Covenant of Works

[Guy Swenson]

Not that it is possible to edit, since, I expect, time to edit has run out, but you do not make clear to the casual reader, that the first paragraph is not your thought, but a stating of what you deny. Maybe you should have put it in quotes.

Good catch. Thank you.

 

[Guy Swenson]

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.

These authors have published books on the topic or included teachings on the doctrine of the C.O.W. in their books. Can you give me an author who, in your opinion, teaches the C.O.W. it correctly? Or citations from authors? I quoted from what I could find.

 

[Arial]

I think you are saying there was absolutely no requirement for Adam to demonstrate any personal, perfect or perpetual obedience before eating from the tree of life. (Obviously he would have had to not eat from the forbidden tree …)

Gen 2 gives no requirement for Adam to eat of the tree of life. The only thing that is said about the tree of life is that it was there, and in Gen 3, after Adam's transgression, it says that he could still eat of it as long as he was still in the Garden. That is all Scripture says about it in Gen. Period.

He had no need to earn righteousness by obedience, nor merit eternal life by any works? Adam could have just walked over to the tree of life, eaten one of the fruits and had eternal life for himself and his posterity?

I would be more inclined to say that he couldn't live unless he ate of the tree of life than to speculate that he had to earn the right to the tree of life. Righteousness is not something that is earned---it is something that is. Adam was created already righteous. The issue was not becoming righteous but remaining righteous. And truly I think the two trees are a representative picture (though also real) of what God already knows He is going to do. Mankind is not the main character in that account. If you want me to explain that farther, let me know. Right now I need to get my morning in gear. For now I will simply say the two trees represent the two 'Adam's'.

 

[Guy Swenson]

Gen 2 gives no requirement for Adam to eat of the tree of life. The only thing that is said about the tree of life is that it was there, and in Gen 3, after Adam's transgression, it says that he could still eat of it as long as he was still in the Garden. That is all Scripture says about it in Gen. Period.

We agree. I would add that eating from the tree of life was included in the permission to freely eat the non-forbidden trees that the Lord God gave.

I would be more inclined to say that he couldn't live unless he ate of the tree of life than to speculate that he had to earn the right to the tree of life. Righteousness is not something that is earned---it is something that is. Adam was created already righteous. The issue was not becoming righteous but remaining righteous. And truly I think the two trees are a representative picture (though also real) of what God already knows He is going to do. Mankind is not the main character in that account. If you want me to explain that farther, let me know. Right now I need to get my morning in gear. For now I will simply say the two trees represent the two 'Adam's'.

I better understand your concerns about Fesko, Grudem, et al. I doubt there are any published C.O.W. authors that agree with no preconditions and no probation. Not a criticism - I happen to share your conclusions on preconditions and probation as not being true to the Scriptures.

 

[ReverendRV]

Post #1 of 7

#3: Federal Headship: Adam was the “federal head” of humanity, and there were no limitations to the extent, reach and impact of that federal headship. Whatever Adam’s spiritual condition became, it would be imputed, imparted and inherited by all his “naturally generated” progeny or descendants.

• If Adam passed probation with personal, perfect, perpetual obedience, then the righteousness he merited by those works of perfect obedience and the eternal life he earned would permit his descendants to have eternal life imputed to them.

The Edenic Covenant of Works was about Adam's Federal Headship as a Human Being; IE the King of the World. As I said earlier, Jesus in his Humanity Purchased Federal Headship back from Satan through paying a Ransom with his Life. Adam had nothing to gain; but everything to Lose. There were no Promises in the Edenic Covenant of Works...

A discussion about Imputation and Impartation would be a good idea. Which is more correct, Adam's Sins were Imputed or Imparted; or both? Impartation is good, since we Inherit the Sin NATURE. Nature is Imparted, not Imputed. Adam could Impart his Sin Nature as you say through Insemination, and we could remain Human. Jesus could only Impute his Righteousness, because if he Imparted it; we would be God...

 

[Guy Swenson]

The Edenic Covenant of Works was about Adam's Federal Headship as a Human Being; IE the King of the World. As I said earlier, Jesus in his Humanity Purchased Federal Headship back from Satan through paying a Ransom with his Life. Adam had nothing to gain; but everything to Lose. There were no Promises in the Edenic Covenant of Works...

A discussion about Imputation and Impartation would be a good idea. Which is more correct, Adam's Sins were Imputed or Imparted; or both? Impartation is good, since we Inherit the Sin NATURE. Nature is Imparted, not Imputed. Adam could Impart his Sin Nature as you say through Insemination, and we could remain Human. Jesus could only Impute his Righteousness, because if he Imparted it; we would be God...

When we get there, federal headship promises to be a fun discussion.

 

[Arial]

We agree. I would add that eating from the tree of life was included in the permission to freely eat the non-forbidden trees that the Lord God gave.

I better understand your concerns about Fesko, Grudem, et al. I doubt there are any published C.O.W. authors that agree with no preconditions and no probation. Not a criticism - I happen to share your conclusions on preconditions and probation as not being true to the Scriptures.

