The Covenant of Works according to Thomas Ridgely
September 7, 2006 at 2:53 pm (Covenant, Federal Vision, New Perspective on Paul, Quotes)
I guess it all depends on the definition of grace. If grace be defined as something relating particularly to man’s sinful state, then there is no doubt: the covenant of works has not a shred of grace attached to it. To put it another way, grace in this sense would be defined as relating not merely to unmerited favor, but rather to demerited favor. That is, not only are we neutral with regard to God’s favor, but rather we have positively spurned it. Here is what Thomas Ridgely wrote about it: “Some call it, ‘a Covenant of Innocency,’ inasmuch as it was made with man while he was in a state of innocency. Others call it, ‘a Covenant of Works,’ because perfect obedience was enjoined, as the condition of it. In this light, it is opposed to the covenant of grace; as there was no provision made in it for any display of grace, as there is in that covenant which we are now under” (vol 1, pg 376). What needs to happen, then, is a full-orbed study of the Hebrew word groups hen and hesed, as well as the Greek word group charis. What we have here is nothing less than a redefinition of grace. Nowhere in Scripture is God’s relationship with Adam described as being gracious, nor is what God gives to Adam described as being grace. I am perfectly willing to admit that God condescended to engage in relationship with Adam, and that Adam did not deserve such a relationship as a creature. However, Adam was sinless, and not in need of any grace in that sense whatsoever. I believe that grace is a concept belonging exclusively to the post-Fall world. Mark Horne, therefore, is full of rhetoric against the “meritists,” but has hardly proven his point Scripturally.
greenbaggins
glwjohnson
jeffhutchinson
davejes1979
reformedmusings
its.reed
Andrew Webb
