Covenant of Works

[Ladodgers6]

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.

I'll fine it, and send it to you. Pick up Sacred Bond to get started.

 

[Mr GLee]

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.

I would think if it was not corrupted. If there is no death,(aging) then no need to eat from the tree of life (the gospel of Christ)

Adam died the moment he violated the letter of the law death. He caried out the one death sentence' appointed all of mankind. He will not arise and be retried, no double jeopardy.

Hebrews 9:27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

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.

Genesis 6:12 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.

When his glory departed day three. . corruption came day four the two corruptions timekeeper winding down to the last day under the Sun. No need for Sun of Moon in the new order ithe new incorruptible earth it returns back to the first three days before the glory departed.

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.

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.

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.
.

Good word "monergism" I agree, thanks

 

[Guy Swenson]

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.

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.

I agree. I am here to understand different views. I am open to read more widely on the subject of the C.O.W.

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.

I don't disagree with your rule about applying post-disobedient verses (Lev. 18:5 in particular) to pre-disobedient world. I think I agree with it in general - I will have to think about that. I am not sure when you think I did apply a post-disobedient verse to a pre-disobedient time. Can you share with me when I did that?

When you read my content, I think you will find didn't do that. Fesko, Grudem, Calvin - yes. But quoting them is not intended as my personal endorsement. I feel exactly the opposite. Certainly if I did so, please point it out and I will correct it if I did.

I could not agree more wholeheartedly that Lev. 18:5 has nothing to do with Adam in the pre-disobedient world. I would suggest it has nothing to do with earning, meriting, qualifying or any other human effort to gain eternal life. Eternal life was, is and always will be a gift from God.

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).

The Lev. 18:5 audience could not fulfill the C.O.W.

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?

I have a lengthy post on this, but I need to do it as a stand alone post - other wise I exceed the 1,000 word limit.

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.

Not using Calvin's Institutes. Referring to his commentary on Romans and Leviticus.

.

 

[Mr GLee]

Why Calvin or any dead saint? Church fathers?

We today have the same source of faith as it is written, same teacher the Holy Spirit.

I would think irresistible grace, is the full price we were bought with. The free gift. We should be careful not to do despite to it.

Hebrews 10:29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?

2 Peter 2:1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.

Irresistible Grace "gift" . . .not of our own self.

When God gives gifts. When it leaves his hand there is no taking back or falling back from its eternal purpose. He does not give temporal gifts seen. we walk by faith the unseen things of God.

 

[makesends]

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.

I really don't get why you are saying this. Of course man is causal! That is more than obvious. Even that man can change himself (to some degree) is obvious. As far as I know, in fact, ALL effects are also causes. --Or are you just saying it so I would understand why you sounded to me earlier as not admitting to everything done by man as being caused?

This discussion, and many others like it, have been educational for me, in that they have shown me how differently people interpret or use the same words I use with quite different implications or assumptions from mine. I rarely talk about some of what is obvious to me --in this case, that effects are also causes-- and some people will object to something I say, and it takes a lot of back-and-forth before I can figure out why they go on so! Even as an Arminianistic believer, earlier in my life, I knew that, logically, for God to be God, it meant that everything that happens was caused by him. I just ignored that fact since much of my 'training' involved the assumption of freewill and self-determinism. I remember not long ago, after pages of posts, I find out that what one poster thought I mean by "first cause" was actually 'first effect'.

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.

Yet, and I insist, God's will (decree) IS over the human will, and, just as the WCF seems to me to be saying, indeed the human will is established by God's decree. That doesn't just mean that the human will is free, and certainly not that the human will is not an effect, but that if God had not established even the outcomes of our decisions and the means by which we decide, we COULD NOT decide.

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.

I meant it tongue-in-cheek. And it was not in reference to anyone, lately.

But yeah, I agree. I have a tendency to go on too long with someone, when they are rather obviously trolls.

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 .

Good idea.

 

[Mr GLee]

I really don't get why you are saying this. Of course man is causal! That is more than obvious. Even that man can change himself (to some degree) is obvious. As far as I know, in fact, ALL effects are also causes. --Or are you just saying it so I would understand why you sounded to me earlier as not admitting to everything done by man as being caused?

