Covenant of Works

[ReverendRV]

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 Woman 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 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...

Olive Wreath ~ by ReverendRV * July 28

1st Corinthians 9:24 KJV; Know ye not that they which run in a race run all, but one receiveth the prize? So run, that ye may obtain.

The Olive Wreath known as the ‘Kotinos’ was the prize for the winner at the ancient Olympic Games. It was an olive branch from the wild olive tree ‘Olea Oleaster’ that grew at Olympia; It was intertwined to form a circle or a horse-shoe. According to Pausanias it was introduced by Heracles as a prize for the winning runner, to honor his father Zeus. In the ancient Olympic Games there were no gold, silver, or bronze medals; there was only one winner per event. Olive wreaths were given out during the 2004 Summer Olympics in Athens in honor of the ancient tradition, because the Games were being held in Greece. ~ The Greeks had a rule; or a Law, that only the winner of the race was the victor. In our society we have a tendency to give all of our children a trophy when they compete, even if they sat on the bench; not so in the original Olympic Games! When a victor won the race he was fitted with a Wreath which was placed on his head like a crown. The Roman Senate let Julius Caeser always wear a Laurel Wreath, instead of only at his political victories. It became his crowning moment, and he would always be recognized as a victorious leader…

Saint Paul goes on to tell us something about the Spiritual race we must run in life, in order to be at Peace with God; the Victor's Crown is perishable. Paul says that our good deeds are temporary! To the victor goes the spoils; and indeed, like the olive wreath, the reward of the Law spoils. The Bible describes men like the grass of the field, which is cut down and soon withers. ~ The wages of Sin is death. Have you ever disobeyed your parents? The Bible says this is the first Commandment with a promise; to honor your parents brings the promise of long life. Have your parents spanked you? Not keeping this Commandment is one of ten reasons that we, like grass, are cut down to death. The bad news is that because of this, you have stumbled in your spiritual race and you won’t be able to make up the difference to win! Another has won it; and the race? It is finished!

The Good News is that the person who won the race is the Lord Jesus Christ! Why is this good news? It is because he does not Covet the prize as if he would keep it only for himself! Jesus had an advantage in the race and it was that he had never Sinned; he never stumbled during the race to keep God’s Law. ~ For God so loved the world, he gave his only begotten Son to die on a Cross, that whoever should believe on him would not perish but have everlasting life. Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the ‘Life’; no one comes to God except through Faith in the risen Lord Jesus as their God and Savior. ~ The world gave Jesus a crown of thorns. But since he gives life to all he desires, he can also make the clippings of his reward alive; like Aaron’s staff which budded. Jesus will give you a crown, to show that you are the victor over death and Hell along with him. By Grace through Faith you may now enter into Heaven with him to rule and to reign instead of being cast into Hell…

Revelations 4:10 KJV; The four and twenty elders fall down before him that sat on the throne, and worship him that liveth for ever and ever, and cast their crowns before the throne, saying,

 

[Arial]

Can Calvin, or any other theologian, rewrite the terms, conditions and what God promised to Israel? What theologian has the authority to add the promise of eternal life when God chose not to do so? Again, how many times does Calvin and other theologians say Lev. 18:5 promised eternal life for perfect obedience? Every time they say or suggest that, are the not rewording the covenant God made with Israel to suit their own doctrinal desires?

You are the one who reworded what Calvin said if the less than a hand full of quotes you gave are what you are measuring his entire view of the COV on. Lev 18:5 does promise eternal life for perfect obedience. And it is what God demands. It is in fact, what God said.

Why is there such a pressing need for Calvin, and the other apologists, to rewrite history, change the terms of God’s covenant with Israel and invent a “works principle” interpretation of what God meant concerning obedience in Lev 18:5?

• Is it because there is no other text where their axiom of “perfect obedience earns eternal life” is explicitly given in the Bible?
• Is it because since there is no passage that says what they need it to say, Lev. 18:5 comes the closest?

