In no way is man's will violated, and in no way is God's sovereignty violated. All men share in the falleness, but only the elect share in the redemption; yet no one is rejected without ground, and no one is elected without grace. 

I'm working through these thoughts at this time, and they seem to fit in this section of the Confessions. I am working through the concept of whether man, even fallen man, retains sufficient objectivity to understand that natural light that remains in him so that he is without excuse, though he is depraved in his objectivity as well as any other faculty. I'm trying to understand the distinction between &quot;depraved&quot; and &quot;deprived&quot; as it relates to objectivity.


----------



## Rich Barcellos (Apr 3, 2004)

John V asked:

[quote:1397d4cc66]
Is Common Grace usually counted under the Covenant of Works or under the Covenant of Grace? In other words, could it be that there is yet some residual effects of the original Covenant of Works in man that shows itself as Common Grace? Is there yet some condescension on God's part upon unbelievers, and what form does it take? What Covenant does Common Grace fall under? 
[/quote:1397d4cc66]

If one understands &quot;Common Grace&quot; as God's general benevolence, then &quot;Common Grace&quot; is coextensive with creation itself. The Covenant of Works had no soteriological grace in it (that grace comes after the fall and is indicative of the postlapsarian Covenant of Grace), though it was a display of God's goodness. The Coveanat of Works reflects the bonitas Dei (goodness of God) but not the gratia Dei (grace of God - manifested in the regeneration of the soul). This distinction is crucial in establishing and maintaining the Law/Gospel, works/faith antitheses so crucial to the doctrine of justification by faith alone. Many in our day are retreating to a neo-Barthianism, insisting on &quot;law in grace&quot; and grace in law.&quot; Hence, they reject the Covenant of Works, claiming that grace was present in the prelapsarian state of man. This insistence ends up destroying the Law/Gospel antithesis so cruacial to Reformed Orthodoxy. It is a denial of the theological system of the WCF.


----------



## Rich Barcellos (Apr 3, 2004)

PS: If one understands &quot;Common Grace&quot; as God's goodness displayed in upholding and maintaining lost and saved, then &quot;Common Grace&quot; is not coextensive with creation and would then be coextensive with the Covenant of Grace. It would be subservient to the purpose of salvation and dependant upon the presence of the revealtion of the Covenant of Grace.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Apr 3, 2004)

[quote:a3ce01b5f5]
If one understands &quot;Common Grace&quot; as God's general benevolence, then &quot;Common Grace&quot; is coextensive with creation itself.
[/quote:a3ce01b5f5]


----------



## kceaster (Apr 3, 2004)

I think I agree with Pastor Rich. Perhaps this is one of those things Witsius' describes as having a common area in theology, so that it difficult to place it under its proper head. But, I think it comes closest to creation and is not necessarily contained within a covenant.

Truly, God condescended in both His works, that of creation and that of providence. And surely, God's grace is present in both, is it not?

If I may make it simplistic, the rain falling on the field of the just and the unjust must be a provision of both the created order and providence. Created order because it is God's way of growing things, and providence because He obviously causes both growth and barrenness.

Therefore, I do not think that common grace necessarily has to be attached to any particular covenant, but when, as Witsius would say, it is reduced to its proper head, it runs along side the covenants.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## fredtgreco (Apr 3, 2004)

[quote:37728c9dbe][i:37728c9dbe]Originally posted by Rich Barcellos[/i:37728c9dbe]
John V asked:

[quote:37728c9dbe]
Is Common Grace usually counted under the Covenant of Works or under the Covenant of Grace? In other words, could it be that there is yet some residual effects of the original Covenant of Works in man that shows itself as Common Grace? Is there yet some condescension on God's part upon unbelievers, and what form does it take? What Covenant does Common Grace fall under? 
[/quote:37728c9dbe]

If one understands &quot;Common Grace&quot; as God's general benevolence, then &quot;Common Grace&quot; is coextensive with creation itself. The Covenant of Works had no soteriological grace in it (that grace comes after the fall and is indicative of the postlapsarian Covenant of Grace), though it was a display of God's goodness. The Coveanat of Works reflects the bonitas Dei (goodness of God) but not the gratia Dei (grace of God - manifested in the regeneration of the soul). This distinction is crucial in establishing and maintaining the Law/Gospel, works/faith antitheses so crucial to the doctrine of justification by faith alone. Many in our day are retreating to a neo-Barthianism, insisting on &quot;law in grace&quot; and grace in law.&quot; Hence, they reject the Covenant of Works, claiming that grace was present in the prelapsarian state of man. This insistence ends up destroying the Law/Gospel antithesis so cruacial to Reformed Orthodoxy. It is a denial of the theological system of the WCF. [/quote:37728c9dbe]

I agree. We can speak of the goodness of God or the graciousness of God (in the sense of God's condescension, per WCF 7.1) in the covenant of works, but the covenant of works is not a gracious covenant in a soteriological sense.

