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

[Carbon]

And on from there.....

There always has been a covenant of grace.

 

[Josheb]

If you understand that is the stated position then why are you arguing from a straw man position?

I am not arguing a straw man.

If no one is saying there are multiple covenants unrelated to the covenant of redemption, why argue as though they were?

Two covenants were asserted. One of works and one of grace. Four covenants were actually asserted, Works, Mosaic, Grace, and Redemption. Now either this is a failure to clearly articulate some unstated synonymity/identicalness (Works = Moses; Grace = Redemption), or this is some kind of unstated bait and switch, or there or four covenants, or the allegiance to the theology has caused some kind of lack of clarity wherein these problems cannot be seen for what they are. I am more than willing to grant the benefit of the doubt and assume this is largely a problem of not clarifying one's position, such as the covenant of grace is the same as the covenant of redemption. Once all this mess is clarified, however, the problem of multiple covenants being asserted while not being asserted remains. Either that or the covenant of Moses that has a lot of works in it that is part of the covenant of redemption that is by grace (not of grace).

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?

Never happened. I never said, "the covenant relationship of God with Israel did involve works as a condition of that covenant........" That is the straw man.

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?

Because the essence of ANY works is that the sinful creature can work his/her way to God. The necessary implication of any covenant of works is that works work. The reality, the scriptural truth, is that there is no covenant of works stated in the Bible, there are no works that can redeem, works are antithetical to grace, and there are better, more scripturally accurate ways to look at what scripture does say about God's covenants, His covenant relationship with humanity, and the singular nature of God's covenant.

No one has inferred, implied, or declared that the works of the covenant do anything but teach righteousness and condemn the sinner.

Not only is that incorrect, but works do not teach the sinner righteousness. This is what has been stated in this thread about works....

​

The Mosaic Covenant involves a lot of works, in order to remain in the land and receive the blessings of God.

That is not an inference or something implied. It is something declared. So, too, is this...

​

Nevertheless---it is a covenant of works---the works of the Law, with blessings and curses attached to it. (Doing the works/not doing the works.)

Furthermore, it was posted,

​

The Bible itself contrasts the Old Covenant with the New Covenant---the former Scripture identified as a covenant of works, which is where Reformed theology gets the term.

But scripture never identifies anything a "covenant of works." The phrase is nowhere found in the Bible. It is a man-made invention.

​

What can correctly be termed a covenant of works, (as opposed to The Covenant of Works. A distinction not always made but conflated into the CT view and then used as strawman of personal perceptions and used to announce that it is incorrect to refer to the Mosaic covenant as a covenant of works and that there is no such thing) is not separate from the Covenant of Redemption, which can also be correctly referred to as a covenant of grace.

It has yet to be proven anything can "correctly be termed a covenant of works." That portion of the post begs the question (asserts something as true that has yet to be proven so. There is no phrase "covenant of works, " OR "Covenant of Works," in the Bible.

They absolutely exist and is taught in Scripture. But these term are not found in Scripture, but the teaching and concept are found in Scripture.

He's one of the few here who's articulated the reality of scripture better.

I just sampled a few posts but there are many others in which things are "inferred, implied, and declared," about a covenant of works so the claim...

No one has inferred, implied, or declared that the works of the covenant do anything but teach righteousness and condemn the sinner.

That is demonstrably incorrect. Multiple posters have inferred, implied, or declared" the works of the covenant do many things beside teaching righteousness and condemning the sinner.


If works are seen as a covenant component after inclusion in the covenant then the correct response is, "Amen, Josh, I completely agree with you 100%!" and not repetitive false accusations of straw men.

That's all I'm saying,

The posts prove otherwise. The posts prove a lot more than the Post 40 was said. Much of it is problematic when measured by scripture.

....and that is all I am going to say.

 

[Josheb]

There always has been a covenant of grace.

Grace has always existed. All covenants, any covenant, the existence of covenant, all of it occurs solely by grace. Without God's grace none of us would be drawing breath or be here trading posts.

The fact remains the Bible never uses the phrase "Covenant of Grace"/"covenant of grace." It doesn't. That simple observation, that truthful observation triggers some CTers. It triggers the defense of the phrase without acknowledging the fact of scripture. We're not being honest with ourselves or others when that happens.



