Center for Biblical Theology and Eschatology
Several Quick Arguments that the
Covenant of Works is not Gracious
by William J. Baldwin
The tide of
Reformed opinion is that the first covenant God made with Adam
was somehow gracious. The grace, it is argued, enters in one or
both of two places: 1) God was not bound to offer Adam any reward
for his obedience but could have required such obedience from him
without any reward. That God chose to offer a reward through a
covenant is considered gracious. 2) The reward God offered is so
out of proportion to the obedience required that the size of the
reward constitutes a further act of grace. A veritable All-Star team of
Reformed heroes have subscribed to one or both of those points,
asserting or implying grace in the covenant of works: William
Ames, Johannes Cocceius, Frances Turretin, the Westminster
Divines[1], John Owen, Thomas Boston, R. L. Dabney,
Geerhardus Vos, John Murray, Louis Berkhof, Anthony Hoekema,
Sinclair Ferguson, Richard Gaffin. Only a handful -- Johannes
Heidegger, Herman Witsius, Charles Hodge -- hold out against this
tide. And Witsius does so after much agonizing. He knows what
he's up against. In
recent years we have begun reaping the whirlwind of the majority
report's philosophical speculations. Daniel Fuller, pursuing
these thoughts, has obliterated Scripture's antithesis between
works and grace, replacing that sharp distinction with a
continuum. Thus has the door been opened not only for introducing
grace into works, but necessarily as well for introducing works
into grace. A new history of redemption is being written in which
Romans
11:6 lies on the
cutting-room floor. And quite ahead of his time, R. L.
Dabney has been on record for over 100 years as denying that the
work of Christ merited the salvation of his people (the logical
corollary to stipulating grace in the covenant of works): Nor would we attach any force to
the argument, that if Christ made penal satisfaction for the
sins of all, justice would forbid any to be punished....
Christ's satisfaction is not a pecuniary equivalent, but only
such a one as enables the Father, consistently with His
attributes, to pardon, if in His mercy He sees fit.... There
would be no injustice to the man, if he remaining an
unbeliever, his guilt were punished twice over, first in his
Savior, and then in Him. Systematic
Theology, Lecture XLIII.4 (p. 521). This is more than a rejection of an
argument for limited atonement (a doctrine Dabney affirmed on
other grounds); this is a rejection of the gospel. And it flows
quite naturally from the thought that the first Adam could not
have merited God's favor except by some condescension on God's
part. So Dabney maintains consistently that the second Adam could
not have earned salvation by a "pecuniary equivalent"
but that God accepts Christ's obedience as "in His mercy He
sees fit." Dabney's statement is appalling; but observe this
well: his crime is a foolish consistency that his theological
forbears eschewed. If other Reformed theologians have
stopped short of Dabney's conclusion, perhaps they have only done
so by avoiding the foolish consistency that was the hobgoblin of
Dabney's smaller mind. The chickens have come home to roost.
These are the necessary theological brats of a theological
speculation that thought it was only preserving the sovereignty
and freedom of God. For the minority
report to prevail we need to establish two points by way of
refutation: 1) God created man in covenant
with himself because the image of God requires, presupposes,
and implies a covenant relationship. Thus the covenant is not
some donum superadditum that God imposed out of his
mere good pleasure on man in a "state of nature." [2] 2) The reward of eternal life is
not disproportionate. It is, in fact, the only just reward
for fulfilling a covenant of works. Seven arguments are here presented
to establish those points -- arguments from the justice of God,
the nature of sin, the light of nature, the purpose of man, the
meaning of the Sabbath, the antithesis of grace and works, and
the work of the second Adam. These headings suggest the
seriousness with which this author views the error in question.
Basic doctrines are at stake. 1. The Justice of God The reward of blessedness was
offered to Adam, not by condescension or "grace," but
as a matter of justice. If offending the infinite holiness of God
merits hell, then pleasing an infinitely holy God merits heaven.
God by nature must render to each man according to his deeds. We
know that God is just and therefore will by no means clear the
guilty (Exodus 34:7). God must punish sin or deny his own
nature. By the same token, he must reward righteousness.
