DOCSLIB.ORG

Thomas Jefferson's Critique of Christianity

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Thomas Jefferson's Critique of Christianity The Exaltation of a Reasonable Deity: Thomas Jefferson's Critique of Christianity JEREMY KOSELAK Communicated by: Dr. Patrick Furlong Department of History ABSTRACT Thomas Jefferson pursued truth, purity and enlightenment in religion. Although his methods of 'raillery' offended some, his motives were altruistic and his goals admirable. Specifically, Jefferson's critique of Christianity suggested a simpler, more enlightened alternative of how to perceive God. This paper examines Thomas Jefferson's critique of Christianity as witnessed through the plethora of well-preserved letters written to various correspondents throughout his life. The broad goal of the paper is to discover the impact of the successes and failures that accompanied his attempt to reform Christianity. The focus rests on Jefferson's fundamental struggles with the corrupt attributes of Christianity instituted by the priestcraft, the failure of this corrupted Christianity to stand up to the test of reason, and the simple theology Jefferson felt was clearly evident in Jesus' original message. INTRODUCTION future Americans would eagerly seek to discover his religious beliefs. If concealment were his true goal, if Nothing but free argument, raillery and even he never intended for anyone to study his theology, ridicule will preserve the purity of religion. 1 Jefferson could have enforced the lacuna he desired by leaving no trail behind for aspiring researchers. In­ Thomas Jefferson's religious views are available for stead, he anticipated posterity's obsequious examina­ consideration through his letters, although most of tion of his life and thoughts and, through letters to a these writings entreat the public not to analyze his small group of correspondents, revealed his vision for theology. Throughout Jefferson's writings in fact, he a purer Christianity and a mightier America. offered a plea for privacy concerning his religious views Jefferson trusted few men with his vision of reform in order to protect his public image. He wrote to John and the knowledge of his religious convictions. These Adams in 1817, "Say nothing of my religion. It is men, including John Adams, Joseph Priestley, Ben­ known to my god and myself alone," and that "its ev­ jamin Rush, William Short, William Baldwin, Charles idence before the world is to be sought in my life. If Thompson, Francis Adrian Van der Kemp and Ben­ that has been honest and dutiful to society, the religion 2 jamin Waterhouse, through their written correspon­ which has regulated it cannot be a bad one." Yet for dence with Jefferson, precipitated Jefferson's open {al­ a reticent man, especially in matters of religion, plenty beit paradoxically private) dialogue on the topic of re­ of writings exist for analysis. The historian thus reaps ligion. As one historian has noted, these letters al­ the rewards of Jefferson's private collection of letters lowed Jefferson to construct his private faith through by uncovering what Jefferson publicly attempted to a "chapel of words." 4 This series of correspondence, conceal. After all, historians, as well as philosophers, in which an exalted God emerged from the phoenix of theologians, and political scientists, are so affected by Christianity's corruptions, helped Jefferson compose Thomas Jefferson's vision not only for America but a 'faith of letters' likened to the politically motivated also for Christianity, that his pleas for privacy must 'republic of letters.' Jefferson established a framework be rejected. When he wrote to Miles King, "Our par­ for bringing about public change by constructing a pri­ ticular principles of religion are a subject of account­ 3 vate religious dialogue. Thus the distinct Jeffersonian ability to our God alone," Jefferson was aware that contradiction is present within the confines of this cor­ 1 Letter from Thomas Jefferson to Dr. Benjamin Rush. 21 April respondence: the desire for privacy and the hope for 1803. Roche, O.I.A., ed. The Jeffersonian Bible. New York: Clarkson playing an important role in historical transformation. N. Potter, Inc., 1964, page 348. Though Jefferson did not want to be in the spotlight, 2 Letter to John Adams, 11 January 1817. Cappon, Lester, ed. The he yearned to ride the revolutionary cusp. His vision Adams-Jefferson Letters. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1959, page 506. 4 Huntley, William B. "Jefferson's Public and Private Religion." 3 Letter to Miles King, 26 September 1814. Roche, page 328. South Atlantic Quarterly Vol.79 (1980): page 290. 