Covenant of Works

[ReverendRV]

Here is my first rebuttal to the Covenant of Works, focused on Conclusion #1. There are two options - a link to a PDF with all the content for the rebuttal of Conclusion #1, and then a series of 7 posts with the same content - the individual posts are done at the request of others on this forum to enable them to reply to comments more easily. (Forum rules limit the number of words per post.)

I appreciate your candid comments and reviews. My focus is sola scriptura - if I missed something or am making an egregious misinterpretation of scripture, I want to know.

Go here to see a link to see the full rebuttal Conclusion #1 in PDF format:

Covenant of Works - Overview and Conclusion #1

guyswenson.craft.me

Since you've given us options, I'll prefer the Posts...

 

[Guy Swenson]

Post #2 of 7

It is a good practice to not automatically believe what people say – me included – about the Bible and what it teaches. Instead, you should be able to use the Bible to look up answers to your questions and to test the truthfulness of what you hear. So, in the spirit of “don’t believe me, believe your Bible,” let’s examine the Biblical claims made by the Covenant of Works and see if the theologians “got it right.”

Testing What Theologians – Or What Anybody – Says About Bible Teachings and Doctrine

Two methods to test the truthfulness of the Covenant of Works – or any doctrine for that matter – are these:

• Are there “Falsifiable Conclusions Fallacies?” Are any of the conclusions shown to contradict simple, clear and explicit Bible texts?
• Are there “Falsifiable Process Fallacies?” Doctrinal conclusions are often built on a series of Bible texts, where each is used to establish facts and reasons why a conclusion is justifiable. So, we should ask, are there obvious contradictions in logic, claims of evidence that create internal conflicts or contradictions within the specific doctrine or related doctrines, claims of textual meaning that are proffered as being true, but without evidence, and misrepresentations of Bible texts that contradict clear, simple, and explicit Bible texts?

So, for each of the four conclusions, let’s first ask: “Does this conclusion, as stated, fairly represent the teachings of the Covenant of Works?”

Then we can examine “Does this conclusion of the doctrine of the Covenant of Works conflict with clear, simple and explicit texts of Scripture?”

If other Bible texts contradict essential conclusions from the Covenant of Works, then the truthfulness, accuracy and correctness of the doctrine is called into question. The Bible does not contradict itself – neither should doctrines advocated by theologians contradict explicit Bible statements of fact. No clear, simple and unambiguous texts contradict doctrines that are true.

To be utterly fair, we will begin by verifying each conclusion as stated to ensure that it is a correct statement and taught by authorities who can credibly claim to represent the Covenant of Works accurately.

Then we will test each conclusion for accuracy by comparing the conclusions against explicit, simple and clear Bible texts and passages that relate to each conclusion.

Testing the Conclusions of “The Covenant of Works”​

Analysis of “Preconditions and Probation”: Adam had to, over a probationary period of time, perform “works” by meeting the conditions of personal, perfect and perpetual obedience before God would allow Adam to eat from the tree of life?”

Step 1: Is This Summation of “Preconditions and Probation” Accurately Stated?

This conclusion arises from several sources, but it is succinctly put in the Westminster Confessions, Larger Catechism, Question #20:

Question – WLC 20: What was the providence of God toward man in the estate in which he was created?

Answer: The providence of God toward man in the estate in which he was created, was the placing him in paradise, appointing him to dress it, giving him liberty to eat of the fruit of the earth; putting the creatures under his dominion; and ordaining marriage for his help; affording him communion with himself; instituting the sabbath; entering into a covenant of life with him, upon condition of personal, perfect, and perpetual obedience, of which the tree of life was a pledge; and forbidding to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, upon the pain of death.

Source: retrieved on 9/16/23 from http://thewestminsterstandards.com/...-man-in-the-estate-in-which-he-was-created-2/

Note: Here the sequence is clear: Adam had to do the works of personal, perfect and perpetual obedience first (fulfilling the precondition of works as stated “upon condition …”) Then, and only then would he fulfill the Covenant of “Life” (one of the different names for the Covenant of Works) and then be granted access to the tree of life – the “pledge,” and having eaten its fruit, receive eternal life.
To further document the accuracy of the “Preconditions and Probation” conclusion requiring the preconditions of personal, perfect, and perpetual obedience during a time of probation before Adam was given access to the tree of life, here are some quotations stating this conclusion from writers who are apologists for the Covenant of Works:

 

[Guy Swenson]

Post #3 of 7

Dr. John V. Fesko is an Adjunct Professor of Theology at Reformed Theological Seminary in Atlanta. He holds a Ph.D. in Theology from the University of Aberdeen in Scotland, a Master of Arts in Theology from Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, TX, and a B.A. from Georgia State University. In addition to teaching at RTS, Dr. Fesko is a published author and serves as Associate Professor of Systematic Theology and as the Academic Dean at Westminster Seminary California.

