Conditions under the Covenant of Grace
Is acknowledging that there are conditions under the Covenant of Grace a denial of the Protestant doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone? R. Scott Clark says yes. In his article available on the WSC website, FOR THOSE JUST TUNING IN: WHAT IS THE FEDERAL VISION?, he states:
The FV affirms only one covenant: a gracious conditional covenant before the fall and a conditional gracious covenant after the fall. The FV generally rejects the pre-temporal covenant. This version of covenant theology has also had support among certain Dutch Reformed theologians in the 20th century (which served a a [sic] background to the current controversy). This re-construction of covenant theology served the FV movement well as it allows them to emphasize grace — who can criticize grace? — and it allowed them to insinuate conditions into the covenant of grace which supported their doctrine of justification through faithfulness (trust, Spirit-wrought sanctity, and cooperation with it in good works).
So according to Clark, “insinuat[ing] conditions into the covenant of grace” constitutes a different “doctrine of justification”. The only problem with this is, Michael Horton, a colleague of Clark’s and fellow FV critic, has himself affirmed that the Covenant of Grace and even justification is conditional. In a Modern Reformation article back in 2004 responding to Rich Lusk, Horton affirms:
Further, all of these challenges ignore the careful way in which Reformed theology has dealt with the obvious conditionality in Scripture, including Paul. We have never said that there are no conditions in the covenant-or even in justification. Rather, we have argued that the condition of justification is faith and the conditions of salvation as a whole process are many: life-long repentance and faith, sanctification, and glorification. But we have emphasized that these conditions are fulfilled by the gifts that come to us through union with Christ. – Michael Horton, Deja vu All Over Again
The FV would certainly agree with Horton here, that these conditions are fulfilled by the gifts that come to us through union in Christ. So if we both acknowledge covenantal conditions under the Covenant of Grace (such acknowledgements constituting a different doctrine of justification according to Clark) and we both acknowledge that God by His grace meets these conditions in us, why is Horton’s view within the realm of orthodoxy, while the FV has to be chased out of the church?
March 7, 2008 at 4:46 pm
Nonsense. I agree entirely with Michael in the sense that he’s using “conditions.” I’ve defended that sense of “conditions” myself. If you would read the other things I’ve written on conditionality and the covenant you would see that.
What I reject in this very brief, popular intro to the FV controversy is the sort of conditionality proposed by the FV, i.e. we are in by grace and stay on condition of faithfulness.
Yes, there are conditions in the administration of the covenant of works, but we are justified unconditionally. Jesus met the conditions of the covenant of works for us. We who believe are in a covenant of grace, not a covenant of works.
We can even speak improperly of a condition of justification, i.e. faith — receiving and resting in the finished work of Christ. Witsius warned that it’s better, however, to speak of faith as the sole instrument of justification.
You’re not trying to give readers the impression that Horton supports the FV are you? If so, you’re quite mistaken! He’ll get quite a laugh out of this piece when I mention it to him about 45 minutes from now.
rsc
March 7, 2008 at 4:51 pm
[...] 7, 2008 in Covenant, Justification, Pastoral Ministry, federal vision Tags: federal vision This blog suggests yes. As 1/2 of the Clark-Horton controversy the answer is…wait for [...]
March 7, 2008 at 4:55 pm
Thanks for commenting on my blog, Dr. Clark. I would have thanked you on your blog, but my comments don’t show up for some reason.
March 7, 2008 at 5:06 pm
Can we? Isn’t that the “improper” speak of the FV?
Of course not. I was simply pointing out what I saw as an inconsistency. But now that you have qualified your statement that the insinuating conditions into the covenant of grace redefines justification, perhaps there is some agreement.
And lastly,
I have to say that I laughed (not disrespectfully at all, mind you) when I read that because that is exactly what FV guys have said. One thing they write or say is taken out of the context of their broader work and criticized. The only difference is that following attempts at qualification get rejected.
