Do Christians Merit Eternal Rewards?
According to Ronnie in a comment here on Conditions under the Covenant of Grace, Christians merit eternal rewards:
“… yes based on God’s covenantal agreement believers may covenantally merit some rewards.”
He concedes this in an effort to support the meritorious nature of the pre-fall covenant God made with Adam. His assertion was that since life was promised to Adam upon condition of obedience, the covenant was therefore meritorious. In response to this, I pressed him with the fact that rewards are promised to New Covenant believers “according to what they have done in the body” (WCF XXXIII). Rather than give up the meritorious nature of the pre-fall covenant, he acquiesces that these New Covenant rewards must in fact be meritorious as well.
The problem with this concession is that it directly contradicts the reformed tradition as upheld in the Heidelberg Catechism, Lord’s Day 24:
Question 63. What! do not our good works merit, which yet God will reward in this and in a future life?
Answer: This reward is not of merit, but of grace.
The scripture proof that the Catechism uses as support is Luke 17:10.
“So likewise ye, when ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to do.”
It has been asserted by Ronnie and others that the understanding of a gracious pre-fall covenant is logically tantamount to the claim that New Covenant members are in a meritorious relationship with their heavenly Father. I submit this as proof that the contrary is actually true.
March 12, 2008 at 6:51 pm
You know, you could have quoted my entire response in context since there was only 4 more sentences. You even removed the “Finally” from the quoted sentence because it would have showed there was more context. But moving on …
However, I will grant you that I overreached, and retract that we merit rewards at the final judgment in any sense, because we are already in a Covenant of Grace. Everything from that covenant is based on grace, but this is not true for the Covenant of Works. Here is A.A. Hodge commenting on good works and rewards.
As to the relation of good works to rewards, it may be observed –
(1.) The word “merit,” in the strict sense of the term, means that common quality of all actions or services to which a reward is due, in strict justice, on account of their intrinsic value or worthiness. It is evident that, in this strict sense, no work of any creature can in itself merit any reward from God; because — (a.) All the faculties he possesses were originally granted and are continuously sustained by God, so that he is already so far in debt to God that he can never bring God in debt to him. (b.) Nothing the creature can do can be a just equivalent for the incomparable favour of God and its consequences.
(2.) There is another sense of the word, however, in which it may be affirmed that if Adam had in his original probation yielded the obedience required, he would have “merited” the reward conditioned upon it, not because of the intrinsic value of that obedience, but because of the terms of the covenant which God had graciously condescended to form with him. By nature, the creature owed the Creator obedience, while the Creator owed the creature nothing. But by covenant the Creator voluntarily bound himself to owe the creature eternal life, upon the condition of perfect obedience.
It is evident that in this life the works of God’s people can have no merit in either of the senses above noticed. They can have no merit intrinsically, because they are all imperfect, and therefore themselves worthy of punishment rather than of reward. They can have no merit by covenant concession on God’s part, because we are not now standing in God’s sight in the covenant of works, but of grace, and the righteousness of Christ, received by faith alone, constitutes the sole meritorious ground upon which our salvation, in all of its stages, rests.( A.A. Hodge Commentary on WCF Chapter 16 )
March 12, 2008 at 8:43 pm
I confess this is true. I did not want to soften the severity of the statement with qualifications that I did not think negated the statement. I apologize if I in any way misrepresented you, as that was not my intention.
Then we are back where we started, with you asserting that the pre-fall covenant is meritorious because reward was based on obedience, but denying that we merit our eternal rewards that we receive based on obedience.
This is an arbitrary distinction.
Please demonstrate why reward based on obedience is meritorious on the one hand, but not on the other.
March 13, 2008 at 8:33 am
Rom 4:4-5
March 13, 2008 at 10:22 am
It is not an arbitrary distinction because words have meaning in their context, and the specific context we are discussing is the receiving of eternal life. You have not reconciled your view with the Confession or the Scriptures. Here again is the relevant information.
The Confession clearly makes a distinction between works and grace in the CoW and the CoG. It calls the CoW with Adam a “law” in which perfect fulfillment of it would bring life(WCF XIX.I). It then goes on to say in the same chapter that “true believers be not under the law, as a covenant of works, to be thereby justified” ( WCF XIX.VI). Your view that the CoW with Adam is gracious make no sense, because it destroys how the Confession uses CoW in section WCF XIX.VI. In other words if the Confession interprets the CoW to be gracious then one would expect it to say something like, “true believers are under the law, as a covenant of works, to be thereby justified.” Because being under the law(i.e. covenant of work) in order to receive eternal life is gracious according you. Furthermore, there is no reason to call one a CoW and the other a CoG if they are both gracious!!
