Covenant of Works

[ReverendRV]

Neither is a covenant of works. No such thing - a covenant of “works” - ever existed. Covenants - yes. Of Works? Never.

Sure there is, because there is a New Covenant..

Deuteronomy 29:1 NIV; These are the terms of the covenant the Lord commanded Moses to make with the Israelites in Moab, in addition to the covenant he had made with them at Horeb

Cross Reference it...

We're Saved by Grace through Faith, not by Works. What are Works? "Therefore no one will be declared Righteous in God’s sight by the Works of the Law; rather, through the Law we become conscious of our Sin". The Law of Moses is this Covenant, which is of Meritorious Works; it exists...

Your points will start falling on open ears here. To state the is no Covenant of Works, is an Absolute Statement. In Marriage Counseling we're taught to not say things like "You always leave the lid up". You shouldn't have said there is no Covenant of Works, when you could be wrong...

 

[Guy Swenson]

Deuteronomy 29:1 NIV; These are the terms of the covenant the Lord commanded Moses to make with the Israelites in Moab, in addition to the covenant he had made with them at Horeb

Multiple covenants - yes

Do any say a covenant of “works?”

Lev. 18:5 is the “go to” works text, and places were it is repeated or referenced. Fesko calls it a “works principle.” Total fabrication and not even consistent with Calvinism.

I make my case in Conclusion #2.

 

[Guy Swenson]

Sure there is, because there is a New Covenant..

Deuteronomy 29:1 NIV; These are the terms of the covenant the Lord commanded Moses to make with the Israelites in Moab, in addition to the covenant he had made with them at Horeb

Cross Reference it...

We're Saved by Grace through Faith, not by Works. What are Works? "Therefore no one will be declared Righteous in God’s sight by the Works of the Law; rather, through the Law we become conscious of our Sin". The Law of Moses is this Covenant, which is of Works; it exists...

Your points will start falling on open ears here...

Thank you. I may be wrong - let’s see where the Scriptures lead.

 

[ReverendRV]

Multiple covenants - yes

Do any say a covenant of “works?”

Lev. 18:5 is the “go to” works text, and places were it is repeated or referenced. Fesko calls it a “works principle.” Total fabrication and not even consistent with Calvinism.

I make my case in Conclusion #2.

Sure there is, because there is a New Covenant..

Deuteronomy 29:1 NIV; These are the terms of the covenant the Lord commanded Moses to make with the Israelites in Moab, in addition to the covenant he had made with them at Horeb

Cross Reference it...

We're Saved by Grace through Faith, not by Works. What are Works? "Therefore no one will be declared Righteous in God’s sight by the Works of the Law; rather, through the Law we become conscious of our Sin". The Law of Moses is this Covenant, which is of Works; it exists...


This is why we're talking about Theology, IE the Covenant of Works. One of the biggest Fallacies there is, happens when we look for Verbatim Verses; it's a Shield, used to avoid Theology...

 

[ReverendRV]

Thank you. I may be wrong - let’s see where the Scriptures lead.

Okay...

 

[Guy Swenson]

One of the biggest Fallacies there is, happens when we look for Verbatim Verses; it's a Shield, used to avoid Theology...

I would suggest that sound theology never conflicts with explicit Scripture.

I have found it interesting to watch the reaction here when theology - for example, preconditions and probation - has been challenged with explicit texts from Genesis 2 & 3. I am not the first to challenge preconditions and probation with explicit Scripture. From what you shared, it sounds like Baptists tested Presbyterian theology with Scripture and rejected parts of Presbyterian C.O.W. theology.

Good for Baptists!

It has been my experience in reading that a fair number of theologians “make stuff up“ to fit a desired outcome, belief or to support/create consistency with other ideas they have. Then the mold/twist Scriptures to fit.

For me, the acid test is clear and explicit Scripture, in context. Doctrinal consistency is another useful test.

