Do a Covenant of Works and a Covenant of Grace Exist?

[Ladodgers6]

I asked if you believe in Original Sin? A yes or no will suffice. (Read Romans 5:12-21)

 

[Ladodgers6]

Those phrases do not occur in the Bible. They are phrases used in Covenant Theology (CT), phrases used to discriminate how CT views God's covenant(s) in the Old Testament (OT) in contrast and comparison to the New Testament. Sound theology is firmly rooted in scripture but man-made theologies and the doctrines they beget invariably have flaws, and that's usually because an assumption or inference has been made that is, at best, questionable. That's one of the reasons alternatives develop.

I hope that is not a reference to anything I posted in the prior thread HERE, because I never said the two concepts were not biblical. I said they were extra-biblical. That is a simple fact of history that can objectively verified, not something that can be disputed. There's a huge difference between something being extra-biblical and something being unbiblical. I explicitly affirmed the usefulness of the concept(s) (see post 10 in that thread).

So, I'd be curious to see who said those concepts are "unbiblical," and wager they hold a normatively and statistically outlying theology themselves.

The false cause fallacy works bi-directionally. When it is based on an argument from silence like, "Nowhere does the Bible ever state God is not a being with 24 eyes and He's placed one of them in each of the twelve apostles," that is 1) typically disproven from other scripture and 2) easily disproven based on other logical necessities (like God's vision or "seeing" not being limited to a finite condition like an eyeball). Conversely the argument saying, "Scripture explicitly states God is a being with 24 eyes and He's placed one of them in each of the twelve apostles," would still be faulty as written even if it were based on something written in the Bible that was interpreted to be literal. The third possibility is that some other scripture contradicts the inferences read into whatever is said in the Bible. The fact remains the Bible does not have a verse explicitly stating God has 24 eyes and put one of them in each of the apostles. Typically speaking, when theological claims are made the seem reasonable to those holding that theology but how many of them consider the claim alongside something like "God has 24 eyes...."? The former is deemed reasonable while the latter is deemed absurd.

Simply put, it is not the existence or non-existence of something in the bible that proves it correct (or erroneous). It is the content of what is stated or not stated and its consistency with the whole of scripture that determines its veracity.

Appeals to the doctrine of the Trinity are false equivalences. Just because the word Trinity is not found explicitly stated in scripture does not mean we can use that same fact to justify anything we like. A 24-eyed God is not found in scripture, either, but according to the (misused) claim "Neither is the Trinity," we must accept the 24-eyed God premise as fact and truth.

No, we must not.

Can the man-made, extra-biblical concepts of "Covenant of Works" and "Covenant of Grace" be found explicitly stated in the Bible? No. No, and that is not a fact that can be disputed.

Can the use man-made extra-biblical concepts of "Covenant of Works" and "Covenant of Grace" be supported based on something that is explicitly stated in the Bible? Possibly. Many clearly think so. I used to count myself among them. There are reasons I still count my self a covenantalist but do not appeal to those two concepts.

There is no such thing as "Mosaic Covenant" in the Bible, either. The covenant made with Moses was said by God to be made as a consequence to the covenant God had already made with Abraham. This fact runs through the entirety of the Bible. When God gave the Law to Moses He was not initiating a new and entirely different covenant. God was simply adding to the covenant already established hundreds of years prior.

Genesis 17:19
But God said, "No, but Sarah your wife will bear you a son, and you shall call his name Isaac; and I will establish My covenant with him for an everlasting covenant for his descendants after him.

The covenant God established with Isaac was the one He established with Abraham. Isaac, the son of promise, is the progeny of that covenant (not Ishmael).

Exodus 2:24-25
So God heard their groaning; and God remembered His covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. God saw the sons of Israel, and God took notice of them.
Here, again, it is all the same covenant, spoken of in the singular conjugation.

Leviticus 26:40-42
If they confess their iniquity and the iniquity of their forefathers, in their unfaithfulness which they committed against Me, and also in their acting with hostility against Me— I also was acting with hostility against them, to bring them into the land of their enemies — or if their uncircumcised heart becomes humbled so that they then make amends for their iniquity, then I will remember My covenant with Jacob, and I will remember also My covenant with Isaac, and My covenant with Abraham as well, and I will remember the land.

