Covenant of Works

[Eleanor]

Hmmmm ... Not understanding this yet.

So this Edenic Covenant had no upside - no promise - no option to eat from the tree of life/eternal life?

”splain this to me … remember I can’t read real fast, so type slow …

Obedience (to the command not to eat) was works.

 

[ReverendRV]

Obedience (to the command not to eat) was works.

As the Command not to Steal is a Work of Abstinence...

 

[Arial]

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.

I will get to that later as I need to catch up to where the conversation has gone into the second issue. I will need to do research to find the quotes, although I did give one earlier from Ligonier. If I forget, remind me.

 

[Eleanor]

I bet!

What about Impartation, which you raised?

@His clay

Is righteousness not both imputed (Ge 15:6, Ro 4:1-11) by faith, and imparted in obedience of the Holy Spirit, which leads to righteousness leading to holiness (Ro 6:16, 19, 22); i.e., sanctification?

 

[Eleanor]

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?

Are they not distinguished by the fact that imputation is in regard to salvation past (Ge 15:6, Ro 4:1-11), while impartation is in regard to salvation present (Ro 6:16, 19, 22)?

 

[ReverendRV]

Post #1 of 7

If Adam failed and sinned, then every “naturally generated” (conceived by human insemination) descendant of Adam also participated in the actual sin of disobedience – eating the forbidden fruit – by Adam being the “federal representative” of all humanity – and is also guilty of that sin. Therefore, from conception, every person is judged, condemned and sentenced to an eternity of suffering in the fires of hell.

As I said earlier, Federal Headship doesn't have a Real Participation within it; but has Representation in it. Covenant Theology can support Ken Hammrick's 'Real Participation' found in Biblical Realism, but it's not Federal Headship...

Also, Sentencing isn't part of a Broken Covenant of Works. Sentencing comes on Judgment Day. Condemnation for All is due to a Broken Covenant of Works...

 

[Eleanor]

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,

Refresh me on the Scriptural presentation of reflecting God's image.
I see obligation to submit and glorify God in obedience, but where is "reflecting" God's image?
God does not "submit," God is not "obedient," God's image is not about absence of murder, adultery, theft, false witnessing, covetousness.

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.

 

[Arial]

I believe a covenant was offered to Adam by granting access to the tree of life and forbidden access to the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Adam had a clear choice to make, and he did choose.

Covenants aren't offered. They are made. Adam broke the covenant but the covenant still exists. The covenant of grace enters the picture when Adam breaks the covenant of works, but it does not remove the covenant of works---it works through/alongside it. God makes covenants with humans as a way of self revelation and as a way of showing the Creator/creation relationship. No matter what man does, God remains the same and man's responsibility to Him remains the same. It is this revelation by God, this point, that is being missed.

If no, then we agree that no works were required for Adam to gain eternal life in the Edenic Covenant/C.O.W.

Works were required to keep eternal life. Again the above statement ignores the Creator/created dynamic. Theology, doctrines, interpretation must always include and start with who God is, and go from there to who man is. This statement begins with man and not God as Creator. And if one jumps ahead to the conclusion of the Scriptures (which we have and they did not) we see that God was restoring the intended God/creature relationship and in the process destroying the tree that offered the knowledge of evil. Removing it from His creation and the creature becomes not what he was at creation---corruptible and immortal---but incorruptible and immortal.

2. What are the key differences between what Grudem/Fesko stated (and I quoted) and what you believe to be true? A simple list would be helpful.

I believe I have stated them and what I believe to be true. If you need a list, I will provide it later. I need to catch up to where the objections to the COW have gone.

3. Was it possible for an Israelite under the Mosaic covenant to obey perfectly and earn eternal life?

No it was not possible due to the fall. That does not mean it was not still required. Creature/creature dynamic. In theory, if someone did keep the MOsaic covenant of works perfectly from birth and on into eternity, as he would not die in that case, then yes, he would have eternal life. That is why Jesus did keep it perfectly unto death. And why death could not hold Him, how He was able to defeat death and sin, and by His substitution for God's people, defeat the power of Adam's sin and their sins to condemn them. Adam's sin imputed to Him on the cross. His righteousness imputed to the believer by faith in Him. God's justice against Adam's sin and our sins is satisfied in this and we are declared justified before Him.

