Covenant of Works

[Guy Swenson]

Something to contemplate is Jesus was called the Last Adam, who was born under the Law in the likeness of sinful flesh to fulfill the Law with perfect Obedience even unto death on the Cross for the ungodly.

The juxaposition Paul makes in Romans 5 (1 Cor. 15) points to the Adam (Christ) who did fulfill God's COW.

I address some of this in my upcoming rebuttal to Conclusion #4.

 

[Guy Swenson]

For those with the fortitude to read everything and comment - my thanks for helping me see how this comes across to others and to have my thoughts tested.

 

[Guy Swenson]

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

Catching up here. I think that means access to the tree of life depended on Adam fulfilling that conditions of personal, perfect and perpetual obedience. As such, they represent “preconditions” that describe God restricting access until they were met. That is not what I read in Genesis.

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

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).

I will look for the prior posts. I am not familiar with your use of “liberty” in this context.

Gotta go. Will check back later.
.

 

[makesends]

It is tangential but still a worthy inquiry because of the diversity within monergism. A "strict" determinist, or a "meticulous" determinist believes every minute detail of creation is pre-determined and everything was, is, and will be only as has all already been decided. Every thought you and I have, every word spoken, every choice made, and every action taken have all already been decided and determined by someone else (God) and we cannot and will not do anything other than what has been determined. It's an extreme view within monergism, or Calvinism. Compatibilism would be an alternative view within monergism/Calvinism, for example. A. W. Pink's "Sovereignty of God" would be an example of a point of view at the full-determinism end of the spectrum. Calvin, strictly speaking (no pun intended )

Ha!

world fall some place on that side of the spectrum without the extremism because while he acknowledge a certain liberty (I prefer "liberty" over "free") of the will inherent in everyone but that liberty compromised to the point of enslavement by sin. A person thinks, wills, and acts according to their "nature," and among the sinful that nature is sinful - so much so that the will is unable to come to God for salvation from the condition in its own faculties (total depravity). A less deterministic form of compatibilism, for example, would hold that every choice any human makes, though existing as a product of his experience and the circumstances of life, is freely made but will nonetheless, somehow, conspire to have happen exactly what God has decided will happen. Divine will and human will (even in the sinless state) are compatible. I, personally, am going to be alongside Calvin. I believe there are conditions (plural) like God, sin, and temporal circumstances that are both despotically binding and deterministic, but I side with Calvin on the real volitional agency of humanity enslaved to either sin or righteousness.

The same kind of "spectrum" exists one the synergist side of soteriology, too. Radical volitionalism, like Pelagianism holds that humanity is sufficiently autonomous and powerful even in the sinful state that we can do anything when sufficient knowledge and opportunity exist and even that is largely within one's ability to effect change. On the other end of the spectrum we have Arminius, an adherent of total depravity. In between there exists the Provisionist (closer to Pelagius) and the Wesleyan (closer to Arminius).

Neither view is monolithic; both contain theological diversity. That people use like terms without common, shared, and agreed upon definitions is one of the reasons these discussions so often go nowhere (except, maybe, to rancorland ).

But God isn't just 'someone else'. To me the notion that the will exists independent of and/or operates independently of causation is logical hogwash. But, ok, I guess I can see some inkling of difference between, at least how you see, hard determinism and compatibilism. I've been called a compatibilist, which I don't appreciate the insult. That the two notions are compatible is obvious, since both are obvious --the one by reason and the other by experience-- but the notion that the will is independent of causation can also fit into what some call compatibilism.

That ANY detail should escape causation is to me ludicrous. ANYTHING other than God himself is caused by God. And that, not by accident.

I have no idea how my view of strict determinism inhibits the will from doing whatever it pleases (within the obvious limits of one's circumstances and preferences, obviously). My problem with Calvinists who see compatibilism differently from how I do is the same problem I have with Arminians --the very odd notion that anything can happen apart from God's causing it to happen, where mere chance or accident or the will of man can surprise God. That the Calvinist inhibits it more than the Arminian gives him no excuse for supposing something can happen without the determination by First Cause.

