Stam:

5. SHOULD WE SPEAK OF A COVENANT OF WORKS?

Most Reformed explainers agree that God established the covenant already in paradise, before man’s fall into sin. Many of them make a distinction between the covenant before and after the fall, however. Often this is formulated as follows: before the fall, the covenant was a covenant of works, but after the fall it became a covenant of grace. This implies that before the fall man had to earn something, or at least show himself worthy of obtaining more than he had. But now, after the fall, since he lost the ability to earn anything, man can only live by grace.

Underlying all this is an important question. Has our relationship with God ever been built on human works, achievement, or merit? Did our works in the past and do they in the present in any way determine the relationship itself? Our works–or the lack of them–indeed influence the relationship with God and the way it functions at a given moment, but is it ever based on our works or always solely on his grace towards us?

Covenant of works

The expression covenant of works is not found in Scripture. If the Bible draws any distinction between works and grace, it is that we cannot be saved by our works, the works of the law, but only by faith, through grace. This line of thinking is followed by the apostle Paul over against the Judaizers, for example in Romans 3 and Ephesians 2. It is all a matter of grace, so that no man will boast before the LORD (Rom 3:27; 1 Cor 1:31).

It would appear that the term covenant of works was not used until after the Reformation. Some of the underlying elements (such as the probationary command and the idea of freedom of choice) are mentioned by the early church fathers and the Reformers. Augustine called the relationship which Adam had with God a covenant (pactum). Calvin stressed, like Augustine, that salvation is a work of God alone, through grace, and that this was so also under the old covenant: ". . . the covenant by which they [the Israelites] were reconciled to the Lord was founded on no merits of their own, but solely on the mercy of God who called them" (Institutes, I, 370).

In the time after the Reformation the doctrine concerning the covenant was further developed by men such as Bullinger and Olevianus. The idea of a covenant of works now also made its entry. (L. Berkhof gives a review of this development in his Systematic Theology, pp. 211ff.)

Read the rest of this entry »

Fraser:

And finally, the Spirit of God tells us plainly, to put the Matter beyond Debate, that Christ bought Reprobates, 2 Pet. ii. 1, 2, 3, the same words used, Rev. v. 9. and xiv. 3, 4, Gal. iii. 13, not such as gave out themselves, or were thought in the judgment of charity to be really redeemed, but designed and deciphered as such, yet brought on themselves swift damnation, these are said to be bought. And as it would be an incongruous speech to aver of these false prophets, that they denied the Lord who elected them from eternity to Glory (which they say is of equal extent with redemption) tho’ they gave out themselves for elected persons; so is it incongruous to affirm they were redeemed by Christ if they had no interest in Christ’s death at all, more then in God’s gracious and eternal election: besides, let us but thus distinguish and gloss, and what shall ye be able to prove as real from Scripture? It is not far from the distinction of Secundum te est verum; Secundum me est falsum:¹ It’s truly said so, but it is not meant as it is said, but as it appears; then Christ died only in appearance as Mahomet says, then Paul may be said not to be really converted, tho’ it be expressly affirmed in Scripture, only he seemed to be so, and gave out himself to be so, I confess it is a distinction that cannot be insisted upon.

(4.) That however justification, effectual calling, sanctification, glorification are of as large extent as redemption, as some maintain; and that it is a certain truth that he hath elected, sanctified, glorified and justified some of all ranks as well as redeemed them; and that merely upon this account these general terms are used in the matters of redemption, and because of the vast church of Gentiles, to whom the Gospel was preached, and of which the Church of God’s Elect was to consist under the New Testament, and not so under the Old. I ask,

How come it that it’s not said in Scripture that God has elected the whole world, sanctified every man; for in that sense it is as true that God elected, sanctified, justified and glorified them all, as that he died for them all; for he elected, justified and sanctified all sorts and ranks of persons? Why are comprehensive universalities used in the matter of redemption, when such restrictions are used in the matter of election and justification?