Not all theologians “make stuff up.” But when they do …

 

[ReverendRV]

I would suggest that sound theology never conflicts with explicit Scripture.

I have found it interesting to watch the reaction here when theology - for example, preconditions and probation - has been challenged with explicit texts from Genesis 2 & 3. I am not the first to challenge preconditions and probation with explicit Scripture. From what you shared, it sounds like Baptists tested Presbyterian theology with Scripture and rejected parts of Presbyterian C.O.W. theology.

Good for Baptists!

It has been my experience in reading that a fair number of theologians “make stuff up“ to fit a desired outcome, belief or to support/create consistency with other ideas they have. Then the mold/twist Scriptures to fit.

For me, the acid test is clear and explicit Scripture, in context. Doctrinal consistency is another useful test.

Not all theologians “make stuff up.” But when they do …

It's as I said, you will have to consider Category Mistakes. I will keep reminding you in ways you will agree something you said is a Logical Fallacy...

 

[Guy Swenson]

It's as I said, you will have to consider Category Mistakes. I will keep reminding you in ways you will agree something you said is a Logical Fallacy...

Thank you.

 

[ReverendRV]

Thank you.

Are you Seth?

 

[Guy Swenson]

Are you Seth?

Nooo - Seth from the Bible?

 

[Mr GLee]

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

Work to gain salvation.

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.

Corrupted dying mankind .Not before but as result of breaking what Doug calls the probationary period.

It is in need of defining. Some add to the probationary period The same one that had ended in death.

The letter of the law performed its work of killing. And the temporal flesh and blood returns to the dust and the temporal spirit given un the letter of the law (death) returns to the parole officer God.

Ecclesiastes 12:7 Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.

No probationary period for those born again they serve to the Newness of eternal life.In a hope of shedding these bodies of sin

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

Many dismiss the instrument of death as having no probational value.

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?

God is not a man .

The Son of man Jesus our brother in the Lord was born of the corruptible seed. It is evidenced in dying, aging leading to the breaking of silver cord. The end of a matter

Jesus did not exclude himself when he said a man marvel not "dying mankind must be born again" for above .

Flesh signified as sinful was necessary to demonstrate the work not seen.

a theophany or vision like that of Melchizedek would not serve the purpose real corrupted flesh was needed .

The Father mightily working in Jesus empowering Jesus the son of man to do his will Not the will of the dying flesh corrupted flesh.

Romans 8:3 For what the law (letter death) could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

No flesh signified as sinful. . no gospel.

 

[Mr GLee]

“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 would offer. .

The perfect obedience to our Father (Holy Spirit ) worked in the powerless Son of man, Jesus to both (the key) reveal His eternal will and empower mankind to believe as an anchor to their new, born-again soul.

Some like Jesus obeyed the gospel and did the will of the Father with delight, others (Jonah the murmurer a living hell ) kicked against the pricks and wanted to die knowing the outcome of the gospel he preached to the Ninevites. When finished he wanted to die.

Philipians2:13-14 For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.
Do all things without murmurings and disputings:

Christ the anointing Holy Spirit cannot die he is eternal God. He gave his life pouring out His Holy Spirit on dying flesh. . in jeopardy of his own Spirit life a living sacrifice. . . using the Son of man, Jesus as a demonstration from the father to represent dying flesh and blood of mankind.
God does not except dead sacrifices.

Better things accompany salvation other than kicking against the pricks or thorns . the letter of the law death
Hebrews 6:8-10 But that which beareth thorns and briers is rejected, and is nigh unto cursing; whose end is to be burned.
But, beloved, we are persuaded better things of you, and things that accompany salvation, though we thus speak. For God is not unrighteous to forget your work and labour of love, which ye have shewed toward his name, in that ye have ministered to the saints, and do minister.

Jonah wanted to show the power according to his own name. God is not served by dying flesh and blood. It is Him that empowers us not the other way around. We have Jesus as an example revealing the power of the father. You could say the daily bread of new life. Follow the one that is following the Father

No righteousness from the Son (creature) His flesh did not profit it was the work of the father Holy Spirt that did profit.