52 J. Koselak for reforming Christianity was hidden only well enough predictable conclusions. Three of the more renowned for public taciturnity in order to protect himself, but Jefferson religious biographers have laid this frame­ available for the historian to uncover in Jefferson's pri­ work: Henry Wilder Foote, among others, has taken vate letters. Political enemies leveling vindictive at­ the chronological approach, Charles Sanford the top­ tacks may have been lurking, but so was the attentive ical, and Edwin Gaustad a blend of the two. The eye of posterity. authors of these books seem apprehensive, unwilling to take a scholarly risk in the pursuit of Jefferson's el­ Given Jefferson's complexities, it is ironic that he evated deity. This paper, however, seeks to cast aside is constantly subject to simplifications. Even more conservative inhibitions in order to accurately examine so, historians tend to either elevate Jefferson to a just what Jefferson's religion meant for him, Christian­ status of reverence or to condemn him, calling into ity, and the young republic he helped form. question supposed moral inconsistencies. The great Thomas Jefferson, so crucial in the development of ideals, dreams, and strength in the young republic, INTRODUCTION TO JEFFERSON'S THEOLOGY is sometimes expected by patriots and historians alike to be virtually faultless. The profundity of Jefferson's The relations which exist between man and mind is therefore subject to higher standards. Accord­ his Maker and the duties resulting from ingly, one approach in a study of the third president those relations are the most interesting and presents a Jefferson worthy of elevation to the Amer­ important to every human being and the ican Pantheon. These overly-favorable accounts often most incumbent on his study and investiga­ try to explain away the contradictions, justify the in­ tion. 5 consistencies, and camouflage the unpopular by em­ phasizing myth. The result is the mythical Jefferson; Religion was a lifelong pursuit for Thomas Jefferson. our Founding Father likened to the Roman counter­ He thought the relationship with God was crucial for parts of Romulus and Remus. an individual, a community, a nation and a society. To emphasize this awareness, Jefferson diligently recorded The opposite view is to wage war on this icon and paint not only his writings, but also the readings that shaped this particular Founding Father as too inconsistent to his mind. For the student of Jefferson, his meticulous merit reverence. For example, he was a politician who efforts in this endeavor provided a reliable source to despised energetic government yet stretched his pres­ uncover the development of his belief system. Consid­ idential power by purchasing the Louisiana Territory. ering that his theology, as was much of his political He detested the idea of political parties, yet was him­ philosophy, was eclectic in nature, the collection is in­ self the figurehead of the Republican Party. In light of valuable. Of course Jefferson injected originality into these conflicting political aspirations, it becomes diffi­ what he learned; but he relied heavily upon the works cult not to question Jefferson's moral inconsistencies. of others. Those individuals that Jefferson regarded How did this man condemn the ideology of slavery, as having a large impact on his theology included while owning hundreds of slaves, perhaps fathering several controversial and influential men. This sec­ slave children, but doing nothing to end the peculiar tion will focus on four key philosophers: John Locke, institution? More importantly, how did a professed Thomas Paine, Viscount Bolingbroke (Lord Karnes), religious man attack Christianity, priests, and tradi­ and Joseph Priestley. The goal is to uncover the dis­ tional belief? Because inconsistencies abound in Jef­ tinct individual influences among them and evaluate ferson's actions in contrast to his beliefs, a clear-cut their importance in shaping Jefferson's religious phi­ analysis of his various ideologies is difficult to obtain. losophy. 6 Nearly all facets of Jefferson's extensive interests there­ Thomas Jefferson's religious philosophy was most heav­ fore remain open to a wide range of interpretation. ily influenced by the writings of John Locke. Two Mention the words 'Thomas Jefferson's religion' and works by Locke, A Letter on Toleration (1689) and expect reactions on all ends of the theological spec­ The Reasonableness of Christianity (1695), specifically trum. He was an atheist, or maybe a theist, or deist, shaped Jefferson's bill for establishing religious free­ an infidel perhaps, a Unitarian, Epicurean, material­ dom. Locke presented a philosophical justification for ist, secular humanist, naturalist, Episcopalian, or the religious toleration, one that Jefferson advocated in purest rational Christian of the Enlightened Era. Sift­ his writings and actions. Locke's belief in toleration, ing through these descriptions presents a broad range that "no man, even if he would,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Chapter 1 the Trinity in the Theology of Jürgen Moltmann
