Covenant of Works

[Arial]

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.

Calvin isn't conflicting with you or me. Only a portion of a sentence was quoted by the poster to make his case, which began with the words "this passage" I believe the case was that Calvin himself had an internal conflict in the COW that was caused by the doctrine of original sin. That the doctrine of original sin and the COW were incompatible. @Guy Swenson disagrees with both doctrines.

By posting the entire content of what Calvin said on Romans 10:5, including the passage that was referred to and the rest of the exposition on that verse, which I did, it shows that GS was using the quote to entirely misrepresent what Calvin was actually saying. I have lost track of what he said to you so can't comment on that. I now understand that I was supposed to read the entire 15 pages of the rebuttal before making any comments, and after having done that-----. A pretty tangled web impossible to untangle unless someone writes another book length rebuttal on the whole book length rebuttal. And even then, it would take reams of pages to do and still be the same tangle. It is not forum format conducive. But that is just MO.

 

[Josheb]

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)

That is partly correct and partly incorrect. Aging and physical death are part of the created order and, yes, there would be no need for a tree of life if A&E were inherently immortal. However, the fact that they would age and die physically does not mean they and creation were corrupt. Genesis 1:31 tells us everything God made was very good. That necessarily infers the aging and physical death humans and every animal in creation would ordinarily otherwise experience is a good thing.

People have this fantastical idea of utopia in Eden. This can be tested with a simple question: If a sheep or a cow fell off a cliff and plummeted a thousand feet to its sudden stop at the bottom..... would the animal survive? And if Adam slipped while walking along a high-elevation ledge, or mistakenly cut an artery while felling a tree, or perhaps the tree fell on him? What then? How about the normal cycle of harvest? A seed is planted and it produces a plant according to its kind (Gen. 1) which, in turn, produces more seeds, again, according to its kind and those seeds are planted and tended to as the desolation of the world outside of Eden is subdued and ruled over. Was there any death involved in planting and reaping? What about all the many, many thousands of creatures that eat carrion? Did they have some other purpose prior to Genesis 3:6? All of them instantly changed from whatever they were before to something completely different solely because Adam ate the forbidden kiwi?

I have read some fantastical explanations whereby people claim the ordinary laws of physics and biology did not exist in the pre-disobedient world. Adam might have fallen, and gravity had its ordinary effect, but he would have been able to stop himself from being smashed into mush at the bottom because he could command creation . Yeah. Okay. Got scripture for that? Or maybe God would have prevented Adam from dying because Adam was the sole means of propagating a bloodline. God would have magically (they do not use the word magic; the use the word "miraculously") kept any such occurrence from happening. Great. Got scripture for that?

Adam being mortal was a good thing. There is no death without life. There is not resurrection without death. There is no transformation without resurrection. Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God. Adam was always going to die, but he was not made to physically die ALSO dead in sin. Physical death is not a "corruption." It is the divinely created order of things. Dying in sin is corruption. Literally. The two are put together throughout scripture.

It is appointed to man to die once and after that to face judgment (Heb. 9:27). Even the pre-disobedient Adam was going to die. Once. Sadly, the fact is everyone dies at least twice, some more than twice.

• Physically dead (a good thing).
• Sinfully dead (a bad thing).
• Dead in Christ (a good thing).
• Dead to sin (a good thing).
• Dead in the fiery lake so lethal even death is dead (a bad thing).

Lots of death. Some good, some bad.

Adam died the moment he violated the letter of the law death.

And yet he walked around, his heart pumping blood and his lungs breathing air, working the soil with his wife longing after him and he produced offspring. Pretty good for a dead guy.

Adam did die the moment he disobeyed God, but it was not physically that he died. It took him hundreds of years to physically die and, according to Paul in 1 Corinthians 15, that was inevitable - whether he ever disobeyed God or not! Man was sown mortal and corruptible, not dead and corrupted. Corruptible, not corrupted. Adam corrupted himself. God did not corrupt His creation. God made Adam corruptible, not corrupted and God did not make, force Adam to disobey Him. Adam corrupting himself did not pose an obstacle for God, however, because prior to Adam being made Jesus was already known as the perfect sacrifice by which all mortals might be saved - whether they were sinless or sinful because man was made mortal, but flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God. Adam was always going to die. Had he obeyed God he'd have died sinless but still in need of Jesus, the tree of life. Had he died sinful eternal life was still possible because the tree of life, Jesus, is still available by faith. Had Adam believed God none of us would be in this predicament, but we'd be in another predicament. There is not predicament-free world.