While I'm already departing from the OP, I may as well say this: We have here, I think, some indication of a resolution for those who think God unjust in creating vessels fit for destruction. If God causes absolutely all things, whatsoever comes to pass, to include particularly, the existence of all rational and morally responsible beings, and to include all they do and think and choose, predetermining that for which he holds them responsible, then justice will still be done. Our notions of what that justice is, is necessarily stunted and off kilter; it is both much worse and not so bad as we suppose, since we don't know God well. We group the infant with the murderer, since we think only of eternal torment, with no idea of the texture and flavor and awareness of the torment for the two beings. We already know he is absolutely just. Then why do we have to build our notions on who does and who does not get justice? We think WE know what is right for God to do???

Anyhow, thanks for your answer, and for listening.

 

[Guy Swenson]

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"?

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).

Replied elsewhere.

Gotta go. Will check back later.
.

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"?

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.
.

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"?

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).

I am not understanding what you are referring to regarding works here. The personal, perfect and perpetual obedience in the WCF would seem to begin with Adam and whether he would obey God and not eat from the forbidden tree. Could he have lied, acted in hatred, or committed some other sin before eating the forbidden fruit? Beats me. That is a speculative topic.

I am missing your point here …

Gotta go. Will check back later.
.

 

[Guy Swenson]

Ha!

But God isn't just 'someone else'. To me the notion that the will exists independent of and/or operates independently of causation is logical hogwash. But, ok, I guess I can see some inkling of difference between, at least how you see, hard determinism and compatibilism. I've been called a compatibilist, which I don't appreciate the insult. That the two notions are compatible is obvious, since both are obvious --the one by reason and the other by experience-- but the notion that the will is independent of causation can also fit into what some call compatibilism.

That ANY detail should escape causation is to me ludicrous. ANYTHING other than God himself is caused by God. And that, not by accident.

I have no idea how my view of strict determinism inhibits the will from doing whatever it pleases (within the obvious limits of one's circumstances and preferences, obviously). My problem with Calvinists who see compatibilism differently from how I do is the same problem I have with Arminians --the very odd notion that anything can happen apart from God's causing it to happen, where mere chance or accident or the will of man can surprise God. That the Calvinist inhibits it more than the Arminian gives him no excuse for supposing something can happen without the determination by First Cause.

While I'm already departing from the OP, I may as well say this: We have here, I think, some indication of a resolution for those who think God unjust in creating vessels fit for destruction. If God causes absolutely all things, whatsoever comes to pass, to include particularly, the existence of all rational and morally responsible beings, and to include all they do and think and choose, predetermining that for which he holds them responsible, then justice will still be done. Our notions of what that justice is, is necessarily stunted and off kilter; it is both much worse and not so bad as we suppose, since we don't know God well. We group the infant with the murderer, since we think only of eternal torment, with no idea of the texture and flavor and awareness of the torment for the two beings. We already know he is absolutely just. Then why do we have to build our notions on who does and who does not get justice? We think WE know what is right for God to do???

Anyhow, thanks for your answer, and for listening.

OK, I am going to let others respond - way off my topic.

 

[makesends]

OK, I am going to let others respond - way off my topic.

Yeah, it is, but tangential. Ok, poor excuse.

BTW, I'm wondering if there is a way for you to arrange your agenda here diagrammatically; I keep having to remind myself what you are trying to accomplish --that you are not defending, but trying to define, and such. The arguments keep wandering into, not whether this or that is a proper definition, but whether this or that is true. At least, I get lost, shuffling about. Though, yes, I know this was not one of those times.

 

[Guy Swenson]

Yeah, it is, but tangential. Ok, poor excuse.

BTW, I'm wondering if there is a way for you to arrange your agenda here diagrammatically; I keep having to remind myself what you are trying to accomplish --that you are not defending, but trying to define, and such. The arguments keep wandering into, not whether this or that is a proper definition, but whether this or that is true. At least, I get lost, shuffling about. Though, yes, I know this was not one of those times.

I was invited here by a moderator after he saw my posts on a Facebook forum. I am writing a rebuttal to the Covenant of Works. I’ve posted two of four arguments - the easiest to read are the PDFs, though I was asked to post them also on the forum.

Here are links to the first two PDFs. Not short reads.

Intro and Rebuttal #1:

Covenant of Works - Overview and Conclusion #1

guyswenson.craft.me

Rebuttal #2:

Covenant of Works - Conclusion #2 Rebuttal

guyswenson.craft.me

 

[Mr GLee]

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,

Hi thanks for the reply I would offer. .

Adam was born into corrupted dying, aging body.

