If There is No Covenant of Works---What Then?

[Arial]

There appeared in the forums recently, an attempt to prove that there never was such a thing as the Covenant of Works. The thread went on for 29 pages and was only half done with the rebuttal of the COW when the one who was presenting the rebuttal departed from further participation. I will not dwell on the faults and fallacies of the rebuttal as that is not my purpose in this OP. Something that is not true can never be proven. A person may be able to convince some that they have successfully refuted the Covenant of Works, unfortunately, and that they have done the proper home work to do so, but critical thinking and knowledge of the Bible, true and proper exegesis and theology, will show they to have done neither. The point in mentioning it is that the Covenant of Works is in the Bible in Gen 2:8-9 And the Lord God planted a garden in Eden, in the east, and there he put the man whom he had formed. And out of the ground the Lord God made to spring up a tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food. The tree of life was in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
Verses 15-17 The Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it. And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, "You may surely eat of of every tree of the garden, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it, you shall surely die."

There was another covenant with mankind that was also established in Genesis 3 immediately following Adam's disobedience to the Covenant of Works. And that is the Covenant of Grace. Verses 14 and 15. The Lord God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this, cursed are you above all livestock and above all beasts of the field; on your belly you shall go, and dust you shall eat all the days of your life. I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall crush your head, and you shall bruise his heel."

These two covenants run parallel to each other through every aspect of the OT. Both are always at work through progressive revelation, until the New Covenant, the Covenant of Grace is fully inaugurated with the coming of Christ and His ascension to His coronation as King of Kings and Lord of Lords.

What happens if there is no Covenant of Works? Without a Covenant of Works there can be no Covenant of Grace.

If no standard of righteousness that allows for eternal life is given, no one knows what the righteousness of God is. If no standard of righteousness exists, and if it is not absolutely consistent with God's righteousness, then God is not who He reveals Himself to be and the righteousness of His justice does not exist. The thing I noticed most in the rebuttal to the Covenant of Works was that there was no God in it, no theology, only anthropology, and yet how quick to latch hold of the provision of Jesus to take away our sins. If there is no standard of perfect righteousness, then God is not perfectly righteous. And if He is said to be perfectly righteous, and He is the giver of life and the very source of life, if He did not demand perfect righteousness of the creature He created in His image and likeness, He would not be just. And if there is no standard of righteousness for men, and that standard is not perfect righteousness, then there is no room for grace. In short, God would not be God.

Since there is a Covenant of Works, it is this which reveals and defines righteousness and exposes sin. It exposes the sinful condition of mankind as he is in Adam., and his absolute inability to be perfectly righteous. He has to be made righteous by God Himself.

If there is no Covenant of Works then there is nothing to which our Savior must attain in order to redeem a people from the curse of the law by becoming one of us. And no way for Him to defeat the power of sin and death that is over us.

So it is the very Covenant of Works that Jesus kept, the covenant of works as it existed in Eden----never partaking of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, but remaining faithful to the righteousness of God, and never breaking the Covenant of Works as outlined in the Mosaic Covenant. In truth they are the same covenant. It was this that Jesus had to do and that He did do, obedient even to death on the cross. And on the cross He took our sins upon Himself vicariously, and not only ours, but the very first sin of Adam that he passed to all his descendants, and took our death for us, our punishment for us. Perfect righteousness cannot die. Our sins that He carried, gave Him death. His perfect righteousness defeated death's power and He rose again to life. (Col 2:8-15) And just as He bore our sins counted as though they were His, so too through faith, we have His righteousness counted as ours. (Romans 3:21-26) The Covenant of Works and its being fulfilled in Christ is crucial, in fact mandatory, for any to be justified----that is, made just before God. If there is no Covenant of Works and all the conditions of it met in Christ, the cross did nothing, and the righteousness of God is not justified.

It is not necessary to know of the Covenant of Works by name, or even understand it in any way but as the true belief that Jesus laid down His life for the sinner and reconciled them to God. But there is a difference in seeing this Covenant of Works and relating it to Christ our Savior. Without it one sees the cross as though on a movie or television screen, and it is wonderful. When the depths of it have been plumbed and plumbed some more, you find yourself not just viewing the cross but actually standing before it. What was once seen glorious, now has a blinding glory that wipes away all thought of self and sees only Christ, the very Son of God. The glory of God. Which is what it is all about and all for. Not so much us at all, but Him.

Just as God's mercy cannot exist unless His wrath also exists, why else would we need mercy, so too a Covenant of Grace cannot exist unless there is also a Covenant of Works.

 

[Soyeong]

There appeared in the forums recently, an attempt to prove that there never was such a thing as the Covenant of Works. The thread went on for 29 pages and was only half done with the rebuttal of the COW when the one who was presenting the rebuttal departed from further participation. I will not dwell on the faults and fallacies of the rebuttal as that is not my purpose in this OP. Something that is not true can never be proven. A person may be able to convince some that they have successfully refuted the Covenant of Works, unfortunately, and that they have done the proper home work to do so, but critical thinking and knowledge of the Bible, true and proper exegesis and theology, will show they to have done neither. The point in mentioning it is that the Covenant of Works is in the Bible in Gen 2:8-9 And the Lord God planted a garden in Eden, in the east, and there he put the man whom he had formed. And out of the ground the Lord God made to spring up a tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food. The tree of life was in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
Verses 15-17 The Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it. And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, "You may surely eat of of every tree of the garden, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it, you shall surely die."

There was another covenant with mankind that was also established in Genesis 3 immediately following Adam's disobedience to the Covenant of Works. And that is the Covenant of Grace. Verses 14 and 15. The Lord God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this, cursed are you above all livestock and above all beasts of the field; on your belly you shall go, and dust you shall eat all the days of your life. I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall crush your head, and you shall bruise his heel."

These two covenants run parallel to each other through every aspect of the OT. Both are always at work through progressive revelation, until the New Covenant, the Covenant of Grace is fully inaugurated with the coming of Christ and His ascension to His coronation as King of Kings and Lord of Lords.

What happens if there is no Covenant of Works? Without a Covenant of Works there can be no Covenant of Grace.

