Covenant of Works

[ReverendRV]

---- I AM TAKING A BREAK!

Me too; kind of...

In over 500 Posts, I've engaged faithfully. I find that @Guy Swenson is not interested in the Critique. When this happens, I start making Drive-By Posts, designed for y'all; and the Lurkers...

 

[Guy Swenson]

Do you have any scripture that denies original sin?

Yes, but that is part of the next project I am working on. If I could debunk the Calvinist teaching on Original Sin, not sure I would do it right now. It isn't my job to bail Calvin out of his self-inflicted fatal flaw with totally contradictory doctrines.

The point I made was that Calvin was trying to have it both ways.

1. Calvin is dogmatic that Lev. 18:5 refers to eternal life as the reward for perfect obedience.
2. Calvin was contradicting his own doctrine of Original Sin - saying God was offering the "perfect obedience earns eternal life" to people (Israel) who could not possibly do it - because of Original Sin, if for no other reason.
3. Since nobody in the audience of Lev. 18:5 could have performed perfect obedience, that pretty much makes God a liar - promising and requiring something nobody in the audience could possible do.

This is straight forward and I go through it in great detail in rebuttal #2.

I don't have to disprove Original Sin - my point is that Calvin's argument is fatally flawed because he contradicts his own doctrine of Original Sin in order to prove his doctrine of the Covenant of Works.

This is a logical fallacy of Calvin's own making. I am guilty of pointing it out and holding the advocates of C.O.W. to defend his catastrophic failing in Biblical exegesis.

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---"

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.

I don't make the whole purpose of Jesus coming the fulfillment of the alleged, Covenant of Works. The C.O.W. is central to the entire package of Reformed Theology.

The bad news is, if the C.O.W. fails, much of Reformed theology fails with it.

The good news is the gospel is not Reformed theology and that there are other ways of understanding the Bible that give hope to all mankind.

Jesus came to seek and to save those who are lost. One of my favorite passages are what I call the "Three Lost Parables." The parables are not lost - but they talk about seeking the lost coin, the last lamb and the lost boy.

What a beautiful picture they paint of the heart of Jesus, and God the Father, toward all of us.

 

[Josheb]

Hi thanks for the reply I would offer. .

Adam was born into corrupted dying, aging body.

No,. That is incorrect.

Adam was born into a mortal body that began dying the moment after it was born, but it was NOT "corrupted." Sinless life and death are the created order. Sinful dead-in-sin life and death are NOT the created order. Huge difference.

God corrupted the whole creation when He found......

And this is where I part ways with you and think your views godless and depraved and godless and depraved so much that I will have nothing to do with it. God did NOT corrupt His own creation.

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

That is a post-disobedient verse written about post-disobedient conditions in a post-disobedient world. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with anything or anyone in the pre-disobedient creation. It is ALWAYS and EVERYWHERE incorrect to take conditions of the sinful world and apply them to the sinless world.

BAD exegesis.


Show me where scripture explicitly states God corrupted His own not-yet-corrupted creation and I'll reconsider my position. I am not asking for a verse read to infer, imply, or insinuate anything. Give me just one explicit statement. Three, if you have them.

 

[Eleanor]

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

Thanks, I wasn't asking a question. I was adding to a statement.

 

[Josheb]

If I understand what you are saying, this liberty/will teaching arises from the Sovereignty of God teachings.

That is not what I am saying. I am not saying anything about the origins of Christian views on the will. Go back and re-read the post and read it as many times as it takes to correctly understand what is actually written.

Regarding the "No conditions are stated, no work is stated as a predicate, and nowhere is the tree called a reward or something earned" I would have to say that a few historical Reformed theologians would agree, and I have not found a modern one who does.

You found me.

Do you think I am alone in my views? Did I come to my positions in a vacuum? I alone am the only one who holds this/these views and I've arrived at them separating myself from everyone? Have you noted the "likes" my posts have received in this thread? They indicate shared views.

So we both, therefore, understand the "I have not found..." means the lack is on your end, your search, your reading, and not a measure of others' existence. Read more diversely.

What I read of Calvin's treatment of Lev. 18:5 indicates to me that he would certainly disagree with you on the matter of eternal life being a reward for perfect obedience.

I part ways with Calvin in more than one place. That is why, as I previously posted, I self-identify as a monergist rather than a Calvinist.