Surely (that I may express myself in the ingenuous gentleman Mr. Polhill’s words) it imports this much to us, that redemption has a larger sphere then election has, and therefore the Scripture contracts election in words of specialty only, while they open and dilate redemption in emphatic generalities: These considerations move me to think that there may be a general common redemption of all mankind, I dare not gainstand such light, and express clear and various Scriptures; I conclude then, that as the Lord, if he had pleased, might have made his Son die for all, and having done so, could have expressed it in words sufficient to make us believe it; if words can express and hold out this truth to us, I think we have it. And I ask, “Were it true that Christ died for all, what form of words imaginable is not this holden out to us by that we could desire? And what Expression will not that Distinction in reality and in appearance elide.

James Fraser (of Brea) A Treatise on Justifying Faith, Wherein is Opened the Grounds of Believing, or the Sinner’s Sufficient Warrant to take Hold of what is Offered in the Everlasting Gospel: Together with an Appendix Concerning the Extent of Christ’s Death, Unfolding the Dangerous and Various Pernicious Errors that hath been Vented about it (Edinburgh: Printed and sold by William Gray at Magdalen’s Chappel within the Cowgate Head, 1749), 194-195. [Some spelling modernized; some reformatting, italics original; and underlining mine.]

__________________________

¹ Latin: “According to you it true, according to me it is false.”

Fraser:

Object. VII. From the injustice that seems to be in this universal death of Christ for all, such are unjustly dealt with for whom life and salvation is merited and purchased, who are denied that which is merited for them. But life and salvation tho’ merited by Christ. is yet denied to many who are never saved, therefore is the Lord unjust who thus dealt with them: Again, he that takes double satisfaction for one and the self same debt he is unjust; but if Christ satisfied for the reprobate then there is double Satisfaction, one made by Christ on the cross, another by reprobates in hell, therefore, &c.

Answ. Neither from Christ’s merit, nor from the damnation of reprobates can injustice be imputed to God.

For (1.) He that denies a favor procured to a person, bought and merited by a friend does not injustice, if by the consent and advice of the friend it be procured to be conferred only on such and such means and conditions which these for whom it is procured thro’ their own fault slight, were it procured to be absolutely conferred, there were Injustice in denying it, or suspending it upon any conditions. Now, he that bought such a favor may in any way he please without any breach of justice: therefore seeing reprobates believe not, which was the very terms on which the purchaser condescended and willed that the favor purchased be conferred on them, it is not unjust in God to deny them what was merited for them, because it was not merited to be given them absolutely whether they believed or not, but only upon their believing.

As to the second, the injustice redounding on the account of double satisfaction, here is no ground at all to charge the most righteous God with injustice; for grant the double satisfaction to be given (and yet reprobates never come to satisfy for the least of their sins in hell) yet I fay that in some cases, double satisfaction is not injustice, and especially in these four cases which hold here,

Read the rest of this entry »

Ursinus:

Obj. 2. There must be a proportion between the satisfaction and the crime. But there is no proper proportion, between the sufferings of one man, and the sins of an infinite number of men. How, therefore, can the ransom which Christ alone paid, correspond with the sins of a vast number of men? Ans. It can, for these two causes: First, on account of the dignity of his person; and secondly, on account of the greatness of the punishment which he endured ; for he suffered that which we were bound to suffer to all eternity. His passion, therefore, is equivalent to everlasting punishment, yea it exceeds it; because, that God should suffer, is more than that all creatures should perish. This was the greatest miracle, that the Son of God should cry out, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me.”

Zacharias Ursinus, The Commentary of Dr. Zacharias Ursinus on the Heidelberg Catechism, trans., G.W. Willard (Philipsburg, New Jersey: P&R, 1994), 214.

[Note: the idea Christ sustaining a qualitative equivalency relative to the sins of the world is clearly a pre-Grotian idea and cannot be attributed to him, or have been originated by him, or that it is a form of Grotianism or Governmentalism.]

[Credit to Lynch for the find.]