Fesko, writing in his book “Adam and the Covenant of Works” states:

“… Fourth, in the covenant of works God promised eternal life as the reward for perfect obedience …”

"When God formally administered the covenant, He placed Adam and Eve under a temporary probation. Once Adam and Eve fulfilled the mandate, were fruitful, multiplied, filled all the earth, and subdued it, they would have secured God’s promise of eternal life. It is, however, also possible that their probation could have had a shorter duration and, once passed, God would have allowed them to eat of the tree prior to the completion of the dominion mandate.”

“... When God, however, commanded Adam not to eat from the tree of knowledge (Gen. 2:16-17), the threatened curse of death implies that life was the reward for perfect obedience. When God says, ‘For in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die,’ Adam would have lived had he obeyed the command. At some point he would have been permitted to eat from the tree of life. To eat from the tree of knowledge was to choose death. To obey God’s command was to choose life.”

“While Adam lived in the garden, he enjoyed life and possessed righteousness by virtue of being an image bearer of God, but the life he had was mutable and his righteousness was unproven. If Adam was obedient to the command and passed the covenantal probation, he would have entered a confirmed state of eternal life and his righteousness would have been proven.”

From Fesko, J. V., Adam and the Covenant of Works (Divine Covenants Book 1) (p. 350, 421-2). Christian Focus Publications. Kindle Edition.

NOTE: Fesko reiterates the Westminster Larger Catechism regarding eternal life being a reward of personal, perfect, and perpetual obedience.

Further, observe that Fesko endorses the teaching of a probationary period of time where Adam had to live in perfect righteousness:

“… that their probation … once passed, God would have allowed them to eat of the tree …” and “At some point he would have been permitted to eat from the tree of life.”

NOTE: Fesko clearly states that access to the tree of life was restricted until Adam passed his probationary period of works by demonstrating those works of perfect, personal, and perpetual obedience to God.

Again, notice the restrictions and preconditions placed upon Adam before he would be allowed to eat from the tree of life and gain eternal life: “… God would have allowed them to eat …” the fruit of the tree of life ONLY after successfully perfectly passing the probation. “… At some point he would have been permitted to eat from the tree of life …”

So, Fesko is saying that according to the Covenant of Works, Adam had no permission from God to access the tree of life until his probation was successfully completed. Adam had to prove his righteousness through his “works” of perfect obedience before he was allowed by God to gain eternal life by eating from the tree of life.

Next, we go to Dr. Wayne Grudem, who is Research Professor of Theology and Biblical Studies at Phoenix Seminary in Arizona. He is a graduate of Harvard (BA), Westminster Seminary-Philadelphia (MDiv, DD), and the University of Cambridge (PhD). He has served as the president of the Evangelical Theological Society (1999), as a member of the Translation Oversight Committee for the English Standard Version of the Bible and was the General Editor for the ESV Study Bible (2008). He has written more than 20 books, including Systematic Theology, which has sold over 500,000 copies. From that book:

Christ’s Obedience for Us (Sometimes Called His “Active Obedience”). If Christ had only earned forgiveness of sins for us, then we would not merit heaven. Our guilt would have been removed, but we would simply be in the position of Adam and Eve before they had done anything good or bad and before they had passed a time of probation successfully. To be established in righteousness forever and to have their fellowship with God made sure forever, Adam and Eve had to obey God perfectly over a period of time. Then God would have looked on their faithful obedience with pleasure and delight, and they would have lived with him in fellowship forever. For this reason, Christ had to live a life of perfect obedience to God in order to earn righteousness for us. He had to obey the law for his whole life on our behalf so that the positive merits of his perfect obedience would be counted for us. Sometimes this is called Christ’s “active obedience,” while his suffering and dying for our sins is called his “passive obedience.”

Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology, page 484, Copyright © 1994 by Wayne Grudem, Zondervan Publishing House.

NOTE: Grudem repeats these two foundational Covenant of Works teachings of preconditions that restricted Adam’s access to the tree of life – the required “obey God pefectly,” and a time of probation where perfect acts of righteousness were required before receiving eternal life (“… lived with him in fellowship forever…”)

 

[Guy Swenson]

Post #4 of 7

So, these three authoritative sources should be enough to demonstrate that the Covenant of Works does indeed establish preconditions of perfect obedience and a time of probation before Adam would be allowed to eat from the tree of life.

Now, let’s test the Biblical basis for this conclusion – starting with Biblical affirmations, then we will look to see if there are Bible texts that contradict the conclusion.

Step 2 – Are There Positive Bible Affirmations for “Preconditions and Probation?” – “Adam had to, over a probationary period of time, perform “works” by meeting the conditions of personal, perfect and perpetual obedience before God would allow Adam to eat from the tree of life?”

As we have seen, these - and many more theologians, confidently lay their professional reputations as Bible scholars on the line by adamantly claiming that the Lord God did not allow Adam to eat from the tree of life without Adam first proving himself by works of perfect obedience during a time of probation – those being the very “works” that are referred to in the Covenant of “Works.” Then – and ONLY then – would the Lord God grant Adam access to the tree of life and the eternal life eating its fruit would bring.

Once again, to be utterly fair, let’s look to see if theologians cite any Bible passages that say Adam’s access to the tree of life was limited – by God or any others – and Adam could finally eat from the tree of life only after successfully meeting the preconditions by completing his works of perfect obedience during his time of probation.