 

[Guy Swenson]

Thanks to all who read the “Conclusion #1” post(s) and responded.

I have tried to respond to posts challenging assertions that I made. If I have not, please let me know and repeat your question/statement.

Some have shared thoughts and ideas prompted by my posts, but not directly challenging something I said. I appreciate your thoughts, but in an effort to stay focused, I am generally not engaging in those discussions.

Thank you all for allowing me to share different perspectives and gather your thoughts on them.

 

[Eleanor]

Neither is a covenant of works. No such thing - a covenant of “works” - ever existed. Covenants - yes. Of Works? Never.

Does not Paul make that exceedingly clear?

The NT does not present a works righteousness, ever. . .even for the OT (Ro 3:20), for righteousness has always been by faith, never by law-keeping:
Gal 3:10-12 - "Clearly no one is justified before God by the law because 'The righteous will live by faith' (Hab 2:4) , and the law is not of faith, it is of works (i.e.; 'the man who does these things will live by them,' Lev 18:5)"

Note that the reason no one will be justified by the law is not because no one can keep it perfectly, but is because righteousness is not by, and has never been, by law keeping,
And that includes the man Christ's righteousness, he was born with it, just as Adam was. He kept it, Adam lost it.

 

[Arial]

Neither is a covenant of works. No such thing - a covenant of “works” - ever existed. Covenants - yes. Of Works? Never.

You need to make clear what you consider a covenant of works. What does a covenant of works entail in your view that makes it a covenant of works?

 

[Arial]

https://founders.org › articles › the-confession-of-1689-and-covenant-theology

 

[Guy Swenson]

You need to make clear what you consider a covenant of works. What does a covenant of works entail in your view that makes it a covenant of works?

Good question. I am responding to the “Covenant of Works” doctrine. That doctrine is defined by others, and as I have discovered here on this forum, is not monolithic and has a lot of variations.

The 4 conclusions that I stated are summations of my reading and research. They represent how different authors/subject matter experts have defined it and the Biblical basis for the C.O.W., as I understood them. (Represented by me as bullet points.)

I am told that what I have presented is largely a Presbyterian viewpoint. R.C. Sproul, (who was a Presbyterian elder) has been noted by @Josheb as a credible source as well.

At the outset, I stated my 4 conclusions in an effort to insure that my understanding accurately reflects the teachings of the Covenant of Works. It has been said that the Baptists thought Adam could eat from the tree of life immediately (no probation), others agreed with my use of Genesis 2 & 3 to refute probation, and others have suggested their own versions of the C.O.W.

I say this to clarify that I espouse no version of the C.O.W. - by the end, I am pretty sure the foundations of Presbyterian, Baptist and probably most other variations of the C.O.W. will be challenged.

After doing my research, I have come to see that the Bible texts contradict the essential teachings of the C.O.W. In fact, some of the evidence used by Calvin and others to prove the doctrine of the C.O.W. contradicts other widely held Christian doctrines. It is not internally consistent.

If there is a 5th or 6th Conclusion needed, please describe what it is, the essence of the teaching so I can consider it. Until then, my four conclusions represent the key teachings of the C.O.W., as I understand the, to be.

 

[Eleanor]

Good question. I am responding to the “Covenant of Works” doctrine. That doctrine is defined by others, and as I have discovered here on this forum, is not monolithic and has a lot of variations.

The 4 conclusions that I stated are summations of my reading and research. They represent how different authors/subject matter experts have defined it and the Biblical basis for the C.O.W., as I understood them. (Represented by me as bullet points.)

I am told that what I have presented is largely a Presbyterian viewpoint. R.C. Sproul, (who was a Presbyterian elder) has been noted by @Josheb as a credible source as well.

