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

[Josheb]

So, is it correct and acceptable to refer to these two types of covenants as a covenant of grace and a covenant of works?

Maybe. I am inclined to say there is a certain validity within Covenant Theology's self-asserted view of scripture to affirm some validity to the concepts as doctrinal positions. Outside of that I am inclined to say, "No," and say no for several reasons, some of which I have already touched upon. I am inclined to say "No," because I prefer to stick with what is plainly, explicitly stated in scripture before making doctrinal claims based on what is not stated in scripture. I am inclined to say no because both grace and works are an inherent and necessary component of all God's covenants, as stated in the Bible. I am inclined to say no because both the covenant(s) and a theology of covenant can be understood without bi-covenant addition. I am inclined to say no because at least some of the rationale by which the bi-covenant view is formed is wanting.

If it is reasonable to refer to these two types of covenant as grace and works (and it is, see above),

It is not, necessarily, reasonable...

...is it reasonable to argue against there existence because the Bible never explicitly uses the terms Covenant of Works and Covenant of Grace?

LOL! The question begs the question!

Or does doing so simply divert down an irrelevant path that bypasses the subject altogether?

Diversions are certainly possible but that has nothing to do with my posts.

Is it even more egregious for the one doing that to acknowledge that they exist and then to continue to argue their case as though they didn't simply because the words "covenant of grace" and "covenant of works" are not found in the scriptures?

Those who do that and those who attempt to engage them over such matter will have to be asked. I have stated some of my position. I think it important for every Christian, not matter what they believe, to start with what is explicitly stated in scripture (and I have posted a few selected examples). I believe it is important for every Christian, again, regardless of what they believe, to be able to make a reasonable and rational case of well-rendered scripture for what they believe in their own words, without resorting to extra-biblical doctrines.

 

[EarlyActs]

It has been said the the Bible does not explicitly say Covenant of Works and Covenant of Grace, therefore they are not biblical to do so is not biblical. I say the fact that it is not explicitly stated is no more a valid reason to call it unbiblical than to say the Trinity is not explicitly stated in Scripture so there is no Trinity. The Mosaic Covenant involves a lot of works, in order to remain in the land and receive the blessings of God. Redemption unto eternal life requires only faith in the resurrected Christ, and faith produces ever increasing righteous behavior. And yet, the Mosaic Covenant is also a part of the Covenant of Redemption which is by grace, not separate from it.

In GOSPEL AND LAW, D. Fuller found a very important clue on this question. I'll wait to hear if you are familiar.

 

[Arial]

In GOSPEL AND LAW, D. Fuller found a very important clue on this question. I'll wait to hear if you are familiar.

Not familiar.

 

[EarlyActs]

Not familiar.

It is a study of the phrase 'as if' in the end of Rom 9 and intro of 10. It could unlock it all for you in another way. What I mean is that by it we see that Paul is referring to the distortion of intertestament Judaism. It is a reversal of cause and effect.

Fuller concludes that all things called covenants were always 'positive': God acted first and was hoping Israel would respond righteously and willingly. This ideal is preserved for the future King in Ps 110: your people will volunteer freely in the day of your power.

But intertestament Judaism is the first place where this was reversed. They were now seeking to put God in debt. As I show in my book, which I'm not allowed to name, this became toxic in zealotism in the 1st century, because it added on this detail: 'we have done everything right, God, and now you must miraculously win our battle against Rome.'

Good thing God raised up Paul to clarify this mess! Rom 9-10, Gal 3-4 and 2Cor 4-5 were all needed to sort things out.

So what Paul would call 'old' was really the distortion of cause and effect, which he at one time promoted, Phil 3. The 'new' was thus not really new (not when you can quote Jeremiah about it!). See the usage in Hebrews. The line about 'only a reminder of sins' is because of the weak and miserable way of Judaism.

But the correct cause and effect was new to current Judaism. Likewise, the emphatic phrase of Eph 3:5. That the inclusion of Gentiles was through the Gospel; that meant not through the Law, as Judaism had been trying.

It is very important to realize that most of the pointed statements by the NT are meant to detangle from current Judaism.

But my fav post-climactic reminder about this is at the end of Rom 11: 'who has put God in debt, that God owes him anything?' (That might be an OT quote).