For those lurking and those still willing to trade posts with me. It has been shown the WCF asserts a "first" covenant with Adam , a covenant of works, and a second covenant, a covenant of grace, "wherein [God] freely offered unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of them faith in Him, that they may be saved, and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto life, His Holy Spirit, to make them willing and able to believe," (see Article 7). I draw attention to this because the covenant of works in the WCF is not the Mosaic Law, or a Mosaic covenant/Covenant. I'd encourage everyone to go through the thread and observe who and how often this fact was expressed. The WCF's covenant of works is Adamic, NOT Mosaic. Whether or not the "Mosaic Covenant involves a lot of works" is immaterial to the WCF's covenant of works.

I've already stated many times in many threads the terms "covenant of works," and "covenant of grace," are not found stated in scripture. It's like pointing out to the modern futurist there is no statement declaring another temple will be built in the future. The ONLY correct response to the observation is, "Yes, that is correct. The concepts of covenants of works and grace are made solely by inference," and only one other poster has come close to engaging that matter. Once the completely inferential nature of the concept/doctrine is acknowledged then (maybe) the reason we subscribe to an inference-only doctrine can be discussed (but it proves nearly impossible to have that conversation because the defenses are well entrenched). It's not possible to have a discussion of more accurate articulation of a Covenant Theology that does not fall prey to these inferences, and mistakes (not all inferences are mistaken ).

Appeals to various silences of scripture (like the Trinity) are misguided (not all silences are identical, any more than all inferences have the same efficacy or merit).

I've also touched on the history of Covenant Theology (CT). It existed a millennium before the Reformation. The Reformation provided an opportunity for the doctrines of CT to be formalized. CT wasn't invented in the 16th century. It was formalized in the 6th century. Big difference. It is not unusual for various positions in Christian thought, doctrine, and practice to take a long time to be agreed upon, solidified, formalized, and set to record. Most of Christianity's cored doctrines took 400 years of vigorous and prayerful debate to be formalized. It's also not unusual for a doctrine to be improved upon. Calvinism (and other soteriologies) are excellent and obvious examples. In fact, it is odd that anyone would think a doctrine would be perfect exactly as written the first attempt. Humans don't get anything correct on first try. What we now call "Progressive Covenantalism" has been around for at least two centuries but it's only within the last half-century that it's begun to be.... formalized. The irony is that Dispensationalists of all people have observed the exact same need for reform within their own theology. Progressive Dispensationalism is nothing more than the awareness the Reformed doctrines are a much better reflection of scripture so folks like Blaising and Bock have been trying to make that happen (with a great deal of resistance from their fellow Dispies).


There is only one covenant in scripture. It goes by many labels because it is revealed to humanity in increments, the continuity of which may not have been recognized at the time they were revealed, but once the whole of scripture is examined the singularity and continuity of God's covenant with His Son, in which humans are included becomes apparent. When scripture speaks of two covenants (like Jeremiah 31:31 or Hebrews 8:13) it always does so within the context of verses like Genesis 1:31, Genesis 2:9, John 1:1-14, Philippians 2:5-11, 1 Peter 1:20. This exact same Jesus who is "the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood, which speaks better than the blood of Abel," is the exact same Jesus who was foreknown as the perfect sacrifice before a single human ever drew breath.

It has been said the the Bible does not explicitly say Covenant of Works and Covenant of Grace,

It's not just "said," it is a fact of scripture. The op should concede to that fact and read, "Although the phrases, ''Covneant of Works' and 'Covenant of Grace' or NOT explicitly stated in scripture......, they can be considered biblical because...... (and then a case proving that position ensuees)."

...therefore they are not biblical to do so is not biblical.

The terms are not found in scripture. Whether or not something nowhere found in scripture can be said to be "biblical" depends on how "biblical" is defined and how well the case trying to prove that claim is made. I will respectfully suggest if the case can be made then it has to be made better than these three pages of posts do.

I think there is a much better way to look at Covenant Theology, a way that doesn't fall prey to the common criticisms of CT, many of which are correct.... beginning with the fact the terms cited in the op do not exist in the Bible.