This passage occurs within what the CTer would call the Covenant of Works or the Mosaic Covenant but here, again, God Himself has made it clear that His remembering Israel is due to the covenant he made with Abraham (and the progeny Isaac and Jacob). The same exact fact can be found in 2 Kings 13:23 in what might be considered the Davidic Covenant or still umbrellaed under the Mosaic Covenant. If we use the language God used then it is all the covenant made with Abraham. If we use the language of CT, the man-made, extra-biblical language of CT then those concepts prove useful but only where they do not confict with what is plainly stated in scripture. And, as we can see so far, there's only one covenant, not two different ones. Therefore, if and when the CT concepts or phrases contradict with the single-covenant truth of scripture then CT has over-stepped scripture and, at best, risks being erroneous.

Of course, the most important aspect of this covenant with Abraham is Paul's assertion in Galatians 3:16 that the covenant was also made with Jesus, the singular, foreknown seed of Abraham. So from Abraham to Jesus there are explicit statements in scripture the covenant is singular; there's only one covenant. This is supported by the fact the plural form, "covenants" is found only twice in the entire Bible. Those are the exceptions to the rule, not the rule. God uses the singular form "covenant" over 300 times! but the plural form only twice. The preceding and overwhelmingly predominant context for those two plural uses is the singular covenant.


I'll pick up other salient content in a separate post.

I beg to differ you on this topic, because God dealt with his creation through Covenants. And these are not extra-biblical but central.

Hosea 6:7 But like Adam they transgressed the covenant; there they dealt faithlessly with me.

Also check Geerhardus Vos, Meredith Kline, Lee Irons, John Owen, Hermann Witsius, St. Irenaeus, Samuel Petto, the list goes on and on.

 

[Soyeong]

The Doctrine of Justification​

JUSTIFICATION; ITS IMMEDIATE AND ONLY GROUND,—THE IMPUTED RIGHTEOUSNESS OF CHRIST

​

MANY have admitted that the Justification of sinners is connectedwith the Mediatorial work of Christ, as its meritorious cause; whilethey have denied that it rests on His righteousness as its immediateand only ground. They have not ventured to set aside His meritsaltogether, or to say that His redeeming work had no influence inprocuring our pardon and acceptance with God; on the contrary,they have professed to do signal homage to the merits of Christ, byacknowledging both their indispensable necessity, and their certainefficacy, but only as a means of procuring for us those terms ofsalvation, and that measure of grace, which render it possible for usto be justified by our personal obedience; while they have utterlyrejected the idea that His righteousness is, or can be, imputed to us.Others, again, have admitted a real and important, but partial andimperfect, imputation of His righteousness; and have restricted it tothe merits of His passive, as distinguished from that of His active,obedience,—thereby leaving our Justification to rest, partly on Hisatoning sacrifice, and partly on our personal holiness in heart andlife. It is necessary, therefore, to show that His righteousness,—considered as the entire merit of His whole Mediatorial work,—is notonly the meritorious cause, but also the immediate ground, of ourJustification; and for this end, to inquire—What that righteousness isby which alone we can be justified,—why it is said to be therighteousness of God, or the merit of Christ,—and how it becomesours, so as to be available for our Justification?



So, Soyeong, you only have half the answer to the equation. And by having only half of it, that's why you are mingling human works with His divine works, that Paul cursed the Galatians for. Because now you rely on human activity as the basis for their justification before a Holy God.
Just like the Pharisees who boast about being godly by their outward works. And Jesus called them white washed tombs filled with dead men bones.

