Distinction from the World (Revised)

This is a comment on the previous post.

The point of the previous post is that the church must maintain spiritual separation from the world.  But, sometimes the word "separation" has a bad image.  So, I will express what I mean by using another word -- "assimilation."  The church permeates the world, but is not to be "assimilated" to the world.  There remains a spiritual distinction from the world -- a distinction which is visible not only in worship and in personal Christian behavior and testimony, but also in the serious requirement of intra-church Christian social communion where the Lord's grace, wisdom, and encouragement is shared between the believers.  This fellowship manifests the spiritual bond which makes the believers' first priority in prayer and action to be the welfare of other believers in Christ.  We should do good to all men, but especially to the household of God.  Our lifestyle is not to dissipate ourselves by throwing ourselves into the embrace of the world to convert the world, but to draw people from the world into the embrace of Christ.  The church is a "counterculture."  That distinction of worship, life, and spiritual separation must characterize the body of believers, lest their testimony before the world lose its vitality.  My thesis in the previous post is that engaging the world while forgetting to be the counterculture is spiritually fatal to the welfare and testimony of the church.

Therefore, whether it's too much preterism, or too much visionary medieval-style communion of church and state, the spiritual effect is the same.  The church and the world become only formally, but not vitally, distinguishable, to the detriment of the church.

During the days of union and communion between church and state, it was the monks who continued to preserve the distinction between the church and the world.  In a sense the church of Christ, following Judaic principles rather than Greek philosophy, must adopt the monk's sense of spiritual separation from the world, without the asceticism.  The good that those monks did could only be done because they were monks -- separate.  Likewise, the good that we do can only be done because we are separate.  If we lose our separation, we will lose our calling and our effectiveness in the world.

Preterist Hope and Resurrection

This article keeps being revised, in order to clarify the language, remove unnecessary offense to brethren, and be more correctly adjusted to its practical environment. However, any hyperbole still present is intentional, because if there were no hyperbole, no attention would be paid to its technical language and apparent theological blandness.  This article is commented on in the next post.

In the Reformed "Covenant of Works" it is regularly assumed that the destiny of the race is properly understood from the standpoint of the original creation, as if the Fall was a fatal blot on that original plan which was cured by Christ's redemption, so that the recovered plan of world dominion can now be carried forward in the present age in Christ.  When this idea is coupled with a preterism which denies a final apostasy, the Kingdom of God becomes an immanent kingdom.  It comes here and now, in this age, though gradually.  The distinction between the "Now" of Kingdom life in the present age, and the "Not Yet" of Kingdom life in the Age of Resurrection gradually fades away as the kingdom comes, and, in the end, a saved and glorious world is made ready for the final advent of the Savior, and the destruction of the last enemy -- death.  But, resurrection is icing on the cake, in what may be a far distant future.  The focus of the church is on this age,* and on the expectation of the increasing triumph and glory of the kingdom of God in this age.  As a consequence the resurrection age inadvertently becomes distant, ethereal, disembodied, perhaps even "gnostic," compared to the realism of kingdom now, the beginnings of which we perceive with our senses.  Life is now.

This focus has a profoundly negative effect on the practical mission of the church and on the life of faith. By asserting a vision of increasing fulfillment, contentment, triumph and glory in this age, the church embraces the world, hoping to redeem the world through Christian accomplishments and good works and (hopefully) the preaching of the gospel, but the result is that the world embraces the church.  A vision of world-conquering, world-integrating moral triumph through charity (and a subsidiary profession of orthodoxy) replaces the gospel vision of salvation from the world-system, personal and corporate holiness, and Christian accomplishments and good works that preach this deliverance.  We've been here before:  Look at the policies, activities and failure of the "liberal" churches.

There are theological reasons why this is an unworthy way to conceive of the divine plan.  For one thing, the Fall occurs so early in the Scriptural record, and so little is revealed of the original creation, that it's clear that the Scriptural record is just not focused on the restoration of the original creation in its original form.  That original creation is irretrievably lost in death, just as Christ's participation in the life of this age was brought to the fullest and most complete death on the cross and in the tomb.  And yet, in triumph, Christ rose from the death of the first creation, and he himself became the embodiment of the New Creation, along with all those spiritually in him.

The New Testament is clear that this redemptive work is accomplished by our Lord's participation in the first, fallen creation (yet without sin on his part), as he dies.  But he is not resurrected back into the first creation.  He remains "dead to the Law," which killed him, for ever and ever.  Yet, He himself becomes the New Creation in Resurrection, living to God in a new way, by the Spirit, corresponding to the New Covenant.  The home of the New Creation is the resurrection body, ultimately in the resurrection age.  Therefore, we should only see our redeemed destiny in resurrection terms.  We are spiritually resurrected now, as believers, but we live in bodies which are the products of the first creation, and we live in a fallen age.  We cannot see the Kingdom of God fully manifested in this age, because this is not the age of resurrection.  The Kingdom of God is not inherited by flesh and blood (the Adamic inheritance of the first creation).  The Kingdom of God is fully inherited only in the resurrection body, in Christ.

This explains why Paul is so insistent that our spiritual attention be directed to Heaven where our treasure lies waiting for the age to come, the resurrection age, and that our spiritual attention not be directed to this age, which is groaning under bondage to corruption and death.  After all, the creation is also doomed to be delivered from death in the same glorious resurrection that we will experience at the Last Day.

Therefore, we must divert our vision from an immanent kingdom of God, with a vision of glory in outward life in dominion and triumph in this age, and direct our vision to the future and transcendent kingdom coming with resurrection, with only a hidden glory now in the triumph of our suffering, until the great day of deliverance from death comes, and we participate in the full manifestation of the Kingdom of God.  This is the only vision that separates us from the world-system and makes us a holy people of Kingdom-come, and this is the only vision which testifies to the world that Christ has come.

Unless the End comes first, we will all die a death that was ordained for our sin, and that has been transformed by Christ's resurrection into a doorway to the presence of Christ, until eternal glory dawns.  Yes, the last enemy to be destroyed is death, but what an enemy!  It's really paradigmatic of all evil and sin in our lives.  Death is the curse!  Therefore, let us no more have "boys' religion" about these things, confusing our vision of eternal life with a vision of worldly glory in this age.  No.  Our destiny is death and resurrection, following in the steps of our Lord, unless he should return first.  Focusing on the glorious manifestation of the Kingdom of God in this age will have a carnalizing influence on us and on the practical ministry of the church.  But, focusing on the eternal kingdom in resurrection will make us a holy people who preach a holy gospel, and do holy works testifying to the glory of Christ.

There is a warning here:  The true vision of the city whose builder and maker is God is held by those who view themselves, like Abraham, as migrants and pilgrims through life in this age, seeking that city and glory which is eternal, and is not of this age, but of the age to come -- the age of resurrection.  Only a converted heart can rest in that vision.  The flesh wants glory now, and anything that satisfies that urge in this life has corruption in it.

This post is commented on in the next post.

