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.
So you believe we merit eternal rewards?

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.

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.

So you believe we merit eternal rewards?

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.
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.

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.

Grace is freely given, it is unmerited. If you are obligated to give something it is not of grace, the person has earned it.
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.

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.

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.

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.

if the giver of the reward is obligated to give the reward, then it is incompatible, because it destroys the meaning of grace… if I am obligated to give the reward, as God had obligated Himself in the CoW then it is no longer grace.
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.

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.

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.

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.

Grace is freely given, it is unmerited. If you are obligated to give something it is not of grace, the person has earned it.

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.

if the giver of the reward is obligated to give the reward, then it is incompatible, because it destroys the meaning of grace… if I am obligated to give the reward, as God had obligated Himself in the CoW then it is no longer grace.

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.

So justification by obedience to the law is based on grace?
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).

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

Notice they have fallen “away from grace”, because they are claiming grace…
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,
For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love Gal 5:6
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.

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.

Every Catholic or JWs…
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.

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.

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?
None and none. The cause would have been God’s grace granting faith and working in Adam to will and to do.

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?

Because of their claim that the Covenant of Works in its arrangement is gracious they make grace out to be something other than grace.
You keep asserting this, but you have yet to substantiate it.
Please substantiate your presupposition that grace and obligation are antithetical.

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?

Please substantiate your presupposition that rewards based on obedience are incompatible with 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.

So justification by obedience to the law is based on grace?

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).

Notice they have fallen “away from grace”, because they are claiming grace…

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,

For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love Gal 5:6

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.

Every Catholic or JWs…

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.

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?

None and none. The cause would have been God’s grace granting faith and working in Adam to will and to do.

Because of their claim that the Covenant of Works in its arrangement is gracious they make grace out to be something other than grace.

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.

Is the reward of eternal life promised to Adam on condition of perpetual and perfect obedience a thing of grace or covenantal merit?
Grace.

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.

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 ).
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.

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.

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.

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?

If you haven’t read Jordan’s Merit vs Maturity in the Federal Vision book, I highly recommend it.

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.

Is the reward of eternal life promised to Adam on condition of perpetual and perfect obedience a thing of grace or covenantal merit?

Grace.

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 ).

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.

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)

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.