The righteous live by faith and we are to love the LORD God with all heart, mind, body, soul, and strength... finding our strength in Him and not our own flesh. It has always been that way. Those are the precepts that transcend life and death.

Good word "monergism" I agree, thanks

Well, I can't take credit for it, but the appreciation is appreciated .

 

[Mr GLee]

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 would think the work of his faith that works in us is the reward of his labor of Love. . . the pledge .

Hebrews 11: 6 But without faith (his) it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

God brings us to God

Hebrews 6:13 For when God made promise to Abraham, because he could swear by no greater, he sware by himself,

The job of one God. . who is not served by the dying hands of mankind in any way shape or form. He pours out His Spirit on their dying flesh giving them strength to do the will of the Father. Our daily bread

 

[Eleanor]

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.

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?

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.

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

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?

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.

Ro 5:12-14 has to be what Peter had in mind when he stated regarding Paul, "His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures." (2 Pe 3:16)

The imputation of Adam's sin (transgression) to all is the burden of Ro 5:12-14, where Paul both distinguishes between sin and transgression,
and likewise uses them interchangeably. . .not uncommon in Paul, and one of the reasons for Peter's comment.

Sin is basically unintentional violation, while transgression (v.14) is deliberate and intentional ("high-handed") violation, resulting in application of death penalty, as in Adam.
There being no law carrying a death penalty to intentionally transgress between Adam and Moses, they did not sin (transgress), v.14,
yet they all died anyway. . .because of the imputation of Adam's sin (i.e., all sinned, v.12), which imputation of Adam's sin

is the pattern for Christ in Ro 5:14 (imputation of Christ's righteousness),
is the conclusion stated in Ro 5:18 and
is contrastingly paralleled to imputation of Christ's righteousness in Ro 5:18-19 ("just as. . .so also").

You might give it some consideration.

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.

 

[Arial]

Leviticus 18:5 appears in the gospels, specifically when a lawyer asked Christ, ‘What must I do to inherit eternal life?’ (Luke 10:25). Jesus asked the lawyer, ‘What is written in the Law?’ to which the lawyer responded: ‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself’ (Luke 10:27). How did Jesus respond? He quotes Leviticus 18:5: ‘You have answered correctly; do this, and you will live’ (Luke 10:28; cf. Lev. 18:5 LXX). That the totality of the law is in view is evident by the lawyer’s quotation of Deuteronomy 6:5 and Leviticus 19:18; but Christ’s response also holds out eternal life as the goal of obedience to the law. Key in this exchange is what follows, in that the lawyer, ‘desiring to justify himself’ (v. 29), asked Jesus who his neighbor was. In other words, this exchange demonstrates that a person can either be justified by works or by faith in Christ, though the former is now impossible in a post-fall world. Christ’s use of Leviticus 18:5 also illustrates that, taken by itself, the verse sets forth the principle of the covenant of works – obedience yields eternal life.

Fesko, J. V.. Adam and the Covenant of Works (Divine Covenants Book 1) (p. 285). Christian Focus Publications. Kindle Edition.

Note: Fesko completely sidesteps the fact Jesus agreed with the lawyer’s summation that obedience was necessary – not to “earn” salvation by perfect obedience, but rather to “inherit” salvation. Fesko goes on to validate the impossibility of either audience – Israel or Jew – to earn eternal life by perfect obedience:

I put forth here that you do not understand what you are reading. You have actually added to Fesko's words something he did not say and accuse him of doing something he did not do.

He never uses the word "earn" and in no way sidesteps the word "inherit." He quotes it in quoting the scripture. Saying,as he did, "Christ's response also holds out eternal life as the goal of obedience to the law," says only what it says. You are interpreting it as saying the goal is to earn eternal life, and it does not say that does it? You interpret "In other words, this exchange demonstrates that a person can either be justified by works or by faith in Christ, though the former is now impossible in a post-fall world." to be an internal conflict because you interpret the COW as being about working to earn eternal life.