So “conditions” under the Covenant of Grace exist “in a sense”. Isn’t that what FV is saying? If not, in what “sense” do conditions exist under the Covenant of Grace?
March 8, 2008 at 1:44 am
Turretin distinguished between two different kinds of condition.
1. Causal (antecedant): this kind of condition is a cause. So for example, salvation has faith as a causal condition. Without faith there can be no salvation. By faith alone we lay hold of the merits of Christ on our behalf, and by this faith laying hold of Christ we are justified. This condition is met by God, not by us.
2. Accompanying (concomitant): works belongs in this category. Without works, you will not enter heaven, because if you have faith, you will necessarily have at least some works. But works don’t cause you to be saved. Faith laying hold of the merits of Christ cause you to be saved.
I have been speaking in the context of the covenant of grace. In the covenant of works, however, this is reversed. In the covenant of works with Adam before the fall, works were a causal condition of receiving salvation, the blessings of the covenant. Meanwhile, faith would have been an accompanying condition, for to be sure, Adam needed to have faith in the Word that was spoken to him (e.g., “you will surely die”), but his faith wouldn’t have laid hold of the merits of someone else to earn the blessing for him. After all, it was up to him to earn it himself.
These two categories of conditions are very helpful, and of course Turretin is very well thought of by many.
March 8, 2008 at 1:55 am
Thanks for your comment, Mike. Funny, I was just having a separate conversation about this very thing. I asserted that all causes are conditions but not all conditions are causes. This stuff from Turretin will be helpful to me on that front.
I deny that the pre-fall covenant was meritorious in that Adam was to earn or merit eternal glory. He was to continue in faith. This was his fundamental failing. Before he ate the fruit, he believed the lie. His loss of faith in his Father manifested itself in disobedience.
March 8, 2008 at 7:36 am
I deny that the pre-fall covenant was meritorious in that Adam was to earn or merit eternal glory.
Of course Adam would have earned or merited eternal life/glory based on the arrangement of the covenant. It is covenantal merit, not a strict merit, but merit nonetheless. If instead you call this grace, then you should not object to Rome’s doctrine of justification or any other group that claims justification by works(i.e. do this and live ) because it is still a justification by grace.
March 8, 2008 at 12:18 pm
Ron,
Well, you’re certainly entitled to your opinion, but doesn’t the Bible say one way or the other? Didn’t God say to Adam that his place in the garden depended on whether or not he ate the fruit? Didn’t he say if you eat, then you die?
If he didn’t eat, he would live, if he did eat, he would die. It wasn’t until they ate the fruit that they saw they were naked. It wasn’t until they ate the fruit that the Lord came and cursed them for it, and the devil was cursed for tempting them to eat the fruit.
It’s absolutely true that Adam’s sin didn’t begin there. He should have killed the talking serpent that was speaking blasphemies. After all, he was charged also with guarding and keeping the garden. But the stated condition of the covenant was all about the fruit of the tree.
March 8, 2008 at 3:11 pm
Yes. But God says something similar to His children under the Covenant of Grace, does he not? For instance,
Note that the author says that God’s children, those He saved and led out of Egypt, angered God because of their “sin” aka “disobedience”. But he routes the “loss” of eternal rest in their unbelief. He says all this as an application to the New Covenant Christian Church.
So we in the Christian Church are told that if we lose faith as our fathers did, such loss of faith manifesting itself in continued unrepentant sin (cf 1 John), we will not enter His rest. But you wouldn’t equate that with “meriting” or “earning” our place in the Kingdom. We in the Church have already been given that place as a matter of grace, just as Adam was made heir of the world as a matter of grace (he did nothing earn that position). But he fell from that grace, just as those in the Galatian Church who acquiesced to the judaizers. Galatians 5:4
March 8, 2008 at 3:27 pm
I don’t think so. You have the Roman covenantal system (as I understand it), which contains a meritorious covenant of works before and after the fall. And then you have the Law/Gospel covenantal system as described in some historic reformed doctrine, which contains a meritorious covenant of works before the fall, and a covenant of grace after the fall.