Note Psalm 58:10,11: The righteous shall rejoice when
he sees the vengeance; It is God's judgment of the wicked
that the Psalmist points to as proof that God also rewards
righteousness. You can't have one without the other. For God to
fail in rewarding righteousness would be as heinous as failing to
punish sin. And if sin can only properly be punished by hell,
then righteousness can only properly be rewarded by heaven. 2. The Nature of Sin Sin presupposes covenant. Paul says,
"Sin is not imputed where there is no law" (Romans
5:13). And John says, "Sin is the transgression of the
law" (1 John 3:4). These are covenantal definitions of sin.
Sin cannot be imputed apart from a covenant because sin by
definition is the transgression of a covenant. If we say that
Adam was created in the image of God, we are saying he was
created a morally responsible being. But he was not confirmed in
righteousness and was therefore capable of sin. If sin is defined
covenantally--as in Scripture (above) and in the Westminster
Standards as well (WSC 14, WLC 24, WCF 4.2)--then the very fact that Adam was created
capable of sinning proves that he was created in covenant with
God. To speak of a man created apart from covenant is to speak of
a creature without the image of God, with no moral capacity, who
nonetheless looks and acts like a man. Such a beast may proceed
from the imagination of the theistic evolutionist, but not from
Scripture. In other words, if Adam was created
a moral being, he was created a covenantal being. The two
concepts cannot be divided. A second argument may also be
adduced under this heading. Sin, by it's nature, prevents the
enjoyment of a sinless God. All who sin fall short of God's glory
(Romans 3:23). Thus, those who don't sin do not fall short
of God's glory. Otherwise Paul's statement makes no sense. Paul
would simply be saying that we--who by nature fall short
of the glory of God--also happen to fall short by sin as well.
Understood correctly, the verse maintains that if Adam had not
sinned he would necessarily have entered into God's glory, i.e.
eternal life. Summary: Adam was created in the
image of God, but lapsably. He was capable of sin. He was created
in covenant with God because sin is impossible apart from
covenant. Therefore, the covenant between God and Adam could not
have been added "graciously" at a later time. The
covenant was involved in the warp and woof of who Adam was, as
created. It's just the nature of the (non-)beast. 3. The Light of Nature The wrath of God is revealed from
heaven against all who practice unrighteousness. Unbelievers
therefore know the decree of God that those who practice such
things deserve death. They have the work of the law written on
their hearts (Rom 1:18,31; 2:15). The sanctions of the covenant
of works are revealed in nature, hard-wired into creation itself.
Adam would have known them apart from special revelation. How can
the sanctions of the covenant be hard-wired into creation
without the covenant being hard-wired as well? Or look at it another way: Creation
only reveals law, not grace. This is because creation reveals the
nature of God but not his free decisions (excepting, obviously,
the free decisions to create, what to create, and
how to providentially care for it once it's been created). If God
is under no obligation to grant a covenant of works to a creature
in his image, then the decision to do so is not necessitated by
his nature but according to his mere good pleasure. If that is
so, then creation cannot reveal this covenant. But Paul says it
does. Therefore the covenant must be necessitated by God's
nature. 4. Man's
Chief End (The Teleological Argument) Man's chief end is to glorify God
and to enjoy him forever (WSC 1). WLC 1 expands
"... fully to enjoy him forever." But if the
covenant of works is gracious, then God could theoretically
create a man and give him no ability to fulfil his purpose. This
would be capricious and unjust. If I said that God created
porcupines to fly, it would rightly be pointed out that
porcupines have no ability to fly and any reasonable definition
of their purpose must take that into account. Assuming porcupines
have not forfeited their right to fly, then flying cannot be
their created purpose. The abilities of the porcupine determine
the way in which it glorifies God. So if man's chief end is to
glorify God and enjoy him forever, he must as originally
constituted have had the means to fulfil his purpose. The logical
implications of WSC
1 contradict the statement
of WCF
7.1. 5. The Meaning of the Sabbath
Hebrews 4:3a,4-6a: For we who have believed do
enter that rest.... For He has spoken in a certain place of
the seventh day in this way: 'And God rested on the seventh
day from all His works'; 5and again in this place:
'They shall not enter My rest.' 6Since therefore
it remains that some must enter it.... The passage's argument depends upon
the notion that God, in resting on the 7th day,
extended an offer of entry into that rest. The author invokes
God's sabbatical rest, reminds us that "they" (i.e.
