Covenant of Works

[Arial]

1. The first covenant made with man was a covenant of works, wherein life was promised to Adam, and in him to his posterity, upon condition of perfect and personal obedience.

I say that this covenant, noted above, never existed. It is contrary to explicit Bible texts. The definition of what constitutes a covenant of works is already done. I understand that you disagree with theologians who have written about the covenant of works, and I get that. But the confessions are included in my summaries. They define what makes a covenant of works. In my summaries you can find each element of the formal confessions is addressed.

I will wait until you give the explicit Bible texts that contradict the WCF on point one above. And you have given the definition of the COW according to a select few which do add to the word of God at the very outset of saying what the covenant of works is. You should expect the question to be asked of you----what according to you constitutes a covenant of works----when you make the flat statement that there is no such thing without a thing to back up the statement (when it was made.)

I don’t know how I could be more clear - the C.O.W. is defined by others. I have no obligation to create my own definition - it would, in my opinion, be presumptuous of me to do so. You disagree with those that I used, but wouldn’t you agree that some reformed colleges, universities and theological seminaries might have a different, and valid opinion, of what defines the C.O.W.?

If you say there is no covenant of works it absolutely falls on you to make clear what you think constitutes a covenant of works, not what someone else constitutes as a covenant of works. Maybe that will come out in future posts. Why would it be presumptuous for you to have an opinion when all you are using to refute it are also their opinions and there are also other opinion. Why pick their opinions over your own or someone else's?

If I use their subject matter experts as sources, it is a commonly used research approach, and not scapegoating. That is my opinion.

That is a logical fallacy appealing to authority. You count the credentials of Fesko and Gruden (?) as making what they say about it to be an accurate presentation of the covenant of works. And then argue against it to prove there is no covenant of works.

 

[Arial]

He has Links to PDFs in here somewhere...

I think on page 9.

 

[Mr GLee]

From what?

The letter of the law DEATH . Gods; instrument the power of"death" never to rise.

The opposite of the power of spirit life.

Not relevant to Adam in the garden

He passed in on to Cain the murderer of the fist christian prophet Abel

From what did Adam need salvation prior to Genesis 3:6?

Lets, say Adam needed spirit life

When God saw pride in the heart of a spirit Lucifer guardian of the glory of God. Satan anti god, he was sent to protect the glory of salivation he took it upon his own self as if he was the beautiful creator.. Cut him off at the legs

God corrupted the whole creation. . . day three set up the two corruption time kepers winding down to the last day un der the Sun Adam was born dead in his tresspases and sin without God in the present world

You could say a dead man getting a second chance to prove his allegiance to a invisible God The parole officer sentenced dying mankind to death never to rise to new spirit life

 

[Guy Swenson]

I will wait until you give the explicit Bible texts that contradict the WCF on point one above. And you have given the definition of the COW according to a select few which do add to the word of God at the very outset of saying what the covenant of works is. You should expect the question to be asked of you----what according to you constitutes a covenant of works----when you make the flat statement that there is no such thing without a thing to back up the statement (when it was made.)

If you say there is no covenant of works it absolutely falls on you to make clear what you think constitutes a covenant of works, not what someone else constitutes as a covenant of works. Maybe that will come out in future posts. Why would it be presumptuous for you to have an opinion when all you are using to refute it are also their opinions and there are also other opinion. Why pick their opinions over your own or someone else's?

That is a logical fallacy appealing to authority. You count the credentials of Fesko and Gruden (?) as making what they say about it to be an accurate presentation of the covenant of works. And then argue against it to prove there is no covenant of works.

Let's see how it plays out with the upcoming rebuttals. As I noted, the confession is short - 30 words or so for the specific statement about the Covenant of Works. My rebuttals, of necessity, reflect the arguments made to support that statement. In the process, I address the content of that 30 word statement.

To answer your specific question, the Covenant of Works is: "The first covenant made with man was a covenant of works, wherein life was promised to Adam, and in him to his posterity, upon condition of perfect and personal obedience."

Theologians did not stop there - they have created arguments to support that statement. I will also address many of those arguments and in my rebuttals I will show that this statement defining the C.O.W. is not true, and God never made such a covenant of works with Adam or mankind.

I am also good with using the WLC definition:

Q. 20. What was the providence of God toward man in the estate in which he was created?
A. 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.

Is that better?