I reject both of those systems. That is, I reject Pelagianism before and after the fall. I believe both the pre-fall and post-fall covenants were fundamentally gracious and standing in those covenants was by grace through faith.
Thanks for your comments, gentlemen. Grace and peace to you in Christ.
March 8, 2008 at 4:06 pm
I reject both of those systems. That is, I reject Pelagianism before and after the fall. I believe both the pre-fall and post-fall covenants were fundamentally gracious and standing in those covenants was by grace through faith.
Well, Pelagianism is only rightly applied when sin is considered post-fall. However, if “do this and live” is gracious pre-fall, then you shouldn’t object to “do this and live” as gracious post-fall. However, it is clear in the Scriptures that “doing to live” is antithetical to “living” by promise/grace(e.g. Gal. 3:18; Romans 11:6 ).
Yes Rome would say there is merit in their covenant because our works play a part, but they go on to say it is all of grace. This is no different then how you defined the pre-fall covenant, except for the fact that you do use the word merit. Adam definitely had to work to receivee eternal life pre-fall, and you still call it grace. Rome says the same thing post-fall. We work for justification, but our works are all based on grace. No substantial difference between the two except you dislike of the word merit.
March 8, 2008 at 5:04 pm
Not the part that says man is capable of meeting God’s requirements without God granting that capability to Him. Adam was endued by God with the ability to meet His requirements. Had Adam stood, he would have been obligated to thank God for His standing.
I don’t object to that. In fact, according to the Westminster Confession, the mosaic covenant was an administration of the Covenant of Grace and the old covenant saints were justified the same way new covenant saints are. So if you think “do this and live” is part of the covenant of works, you are not being confessional. The scriptures you cite just prove that one is not justified by an attempt at legal adherence, but rather by faith in Jesus. But faith, if it is alive, cannot exist apart from legal adherence. In the chapter on justification, the confession goes so far as to cite James 2 and Galatians 5 to support that the nature of justifying faith is “no dead faith, but worketh in love.” So according to the confession, justifying faith itself is alive (James 2) and works in love (Gal 5). Paul and James attack two sides of a dead coin. Paul attacks dead works and James attacks dead faith.
I assume you meant I do not use the word merit. But I more than do not use the word, I deny the concept. The Creator is never in debt to the creature. All the creature has is a gift. Sola Gratia through and through, from “Let there be light”, to “there will no longer be any night.” Even the rewards we receive at the last judgment in accordance with our works done in the body are a matter of pure grace. You don’t think we “merit” those rewards, do you? If I employed the logic you have, I would accuse you of believing we merit eternal rewards. But I know you don’t believe that.
March 8, 2008 at 7:23 pm
Ron,
Isn’t there a difference between us now in the NT and the children of Israel under the Mosaic law?
We believe that the covenant made with Moses was an administration of the covenant of grace. But the Mosaic covenant itself was not a gracious covenant. It was a pedagogical covenant of works, meant to show us that we can’t earn our salvation by works.
So while the children of Israel went to heaven by grace through faith – alone – they could only stay in the land if they obey. They were not kicked out of the land because they didn’t have faith, but because they didn’t obey.
Nor were all who were kicked out condemned eternally, for some who were sent into exile were true believers (e.g., Daniel, Ezekiel). And even beyond that, they were restored to the land graciously after they had been exiled.
The lesson is that under Adam, we were all, all mankind, kicked out of the eschaton, the New Heavens and New Earth, the New Jerusalem, and sent into exile, outside, where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth. But thanks to Christ, we are restored to the New Jerusalem by grace, not by obedience.
The only condition is faith, because faith looks to Christ to do it for us. To be sure, works must necessarily come along with faith, but those works are a concomitant condition, not an antecedant condition, as I explained above.