Before I dive into Leviticus 18:5, let me first note that this is a post-disobedient verse written in a post-disobedient world about post-disobedient conditions and, as such, it should never be applied to pre-disobedient conditions and this op is specifically about pre-disobedient conditions, according to the witness of your own posts. Therefore, on every occasion when you attempt to apply any scripture written in post-disobedient conditions about post-disobedient conditions I am going make not of it because it is always wrong to do that. It's wrong of Calvin to do so, it's wrong of Fesko to do so, and it's wrong of you or me to do so. Don't do it again if you don't want me to call you one it. It's bad exegesis and bad at a foundational level. Nothing built on that practice can be correct.

Leviticus 18:5
So you shall keep My statutes and My judgments, by which a man may live if he does them; I am the LORD.

IF we were to apply that verse (and we should not) to Genesis 1:1-3:5, and adapt it to those conditions (because "live" has a completely different meaning in the creation text), then the only two specfied "statutes" were "Be fruitful and don't disobey Me," colloquially speaking, AND Adam and Eve were already living at liberty and sinless (as opposed to the Leviticus audience that was dead-in-sin and thereby bound, enslaved, and unable to reach God in their own effort for salvation (on this point Arms and Cals agree).

Calvin wrote a commentary on the book of Leviticus. His commentary speaks about the post-disobedient condition, NOT the pre-disobedient condition, AND he is doing so overtly as a Christian, someone regenerate, indwelt, and informed by a Spirit-filled reading of wholes scripture (not just the Law of Moses), so I ask you, "What is your reference for the claim Calvin's treatment of the verse indicates he'd disagree with me?" I just read his commentary on Leviticus 18:5 and I agree with him, and I read nothing he wrote disagreeing with my views.

• To what treatment of Leviticus 18:5 are you referring?
• Why did you not post the source proactively and preemptively so I and others could examine it before and consider the merits of your claim?
• What, specifically, did Calvin state that varies from what I have posted?

For the record: if what you are reading is Calvin's Institutes then you're doing yourself a disservice. His Institutes is a fantastic piece of work, but he wrote it as a Catholic in an express effort to reform the Catholic Church. It is not a very good source for understanding his own Protestantism and his examination of scripture. For the latter you will have to read his commentaries, and relevant to this op you should start with his commentary on Genesis, not Leviticus, and then his commentaries on the books of the NT that speak about the pre-disobedient Adam. There's not a lot in scripture about pre-disobedient conditions.
.

 

[Josheb]

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

I'm interested.

I couldn't find a link to that specific title by Kline, though. There are two lectures titled, "Two Adams, Two Covenants of Works," HERE at monergismdotcom (bottom of the first page) and a 31-page .pdf selection from the same title HERE. There is a book by that exact title by Chris Caughey.

 

[Eleanor]

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" ...

In what way are you using, what do you mean by "original sin"?
What do Calvinists mean by original sin, and as it relates to mankind?
Inherited or imputed according to Calvin?

 

[Arial]

Yes, but that is part of the next project I am working on. If I could debunk the Calvinist teaching on Original Sin, not sure I would do it right now. It isn't my job to bail Calvin out of his self-inflicted fatal flaw with totally contradictory doctrines.

It is always part of the next thing.Generally posts are addressed as they are posted. It also isn't your job to assert that Calvin needed bailed our of anything and if you say he is wrong and had contradictory doctrines you need to show how---from the Bible. Calvin did not invent the doctrine of original sin and that doctrine came directly from the Scriptures. I gave several but are they addressed? No. That is for the next project.

1. Calvin is dogmatic that Lev. 18:5 refers to eternal life as the reward for perfect obedience.

Because it does. You never did tell me what you thought that passage meant.

2. Calvin was contradicting his own doctrine of Original Sin - saying God was offering the "perfect obedience earns eternal life" to people (Israel) who could not possibly do it - because of Original Sin, if for no other reason.

How does that contradict original sin? That is faulty reasoning from a false premise. Perfect obedience does provide eternal life. We see that way back there in Gen 2. We see it again in the resurrection of Christ. God did not change because we fell. We changed because we fell.

3. Since nobody in the audience of Lev. 18:5 could have performed perfect obedience, that pretty much makes God a liar - promising and requiring something nobody in the audience could possible do.

