Arial said:
If There is No Covenant of Works What Then?
And I answered that specific question. The answer is grace.
Would you say that without the Covenant of Works, there would be no Law; or no Law written on our Hearts?
I consider that question to be begging the question. You are treating as a given something in need of being proved. Doing so also created a false dichotomy ignoring the possibility of works being part of any covenant monergistically established by grace.
In my op reply I stated there are only two plural uses of the word "
covenants" The fact is there are actually four mentions but two of them have nothing to do with God's covenant.
Hosea 10:3-5
Surely now they will say, "We have no king, For we do not revere the LORD. As for the king, what can he do for us?" They speak mere words, with worthless oaths they make covenants; and judgment sprouts like poisonous weeds in the furrows of the field. The inhabitants of Samaria will fear for the calf of Beth-aven. Indeed, its people will mourn for it, and its idolatrous priests will cry out over it, over its glory, since it has departed from it.
Galatians 4:21-26
Tell me, you who want to be under law, do you not listen to the law? For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the bondwoman and one by the free woman. But the son by the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and the son by the free woman through the promise. This is allegorically speaking, for these women are two covenants: one proceeding from Mount Sinai bearing children who are to be slaves; she is Hagar. Now this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. But the Jerusalem above is free; she is our mother.
Some folks invent their own covenant and other covenants are simply antitheses of the covenant God established. In the Galatians case we all know the flesh is worthless. It merits nothing. Its works are worthless.
But that does not apply to faith begetting faithfulness. Neither of the above texts are relevant. I covered all the monergistic "first steps" made by God and on numerous occasions I have pointed out how circumcision was required decades AFTER the covenant initiated and the choice Joshua demands came centuries after that same covenant was initiated - and that is if we assume the covenant started with Abraham. It did not.
I am not saying works are irrelevant. I am simply saying a separate covenant specifically of works is dubious and unnecessary given the entirety of scripture.
No Law for Adam to Break for us; and no Law for Christ to Keep for Us?
Again, I consider the question itself flawed. It's a red herring that can be asked only if the question-begging assumption of a works covenant is accepted a priori.
- God made Adam. Adam did not ask to be made. God made Adam because God wanted people made in his image who were incorruptible and immortal. Adam was neither. That was intentional, not a mistake on God's part.
- Unless Adam was going to sit in Eden doing nothing until he died of inertia he was always going to have to do something. "Works" are inherent. No additional, separate, or special covenant is needed fr works to exist.
- That works were assigned and works were prohibited is not exhaustive. A vast array of works was going to occur, many required but not specified. The two specific assignments were 1) be fruitful, multiply, subdue the earth and rule over it (given as a blessing) and 2) do not eat the fruit from the tree in the middle of the garden. These to commands can be reduced into a single command: Do not disobey Me or you die. Obedience is just as much a work as disobedience. While I admit taking some liberty with this next statement I will venture to say this "Don't disobey or you die" is to what Paul is referring when he mentions the "law of sin and death." If you sin you die. Period. Forever. Unless God intervenes.
- God did intervene, but His intervention was not a radical departure from His original plan and purpose creating creation. Adam and Eve were always going to die and if not they were always going to need the tree of life. We know they were mortal because the threat of dying would be meaningless to an immortal creature not subject to death. We also, therefore, know they were always in need of the tree of life and that tree was there all along, there for their consumption anytime they so choose. All they had to do was partake. The tree was there by grace and they had been brought to it and told it was the tree of life knowing they were mortal. It was not planted after they disobeyed God. After they disobeyed God they were prevented from partaking until a previously appointed time. Jesus was coming whether Adam ate the forbidden kiwi or not.
So pining Law on sin before sin exists begs the question and assumes things not in evidence. The COW doctrine does not prove its evidence; it assumes the evidence based on inference.
Furthermore, the matter of "no Law for Christ to Keep for Us" it's a curious question because the capitalized letters betray a bias, and the Law was not made for Jesus. Neither was Jesus made for the Law. On top of that the question runs the risk of compromising Christ's impeccability if the question is intended to imply Jesus might not have kept the Law. It's also a curious question if by capital-L Law you mean the Law of Moses because the Law of Moses did not exist in Eden, and in some ways the Law of Moses is irreconcilable with the liberties given in Eden. In other words,
as written, that question is very messed up. It is not how theology should be done if doctrine is supposed to emphasize what is plainly stated over that which might be implied.
Let me ask you a question. Do you think we, the regenerate in Christ, will sin on the other side of the grave?