It is called, pre-eminently and emphatically, 'The righteousness ofGod.' By this name it is distinguished from the righteousness of man,and even contrasted with it, as a ground of Justification. It is broughtin as a divine righteousness, only when all human righteousness hasbeen shut out. The Apostle first proves that 'by the deeds of the lawthere shall no flesh be justified in His sight, for by the law is theknowledge of sin;' and then introduces another righteousnessaltogether, 'But now the righteousness of God without the law ismanifest, ... even the righteousness of God which is by faith of JesusChrist.' He contrasts the two great revelations—the revelation ofwrath, which is by the Law, and the revelation of righteousness,which is by the Gospel: 'For the wrath of God is revealed from heavenagainst all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men:' but 'the Gospelof Christ is the power of God unto salvation to every one thatbelieveth, ... for therein is the righteousness of God revealed.' And, inhis own case, he renounces his own personal righteousnessaltogether, as the ground of his acceptance and hope: 'That I may win Christ, and be found in Him, not having mine own righteousness,which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, therighteousness which is of God by faith.'3 The two righteousnesses arenot only distinct, but different; and not only different, but directlyopposed, and mutually exclusive, considered as grounds ofJustification; insomuch that he who is justified by the one, cannotpossibly be justified by the other. If the righteousness of man besufficient, the righteousness of God is superfluous; if therighteousness of God be necessary, the righteousness of man canhave no place. Nor can any conciliation or compromise be effectedbetween them, so as to admit of their being combined in one complexground of acceptance; for they represent two methods ofJustification which are irreconcilably opposed,—the one by grace, theother by works: 'For to him that worketh is the reward not reckonedof grace, but of debt; but to him that worketh not, but believeth onHim that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted forrighteousness.' 'And if by grace, then is it no more of works,otherwise grace is no more grace: but if it be of works, then is it nomore grace, otherwise work is no more work.'​

What you quoted that from is not very clear, but there is only God's righteousness, not different types. For example. every act of charity is in accordance with God's righteousness and there is not a different way of doing what is righteous than what is in accordance with God's righteousness. Our good works in obedience to God's instructions have nothing to do with establish our own type of goodness, but rather they are in accordance with God's goodness, which is why our good works give glory to Him (Matthew 5:16) and the same is true of righteousness and every other aspect of God's character that He has graciously taught us to be doer of. God did not graciously give us His law so that we could have something to boast in ourselves about, so you're completely missing the goal of God's law. It is contradictory to think that we can rely on God's instructions in stead of relying on God. Paul contrasted works of the law with the Law of God and Paul said that they were cursed because they were relying on works of the law instead of relying on God's instructions.

Jesus set a sinless example for us to follow of how to walk in obedience to God's law, so he was much more zealous for obedience to it than the Pharisees were and he never criticized the Pharisees for obeying it, but he did criticize them for not obeying it or for not obeying it correctly. For example, in Mark 7:6-9, Jesus criticized Pharisees for being hypocrites for setting aside the commandments of God in order to establish their own traditions. In Matthew 23:23, Jesus said that tithing was something that they ought to be doing while not neglecting weightier matters of the law of justice, mercy, and faith, so he was not opposing their obedience to God's law, but rather he was calling them to have a higher level of obedience to it in a manner that is in accordance with its weightier matters.

 

[Soyeong]

I asked if you believe in Original Sin? A yes or no will suffice. (Read Romans 5:12-21)

Do you think that Romans 5:12-21 contradicts Genesis 4:7 and Deuteronomy 30:10-20?

 

[donadams]

Dead works are the works that lead to death in disobedience to the Torah, not the works that lead to life in obedience to it.

Works done on your own apart from Christ and his church and His grace

 

[Soyeong]

Works done on your own apart from Christ and his church and His grace

The works in obedience to the Torah that Christ graciously teaches us to be doers of are God’s works, not works that we can do on our own apart from Christ.

 

[donadams]

The works in obedience to the Torah that Christ graciously teaches us to be doers of are God’s works, not works that we can do on our own apart from Christ.

List?

 

[Josheb]

I beg to differ you on this topic, because God dealt with his creation through Covenants.

Yes, He did. That is not a point in dispite.

And these are not extra-biblical but central.

Can you please show me where the phrases "covenant of grace," and "covenant of works," are found explicitly stated in scripture?

Hosea 6:7 But like Adam they transgressed the covenant; there they dealt faithlessly with me.

To which covenant was Hosea referring.

Also check Geerhardus Vos, Meredith Kline, Lee Irons, John Owen, Hermann Witsius, St. Irenaeus, Samuel Petto, the list goes on and on.

Read them all, except for Witsius and Petto. The fact remains there is not such statement as "covenant of grace" found anywhere in the Bible. The phrase is a man-made extra-biblical term developed for doctrinal purposes. All the difference begging possible does not and will not change that fact. I happen to agree with CT (mostly) but my agreement is irrelevant because the theology is measured by scripture, not my opinion, your opinion, or those of Vos', Kline's, Irons', etc.