unbelievers, cf. 3:19) were prohibited from entering, and
concludes that some must enter it or the offer implicit in
that sabbatical is a sham. God's resting on the 7th
day constitutes an offer to Adam that he may fully enjoy God by
entering into that same rest. The question then arises on what
condition that offer was extended. The structure of the creation
story provides the answer. First God worked, then he rested. So
Adam, being in the image of God and thus called to emulate God,
must first work and then enter into rest. The heavenly archetype
indicates the connection between Adam's labors and his
eschatology. Hebrews 4:10 makes this connection explicit:
"For the one who has entered His rest has himself also
rested from his works, as God did from His." 6. The Antithesis of Grace and
Works To speak of a continuum of grace and
works is nonsense. Adam would have obtained his reward by works
or by grace; there is no middle ground. Romans 11:6 says exactly
this regarding election according to God's grace: "And if by
grace, then it is no longer of works; otherwise grace is no
longer grace." The Textus Receptus addition to this
statement is probably an interpolation, but it is logically
implied: "But if it is of works, it is no longer grace;
otherwise work is no longer work." God either elects by
grace or according to works, never by a combination. God rewards
according to grace or works, not some mixture. If Adam was to be
received into eternal life by grace, then the covenant with him
was all of grace. But if it was of works, it was not in
any sense by grace, or work is no longer work. Adam would have earned
his entry into heaven, just as Paul says: "Now to him who
works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt."
(Romans 4:4). There can be no talk here of grace, even of God
graciously offering the covenant when he didn't have to, or of
offering more reward than was necessary. Then the wages are debt
only because God has chosen to obligate himself (in which sense
even our reward in Christ must be counted as debt and
there is no longer any distinction between the principle of entry
into life offered to Adam and to us.) 7. The Work
of the Second Adam If the first Adam couldn't have
merited heaven, then the second one didn't. As Meredith
Kline points out, The parallel which Scripture
tells us exists between the two Adams would require the
conclusion that if the first Adam could not earn anything,
neither could the second. But, if the obedience of Jesus has
no meritorious value, the foundation of the gospel is
gone."[3] Without the assurance that Christ earned
our salvation, that he paid our debt, we are robbed of the
comfort of the gospel. 1 John 1:9 joins Romans 11:6 on the
cutting-room floor: "If we confess our sins, He is faithful
and just to forgive us our sins." John not only
invokes the covenant faithfulness of God to keep his promises; he
says the justice of God demands our forgiveness because
Christ has already paid the penalty. This is exactly what Dabney
denies in the quote in paragraph 4 of this paper. Romans 8:34
also fails to make the team: "Who is he who condemns? It is
Christ who died...." We can take no comfort from that
thought unless the death of Christ on our behalf must turn
aside the condemning wrath of God. Paul, in pointing to that
death as the removal of condemnation, assures us that it must. Remember your history: Reformed
theologians understood the covenantal framework of the work of
Christ long before they understood that Romans 5 therefore meant
that Adam was in covenant as well. Follow their lead and finish
what they began, understanding the work of Adam through the work
of Christ. If Christ merited eternal life, so Adam--as originally
constituted--might have done as well. This is exactly what Charles Hodge
argued: The word "condition,"
however, is used in two senses. Sometimes it means the
meritorious consideration on the ground of which certain
benefits are bestowed. In this sense perfect obedience was
the condition of the covenant originally made with Adam. Had
he retained his integrity he would have merited the promised
blessing. For to him that worketh the reward is not of grace
but of debt. In the same sense the work of Christ is the
condition of the covenant of redemption. It was the
meritorious ground, laying a foundation in justice for the
fulfillment of the promises made to Him by the Father. But in
other cases, by condition we merely mean a sine qua non.
A blessing may be promised on condition that it is asked for;
or that there is a willingness to receive it. There is no
merit in the asking or in the willingness, which is the
ground of the gift. It remains a gratuitous favour; but it
is, nevertheless, suspended upon the act of asking. It is in
this last sense only that faith is the condition of the
covenant of grace. There is no merit in believing. Systematic
Theology, Chapter 2, § 5, para 3 ("The Condition
of the Covenant"). Conclusion I hope the reader has begun to see
what's at stake in speaking of grace in the covenant of works:
God is no longer just, Sin no longer requires punishment, The
image of God has no moral component, God in brute and capricious
force could create man for an impossible purpose, grace and works
become confused so that we not only speak of grace in the
covenant of works but works in the covenant of grace and thus
return to the Tridentine orthodoxy of Rome; and the sacrifice of
Christ itself avails only because God decides to let it. I do not say that those who hold to
grace in the covenant of works make such shambles of the gospel.