That is, God was not required to enter into covenant with Adam - He did so for Adam's good. To make the covenant of works gracious (in a soteriological sense) destroys the work of Christ (which was fulfilling the covenant of works) .

We must always remember that there is no grace where there is no sin. Grace is shown toward those with demerit.


----------



## Rich Barcellos (Apr 3, 2004)

I agree with Fred. Infusing grace into the prelapsarian state is disasterous to Reformed orthodoxy!


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Apr 3, 2004)

Really, it destroys CT altogether and misguides people because they have a smorgasboard kind of Christinity - I'll take the God of love and grace, hold the holiness and justice!

They think he simply oozes love and grace whereever or whatever he does.

This past week one in our Sunday School my wife and Scott's wife connected the dots for the covenant of works. They really understood its intention, and how Christ fulfills that Law Covenant. You cannot get it wrong if you really want to understand the CoG and CT.


----------



## JohnV (Apr 3, 2004)

Rich, Fred, and Matt:

Thank you for those very thoughtful answers. And welcome to the Board, pastor Rich. 

Does that mean that [i:be9ca93114]Grace[/i:be9ca93114] is meant only in a soteriological sense? If it is outside of the realm of salvation, is it still called grace? And is not common grace outside of salvation? (or grace that is not saving grace? ) 

I believe that these questions raise the distinctions that pastor Rich speaks of. If I am not mistaken, remnants of the prelapsarian state do indeed indicate man's depravity, rather than wiping out any trace (totally depraved, not totally deprived. ) Thus the glimmerings of natural light are also included under the Covenant of Grace, though they may not necessarily be salvific. It would be the same as the Gospel preached, but not received with an open heart. Man is guilty before God for refusing both the natural glimmerings of light as well as the good news of the gospel; even in spite of the atoning work of Christ, because they did not respond in faith. Is this right?


----------



## wsw201 (Apr 16, 2004)

In the various contraversies surrounding justification, one element that keeps popping up is Covenant. Everyone seems to have their own definition.

How do you define Covenant?

[Edited on 4-16-2004 by wsw201]


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Apr 16, 2004)

&quot;A covenant of God with man, is an agreement between God and man, about the way of obtaining consummate happiness; including a threatening of eternal destruction, with which the contemner of the happiness, offered in that way, is to be punished.&quot; (Witsius) :book:


----------



## fredtgreco (Apr 16, 2004)

[quote:1925418043][i:1925418043]Originally posted by JohnV[/i:1925418043]
Rich, Fred, and Matt:

Thank you for those very thoughtful answers. And welcome to the Board, pastor Rich. 

Does that mean that [i:1925418043]Grace[/i:1925418043] is meant only in a soteriological sense? If it is outside of the realm of salvation, is it still called grace? And is not common grace outside of salvation? (or grace that is not saving grace? ) 

I believe that these questions raise the distinctions that pastor Rich speaks of. If I am not mistaken, remnants of the prelapsarian state do indeed indicate man's depravity, rather than wiping out any trace (totally depraved, not totally deprived. ) Thus the glimmerings of natural light are also included under the Covenant of Grace, though they may not necessarily be salvific. It would be the same as the Gospel preached, but not received with an open heart. Man is guilty before God for refusing both the natural glimmerings of light as well as the good news of the gospel; even in spite of the atoning work of Christ, because they did not respond in faith. Is this right? [/quote:1925418043]

John,

Grace is not solely limited to its soteriological sense, but grace only is present when sin is present (even in the case of &quot;common grace&quot; )

Without sin, there can be no grace, since grace by definition takes into account unmerited favor to the [b:1925418043]undeserving[/b:1925418043] or those who have [b:1925418043]demerited[/b:1925418043] favor.


----------



## wsw201 (Apr 16, 2004)

How about these definitions:

&quot;a divinely established relationship of union and communion between God and his people in the bonds of mutual love and faithfulness&quot; (Norm Shepherd)


&quot;A covenant in general signifieth a mutual contract or agreement of two parties joined in the covenant, whereby is made a bond or obligation on certain conditions for the performance of giving or taking something, with addition of outward signs and tokens, for solemn testimony and confirmation that the compact and promise shall be kept inviolable&quot;. (Ursinus)

&quot;A bond in blood soveriegnly administered&quot; (Robertson)

Any more?

How do these (including Witsius's) or your definition compare to the Covenant of Works and Grace in the WCF? Do they fit? If not why not?


----------



## fredtgreco (Apr 17, 2004)

[quote:b466c22d12][i:b466c22d12]Originally posted by Paul manata[/i:b466c22d12]
Is common grace mainly restrainative or promotative in charachter? [/quote:b466c22d12]

I'd say restraintative.


----------



## Ianterrell (Jun 12, 2004)

What do you guys mean by restraintive? Is this to mean the restraint God places on his wrath? Or in the restraints I've heard taught in certain sinful men?


----------