God corrupted the whole creation when He found pride in Lucifer the father of lies on the third day his glory as the light of the whole world departed. Day four switched on the corruption timekeepers the Sun and Moon. Called under the Sun.

In the new order no sun of moon. no night.

The law below applied to dying mankind beginning with Adam. The probationary period ended. They having no faith that could please our Holy Father. As parole violators they refused to serve a eternal God not seen.

Psalm 58:3 The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.

 

[Arial]

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?

Did I not say there was one condition----to not eat of the three of the knowledge of good and evil? What is the opposite of that? Obedience. You are overthinking things and producing circular arguments. What page is this? 21?22?

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.?

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."

Don't frame your rebuttal around what I did not say but on what I did say.

 

[Josheb]

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.

If you have already posted those quotes then please point me to the posts numbers. If that information has not already been posted then please do so. Quote me the theologians and provide the titles if they come from books or links to the info if it is online. Thx

 

[ReverendRV]

Rebuttal of Conclusion #2: 1 of 14

Analysis of “Eternal Life Can Be Earned”​

Step 1: Is This Summation, “Eternal Life Can Be Earned,” Accurately Stated? “Adam, by the Covenant of Works, could earn perfect righteousness which creates an obligation (or a “debt”) of God to reward the successful works of Adam with the promised eternal life.”

Eternal Life couldn't have been earned under the Edenic Covenant of Works. Only Condemnation and Death was earned through that Covenant; the Wages of Sin is death, as was stated in the Garden of Eden...

 

[ReverendRV]

Something to contemplate is Jesus was called the Last Adam, who was born under the Law in the likeness of sinful flesh to fulfill the Law with perfect Obedience even unto death on the Cross for the ungodly.

The juxaposition Paul makes in Romans 5 (1 Cor. 15) points to the Adam (Christ) who did fulfill God's COW.

Would you say that Jesus was born under the Law if Moses, or the Law of Adam; or under both?

@Guy Swenson

 

[ReverendRV]

Yeah, it is, but tangential. Ok, poor excuse.

BTW, I'm wondering if there is a way for you to arrange your agenda here diagrammatically; I keep having to remind myself what you are trying to accomplish --that you are not defending, but trying to define, and such. The arguments keep wandering into, not whether this or that is a proper definition, but whether this or that is true. At least, I get lost, shuffling about. Though, yes, I know this was not one of those times.

I have been replying to his conclusions and rebuttals, a section at a time, in order. I can then press the source button in the quote, to return where I left off in the Post I am reading...

 

[Mr GLee]

Here are links to the first two PDFs. Not short reads.

Intro and Rebuttal #1:

#2 Was Adam born into a corruptible body or incorruptible, never die?

Does the law as soon as they are born, they go telling lies apply to Adam, dying mankind . therefore having no faith as it is written that could strengthen dying mankind to believe God.

 

[ReverendRV]

Rebuttal of Conclusion #2: 1 of 14

In agreement with Calvin, Vermigli, and Willet, exegetes and theologians such as Petrus de Witte (1622-1669) and John Davenant (1572-1641) cite Leviticus 18:5 when they explain the differences between the law and the gospel. De Witte writes: ‘The Law promiseth eternal life to them, that are righteous in themselves, and keep the Commandments perfectly, by their own power. Lev. 18:5…’

As I've asked before, why would they Conflate the Promises of the Mosaic Covenant of Works, with the Edenic Covenant of Works?

Grudem equates Paul’s citing of Lev. 18:5 as though Paul endorsed the idea that Lev. 18:5 was a promise of eternal life for perfect obedience.

Saint Paul DID equate Leviticus 18:5 in support of earning Eternal Life; but through the Mosaic Covenant of Works...

I ask you, will you say that this makes sense? If you won't, there isn't much reason for us to critique your work as you asked. If you agree, but want to deal with it later on in other responses; just say it's coming. I have already supported you in your Premise that the Theologians you mention teach the Covenant of Works as you present it. Support me in return, by agreeing what I say here is sensible; and if it's not part of your rebuttal, it should be added...

Clearly, Calvin is not alone in asserting that Lev. 18:5 refers not – or not only – to Israel living long in the land, but specifically to the Covenant of Works and perfect obedience earning eternal life.

Again, you are not showing that Calvin or others mean this of the Edenic Covenant of Works. Can you show any of your Theologians using Post Edenic references to refer to Adam?

