Covenant of Works

[Arial]

//Hope this helps...//

OH my God, Don't say that, LOL. You'll get something started...

Or did it already happen?

 

[ReverendRV]

OK, you busted me!

Not sure if it is a gotcha - trying to make it a robust refutation on Scriptural grounds and questioning internal doctrinal consistency.

it is long .. and I am still working on it. The content for first two summaries are 37 pages, plus endnotes. I have no idea how this will fit on forum posts …

Keep with your plan with your four conclusions, then go for it. If your objection is based on all four...

 

[Guy Swenson]

If that is what they say, that would be the classic teaching. However no such thing is actually said in the Scriptures and imo detracts from getting the message by devolving into speculation. It is better to take what you read of diligent and sincere men used by God and go to the Scriptures themselves and simply go by what is said, leaving out details of what is not said. What is said is that Adam was created very good, he was placed in the Garden in a covenant with God and given duties and consequences for disobedience. A covenant of works. He disobeyed and lost access to the tree of life. He was created able to die (mortal) and able to be corrupted but was not corrupted until he sinned. At which time he would die as there was no access to the tree of life. He became spiritually dead---cut off from spiritual life. But yes, if classic covenant of works teaches a probationary period them your understanding of the classic theology is correct.

Thank you.

 

[Arial]

Keep with your plan with your four conclusions, then go for it. If your objection is based on all four...

I'm ready for next.

 

[ReverendRV]

Or did it already happen?

Maybe...

 

[Guy Swenson]

I'm ready for next.

OK. Now to figure out how to do it - same thread or a new thread?

 

[ReverendRV]

I'm ready for next.

The first three were good, but I had issues with the third one...

 

[Arial]

Maybe...

Yup. I believe so.Questions being asked to build a case against? All I can say is good luck with that. I for one am ready.

 

[ReverendRV]

An old friend of mine used to say that sound doctrine “springs” from Scripture, rather than having to be read into the texts.

Hope this helps …

Was the Old friend @civic?

 

[Arial]

OK. Now to figure out how to do it - same thread or a new thread?

Same is fine with me but that is just me.

 

[ReverendRV]

Same is fine with me but that is just me.

You're the boss

 

[Guy Swenson]

Covenant of Works Analysis - Conclusion #2 of 4:

(This is the second of four conclusions of the Covenant of Works that I have made after reading/listening to apologists who advocate for the C.O.W. The wording and phraseology come from thode sources. I would appreciate those who are knowledgeable about the C.O.W. if they would critique the wording of these conclusions and verify that what I have distilled accurately and fairly represents the C.O.W teachings. Sources include Fesko, Grudem, Abendroth, The Pactum, Calvin, Ligonier Ministries and others. At a later time I will offer a series of challenges.)

Conclusion #2 - Eternal Life Can be Earned: Adam, by fulfilling the Covenant of Works, could earn perfect righteousness which would create an obligation (or a “debt”) of God requiring Him to give Adam eternal life by him granting access to the tree of life.

• This offer of perfect obedience being rewarded with eternal life is allegedly stated in Lev. 18:5, where it says: “You shall therefore keep My statutes and My judgments, which if a man does, he shall live by them: I am the Lord.”
• It is also asserted that Lev. 18:5 is quoted or referred to in the New Testament by Jesus and Paul as a promise of perfect obedience earning eternal life.

 

[Guy Swenson]

Was the Old friend @civic?

No - this predates the internet. I am an old “Guy.”

 

[ReverendRV]

No - this predates the internet. I am an old “Guy.”

Then welcome Guy..

 

[ReverendRV]

Covenant of Works Analysis - Conclusion #2 of 4:

(This is the second of four conclusions of the Covenant of Works that I have made after reading/listening to apologists who advocate for the C.O.W. The wording and phraseology come from thode sources. I would appreciate those who are knowledgeable about the C.O.W. if they would critique the wording of these conclusions and verify that what I have distilled accurately and fairly represents the C.O.W teachings. Sources include Fesko, Grudem, Abendroth, The Pactum, Calvin, Ligonier Ministries and others. At a later time I will offer a series of challenges.)

Conclusion #2 - Eternal Life Can be Earned: Adam, by fulfilling the Covenant of Works, could earn perfect righteousness which would create an obligation (or a “debt”) of God requiring Him to give Adam eternal life by him granting access to the tree of life.

• This offer of perfect obedience being rewarded with eternal life is allegedly stated in Lev. 18:5, where it says: “You shall therefore keep My statutes and My judgments, which if a man does, he shall live by them: I am the Lord.”
• It is also asserted that Lev. 18:5 is quoted or referred to in the New Testament by Jesus and Paul as a promise of perfect obedience earning eternal life.

