# Covenant of Grace, Pre-fall?



## BGF (Apr 25, 2018)

I heard a sermon preached recently where the pastor called the relationship between God and man was a covenant of grace. He was developing the idea that since God did not need to create man, therefore creating man was an act of grace, and the ensuing relationship was governed by grace.

Is this language appropriate? It seems to me that you set yourself up for confusion with the post-fall "covenant of grace". Does this way of communicating have historical pedigree?

The interesting part is that although he was preaching on Genesis 2:15–3:24, the fall of man, the term "covenant of works" was not mentioned once. While I don't think it's always necessary to use this terminology to exegete the passage, it seems to me that if you're in a confessional body (PCA in this case) proper terminology avoids confusing the concepts. 

This was only a small portion of the sermon, but the phrase, in this context, jumped out at me.


----------



## rickclayfan (Apr 25, 2018)

I think it depends how you define grace. Manton wrote about the difference between grace and mercy: "Grace properly signifies the freeness of God’s love; mercy relates to the misery of man" (Sermons on Titus 2). In this case, the covenant of works had a gracious element in that God was not obligated to reward Adam for his obedience.

Others (like Kline) have define grace in relation to sin, he called it "dismerited grace" (grace that was lost).

Regardless of definition, calling the Covenant of Works a Covenant of Grace seems unwise. It just serves to blur the fine line between the Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Grace.


----------



## timfost (Apr 25, 2018)

I'm fine with speaking of God's grace prior to the fall. God was also in covenant with man. But to call it the CoG seems to make as much sense as calling my sister-in-law my girlfriend because she's a girl and a friend. There is too much history that only causes confusion when the terms are used out of context.


----------



## Romans922 (Apr 25, 2018)

> I. The distance between God and the creature 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 has been pleased to express by way of covenant.



Of course God creating man was a gracious act. As seen above, we can conclude the Westminster Standards believe it was a gracious act. God condescended! Praise the Lord He did so and made the covenant of works. Are there aspects of grace in the covenant of works? I would venture to say that there would be very few who would say, "there are none!" 

But like you said, it is very dangerous to go down that path emphasizing (maybe that's a good word) that. Because it does bring much confusion so much so that the FV types say that the CoW was a CoG (and do away with CoW). And such that Klineans rebel against that too far and practically deny some of the aspects of the gracious aspects of it.

But in the end it is best to stick close to the confessional language to avoid confusion and error.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Apr 25, 2018)

I have no specific criticism to level against any man whose words I have not heard, nor have any context to set them in, nor any opportunity to cross examine.

But on the question of language and terminology:

Our WCF standards use the language "voluntary condescension" to describe God's offering (pre fall) a relationship to his creature that could in no case be demanded nor expected. This avoids using the language of grace or gift, which may then be safely reserved for describing the covenant which is given_ in spite of_ sin and_ instead of_ justice (for failure of keeping the original covenant); and which is gracious_ in all aspects,_ including the meeting of whatever conditions are associated with its blessing.

It is more than unwise to flatten out the essential difference between the Covenants of Works and Grace, by identifying the first covenant as one of "grace." When the same terms is used to describe both covenants, how are you going to maintain the strong contrast between the* kinds *of covenant that are represented (unless the idea is to minimize or get rid of the distinction)?

How about the contrast between the principals of the covenant, the contrast between the prime beneficiaries, the contrast between them regarding who is responsible for fulfilling the terms and maintaining the integrity of the covenant?

Grace as we know it now must be accompanied by its complement, mercy, which is not getting the hard things deserved.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## JTB.SDG (Apr 25, 2018)

I agree with Bruce. As far as I remember, some of the older writers used the term grace to describe the pre-fall relationship with Adam, but in fleshing it out it is apparent they were thinking along the lines of *benevolence*. As Bruce pointed out, the standards use the term *voluntary condescension* which is something different than and must be distinguished from grace. Melding the Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Grace, again as I remember, isn't new. I think this is what Norman Shepherd wanted to do, claiming the pre-fall Covenant of Works and the post-fall Covenant of Grace ultimately had the same condition: covenant faithfulness. This is extremely dangerous in my opinion. It basically resulted in the doctrine that fallen covenant keeping was the way to inherit eternal life. We get off course for the most part when we start comparing our relationship with God now in the Covenant of Grace with Adam's relationship with God in the pre-fall Covenant of Works. We can't compare apples and oranges. We aren't covenant heads; we are covenant members. We shouldn't be comparing ourselves with Adam, but Christ with Adam. The pre-fall covenant arrangement with Adam in the garden isn't to be identified with God's arrangement with us now, but rather with God's arrangement with Christ as the Second Adam and Covenant Head of the Covenant of Grace. As Covenant Head, Christ did what Adam failed to do.


----------



## BGF (Apr 26, 2018)

Thank you all for your replies. These distinctions are useful. I don't wish to criticize the whole sermon based on, in my opinion, the poor usage of terminology. This was actually my pastor, so I can go to him directly to ask him about these things. I just needed help from you all to clarify what it was that caused me to latch on that phrase in the context used.