The truth of the matter is, though Adam was in a position to inherit eternal life by obedience, or to lose that inheritance by disobedience, because of His disobedience, none of his progeny can inherit eternal life any way but through faith in Christ. That does not negate the fact that perfect righteousness is still what is necessary to inherit eternal life. Enter the King of Kings. He does the perfect righteousness, and through our trust in Him and His work, we are made righteous in the eyes of God. Faith has always been the means of inheriting eternal life. Adam would have had eternal life, had he continued in faith. The disobedience shows he did not. There were OT saints under the law, who did sin, but still inherited eternal life, because they had faith in God. They never ceased to trust Him or believe Him and worshiped no other gods.

 

[Josheb]

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

Yes, I see. I looked up both commentaries and do not find and discrepancy between his views and my own. I do find, relevant to the subject of this op, that post-disobedient scripture is still being applied to pre-disobedient conditions and assumed to be the mindset of the Calvinists' view of the pre-disobedient Adam when that is not likely the case. Any thought to the contrary requires proof.

As far was the word limit goes, not everything needs a response, and any post can be divided into multiple parts and responded to in separate posts (see my Posts 557 and 558 above. I've added a lot of unnecessary content to 1) cover some matters preemptively (to save us time, effort, and cyberspace later), to test your authenticity (and I do not care what you think of that) given the mistakes now present in the thread, and to try to get at some of the presuppositional aspects that might be governing the op. Once read, content like the expectation of a cogent discourse and sound use of scripture can be ignored, or a simple "Amen!" is sufficient. I assume those are areas of agreement and need a response only if they are not .

We're getting afield of the op and the purported pre-disobedient, conditional, probationary, covenant of works and the belief the pledge is a reward.

• Use only scripture specifically pertaining to the pre-disobedient world.
• Apply those scripture as the mindset of the Calvinists.
• Verify a probationary period.
• Verify any purported covenant of works.
• Verify the pledge is a reward and not a promise.

That work for you?

 

[Mr GLee]

That is partly correct and partly incorrect. Aging and physical death are part of the created order and, yes, there would be no need for a tree of life if A&E were inherently immortal. However, the fact that they would age and die physically does not mean they and creation were corrupt. Genesis 1:31 tells us everything God made was very good. That necessarily infers the aging and physical death humans and every animal in creation would ordinarily otherwise experience is a good thing.

Thanks for the reply. I would think they were dying as in aging when they refused the gospel (tree of life) They refused to believe in a God not seen they were under the influence. of the father of lies the god of this world. . who spoke through the most beautiful creature and in effect said "Why believe in a God not seen"?????. . lust after my beauty and "never die" .

They had no desire to love and please an invisible God by believing his living word. Mankind must be born again . . .believe God unseen as it is written.

1 John 2:16 For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.

 

[Eleanor]

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.

I see your position as presenting the "con" regarding c.o.w., while I see the objectors to you presenting the "pro" of c.o.w.

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.

 

[Arial]

Calvin’s explanation of Matthew 19:16-17 also parallels his exegesis of Romans 10:5 and Galatians 3:10. The rich young ruler had too much confidence in his ability to fulfill the law. Christ therefore confronted him with the demands of the law. The law requires perfect obedience, and hence Calvin quotes two texts, Leviticus 18:5, ‘He that does these things shall live by them,’ and Deuteronomy 30:19, ‘I call heaven and earth to witness that I have this day showed you life.’ Unlike Aquinas, Calvin believed that Paul and Jesus spoke with one voice. The law rewards perfect obedience with eternal life.

You do not understand what you have read and you interpret it as saying what it does not say. In the portion you quote it does not say that Calvin said or implied "The law rewards perfect obedience with eternal life." The holiness of God, His position as Creator and our position as creature, demand perfect obedience. It could demand no less. It does not depend on whether post-fall man can do it or not. The point is that He made a way in Christ---who was perfectly obedient even unto death. I need an answer to this question. Do you also not agree with the penal substitution doctrine?

 

[Josheb]

I really don't get why you are saying this.

Then go back and re-read the posts.

Of course man is causal! That is more than obvious. Even that man can change himself (to some degree) is obvious.

Perhaps but it was unstated, and YOU said, "To me the notion that the will exists independent of and/or operates independently of causation is logical hogwash." If humans can, in fact, disregard any and all known and unknown influences and asserted themselves volitionally and behaviorally in a causal manner - a way that itself creates new causal relationships, then human independence is not hogwash. The WCF explicitly states God's eternal ordaining did not do violence to the human will or that of the contingency of secondary causes. Humanity is bound, but not deterministically controlled at every minute level. Humanity is limited in many ways but still maintains an ability to transcend most controls. The two chief places where humanity is bound are the inability to rule over God's will, and the ability to come to God for salvation from the control of sin in the sin-compromised faculties of the flesh.

