This post must be read in light of the previous post:
http://christocentry.blogspot.com/2011/08/grace-and-mercy-vs-justice.html
It being true that Calvin and others see mercy as the reigning motivation within the Godhead vis-a-vis the salvation of sinners, it is now important to understand how this impacts the doctrine of the Covenants of Works and Grace.
If mercy justly triumphs over curse, in principle, then it would seem to be illogical to make the Covenant of Works the reigning paradigm. Making the Covenant of Works the reigning paradigm is to make justice preeminent over mercy. Mercy would be a side-effect of justice, rather than justice being the means of mercy.
We understand, of course, that both justice and mercy are satisfied, when all aspects of Christ's atonement are considered. He was given, when he did not have to be given. He was given in mercy to sinners. And, the reigning motivation of mercy is also just, by this atonement. However, the function of justice is to support the ministry of grace. Therefore, we should not "turn over" the relationship of these factors, such that justice becomes the reigning aspect, rather than mercy.
So, the question then becomes how we can see the Covenant of Works being subordinate to the Covenant of Grace. It's worth noting, from the history of our Reformed theology, that:
1) The Covenant of Redemption, if there was one, is clearly on the side of the preeminence of the Covenant of Grace. If there hadn't been a need for grace, then why would anyone think about any Covenant of Redemption.
2) The Covenant of Works was the specification of a type of relationship between God and Adam which made no provision for sin, other than death. And, yet that Covenant of Works, from which Adam fell by his own will, according to the ordination of God, is embedded within the history governed by the Covenant of Grace.
3) When Adam fell, he "fell into" the Covenant of Grace, already prepared, containing the promise of the Christ to come.
4) The Covenant of Grace is Plan A. Putting the Covenant of Works in charge of history, and interpreting the Covenant of Grace as a side-effect of the full expression of the Covenant of Works makes the Covenant of Works Plan A, and redemption a side-effect, that is, Plan B.
So, the question then becomes how we can see the Covenant of Works being subordinate to the Covenant of Grace. It's worth noting, from the history of our Reformed theology, that:
1) The Covenant of Redemption, if there was one, is clearly on the side of the preeminence of the Covenant of Grace. If there hadn't been a need for grace, then why would anyone think about any Covenant of Redemption.
2) The Covenant of Works was the specification of a type of relationship between God and Adam which made no provision for sin, other than death. And, yet that Covenant of Works, from which Adam fell by his own will, according to the ordination of God, is embedded within the history governed by the Covenant of Grace.
3) When Adam fell, he "fell into" the Covenant of Grace, already prepared, containing the promise of the Christ to come.
4) The Covenant of Grace is Plan A. Putting the Covenant of Works in charge of history, and interpreting the Covenant of Grace as a side-effect of the full expression of the Covenant of Works makes the Covenant of Works Plan A, and redemption a side-effect, that is, Plan B.
Reviewed and retained.
ReplyDelete