Every covenant is a serious agreement to do works, so saying that God has made a Covenant of Works is redundant. Furthermore, all of God's covenants are Covenants of Grace, so the error comes with saying that one or more of God's covenants are Covenants of works in contrast with being a Covenant of Grace. For examine, in Psalms 119:29, he wanted God to be gracious to him by teaching him to obey His law, in Exodus 33:13, Moses wanted God to be gracious to him by teaching him to walk in His way, and in Genesis 6:8-9, Noah found grace in the eyes of God, he was a righteous man, and he walked with God, so those are Covenants of Grace and of Works. Likewise, in Jeremiah 31:33, the New Covenant involves God putting His law in our minds and writing it on our hearts, and in Titus 2:11-13, our salvation is described as being trained by grace to do works, so the New Covenant is also a Covenant of Grace and of Works, and if it were not a Covenant of Works, then it would not be a Covenant of Grace.

If no standard of righteousness that allows for eternal life is given, no one knows what the righteousness of God is. If no standard of righteousness exists, and if it is not absolutely consistent with God's righteousness, then God is not who He reveals Himself to be and the righteousness of His justice does not exist. The thing I noticed most in the rebuttal to the Covenant of Works was that there was no God in it, no theology, only anthropology, and yet how quick to latch hold of the provision of Jesus to take away our sins. If there is no standard of perfect righteousness, then God is not perfectly righteous. And if He is said to be perfectly righteous, and He is the giver of life and the very source of life, if He did not demand perfect righteousness of the creature He created in His image and likeness, He would not be just. And if there is no standard of righteousness for men, and that standard is not perfect righteousness, then there is no room for grace. In short, God would not be God.

In Romans 3:21-22, it does not say that the Law and the Prophets testify that the righteousness of God comes through perfect obedience, but rather the one and only standard of righteousness that is testified about in the Law and the Prophets is through faith in Christ for all who believe. Even if someone managed to have perfect obedience to God Law, then they still would not earn their righteousness as a wage (Romans 4:1-5), so perfect obedience has never been a standard of righteousness. The fact that we can still be saved, be declared righteous, and have eternal life all while not having had perfect obedience demonstrates that perfect obedience is not the standard. It does not follow that God is not perfectly righteous if there is no standard of perfect righteousness, or that God would not be just if He did not demand perfect obedience, or that there is no room for grace if the standard is not perfect righteousness, or that God would not be God.

Since there is a Covenant of Works, it is this which reveals and defines righteousness and exposes sin. It exposes the sinful condition of mankind as he is in Adam., and his absolute inability to be perfectly righteous. He has to be made righteous by God Himself.

The one and only way to become righteous is through God, so there has never been a need to expose our inability to earn our righteousness through perfect obedience because that has never been a way to become righteous.

If there is no Covenant of Works then there is nothing to which our Savior must attain in order to redeem a people from the curse of the law by becoming one of us. And no way for Him to defeat the power of sin and death that is over us.

So it is the very Covenant of Works that Jesus kept, the covenant of works as it existed in Eden----never partaking of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, but remaining faithful to the righteousness of God, and never breaking the Covenant of Works as outlined in the Mosaic Covenant. In truth they are the same covenant. It was this that Jesus had to do and that He did do, obedient even to death on the cross. And on the cross He took our sins upon Himself vicariously, and not only ours, but the very first sin of Adam that he passed to all his descendants, and took our death for us, our punishment for us. Perfect righteousness cannot die. Our sins that He carried, gave Him death. His perfect righteousness defeated death's power and He rose again to life. (Col 2:8-15) And just as He bore our sins counted as though they were His, so too through faith, we have His righteousness counted as ours. (Romans 3:21-26) The Covenant of Works and its being fulfilled in Christ is crucial, in fact mandatory, for any to be justified----that is, made just before God. If there is no Covenant of Works and all the conditions of it met in Christ, the cross did nothing, and the righteousness of God is not justified.

If we are going to give ourselves to pay for the sins of the world, then that standard is perfect obedience, otherwise, we repent after we have sinned, so we are not required to have perfect obedience.

 

[Arial]

Every covenant is a serious agreement to do works, so saying that God has made a Covenant of Works is redundant.

No they aren't and no it isn't. The Edenic covenant and its extension the Mosaic covenant are covenants of works. They are bilateral. The New Covenant is a covenant of grace. "By grace you are saved, through faith, and that is not your own doing but is a gift of God." It is unilateral. I suggest you do a study of Bible covenants and what they are.

Furthermore, all of God's covenants are Covenants of Grace, so the error comes with saying that one or more of God's covenants are Covenants of works in contrast with being a Covenant of Grace.

The fact that God is gracious to all----we would not live at all if He were not,---does not mean that the covenants themselves are covenants of grace. His grace exists in the Covenant of Works and that is grace, but the covenant is attached to works that man must do, and the consequences of not doing them. The sacrifices themselves are God's grace, but they provide temporary mercy until the New Covenant comes in with the coming of the Savior, not eternal life. The Covenant of Grace was stated in Gen 3 and the only reason it was necessary is because the Covenant of Works had been broken.

The Covenant of Grace is more clearly stated with Abraham in Gen 15:1-6. Its unilateral (unconditional) nature shown in Gen 15:12-17. This is explained farther in Romans 4:1-5; Hebrews 11:8-19. So both the Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Grace were working through history simultaneously. When Jesus came and fulfilled the Covenant of Works, that is when it became obsolete as it was no longer needed. Now there is only the Covenant of Grace, through faith in the person and work of Christ.

Even if someone managed to have perfect obedience to God Law, then they still would not earn their righteousness as a wage (Romans 4:1-5), so perfect obedience has never been a standard of righteousness.

As I said above, using this same passage, Paul is making a comparison between the Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Grace. Works is not grace. He is not saying that works don't earn righteousness but if they did it would not be grace. And an aside, if someone were able to keep perfect righteousness, they would inherit eternal life. There would not be anything that deserved death. Death is the wages of sin. This we cannot do simply by being born in Adam, and that is why someone who was not born in Adam, but was also one of us, had to come and keep perfect righteousness and take our death in our place. And why His righteousness is then imputed to those who believe. He does not do this in order to also put us back under the covenant of works. And if His righteousness is counted as our own, how can it be that we then have to also produce our own righteousness in order to be saved?

