Originally posted by kceaster
Does it bother anyone else about the covenant of works not being meritorious?
To me, there seems an undeniable link between the first and second Adam that requires both sides to be meritorious. If you take away one, must you not take away the other?
Besides, wouldn't the WCF agree to a meritorious COW? I know the CT of Witsius does.
This puzzles me more than anything else Wilson has said. If Adam did not merit, then isn't God's plan of salvation to restore us to the garden?
A non-meritorious Covenant of Works in the context of God's gracious entrance into covenant (cf. WCF 7.1) causes extreme soteriological problems in any form of Federal Theology. If one is willing to abandon Federal Theology, then I suppose that this could work, or if one winds up with an odd Covenant of Grace theology (a-la John Murray), then one could maintain a strict orthodoxy soteriology (witness Murray as the definitive writer on the ordo)