That would depend on the way in which the reader is interpreting what was being said. It has already been shown that the authors you present misinterpreted what the WLC stated and made it fit what they were saying about a probationary period and access to the eating of the tree of life. But moving on---

 

[Mr GLee]

We agree. I would add that eating from the tree of life was included in the permission to freely eat the non-forbidden trees that the Lord God gave.

I better understand your concerns about Fesko, Grudem, et al. I doubt there are any published C.O.W. authors that agree with no preconditions and no probation. Not a criticism - I happen to share your conclusions on preconditions and probation as not being true to the Scriptures.

The word faith throughout the Bible is in reference to the faith or work of Christ's labor of love. Our first love His Holy Spirit giving us ears to hear is understanding, giving us a new heart yoked with His Love.

As it is written three times it made the devil flee.

Not probation "death" You shall surely die and not rise to new spirit life.

We are saved by Christ's labor of love called a work of His faith (belief) Faith is a work of God daily working in us that have no resurrection power to rise.

The "law of faith" the unseen law of God's labor of love it works in us . ".let there be" and the "good testimony" what the eyes see the temporal was God good..

Romans 2:29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; (death) whose praise is not of men, but of God.

Romans 7:6 But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.

Faith (power) separated from works is dead faith. It would be like "Let there be" and nothing changed nothing.

 

[ReverendRV]

When we get there, federal headship promises to be a fun discussion.

I bet!

What about Impartation, which you raised?

@His clay

 

[ReverendRV]

The word faith throughout the Bible is in reference to the faith or work of Christ's labor of love. Our first love His Holy Spirit giving us ears to hear is understanding, giving us a new heart yoked with His Love.

You have a good Point; every Christian believes Christ knew No Sin, and that he was under the Law; therefore Jesus was a Sinless Man because he Kept the Covenant of Works...

It's futile for any Christian to argue against the existence of the Covenant of Works. Sure, we can Debate about the substance of the Covenant of Works; but let's never throw it out...

 

[Guy Swenson]

I bet!

What about Impartation, which you raised?

@His clay

I don’t focus on the differences. I include both, as different authors did. I think my criticisms of federalism are more broad - but perhaps that is for others to judge.

 

[ReverendRV]

I don’t focus on the differences. I include both, as different authors did. I think my criticisms of federalism are more broad - but perhaps that is for others to judge.

Fair enough. How are you enjoying this Forum? You will find some sharp cookies here, to test your four conclusions and seven rebuttals...

Did the Theologians you mention, focus on the differences? I suppose so, since Inherited doesn't mean Imputation or Impartation. I would like to see you get into a discussion about Impartation with @His clay ...

Is your not focusing on the differences, a Case of Special Pleading?

 

[Arial]

(This is are serious questions - I am trying to understand what you mean by the “Biblical statement of the C.O.W.” - I believe Adam could have bel God and plucked the fruit from the tree of life …)

The biblical statement of the Edenic portion of works (that covenant of works did not end with Adam being cast out of the garden, it remained in force and progressed along with the covenant of grace (also given in the Edenic covenant in Gen 3:14-19) into the Mosaic covenant, both fulfilled in Christ (Matt 5:17-20; Rom 10:4; Gal 3:15-29).

Of course it is about believing God. One who believes God does what He says and does not do what He says to not do.
Man is a creature, one made in the image and likeness of God. God is the Creator. Man has a created obligation to His creator to obey Him and to reflect that image in all he does, and says, and thinks. Adam had that ability when he was created. He also had the ability to not obey as seen by the two options given him with the two trees.

Christ is now and always has been the way, the truth, and life. After Adam fell he had something he did not have before. The knowledge of both good and evil. Yes, theoretically, given the scriptures, he could have continued to live in that state forever as long as he had access to the source of life. The option was withheld. He was removed from the source of life as are all his progeny. So the point is not about time tables, and prohibitions, and what ifs. It is about how far we have fallen, so far that only God Himself can restore what has been lost. And this He does in the only way in which it can be done and in the way it was intended to be done before He created our world and all that is in it. And it is not for man's glory, but for His. The serpent who deceived will be destroyed, the tree containing the knowledge of evil will be burned in the fire. We need to get the perspective right which I contend the authors you use to debunk the covenant of works had upside down. And what they say afterwards concerning other aspects of the covenant of works, I have not yet read or addressed. It is possible that the first premise being wrong all that follows will also be, at some points. Depends on if they bring the first into what follows or set it aside as though it does not really apply. On whether or not they say those things and include them in a linear fashion in presenting the covenant of works, or forget all about it.

 

[Mr GLee]

When we get there, federal headship promises to be a fun discussion.

New word for me.

Federal Headship as in the confederacy, or another meaning?

Isaiah 8:12 Say ye not, A confederacy, to all them to whom this people shall say, A confederacy; neither fear ye their fear, nor be afraid.