 

[Mr GLee]

To answer your specific question, the Covenant of Works is: "The first covenant made with man was a covenant of works, wherein life was promised to Adam, and in him to his posterity, upon condition of perfect and personal obedience."

Life promised to dying Adam?. What kind of life . eternal ? A covenant of works? Whose works, the Creator or the creation? ?

 

[Arial]

Let's see how it plays out with the upcoming rebuttals. As I noted, the confession is short - 30 words or so for the specific statement about the Covenant of Works. My rebuttals, of necessity, reflect the arguments made to support that statement. In the process, I address the content of that 30 word statement.

To answer your specific question, the Covenant of Works is: "The first covenant made with man was a covenant of works, wherein life was promised to Adam, and in him to his posterity, upon condition of perfect and personal obedience."

Theologians did not stop there - they have created arguments to support that statement. I will also address many of those arguments and in my rebuttals I will show that this statement defining the C.O.W. is not true, and God never made such a covenant of works with Adam or mankind.

I am also good with using the WLC definition:

Q. 20. What was the providence of God toward man in the estate in which he was created?
A. 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.

Is that better?

Yes. But could I suggest that you go ahead and post rebuttal #2. Waiting on @Josheb to maybe or maybe not go through all the previous posts or address each point to your rebuttal, and then comments on that, leaves the rest of us just hanging around waiting. His posts can be addressed as they come up without anyone losing track. And he can address all points in #2 in sync with the ongoing posts if he so desires.

 

[Guy Swenson]

Yes. But could I suggest that you go ahead and post rebuttal #2. Waiting on @Josheb to maybe or maybe not go through all the previous posts or address each point to your rebuttal, and then comments on that, leaves the rest of us just hanging around waiting. His posts can be addressed as they come up without anyone losing track. And he can address all points in #2 in sync with the ongoing posts if he so desires.

What does everyone think? Are you ready for the rebuttal to Conclusion #2?

So far, my impression of the comments on Conclusion #1 about my assertions are these:

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.”

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.

Result: this statement about the C.O.W. is false. My rebuttal is correct - there was no period of probation for Adam where he was required to perform works of perfect obedience.

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.

Result: this statement about the C.O.W. is false. My rebuttal is correct - In addition to no period of probation, there were no preconditions of perfect obedience required of Adam before he could eat from the tree of life.

Is there any disagreement with these results? That these statements made by theologians about the Covenant of Works are proved false?

If we all agree, or there is no further pushback, then perhaps we can go to Conclusion #2.

 

[ReverendRV]

Let's see how it plays out with the upcoming rebuttals. As I noted, the confession is short - 30 words or so for the specific statement about the Covenant of Works. My rebuttals, of necessity, reflect the arguments made to support that statement. In the process, I address the content of that 30 word statement.

To answer your specific question, the Covenant of Works is: "The first covenant made with man was a covenant of works, wherein life was promised to Adam, and in him to his posterity, upon condition of perfect and personal obedience."

Theologians did not stop there - they have created arguments to support that statement. I will also address many of those arguments and in my rebuttals I will show that this statement defining the C.O.W. is not true, and God never made such a covenant of works with Adam or mankind.

I am also good with using the WLC definition:

Q. 20. What was the providence of God toward man in the estate in which he was created?
A. 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.

Is that better?

Seth Proton acted like you, but he wouldn't listen...

AT ALL!!!

So you ought to listen to us, to show you're not him...

 

[Guy Swenson]

Seth Proton acted like you, but he wouldn't listen...

AT ALL!!!

So you ought to listen to us, to show you're not him...

I am not sure how to respond to this!

 

[ReverendRV]

What does everyone think? Are you ready for the rebuttal to Conclusion #2?

So far, my impression of the comments on Conclusion #1 about my assertions are these:

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.”

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.

Result: this statement about the C.O.W. is false. My rebuttal is correct - there was no period of probation for Adam where he was required to perform works of perfect obedience.

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.

Result: this statement about the C.O.W. is false. My rebuttal is correct - In addition to no period of probation, there were no preconditions of perfect obedience required of Adam before he could eat from the tree of life.

Is there any disagreement with these results? That these statements made by theologians about the Covenant of Works are proved false?

If we all agree, or there is no further pushback, then perhaps we can go to Conclusion #2.

Yeah, go ahead. If you don't, I'd just have to keep reiterating what I've said...

 

[Guy Swenson]

Yeah, go ahead. If you don't, I'd just have to keep reiterating what I've said...

