Covenant of Works

[Mr GLee]

Adam wasn't born at all.

Hre was created after the corrupted rudiments of this world .Believers are not of this world system We do not know Christ after it in any way shape or form

Colossians 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

Colossians 2:20 Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances,

Adam violated his parole and died

 

[ReverendRV]

Rebuttal of Conclusion #2: 1 of 14

Step 2: – Are There Positive Bible Affirmations that “Eternal Life Can Be Earned?” “Adam, by the Covenant of Works, could earn perfect righteousness which creates an obligation (or a “debt”) of God to reward the successful work of Adam with the promised eternal life.”

If the Mosaic Covenant of Works is a Synergistic Covenant, and if it's Promises also apply to the Edenic Covenant of Works; the Bible affirms in Deuteronomy 28 that Adam could earn perfect Righteousness...

When Jesus earned the Promised Righteousness of the Law, he didn't need to eat from the Tree of Life; he earned his way to Heaven. Adam would have earned a Human righteousness that is a reflection of the Righteousness of God; like the Moon shining is a reflection of the Sun...

 

[Arial]

To me, your question presupposes the C.o.W. is true.

It does not presuppose that the COW is true. It is the covenant of works that comes out of who Jesus is and what He did, and how and why He did it. It is the person and work of Jesus that lets us see a COW. So can you actually answer the question asked in a slightly different way (which will be the third time it was asked: Why do you think Jesus was born under the law, kept the law perfectly, died in our place, and was raised again to life? And why is He called the second Adam? We are actually so far hearing nothing from you except quoting from others that present a false premise, and refuting their false premise, but not refuting the COV. To refute the COV, you will need to put something in its place and support that.

Jesus was the Son of God, the Logos made flesh. He never needed obedience to earn eternal life. John 10:17 “Therefore My Father loves Me, because I lay down My life that I may take it again. 18 No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This command I have received from My Father.”

No one disputes that on this forum. Reformed theology does not teach that. It is not a part of the COV according to the Bible, not according to the two "authorities" you use to define the COV. Stop using that logical fallacy to dispute the COV and dispute it from what it really is. As I said this morning, you are arguing a strawman from beginning to end. That does not and never will prove there is no COV. You are an intelligent man. Why do you keep trying to do this?

The C.o.W. teaches that Jesus had to do what Adam did not do - live a perfect life without sin so He could earn eternal life and impute that eternal life to those He chose. Jesus fulfilled the C.o.W. The apostle John says otherwise. But this is covered in Rebuttal #4.

No it does not. Strawman. It teaches that Jesus would need to do what Adam did not do---live a sinless life in order to be able to substitute His righteousness for our sins and our sin in Adam. He was not earning righteousness, He fulfilled righteousness----until what?---death. That is what Reformed theology teaches, A'ism teaches, traditional orthodox Christianity teaches. He fulfilled the COW. You are refuting Fesko and the other dude. You are not refuting the COW. Did you hear me that time?

So, Adam never had to earn eternal life by perfect obedience. I actually agree with that, but then it must follow that Jesus never had to earn eternal life by perfect obedience. So Jesus never had to fulfill the C.o.W. I agree with that as well. (I get into this in Rebuttal #4 - it comes from the treatment of Romans 5 and equivalencies drawn between Adam's disobedience and what is meant by the obedience of Jesus.

Jesus did not have to earn eternal life. He kept it for us. And yes, He did have to fulfill the COW. That was how He proved/kept His righteousness. The Law was in place. The Edenic law was transgressed by Adam and in him all his progeny. That fact is what eventually led to the Mosaic Law. Can you at least acknowledge that the covenant with Israel was a covenant of works?

I am sorry that you feel disagreeing or disputing the teachings of theologians is tarnishing their names.

You aren't disputing their teachings. You are cherry picking them to make them agree with you rebuttal to Fesko and ?, because they did the very same thing. But you are not actually refuting the COV.

It seems to me then that all doctrinal disagreements become attacks on persons. That certainly limits discussion and debate on matters of theology and doctrine.

Hogwash. When you cherry pick comments from someone, pull it from its entire context in order to present it as saying what it is not saying, that is a justifiable error to point out and it most certainly defames the person being misrepresented. No one said it was an attack on them.