As far as I know, in fact, ALL effects are also causes.....

But not all causes are "spontaneous." Only humans possess the ability to think, choose, and act irrelevant of all the forces brought to bear on any single moment. It is rare, but possible; possible in all areas but two. The exception is that any such act is categorical. Any such act would fall into either an enslavement to the flesh or an enslavement to the Spirit. Anyone can overcome all of sin's controls and influences, but only by the Spirit (and most of humanity lacks that Spirit). Likewise, anyone can overcome the influences (but not the controls) of the Spirit but doing so is always sin.

We have liberty, not freedom. One of the liberties is to be causal ourselves.

 

[Josheb]

I would think the work of his faith that works in us is the reward of his labor of Love. . . the pledge.

Hebrews 11: 6 But without faith (his) it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

God brings us to God

Hebrews 6:13 For when God made promise to Abraham, because he could swear by no greater, he sware by himself,

The job of one God. . who is not served by the dying hands of mankind in any way shape or form. He pours out His Spirit on their dying flesh giving them strength to do the will of the Father. Our daily bread

Relevance to the op?

Remember: this op is about the pre-disobedient Adam in the pre-disobedient world. It is NOT about "us," nor is it about any post-disobedient scripture describing the post-disobedient conditions. The answer to your post post is,

Philippians 2:13
...for it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure.

...but that is off-topic from the op unless or until it can be shown Adam had God at work in his life in the same way as "us." I do not think that can be done. Adam (and Eve) briefly exist as two unique creatures in human history. No one since Genesis 3:6 has been like the pre-disobedient Adam. Not even Jesus because Jesus is both fully God and fully man. Adam was definitely not the latter .

 

[Josheb]

Thanks for the reply. I would think they were dying as in aging

Yes but that is not corrupt. You keep saying it is itself corrupt and it is not. What Adam did in his good, sinless, mortal and corruptible state was corrupting, and as a consequence he became something he previously had not been: corrupted. He then began to rot and decay that would not have happened in the merely mortal and corruptible but not-corrupt state.

when they refused the gospel (tree of life) They refused to believe in a God not seen they were under the influence. of the father of lies the god of this world. . who spoke through the most beautiful creature and in effect said "Why believe in a God not seen"?????. . lust after my beauty and "never die" .

Perhaps, but all of that is wholly inferential and at best an argument from silence.

We know Adam knew the tree of life existed and he likely knew the tree of life existed to give life (hence its name). That does not mean he understood the gospel because the gospel is much more than mere life. Christ's Kingship and Lordship is an inherent and inextricable part of the gospel. The word "gospel" is specifically an announcement of great victory and in the case of Christ is the victory over death. We have a record the gospel was preached to Abraham. We have a record the gospel was known to David. Is there such a record the gospel was known by Adam? If not, then do not assume it. If so, then please post it.

They had no desire to love and please an invisible God by believing his living word. Mankind must be born again . . .believe God unseen as it is written.

1 John 2:16 For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.

You keep making the same mistake @Guy Swenson is making: using post-disobedient scripture to explain pre-disobedient conditions. It is bad exegesis.



gotta go blessings on you all
.

 

[Eleanor]

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.

I'm not sure anyone who denies the plain meaning of Lev 25:44-46, authorizing the ownership of slaves as property as well as willing them to your children for life, is in a position to be telling you not to do something again if you don't want them to call you out on it, that it's bad exegesis and bad at a foundational level, that nothing built on the practice can be correct.

Don't go away because of someone else's arrogance.

And which will not be surprising when an arrogant response is likewise made to this.

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.

 

[Arial]

Were they asking what they could do to earn eternal life?

In order to prove the narrative they put forward, it would seem that theologians want to change the question being asked to “What good thing must I do to earn eternal life?”

Where have any of the theologians mentioned changed the word "inherit" to "earn" in those passages? That is what you need to show if you make that assertion.