    Our Cries in His Cry: Suffering and The Crucified God By Mick Stringer A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Theology The University of Notre Dame Australia, Fremantle, Western Australia 2002 Contents Abstract................................................................................................................ iii Declaration of Authorship ................................................................................... iv Acknowledgements.............................................................................................. v Introduction.......................................................................................................... 1 1 Moltmann in Context: Biographical and Methodological Issues................... 9 Biographical Issues ..................................................................................... 10 Contextual Issues ........................................................................................ 13 Theological Method .................................................................................... 15 2 The Trinity and The Crucified God................................................................ 23 The Tradition............................................................................................... 25 Divine Suffering.......................................................................................... 29 The Rise of a ‘New Orthodoxy’.................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Open Theism and Pentecostalism: a Comparative Study of the Godhead, Soteriology, Eschatology and Providence
    OPEN THEISM AND PENTECOSTALISM: A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF THE GODHEAD, SOTERIOLOGY, ESCHATOLOGY AND PROVIDENCE By RICHARD ALLAN A Thesis Submitted to the University of Birmingham for the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Theology and Religion School of Philosophy, Theology and Religion College of Arts and Law University of Birmingham March 2018 University of Birmingham Research Archive e-theses repository This unpublished thesis/dissertation is copyright of the author and/or third parties. The intellectual property rights of the author or third parties in respect of this work are as defined by The Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 or as modified by any successor legislation. Any use made of information contained in this thesis/dissertation must be in accordance with that legislation and must be properly acknowledged. Further distribution or reproduction in any format is prohibited without the permission of the copyright holder. ABSTRACT Despite Open Theism’s claims for a robust ‘Social’ Trinitarianism, there exists significant inconsistencies in how it is portrayed and subsequently applied within its wider theology. This sympathetic, yet critical, evaluation arises from the Pneumatological lacuna which exists not only in the conception of God as Trinity, but the subsequent treatment of divine providence, soteriology and eschatology. In overcoming this significant lacuna, the thesis adopts Francis Clooney’s comparative methodology as a means of initiating a comparative dialogue with Pentecostalism, to glean important insights concerning its Pneumatology. By engaging in the comparative dialogue between to the two communities, the novel insights regarding the Spirit are then incorporated into a provisional and experimental model of Open Theism entitled Realizing Eschatology.
    [Show full text]
  • The Five Points of Calvinism
    THE FIVE POINTS OF CALVINISM "Weighed And Found Wanting" TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction MAJOR SECTION ONE: EXPLANATIONS 1. Total Depravity Explained 2. Unconditional Election Explained 3. Limited Atonement Explained 4. Irresistible Grace Explained 5. Perseverance of the Saints Explained MAJOR SECTION TWO: COUNTER POINTS 6. Calvinistic Total Depravity Refuted 7. Unconditional Election Refuted 8. Limited Atonement Refuted 9. Irresistible Grace Refuted 10. Calvinistic Perseverance of the Saints Refuted Conclusion The Lazy Man's Guide to Understanding Calvinism An Even Lazier Man's Guide to Understanding Calvinism INTRODUCTION For more than a decade I was the host of a Christian talk show called 'Scripturally Speaking.' On many different occasions the topic of Calvinism in general, and the Five Points of Calvinism in particular, was introduced either by me, an in-studio guest, or a caller. I can clearly remember one discussion in which a Calvinist guest was debating with an Arminian caller over the question of whether or not predestination was taught in Scripture. When the question before us was simply a matter of affirming or denying predestination, I appeared to be on the side of my Calvinist guest. The caller expressed surprise at my agreement with my guest because he incorrectly thought that I must have been a Calvinist because of this agreement. When I explained to him that I was not a Calvinist, the caller's surprise then turned to confusion. Affirmation vs. Definition My guest then admitted that he was also surprised, if not confused, for he too wrongly assumed I was a Calvinist because I agreed that predestination was taught in Scripture.