There are two things that you do seem to have yet grasped. One is that we are justified through faith in Jesus and His work and substitutionary death on the cross. To be justified before God means to be reconciled to Him so completely and sufficiently by Christ, that God declares us forgiven, therefore righteous, even while we remain in the flesh, in the fallen world, still subject to temptation and sin. It is Christ's righteousness and His ALONE that destroys sins power to condemn us. He is constantly standing as intercessor at the right hand of God, cleansing us.

The other thing is recognizing that we are currently, and have been since His ascension, in a position of right now, not yet. Just as all the OT saints were. They did not see the fulness of what they were waiting for, the heavenly home, they did not even see the advent of Christ, as we have. And yet they still inherited the kingdom of God. We like them are sojourners in a foreign land. We are on a journey through the wilderness (this fallen world) like the Israelites. We like them have God going before us and our rear guard, bringing us safely to the promised land, sealed in Christ.

But our Promised Land is the New Heaven and the New Earth. And we do not await the first coming of Christ, but His second coming, not to bring salvation, but judgement on all His enemies, and the restoration of all things. We are already saved and safe. Our destination is sure. But we for now, remain in the flesh that was corrupted, and we remain subject to death but not its power. And as such, we still sin but the Faithful continues to sanctify us. In Christ it is Christ that produces the fruit of righteousness in the branches, Christ who leads us in paths of righteousness, while we await our corruption to put on incorruption and our mortality to put on immortality.

 

[Arial]

For examine, in Psalms 119:29, he wanted God to be gracious to him by teaching him to obey His law, in Exodus 33:13, Moses wanted God to be gracious to him by teaching him to walk in His way, and in Genesis 6:8-9, Noah found grace in the eyes of God, he was a righteous man, and he walked with God, so those are Covenants of Grace and of Works.

As I explained in post #3, both covenants existed since Gen 2-3. The covenant of redemption actually existed before creation within the Godhead. It was not a piecemeal plan or purpose based on what Adam might or might not do. The Covenant of Grace is the fulfillment of the Covenant of works and does not wait for its existence until after the crucifixion and resurrection. It works through the Covenant of Works. If we are going to be redeemed, we must be redeemed from something. If we are going to be shown grace and mercy, it has to be grace and mercy instead of works and wrath. Both the Psalms and Exodus scriptures you use are written about those under the Mosaic covenant of works, and in asking for God to teach and lead them in His ways shows their faith and dependence upon God to even know how to be and also to be that. But it does not mean that there are not two distinct covenants. God's grace is the only thing that will allow any to be saved. Works alone won't do it. We are unable to do the works of righteousness. That means perfectly and all the time, in spite of your assertion that it is not and never was required.It is grace that brings a Substitute, and grace that He does the work we cannot. Grace that faith is now and always has been the way of eternal life for the fallen creature.

Likewise, in Jeremiah 31:33, the New Covenant involves God putting His law in our minds and writing it on our hearts, and in Titus 2:11-13, our salvation is described as being trained by grace to do works, so the New Covenant is also a Covenant of Grace and of Works, and if it were not a Covenant of Works, then it would not be a Covenant of Grace.

We do works of righteousness because we are bearing the fruit of the Vine from which we grow. You misunderstand and always misstate the Christian doctrine of imputed righteousness to mean that we believe we do not have to be righteous. That we can sin with impunity. When in fact, someone grafted into Christ, feeding upon Him, would never have such a thought or such a desire. You perhaps do not understand what it truly and deeply is to be IN Christ. It is a real union, not a hypothetical one.

In Romans 3:21-22, it does not say that the Law and the Prophets testify that the righteousness of God comes through perfect obedience

Neither did I.

. Even if someone managed to have perfect obedience to God Law, then they still would not earn their righteousness as a wage (Romans 4:1-5), so perfect obedience has never been a standard of righteousness.

I already showed you what Romans 5 is saying and you are misapplying it. Perfect obedience has been God's standard since He created Adam and Eve, placed them in Eden and said "Do not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil or else----" We are created in His image and likeness. What do you think that means? The very fact that He created us obligates us to perfect obedience to His image and likeness. In fact, "image and likeness" itself is a covenantal relationship.

 

[Arial]

The fact that we can still be saved, be declared righteous, and have eternal life all while not having had perfect obedience demonstrates that perfect obedience is not the standard. It does not follow that God is not perfectly righteous if there is no standard of perfect righteousness,

That is not what if proves at all. We can be saved and declared righteous in the midst of our fallen state because it is Christ's righteousness, not our own, that God counts towards us. It was the power of sin to condemn us to eternal death that Jesus defeated with His righteousness. Do you not believe in His substitutionary death and atonement?

God is the standard of perfect righteousness. You simple can't follow the logic of my train of thought in that because you have a premise that is not true. Several in fact.
1. Your premise to begin with, does not start with the holiness of God, both in character and action as well as His otherness.
2. It fails to arrive at its conclusions by considering a covenantal relationship between God and His creature (mankind) as made in His very image and likeness.
3. It fails to grasp ahold of what is required of the creature to his Creator.
4.It fails to see the difference between works for righteousness and works from righteousness. It calls works from righteousness works required for righteousness or works to keep Christ's righteousness that He imputed to us.

Your premise is that if works are not a requirement for salvation then they are not in salvation, and therefore must be required. And that that makes the Covenant of Grace the Covenant of Works. And I say this already knowing that you thing certain works are required, works that were part of the Old Covenant, such as Sabbath keeping and dietary laws. In short, whether you realize it or not, you are saying Christ is insufficient. We have to add to what He did and who He is, a bit of ourselves.

The one and only way to become righteous is through God, so there has never been a need to expose our inability to earn our righteousness through perfect obedience because that has never been a way to become righteous.

Perfect obedience is righteousness. Do you think that if God had not shown us what righteousness is we would know what is righteous? It isn't about becoming perfectly righteous in and of ourselves, it is about redemption from our fallen condition, where we lie dead in our tresspasses and sins, bound by chains in the kingdom of darkness, hopeless, and helpless to save ourselves. It is about Christ and Him crucified. It is about the glory and power of Almighty God. We need to start looking up instead of walking parallel to the heavens looking at our feet.