Gal 3:23-27 Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come. we are no longer under a guardian, for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
Romans 3:20For by works of the law no human being will be justified in His sight, since through the law come knowledge of sin.
The sacrifices gave temporary covering for sin while we awaited the perfect sacrifice. The law could have provided eternal life if anyone had kept it perfectly. But no one did or could. That does not change the requirement for perfect faith and perfect obedience to God.

I don't have to disprove Original Sin - my point is that Calvin's argument is fatally flawed because he contradicts his own doctrine of Original Sin in order to prove his doctrine of the Covenant of Works.

If you say it does not exist you certainly do have to prove that statement. And you have not proven that Calvin's argument is fatally flawed or that it contradicts original sin. What you have proven is that you do not understand the purpose of the law or Christ's purpose in keeping it perfectly. Or how that relates to imputation and justification. Really, the magnitude of the cross of Christ. You do not understand your position in relation to God's positition in anything but theory. That is what I have gleaned so far.

This is a logical fallacy of Calvin's own making. I am guilty of pointing it out and holding the advocates of C.O.W. to defend his catastrophic failing in Biblical exegesis.

You pointed it out. Supported it with nothing but your opinion and misunderstanding of the Scriptures. You used no biblical exegesis and failed to show how your claim that Calvin failed catastrophically in exegesis. Do you honestly think you can or did do a better job than he did? Your logic on original sin and its relationship to the COW isn't even sound. And you never head on address anything that anyone else says. I had hoped for better.

I don't make the whole purpose of Jesus coming the fulfillment of the alleged, Covenant of Works. The C.O.W. is central to the entire package of Reformed Theology.

What do you make it to be? What exactly was it that He had to do? The COW is central to the cross buddy, not Reformed theology. It is central to imputed righteousness, removal of the curse of the law from His people, justification, Christ's victory, reconciliation, propitiation, substitution, His crowning as King taking in His trane captivities captive, to His filling all in all, to our future hope. But I believe I see your motive now. Thinking you have found a back door to tear down Reformed theology. Same old hate really.

 

[Arial]

Me too; kind of...

In over 500 Posts, I've engaged faithfully. I find that @Guy Swenson is not interested in the Critique. When this happens, I start making Drive-By Posts, designed for y'all; and the Lurkers...

He isn't really engaging with what others say. I am disappointed. Rather than continue to wade through the whole mess I may just leave it alone. As fellow admin, I suggest posting a thread the way in which he did this one should be prohibited. It is utterly self serving and makes engaging extremely difficult. He could have just posted a thread on why he did not believe in the COW and put forth all his points and left out his first fifteen posts (just guessing and using hyperbole) and all the quotes from other people at the beginning. And then addressed posts made in response for real, rather than always saying that comes later. It has been an inconsiderate colossal waste of other people's time and effort.

 

[Arial]

For the record: if what you are reading is Calvin's Institutes then you're doing yourself a disservice. His Institutes is a fantastic piece of work, but he wrote it as a Catholic in an express effort to reform the Catholic Church. It is not a very good source for understanding his own Protestantism and his examination of scripture. For the latter you will have to read his commentaries, and relevant to this op you should start with his commentary on Genesis, not Leviticus, and then his commentaries on the books of the NT that speak about the pre-disobedient Adam. There's not a lot in scripture about pre-disobedient conditions.

He is using Calvin's commentary of Romans 10. See post #483. Page 25.

 

[Eleanor]

It is always part of the next thing.Generally posts are addressed as they are posted. It also isn't your job to assert that Calvin needed bailed our of anything and if you say he is wrong and had contradictory doctrines you need to show how---from the Bible. Calvin did not invent the doctrine of original sin and that doctrine came directly from the Scriptures. I gave several but are they addressed? No. That is for the next project.
Because it does. You never did tell me what you thought that passage meant.
How does that contradict original sin? That is faulty reasoning from a false premise. Perfect obedience does provide eternal life. We see that way back there in Gen 2. We see it again in the resurrection of Christ. God did not change because we fell. We changed because we fell.

Gal 3:23-27 Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come. we are no longer under a guardian, for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
Romans 3:20For by works of the law no human being will be justified in His sight, since through the law come knowledge of sin.
The sacrifices gave temporary covering for sin while we awaited the perfect sacrifice. The law could have provided eternal life if anyone had kept it perfectly.