From the writings of these theologians, the unequivocable answer is: No.

Remarkably, there are absolutely no actual Bible passages cited by these sources and apologists to support this “Covenant of Works” conclusion of a time of probation during which the demand that the preconditions of perfect obedience had to be met. Bible texts are cited – but none of them address the question of Adam’s access to the tree of life being in any way restricted until he fulfilled a time of successfully demonstrating personal, perfect and perpetual obedience to God – at all – or during a time of probation. (The stated preconditions.)

Think about this: the authors and sources already noted here, along with many other apologists who share their views, offer no Bible passages or texts in their many writings to prove:

• The existence of a time of Adamic “probation.”
• That Adam had to meet the precondition of “personal, perfect and perpetual obedience” before allowed to eat from the tree of life.
• That Adam had any restrictions, prior to him eating fruit from the forbidden tree, that limited him from taking fruit from the tree of life at any time.

Why are no such explicit Bible texts cited for a time of probation and preconditions for eating from the tree of live?

Because Bible texts stating there were preconditions and a time of probation before Adam was allowed to eat from the tree of life simply do not exist.

Now there are passages offered as “proof” of perfect obedience earning eternal life, such as their interpretation of the instruction to the nation of Israel to obey the laws of God. This theory takes events thousands of years after Adam, Eve and the Garden of Eden when God is speaking to Israel. Theologians say Lev.18:5 where God says to the Israelites: “You shall therefore keep My statutes and My judgments, which if a man does, he shall live by them: I am the Lord” establishes a “works principle” of personal, perfect and perpetual obedience as the required means to earn eternal life. This “works principle” is said to convey the idea that the Adamic Covenant of Works was in full force during the time of the Israelites and that the Covenant of Works was directly referenced by God in Lev. 18:5.

Other portions of Scripture confirm this as the Adamic works-principle surfaces in the midst of the Mosaic covenant (Lev. 18:5) and in Christ’s and Paul’s teaching: perfect obedience secures eschatological life (cf. Luke 10:28; Gal. 3:12; Rom. 10:5). Moreover, Paul succinctly states that Christ was born ‘under the law’ (Gal. 4:4), which corroborates the conclusion that the terms of the Adamic covenant still persist.

Fesko, J. V.. Adam and the Covenant of Works (Divine Covenants Book 1) (p. 309). Christian Focus Publications. Kindle Edition.

Conclusion #2: “Eternal Life Can be Earned” includes a detailed exposition on this passage in Leviticus. Without getting too far ahead of ourselves, an acid test of the alleged correct interpretation of Lev. 18:5 as establishing preconditions of personal, perfect and perpetual obedience by Israelites to earn eternal life and then “back dating” those conditions to apply to Adam would be if the explicit texts in Genesis 2 and 3 agreed – or contradicted – the assertion that God required preconditions of Adam before eating from the tree of life, or if God did not. We will examine this next.

Perhaps you are surprised that theologians have zero explicit Bible texts to support their conclusions that Adam had to wait until his probation was complete and that he had to satisfy all preconditions of perfect obedience before being allowed to eat from the tree of life.

There is a reason no explicit Bible texts are cited. It is because the explicit Bible texts say the exact opposite is true.

The explicit Bible texts actually state that, until he ate from the forbidden fruit, Adam had immediate, full, unfettered, unrestricted and complete unconditional permission from God to eat from the tree of life – at any time. No preconditions. No probation. No “personal, perfect and perpetual obedience” required.

 

[Guy Swenson]

Post #5 of 7

Let’s now examine this in some detail.

Step 3: Are There Simple, Clear and Explicit Bible Texts That Contradict “Preconditions and Probation?” “Adam had to, over a period of time, perform “works” by meeting the conditions of personal, perfect and perpetual obedience before God would allow Adam to eat from the tree of life.”

So, what do the simple and explicit Bible passages say concerning whether Adam had access to the tree of life ONLY after fulfilling probation and meeting the preconditions of personal, perfect and perpetual obedience?

The only detailed source of fact for the events in the Garden of Eden are found in Genesis 2 and 3. (Hosea 6:7 refers to a breach of covenant, but not the details, as stated in the ESV: “But like Adam they transgressed the covenant; there they dealt faithlessly with me.”)

As such is the case, this is where we should begin.

It is in Genesis 2 that we find a description of the two trees, and specifically the tree of life, that is central to answering the question: did God withhold access to the tree of life from Adam during a time of probation until the precondition of “works” of personal, perfect and perpetual obedience were met?

Or did Adam not only have instant, easy access to the tree of life (no time of probation), but also God’s explicit permission to do so (no preconditions)?