I agree. The New Testament affirms the Covenant of Works came with the Promise of Righteousness...

 

[Guy Swenson]

Yup. I believe so.Questions being asked to build a case against? All I can say is good luck with that. I for one am ready.

Yes - and I appreciate the challenges when they come. Just to be clear: I am sola scriptura. No opinions absent Scripture by church fathers or “divines” carry any weight with me.

 

[ReverendRV]

Yes - and I appreciate the challenges when they come. Just to be clear: I am sola scriptura. No opinions absent Scripture by church fathers or “divines” carry any weight with me.

Let's stop for one or two Posts, then continue; what is Sola Scriptura?

 

[Guy Swenson]

Let's stop for one or two Posts, then continue; what is Sola Scriptura?

Good question. For me, it means doctrine and teachings are derived from the Bible texts. I use the following approach:

1. Clear, simple and explicit Bible texts are the foundation for establishing sound doctrine.
2. Scripture does not contradict itself.
3. Sound doctrine is not contradicted by clear, simple and explicit Scripture.
4. Where possible, unclear texts that might be interpreted different ways should be interpreted based on clear and explicit texts.
5. Scripture, in particular explicit texts, trump councils, creeds, church fathers and divines.
6. Doctrines often do not stand alone: when considering an interpretation of a particular text, all doctrines need to be considered. For example, in Calvinism there is overlap between the C.O.W. and Original Sin. Each interpretation must be internally consistent with both/all doctrines.

As to textual criticism, which manuscripts are to be preferred, etc. - I don’t worry a lot about this for core doctrines. There are usually plenty of explicit texts to use.

There is probably more … this is just off the top of my head as to my approach to sola scriptura.

 

[ReverendRV]

Good question. For me, it means doctrine and teachings are derived from the Bible texts. I use the following approach:

1. Clear, simple and explicit Bible texts are the foundation for establishing sound doctrine.
2. Scripture does not contradict itself.
3. Sound doctrine is not contradicted by clear, simple and explicit Scripture.
4. Where possible, unclear texts that might be interpreted different ways should be interpreted based on clear and explicit texts.
5. Scripture, in particular explicit texts, trump councils, creeds, church fathers and divines.
6. Doctrines often do not stand alone: when considering an interpretation of a particular text, all doctrines need to be considered. For example, in Calvinism there is overlap between the C.O.W. and Original Sin. Each interpretation must be internally consistent with both/all doctrines.

As to textual criticism, which manuscripts are to be preferred, etc. - I don’t worry a lot about this for core doctrines. There are usually plenty of explicit texts to use.

There is probably more … this is just off the top of my head as to my approach to sola scriptura.

I'm a Fundamentalist, so the answer is simple; Sola Scriptura means the Bible is the highest Authority in Spiritual matters, and is used to resolve Spiritual disputes. It's not Solo Scriptura, which means there are no other Teachings we can profit from. Here at CCAM. You will have to allow Theology to have the Authority the Bible allows it to have. Similar to God's Dominion, the Bible says God gave Man a Dominion too; both have Authority, though they differ. Since the Bible is Good for Doctrine, we should expect Good Theology to exist; and be a lesser authority...

Carry on...

 

[ReverendRV]

Speaking of Fundamentals, here is an excerpt by me from Soteriology 101...

//Is there a way to categorize verses by how strongly they teach a doctrine? Do systematic theologies discuss this problem?//

The Classic terminology is a 'Fundamental'; I'm a Fundamental Baptist who is a Calvinist. I am a Calvinist because of Fundamentals. Calvinism and Fundamentalism usually do not go hand in hand, but think about it; Calvinists have Core Verses...

Such as, "There is no one who does Good, no not One". This is Saint Paul's conclusion about Fallen Man. Now, if a Provisionist says something like, "The Verse doesn't mean what you think it means"; they do what they say Calvinists do to a Provisionist's Fundamentals. Calvinists Exegete Romans 3:12, and find that 'no, not One ' is a Double Imperative meant to reinforce that, "No one does Good"...

It's a Fundamental Verse that is always True of the Lost. A Provisionist's Fundamental Verses are always True, right? So what do we do? We use Systematic Theology to believe both Fundamentals. After Grace? Sure we're Free to Believe the Gospel. Any Verse which says we 'can' Believe, should Presume Grace has already appeared to make a 'Real' difference in our ability to start doing the Good that the Bible says we cannot do. Without Grace? Our Fallen Goodness is as a filthy rag; even our Fallen faith is Filthy...