 

[ReverendRV]

Post #1 of 7

• The second Adam, Jesus, was perfectly obedient. Only by His works of personal, perfect, and perpetual obedience did Jesus earn righteousness, merit eternal life and is able to offer both righteousness and eternal life to those whom He chooses.
• Either Adam, or Jesus, as the second, Adam, is your federal head. Whether you have a condemnation or eternal life, imputed to you is determined by who your federal head is.

This is great, but Jesus earned his Human righteousness through the Mosaic Covenant of Works; not the Edenic Covenant of Works...

 

[Arial]

Refresh me on the Scriptural presentation of reflecting God's image.
I see obligation to submit and glorify God in obedience, but where is "reflecting" God's image?
God does not "submit," God is not "obedient," God's image is not about absence of murder, adultery, theft, false witnessing, covetousness.

Answer the question of what an image is, add to that what a likeness is, and you will have your answer. What is an image for instance in a pool of water or a mirror? It is not the thing it reflects, but it looks like it. What is a likeness? If we relate this to God creating something in His likeness, the something is not God, but is similar to Him in many ways. In what ways are we similar to Him? Our being is like His, but it is of the earth, in the flesh, and His is spirit, and comes from Him. "In Him we live and move and have our being." Romans 11:36 "For from Him and through Him and for Him are all things." In our flesh we are to live, and move, and be, as He is. Our thoughts, our words, our actions and choices.

 

[ReverendRV]

Post #1 of 7

#4: Salvation Is by Works: Salvation depended on someone finally fulfilling the Covenant of Works.

• The Covenant of Works, and the ability to earn eternal life by a person’s perfect obedience earning righteousness, continued until the death of Jesus. (Jesus fulfilled the Covenant of Works, and therefore it no longer was in force after His death.)
• Unfortunately, due to being “naturally generated,” not one of Adam’s descendants could fulfill the preconditions of a life of personal, perfect, and perpetual obedience, and thereby earn righteousness and eternal life for themselves and their progeny.
• Why is this? Because every one of Adam’s “naturally generated” descendants inherited the guilt from Adam’s “original” sin. As already noted, from conception, everyone was guilty of Adam’s sin.
• However, Jesus was not a descendant of Adam by “natural generation,” had no guilt from the original sin, and therefore He could demonstrate personal, perfect, and perpetual obedience to God.
• Jesus fulfilled the Covenant of Works, and it was ONLY through His works of perfect obedience that Jesus earned righteousness and eternal life that could be imputed or imparted to others of His choosing.

I agree. Deuteronomy 28 reveals that the Mosaic Covenant of Works will be the Righteousness of the Jews. The Covenant of Works is a Crucial aspect of the New Covenant...

 

[Mr GLee]

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...

Covenant of Works. Yes, empowered by the Father. The one demonstration of two. One unseen eternal Spirit of faith and two, the son of man Jesus seen, the temporal. The one witness of two.

Again, I offer as the eternal "law of faith" the unseen law. . . . creating a testimony seen, the temporal. The law of creation both the first "let there" be that fall of mankind and two, the new creatures born again from above. Christian new creatures' sons of God .

1 John 3:1-2 Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not. Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.

 

[Eleanor]

I am not the topic of this thread.

Nevertheless, the views expressed by you in other posts have significant bearing on the subject of this thread.

No one "demeaned" anything...... except for Post #136 overtly demeaning me personally.
The fact is proof-texting is bad practice and it rarely leads to sound doctrine or practice. On most occasions when I note the problem of proof-texting I include a link explaining the problem and linking others to other resources, and I do that for the edification of all involved (not demeaning another). Proof-texting is an objectively observable, objectively verifiable error, not something that is a matter of subjective preference or "aversion."
Proof-texting Proof-texting Proof-texting Proof-texting Proof-texting Proof-texting Proof-texting Proof-texting Proof-texting Proof-texting
The above is ten different links to ten different sources from diverse theological perspectives ALL speaking uniformly to the problem of proof-texting. It is bad practice. Here's a link to a .pdf defending proof-texting and it's from someone on the Reformed end of the spectrum!
Do not confusing proof texts with proof-texting. Learn the difference.

"Physician, heal thyself."

Now back to the op.

 

[Mr GLee]

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

The covenant of works is not of the corrupted dying mankind But the incorruptible covenant work of God .

