Covenant of Works

[Josheb]

The covenant of works is not...

What is the "covenant of works" as you understand it?

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

The op is not explicit defining the phrase (perhaps @Guy Swenson could clarify, elaborate, and specify) but it appears the covenant of works described in this op has to do with a probationary period of time BEFORE Adam was "corrupted dying mankind." It appears you are defining the term differently than as defined in the op.

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.

Yes, Jesus was not born of corruptible seed, but what has that to do with Adam's purported covenant of works in the still good, sinless, and pre-disobedient state?

You following this 1 Pet. 1:23 reference, @Guy Swenson? Here's that mention of corruptibility again (see Post 281 above). Adam? Corruptible. Born that way. Jesus? Incorruptible. Born that way.

 

[Josheb]

I appreciate a robust interrogation of what I write.

hehehehe...

(he says that now) I hope that's true because some folks hate what I do in the forums. Can we change the word "interrogation" to "inquiry"?




I gotta go but I'll finish perusing the thread later and comment accordingly
.

 

[Eleanor]

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

But the terms, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, no longer exists.
No terms, no covenant; 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.

Physical death and eternal life are not opposed, nor mutually exclusive.
It's not either/or, it's both/and for the believer.

For the difference between eternal life and physical life is not simply duration.
Eternal life is more about quality (God's divine life) than about quantity (duration).
Eternal life is not about no physical death, it is about possession of God's divine life, which is spiritual (of the Holy Spirit) life.
The penalty for disobedience in Eden was loss of eternal life, which then resulted in future loss of physical life--"Dying, you shall die." (Ge 2:17)
I both will die physically, while having eternal life now, possessing both the malady (from Adam) and the remedy (from Christ) at the same time.

We are created either with (as in Adam) or without eternal life (as in mankind).
We will all die physically, both with and without eternal life.
I will die physically, even with 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.

 

[Eleanor]

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.

I agree on the nature of an image, but I see only submission and obedience stated for the manifestation of God's glory, I don't find "mirroring" his image for such.

 

[ReverendRV]

Post #2 of 7

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:

I would say this is a good summation of the Presbyterian Covenant of Works; but not of the Baptist Covenant of Works. The Edenic Covenant of Works differ from Denomination to Denomination...

Do we need to stick to your Presbyterian Theologians only?

 

[Guy Swenson]

I would say this is a good summation of the Presbyterian Covenant of Works; but not of the Baptist Covenant of Works. The Edenic Covenant of Works differ from Denomination to Denomination...

Do we need to stick to your Presbyterian Theologians only?

I am good with hearing the different viewpoints. It would help me if they were identified …

 

[Guy Swenson]

hehehehe...

(he says that now) I hope that's true because some folks hate what I do in the forums. Can we change the word "interrogation" to "inquiry"?




I gotta go but I'll finish perusing the thread later and comment accordingly
.

I tell my friends who i ask to critique my writing “It is OK to leave my blood on the page …“

 

[ReverendRV]

I am good with hearing the different viewpoints. It would help me if they were identified …

Reformed Baptists believe Adam could eat from the Tree of Life as soon as he was told by God he could eat it. Yet, we remain Covenant Theologians; differing with Presbyterians on this doesn't disqualify us...

So far, you could hold to the Covenant of Works; if you wanted to...

 

[Guy Swenson]

I tell my friends who i ask to critique my writing “It is OK to leave my blood on the page …“

Did you see the link to a PDF version of ”Conclusion #1?”

 

[Eleanor]

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...

And we know how that went (Ro 3:9, 19-20, 23).

I see earthly blessings as the result of covenant obedience, but I see no righteousness promised in Dt 28.
Particularly in light of Ro 1:17, 3:21, Php 3:9 where righteousness is only, and always has been (Ge 15:6, Ro 4:1-11) only from God.
Man is either created righteous, declared forensically righteous because of faith (Ro 3:28) and righteousness imparted through obedience in the Holy Spirit (Php 2:13, Ro 6:16-22).

 

[Guy Swenson]

Did you see the link to a PDF version of ”Conclusion #1?”

Here it is:

Covenant of Works - Overview and Conclusion #1

guyswenson.craft.me

 

[ReverendRV]

Post #2 of 7

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.