This discussion, and many others like it, have been educational for me, in that they have shown me how differently people interpret or use the same words I use with quite different implications or assumptions from mine. I rarely talk about some of what is obvious to me --in this case, that effects are also causes-- and some people will object to something I say, and it takes a lot of back-and-forth before I can figure out why they go on so! Even as an Arminianistic believer, earlier in my life, I knew that, logically, for God to be God, it meant that everything that happens was caused by him. I just ignored that fact since much of my 'training' involved the assumption of freewill and self-determinism. I remember not long ago, after pages of posts, I find out that what one poster thought I mean by "first cause" was actually 'first effect'.

Yet, and I insist, God's will (decree) IS over the human will, and, just as the WCF seems to me to be saying, indeed the human will is established by God's decree. That doesn't just mean that the human will is free, and certainly not that the human will is not an effect, but that if God had not established even the outcomes of our decisions and the means by which we decide, we COULD NOT decide.

I meant it tongue-in-cheek. And it was not in reference to anyone, lately.

But yeah, I agree. I have a tendency to go on too long with someone, when they are rather obviously trolls.

Good idea.

Yes, freely he gives freely we have received.

It is the daily bread the disciples knew not of at first, the power to both to hear and do the will of God to His eternal glory.

Philippians 2:13-14 For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure. Do all things without murmurings and disputings:

Jesus did the will of the father with delight. Some murmur like Jonah who wanted to die after preaching the gospel.

God is not served by the dying hands as the will of mankind.

 

[Ladodgers6]

I agree. I am here to understand different views. I am open to read more widely on the subject of the C.O.W.

I don't disagree with your rule about applying post-disobedient verses (Lev. 18:5 in particular) to pre-disobedient world. I think I agree with it in general - I will have to think about that. I am not sure when you think I did apply a post-disobedient verse to a pre-disobedient time. Can you share with me when I did that?

When you read my content, I think you will find didn't do that. Fesko, Grudem, Calvin - yes. But quoting them is not intended as my personal endorsement. I feel exactly the opposite. Certainly if I did so, please point it out and I will correct it if I did.

I could not agree more wholeheartedly that Lev. 18:5 has nothing to do with Adam in the pre-disobedient world. I would suggest it has nothing to do with earning, meriting, qualifying or any other human effort to gain eternal life. Eternal life was, is and always will be a gift from God.

The Lev. 18:5 audience could not fulfill the C.O.W.

I have a lengthy post on this, but I need to do it as a stand alone post - other wise I exceed the 1,000 word limit.

Not using Calvin's Institutes. Referring to his commentary on Romans and Leviticus.

Question for you. So you deny Adam was in a Covenant of Works with God?

 

[Guy Swenson]

Hi everyone,

When I was invited to join this forum, I had been posting my "Four Conclusions" about the Covenant of Works on a Facebook page called Soteriology 101 and it was suggested by one of the forum moderators here that this would be a good place to discuss my thoughts.

I appreciate the amount of time forum members have given to my project of writing on the Covenant of Works. But, this is your home, and I am an invited guest. I think .you gave me parking space in your driveway for a sedan, and I brought a logging truck.

You have been very kind to allow me to explore how a largely Calvinist audience responds to my assertions - but it has taken up a lot of the forum "bandwidth." With the holiday season approaching, it does not seem respectful for me to create stress by continuing to post.

As others have suggested, I agree that it is time to take a break. Whether this is hitting the "pause" button or the "stop" button remains to be seen. Having tried this approach on a forum, I am not sure that my rebuttals really fit the model of a forum for discussion, or the expectations of this group.

For those of you who have taken the time to read what I have written and respond, I thank you. Many good points have been made, and I will review and edit my content to reflect the better understanding that I have gained from your comments.

The gospel of Jesus Christ is the singular hope for all of mankind. I appreciate the time you have invested and your invitation to me to challenge the Covenant of Works from a different perspective.

All the best to you,

Guy

 

[Mr GLee]

Question for you. So you deny Adam was in a Covenant of Works with God?

What is meant by Covenant with God? According to whose work as power to raise. God or of men?

 

[Arial]

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

I go through post in order especially if they are numbered. The result then with having 15 pages of rebuttal, in the first pages of the rebuttal, you make statements that you aren't going to deal with until several pages later. The result is I respond to what you have said with no explanation in the post I am responding to, as though you had given no explanation. If I continue post by post, I have to deal with the same subject again, this time with what you have said there. It is not feasible for me to maintain an interest in the tangled web for days on end.