The Scriptures are also against your proposal because it clearly sees works and grace as antithetical in reference to receiving eternal life. One cannot say it any clearer than the Apostle Paul, “And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.”( Rom. 11:6 ). It is one or the other in reference to receiving eternal life. However, in your proposal it is both! Adam was working for eternal life, but it was still grace. Adam had to obey the law perfectly, but it was still grace. And if perfect and perpetual obedience to the law of God to receive eternal life is not working, the Apostle Paul’s polemic against the Jews is nonsensical. “Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation.”(Rom. 4:4). The Jews would more forcefully reply back, “Our works are a gift, even though God is obligated.”
March 13, 2008 at 3:40 pm
I am not merely speaking of eternal life here. For the purposes of my argument, I speak of reward in general, rather than making a distinction between the reward of eternal life and rewards in addition to eternal life. That said, let me summarize my understanding of your position thus far:
If the only distinction you have is the nature of the reward(s) themselves, I don’t see how that changes anything.
Yes, Adam had the reward of eternal life on the line and we only have rewards in addition to eternal life on the line. How does that logically lead to the conclusion that his hypothetical standing would have been meritorious while our obedience is not?
To put it more plainly, let’s let “a” equal the proposition, “Rewards promised by God and received based on obedience are merited by the one obeying and receiving.” You are both affirming and denying “a”.
March 13, 2008 at 5:05 pm
But the Scriptures and the Confession make that difference. That is what I pointed out to you in the last post. You don’t have to make the distinction, but you are not in accords with either when you don’t.
It is not only the nature of the reward, but the means by which they would receive the rewards. In one case it is based on a Covenant of Works( aka law ), and the other case it is based on a Covenant of Grace( aka promise ). Now, I have provided you evidence that when the Scriptures and the Confession speak of these two principles one is merit based and the other is grace based. You have to show why this is not the case.
You are excluding evidence that clearly shows I’m not affirming and denying both in the same way. In one case we are dealing with a covenant of work or law principle, but in the other case we are dealing with the covenant of grace or promise principle. The points still stand in the previous post and you need to deal with them.
March 13, 2008 at 9:24 pm
But this is the question being debated, and you have now begged it.
I asked you to demonstrate that the pre-fall covenant was meritorious rather than gracious, i.e. based on a covenant of work or law principle.
Your response was that Adam, had he stood, would have been rewarded based on what he did. Therefore the reward was to be merited.
My response was, “If Adam’s reward for what he did would have been a matter of merit, not grace, and our rewards based on what we do will be a matter of grace, and not merit, wherein lies the distinction between Adam’s reward based on what he did and our reward based on what we do?”
Your response is that Adam’s reward would have been based on a covenant of work or law principle, i.e. a matter of merit.
You have merely reasserted the thing I have asked you to prove.
I’m not sure how a claim can be both true and false. Please clarify. In what way do you affirm “a” above, and in what way do you deny “a”.
If you deny “a” with regard to our being rewarded based on what we do, then you have denied “a” altogether since it is a exhaustive claim and our situation would constitute an exception to that claim.
If you accept “a”, since it is an exhaustive claim, you will be forced to accept the claim that our reward based on what we do is a matter of merit and not grace.
For instance, if I say that men have beards and women do not, and I asked you to either affirm that or deny the statement, you would deny it because not all men have beards and some women unfortunately do. It does no good to say, “I affirm it in some cases and not in others” because the claim is that it is always the case, so you would have to deny it.
March 14, 2008 at 6:16 am
I have not begged the question, because I put forward an argument for my position. I made the argument based on the Scriptures and the Confession and you have not interacted with either. You accept the assertions of both of those sources as being true, right? So, I don’t need to prove their assertions, but only that they are asserting a specific point, right?
No, that is not what happened. I present arguments from both Scripture and the Confession that demonstrated the following points when dealing with justification to eternal life:
1. Covenant of Works is based on a work principle (i.e. fulfilling the law ) to receive the blessing. The Covenant of Grace is based on grace principle (i.e. God’s promises and our not working )
2. Fulfilling the Covenant of Work or works of the law as a means to receive eternal life is based on merit/earning and antithetical to grace.