• Are there one or more Bible texts that prove the assertion that “personal, perfect and perpetual obedience” earns perfect righteousness necessary to merit eternal life?
• Does the Bible teach that eternal life is a debt for God to pay for perfect obedience?

No, not within the Edenic Covenant of Works...

Why? Because of Categories and Category Mistakes. Can you show that a Covenant with two Federal Heads has to be the same Covenant regarding its application in Time? The application of the Mosaic Covenant of Works is different in our Time, right?

 

[Josheb]

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.

I believe I mentioned this in a prior post and perhaps you've addressed it elsewhere and I just haven't gotten to that post yet, but I think either you might be misreading or misunderstanding WLC 20, or I might be misunderstanding your posts. WLC 20 does not state Adam (and Eve) were working to earn righteousness. The "estate in which they were created" was a state of obedience. Thought should be given to the qualifiers "perfect" and "perpetual," especially in contrast to the premise of "pledge." I obedience had to be maintained perfectly and perpetually then A&E would never be able to eat from the tree of life if the pledge is to be understood as "You may eat of the tree when you have obtained that perfect and perpetual obedience." In their mortal state there was no such thing as "perpetual." I'm fairly confident the authors of the WLC knew and understood that. Not only would that a works-based reward reading of WLC 20 be illogical, it would also be contrary to scripture (as I have already pointed out, A&E were free to eat of the tree of life anytime - Gen. 2:16), and since nothing in the Genesis creation narrative conditions that eating upon perfect and perpetual obedience the WLC authors would be adding something enormous to God's word.

I'd argue eating the tree of life is what would keep them in the created state, what would enable them to the condition of personal, perfect, and perpetual obedience.

In other words, if WLC 20 is read to say the perfect, perpetual obedience is a work that earns the reward of eating from the tree of life then that is the cart before the horse.

If WLC 20 is intended to argue A&E could not eat from the tree of life unless and until they lived their entire life (the only perpetuity mortal creatures possess) in perfect obedience WLC 20 is wrong. Logically, the dead don't eat. They'd have to eat with their last breath. In turn, logically, that would be a works-based salvation from death, and a works-based salvation from death while still in a good and sinless state. Now I say this in light of, in the context of a position many here have read me post multiple times = the believe sin is not the only reason Jesus came, lived, died, resurrected, and ascended. Some CCCF members disagree with me and have taken up vigorous debate on the matter. For now, the point is that Adam and Eve were physically mortal, and because they were mortal they were always in need of the tree of life (Jesus) whether in their original, created, good and sinless state, or their not-good, sinful state. The only historical difference between the two states is that the tree of life was freely available prior to Genesis 3:6 and not freely available afterwards. Still necessary, but no longer as accessible.

That last part is important because salvation from death (and the subsequent condition of sin) is by grace. The tree of life exists in the garden solely by grace. God did not have to make the tree. The tree of life that is Jesus is also available solely by grace. Now, after the tree has been cut down for our behalf, and raised up again, the tree covers sin and not just death. The salient point is that salvation has always been by grace through faith and not by works (or faithfulness).

Salvation by grace through faith and not by works is a position ardently asserted and firmly held by the Reformers, and I am confident you will find it stated thusly in the WCF and WLC. I note this because the neither should be read in contradiction to itself.

 

[Mr GLee]

Would you say that Jesus was born under the Law if Moses, or the Law of Adam; or under both?

@Guy Swenson

I would think both the letter of the law death (the just) and the law of faith (the unseen justifier)

God working in us. Yoked with him our daily burden can be lighter. We pray give us that daily food that strengthens us to do His good will the of the Father, the kind of food the disciples at first knew not of. to both will and to do to His good pleasure.

His Covenant of works that he works in us .

Corrupted flesh and blood will not enter the kingdom of God.

They both support, both represent the letter of the law God's instrument of death.

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.

Again, both laws making one perfect law of salvation.

Romans 3:26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.

 

[Guy Swenson]

If you have already posted those quotes then please point me to the posts numbers. If that information has not already been posted then please do so. Quote me the theologians and provide the titles if they come from books or links to the info if it is online. Thx

Happy to do so. It is easier to quote from my Rebuttal to Conclusion #1:

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:

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 …”

"When God formally administered the covenant, He placed Adam and Eve under a temporary probation. Once Adam and Eve fulfilled the mandate, were fruitful, multiplied, filled all the earth, and subdued it, they would have secured God’s promise of eternal life. It is, however, also possible that their probation could have had a shorter duration and, once passed, God would have allowed them to eat of the tree prior to the completion of the dominion mandate.”