----------



## Dachaser (Apr 26, 2018)

BGF said:


> I heard a sermon preached recently where the pastor called the relationship between God and man was a covenant of grace. He was developing the idea that since God did not need to create man, therefore creating man was an act of grace, and the ensuing relationship was governed by grace.
> 
> Is this language appropriate? It seems to me that you set yourself up for confusion with the post-fall "covenant of grace". Does this way of communicating have historical pedigree?
> 
> ...


Before the fall of Adam, there was no real need for saving Grace, as Adam was in a sinless and perfect state with God.


----------



## Romans922 (Apr 26, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> Before the fall of Adam, there was no real need for saving Grace, as Adam was in a sinless and perfect state with God.



Grace is not limited to the act of salvation (i.e. saving grace).

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Apr 26, 2018)

Romans922 said:


> Grace is not limited to the act of salvation (i.e. saving grace).


true, but Adam before the fall was in a spiritual state with God directly, did not need any saving grace.


----------



## Romans922 (Apr 26, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> true, but Adam before the fall was in a spiritual state with God directly, did not need any saving grace.



I might say I disagree, and I'll explain in a moment. But I will say right now that this doesn't mean there was no grace before the fall. 

Now, Adam being in a state with God directly and didn't need any saving grace. Depends on what you mean by that. 

Here's the confession, "The distance between God and the creature 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 has been pleased to express by way of covenant."

God by His grace condescended and made covenant with man (Covenant of Works). That's an act of grace, and without God making that covenant by condescending Adam (man) could never have received the promise of eternal life.


----------



## Dachaser (Apr 26, 2018)

Romans922 said:


> I might say I disagree, and I'll explain in a moment. But I will say right now that this doesn't mean there was no grace before the fall.
> 
> Now, Adam being in a state with God directly and didn't need any saving grace. Depends on what you mean by that.
> 
> ...


I can agree with that expression, as my understanding of saving Grace as in the COG would be the need for saving grace as that such due to us being sinners and having no relationship with God period.


----------



## TylerRay (Apr 26, 2018)

BGF said:


> I heard a sermon preached recently where the pastor called the relationship between God and man was a covenant of grace. He was developing the idea that since God did not need to create man, therefore creating man was an act of grace, and the ensuing relationship was governed by grace.
> 
> Is this language appropriate? It seems to me that you set yourself up for confusion with the post-fall "covenant of grace". Does this way of communicating have historical pedigree?
> 
> ...


With others, I would say that, if you're careful, you can say that there was grace in the Covenant of Works. Adam naturally owed obedience to God as his creator, but God condescended (graciously, you might say) to offer Adam communion with himself on the basis of that obedience that Adam was required to perform anyway.

To turn the question on its head, if you're careful, you could say that the Covenant of Grace is a kind of covenant of works. As Larger Catechism 31 says, the Covenant of Grace was made with Christ as the second Adam, and with the elect in him as his seed. It is only through the meritorious works of Christ that his covenantal reward (i.e., our salvation) is secured.

However, these distinctions should be made very carefully. The two covenants are radically different, in that one is conditioned on Adam's faithfulness, and the other on Christ's. The God-man, in his covenant, has remedied the failure of the mere-man in his. Saving grace is only present in the Covenant with Christ. In the covenant with Adam, man is left to his own merits, or lack thereof.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 1


----------



## Dachaser (Apr 26, 2018)

TylerRay said:


> With others, I would say that, if you're careful, you can say that there was grace in the Covenant of Works. Adam naturally owed obedience to God as his creator, but God condescended (graciously, you might say) to offer Adam communion with himself on the basis of that obedience that Adam was required to perform anyway.
> 
> To turn the question on its head, if you're careful, you could say that the Covenant of Grace is a kind of covenant of works. As Larger Catechism 31 says, the Covenant of Grace was made with Christ as the second Adam, and with the elect in him as his seed. It is only through the meritorious works of Christ that his covenantal reward (i.e., our salvation) is secured.
> 
> However, these distinctions should be made very carefully. The two covenants are radically different, in that one is conditioned on Adam's faithfulness, and the other on Christ's. The God-man, in his covenant, has remedied the failure of the mere-man in his. Saving grace is only present in the Covenant with Christ. In the covenant with Adam, man is left to his own merits, or lack thereof.


My understanding of saving grace would be that God in the person of Jesus has provided for us what we were not able to do for ourselves, in order to get reconciled back to God again.


----------



## TylerRay (Apr 26, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> My understanding of saving grace would be that God in the person of Jesus has provided for us what we were not able to do for ourselves, in order to get reconciled back to God again.


Right. What's at the core of this thread, though, is whether there is an element of non-saving grace in the Covenant of Works.


----------



## Dachaser (Apr 26, 2018)

TylerRay said:


> Right. What's at the core of this thread, though, is whether there is an element of non-saving grace in the Covenant of Works.


I don't know, as Adam before he fell met the qualification of obedience to the Lord.


----------