What did God mean in Lev 18:5? So far all I have heard is what you say Calvin says it meant. That passage does not say anything about earning eternal life and Calvin did not say it said anything about earning eternal life. If you actually comprehended what he was saying in his commentary of Romans you would never make such a felonius accusation. You are doing the very thing you accuse him of. Grasping at straws, changing Calvin's meaning to suit your rebuttal of the COW.

So, when it comes to Lev. 18:5 and God’s explanation of what “rewards” there are for obedience – and disobedience, we see “rewards” for obedience are specified. We see “rewards” for disobedience are also specified.

In Lev. 18:1-5 there was a very specific promise made for obedience, and it is in contrast to the “doings” of Egypt and Canaan. The promise is based on the covenant God made with Israel at Mt. Sinai:

“Then the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, “Speak to the children of Israel, and say to them: ‘I am the Lord your God. According to the doings of the land of Egypt, where you dwelt, you shall not do; and according to the doings of the land of Canaan, where I am bringing you, you shall not do; nor shall you walk in their ordinances. You shall observe My judgments and keep My ordinances, to walk in them: I am the Lord your God. You shall therefore keep My statutes and My judgments, which if a man does, he shall live by them: I am the Lord.”

First, what was the consequence of disobedience? It was being ejected from the land – vomited out. Their life in the land would be cut short. (Cutting short their life in the land of inheritance is the opposite of the promises for obedience – as in the Old Covenant command in Ex. 20:12 “Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long upon the land which the Lord your God is giving you.”)

Guy the entire Mosaic covenant was a bilateral land grant covenant. It pertained solely to keeping the land and God being their God as protector and provider. It was not intended to provide eternal life, it was the precursor to the New Covenant which is not a covenant of works, is not a covenant pertaining to land, is not, is not bilateral, but is unilateral. But the passage does not say "You shall therefore keep my statutes and my rules; if a person does them, he shall not be kicked out of the land." You are using eisegesis, not exegesis. And a suggestion if you want to use this passage against Calvin, you cannot do so by applying it to something completely other than what he was using it for. Which was a commentary on Romans 10, not the covenant of works.

 

[Arial]

For obedience, Israel was promised to be a kingdom of priests and a holy nation. Never were they promised eternal life.

I have yet to see anyone putting forth the cow says that the Mosaic covenant promised eternal life? What is that called in an argument again in the world of logical fallacies?

Calvin’s problem – and that of the other theologians – is that none of the “rewards” for obedience by Israel included eternal life. Even in other passages which have the phrase “if a man does, he shall live by them,” the consequence for disobedience is either not inheriting the land (the first generation of Israelites at the time of the Exodus) or being vomited out of the land.

• Obedience => long life in the land and temporal blessings.
• Disobedience => vomited out of the land and temporal curses.
• Never obedience => eternal life.

False dichotomy. You have yet to establish what the COW IS. You are working from a completely erroneous presentation to the COW. You are working from the premise that it is works righteousness, even though the very groundwork of the reformation was faith alone through Christ alone and cherry picking quotes from Reformation theologists, then interpreting them to be saying what you want them to be saying so you can use the to refute the COW. As I said in another post, the COW is dealing with justification. It is laying the foundation that supports justification. It is systematically doing so. And covenant is a frame work of interpretation in Reformed theology, not a doctrine in and of itself. It is opposed to the method of dispensations as an interpretive tool. If one follows through this systematic working of unifying all of the Bible together through covenant including the COW, by the time one arrives at the cross they will not be able to stand upright because of the power and the glory of how Jesus purchased justification for His people. They will gaze in awe at the absolute perfection of God. They will have marveled at every step along the way.

So in summary I would have to say that you really have no idea what you are talking about, and have no idea that you do not know what you are talking about. And then I will just skip to your summary and maybe and maybe not, respond to it.

 

[Arial]

The covenant of redemption that we discussed yesterday was made by the members of the Trinity ad intra—within the Godhead. However, the other biblical covenants are made not by God within Himself but between the Lord and humanity. Theologians distinguish between two primary covenants that our Creator has made with mankind: the covenant of works and the covenant of grace. God's first covenant with Adam and his descendants was the covenant of works, and after our first parents violated this agreement, the Lord revealed a covenant of grace in which He would save His people from the consequences of having broken the first covenant in Adam.

