Lane has taken up my question about his Calvinism.
In his response, he sets out a scheme that I agree with entirely — which is only to be expected, since we are both Calvinists. He acknowledges that God is the first cause of all that comes to pass, which would have included the obedience of Adam, had Adam obeyed. But he then asks how this excludes reward on the level of second causes. I respond that it does not exclude reward at all. What it excludes is any reward for autonomous obedience.
We both agree that Shakespeare writes one hundred percent of all the plays, but that the characters, on the level of the plays, act in accordance with their natures.
So I agree that had Adam obeyed God, he would have been blessed with greater glory, he would have been given mountains of blessing, he would have been rewarded. He would have been told, “Well, done, good and faithful servant.” And he would have said, “I only did what I was told.” In our interactions with God, we move easily between recognition of first causes and second causes all the time — except in the Garden for some reason.
I understand that Lane doesn’t hold to a strict merit scheme (one which would forget the grace of God that surrounded the Garden, and indeed, the entire cosmos). I understand that Lane holds to a pactum merit view, one which (apart from terminology) I don’t have any real problem with. Adam would have been blessed, rewarded, given to, and praised. And upon his obedience or disobedience, the future of our race depended.
But we don’t just function from “within the plays.” God has placed eternity in our hearts, and we thank Him all the time for His gracious decrees. I don’t just thank God for the preacher, for the tracts, for the godly upbringing, and so forth — whatever means were used to bring me to Him. I also thank Him for His gracious election. We thank Him for His decrees. Right?
So why would it not be possible for Adam to recognize that he was being blessed for his obedience, and also to recognize that he had only been obedient because God had decreed it? He, being unfallen, would certainly have had less trouble with these distinctions than we do.
So I will agree with Lane so far as to use the phrase pactum merit, if he will come my direction and acknowledge that Adam’s obedience in this pactum merit scheme would have been from God, through God, and to God, and that Adam would have bowed his head afterwards to thank God for his obedience. God would have praised, honored, and rewarded Adam’s obedience, and Adam would have humbled himself and said, “I only rendered back to You what was given to me.” And God’s treatment of Adam, and Adam’s response to God, would both have been appropriate and right.
In true Calvinism, when God and man fellowship together, first and second causes are necessary woven together tightly. In all strict merit schemes, they are divorced.