 

[Eleanor]

There always has been a covenant of grace.

Help me out here. . .

There has always been a promise of grace (Ge 15:5, Seed, Jesus Christ, Gal 3:16), belief of which is righteousness (Ge 15:6).

Salvation is not attached to the covenant with Abraham and the addition to it (Gal 3:19) given to Moses.

 

[Carbon]

Help me out here. . .

There has always been a promise of grace (Ge 15:5, Seed, Jesus Christ, Gal 3:16), belief of which is righteousness (Ge 15:6).

Salvation is not attached to the covenant with Abraham and the addition to it (Gal 3:19) given to Moses.

And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. Gen 3:15.

 

[Ladodgers6]

And I have addressed all of that.

Where?

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

Several places, here you go. Let's start with Protoevangelium:Genesis 3:15 says, “I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel.” This is known as the protoevangelium—the first gospel. The verse introduces two elements previously unknown in the Garden of Eden, elements that are the basis of Christianity—the curse on mankind because of Adam’s sin and God’s provision for a Savior from sin who would take the curse upon Himself.
​

Genesis 15:17 When the sun had gone down and it was dark, behold, a smoking fire pot and a flaming torch passed between these pieces. 18 On that day the LORD made a covenant with Abram

Yes

Yes

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.

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.

I am not arguing a straw man.

Two covenants were asserted. One of works and one of grace. Four covenants were actually asserted, Works, Mosaic, Grace, and Redemption. Now either this is a failure to clearly articulate some unstated synonymity/identicalness (Works = Moses; Grace = Redemption), or this is some kind of unstated bait and switch, or there or four covenants, or the allegiance to the theology has caused some kind of lack of clarity wherein these problems cannot be seen for what they are. I am more than willing to grant the benefit of the doubt and assume this is largely a problem of not clarifying one's position, such as the covenant of grace is the same as the covenant of redemption. Once all this mess is clarified, however, the problem of multiple covenants being asserted while not being asserted remains. Either that or the covenant of Moses that has a lot of works in it that is part of the covenant of redemption that is by grace (not of grace).

Never happened. I never said, "the covenant relationship of God with Israel did involve works as a condition of that covenant........" That is the straw man.

Because the essence of ANY works is that the sinful creature can work his/her way to God. The necessary implication of any covenant of works is that works work. The reality, the scriptural truth, is that there is no covenant of works stated in the Bible, there are no works that can redeem, works are antithetical to grace, and there are better, more scripturally accurate ways to look at what scripture does say about God's covenants, His covenant relationship with humanity, and the singular nature of God's covenant.

Not only is that incorrect, but works do not teach the sinner righteousness. This is what has been stated in this thread about works....

​

​

​

That is not an inference or something implied. It is something declared. So, too, is this...

​

​

​

Furthermore, it was posted,

​

​

​

But scripture never identifies anything a "covenant of works." The phrase is nowhere found in the Bible. It is a man-made invention.

​

​

​

It has yet to be proven anything can "correctly be termed a covenant of works." That portion of the post begs the question (asserts something as true that has yet to be proven so. There is no phrase "covenant of works, " OR "Covenant of Works," in the Bible.

He's one of the few here who's articulated the reality of scripture better.

I just sampled a few posts but there are many others in which things are "inferred, implied, and declared," about a covenant of works so the claim...

That is demonstrably incorrect. Multiple posters have inferred, implied, or declared" the works of the covenant do many things beside teaching righteousness and condemning the sinner.


If works are seen as a covenant component after inclusion in the covenant then the correct response is, "Amen, Josh, I completely agree with you 100%!" and not repetitive false accusations of straw men.

The posts prove otherwise. The posts prove a lot more than the Post 40 was said. Much of it is problematic when measured by scripture.

Who cross out names and comments?

 

[Arial]

I am not arguing a straw man.