I am simply saying this teaching implies much that must appall
every believer. We must reject the logical results of this
teaching. And rejecting them, we must reject the root from which
they spring. NOTES 1. Implied at WCF 7.1. But see WLC 1 and 24, and
especially WCF
4.2 for indications that the
Divines believed or implied that Adam was created in covenant
with God. The Westminster Standards are a human document and from
time to time contradict themselves. E.g. they suggest that the
covenant of grace is with the elect in one place (WLC 31) and in another with the visible church (WLC 166). I think we must recognize some tension in the
Standards respecting the present discussion as well. [Return to Text] 2. The position I am taking is
sometimes framed as though God was obligated to enter into
a covenant with Adam. That statement makes people nervous with
respect to God's sovereignty (although no one in Reformed circles
objects to the idea that God is obligated to punish sin).
I have found it more communicative to say that the image of God
is covenantal. Adam was in covenant with God by definition.
Then we can affirm that God was not obligated to create a
creature in covenant with himself. But when he freely chose to
create Adam, he did create a creature in covenant with
himself. Batteries included. No further assembly required. [Return to text] 3. Meredith Kline, "Covenant
Theology Under Attack." The full text
may be found here. An
expurgated version appeared in New Horizons, February
1994. The original article was a review of Daniel Fuller's Unity
of the Bible. It contained some statements critical of John
Murray, whom Kline felt had opened the door for this kind of
approach. The editor of New Horizons required that these
be removed before publication. [Return to text] QUOTES Westminster Confession of Faith
7.1 Westminster
Shorter Catechism 1 Westminster
Larger Catechism 1 Westminster
Larger Catechism 24 Westminster
Shorter Catechism 14 Westminster
Confession of Faith 4.2 Westminster
Larger Catechism 31 Westminster
Larger Catechism 166 Romans
11:6
He shall wash his feet in the blood of the wicked
11So that men will say,
"Surely there is a
reward for the righteous;
Surely He is God who judges in the earth."
The distance between God and the creature is so great, that
although reasonable creatures do owe obedience unto him as their
Creator, yet they could never have any fruition of him as their
blessedness and reward, but by some voluntary condescension on
God’s part, which he hath been pleased to express by way of
covenant. [Return
to Note 1] [Return to Point 4]
Question 1: What is the chief end of man?
Answer: Man's chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy him
forever.
[Return to 1] [Return to Point 4]
Question 1: What is the chief and highest end of man?
Answer: Man's chief and highest end is to glorify God, and fully
to enjoy him forever. [Emphasis mine]
[Return to Note
1]
Question 24: What is sin?
Answer: Sin is any want of conformity unto, or transgression of,
any law of God, given as a rule to the reasonable creature.
[Return to Note
1] [Return to Point 2]
Question 14: What is sin?
Answer: Sin is any want of conformity unto, or transgression of,
the law of God.
[Return to
Point 2]
After God had made all other creatures, he created man, male and
female, with reasonable and immortal souls, endued with
knowledge, righteousness, and true holiness, after his own image;
having the law of God written in their hearts, and power to
fulfil it: and yet under a possibility of transgressing,
being left to the liberty of their own will, which was subject
unto change. Beside this law written in their hearts, they
received a command, not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of
good and evil; which while they kept, they were happy in their
communion with God, and had dominion over the creatures.
[Emphasis mine]
[Return to Note
1] [Return to Point 2]
Question 31: With whom was the covenant of grace made?
Answer: The covenant of grace was made with Christ as the second
Adam, and in him with all the elect as his seed.
[Return to Note
1]
Question 166: Unto whom is Baptism to be administered?
Answer: Baptism is not to be administered to any that are out of
the visible church, and so strangers from the covenant of
promise, till they profess their faith in Christ, and obedience
to him, but infants descending from parents, either both, or but
one of them, professing faith in Christ, and obedience to him,
are in that respect within the covenant, and to be baptized.
[Return to Note
1]
And if by grace, then it is no longer of works; otherwise grace
is no longer grace.
[Return
to text]
| This paper was written on April 7th, 1997 by William J. baldwin. Bill Baldwin is a ordained minister in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC) with a commitment to the centrality of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and a desire to nourish by that Gospel, strengthened to good works. He studied under Meredith G. Kline, a professor at Westminster Theological Seminary in California. |