 

[makesends]

Hi everyone,

When I was invited to join this forum, I had been posting my "Four Conclusions" about the Covenant of Works on a Facebook page called Soteriology 101 and it was suggested by one of the forum moderators here that this would be a good place to discuss my thoughts.

I appreciate the amount of time forum members have given to my project of writing on the Covenant of Works. But, this is your home, and I am an invited guest. I think .you gave me parking space in your driveway for a sedan, and I brought a logging truck.

You have been very kind to allow me to explore how a largely Calvinist audience responds to my assertions - but it has taken up a lot of the forum "bandwidth." With the holiday season approaching, it does not seem respectful for me to create stress by continuing to post.

As others have suggested, I agree that it is time to take a break. Whether this is hitting the "pause" button or the "stop" button remains to be seen. Having tried this approach on a forum, I am not sure that my rebuttals really fit the model of a forum for discussion, or the expectations of this group.

For those of you who have taken the time to read what I have written and respond, I thank you. Many good points have been made, and I will review and edit my content to reflect the better understanding that I have gained from your comments.

The gospel of Jesus Christ is the singular hope for all of mankind. I appreciate the time you have invested and your invitation to me to challenge the Covenant of Works from a different perspective.

All the best to you,

Guy

Hey, Guy. I protest your assessment of the way this thread has gone. You are no more a guest here than most of the rest of us. We were almost all invited, and it is self-evident that most of us are more contentious than you have been --it is we who are contending, always on the alert for error to the point of seeing it in pieces instead of realizing the pieces are not the intended subject of the thread. Don't go. We are only just getting started. Please understand how this is much like most threads, where there are more posts written in defining terms than in actual debate of the subject. All too often, too, by the time the terms are agreed on, the subject has long since disappeared. Right or wrong, this seems to be the way things go. And your thread wasn't intended as debate, at least, not on the surface, but as helping you center up on definitions, and content of the doctrine of COW.

I'd venture to guess that most of us, including myself, have not spent the time to read all to which you've linked. I haven't even read all the posts to this thread. This is normal for this format. It is something like the "wall of text" phenomenon, where people just don't care enough, don't have the time, don't have the energy, or for whatever other reason don't go where you went. For myself, it's a "mosquito in a nudist colony" kind of a thing. (Just as a parallel, I have so many "Christian" books at my disposal, that I have become jaded, and have pretty much limited myself to just Reformed/Calvinist/Puritan writings, and even then, to relatively few authors).

So, I can understand your disappointment. But don't give up. We have very much enjoyed this thread, which has been much more civil than most threads. Speaking for myself, it has also been more educational than most threads, not just doctrinally, (which is something I delight in, and need for growth and understanding), but it, like most threads, opens my eyes to the various worldviews and modes of thinking and systems of understanding terms of scripture and doctrine. --In this thread, I have begun to see the differences in the views and thinking of people who have so much in common with me --mostly the delight in the Sovereignty and the Grace of God-- so that I am grateful for what has happened here, even though it has not gone how you would have liked.

Only in God do the mechanics of the plan and the operations of the emotions work perfectly together.

I thank you for opening this thread up here.

 

[Arial]

Hi everyone,

When I was invited to join this forum, I had been posting my "Four Conclusions" about the Covenant of Works on a Facebook page called Soteriology 101 and it was suggested by one of the forum moderators here that this would be a good place to discuss my thoughts.

I appreciate the amount of time forum members have given to my project of writing on the Covenant of Works. But, this is your home, and I am an invited guest. I think .you gave me parking space in your driveway for a sedan, and I brought a logging truck.

You have been very kind to allow me to explore how a largely Calvinist audience responds to my assertions - but it has taken up a lot of the forum "bandwidth." With the holiday season approaching, it does not seem respectful for me to create stress by continuing to post.

As others have suggested, I agree that it is time to take a break. Whether this is hitting the "pause" button or the "stop" button remains to be seen. Having tried this approach on a forum, I am not sure that my rebuttals really fit the model of a forum for discussion, or the expectations of this group.

For those of you who have taken the time to read what I have written and respond, I thank you. Many good points have been made, and I will review and edit my content to reflect the better understanding that I have gained from your comments.