Two covenants were asserted. One of works and one of grace. Four covenants were actually asserted, Works, Mosaic, Grace, and Redemption. Now either this is a failure to clearly articulate some unstated synonymity/identicalness (Works = Moses; Grace = Redemption), or this is some kind of unstated bait and switch, or there or four covenants, or the allegiance to the theology has caused some kind of lack of clarity wherein these problems cannot be seen for what they are. I am more than willing to grant the benefit of the doubt and assume this is largely a problem of not clarifying one's position, such as the covenant of grace is the same as the covenant of redemption. Once all this mess is clarified, however, the problem of multiple covenants being asserted while not being asserted remains. Either that or the covenant of Moses that has a lot of works in it that is part of the covenant of redemption that is by grace (not of grace).

Never happened. I never said, "the covenant relationship of God with Israel did involve works as a condition of that covenant........" That is the straw man.

Because the essence of ANY works is that the sinful creature can work his/her way to God. The necessary implication of any covenant of works is that works work. The reality, the scriptural truth, is that there is no covenant of works stated in the Bible, there are no works that can redeem, works are antithetical to grace, and there are better, more scripturally accurate ways to look at what scripture does say about God's covenants, His covenant relationship with humanity, and the singular nature of God's covenant.

Not only is that incorrect, but works do not teach the sinner righteousness. This is what has been stated in this thread about works....

​

​

​

That is not an inference or something implied. It is something declared. So, too, is this...

​

​

​

Furthermore, it was posted,

​

​

​

But scripture never identifies anything a "covenant of works." The phrase is nowhere found in the Bible. It is a man-made invention.

​

​

​

It has yet to be proven anything can "correctly be termed a covenant of works." That portion of the post begs the question (asserts something as true that has yet to be proven so. There is no phrase "covenant of works, " OR "Covenant of Works," in the Bible.

He's one of the few here who's articulated the reality of scripture better.

I just sampled a few posts but there are many others in which things are "inferred, implied, and declared," about a covenant of works so the claim...

That is demonstrably incorrect. Multiple posters have inferred, implied, or declared" the works of the covenant do many things beside teaching righteousness and condemning the sinner.


If works are seen as a covenant component after inclusion in the covenant then the correct response is, "Amen, Josh, I completely agree with you 100%!" and not repetitive false accusations of straw men.

The posts prove otherwise. The posts prove a lot more than the Post 40 was said. Much of it is problematic when measured by scripture.

Josheb,

Why is the last portion of this crossed out?

 

[Eleanor]

And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. Gen 3:15.

You're saying Ge 3:15 is attached to the covenant with Abraham and, therefore, makes that covenant salvific?

Where does faith (in the promise) Ge 15:5-6 fit in?

Are promises and covenants all just lumped together?

 

[Josheb]

Where?

Several places, here you go. Let's start with Protoevangelium:Genesis 3:15 says, “I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel.” This is known as the protoevangelium—the first gospel. The verse introduces two elements previously unknown in the Garden of Eden, elements that are the basis of Christianity—the curse on mankind because of Adam’s sin and God’s provision for a Savior from sin who would take the curse upon Himself.
​

Genesis 15:17 When the sun had gone down and it was dark, behold, a smoking fire pot and a flaming torch passed between these pieces. 18 On that day the LORD made a covenant with Abram

No mention of grace there.

Understand what I am asking. I am NOT disputing the existence of grace. I am disputing the arguments presented so far (like that one). Grace could be inferred from Genesis 15:17 based on the assumption God acts according to God's own will for His own purposes when we do not deserve it, but that's not what the verse actually states.

Besides, while Genesis 3:15 is known as the protoevangelium and is the first allusion to the future coming of Christ in the Bible, it is 1 Peter 1:20 that is the statement in scripture telling us the gospel precedes creation. The fundamental difference here is I can point to a verse that actually states what I say it states. I have not received parity in this regard. Nearly everything present in dissent of my questions is inference, and inference upon inference upon inference.

Josheb,

Why is the last portion of this crossed out?

I do not know.

Who cross out names and comments?

I assume that is a mod's doing. Otherwise, I do not know how that happened. I did not write Post 42 that way. If it wasn't a moderation, then I'd like the mods to remove the strikethrough.

 

[Alive]

I am not arguing a straw man.