3.Fulfilling the Covenant of Grace is based on our trusting and not working and this is antithetical to works.
4. Grace and Works are antithetical principles in reference to justification to eternal life
I’ve argued for these points in a few places and you have never interacted with them. For example:
http://solafidelity.wordpress.com/2008/03/12/do-christians-merit-eternal-rewards/#comment-64
http://solafidelity.wordpress.com/2008/03/07/conditions-under-the-covenant-of-grace/#comment-42
March 14, 2008 at 8:02 pm
Not to intrude, but the distinction works and grace in this instance is:
1)Who receives the grace unto salvation
2)Is the imputation of the active righteousness of Christ an acceptable category
3)If two is acceptable, then the CoC in the garden is upheld and fulfilled by the second Adam, Christ. Our salvation could be viewed as de-merited favor; in that we receive it by faith through grace not according to anything which we have done, yet it was Christ who merited it by his meritorious life. See HBC Q.60.
March 15, 2008 at 12:15 am
Ronnie,
I am honestly not trying to dodge any points you have made, I just don’t see how you are being consistent by calling Adam’s receiving reward based on his obedience to the Law “merit” and New Covenant believers receiving reward based on their obedience “grace”.
Perhaps if you form your argument into a formal syllogism, you will see how untenable it is. I will try to do the same with my position.
Let “a” = The covenant member obeys the Law
Let “b” = The covenant member receives his promised reward under the CoW
Let “c” = The covenant member receives his promised rewards under the CoG
Let “d” = Merit
Let “e” = Grace
Let me know if and which following deviates from your position:
Iff a then b (WCF VII.II)
Iff a then c (WCF XXXIII.I)
b = d
c = e
March 15, 2008 at 6:21 am
Ron, it is obvious from the Scriptures that obedience to the law is not always meritorious or always gracious. So your claim that it is inconsistent to say both makes no sense. The Scriptures teaches some attempts of being obedient to the law results in condemnation (e.g. Romans 4:4-5; Gal. 3:10) because they are based on works, and yet the same Scriptures teach other attempts of being obedience to the law may result in rewards (e.g. Eph. 6:8; 1 Cor 3:14-15) because they are based on grace. Therefore, we both have to explain how this is true. I’ve explained that I’m consistent with both the Confession and the Scripture in explaining these two divergent positions based on the context in which they are spoken. This is has been codified in the Confession by CoW( works being meritorious and a condition for receiving eternal life) and CoG( works being gracious and not a condition receiving eternal life). So, in order for either of us to be consistent with the Confession and the Scriptures we must have a concept of works being meritorious and works being gracious. You have never presented a positive argument from your side, and you keep leaving out the obvious when your present my position.
It doesn’t work because it is incomplete. Your presupposition in the above syllogism is based on mono-covenantalism(i.e. there is no distinction between the CoW and the CoG). If we define those two based on the Confession and the Scriptures the syllogism above is shown to be true. So once again, I have made those arguments. You have neither interacted with my arguments or presented an argument for your assertion that is always grace.
March 15, 2008 at 6:32 am
The debate is properly between “merit” and grace.
First, I’m not even sure if Ron accepts #2. Second, I’m not sure if Ron accepts that Christ’s fulfilling of the CoW was meritorious. Finally, he is not making a distinction between works to receive eternal life( i.e. CoW ) and works based on already graciously receiving eternal life(i.e. CoG )
March 15, 2008 at 9:10 am
Where do any of the reformed confessions say that Jesus fulfilled the Covenant of Works? All I see is that after man fell from the Covenant of Works, God made a covenant of Grace with them, with Christ as the Head, and all the elect as His seed. (WCF VII.III; WCFLC31; WCFSC20; )
This seems to me to be something that developed later. I see Whitefield saying that Jesus kept the CoW, but I don’t see anything like that in the reformed confessions.
March 15, 2008 at 9:25 am
Ron, I don’t know why you would have any hesitation with claiming Christ kept the CoW since it is a gracious covenant in your system. However, I don’t want to get sidetracked into this aspect of the discussion when we haven’t finished the previous discussion. I was only responding to WhiskeyJack’s suggestions.
March 15, 2008 at 9:31 am
But neither the scriptures nor the confessions say that Adam’s hypothetical standing would have been meritorious. You are presupposing this and this is exactly the presupposition that I reject and have asked you to substantiate.