 

[EarlyActs]

There appeared in the forums recently, an attempt to prove that there never was such a thing as the Covenant of Works. The thread went on for 29 pages and was only half done with the rebuttal of the COW when the one who was presenting the rebuttal departed from further participation. I will not dwell on the faults and fallacies of the rebuttal as that is not my purpose in this OP. Something that is not true can never be proven. A person may be able to convince some that they have successfully refuted the Covenant of Works, unfortunately, and that they have done the proper home work to do so, but critical thinking and knowledge of the Bible, true and proper exegesis and theology, will show they to have done neither. The point in mentioning it is that the Covenant of Works is in the Bible in Gen 2:8-9 And the Lord God planted a garden in Eden, in the east, and there he put the man whom he had formed. And out of the ground the Lord God made to spring up a tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food. The tree of life was in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
Verses 15-17 The Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it. And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, "You may surely eat of of every tree of the garden, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it, you shall surely die."

There was another covenant with mankind that was also established in Genesis 3 immediately following Adam's disobedience to the Covenant of Works. And that is the Covenant of Grace. Verses 14 and 15. The Lord God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this, cursed are you above all livestock and above all beasts of the field; on your belly you shall go, and dust you shall eat all the days of your life. I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall crush your head, and you shall bruise his heel."

These two covenants run parallel to each other through every aspect of the OT. Both are always at work through progressive revelation, until the New Covenant, the Covenant of Grace is fully inaugurated with the coming of Christ and His ascension to His coronation as King of Kings and Lord of Lords.

What happens if there is no Covenant of Works? Without a Covenant of Works there can be no Covenant of Grace.

If no standard of righteousness that allows for eternal life is given, no one knows what the righteousness of God is. If no standard of righteousness exists, and if it is not absolutely consistent with God's righteousness, then God is not who He reveals Himself to be and the righteousness of His justice does not exist. The thing I noticed most in the rebuttal to the Covenant of Works was that there was no God in it, no theology, only anthropology, and yet how quick to latch hold of the provision of Jesus to take away our sins. If there is no standard of perfect righteousness, then God is not perfectly righteous. And if He is said to be perfectly righteous, and He is the giver of life and the very source of life, if He did not demand perfect righteousness of the creature He created in His image and likeness, He would not be just. And if there is no standard of righteousness for men, and that standard is not perfect righteousness, then there is no room for grace. In short, God would not be God.

Since there is a Covenant of Works, it is this which reveals and defines righteousness and exposes sin. It exposes the sinful condition of mankind as he is in Adam., and his absolute inability to be perfectly righteous. He has to be made righteous by God Himself.

If there is no Covenant of Works then there is nothing to which our Savior must attain in order to redeem a people from the curse of the law by becoming one of us. And no way for Him to defeat the power of sin and death that is over us.

So it is the very Covenant of Works that Jesus kept, the covenant of works as it existed in Eden----never partaking of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, but remaining faithful to the righteousness of God, and never breaking the Covenant of Works as outlined in the Mosaic Covenant. In truth they are the same covenant. It was this that Jesus had to do and that He did do, obedient even to death on the cross. And on the cross He took our sins upon Himself vicariously, and not only ours, but the very first sin of Adam that he passed to all his descendants, and took our death for us, our punishment for us. Perfect righteousness cannot die. Our sins that He carried, gave Him death. His perfect righteousness defeated death's power and He rose again to life. (Col 2:8-15) And just as He bore our sins counted as though they were His, so too through faith, we have His righteousness counted as ours. (Romans 3:21-26) The Covenant of Works and its being fulfilled in Christ is crucial, in fact mandatory, for any to be justified----that is, made just before God. If there is no Covenant of Works and all the conditions of it met in Christ, the cross did nothing, and the righteousness of God is not justified.

It is not necessary to know of the Covenant of Works by name, or even understand it in any way but as the true belief that Jesus laid down His life for the sinner and reconciled them to God. But there is a difference in seeing this Covenant of Works and relating it to Christ our Savior. Without it one sees the cross as though on a movie or television screen, and it is wonderful. When the depths of it have been plumbed and plumbed some more, you find yourself not just viewing the cross but actually standing before it. What was once seen glorious, now has a blinding glory that wipes away all thought of self and sees only Christ, the very Son of God. The glory of God. Which is what it is all about and all for. Not so much us at all, but Him.

Just as God's mercy cannot exist unless His wrath also exists, why else would we need mercy, so too a Covenant of Grace cannot exist unless there is also a Covenant of Works.

The important thing would be to deal with how the previous was a fantasy. We find this in Rom 9-10--that Israel pursued righteousness "as if" it were by works. (This appears to be addressed to his generation).

 

[EarlyActs]

There appeared in the forums recently, an attempt to prove that there never was such a thing as the Covenant of Works. The thread went on for 29 pages and was only half done with the rebuttal of the COW when the one who was presenting the rebuttal departed from further participation. I will not dwell on the faults and fallacies of the rebuttal as that is not my purpose in this OP. Something that is not true can never be proven. A person may be able to convince some that they have successfully refuted the Covenant of Works, unfortunately, and that they have done the proper home work to do so, but critical thinking and knowledge of the Bible, true and proper exegesis and theology, will show they to have done neither. The point in mentioning it is that the Covenant of Works is in the Bible in Gen 2:8-9 And the Lord God planted a garden in Eden, in the east, and there he put the man whom he had formed. And out of the ground the Lord God made to spring up a tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food. The tree of life was in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
Verses 15-17 The Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it. And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, "You may surely eat of of every tree of the garden, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it, you shall surely die."

There was another covenant with mankind that was also established in Genesis 3 immediately following Adam's disobedience to the Covenant of Works. And that is the Covenant of Grace. Verses 14 and 15. The Lord God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this, cursed are you above all livestock and above all beasts of the field; on your belly you shall go, and dust you shall eat all the days of your life. I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall crush your head, and you shall bruise his heel."

These two covenants run parallel to each other through every aspect of the OT. Both are always at work through progressive revelation, until the New Covenant, the Covenant of Grace is fully inaugurated with the coming of Christ and His ascension to His coronation as King of Kings and Lord of Lords.

What happens if there is no Covenant of Works? Without a Covenant of Works there can be no Covenant of Grace.