Doesn't Paul contradict that notion in Gal 3:11-12 (righteousness and eternal life being the same end/goal)?

"Clearly no one is justified before God by the law, because the righteous will live by faith."
[Right there, Paul declares the law was not given for righteousness, not because they couldn't keep it, but because it is only by faith.]
The law is not based on faith; on the contrary, 'The man who does these things will live by them.' "
[Paul confirms there what I stated above; i.e., righteousness by faith only (Ro 3:28) is necessarily excluded from law keeping by works,]

The law could not have provided eternal life no matter what, because it was not given to do so. . .yes?

But no one did or could. That does not change the requirement for perfect faith and perfect obedience to God.

If you say it does not exist you certainly do have to prove that statement. And you have not proven that Calvin's argument is fatally flawed or that it contradicts original sin. What you have proven is that you do not understand the purpose of the law or Christ's purpose in keeping it perfectly. Or how that relates to imputation and justification. Really, the magnitude of the cross of Christ. You do not understand your position in relation to God's positition in anything but theory. That is what I have gleaned so far.

You pointed it out. Supported it with nothing but your opinion and misunderstanding of the Scriptures. You used no biblical exegesis and failed to show how your claim that Calvin failed catastrophically in exegesis. Do you honestly think you can or did do a better job than he did? Your logic on original sin and its relationship to the COW isn't even sound. And you never head on address anything that anyone else says. I had hoped for better.

What do you make it to be? What exactly was it that He had to do? The COW is central to the cross buddy, not Reformed theology. It is central to imputed righteousness, removal of the curse of the law from His people, justification, Christ's victory, reconciliation, propitiation, substitution, His crowning as King taking in His trane captivities captive, to His filling all in all, to our future hope. But I believe I see your motive now. Thinking you have found a back door to tear down Reformed theology. Same old hate really.

 

[ReverendRV]

He isn't really engaging with what others say. I am disappointed. Rather than continue to wade through the whole mess I may just leave it alone. As fellow admin, I suggest posting a thread the way in which he did this one should be prohibited. It is utterly self serving and makes engaging extremely difficult. He could have just posted a thread on why he did not believe in the COW and put forth all his points and left out his first fifteen posts (just guessing and using hyperbole) and all the quotes from other people at the beginning. And then addressed posts made in response for real, rather than always saying that comes later. It has been an inconsiderate colossal waste of other people's time and effort.

Tell @Carbon and I'll go along. I like having smart Posters who like it here; I just wished I knew how to make Posters answer us, and still like being here...

 

[Eleanor]

Me too; kind of...

In over 500 Posts, I've engaged faithfully. I find that @Guy Swenson is not interested in the Critique. When this happens, I start making Drive-By Posts, designed for y'all; and the Lurkers...

He isn't really engaging with what others say. I am disappointed. Rather than continue to wade through the whole mess I may just leave it alone. As fellow admin, I suggest posting a thread the way in which he did this one should be prohibited. It is utterly self serving and makes engaging extremely difficult. He could have just posted a thread on why he did not believe in the COW and put forth all his points and left out his first fifteen posts (just guessing and using hyperbole) and all the quotes from other people at the beginning. And then addressed posts made in response for real, rather than always saying that comes later. It has been an inconsiderate colossal waste of other people's time and effort.

@Guy Swenson

I thought he was
1) to present his understanding of Calvinists understanding, for any correction of his misunderstanding of Calvinists,
which is only what the "engaging" is to be about at this point,
2) then having made sure he was representing Calvinists correctly (have we completed this stage yet?),
3) he would then present his rebuttals.

Did we ever complete #2?

Did we jump ahead of him into #3, expecting him to address our objections before we have completed #2?

I, for one, would like to see it proceed and be completed according to his plan, 1,2,3.

I, for one, was looking forward to a complete presentation, con and pro, of a covenant of works.

 

[Guy Swenson]

@Josheb

Your post included in my reply plus my reply is way over 1,000 characters, so I am sorry, but I cannot include your entire post in my reply.

Thank you, and I appreciate your giving attention to this. I have to break this response into two sections to fit the platform limitations.

I notice that you use a New Testament word in 1 Peter 3:21 that appears to be used only one time in the New Testament, and more often translated "answer" than pledge.