Maybe it exists - but I never heard of someone taking an event thousands of years later an applying it in that manner.

Then you have not read or understood the Law, the Prophets, Jesus, or the apostles. Almost everything Jesus and the apostles said referred back to the OT, revealing what it was foreshadowing as revealed in Christ.

 

[Arial]

I don't agree with @Guy Swenson 's Four conclusions either; and neither does he. He's using the Doctrine of the quoted Theologians, so he can undermine them; like you and I are also undermining his Conclusions. I can't say Guy is building a Strawman, since his Four Conclusions are the Teachings of Covenant Theologians. But I can say, when Mormons have Theologians; it doesn't mean they're right; that Mormonism is True because it has a Doctrine...

Perhaps we can agree that although Gus isn't building a Strawman, he's using someone else's Strawman?

It is the strawman he is using to refute the existence of the COW. Therefore not once has he actually refuted the COW. I know he is using those theologians. I am pointing out that you can't show something is wrong by basing your rebuttals on something that is wrong. HIs point in my understanding was to show that there is no COV, not to critique those theologians.

 

[Guy Swenson]

I have a detailed rebuttal - it was 1,300+ words, so I have to cut it down. I do quote from Calvin's commentary on Lev. 18:5. Will post it later.

To me, your question presupposes the C.o.W. is true. I also am using the conclusions of the C.o.W. arguments. Would you not agree that if the conclusions of an argument are falsifiable by explicit Scripture, it doesn't matter how the argument was constructed?

Jesus was the Son of God, the Logos made flesh. He never needed obedience to earn eternal life. John 10:17 “Therefore My Father loves Me, because I lay down My life that I may take it again. 18 No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This command I have received from My Father.”

The C.o.W. teaches that Jesus had to do what Adam did not do - live a perfect life without sin so He could earn eternal life and impute that eternal life to those He chose. Jesus fulfilled the C.o.W. The apostle John says otherwise. But this is covered in Rebuttal #4.

Belief in Jesus and the atonement by way of His death and shed blood is the only way of being given the gift of eternal life.

So, Adam never had to earn eternal life by perfect obedience. I actually agree with that, but then it must follow that Jesus never had to earn eternal life by perfect obedience. So Jesus never had to fulfill the C.o.W. I agree with that as well. (I get into this in Rebuttal #4 - it comes from the treatment of Romans 5 and equivalencies drawn between Adam's disobedience and what is meant by the obedience of Jesus.


I am sorry that you feel disagreeing or disputing the teachings of theologians is tarnishing their names. It seems to me then that all doctrinal disagreements become attacks on persons. That certainly limits discussion and debate on matters of theology and doctrine. As to "back shadowing" - it is a completely made up term by me to describe something that I could not find a historical precedent among theologians. Maybe it exists - but I never heard of someone taking an event thousands of years later an applying it in that manner.

Then if you are correct, everything he said in his Four Conclusions at the start are also correct; and therefore his rebuttals are also most likely to be correct...

We speak of Limited Atonement; why can't the Edenic Covenant of Works not be a limited version of the Mosaic Covenant? This is the the way I look at it; the Edenic Covenant of Works is Limited to only a Curse. The Mosaic Covenant has Blessings and Curses. If these two Covenants of Works are a Hypostasis, then God promised Life and Curses to Adam; because the Mosaic Covenant LOANS it's Promises to the Edenic Covenant...

To me, this is the crux of the Debate here; how can it be both since Jesus did not come from Adam? Christ's Covenant of Works was harder to Keep than Adam's Covenant of Works was; Jesus HAD to Die to Keep the Covenant of Works, Adam didn't. They MUST be two different Covenants of Works. Baptists separate the Old Covenant from the New Covenant; Presbyterians don't. Baptists separate the Edenic Covenant from the Mosaic Covenant; Presbyterians don't...

Let's ask; what did Jesus HAVE to do that Adam didn't?

@Guy Swenson @Arial @His clay @Josheb @CrowCross

Remember Seth? He got to a point he would often ignore me, because I said interesting things hard to answer...

OK, this must be the post you referred to ... and Charles, remember I am not Seth ...