If no standard of righteousness that allows for eternal life is given, no one knows what the righteousness of God is. If no standard of righteousness exists, and if it is not absolutely consistent with God's righteousness, then God is not who He reveals Himself to be and the righteousness of His justice does not exist. The thing I noticed most in the rebuttal to the Covenant of Works was that there was no God in it, no theology, only anthropology, and yet how quick to latch hold of the provision of Jesus to take away our sins. If there is no standard of perfect righteousness, then God is not perfectly righteous. And if He is said to be perfectly righteous, and He is the giver of life and the very source of life, if He did not demand perfect righteousness of the creature He created in His image and likeness, He would not be just. And if there is no standard of righteousness for men, and that standard is not perfect righteousness, then there is no room for grace. In short, God would not be God.

Since there is a Covenant of Works, it is this which reveals and defines righteousness and exposes sin. It exposes the sinful condition of mankind as he is in Adam., and his absolute inability to be perfectly righteous. He has to be made righteous by God Himself.

If there is no Covenant of Works then there is nothing to which our Savior must attain in order to redeem a people from the curse of the law by becoming one of us. And no way for Him to defeat the power of sin and death that is over us.

So it is the very Covenant of Works that Jesus kept, the covenant of works as it existed in Eden----never partaking of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, but remaining faithful to the righteousness of God, and never breaking the Covenant of Works as outlined in the Mosaic Covenant. In truth they are the same covenant. It was this that Jesus had to do and that He did do, obedient even to death on the cross. And on the cross He took our sins upon Himself vicariously, and not only ours, but the very first sin of Adam that he passed to all his descendants, and took our death for us, our punishment for us. Perfect righteousness cannot die. Our sins that He carried, gave Him death. His perfect righteousness defeated death's power and He rose again to life. (Col 2:8-15) And just as He bore our sins counted as though they were His, so too through faith, we have His righteousness counted as ours. (Romans 3:21-26) The Covenant of Works and its being fulfilled in Christ is crucial, in fact mandatory, for any to be justified----that is, made just before God. If there is no Covenant of Works and all the conditions of it met in Christ, the cross did nothing, and the righteousness of God is not justified.

It is not necessary to know of the Covenant of Works by name, or even understand it in any way but as the true belief that Jesus laid down His life for the sinner and reconciled them to God. But there is a difference in seeing this Covenant of Works and relating it to Christ our Savior. Without it one sees the cross as though on a movie or television screen, and it is wonderful. When the depths of it have been plumbed and plumbed some more, you find yourself not just viewing the cross but actually standing before it. What was once seen glorious, now has a blinding glory that wipes away all thought of self and sees only Christ, the very Son of God. The glory of God. Which is what it is all about and all for. Not so much us at all, but Him.

Just as God's mercy cannot exist unless His wrath also exists, why else would we need mercy, so too a Covenant of Grace cannot exist unless there is also a Covenant of Works.

All this has a very correct sound to it, but in the end of Rom 9 to the first of 10, and in Gal 3:15 +, I find that Paul is clearing up something more historical and recent, ie, in post-explicit Judaism.

There, at least, he doesn’t reach clear back to Adam etc, like Rom 5. He just observes that PE Judaism had invented some beliefs against the facts. Righteousness through works was a fantasy. And the Promise to the nations was not after the Law, nor replaced by it, but before.

I suppose you could say there was such a covenant as long as you added that it meant or resulted only in failure. Which is a way of saying it wasn’t worth mentioning.

 

[Arial]

I suppose you could say there was such a covenant as long as you added that it meant or resulted only in failure. Which is a way of saying it wasn’t worth mentioning.

Such a covenant as what?

And why is any covenant God makes with mankind not worth mentioning? I am not clear on what you are presenting.

 

[EarlyActs]

Such a covenant as what?

And why is any covenant God makes with mankind not worth mentioning? I am not clear on what you are presenting.

A covenant that was a ministry of death. We might as well say what Paul did in Rom 9--that it was an as if, a pretention, a fantasy. 'Israel has a zeal but it is not based on truth.'

And so as Hebrew ends with , there really only was one covenant and it was eternal.

 

[Arial]

A covenant that was a ministry of death. We might as well say what Paul did in Rom 9--that it was an as if, a pretention, a fantasy. 'Israel has a zeal but it is not based on truth.'

And so as Hebrew ends with , there really only was one covenant and it was eternal.

And yet the covenant with Adam and creation and the covenant of works with Israel were both necessary as steps it the covenant of grace---the new covenant---which is called new because there was an old one.

The covenant of redemption is eternal, which means it existed within the Godhead before creation. And the covenant of grace is the fulfillment of the covenant with Adam and that with Israel. So in a sense there is one with many parts, and those parts are distinct because God speaks of them as distinct.

 

[EarlyActs]

And yet the covenant with Adam and creation and the covenant of works with Israel were both necessary as steps it the covenant of grace---the new covenant---which is called new because there was an old one.

The covenant of redemption is eternal, which means it existed within the Godhead before creation. And the covenant of grace is the fulfillment of the covenant with Adam and that with Israel. So in a sense there is one with many parts, and those parts are distinct because God speaks of them as distinct.

I do history and then theology if needed.

 

[ReverendRV]

There appeared in the forums recently, an attempt to prove that there never was such a thing as the Covenant of Works. The thread went on for 29 pages and was only half done with the rebuttal of the COW when the one who was presenting the rebuttal departed from further participation. I will not dwell on the faults and fallacies of the rebuttal as that is not my purpose in this OP. Something that is not true can never be proven. A person may be able to convince some that they have successfully refuted the Covenant of Works, unfortunately, and that they have done the proper home work to do so, but critical thinking and knowledge of the Bible, true and proper exegesis and theology, will show they to have done neither. The point in mentioning it is that the Covenant of Works is in the Bible in Gen 2:8-9 And the Lord God planted a garden in Eden, in the east, and there he put the man whom he had formed. And out of the ground the Lord God made to spring up a tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food. The tree of life was in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
Verses 15-17 The Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it. And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, "You may surely eat of of every tree of the garden, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it, you shall surely die."

There was another covenant with mankind that was also established in Genesis 3 immediately following Adam's disobedience to the Covenant of Works. And that is the Covenant of Grace. Verses 14 and 15. The Lord God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this, cursed are you above all livestock and above all beasts of the field; on your belly you shall go, and dust you shall eat all the days of your life. I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall crush your head, and you shall bruise his heel."