As to a positive argument, I can simply point to the state in which God created man.
I would define grace as more than unmerited favor. I would include the concept of God meeting His own requirements in us. This is why the CoG is clearly gracious. God meets the covenantal requirements for us in Christ.
God created man in righteousness, and holiness (WCF SC10). God requires that man be righteous and holy. Therefore, God created man in a gracious state. Man fell from that grace.
March 15, 2008 at 10:08 am
If you google you might find Brian Schwertley’s essay where he opposes Gerstner for claiming that Christians merit eternal rewards.
We live in strange times.
March 15, 2008 at 11:12 am
Ok, we will take this one step at a time since you are either refusing to read what I have already written or you are just missing the point.
First questions.
Do you affirm the Scriptures are infallible and the WCF are an accurate summarization of the Scriptures teaching? If you have any exceptions with the WCF teaching on convenant theology, the law of God, or good works please let me know.
Answer the first set of questions and I can respond to this.
March 15, 2008 at 11:42 am
Yes and yes.
March 15, 2008 at 11:44 am
I forgot to ask you which of the propositions I presented you rejected.
March 15, 2008 at 12:38 pm
I told you in the response. I don’t reject any of them and it is not inconsistent. The problem is you are reading into the covenant a mono-covenantal understanding and that is why you arrive at a contradiction. That is also why we I’m trying to explain it to you step by step.
March 15, 2008 at 12:51 pm
Ron,
Second questions. First a few verses.
Romans 4:2-5
2If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast about—but not before God. 3What does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.4Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation. 5However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness.
Romans 11:5-6
So too, at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace.6And if by grace, then it is no longer by works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace.
Galatians 3:10-12
10All who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is written: “Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law.”11Clearly no one is justified before God by the law, because, “The righteous will live by faith.” 12The law is not based on faith; on the contrary, “The man who does these things will live by them.”
Do you agree that these verses and others are asserting that justification by works is equivalent to attempting to merit eternal life and it is antithetical to justification by grace unto eternal life?
March 15, 2008 at 1:22 pm
My bad. I didn’t see where you told me you did not reject any of them. I thought you rejected them as a whole because I did not make a distinction between the CoW and the CoG. But I do. b is in reference to the CoW and c is in reference to the CoG. I am distinguishing between the two.
Now that you have said that you do not reject any of the aforementioned propositions, then would you also accept the following?
If d then not e.
If e then not d.
March 15, 2008 at 1:27 pm
Yes. And I also believe they apply to Adam before the fall.
March 15, 2008 at 1:48 pm
Thanks for the comment, Mark.
Here is an essay of Gerstner where he asserts that after Justification, the Christian merits rewards.
I believe this is logically the case if one holds to a meritorious pre-fall covenant.
I found a post on your blog with a broken link to the Schwertley article.
If you want to update the link, the Schwertley article can be found here.
March 15, 2008 at 4:00 pm
I didn’t reject them explicitly, but I did implicitly. The point I attempted to make was that I could affirm them all under a proper understanding of the CoW and CoG. The reason it seemed contradictory to you was because of your mono-covenantalism presupposition. I’m attempting to show you that in the other thread, so I don’t want to derail that one by jumping ahead here.
Yes, I would, and this is basically the same point the Apostle Paul is making in Romans 11:6
March 15, 2008 at 4:02 pm
Hey Ron,
Thanks for patient with me. Hopefully, I only have a few more questions before I make my point. Here is another question:
Would you also agree that the works in view here which attempt to merit eternal life and are antithetical to grace unto eternal life consist of obeying God’s law/commandments?
March 15, 2008 at 4:31 pm
Nowhere do we see Paul asking something like, “Galatians, who has bewitched you? Who said anything about having to stop killing, committing sexual immorality, stealing, lying, etc.?” When he speaks of those attempting to be justified by works, in the context, he is speaking specifically of ceremonial works that have been taken up in Christ.
That said, I believe God’s people have always been justified by grace through faith. The just shall live by faith. But these days, as I have said, the distinction must be made between a dead, demonic, propositional faith, and a living, active, obedient faith. One justifies, and the other doesn’t. This is scriptural and confessional.
March 15, 2008 at 4:57 pm
Now, let me demonstrate the contradiction I believe you have made by accepting all the propositions I have presented. I will list them again here for clarity, and if there are any of them you wish to retract, let me know.
Let “a” = The covenant member obeys the Law
Let “b” = The covenant member receives his promised reward under the CoW
Let “c” = The covenant member receives his promised rewards under the CoG
Let “d” = Merit
Let “e” = Grace
Here are the props you have accepted, numbered for easy reference:
1. Iff a then b
2. Iff a then c
3. b = d
4. c = e
5. If d then not e.
6. If e then not d.
Here is the contradiction:
By applying Substitution of Equivalents to 1 and 2 with 3 and 4 respectively, your affirmation of props 1 through 4, logically constitutes an affirmation of the following:
7. Iff a then d
8. Iff a then e
The problem now, is 5 and 6. If we apply Substitution of Equivalents to 7 and 8 with 5 and 6 respectively, we end up with this:
9. Iff a then not e
10 Iff a then not d
7 and 8 are direct contradictions of 10 and 9 respectively.
So, where is my fallacy or where do you want to revise your affirmation of the propositions?
March 15, 2008 at 6:17 pm
So are you insinuating that it is wrong for one to attempt to be justified by the work of circumcision it is ok to be justified by the work of keeping the moral law? If that is not your point then I don’t understand your response. If that is your point (i.e. it is ok to be justified by works of the moral law ) then we have another issue. So hopefully, you were just giving me so additional commentary on your understanding of that specific verse. If so thanks for the information, but here is the question again that I would like for you to answer:
Would you also agree that the works in view here which attempt to merit eternal life and are antithetical to grace unto eternal life consist of obeying God’s law/commandments?
You and I have never had this discussion and I don’t want to get sidetracked on a bunch of rabbit trails so I will not bite at this time.
March 15, 2008 at 6:25 pm
I’ve said this so many times now I don’t know why you keep asking. As a matter of fact the other thread I started was to show you, because you do not understand my point. Your erroneous presupposition of mono-convenantalism makes it a contradiction. There is nothing contradictory about it with bi-convenantal understanding of Scripture. So let’s continue with the other thread and see if you understand.
March 15, 2008 at 9:23 pm
If you do not deny any of the propositions, it is a clear contradiction, unless I committed a logical fallacy. But you have neither rejected any of the propositions nor pointed out a fallacy. You can reassert as many times as you like, “Your erroneous presupposition of mono-covenantalism makes it a contradiction,” but that is neither denying one of the propositions nor pointing out a logical fallacy, so it does not defeat the argument.
Which of the propositions (all of which you agreed to, by the way) exhibit an erroneous presupposition of mono-covenantalism on my part?
And yes, any attempt to be justified by works or to merit salvation is contrary to grace.
March 15, 2008 at 11:42 pm
I have pointed out the fallacy in your argument. It is that you assume there is no distinction between the CoW and the CoG(i.e. mono-covenantalism ). However, I affirm distinctions, so when I agree with all them and you apply your substitution pattern it violates my distinction.
Very good. So let me ask you a few questions but first a few proof texts:
Matthew 16:27
For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father’s glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what he has done.
1 Corinthians 3:12-14
12If any man builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, 13his work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each man’s work. 14If what he has built survives, he will receive his reward.
Two questions:
1. Do you believe the rewards given in the above two passages are based on the individuals doing good works of the law(i.e. love God and love your neighbor)?
2. If you answer #1 in the affirmative do you believe the rewards are based on merit or grace?
March 16, 2008 at 6:26 am
I’m sorry, I should have been clearer. I am speaking about logical fallacies. If someone presents a logical argument, there are 2 ways to defeat it. Reject a premise or point out a logical fallacy (like Begging the Question, Affirming the Consequent, etc.). Your claim against my argument does not meet either of these requirements. That is to say, “assuming no distinction between the CoW and the CoG” is not a logical fallacy.
If anything, my failure to make a distinction could be the fallacy of Equivocation, but you already accepted the propositions. So if I am committing Equivocation, which proposition (that you already accepted) is fallacious in this way?
To your questions.
1. Yes.
2. Grace, of course.
March 16, 2008 at 6:37 am
Oh, and I forgot to call you on question begging again. Of course I am not making a distinction between the CoW and the CoG with regard to the merit system of the former and the grace system of the latter. This is because that distinction is the very thing we are debating. You accept this distinction and I deny it. If I ask you to prove it and you offer as part of your proof the thing I asked you to prove, then you have begged the question.
March 16, 2008 at 4:43 pm
Of course it is a fallacious argument, it is a strawman. It is not your initial syllogism that was false, but the other conclusions you drew from that syllogism, because instead of dealing with my position(i.e. CoW and CoG do not deal with works the same way) you resorting to *your* understanding of mono-covenantalism. What you would have to challenge is my understanding of the distinction between the two before you prove a contradiction. You haven’t even attempted to do that, because you keep repeating your fallacy.
Equivocation would be using the *same* word with two different meaning. You are critiquing my position based on your understanding of the CoW and CoG, not my understanding of it. Strawman.
Oh, I will summarize what you have affirmed in the questions that you answered which shows your syllogism to be a double edged sword.
March 16, 2008 at 5:44 pm
Ron, here is the results of the question and answer session. You have affirmed the following:
1. You affirmed belief in the Scriptures as infallible and the Confession as an accurate summarization of its teaching.
2. You affirmed that the Scriptures teach in one sense obeying the law of God is an attempt to *merit* eternal life and is antithetical to grace.
3. You also affirmed that the Scriptures teach in another sense obeying the law of God is NOT an attempt merit eternal life and is based on grace.
Here is the intial syllogism that you claim is a contradiction:
Now the syllogism of your beliefs:
Let “a” = The covenant member attempts to obey the Law
Let “b” = The old covenant member attempting to receive his reward under the CoG.
Let “c” = The new covenant member(i.e. Christian) attempting to receive his reward under the CoG
Let “d” = Merit
Let “e” = Grace
Iff a then b (Gal. 3:10-12; Rom. 4:2-5; Rom. 11:5-6 )
Iff a then c (Matt. 16:27; 1 Cor. 3:12-14)
b = d
c = e
You have just affirmed the same statements that you claim are a contradiction elsewhere? That is the doubled edged sword , care to explain?
Also as a bonus you have also affirmed that Gal. 3:10-12 is an example of an individual attempting to merit eternal life by obeying the law/commands and that is antithetical to grace. Well, I see you do agree with the Confession, because it also uses that verse as a proof text for the CoW(i.e. XIX.I), which therefore means it is also teaching that the CoW is an attempt to merit eternal life by obeying commands/works. Interesting what one will affirm when they are not consciously trying to defend their presupposed system.
March 16, 2008 at 6:13 pm
*sighs*
How so? How have I misrepresented your position? I asked you to affirm every proposition I would use, and you did. What changes should I make to the propositions in order to better represent your position?
Indeed. And that is what I have done. But it does not seem to me that I am permitted to challenge the validity of your understanding of the distinction between the meritorious stipulations of the CoW and the gracious stipulations of the CoG because each time I do so, you simply say, “You have the wrong understanding of the CoW and CoG”. Well, yes I know you think so. But continually asserting it doesn’t prove it.
Maybe I’ll start responding to you similarly: “You have the wrong understanding of the CoW and CoG.” If you say, “Hey aren’t works antithetical to grace?” I will simply respond, “You have the wrong understanding of the CoW and CoG.” “Hey, what’s the color of seven?” “You have the wrong understanding of the CoW and CoG.” I’m sure you would find this as frustrating as I have…
And what fallacy is that again? You keep repeating that I keep repeating my fallacy, but you have yet to name the fallacy. Fallacies have names. This is Logic 101, bro. I highly recommend taking a course. I have taken your understanding of the basis of reward under the CoW and CoG respectively and have demonstrated them to be contradictory. I see no attempted defeaters on your part except something to the effect of, “You have the wrong understanding of the CoW and CoG”. That simply rejects the conclusion of the argument. It doesn’t defeat the argument.
If someone says, for instance, that all men are mortal, and concludes therefore that you, a man, are mortal, it does not defeat the argument for you to say, “You have the wrong understanding of man and mortality.” The only way to defeat the argument is to either reject the premise that men are mortal, or reject the premise that you are a man, or you could name the logical fallacy. Again, Logic 101.
That is not the definition of a Straw man, bro. A Straw man would be if I were to critique a position that is not yours. What you have described is me arguing in favor of my position, which is of course the point of all this. Everyone critiques positions they disagree with based on their own position. It’s called rhetoric.
Unless I see something new from you, this is the last time I am going to ask the following questions on this thread because we are not getting anywhere and my patience is being tested. I am fairly certain that I cannot win this argument, but that is not saying much because I could not win an argument with a brick wall either. You are either unwilling to see the contradiction in your thinking, or you are not up to this level of discussion.
Question: Which, if any of the propositions do you reject?
Question: What logical fallacy did I employ to conclude that the propositions are contradictory?
March 16, 2008 at 6:31 pm
I did not affirm this (or at least I did not mean to). Obeying the law of God *in* an attempt to merit anything is antithetical to grace.
Sure. One, I did not affirm the proposition quoted above. Also, I reject “Iff a then b” because “the righteous will live by his faith.” (Hosea 2:4 to Old Covenant saints). Not only does the scripture reject that God’s people under the OC were to merit their reward, the confession states that the Old Covenant saints were justified in the same way as the New Covenant saints: By grace through faith (WCF XI.VI).
If by “The old covenant member attempting to receive his reward under the CoG.”, you meant to say, “Adam attempting to receive his reward under the CoW”, I still reject that this is merit, so I would also reject “b=d”. So, while this may represent a contradiction in your view of the CoW and CoG, it certainly does not represent a contradiction in my view.
That’s how you defeat an argument, by the way. See what I did? I rejected your premises. Now, if you wanted to proceed, you would have to construct a logical argument with premises I would agree with, the conclusion of which would be the premises I rejected. Then I would be forced to accept the validity of your position.
March 17, 2008 at 9:16 am
Yes, fallacies have a name, and I gave it to you which is a strawman. However, I’m sure you committed a number of others. I could equally point out that you are indeed committing equivocation on the “promised reward” which would refute your supposedly contradiction. You are committing equivocation on “covenant member” and that would refute your contradiction(i.e. The same covenant member is not in both covenants). However, I will take the long hard road just to show I’ve been consistent and accurate by demonstrating you have been assuming mono-covenantalism in the conclusion you drew from my affirmation and you are guilty of a straw man argument in the end.
Here is your “logical” argument:
It is kind of ironic that you attempt to lecture on basic logic and logical fallacies with this presented as a “logical” argument?
First you are taking two totally separate arguments and trying to combine the results into one argument. So both are valid independently which I affirmed, but your conclusions to draw the two together is erroneous, because of the distinction between the two Covenants. Let me try to make it clear for you:
Argument 1:
1a. Obeying the law is a command under the CoG.
1b. Obedience to the law results in a reward
1c. The reward is based on grace
Argument 2:
2a. Obeying the law is a command under the CoW.
2b. Obedience to the law results in a reward
2c. The reward is based on merit
Two different arguments and I affirmed them both. Now you go on make two more arguments in the following:
Of course 5 and 6 above respectively apply to Arguments 1 and Argument 2 which means the following:
Argument 1.1:
1a. Obeying the law is a command under the CoG.
1b. Obedience to the law results in a reward
1c. The reward is NOT based on merit
Argument 2.2:
2a. Obeying the law is a command under the CoW.
2b. Obedience to the law results in a reward
2c. The reward is NOT based on grace
Once again I affirmed both of these arguments because they are only different from the previous argument in that they exchange grace and merit in the 3rd statement and negate them.
Now you proceed on to what you think is the contradiction and this is when I tell you, you are assuming no distinction between the CoW and the CoG, because your conclusion from me affirming all of the above is the following:
So here in 7, 8, 9, and 10 you are ignoring the distinctions that were made in your initial set of statements in reference to the CoW and CoG that I affirmed. You take two totally separate affirmations (one in reference to CoW and the other in reference to CoG) and attempt to combine them into one. Here is now what you are arguing:
Argument 1.2:
1a. Obeying the law is a command.
1b. Obedience to the law results in a reward
1c. The reward is based on grace
Argument 2.2:
2a. Obeying the law is a command.
2b. Obedience to the law results in a reward
2c. The reward is based on merit
Notice there is no concept of CoW or CoG in either argument, because you are drawing conclusions from one and applying it to the other. You conclude there is a contradiction because obeying the law in 1.2 is based on grace and obeying the law in 2.2 is based on merit and you think it cannot be both since they are antithetical to each other. So you are right it cannot be both and it is not both as long as you don’t assume I’m arguing from a mono-covenantal perspective. Your above conclusion is indeed a straw man, because it not my argument and I never affirmed such a distortion. Thanks for the course in Logic 101.
March 17, 2008 at 9:31 am
March 18, 2008 at 4:36 am
There is nothing new here except the accusation of equivocation, so I will address that only, and then I think I will be done. This is getting nowhere, bro.