First, open your own Bible and turn to Genesis 2 – or read the text here – about what is clearly, simply and explicitly state about access to the tree of life and the forbidden tree of the knowledge of good and evil (NKJV):

Then the Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to tend and keep it. And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, “Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.” (Gen. 2:15-16)

One tree was forbidden under pain of death. But did you notice that God gave permission to Adam to eat from EVERY other tree that was in the Garden? Look again: “Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat…” While Adam was NOT authorized to eat from the forbidden tree – that is clearly stated – God gave Adam explicit permission to eat from the tree of life. In fact, permission to eat from the tree of life was commanded by God before the prohibition to not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, “Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; …”

This merits repetition because it appears that theologians have ignored the permission given by God to eat from the tree of life and replaced it with their own inventions of “preconditions” and “probation.” Nobody, including theologians with the highest academic credentials or historical achievements, should be permitted to just “make stuff up” that contradicts clear, simple and explicit Bible texts.

Instead, God gave Adam explicit, clear, unequivocal, unrestricted, unconditional, unlimited permission, without reservation – and without preconditions and probation – for Adam to eat from the tree of life.

Read Genesis 2 and 3 again. Read it in different translations. The Bible texts are not silent – they state the opposite of what the theologians want you to believe about probation and preconditions.

How much clearer could the simple and explicit Bible statement be? “YOU MAY FREELY EAT …” Yes, one tree was forbidden. However, unconditional permission was granted to Adam to eat from every other tree in the garden – and that included the tree of life.

After a reasonably extensive search of the writings by many Covenant of Works apologists and asking for their comments on the contradictions raised by Genesis 2 and 3, it is clear that theologians have ignored these texts that conflict with their desired ends. However, sound doctrine is not reached by “cherry picking” Bible texts that support an idea and ignoring those that explicitly contradict your ideas.

In the most simple, direct, explicit and unambiguous text, the Bible shows that, from the moment after Adam was placed in the garden and given instructions about not eating from the forbidden tree, Adam had explicit permission from the Lord God Himself to eat from EVERY OTHER TREE – including the tree of life. Again, it was a part of the “command” the Lord God to Adam.

Adam always had complete, explicit, unfettered, unrestricted permission from God to eat from the tree of life.

Adam just didn’t believe God.

Remember the Covenant of Works says Adam was not allowed to eat from the tree of life until he completed his time of probation by perfect obedience – never sinning.

Instead, we see ALL Bible texts on the matter contradict this foundational conclusion of the Covenant of Works. Adam had immediate and unrestricted access to the tree of life. There was no time of probation, no preconditions, no “works” required.

These are not theological deductions, reasonings or later “works principles” applied to Genesis 2 – they are explicit statements – indeed commands – by God Himself.

 

[Guy Swenson]

Post #6 of 7:

It gets worse for the Covenant of Works conclusions conflicting with explicit Bible statements.

There is more on the topic of how easy it was for Adam, had he decided to do so, to reach out and gain eternal life by eating from the tree of life. We see this in Genesis 3:22-24, where by this time in the Genesis account, Adam has eaten from the forbidden tree, but is still in the garden and the Lord God expresses this concern:

“Then the Lord God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, to know good and evil. And now, lest he put out his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever” — therefore the Lord God sent him out of the garden of Eden to till the ground from which he was taken. So He drove out the man; and He placed cherubim at the east of the garden of Eden, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to guard the way to the tree of life.”

Instead of waiting until meeting the preconditions of perfect obedience and successfully passing probation, the Bible text in Genesis 3:22-24 shows even the disobedient Adam, in his fallen and disobedient state, could “… put out his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever.”

Contrary to the presumed existence of preconditions and probation before Adam would be granted access to the fruit of the tree of life, and even after his disobedience, Adam could have eaten from the tree of life.

God’s solution? Put Adam and Eve outside of the garden. But then Adam could still have gone back in and eaten fruit from the tree of life. So, another provision had to be made: an angel of the Lord carrying a flaming sword to guard the way to the tree of life.

What a different picture is painted by the simple, clear, unambiguous, and explicit statements in Genesis 2:16 and Genesis 3:22-24 about the permission, freedom and ability for Adam to access and eat from the tree of life.

It was only after Adam sinned by eating the forbidden fruit as an act of disbelieving God (unbelief), that God revoked His permission previously given to Adam to eat from the tree of life.

This explicit permission and demonstrated free, unfettered and easy access to the tree of life is exactly the opposite of what theologians teach in the Covenant of Works.

Summation: What Are the Only Reasonable Conclusions from the Actual Bible Texts Regarding Access by Adam to the Tree of Life – and to Eternal Life?

• There were no preconditions, other than not eating the forbidden fruit, including no requirement for perfect obedience, that Adam had to satisfy before eating from the tree of life.
• There was no time of probation. Instead, Adam could have eaten from the tree of life at any time. There was no initial restriction or limitation – at all – on Adam eating from the tree of life.
• Eating from the tree of life was part of the initial positive command given by God in Genesis 2:

Gen. 2:15-17 Then the Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to tend and keep it. And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, “Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”

• There was no means stated, nor covenantal promise offered to Adam, by which he could earn or merit eternal life by living in perfect obedience. Instead, it was simply a matter of believing God:
• Not eating from the forbidden tree which God said was forbidden.
• Choosing instead to believe God, reach out and eat the fruit from the tree of life, for which God gave explicit permission.
• Adam had no “works” to do to gain eternal life. All Adam had to do was DISbelieve Satan’s lies and BELIEVE and act on God’s truth – a step of faith. He could have been like Abraham, “For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.” (Romans 4:3)
• Abraham’s “belief” that was counted as righteousness was a simple act of faith – having sex with his wife. Adam’s belief would have been another simple act of faith: to not eat from the forbidden tree and instead to eat from the tree of life. Both were incredibly simple steps to take – if one believed God and not the visible affects of old age or the deception from Satan.