We distinguish the covenant of works from the covenant of grace according to the primary principle of each, but grace is not entirely foreign to the covenant of works, and works are an important part of the covenant of grace. What do we mean? First, in regard to the covenant of works, God did not have to create humanity or enter into any kind of agreement with us. Having created Adam, He was also not required to create Eve as a fitting companion for him and thereby establish the good of human companionship (Gen. 2:18-25). Such acts are gracious acts. Further, the covenant of grace does not abolish works. The purpose of grace is to provide a Savior who does the works Adam never did so that the Lord can reckon us as covenant keepers via the imputation of Christ's righteousness (Rom. 5:12-21).

To understand the covenant of works, we must consider Adam's state in the garden of Eden before the fall. God created Adam "good" and in the proper relationship with Him (Gen. 1:31). He was not as good as could be, however. By obeying the command to not eat the forbidden fruit (vv. 16-17), Adam could have reflected God's glory more fully, and would have merited eternal life for himself and his descendants. We know this to be the case because that is what Jesus did, and Jesus is the second Adam tasked with fulfilling the vocation of the first Adam (1 Cor. 15:45).

Adam was able not only to reflect the glory of the Lord more fully, but He was also able to fall from the state in which he was created. Sadly, Adam did fall, and creation was cursed (Gen. 3). In Adam, we lost our ability to keep the covenant of works (Rom. 3:9-20), but that does not mean the covenant was set aside. We are still bound by its terms, but on account of our inability, our only hope is for someone else to keep it in our place (Gal. 3:10-14). (from ligonier.org)

@Guy Swenson

See how far off you are from actually addressing the actual COW, and the purpose of the the COW? And it did not take 5000 pages of copy.

 

[Arial]