What is biblical is the fact the covenant is largely singular, not plural. Most of the time scripture speaks of covenant it uses the word in its singular form and ties all mentions of covenant back to the covenant made with Abraham in Genesis, which Paul tells us involved promises made to Abraham and Jesus (Gal. 3). Furthermore, as the various aspects of the covenant(s) are examined - including the covenant with Adam and Eve that implied but not stated and the covenant with Noah - every aspect of monergistic or, as I put it elsewhere, God-initiated without any mention of God asking anyone if they want to be involved.

Now we could call that a "covenant of grace," but why do so when the addition to scripture is unnecessary? That God "dealt" with His creation through a covenant is not in dispute. If that was perceived to be what I said, then re-read my posts because I never denied God instituting a covenant relationship with creation through His Son. The covenant with which God "dealt" (somewhat of a misnomer because creation itself, its existence, is predicated upon God's covenant promises made with His Son by whom, through whom, and for whom creation was created) is not a point of disagreement. That we should unnecessarily invent terms is my point of dissent.

And would make the point with Vos, Kline, Irons, and any other notable because the letters after their name do not make them correct..... and your appeal to authority is fallacious.

This matter is somewhat akin to the Dispensationalists' use of the term "dispensation, " which is a term found in the Bible, but they then take a biblical term and re-define it and add man-made invents to scripture. There's greater consistency with Covenantalists' treatment of "covenant" than Dispensationalists' treatment of "dispensation," but the difference is a matter of degrees, not kind. It's not okay to invent stuff and call it "biblical."

Especially unnecessarily.

Method is just as important as content. We don't do anyone any benefit by unnecessarily inventing terms. The case for Covenant Theology can be made solidly without having to invent terms like "covenant of grace" or covenant of works," and since that is one of the chief points of dissent among the naysayers we could benefit both sides by reforming the reformed doctrine to better reflect scripture without man-made additions.

 

[Ladodgers6]

Can you please show me where the phrases "covenant of grace," and "covenant of works," are found explicitly stated in scripture?

I believe I answer this question in my previous post to you. But I will provide it again. I said that the phrases do not appear anywhere in Scripture, but the teaching and the concept is found in Scripture. Do you believe in the Trinity? Show me where that word appears in Scripture? Just because the phrases or terms do not appear in Scripture doesn't mean the teaching the teaching and concept are.​

To which covenant was Hosea referring.

Thanks for asking this very crucial question. Are you familiar with Covenant language? Or what is a Covenant? What did Adam do to get sanctioned, cursed, and exiled from the Garden Temple by God? Are you also disputing the Covenant of Redemption?​

 

[Ladodgers6]

Read them all, except for Witsius and Petto. The fact remains there is not such statement as "covenant of grace" found anywhere in the Bible. The phrase is a man-made extra-biblical term developed for doctrinal purposes. All the difference begging possible does not and will not change that fact. I happen to agree with CT (mostly) but my agreement is irrelevant because the theology is measured by scripture, not my opinion, your opinion, or those of Vos', Kline's, Irons', etc.

Thank you, I totally 100% agree with this. It's not man-made doctrines, but God's very word. The WFC also hold to teaches CT. Why? Because it is the word of God.

 

[Josheb]

I believe I answer this question in my previous post to you. But I will provide it again. I said that the phrases do not appear anywhere in Scripture, but the teaching and the concept is found in Scripture. Do you believe in the Trinity? Show me where that word appears in Scripture? Just because the phrases or terms do not appear in Scripture doesn't mean the teaching the teaching and concept are.

Thanks for asking this very crucial question.​

And I have addressed all of that.

Show me where the "concept" of a covenant of grace is stated in scripture.

Are you familiar with Covenant language?​

Yes

Or what is a Covenant?​

Yes

What did Adam do to get sanctioned, cursed, and exiled from the Garden Temple by God?​

Twice disobeyed God. However, while I am familiar with the "temple" case for the garden I am reluctant to treat it as a given in this conversation. You cannot assert inferential arguments to prove an inferential argument (it begs the question) so please be more circumspect and avoid that problem. If you do that I will simply point out the question-begging nature of the post. Be more concrete, be specific.

Are you also disputing the Covenant of Redemption?​

I am disputing the practice of constantly moving the goal posts with every post.

Start small. Start simple. Build from consensus.

