Mono VS Bi-Covenantal view

Status
Not open for further replies.
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."

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.

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,
 
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.

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.
 
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.

Amen!

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.

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,
 
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..."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top