The Covenant of Works​

R.C. Sproul

4 Min Read
Covenant theology is important for many reasons. Though covenant theology has been around for millennia, it finds its more refined and systematic formulation in the Protestant Reformation. Its importance, however, has been heightened in our day because of its relationship to a theology that is relatively new. In the late nineteenth century, the theology called “dispensationalism” emerged as a new approach to understanding the Bible. The old Scofield Reference Bible defined dispensationalism in terms of seven distinct dispensations or time periods within sacred Scripture. Each dispensation was defined as “a period of time during which man is tested in respect of obedience to some specific revelation of the will of God.”1 Scofield distinguished seven dispensations including that of innocence, conscience, civil government, promise, law, grace, and the kingdom period. Over against this diversified view of redemptive history, covenant theology seeks to present a clear picture of the unity of redemption, which unity is seen in the continuity of the covenants that God has given throughout history and how they are fulfilled in the person and work of Christ.
Beyond the ongoing discussion between traditional dispensationalists and Reformed theology with respect to the basic structure of biblical revelation, there has arisen in our day an even greater crisis with respect to our understanding of redemption. This crisis focuses on the place of imputation in our understanding of the doctrine of justification. Just as the doctrine of imputation was the pivotal issue in the sixteenth-century debate between the Reformers and the Roman Catholic understanding of justification, so now the issue of imputation has risen its head again even among professing evangelicals who repudiate the Reformation understanding of imputation. At the heart of this question of justification and imputation is the rejection of what is called the covenant of works. Historic covenantal theology makes an important distinction between the covenant of works and the covenant of grace. The covenant of works refers to the covenant that God made with Adam and Eve in their pristine purity before the fall, in which God promised them blessedness contingent upon their obedience to His command. After the fall, the fact that God continued to promise redemption to creatures who had violated the covenant of works, that ongoing promise of redemption is defined as the covenant of grace.
Technically, from one perspective, all covenants that God makes with creatures are gracious in the sense that He is not obligated to make any promises to His creatures. But the distinction between the covenant of works and grace is getting at something that is of vital importance, as it has to do with the Gospel. The covenant of grace indicates God’s promise to save us even when we fail to keep the obligations imposed in creation. This is seen most importantly in the work of Jesus as the new Adam. Again and again the New Testament makes the distinction and contrast between the failure and calamities wrought upon humanity through the disobedience of the original Adam and the benefits that flow through the work of the obedience of Jesus, who is the new Adam. Though there is a clear distinction between the new Adam and the old Adam, the point of continuity between them is that both were called to submit to perfect obedience to God.
When we understand Christ’s work of redemption in the New Testament, we focus our attention largely on two aspects of it. On the one hand, we look at the atonement. It’s clear from the New Testament teachings that in the atonement Jesus bears the sins of His people and is punished for them in our place. That is, the atonement is vicarious and substitutionary. In this sense, on the cross, Christ took upon Himself the negative sanctions of the old covenant. That is, He bore in His body the punishment due to those who violated not only the law of Moses, but also the law that was imposed in paradise. He took upon Himself the curse that is deserved by all who disobey the law of God. This, Reformed theology describes in terms of “the passive obedience of Jesus.” It points to His willingness to submit to His reception of the curse of God in our stead.
Beyond the negative fulfillment of the covenant of works, in taking the punishment due those who disobey it, Jesus offers the positive dimension that is vital to our redemption. He wins the blessing of the covenant of works on all of the progeny of Adam who put their trust in Jesus. Where Adam was the covenant breaker, Jesus is the covenant keeper. Where Adam failed to gain the blessedness of the tree of life, Christ wins that blessedness by His obedience, which blessedness He provides for those who put their trust in Him. In this work of fulfilling the covenant for us in our stead, theology speaks of the “active obedience” of Christ. That is, Christ’s redeeming work includes not only His death, but His life. His life of perfect obedience becomes the sole ground of our justification. It is His perfect righteousness, gained via His perfect obedience, that is imputed to all who put their trust in Him. Therefore, Christ’s work of active obedience is absolutely essential to the justification of anyone. Without Christ’s active obedience to the covenant of works, there is no reason for imputation, there is no ground for justification. If we take away the covenant of works, we take away the active obedience of Jesus. If we take away the active obedience of Jesus, we take away the imputation of His righteousness to us. If we take away the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to us, we take away justification by faith alone. If we take away justification by faith alone, we take away the Gospel, and we are left in our sins. We are left as the miserable sons of Adam, who can only look forward to feeling the full measure of God’s curse upon us for our own disobedience. It is the obedience of Christ that is the ground of our salvation, both in His passive obedience on the cross and His active obedience in His life. All of this is inseparably related to the biblical understanding of Jesus as the new Adam (Rom. 5:12–20), who succeeded where the original Adam failed, who prevailed where the original Adam lost. There is nothing less than our salvation at stake in this issue.
@Guy Swenson

See how far you are removed from what the COW really is and what it is about? And in only a four minute read.

 

[Eleanor]

You are the one who reworded what Calvin said if the less than a hand full of quotes you gave are what you are measuring his entire view of the COV on. Lev 18:5 does promise eternal life for perfect obedience. And it is what God demands. It is in fact, what God said.

What did God mean in Lev 18:5? So far all I have heard is what you say Calvin says it meant. That passage does not say anything about earning eternal life and Calvin did not say it said anything about earning eternal life. If you actually comprehended what he was saying in his commentary of Romans you would never make such a felonius accusation. You are doing the very thing you accuse him of. Grasping at straws, changing Calvin's meaning to suit your rebuttal of the COW.
No doubt @Eleanor would consider that my arrogance rising up,

'Twas, not you, Sis, to whom I was referring in that comment. You limit your remarks to the post, while I was addressing arrogant, lacking-in-the-spirit-of-Christ remarks addressed personally to the poster. Such arrogance is not often seen.

but I care little about that or even the fact that so easily frustration is counted as arrogance. If you can't handle push back then I don't know why you are here.

"Twas not you, Sis, who said not to do something again if one doesn'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. . .thinking themselves to be self-appointed lawgiver and judge.
I've seen that poster's interpretation of Lev 25:44-46, which flat-out denies the plain text there. Said poster is in no position to be giving advice to anyone on "bad exegesis," in light of their denial of absolutely simple and plain text.

Guy the entire Mosaic covenant was a bilateral land grant covenant.