Is the phrase "covenant of grace" found in scripture? No "buts," please.

 

[Josheb]

I beg to differ you on this topic, because God dealt with his creation through Covenants.

Thank you, I totally 100% agree with this.

Those two statements contradict one another.

It's not man-made doctrines, but God's very word.

The phrase "covenant of grace" is not found in scripture. It is, therefore, NOT "God's very word."

The WFC also hold to teaches CT.

Incorrect.

The word "theology" is not found in the WCF, and neither is the phrase "covenant theology." The phrases "covenant of works" and "covenant of grace" are found therein, but that are asserted as doctrinal positions, not as words found in the Bible. When WCF 7.3 states, "Man by his fall having made himself incapable of life by that covenant, the Lord was pleased to make a second, commonly called the covenant of grace: wherein He freely offered unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ.........," it explicitly states this is a "common" understanding of what God did after Man's fall. The appeal to what is "commonly called," is by definition an acknowledgment this is something other than what is plainly stated in the Bible. Doctrinally speaking, that may be correct, but it might not be because we're not supposed to form sound doctrine based on "common" understanding. We definitely want to avoid argumentum ad populum.

Correct.

The WCF isa "Confession," or "Creed," that summarizes a theological perspective that had been around more than a millennium before it was written. Covenant Theology was formalized in the 16th century and the WCF was part of that formalization. Its history is not in dispute.

As a doctrinal statement the WCF asserts a theological perspective considered orthodox at that time but that does not change the facts of these posts (there is no such thing as "covenant of grace," explicitly stated in the Bible and the defensive appeal to the Trinity is a false equivalence.

Why? Because it is the word of God.

No, it's the WCF. Not only is there no such thing as a "covenant of works," or a "covenant of grace," in the Bible, the WCF asserts God made a second covenant and that too is nowhere found in scripture. That has always been a flaw in the WCF. My noting it is not new. While I embrace the WCF as a summary description of scripture I do not make the claim the WCF is equivalent to scripture.... and I trust we can both agree that in the case of any discrepancy between the Bible and the WCF the Bible wins. Do please let me know if that is not the case.


These are some of the reasons why I believe Progressive Covenantalism is a much more accurate reflection of scripture (and perhaps a basis for amending some of the WCF's few weaknesses). There is only one covenant anyone can have with God and that covenant was made between God and His Son before the creation was created. They are the original covenant participants, not God and Adam or God and Abraham. It is God who pledged God's life in fealty to God and it is God who reaps the blessings of God's obedience to God. The covenant is revealed in incremental manner, in progressive manner, throughout both Old and New Testaments and..... the incremental, progressive nature of the revelation never uses the phrases "covenant of works," or "covenant of grace." We we stuck with what scripture states the need for adding invented terms is reduced.

 

[Arial]

Yes, He did. That is not a point in dispite.

Can you please show me where the phrases "covenant of grace," and "covenant of works," are found explicitly stated in scripture?

To which covenant was Hosea referring.

Read them all, except for Witsius and Petto. The fact remains there is not such statement as "covenant of grace" found anywhere in the Bible. The phrase is a man-made extra-biblical term developed for doctrinal purposes. All the difference begging possible does not and will not change that fact. I happen to agree with CT (mostly) but my agreement is irrelevant because the theology is measured by scripture, not my opinion, your opinion, or those of Vos', Kline's, Irons', etc.

What is biblical is the fact the covenant is largely singular, not plural. Most of the time scripture speaks of covenant it uses the word in its singular form and ties all mentions of covenant back to the covenant made with Abraham in Genesis, which Paul tells us involved promises made to Abraham and Jesus (Gal. 3). Furthermore, as the various aspects of the covenant(s) are examined - including the covenant with Adam and Eve that implied but not stated and the covenant with Noah - every aspect of monergistic or, as I put it elsewhere, God-initiated without any mention of God asking anyone if they want to be involved.

Now we could call that a "covenant of grace," but why do so when the addition to scripture is unnecessary? That God "dealt" with His creation through a covenant is not in dispute. If that was perceived to be what I said, then re-read my posts because I never denied God instituting a covenant relationship with creation through His Son. The covenant with which God "dealt" (somewhat of a misnomer because creation itself, its existence, is predicated upon God's covenant promises made with His Son by whom, through whom, and for whom creation was created) is not a point of disagreement. That we should unnecessarily invent terms is my point of dissent.

