• **Notifications**: Notifications can be dismissed by clicking on the "x" on the righthand side of the notice.
  • **New Style**: You can now change style options. Click on the paintbrush at the bottom of this page.
  • **Donations**: If the Lord leads you please consider helping with monthly costs and up keep on our Forum. Click on the Donate link In the top menu bar. Thanks
  • **New Blog section**: There is now a blog section. Check it out near the Private Debates forum or click on the Blog link in the top menu bar.
  • Welcome Visitors! Join us and be blessed while fellowshipping and celebrating our Glorious Salvation In Christ Jesus.

Covenant of Works

@Guy Swenson The Golgatha Purchase ~ by ReverendRV * October 27

2nd Peter 2:1 KJV; But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.

I’ve recently been debating with an Atheist who uses Slavery as a reason to NOT believe in the God of the Bible. I told him about the Voluntary Servitude the Bible endorses, but he insists on debating about God endorsing Involuntary Servitude; citing Leviticus 25. I said, “I see what you are saying; you're drawing a distinction between the acceptable Servitude of a Jew to a Jew, and the unacceptable Slavery of Gentiles to a Jew. May I suggest that these Verses are a Type for the New Testament; If Israel were not permitted to buy people, then Peter couldn’t have said Jesus bought the Heretics.” The Lord Jesus Christ couldn’t have Purchased the World, if it were not legal for Jews to purchase Gentiles; and be their Sovereign…

If it were illegal for Jews to own Slaves, the Jewish Jesus Christ wouldn't have been able to buy the World from Satan; who gained Dominion from Adam, through the Fall. It is like the Louisiana Purchase; Dominion over the Land and the People was purchased. ~ But you Object, “What’s all this Slavery guff? I’ve never been a Slave”. When you Sin, you’re a Slave to Sin and Satan; have you ever told a Lie? What do YOU call people who Lie to you? If you’ve ever found yourself compelled to tell a Lie and you couldn’t help yourself, you are a Slave to Sin and Satan; or you were. You’re still a Slave to Sin but now you are Christ’s Slave as he paid for his Kingdom with his Blood. Your Lies used to deliver you out of trouble but now that you have a new Master, they bring you under his Judgment. As God Incarnate, the Son of God owns you; but through the 'Golgatha Purchase', the Human Jesus Christ bought All of Humanity. ~ If the Bible is true, then you are the Slave of Christ; awaiting either swift destruction; or Forgiveness of Sin...

Forgiveness of Sins is found only in one Name under heaven. ~ For God so loved the World he gave us his only begotten Son, that whoever believes in him shall not swiftly perish, but have everlasting Life. Jesus Christ bore the Sin of the world while dying on a Cross, to pay the Death Penalty God requires for our Trespasses and Sins; but he arose from the Grave to prepare a place for us in Heaven to be with him. We’re Saved by the Gracious Forgiveness of God, through Faith in Jesus Christ and what HE'S done for us; instead of anything we could ever do for ourselves. Repent of your Sins, Confess Jesus Christ as your Lord God, and become his Voluntary Servant at a Bible loving Church. ~ Sinners are Involuntary Servants of Jesus Christ, as they choose their Sin over their Righteous Master; remaining Voluntary Slaves to Sin…

1st Corinthians 7:22-23; KJV; For the one who was a slave when called to faith in the Lord is the Lord's freed person; similarly, the one who was free when called is Christ's slave. You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of human beings.
 
I think we agree on the paucity of evidence for probation ... but published theologians say it, so I include it.
I would have to ask, are you preparing to dispute ( I have not read everything yet) that there is a covenant of works or disputing what is said about it according to some theologians?
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.)
What does perpetuity mean? Time without end. Eternity. In law a period of time can be set for requirements to be met before the thing promised is vested. But no such time is given in either the Edenic or Mosaic covenants of works. And it is not stated in the WLC. The only other alternative is perfect obedience for eternity, or in Jesus' case, until death. Adam was required to be obedient forever, and as long as he was he had access to the tree of life. When he failed in obedience, he no longer had access to it, and that is all the WLC means by the tree of life was a pledge for perfect obedience. He must have needed that tree to live. It was the source of continuing life for him once the first breath of life was breathed into him by God.
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—
As long as he had access to the source of life he would live forever. But he also was capable of dying if separated from that tree. But eating of it did not give eternal life intrinsically to Adam. Its ability to provide life eternally was there.
 
