JD
Puritan Board Freshman
I have been in on again, off again discussion about this topic with one of the elders at our church. His contention is that, contra WCF 19.6 all men remain bound by the Covenant of Works, whether elect or not. So in his formulation the elect are granted the reward offered in the Covenant of Works via the Covenant of Grace. That is; that the obedience Christ exhibited fulfilled the CoW for the elect, who are then declared righteous by imputation.
It is very, very close to the confessional position, but he is emphatic in his rejection of the confessional formulation.
My own understanding of the relationship between the Covenants of Works and Grace is outline below, copied verbatim from part of our conversation:
a) We and all created beings owe God our complete and total obedience by virtue of being created. Having been created does not entitle us to any reward as a result. We've been made - our job is to glorify God by being what He made us to be.
b) Mankind specifically has been made in God's image, which means we (again, just by virtue of being created) must perfectly reflect God's holy and righteous character, in all that entails.
c) Perfect completion of that task does not, however, of necessity entitle us to a reward by virtue of the creature/Creator relationship.
d) Yet God condescended to enter into a Covenant of Works with all men, represented federally in Adam. In the CoW, God says to Adam: "If you do the thing you already have to to because I made you in My image and don't mess it up, you together with all men will enter into glory and be rewarded with perfect eternity in My presence. If you mess it up, you and all men will be cursed forever."
e) The CoW is still active - we remain under its curse, after all, but I don't think I understand it to be still available to us. Because we are not morally neutral men like Adam was. Our curse is so complete that it is an insurmountable task, quite literally impossible, for us to return even to the state which would allow us to attempt to fulfill the righteousness required in the CoW.
f) All men in all places at all times are perpetually bound to reflect God's holy and righteous image for the reasons outline above (a&b), without the promise of reward (excepting any covenants God makes with man).
g) Because He is merciful and gracious, God chose to enter into covenant with men again a second time, this time represented federally by Christ, the second Adam. Christ experienced temptation towards sin, just like Adam, but was not born under the curse of the CoW like we are (ie He did not experience original sin). The righteousness required by this covenant (CoG) is the same as that required by the CoW, which is the same as that required by virtue of creation, which are all what they are because God is Who He is. Binding these requirments in covenant is what entitles men, by the grace of God, to the reward of eternal and glorious communion with Him.
h) Christ did what Adam couldn't do, thus earning the reward for Himself and His redeemed through the CoG by His righteousness. He died in our place, thus freeing us from the curse of the law (ie CoW). The latter judically clears us of the guilt imputed to us by the curse of the CoW, returning us judicially to the moral state in which Adam was created. The former grants us the reward by imputing to us His righteousness by grace alone.
My friend's formulation is that the CoW is not accessible to us in our fallen state but becomes accessible to us via the CoG. The CoG does not have any reward attached to it except getting back in to the CoW's good side, which is to say that the legal ramification of the CoG is to repair our end of the CoW, not replace or amend it.
This makes my "justification by grace alone" alarm go off for a reason I can't quite seem to verbalize.
So my question is three-fold:
1. Have I outlined the nature of the relationship between the Covenants correctly? Am I missing anything? Have I misunderstood anything?
2. What actually is the orthodox stance on this specific issue? I've read the WCF, WSC, and WLC cover to cover looking for insight on this issue and haven't come to a clear understanding. I've read all of Vos on Justification and the Ordo Salutis in RD again to try to get at it but I'm not finding a straightforward answer.
3. Is my friend's formulation problematic? Are there implications we might be failing to see?
And I guess also #4 would there be any reccomended reading on the relationship between the Covenants of Work and Grace?
Thank you!
It is very, very close to the confessional position, but he is emphatic in his rejection of the confessional formulation.
My own understanding of the relationship between the Covenants of Works and Grace is outline below, copied verbatim from part of our conversation:
a) We and all created beings owe God our complete and total obedience by virtue of being created. Having been created does not entitle us to any reward as a result. We've been made - our job is to glorify God by being what He made us to be.
b) Mankind specifically has been made in God's image, which means we (again, just by virtue of being created) must perfectly reflect God's holy and righteous character, in all that entails.
c) Perfect completion of that task does not, however, of necessity entitle us to a reward by virtue of the creature/Creator relationship.
d) Yet God condescended to enter into a Covenant of Works with all men, represented federally in Adam. In the CoW, God says to Adam: "If you do the thing you already have to to because I made you in My image and don't mess it up, you together with all men will enter into glory and be rewarded with perfect eternity in My presence. If you mess it up, you and all men will be cursed forever."
e) The CoW is still active - we remain under its curse, after all, but I don't think I understand it to be still available to us. Because we are not morally neutral men like Adam was. Our curse is so complete that it is an insurmountable task, quite literally impossible, for us to return even to the state which would allow us to attempt to fulfill the righteousness required in the CoW.
f) All men in all places at all times are perpetually bound to reflect God's holy and righteous image for the reasons outline above (a&b), without the promise of reward (excepting any covenants God makes with man).
g) Because He is merciful and gracious, God chose to enter into covenant with men again a second time, this time represented federally by Christ, the second Adam. Christ experienced temptation towards sin, just like Adam, but was not born under the curse of the CoW like we are (ie He did not experience original sin). The righteousness required by this covenant (CoG) is the same as that required by the CoW, which is the same as that required by virtue of creation, which are all what they are because God is Who He is. Binding these requirments in covenant is what entitles men, by the grace of God, to the reward of eternal and glorious communion with Him.
h) Christ did what Adam couldn't do, thus earning the reward for Himself and His redeemed through the CoG by His righteousness. He died in our place, thus freeing us from the curse of the law (ie CoW). The latter judically clears us of the guilt imputed to us by the curse of the CoW, returning us judicially to the moral state in which Adam was created. The former grants us the reward by imputing to us His righteousness by grace alone.
My friend's formulation is that the CoW is not accessible to us in our fallen state but becomes accessible to us via the CoG. The CoG does not have any reward attached to it except getting back in to the CoW's good side, which is to say that the legal ramification of the CoG is to repair our end of the CoW, not replace or amend it.
This makes my "justification by grace alone" alarm go off for a reason I can't quite seem to verbalize.
So my question is three-fold:
1. Have I outlined the nature of the relationship between the Covenants correctly? Am I missing anything? Have I misunderstood anything?
2. What actually is the orthodox stance on this specific issue? I've read the WCF, WSC, and WLC cover to cover looking for insight on this issue and haven't come to a clear understanding. I've read all of Vos on Justification and the Ordo Salutis in RD again to try to get at it but I'm not finding a straightforward answer.
3. Is my friend's formulation problematic? Are there implications we might be failing to see?
And I guess also #4 would there be any reccomended reading on the relationship between the Covenants of Work and Grace?
Thank you!
Last edited: