Can a man be profitable to God?
Westminster Confession of Faith Shorter Catechism
Q. 12 What special act of providence did God exercise towards man, in the estate wherein he was created?
A. When God had created man, he entered into a covenant of life with him, upon condition of perfect obedience; forbidding him to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, upon the pain of death.
The following notes to the Westminster Confession of Faith Shorter Catechism in the form of Q & A were written by Puritans Ebenezer and Ralph Erskine in 1765 in part 1 of the Fishers Catechism on the Shorter Catechism (I guess 107 questions were not enough for Puritan children). It is clear that they rejected the alleged meritorious nature of the pre-fall covenant. All emphases are mine.
Q. 30. Was there any proportion between Adam’s obedience, though sinless, and the life that was promised?
A. There can be no proportion between the obedience of a finite creature, however perfect, and the enjoyment of the infinite God, Job 22:2, 3 — “Can a man be profitable to God? Is it any pleasure to the Almighty, that thou art righteous? or, is it gain to him, that thou makest thy way perfect?”Q. 31. Why could not Adam’s perfect obedience be meritorious of eternal life?
A. Because perfect obedience was no more than what he was bound to, by virtue of his natural dependence on God, as a reasonable creature made after his image.Q. 32. Could he have claimed the reward as a debt, in case he had continued in his obedience?
A.He could have claimed it only as a pactional debt, in virtue of the covenant promise, by which God became debtor to his own faithfulness, but not in virtue of any intrinsic merit of his obedience, Luke 17:10.Q. 33. What then was the grace and condescension of God that shined in the covenant of works?
A. In that he entered into a covenant, at all, with his own creature; and promised eternal life as a reward of his work, though he had nothing to work with, but what he received from God, 1 Cor. 4:7.Q. 34. Did the covenant of works oblige man to seek life upon the account of his obedience?
A. It left man to expect it upon his obedience, but did not oblige him to seek it on that score; but only on account of the faithfulness of God in his promise, graciously annexing life to man’s sinless obedience, Matt. 19:16.
March 28, 2008 at 10:03 pm
So let me get this straight. A couple of Puritans, 120 years after the Westminster Confession of Faith was written, didn’t believe that Adam could have merited a reward from God, and that grace was involved in the covenant of “works”.
So in other words, the Federal Vision nonsense is more than 5 years old, it’s actually way older than that. It’s actually more like 250 years old.
But why stop there, Ron? Why not quote medieval theologians before the Reformation? After all, that’s what they believed. Why not quote Thomas Aquinas?
In fact, why don’t you just go back to the book of Galatians, and cite the people that Paul was arguing against as people that affirm the same things you do?
After all, your errors are much, much older than you’re giving them credit for.
E
March 29, 2008 at 8:57 am
Echo,
This proves that the idea of a gracious pre-fall covenant finds itself in the Reformed Tradition which is what the FV guys have been saying.
As to the judaizers, when have I come at you with a pair of scissors (not that I haven’t thought of it
)? FV does not teach justification by works, rather justification by a living faith that works, just like the Paul, James, and the WCF.
March 29, 2008 at 12:34 pm
Ron,
Are you actually listening to the other side? The Erskine brothers are not saying anything substantially different than what those who say the CoW is not inherently gracious, even though God entering into the covenant was gracious( or based on his condenscension ). No one has ever argued for strict merit which is what the Erskine brothers are speaking against. This is shown because in Q. 32 they affirm that Adam could have claimed pactional debt which means Adam had pactional merit. Pactum merit has always been the only claim, not strict merit. Here is question 32 again:
Q. 32. Could he have claimed the reward as a debt, in case he had continued in his obedience?
A.He could have claimed it only as a pactional debt, in virtue of the covenant promise, by which God became debtor to his own faithfulness, but not in virtue of any intrinsic merit of his obedience, Luke 17:10.
Also when you look at the verses the Divines used as prooftext for the Covenant of Works( VII.II )check out the types of verses they used:
Gal 3:10
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.
Gal 3:12
The law is not based on faith; on the contrary, “The man who does these things will live by them.
Romans 10:5
Moses describes in this way the righteousness that is by the law: “The man who does these things will live by them.
Do you consider obedience to the things mentioned in these verses as gracious?
March 29, 2008 at 1:28 pm
Yes, are you?
First, you already tried this before here: http://solafidelity.com/2008/03/07/conditions-under-the-covenant-of-grace/#comment-29 and it got us nowhere because you won’t see the “covenantal merit” (to use your lingo) in the New Covenant.
Secondly, this is not what the quote says. It says Adam’s perfect obedience could NOT be meritorious for eternal life. It describes an obligation on God’s part that you have called “merit”, but I don’t see how you can defend that definition.
If all you mean by “merit” is that “God became the debtor to His own faithfulness”, then that is fine, though the word “merit” doesn’t really convey that. But God is a debtor to His own faithfulness with regard to our works as well under the New Covenant, but you don’t call our rewards for doing “merit”, so you are inconsistent.
You are trying to import a distinction where there isn’t one. We’ve been through this before and it was thoroughly unprofitable.
March 29, 2008 at 3:21 pm
OK, what would have been the determining factor of God being in the state of a covenantal debtor? What would have been the determining factor for God being obligated to reward Adam with eternal life? It was Adam’s working/doing? The Scriptures are clear that this is not grace:
Romans 4:4
Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due.
Romans 11:6
But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace.
You have never even attempted to answer any of these questions. The one time you responded to Gal. 3:10 you said it was a verse based on works righteousness and antithetical to grace. http://solafidelity.wordpress.com/2008/03/12/do-christians-merit-eternal-rewards/#comment-85
I guess you were not aware that this verse is used by the confession as a prooftext for the CoW
March 30, 2008 at 10:40 am
You keep pulling scriptures out of context that do not apply to Adam. If I did the same thing, I could cite Galatians 3:11 to refute that Adam was to maintain his standing before God by obedience to the Law. But neither of those verses are referring to Adam, rather they are referring to Jews attempting to define their right standing before God through observance of Old Covenant ceremonial Laws.
Yes, God would have been a debtor to His own faithfulness had Adam stood. But we have been through this before. God is a debtor to His own faithfulness in our regard as well, for He is not unjust so as to forget our works (Hebrews 6:10). But this cannot be called merit, so neither can Adam’s hypothetical standing be called merit.
March 30, 2008 at 2:52 pm
But the Confession uses some of those verses as prooftexts for Adam and the Covenant of Works. Do you accuse the confession of taking the verses out of context?
God’s would have been a debtor based on Adam’s fulfilling or non-fulfillment of the covenant of works, not based on God’s promise alone! Let me ask you this. If the CoW was based on God’s gracious faithfulness why did Adam receive curses instead of blessing? Did the faithfulness of God failed? Now we can ask the same question in reference to the CoG. Is it possible for God in his faithfulness to apply curses to those who are in right standing with Him in the CoG?
March 30, 2008 at 5:37 pm
No. The Confession cited Gal 3:10 to support that Adam was to obey perfectly. They did not cite it to support that said obedience would have merited anything.
But the context of the verse is of course not Adam (his name is not mentioned in the letter once) or the covenant of works, but rather Jewish legalism under the expired mosaic administration, and that was the context in which I agreed that the verse spoke of works righteousness. Nice try.
No, Adam failed. God gave Adam everything he needed to obey Him and Adam failed. We can no more blame God for Adam’s sin that we can blame Him for our own sin. God is sovereign, but he is not the author of sin nor is He the violator of human will (WCF III.I). A lot of problems have come from people trying to figure out that mystery.
Yes. There are curses under the CoG and they are greater under the New Covenant administration of the CoG than the Old (Hebrews 10). I realize that in one sense I depart from the WCF here, where they say instead that sin brings “afflictions in this life”, but I think it can easily be deduced from the confession by noting that there are clear curses under the mosaic administration and the confession acknowledges that the mosaic administration was an administration of the Covenant of Grace.
Also, See John Frame on this: “God’s covenants are two-edged. Those who are faithful to the covenant receive blessings; those who are not faithful receive curse.”
March 30, 2008 at 7:36 pm
Interesting. In another thread here is my question and your answer in reference to Gal. 3:10 and other verses:
I asked:
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?
You responded:
Yes. And I also believe they apply to Adam before the fall.
http://solafidelity.wordpress.com/2008/03/12/do-christians-merit-eternal-rewards/#comment-85
Galatians 3 is dealing with two principles for achieving eternal life. One is based on law/works and the other is by faith/grace. When the Confession is using prooftexts for the CoWs it refers to both Gal 3:10 and 3:12. The point is not only that perfect obedience is required, but as you said previously it is speaking of meriting eternal life by perfect obedience.
Oh c’mon. The point is not that the verse is specifically about Adam or the CoW proper. The reason the Divines reference it and the others like it is because it is based on a works righteousness principle like the CoW. You will also notice whenever the confession is speaking of the CoG it uses verses that are based on God’s promises.
I’m not blaming God for Adam not receiving eternal life in the CoW, because the receiving of the reward was based on Adam’s faithfulness. However, in the CoG our receiving of the reward is based on God’s faithfulness.
I asked if the curses apply to those who are in right standing with God(i.e. justified ). Since Adam was in a right standing with God, it is only the members of the CoG that are in a right standing with God that are analogous in his situation. So do you believe those who are justified in this life may experience the covenant of curses as Adam did?
March 31, 2008 at 5:06 am
When I said that, I was referring specifically to 3:11, that is that no one receives maintains their right standing before God by an attempt law-keeping, not even Adam before the fall. Righteous Adam lived by faith. Galatians 3:21 is another verse I doubt you would apply to Adam before the Fall.
The confession also cites Romans 10:5-20 to support the CoW, but they acknowledge that the Mosaic Administration was an administration of the Covenant of Grace. They cite Romans 10:5-20 specifically to support the point that all Adam’s posterity were bound to obey. But nowhere do they state that the Adamic Administration was a “works righteousness” or “meritorious” administration and they explicitly deny that to be the case with the Mosaic Administration. And since Adam was “created in righteousness and holiness” (WCF SC 10), I don’t see how a “works righteousness” system can be drawn out of the Confession’s account of the pre-fall covenant.
But the same is true of us under the CoG as it was for Adam under the CoW. “Now it is required that those who have been given a trust must prove faithful.” (1 Cor 4:2) If we fall short of God’s promises like Adam, it is not God’s Word that failed (Rom 9:6). It is we who failed (Heb 4:1).
Again, yes. Adam fell out of his right standing with God and was then cursed. This can happen to the New Covenant member (John 15, Rom 11, 1 Cor 10, Heb 3,6,10, Rev 3). Their sins were forgiven and they had a right standing before God, but because they did not continue in faith, they lost that standing (cf. the Unmerciful Servant in Matt 18, 2 Pet 1:9).
March 31, 2008 at 9:39 am
Adam failed, but he definitely attempted to keep the law to receive eternal life because that was the covenantal agreement. By keeping the law perfectly he would have received eternal life. It is ironic that stated previously these verses are not dealing with Adam specifically but yet you now attempt to apply 3:11 and 3:21 to Adam. My usage of 3:10 and 3:12 was based on the Confession use of those verses do you have an example of the Confession using vv11,21 in reference to the CoW with Adam? The Confession uses 3:10,12 as prooftexts for the CoW because they defined the same principle that was used in the CoW. If you disagree then what is the difference in those verses as directed toward the Judiazers and Adam in the CoW?
The Confession says the Mosaic Covenant is an administration of the CoG ”… 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 all point to Christ and God’s doing, not the doing of Jews. Never does the Confession point to our keeping of the law as part of the Gospel. It is this law that it calls a CoW contra the CoG. It says this clearly in section XIX.1. In section XIX.6 it makes this statement: ”VI. Although true believers be not under the law, as a covenant of works, to be thereby justified, or condemned; …” To be under the law as to be justified or condemned by it is a CoW. This was exactly Adam’s situation. He was under the law as a CoW to be justified or condemned by it.
And all along I thought you subscribed to the WCF??? You are also fond of trying to publish gotcha blogs entries, why don’t you publish this one: “FV advocate believes a justified believer can lose their justification”.
You are denying the Confessional teaching on justification which states:
XI.V. God doth continue to forgive the sins of those that are justified; and, although they can never fall from the state of justification, yet they may, by their sins, fall under God’s fatherly displeasure, and not have the light of his countenance restored unto them, until they humble themselves, confess their sins, beg pardon, and renew their faith and repentance.
You are also denying its teaching on the Perseverance of the Saints:
XVII.I. They, whom God hath accepted in his Beloved, effectually called, and sanctified by his Spirit, can neither totally nor finally fall away from the state of grace, but shall certainly persevere therein to the end, and be eternally saved.
Have you brought it to the attention of your presbytery that you take exception on these points in the confession?
March 31, 2008 at 1:13 pm
Actually, what is ironic is that vs 10 and 12 are supposed to apply to Adam, but vs 11, the verse *right in between* those two does not.
That is quite selective.
But again, I do not fault the confession with this selectiveness, because its aim is not the same as yours. The confession cites Galatians 3 to support the necessity of perfection, not merit. I have no problem applying all those verses to Adam.
Also, note that the verses 10 and 12 are quotes from Deuteronomy and Leviticus, which were originally directed towards God’s people under the Covenant of Grace. So the statements themselves are not inherently legalistic, but rather gracious. But the concept of law keeping could be misconstrued in a legalistic way, and this is what Paul is speaking against.
You are wrong. None of “the aforementioned uses of the Law” in XIX are contrary to the grace of the Gospel, but *sweetly comply* with it (XIX.VII). Our obligation to the Law is *strengthened* in Christ and the gospel, not diminished (XIX.V). The reformed did not have a sharp Law/Gospel distinction as did the Lutherans, no matter what modern reformed folk pretend (cf “Conditional Language and Law-gospel” in Mark Garcia’s review of Covenant, Justification, and Pastoral Ministry).
With regard to justification and the perseverance of the saints, sometimes I forget that with some people, I have to qualify each statement with “Lord willing…” I was of course speaking from a historical/covenantal perspective. The confession is coming mostly from an eternal/decretal perspective. Both perspectives are biblically valid and must be understood if you are going to understand scripture. You didn’t even attempt to handle the verses I cited. The Christian has to cooperate with the moving of the Spirit to persevere in faith to the end if he is going to receive the fruit of God’s promises, and God has predestined from eternity past all who will do so.
I take no exception to the confession, but even if I did, I am not a church officer, so I do not need to strictly subscribe.
March 31, 2008 at 5:21 pm
Read carefully. I didn’t say verses 10 and 12 apply specifically to Adam, but instead the verses are based on the principle of works, which is the same principle the pre-fall CoW was based. This is why the Confesssion references these verses and other like them when talking about the CoW, but completely different types of verses when talking about the CoG. I will provide a quote from Calvin down below that shows he agrees this is what the Apostle Paul is getting at.
The confession does not only use the verses in reference to perfection, but it also uses Gal. 3:12 in reference to the CoW in VII.II. There is a consistent pattern. Whenever the Confession mentions the CoW it uses verses that speak of keeping the law to recieve justification, whenever it speaks of the CoG it references verses that speaks of faith to receive justification and those two ways of receiving eternal life are contrasted. It is not that difficult my friend.
Paul is referencing those verses because they define the works principle. It is a principle based on doing/working and it is contrasted with the principle based on grace/faith. Got it? So if you are going to respond deal with the real issue.
You keep failing to make any distinctions. The law as part of the Gospel is different from the law “sweetly comply” with Gospel in the one that has already received eternal life. It is only in regard to receiving eternal life in justification that works and faith are antithetical.
If you don’t believe me why don’t you listen to Calvin as he comments on Gal. 3:12:
The law evidently is not contrary to faith; otherwise God would be unlike himself; but we must return to a principle already noticed, that Paul’s language is modified by the present aspect of the case. The contradiction between the law and faith lies in the matter of justification. You will more easily unite fire and water, than reconcile these two statements, that men are justified by faith, and that they are justified by the law. “The law is not of faith;” that is, it has a method of justifying a man which is wholly at variance with faith.
Notice Calvin also speaks of the principle that the Apostle Paul is getting at. As far as the sharp Law/Gospel distinction, do you think ”fire and water” is a sharp enough distinction?
Neither the Historical/covenantal perspective or saying “Lord willing …” bring you in line with the Confession. You stated a justified person can lose their justification and end up being cursed by God. That statement is inconsistent with the Reformed teaching on justification and POS which state falling away of a justified person can never happen. Repeating the standard FV distinction makes no sense in this case, because only the ones who are decretally elected are justified in history. And I thought all alone the FV was about giving assurance to the believer.
I’m happy to hear you are not a church officer, based on your denial of justification and POS.
March 31, 2008 at 7:25 pm
Wow, I couldn’t read the whole thread.
Ron, let me just ask you this.
I think you have kids, right? Well, let’s say that you tell your kids that if they memorize the 10 Commandments and can recite them perfectly, you’ll buy them each a new bicycle or something.
So they each do so. They spend days working on it, memorizing diligently, and then when the time comes to recite the verses, they all do so perfectly. After this, you pack them up in the car and take them to buy new bicycles.
Now, did the children get the bicycles by grace or by merit?
I argue for merit. Sure, the whole situation seems kind of gracious on your part. But it’s not grace if, had the children NOT recited perfectly, you wouldn’t have bought them a new bike.
This is just like Adam in the Garden. God created him in his own image, to imitate God, to manifest God in some shadowy way by being obedient to God. The purpose for which God created Adam was to obey God. And God would give him eternal life (a new bike) if he obeyed, and death (no bike) if he disobeyed.
Now, I agree that it’s very nice of God to do this for Adam, to give him this opportunity to earn eternal life. It’s a very loving thing to do, just like it would be a very loving thing to do to give your kid a new bike for memorizing a set amount of Scripture. But it’s not grace.
Here’s what grace looks like: let’s say again that you tell your kids that if they memorize Ex 20, and recite it perfectly, you’ll buy them a new bike. But your kids totally blow you off, and when the day to recite comes, instead of reciting the verses, they flick you off and moon you. Then you recite the verses for them, and earn the bike yourself, and give it to them, going without a bike yourself. That’s grace.
The FV does not teach you to define grace and merit according to these kinds of terms. They confuse the distinction between grace and merit, and in so doing, they undermine what Christ really accomplished for us. Christ memorized the verses for us, and gives us his reward, the new bike. And we’ll be riding it in the eschaton forever.
The way we define grace and merit EXALTS the work of Christ on our behalf.
E
April 2, 2008 at 2:11 pm
E,
Even if I grant your bike illustration to be an example of merit, it is not analogous with God’s relationship to Adam. A more accurate illustration would be the one that exists in every God fearing home.
A child is brought into the house as a helpless infant. By no doing of his own, he is loved, fed, cleaned and cared for in every way. As he grows, he is given even more. His father doesn’t make him work to get a bicycle. His father gives him a bicycle for Christmas one year as a gift of pure grace. But obligations of obedience are placed upon him also. And the more he matures, the more responsibility he has. To whom much is given, much is required.
Eventually, when his parents die, the entire estate belongs to him. But in a sense, it was his already from birth. It was his birthright, his inheritance. Did he earn it? No. It comes to him as a matter of pure grace. All he had to do to not forsake his inheritance was abide in his father’s love by keeping the obligations his father placed upon him.
I could take the analogy further to allow for the Fall. If the child got into trouble by breaking a window, for instance, the father would be expected to make restitution on the child’s behalf. The child has nothing to his name, so how can he pay for his own sin? The father will pay it for him, and because the father loves his son, he will pay it right away. He doesn’t let the guilt of his child’s sin linger for an instant once he becomes aware of it. He may even discipline the boy by taking his bicycle away for a time.
I could take the analogy even further to allow for apostasy. The relationship between father and son is hindered when the son disobeys, but the father always seeks after his son to make things right with him. But if the son does not repent, and continually dishonors his father’s commands, there comes a point when the father has to cast the son out of the household and the son forfeits his inheritance.
April 2, 2008 at 2:14 pm
Your illustration of grace is cheap too. It involves absolutely no repentance.
April 2, 2008 at 2:20 pm
LOL I wish I had a nickel every time you started a sentence that way, E. I would be a very rich man.
THOU SHALT NOT BLUR DISTINCTIONS. ~ 1 TR 3:16
I remember this guy named Arius who said that the doctrine of the Trinity blurred the distinction between God and man…
April 3, 2008 at 5:55 am
How much repentance is involved in your concept of the pre-fall “gracious” Adamic covenant?
April 3, 2008 at 5:57 am
Oh yeah, I forgot you have covenantal monomania…
April 3, 2008 at 6:49 am
Ron,
Your analogy completely misses the mark of the pre-fall CoWs. For example you state:
His father doesn’t make him work to get a bicycle. His father gives him a bicycle for Christmas one year as a gift of pure grace.
This completely misses the mark, because Adam had to work(i.e. keep the law perfectly and perpetually ) for his reward. So in your example, the son would have had to work in order to get the bike, and if he didn’t do what was commanded he would not have received the bike. That is not pure grace.
You continue with another flawed analogy:
Eventually, when his parents die, the entire estate belongs to him. But in a sense, it was his already from birth. It was his birthright, his inheritance. Did he earn it? No. It comes to him as a matter of pure grace.
Eternal life was not Adam’s it was something Adam strived for by working((i.e. keep the law perfectly and perpetually ). So in your example, the son would have had to work in order to receive the inheritance, and if he didn’t do what was commanded he would not have received it. That is not pure grace.
You continue with one more flawed analogy:
The relationship between father and son is hindered when the son disobeys, but the father always seeks after his son to make things right with him. But if the son does not repent, and continually dishonors his father’s commands, there comes a point when the father has to cast the son out of the household and the son forfeits his inheritance.
With Adam the relationship was not hindered it was destroyed. Now the father did seek after Adam, however it wasn’t Adam’s repentance that was needed it was a new way(i.e. CoG) to rescue Adam. Adam could have repented for the rest of his life without a new covenant( CoG ) that made provisions for his restoration he was doomed because the previous covenant (CoW) had no such provision. Adam’s point of being cast out was at the very first sin. He didn’t forfeit an inheritance, but instead he didn’t live up to his covenantal stipulations and therefore received the covenantal curses. The blessings were no more his inheritances as the curses were. They were both sanctions of the CoWs.
It seems to me you don’t understand what grace is. You define grace as doing something for someone regardless of the stipulations that is put on the individual.
April 3, 2008 at 9:19 am
And in my analogy, obligations are placed upon the child, but only to maintain what was given. Life was given freely to Adam. Look at the text. Does it say “You will live if you obey”. No, that would be ridiculous because Adam already lived before he obeyed once; indeed he had to live before he even could obey. No, the text says, “If you disobey, you will die.”
So, while my analogy may not comport to your concept of the pre-fall covenant, it is true to the text of scripture.
April 3, 2008 at 9:52 am
And in my analogy, obligations are placed upon the child, but only to maintain what was given. Life was given freely to Adam. Look at the text. Does it say “You will live if you obey”. No, that would be ridiculous because Adam already lived before he obeyed once; indeed he had to live before he even could obey. No, the text says, “If you disobey, you will die.”
So, while my analogy may not comport to your concept of the pre-fall covenant, it is true to the text of scripture.