Yes - I would add that imputation of sin affects the interpretation of Romans 5 and Original Sin.
Ro 5:12-14, 18-19 is imputation of sin, and "original" sin of Adam is what is imputed from the beginning (Ro 5:12-14).
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 ..."

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.)

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—
 
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.
Again. It is very difficult to argue for or against the covenant of works when the covenant being argued for or against is incorrectly stated in relation to the Scriptures. But I will work through it point by point and address what can be addressed that presents the covenant biblically in my understanding. What I am left to do at the moment is argue against the presentation of a remnant and all saying the same thing, of "authoritative" sources. A wrong never has authority or is authoritative.
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.
Agreed and addressed.
Conclusion #2: “Eternal Life Can be Earnedincludes 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.
Agreed and addressed. So are you contending that the view of these few theologians is wrong on what the covenant of works is(which I agree with) and therefore there is no covenant of works and the theology is wrong?
 
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.
But we are talking about physical death, and spiritual death only in connection with what was lost through Adam as we traverse this earth in our physical bodies.
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.
Right. By taking us out of Adam as to who we are before God.
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).
(y)
 
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.
I have already stated all that was in this post in posts of my own. My question is, why are you picking theologians that do not state the covenant of works correctly, then calling it the covenant of works, and then arguing against it as though it were the covenant of works? Maybe as I keep going I will answer my own question. Right now I am puzzled.
 
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.
God gave Adam a lot of work to do. Gen 2:15-20. But that aside there is no difference in believing God and disbelieving Satan.God gave a command and Adam disobeyed the command. There is nothing in the scriptures that says Adam even heard Satan's lies. He chose to please his wife and not God. (Gen 3:6)
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.
Are you saying Adam only had to perform that one act of faith to be granted eternal life?
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.
They are not the teachings of the covenant of works. They are simply the ones you used to contend that there is no covenant of works. (I presume that is your point.) And if it is your point it is also faulty theology and apologetics.
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.”
A covenant of works is a conditional covenant. This is compared to a covenant of grace, which has no conditions put on the covenant recipients, but only on God to perform His covenant promises. A conditional covenant was formed between God and Adam. God: You may if--- God: You may not or---. Covenant of grace. God: I will. Jesus: Believe in me and you will have eternal life.
 
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.
You are using something as the covenant of works that does not correctly state the Edenic covenant of works though. I find it unlikely that any advocates of the covenant of works would agree with what you put forth as the covenant of works, gleaned from a few so called apologists and theologians. At least three on here have already denied that is the correct representation of the covenant of works. Where or where are @Josheb and @His clay and their analysis of logical fallacies being used as arguments, and in this case an entire premise?
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?
Another logical fallacy my friend. The covenant of works is the very foundation of the need for our redemption and the performance of perfect righteousness being necessary for salvation. The covenant of works is what shows us we cannot do it, it is the covenant of works that Jesus kept perfectly. Covenant theology teaches salvation as always been by faith and faith produces obedience to the one in whom the faith is placed.
 
God gave Adam a lot of work to do. Gen 2:15-20. But that aside there is no difference in believing God and disbelieving Satan.God gave a command and Adam disobeyed the command. There is nothing in the scriptures that says Adam even heard Satan's lies. He chose to please his wife and not God. (Gen 3:6)
Thank you for the critiques. They are helpful. You may be right about hearing Satan’s lies - the text does not say. Adam knew it was the forbidden fruit. He disbelieved God.
Are you saying Adam only had to perform that one act of faith to be granted eternal life?
Yes - that is what Genesis explicitly says. Unrestricted/unfettered permission was given to eat from the tree of life. No conditions/preconditions of perfect obedience. I suggest is the only possible takeaway from the explicit texts in Genesis 2 & 3 that I cited.

Permit me to focus 0n the matter of preconditions/perfect obedience. Can you show me in the texts that the ‘freely’ eat command meant all trees except the forbidden tree AND the tree of life? I think freely eat includes the tree of life.
They are not the teachings of the covenant of works. They are simply the ones you used to contend that there is no covenant of works. (I presume that is your point.) And if it is your point it is also faulty theology and apologetics.
Help me out here - is my statement that Adam had to meet the preconditions of perfect obedience before being granted/earning/meriting eternal life not a part of/contrary to the Covenant of Works?
A covenant of works is a conditional covenant. This is compared to a covenant of grace, which has no conditions put on the covenant recipients, but only on God to perform His covenant promises. A conditional covenant was formed between God and Adam. God: You may if--- God: You may not or---. Covenant of grace. God: I will. Jesus: Believe in me and you will have eternal life.
 