These two covenants run parallel to each other through every aspect of the OT. Both are always at work through progressive revelation, until the New Covenant, the Covenant of Grace is fully inaugurated with the coming of Christ and His ascension to His coronation as King of Kings and Lord of Lords.

What happens if there is no Covenant of Works? Without a Covenant of Works there can be no Covenant of Grace.

If no standard of righteousness that allows for eternal life is given, no one knows what the righteousness of God is. If no standard of righteousness exists, and if it is not absolutely consistent with God's righteousness, then God is not who He reveals Himself to be and the righteousness of His justice does not exist. The thing I noticed most in the rebuttal to the Covenant of Works was that there was no God in it, no theology, only anthropology, and yet how quick to latch hold of the provision of Jesus to take away our sins. If there is no standard of perfect righteousness, then God is not perfectly righteous. And if He is said to be perfectly righteous, and He is the giver of life and the very source of life, if He did not demand perfect righteousness of the creature He created in His image and likeness, He would not be just. And if there is no standard of righteousness for men, and that standard is not perfect righteousness, then there is no room for grace. In short, God would not be God.

Since there is a Covenant of Works, it is this which reveals and defines righteousness and exposes sin. It exposes the sinful condition of mankind as he is in Adam., and his absolute inability to be perfectly righteous. He has to be made righteous by God Himself.

If there is no Covenant of Works then there is nothing to which our Savior must attain in order to redeem a people from the curse of the law by becoming one of us. And no way for Him to defeat the power of sin and death that is over us.

So it is the very Covenant of Works that Jesus kept, the covenant of works as it existed in Eden----never partaking of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, but remaining faithful to the righteousness of God, and never breaking the Covenant of Works as outlined in the Mosaic Covenant. In truth they are the same covenant. It was this that Jesus had to do and that He did do, obedient even to death on the cross. And on the cross He took our sins upon Himself vicariously, and not only ours, but the very first sin of Adam that he passed to all his descendants, and took our death for us, our punishment for us. Perfect righteousness cannot die. Our sins that He carried, gave Him death. His perfect righteousness defeated death's power and He rose again to life. (Col 2:8-15) And just as He bore our sins counted as though they were His, so too through faith, we have His righteousness counted as ours. (Romans 3:21-26) The Covenant of Works and its being fulfilled in Christ is crucial, in fact mandatory, for any to be justified----that is, made just before God. If there is no Covenant of Works and all the conditions of it met in Christ, the cross did nothing, and the righteousness of God is not justified.

It is not necessary to know of the Covenant of Works by name, or even understand it in any way but as the true belief that Jesus laid down His life for the sinner and reconciled them to God. But there is a difference in seeing this Covenant of Works and relating it to Christ our Savior. Without it one sees the cross as though on a movie or television screen, and it is wonderful. When the depths of it have been plumbed and plumbed some more, you find yourself not just viewing the cross but actually standing before it. What was once seen glorious, now has a blinding glory that wipes away all thought of self and sees only Christ, the very Son of God. The glory of God. Which is what it is all about and all for. Not so much us at all, but Him.

Just as God's mercy cannot exist unless His wrath also exists, why else would we need mercy, so too a Covenant of Grace cannot exist unless there is also a Covenant of Works.

This is very good...

 

[EarlyActs]

Arial: It is not necessary to know of the Covenant of Works by name
Agreed, and we don't find it by that name in Rom 2, but it is clear that a perfect performance does matter, and the final judgement is framed that way. When Lewis in MC says that we quarrel with other humans based on a presumption that both of us know a certain standard, he is in early Rom 2, and the next step is to affirm that there is that standard but a perfect performance has been missed. He called the standard 'the clue to the meaning of the universe.'

But now the righteousness of God has appeared!

And then the belief came, in Judaism, a fantasy, that people could perform it to put God in debt (to Israel) Rom 9B--10A, and the Judaizers sought to remove those who wouldn't perform. And what they wanted to be paid was to be kings over the earth under Messiah.

 

[Arial]

This is very good...

Thanks Rev.

 

[Arial]

Arial: It is not necessary to know of the Covenant of Works by name
Agreed, and we don't find it by that name in Rom 2, but it is clear that a perfect performance does matter, and the final judgement is framed that way. When Lewis in MC says that we quarrel with other humans based on a presumption that both of us know a certain standard, he is in early Rom 2, and the next step is to affirm that there is that standard but a perfect performance has been missed. He called the standard 'the clue to the meaning of the universe.'

But now the righteousness of God has appeared!

And then the belief came, in Judaism, a fantasy, that people could perform it to put God in debt (to Israel) Rom 9B--10A, and the Judaizers sought to remove those who wouldn't perform. And what they wanted to be paid was to be kings over the earth under Messiah.

I am however discussing the covenant of works which is often denied and yet crucial in gaining a full and glorious understanding of redemption and the why this and why that of the complete story. Making connections. Without it, and without grasping covenant as being the means of a personal relationship that God establishes with humanity, much is missed.

 

[ReverendRV]

Arial: It is not necessary to know of the Covenant of Works by name
Agreed, and we don't find it by that name in Rom 2, but it is clear that a perfect performance does matter, and the final judgement is framed that way. When Lewis in MC says that we quarrel with other humans based on a presumption that both of us know a certain standard, he is in early Rom 2, and the next step is to affirm that there is that standard but a perfect performance has been missed. He called the standard 'the clue to the meaning of the universe.'

But now the righteousness of God has appeared!

And then the belief came, in Judaism, a fantasy, that people could perform it to put God in debt (to Israel) Rom 9B--10A, and the Judaizers sought to remove those who wouldn't perform. And what they wanted to be paid was to be kings over the earth under Messiah.

Though there isn't any Revelation that tells us the title of the Covenant, the Covenant God made with Adam is mentioned in the Book of Malachi. So it wouldn't be a Stretch to call the Covenant, the Adamic or Edenic Covenant. Since some people draw a distinction between the Command not to Eat, and the Promise of the Crushed head; some call the first the Edenic Covenant of Works, and the second the Adamic Covenant of Grace...