*  My claim about "focus on this age" is not vain, because, after writing this post, with my own ears I heard an ordained PCA Teaching Elder (Minister) not associated with my church, use these very words unguardedly in a comment stating that our attention should be focused on this age and not on some other (future) age.  He wasn't thinking, but the loose and uninterpreted comment nevertheless illustrates what I mean.

Luther on God's Glory, Justification, and the Covenent of Works

I providentially opened one of my books, The Theology of Martin Luther, by Paul Althaus, a “standard” work often referenced by others, to the midst of Chapter 10, “God is God,” and found the following material.

Here are some excerpts, with my comments. Remember that Althaus is a secondary source. All his comments and quotations need to be verified from the readings of Luther that he notices in his footnotes.

Beginning of Quotes from Althaus

The quotes, in alternate typeface, also contain quotes from Luther in quotation marks.

The Creator Works All in All [p 105]

For Luther, being God and creating are identical.  God is God because he and only he creates.

God creates and preserves everything. Nothing is and nothing continues to be without his activity.  “All things must be God’s, since nothing can be or become, if he would not bring it into existence; and when he stops, nothing can continue to exist.”  [p 105]

…

This living omnipresent working of God is the mystery of all reality.  God who causes all things is also the only causal agent.  For the agent who really works in all things is God, and not the personal and impersonal powers of the world which we think of as causes.  God is the first or principal cause; all others are only secondary or instrumental causes.”  [p 107]

…

The knowledge that God and God alone works everything has immediate significance for faith.  The unchangeableness and the constancy of God’s purpose as well as the trustworthiness of his promises (and threats) depends on his being alone the one who works all in all.  Since he determines everything with his almighty working, I know that nothing and nobody can resist his will, change his mind, or restrict his activity.  There is therefore no doubt that God is able to achieve the eternal purposes of his love as they are made known to me in his promises. [p 110]

…

This inescapable living presence of God in all that exists is either the most blessed or the most terrible reality for a man, depending on what he knows God’s relationship to himself to be. It is never neutral but is always either saving or damning.  We are here confronted with the twofold character of God’s dealing with men in the law and the gospel.  The man who has peace with God through believing the gospel can be confident in the midst of the most terrible reality; for God is present even in such a situation and holds it in his omnipotent hand – whether it be death, hell, or hostile earthly powers. … We should therefore fear and trust only in God and most certainly believe that nothing can destroy us; for God is Lord of all the powers that threaten us.  We are in his gracious hand, no matter what happens.  This is the believer’s royal freedom and joy. Ultimately, he is always dealing with God himself and not with the creature: and he knows how he stands with God. [p 111]

Giving Love [p 115]

Viewed in relationship to men, God’s creative activity is pure giving and helping.  He thus demonstrates not only his divine ability but also that he is goodness and love, constantly engaged in giving.  Whoever wishes to describe God as God, in terms of his “nature,” cannot speak of him merely as the only and constant creator, but must also speak of him as love.  God in the depths of his being is nothing else than love; and love is divine, for it is God himself.  “It is God’s nature to do only ‘good.’”  This is his glory: not receiving, but constantly giving, freely without hope of gratitude, independently of man’s attitude toward him, that is, in a completely different way than natural men do good. Thus God’s goodness is “genuinely natural goodness.” It “gladly loses its good deed on the unthankful.”  [p 115]

…

… In addition to all these temporal gifts God gives men eternal goods, his Son, and therewith himself.  “He has poured out upon us both temporal and eternal goods and with them his own being; and he has poured himself out with everything he is and does for us who were sinners, undeserving enemies, and servants of the devil.  He can neither do any more than this for us nor give us anything else.”  Thus Christ and the fact that he is “for us” is the greatest gift of God’s love.  In this gift, God gives himself.  [p 116]

Justification Means that God is God [p 118]

…

At this point two elements of God’s creative activity are to be emphasized.  First, creating means creating out of nothing. … For Luther this is more than an assertion about the origin of the world. It is an all-inclusive characteristic of God’s creating and working. As such, it manifests itself also in the way in which God works men’s salvation.  In this too God creates everything out of nothing.  He takes the man who is nothing before Him and clothes him with the worth of the righteous man. [p 119]

As a second characteristic of God’s creative activity, Luther emphasizes that God makes what he makes under the veil or form of its opposite, and therefore also out of its opposite.  He creates life under the form of death, yes, by way of death.  When he intends to exalt a man, he first humbles him.  When he intends to give his gifts to us, he first of all destroys us and what we have and thereby creates room for his gift. … “You exalt us when you humble us. You make us righteous when you make us sinners.  You lead us to heaven when you cast us into hell. You grant us the victory when you cause us to be defeated.  You give us life, when you permit us to be killed.” … Thereby God demonstrates that he is God and shows the majesty of his creating activity which cannot be compared with any human work.  [p 119]

Luther’s doctrine of justification must be viewed in the context of these characteristics of God’s creativity. … [p 120]

Why is a man not righteous before God through his “works,” that is, through fulfilling the law of God?  The first answer to that question is certainly this: because no individual from the beginning of the world to its end, and not even a Christian, perfectly fulfills God’s law.  Man’s obedience is always imperfect and blemish.[1]

But this is not Luther’s complete and final answer, as is evident from a whole series of statements, many of which derive from the years 1531 to 1533.[2] … Even though a man had fulfilled the basic commandments of the law by fulfilling the double commandment of love, he still would not thereby be righteous before God. For God simply does not recognize the fulfilling of the law as the way to righteousness.[3]  Whether a man attempts to fulfill God’s law with his own powers or whether he achieves the righteousness of the law with the aid of God’s power is not of decisive significance.  Luther expresses this even more sharply than he did in the Galatians commentary in a conversational comment made about the same time in the fall of 1531.  Here he comes to terms with Augustine’s opinion that although man’s attempt to fulfill the law with his own natural powers would not lead to justification, fulfilling the law with the help of the Holy Spirit would.  Luther explains that what is at issue is really the validity of this latter righteousness.  Luther denies its validity. “If a man were completely and absolutely to fulfill the law through the power of the Holy Spirit, he would still have to appeal for God’s mercy; for God has determined that he will save men through Christ and not through the law.”  Whatever significance the law continues to have, it is not intended to be used as a means to justification and salvation.  This means that God wills that under no circumstances is the relationship between himself and men to be determined by the law but solely and absolutely by his free grace received through faith.  Man is not only unable to gain merit before God in fact, but he is also unable to do so in principle.  In every case, he is dependent on God’s unspeakable mercy for his salvation.

Any doctrine of grace or of the Holy Spirit therefore which sees the meaning of the grace of the Holy Spirit in the fact that it creates a supernatural capability of fulfilling the law and thus of earning merit completely misses the meaning of God’s will. For this doctrine of grace still turns man’s attention to the value of his works and ethical achievement, even though these things are carried out with the help of grace.  The fact that there is justification only through Christ, that is, freely and through faith alone, is true independently of the fact that sinful man cannot fulfill the law.  It is therefore also valid for someone who might be able to fulfill it with supernatural powers of grace, that is, for the Christian.  Fulfilling the law avails as little for justification before God as the failure to fulfill it.  God simply does not wish to deal with men in this way [underline mine, Boyd].