“... When God, however, commanded Adam not to eat from the tree of knowledge (Gen. 2:16-17), the threatened curse of death implies that life was the reward for perfect obedience. When God says, ‘For in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die,’ Adam would have lived had he obeyed the command. At some point he would have been permitted to eat from the tree of life. To eat from the tree of knowledge was to choose death. To obey God’s command was to choose life.”

“While Adam lived in the garden, he enjoyed life and possessed righteousness by virtue of being an image bearer of God, but the life he had was mutable and his righteousness was unproven. If Adam was obedient to the command and passed the covenantal probation, he would have entered a confirmed state of eternal life and his righteousness would have been proven.”

From Fesko, J. V., Adam and the Covenant of Works (Divine Covenants Book 1) (p. 350, 421-2). Christian Focus Publications. Kindle Edition.

NOTE: Fesko reiterates the Westminster Larger Catechism regarding eternal life being a reward of personal, perfect, and perpetual obedience.

Further, observe that Fesko endorses the teaching of a probationary period of time where Adam had to live in perfect righteousness:

“… that their probation … once passed, God would have allowed them to eat of the tree …” and “At some point he would have been permitted to eat from the tree of life.”

NOTE: Fesko clearly states that access to the tree of life was restricted until Adam passed his probationary period of works by demonstrating those works of perfect, personal, and perpetual obedience to God.

Again, notice the restrictions and preconditions placed upon Adam before he would be allowed to eat from the tree of life and gain eternal life: “… God would have allowed them to eat …” the fruit of the tree of life ONLY after successfully perfectly passing the probation. “… At some point he would have been permitted to eat from the tree of life …”

So, Fesko is saying that according to the Covenant of Works, Adam had no permission from God to access the tree of life until his probation was successfully completed. Adam had to prove his righteousness through his “works” of perfect obedience before he was allowed by God to gain eternal life by eating from the tree of life.

Next, we go to Dr. Wayne Grudem, who is Research Professor of Theology and Biblical Studies at Phoenix Seminary in Arizona. He is a graduate of Harvard (BA), Westminster Seminary-Philadelphia (MDiv, DD), and the University of Cambridge (PhD). He has served as the president of the Evangelical Theological Society (1999), as a member of the Translation Oversight Committee for the English Standard Version of the Bible and was the General Editor for the ESV Study Bible (2008). He has written more than 20 books, including Systematic Theology, which has sold over 500,000 copies. From that book:

Christ’s Obedience for Us (Sometimes Called His “Active Obedience”). If Christ had only earned forgiveness of sins for us, then we would not merit heaven. Our guilt would have been removed, but we would simply be in the position of Adam and Eve before they had done anything good or bad and before they had passed a time of probation successfully. To be established in righteousness forever and to have their fellowship with God made sure forever, Adam and Eve had to obey God perfectly over a period of time. Then God would have looked on their faithful obedience with pleasure and delight, and they would have lived with him in fellowship forever. For this reason, Christ had to live a life of perfect obedience to God in order to earn righteousness for us. He had to obey the law for his whole life on our behalf so that the positive merits of his perfect obedience would be counted for us. Sometimes this is called Christ’s “active obedience,” while his suffering and dying for our sins is called his “passive obedience.”

Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology, page 484, Copyright © 1994 by Wayne Grudem, Zondervan Publishing House.

NOTE: Grudem repeats these two foundational Covenant of Works teachings of preconditions that restricted Adam’s access to the tree of life – the required “obey God pefectly,” and a time of probation where perfect acts of righteousness were required before receiving eternal life (“… lived with him in fellowship forever…”)

So, these three authoritative sources should be enough to demonstrate that the Covenant of Works does indeed establish preconditions of perfect obedience and a time of probation before Adam would be allowed to eat from the tree of life.

Now, let’s test the Biblical basis for this conclusion – starting with Biblical affirmations, then we will look to see if there are Bible texts that contradict the conclusion.

