Covenant of Works

[Eleanor]

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.

Indeed they are not in NT usage.

Strike one.

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.

Precisely. . .between Adam and Moses they did not violate a law carrying a death penalty, as Adam did, and therefore were not personally guilty of death. Yet they all died.

Strike two.

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.

And likewise unequivocal in Ro 5 is that
all sinned (5:12).
there was no law between Adam and Moses, (5:13)
where there is no law sin is not taken into account and no one is guilty of sin/death, (5:13)
and yet they all died. (5:14)

You don't have a clue to what sin Paul is referring in 5:12.

Strike three.

do not expect further replies from me.

Good news. . .

 

[Guy Swenson]

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.

The issue addressed in Conclusion #1 focused on two claims made by theologians about the confessional statement(s): preconditions and probation.

You agreed that probation is spurious and false.

I’ve gotten lost on what your position is on whether there the preconditions advocated by theologians are true/accurate/valid. Not that you were not clear if you posted - I’ve just answered so many posts I have forgotten if you specifically stated your opinion on preconditions.

Perhaps you can state your conclusion on that - and make sure I stated your position on probation accurately as well.

 

[ReverendRV]

The issue addressed in Conclusion #1 focused on two claims made by theologians about the confessional statement(s): preconditions and probation.

You agreed that probation is spurious and false.

I’ve gotten lost on what your position is on whether there the preconditions advocated by theologians are true/accurate/valid. Not that you were Not clear - I’ve just answered so many posts I have forgotten if you specifically stated your opinion on preconditions.

Perhaps you can state your conclusion on that - and make sure I stated your position on probation accurately as well.

Let's face it; your citations are Teachings and Confessions on the Covenant of Works...

Let face it; disagreeing on Probation doesn't undermine the existence of the Covenant of Works...

 

[Guy Swenson]

Let face it; disagreeing on Probation doesn't undermine the existence of the Covenant of Works...

Now do preconditions…

 

[Josheb]

Precisely. . .between Adam and Moses they did not violate a law carrying a death penalty, as Adam did, and therefore were not personally guilty of death. Yet they all died.

Not only is that self-contradictory (they broke laws not carrying a death penalty, sinned not personally guilty of death, yet they died), but they died dead in sin. Scripture explicitly states, "the wages of sin is death" (Rom. 6:23). It does not state "the wages of some sins is death." While it is true John did write, "there is sin not leading to death," (1 Jn. 5:17) murder (Cain), idolatry (Babel and every human who has ever lived), rape (Sodom and Gomorrah) would not be among those sins not leading to death. Furthermore, that particular verse provides a definition of sin that both precedes and exceeds the Law of Moses: ALL unrighteousness is sin.

The wages of the sins between Adam and Moses is death. It did carry a death penalty.

In the account of Isaac and Abimelech, God speaks of His "commandments, statutes, and laws" that existed prior to Moses, and the text states,

Genesis 26:9-11
Then Abimelech called Isaac and said, "Behold, certainly she is your wife! How then did you say, 'She is my sister'?" And Isaac said to him, "Because I said, 'I might die on account of her.'" Abimelech said, "What is this you have done to us? One of the people might easily have lain with your wife, and you would have brought guilt upon us." So Abimelech charged all the people, saying, "He who touches this man or his wife shall surely be put to death."

Had he sinned, it would have brought him death. There were laws and sins carrying a death penalty prior to the Law of Moses. Abimelech would personally have been guilty of death. Post 401 does not just contradict scripture; it contradicts itself. Had Romans 5 been read in reference and in context to all that the OT states about sin and law prior to the Law AND had Romans 5 been read in context to all that is stated in the larger narrative of Romans 3-8 AND had Romans 5 been read in a manner reconciling with what the other epistolary authors wrote Post 401 would not have been written and the misguided thoughts that made it would not exist.

So, again, I point out the problem is the selective use of scripture that fails to read scripture as a whole or consider any given passage in its various stipulated contexts and practices inferential inferences and not exegetical ones.

And you're still not adding anything to the discussion of the covenant of works.

 

[ReverendRV]

Now do preconditions…

Please quote all a person’s Post from now on...