 

[Arial]

Maybe. I am inclined to say, "No," and say no for several reasons, some of which I have already touched upon. I am inclined to say "No," because I prefer to stick with what is plainly, explicitly stated in scripture before making doctrinal claims based on what is not stated in scripture. I am inclined to say no because both grace and works are an inherent and necessary component of all God's covenants, as stated in the Bible. I am inclined to say no because both the covenant(s) and a theology of covenant can be understood without bi-covenant addition. I am inclined to say no because at least some of the rationale by which the bi-covenant view is formed is wanting.

It is not...

LOL! The question begs the question!

Diversions are certainly possible but that has nothing to do with my posts.

Those who do that and those who attempt to engage them over such matter will have to be asked. I have stated some of my position. I think it important for every Christian, not matter what they believe, to start with what is explicitly stated in scripture (and I have posted a few selected examples). I believe it is important for every Christian, again, regardless of what they believe, to be able to make a reasonable and rational case of well-rendered scripture for what they believe in their own words, without resorting to extra-biblical doctrines.

The OP

It has been said the the Bible does not explicitly say Covenant of Works and Covenant of Grace, therefore they are not biblical to do so is not biblical. I say the fact that it is not explicitly stated is no more a valid reason to call it unbiblical than to say the Trinity is not explicitly stated in Scripture so there is no Trinity. The Mosaic Covenant involves a lot of works, in order to remain in the land and receive the blessings of God. Redemption unto eternal life requires only faith in the resurrected Christ, and faith produces ever increasing righteous behavior. And yet, the Mosaic Covenant is also a part of the Covenant of Redemption which is by grace, not separate from it.

First response:

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.

Immediately the assertion of the OP was denied by using the very grounds upon which the OP said a covenant of grace and a covenant of works were denied, and the conversation changed to CT.

See post #71.

 

[Josheb]

Immediately the assertion of the OP was denied by using the very grounds upon which the OP a covenant of grace and a covenant of works were denied, and the conversation changed to CT.

My posts do not state what is claimed about them.

What I have done was some observations of fact.

1. It is a fact the word "covenant" is used hundreds of times in scripture.
2. It is a fact scripture itself marks itself, both historically and theologically, using the word "covenant."
3. It is a fact the words "covenant of" are used a few dozen times out of the hundreds of occasions when the word "covenant" is stated.
4. It is a fact that the words "covenant of" are overwhelmingly followed by "God," or "the LORD," or some other reference to God and not an attribute of the covenant.
5. It is a fact that exceptions to the rule exist in scripture, and two examples are "covenant of peace," and "covenant of circumcision."
6. It is a fact the phrases "covenant of grace" and "covenant of works" do not exist explicitly stated in the Bible.
7. It is a fact those two phrases are doctrinal concepts.
8. It is a fact those two phrases are additions to scripture.
9. It is a fact those two phrases are reached through inference.
10. It is a fact grace is inherent in all God's covenants.
11. It is a fact works are also inherent in every covenant.
12. It is a fact works never save.
13. It is a fact a sinner can never reach God by his/her works.
14. It is a fact every covenant is monergistically initiated.
15. It is a fact every covenant is monergistically initiated by grace.
16. It is a fact every condition is monergistically initiated by grace with some conditions assigned somewhere at some point. Therefore, there is no covenant that is unconditional. The only differences are the conditions of the conditions, not their existence.
17. It is a fact most of us (even non-CTers) accept the premise of a covenant relationship between God and Adam, even though none is explicitly stated.
18. It is a fact some inferences are valid and veracious.
19. It is a fact some inferences are not valid and veracious.
20. It is a fact no one should accept an inference as valid just because someone compares it to the Trinity.
21. It is a fact not all comparisons are equally valid
22. It is a fact no one should accept an inference as valid just because someone says it is.
23. It is a fact that scripture overwhelming uses the word "covenant" in singular form, not plural form.
24. It is a fact that every fact in this list should be agreed upon.
25. It is a fact the facts do not care about our feelings.
26. If a fact prompts some provocation within any reader (including me), then that is a matter between the reader and the fact, not between the reader and the poster who posted the fact.
27. It is a fact those within Covenant Theology (CT) have discussed and debated its particulars in-house.
28. It is a fact variations within CT exist, some more veracious than others.
29. It is a fact I affirm all these facts.

Not a single one of those bullet points was intended to provoke. I'd be happy to have someone prove any one of those bullet points is incorrect. I will gladly change my thinking and posting accordingly. In the absence of any error, I assume all the facts can be agreed upon and used positively for the benefit and edification of all. That list could, of course, be much longer. It is not a fact, but it is most likely the discussion of any differences will be more effective when we build from consensus...... so every poster here (even the non-CTers) should say "Amen!" to every bullet point above. Although it is not a fact with which I expect anyone to agree because it is anecdotal in nature, I am sufficiently read on Covenant Theology to have the conversation about whether or not there is a covenant of works and a covenant of grace. I did not expect the resistance received thus far and I am confident the end of a healthy discussion will be consensus, not rancor ad division. Upon receiving the resistance, I took all my books on Covenant Theology out of my library and began re-reading them in preparation for this discussion.