This will of God is rooted in his very nature and in the primal relationship which, as God, he bears to men.  God’s very deity consists in the fact that he is the creator and giver.  The desire to bring “works” as achievements before God is the equivalent of a lie that dishonors God as the giver and creator. …… Whenever man seeks to live before God on some basis other than forgiveness, no true fear of God remains.  God, however, says “I will remain God; I will be loved, honored, and feared!”  And so that he may both remain God and be feared, he forgives man and orders him to live solely by this forgiveness.  For this is what it means to fear God as God: to recognize him as the one who both gives us and wants to give us everything for nothing and who desires nothing else from us than that we allow him to do this giving.  Whoever will not accept the gifts of God’s free grace for nothing takes away the glory of God’s being God.

…

Luther’s criticism of moralism is therefore characterized by its theocentricity.  Its standard is the fact that God is really God.  Moralism is regarded as idolatry and blasphemy.  “Works righteousness is actually and essentially idolatry.” … Moralism and true fear of God thus exclude each other.  “Desire for the righteousness of the law, and having a God, cannot possibly be combined.  There is a greater contradiction between fearing or honoring God and wanting to be righteous according to the law than there is between fire and water or between Satan and God.”

…

As moralism is idolatry, so faith in God’s promise in Jesus Christ is the true worship of God.  Faith is the proper way of relating to God, not simply in the present because man necessarily breaks down along the way of works, but from the very beginning, because of what God is. … We are to believe not only because nothing else remains for sinners but because God is God and man cannot honor him as God in any other way than by believing – because faith is the fulfillment of the First Commandment.[4]  Faith is the only attitude of man which corresponds to God’s nature, God’s deity.  God’s true godliness consists in the fact that he is the creator and that he creates out of nothing and even out of its opposite.[5]  Faith corresponds exactly to this.  Faith expects something from God where nothing can be seen; it waits expectantly against all appearance.

End of Quotations from Althaus

Conclusion

It’s clear that Althaus portrays Luther as having a different doctrine of God and doctrine of Salvation than what we are used to hearing. That is, a doctrine much less “legal” than what we are used to hearing, even in our own evangelical circles. By the way, this, in no way, makes Luther less an advocate of substitutionary atonement (to meet the demands of God’s Law). It is not as if God’s Law doesn’t exist because of God’s Grace, but rather that Free Grace is not a mere instrument to restore the hegemony of the Law, and thus a relationship to God partly based in our own “legality.”  Rather, the Law is the instrument to bring death, against the background of which the grace of Christ brings a whole new life.

I believe that all this is worth investigation in the original Luther materials. The strange thing is that when I familiarize myself with the Lutheran views on things, I begin to see these things in Calvin, too, in a way that most Calvin commentators don’t.

---

[1] I fully recognize here that Luther taught that Adam was created very good (not a sinner at all), and therefore don’t know what to make of Althaus’ allegation about Luther’s teaching, as it would apply to Adam. Perhaps the secondary source (Althaus, a man of the modern era) has unwittingly imported his own idea here, concerning the historicity of the Fall.

[2] This was when Luther was giving his Galatians lecture.

[3] Though Althaus is not discussing Luther’s doctrine of Eden and the Fall, if his allegation of Luther’s doctrine is correct (one should check his references to Luther’s works), then Luther would be no fan of the “Covenant of Works.”

[4] It was quite noticeable in the early part of Book 3 of Calvin’s Institutes that unbelief was clearly the prototypical sin for Calvin – the “original” sin.  You will see other commentators on Calvin say that Calvin thought pride was the original sin (the traditional view, and about the only other orthodox choice), but it seemed clear to me that Calvin (at least in the part we covered) clearly implied that unfaith was the original sin.

[5] I.e., from sinners creates saints.

Covenants and Eschatology

The Covenants of Works and Grace, taken individually, illustrate the question discussed in previous posts, whether grace came to support the establishment of justice, or whether justice came to support the establishment of grace.  I have provisionally identified much later, "orthodox" Reformed Theology as tending to be based in the former (grace comes to establish justice), and the earlier "orthodox" Reformed Theology (Calvin) as tending to be based in the latter (justice comes to support the establishment of grace and mercy).

When grace comes to establish justice, then the Covenant of Works is the lead covenant, and the Covenant of Grace comes to repair the Fall by the work of Christ, and then, by grace, to make possible the fruition of the Covenant of Works established at the Creation.  On the other hand, when justice comes to support the establishment of grace and mercy, then the Covenant of Grace is the primary covenant, and the Covenant of Works is instrumental in establishing the reign of grace, in a just manner.  In this case, eschatology is taken up with the eternally planned fulfillment of the Covenant of Grace, not the Covenant of Works.  And, since the Covenant of Grace has eternally been based in the work of Christ, the fruition of this Covenant cannot be the Covenant of Works established with Adam, but can only be the fruition of the Covenant of Grace established and administered through Christ.  This means that the fruition is not something that takes place in this age, but takes place in the age of resurrection.

Now those who believe that fruition comes through the Covenant of Works believe in the resurrection also, and in the eternal state resulting from it.  But, the main outworking of the Covenant is the outworking of that covenant that was intended to be carried unto fruition in Adam and his offspring, which is a covenant that is carried out under the auspices of the present age.  The fruition of the Covenant of Grace, being a covenant of union with the resurrected Christ, is a covenant which reaches its fruition in the age to come, not the present age.

This is a major difference in eschatology, with, in my opinion, major differences in its effect on practical ecclesiology.  Do we see ourselves primarily as engaged in carrying out a vision which conquers the present age?  Or, do we see ourselves primarily as engaged in carrying out a vision which conquers through resurrection at the return of Christ for judgment and rewards?

One would be hard-pressed to make the New Testament, which is the eschatological hermeneutic for all Scripture, say anything but the latter!

Righteous by Forgiveness

When I was in the Plymouth Brethren, one of my fellow church-members said to me that Adam was created "neither good nor evil."  This conclusion was reached because in the text of Genesis, God says that Adam, in his Fall, will become like God, "knowing good and evil."  The implication is that Adam, as created, did not "know good and evil."

This friend's sentiment bothered me a great deal, because it was always my conclusion from the Scripture text that Adam was created good, which implied a created righteousness.  If he were not good (righteous in some sense), then how could he fall?  What would the Fall mean?

I believe that I've now come to realize the source of the sentiment expressed by my friend.  I think it is embedded within the later history of Reformed Theology, with the development of the doctrine of the Covenant of Works.