1 Peter 1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

 

[Eleanor]

This is great, but Jesus earned his Human righteousness through the Mosaic Covenant of Works; not the Edenic Covenant of Works...

Covenants aren't offered. They are made. Adam broke the covenant but the covenant still exists.

But the terms of that covenant, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, does not still exist.
No terms, no covenant; and no covenant, no bilateral covenant.

The covenant of grace enters the picture when Adam breaks the covenant of works, but it does not remove the covenant of works---it works through/alongside it. God makes covenants with humans as a way of self revelation and as a way of showing the Creator/creation relationship. No matter what man does, God remains the same and man's responsibility to Him remains the same. It is this revelation by God, this point, that is being missed.
Works were required to keep eternal life. Again the above statement ignores the Creator/created dynamic. Theology, doctrines, interpretation must always include and start with who God is, and go from there to who man is. This statement begins with man and not God as Creator. And if one jumps ahead to the conclusion of the Scriptures (which we have and they did not) we see that God was restoring the intended God/creature relationship and in the process destroying the tree that offered the knowledge of evil. Removing it from His creation and the creature becomes not what he was at creation---corruptible and immortal---but incorruptible and immortal.
I believe I have stated them and what I believe to be true. If you need a list, I will provide it later. I need to catch up to where the objections to the COW have gone.
No it was not possible due to the fall. That does not mean it was not still required. Creature/creature dynamic. In theory, if someone did keep the MOsaic covenant of works perfectly from birth and on into eternity, as he would not die in that case, then yes, he would have eternal life. That is why Jesus did keep it perfectly unto death. And why death could not hold Him, how He was able to defeat death and sin, and by His substitution for God's people, defeat the power of Adam's sin and their sins to condemn them. Adam's sin imputed to Him on the cross. His righteousness imputed to the believer by faith in Him. God's justice against Adam's sin and our sins is satisfied in this and we are declared justified before Him.

 

[ReverendRV]

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?”

I understand your Premise. I can see now that I am going to be applying my favorite Logical Fallacy often in response to you from now on; IE the Logical Fallacy of making Category Mistakes...

I would say there is no Falsifiable Conclusions Fallacy, nor a Falsifiable Process Fallacy, which can be applied to the CATEGORY known as the Covenant of Works. Sure, those Fallacies can be applied to a Straw Man Covenant of Works. But regarding the Covenant of Works, they are not applicable; because the Bible says All Scripture is Good for Doctrine. As Christians, we should expect Good Doctrine exists which is Unasailable by Logical Fallicies. Such as the Doctrine of the Hypostatic Union; it is a Good Doctrine which is Unasailable by Falsifiable Processes and Conclusions...

So No, the Doctrine of the Covenant of Works doesn't come into Conflict with ANY clear example of Scripture. Why? Because of it's Category. For instance, a Verse which says we're Saved by Grace, is not Contrary to a Verse which says we're Saved through the Covenant of Works; because that Verse would only be true of different Categories. So it would be a Mistake to stuff an unwanted Pretext into the Covenant of Works. It wouldn't be a Logical Fallacy to leave a Verse out of the Covenant of Works; right? Is it a Fallacy of Falsifiable Conclusions to insert a clearly Eschatological Verse into the Edenic Covenant of Works? Yes, it is. It is acceptable though to only include relevant Verses and apply them to a Biblical Category such as Covenants and the GodMan...

 

[Eleanor]

 

[ReverendRV]

I understand your Premise. I can see now that I am going to be applying my favorite Logical Fallacy often in response fromnow on; the Logical Fallacy of making Category Mistakes...

I would say there is no Falsifiable Conclusions Fallacy, nor a Falsifiable Process Fallacy, which can be applied to the CATEGORY known as the Covenant of Works. Sure, those Fallacies can be applied to a Straw Man Covenant of Works. But regarding the Covenant of Works, they are not applicable; because the Bible says All Scripture is Good for Doctrine. As Christians, we should expect Good Doctrine exists which is Unasailable by Logical Fallicies. Such as the Doctrine of the Hypostatic Union; it is a Good Doctrine which is Unasailable by Falsifiable Processes and Conclusions...