The gospel of Jesus Christ is the singular hope for all of mankind. I appreciate the time you have invested and your invitation to me to challenge the Covenant of Works from a different perspective.

All the best to you,

Guy

There is no need to leave. The problem is not what you have said it is that it is not put into a format that is conducive to am interactive forum such as this one. I have not read all fifteen pages of rebuttal #2, only the first three. That itself is an enormous task to do and then afterwards go back to the beginning of the actual work of rebuttal of the COW and go through the thirteen or so pages point by point, trying to remember everything else that is to come, so one does not say things such as I have said regarding you not responding to post according to what the poster has said. You generally respond with (paraphrasing here) that you deal with whatever they have said later. Or that you have fifteen pages doing just that.

Knowing as I now do, that several pages may be given to stating what you will expound on later, then stating it again to expound on it, I will jump to the expositions, post to expositional post, and only address what you have said in the exposition. And probably not all points. And no doubt sporadically and briefly. This problem began with the OP in which you defined the COW by isolated quotes from a couple of theologians as being the COW and the assertion that it was a correct definition, which according to those quotes you gave, was not. And then proceeded to prove that it was incorrect which I think everyone agreed it was not. But you continued forward as though it were and that that is what the actual covenant was and therefore since it was incorrect according to Scripture, no COV exists at all. And you did refuse to take that into consideration and all that was said about it. Your train was on its track and you plowed forward, looking neither to the right or the left. Those reading had one idea of what the OP was about, and you quite another. They were addressing one thing, and you another.

But as I said, it is a matter of the format not really workable in a forum without being scattered all over the place and endless. Don't leave.

 

[Mr GLee]

I would ask?

Why look to what some call early church fathers' heresies and compare the private interpretations to others heresies?

Does it really matter what they taught? there is no succession of dying mankind. We have the same source of faith "the grace of God". . It can help when discussing grace whether it irresistible or not.

Why study the oral traditions of dying mankind (heresies) if we are seeking the approval of God not seen?

Why study a counterfeit. ? . Study the standard as it is written. rightly dividing (no adding or subtracting)

 

[Josheb]

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

Thx.

@Guy Swenson,

I'm still not seeing the conflict. Calvin reported God held an expectation the Hebrews would keep the Law, promised eternal life for those that did, and knew no one would/could do so. Not only is this a post-disobedient verse written in post-disobedient conditions about the post-disobedient world, but Calvin is also saying nothing about the pre-disobedient Adam. Atop all of that, the Law testified to Christ so the resurrection was in view. Furthermore, beyond the letter of the Law there was contained in the Law the commands about love, mercy, and faith. The righteous shall live by faith is not just a New Testament condition. I conclude, then, this is another area where the sources (in this case, Calvin, are misread and misunderstood.

I'm still not seeing Calvin conflicting with me (or vice versa), as was reported.

 

[Ladodgers6]

What is meant by Covenant with God? According to whose work as power to raise. God or of men?

Covenant of Works, a Covenant God made with Adam.

 

[Mr GLee]

Understanding the offering following the oral traditions of dying mankind as some as an authority it is not found in the bible.

"Pre-disobedient" simply opposes "irresistible grace" I would think dark and light. Grace and no grace. God does not give remnants and say after you take your last breath more suffering and wondering is needed with no end in sight (Limbo) There is no in-between. Christians receive the end of their new born - again faith from the beginning, no need to wonder never coming to an end faith.

Christ in us, yoked with him, the savior of many born again soul.

Peter our brother in the lord turned things upside down if inspired from earth as oral traditions of the faithless fathers. . and not from above falling like rain. . . the doctrines of God.

Peter having already received the Spirit of grace .The Holy Spirit of God used Peter as an example of the work of the many antichrists, false prophets' false apostles under the power of the father of lies. the spirit (Legion)working in antichrists Like ith Peter He moves false prophets to do his will.

Mathew 16:22-23 Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee.(fasle prophecy) But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men
.
In effect saying to the legion the spirit of lies walk by faith after the unseen things of God not those of men oral traditions of dying mankind.

God, I believe used Peter to teach us not to think of the things of dying mankind above all things written in the law and the prophets. (sola scriptura) or the "law and the testimony", or Moses (the law giver) and Eijah (the prophets)

If irresistible the first time it will continue to draw us to his labor of love , he is our confidence. Slow learners like me need His confidence He will not give up what he started in us.