What did Jesus HAVE to do that Adam didn't? (In the context of salvation and eternal life)

Let's be more complete - starting with what did ADAM have to do?

1. Believe God and choose the tree of life and not the forbidden tree.
2. Stomp that snake as soon as it got into the garden ...
3. Make a hard decision when his wife ate the forbidden fruit, and do the right thing.

Adam did none of these.

What did Jesus have to do?

1. As the Logos, become flesh.
2. Be the sacrifice for sin.

Some would add to not sin, but whether Jesus was ever really in jeopardy of committing a sin is another topic. Others might also add from Hebrews 5:8 "... though He was a Son, yet He learned obedience by the things which He suffered. 9 And having been perfected, He became the author of eternal salvation to all who obey Him,"

Probably some more ... like living a perfect life in order to earn eternal life + maybe other C.o.W. teachings.

Jesus did not have to fulfill a "covenant of works" ...

 

[ReverendRV]

It does not presuppose that the COW is true.

We suppose that God DID make a Covenant with Adam; what can we call it @Guy Swenson ? Why not the Covenant of Works, since the Mosaic Covenant is referred to as Works of the Law?

Hosea 6:7 ESV; But like Adam they transgressed the covenant; there they dealt faithlessly with me.

Did you know my Non Calvinist Baptist Church believes this Verse? John Wesley spoke on this, so Methodists also believe it. Should I go on? The Methodist Adam Clark agrees Adam broke a Covenant...

 

[ReverendRV]

It is the strawman he is using to refute the existence of the COW. Therefore not once has he actually refuted the COW. I know he is using those theologians. I am pointing out that you can't show something is wrong by basing your rebuttals on something that is wrong. HIs point in my understanding was to show that there is no COV, not to critique those theologians.

Similarly, it's wrong to site a School Curriculum; to show it is good to teach Kindergarten students that Drag Queens are good...

 

[Ladodgers6]

Which are contrasting juxtaposiitons of imputation of disobedience/condemnation and obedience/justification-eternal life.

The two Adams. Read the Tale of the two Adams by Meredith Kline. I believe you can download a free pdf.

 

[Arial]

Again, I am on the outside looking in - but this idea that leading professors, theologians, writers of Systematic Theology books used in Reformed higher education are creating "strawman" arguments that I am using boggles my mind.

It is possible that Fesko and Grudem did not say what your cherry picked quotes make it look like they said. Who knows what came before or what came after that might have clarified the issue. You picked specific quotes to refute, just as you picked the quote of Calvin from half a sentence in an entire exposition of Romans 10. You show them doing that too----but did they really or is there more to the story. I, for one, have been telling you what is in the COW by what the Bible says. Do I offer a plethora of scriptures to support it? No but I am using scripture and you are surely well enough acquainted with them to recognize this. I can't spend all of my fifteen or so waking hours doing so. The COW begins with the creation of Adam and flows through all of scripture following to the cross. The truth of the matter is, it is still in force as works for everyone but those in Christ. That is how the unredeemed are judged as unrighteous.

 

[Arial]

Similarly, it's wrong to site a School Curriculum; to show it is good to teach Kindergarten students that Drag Queens are good...

???

 

[ReverendRV]

... and Charles, remember I am not Seth ...

I'm over it

 

[Guy Swenson]

It does not presuppose that the COW is true. It is the covenant of works that comes out of who Jesus is and what He did, and how and why He did it. It is the person and work of Jesus that lets us see a COW. So can you actually answer the question asked in a slightly different way (which will be the third time it was asked: Why do you think Jesus was born under the law, kept the law perfectly, died in our place, and was raised again to life? And why is He called the second Adam? We are actually so far hearing nothing from you except quoting from others that present a false premise, and refuting their false premise, but not refuting the COV. To refute the COV, you will need to put something in its place and support that.

I cover why Jesus was born under the law in Rebuttal #4. As to requiring a different doctrine in place and supporting that in order to refute the C.O.W., I am not sure where you get that idea. Doctrines can be refuted without having a replacement. It may not be satisfying to you, but you seem to me to making a pretty broad and sweeping claim that a replacement doctrine must be approved before a doctrine can be refuted.