The actual and explicit Bible texts in Genesis 2 & 3 are in complete and total conflict with the teachings of preconditions (perfect, personal and perpetual obedience) of the Covenant of Works. There is no interpretation required. Just simple statements, commands by God giving immediate and free access to the tree of life – and a failed opportunity because of Adam’s unbelief.

When not glossed over or ignored, Genesis 2 and 3 represent the unequivocal rejection of these essential and foundational teachings of the Covenant of Works doctrine – the assertations of preconditions to eating from the tree of life and a term of probation during which Adam was required to perfectly obey God.

Without preconditions and a required “probationary time” to perform those perfect works of righteousness – there are simply no “works” to be done in the Covenant of “Works.”

 

[Guy Swenson]

Post #7 of 7:

As there was no precondition of “works” and no period of “probation” to do the “works,” and since the explicit Bible texts completely invalidate this two key premises, we could just stop here and say that the doctrine of the Covenant of Works contradicts clear and explicit Scripture in teachings essential to the doctrine.

However, there remain three more doctrinal conclusions that merit examination and the advocates of the Covenant of Works are unlikely to accept the direct refutation of probation and the preconditions of perfect obedience as being enough for them to deny such a closely held and revered doctrine.

As Sproul said of the Covenant of Works, “There is nothing less than our salvation at stake in this issue." If one’s entire understanding of salvation depends on the Covenant of Works being true, then probably more evidence is needed.

So, we move on to the next conclusion and see if a person could ever earn righteousness and incur a debt by God for eternal life, as the Covenant of Works teaches, or has righteousness before God always been a matter of belief in God and God’s grace?

Since you've given us options, I'll prefer the Posts...

They are all out there now!

 

[ReverendRV]

Post #1 of 7

The Covenant of Works was created and is espoused and endorsed both by historically significant and by modern theologians who have attained the highest academic achievements in religious studies.

Some say it is a linchpin doctrine upon which salvation itself depends. As R. C. Sproul states regarding the importance of the Covenant of Works as a doctrine,

“There is nothing less than our salvation at stake in this issue."

Retrieved from: https://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/covenant-works.

(All emphasis is mine.)

Sproul is highlighting how the Covenant of Works is such a foundational teaching and upon it many other doctrines are based. If theologians got this doctrine wrong, other doctrines, such as Original Sin, how we are saved, what Jesus accomplished as our Savior and even how Jesus expects His disciples to obey Him are misleading and wrong.

So, did the theologians get the Covenant of Works right – or completely wrong?

I respond in Bites, then move on; I think this is best...

The Covenant of Works is Important, but you probably won't find Posters here who will say Premillenial Dispensationalists are not Saved. Therefore I have to dispute the first point of your Objection; I stopped reading where I stopped quoting your Objection, in order to respond quickly. Without trying, I think I could easily find an RC Sproul quote which says we're not Saved by Doctrine, which we might call Meat instead of Milk. If I couldn't find a quote, Sproul would be wrong to infer the Covenant of Works is part and parcel with the Gospel of Jesus Christ; this is Hyper Calvinism. What if your Objection is against Hyper Calvinism

As far as Born Again Christians being unable to Accept Doctrines such as Original Sin, etc; you can look no further than John MacArthur Jr, to see that Christians can believe All Good Doctrine; without accepting the Covenant of Works...


I will wait a little while to read more, to see what is said by you and others...

 

[Eleanor]

If he was created with intrinsic eternal life, he was not subject to death and there would have been no tree that would lead to death.

Thanks.

Eternal life is spiritual, not physical, it is God's divine life within one's spirit (2 Pe 1:4).
I have eternal life in my spirit, but my body still dies.

We are regenerated from being in Adam as sinners to being in Christ who is life.

Re-generated from spiritual death to spiritual life (i.e., God's life, eternal life).
It seems re-birth would be raised from spiritual death to a life one previously had--spiritual life.

I see it (in the bigger picture) as in order for God's enemies to be destroyed there had to be a creature like God, as in image likeness, similar to Him in many ways and exactly like Him in no way, that can suffer a penalty of death, spiritual and physical. That becomes the battle ground between God and His enemies. One like them (man) must perform perfectly the covenant of works which is the only thing (perfect righteousness) that can deliver them out of the hand of His enemies. And then die for them, carrying their inherited sin and their personal sins with Him to the grave. But the grave cannot hold Him because He has nothing of HImself worthy of death. To me that shines a flood light on Paul's saying that we are buried with Christ and rise from the dead with Him. And not all of that is wrong. Some of it may very well be----but as of now, that is how I have come to see it. Our last state is not the same as Adam's first state. It is better. Now we will become immortal and incorruptible. And there will be nothing to corrupt us.
,
I don't understand #2.