    [Show full text]
  • Martin Luther on Sanctification
    Scholars Crossing Articles The Works of Elmer Towns 1969 Martin Luther on Sanctification Elmer L. Towns Liberty University Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/towns_articles Part of the Religion Commons Recommended Citation Towns, Elmer L., "Martin Luther on Sanctification" (1969). Articles. 14. https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/towns_articles/14 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the The Works of Elmer Towns at Scholars Crossing. It has been accepted for inclusion in Articles by an authorized administrator of Scholars Crossing. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Martin Luther On Sanctification Elmer L. Towns Martín Luther is well known for preaching justification by faith apart from works. This doctrine became the cornerstone for the reformation. During Luther's day he was accused of antinomianism. Erasmus charged, "Lutherans seek two things only—wealth and wives—censum et uxorem ... to them the gospel meant the right to live as they please."1 John Wesley accused Luther of distorting the doctrine of sanctification, if Luther had any doctrine of sanctification at all. "Who hath wrote more ably than Martin Luther on justification by faith alone?" Wesley then asked, "And who was more ignorant of the doctrine of sanctification, or more confused in his con­ ception of it?" He then advises us, if we would be thoroughly convinced of Luther's "total ignorance with regard to sancti­ fication" to read "without prejudice" his Commentary on Galatians.2 This misunderstanding of Luther's concept of sanctifica­ tion might have arisen because he uses Paul's first-century message of grace as opposed to works to attack legalistic sal­ vation found in the sixteenth-century church.
    [Show full text]
  • God Is Not a Person (An Argument Via Pantheism)
    International Journal for Philosophy of Religion (2019) 85:281–296 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11153-018-9678-x ARTICLE God is not a person (an argument via pantheism) Simon Hewitt1 Received: 22 November 2017 / Accepted: 3 July 2018 / Published online: 6 July 2018 © The Author(s) 2018 Abstract This paper transforms a development of an argument against pantheism into an objection to the usual account of God within contemporary analytic philosophy (’Swinburnian theism’). A standard criticism of pantheism has it that pantheists cannot ofer a satisfactory account of God as personal. My paper will develop this criticism along two lines: frst, that personhood requires contentful mental states, which in turn necessitate the membership of a linguistic community, and second that personhood requires limitation within a wider context constitutive of the ’setting’ of the agent’s life. Pantheism can, I argue, satisfy neither criterion of personhood. At this point the tables are turned on the Swinburnian theist. If the pantheist cannot defend herself against the personhood-based attacks, neither can the Swinburnian, and for instructively parallel reasons: for neither doctrine is God in the material world; in the pantheist case God is identical with the world, in the Swinburnian case God transcends it. Either way both the pantheist and the Swinburnian are left with a dilemma: abandon divine personhood or modify the doctrine of God so as to block the move to personhood. Keywords Pantheism · Divine personhood · Apophaticism · Divine language Is God a person? Since the advent of philosophy of religion in the analytic tradi- tion the consensus of opinion has favoured answering this question in the afrma- tive (as we will see in due course).
    [Show full text]
  • John H, Roinoehl 194.9
    THE JANSENIST MOVEMENT IN FRANCE TO 1713 Thai: for fine Dam of M. A. MiCHlGAN STATE COLLECR. John H, Roinoehl 194.9 I ‘-.l . THE JANSENILLT HOVELENT IN FREQCE 1‘0 1713 BY John H. Reinoehl A THESIS Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies of Michigan State College of Agriculture and Applied Science in partical fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of l-IAS’I‘ER OF ARTS Department of flietory and Political Science 1949 Acknowledgement I wish to express my thanks to Professor John B. Harrison for his helpful suggestions and constructive criticism in both the research and writing done in the completion of this essay. TABLE OF CONTENTS m m IntrOdUO‘ion o c c c c c c c c c 1. I. Boginningn......... l. II. The Controversial Period . 20. III. False Peace and Destruction. 1668.171} 0 O O O O C O O 7". IV. Conclncionc I O O O O I ‘ O 97. Introduction Man's religious beliefs have always been ideas for which he would fight and die .. they have been vital to him in revealing a reason for his existence and in giving him a suggestion of what is to happen to him in a new life. Religion has been a serious business with man; and he who has strayed from the accepted trail of his co-religionists has ever been punished. These heretics have suffered the greatest variety of punishment; from mild ostracism to a violent and tortured death; from short to long prison terms; from a day in the stocks to death on the rack.
