1. We affirm that every sin both original and actual is a transgression of the righteous law of God and makes him liable to temporal and eternal death (C 6.6).
2. We affirm that the law of God is useful for unbelievers and believers to show them the corruption of their lives, to convict them of sin, and give them a clearer view of the need they have of Christ, and as a rule of life informing them of the will of God (C 19.6).
All true, though I note that 19.6 also says that “It is likewise of use to the regenerate, to restrain their corruptions, in that it forbids sin: and the threatenings of it serve to show what even their sins deserve; and what afflictions, in this life, they may expect for them, although freed from the curse thereof threatened in the law. The promises of it, in like manner, show them God’s approbation of obedience, and what blessings they may expect upon the performance thereof: although not as due to them by the law as a covenant of works.” I may be getting overly sensitive to what is missing here. It is not clear to me why these affirmations were felt to be relevant and others not, so I thought I would register the question that came to mind.
3. a. We affirm that the same Ten Commandments that were given on Mt. Sinai were given to Adam as a covenant of works (C 19.1). b. We deny any formulation that entirely excludes the covenant of works from the Ten Commandments.
If (b) is meant to imply that the Ten Commandments now are, in some sense, a covenant of works, I don’t see how this can be mandated by PCA ministers who restrict what they require of others to what is taught in the Westminster Confession and Catechisms. The Westminster Confession is quite explicit on this point:
CHAPTER 7
Of God’s Covenant with Man
1. 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.
2. The first covenant made with man was a covenant of works, wherein life was promised to Adam; and in him to his posterity, upon condition of perfect and personal obedience.
3. Man, by his fall, having made himself incapable of life by that covenant, the Lord was pleased to make a second, commonly called the covenant of grace; wherein he freely offereth unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ; requiring of them faith in him, that they may be saved, and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto eternal life his Holy Spirit, to make them willing, and able to believe.
4. This covenant of grace is frequently set forth in Scripture by the name of a testament, in reference to the death of Jesus Christ the Testator, and to the everlasting inheritance, with all things belonging to it, therein bequeathed.
5. This covenant was differently administered in the time of the law, and in the time of the gospel: under the law, it was administered by promises, prophecies, sacrifices, circumcision, the paschal lamb, and other types and ordinances delivered to the people of the Jews, all foresignifying Christ to come; which were, for that time, sufficient and efficacious, through the operation of the Spirit, to instruct and build up the elect in faith in the promised Messiah, by whom they had full remission of sins, and eternal salvation; and is called the old testament.
6. Under the gospel, when Christ, the substance, was exhibited, the ordinances in which this covenant is dispensed are the preaching of the Word, and the administration of the sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s Supper: which, though fewer in number, and administered with more simplicity, and less outward glory, yet, in them, it is held forth in more fullness, evidence and spiritual efficacy, to all nations, both Jews and Gentiles; and is called the new testament. There are not therefore two covenants of grace, differing in substance, but one and the same, under various dispensations.
The Decalogue was given as a part of the covenant of grace. It was given to the visible Church of that time “to show them the corruption of their lives, to convict them of sin, and give them a clearer view of the need they have of Christ, and as a rule of life informing them of the will of God.” As professing Christians, they were not to regard themselves as under the Law “as a covenant of works” (19.6).
So while Adam was given the moral law in a covenant that set as a condition “perfect and personal obedience,” and all sin is defined as a transgression of the moral law, the Law was given to Israel in a different covenant. Nothing in Confession 19.1 says otherwise. Why require of PCA pastors what the Westminster Confession does not require?
Furthermore, statement 1 makes a claim that is not in the Westminster Confession. What the Confession claims is:
God gave to Adam a law, as a covenant of works, by which he bound him and all his posterity to personal, entire, exact, and perpetual obedience, promised life upon the fulfilling, and threatened death upon the breach of it, and endued him with power and ability to keep it. This law, after his fall, continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness; and, as such, was delivered by God upon Mount Sinai, in ten commandments, and written in two tables.
If certain members of Siouxland Presbytery believe that “the same Ten Commandments that were given on Mt. Sinai were given to Adam,” that is their right. But the Confession does not say that the Ten Commandments were given to Adam. It says that the law given to Adam was given at Sinai “in ten commandments.” Why would a report meant to set boundaries around Confessional orthodoxy say something different than the Confession or Catechisms express? I have been around enough Presbyterians to know that disagreement with this statement will by no means be restricted to anyone currently associated with “FV.” I would have asked the Presbytery, if I had been present, why they would want to have their response to a controversy get entangled in a new controversy.
The discussion about the Ten Commandments is already in the comments of the report. While not perhaps the clearest possible statement, what is meant is what WCF 19 says: the moral law was given to Adam. Insofar as the Ten Commandments are the moral law, Adam had them. The WS make the equation “moral law=Ten Commandments.” And 19 makes explicit that the moral law was part of the covenant of works. Therefore, there is a CoW aspect to the Ten Commandments, even in Exodus 20.
I just wonder how strict the big 10 can be in the garden, since Adam had neither neighbors to covet nor a mother to honor.
His distinctness in the garden is no reason to suppose that the law did not apply to him, is it?
To conclude that there is a CW aspect to the TC in Exodus 20 fails to recognize that the Puritans distinguished between law and covenant. The presence of the same law does not necessarily imply that it comes in the form of a covenant of works. After all the TC are part of the Covenant of Grace (see WCF 19:5-6)! WCF 19:1 says that law was given as a CW to Adam, but 19:2 speaks of the same law a rule of life, but not as a CW. So you are overreaching here.
Steven W,
If we were to look at the WSC 63-66; 79-81 we can see that these commandments have wider applications than what they seemingly appear at first glance.
Andrew,
I certainly agree, but that opens up the larger question of what the law is. Technically the 10 commandments are just expositions of “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and your neighbor as yourself.” I find it harder to make that sort of command a covenant of works.
Also, the moral, civil, and ceremonial aspects of the law are also just applications of the 10 commandments. Yet, we would certainly want to allow for discontinuity.
I just don’t know how helpful the “flattening hermeneutics” is here. Sinai is situated in a specific time and place- Israel just having been taken up out of Egypt- and the rest of the Bible seems to take the specific settings seriously. Hence Paul can seem to be offering up Pentecost as a new Sinai, and the old Sinai becomes basically off-limits because it was the old covenant.
I’m just thinking aloud I guess, but I do not think that using Sinai as the blueprint is really going to be that helpful in the long term. IMO this shows how much of Westminster’s view of the law works better in a theonomic system than a redemptive historical one (if I can contrast the two for shorthand purposes).