Before getting into this, however, let me explain concepts about the relationship between righteousness and sin.  There are two paradigms:

1)  Righteousness is a positive good, and sin is a negative evil.  One can have ones sins cancelled, but this leaves him with no positive good.  Something else must happen to create the positive good.  To use a physical analogy, good and evil are separate substances, each handled differently, though they do affect one another.  One can eliminate the evil, but this does not create the good.  Or,

2)  Righteousness is the absence of sin.  To have a sin forgiven is to be put in the position of never having done it.  If that sin is the omission of an act of righteousness, then forgiveness makes it exactly as if that act of righteousness were done.  Therefore, forgiving all a person's sins is exactly the same as reckoning that person to be entirely righteous!  All the positive evil is reckoned as if never done.  All the failed good works are reckoned as if they were done.  The process by which this is done is identically the same in both cases.  The forgiveness of sin is the reckoning of righteousness.  They cannot be separated.

I believe it to be the case that the two paradigms shown above imply major differences in the resulting theologies of salvation.

Now back to Reformed Theology.

It is commonly said that Adam and his elect offspring need both the de-imputation of their sins (forgiveness), and the imputation of righteousness from God.  Simply by its mode of expression, this is based in paradigm #1 above.  The need for forgiveness and the need for righteousness are regarded as separate issues.  These are commonly tied to the passive and active obedience of Christ.  In the passive obedience (the endurance of punishment) Christ bore the punishment of our sin and exhausted that punishment.  Therefore, the liability is removed and the sins are canceled.  Furthermore, the active obedience of his life is a righteousness that is put to our account.  This is a separate issue.  But, in any case, having both forgiveness and a positive righteousness, we have full acceptance before God.

Note, however, according to paradigm #1, Adam, put in the Garden at the beginning of his trial of perseverance, had no sin, but this did not mean that he was as fully developed in righteousness as God required for eternal life (Westminster Confession).  Adam obeys the Covenant of Works by persevering in it.  Similarly, in the analogy between Adam and Christ, this would imply that Christ needs to develop his righteousness, because in his human nature even he would be sinless but without developed righteousness at his human birth.  Therefore, in order to carry out the job that Adam failed at, Christ would need to fully create his active righteousness, and that, first, for himself.  Without this, it could not be imputed to our account.

But, contrarily, we are faced with Calvin's (and Augustine's) conviction that Christ in his human nature was entirely and completely righteous from the first instant of his human conception.  This is based in paradigm #2 above.  Reasoning back to Adam, this would imply that Adam was originally righteous, too.  But, if Adam is originally righteous, in the same way as Christ conceived as a man is originally righteous, then the process of perseverance in the state in which each was made does not create the righteousness that each already has by creation or conception.  Perseverance illustrates and confirms the righteousness, but does not create it.  This view of the relationship between righteousness and sin shows that each is the obverse of the other.  Adam, newly created, and Jesus, newly conceived, are each righteous, though they have done nothing.  In other words, sinlessness equals righteousness.  The absence of sins exactly is the presence of righteousness.  The forgiveness of sins which we receive through Christ exactly is the imputation of righteousness.  The imputation of righteousness is therefore not a separate imputation.  There is no distinction between the de-imputation of sins and the imputation of righteousness.  They are the same thing.

Following out the argument, then, there would be no distinction between the active and passive obedience of Christ.  His life and his death, but principally his death, all have the same effect upon us, taken together.  There are not two separate and independent imputations.  He was made sin for us, so that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.  But the "dual imputation," or two-way imputation is not an imputation of sins separately from an imputation of righteousness.  In the dual imputation, our sins going to Christ and his righteousness coming to us is not merely simultaneous, but two sides of the same coin.

This is why Calvin says somewhere that justfication by faith alone (ie, the imputation of righteousness to us) is defined as the cancellation of our sins.  That is, by cancellation of our sins we are righteous.  Or, he says in another place, that Christ by his righteousness (which he had from conception) caused the cancellation of our sins.  Or, that Christ's "merit" is that he created the Christian life in us.  Calvin vehemently denies that Christ's righteousness was obtained for himself first (as the Covenant of Works requires).  All that Christ did was not at all for himself, but all for us.

This needs a lot of thought.  The proper definition and explanation of the Covenants of Works and Grace, the definition of the purpose of the Creation, the real doctrine of Sanctification, and the real focus of Eschatology are all knotted together here.

I think it likely to be the case that the two paradigms of the relationship between sin and righteousness imply different theologies in all these realms.

Covenant of Works; Covenant of Grace

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.

Covenant of Works Runs Amok!

I'm studying Herman Bavinck, preparing to teach a little class about the Covenant of Grace.  In process of writing his chapter on the Covenant of Grace, Bavinck(*) begins to wax eloquent about the significance of the Covenant of Works.  Before it's all over he falls into a common Reformed trap of making works, obedience, demands, laws and justice the primary theme of salvation history, rather than making the grace of the Triune God be that theme.  He doesn't mean to be "legalistic," and I do heartily recommend Bavinck's work, but we must always be careful.  In particular, we cannot do without Calvin.  I will quote from them both.  [my highlights and underlines; funny symbols in parentheses are "footnotes"]

Calvin(#) :

Christ [is] Rightly and properly Said to Have Merited God's Grace and Salvation for Us

By way of addition this question also should be explained.  There are certain perversely subtle men who -- even though they confess that we receive salvation through Christ -- cannot bear to hear the word "merit," for they think that it obscures God's grace.  Hence, they would have Christ as a mere instrument or minister, not as the Author or leader and prince of life, as Peter calls him [Acts 3:15].  Indeed, I admit, if anyone would simply set Christ by himself over against God's judgment, there will be no place for merit.  For no worthiness will be found in man to deserve God's favor.  Indeed, as Augustine very truly writes: "The clearest light of predestination and grace is the Man Christ Jesus, the Savior, who brought this to pass by the human nature that was in him, through no preceding merits of works or of faith.  Answer me, I beg of you, whence did that man deserve to be the only-begotten Son of God, and to be assumed into unity of person by the Word co-eternal with the Father?  We must therefore recognize our Head as the very foundation of grace -- a grace that is diffused from him through all his members according to the measure of each.  Everyone is made a Christian from the beginning of his faith by the same grace whereby that Man from his beginning became the Christ."  Likewise, in another passage: "There is no more illustrious example of predestination than the Mediator himself.  For he who made righteous this man of the seed of David, never to be unrighteous, without any merit of his will preceding, of unrighteous makes righteous those who are members of that Head," etc.

In this passage Calvin clearly teaches (in his and Augustine's opinion) that Christ was instantaneously perfect from the instant of the Incarnation.  There is nothing here about his having to obey a Covenant of Works in order to achieve active righteousness, so that he would be able to give the same to his saints.  Is Christ tempted and tested?  Of course.  Does he need to persevere in his human nature?  Absolutely.  Does he learn obedience through suffering?  Yes, yes.  But, is he "acquiring" active obedience which he otherwise did not have from the moment of the Incarnation?  Absolutely not.  The grace of the Incarnation, the grace inherent in the God-man, and which he gives to us, was perfect from the first instant of the existence of his human nature.  It is by this grace, and being crammed full of this grace, that he blots out our transgressions by his obedience (not by "acquiring merit" through his obedience, to put to our account).

