Murray:

MAN was created in the image of God, a self-conscious, free, responsible, religious agent. Such identity implies an inherent, native, inalienable obligation to love and serve God with all the heart, soul, strength, and mind. This God could not but demand and man could not but owe. No created rational being can ever be relieved of this obligation. All that man is and does has reference to the will of God.

But man was also created good, good in respect of that which he specifically is. He was made upright and holy and therefore constituted for the demand, endowed with the character enabling him to fulfill all the demands devolving upon him by reason of God’s propriety in him and sovereignty over him.

As long as man fulfilled these demands his integrity would have been maintained. He would have continued righteous and holy. In this righteousness he would be justified, that is, approved and accepted by God, and he would have life. Righteousness, justification, life is an invariable combination in the government and judgment of God. There would be a relation that we may call perfect legal reciprocity. As this would be the minimum, so it would be the maximum in terms of the relation constituted by creation in the image of God.

This relation falls short in two respects of what may readily be conceived of as higher. (1) It is a contingent situation, one of righteousness but mutably so, and likewise of justification and life. There is always the possibility of lapse on man’s part and, with the lapse, loss of integrity, justification, life, the exchange of these for unrighteousness, condemnation, death. (2) There is the absence of full-orbed communion with God in the assurance of permanent possession and increasing knowledge.

Read the rest of this entry »

Berkouwer:

While we differ from Barth, we shall have to face up to a further question: Does the interrelation of the law and the Gospel have only a "salvation-historical" aspect, or does it have reference to the “lapsarian” situation o[ man’s own guilt and lostness? Can we speak of a prolapsarian state in which there was a "law"? Was there a "nomological" existence of man apart from and even prior to the distinction of the law and the Gospel. If there was, can we search there, perhaps, for the fundamental structure of what it means to be a "man"? R. Schippers, in weighing all of these questions, has affirmed that there was a law in man’s "prolapsarian state," and that that law was there apart from the Gospel!⁵¹ At the same time, we no longer may speak of this law in abstraction. Schippers’ statement has reference to the creation of God which must certainly be distinguished from man’s guilt and fallenness and therefore from the Gospel of God’s grace which saves.

It stands to reason that we may not draw conclusions concerning the relation of the law and the Gospel or build a case for the "priority" of the law on such a basis as this. Man’s original life under God’s rule cannot be regarded, for even a moment, apart from God’s love and communion. Within that communion man was subjected to God’s holy and good command; furthermore. because of that communion the commandment was never an impersonal or a statutory rule. God’s commandment expresses his lordship over life. Therefore, any discussion of the usus legus, in its various dimensions, is only conceivable in terms of this absolute goodness of God’s commandment for creaturely man. The fact that this accent was sounded so frequently in Reformation and post-Reformation times is no evidence of the darkening of the Gospel, and is no recognition of a "legal order" above or before the "order of grace." What we see in this accent is only the enigmatic nature of guilt in the face of God’s loving communion or the goodness of his rule.

Because of that fact we can never construe an antithesis between the covenants of "works" and "grace." We err if we interpret this distinction as though God’s original covenant had to do with our work or our achievement or our fulfillment of his law, while the later covenant of grace has reference to the pure gift of his mercy apart from all our works. If we assume this we are compelled to say that God’s original relation to man was strictly "legal," or that the structure of that relation was determined by man’s merit. In that case, we lose sight of the fact that man’s obedience to God’s command can never be different from a thankful response to God’s own fellowship. Therefore S. G. DeGraaf has rightly said that the concept which sees God’s favor only at the end of man’s way of obedience is open to serious dispute. Man participates in God’s favor, communion and love already at the very beginning. In that fact we see the awful reality of his guilt and apostasy.

Read the rest of this entry »

Fraser:

Object. VIII. From such places of Scripture as argue and infer salvation and actual benefits, such as reprobates never enjoy, from the Death of Christ, and they are Isa. liii:11, “By his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many, for he shall bear their iniquities.” If therefore he bear the Sins of any he will certainly justify them, or else we must argue the Holy Ghost of inconsequence, Rom. v. 8, 9, 10, “If while we were Enemies we were reconciled by the death of his Son: much more being now reconciled, shall we not be saved by his life?” Where Christ’s death and reconciliation, and Salvation are inseparably connected, Rom. viii. 32. “He that spared not his own son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him freely give us all things?” But all things are not given to reprobates, therefore neither is Christ delivered to die for them. And ver. 34, “Who shall condemn? It is Christ that died.” It would therefore seem that Christ only died for those who are justified, who shall not be condemned, who shall be saved by his life, so that if Christ had died for all any manner of way, they should certainly be saved, justified and enjoy all other things with him.