No one disputes that on this forum. Reformed theology does not teach that. It is not a part of the COV according to the Bible, not according to the two "authorities" you use to define the COV. Stop using that logical fallacy to dispute the COV and dispute it from what it really is. As I said this morning, you are arguing a strawman from beginning to end. That does not and never will prove there is no COV. You are an intelligent man. Why do you keep trying to do this?

No it does not. Strawman. It teaches that Jesus would need to do what Adam did not do---live a sinless life in order to be able to substitute His righteousness for our sins and our sin in Adam. He was not earning righteousness, He fulfilled righteousness----until what?---death. That is what Reformed theology teaches, A'ism teaches, traditional orthodox Christianity teaches. He fulfilled the COW. You are refuting Fesko and the other dude. You are not refuting the COW. Did you hear me that time?

Who is the credible authority that teaches the C.O.W. correctly - and differently from Grudem, for example? I am specifically interested in the correct teaching of the topics covered by my 4 conclusions.

Jesus did not have to earn eternal life. He kept it for us. And yes, He did have to fulfill the COW. That was how He proved/kept His righteousness. The Law was in place. The Edenic law was transgressed by Adam and in him all his progeny. That fact is what eventually led to the Mosaic Law. Can you at least acknowledge that the covenant with Israel was a covenant of works?

Nope. I wrote extensively on the fallacy of Calvin's use of Lev. 18:5. I did a point by point analysis of why it was false. I will respond to your assertion that I cherry picked Calvin - I am correct in what I asserted Calvin said. That is the 1,300+ word post I have to trim down.

You aren't disputing their teachings. You are cherry picking them to make them agree with you rebuttal to Fesko and ?, because they did the very same thing. But you are not actually refuting the COV.

Nope. My citations are correct - and I will supply more. The problem is that when I cite someone, they are not credible to you. Calvin seems OK, so I will use him some more. My Biblical representations in Rebuttal #2 have not been challenged. Let's move to what the Bible says - I like that as the authority. I have put out my case - if you want to debate the Bible, then please be specific and rebut what I wrote about the Bible statements.

Hogwash. When you cherry pick comments from someone, pull it from its entire context in order to present it as saying what it is not saying, that is a justifiable error to point out and it most certainly defames the person being misrepresented. No one said it was an attack on them.

Then you have not read or understood the Law, the Prophets, Jesus, or the apostles. Almost everything Jesus and the apostles said referred back to the OT, revealing what it was foreshadowing as revealed in Christ.

I agree that there was plenty of foreshadowing of Christ in the law and the prophets.

Calvin taught that eternal life is a reward for perfect righteousness. That pretty much defines what Adam had to do if Adam wanted eternal life. From Calvin's Commentary on Lev. 18:5 - cited from https://bible.prayerrequest.com/786-calvin-john-complete-commentaryexe/leviticus/18/5/18/5/

Regarding Lev. 18:5 ...

"... inasmuch as it sanctions and confirms the Law by the promise of reward. The hope of eternal life is, therefore, given to all who keep the Law; for those who expound the passage as referring to this earthly and transitory life are mistaken."
"...But Scripture does not therefore deny that men are justified by works, because the Law itself is imperfect, or does not give instructions for perfect righteousness; but because the promise is made of none effect by our corruption and sin."
"... Foolishly, then, do some reject as an absurdity the statement, that if a man fulfills the Law he attains to righteousness; for the defect does not arise from the doctrine of the Law, but from the infirmity of men, as is plain from another testimony given by Paul. (Rom_8:3.) We must observe, however, that salvation is not to be expected from the Law unless its precepts be in every respect complied with; for life is not promised to one who shall have done this thing, or that thing, but, by the plural word, full obedience is required of us."
From your quotation of Calvin on Romans: https://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom38.xiv.ii.html

For Moses describes, etc. Paul has γράφει writes; which is used for a verb which means to describe, by taking away a part of it [ἐπιγράφει.] The passage is taken from Leviticus 18:5, where the Lord promises eternal life to those who would keep his law; for in this sense, as you see, Paul has taken the passage, and not only of temporal life, as some think. Paul indeed thus reasons, — “Since no man can attain the righteousness prescribed in the law, except he fulfills strictly every part of it, and since of this perfection all men have always come far short, it is in vain for any one to strive in this way for salvation: Israel then were very foolish, who expected to attain the righteousness of the law, from which we are all excluded.”
So, let's summarize Calvin:

1. Eternal life is given to those who keep the law.
2. The problem with such justification is human corruption and sin.
3. Obedience to the law must be complete.
4. Lev. 18:5 states that the Israelites were offered eternal life if they obeyed the law perfectly. (Quoted here so there is no question of what Calvin quote I am using: "... taken from Leviticus 18:5, where the Lord promises eternal life to those who would keep his law; for in this sense, as you see, Paul has taken the passage, and not only of temporal life, as some think. (Calvin on Romans)

In my rebuttal #2 I document, using Scripture:

1. Eternal life was never offered to those who keep the law. It was never offered to the Israelites in the "Mosaic" covenant. You can't find it in the covenant texts.
2. Nobody is justified by their works.
3. While God commands obedience, it is not for the purposes of earning eternal life. Not for Israel, not for the rich young man - I spend 15 pages debunking the misuse of Lev. 18:5 as a proof text of perfect obedience earns eternal life.

I am good with skipping the theologians and their "snow men" arguments. I make the case extensively about the gross misapplication of Lev 18:5 using Scripture.

Show me where I misrepresent the Scripture. I make a sequential and logical argument entirely using Scripture. Debunk me, point by point.

 

[Josheb]

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.

Did I not say as much?

Read the part of Post 464 pertaining to freedom versus liberty. Of course no one is free and no choice or action exists without causation. Nothing I ever post should ever be construed to say otherwise. The oft-neglected reality is that choices and actions can be causal on their own. It is, therefore, not just God, not just time, not just knowledge, and not any of the other conditions that control or influence any given moment but our own agency. The social sciences have decades of research on this. Literally. We know, for example, that behavior modification techniques can be extremely effective conditioning and eventually controlling human behavior. BUT.... we also know, for example, that condition is inhibited once a person realizes they are being conditioned or controlled. It is a reactive, an antithetical effect, an inverse relationship between conditioning and the knowledge of the conditioning. The results become mixed if consent is obtained ! This is one of the reasons behavior modification is more effective with lower IQs (for example).

A person doesn't need to be a social scientist to understand this because there are scores of episodes in human history demonstrating and confirming what we test and learn in the "laboratory." What we now KNOW as a function of empirical proof was NOT what the theological doctrines were considering when those doctrines were formed, but that does not make the facts in evidence any different (or the doctrines different). Take, for example, the idea of Adam's disobedience having a direct effect on all his progeny. On its face the premise is prima facie absurd but, in their wisdom, along with a lot of vigorous debate and prayer, the early theologians came to the correct position without the scientific information available to us in the 21st century when we can look at what goes on inside a person at a cellular level. We know, for example, that all experience is recorded (we call it "memory"). We also KNOW that through the process of cellular mitosis every single cell in the body eventually contains a record of ALL our experiences (it takes about three years for the human body to replace itself entirely, and that continues throughout our lifespan). We also KNOW trauma changes the brain and it does so suddenly, immediately, and tyrannically. We can literally take before and after images of the brain and visibly see the change. We can also see the changes persistent or modified years, decades later.

NOTHING in human history has been more traumatizing than our fall from grace.

That moment after Adam ate the forbidden kiwi he was changed, AND he was changed on a cellular level. Regardless of the changes God ADDED upon Adam (see Genesis 3), Adam himself changed Adam and Adam himself changed Adam in deterministic and unyielding ways he did not know would happen, did not choose would happen, and did not want to persist. He was changed at a cellular level and we KNOW that even though scripture is silent on the matter. We know it because God, in His wisdom, permitted us centuries later to uncover the realities of cellular change. The facts of cellular activity are not new. It's out knowledge of those facts that is new. This is not knowledge the early theologians possessed but that is immaterial because we now KNOW their theology does in fact have a very real and substantive genetic foundation. It is very real and also undeniable. Adam's (and Eve's) experience of the fall was recorded in their brain. Eventually, over the coruse of time that memory was transcribed into every cell of their body, and when that record made it to their gonads they then transferred that record into their progeny at a cellular level.

Cripes!

Determinism.