The main point I'm making here, however, is not to argue principally about the covenant of works.  It is to argue that Bavinck, compared to Calvin, legalizes the grace of God in some of his concepts and language, in a way shared by many Reformed of his era.

Calvin goes on:

Hence it is absurd to set Christ's merit against God's mercy.  For it is a common rule that a thing subordinate to another is not in conflict with it($).  For this reason nothing hinders us from asserting that men are freely justified by God's mercy alone, and at the same time that Christ's merit, subordinate to God's mercy, also intervenes on our behalf.  Both God's free favor and Christ's obedience, each in its degree, are fitly opposed to our works.  Apart from God's good pleasure Christ could not merit anything; but did so because he had been appointed to appease God's wrath with his sacrifice, and to blot out our transgressions with his obedience.  To sum up: inasmuch as Christ's merit depends upon God's grace alone, which has ordained this manner of salvation for us, it is just as properly opposed to all human righteousness as God's grace is.

As a consequence, one sees that Calvin places God's grace "on top."  And, since there is a need for the sacrifice to meet the terms of justice, that is provided, too, but subordinately.  There is nothing here to interfere in any sense with the preeminence of grace.  Even the justice of God, which is met by the Mediatorial death on the Cross, is subordinate to the divine intention to display grace from all conceptual angles.

Bavinck:

...  The doctrine of the covenant of grace first emerged for the purpose of maintaining the essential unity of the Old and the New Testaments.  In keeping with this, also the relation between God and humans before the fall was portrayed as a covenant, specifically a covenant of works.  Reflection on the similarity and difference between the covenant of works and the covenant of grace then led to the insight that the covenant of grace, insofar as it was made with Christ, was a covenant of works. ... 

What Bavinck is saying here is that justice is "on top" in the picture of God's saving operations, not mercy.  Mercy is a secondary benefit for us.  Whereas Calvin brought in justice and the sacrifice of Christ as subordinate to God's mercy, Bavinck has described this saving transaction as entirely a matter of justice, with mercy as a side-effect (for us).  The fact that grace comes to us through Christ then becomes strange, in view of the fact that all the internal "mechanism" of salvation is presented in the covenant of works as a matter of obedience, works, law and justice.  But, if the legal side, and not the merciful side, is the preeminent thought, then in spite of all the assertions that there is mercy for us, things are going to ultimately turn around and become legal for us, too.  Bavinck does not personally intend this, but it still happens.

There is a lot more of this in Bavinck than I can quote here.  But, this doesn't mean that Bavinck is an ungracious person.  The rationalistic and justicial passion has just captured him in this connection and he is running "amok" with it, along with most of his fellow 19th century Reformed theologians, I suppose. 

 Bavinck:

...  In Scripture there are only two covenants, two ways to heaven for human beings, the covenant of works, and the covenant of grace.  The covenant of works is the way to heaven for the unfallen, the covenant of grace that for the fallen humans.  The covenant of works was made with humankind in Adam, the covenant of grace was made with humankind in Christ.  He, and he alone, is the substitutionary and representative head of humankind.  ...  Just as the Father had ordained the kingdom for him, so he ordains it for those who have been given to him.  He distributes the benefits he has acquired(@) as an inheritance. ... In both cases [the covenant of redemption and the covenant of grace] it is the mystical Christ, Christ as the second Adam, who acts as the negotiating party (%). ... And, since (as is evident from 1 Cor 15:45ff) Adam was a type of Christ even before the fall, so the covenant of grace was prepared, not first by Noah and Abraham nor first by the covenant of grace with Adam, but already in and by the covenant of works.  God, who knows and determines all things and included also the breach of the covenant of works in his counsel when creating Adam and instituting the covenant of works, already counted on the Christ and his covenant of grace(&).

The exhortation I leave you with is to begin to see and perceive whether squeezing soteriology through the mold of the Law, while making grace subordinate, truly comports with the tenor of the teaching of Scripture, or Reformation theology.  Isn't it rather the case that mercy and grace triumph, and that justice must be satisfied so that mercy and grace may triumph?

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have everlasting life. (John 3:16)

The "giving" of the Son (for the satisfaction of justice) was motivated by love for the world, which is the preeminent motive in the mind of God.  As a consequence we are delivered from legalism in our Christian lives.


(*) Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, v 3, ch 5, p 227-8 and elsewhere, Baker Edition.
(#) John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, book 2, ch 17, McNeil Edition.
($) Calvin is reconciling mercy and grace by subordinating one to the other instead of leaving them parallel with one another, which causes the conflict he describes.
(@) He didn't have them by nature, because he had to earn them by obedience to the covenant of works.  Compare with Calvin and Augustine discussed previously.  There is both an anthropological and Christological distinction between these two views, and therefore the distinction between Calvin and Bavinck is likely not a minor matter, but may have ramifications as yet unsounded.
(%) I.e., negotiating with God the Father.  Are "negotiations" required?
(&) He means the "covenant of grace" towards us, but as far as Christ himself was concerned it was all covenant of works.

Dead to the Law

Paul refers to dying to the law at least twice -- in Galatians and in Romans:

Galatians 2:17-21   17 "But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is Christ therefore a minister of sin? Certainly not!  18 "For if I build again those things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor.  19 "For I through the law died to the law that I might live to God.  20 "I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me.  21 "I do not set aside the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died in vain."

Romans 7:1-6  ¶ Or do you not know, brethren (for I speak to those who know the law), that the law has dominion over a man as long as he lives?  2 For the woman who has a husband is bound by the law to her husband as long as he lives. But if the husband dies, she is released from the law of her husband.  3 So then if, while her husband lives, she marries another man, she will be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from that law, so that she is no adulteress, though she has married another man.  4 ¶ Therefore, my brethren, you also have become dead to the law through the body of Christ, that you may be married to another -- to Him who was raised from the dead, that we should bear fruit to God.  5 For when we were in the flesh, the sinful passions which were aroused by the law were at work in our members to bear fruit to death.  6 But now we have been delivered from the law, having died to what we were held by, so that we should serve in the newness of the Spirit and not in the oldness of the letter.

In both cases, it's clear from the rest of Paul's letters that he by no means disapproves of the righteousness described in the law, but makes it our goal:

Romans 8:3-4   3 For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh,  4 that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

So what does Paul mean by this existential statement, that we are "dead" to the law?

Since Paul calls our old relationship to the Law (outside of Christ) a form of marriage, we have to conclude that the intimate relationship between Law and ourselves is a basic principle of either the original creation, or something we fell into by the Fall.  Since the law is holy, just and good, it seems to me to make more sense to describe the marriage to the Law as concreated with Adam.  Adam was to understand God's law, by creation, and live by it.  The intimate relationship between Adam and God's Law would produce the offspring of righteousness.  Adam would "do this and live" (the basic principle of the Law), and he would "do this" not to acquire merit, but to grow and mature in God's goodness.

