Hi
@Guy Swenson, welcome to the forum (although I believe we've traded posts elsewhere if my memory serves me well.
If it hasn't already been done then I recommend reading Stephen Wellum's "
Kingdom Through Covenant" and "
God's Kingdoms Through Covenants," and Michael D. Williams' "
As Far as the Curse is Found" and other sources positing and explaining what's come to be called "Progressive Covenantalism," or the belief the Bible's mentions of covenants should be understood as a progressive revelation, or a revelation of covenant that progresses to reveal God's one redemptive plan for his one people that finds fulfillment in Christ and the "new covenant." In other words, there's really only one covenant but it is revealed incrementally in progressive manner.
Of course, any
covenant of works stands apart from that which is found in Christ but just as obvious is the fact neither phrase "
covenant of works" or "
covenant of grace" are phrases found explicitly stated in the scriptures. Ask yourself if in all your reading you ever found Fesko, Abendroth, Grudem, or Calvin acknowledging those facts
. I call myself monergist but contribute to the forums as a Calvinists for the sake of ease. Monergism comes in many forms (Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Pink, Sproul, Frame, etc.) and should not be thought monolithic. For good or bad the soteriology that believes God is the sole causal agent in salvation is generically called "Calvinism," even if it departs in some places from Calvin's views.
This next suggestion may sound crazy but Some reading of John Rousas Rushdoony's "
The Institutes of the Biblical Law" or "
Law and Liberty" (if you can find them) or Greg Bahnsen's "
By This Standard" (which is
free in e-format). Rushdoony and Bahnsen (Gentry, Chilton, Demar and many others) are Reconstructionists, Postmillennial, Dominionist, Theonomists, Reconstructionists which is a fringe view form most of us. I recommend those books because theonomy asserts the laws of God found in the OT remain in place, at least in principle, unless explicitly terminated or canceled in the NT. The Zondervan Counterpoints series book, "
Five Views on Law and Gospel" surveys five different views on the subject the OT Law of Moses relevant to the gospel of Christ.
These recommendations will more diversely inform your thinking on Covenant Theology and, by extension the covenant of works.
I'll handle this content in a separate post. For now, I will say I am a stickler for scripture, and the necessity of building doctrine on scripture that exegetically well rendered - beginning with what is explicitly stated in scripture and not proof-texted. My fellow CCAMers will tell you I can be quite bothersome with these expectations. The honest and forthcoming ones will also tell you it is difficult to argue against such a case.
For example, my first thought was, "
Where is the mention of a 'probationary period' in scripture?" Perhaps there is such a statement and I am unaware of its existence. I know the Bible fairly well but I don't know everything. Show me where I can find "probationary period"
explicitly mentioned and I'll accept the argument (presto, changeo, just like that
because the proof was provided!). Absent an explicit mention the next best option is 1) an honest and forthcoming acknowledgment the phrase is NOT explicitly mentioned in scripture
and it is a post-canonical phrase asserted by man-made doctrine (which is what most of this thread will be about) and then 2) you making the case for the valid, veracious, and efficacious use of the phrase with that case made from well-rendered or exegetically rendered scripture. When you do this in your own words it sharpens your own faculties, improves your argument (making it more impervious to critics), and most importantly proves the matter.
So where's the scripture?
I also tend to be an exacting sort of poster on occasions like this, and it can bug the most patient and tolerant so let me also say I am likely (as time permits) to go through this portion of your opening post line by line. According to some, I'm fairly good at forensic analysis. I'll say this: I have no expectation you will respond to every little detail I post. Since this is only your first point and it has multiple sub-points, the thread could prove lengthy, detailed, and perhaps tedious. Take what you like from my posts and respond as you see fit. I'll endeavor to avoid, "
You ignored X !"