March 8, 2008 at 8:05 pm
Well, that is a caricature. No one argues that God did not grant Adam the ability to fulfill the requirements. However, granting the ability to fulfill the requirements does not exclude the meriting of something based on a covenantal agreement. Your point is non-sequitur. Furthermore, even thanking someone does not mean the reward was not merited. Have you ever had a paycheck handed to you and you thanked your employer? Does thanking him negate that it was merited?
Actually, you are misreading the confession. The confession explicitly states the Mosiac Covenant is a an administration of the Covenant of Grace by “… promises, prophecies, sacrifices, circumcision, the paschal lamb, and other types and ordinances delivered to the people of the Jews, all foresignifying Christ to come These things are not the commandments of the law, but types and shadows of Christ. These things are not saying “do this and live”, but instead trust in the One that “will do this for you”. So if you are familiar with the historical Reformed position it grants that the CoG is is in the Mosaic Covenant, but the Mosaic Covenant also has a works principle of “do this and live”. Furthermore if you read the Confession closely and check out its proof texts you would see that any time it references a CoW it uses the same verses that the Apostles condemns as work righteousness under both Testament.
Finally if you grant “do this and live” is gracious then you should have no problem with Rome’s view of justification.
Yes, faith is alive and no one doubts that. Faith also works in love and no one doubts that. However, faith is distinguished from works, and it is faith in its trusting and resting, not working that justifies. The Confession states it like this: “… But the principal acts of saving faith are accepting, receiving, and resting upon Christ alone for justification…”. Notice it never mentions works as an act of faith in justification. Instead when it talks about works it says they are the “…the fruits and evidences of a true and lively faith…”( WCF XVI.II ). It is also worth noting that once again you sound just like Rome.
That Creator never being in debt to the creature is an assertion, not an argument. The Creator would have become indebted to Adam, because He would have placed Himself in debt to Adam if he fulfilled the Covenant stipulations. Could the Creator have refused to give Adam eternal life if Adam would have fulfilled the Covenant stipulations? Or was the Creator obligated to give Adam eternal life? Of course if you are obligated it is not of grace or a gift.
No one denies God gave Adam many gifts. Adam did not have to do a thing in order for God to provide him food, drink, and everything needed for life. However, when speaking specifically of the Covenant arrangement Adam had to “do” something in order to receive eternal life so it was not a free gift. Gifts are not worked for. Try it at Christmas time on your family and friends. Finally, in a sense we do merit rewards according to what we have done in the body. This has nothing to do with our justification before God. Also God doesn’t specifically bind himself to certain rewards based on certain works, however he does promise to give rewards based on works.
March 10, 2008 at 6:13 am
I fixed the tags, Ronnie. In the future, use the blockquote tag to quote, and use standard HTML “greater than/less than” brackets. Also, you can right-click this page and select “View Source” to see what I mean by standard HTML “greater than/less than” brackets. You’ll see them all over.
March 10, 2008 at 6:56 am
Ok, let’s start with Mr. Echo (aka Mike G)
Not with regard to justification by grace through faith.
I reject this and it is contradictory. Feel free to substantiate it. The confession says nothing like this. On the contrary, it only acknowledges that the Law was a covenant of works before the fall. (WCF XIX.I) So even if I don’t defeat the claim (which I will in a sec), confessionally speaking, yours is an argument from silence (so far). Even R.S. Clark has acknowledged that the idea that the mosaic covenant was a republication of the covenant of works is outside of the reformed confessions.
But here are some defeaters – first from the confession, and then from scripture:
P1) The obligations of the moral law which was delivered by God upon Mount Sinai, in Ten Commandments and given to the people of Israel, as a church under age, are not contrary to, but rather strengthened by the Gospel. (WCF XIX.II,III,V)
P2) In the Covenant of Grace, the Gospel freely offers unto sinners, life and salvation by Jesus Christ. This is fundamentally gracious. (WCF VII.III)
Therefore, the obligations of the moral law which was delivered by God upon Mount Sinai, in Ten Commandments and given to the people of Israel, as a church under age, are not contrary to the Covenant of Grace, but strengthened in the Covenant of Grace and are fundamentally gracious.