I honestly have no idea what went through the minds of those constructing the WCF, nor what passages of Scripture they had in mind when they wrote the word "pledge." Maybe there are some commentaries by participants who would shed their perspective on this.

As you have raised the question about "pledge" in the Scripture, though you limited it to the single New Testament usage of the word, Bible translators have used the word "pledge" many, many times in the Old Testament. I mean 22 times in 21 verses.

Here is the Blue Letter Bible Link: https://www.blueletterbible.org/search/search.cfm?Criteria=pledge&t=KJV#s=s_primary_0_1

To save time, here are the verses. Count how many times they use pledge as something that will be delivered when conditions are met:

[Gen 38:17-18, 20 KJV] 17 And he said, I will send [thee] a kid from the flock. And she said, Wilt thou give [me] a pledge, till thou send [it]? 18 And he said, What pledge shall I give thee? And she said, Thy signet, and thy bracelets, and thy staff that [is] in thine hand. And he gave [it] her, and came in unto her, and she conceived by him. ... 20 And Judah sent the kid by the hand of his friend the Adullamite, to receive [his] pledge from the woman's hand: but he found her not.

[Exo 22:26 KJV] 26 If thou at all take thy neighbour's raiment to pledge, thou shalt deliver it unto him by that the sun goeth down:

[Deu 24:6, 10-13, 17 KJV] 6 No man shall take the nether or the upper millstone to pledge: for he taketh [a man's] life to pledge. ... 10 When thou dost lend thy brother any thing, thou shalt not go into his house to fetch his pledge. 11 Thou shalt stand abroad, and the man to whom thou dost lend shall bring out the pledge abroad unto thee. 12 And if the man [be] poor, thou shalt not sleep with his pledge: 13 In any case thou shalt deliver him the pledge again when the sun goeth down, that he may sleep in his own raiment, and bless thee: and it shall be righteousness unto thee before the LORD thy God. ... 17 Thou shalt not pervert the judgment of the stranger, [nor] of the fatherless; nor take a widow's raiment to pledge:

[1Sa 17:18 KJV] 18 And carry these ten cheeses unto the captain of [their] thousand, and look how thy brethren fare, and take their pledge.

[Job 22:6 KJV] 6 For thou hast taken a pledge from thy brother for nought, and stripped the naked of their clothing.

[Job 24:3, 9 KJV] 3 They drive away the ass of the fatherless, they take the widow's ox for a pledge. ... 9 They pluck the fatherless from the breast, and take a pledge of the poor.

[Pro 20:16 KJV] 16 Take his garment that is surety [for] a stranger: and take a pledge of him for a strange woman.

[Pro 27:13 KJV] 13 Take his garment that is surety for a stranger, and take a pledge of him for a strange woman.

[Eze 18:7, 12, 16 KJV] 7 And hath not oppressed any, [but] hath restored to the debtor his pledge, hath spoiled none by violence, hath given his bread to the hungry, and hath covered the naked with a garment; ... 12 Hath oppressed the poor and needy, hath spoiled by violence, hath not restored the pledge, and hath lifted up his eyes to the idols, hath committed abomination, ... 16 Neither hath oppressed any, hath not withholden the pledge, neither hath spoiled by violence, [but] hath given his bread to the hungry, and hath covered the naked with a garment,

[Eze 33:15 KJV] 15 [If] the wicked restore the pledge, give again that he had robbed, walk in the statutes of life, without committing iniquity; he shall surely live, he shall not die.

[Amo 2:8 KJV] 8 And they lay [themselves] down upon clothes laid to pledge by every altar, and they drink the wine of the condemned [in] the house of their god.

Again, none of us know what was going through the minds of those who authored WLC #20. You raised the point that they would look to Scripture. If they did, then the vast majority of the uses of "pledge" would mean something offered when conditions were met.

Honestly, don't you think, in light of how often "pledge" is used as I understand it, that the case could be made that bias exists in reading "pledge" as anything but something offered when specific conditions are met.

Judah would get his pledge - his ring - back when he met the conditions of paying for the services of the "harlot." The garment given as a pledge would be restored when the sun goes down ... the list of Biblical uses of pledge as I understand it, seems to me to be overwhelming.

Would you agree, or disagree?

 

[Guy Swenson]

In what way are you using, what do you mean by "original sin"?
What do Calvinists mean by original sin, and as it relates to mankind?
Inherited or imputed according to Calvin?