I suspect maybe when God informed the angels that he would create matter, which is lower than spirit (Heb 2:7), and unite inferior matter with himself by material incarnation of God the Son in Jesus of Nazareth, and then bring all that he would created in heaven and on earth under this one head, Jesus of Nazareth, there was rebellion in heaven, which rebellion to this day seeks to overthrow and destroy this plan of God in the God-man Christ Jesus(Eph 1:9-10).

I don't think God is ever doing just one thing but that all things are a unit or unity, and there is more that He doesn't tell us than that He does tell us. He tells us everything we need to know. But there is nothing that God is not in because there is nothing that exists apart from Him.

I'm not sure. I would have to think to hard on it and it is too late in the day for that.

Heard that!

 

[Guy Swenson]

I respond in Bites, then move on; I think this is best...

The Covenant of Works is Important, but you probably won't find Posters here who will say Premillenial Dispensationalists are not Saved. Therefore I have to dispute the first point of your Objection; I stopped reading where I stopped quoting your Objection, in order to respond quickly. Without trying, I think I could easily find an RC Sproul quote which says we're not Saved by Doctrine, we might call Meat instead of Milk. If I couldn't find a quote, Sproul would be wrong to infer the Covenant of Works is part and parcel with the Gospel of Jesus Christ; this is Hyper Calvinism. What if your Objection is against Hyper Calvinism

As far as Born Again Christians being unable to Accept Doctrines such as Original Sin, etc; you can look no further than John MacArthur Jr, to see that Christians can believe All Good Doctrine; without accepting the Covenant of Works...


I will wait a little while to read more, to see what is said by you and others...

I’ll wait until you read the whole thing.

 

[Guy Swenson]

The meat concerns preconditions and probation.

 

[Arial]

Some say it is a linchpin doctrine upon which salvation itself depends. As R. C. Sproul states regarding the importance of the Covenant of Works as a doctrine,

“There is nothing less than our salvation at stake in this issue."

The reason the covenant of works is so necessary to our salvation is because it affects the doctrines of justification and imputation of righteousness. But I will not lengthen the post by going into that as it may come up later.

Analysis of “Preconditions and Probation”: Adam had to, over a probationary period of time, perform “works” by meeting the conditions of personal, perfect and perpetual obedience before God would allow Adam to eat from the tree of life?”

Step 1: Is This Summation of “Preconditions and Probation” Accurately Stated?

It is not accurately stated and if every theologian and apologist said it was, it still would not be. But one cannot refute the covenant of works by starting the counter from a false premise. It does not make the covenant of works cease to exist.

There was a covenant made between God and Adam. It was a bilateral covenant. God states the promises that He will fulfill if Adam does not break the covenant, and God states the consequences He promises if Adam does break the covenant. This is the case with the Mosaic covenant. It is also a covenant of works----things the covenant people must do and what they must not do. It is not a new covenant of works but the Edenic covenant extended into other areas and peoples.

This conclusion arises from several sources, but it is succinctly put in the Westminster Confessions, Larger Catechism, Question #20:

Question – WLC 20: What was the providence of God toward man in the estate in which he was created?

Answer: The providence of God toward man in the estate in which he was created, was the placing him in paradise, appointing him to dress it, giving him liberty to eat of the fruit of the earth; putting the creatures under his dominion; and ordaining marriage for his help; affording him communion with himself; instituting the sabbath; entering into a covenant of life with him, upon condition of personal, perfect, and perpetual obedience, of which the tree of life was a pledge; and forbidding to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, upon the pain of death.

The conclusion of step #1 is not succinctly stated in the WLC. That quote is not dealing with the covenant of works but with the providence of God.
"Entering into a covenant of life with him upon condition of personal, perfect, and perpetual obedience" does not conclude a probationary period, and it could not. The probationary period would have to extend until he died and we have an oxymoron. Perpetual obedience, as we see with Jesus, means until you die. The idea of a probationary period is not stated in Gen 2 and cannot, must not, be speculated into it.

"Of which the tree of life was a pledge;" cannot be construed as the tree of life being forbidden until after this probationary period, since Gen 2 tells us God said he could eat the fruit of all the trees but one, and there are other ways of interpreting it. Such as: they had access to the tree of life (which does not say eternal life at all) until that ate of the forbidden tree. They were alive after all.

 

[ReverendRV]

I’ll wait until you read the whole thing.

Okay...

//The “Covenant of Works,” which goes by several names including the “Edenic Covenant,” the “Adamic Covenant,” the “Covenant of Life” and the “Covenant of Nature.” This doctrine seeks to explain the terms and conditions by which mankind can receive eternal life and as noted, has a far-reaching impact on other doctrines as well. The Covenant of Works is an essential doctrine for a number of Protestant churches, including those in the “Reformed” or “Covenant Theology” movement. Some of the conclusions from the Covenant of Works have influenced the doctrines and interpretations of Bible texts by other churches as well.//

This is good; but incomplete, in error, and too inclusive. It is incomplete, because the Mosaic Covenant is also the Covenant of Works. It's in error, because the Adamic Covenant is a Covenant of Grace. Also, it's in error because without mention of the Mosaic Covenant; there is no Promise of Life in the Edenic Covenant. It's too inclusive, because the Covenants of Life/Nature are unneeded nicknames; and can get us lost in the weeds...