By way of expressing good faith and goodwill I will add the following: God's covenant with His people is built first and foremost on grace. I have stated there is only one covenant, the covenant the Father has with the Son, and all other mentions of "covenant" or "covenants" are best understood in that context. Therefore, because all covenant(s) exists solely due to grace and has grace inherent in every single constituent aspect, it is, indeed, valid to speak of a "covenant of grace," even though the exact phrase is not found in scripture. I say this so that everyone here having difficulty with my posts' contents necessarily understands I am not opposed to the use of inference per se. Any disagreement I may have with others will not be based on the existence of inference but on the nature of the inference and why it is preferred over scripture alone. I know there is plenty of common ground within Covenant Theology because affirmations of posts HERE prove it.





Let's start with the facts of scripture. All the facts of CT, after all, can and should be measured by those facts and the most egregious things any of us can do is either deny or ignore the facts of scripture, refuse to discuss the facts of scripture, and/or refuse to measure our doctrinal beliefs by them.

 

[Ladodgers6]

No. Accept that you made a mistake and should not have assumed ANYTHING about my beliefs, especially anything ungodly, unkind, or in error. What you should have done is ask. Because you have done this repeatedly and in more than one forum, I am unyielding here. It is tiresome to read you constantly accusing me of things I do not believe. I'd like you to stop it.

Stop it in its entirety.

Really, it is you that confuse the subject matter. When asked to define Covenant of Grace; though you dislike this term, you have not. You said you do not deny Covenant of Grace, but haven't explain it to me. In any forum. I have been transparent with you. I even asked you if you had any questions on what I presented so far.

 

[Ladodgers6]

Unnecessary.

Yup. He cannot understand that the same label given to the teaching of the Trinity, is the same principle given to the Covenant of Grace/Works/Redemption and so forth. But the difference between these two is that the Bible does use the word Covenant (Berith). And when one starts to understand what this Covenant entails a voluntary condescension on God’s part, which he has been pleased to express by way of covenant (Grace). God's condescension speaking to His people through this Covenant of Grace.​

 

[Ladodgers6]

Because that is a fact.

Well, I personally disagree, here's why. Though the word "Trinity" is not found in Scripture anywhere. The word Berith is found in Scripture almost everywhere. And with God moving down towards man to make a Covenant is sheer Grace first of all, and what's also stipulated in it also speaks of Grace as a covenant by God's very mouth. Because man shall not live on bread alone, but by every word of comes out of the mouth of God. This is sir, is a Covenant that God made, and it's speech or words are those of Grace. Go figure!​

Aside from the problem of ambiguity (What does one means exactly by the phrase "God's very word"?) the fact the phrase is not stated in God's word means it's not words God used. This is a fact of scripture. It may seem too exacting for some, but what I have posted are the facts of scripture.

You sound like those who deny the divinity of Christ who want the exact words from Christ saying, "I am God". But somehow I get the vibe that academic words do not suffice with you, am I correct here? Because my thinking is if they didn't cause issues with you then you wouldn't have any hang ups.​

No, it is not suggesting any such thing.

Well, I hope you understand that's the impression you are giving.

That has yet to be established between us and it is the onus is on the person asserting things not actually stated in scripture that needs to do the clarifying and establish whether or not what's added is, in fact, the teaching of scripture. All attempts to shift that onus onto me will be ignored.

I answered this above. I hope you agree that the word Covenant (Berith) is found in scripture. If so, then one side of the phrase is taken care of. This now leads us to the obvious questions. What is this Covenant? And what does it teach us? How does this Covenant relate between God and His creation? When God makes the first move in condescension toward man in a Covenant which details His speech and words of Grace toward Him this is the language of Grace. So this can easily be called a Covenant that God provides Grace. It's the written constitution of it, and God as Lord of Him in relational agreement together. So by all means this is the Covenant of Grace. A Covenant that entails God's Grace wherein.​

"Hang up"? Nefarious motives. One-sided non-conversation. Endless assumptions.


Thank you for your time.


I'll make a deal with you. I will discuss this the topic of "Do a covenant of works and a covenant of grace exist?" with you on the following conditions....