Last edited:
I have already stated all that was in this post in posts of my own. My question is, why are you picking theologians that do not state the covenant of works correctly, then calling it the covenant of works, and then arguing against it as though it were the covenant of works? Maybe as I keep going I will answer my own question. Right now I am puzzled.
Can you suggest other authors who state the Covenant of Works in a manner consistent with your beliefs? I documentEd my sources, and acknowledged that I cannot quantify whether they are credible. Gridea seems like a well-respected ”authority.” Fesko is newer.

Who says it “right?”

I think we agree on probation, but the main question in this section is preconditions. I think my statements on preconditions reflect the C.O.W. teachings across the board. Please show me an author who disagrees that the preconditions of personal, perfect and perpetual obedience prior to receiving/earning/meriting/obtaining eternal life do not exist.
 
Again. It is very difficult to argue for or against the covenant of works when the covenant being argued for or against is incorrectly stated in relation to the Scriptures. But I will work through it point by point and address what can be addressed that presents the covenant biblically in my understanding. What I am left to do at the moment is argue against the presentation of a remnant and all saying the same thing, of "authoritative" sources. A wrong never has authority or is authoritative.

Agreed and addressed.

Agreed and addressed. So are you contending that the view of these few theologians is wrong on what the covenant of works is(which I agree with) and therefore there is no covenant of works and the theology is wrong?
If there are no preconditions of perfect obedience, then there are no works to be performed - by Adam or Jesus. There is no earning righteousness/meriting eternal life - for Adam or Jesus. Absent a teaching of required preconditions/works of obedience, there is no Covenant of Works.
 
I would have to ask, are you preparing to dispute ( I have not read everything yet) that there is a covenant of works or disputing what is said about it according to some theologians?

What does perpetuity mean? Time without end. Eternity. In law a period of time can be set for requirements to be met before the thing promised is vested. But no such time is given in either the Edenic or Mosaic covenants of works. And it is not stated in the WLC. The only other alternative is perfect obedience for eternity, or in Jesus' case, until death. Adam was required to be obedient forever, and as long as he was he had access to the tree of life. When he failed in obedience, he no longer had access to it, and that is all the WLC means by the tree of life was a pledge for perfect obedience. He must have needed that tree to live. It was the source of continuing life for him once the first breath of life was breathed into him by God.

As long as he had access to the source of life he would live forever. But he also was capable of dying if separated from that tree. But eating of it did not give eternal life intrinsically to Adam. Its ability to provide life eternally was there.

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.
Just to be clear, my summaries are from apologist for the C.O.W. THEY make the argument for Adam’s descendants to receive imputed eternal life had Adam met the preconditions, etc.

My reading of Genesis 2 & 3 shows the explicit texts say Adam did not have to meet a single precondition, but had from the outset complete and permission to eat from the tree of life with the single condition of not eating from the forbidden tree. No acts or personal, perfect and perpetual obedience.

If there were no pre-conditions, no works required, then there was no covenant of “works.”

Can you show me where my reading of the explicit texts I cite in Genesis is wrong? Can you demonstrate that Adam did NOT have the Lord God’s explicit permission to eat from the tree of life - without first performing acts of personal, perfect and perpetual obedience?

Or are the theologians and WLC #20 all in error?


That is the crux of this section.
 
You are using something as the covenant of works that does not correctly state the Edenic covenant of works though. I find it unlikely that any advocates of the covenant of works would agree with what you put forth as the covenant of works, gleaned from a few so called apologists and theologians. At least three on here have already denied that is the correct representation of the covenant of works. Where or where are @Josheb and @His clay and their analysis of logical fallacies being used as arguments, and in this case an entire premise?