This is why I post in tidbits; a decent response to a long Post would be; a long Post, LOL! Also, much said in response to your First Conclusion, could easily be ignored by you, in favor of you dealing with something else I said...

 

[Guy Swenson]

Okay...

//The “Covenant of Works,” which goes by several names including the “Edenic Covenant,” the “Adamic Covenant,” the “Covenant of Life” and the “Covenant of Nature.” This doctrine seeks to explain the terms and conditions by which mankind can receive eternal life and as noted, has a far-reaching impact on other doctrines as well. The Covenant of Works is an essential doctrine for a number of Protestant churches, including those in the “Reformed” or “Covenant Theology” movement. Some of the conclusions from the Covenant of Works have influenced the doctrines and interpretations of Bible texts by other churches as well.//

This is good, but incomplete; in error; and too inclusive. It is incomplete, because the Mosaic Covenant is also the Covenant of Works. It's in error, because the Adamic Covenant is a Covenant of Grace. Also, it's in error because without mention of the Mosaic Covenant; there is no Promise of Life in the Edenic Covenant. It's too inclusive, because the Covenants of Life/Nature are unneeded nicknames; and can get us lost in the weeds...

This is why I post in tidbits; a decent response to a long Post would be; a long Post LOL! Also, much said in response to your First Conclusion, could easily be ignored by you, in favor of you dealing with something else I said...

Thanks - I am good with any form of responses, and appreciate your insights.

As you get down to the end, the meat of the argument is whether any preconditions existed for Adam (other than not eating the forbidden fruit.) No preconditions - no obedience required => no works => no covenant of "works." @Arial points out objections to the teaching of "probation." I happen to agree that there was no period of probation - but the apologists who have written on the topic (and that I have found) seem to all agree. (Theologians agreeing on anything don't make it true ...)


On including the Mosaic Covenant in the Covenant of Works (don't theologians call that "republication?"), from what I read that is not a settled matter in Reformed circles.

 

[ReverendRV]

In simplified terms, the Covenant of Works asserts that God initiated a covenant with Adam in the Garden of Eden. The terms of the covenant, stated as conclusions of the doctrine, were these:

Four Major Conclusions of the Covenant of Works:

#1: Preconditions and Probation: “Adam had to, over a probationary period of time, perform ‘works’ of righteousness by meeting the conditions of personal, perfect and perpetual obedience before God would allow Adam to eat from the tree of life.”

• Adam was given an undisclosed period of time (called “probation”) to prove whether he would demonstrate “personal, perfect, and perpetual obedience” to God – or disobey God and sin.
• Only after the successful demonstration of these works of “personal, perfect, and perpetual obedience” during the time of his “probation,” would Adam have proven his perfect righteousness, earned eternal life, and be allowed to eat to the tree of life and thereby live forever.

//#1: Preconditions and Probation: “Adam had to, over a probationary period of time, perform ‘works’ of righteousness by meeting the conditions of personal, perfect and perpetual obedience before God would allow Adam to eat from the tree of life.” //

The Work Adam had to perform was similar to many Works Moses had to do; it was a Prohibition. Prohibitions come with threats, not Promises. Thou shalt not Steal comes with a Curse, not a Promise. Adam didn't receive a Prohibition to the Tree of Life, but could eat of it as soon as he could have eaten a Fig...

 

[ReverendRV]

Thanks - I am good with any form of responses, and appreciate your insights.

As you get down to the end, the meat of the argument is whether any preconditions existed for Adam (other than not eating the forbidden fruit.) No preconditions - no obedience required => no works => no covenant of "works." @Arial points out objections to the teaching of "probation." I happen to agree that there was no period of probation - but the apologists who have written on the topic (and that I have found) seem to all agree. (Theologians agreeing on anything don't make it true ...)


On including the Mosaic Covenant in the Covenant of Works (don't theologians call that "republication?"), from what I read that is not a settled matter in Reformed circles.

The Probation can be found in the Curse from the Edenic Covenant of Works; IE until he Died...

 

[ReverendRV]

Thanks - I am good with any form of responses, and appreciate your insights.


On including the Mosaic Covenant in the Covenant of Works (don't theologians call that "republication?"), from what I read that is not a settled matter in Reformed circles.

Some may call the Mosaic Covenant a Republication of the Edenic Covenant, but I wouldn't. It's the same Covenant of Works; but with two Federal Heads...

 

[Guy Swenson]

I respond in Bites, then move on; I think this is best...