• Keep the posts about the topic specified in the question, "Do a covenant of works and a covenant of grace exist?"
• Keep the posts about the posts, not the posters.
• Neither of us uses the word "you" adversely or makes a negative personal comment (explicit. implied, or insinuated) about the other (or his beliefs, thinking, feelings, or motives) and the first person to do so will take a self-imposed 30-day "ban" from the forum.
• We take it one question at a time, with you asking me one question and I answering it, followed by my asking you a question and you answering it, and then you asking.... and the first poster to respond to two questions but not actually answer the question asked takes a self-imposed departure from the for 30 days. We make note of it the first time it happens and on the second occasion the non-answerer takes his leave from the forum and does not post anything anywhere on any subject in any thread for 30 days.

Up for that? We can do it here, or we can do it in the debate board. If not, then would you please not bother me in this thread, the PMs, my Profile page, any other thread, or any other forum or this topic again?

I see your motives now.

 

[Josheb]

Really, it is you that confuse the subject matter.

Yup. He cannot understand...........​

I see your motives now.​

So... I'm guessing there won't be any taking me up on my offer to discuss this without personal attacks. Thank you for your time, but please do noy bother me again on this subject.

 

[Arial]

So... I'm guessing there won't be any taking me up on my offer to discuss this without personal attacks. Thank you for your time, but please do noy bother me again on this subject.

Let it be made clear concerning the OP.

What it is not about:

Perceived errors in Covenant Theology.
Any covenants that are said to be biblically called a Covenant of Grace and/or a Covenant of Works.
A dispute over termanology.

What it is about:

Covenants that are pure grace with no conditions attached except upon the covenant maker.
Covenants that have conditions of works that apply to both parties for the covenant to remain in force according to the promises and provisions made by the covenant maker.
In other words, it is about two distinct types of covenants.

Do two distinct types of covenants exist in the Bible? Yes or no? The simple answer is all that is necessary.

 

[Josheb]

Do two distinct types of covenants exist in the Bible? Yes or no?

Not salvifically.

 

[Arial]

Not salvifically.

Was it ever asserted that they were both salfic? That is a different topic and subject. The question was do the two types of covenants exist in the Bible? Yes or no?

 

[Josheb]

Let it be made clear concerning the OP.

What it is not about:

Perceived errors in Covenant Theology.

If there is not covenant of works or covenant of grace, then the op is in fact and inescapably about real and/or perceived errors in CT whether the op is intended to be that way or not. For someone to say, "Jesus's skin was colored purple and he had a tail but this op is not about perceived errors in Jesus body," is nonsensical.

Any covenants that are said to be biblically called a Covenant of Grace and/or a Covenant of Works.

It has yet to be proved the bi-covenant aspect of CT can be called "biblical." I have yet to read an agreed upon definition of biblical or an impeccable case for the undefined term.

A dispute over termanology.

Undefined terms create false equivalences and problems of ambiguity.

What it is about:

Covenants that are pure grace with no conditions attached except upon the covenant maker.

There are no such conditions in scripture. That's also a misconstruction of the covenant of grace. God acted covenantally without conditions. Logically and scripturally no conditions can apply to the Creator other than those ontologically necessary.

Covenants that have conditions of works that apply to both parties for the covenant to remain in force according to the promises and provisions made by the covenant maker.

That is correct. All covenants remain in effect only as long as God works. All everlasting covenants also have predicate works. The predicate works of an everlasting covenant are not conditioned upon the one being saved and any covenant predicated on works saving is not a salvific covenant. Works do not save.

In other words, it is about two distinct types of covenants.

That is what CT teaches, but it's not something found stated in scripture.

Do two distinct types of covenants exist in the Bible? Yes or no? The simple answer is all that is necessary.

Not salvifically. There are examples of covenants in scripture beside the one that saves but in the end they will all prove immaterial (no pun intended). There is only one covenant by which anyone is or can be saved and that is the covenant between Father and Son in which election into that covenant is unconditional.

So again, I ask the question. Do the two types of covenants exist in the Bible? Yes or no?

 

[Eleanor]

If there is not covenant of works or covenant of grace, then the op is in fact and inescapably about real and/or perceived errors in CT whether the op is intended to be that way or not. For someone to say, "Jesus's skin was colored purple and he had a tail but this op is not about perceived errors in Jesus body," is nonsensical.
It has yet to be proved the bi-covenant aspect of CT can be called "biblical." I have yet to read an agreed upon definition of biblical or an impeccable case for the undefined term.
Undefined terms create false equivalences and problems of ambiguity.
There are no such conditions in scripture. That's also a misconstruction of the covenant of grace. God acted covenantally without conditions. Logically and scripturally no conditions can apply to the Creator other than those ontologically necessary.