    [Show full text]
  • Lamb's Book | Appendix a | Monotheism Vs Tritheism - Three Gods in One
    Wake Up America Seminars Biblical Prophecy Explained by Larry Wilson https://www.wake-up.org Lamb's Book | Appendix A | Monotheism vs Tritheism - Three Gods in One Author: Larry W. Wilson Trinity The Bible teaches that Jesus Christ is a separate, distinct, coeternal member of Deity — The Trinity. Jesus is not the Father and the Father is not Jesus. Both deities are separate persons having separate wills. Jesus said, “For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me.” (John 6:38) Jesus and the Father are equals in substance. The Father calls Jesus, “God.” “But about the Son He [the Father] says, ‘Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever, and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom. You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God [Jesus], your God [the Father], has set you above your companions by anointing you with the oil of joy.’ He also says, ‘In the beginning, O Lord, you laid the foundations of the Earth, and the Heavens are the work of your hands. They will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment.’ ” (Hebrews 1:8-11, insertions mine) The apostle Paul clearly equates and separates the Deity of Jesus from the Deity of the Father: “Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made Himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness.
    [Show full text]
  • The Concept of Grace in Christian Thought
    AR TICLES AND ESSAYS The Concept of Grace in Christian Thought Blake T. Ostler THE CONCEPT OF GRACE and its relation to individual salvation is prob- ably the most debated issue in the history of Christian thought. The list of combatants is virtually a Who's Who in Christian thought: Augustine versus Pelagius, Banez versus Molina, Luther versus Erasmus, Calvin versus Pighius, and Whitefield versus Whitely. These debates have always centered on the same issue: whether God's saving grace is compatible with human freedom. Discussions of grace in Mor- mon thought are too often carried out in almost complete ignorance of the evolution of Christian thought on this topic. Both Mormon and non-Mormon interpreters of Mormonism fre- quently assume that, at least so far as modern Christianity is con- cerned, Mormonism is alone in emphasizing free will and works over salvation by grace alone. For example, Rev. William Taylor described the Mormon position as a denial that grace has any role in salvation: "Mormons deny grace, except as a way of saying that Jesus' atoning sacrifice won resurrection and immortality for all men, regardless of their worth." Catholics, he says, in contrast, "emphasize that this 'new creation' is something we can never earn; it is God's gift, given out of love, in Grace" (Taylor 1980, 44). We can hardly blame the good Reverend for adopting this view of Mormon belief, for he quotes Bruce R. McConkie's Mormon Doctrine which says that Mormons believe that persons must achieve salvation by good works and that God's grace consists in universal resurrection.
    [Show full text]
  • November 22, 2020NEWS | MASS TIMES SUNDAY: 8:30 A.M., 11 A.M.* 5 P.M
    ST. THOMAS MORE NEWMAN CENTER NEWMANJesus Christ, King of the Universe | November 22, 2020NEWS | www.comonewman.org MASS TIMES SUNDAY: 8:30 a.m., 11 a.m.* 5 p.m. & 8 p.m (Students) SATURDAY: 5 p.m. WEEKDAY: Noon* *livestreamed RECONCILIATION: Tuesdays: 5 - 5:30 p.m. Saturdays: 4 - 4:30 p.m. BUILDING HOURS: Open Daily 8 a.m. - 10 p.m. OFFICE HOURS: Monday - Friday: 8 a.m. - 11:30 a.m. and 12:30 p.m. - 4 p.m. COME, FOLLOW ME .com/CoMoNewman #COMONEWMAN PHOTO OF THE WEEK IN THIS WEEK’S ISSUE @comonewman “Jesus loves us with no strings attached.” - Madison Rial, student What is an Decree from News at parishioner Indulgence? the Bishop Newman Page 2 Page 3 Page 4 WHAT IS an INDULGENCE? WHAT IS an INDULGENCE (CONTINUED) Due to the coronavirus pandemic and These punishments must not be viewed as vengeance inflicted by the need to avoid large groups, the Plenary God, but as the natural consequence of sin; moreover, the Christian Indulgence applicable to the deceased by those must strive to accept this temporal punishment of sin as a grace, who visit a cemetery has been extended beyond an undeserved gift. And this gift can be applied for ourselves or can the normal dates of November 1-8. This year, be passed on to the poor souls in Purgatory, to remit the temporal the indulgence can be obtained by anyone punishment of their sins. who visits a cemetery, even if only mentally, Mortal sin can only be forgiven through the Sacrament of on any day in November, and devoutly prays Reconciliation, whereas venial sin can be forgiven through the for the faithful departed.