The Calvinist definition.

 

[ReverendRV]

@Guy Swenson

I thought he was

1) to present his understanding of Calvinists understanding, for any correction of his misunderstanding of Calvinists,
which is only what the "engaging" is to be about at this point,
2) then having made sure he was representing Calvinists correctly (have we completed this stage yet?),
3) he would then present his rebuttals.

Did we ever complete #2?

Did we jump ahead of him into #3, expecting him to address our objections before we have completed #2?

I, for one, would like to see it proceed and be completed according to his plan, 1,2,3.

I, for one, was looking forward to a complete presentation, con and pro, of a covenant of works.

He is...

But it could be better...

 

[Guy Swenson]

Tell @Carbon and I'll go along. I like having smart Posters who like it here; I just wished I knew how to make Posters answer us, and still like being here...

Not sure what to say here ... My post count is 185, and of that maybe 20-30 are original posts of my assertions? The rest are answers to questions, challenges, requests for clarification ... 150+ posts in what, a couple of weeks?

I've responded to almost all questions - I know I have missed a few, but not for lack of intent - they just get lost. I have agreed with some posts, and disagreed with others. I have answered many with detail responses.

So, what are your expectations of someone on the forum regarding answering your questions? 150+ posts responding to your and lots of other forum members questions appears to be inadequate.

What have I not done that you expect me to do?

 

[ReverendRV]

Not sure what to say here ... My post count is 185, and of that maybe 20-30 are original posts of my assertions? The rest are answers to questions, challenges, requests for clarification ... 150+ posts in what, a couple of weeks?

I've responded to almost all questions - I know I have missed a few, but not for lack of intent - they just get lost. I have agreed with some posts, and disagreed with others. I have answered many with detail responses.

So, what are your expectations of someone on the forum regarding answering your questions? 150+ posts responding to your and lots of other forum members questions appears to be inadequate.

What have I not done that you expect me to do?

Just have fun...

If Posters disengage with you, it will be because they aren't having fun anymore. To keep them hooked, if they tell you they need something from you; answer them...

It's a two-way street; especially since you asked for criticism...

 

[Guy Swenson]

It is always part of the next thing. Generally posts are addressed as they are posted. It also isn't your job to assert that Calvin needed bailed our of anything and if you say he is wrong and had contradictory doctrines you need to show how---from the Bible. Calvin did not invent the doctrine of original sin and that doctrine came directly from the Scriptures. I gave several but are they addressed? No. That is for the next project.

Sorry - but a sequential approach makes sense to me. Many people have the same questions, and while I have a fair amount of discretionary time, it is not unlimited. I think you have shared the same concern over your time.

Because it does. You never did tell me what you thought that passage meant.

Which passage? Lev. 18:5? I spend about 15 pages in rebuttal #2 saying exactly, from the Scriptures, what is meant in Lev. 18:5. No need to restate what I have already posted, in PDF and post form. Are you asking about a different passage?

How does that contradict original sin? That is faulty reasoning from a false premise. Perfect obedience does provide eternal life. We see that way back there in Gen 2. We see it again in the resurrection of Christ. God did not change because we fell. We changed because we fell.

I spend quite a number of pages laying out the contradiction. In a nutshell, Calvin says Lev. 18:5 means perfect obedience earns eternal life. He says that God told Israel this was true. According to Original Sin, not a person in the audience in Israel could possibly be perfectly obedient - they start from birth/conception with Adam's guilt and sin. That either makes God a liar, or Calvin is misrepresenting what Lev. 18:5 means.

Gal 3:23-27 Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come. we are no longer under a guardian, for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
Romans 3:20For by works of the law no human being will be justified in His sight, since through the law come knowledge of sin.
The sacrifices gave temporary covering for sin while we awaited the perfect sacrifice. The law could have provided eternal life if anyone had kept it perfectly. But no one did or could. That does not change the requirement for perfect faith and perfect obedience to God.

If you say it does not exist you certainly do have to prove that statement. And you have not proven that Calvin's argument is fatally flawed or that it contradicts original sin. What you have proven is that you do not understand the purpose of the law or Christ's purpose in keeping it perfectly. Or how that relates to imputation and justification. Really, the magnitude of the cross of Christ. You do not understand your position in relation to God's positition in anything but theory. That is what I have gleaned so far.

