Natural capacity

In his recent book on the covenant, Michael Horton says that under the covenant of works Adam was "a righteous and holy human servant entirely capable of fulfilling the stipulations of God's law." If this is taken in the sense that Adam had no sinful inclinations, and was posse non peccare, fine.

But Horton repeats this description a page later in a context that suggests he means something else. Adam was enduring a test, he says, to see whether he would obey God or not: "Created for obedience, he was entirely capable of maintaining himself in a state of integrity. Therefore, it is anachronistic to require grace of mercy as the foundation of creation and covenant in the beginning, as Karl Barth and many recent Reformed theologians do." He goes on to point out, quite rightly, that law is an expression of God's character, and that "love and law go hand in hand in Scripture."

It's the claim about Adam's being "entirely capable" of obedience, with the subsequent denial that grace is the "foundation" of the Adamic covenant that puzzles. Horton may be denying a Roman Catholic nature-supernature paradigm, in which Adam's human nature is inherently inclined toward evil and needs to be kept in check by supernatural grace. Perhaps that's what Horton has in mind; if so, I'm with him all the way. But there's no sign that he's dealing with this issue. He mentions an intra-Reformed debate, not Reformed-Roman Catholic differences.

He seems to be saying that Adam didn't need any "outside" resources to remain in his state of sinlessness. Adam had all the resources he needed in his own created nature (which is, of course, a gift of God). For Horton, Adam appears to be what Pelagius thought we all were, endowed by nature with all the grace that he needed to obey.It would make sense that Horton would insist on this point. Were he to acknowledge that Adam needed God's sustaining Spirit to obey, Horton would have to admit that the covenant of works is also a covenant of faith.

Later on the same page, though, Horton says that men are "dependent creatures," but he doesn't acknowledge any tension between this fact and Adam's being "entirely capable" of obeying the commandment. If Adam was dependent for God for life, food, health, his breath, his beating heart, his growing toenails, then was he not also dependent on God for his obedience?

Perhaps there's some other way to understand Horton, but it's not obvious what that would be.

posted by Peter J. Leithart on Wednesday, April 25, 2007 at 04:26 PM

Permission is given to use material on this site, provided the source is cited, blog entries are republished in full, and the author is notified in advance.