I know it is hard for you to see obligations as gracious, but try. It’s biblical. So now, here is one place the scriptures say that the mosaic covenant itself was gracious:
Note that this is speaking to New Covenant members who, if they apostatize, they have “insulted the Spirit of grace”. “But that is New Covenant grace,” you’ll say. Yeah, but look at verse 30. The author uses threats under the Mosaic Covenant from Deuteronomy 32:35-36, and applies them to the New Covenant Church. So, if you say those threats cannot be part of a gracious covenant, then the New Covenant is not a gracious covenant and we are still in the Covenant of Works. Welcome to Rome. Or, you can acknowledge with the Westminster Confession of Faith that the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenant administrations were gracious.
March 10, 2008 at 8:57 am
Thanks a bunch Ron, I appreciate it.
March 10, 2008 at 9:19 am
In section XIX.I the WCF states the following:
Notice the emphasized words. The law given to Adam was a covenant of works. Everyone agrees with this, however the meaning of the covenant of works is often debated. Would Adam have merited anything in this covenant or would his reward have been by grace? These are two questions often debated in reference to the pre-fall covenant of works. Therefore, it is very interesting that in a few sections later speaking of the same covenant of works we read the following:
So here we see when the Confession uses “covenant of works” it is speaking of a means of achieving justification or condemnation based on our keeping the law. Now it should be clear that the Scriptures over and over contrast this to grace. So if one says the CoW is gracious then they are likewise saying being justified by keeping the law is of grace, however the Scripture teach over and over that the two principles are opposed to each other. What say you Ron?
March 10, 2008 at 12:27 pm
First, I say, I will comment on your previous post when I have more time. I don’t wnat you to feel left out.
Second, and this is shooting from the hip (10 min brake at work here), it appears to me that you are using a negation made by the confession to affirm something they did not anywhere affirm.
I recognize that the Westminster Assembly deliberately and carefully refrained from using the word “grace” with regard to Adam’s relationship to God before the fall, perhaps for the same reasons you refrain from it. Instead, they use the word “condescend”. But I see no substantive difference because God was in no way obligated to “condescend”, making said condescension gracious. He did so for solely for His own glory and for the enjoyment of the creature. (WCF SC 1)
More on your previous post later.
March 10, 2008 at 1:24 pm
Ron, I don’t want to overwhelm you with other posts before you get a chance to respond to the previous ones, but neither do I want you to waste your time attacking a strawman. Ground zero of the debate is not that God condescended or was gracious ( if you define it to simply mean unmerited favor ) in creation or providing for Adam in general. Ground zero is the arrangement/stipulations of the CoW. Is the reward of eternal life promised to Adam on condition of perpetual and perfect obedience a thing of grace or covenantal merit? If you contend that the command/law of perfect obedience in order to receive eternal life is gracious then you should have no problem with any type of works based system that claims it is still by grace(i.e. Rome, JWs ). So meet me where debate really should be taking place and that is the CoW, not God’s condescension in entering an agreement with Adam or providing him with everything he needed for life. Waiting for you there.
March 11, 2008 at 12:48 pm
Grace.
Why not? They are not saying the same thing as I am. They are saying the opposite, namely that both covenants are meritorious. I am saying that neither is.
We as New Covenant Christians cannot be saved without good works. I am not saying that those good works are an instrumental condition to or cause of our salvation, but we cannot be saved without them, so they are a condition. Why can this not be a similar stipulation as the pre-fall covenant? Adam could not be glorified without obedience, but that obedience would not have been an instrumental condition to or cause of his glorification, rather just a condition.