That is correct. All covenants remain in effect only as long as God works. All everlasting covenants also have predicate works. The predicate works of an everlasting covenant are not conditioned upon the one being saved and any covenant predicated on works saving is not a salvific covenant. Works do not save.
That is what CT teaches, but it's not something found stated in scripture.
Not salvifically. There are examples of covenants in scripture beside the one that saves but in the end they will all prove immaterial (no pun intended). There is
only one covenant by which anyone is or can be saved and that is the covenant between Father and Son in which election into that covenant is unconditional.

Where do we find that covenant in the NT?

 

[Arial]

If there is not covenant of works or covenant of grace, then the op is in fact and inescapably about real and/or perceived errors in CT whether the op is intended to be that way or not.

But there are those two types of covenants in Scripture, and "if"s" are not a part of the conversation but a whole other conversation. This one, which is concerning types of covenants, should be addressed for what it is, not for what it isn't. Possible errors in CT is not the correct starting point. It would seem if one were going to dispute the existence of these two types of covenants, dispute the OP, the starting point would be to produce evidence that those two types of covenants do not exist. Rather than an "if" that is nowhere inferred, implied, or mentioned in the OP.

For someone to say, "Jesus's skin was colored purple and he had a tail but this op is not about perceived errors in Jesus body," is nonsensical.

Completely, irrationally (as applied to the OP) irrelevant.

Undefined terms create false equivalences and problems of ambiguity.

Grace and works are self evident as to their meaning in relationship to biblical covenants. However, I did define them for your benefit in post #71, since there seemed to be some misunderstanding.

There are no such conditions in scripture. That's also a misconstruction of the covenant of grace. God acted covenantally without conditions. Logically and scripturally no conditions can apply to the Creator other than those ontologically necessary.

Conditions apply to God and are those He puts on Himself as the covenant maker, and within the context of the covenant itself, with every promise he promises covenantally. If He does not keep His covenant promises, then he becomes a liar. There are no conditions upon God to make a covenant with mankind. It is grace that He does so. But that does not make every covenant to contain no works imposed upon the covenant members. That depends on the type of covenant.

That is correct. All covenants remain in effect only as long as God works. All everlasting covenants also have predicate works. The predicate works of an everlasting covenant are not conditioned upon the one being saved and any covenant predicated on works saving is not a salvific covenant. Works do not save.

Agree.

That is what CT teaches, but it's not something found stated in scripture.

Does it exist though in spite of the fact that it is not explicitly found in those words in Scripture? If the answer is no, then "prove it."

Not salvifically.

Salvifically is not the issue under discussion. I have no disagreement that a covenant of works is not salvific and have not said anything in that regard concerning the OP. Obviously if a covenant that required perfect obedience to remain covenantally if effect could save, there would be no need for a new covenant in which all the necessary WORKS were done by that covenant mediator in order to save unto eternal life.

 

[Josheb]

Was it ever asserted that they were both salfic?

I do not know because I have not read all of the posts, but that question is irrelevant because I get to make that observation whether anyone has or has not asserted it. It is a valid and op-relevant point. Others can choose to discuss it or not, as they see fit (and I make no demands on anyone to do so).

That is a different topic and subject.

I disagree.

According to the Covenant Theologian Ligon Duncan,

"Covenant theology is a framework for biblical interpretation, informed by exegetical, biblical, and systematic theology, that recognizes that the redemptive history revealed in Scripture is explicitly articulated through a succession of covenants (Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, and New), thus providing an organizing principle for biblical theology. "​

According to GotQuestions,

"Covenant Theology isn’t so much a “theology” in the sense of a systematic set of doctrine as it is a framework for interpreting Scripture....... Let’s begin to examine the various covenants detailed in Covenant Theology, beginning with the covenant of redemption, which logically precedes the other two covenants..... From a redemptive historical perspective, the covenant of works is the first covenant we see in Scripture."​

According to Covenant Theology oriented Ligonier Ministries, there are three covenants not two,

"Reformed theologians have historically identified three overarching covenants in the Bible: 1. The covenant of redemption........... 2. The covenant of works............. 3. The covenant of grace.... Uniquely, the covenant of grace is unfolded in the history of salvation in a series of covenants that make God’s promises to His people clearer and point to the coming of the Savior."​