And would make the point with Vos, Kline, Irons, and any other notable because the letters after their name do not make them correct..... and your appeal to authority is fallacious.

This matter is somewhat akin to the Dispensationalists' use of the term "dispensation, " which is a term found in the Bible, but they then take a biblical term and re-define it and add man-made invents to scripture. There's greater consistency with Covenantalists' treatment of "covenant" than Dispensationalists' treatment of "dispensation," but the difference is a matter of degrees, not kind. It's not okay to invent stuff and call it "biblical."

Especially unnecessarily.

Method is just as important as content. We don't do anyone any benefit by unnecessarily inventing terms. The case for Covenant Theology can be made solidly without having to invent terms like "covenant of grace" or covenant of works," and since that is one of the chief points of dissent among the naysayers we could benefit both sides by reforming the reformed doctrine to better reflect scripture without man-made additions.

Josh, it is simply distinguishing two types of covenant. A covenant of works is bilateral. The covenant maker and the covenant participants, contingent on promises kept by both parties.

Covenant of grace is unilateral. The covenant maker brings into a covenant relationship those he chooses, and all the covenant keeping is that of the covenant maker. It is not distinguishing any covenant as separate from the one covenant of redemption.

 

[Soyeong]

List?

You can Google a list of 613 commandments.

 

[Eleanor]

Those phrases do not occur in the Bible. They are phrases used in Covenant Theology (CT), phrases used to discriminate how CT views God's covenant(s) in the Old Testament (OT) in contrast and comparison to the New Testament. Sound theology is firmly rooted in scripture but man-made theologies and the doctrines they beget invariably have flaws, and that's usually because an assumption or inference has been made that is, at best, questionable. That's one of the reasons alternatives develop.
I hope that is not a reference to anything I posted in the prior thread HERE, because I never said the two concepts were not biblical. I said they were extra-biblical. That is a simple fact of history that can objectively verified, not something that can be disputed. There's a huge difference between something being extra-biblical and something being unbiblical. I explicitly affirmed the usefulness of the concept(s) (see post 10 in that thread).
So, I'd be curious to see who said those concepts are "unbiblical," and wager they hold a normatively and statistically outlying theology themselves.
The false cause fallacy works bi-directionally. When it is based on an argument from silence like, "Nowhere does the Bible ever state God is not a being with 24 eyes and He's placed one of them in each of the twelve apostles," that is 1) typically disproven from other scripture and 2) easily disproven based on other logical necessities (like God's vision or "seeing" not being limited to a finite condition like an eyeball). Conversely the argument saying, "Scripture explicitly states God is a being with 24 eyes and He's placed one of them in each of the twelve apostles," would still be faulty as written even if it were based on something written in the Bible that was interpreted to be literal. The third possibility is that some other scripture contradicts the inferences read into whatever is said in the Bible. The fact remains the Bible does not have a verse explicitly stating God has 24 eyes and put one of them in each of the apostles. Typically speaking, when theological claims are made the seem reasonable to those holding that theology but how many of them consider the claim alongside something like "God has 24 eyes...."? The former is deemed reasonable while the latter is deemed absurd.
Simply put, it is not the existence or non-existence of something in the bible that proves it correct (or erroneous). It is the content of what is stated or not stated and its consistency with the whole of scripture that determines its veracity.
Appeals to the doctrine of the Trinity are false equivalences. Just because the word Trinity is not found explicitly stated in scripture does not mean we can use that same fact to justify anything we like. A 24-eyed God is not found in scripture, either, but according to the (misused) claim "Neither is the Trinity," we must accept the 24-eyed God premise as fact and truth.
No, we must not.

Can the man-made, extra-biblical concepts of "Covenant of Works" and "Covenant of Grace" be found explicitly stated in the Bible? No. No, and that is not a fact that can be disputed.
Can the use man-made extra-biblical concepts of "Covenant of Works" and "Covenant of Grace" be supported based on something that is explicitly stated in the Bible? Possibly. Many clearly think so. I used to count myself among them. There are reasons I still count my self a covenantalist but do not appeal to those two concepts.
There is no such thing as "Mosaic Covenant" in the Bible, either.