In logic there is the “class”. “All mankind” is a class. Thus, if one says “All mankind by their fall lost communion with God” and he says further, “John is a man and therefore John lost communion with God,” he has drawn a conclusion about a particular member of a class based on something that is true of all members in the class. This is called induction.
Covenant members are a class. Adam is a covenant member and all in Christ are covenant members. Membership in this class is defined as one with whom God has made a covenant. The stipulations of the covenant can be different (and that is of course the very thing being debated, which makes the accusation of equivocation itself question begging), but that doesn’t mean referring to both Adam and those in Christ as “covenant members” is equivocation. Adam was a covenant member and all in Christ are covenant members. There is no equivocation there.
The same is true of rewards. Sure there are different types of rewards, but they are all still in the same class called “rewards” i.e. something given by the rewarder to the rewardee based on something the rewardee has done. Adam was offered rewards based on what he did and all in Christ are offered rewards on the same basis. There is no equivocation there.
Further, to substantiate the claim of equivocation, one must make a valid distinction between the two uses of the term he asserts his opponent is equivocating on. So if one says, “All feathers are light. The sun produces light. Therefore, the sun produces feathers,” the charge of equivocation must necessarily include the distinction of the usage of the term “light” as it refers to a relatively small unit of measurement of the gravitational force upon an object, and the usage of the term “light” as it refers to the emission of electromagnetic radiation.
So, for one to substantiate the accusation of equivocation on the use of the term “rewards” in the above argument, he would need to demonstrate what makes the reception of one sort of reward (eternal life, for instance) intrinsically meritorious, and the reception of other sorts of rewards (in addition to eternal life) intrinsically gracious. And if one is going to not beg the question, he is going to have to refrain from importing the very thing he has been asked to prove as the thing that distinguishes the two sorts of rewards.
The same would have to be done for the accusation of equivocation with regard to the usage of the term “covenant member”.
March 18, 2008 at 7:00 am
First, since you admit the stipulations of the covenant members can be different then it is you who are begging the question to use it in a syllogism as a proof until we have debated that issue. I’ve been trying to engage you on that debate the entire, but you kept up with the syllogism.
Second, I understand that “covenant members are a class” the point is there are two classes(i.e. CoW, CoG). The same covenant member is not in both classes at the same time, but your syllogism implied that because you meshed two separate arguments together as one( which was the other critique that you ignored). So there is an equivocation in that “covenant member” in one case is a CoG member and a CoW member. Your conclusion about a contradiction ignores this, because for you continue to assume mono-covenantalism instead of debating the substance of the two covenants.
Yes, I agree. My point all along has been to discuss our different covenantal views based on the Scriptures and the Confession. Your syllogism is wrought with equivocations because our understanding of rewards and covenant members are affected by our covenant theology. So now you are claiming that I have to prove the distinction, but that gets us back to where I wanted to be all along, which is discussing our covenant theology. As I have said all along the contradiction is there because of your commitment to mono-covenantalism, and I’m willing to attempt to prove that through our discussion on the covenant. However, you rarely interacted with anything outside of this syllogism. For example, I have asked you to explain why you thought Gal. 3:10-12 was speaking in reference to an attempt to merit eternal life, but when the Confession uses this as a proof text for the CoW you don’t think that is what it means?
March 18, 2008 at 9:12 am
Now, you’re just talkin’ nonsense, bro. The syllogism is part of the debate, so how could I not use it until we have debated?
The syllogisms clearly demonstrate the contradiction on your part.
When asked why the CoW was meritorious, you say because reward was based on doing.
When it is pointed out that under the CoG, believers receive rewards based on doing, and that those rewards are gracious, your response has amounted to nothing more than an arbitrary distinction: “The CoW and CoG are different.”
Yes they are, but how are they different with respect to receiving promised rewards for doing?
“Well, the CoW is meritorious…”
Ad nauseam…
March 18, 2008 at 9:58 am
But you are begging the question to use *that* syllogism when a number of the terms and phrases in the syllogism are disputed. That is why it is not contradictory to me, but it is to you. You read it in light of your mono-covenantal perspective and I read it from a bi-convenantal perspective.
Whatever is gratuitously asserted can be gratuitously denied. No, it doesn’t. See?
Now this is silly. I could point out a number of posts where I have made arguments from the Scripture and the Confession for why they are different.
Now you are engaging in misrepresentations. The posts are on this thread and the other if you would like for me post them?