According to Wstminster Theological Seminary,

"For Calvin, the parties of the covenant in the Institutes are Adam, Adam and Eve, Abel, Noah, Abraham, Abraham’s children, Jacob, Esau, Ishmael and Isaac, the patriarchs (fathers), Moses, Levi, Levitical priests, Israel (the Jews), David, prophets, Christ, the apostles and the prophets, the church, the church and kingdom, Christians, Rome, the papists, European nations, any people, all men adopted by God, believers, families, babies and children, the Lord’s servants, the holy generation, Gentiles or any people, spiritual sons or children, posterity, descendants, and successors, the elect, adult converts, infants of Israel and of Christians, the communicant, “Us,” that is, New Testament Christians, and those who keep the covenant. Thus, for Calvin, the covenant encompasses the entire scope of salvation history."​

Christian Study Library's article on Covenant theologian Herman Bavinck states,

"Because the covenant of grace is unilateral in origin and ultimately rendered effective unto salvation by virtue of God's abiding faithfulness, the most common rendering of the Hebrew term in the Septuagint is diatheke ("disposition") and not suntheke ("agreement").... This linguistic convention confirms that the covenant is ultimately a sovereign bestowal of God whose faithfulness ensures the inviolability of the covenant relationship and guarantees that its promises will be realized in spite of the frequent infidelity of God's people."​

In Herman Bavinck's "Reformed Dogmatics" he states,

"The pact of salvation makes known to us the relationships and life of the three persons in the Divine Being as a covenantal life, a life of consummate self-consciousness and freedom. Here, within the Divine Being, the covenant flourishes to the full.... The greatest freedom and the most perfect agreement coincide. The work of salvation is an undertaking of three persons in which all cooperate and each performs a special task... It is the triune God alone, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, who together conceive, determine, carry out and complete the entire work of salvation."​

In "How Faith and Works Operate in the Covenant of Works and in the Covenant of Grace,", Covenant theologian Francis Turrentin wrote,

"They stand in a far different relation. For in the first covenant, faith was required as a work and a part of the inherent righteousness to which life was promised. But in the second, it is demanded―not as a work on account of which life is given, but as a mere instrument apprehending the righteousness of Christ (on account of which alone salvation is granted to us). In the one, faith was a theological virtue from the strength of nature, terminating on God, the Creator; in the other, faith is an evangelical condition after the manner of supernatural grace, terminating on God, the Redeemer. As to works, they were required in the first as an antecedent condition by way of a cause for acquiring life; but in the second, they are only the subsequent condition as the fruit and effect of the life already acquired."​

Covenant Theology is very much, inherently and inescapably, about salvation. I could fill pages of posts with quotes from theologians teaching Covenant Theology explicitly stating this. I am, as everyone here already knows, not a poster who likes to make appeals to authority but if I am provided with a Covenant theologian stating Covenant Theology is not about salvation, I will give it due consideration and change my views and my posts accordingly. Otherwise, I'd prefer to stick to scripture and have scripture measure what CT teaches.

The question was do the two types of covenants exist in the Bible? Yes or no?

No, they do not. The phrases "covenant of grace," and "covenant of works" do not occur in the Bible. The Bible, from beginning to end, is first and foremost about Jesus and the history of redemption through him and him alone. Accordingly, there is only one salient covenant, the covenant between the Father and the Son in which by grace God works through His obedient Son to accomplish His will and purpose in creation. When God brings sinners into that covenant He does so by grace and works are always inherently dictated but not as a predicate condition of salvation. They are the result of God's predicate work in Christ. Works do not save. God's covenant produces salvation. Salvation produces good works. A salvationless covenant has nothing to do with the redemptive history of scripture and Covenant Theology is very much about the redemptive history of scripture. Covenant theology is, in fact, a method of interpreting scripture that recognizes the redemptive history therein.

That is a different topic and subject.

The facts of Covenant Theology prove otherwise.

 

[Arial]

No, they do not. The phrases "covenant of grace," and "covenant of works" do not occur in the Bible.

That was not the question. The question was, do the two types of covenants exist in the Bible? Yes or no.

The Bible, from beginning to end, is first and foremost about Jesus and the history of redemption through him and him alone. Accordingly, there is only one salient covenant, the covenant between the Father and the Son in which by grace God works through His obedient Son to accomplish His will and purpose in creation. When God brings sinners into that covenant He does so by grace and works are always inherently dictated but not as a predicate condition of salvation. They are the result of God's predicate work in Christ. Works do not save. God's covenant produces salvation. Salvation produces good works. A salvationless covenant has nothing to do with the redemptive history of scripture and Covenant Theology is very much about the redemptive history of scripture. Covenant theology is, in fact, a method of interpreting scripture that recognizes the redemptive history therein.