 

[Josheb]

Good question - not a Calvinist or Provisionist - don’t really think there is a good bucket to describe me. Christian, Sola Scripture … I have some orthodox and some non-orthodox positions.

Tell me two non-orthodox positions you hold.

 

[Guy Swenson]

Let's face it; your citations are Teachings and Confessions on the Covenant of Works...

Let face it; disagreeing on Probation doesn't undermine the existence of the Covenant of Works...

Sorry - learning the expectations here - not everyone quotes the whole response - happy to do so.

Now do preconditions - they are stated in the confessions. “Upon condition …”

 

[Guy Swenson]

Tell me two non-orthodox positions you hold.

No on C.O.W.
No on Calvin’s Original Sin

 

[ReverendRV]

No on C.O.W.
No on Calvin’s Original Sin

It appears that you want to Post like Seth

@Josheb wants to know what you are for, not what you're against...

 

[Josheb]

I'm ready for next.

OK. Now to figure out how to do it - same thread or a new thread?

I haven't read a single word from you addressing the matters I broached, beginning with the real or perceived faultiness of the COW and probationary period in a sinless world. Should I expect any? I'm three pages in and I don't read you actually discussing anything! The next post reads,

Covenant of Works Analysis - Conclusion #2 of 4:

(This is the second of four conclusions of the Covenant of Works that I have made after reading/listening to apologists who advocate for the C.O.W. The wording and phraseology come from thode sources. I would appreciate those who are knowledgeable about the C.O.W. if they would critique the wording of these conclusions and verify that what I have distilled accurately and fairly represents the C.O.W teachings. Sources include Fesko, Grudem, Abendroth, The Pactum, Calvin, Ligonier Ministries and others. At a later time I will offer a series of challenges.)

Conclusion #2 - Eternal Life Can be Earned: Adam, by fulfilling the Covenant of Works, could earn perfect righteousness which would create an obligation (or a “debt”) of God requiring Him to give Adam eternal life by him granting access to the tree of life.

• This offer of perfect obedience being rewarded with eternal life is allegedly stated in Lev. 18:5, where it says: “You shall therefore keep My statutes and My judgments, which if a man does, he shall live by them: I am the Lord.”
• It is also asserted that Lev. 18:5 is quoted or referred to in the New Testament by Jesus and Paul as a promise of perfect obedience earning eternal life.

So tell me why I (or anyone here for that matter, should bother to reply to this post when nothing said about the op has been engaged? I will take up the content of Post 52 but I don't currently see much evidence anything I post will be addressed with any substance. You seem a congenial sort, but the accommodation alone does not make much for op-relevant conversation.

 

[Josheb]

No on C.O.W.

Then what do you think of my rejection of the premise (and the explanations thereof)?

No on Calvin’s Original Sin

If I could provide evidence not just evidencing, but proving there is veracity to the premise of one man's disobedience adversely and inescapably affecting all his progeny would you 1) be interested in reading it, 2) give it real consideration, and 3) be persuaded if found valid and veracious?

 

[Josheb]

Thank you for your questioning the use of “probation.” I believe it is accurate, if those I cite are actually credible apologists.

Here is an excerpt from my paper regarding the use of “probation” - or “time of testing“ per Grudem. I have to break it into several posts due to forum restrictions.

“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/

What do you think the WCF means by "of which the tree of life was a pledge"?

How do you reconcile that with the fruit also being Adam and Eve's "liberty"?

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.

The WCF does not call any of that works and if it did it would not (necessarily) be works of the flesh and most definitely not be works of sinful flesh. Any real or perceived covenant of works would not, therefore, be in conflict with our covenant in Christ (see my prior posts for specifics to that effect).




Gotta go. Will check back later.
.

 

[Arial]

The issue addressed in Conclusion #1 focused on two claims made by theologians about the confessional statement(s): preconditions and probation.

You agreed that probation is spurious and false.

I’ve gotten lost on what your position is on whether there the preconditions advocated by theologians are true/accurate/valid. Not that you were not clear if you posted - I’ve just answered so many posts I have forgotten if you specifically stated your opinion on preconditions.

Perhaps you can state your conclusion on that - and make sure I stated your position on probation accurately as well.

