Thomas Boston Tribute

It was certainly an act of grace, favor, and admirable condescension in God, to enter into a covenant, and such a covenant, with his own creature. Man was not at his own—but at God’s disposal, nor had he anything to work with but what he had received from God. There was no proportion between the work and the promised reward. Before that covenant, man was bound to perfect obedience, in virtue of his natural dependence on God; and death was naturally the wages of sin, which the justice of God could and would have required, though there had never been any covenant between God and man—but God was free; man could never have required eternal life as the reward of his work, if there had not been such a covenant. God was free to have disposed of his creatures as he saw fit—if he had stood in his integrity to the end of time, and there had been no covenant promising eternal life to him upon his obedience, God might have withdrawn his supporting hand at last and so have made him creep back into nothing, whence almighty power had drawn him forth. And, what wrong could have been in this, for God would have only taken back what he freely gave? But now, the covenant being made, God becomes debtor to his own faithfulness—if man will work, he may crave the reward on the ground of the covenant. Well might the angels, then, upon his being raised to this dignity, have given him this salutation—”Hail! you who is highly favored, the Lord is with you.”

Man’s Fourfold State, The Whole Works Of The Late Thomas Boston Of Ettrick, Volume 8, pp. 18 & 19

“But now, the covenant being made, God becomes debtor to his own faithfulness—if man will work, he may crave the reward on the ground of the covenant.”

If my experience in dealing with so-called ‘Federal Vision’ proponents holds true, many would find such a statement to be seemingly blasphemous. The FV men also deny (or at least equivocate on) the bi-covenantal scheme of the Westminster confession. They claim that God made no such covenant as a covenant of ‘works’ with the pre-fall Adam.

A Joint Federal Vision Statement

The Covenant of Life

We affirm that Adam was in a covenant of life with the triune God in the Garden of Eden, in which arrangement Adam was required to obey God completely, from the heart. We hold further that all such obedience, had it occurred, would have been rendered from a heart of faith alone, in a spirit of loving trust. Adam was created to progress from immature glory to mature glory, but that glorification too would have been a gift of grace, received by faith alone.

We deny that continuance in this covenant in the Garden was in any way a payment for work rendered. Adam could forfeit or demerit the gift of glorification by disobedience, but the gift or continued possession of that gift was not offered by God to Adam conditioned upon Adam’s moral exertions or achievements. In line with this, we affirm that until the expulsion from the Garden, Adam was free to eat from the tree of life. We deny that Adam had to earn or merit righteousness, life, glorification, or anything else.

 FederalVision.com

I maintain that the affirmations and denials in the preceding statement are contradictory. To say that had Adam fulfilled the terms of the covenant, and received ‘glorification’ by grace through faith alone, is irreconcilable with “do this and live, do that and die”.

I affirm that God is sovereign and can do what he will with His universe and all that is in it. I deny that God is capable of contradicting His own attributes. This is exactly what I believe Thomas Boston has in mind when he penned the afore-mentioned statement.

God graciously condescended to enter into a covenant with Adam. Boston surely says as much. But it was an agreement nonetheless. Is God not faithful? Could our immutable Lord of glory make a conditional promise and then fail to keep its terms?

Num 23:19 God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind. Has he said, and will he not do it? Or has he spoken, and will he not fulfill it?