None of this is in question, nor is it the topic of the OP, or our present conversation. The question asked also asked for a yes or no answer.

I disagree.

According to the Covenant Theologian Ligon Duncan,

"Covenant theology is a framework for biblical interpretation, informed by exegetical, biblical, and systematic theology, that recognizes that the redemptive history revealed in Scripture is explicitly articulated through a succession of covenants (Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, and New), thus providing an organizing principle for biblical theology. "
According to GotQuestions,

"Covenant Theology isn’t so much a “theology” in the sense of a systematic set of doctrine as it is a framework for interpreting Scripture....... Let’s begin to examine the various covenants detailed in Covenant Theology, beginning with the covenant of redemption, which logically precedes the other two covenants..... From a redemptive historical perspective, the covenant of works is the first covenant we see in Scripture."
According to Covenant Theology oriented Ligonier Ministries, there are three covenants not two,

"Reformed theologians have historically identified three overarching covenants in the Bible: 1. The covenant of redemption........... 2. The covenant of works............. 3. The covenant of grace.... Uniquely, the covenant of grace is unfolded in the history of salvation in a series of covenants that make God’s promises to His people clearer and point to the coming of the Savior."

According to Wstminster Theological Seminary,

"For Calvin, the parties of the covenant in the Institutes are Adam, Adam and Eve, Abel, Noah, Abraham, Abraham’s children, Jacob, Esau, Ishmael and Isaac, the patriarchs (fathers), Moses, Levi, Levitical priests, Israel (the Jews), David, prophets, Christ, the apostles and the prophets, the church, the church and kingdom, Christians, Rome, the papists, European nations, any people, all men adopted by God, believers, families, babies and children, the Lord’s servants, the holy generation, Gentiles or any people, spiritual sons or children, posterity, descendants, and successors, the elect, adult converts, infants of Israel and of Christians, the communicant, “Us,” that is, New Testament Christians, and those who keep the covenant. Thus, for Calvin, the covenant encompasses the entire scope of salvation history."
Christian Study Library's article on Covenant theologian Herman Bavinck states,

"Because the covenant of grace is unilateral in origin and ultimately rendered effective unto salvation by virtue of God's abiding faithfulness, the most common rendering of the Hebrew term in the Septuagint is diatheke ("disposition") and not suntheke ("agreement").... This linguistic convention confirms that the covenant is ultimately a sovereign bestowal of God whose faithfulness ensures the inviolability of the covenant relationship and guarantees that its promises will be realized in spite of the frequent infidelity of God's people."
In Herman Bavinck's "Reformed Dogmatics" he states,

"The pact of salvation makes known to us the relationships and life of the three persons in the Divine Being as a covenantal life, a life of consummate self-consciousness and freedom. Here, within the Divine Being, the covenant flourishes to the full.... The greatest freedom and the most perfect agreement coincide. The work of salvation is an undertaking of three persons in which all cooperate and each performs a special task... It is the triune God alone, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, who together conceive, determine, carry out and complete the entire work of salvation."
In "How Faith and Works Operate in the Covenant of Works and in the Covenant of Grace,", Covenant theologian Francis Turrentin wrote,

"They stand in a far different relation. For in the first covenant, faith was required as a work and a part of the inherent righteousness to which life was promised. But in the second, it is demanded―not as a work on account of which life is given, but as a mere instrument apprehending the righteousness of Christ (on account of which alone salvation is granted to us). In the one, faith was a theological virtue from the strength of nature, terminating on God, the Creator; in the other, faith is an evangelical condition after the manner of supernatural grace, terminating on God, the Redeemer. As to works, they were required in the first as an antecedent condition by way of a cause for acquiring life; but in the second, they are only the subsequent condition as the fruit and effect of the life already acquired."

Covenant Theology is very much, inherently and inescapably, about salvation. I could fill pages of posts with quotes from theologians teaching Covenant Theology explicitly stating this. I am, as everyone here already knows, not a poster who likes to make appeals to authority but if I am provided with a Covenant theologian stating Covenant Theology is not about salvation, I will give it due consideration and change my views and my posts accordingly. Otherwise, I'd prefer to stick to scripture and have scripture measure what CT teaches.

The OP and the conversation is not about Covenant Theology. It is about two types of covenants.

The facts of Covenant Theology prove otherwise.