 

[ReverendRV]

Happy to do so. It is easier to quote from my Rebuttal to Conclusion #1:

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:

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 …”

"When God formally administered the covenant, He placed Adam and Eve under a temporary probation. Once Adam and Eve fulfilled the mandate, were fruitful, multiplied, filled all the earth, and subdued it, they would have secured God’s promise of eternal life. It is, however, also possible that their probation could have had a shorter duration and, once passed, God would have allowed them to eat of the tree prior to the completion of the dominion mandate.”

“... When God, however, commanded Adam not to eat from the tree of knowledge (Gen. 2:16-17), the threatened curse of death implies that life was the reward for perfect obedience. When God says, ‘For in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die,’ Adam would have lived had he obeyed the command. At some point he would have been permitted to eat from the tree of life. To eat from the tree of knowledge was to choose death. To obey God’s command was to choose life.”

“While Adam lived in the garden, he enjoyed life and possessed righteousness by virtue of being an image bearer of God, but the life he had was mutable and his righteousness was unproven. If Adam was obedient to the command and passed the covenantal probation, he would have entered a confirmed state of eternal life and his righteousness would have been proven.”

From Fesko, J. V., Adam and the Covenant of Works (Divine Covenants Book 1) (p. 350, 421-2). Christian Focus Publications. Kindle Edition.

NOTE: Fesko reiterates the Westminster Larger Catechism regarding eternal life being a reward of personal, perfect, and perpetual obedience.

Further, observe that Fesko endorses the teaching of a probationary period of time where Adam had to live in perfect righteousness:

“… that their probation … once passed, God would have allowed them to eat of the tree …” and “At some point he would have been permitted to eat from the tree of life.”

NOTE: Fesko clearly states that access to the tree of life was restricted until Adam passed his probationary period of works by demonstrating those works of perfect, personal, and perpetual obedience to God.

Again, notice the restrictions and preconditions placed upon Adam before he would be allowed to eat from the tree of life and gain eternal life: “… God would have allowed them to eat …” the fruit of the tree of life ONLY after successfully perfectly passing the probation. “… At some point he would have been permitted to eat from the tree of life …”

So, Fesko is saying that according to the Covenant of Works, Adam had no permission from God to access the tree of life until his probation was successfully completed. Adam had to prove his righteousness through his “works” of perfect obedience before he was allowed by God to gain eternal life by eating from the tree of life.

Next, we go to Dr. Wayne Grudem, who is Research Professor of Theology and Biblical Studies at Phoenix Seminary in Arizona. He is a graduate of Harvard (BA), Westminster Seminary-Philadelphia (MDiv, DD), and the University of Cambridge (PhD). He has served as the president of the Evangelical Theological Society (1999), as a member of the Translation Oversight Committee for the English Standard Version of the Bible and was the General Editor for the ESV Study Bible (2008). He has written more than 20 books, including Systematic Theology, which has sold over 500,000 copies. From that book:

Christ’s Obedience for Us (Sometimes Called His “Active Obedience”). If Christ had only earned forgiveness of sins for us, then we would not merit heaven. Our guilt would have been removed, but we would simply be in the position of Adam and Eve before they had done anything good or bad and before they had passed a time of probation successfully. To be established in righteousness forever and to have their fellowship with God made sure forever, Adam and Eve had to obey God perfectly over a period of time. Then God would have looked on their faithful obedience with pleasure and delight, and they would have lived with him in fellowship forever. For this reason, Christ had to live a life of perfect obedience to God in order to earn righteousness for us. He had to obey the law for his whole life on our behalf so that the positive merits of his perfect obedience would be counted for us. Sometimes this is called Christ’s “active obedience,” while his suffering and dying for our sins is called his “passive obedience.”

Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology, page 484, Copyright © 1994 by Wayne Grudem, Zondervan Publishing House.

NOTE: Grudem repeats these two foundational Covenant of Works teachings of preconditions that restricted Adam’s access to the tree of life – the required “obey God pefectly,” and a time of probation where perfect acts of righteousness were required before receiving eternal life (“… lived with him in fellowship forever…”)

So, these three authoritative sources should be enough to demonstrate that the Covenant of Works does indeed establish preconditions of perfect obedience and a time of probation before Adam would be allowed to eat from the tree of life.

Now, let’s test the Biblical basis for this conclusion – starting with Biblical affirmations, then we will look to see if there are Bible texts that contradict the conclusion.

Yes, the Theologians you list teach this about the Covenant of Works; it's undeniable...