It's not the kind of determinism that is typically broached in soteriological discussions because most folks are arguing over the determinism of God's will over the human will or, too much lesser degree, sadly, the determinism of sin (because sin does not ask anyone's permission for anything), but the fact is the fall is a very real limit on our agency.

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.

It's not an insult in and of itself. The best thing to do with ad hominem is note it and ignore it. The best thing to do with trolls is don't feed them.

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.................

Anyhow, thanks for your answer, and for listening.

Another frequently occurring problem in these discussions is the tendency to limit discourse to only two options; to limit doctrine to only to doctrines. It's a huge mistake, imo. Creation is immensely diverse and humans are the most sophisticated creature God made. It's very clear from scripture God does act with extreme determinism (and prejudice) at times. Pharoah would be a case in point. It would not have mattered who was Pharaoh when the 400 years was up; that guy was going to have a sucky life in the end. He did not have any choice. It's somewhat different with Moses or Paul even though both men were chosen before birth for the specific purpose they served in God's plan for creation. There's a sense in which the only truly free man to have ever lived, Jesus, didn't have a lot of freedom either because he was always going to die and resurrect no matter what else happened.

It is a good thing he chose to be that guy .

Now, back to the covenant of works .

 

[Guy Swenson]

It is possible that Fesko and Grudem did not say what your cherry picked quotes make it look like they said. Who knows what came before or what came after that might have clarified the issue. You picked specific quotes to refute, just as you picked the quote of Calvin from half a sentence in an entire exposition of Romans 10. You show them doing that too----but did they really or is there more to the story. I, for one, have been telling you what is in the COW by what the Bible says. Do I offer a plethora of scriptures to support it? No but I am using scripture and you are surely well enough acquainted with them to recognize this. I can't spend all of my fifteen or so waking hours doing so. The COW begins with the creation of Adam and flows through all of scripture following to the cross. The truth of the matter is, it is still in force as works for everyone but those in Christ. That is how the unredeemed are judged as unrighteous.

As I say in a later response, I am totally good with using only Scripture. In my rebuttal #2 I give a complete exposition using Scripture alone that contradicts major C.O.W. teachings.

Show me where I misrepresented what the Scripture explicitly states.

 

[Guy Swenson]

Similarly, it's wrong to site a School Curriculum; to show it is good to teach Kindergarten students that Drag Queens are good...

OK, I am going to skip this one, too.

Let's stick to Scripture alone. I put out my argument - debunk away!

 

[ReverendRV]

We suppose that God DID make a Covenant with Adam; what can we call it @Guy Swenson ? Why not the Covenant of Works, since the Mosaic Covenant is referred to as Works of the Law?

Hosea 6:7 ESV; But like Adam they transgressed the covenant; there they dealt faithlessly with me.

Did you know my Non Calvinist Baptist Church believes this Verse? John Wesley spoke on this, so Methodists also believe it. Should I go on? The Methodist Adam Clark agrees Adam broke a Covenant...

Bump...

 

[Guy Swenson]

We suppose that God DID make a Covenant with Adam; what can we call it @Guy Swenson ? Why not the Covenant of Works, since the Mosaic Covenant is referred to as Works of the Law?

Hosea 6:7 ESV; But like Adam they transgressed the covenant; there they dealt faithlessly with me.

Did you know my Non Calvinist Baptist Church believes this Verse? John Wesley spoke on this, so Methodists also believe it. Should I go on?

I cite Hosea 6:7 on page 8 in the rebuttal of Conclusion #1.

If you are asking me to name the Hosea 6:7 covenant, I am happy to do so.

I nominate the title "The Covenant of Belief." Had Adam believed God and DISBelieved Satan, he would have taken from the tree of life, not eaten from the forbidden tree, and the world would be different. I go through this extensively in the summary at the end of Rebuttal #2.

Every instance of God making a covenant with a person or even a nation, it begins with belief. Adam disbelieved. Moses was totally focused on how to insure Israel believed. Abraham believed God and it was imputed/reckoned as righteousness. Christians must believe in order to be saved.

As I point out in the summary, it does not take much belief to be counted as righteous and be granted eternal life. Abraham had sex with Sara at an advanced age. Adam just had to pick the tree of life and not eat from one out of many trees. We just have to believe in Jesus, and Him who sent Jesus.