 

[Josheb]

I subscribe to a form of Covenant Theology (CT) known as "Progressive Covenantalism."* The basic premise of PC is that there is only one covenant, and that covenant is with the Father and the Son, not primarily between God and an individual man or group of men. This covenant is revealed to humanity incrementally, with each revelation adding information not previously known or understood. God reveals Himself progressively. Some PCers subscribe to the classic CT model where two covenants, the covenant of works and the covenant of grace, exist. I reject that premise.

The chief reason I reject that premise is because neither term is found in scripture. This is more so with the "covenant of works" than with a "covenant of grace" because scripture does speak indirectly about grace as intrinsic part of God's covenant (especially from the soteriological monergist pov), so the inferences are not difficulty to create. The problem is I'd prefer to stick with scripture exactly as written as much as possible and there isn't any reason to create theological constructs such as COW or COG. Along with the silence of scripture regarding these two extra-biblical constructs is the fact the Genesis account never calls what God said a covenant. I believe a covenant can be inferred and readily and easily so, but the ease of the inference is not proof of validity. However, because the criteria for a covenant exist in Eden I will, for the sake of this thread concede the existence of a covenant involving God, Adam, and Eve.

Like all covenants initiated by God involving humanity, it is a covenant initiated by God based solely on God's will, purpose, and action. Like all covenants initiated by God involving humanity He chose the participants, and He did so without asking any human if they wanted to be chosen, selected, or elected. Like all the covenants... God called the participants He'd chosen and He called them without asking any of them if they wanted to be called. Like all the covenants... God then commanded them, and He commanded them without asking if they wanted to be commanded and with an expectation of obedience. The main point I am making is that all of these aspects are monergistic, not synergistic. It is only after all I just listed has occurred that any human covenant participant is ever offered any choice. All of this is evident in Eden.

All monergism occurs solely by grace. God does not have to act, and He does not have to act (or think, or will, or purpose) in any particular way, especially not in any way He doesn't want to act. He acts as He pleases and as far as humanity goes it is ALL by grace and grace alone.

The above is very important to understand because God does expect action, or work, from those He commands. He expects obedience. Obedience is work. In NT terms, faith begets faithfulness, and there has never been a point anywhere in creation where the righteous were not supposed to live by faith. This is just as true of Adam and Eve as it is Cain and Abel, Abraham and Lot, Jacob and Esau, Pharoah and Moses, Ahab and Elijah, Herod and John, and everyone else in the Bible. It even applies to those outside the covenant! God expects to be honored by all. However, after Genesis 3:6-7 the only reason anyone exists is because of divine grace. My point here is that an expectation works will be performed is not absent, but it is not a separate covenant.


Most important relevant to this op, however, is the fact of the tree of life. That exist by grace. No matter what else Adam and Eve did or did not do the tree of life was there for them and it was there for them by grace and grace alone. Some have argued it was a reward for good work or good performance but that is a complete falsehood, proven incorrect by God's statement A&E were free to eat from any tree in the garden except the forbidden one (Gen 2:16-17). Later in scripture we learn that the tree of life is Jesus or perhaps, more specifically, the resurrection (which may be a difference without distinction since Jesus is the resurrection). Much later in scripture, when Abraham has his vision of the covenant God has initiated involving him, he sees the symbols of God (smoke and fire) walking through a description of a suzerain covenant. in this vision the symbols of God proceed through the halved carcasses pledging fealty to God - God pledging fealty to God. Abraham is not the one walking through the sundered meat! Due to Paul's writings we know that covenant was made with Abraham and Jesus. Through Luke and Peter's writings we know the role Jesus would play was foreknown before any human had been created.

All of it decided before a single atom was spoken into existence and all of it revealed to us incrementally in increasing revelation until we reach the other side of resurrection and know all.



I am posting this just so everyone knows it is possible to subscribe to Covenant Theology without also subscribing to a covenant of works. I post this because if you disagree with the op it does not mean you're not a covenantalist. I post that last statement because everyone here knows my disdain for Dispensationalism and my similar criticism Dispensationalism makes up stuff nowhere found in scripture. Just as there is no mention of "covenant of works," scripture never labels the assumed errors as dispensations but it does label them with the term covenant. It's not okay to make up stuff without some degree of actual statement from scripture, imo.

I will repost this in a separate op so this op doesn't get highjacked by comment inquiry from this post. Don't expect me to explain this post here. @Arial can field any op-relevant inquiries, asserting, explaining and defending the covenant of works as she sees fit.

If There is No Covenant of Works What Then?

Grace.

All of creation exists grace, it existed by grace before a single work was required, and it is only by grace any work was commanded, expected, and/or enabled.













*For those with an interest the writings and videos of Stephen Wellum are a good introduction to CP.
.

 

[ReverendRV]

Grace.

All of creation exists grace, it existed by grace before a single work was required, and it is only by grace any work was commanded, expected, and/or enabled.

Arial said:
If There is No Covenant of Works What Then?


Would you say that without the Covenant of Works, there would be no Law; or no Law written on our Hearts?

No Law for Adam to Break for us; and no Law for Christ to Keep for Us?

 

[Arial]

I subscribe to a form of Covenant Theology (CT) known as "Progressive Covenantalism."* The basic premise of PC is that there is only one covenant, and that covenant is with the Father and the Son, not primarily between God and an individual man or group of men. This covenant is revealed to humanity incrementally, with each revelation adding information not previously known or understood. God reveals Himself progressively. Some PCers subscribe to the classic CT model where two covenants, the covenant of works and the covenant of grace, exist. I reject that premise.

I don't think that it is of major concern what one calls it as long as the understanding is correct concerning the relationship aspect of God and man that is initiated by God and is the way in which He established such a relationship between two parties, one of which is completely unique, other than, self existent, invisible, and eternal, and the other of which is a creature, finite, mortal flesh and blood, and yet is also made in the image and likeness of the One who created them. Since you say you are going to start another thread on PC, I will only address this portion of your post. I mostly agree with the rest of your post and the differences are insignificant and don't change any truth that I can see.

As to "covenant of works" and "covenant of grace" not being mentioned in Scripture, neither is the Trinity. I do not bring that up in an argumentative way but just to point out just as the Trinity is clearly seen in Scripture, but not named, so too the distinct (rather than different) covenants. It is necessary at times for humanity to name things so as to encompass the reality.