So No, the Doctrine of the Covenant of Works doesn't come into Conflict with ANY clear example of Scripture. Why? Because of it's Category. For instance, a Verse which says we're Saved by Grace, is not Contrary to a Verse which says we're Saved by the Covenant of Works; because the Verses would be true of different Categories. So it would be a Mistakes to stuff an unwanted Pretext into the Covenant of Works. It wouldn't be a Logical Fallacy to leave a Verse out of the Covenant of Works; right? Is it a Fallacy of Falsifiable Conclusions to leave a clearly Eschatological Verse out of the Covenant of Works? No, it's not. It is acceptable to only include relevant Verses to a Biblical Category such as Covenants and the GodMan...

Contrariety ~ by ReverendRV * Februray 24

Proverbs 26:4-5 KJV; Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him. ~ Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.

Which is it?? If a person gives an answer to a fool and honors verse 5, he is contrary to verse 4. If a person does not give a fool an answer and honors verse 4, he is contrary to verse 5. What a Contradiction! Contradictions are one of the reasons people choose to not believe in the Bible. But the Bible claims to be Inerrant, and Christians teach there are no Contradictions in the Bible. You interject, “No Contradictions in the Bible?? It is full of Contradictions and your verses are a prime example; back to back, each Contradicting the other. The Bible violates the Law of Non-Contradiction!” ~ We accept the Law of Non-Contradiction; we just assert that this Law is not broken by any verse in the Bible. Philosophically speaking, our example isn’t a Contradiction but is a Contrariety. A Contrariety is anything contrary or of opposite character; a contrary fact or statement. Being Contrary isn’t the same as being a Contradiction. In our Mind, being Contrary has negative, rebellious connotations. ~ Northern magnetic poles are both Contrary and alike…

But you ask, “What makes the claims in the Bible 'facts’?” ~ One of the best ways to show that the Bible is indeed factual is through the Dead Sea Scrolls. They are ancient copies of the Bible, found in some caves in Israel. There are two whole copies of the Book of Isaiah and one of them can be dated back to over two hundred years before the time of Christ. Because of this, we can read them and see they are essentially the same as the material we have now. But the crucial point is that the Book of Isaiah is full of prophesies of the coming of Jesus Christ! Since we have dated the material to pre-exist the time of Jesus, we can see that the Old Testament was not amended at a later date to picture him. When we read Isaiah 53, we could almost think we are reading the New Testament. ~ This chapter is just the tip of the Iceberg of examples for Jesus…

There are no Contradictions in the Bible. If it seems so, they’re either a Contrariety, Antimony or a Paradox. Because of this, we can know that Sin entered into the world through one man and Death through Sin. The wages of Sins such as Lying, Stealing, Adultery and Godlessness is Death; even an eternal Death in Hell. ~ But God so Loved the world, he sent his only Son to live a Holy, perfect Life. Jesus is this Son of God and because of his Righteous Life’s record, God was pleased with him. Jesus Willingly went to the Cross to die in the place of born again Sinner; spilling his blood as an acceptable sacrifice. He arose from the grave, was seen alive by 500 people, then ascended to his throne in Heaven as God. When you put your Faith in Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior, you will be Forgiven and Saved; receiving the perfect record that he earned. We are Saved by God’s Grace through Faith, without Works; Repent and believe! ~ Find an Evangelical Church and give up your foolishness. Otherwise, there comes a time when the Holy Spirit will no longer strive with a Fool. God will honor the Proverb to no longer answer a Fool in his folly…

Isaiah 9:6 KJV: For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

 

[Josheb]

Conclusion #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.”

Sub Points:

1. 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.

2. 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.

is this correct?

Wow. You folks have been busy!

Post 20 is my analysis of the op's "Conclusion 1," so I'll answer the question asked, "Is this correct?" in the negative, but with qualification. The problem is that "proving one's perfect righteousness" is not possible in the flesh. I suspect there is an unstated presuppositional concern assumed that undergirds that pov in your sources. The presupposition is that righteousness is measured by some external measure (such as God Himself (Mt. 5:48), or God's Law (1 Jn. 3:4) or obedience to God's commands. This is only partly correct. If I word the matter in terms of "sin" instead of "righteousness" the problem is we sin because we're sinful and sinful because we sin. It's a sort of feedback loop, and most posters couch the matter in only one of the two options: either 1) a person has broken some law and made himself sinful, or 2) every person is only inherently sinful and can do nothing but sin.

But, Josh, prior to Genesis 3:6 Adam had not sinned and he was declared good by God Himself.