There was no condition placed on eating of the tree of life in the creation account.
There was one prohibition given in the creation account. "Don't eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil."

The "theologians" you name use the confessional statement and misrepresent it. They are wrong on that and they are wrong on a probationary period and they do not bother to identify the probationary period. They just state there is one. They are wrong so using their words to deny a covenant of works is a flawed and faulty argument. Their wrongness does not make the covenant of works disappear. It is what I have been saying since 19 pages ago. Can we please move on.

 

[Arial]

Indeed they are not in NT usage.

Strike one.

Precisely. . .between Adam and Moses they did not violate a law carrying a death penalty, as Adam did, and therefore were not personally guilty of death. Yet they all died.

Strike two.

And likewise unequivocal in Ro 5 is that
all sinned (5:12).
there was no law between Adam and Moses, (5:13)
where there is no law sin is not taken into account and no one is guilty of sin/death, (5:13)
and yet they all died. (5:14)

You don't have a clue to what sin Paul is referring in 5:12.

Strike three.

Good news. . .

All due respect sincerely, this is going too far afield of the OP topic which is already a monster and we have yet to get to rebuttal of point #2of 4 and which I understand has 13 points of counter to the covenant of works.

 

[Guy Swenson]

There was no condition placed on eating of the tree of life in the creation account.
There was one prohibition given in the creation account. "Don't eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil."

The "theologians" you name use the confessional statement and misrepresent it. They are wrong on that and they are wrong on a probationary period and they do not bother to identify the probationary period. They just state there is one. They are wrong so using their words to deny a covenant of works is a flawed and faulty argument. Their wrongness does not make the covenant of works disappear. It is what I have been saying since 19 pages ago. Can we please move on.

There are reasons why I think it is important to be specific and accurate on these points. While I agree with your statement: “There was no condition placed on eating of the tree of life in the creation account“ it seems to me that your statement conflicts with the WLC.

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/

“… 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;” says their were three conditions, which I underlined above.

How would you explain this quote NOT requiring the fulfillment of personal, perfect and perpetual obedience by Adam as a condition before granting the promise of the covenant of life - eternal life via the tree of life - the pledge?

The C.O.W. WLC confession says there were conditions. What am I missing?

Does everyone here agree with your statement that there were no conditions in the C.O.W.?

if so, it makes my job so much easier in later rebuttals. This topic was intentionally placed early in the discussion.

I also suspect that your position of no conditions (or as I call them, precondition) is not widely held in the broader Calvinist circles.

i could be wrong.

 

[Guy Swenson]

It appears that you want to Post like Seth

@Josheb wants to know what you are for, not what you're against...

I am trying to stay on topic - not necessarily an easy task. If the question was what I am for/believe regarding an explanation of the events with Adam in the Garden of Eden, I have stated my position, and will happily share it again, perhaps with some embellishments.

A personal relationship with God always begins with belief. Every covenant relationship is founded on belief. Belief in God - belief in Jesus - is counted as righteousness. Nobody earns/merits righteousness before God or salvation by works - personal, perfect, perpetual or otherwise.

Eternal life is a gift from God - always was, always is, always will be. In Rebuttal to Conclusion #2 I wade into the earning righteousness/eternal life in great detail.

If you read page 11 in Conclusion #1, you would find the following:

“There was no means stated, nor covenantal promise offered to Adam, by which he could earn or merit eternal life by living in perfect obedience. Instead, it was simply a matter of believing God:

• Not eating from the forbidden tree which God said was forbidden.
• Choosing instead to believe God, reach out and eat the fruit from the tree of life, for which God gave explicit permission.
• Adam had no “works” to do to gain eternal life. All Adam had to do was DISbelieve Satan’s lies and BELIEVE and act on God’s truth – a step of faith. He could have been like Abraham, “For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.” (Romans 4:3)
• Abraham’s “belief” that was counted as righteousness was a simple act of faith – having sex with his wife. Adam’s belief would have been another simple act of faith: to not eat from the forbidden tree and instead to eat from the tree of life. Both were incredibly simple steps to take – if one believed God and not the visible affects of old age or the deception from Satan.”

