CoW and moral law, again

[BrandonCorley]

I’m coming back again to the old question I’ve been asking about on here regarding the exact relationship between the CoW and the moral law. It seems to me that there are 4 main ways to think about this. I have laid them out here and am very, very curious to hear everyone’s thoughts.

Possible positions:

Position 1 (Bunyan, Petto)

1. Moral law only commands; does not give right to reward;
2. Right to reward must be given through covenant
3. Members of the Adamic covenant cannot merit reward
4. Mosaic Law offers eternal life for perfect obedience and life in Canaan for general obedience
5. Paul speaks of justification through the Mosaic Law which can offer eternal life

Position 2 (Majority View)

1. Moral law only commands; does not give right to reward;
2. Right to reward must be given through covenant
3. Members of the Adamic covenant can merit reward; there would have been no imputation of Adam’s obedience
4. Mosaic Law offers only life in Canaan for general obedience (if one denies republication, they can just disregard this and it will be equivalent to the majority Reformed view)
5. Paul speaks of justification from the Adamic covenant

Position 3 (Sam Renihan?, Thomas Boston)

1. Moral law only commands; does not give right to reward;
2. Right to reward must be given through covenant
3. Members of the Adamic covenant cannot merit reward; Adam’s obedience would have been imputed
4. Mosaic Law offers only life in Canaan for general obedience
5. Paul speaks of ?

Position 4 (WLC 93?)

1. Moral law gives right to reward for those who obey in supernatural obedience
2. Right to reward given intrinsically through obedience from a supernatural principle
3. Imputation cancels out the obligation to merit since merit has already been received
4. The Mosaic Law offers eternal life for perfect obedience because the moral law if obeyed perfectly naturally leads to this.
5. Paul speaks of justification from the moral law

Admittedly, I’m trying to reconstruct what WLC 93 was trying to get at for a possible 4th view and am just assuming they would want to avoid Pelagianism, hence “from a supernatural principle.” I assume if one takes the view the moral law does in fact hold out the reward of eternal life, one will be taking a basically Thomistic approach to merit which I tried to account for here. Owen implies this view in chapter XI in his discourse on justification, saying “it is immutably true, that he who does the things of it [the moral law] shall live therein” which he says is “not about the federal adjunct of the law, but about its moral nature only.” This of course contradicts his comments elsewhere where he rejects that man merits by nature.

I am unsure what to put for 5 on position 3 as it seems to me to leave the relationship between Paul’s arguments about the law and justification unclear considering that 1) if the “law” means moral law, then no justification is offered, 2) but neither is it offered in the Mosaic Law 3) nor is it offered in the Adamic covenant. I would very much like to know how the logic of Paul’s use of “do this and live” works here as it’s clear one would say he’s referring to the type of the Mosaic covenant, but there appears to be no corresponding antitype on this view.