Belief should lead to other things ... repentance, faith, baptism, laying on of hands, ... but it is not a difficult or impossible task. It wasn't for Adam, except for Satan's influence. It isn't hard for us, except for Satan's deception.

Straw men to snow men. C.O.W. to C.O.B. We are making real progress here! (Just having some fun ...)

 

[Arial]

To say it would be possible for a “naturally generated” person who was guilty of Original Sin to still fulfill the Covenant of Works is a fatal internal contradiction within and between the two doctrines. Would any theologian who advocates the Covenant of Works declare the doctrine of Original Sin to be a heresy in order to make the argument that perfect obedience by Israelites could earn eternal life?

Do you have any scripture that denies original sin? Here are some that affirm it. (Rom 5:12; Ps 51:5;Ezek 18:4; Gen 3:22;Rom 3:10-18; Ps 14:2-3; Eph 2:1-3; Rom7:9-11; Rom 3:23; Gen 2:17) Do the Scriptures say that we can be perfectly righteous, or does it say that me must be perfectly righteous in order to have eternal life? Does it say it is possible for those in Adam to fulfill the covenant of works or does it say that if we want eternal life we must? "Oh blessed are the feet of those who bring good news." "Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world!" "And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God and saying: 'Glory to God in the highest, ad on earth peace, goodwill toward men!'" "Now all these things are from God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation, namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them---"

Aren’t these interpretations by Calvin and other theologians of Lev 18:5 actually an assertion that Jesus lied by knowingly promising – and requiring – the impossible? Or saying the impossible was possible? Remember this as we move to the next matter of Jesus and Paul quoting Lev. 18:5.

Absolutely not. It is like you miss the whole purpose of Jesus coming. And the point that He was speaking to a people who thought they were justified simply by being the people who had the law. All throughout the gospels Jesus makes reference to unbelieving Jews, especially the scribes and Pharisees who spent their days learning and reading the law and the prophets, not understanding what was in them because they spoke of Him. They should have recognized Him and they did not. He, Jesus, is the One who gives life, and faith in Him gives life. Everyone He spoke to btw had already not kept the law perfectly.

 

[Arial]

As I say in a later response, I am totally good with using only Scripture. In my rebuttal #2 I give a complete exposition using Scripture alone that contradicts major C.O.W. teachings.

Show me where I misrepresented what the Scripture explicitly states.

I missed that part. Will have to catch it later. All this back scrolling, responding, back scrolling, up and down scrolling, keeping track of what has been read and addressed, all the while trying to keep current alerts responded to is really an unconscionable approach. It is exhausting and mind numbing.There are better ways of organizing a thing. You could have just posted a thread "Why I Don't Believe in the COW" and left out three fourths of the pages. And since it has now put me in this unproductive frame of mind---- I AM TAKING A BREAK!

 

[Josheb]

Replied elsewhere.






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.

Was Adam obedient prior to Genesis 3:6?

I am missing your point here …

Well... let's see if I can clarify the point.

On one hand I read the acknowledgment that this "probationary period," and this "covenant of works" is definitely about the pre-disobedient Adam (and Eve). It is about conditions existing before Genesis 3:6 - even though scripture itself does not actually label the conditions a probationary, temporary, or conditional. On another hand I read you reading the WLC differently than what you and I agree is stated and unstated in scripture. Why then do you read the WLC differently than what's said in scripture?

Why do you assume the authors of the WLC meant something different?

How is it that the WLC is read to say something different than scripture when neither the scripture nor the WLC actually contain words like "conditional" or "reward"? How is it you're critical of the WLC and not first your own reading of the WLC? Have you checked your biases?

I'm an equal opportunity critic. My peers here will testify to that. If you want to crack something open for the sake of forensic analysis then ask Jos because that guy is a pain in the backside, unyielding in his examination and expectation and demand for evidence and proof wherever possible, a disdainer of unwarranted speculation who holds everyone and no one with esteem . In another currently occurring thread I've tried to explain this to another poster: even though I currently attend a Presbyterian congregation I know no sect or denomination is perfect so I am willing and ready wo stand with a criticism of Presbyterian thought, doctrine, or practice IF THE PROOF WARRNATS IT, but if there is no proof and the evidence is unjust then the critic is a jerk and his/her argument discarded. I'll defend the Baptists, Methodists, non-demons, even the Catholics when criticism is unjust but I'll also stand with just criticism when it is proven with evidence. My standard operating procedure, or modus operandi is...