    [Show full text]
  • WHAT PRICE INDULGENCES? TRENT and TODAY Pope Paul VI Believed It Useful to Promote the Practice of Indulgences
    WHAT PRICE INDULGENCES? TRENT AND TODAY Pope Paul VI believed it useful to promote the practice of indulgences. Indulgences, the Pope says, aid the individual in his own personal conversion and further the reconciliation of all men.1 Today, when the practice has very largely disappeared, one can well ask if the practice can really be so meaningful for our modern Church. Also, is it not with mixed feelings that an ecumenist has to look at a practice that Luther and the Reform found so repugnant? To understand what an indulgence is and can mean for the modern Church, this paper offers a survey of attitudes manifested in Tridentine debate on the matter. This small contribution is significant, I believe, because it reveals the theology out of which came the Catholic Church's most authoritative position on indulgences.2 And I find that the under­ standing gleaned from scanning this debate lends support to the inter­ pretation given to an indulgence by Poschmann and Rahner.3 QUESTIONS FOR DEBATE AT TRENT Shortly after promulgating its decree on sacraments in general (March 3,1547), the Council of Trent convened for a time at Bologna (March 25, 1547 to Sept. 13,1549). On June 19,1547, the papal legates handed several questions to the congregation of consultant theologians (these consultant 1 Cf. Paul VI, AAS 59 (1967) 5-24; AAS 65 (1973) 322-25, 615; 66 (1974) 289-307. Corresponding translation in The Pope Speaks 12 (1967) 124-35; 18 (1973) 5-7; 19 (1974) 148-61. 2 The decree on indulgences, Concilium Tridentinum diariorum, actorum, epistularum, tractatuum nova collectio, ed.
    [Show full text]
  • QUESTION 114 Merit Next We Have to Consider Merit, Which Is an Effect Of
    QUESTION 114 Merit Next we have to consider merit, which is an effect of cooperating grace. On this topic there are ten questions: (1) Can a man merit anything from God? (2) Can someone without grace merit eternal life? (3) Can someone through grace merit eternal life by his own worthiness (ex condigno)? (4) Is grace the principle of merit mainly by the mediation of charity? (5) Can a man merit first grace for himself? (6) Can one man merit grace for another? (7) Can someone merit his own restoration (sibi mereri reparationem) after a fall? (8) Can someone merit an increase of grace or of charity? (9) Can someone merit final perseverance for himself (sibi mereri finalem perseverantiam)? (10) Do any temporal goods fall under merit? Article 1 Can a man merit anything from God? It seems that a man cannot merit anything from God: Objection 1: It seems that no one merits a reward by rendering to someone what he owes him. But we are unable, through all the good things we do, to pay God back what we owe Him in an adequate way, i.e., without always owing yet more; the Philosopher likewise points this out in Ethics 8. Hence, as Luke 17:10 says, “When you have done all these things that are commanded, say: ‘We are unprofitable servants; we have done what we were obliged to do’.” Therefore, a man cannot merit anything from God. Objection 2: By the fact that a man profits himself, it seems that he merits nothing in the eyes of someone whom he does not profit in any way at all.
    [Show full text]
  • Redefining Merit: an Examination of Medieval Presuppositions in Covenant Theology 1
    Redefining Merit: An Examination of Medieval Presuppositions in Covenant Theology 1 Lee Irons “Merit” is an important but often unexamined concept that continually recurs in the current discussion and debate regarding the Reformed doctrine of the covenant of works. Traditional Reformed theology, as dogmatically enshrined in the Westminster Confession, has posited the existence of a prelapsarian covenant of works “wherein life was promised to Adam; and in him to his posterity, upon condition of perfect and personal obedience” (WCF VII.2). By contrast, when man fell into sin by his primal apostasy, God entered into a second covenant with his people. “Man, by his fall, having made himself uncapable of life by that [first] covenant, the Lord was pleased to make a second, commonly called the covenant of grace” (WCF VII.3). Covenant theology, thus classically conceived, sees an antithetical contrast between these two covenants, whose very names indicate that the distinction is fundamentally that of works versus grace . However, this dual structure of covenant theology has been subject to significant evaluation and reformulation in recent years. Some have suggested that the terminology “covenant of works” and “covenant of grace” should be replaced by language that does not obscure the presence of grace in the covenant of works. 2 Closely related to this is the 1 This essay was originally published in Creator, Redeemer, Consummator: A Festschrift for Meredith G. Kline , eds. Howard Griffith and John R. Muether (Greenville, SC: Reformed Academic
    [Show full text]