That’s a good summary of what I believe in this matter.

Now sometimes people ask “Well what do you believe“ because they want to deflect from a discussion where they are losing the argument. I will be interested if this is the case here.

 

[Guy Swenson]

I think some clarification is order because I, for one, may not be clear concerning the givens of the opening post.

The op appears to frame its "covenant of works" and/or its "probationary period to that period of time BEFORE Adam disobeyed God and was discharged from Eden. Otherwise, what then is the temporary time period (the "probationary period") during which Adam was to "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"?

This is how I read it.

That probationary period could not have been after Genesis 3 because Adam was forced to leave Eden and prohibited from ever eating from the tree of life. If the probationary period was between verses Genesis 3:6 (when he disobeyed God and sin entered the world) and Genesis 3:24 when he was driven out of the garden, then that probationary period necessarily exists with a sinful man living in a sinful world unable to obtain righteousness of his own on his own. Only between Genesis 1:26 and Genesis 3:6 do we have a period of time when Adam was good and sinless living in a good and sinless world.

I might be wrong, but I don't think there is a monergist/Calvinist anywhere in Christian history who will dispute that categorization.

This is how I read it.

Define the COW and when the probationary period was thought to apply because most talk of the COW has to do with works of the Law (not law) and the notion people can earn their way after sin.

As to the definition of the C.O.W., how about the WLC:

http://thewestminsterstandards.com/...-man-in-the-estate-in-which-he-was-created-2/

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.

Theologians I have read say there was a probationary period where Adam had to earn righteousness by personal, perfect and perpetual obedience. Then he would be granted eternal life.

 

[ReverendRV]

I am trying to stay on topic - not necessarily an easy task. If the question was what I am for/believe regarding an explanation of the events with Adam in the Garden of Eden, I have stated my position, and will happily share it again, perhaps with some embellishments.

A personal relationship with God always begins with belief. Every covenant relationship is founded on belief. Belief in God - belief in Jesus - is counted as righteousness. Nobody earns/merits righteousness before God or salvation by works - personal, perfect, perpetual or otherwise.

Eternal life is a gift from God - always was, always is, always will be. In Rebuttal to Conclusion #2 I wade into the earning righteousness/eternal life in great detail.

If you read page 11 in Conclusion #1, you would find the following:

“There was no means stated, nor covenantal promise offered to Adam, by which he could earn or merit eternal life by living in perfect obedience. Instead, it was simply a matter of believing God:

• Not eating from the forbidden tree which God said was forbidden.
• Choosing instead to believe God, reach out and eat the fruit from the tree of life, for which God gave explicit permission.
• Adam had no “works” to do to gain eternal life. All Adam had to do was DISbelieve Satan’s lies and BELIEVE and act on God’s truth – a step of faith. He could have been like Abraham, “For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.” (Romans 4:3)
• Abraham’s “belief” that was counted as righteousness was a simple act of faith – having sex with his wife. Adam’s belief would have been another simple act of faith: to not eat from the forbidden tree and instead to eat from the tree of life. Both were incredibly simple steps to take – if one believed God and not the visible affects of old age or the deception from Satan.”

That’s a good summary of what I believe in this matter.

Now sometimes people ask “Well what do you believe“ because they want to deflect from a discussion where they are losing the argument. I will be interested if this is the case here.

Never Mind buddy, I know what's going on. I don't Mind you being here, but others might. I'll just start speaking to you as I did at CARM...

I'm ready for your next Rebuttals.

 

[Guy Swenson]

I haven't read a single word from you addressing the matters I broached, beginning with the real or perceived faultiness of the COW and probationary period in a sinless world. Should I expect any? I'm three pages in and I don't read you actually discussing anything! The next post reads,

I am not trying to ignore you … but if you look at the number of replies, I have been responding …

So tell me why I (or anyone here for that matter, should bother to reply to this post when nothing said about the op has been engaged? I will take up the content of Post 52 but I don't currently see much evidence anything I post will be addressed with any substance. You seem a congenial sort, but the accommodation alone does not make much for op-relevant conversation.

I found the search feature and looked up your responses - I replied to one that I missed. I will look to see if there are more.