When reading the works by theologians, I was struck at how often they ignore the fact that inheriting is very different from earning. They are nothing like each other. Their dogma requires earning eternal life by perfect obedience. Inheriting takes no work. No perfection in behavior. It is the result of choices totally out of our control.

I have not seen you demonstrate that any changed the word "inherit" to "earn." But what do the scriptures say about inheriting vs. earn post resurrection and the New Covenant?
1 Cor 6:9-11 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor the greedy, nor dunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you, But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

Eph 1:11-12 In Him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of Him who works all things according to the counsel of His will, so that we who were the first to hope in Christ might be to the praise of His glory.
Hebrews 9:11- 18
But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come,e then through the greater and more perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation) 12he entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption. 13For if the blood of goats and bulls, and the sprinkling of defiled persons with the ashes of a heifer, sanctifyf for the purification of the flesh, 14how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify ourg conscience from dead works to serve the living God.

15Therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant.h 16For where a will is involved, the death of the one who made it must be established. 17For a will takes effect only at death, since it is not in force as long as the one who made it is alive. 18Therefore not even the first covenant was inaugurated without blood.

So you see, works were required for us to inherit the kingdom, they just weren't our works. They were Christ's. He did Lev 18:5 We do not work to inherit the kingdom, we inherit it through faith in His work and His person to save us. And the kingdom was always Christ's, He was not working to earn it, He was working to bequeath it to those whom God was giving Him----as His inheritance.

In order to prove the narrative they put forward, it would seem that theologians want to change the question being asked to “What good thing must I do to earn eternal life?”

In the four accounts, the phrase used 3 times “what shall I do to inherit eternal life.” The fourth is what good thing … that I may have eternal life.

At no point in any of the four accounts was the question asked, “What must I do to earn eternal life?”

Inherit – yes – have or possess – yes. But earn eternal life by perfect obedience?

No. Never. Not once.

You are arguing a strawman until you prove that theologians actually change the word "inherit" to"earn". Just as you began the OP by arguing a strawman from the words of isolated quotes from "authority" that were immediately shown through Scripture to be false, at least as they stood alone as they were given.

Inheriting is a concept deeply embedded in God’s dealing with mankind. Having or possessing eternal life is consistent with receiving an inheritance. Inheriting or coming to possess eternal life as the gift of God based on faith are completely different from earning eternal life by works of perfect obedience.

Agreed but where is the evidence that anyone is doing this? Where is the evidence that that is what constitutes the COW? And don't forget the works involved were done by Jesus. I know you say you have provided the evidence but I have showed you that the evidence you provided was not valid as it made assumptions and directly changed what the evidence given said.

Inheriting is a concept deeply embedded in God’s dealing with mankind. Having or possessing eternal life is consistent with receiving an inheritance. Inheriting or coming to possess eternal life as the gift of God based on faith are completely different from earning eternal life by works of perfect obedience.

Here are some Biblical examples:

Abraham was to inherit the promised land:

“Then He said to him, “I am the Lord, who brought you out of Ur of the Chaldeans, to give you this land to inherit it.” (Genesis 15:7)

Israel actually did inherit the promised land:

“Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, Your servants, to whom You swore by Your own self, and said to them, ‘I will multiply your descendants as the stars of heaven; and all this land that I have spoken of I give to your descendants, and they shall inherit it forever.’” (Exodus 32:13)

Israel is even spoken of as being God’s inheritance.

“Then he said, “If now I have found grace in Your sight, O Lord, let my Lord, I pray, go among us, even though we are a stiff-necked people; and pardon our iniquity and our sin, and take us as Your inheritance.” (Exodus 34:9)

“For the Lord’s portion is His people; Jacob is the place of His inheritance.” (Deut. 32:9)

And?

 

[Arial]

What about the principle of earning eternal life by works?

You are using a false premise of what the COW is. It is not and never has been, despite your selective quotes from not even a handful of "authorities" (itself a logical fallacy of appealing to authority as the basis of your argument when the argument is about what the Bible teaches and whether or not it teaches a COW. I have said that from the beginning, and I say it again. You started from a false premise, added more false premises and continue in that way. Also a false dichotomy. So I will read what you say and see if there is anything that needs to be addressed beyond what I say here.

In the COW it states that works were given at creation in Gen 2, not in order to earn eternal life but to inherit it. A command was given and if the command was broken, righteousness, the very thing that provides eternal life is lost. Yet righteousness is still demanded to inherit eternal life---or the kingdom of God. An aside: the kingdom is not ours, it is God's. The only two options we have is to be in it or to not be in it.