The Covenant of Works is Important, but you probably won't find Posters here who will say Premillenial Dispensationalists are not Saved. Therefore I have to dispute the first point of your Objection; I stopped reading where I stopped quoting your Objection, in order to respond quickly. Without trying, I think I could easily find an RC Sproul quote which says we're not Saved by Doctrine, we might call Meat instead of Milk. If I couldn't find a quote, Sproul would be wrong to infer the Covenant of Works is part and parcel with the Gospel of Jesus Christ; this is Hyper Calvinism. What if your Objection is against Hyper Calvinism

As far as Born Again Christians being unable to Accept Doctrines such as Original Sin, etc; you can look no further than John MacArthur Jr, to see that Christians can believe All Good Doctrine; without accepting the Covenant of Works...


I will wait a little while to read more, to see what is said by you and others...

The reason the covenant of works is so necessary to our salvation is because it affects the doctrines of justification and imputation of righteousness. But I will not lengthen the post by going into that as it may come up later.

Yes - I would add that imputation of sin affects the interpretation of Romans 5 and Original Sin.

It is not accurately stated and if every theologian and apologist said it was, it still would not be. But one cannot refute the covenant of works by starting the counter from a false premise. It does not make the covenant of works cease to exist.

Yes - but since published (and respected?) theologians do say this, so I think it is fair to include it. I agree that "Saying it doesn't make it so ..."

There was a covenant made between God and Adam. It was a bilateral covenant. God states the promises that He will fulfill if Adam does not break the covenant, and God states the consequences He promises if Adam does break the covenant. This is the case with the Mosaic covenant. It is also a covenant of works----things the covenant people must do and what they must not do. It is not a new covenant of works but the Edenic covenant extended into other areas and peoples.

The conclusion of step #1 is not succinctly stated in the WLC. That quote is not dealing with the covenant of works but with the providence of God.
"Entering into a covenant of life with him upon condition of personal, perfect, and perpetual obedience" does not conclude a probationary period, and it could not. The probationary period would have to extend until he died and we have an oxymoron. Perpetual obedience, as we see with Jesus, means until you die. The idea of a probationary period is not stated in Gen 2 and cannot, must not, be speculated into it.

I think we agree on the paucity of evidence for probation ... but published theologians say it, so I include it.

My statement about preconditions is from "upon condition of personal, perfect and perpetual obedience." A condition is a condition is a condition - the tree of life being a pledge upon meeting the condition. Are you thinking the WLC 20 does not expect perfect obedience over some period of time? (Again, I don't agree with this idea ... but it seems theologians do.)

"Of which the tree of life was a pledge;" cannot be construed as the tree of life being forbidden until after this probationary period, since Gen 2 tells us God said he could eat the fruit of all the trees but one, and there are other ways of interpreting it. Such as: they had access to the tree of life (which does not say eternal life at all) until that ate of the forbidden tree. They were alive after all.

My reference about the tree of life being the source of eternal life comes from Gen. 3:22 "Then the Lord God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil. Now, lest he reach out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat, and live forever—

 

[Guy Swenson]

Some may call the Mosaic Covenant a Republication of the Edenic Covenant, but I wouldn't. It's the same Covenant of Works; but with two Federal Heads...

Gotcha.

 

[ReverendRV]

Thanks - I am good with any form of responses, and appreciate your insights.


On including the Mosaic Covenant in the Covenant of Works (don't theologians call that "republication?"), from what I read that is not a settled matter in Reformed circles.

Romans 5:18; NIV; Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people.

The reason Justification and Life for All can be Conflated with Condemnation for All, is because of the Covenant of Works.

Jesus is the Second Adam of the Edenic Covenant of Works; he Kept it for ALL people. But the Promise for Righteousness is found in the Limited to Israel Mosaic Covenant of Works. Therefore the Justification for All found in Romans 5:18, is Contingent upon anyone in Adam ALSO being in Christ's Covenant of Works. The reason we know Justification is available to All, is because the Edenic Covenant and the Mosaic Covenant are One under Christ's Federal Headship; just as the Sacrificial Goat and the Scapegoat are One in the person of Jesus Christ. All are allowed to come to Christ for Justification, since he is the Federal Head of All of us because of the Edenic Covenant of Works. Jesus Purchased All people. Why? As God, All are his. But he Purchased All people as a Man; as the Second Adam. Thus he had to Keep the Edenic Covenant to do so. But since there are no Promises in the Edenic Covenant, All need the Works and Promises of the Mosaic Covenant. But this Covenant of Works is Limited to Spiritual Israel. Thus we know the Mosaic Covenant of Works is NOT a Republication, as Deuteronomy is a Republication of Leviticus; but is the same Covenant of Works as the Edenic Covenant; but with two Federal Heads...

If you like Romans 5:18 saying All are Justified, then Original Sin is true because All are Condemned in Adam. Read Romans 5 through the Lens of the Covenant of Works. "IN ADAM" means 'In HIS Covenant of Works '. "In Jesus" means 'in HIS Covenant of Works'. Since you say if Adam Kept the Edenic Covenant of Works, this would be our Justification; Romans 5:18 can mean that in Christ's Edenic Covenant of Works we're as Justifified; right? So Romans 5 CAN be about the Covenant of Works. Universalism is Wrong, so a Covenant of Works Justification can only be found in Jesus...

But True Justification is found in the New Covenant of Grace...