Amen! The problem is that good does not mean perfect, complete, or mature. There is also the problem of defining righteousness or its antitheses with proof texts when scripture defines these conditions diversely (for example, sin is also anything not done in faith - Rom. 14:23 - and the righteous live by faith). However, for the purposes of this post I'll focus on something Paul wrote about the resurrection (1 Cor. 15). I've written about this often. It's the problem of corruptibility. This has to do with the differences, the distinctions between being incorruptible, uncorrupted, corruptible, and corrupt.

• Uncorrupted (or not-corrupted) = Not corrupt or corrupted.
• Corrupt = Adulterated, impure, or ruined in some way.
• Corruptible = Able to be corrupted, adulterated, made impure, or ruined in some way.
• Incorruptible = NOT able to be corrupted. Only God is not able to be corrupted. The fall of the angels and the fall of humanity prove humans are corruptible.

We've all become corrupted but prior to Genesis 3:6 that was not a condition in which Adam lived. Adam was uncorrupted, not-corrupted, or not-yet-corrupted. Adam was made good, and there was no sin in him (he had not yet disobeyed God, nor had he denied God or his trust in Him). However, Adam was able to disobey God, able to deny God's preeminence, able to fail in trusting God and believing Him. That is the way God made him! God made him good and sinless, but God also made him capable of being not-good and sinful.

The idea that a corruptible human could live for centuries and never ever disobey God is questionable given the report of scripture. For one, it would have made that part of Christ's entrance into history unnecessary, and that premise causes a huge variety of conflicts with Christianity. This confronts the notion of a "probationary period," because no matter how long Adam lived, he'd still be corruptible, even if he had never disobeyed God and become corrupt.

Corruptibility is the problem to be solved (at least one of them at any rate).

1 Corinthians 15:42-44, 51-53
So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown a perishable body, it is raised an imperishable body; it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.... Behold, I tell you a mystery; we will not all sleep, but we will all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet; for the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. For this perishable must put on the imperishable, and this mortal must put on immortality.

We cannot be perfect as God is perfect while still corruptible. The NAS I just quoted uses the word, "perishable," but the Greek word it "phthora" which means decay, rot, decomposing, or corruption (G5356). Adam was not just made mortal; he was also made corruptible, or with the ability to disobey God - disobeyable .

So, it would not have matter how long the "probationary period was because part of the problem was Adam's corruptibility and that was inherent. It was ontological! His very nature had to be changed and Adam was incapable of doing that all by himself. No amount of fleshly work could make him ontologically different, even if that fleshly work was good work done with good flesh. That is why I am inclined to reject the notion of a probationary period. Later scripture tells me the problem is much greater than a temporary condition solvable by good human good effort.

When God tells Adam (and Eve to be fruitful and multiply, subdue the earth and rule over it that is certainly, definitely work and given the ensuing blessings and curses reported in the text that command, that mission, that relationship qualifies as a covenant, even if the actual word is not stated (and you all know how reluctant I am to accept things not stated ). A better way to look at it is to understand the tree of life was always necessary, even in the good, sinless and obedient state. Adam was going to die one way or another unless he ate from the fruit of the tree by which living forever was possible (Gen. 3:22), which could have happened at any time. It's a great mystery why Adam did not partake of that tree previously . His doing so after disobedience was a problem, but that problem was already covered by Jesus (1 Pet. 1:20). The problem of corruption was covered, but so too was the problem of corruptibility! BOTH conditions were covered already.

So, this is another reason why a time-limited probationary period and covenant or works seem dubious to me. Even if Adam had passed the probationary period he'd still have been corruptible AND the covenant found in Christ was already in place either way. Even before a single cell of Adam was made Jesus, the tree of life, was the only way to get to the Father incorruptibly and immortally. Walking with God in the garden is not the same thing.



A bit digressive, but I'll mention it for consideration. These matters have significant import because they affect our Christology. If Jesus' statement like, "I am the resurrection and the life" (Jn. 11:25) and "I am the way... and no one comes to the Father but by me," (Jn. 14:6) are taken as written then they are also ontological statements. Jesus did not say, "I will become the resurrection." He am the resurrection before he'd died, before he'd resurrected, before he'd ascended. He am the resurrection before the world was created. His obtaining a resurrection from the dead was accomplished by works, but his being the resurrection is not by works. If our Christology does not include the eternal nature of Jesus being the resurrection and the ONLY way to get to the Father, the only means by which we might be made incorruptible and immortal then we have a much, much different Christology than historical, orthodox Christianity. That, in turn, calls into question then nature of one's soteriology (doctrinally) or salvation (existentially). This turns out to be very important.