I see Ge 15:9-21 as an unconditional unilateral covenant of land granted to righteous (Ge 15:6) Abraham (Ge 17:8) and his descendants.
I see Ge 17 as a conditional bilateral covenant made with Abraham as the patriarchal head of his household to be his and his descendants' God (Ge17:7), along with the conditions for keeping the land.

It pertained solely to keeping the land and God being their God as protector and provider. It was not intended to provide eternal life, it was the precursor to the New Covenant which is not a covenant of works, is not a covenant pertaining to land, is not, is not bilateral, but is unilateral. But
the passage does not say "You shall therefore keep my statutes and my rules; if a person does them, he shall not be kicked out of the land."

However, we do find that in:
Dt 28:58, 62-63 - "If you do not carefully follow all the words of the law, which are written in this book, and do not revere this glorious and awesome name--the LORD (YHWH) your God. . .you who were as numerous as the stars in the sky will be left but few in number, because you did not obey the LORD your God. Just as it pleased the LORD your God to make you prosper and increase in number, so it will please him to ruin and destroy you. You will be uprooted from the land you are entering to possess."
Dt 30:1-10 - ". . .the LORD will. . .gather you again from all the nations. . ." (fulfilled in the return from exile under Ezra and Nehemiah, when the walls were rebuilt, the temple was rebuilt and the people re-dedicated themselves to the LORD with much loud rejoicing hear from afar).

You are using eisegesis, not exegesis. And a suggestion if you want to use this passage against Calvin, you cannot do so by applying it to something completely other than what he was using it for. Which was a commentary on Romans 10, not the covenant of works.

 

[Arial]

'Twas, not you, Sis, to whom I was referring in that comment. You limit your remarks to the post, while I was addressing arrogant, lacking-in-the-spirit-of-Christ remarks addressed personally to the poster. Such arrogance is not often seen.

I realized that later so my apologies. When I realize what post was being responded to I went back to edit and delete it but I must have not pushed the save button. I will do it again. Again sorry for jumping the gun like that.

I see Ge 15:9-21 as an unconditional unilateral covenant of land granted to righteous (Ge 15:6) Abraham (Ge 17:8) and his descendants.
I see Ge 17 as a conditional bilateral covenant made with Abraham as the patriarchal head of his household to be his and his descendants' God (Ge17:7), along with the conditions for keeping the land.

I know. We have been over that and you still see it your way and I still see it my way. I see the MOsaic covenant as the land grant because that is where the laws for keeping the land were drawn up. It was bilateral. The promise to Abraham that his descendants would inherit the land I see as a unilateral covenant with no laws or conditions stipulated. To me it is when the Mosaic covenant was given that it becomes obedience for keeping the land and God as their God---protector and provider and defender.

Going to go do the edit now.

P.S. It did edti. You must have quoted from it before I did the edit. Though this post showed up in my alerts as being posted at around 5:30 p.m. CST and I edited this morning or early afternoon.

 

[ReverendRV]

Rebuttal of Conclusion #2: 1 of 14

So, as we move forward, remember that the doctrines of the Covenant of Works and Original Sin are interdependent. They do not exist in separate theological worlds but are inextricably linked.

That's correct. The proof Original Sin exists, is seen in the Consequences of the Curses for Breaking the Edenic Covenant of Works; IE Pain in Childbirth....

The consequence for eating from the Tree of Knowledge, has to be a Curse also; perhaps the Chief Curse. Death is separation from God. Since Pain in Childbirth is an everlasting Curse for Breaking the Covenant, Separation from God is also the Standard in life for All who are born...

 

[Mr GLee]

That's correct. The proof Original Sin exists, is seen in the Curses for Breaking the Edenic Covenant of Works; IE Pain in Childbirth....

The consequence for eating from the Tree of Knowledge, has to be a Curse also; perhaps the Chief Curse. Death; separation from God. Since Pain in Childbirth is an everlasting Curse for Breaking the Covenant, Separation from God is also the Standard in life for All who are born...

I would agree. Why call it original? Not counterfeit ?