Answ. (1.) As to the place Isa. liii. 11, it is denied that it is illative and argumentative in the original language, nor is it so rendered by the best Hebraists, such as Buxtorff, Bythner or Robison, for it may very well be read thus, “By his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; And he shall bear their iniquities.” Not (for) he shall bear their iniquities; and so it only says that Christ did bear the iniquities of his people and justify them, which because copulated together are no more of equal extent, then are creation and particular effectual vocation knit together in Isa. xliii. 1, than death in sins and trespasses and quickening with Christ are of equal extent copulated together in Eph. ii. 1, and you will no more from such a connection infer that it’s only justified persons whose iniquities Christ bare; then that it is only justified persons that did like sheep go astray, for these are they whose iniquities Christ bare, Isa liii. 4, 5, 6, so all that like Sheep have gone astray should be likewise justified by just such another consequence.

(2.) But suppose the words are illative and that the words were rightly translated, “for he shall bear their iniquities,” yet will not this infer that all these whose iniquities Christ bears shall certainly be justified because it is an argument taken from an inadequate cause and effect, and supposes it’s other causes. It is true Christ must die for all that are justified, but this is not the all, or the adequate cause of their justification, for it is required that they believe as an instrumental cause without which they cannot be justified, tho’ Christ’s blood is the only and adequate meritorious and material cause of justification; and because Christ’s death is necessary to justification. Therefore, it being existent and other causes supposed, as it is in Rom. v. 4, 5, 6, expressly, and emphatically in Rom. viii. 32, that it is supposing we believe, hence it may be argued from the death of Christ to justification. I will show you the like instance in Rom. xi. 23, they shall be grafted in if they abide not in unbelief, “for God is able.” Here the apostle reasons from God’s power to his actual grafting in of the Israelites, yet it will not follow that all whom God is able to bring in to Christ shall he brought in; tho’ indeed the power of God was one necessary cause, and hence it is argued from, for he is able to do many things he will never do, nor that we have ground to believe he will do. Therefore tho in the aforesaid Scriptures, both Isaiah and Romans, it be argued from Christ’s death to justification, yet will it not follow, that therefore all for whom Christ died shall be justified, but with a supposition of other causes, viz., if they for whom Christ died abide not in their unbelief, as it is in Rom. xi. 23, expressed, and understood Rom. viii. 32.

Read the rest of this entry »

Dillistone:

Chapter Eight

FEDERALISM IN THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY

I

IN the Reformed Confessions of the sixteenth century Covenant-Terminology is seldom used. In fact there is only one example of the Covenant-concept occupying a place of prominence and that is in the title of the Second Scots Confession of 1580. This is designated the “National Covenant,” and for the first time we find a symbol of common agreement being described in this way. Probably the Old Testament record of covenants between the people and their king gave the necessary precedent for such a use.

But, although there are few explicit references to the covenant, the general Church-doctrine of Calvin was being warmly embraced. Nowhere, perhaps, does the true voice of the Reformation ring out with more joyful assurance than in the First Scots Confession of 1560. In this, the most notable of the early Reformed Confessions, there is no attempt to minimize the importance which the Church holds in the providential working of God in history. The Church is the community brought into being by God’s Promise. In the face of man’s defection, the Confession asserts, God made to Adam one most joyful promise, a promise which was made more and more clear and repeated from time to time. But those who have embraced the promise with joy, constitute the one Kirk of all the ages, a Kirk which God has preserved, instructed, multiplied, honored, adorned, and from death called to life throughout the history of mankind. This Kirk is distinguished from the rest of society by the three notes which had already become famous–the true preaching of the Word of God, the right administration of the Sacraments, and ecclesiastical discipline uprightly dispensed. These are the marks of the visible Church in the world. But the source and spring of the whole life of the Church is God’s Promise by which He called the new community into being and by which He renews and restores it from age to age.

With the turn of the century a significant change appears. The Covenant-conception begins to occupy an increasingly, important place in Reformed theology but it is interpreted in a way markedly different from that of earlier Reformed teaching. The new theory of the covenant comes to clear expression in the Irish Articles of 1615. First, reference is made to the Covenant of the Law ingrafted in man’s heart at creation whereby God did promise unto him everlasting life upon condition that he performed entire and perfect obedience to His commandments: but seeing that men broke this covenant of the Law, it was necessary for a second covenant to be inaugurated, the covenant of which Christ is the Mediator and whose purpose is man’s salvation. This is the framework which now receives ever fuller elaboration:– the Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Grace, each in its way a contract between God and man, each promising man life and salvation upon definite conditions. The outstanding difference between the covenants is to be found in the fact that whereas the first demanded unquestioning obedience, the second demanded unqualified faith. It is the same God who made each covenant and it may be assumed, therefore, that the purpose and general structure of each covenant is the same. In other words God is a God who enters into contract with men, who binds Himself to bestow blessings if only they will fulfill certain conditions. The supreme mark of His grace is that when men failed to keep the first covenant, He did not abandon them entirely. Instead He made a second compact, one moreover which might seem at first sight to demand less of man than the first. Obedience having proved impossible, obedience was replaced by faith. So the dialectic between Law and Gospel which Calvin sought to maintain is broken and instead we have two successive eras, in one of which God deals with man in one way, in the second of which He deals with him in another. In all this there is a serious danger of losing the vision of the One personal Living God who at all times and under all circumstances deals with man both in judgment and in grace.

Read the rest of this entry »