Two covenants were asserted. One of works and one of grace. Four covenants were actually asserted, Works, Mosaic, Grace, and Redemption. Now either this is a failure to clearly articulate some unstated synonymity/identicalness (Works = Moses; Grace = Redemption), or this is some kind of unstated bait and switch, or there or four covenants, or the allegiance to the theology has caused some kind of lack of clarity wherein these problems cannot be seen for what they are. I am more than willing to grant the benefit of the doubt and assume this is largely a problem of not clarifying one's position, such as the covenant of grace is the same as the covenant of redemption. Once all this mess is clarified, however, the problem of multiple covenants being asserted while not being asserted remains. Either that or the covenant of Moses that has a lot of works in it that is part of the covenant of redemption that is by grace (not of grace).

Never happened. I never said, "the covenant relationship of God with Israel did involve works as a condition of that covenant........" That is the straw man.

Because the essence of ANY works is that the sinful creature can work his/her way to God. The necessary implication of any covenant of works is that works work. The reality, the scriptural truth, is that there is no covenant of works stated in the Bible, there are no works that can redeem, works are antithetical to grace, and there are better, more scripturally accurate ways to look at what scripture does say about God's covenants, His covenant relationship with humanity, and the singular nature of God's covenant.

Not only is that incorrect, but works do not teach the sinner righteousness. This is what has been stated in this thread about works....

​

​

​

That is not an inference or something implied. It is something declared. So, too, is this...

​

​

​

Furthermore, it was posted,

​

​

​

But scripture never identifies anything a "covenant of works." The phrase is nowhere found in the Bible. It is a man-made invention.

​

​

​

It has yet to be proven anything can "correctly be termed a covenant of works." That portion of the post begs the question (asserts something as true that has yet to be proven so. There is no phrase "covenant of works, " OR "Covenant of Works," in the Bible.

He's one of the few here who's articulated the reality of scripture better.

I just sampled a few posts but there are many others in which things are "inferred, implied, and declared," about a covenant of works so the claim...

That is demonstrably incorrect. Multiple posters have inferred, implied, or declared" the works of the covenant do many things beside teaching righteousness and condemning the sinner.


If works are seen as a covenant component after inclusion in the covenant then the correct response is, "Amen, Josh, I completely agree with you 100%!" and not repetitive false accusations of straw men.

The posts prove otherwise. The posts prove a lot more than the Post 40 was said. Much of it is problematic when measured by scripture.

I am not sure how this happened, but it seems something inadvertently done by the poster. I will see what can be done.

 

[Carbon]

You're saying Ge 3:15 is attached to the covenant with Abraham and, therefore, makes that covenant salvific?

Where does faith (in the promise) Ge 15:5-6 fit in?

Are promises and covenants all just lumped together?

WE talking about two different things? Maybe

 

[Alive]

So--under formatting at the top of a post there is a line thru option. The poster most likely clicked it by accident. I edited it accordingly.

 

[Josheb]

So--under formatting at the top of a post there is a line thru option. The poster most likely clicked it by accident. I edited it accordingly.

The poster is aware of the strikethrough option. The poster did NOT click it by accident. Thanks for the editing.

 

[Ladodgers6]

No mention of grace there.

Understand what I am asking. I am NOT disputing the existence of grace. I am disputing the arguments presented so far (like that one). Grace could be inferred from Genesis 15:17 based on the assumption God acts according to God's own will for His own purposes when we do not deserve it, but that's not what the verse actually states.

This is why i asked you do you understand Covenant language and do you understand Covenant theology, to which, you said yes. And you did not provide any comments to either question, only a yes. I hope you not disputing the passages that clearly show the Covenant of Grace. Because if you have read those books I mentioned you would have understood.

Okay, let's start with Genesis 3:15 says, “I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel.” This is known as the protoevangelium—the first gospel. The verse introduces two elements previously unknown in the Garden of Eden, elements that are the basis of Christianity—the curse on mankind because of Adam’s sin and God’s provision for a Savior from sin who would take the curse upon Himself.

Now with Genesis 15:6, in Paul's commentary on Genesis 15:6, the Apostle eliminates justification by works, or trying to earn one's salvation through the obedience to the law. Rather, justification is by faith alone; especially when we consider the life, death, and resurrection of Christ in relation to the doctrine of justification. However, before proceeding, there is another element from the Genesis 15 narrative to consider.