Obadiah 1:7 All the men of thy confederacy have brought thee even to the border: the men that were at peace with thee have deceived thee, and prevailed against thee; they that eat thy bread have laid a wound under thee: there is none understanding in him.

Believers are under the head ship of all things written the law and prophets. The living word (sola scriptura as it is written) the unseen law of faith

Christ in us working to both to hear his will and empower us to believe in a God not seen to his glory alone.

No glory in dying flesh and blood. Jesus said of his own flesh it profits for nothing. What did profit was the ok of the Spirt the gospel of our salvation. We look to the unseen eternal not the things seen the faithless or powerless (no faith as it is written Pharisees with Sadducees a confederacy

 

[ReverendRV]

New word for me.

And you call yourself a Calvinist

But you don’t have to be a Calvinist to accept Federal Headship and the Covenant of Works...

 

[Guy Swenson]

Fair enough. How are you enjoying this Forum? You will find some sharp cookies here, to test your four conclusions and seven rebuttals...

Did the Theologians you mention, focus on the differences? I suppose so, since Inherited doesn't mean Imputation or Impartation. I would like to see you get into a discussion about Impartation with @His clay ...

Is your not focusing on the differences, a Case of Special Pleading?

When you see the content, I will let you be the judge of that.

 

[Eleanor]

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.

Consider:

Scripturally, bilateral conditional covenants are conditioned on the demonstrated agreement and observance of both parties in order to keep the covenant in force.
Scripture presents only two bilateral conditional covenants, the Abrahamic (Ge 17:4, 9, "as for me," "as for you") and the Sinaitic (Ex 19-24).

Scripture regards the command of Eden as law (Ro 5:12-14), not as covenant, and demonstrates the imputation of Adam's sin to mankind (Ro 5:18-19) based on the fact of that law/command being transgressed.

Earthly covenants are made with sinners who have no grounds for expecting anything good from God.
Likewise, God's covenants with his people are cut in blood, Abrahamic (Ge 15:9-21), Sinaitic (Ex 24:4-8), New (1 Co 11:25).

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."

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.

Only those misrepresenting the covenant of works say that. The actual covenant of works does not say that.

 

[Josheb]

Thank you for the recommendations. I’ve tried to find “credible” apologists who represent whatever constitutes “mainstream Calvinism.” That may not be realistic. These summaries or conclusions are the product of what I have read or heard from Fesko, Grudem, Abrendroth, The Pactum and other sources. I do not believe the C.O.W. is consistent with Scripture, but before I share those views, I want to make sure my analysis accurately reflects the teachings. Hence my use of what I think are reputable apologists. I like your comment “For now, I will say I am a stickler for scripture, and the necessity of building doctrine on scripture that exegetically well rendered - beginning with what is explicitly stated in scripture and not proof-texted.”

I completely agree.

An old friend of mine used to say that sound doctrine “springs” from Scripture, rather than having to be read into the texts.

Hope this helps …

Good morning Guy, and everyone else ,

For now, since this is my first post in a couple of days (I may return for other comments as I go through my notifications feed).

First, I recommend R. C. Sproul (rip) and Ligonierdotorg. Sproul was well and diversly read, prodigious in output, and fairly "down the middle" as a Calvinist. I also like him because he wasn't afraid of changing his views in new and better information was discovered and, perhaps more importantly, he was not a strict determinist. For still greater diversity but also more historical and more ardent views on either end of the spectrum try monergismdotcom. Both cites are great resources and monergismdotcom is huge.

At the risk of stating the obvious and turning your intent on its head... Of course the "covenant of works is not scriptural! How could something not actually found in scripture be scriptural? Satire aside, the correct view of COW is that faith begets faithfulness, not the other way around., and from the monergist pov, faith is a gift from God. Faith itself is gifted, not merely the faculty by which faith can be asserted in the still-sinful flesh. I'd suggest a corollary to your old friend's saying, "what many people think is sound doctrine 'springs' from the way they read scripture," because the fact is synergists read scripture differently than monergists and both groups claim the authority of scripture.

I'll get back to you once I've perused the thread.

 

[Guy Swenson]

When you see the content, I will let you be the judge of that.

And I am enjoying the interaction, interrogation of premises, and getting a better understanding of the wide variety of beliefs. It is all very helpful.

 

[Josheb]

I would offer..

1 Peter 1:18 Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers;

We are not redeemed with corruptible, temporal things like the blood dying mankind. The life of the flesh is in the blood but that life is spirit life not seen coming from God. Dust has no spirit life of its own. Pagan tradition "out of sight out of mind" .No unseen God reigning in the hard hearts . Blood as a metaphor like a lamb was the plan of God before he faithfully said "let there be " the testimony came 2000 years ago[.] it remains good[.] In that way we walk by faith God's understanding .Yoked with him our burdens are lighter

1 Peter 1:19-20 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you, the demonstration is over still having its efect in these last days

Now tie it into the topic at hand, the covenant of works.