If you haven’t read Jordan’s Merit vs Maturity in the Federal Vision book, I highly recommend it.
March 11, 2008 at 6:50 pm
So justification by obedience to the law is based on grace? One wonders why the Apostle Paul spends so much time saying the opposite. And remember the Judiazers also claimed their works were based on grace, but the Apostle rejected that.
You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace.( Gal. 5:4 )
Notice they have fallen “away from grace”, because they are claiming grace, but grace and justification by the law doesn’t mix. If by works, then not by grace ( Rom. 11:6). This is the problem with affirming the covenant of works is gracious, it destroys grace, because now justification depending our works is still grace.
You are only using different words, but the substance of the arguments are exactly the same. Every Catholic or JWs that knows anything about their official teaching will tell you it is by grace alone. They would argue the works they do are grace filled works. You know, kinda of like you are saying for Adam, because you can’t deny he did works. The Confession clearly states it and everyone knows perfect obedience is a work. However, you still affirm it is by grace. This is essentially the same thing but you think by not using “merit” you are on a higher ground.
What cause was Adam’s perfect and perpetual obedience in reference to his receiving eternal life? What was the ground of his receiving eternal life?
Well, all the Federal Visionists have the same problem. Because of their claim that the Covenant of Works in its arrangement is gracious they make grace out to be something other than grace. Works are now mixed with grace, instead of the Paulinean axiom, if by works then not by grace.
March 11, 2008 at 9:44 pm
Those are your words, not mine. I have said before that had Adam stood, it would have been by grace through faith. You are the one who is asserting that grace is antithetical to obligation. Feel free to substantiate that assertion. I see no contradiction. The instruction God gives to His children is gracious because in it they will live (Deuteronomy 32:47).
You are inserting your system into the text. It says nothing about the judaizers holding their works to be of grace. Where does it say this? Paul says that they had fallen from grace, in other words, they had received grace, but they fell from it. They were graciously brought into the Church, but they fell from that grace by pushing circumcision on the gentiles. This is clear because two verses later, Paul states,
So, in Gal 5:4, the apostle is not speaking of works in general, but specifically circumcision. And as Gal 5:6 states, justifying faith works in love, which is all I am saying. Had Adam been vindicated, it would have been by grace through his faith working in love.
First the JWs aren’t in the same category as Rome because they deny Christ. And as to Rome, perhaps what you say is correct, that there is no substantive difference between their use of terms like “merit” and my use of “faith working in love”. But as I am sure you are aware, I already accept them as brethren, though they teach much that I would disagree with. But you have much I would disagree with as well, and I still consider you a brother in Christ because (I assume) you have been united to Jesus by baptism and look to Him in faith for your life.
None and none. The cause would have been God’s grace granting faith and working in Adam to will and to do.
You keep asserting this, but you have yet to substantiate it.
Please substantiate your presupposition that grace and obligation are antithetical.
Please substantiate your presupposition that rewards based on obedience are incompatible with grace.
March 12, 2008 at 9:33 am
They are not your words, but it is your teaching if you hold to the WCF. You claim that if Adam would have received eternal life based on the CoW it would have been by grace. The Confession teaches the CoW was based on obedience to the law. Therefore, the logical conclusion of your position teaches that Adam’s justification by obedience to the law is based on grace
Well, it has been proven by the NPP and even those scholars that disagree with their ultimate conclusion that the Jews definitely believe their good works were based on the grace of God. Circumcision itself was a gift of God’s grace to the Jews, they didn’t deny this. They were a part of the Christian church because they affirmed God’s grace in all these things. This again is why the Apostle Paul says, ” And if by grace, then it is no longer by works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace.” His point is that it is one or the other, not both, because they Jews thought it was by both. In the end you summarize by saying:
” Had Adam been vindicated, it would have been by grace through his faith working in love.”