This one will be 13+ posts ... Give me a bit to look at the pagination and how to best format it. There will also be a PDF version.

 

[Arial]

What does everyone think? Are you ready for the rebuttal to Conclusion #2?

So far, my impression of the comments on Conclusion #1 about my assertions are these:

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.”

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.

Result: this statement about the C.O.W. is false. My rebuttal is correct - there was no period of probation for Adam where he was required to perform works of perfect obedience.

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.

Result: this statement about the C.O.W. is false. My rebuttal is correct - In addition to no period of probation, there were no preconditions of perfect obedience required of Adam before he could eat from the tree of life.

Is there any disagreement with these results? That these statements made by theologians about the Covenant of Works are proved false?

If we all agree, or there is no further pushback, then perhaps we can go to Conclusion #2.

As has been stated. The presentation of the covenant of works by those "theologians" is incorrect. The reasons why it is an incorrect presentation of the COW have been given. But that does not mean there is no covenant of works.

 

[Josheb]

The letter of the law DEATH . Gods; instrument the power of"death" never to rise.

The opposite of the power of spirit life.

And now we're posting repeated content in circles. The letter of the law death did not apply to Adam prior to Genesis 3:6 so I will ask AGAIN, From what did Adam need salvation prior to Genesis 3:6? I'll suggest a clue: Adam was made mortal. He was always going to die, but dying sinless and dying sinful are two completely different deaths. Adam's being mortal had nothing to do with the death that comes when having disobeyed God or sinned. So I ask you once more,

From what did Adam need salvation prior to Genesis 3:6?

He passed in on to Cain the murderer of the fist christian prophet Abel. Lets, say Adam needed spirit life. When God saw pride in the heart of a spirit Lucifer guardian of the glory of God. Satan anti god, he was sent to protect the glory of salivation he took it upon his own self as if he was the beautiful creator.. Cut him off at the legs. God corrupted the whole creation. . . day three set up the two corruption time kepers winding down to the last day un der the Sun Adam was born dead in his tresspases and sin without God in the present world.

You could say a dead man getting a second chance to prove his allegiance to a invisible God The parole officer sentenced dying mankind to death never to rise to new spirit life

None of which applies to Adam prior to Genesis 3:6.


From what did Adam need salvation prior to Genesis 3:6?

.

 

[His clay]

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?

I'm not trying to dodge. I just don't have the time right now. Could you give me a post # that is the center of the controversy/discussion? Maybe after reading it, I'll better be able to decide on the merits of time being given to the discussion.

 

[Arial]

Yeah, go ahead. If you don't, I'd just have to keep reiterating what I've said...

Same here.

 

[His clay]

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

Another logical fallacy my friend. The covenant of works is the very foundation of the need for our redemption and the performance of perfect righteousness being necessary for salvation. The covenant of works is what shows us we cannot do it, it is the covenant of works that Jesus kept perfectly. Covenant theology teaches salvation as always been by faith and faith produces obedience to the one in whom the faith is placed.

I'll ask you the nearly the same question as I did with BruiserMiller/ReverendRV. Is there a particular post that you think is important to respond to? I'm a bit pressed for time, so I'm being selective on how much time is spent where.

 

[ReverendRV]

I'm not trying to dodge. I just don't have the time right now. Could you give me a post # that is the center of the controversy/discussion? Maybe after reading it, I'll better be able to decide on the merits of time being given to the discussion.

The first page is a good start, Post #1. I figured you would like this, I know how it is to not have enough time...

Regarding Impartation, Post #104, #245

 

[Arial]

I'll ask you the nearly the same question as I did with BruiserMiller/ReverendRV. Is there a particular post that you think is important to respond to? I'm a bit pressed for time, so I'm being selective on how much time is spent where.

The best I could do at this point as so much has been posted, is to respond to the OP. Or read it to get the thrust of the discussion. On page 9 post #179 there is a link to the pdf presenting a counter. In the thread following that are assertions and counters to the assertions, taken fro the pdf. We are awaiting the second counter to the covenant of works which will deal with a different aspect. Since you are short of time, and this thread is already 20 pages long, you may want to hit a few points here and there, or none at all, as time permits. Reading the whole thing as it exists has now become a lengthy process and getting longer. It probably could have been presented in a way that is reduced by 75% and still covered all the ground.