However, when the Fall took place, the curse ensued.  Under this curse, the righteous requirement of the Law brought forth more rebellion, not as a fruit of the Law's goodness, but as a fruit and proof of man's badness and hate for the truth.  From this we had to be delivered.

Thus, our death to the Law.  This means more than forgiveness, though it includes that.  It means more than being disconnected from the Law as a covenant which is bringing death to sinners.  It means death to the aeon of the Law -- the original creation.  It means resurrection.

This is the origin of Paul's contrast between the Letter and the Spirit (Rom 7).  The "Letter" refers to the relationship to Law of the first creation.  Life by the Spirit is a new relationship of living which is not related to the Law of God in the same manner as in the original creation.

Having died to the Law of the original creation, we are born anew by the Spirit, and live in a truly new, resurrected way, under grace.  We are dead to the Law, but by the whole Word of God the righteousness of the Law is written on our hearts through Christ by the Spirit.

What St. Paul said about Nullifying the Grace of God

Galatians 2:19-21   19 "For I through the law died to the law that I might live to God.  20 "I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me.  21 "I do not set aside the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died in vain."

It cannot be the case that the temporary epoch of the Law, given at Sinai, is referred to here by Paul.  Of course, it is a truism in Paul that "The Law" is most often a reference to the Law of Moses which came on Sinai.  However, it's hard to believe that Paul simply refers to the temporary, Israelite-bound economy of that Law from Sinai, when he states that it took the crucifixion of Christ to deliver him from it.  Furthermore, in the crucifixion of Christ, he sees the activity of the Law itself.  Christ gave himself unto the death of the cross, for Paul, in order to deliver Paul from the law.  Thus we conclude the the Law given from Sinai is representative of a bigger Law -- a Law so big that it required -- and got -- the crucifixion of the Son of God.

The administration of the Law under the Old Covenant truly is a temporary administration.  But, it is only temporary because Christ died.  "The Law" is not just a temporary administration of food laws, Jewish customs, and rituals of worship.  The deliverance that Christ brings is bigger than deliverance from "Jewish boundary markers."

It didn't take the death of Christ simply to free the Jews to have a ham sandwich (HT: Lee Meckley).

The Covenant of Works and the Catholic Orthodoxy

IS THERE A COVENANT OF ORIGINS BESIDES THE COVENANT OF GRACE?

If there is no Adamic Covenant in some sense separate from the Covenant of Grace, then the sin that leads to death is apostasy from the Covenant of Grace.  Adam apostatized from the Covenant of Grace, rather than breaking some Adamic Covenant.

And, since we know that not every sin done in the Covenant of Grace leads to death, because of the retroactive benefit of Christ-to-come, we have to introduce the distinction between mortal and venial sin.  Then, we may ask, "Could Adam have committed a venial sin?"  But we all agree that it is not Scriptural to say that he could have.  All Adam's sins would have been mortal.

Again, following the Adamic analogy of supposed apostasy from the Covenant of Grace, would it be the case that your apostasy would doom your offspring to eternal death, just as it did in the case of Adam?  We know that this is wrong, too.

Therefore, we conclude that if the Covenant of Grace subsumes into itself all the events, activities, sins and judgments that are traditionally considered part of the Adamic Covenant, then theological conclusions seem to be reached that are just wrong.

Therefore, we conclude that Adam, as head of the original creation, must have been related to God in a way that is originally NOT exactly like the Covenant of Grace.

The Adamic Covenant is the Covenant of -- something else.

WHAT IS THIS OTHER COVENANT?

It is traditional in any orthodox theology to view the original Adamic relationship with God as intolerant of any kind of sin at all, and therefore as being a relationship with God different from the relationship we have through the grace of Christ.  This is also true for Reformed Theology, as an orthodox theology of origins.

Any supposed promises made to Adam, or any fruition of his relationship to God which comes about through his perseverance in his sinless deportment is speculation and not -- to my knowledge -- any part of the catholic church doctrine.  However, the later Reformed Theology does have a developed doctrine of this original relationship, which goes beyond the real, historic dogma of the universal church.  This developed covenantal relationship is called the Covenant of Works.

Sometimes arguments are made that Reformed Theology originally had no Covenant of Works.  While it is true that the original Reformed Theology had no developed doctrine of the Covenant of Works, it did hold to the catholic orthodoxy on the Adamic relationship, namely, that the original Adamic relationship is not the Covenant of Grace.

The developed doctrine of the Covenant of Works slowly evolved during the 16th century (and later), though there are hints that lead to this in the Institutes (1559).  However, most of the Reformed Standards of doctrine currently in use do not appear to mention the Covenant of Works.  This is true of the Heidelberg Catechism, Belgic Confession, etc., even though the Heidelberg Catechism was produced in the German Reformed region where the doctrine of the Covenant of Works seems to have originally developed.  It is commonly said that this doctrine is first brought out in doctrinal standards by Westminster.  However, in my opinion, the Westminster Standards do not give a clear statement of the developed doctrine.  You can find an excellent discussion of the developed doctrine of the Covenant of Works in Herman Bavinck's Reformed Dogmatics. 

WHAT THE WESTMINSTER STANDARDS TEACH

It appears to me to be the case that there is reduced coverage in the presentation of the doctrine of the Covenant of Works in the Westminster Standards:

1)  I think that most evangelical Presbyterians just take the Covenant of Works in the standards as being a reference to the fact that Adam was under a covenant which made no provision within itself for any remedy for sin.  In other words, the Covenant of Works is just an expression of the idea that a life free from sin on Adam's part would not lead to the Fall.  When he sinned, he inevitably fell.

2)  However, the actual doctrine of the developed Covenant of Works is that Adam did not have eternal life, but was promised eternal life (in the future) based on his perseverance in a sinless life and proper covenantal achievement for a period of time.  The most highly developed form of this doctrine (see Bavinck) regards the promised eternal life as being received through the same transition to new humanity that we are promised in Christ at the resurrection, but that this transition is accomplished without the Incarnation of the Second Person of the Trinity or any Atonement.  I would suggest that few in evangelical Presbyterianism are aware of the doctrine in this form.

I don't know for sure, but do suspect that the Westminster Assembly was divided on this, and that this might have resulted in the reduced exposition of the Covenant of Works within the Standards.  (There may be enough documentation in books to check this, but I don't know it as I write).

If it is true that there is an intentionally reduced exposition of the doctrine of the Covenant of Works, then it may have been the purpose of the Assembly to craft a confession and catechisms that minimized the commitment required by those who do not believe in the developed doctrine of the Covenant of Works.  This would allow those who simply held to the catholic orthodoxy to sign off on the Standards.

I suspect that this is what is actually happening in most cases in evangelical (Princetonian and Southern) Presbyterianism today, since one never hears the true, developed doctrine of the Covenant of Works exposited.

I have other papers on this subject here.

Taming the Law

It's clear that no one obeys the Law of the Lord fully, much as we wish to do so in our spiritual nature.  This is true in either Testament.  Furthermore, Paul and James make it plain that to break one law is to be guilty of breaking them all.  The Law, the great Moral Law of God, teaches perfection, and as the Law of the Covenant of Works it demands perfection under penalty of death.  For life to run its course and for there to be time for repentance, the full rigor of the Moral Law as a demanding covenant must be tamed by divine mercy.  And, it is.