Philippian 1: 6 Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ:

Irresistible, taste like honey the hidden manna, our daily bread.

 

[Josheb]

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.

Then I respectfully suggest you have no business critiquing the WCF or the catechisms until they are adequately understood. I'll let you know most, if not all, of the Cals here used to be Arms. We came from the other side, and it was through scripture, not theologians, that most of us came to monergism. Those testimonies have been reported multiple times in the forums. Some, at least, have been where you're at. For my part, I will confess I was unkind to Cals and their "robot theology".

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.

Hmmm....

I would like you to make a conscious and conscientious effort to read the details of the posts and understand them because I did NOT limit my point to the single New Testament use. I, in fact, explicitly stated the word "pledge" was used multiple times in the NT and they should ALL be consulted. I will take partial responsibility for this because I did not explain why I used the 1 Peter text - it was because it is an outlier among the multiple uses of "pledge," and its relevant to the subject at hand (the COW).

I am not a fan of folks misrepresenting my posts, and assume you will not like it if do the same, so let's both take greater care with the scriptures, the posts, and any extra-biblical sources we use. I'd like you to take this seriously because there is mounting evidence you have difficulty understanding what you read. WLC 20 has been interpreted to say things it does not actually state. Calvin was interpreted to say something he did not actually state, and my position has been interpreted to part from Calvin, even though that is demonstrably not the case.

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: [lots of OT references]

All very good, but it is the NT that should be consulted and now, despite my explicit exhortation to do so, that hasn't happened. There are four main reasons why the NT's should be read.

1. Nearly everything in the OT is about post-disobedient conditions, not the pre-disobedient conditions with which this op is concerned. I've pointed this out several times, so I am not understanding why this very real, valid, and important point is not sinking in. STOP USING POST-DISOBEDIENT TEXTS TO UNDERSTAND PRE-DISOBEDIENT CONDITIONS!
2. The Jews often got things wrong. Their theology was mistaken and misguided in a number of areas and the OT reports those errors - sometimes noting the error but not always. This is not always obvious by reading the OT but it becomes apparent once the NT is read. For example, Moses was supposed to be the sole leader of the Hebrews, both civil and religious leader but he refused to go and in acquiescence God allowed Aaron to go, with Moses speaking for God and Aaron speaking for Moses. That caused huger theological problems later. God never wanted a king (1 Sam. 8) and took the Hebrews request as a rejection of Him. He, again, gave them what they wanted and everything He said would come true came true. Not a single king was a good man and they all contributed to the corruption of Israel, even David and Solomon. Judaism incorporated their misguided view of the monarchy into their theology and, as a consequence, failed to recognize the Messiah when he stood right in front of them commanding the elements of creation. David knew the promised eternal thrown was a reference to the resurrection and the anointed one not seeing decay (Acts 2:30-31)....... which brings me to the next reason to examine the NT over the OT....
3. While the OT informs the NT, it is the NT that explains the OT. The newer revelation explains the older one. So, for example, when God promises David an endless throne to one of his descendants, the temporally minded Jew would normally take that promise literally and fleshly, but in the NT we are told - under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and in explicit terms - that promise is about the resurrection, not a literal chair on which a king God never wanted in the first place sits. Not much in either the OT or the NT is about the period of time, or the conditions existing, prior to Genesis 3:6 and that is focus of this op, and since the NT explains the OT all the few portions of scripture that do speak of the pre-disobedient world should be gathered and understood through the later revelation's explanations. As far as the facts in evidence go, that has not yet been done so, again, it looks like you've not done sufficient homework and although the examination of the purported COW is a noble endeavor, you've not gotten very far.
4. The WCF and WLC authors were Calvinists. They were Calvinists trying to explain Calvinism. They were, for better or worse, Covenant Theologians and for them the preeminent covenant was the covenant of grace, another phrase nowhere found in scripture. I believe I noted this early on in this discussion. The phrases "covenant of works," and "covenant of grace," invented terms. That is important because it means the theology is built on inference. Inference in and of itself is neither good or bad, right or wrong. It is they type of inference that matters because exegetical inferences (inferences built on sound exegesis - which starts with what is plainly, explicitly, literally stated in scripture) is much more veracious than inferential or eisegetic inference (inferences built on an inferential reading of scripture). The point being you must read th authoritative documents of Calvinism with the Calvinist mindset. When a trucking company uses the word "transference," they mean something much, much different than when a psychologist uses the exact same word. When a JW or an LDS uses the word "Jesus" they mean something much, much different than when an orthodox Trinitarian uses it.