Your input has been wanted due to the fact, at least from my pov, that you are so widely informed, and present things with precision, and in a way that, while not always brief, covers all the corners and edges. I don't mind length if I am gaining knowledge and insight and the piece maintains interest, and are irrefutably solidly biblical based and supported--which I find yours do.

 

[Eleanor]

Incorrect. A covenant is a kind of contract but it is also something more than a contract. Thinking a covenant is only a contract is mistaken and misguided. I recommend you give consideration to the fact ALL the covenants with God are ALL always monergistically initiated, not negotiated.
That is incorrect. The Law did not exist, but laws did exist. Adam was commanded not to eat from the fruit of the tree in the middle of the garden. That is a law. There were laws pertaining to marriage that existed long prior to the giving of the Mosaic Law (see how many times the phrase "in--law" is used prior to Exodus 20). Centuries prior to giving Moses the Law God told Abraham,
Genesis 26:4-5
"I will multiply your descendants as the stars of heaven, and will give your descendants all these lands; and by your descendants all the nations of the earth shall be blessed; because Abraham obeyed Me and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes and My laws."

You're wrong here, Eleanor. What Romans 5 states is that there wasn't a standardized means of accounting for all sins until the Law was provided, not that law did not exist before then. Go back and re-read the whole Romans 5 narrative again with that in mind. Paul explicitly states sin reigned from the time of Adam until Moses. How would he know that if there hadn't been rules stipulating what qualifies as sin?
LOL!!!
Genesis 4:6-7 proves otherwise. Babel, Abraham's treachery with Abimelech, Sodom and Gomorrah and Laban's deceiving Jacob all prove otherwise.
The law of sin and death has always existed. If you disobey then you die.

LOL!!!

Of the multitude of errors in this post, I will address this one.
Romans 5:12-14 does not state that "there wasn't a standardized means of accounting for all sins until the Law was provided."
That false assertion is overwhelmingly lacking.

Ro 5 states all sinned between Adam and Moses (v.12)
Ro 5 states "sin is not taken into account (imputed, counted against one, meriting death) where there is no law." (v.13)
Ro 5 means in v. 13 that personal sin does not cause physical death where there is no law, which there was not between Adam and Moses.
Ro 5 states "nevertheless all died (between Adam and Moses) even when no one sinned by transgression, as did Adam," (v.14),
which Adam "was a pattern of the one to come (Jesus)." (Ro 5:14)

Now in the light of Ro 6:23, "the wages of sin is death," you get to
1) rightly divide the word of Ro 5:12-14,,
2) correctly interpreting Paul's meaning (stated in 5:17) and
3) reconciling in that meaning all the facts he presented, including sinful Adam being a pattern for righteous Jesus,
4) to his conclusion of Ro 5:18, first stated in his premise of Ro 5:12.

Hint: we did not inherit Adam's sin.

Genesis 6:5-6
Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. The LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart.
How could God say such a thing if there were no metrics?
Incorrect again. The only works a human has apart from Christ and the regenerative and indweeling influence of the Spirit is works of flesh.
Scripture proves otherwise.
Scripture proves otherwise.
Nope.
Yep, and nothing I posted should be construed to say otherwise. If what I posted was thought to say otherwise, then you made (another) mistake and should go back and re-read what was posted without the prejudice.
Yep. and nothing I posted should be construed to say otherwise. If what I posted was thought to say otherwise, then you made (another) mistake and should go back and re-read what was posted without the prejudice.
Scripture proves otherwise.
Ad hominem noted and given the credence it is due.
The fact is the covenants are all God-initiated and monergistically so. God does not ask anyone if they want to participate prior to His choosing them, calling them, and commanding them. It is only after He has done these things that He ever asks any of the participants for any choice on their part. All other contracts are profoundly different in this regard. Furthermore, there is a theme of love and passion within the covenants that does not exist in other contracts (such as business contracts where fiscal profit is the motive). The statement "a covenant is a contract" is woefully inadequate, and thereby incorrect. Furthermore, the conditions of the covenant do persist. The benefits and consequences of the covenant, its blessings and curses, persist and I provided a sampling of scripture from the beginning to the end of scripture to prove that fact. Just as the tree of life existed in the garden, so too does that tree exist in the new city of peace. Just as there are consequence for disobedience that bring death in the garden, so too are there still consequences that bring death for all other forms of disobedience. No straw men at all. Paul called it the law of sin and death.
If you disobey, then you die.
The wages of sin is death and sin reigned from the time of Adam to Moses even when there was no Law by which sin might be made accountably known to the sinner. One Law, lots of laws.
Genesis 4:6-7 proves otherwise. Babel, Abraham's treachery with Abimelech, Sodom and Gomorrah and Laban's deceiving Jacob all prove otherwise. The law of sin and death has always existed. If you disobey then you die.