Another logical fallacy my friend. The covenant of works is the very foundation of the need for our redemption and the performance of perfect righteousness being necessary for salvation. The covenant of works is what shows us we cannot do it, it is the covenant of works that Jesus kept perfectly. Covenant theology teaches salvation as always been by faith and faith produces obedience to the one in whom the faith is placed.
What about ;
God created Adam in his image: righteousness (holiness and knowledge of him, Eph 4:24, Col 3:10),
Jesus was born righteous and without sin, as was Adam,
Adam had only not to lose his righteousness, as Jesus had only to do the same, neither had to earn righteousness by law-keeping, for
all righteousness is from God, either by creation or through faith (Hab 2:4 Ro 1:17, 3:22),
righteousness has never been by law-keeping, righteousness has always been by faith (Ge 15:6, Ro 3:28, 4:1-11),
"obedience" is not about works, it is about "belief" (both are the same word, peitho), as are "disbelief" and "disobedience" (apeitheo),
law was never given to make righteous, law was given only to reveal sin (Ro 3:20),
neither Adam nor Jesus had to perform works to become righteous, both came in with righteousness by God.

Is not our need for redemption a matter of our loss of righteousness, which is restored only by God (Ge 15:6, Ro 3:28, 4:1-11), through faith?
 
Last edited:
You are using something as the covenant of works that does not correctly state the Edenic covenant of works though. I find it unlikely that any advocates of the covenant of works would agree with what you put forth as the covenant of works, gleaned from a few so called apologists and theologians. At least three on here have already denied that is the correct representation of the covenant of works. Where or where are @Josheb and @His clay and their analysis of logical fallacies being used as arguments, and in this case an entire premise?

Another logical fallacy my friend. The covenant of works is the very foundation of the need for our redemption and the performance of perfect righteousness being necessary for salvation. The covenant of works is what shows us we cannot do it, it is the covenant of works that Jesus kept perfectly. Covenant theology teaches salvation as always been by faith and faith produces obedience to the one in whom the faith is placed.
My challenge is that the C.O.W. never existed, and this piece focuses on the contradiction of the preconditions for Adam to meet before gaining access to the tree of life. If there were no preconditions of perfect obedience required, then there is no C.O.Works.

There can be a Covenant of Belief - but I am pretty sure the C.O.W. falls apart if one removes the requirement of personal, perfect and perpetual obedience.

I assert that Genesis 2 & 3 explicitly demonstrate that no works of any type were required of Adam before he could eat from the tree of life.

One or the other can be true, but not both.
 
What about ;
God created Adam in his image: righteousness (holiness and knowledge of him, Eph 4:24, Col 3:10),
Jesus was born righteous and without sin, as was Adam,
Adam had only not to lose his righteousness, as Jesus had only to do the same, neither had to earn righteousness by law-keeping, for
all righteousness is from God, either by creation or through faith (Hab 2:4 Ro 1:17, 3:22),
righteousness has never been by law-keeping, righteousness has always been by faith (Ge 15:6, Ro 3:28, 4:1-11),
"obedience" is not about works, it is about "belief" (both are the same word, peitho), as are "disbelief" and "disobedience" (apeitheo),
law was never given to make righteous, law was given only to reveal sin (Ro 3:20),
neither Adam nor Jesus had to perform works to become righteous, both came in with righteousness by God.

Is not our need for redemption a matter of our loss of righteousness, which is only from God (Ge 15:6, Ro 3:28, 4:1-11), through faith?
Thank you, Eleanor. I will address some of this in a later section - for now, I would point out that Paul had a lot to say about those in his day who thought they could earn immortality by good works. I suggest that eternal life has always been available only as a gift of God, and as Abraham served as Paul’s example, belief is the foundation, not works.

More on that later.
 
I feel I am missing comments and getting a little lost in some responses - please forgive me if I have done that to you. It is a little like drinking from a fire hose. I really appreciate seeing the different points of view.

For those who don’t think “Conclusion #1” accurately reflects the doctrine of the C.O.W., especIally in the aspect of the preconditions of personal, perfect and perpetual obedience prior to gaining access to the tree of life/earning the debt of eternal life, please help me by documenting citations from credible (to you) authorities who say that.

I made my case against any preconditions (and probation) using explicit Bible texts.

Am I misrepresenting what is explicitly said in Genesis? Are there texts elsewhere that contradict my assertions about Adam having immediate, free, unfettered and unconditional (save the condition of not eating from the forbidden tree) access to the tree of life?

if there were no preconditions of perfect obedience, then it would seem to me that the only conclusion can be that the Covenant of “Works” never existed.

Bible texts, please.
 
My challenge is that the C.O.W. never existed, and this piece focuses on the contradiction of the preconditions for Adam to meet before gaining access to the tree of life. If there were no preconditions of perfect obedience required, then there is no C.O.Works.
Are you denying that a covenant existed between God and Adam? Many Christians do, even though they do not deny that a covenant with Israel was a covenant of works. They deny the Edenic covenant on the grounds that it does not use the word covenant.