The OP determines what a topic is about. And it is not about Covenant Theology. See Post #91.

Until the question do the two types of covenant exist in the Bible can be answered as requested with a yes or no answer, there is no more to be said.

Thank you for your time.

 

[Josheb]

Where do we find that covenant in the NT?

The covenant promises were spoken to Abraham and Jesus.

Galatians 3:16, 29
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..... And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's descendants, heirs according to promise.

The covenant with Abraham is reported to have been "made in Genesis 15, but God initiated that covenant with Abraham the day He called Abe out of Ur (Gen. 12 - decades before the events of Gen. 15). When God spoke to Abraham in Genesis 15 Abraham took it upon himself to perform the suzerain ritual. The suzerain ritual was a well-established pagan ritual of his era. God did not ask Abe to do that. In the suzerain ritual a conquered king would kill a number of animals, cut their carcasses in two and lay them out to create an aisle down which he would walk as he approached the conquering king. He would then bow in submission to that king and pledge fealty to the conquering king in the condition that if he ever betrayed the king then he would suffer the same consequences of the animals: he'd be cut in two. Abraham prepares for the ritual. Abraham would be the one pledging fealty to God (because Godis clearly sovereign over Abraham). Abe waits for God to show up but God does nothing. The scavengers, the birds attempt to eat the meat, but Abraham chases them away and it takes all day. He falls asleep alongside the carcasses and has a vision in which he sees a smoking furnace and a fiery torch walk through the carcasses in performance of the suzerain ritual. The smoke and fire are images of God (for example, it was the pillar of smoke that went before the wandering Israelites by day and a pillar of fire that preceded them during the night). God walks down the aisle pledging fealty to Himself. It is He who is taking both parts of the covenant relationship. It is He who has pledged His life in obedience and fealty to Himself. God will sacrifice Himself to fulfill God's covenant, the promises of which were spoken to Abrham and his seed. Galatians 3 tells us the seed of promise is Jesus, not Israel (Abraham has many seeds, but Jesus is the only seed of promise).

Genesis 15:18
On that day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, "To your descendants I have given this land...

The Dispensationalist reads that verse to say the land is the physical ground of the promised land, the land which eventually became the nation of Israel (and they generally deny any typology or allegorical meaning by which the verse would have any other significance. The Covenant Theology subscriber, on the other hand, finds the fulfillment of that verse in all the New Testament passages that speak to our having come to the heavenly kingdom, not an earthly one, and we do not discriminate between the heavenly and the earthly the way the Dispensationalist does because as a consequence of God's covenant with His resurrected Son Jesus is now King of all kings, Lord of all lords, and the Great High Priest of the highest Order by whom alone anyone is saved.

Furthermore, Christ was foreknown for this specific purpose before a single atom of this world was ever spoken into existence.

1 Peter 1:17-21
If you address as Father the One who impartially judges according to each one's work, conduct yourselves in fear during the time of your stay on earth; knowing that you were not redeemed with perishable things like silver or gold from your futile way of life inherited from your forefathers, but with precious blood, as of a lamb unblemished and spotless, the blood of Christ. For he was foreknown before the foundation of the world but has appeared in these last times for the sake of you who through Him are believers in God, who raised Him from the dead and gave Him glory, so that your faith and hope are in God.

He was seed of Abraham to whom the covenant promises were spoken was foreknown before the world was created and foreknown specifically as the perfect blemish-free sacrifice by whom alone the redemptive history of scripture would be fulfilled. He is the logos of God that was with God in the beginning, who is God, and by whom, through whom, and for whom creation was created. He is the seed of the woman who would crush the serpent's head and undo the works of the devil, and that was decided centuries before Abraham was conceived. He is the tree of life planted in Eden by which alone eternal life could be found.

Hebrews 10:29
How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace?

It was not Adam's blood. Neither was not Noah's, Abraham's Moses', David's or anyone else's blood by which the covenant was established and fulfilled. There is only one covenant by which anyone can be saved and that covenant was first established by the Father with the Son and sinners who did not deserve inclusion into that covenant were included by grace with the necessary expectation, inescapable requirement, and divinely mandate purpose they would perform good works that were planned for them to perform before they were ever saved. His work begat their work as an inherent part of the covenant and the ensuing covenant relationship.

 

[Josheb]

That was not the question. The question was, do the two types of covenants exist in the Bible? Yes or no.

Asked and answered.

None of this is in question, nor is it the topic of the OP, or our present conversation.

Then what is the purpose of this post?