 

[Guy Swenson]

Hi @Guy Swenson, welcome to the forum (although I believe we've traded posts elsewhere if my memory serves me well.

If it hasn't already been done then I recommend reading Stephen Wellum's "Kingdom Through Covenant" and "God's Kingdoms Through Covenants," and Michael D. Williams' "As Far as the Curse is Found" and other sources positing and explaining what's come to be called "Progressive Covenantalism," or the belief the Bible's mentions of covenants should be understood as a progressive revelation, or a revelation of covenant that progresses to reveal God's one redemptive plan for his one people that finds fulfillment in Christ and the "new covenant." In other words, there's really only one covenant but it is revealed incrementally in progressive manner.

Of course, any covenant of works stands apart from that which is found in Christ but just as obvious is the fact neither phrase "covenant of works" or "covenant of grace" are phrases found explicitly stated in the scriptures. Ask yourself if in all your reading you ever found Fesko, Abendroth, Grudem, or Calvin acknowledging those facts . I call myself monergist but contribute to the forums as a Calvinists for the sake of ease. Monergism comes in many forms (Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Pink, Sproul, Frame, etc.) and should not be thought monolithic. For good or bad the soteriology that believes God is the sole causal agent in salvation is generically called "Calvinism," even if it departs in some places from Calvin's views.

This next suggestion may sound crazy but Some reading of John Rousas Rushdoony's "The Institutes of the Biblical Law" or "Law and Liberty" (if you can find them) or Greg Bahnsen's "By This Standard" (which is free in e-format). Rushdoony and Bahnsen (Gentry, Chilton, Demar and many others) are Reconstructionists, Postmillennial, Dominionist, Theonomists, Reconstructionists which is a fringe view form most of us. I recommend those books because theonomy asserts the laws of God found in the OT remain in place, at least in principle, unless explicitly terminated or canceled in the NT. The Zondervan Counterpoints series book, "Five Views on Law and Gospel" surveys five different views on the subject the OT Law of Moses relevant to the gospel of Christ.

These recommendations will more diversely inform your thinking on Covenant Theology and, by extension the covenant of works.

Thank you for the recommendations. Fesko actually does point out that “Covenant of Works” is not found in Scripture.

I'll handle this content in a separate post. 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. My fellow CCAMers will tell you I can be quite bothersome with these expectations. The honest and forthcoming ones will also tell you it is difficult to argue against such a case.

Amen on the importance of Scripture - read explicitly and in context. I expect it of myself and others.

For example, my first thought was, "Where is the mention of a 'probationary period' in scripture?" Perhaps there is such a statement and I am unaware of its existence. I know the Bible fairly well but I don't know everything. Show me where I can find "probationary period" explicitly mentioned and I'll accept the argument (presto, changeo, just like that because the proof was provided!). Absent an explicit mention the next best option is 1) an honest and forthcoming acknowledgment the phrase is NOT explicitly mentioned in scripture and it is a post-canonical phrase asserted by man-made doctrine (which is what most of this thread will be about) and then 2) you making the case for the valid, veracious, and efficacious use of the phrase with that case made from well-rendered or exegetically rendered scripture. When you do this in your own words it sharpens your own faculties, improves your argument (making it more impervious to critics), and most importantly proves the matter.

So where's the scripture?

As you read, that is exactly my question. Unsupported assertions and/or Scripturally contradicted assertions should be called out. This is what I do to Fesko, Grudem, et al in my writing.

I also tend to be an exacting sort of poster on occasions like this, and it can bug the most patient and tolerant so let me also say I am likely (as time permits) to go through this portion of your opening post line by line. According to some, I'm fairly good at forensic analysis. I'll say this: I have no expectation you will respond to every little detail I post. Since this is only your first point and it has multiple sub-points, the thread could prove lengthy, detailed, and perhaps tedious. Take what you like from my posts and respond as you see fit. I'll endeavor to avoid, "You ignored X

I appreciate a robust interrogation of what I write.