You analogy only fits the Scripture if you read them in a wooden literal sense that is void of the context of the entirety of Scripture. Of course Adam was already living, no one doubts that, but Adam did not have eternal life in the biblical sense that it is used. As a matter of fact when the text says Adam would die it doesn’t mean he would stop living, at least not in the sense you are referring to. Remember Adam would have had eternal life if he would have eaten of the tree of life? But based on your logic he already had life so what is the whole point to that ridiculous tree of life thing.
April 5, 2008 at 12:35 pm
Neither do you. Neither do I. Neither does anyone until we get to eternity. But we, like Adam, have the promise of eternal life. But if we are going to receive the fruit of that promise, we have to cling to God and stand on His promises and not despise our inheritance as Adam did or as Cain did or as Ham did or as Esau did, or as our fathers in the wilderness did, etc. God made explicit promises to these men, but they forfeited the fruit of those promises by not mixing the promises with faith.
The Tree of Life was Adam’s inheritance. It is our inheritance now in Christ, if we overcome (Revelation 2:7).
April 6, 2008 at 11:20 am
That is not true.
John 5:24
24″I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life.
Not only do we have it, there is no chance we will be condemned. This is so because it is God’s work not ours. If it was ours it could not be guaranteed (i.e. Adam in the CoW ).
We have more than a promise of eternal life, we have eternal life now as shown above.
OK, but based on your previous statement in another post, if Adam was already living why have a Tree of Life as an inheritance? I thought according to your words that was silly?
April 6, 2008 at 2:47 pm
How can anyone have eternal life if they are not in eternity? The phrase you offer is metaphorical. This is how God speaks, identifying the promise itself with the thing promised. Otherwise, much of the Bible doesn’t make sense.
For example, how can we be careful not to fall short of entering His rest if we have already entered it? (Hebrews 4:1) And what about the sheep and the goats? Matthew 25:46 “These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.” This is at the end. How can the sheep “go away into everlasting life” if they already have everlasting life?
That is the first step to hell, brother. Apostasy happens. Many have fallen because they did not think they could and so they played fast and loose with God’s commands. Saving faith BOTH trembles at the threats and embraces the promises. (WCF XIV)
And as shown above here, that position is based on a fallacious literalization of metaphorical language.
I’m not sure exactly what you are referring to, but what is silly is to think that inheritance is earned or merited. It is given freely as a birthright, but it can be forsaken by falling out with the giver of the inheritance. So, Adam was already on the path to eternal glory and the Tree of Life (basically all that is ours in Christ), and all he had to do was abide as Jesus did and instructs us to (John 15:10).
April 7, 2008 at 3:19 pm
What??? Can you show me one Reformed theologian or scholar that interprets John 5:24 in metaphorical way? Are you not familiar with the already/not yet tension found throughout Scripture? With Jesus resurrection the eschaton has arrived in the present, and though it is not consummated it is definitely inaugurated. You need to read a bit more my friend.
Oh brother. Do you have any decent commentaries? Actually, if you read a little bit more in Hebrews 4 it gives you the answer:
Hebrews 4:2-3
For we also have had the gospel preached to us, just as they did; but the message they heard was of no value to them, because those who heard did not combine it with faith. 3Now we who have believed enter that rest, just as God has said,
For your question on Matthew 25:46 the answer lies again inaugurated eschatology(i.e. already/not yet ).
LOL … it is funny that you try to quote WCF to counter what I have said when the confession says the same thing in different words. Do you know remember what it said about those who are justified can never fall away from that justification? You sound like an Arminian not a Reformed person.
Actually, I have never read any Reformed theologian call this metaphorical language so maybe you can offer up someone that does?
April 7, 2008 at 8:09 pm
Ronnie, the “already” is the promise and the “not yet” is the fulfillment.
When have you said anything about “trembling at the threats” or anything near it that would constitute you saying the same thing as the confession in “different words”? Sure the confession speaks of the “elect” and says that they cannot fall away, but I didn’t see anyone’s name there.