What may not be clear to everyone, however, is that the demanding nature of the Law of God as covenant does not ever dovetail neatly with divine mercy and grace except on the Cross of Christ.  There is a chasm of death between life under the Law and true Life according to the Spirit of Christ (Rom 7).  The Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Grace do not comport.

This is why there will never, ever, be a neat, comfortable dovetailing of Law and Gospel this side of the Resurrection.  So, yes, the Law in this age is tamed for two reasons:  1)  Lest sinners die immediately, without time for repentance, and 2)  Lest it persecute the believers, as a rigorous covenant of works.  But, in the end the Law cannot be tamed -- only fulfilled.

Remember the Cross.

The Incarnation and the Presence of God

It is an exceedingly fruitful study to look up the Scripture describing the "Presence of God" at various points in salvation history.  God in his Presence may work miracles of deliverance as he "visits" his saints.  Even his nearness in a continual sense is coveted by the believers.  Moses thought it not worth while to move forward toward the Land, if the Lord were not "with them," no matter the degree of providential support the Lord could give them from a distance.  Moses wanted him right there with him.

The greatest manifestation of The Presence is in the Incarnation.  God the Son took upon himself, into union with his divine person, the full human nature that he had created in his image.  Things can never be the same again, for God or Man.

In the God-Man, God is seen by Man (John 14:6-11), and the perfect Man, in our nature, IS personally The Second Person of the Trinity -- and we are in him!

The parting of the ways in the doctrine of the Kingdom of God, the doctrine of eschatology, the doctrine of the Covenant of Works, the doctrine of our nature and calling in the Gospel Age, the fruition of our eternal destiny, and the nature of worship in this age and in the age to come all hinge on the estimation we have of the nature of the union between God and Man in the Incarnation.  (See this article, and other articles in this blog).

If this union is a permanent change which brings to pass under the Covenant of Grace a new creation, transcending the original, then one path is taken.  If the Incarnation simply brings the natures together to "fix" the problem of sin, so that implicitly the original creation is restored and the "fixed" Covenant of Works reinstituted, then the other path is taken.

Once this distinction is clearly seen, the difference in theology and worship between the two positions is shocking, no matter which side of the divide one stands on.  This distinction must be at the root of some historic schisms.

My own position is that Christ and the new creation transcend the original creation, much more than simply restoring it.  The God-Man is worthy of all worship in his Incarnation, Death, Resurrection, Ascension and Session at the Right Hand of God.  And, he is worthy of this worship not only for what he does but for what he is -- even for us -- infinitely more than Adam ever was or could be.  

And, we share his destiny.

Legalism (Rom 5-8)

When Adam broke the Law, he brought death -- the curse of that broken Law -- upon all his posterity. None of them have escaped the curse.  No one born of Adam will ever escape it.  It will prosecute their cases unto death -- whether they are in the First Adam, or in the Last Adam, Christ.

When the Law prosecutes its case against a man in the First Adam, the doom is temporal and eternal death.  The smoke of conscious torment will go up forever and ever.

But, when the Law prosecutes its case through the death of the Last Adam, then Christ and all those who are in him endure the eternal penalty (Christ for us) and rise on the other side triumphant, exempt forever from any further prosecution for sin.

The varying relationships to Law reflect the Two Covenants with the Two Men -- Adam and Christ (Rom 5).

God was served in the old way in Adam.  The Law is the "husband" of those in Adam.  Their works, fathered by the law, were holy, just and good -- until sin was brought in.  Sin brought death. Then, the Law -- holy, just and good -- "fathered" the offspring of increasing rebellion in the rebellious offspring of Adam.

But God is served in a new way in Christ.  The resurrected Christ is the "husband" of those in him, powerfully bringing forth in us the fruits of life.  In him we have already triumphed over the death dealt out for our sins, and through the Spirit the dominion of sin is now broken.  We are triumphing over our sins now -- and will triumph fully in the end!  (Rom 7-8).

This transition of headship from Adam to Christ, which is a transition in relationship to the Law of God, is the deliverance from that relationship to the Law that Paul talks so much about.

The benefit of Christ is applied by God retroactively to all believers back to Adam, but the real deliverance from the curse (which did impend over all those ancient saints) did not take place until Christ did his work.  The glory of this work issues in the advent of the Spirit in a new way in the saints of God, glorifying them with the glory of God's grace in life by the Spirit.

So, have we done away with the Moral Law?  Surely, the new husband we have -- the author of the Law -- will bring forth fruits in us by his whole Word and Spirit, which are in accordance with his Law.  The righteousness of the Law will be fulfilled in us who walk in the New Way by the Spirit (Rom 8).

Is it possible for believers to walk in the Old Way?  Actually they cannot, but I think they can try.  However, they will be very unhappy.  They may find themselves more and more depressed and burdened by their sins.  They may wonder if they know the Lord.

But, the calculus of sanctification is not, at root, measured by the degree of conformity to the Law.  It is measured, first of all, by faith in Christ our husband.  Sanctification is a gift to such as these.  It cannot be earned by our works.

Infinitum Capax Finiti (Revised 7 Apr 2010)

See:

http://www.reformed.org/webfiles/antithesis/index.html?mainframe=/webfiles/antithesis/v2n4/index.html&mainframe=/webfiles/antithesis/v2n4/ant_v2n4_journal.html

and search on 'capax'.

Here's a "fair use" quote of that paragraph in the page (highlights mine):

Richard Muller is a scholar that reformed persons should know. In a recent book by Muller, Christ and the Decree: Christology and Predestination in Reformed Theology from Calvin to Perkins (1986, Labyrinth Press), his apology for scholastic orthodoxy, Muller makes this insightful remark, which is a good come-back to our Neo-Orthodox friends: "...the dictum finitum non capax infiniti (translated loosely as "the finite mind is unable to comprehend the thought of the infinite") used by later exponents of Reformed doctrine... does not appear to have been used by Calvin himself. Several modern scholars have argued that the phrase is not even a proper description of Calvin's doctrine.... The phrase finitum non capax infiniti is better rendered `the finite is unable to grasp the infinite.' As Oberman argued of Calvin, the inverse, infinitum capax finiti reveals the positive implication of the doctrine. The infinite God grasps finite human nature sola gratia" (p. 21). That's worth re-quoting.

End quote.

So, God the Son has grasped his human nature and

       ... in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily;
                                                                   (Col 2:9)

The Works of the Man Christ

Notice how salvation and damnation are works of man -- that is, two men:

Romans 5:15 But the free gift is not like the offense. For if by the one man's offense [Adam] many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many.

Romans 5:18 Therefore, as through one man's offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man's righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life.  19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man's obedience many will be made righteous.

1 Corinthians 15:21 For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead.

1 Corinthians 15:45 And so it is written, "The first man Adam became a living being. The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. 