But that is what I said above and you denied it. Your “faith working in love” can mean nothing other than Adam’s obedience to the law(i.e. CoW per the confession ). Furthermore, you speak of reading a system into something this is exactly what you are doing. Nowhere does the Scripture or the Confession come close to saying this in reference to pre-fall Adam Covenant of Works. They always speak of works of the law, obedience to commandments, and the reward based on it.
The problem is that I’m not speaking of your accepting or not accepting them as brothers. The point would be the same if you accepted both as brothers or denied both as your brothers. The point is your doctrine of justification is substantially the same as both groups, which is alien to the Reformed faith. So you are free to do this if you like, but quit distorting the confession and Reformed faith as if they agree with you.
You are just gratuitously asserting your beliefs when you state “grace granting faith in work” in reference to the CoW. The Scriptures or the Confession nowhere use this type of language in reference to the CoW.
The Scriptures and the Confession mentions Adam would receive eternal life based on his obedience to the law, therefore it has to be a cause in some sense. It maybe meritorious, instrumental, efficient, etc, but it has to be some form of a cause. So I ask again. What type of cause was Adam’s work in reference to his receiving eternal life?
They are antithetical based on the meaning of the word. Grace is freely given, it is unmerited. If you are obligated to give something it is not of grace, the person has earned it. Don’t we tell the Arminians all the time that God is not obligated to save anyone, because it is based on His free grace?
It may not be in all cases. However, if the giver of the reward is obligated to give the reward, then it is incompatible, because it destroys the meaning of grace. So I could freely decide to give or not give you a reward based on your good works and that would be grace. However, if I am obligated to give the reward, as God had obligated Himself in the CoW then it is no longer grace. Adam would have covenantally merited the reward.
March 12, 2008 at 11:49 am
Again, non sequitur. If you agree with the confession that we will receive rewards at the final judgment based on what is done in the body, but you would reject that what is done in the body is a cause of reward, then your argument is refuted by your own admission. The rewards we receive based on what is done in the body are gracious as I am sure you would agree. Thus it is possible for Adam’s reward, had he stood, to have been a gracious reward.
Let me clarify. When I say grace and obligation, I am not speaking of God’s obligation. But since you have gone there, let me quickly defeat that claim before I move on to the clarification.
God is obligated to keep His gracious promises because He is truth. Therefore, God’s obligation is not antithetical to His grace, but rather is a product of it. Hebrews 6:10 says that “God is not unjust; he will not forget your work and the love you have shown him…” Thus, God remembering our obedience and saving us accordingly (vs 9) is a matter of justice. But as I am sure you would agree again, it is not a matter of merit (not ours, anyway). It is a matter of God graciously promising reward and justly keeping His own obligation.
Now, to the clarification. When I speak of “grace and obligation”, I am speaking about the obligations of the recipients of grace. God graciously promised Abraham to make nations of him, but placed obligations on Abraham for him to receive the promised reward. And because (Gen 22:16) Abraham obeyed Him in faith, God fulfilled His gracious promises. Grace and obligation.
This argument is defeated above, but I want to comment further on your statement wrt God’s self obligation. Has He not likewise obligated Himself under the New Covenant? Can God change His mind and relent on His promised salvation? Not if He is truth, He cannot. So God is likewise obligated under the New Covenant (cf Heb 6:9-10 again). But our salvation is by grace, not merit. This defeats the claim again that God’s grace is antithetical to His obligations.
March 12, 2008 at 1:46 pm
Actually, I don’t reject that what is done in the body is the cause of the reward, because that is clearly what the Scriptures and the Confession teaches. The Scriptures and the Confession rules out work as a cause of justification to eternal life, not of receiving other rewards. It is also important to remember that God has not promised any specific rewards based on any specific works therefore, He could graciously give us much more. For example, if I promised my kids a reward if they clean their room. Then I am obligated to give them a reward if they clean it and they have earned it some sense (i.e. covenantal agreement). So, I might give them each a $1.00. I have fulfilled my obligation. However, I can graciously also do more for them. I could also treat them to ice cream & cake for doing such a good job. The ice cream and cake would be grace, because I wasn’t obligated to do it based on their works (i.e. cleaning their room). The elephant in the room that you are not dealing with is that Adam’s work was based on his receiving eternal life, not on rewards in addition to that. It is in reference to justification to eternal life that works are anathema, over and over in the Scriptures (e.g. if by works, then not by grace Rom. 11:6). Eternal life is a gracious gift of God and He is not obligated to give it to anyone. Those God decides to give it to, God is responsible for the conditions being fulfilled.