But the conditions of a covenant did exist and it was a covenant of works. It was not a covenant of grace which is a unilateral covenant, meaning it places no requirements on the covenant participants, but only on God to meet the promises of the covenant. The new covenant is unilateral. A covenant of works is a bilateral covenant. Meaning God initiates the covenant and its conditions for Him to fulfill the promises in the covenant, and stipulates the penalties for the participants not meeting the conditions.

Gen 2:15-17 The Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it. And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, "You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for the day that you eat of it you shall surely die." That is a covenant command. The promise of the covenant is the tree of life, mankind having dominion over the creatures, and the care of the garden, to be done so in submission to Him. Adam was planted (placed) into the promise, whereas his progeny do to the fall are not. Adam was created righteous. The covenant breaker would be disobedience to the command and gaining the knowledge of evil. The consequences were losing access to the tree of life, for then humanity was a sinful, not a righteous, being. The ground was cursed, pain and conflict and suffering entered humanity, and the serpent was cursed. And the future promise made---her Seed will crush your head. And that Seed is the only way out of the condition Adam placed mankind in. And how did He do it. By faithfully meeting every requirement of the covenant of works, including that of the Mosaic covenant law. I think you have a misunderstanding of "works."
There can be a Covenant of Belief - but I am pretty sure the C.O.W. falls apart if one removes the requirement of personal, perfect and perpetual obedience.
Perfect personal, perpetual obedience is required. And no one can meet the requirement.Enter the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. That is exactly the place the covenant of works meets the Redeemer who supplies perfect righteousness, substitutes Himself for the sinner on the cross, and where the doctrines of imputation and justification in the covenant of grace come from. The covenant of works. Grace and truth come through Christ. Mercy and justice kiss on the cross.
I assert that Genesis 2 & 3 explicitly demonstrate that no works of any type were required of Adam before he could eat from the tree of life.
Only those misrepresenting the covenant of works say that. The actual covenant of works does not say that.
 
neither Adam nor Jesus had to perform works to become righteous, both came in with righteousness by God.
They had to maintain their righteousness by perfect obedience. I am not the one who ever said they earned their righteousness.
Is not our need for redemption a matter of our loss of righteousness, which is restored only by God (Ge 15:6, Ro 3:28, 4:1-11), through faith?
Yes. I have not said otherwise. Jesus in His perfect righteousness did earn for us His righteousness imputed---justification---on the cross, applied to us through faith.
 
Just to be clear, my summaries are from apologist for the C.O.W. THEY make the argument for Adam’s descendants to receive imputed eternal life had Adam met the preconditions, etc.

My reading of Genesis 2 & 3 shows the explicit texts say Adam did not have to meet a single precondition, but had from the outset complete and permission to eat from the tree of life with the single condition of not eating from the forbidden tree. No acts or personal, perfect and perpetual obedience.
I am summarising from what the biblical doctrine is not the unbiblical one. The biblical statement of the COW does not state that Adam was forbidden to eat of the tree of life. So we can't argue against the COW by using what it is not. We have to argue for or against it according to what it is. So considering that the COW does not teach that Adam was forbidden to eat of the tree of life until he had passed an imaginary probation period or met certain requirements, but that he always had access to the tree of life until he was thrown out of the garden----do you still say there is no covenant of works?
If there were no pre-conditions, no works required, then there was no covenant of “works.”
How does the fact that there were no pre-conditions for having access to the tree of life equal no covenant of works? The conditions were to not having access to the tree of life. Which was to not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. That was the condition that would lose access to the tree of life. Eat of it and you will die. When they ate, they were thrown out and locked out of the garden and the tree of life so the couldn't continue to eat of it.
 
Last edited:
If there are no preconditions of perfect obedience, then there are no works to be performed - by Adam or Jesus. There is no earning righteousness/meriting eternal life - for Adam or Jesus. Absent a teaching of required preconditions/works of obedience, there is no Covenant of Works.
Does the covenant of works really say anything about earning righteousness? We are to be righteous, no ifs, ands, or buts, about it. There are conditions to eternal life with God, a member of His household. Perfect righteousness from birth to death is required. Sin cannot dwell in the house of the Holy. Perfect righteousness does not earn eternal life, it gives eternal life. Perfect righteousness is demonstrated by perfect covenant works. One did that. The Son of God, the Son of Man.
 
Back
Top