 

[ReverendRV]

I would agree. Why call it original? Not counterfeit ?

@Guy Swenson is speaking about Original Sin, which has already been named as a Doctrine by Theologians...

 

[ReverendRV]

I hope we all take this as an example of how much we need people from Arminianism and Provisionism; or others, who want to Debate Calvinism here. @Guy Swenson

Perhaps the Administration can get their heads together, and find ways to attract and keep some good ones...

@Carbon @Arial @Ladodgers6

 

[Eleanor]

I hope we all take this as an example of how much we need people from Arminianism and Provisionism; or others, who want to Debate Calvinism here. @Guy Swenson

Perhaps the Administration can get their heads together, and find ways to attract and keep some good ones...

They'll have to deal with the Biblical mistakes of the arrogant, domineering, judgmental and condescending in order to do so.

 

[makesends]

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.

Apparently I didn't read this carefully enough the first time around. So now, I'm not sure quite what you think.


I don't think you can show that humans can disregard unknown influences. To say that more accurately, humans may disregard this or that in order to choose what they please, but they cannot shed all influences. The fact that humans can "disregard any and all known ... influences and asserted themselves volitionally and behaviorally in a causal manner - a way that itself creates new causal relationships" is no indicator of independence from causation. If humanity is controlled "deterministically" at all, then it is so at every minute level. The fact that God's ordaining does no violence to the human will nor to the contingency of secondary causes, doesn't say that humans are capable of doing other than what God ordained that they do. In matter of fact, the WCF shows that it is that very ordaining that establishes these (human will and the contingency of secondary causes). Not that the WCF is my master, but it does make a very worthwhile logical mention with that. Not only did God know and intend every detail, and every movement of the will, and every contingency, (and every outcome), but they do not even exist apart from his establishing them.

A note on the word, "contingency", there. It does not imply that it could have gone this way or that way, but simply that if x didn't happen, y wouldn't (or would, as the case may be) happen; or alternately, if x does happen, y will not (or will, as the case may be) happen. The fact we don't know, and consider each 'option' equally possible is no indicator that all 'options' are actually possible.

We can argue the matter by a difference in meaning of "determines" but, logically, there is nothing that first cause does not cause. Further, God knowing every cause and every effect before Creation means that he INTENDED every cause and every effect, and that, down to the minutest detail. I call this determinism, but not fatalism. Maybe I shouldn't call it determinism because of the visceral reactions it draws, but to my understanding, God has determined all things, down to the minutest detail.

Cause-and-effect is pervasive --completely, as far as anyone can demonstrate. All effects are caused, and everything is an effect, except for God. The fact that most, if not all, effects, are also causes, does not change the fact that everything except God is an effect.

 

[Arial]

I hope we all take this as an example of how much we need people from Arminianism and Provisionism; or others, who want to Debate Calvinism here. @Guy Swenson

Not sure what your point is. He ran away when the going got tough, after he was less than half done with the rebuttal, leaving all the effort and responses and any possibility of the debate continuing, all the point by point rebuttals to his rebuttal, unanswered and undebated. That is rude and inconsiderate. Of course we want A'ists and Provisionists and others on the site. Differing views is the point of debate and discussion.

Perhaps the Administration can get their heads together, and find ways to attract and keep some good ones...

@Carbon @Arial @Ladodgers6

That should take place in a PM with staff. If you have ideas on how to do the above I look forward to them. It must be done however by being specific and direct, especially regarding "how to keep them."

 

[Josheb]

As soon as he was created he began telling lies.

Prove it.

Was Genesis 2:23 a lie?

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

Another post-disobedient verse about post-disobedient conditions misguided applied to pre-disobedient Adam. Adam did not come from the womb.

 

[Josheb]

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

And I reject that remise prima facie. Jesus is BOTH fully God and fully man.

 

[Josheb]

Apparently I didn't read this carefully enough the first time around. So now, I'm not sure quite what you think.


I don't think you can show that humans can disregard unknown influences.

Then I encourage you to do more research. I will, however, concede one possibility: that of antithesis. If unknown forces are bearing on a person that would otherwise incline him/her to choose and act toward one given response and s/he choose the exact opposite, then s/he would be choosing/acting in antithesis.