Subsequent to his justification of Abraham, God made a Covenant, an agreement, with the patriarch. In Abraham's day, it was typical for nations, clans, or individuals to make agreements, or covenants. Sometimes covenants were made between equals, at other times there were covenants where one party was clearly more powerful than the other. Once the two parties agreed upon the terms of their covenant, the covenant was usually sealed with a ceremony. The two parties would take animals, cut them in half, and walk between the severed animals halves. The intention of the animal-cutting ceremony was to bind the two parties to their covenant agreement and commit to one another that if either party violated the terms of the covenant, then his fate would be the same as the severed animals (cf. Jer. 34:18-19). In the light of this information, we should take special note of the events transpire in this covenant-cutting ceremony between God and Abraham.

After God had Abraham cut the animals in two, the sun went down, and Abraham fell into a deep sleep (Gen. 15:9-12). Then a smoking fire pot and a flaming torch, symbolic images for the presence of God, passed between the severed animals alone. Significantly, God promises to Abraham that if the patriarch or God himself violates the terms of this covenant agreement, then God alone will bear the penalty for transgressing the covenant. We see the certainty that God will keep his promise. Once again, we find important elements of the doctrine of justification reemphasized here. Abraham is totally passive; he is in a deep sleep. It is God who is active, who makes the covenant promise, who justifies Abraham by imputing righteousness to him by faith, and who swears an immutable and unchanging covenant oath to bear any penalties for the covenant's violation. The promise that God made to Adam and Eve is slowly being revealed with increasing clarity here in the Gospel covenant that God makes with Abraham. And it is on the heels of God passing between the severed animals that he makes his covenant oath to Abraham, "On that day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, "To your offspring I give this land (Gen. 15:18). The Apostle Paul's commentary on this covenant promise proves to be immensely invaluable: "Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say, 'And to seeds, 'as referring to many, but rather to one, 'And to your seed, 'that is, Christ" (Gal. 2:16). Paul shows us that the covenant promise that God made to Abraham is fulfilled in Jesus Christ, God's only Son, the Covenant Savior and King!​

 

[Josheb]

nt

 

[Alive]

Josh…it seems you quoted without a reply.
Reason?
@Josheb

 

[Josheb]

@Ladodgers6,

I'm not sure whether it's the forum, my browser, or something else but I'm having difficulty negotiating the forum. When I click Reply the post quotes but I cannot insert a cursor and reply to it. You've appealed to something called "Covenant language" and asked to start with Genesis 3:15 (but then quickly abandon the text and move on to a plethora of other content without finishing the first text or justifying any move. I consider that sloppy. It is only going to exacerbate the already-existing problems in this thread.

First, explain to me, in your own words, what you mean by "Covenant language," then justify it. I would ask for two examples of "Covenant language" but I suspect I'll get Genesis 3:15 and 15:6 as answers, which brings me to my next question...

Second, where is grace mentioned in Genesis 3:15?

Third, where is covenant mentioned in Genesis 3:15?



I will not be discussing any other text with you until the matter of Genesis 3:15 is completed. I don't collaborate with goalpost moving and I don't tolerate conversations where posters repeatedly bring up completely different verses, selectively singled out, again and again without ever finishing the examination of the original text they broached. I've tried to start foundationally with the verse you cited. I cannot think of anything more basic than to ask you to define your terms in your own words in a manner we can both use with shared meaning. Neither can I think of anything simpler than where are grace and covenant mentioned in Genesis 3:15. These are the kinds of questions that should be asked when reading the theologians. I would not start a discussion of CT with Gen. 3:15, but that is what you've done so I'll work with what I'm given.

Define the term "Covenant language," and justify its use. Then tell me where grace and covenant are mentioned in Genesis 3:15. Thx

 

[Josheb]

Josh…it seems you quoted without a reply.
Reason?
@Josheb

Yep. Trouble with my browser this morning, I think. I could quote but not write anything. Seems to have resolved itself so I've deleted the post.

 

[Ladodgers6]

nt

??? Was this post edited and deleted?

 

[Josheb]

??? Was this post edited and deleted?

Post #58