Perhaps you can cite where I went wrong - from the posts that I actually made.

You pointed it out. Supported it with nothing but your opinion and misunderstanding of the Scriptures. You used no biblical exegesis and failed to show how your claim that Calvin failed catastrophically in exegesis. Do you honestly think you can or did do a better job than he did? Your logic on original sin and its relationship to the COW isn't even sound. And you never head on address anything that anyone else says. I had hoped for better.

Can you please cite examples of what I wrote about which you are referring? You are sharing your conclusions - which is fine, while asking me for specifics. I spent, what, about 15 pages on Lev. 18:5, cite many, many Old and New Testament scriptures, going into enormous detail. I am not sure if your frustration is that I "used no Biblical exegesis" or that that the exegesis I provided disagrees so strongly with your view of Christianity?

Sorry to disappoint you. I think I have responded to every one of your posts. When I have said that a topic would be covered later, it was, or will be. To be candid, you have asked questions that were already answered in my rebuttals - some of your Lev. 18:5 questions are an example. Are you reading all of what I am writing in my posts/PDFs?

What do you make it to be? What exactly was it that He had to do? The COW is central to the cross buddy, not Reformed theology. It is central to imputed righteousness, removal of the curse of the law from His people, justification, Christ's victory, reconciliation, propitiation, substitution, His crowning as King taking in His trane captivities captive, to His filling all in all, to our future hope. But I believe I see your motive now. Thinking you have found a back door to tear down Reformed theology. Same old hate really.

My saying Jesus is central to salvation and eternal life is a gross understatement. Yes, we are justified by the the sacrifice of Jesus, and atonement made for us through His blood. No, I do not believe Adam's sin is imputed to all of his naturally generated progeny. While I do not address all of the Calvinist version of the doctrine of Original Sin, I address some aspects of it in Rebuttal #3.

As to "Same old hate really" - I don't know what to say. I have been consistent in my stating my view that the C.O.W. never existed. Yes, it is a challenge to Reformed theology. I have been respectful in my challenges. I have had to mount numerous defenses to my statements - from you, as well as others. I don't see you as being hateful when you challenge me. I feel doctrines can be challenged. If it is sound doctrine, then it will withstand all challenges. If challenges expose holes, then one can look at what the Bible teaches to fix the hole - or change to better conform to sound teaching.

Other Christians believe and teach what Jesus does for us in justification, atonement, reconciliation, hope of the resurrection and eternal life for all believers and more. I believe this. This probably doesn't help, but my questioning Calvinism does not change anything that Jesus did and does for those the Father has called. If the C.O.W. is true, then all my rebuttals should have Scriptural rebuttals supporting the C.O.W. Most of the time, I don't hear Scriptural rebuttals of what I wrote, nor point-by-point rebuttals of my exegesis of Scripture. Rebuttal #2 is filled with Scripture - but it seems to be pretty much radio silence on rebutting my use of Scripture.

I am not sure what to make of that.

 

[Guy Swenson]

@Guy Swenson

I thought he was
1) to present his understanding of Calvinists understanding, for any correction of his misunderstanding of Calvinists,
which is only what the "engaging" is to be about at this point,
2) then having made sure he was representing Calvinists correctly (have we completed this stage yet?),
3) he would then present his rebuttals.

Did we ever complete #2?

Did we jump ahead of him into #3, expecting him to address our objections before we have completed #2?

I, for one, would like to see it proceed and be completed according to his plan, 1,2,3.

I, for one, was looking forward to a complete presentation, con and pro, of a covenant of works.

Hi Eleanor,

It was never my intention to do a pro and con - I wanted to make sure what I said about the C.O.W. was accurate, but I don't think that is establishing a "pro" position.

When you say:

I thought he was
1) to present his understanding of Calvinists understanding, for any correction of his misunderstanding of Calvinists,
which is only what the "engaging" is to be about at this point,
2) then having made sure he was representing Calvinists correctly (have we completed this stage yet?),
3) he would then present his rebuttals.

I thought we finished #2 on your list, but found out that people here did not believe there is a standard or classical Calvinist set of teachings on the Covenant of Works, so I have been dealing with people who believe diametrically opposite things about the C.O.W. - for example, whether Adam had a period of probation. Some say yes, some say no. (I agree with those that say "no.")

I have been presenting my rebuttals sequentially. We are on #2 of 4.