• Affirm that which bears consistency with well rendered scripture.
• Ask questions about what is either not adequately explained, or I do not adequately understand.
• Refute that which does not bear consistency with well rendered scripture.

Because THE single best case any of us can post is....

a polite and respectful, reasonable and rational, cogent and coherent topical case built on well-rendered scripture.

One last metric: I do not tend to resort to extra-biblical sources unless that source is the subject of the discussion. So, when defending monergisim I use scripture and not any of the hundreds of theologians who came after the Bible was compiled. If Calvinism is criticized, then I might quote Calvin to show the criticism a straw man because the number one and number two problems in the Arm v Cal debate is 1) Cals getting Calvinism wrong and Arms getting Arminianism wrong (we get OUR OWN soteriology wrong) and 2) Cals getting Arminianism wrong and Arms getting Calvinism wrong. In other words, it's more problematic that we get our own side wrong than our getting the other side wrong, and it AALWAYS works best when we correctly understand both/all sides.


And everyone here, again, will testify to that effect. That is what I do and I do it a lot so I've become very good at it - aggravatingly so sometimes. Blessedly, and commendably, most will say they aspire to similar standards. I've endeavored to practice that same set of metrics here in this thread.

So, forgiving me the digressions, I am very pleased to see you post evidence. The patience and forbearance present so far is commended. The lack of detail? Not so much. At this particular moment - given what I have read so far - I am wondering how WLC 20 is read to say something it does not actually state. I understand some second-hand theologian's interpretation (along with four other guys' views) has been read and that is the basis of the op but 1) appeals to authority are fallacious and 2) at some point we each to speak for ourselves.

WLC 20 doesn't actually state the tree of life was a reward. It uses the word "pledge" but that is not the same as a reward and it is definitely not the same as a pledged reward conditioned on works of the flesh (sinless or sinful). I am wondering why you read the text that way. Is it solely because of Fesko? If so then read more Calvinists because I for one - a firmly entrenched monergist - will offer an alternative, but ultimately you have to read, think, and decided for yourself as objectively as you can based on the facts of scripture.


For example: The word "pledge" is used on several occasions in the NT epistolary but not once is the pledge a condition of performance. Look it up. In 1 Peter 3 the apostle is writing about his readers' suffering "because of righteousness and he says something interesting,

1 Peter 2:17-22 BLB
For it is better to suffer for doing good, if the will of God wills it, than doing evil, because Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, so that He might bring you to God, having been put to death indeed in the flesh, but having been made alive in the spirit, in which also having gone, He preached to the spirits in prison at one time having disobeyed, when the longsuffering of God was waiting in the days of Noah, of the ark being prepared, in which a few—that is, eight souls—were saved through water, which also prefigures the baptism now saving you, not a putting away of the filth of flesh, but the demand of a good conscience toward God, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who is at the right hand of God, having gone into heaven, angels and authorities and powers having been subjected to Him.

I've used the Berean Literal translation because it's a fair rendering of the Greek but some translations us the word "pledge" in the place od "demand." Notice this demand, or pledge, is written to those and about those who are already saved from both sin and death so it is not specifically applicable to the pre-disobedient Adam living in a pre-disobedient world. However, the usage of the word "pledge" in the NT begs a question:

When you read WLC 20, did you do so in a manner consistent with the NT use of the word "pledge"? Or was WLC 20 read in disregard to scripture's use of the term? If the letter, then why? Why would anyone read the WLC assuming the authors were using language differently than scripture?

I remind you that you invited the scrutiny and did so because you want to refine your views. Apparently you've written a lengthy treatise on the matter and want to make sure it is correct, valid and veracious. That's commendable but if the theologians and source documents were read with a pre-existing bias that ignored the possibility the authors used words in the same manner as the NT then you might have to start over.

Let's keep it simple for now. Why was WLC 20 read to be conditional and the pledge as a reward? Explain it to me so I understand.