Remember my definition of grace include both “freely given” and “unmerited”. It also excluded the person “earning it”. So God freely making a promise to give us something that is not based on our doing is grace, even if He is obligated to do because He said He would. That does not contradict anything I said. God’s gracious promise is the CoG. He has obligated himself, but it is not based on our working to achieve the reward. On the otherhand the CoW is not grace, because it is based on *us* fulfilling the conditions in order for the reward to be given. In other words, we merit it based on the covenantal agreement.
God’s promise to Abraham was gracious because Abraham was responsible for the promised being fulfilled based on his works. God alone was held responsible for the fulfillment of the promise which is why God alone walked through the severed animals. Even the faith of Abraham was God’s work to fulfill. God may have used Abraham as a means, but it was God’s responsibility and reputation alone on the line for Abraham receiving the reward. Hebrews 6:13-20 makes this clear.
[u]Hebrews 6:13-20[/u]
13When God made his promise to Abraham, since there was no one greater for him to swear by, he swore by himself, 14saying, “I will surely bless you and give you many descendants.” 5And so after waiting patiently, Abraham received what was promised. 16Men swear by someone greater than themselves, and the oath confirms what is said and puts an end to all argument. 17Because God wanted to make the unchanging nature of his purpose very clear to the heirs of what was promised, he confirmed it with an oath. 18God did this so that, by two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have fled to take hold of the hope offered to us may be greatly encouraged. 19We have this hope as an anchor for the soul, firm and secure. It enters the inner sanctuary behind the curtain, 20where Jesus, who went before us, has entered on our behalf. He has become a high priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek.
I answered this above. I did not speak of obligation in an abstracted sense, but in the sense of freely given, unconditional, and unearned. This is the definition of the CoG, and yes it jives with grace. However, this doesn’t work with the CoW, because the reward is based on Adam’s doing. Adam didn’t do, so He didn’t receive the reward. It was conditional. Adam had to covenantally merit it.
March 12, 2008 at 2:02 pm
So you believe we merit eternal rewards?
March 12, 2008 at 4:49 pm
First, I’m not speaking of eternal life or our right standing with God. Second, our good works are a cause of the rewards God the Father gives to his children. This is clearly taught in the Scriptures and Confession. Third, God our Father has not bound himself to any rewards specifically so He may graciously give us more. Finally, yes based on God’s covenantal agreement believers may covenantally merit some rewards.
Now covenant merit doesn’t mean our works are equal to the value of the reward. It just means that God has entered into an agreement with His children that if they do good works, He will give those rewards. The receiving of these rewards are conditionally based on our doing good works and therefore merited. This no different than how you treat your children. Suppose you promise your son a new computer if he mowed the lawn. Of course mowing the lawn is not worth a new computer. However, based on your agreement your son merited the computer once he finished mowing the lawn. The receiving of the computer was conditionally based on his mowing the lawn. On the other hand, if you told your son I promised to get you a new computer tomorrow. Your son could mow the lawn 100 times or not mow it all and you would still get him the computer. This is grace. It is not conditionally based his mowing the lawn or doing anything else. It is only because of your gracious promise alone that your son receives the computer.
March 12, 2008 at 5:55 pm
[...] Christians Merit Eternal Rewards? According to Ronnie in a comment here on Conditions under the Covenant of Grace, they [...]