This is always a potentiality in scripture. God tells Cain not to do what he is about to do. We know he is compelled to murder, and God's exhortation is intended to highlight that very problem (his bondage to sin) but God's words would be meaningless were it not possible for Cain to also act in complete opposition to everything externally and everything internally bearing on him to commit murder.

I do not think you can prove humans must regard unknown influences.

To say that more accurately, humans may disregard this or that in order to choose what they please, but they cannot shed all influences.

So, they can disregard maybe 10% or on a good day maybe 77% and on a really, really, good day maybe 98.6% but never 100%.

The fact that humans can "disregard any and all known ... influences and asserted themselves volitionally and behaviorally in a causal manner - a way that itself creates new causal relationships" is no indicator of independence from causation. If humanity is controlled "deterministically" at all, then it is so at every minute level.

Incorrect. Creation is filled with unrealized potential and it is so by God's design. Any god can make things work only one way. That's not much of a god. I can make action figures do only and exactly what I make them to do. That does not make me a god. much less a God. This has always been one of the problems with strict determinism; in its effort to assert God's omnipotence and sovereignty it makes Him ordinary and not particularly mighty.

The fact that God's ordaining does no violence to the human will nor to the contingency of secondary causes, doesn't say that humans are capable of doing other than what God ordained that they do.

I never said it did. What it does say is that causes other than God AND their contingencies exist. Look up the definition of "contingency." Then re-read WCF 3.1 to better understand what the authors were really saying.

In matter of fact, the WCF shows that it is that very ordaining that establishes these (human will and the contingency of secondary causes).

Yep

Not that the WCF is my master, but it does make a very worthwhile logical mention with that. Not only did God know and intend every detail, and every movement of the will, and every contingency, (and every outcome), but they do not even exist apart from his establishing them.

Yep

A note on the word, "contingency", there. It does not imply that it could have gone this way or that way, but simply that if x didn't happen, y wouldn't (or would, as the case may be) happen; or alternately, if x does happen, y will not (or will, as the case may be) happen. The fact we don't know, and consider each 'option' equally possible is no indicator that all 'options' are actually possible.

Nope

We can argue the matter by a difference in meaning of "determines" but, logically, there is nothing that first cause does not cause.

Correct.

A first causing all other causes is not strict or meticulous determinism. Strict determinism is that God causes all causes meticulously. First causality and meticulous causality are not identical and should not be conflated.

Further, God knowing every cause and every effect before Creation means that he INTENDED every cause and every effect, and that, down to the minutest detail.

Knowledge is not cause. Intent is not cause. There is, of course, no divien cause absent divine knowledge and intent but the three are not synonymous.

I call this determinism, but not fatalism.

You are wrong.

Maybe I shouldn't call it...

Words have meaning and they should be called what they are called regardless of others' responses.

Cause-and-effect is pervasive -- completely, as far as anyone can demonstrate. All effects are caused, and everything is an effect, except for God. The fact that most, if not all, effects, are also causes, does not change the fact that everything except God is an effect.

Yep. And nothing I posted should be construed to say otherwise. God certainly knew all the causes His cause would cause, and He caused His caused to establish all those causes...., knowing humans themselves are causal because that is how He made them.

 

[Mr GLee]

And I reject that remise prima facie. Jesus is BOTH fully God and fully man.

It would sound like some under the wrath

God is not a man in any way shape or form He uses temporal created things to help us understanding his unseen power of faith But God is not dying corrupted man as was Jesus the Son of man

Temporal visual thing in the place of our invisible eternal God the abomination of desolation .

Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Romans 1: 25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature (Son of man, Jesus ) more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

 

[Ladodgers6]

Failure in Paradise

The Covenant of Works
Part 1
​

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whosoever believes in should not perish but have eternal life" (John 3:16). "Repent and be baptist everyone of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins" (Acts 2:38). These are classic verses that summarize the Gospel. They proclaim the good news to us about how we can be saved from our sin.