1 Corinthians 15:47 The first man was of the earth, made of dust; the second Man is the Lord from heaven.  48 As was the man of dust, so also are those who are made of dust; and as is the heavenly Man, so also are those who are heavenly.  49 And as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly Man.

So, our transformation in soul, and ultimately in body, is due to our union with the Heavenly Man, who took our nature, lived, died under the curse for our sins, triumphed over all curse and death, rose from death immune to it forever, sits at the right hand of God, and reigns till all his enemies are put under his feet.  This Man subdues the cosmos to himself.

This union of the Second Person of the Trinity with our nature, for his glory and our salvation, is a cosmological change.  No, that's not enough.  It's higher than that.  It is not a change that only affects the entire cosmos.  It is a change which affects the one who created the whole cosmos.  The Second Person of the Trinity is now a man -- the God-man -- the theanthropos. Finitum capax infiniti.

One must conclude that the Incarnation of the Son of God, a mystery till it happened, institutes a new and magnificent salvation, promised from the beginning, but infinitely higher than was fully revealed to man and in man at the first creation. Adam was by the original creation the man of dust. Christ is the man from heaven.

Glory be to God.
 

Was the Covenant of Works Gracious?

The Covenant of Works was gracious (kind and good), apart from sin.  God can only reach down to his creation in his condescension and be the total giver of promise and life.  But that condescension was intolerant of sin. 

The creation was transcended in plan by the Covenant of Grace.  It was planned from eternity past, in the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world, and was ready when Adam fell.

Although Adam believed, he still died.  As a result of his sin millions died who did not believe.

Adam and Christ are two heads.  The Apostle takes pains to contrast the effects of the lives of these two Men (Rom 5, I Cor 15).

However much it is the absolute, overriding and vital truth that grace superabounds where sin abounds, and that the Covenant of Grace is the transcendent covenant, nevertheless it must be the case that these two Men represent two covenants.

God has mercy upon whom he will.  But, not all who were in Adam live.

Restitution of Creation vs. Resurrection of Creation

Thoughts on the Covenant of Works, Trinitarianism, Incarnation and Redemption

Here are some links to a collection of papers, some of which were developed in conjunction with a class on the Covenant of Works.  These papers describe how I believe the doctrine of the Covenant of Works can be exaggerated and improperly construed as a full paradigm for the redeemed life of the human race in the current age.  

In brief, my argument is that the redemption that is in Christ is an infinitely higher destiny for the race than even the fullness of life actually known from Scripture to have been held out before Adam.  These papers therefore discuss the vital differences which I see between an eschatology based on the "Restitution of Creation" and an eschatology based on the "Resurrection of Creation."

My discussion begins by treating what I believe to be the negative ramifications of Herman Bavinck's presentation of the Covenant of Works.  I complain about his exaggeration of the concept beyond the Scriptural data, and his using the spirituality of the original creation as the paradigm for the spirituality of the redeemed life.   He teaches what I call the "restitution of creation."

An entire treatise by Hodnett exists, similarly approving the substance of what Bavinck teaches.  See a link to his treatise contrasting the theology of A. A. van Ruler with the views of Jurgen Moltmann.  Van Ruler's view is quite extreme, and, in my opinion, quite contrary to the tenor of Scripture.  One of the more offensive sub-sections of the treatise is Number 10.  I have kept this in my possession for non-profit educational purposes only, in case these links disappear from the Internet.  The interesting thing to see in this argument pro van Ruler is that Hodnett accuses Moltmann that his theology isn't Christian -- just as Moltmann has accused van Ruler of the same.  These academic papers reveal that they have "seen a light" that one way or another decisively impacts the shape of Christianity.  This is no minor argument.

A more extreme presentation of the Covenant of Works as the paradigm for the redeemed race is seen in this seemingly well-intended (and hopefully accurate) description of Rousas Rushdoony's "Gospel of Restitution."  (You will have to view this page with Internet Explorer.)  The particular page linked to in this paragraph was taken from the Internet, but I cannot find it any more, so I cannot give the link.   The page is contained in this web site, and is used for non-profit educational purposes only.

Here is a brief presentation of my views on Incarnation, Covenants, and Eschatology.   This presents what I call the "resurrection of creation," by emphasizing the necessity of a redemptive-historical approach to the covenants in order to maintain a proper doctrine of the Trinity and the Incarnation.

My paper on distinguishing the varieties of postmillennialism shows the difference between a postmillennialism based on restitution of creation, and a postmillennialism based on the resurrection of creation.

A final review.

I hope at some future time to be able to consolidate the arguments into a single, longer paper.  I have one started, but it is not ready for the web site yet.

The Kingdom of the New Covenant

Within the Reformed heritage we have the unique opportunity to bring together in a unified vision all the covenants of Scripture, in such manner that the whole inscripturated Word remains accessible and edifying in the most direct manner for the whole church of God.  This point of view was certainly recognized by Calvin, when he claimed that the difference between the Old Testament and the New Testament was a difference of administration more than it was a difference of covenant.  This same Calvin, however, went on to make the central covenant the New Covenant, as the title (by Calvin) of Institutes, Book II, Chapter VII makes clear:  "The Law was given, not to restrain the folk of the old covenant under itself, but to foster hope of salvation in Christ until his coming."  See materials in http://www.christocentry.net/Notes on Calvin's Institutes".  See also, in that place, a discussion of Calvin's teaching in Chapter XI of Book II ("The differences between the two testaments").  Calvin thus recognizes "progress" in the historic covenantal dispensations from the beginning of the inscripturated history until the end.  Christ is the axis of the covenant theology.

In later times, Calvin's implicit redemptive historicism has been explicitly developed by others.  It has now become a commonplace to explain the sequence of divine revelations and covenants in Scripture as each being part and parcel of a single big picture that has developed through time, as sequentially recorded in the inscripturated history.  This approach, called "Biblical Theology," emphasizes the development and progress of divine revelation, rather than just noting "differences" seen in the different portions of the Old and New Testaments.  This redemptive historical approach is not even limited to the Reformed.

All this material native to the Reformed movement helps us to focus our attention on the forward motion of revelation, on the "age to come," on the hope of resurrection, the first-fruits of which we experience now in our own souls, in Christ, though not yet in the body.

The Kingdom of God now manifest on earth is the Kingdom manifested in the souls of the believers, in the Church, and in the total life of the kingdoms of this earth insofar as they are permeated by the Gospel.  But, the Kingdom of God will ultimately be a Kingdom of total resurrection, in both soul and body.  This is our hope and heart's desire.

But, this view has competition.  It seems to me that there is also a strong movement among us which focuses on restitution of creation in this present age at the cost of primary emphasis on the hope of resurrection.

Now, it's certainly a fact that creation is restored in many ways, and the world is blessed by the present Kingdom of Christ.  But, the resurrection of creation in Christ is much, much more than the restitution of creation in this age.  Christ must be seen, and death must be banished.  Only this can satisfy our hearts.