Yes, to a hyper-calvinist, Calvin himself would sound like an arminian. But the confession itself says that saving faith trembles at the warnings. There is no need to tremble if there is no possability of falling away. This is still calvinistic because Calvin acknowledged that there were those who were in covenant with God that were not elect.
April 7, 2008 at 8:35 pm
Here is some “Arminian” Calvin for ya, Ronnie:
April 8, 2008 at 1:38 am
Based on that statement it is obvious you don’t understand the “already/not yet” teaching. The “already” means the eschaton has arrived in the present, not just the promise. The “not yet” means it is not consummated. The challenge is still out for you to show me a respectful Reformed theologian who says John 5:24 is metaphorical. Amazing.
I made the statement, ”Not only do we have it[eternal life] there is no chance we will be condemned.” and you made the statement, ”That is the first step to hell…”. You seem to think the two statements are contradictory. Your quoting the “trembling at the threats” does not change the fact believers have eternal life(i.e. those who are justified) and will not be condemned(i.e. will never fall from justification ). The more you talk the more you prove you are not Reformed.
So you define a hyper-calvinist as one who believes the justified one will never be condemned? Amazing. Not only is it the teaching of the Reformers, the Reformed Confessions, but it is the clear teaching of Scripture(i.e. John 5:24; Romans 8:1; Romans 8:30). You will have to document how that is exclusive to a hyper-calvinist.
There is no possibility of a justified believer falling away. The Confession and the Reformed faith has always taught that over and against Arminians and Roman Catholics. The trembling at the threats is not contradictory to that but instead it is a means to the same end. Your jumping to non-elect in the covenant shows you don’t understand the issue or you are trying to muddy the water. Non-elect in the covenant has nothing to do with this specific and narrow point.
April 8, 2008 at 1:48 am
No, nothing Arminian there. What is Arminian is your conclusion that because there is trembling that means a possibility of condemnation for the one who is justified. Calvin commenting on Romans 8:1 says the following about the “trembling” and “condemnation”:
“… so the trembling consciences of the godly have an invincible fortress, for they know that while they abide in Christ they are beyond every danger of condemnation.”( Commentary on Romans 8:1)
So as I told you previously, trembling does not take away from the fact that there is no danger of condemnation, even for the one who is trembling. Think on that.
April 9, 2008 at 10:22 pm
The key there to Calvin’s comment is “while they abide in Christ”. According to you, they can do nothing but abide in Christ, so there is really no need to tremble.
This does nothing to the statement of Calvin that we ought to fear apostasy. But if your position is that apostasy is impossible, then there is nothing to fear and Calvin was wrong.
April 10, 2008 at 4:35 am
“… so the trembling consciences of the godly have an invincible fortress, for they know that while they abide in Christ they are beyond every danger of condemnation.”( Calving Commentary on Romans 8:1)
Calvin says the “godly”( they are abiding in Christ ) tremble but yet they are beyond the danger of condemnation. As I have told you before, trembling is a means to an end, and that end is perseverance. In other words, one can tremble which is a subjective response and yet objectively they could never be condemned.
I never denied it does anything to Calvin’s statement, but I affirmed how it works with Calvin’s statement. And now you keep trying your bait-and-switch tactic. Only a fool would deny “apostasy” is impossible. This is similar to your “non-elect covenant” member statement. Neither of these are the issue unless you are claiming a justified believer is non-elect and do commit apostasy. It wouldn’t surprise me if that is what you mean, but it does demonstrate you are not Confessional or Reformed in your soteriology. Therefore, you guys need to quit pretending and trying to deceive those who don’t know any better that you are consistent with the confession. You are not heretical, just not Reformed.
By the way, I’m still waiting on the Reformed theologians who say John 5:24 is metaphorical. You claimed my reading it in a non-metaphorical way was ridiculous so you should easily be able to find a few Reformed theologians that agree with your non-ridiculous interpretation.
April 10, 2008 at 10:27 am
I have no problem with this, but that objectivity is invisible, which is why trembling is necessary.