Thread: Differing Views of The Covenant

Originally Posted by PuritanCovenanter

Originally Posted by Christusregnat

Is the promise of blessing to those that keep the 5th Cmd a covenant of works? Do this, and be blessed (a modified version of "do this and live").

I think I have already answered this concerning the Mosaic in previous posts Adam.

I'm dense; do you mind answering this question again?

Is the promise of blessing to those that keep the 5th Cmd a covenant of works?

Randy,
I don't think I can add anything further for clarity at this time. Since I'm not speaking along the same lines as Adam, I'm going to avoid interfering with your discussion.

I think clear penetration to the heart of 2Cor3, esp vv7-18, along with Paul's subsequent conclusions of 4:1-7 is key to understanding the main issue. The difference between Moses' covenant and Christ's is the kind of "glory" each one exhibits, and not what is "beneath Moses' veil," that is to say identical.

I think that since Adam and his posterity would have been saved by Adam's keeping of the law, if the Covenant of Works is reflected in the Mosaic Covenant in any way, "Republication of the Covenant of Works" is too strong a terminology.

God knew that no-one in Israel could save themselves by their works, nor that Israel collectively could save herself. They had to be saved by grace. Both the individual Israelites and the Israelite nation could only be saved by God's grace, and not by works.

If there is an administrative teaching aspect to the Mosaic Covenant that harks back to the Garden, for the ordinary Israelite it wasn't and couldn't have been a true Republication of the Covenant of Works or God would just have been mocking them.

There may have been a pale reflection of the Covenant with Adam in the Garden, respecting Israel collectively, in order, as well as to teach the Israelites to behave, and to look to the grace of God in the sacrifices for salvation, also to adumbrate that the true salvation that God would send would not only come in the form of a New Moses, Joshua and David, but also in the form of a New Adam.

If this idea has any traction it may be better calling it "An Analogy of the Covenant of Works in Anticipation of the Last Adam"; "A Harking Back to the Covenant of Works in Administration in Anticipation of the Last Adam"; "A Pedagogical Works Principle" (?)

The Covenant of Works was "Republished" for Christ, He was in and under the law and in and under the Covenant of Works, and He kept it perfectly for believers who lived under the Old Covenant admin, and believers who live under the New Covenant admin.

The Covenant of Works couldn't have been republished for any individual Israelite, because no individual Israelite could keep it, and thankfully God doesn't mock His people. The Covenant of Works couldn't be republished for the whole Israelite nation, because the whole Israelite nation could not render perfect obedience either.

Only Christ could render perfect obedience to the Covenant of Works for Himself and for every true Israelite who ever lived or will live.

It is standard Covenant Theology that the Covenant of Works remains in place for the unbeliever, and that if they are to be saved by it they have to render perfect obedience. The unbeliever is effectively in the Covenant of Works, and that is why if any thought is given to salvation by the unbeliever it is in terms of the Covenant of Works.

It is also standard Covenant Theology that Christ has kept the Covenant of Works perfectly for His true people, and that when they enter the life of the Covenant of Grace by faith, they realise that He has done this for them.

According to the book "The Law is not of Faith" there are, historically, fourteen views of what "Republication" means!

Richard. You made some very good points. My Thanks button is all used up.

The Covenant of Works couldn't have been republished for any individual Israelite, because no individual Israelite could keep it, and thankfully God doesn't mock His people. The Covenant of Works couldn't be republished for the whole Israelite nation, because the whole Israelite nation could not render perfect obedience either.

I disagree with some of it obviously but just thought I would quickly post on this one topic and on the highlighted portion above. God commands everyman everywhere to repent. Is that mocking men who are not elect?

(Act 17:29) Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.

(Act 17:30) And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:

(Act 17:31) Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.

(Act 26:19) Whereupon, O king Agrippa, I was not disobedient unto the heavenly vision:

(Act 26:20) But shewed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judaea, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance.

(Act 26:21) For these causes the Jews caught me in the temple, and went about to kill me.

Originally Posted by PuritanCovenanter

God commands everyman everywhere to repent. Is that mocking men who are not elect?