The evidence shows your sources aren't wholly understood and maybe read in error and without explanation.

 

[Josheb]

Again, none of us know what was going through the minds of those who authored WLC #20.

I suspect every Cal here will disagree. The most earnest and ardent among us have read critically and prodigiously and while we each have our favorite theologians (some like Spurgeon, others Pink, Van Til, Kline, Sproul, or Frame), each of whom approached Calvin and expressed their views differently.... but still within an umbrella of commonly held views whereby salvation is monergistic. Some of us, like myself, haven't just read the theology, but also the history. We know what was happening, not just how it was explained, and why. Most here have a basic understanding of the history of the Reformation so the historical consistencies and departures from Catholicism are also known. If you're not familiar with that then this is another area of examination I'd encourage you to do. However, the Reformers weren't just RCC, they were more importantly Augustinian. And Calvin especially set an example that is very, very germane to this thread because Calvin did not appeal to other theologians as much as he went directly to scripture.

So the minds of the WLC's authors can be known and should be known before criticism.

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.

LOL!

My point was that 1) you should look to the NT to understand a scripturally informed use of the word "pledge" because 2) the word is NOT used as a reward in the NT. I explicitly stated this! So try to understand what's happening in the thread from my point of view: I post "X" and the response is, "You said anti-X," when that is demonstrably not the case. I am therefore left wondering why this is happening and happening repeatedly. Is there some sort of cognitive impairment on your side of this conversation? Am I being trolled? Is there some kind of blinding allegiance to unstated doctrines that prevent the normal understanding of words in their otherwise ordinary usage?

I say do not apply post-disobedient scripture to pre-disobedient scripture. You repeatedly do so any way.
I exhorted you to look up and examine the NT uses. You post the NT uses.
I exhort you to consider the NT uses because they are unique in their usage. You claim they say the exact opposite of what is stated.
I exhort making the effort to understand the WLC as its authors intended (necessarily implying that possibility). You say it is impossible.

So, I am wondering why you're really here. It does not appear you are really, truly, sincerely hear to get feedback and find out if or to what degree your four conclusions are valid and veracious. I am beginning to see why some of the others took respite from the thread.

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.

No. And I have explained why, done so in a couple of different ways, and endeavored to have you investigate on your own for that purpose.

Judah would get his pledge... Would you agree or disagree.

Relevant to the specific subject of this op? Disagree!!!

Judah is a sinful man living in a sinful world living with a partial revelation of the Christ covenant and particularly comparable to the pre-disobedient Adam living as a good and sinless man in a good and sinless world. You really need to grasp what you're doing when you make those kind of appeals because they ALWAYS commit the logical fallacy called the false equivalence. If this is what you've built your four conclusions on then the entire effort is fallacious and you need to start over.

You asked for feedback. You asked, "Is that correct?" Well, you've got plenty of feedback and the general consensus appears to be, "No, at least the first conclusion is NOT correct AND much of the thinking and exegesis underlying it all is fallacious." So I again remind you that you ae in good company because 1) we've been in your shoes, and 2) we've done the studying to correctly understand Calvinism. I, personally, think you should couch an understanding of any purported COW first and foremost in scripture, but the use of Calvinist sources also requires the exact same information.




In the NT the pledges are promissory, not rewards for work done in the flesh. You have read the WLC with the latter mindset and assumed that is how its authors thought when that is not likely. Huge mistake.

 

[Josheb]

I'll fine it, and send it to you. Pick up Sacred Bond to get started.

Brown and Keele?

 

[Mr GLee]

Covenant of Works, a Covenant God made with Adam.

The letter of the Law. . that covenant of death if so it is still working one-time appointment to all, it is still in effect.

2 Corinthians 2:16 To the one we are the savour of death unto death; and to the other the savour of life unto life. And who is sufficient for these things?

Its like the victors coming from battle and entering their own town, in support the family throwing roses. The scent of victory. . The prisoners following the scent of death And again. . who is sufficient for these things?