At the outset, I stated my 4 conclusions in an effort to insure that my understanding accurately reflects the teachings of the Covenant of Works. It has been said that the Baptists thought Adam could eat from the tree of life immediately (no probation), others agreed with my use of Genesis 2 & 3 to refute probation, and others have suggested their own versions of the C.O.W.

I say this to clarify that I espouse no version of the C.O.W. - by the end, I am pretty sure the foundations of Presbyterian, Baptist and probably most other variations of the C.O.W. will be challenged.

After doing my research, I have come to see that the Bible texts contradict the essential teachings of the C.O.W. In fact, some of the evidence used by Calvin and others to prove the doctrine of the C.O.W. contradicts other widely held Christian doctrines. It is not internally consistent.

If there is a 5th or 6th Conclusion needed, please describe what it is, the essence of the teaching so I can consider it. Until then, my four conclusions represent the key teachings of the C.O.W., as I understand the, to be.

When it's all "saucered and blowed," I would like to know why the whole concept of c.o.w. ever got past Gal 3:10-12, and why Gal 3:10-12 does not clearly settle the matter now. Could it be any more clear there?

Gal 3:10-12 - "Clearly no one is justified before God by the law because 'The righteous will live by faith' (Hab 2:4) , and the law is not of faith, it is of works (i.e.; 'the man who does these things will live by them,' Lev 18:5)"

Note that the reason no one will be justified by the law is not because no one can keep it perfectly, but is because righteousness is not by, and has never been, by law keeping.
All righteousness is from God (Ro 1:17), at one's physical birth (as with Adam and Christ), or at one's spiritual re-birth (in justification), followed by sanctification through obedience in the Holy Spirit, which leads to righteousness leading to holiness (Ro 6:16, 19, 22), for
without holiness, no one will see the Lord (Heb 12:14).

Ge 2:17 was never called a covenant in Scripture. It is called law (Ro 5:12-14).
And where there is no law, there is no sin accounted to anyone (Ro 4:15, 5:13).
No personal sin was accounted to anyone from Adam to Moses to cause their physical deaths during that time (Ro 5:14), and yet they all died.

 

[Arial]

https://reformed.org › documents › shaw › shaw_07.html
This is rather long, and takes some pondering, but I make it available for those who are interested and have the time. One thing to note in the both links a posted on the two confessions that is glaringly absent from at least the quotes of Felko etc is that start with actual theology and remain in theology---the study of God.

 

[Josheb]

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

Completely incorrect.

If a person disobeys God (the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil) then they die. If a person partakes from the flesh of Jesus (the tree of life) then they inherit eternal life.

Galatians 6:7-8
Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, this he will also reap. For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life.

Revelation 22:1-5
Then he showed me a river of the water of life, clear as crystal, coming from the throne of God and of the Lamb, in the middle of its street. On either side of the river was the tree of life, bearing twelve kinds of fruit, yielding its fruit every month; and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations. There will no longer be any curse; and the throne of God and of the Lamb will be in it, and His bondservants will serve Him; they will see His face, and His name will be on their foreheads. And there will no longer be any night; and they will not have need of the light of a lamp nor the light of the sun, because the Lord God will illumine them; and they will reign forever and ever.

The terms do still exist.

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

That is correct. One must live, be crucified with Christ, die physically, and be resurrected in his name in order to have eternal life. All men have been appointed to die once and then face judgment (Heb. 9:27). Enoch and Elijah are the exceptions to the rule, not the rule.

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.

All half-truths.

Abundant life is about quality of life and abundant life is not synonymous with or identical to eternal life. When Jesus promises abundant life it can be had here on earth just as much as it will be had on the other side of resurrection. Eternal life is very much about duration since it ensues only after being raised immortal (1 Cor. 15:53-54).

Romans 2:6-7
He will render to each one according to his works: to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life...

I will die physically, even with eternal life.

Maybe

Revelation 22:14-19
Blessed are those who wash their robes, so that they may have the right to the tree of life.......... if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book.

Denying the persistence of the covenant of God is dangerous, and evidence of lack.


Just saying