 

[Josheb]

LOL!!!

Of the multitude of errors in this post, I will address this one.
Romans 5:12-14 does not state that "there wasn't a standardized means of accounting for all sins until the Law was provided."
That false assertion is overwhelmingly lacking.

Ro 5 states all sinned between Adam and Moses (v.12)
Ro 5 states "sin is not taken into account (imputed, counted against one, meriting death) where there is no law." (v.13)
Ro 5 means in v. 13 that personal sin does not cause physical death where there is no law, which there was not between Adam and Moses.
Ro 5 states "nevertheless all died (between Adam and Moses) even when no one sinned by transgression, as did Adam," (v.14),
which Adam "was a pattern of the one to come (Jesus)." (Ro 5:14)

I know you think you've disproved my post, but the opposite is what happened. The bold-faced emphasis belongs on "as did Adam," not "no one sinned." Verse 12 states all sinned. How then could verse 14 state no one sinned without contradicting the previous verse? EVERYONE sinned. They just did not sin as Adam did. Adam never murdered anyone. Cain did. All have sinned and fallen short of God's glory, but not all have sinned as Cain did (before the Law of Moses was given).

This is twice now you've made a mess of Romans 5. There have always been standards by which God's people were to live. The very first commands ever given were 1) be fruitful, multiply, subdue the earth and rule over it, and 2) don't eat the fruit of the tree in the middle of the garden or you'll die. Paul explains that Eve, NOT Adam was the first sinner, yet Paul also plainly states it was by the disobedience of one man, not one woman, that sin and death entered the world. If Eve sinned first, then how was that measured? If there was no measure, then how could it becalled sin? If no means by which any sin, and act of disobedience, could be held in record then how could Paul state she sinned? if there was no means of measuring whether or not to account for a sin then how could she becalled a sinner and not held in account for sin's entrance into the world? So we see there were more than two laws . There was the command to be fruitful, etc., and a command not to eat. And there is implied another standard by which Eve's act of disobedience and Adam's act are measured to have different outcomes . Paul explains that it was not the fruit that cause sin or death. It was the act of disobedience. It would not have matter what tree God picked. God could have said, "Don't eat the forbidden pomegranate," just as easily as "Don't eat the forbidden kiwi," or "Don't eat the forbidden apple." It was the act of disobedience that was prohibited, and disobedience has to be measured and a standard must exist by which it is measured. Paul also explains Eve was deceived. Adam, apparently was not.

There were laws existing prior to the Law existing. Adam sinned. ALL have sinned. Not all have sinned as Adam did. All that sinned between the time of Adam and Moses did so during a time when the Law of Moses did not exist but that does not mean they sinned apart from any and all laws or that they sinned by committing the exact same sin Adam committed. Cain did not eat the forbidden kiwi, but Adam did not murder anyone. Different men committing different sins. Both becoming sinners. Both sinning prior to the Lw of Moses but both disobeying God in a manner by which their sin could and would be counted.

For the record, verse 14 does NOT state, "even when no one sinned by transgression..." For one, sin and transgression are synonymous. No one sinned by sinning, no one transgressed by transgressing. Had you bothered to check the Greek you would have seen the text makes a comparison between Adam and "those," (not "no one" as Post 399 claims) and states "those not having sinned in the likeness of the transgression of Adam." All sinned. But not all sinned like Adam sinned.

You made a mess of Romans 5 and wrongly imagined you'd proved my post wrong when the opposite is the case. That is what happens when scripture is used selectively, not holistically, and when the selectivity is read with inferential inference and not exegetical inference. Stop proof-texting . Romans 5 is a small portion of a narrative that covers five chapters. Everything Paul wrote in what we call "chapter five" was written in the context of chapters 3 and 4 and chapter 3 is unequivocal and unqualified when it states all have sinned.

Hint: we did not inherit Adam's sin.

Non sequitur


The subject of this thread is the covenant of works, and the discussion of that subject is limited to the specifications of the op and its author. If you cannot stick to the subject then do not expect further replies from me.