What is the Book of the Covenant (Ex 24:7; i.e., Ex 2:22-23:19),
the blood of the covenant (Ex 24:8), and
the covenant (Ex 24:3)?

Is there an "Abrahamic Covenant"?

The covenant made with Moses was said by God to be made as a consequence to the covenant God had already made with Abraham. This fact runs through the entirety of the Bible. When God gave the Law to Moses He was not initiating a new and entirely different covenant. God was simply adding to the covenant already established hundreds of years prior.
Genesis 17:19
But God said, "No, but Sarah your wife will bear you a son, and you shall call his name Isaac; and I will establish My covenant with him for an everlasting covenant for his descendants after him.
The covenant God established with Isaac was the one He established with Abraham. Isaac, the son of promise, is the progeny of that covenant (not Ishmael).
Exodus 2:24-25
So God heard their groaning; and God remembered His covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. God saw the sons of Israel, and God took notice of them.
Here, again, it is all the same covenant, spoken of in the singular conjugation.
Leviticus 26:40-42
If they confess their iniquity and the iniquity of their forefathers, in their unfaithfulness which they committed against Me, and also in their acting with hostility against Me— I also was acting with hostility against them, to bring them into the land of their enemies — or if their uncircumcised heart becomes humbled so that they then make amends for their iniquity, then I will remember My covenant with Jacob, and I will remember also My covenant with Isaac, and My covenant with Abraham as well, and I will remember the land.

This passage occurs within what the CTer would call the Covenant of Works or the Mosaic Covenant but here, again, God Himself has made it clear that His remembering Israel is due to the covenant he made with Abraham (and the progeny Isaac and Jacob). The same exact fact can be found in 2 Kings 13:23 in what might be considered the Davidic Covenant or still umbrellaed under the Mosaic Covenant.

So there is a Mosaic Covenant in the Bible.

If we use the language God used then it is all the covenant made with Abraham. If we use the language of CT, the man-made, extra-biblical language of CT then those concepts prove useful but only where they do not confict with what is plainly stated in scripture. And, as we can see so far,
there's only one covenant, not two different ones.

Paul referred to plural covenants (Ro 9:4, Gal 4:24, Eph 2:12).

Therefore, if and when the CT concepts or phrases contradict with the single-covenant truth of scripture then CT has over-stepped scripture and, at best, risks being erroneous.
Of course, the most important aspect of this covenant with Abraham is Paul's assertion in Galatians 3:16 that the covenant was also made with Jesus, the singular, foreknown seed of Abraham.

Gal 3:16 - The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed, singular (Ge 12:7, 13:15, 17:7, 8, 10, 24:7), who is Christ.

Is Paul saying that the promises were spoken to Abraham (Ge 17:8), Isaac (Ge 26:3), Jacob (Ge 35:12) and Christ only (Gal 3:16),
and that you must be in Christ to be the seed of Abraham (Gal 3:29)?

So from Abraham to Jesus there are explicit statements in scripture the covenant is singular; there's only one covenant.

In Ro 9:4, Gal 4:24, Eph 2:12, Paul sees covenant to be multiple, Abraham (Ge 17:2) and Moses (Dt 4:13).

This is supported by the fact the plural form, "covenants" is found only twice in the entire Bible.

How many times must God say it in his word before it is true?

The three above are not enough?

Those are the exceptions to the rule, not the rule. God uses the singular form "covenant" over 300 times! but the plural form only twice. The preceding and overwhelmingly predominant context for those two plural uses is the singular covenant.


I'll pick up other salient content in a separate post.

 

[Josheb]

What is the Book of the Covenant (Ex 24:7; i.e., Ex 2:22-23:19),
the blood of the covenant (Ex 24:8), and
the covenant (Ex 24:3)?

Is there an "Abrahamic Covenant"?


So there is a Mosaic Covenant in the Bible.

Paul referred to plural covenants (Ro 9:4, Gal 4:24, Eph 2:12).

Gal 3:16 - The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed, singular (Ge 12:7, 13:15, 17:7, 8, 10, 24:7), who is Christ.

Is Paul saying that the promises were spoken to Abraham (Ge 17:8), Isaac (Ge 26:3), Jacob (Ge 35:12) and Christ only (Gal 3:16),
and that you must be in Christ to be the seed of Abraham (Gal 3:29)?