The covenant or covenants do not need to be named as works or grace, but they do exist in the scripture as two types of covenants, even though I agree with you that there is only one covenant, the covenant of redemption which was before creation with Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, as that covenant progresses, it has parts that are distinct. This is among other things, a teaching tool and it teaches those things we would never know unless God revealed them in the way that he did. There had to be a Law, and a curse of the Law revealed in order for Jesus to fulfill the Law and law, die as though He were the sinner and not us, obtaining propitiation for us, and destroy once and for all the power His enemies have over His people. He is doing more than just redeeming mankind, but through mankind (the creature that fell) destroying forever His enemy in the unseen world. So, in a discussion of covenants it is helpful to distinguish them. In that way we learn of our required obedience to and faith in God, which as you say, is mandatory with or without covenant, simply by our being created by Him and in His image and likeness. I believe I pointed that out in the OP, as well as there being really one covenant with distinct progressive parts, but it was a while ago I posted it and I did not go back and reread it.

The main thrust of the OP was to present covenant as a relational means of God establishing a personal, intimate. relationship with mankind. It is not a doctrine of any ism but an interpretive framework. And the purpose of presenting a covenantal relationship that only God can initiate, (monergistic) in this way is to show how very individual and intimate God's relationship with His people is. And to recognize the covenant language in the OT and see from that that that language is not universal, but is covenantal. That is how He is with His covenant people. And in that too is the knowledge should any bother to consider it, that never, ever, does God ever ask anyone if they want to come into covenant with Him.

 

[makesends]

I subscribe to a form of Covenant Theology (CT) known as "Progressive Covenantalism."* The basic premise of PC is that there is only one covenant, and that covenant is with the Father and the Son, not primarily between God and an individual man or group of men. This covenant is revealed to humanity incrementally, with each revelation adding information not previously known or understood. God reveals Himself progressively. Some PCers subscribe to the classic CT model where two covenants, the covenant of works and the covenant of grace, exist. I reject that premise.

The chief reason I reject that premise is because neither term is found in scripture. This is more so with the "covenant of works" than with a "covenant of grace" because scripture does speak indirectly about grace as intrinsic part of God's covenant (especially from the soteriological monergist pov), so the inferences are not difficulty to create. The problem is I'd prefer to stick with scripture exactly as written as much as possible and there isn't any reason to create theological constructs such as COW or COG. Along with the silence of scripture regarding these two extra-biblical constructs is the fact the Genesis account never calls what God said a covenant. I believe a covenant can be inferred and readily and easily so, but the ease of the inference is not proof of validity. However, because the criteria for a covenant exist in Eden I will, for the sake of this thread concede the existence of a covenant involving God, Adam, and Eve.

Like all covenants initiated by God involving humanity, it is a covenant initiated by God based solely on God's will, purpose, and action. Like all covenants initiated by God involving humanity He chose the participants, and He did so without asking any human if they wanted to be chosen, selected, or elected. Like all the covenants... God called the participants He'd chosen and He called them without asking any of them if they wanted to be called. Like all the covenants... God then commanded them, and He commanded them without asking if they wanted to be commanded and with an expectation of obedience. The main point I am making is that all of these aspects are monergistic, not synergistic. It is only after all I just listed has occurred that any human covenant participant is ever offered any choice. All of this is evident in Eden.

All monergism occurs solely by grace. God does not have to act, and He does not have to act (or think, or will, or purpose) in any particular way, especially not in any way He doesn't want to act. He acts as He pleases and as far as humanity goes it is ALL by grace and grace alone.

The above is very important to understand because God does expect action, or work, from those He commands. He expects obedience. Obedience is work. In NT terms, faith begets faithfulness, and there has never been a point anywhere in creation where the righteous were not supposed to live by faith. This is just as true of Adam and Eve as it is Cain and Abel, Abraham and Lot, Jacob and Esau, Pharoah and Moses, Ahab and Elijah, Herod and John, and everyone else in the Bible. It even applies to those outside the covenant! God expects to be honored by all. However, after Genesis 3:6-7 the only reason anyone exists is because of divine grace. My point here is that an expectation works will be performed is not absent, but it is not a separate covenant.


Most important relevant to this op, however, is the fact of the tree of life. That exist by grace. No matter what else Adam and Eve did or did not do the tree of life was there for them and it was there for them by grace and grace alone. Some have argued it was a reward for good work or good performance but that is a complete falsehood, proven incorrect by God's statement A&E were free to eat from any tree in the garden except the forbidden one (Gen 2:16-17). Later in scripture we learn that the tree of life is Jesus or perhaps, more specifically, the resurrection (which may be a difference without distinction since Jesus is the resurrection). Much later in scripture, when Abraham has his vision of the covenant God has initiated involving him, he sees the symbols of God (smoke and fire) walking through a description of a suzerain covenant. in this vision the symbols of God proceed through the halved carcasses pledging fealty to God - God pledging fealty to God. Abraham is not the one walking through the sundered meat! Due to Paul's writings we know that covenant was made with Abraham and Jesus. Through Luke and Peter's writings we know the role Jesus would play was foreknown before any human had been created.

All of it decided before a single atom was spoken into existence and all of it revealed to us incrementally in increasing revelation until we reach the other side of resurrection and know all.



I am posting this just so everyone knows it is possible to subscribe to Covenant Theology without also subscribing to a covenant of works. I post this because if you disagree with the op it does not mean you're not a covenantalist. I post that last statement because everyone here knows my disdain for Dispensationalism and my similar criticism Dispensationalism makes up stuff nowhere found in scripture. Just as there is no mention of "covenant of works," scripture never labels the assumed errors as dispensations but it does label them with the term covenant. It's not okay to make up stuff without some degree of actual statement from scripture, imo.

I will repost this in a separate op so this op doesn't get highjacked by comment inquiry from this post. Don't expect me to explain this post here. @Arial can field any op-relevant inquiries, asserting, explaining and defending the covenant of works as she sees fit.

Grace.

All of creation exists grace, it existed by grace before a single work was required, and it is only by grace any work was commanded, expected, and/or enabled.













*For those with an interest the writings and videos of Stephen Wellum are a good introduction to CP.
.

Thank you, brother. Beautifully said.

All by grace, all of it the work of God.