Lane thinks that our discussion of God’s covenant with mankind before the Fall has gotten interesting, and I agree. But it will take me a few installments to answer the various issues he raises here. The one I want to begin with is Lane’s (no doubt inadvertant) denial of Calvinism.
I had said, “If Adam had stood the test, it would have been through the instrumentality of faith-animated obedience, graciously given by God.” And Lane responds:
“I would not put it this way. I would say that if Adam had stood the test, it would have through the instrumentality of faith-animated obedience (understanding faith here to be different than what we have, in that Adam could see God), the ability of which was condescendingly given by God. The obedience itself, in other words, was not given by God. The ability to obey was, since it was part of Adam being created morally innocent” (emphasis added).
The problem here is that all Calvinists are supposed to believe that all things are given by God. Had Adam withstood the test, how is it possible for any Calvinist to say that Adam did it by himself? God decrees all things. The hairs on all heads are all numbered, prelapsarian hairs and postlapsarian hairs alike. In the Garden of Eden, not one sparrow could hop around in his chirruping forever apart from the will of the Father. If Adam had resisted the tempter, it would have been because God had freely and unalterably ordained that it come to pass. And when it came to pass Adam would have thanked God for it.
Lane wants the allow the pre-Fall covenant to be gracious in the sense that God condescended to make it in the first place, when He did not have to, and that it was gracious for God to offer such blessedness in exchange for the small performance of staying away from one tree. Now I agree that all this is gracious. But I also maintain, because I am a high predestinarian, that Adam’s performance of obedience, had it been rendered, would also have been the result of God’s gracious decree. How could this not be?
Now I cannot honestly fathom how Lane can resist this conclusion. God ordains all things. Adam’s obedience, had it occurred, would have been a “thing.” God therefore would have ordained Adam’s obedience. Therefore, it would have been a holy and grateful act for Adam to thank the Lord for it. Moreover, it would have been an unholy and ungrateful act to refuse to thank Him.
But note how Lane implicitly denies his Calvinism here.
“Where would the impetus have come from, then, for Adam to obey God? It would have come immediately from Adam, even though such ability to choose the good had been given him by God. It was still up to Adam to use that gift properly. God bound Himself by the terms of the covenant, then, to reward Adam’s obedience. If Adam had obeyed, he could have come to God and said, “Father, you promised that if I obeyed, you would give me eternal life. I have obeyed. Please give me eternal life” (emphasis added).
Sure, Adam’s obedience would have come immediately from him, but it would also have come (behind that) from God’s gracious decree. This does not destroy the liberty or contingency of secondary causes, but the secondary causes are secondary. Lane is saying that (in a world where Adam did not fall) God gave the ability to not fall, but that He did not give the “not falling” itself. God gave the possibility of obedience, but He somehow did not give the obedience itself. How is this possible in a world where all things whatsoever are governed by God’s decrees? How can any Calvinist say that God does not freely and unalterably ordain whatsoever comes to pass? How can Lane argue for this?