In Ro 9:4, Gal 4:24, Eph 2:12, Paul sees covenant to be multiple, Abraham (Ge 17:2) and Moses (Dt 4:13).

How many times must God say it in his word before it is true?

I don't find anything in that post intelligent enough to give it a reply.

 

[donadams]

You can Google a list of 613 commandments.

I was referring to good works

Done in Christ and grace

Prayer, faating alms virtues etc.

 

[Eleanor]

In the 20 times "covenant" is used in the NT, three of them--Ro 9:4, Gal 4:24, Eph 2:12--present it to be multiple; i.e., Abraham (Ge 17:2) and Moses (Dt 4:13).

Paul did it. . .what's the problem?

I don't find anything in that post intelligent enough to give it a reply.

Strawman. . .

 

[Josheb]

Josh, it is simply distinguishing two types of covenant.

I understand that is the unstated position of CTers but my point persists. There is not multiple covenants, especially one of works subsequent to or additional to whatever God had going with Adam. God never inaugurated a covenant of "works" even remotely implying works could get anyone anywhere remotely close to God. The very premise is not just antithetical to whole scripture; it's logically untenable. The finite cannot reach the Infinite by its own effort (works). Everyone knows this, but they seem to conveniently ignore or neglect that reality asserting a covenant of works. Works kill.

A covenant of works is bilateral. The covenant maker and the covenant participants, contingent on promises kept by both parties.

There is no promise works gain anything in Christ until after the covenant is established. The covenant we have in Christ is by grace through faith, for works, never by works. There is no other covenant with God. When scripture does speak of another covenant, it is always an outside covenant that has no merit.

Covenant of grace is unilateral.

There is no covenant of grace. There is a covenant by grace, but not one of grace.

The covenant maker brings into a covenant relationship those he chooses,

Yep. 100% agree.

...and all the covenant keeping is that of the covenant maker.

Yep. Not just covenant keeping, but covenant making. God initiates the covenant, chooses its participants, calls them, and commands them and at no point in any of it does He ever ask any of them if they want any part of it.

It is not distinguishing any covenant as separate from the one covenant of redemption.

Covenant of grace, or covenant of redemption? Moving the goalposts, or using two different terms to communicate one identical premise?

The covenant of grace is distinguished as separate from the one covenant of works. Two covenants. Where might I find that stated in scripture? There are two covenants God has made and one of them is a covenant of works. Where might I find that stated in scripture? Two covenants and one of them is a covenant of grace. Where might I find that stated in scripture? I understand the inferential case by which these positions are asserted.

Covenant Theology developed as a means of parsing scripture based on something scripture does state: the covenant. If CT, or when CT sticks with what is stated then it is correct. Working from the fact "covenant" there is only one covenant stated in scripture, and it is the one covenant characterized by the promises made to Christ (and Abraham). This is usually stated in the opposite direction (Abraham first, then Christ). When we note scripture speaks of covenant in the singular form that is what should be acknowledged, asserted, and built upon. When scripture references its own mentions of the covenant back to a singular waypoint that too should be what is taught. That the covenant is by grace does not make it a covenant of grace juxtaposed by a covenant of works. Just call it a covenant by grace that is of grace without any other covenant initiated by God.

And on from there.....

 

[Arial]

I understand that is the unstated position of CTers but my point persists. There is not multiple covenants, especially one of works subsequent to or additional to whatever God had going with Adam. God never inaugurated a covenant of "works" even remotely implying works could get anyone anywhere remotely close to God. The very premise is not just antithetical to whole scripture; it's logically untenable. The finite cannot reach the Infinite by its own effort (works). Everyone knows this, but they seem to conveniently ignore or neglect that reality asserting a covenant of works. Works kill.

If you understand that is the stated position then why are you arguing from a straw man position? If no one is saying there are multiple covenants unrelated to the covenant of redemption, why argue as though they were? If no one is implying that the covenant relationship of God with Israel that did involve works as a condition of that covenant relationship was a works for eternal life of a closeness to God, why argue as though that is what is being said? Not every one or even anyone is ignoring or neglecting the reality that the finite cannot reach the infinite by its own effort, so why declare that they are? No one has inferred, implied, or declared that the works of the covenant do anything but teach righteousness and condemn the sinner. That's all I'm saying, and that is all I am going to say.