If righteousness is the only way to inherit eternal life, it takes righteous acts from birth to death, after death entered in. Whether we are able to do it or not, it is the only way, unless God makes another way---one He would have to do Himself and without violating His own being which includes justice. Somehow, a sinner must be justified before Him. There were pre incarnation of Jesus saints who were justified and in the same way we are---through faith. And without going to far down that trail, it was always God doing the choosing for His purposes, of those who had this faith.

The Mosaic covenant, the old covenant was made up of laws and what are laws that we must do and keep but works? Covenant of works continued. The law as we see in Romans and in Gal especially and even in the temporary sacrifices, showed what righteousness was, showed what sin was, but it was never intended to produce eternal life except through faith/trust in God. It was meant as a task master, a teacher, a revealer, that showed us our position before God and our helplessness and hopelessness to save ourselves through works. And to shadow and prophesy of the One to come. The Messiah who would take away the sins of the world.

You seem to think the COW is about earning eternal life and it is not. It is about being justified before God. It is about who is the justifier, and how He provided justification, and how we attain to it and Him. We inherit eternal life when we have been justified before God. And that is only through the person and work of Jesus. In this we trust.

 

[Mr GLee]

Yes but that is not corrupt. You keep saying it is itself corrupt and it is not. What Adam did in his good, sinless, mortal and corruptible state was corrupting, and as a consequence he became something he previously had not been: corrupted. He then began to rot and decay that would not have happened in the merely mortal and corruptible but not-corrupt state.

As soon as he was created he began telling lies.living in a body of death naked and ashamed he refused the gospel refused to believe in a God not seen. Passed in on to Cain He did not have the Spirit of Christ in him if any man has not they do not belong to God as Christ that faith of Christ which would enable him to please God All of mankind must be born again.marvel not Jesus said

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

All die not receiving the promise of a new incorruptible body as the bride of Christ. No one has received it

 

[Mr GLee]

.but that is off-topic from the op unless or until it can be shown Adam had God at work in his life in the same way as "us." I do not think that can be done. Adam (and Eve) briefly exist as two unique creatures in human history. No one since Genesis 3:6 has been like the pre-disobedient Adam. Not even Jesus because Jesus is both fully God and fully man. Adam was definitely not the latter

I would offer God is not a man he is fully exclusive God .Jesus the Son of man fully man. . . demonstrated the power of the unseen father working in him Just as Abel the first apostle a martyr sent with prophecy (gospel) Neither one has received thier new incorruptible bodies

 

[Ladodgers6]

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?

So are you denying the Covenant of Works?

 

[Ladodgers6]

Brown and Keele?

The Tale of the Two Adams by Kline

 

[ReverendRV]

Rebuttal of Conclusion #2: 1 of 14

Another evidence that the covenant relationship with God in the garden included a promise of eternal life if Adam and Eve had perfectly obeyed is the fact that even in the New Testament Paul speaks as though perfect obedience, if it were possible, would actually lead to life. He speaks of a “commandment which promised life” (Rom. 7:10; lit., “the commandment unto life”) and, in order to demonstrate that the
law does not rest on faith, he quotes Leviticus 18:5 to say, about the provisions of the law, “He who does them shall live by them” (Gal. 3:12; cf. Rom. 10:5).

Yes, the Mosaic Covenant of Works DID Promise Righteousness for Keeping it; or Jesus could never have the opportunity to Keep, as you call it, the Covenant of Life. @Ladodgers6 Because of Deuteronomy 28, All Israel had the same opportunity as Jesus; but only the Victor could Keep it. Our Falleness is like a Beginner playing Golf from the Pro Tees; there's a disadvantage from the start. But it's worse for us; because of our Wretchedness in the sight of God, our Tees are still at the first Hole; where Adam Fell. Our Opportunity to Keep the Covenant of Life, is like our trying to make an Eagle on the 18th Hole; by Teeing up from the first Hole...

‭‭Isaiah‬ ‭28:18‬ ‭NIV‬‬; Your covenant with death will be annulled; your agreement with the realm of the dead will not stand. When the overwhelming scourge sweeps by, you will be beaten down by it.

The Edenic Covenant of Works isn't a Covenant of Life...