These verses, and others like them, hold a dear place in our hearts. The Gospel comforts us in times of doubt, and it encourages us when we are weary. We sometimes cross-stitch these verses to hang on our wall, make then the back round on our computer, and tape them up in our workplace. They are comforting reminders of the great salvation that we have in Christ. And yet these verses raise the question: Hoe can this be? Hoe is it possible for depraved sinners to be saved merely through Faith? Why did Christ have to die on the Cross? What did Christ do so that we could have eternal life by believing in him? What is necessary for sinful man or woman to be redeemed?

In answer to these questions, we may first go to one of Paul's epistles or to a passage in the Gospels; we could certainly find the answers there. There is another place, however, to which one can turn to find answers to these very questions, namely, the opening chapters of Genesis. This may come as a surprise to a lot of people. We understand how important the first few chapters of Genesis are with respect to creation. But how do they preach the Gospel?

The Apostolic preaching of the Gospel is the bridge that brings us to God as Savior; it is paved and clearly marked. But the pillars on this bridge, which are rooted deep into the riverboat below, belong to Genesis 1-3. The streaming water may hide the pillars from our eyes at times; yet, without the Genesis pillars, the Gospel viaduct would begin to crumble beneath our feet, hurling us headfirst into the depths below.

Genesis 1-3 forms the essential foundation for the Gospel, especially because it reveals the Covenant of Works. This doctrine of the Covenant of Works teaches us more about the perfect work of Christ and, in so doing, bolsters up our assurance of salvation.
​

What is the Covenant of Works? ​

The doctrine of the (CoW) has a distinguished pedigree. While the concept of (CoW) is found in writings as early as Augustine (354-430), robust formulations of the doctrine were taught in the time of the Reformation by theologians such as Zacharias Ursinus (1534-83) and Caspar Olevianus (1536-87), authors of the Heigelberg Catechism (1563). In his Larger Catechism (1562), Ursinus explicitly equated the (CoW) to the Law, which "requires our perfect obedience to God" and "promises eternal life to those who keep it," and equates the Covenant of Grace to the Gospel (Promise), which "shows us the fulfillment in Christ of the righteousness that the Law requires" and "promises eternal life freely because of Christ to those who believe in him." Olevianus taught the same doctrine in his 1567 Vester Grund. He spoke of a legal covenant of works with Adam as the federal head of humanity, in whom the Law was "implanted" as a matter of "human nature". This (CoW) stands in contrast to the (CoG) , which declares the "Surety who completely satisfies the just judgement of God for us."

By the 1640s, the doctrine of the (CoW) was officially recognized and codified in the confessional standards produced by the Westminster Assembly. The (WSC), for example, defines this covenant as follows: "When God had created man, he entered into a covenant of life with him, upon condition of perfect obedience; forbidding him to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, upon pain of death" (Q&A 12). Likewise the (WCF) asserts, "The first covenant made with Adam was a (CoW), wherein life was promised to Adam; and in him to his posterity, upon condition of perfect and personal obedience" (7.2). Consistent with these statements, Louis Berkhof says that the (CoW) is God's commitment to Adam, as Federal Head, wherein life is conditioned on perfect obedience, and [eternal] death is threatened upon the disobedience of eating the forbidden fruit.

There are four aspects of this definition that are helpful for us to flesh out a bit. First God is the one who made the Covenant, and he did so at creation. For Adam and Eve to be made in the image of God is for them to be in a Covenant with God. At creation, God commits himself to his creation to sustain them and to be their God. So also, being created in the image of God by necessity obligates Adam to God. In Genesis 1:26, God fashions male and female in his image so that they may have dominion, which is an obligation. God's act of creation generates a relationship with implicit obligations, namely, to imitate God. God's covenantal commitment to his human creations, then, is evident in Genesis 1, even before the narrower command not to eat of the Tree of Knowledge. This prohibition focuses the covenant relationship on a specific test, but the covenant is bigger than this one command.

​

 

[makesends]

God is not a man in any way shape or form He uses temporal created things to help us understanding his unseen power of faith But God is not dying corrupted man as was Jesus the Son of man

You might want to consider the implications of being "made in the image of God".