Again, it depends on Categories. There is a Doctrine called the Hypostatic Union; what you say here doesn't apply to it. When a Verse Teaches Jesus is a Man, but another Verse Teaches Jesus is God; the Conclusion that Jesus is the GodMan is not invalidated by your Premise. Your Premise is used by Judaism and Islam, right? Your Premise invalidates the Hypostatic Union in Oneness Pentecostalism...

Your Premise can be turned on you. When a Verse says we can seek God, the Verse which says no one Seeks God disrupts the Doctrine of Total Ability. What do you do when the shoe is on the other foot?

 

[Arial]

I agree on the nature of an image, but I see only submission and obedience stated for the manifestation of God's glory, I don't find "mirroring" his image for such.

You don't think God's glory is seen when we mirror His character?

 

[Bob Carabbio]

“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.”

Sounds like nothing more than "Rank Speculation".

BUT HEY!!! this is the first time I've heard of a supposed "Covenant of works". Sounds like "just another" fantasy, cobbled together by "professional theologians". As good a "theory" as any I suppose.

But as a "theological eclectic" I don't have to pay any attention to "Systematics".

 

[ReverendRV]

Sounds like nothing more than "Rank Speculation".

BUT HEY!!! this is the first time I've heard of a supposed "Covenant of works". Sounds like "just another" fantasy, cobbled together by "professional theologians". As good a "theory" as any I suppose.

But as a "theological eclectic" I don't have to pay any attention to "Systematics".

For @Guy Swenson , you aren't a Calvinist; right Bob?

 

[ReverendRV]

Post #2 of 7

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?

There were preconditions to the Edenic Covenant of Works, but Probation may or may not be correct. You've said before that Adam’s Probation was a lifetime long period. The only Work revealed to be a part of the Edenic Covenant, is the Prohibition to eat from the Tree of Life. Prohibitions are Works within the Mosaic Covenant of Works, thou shalt not make a false Idol; a Prohibition can also be called a Work. There is only one Work revealed to have been required of Adam...

 

[Arial]

But the terms, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, no longer exists.
No terms, no covenant; no covenant, no bilateral covenant.

That was a one and done. The gate is closed, angels stand guard.

It is the results of the disobedience that are being dealt with. It is still a covenant of works. Jesus is the life, the only way to eternal life and He kept the covenant of works for us because we cannot do it. Believers now eat of the tree of life. John 6:54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.

John 6:32-32 Jesus then said to them, "Truly, truly. I say to you, it was not MOses who gave you the bread from heaven, but my Father gives you the true bread from heaven." 35. Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst. 48-51.

It was a tree in Eden in the covenant of works, bread in the expanded covenant of works in the Exodus, a tree again in Rev 22:1-5 at the fullness of days. Creation began with a covenant of works with man, remained a covenant of works with man, the works fulfilled by a Man. All to bring in the covenant grace and carry it to it's fullness, that covenant of grace that also began in the Garden in Gen 3.

 

[ReverendRV]

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 …”

I skipped the last part of the second Post of your Objection, because I've spoken on it a few times...

This short quote here; is it referring to the Edenic Covenant of Works specifically, or to the Mosaic Covenant of Works? Or is it speaking of both?

 

[Bob Carabbio]

For @Guy Swenson , you aren't a Calvinist; right Bob?

Is a "Theological Eclectic a "Calvinist"???

 

[Guy Swenson]

Reformed Baptists believe Adam could eat from the Tree of Life as soon as he was told by God he could eat it. Yet, we remain Covenant Theologians; differing with Presbyterians on this doesn't disqualify us...

So far, you could hold to the Covenant of Works; if you wanted to...

While people have disagreed with the statements of the sources I have used - objections with which I often agree, it is becoming more and more evident that they are accurately conveying the C.O.W. teaching - at least from their perspective. I just reread some of R.C. Sproul’s writings … he was in line with perfect, personal and perpetual obedience. Speaking of Jesus:

“That is, Christ’s redeeming work includes not only His death, but His life. His life of perfect obedience becomes the sole ground of our justification. It is His perfect righteousness, gained via His perfect obedience, that is imputed to all who put their trust in Him.”

I skipped the last part of the second Post of your Objection, because I've spoken on it a few times...

This short quote here; is it referring to the Edenic Covenant of Works specifically, or to the Mosaic Covenant of Works? Or is it speaking of both?

Fesko is speaking of the Adamic covenant. He later uses Lev. 18:5 from the Mosaic covenant as proof that the Adamic Covenant of Works was still in existence.