You might find the following points made by Augustine to be helpful:

Originally Posted by Augustine

“Again,” he says, “we have to inquire whether man is commanded to be without sin; for either he is not able, and then he is not commanded; or else because he is commanded, he is able. For why should that be commanded which cannot at all be done?” The answer is, that man is most wisely commanded to walk with right steps, on purpose that, when he has discovered his own inability to do even this, he may seek the remedy which is provided for the inward man to cure the lameness of sin, even the grace of God, through our Lord Jesus Christ.

...

“It is certain that we keep the commandments if we will; but because the will is prepared by the Lord, we must ask of Him for such a force of will as suffices to make us act by the willing. It is certain that it is we that will when we will, but it is He who makes us will what is good, of whom it is said (as he has just now expressed it), “The will is prepared by the Lord.” Of the same Lord it is said, “The steps of a man are ordered by the Lord, and his way doth He will.” Of the same Lord again it is said, “It is God who worketh in you, even to will!” It is certain that it is we that act when we act; but it is He who makes us act, by applying efficacious powers to our will, who has said, “I will make you to walk in my statutes, and to observe my judgments, and to do them.” When he says, “I will make you . . . to do them,” what else does He say in fact than, “I will take away from you your heart of stone,” from which used to arise your inability to act, “and I will give you a heart of flesh,” in order that you may act? And what does this promise amount to but this: I will remove your hard heart, out of which you did not act, and I will give you an obedient heart, out of which you shall act? It is He who causes us to act, to whom the human suppliant says, “Set a watch, O Lord, before my mouth.” That is to say: Make or enable me, O Lord, to set a watch before my mouth – a benefit which he had already obtained from God who thus described its influence: “I set a watch upon my mouth.””

Todd had this on his blog.....

In Principio ... Deus: Marrow Theology: Republication of the Covenant of Works, part I

"Nomista: But, sir, were the children of Israel at this time better able to perform the condition of the covenant of works, than either Adam or any of the old patriarchs were, that God renewed it now with them, rather than before?

Evangelista: No, indeed; God did not renew it with them now, and not before, because they were better able to keep it, but because they had more need to be made acquainted what the covenant of works is, than those before... So that you see the Lord's intention therein was, that they, by looking upon this covenant might be put in mind what was their duty of old, when they were in Adam's loins; yea, and what was their duty still, if they would stand to that covenant, and so go the old and natural way to work; yea, and hereby they were also to see what was their present infirmity in not doing their duty: that so they seeing an impossibility of obtaining life by that way of works, first appointed in paradise, they might be humbled, and more heedfully mind the promise made to their father Abraham, and hasten to lay hold on the Messiah, or promised seed.

Nomista: Then, sir, it seems that the Lord did not renew the covenant of works with them, to the intent that they should obtain eternal life by their yielding obedience to it?

Evangelista: No, indeed; God never made the covenant of works with any man since the fall, either with expectation that he should fulfil it, or to give him life by it; for God never appoints any thing to an end, to the which it is utterly unsuitable and improper. Now the law, as it is the covenant of works, is become weak and unprofitable to the purpose of salvation; and, therefore, God never appointed it to man, since the fall, to that end. And besides, it is manifest that the purpose of God, in the covenant made with Abraham, was to give life and salvation by grace and promise; and, therefore, his purpose in renewing the covenant of works, was not, neither could be, to give life and salvation by working; for then there would have been contradictions in the covenants, and instability in him that made them. Wherefore let no man imagine that God published the covenant of works on Mount Sinai, as though he had been mutable, and so changed his determination in that covenant made with Abraham; neither, yet let any man suppose, that God now in process of time had found out a better way for man's salvation than he knew before: for, as the covenant of grace made with Abraham had been needless, if the covenant of works made with Adam would have given him and his believing seed life; so, after the covenant of grace was once made, it was needless to renew the covenant of works, to the end that righteousness of life should be had by the observation of it. The which will yet more evidently appear, if we consider, that the apostle, speaking of the covenant of works as it was given on Mount Sinai, says, "It was added because of transgressions," (Gal 3:19). It was not set up as a solid rule of righteousness, as it was given to Adam in paradise, but was added or put to;* it was not set up as a thing in gross by itself." (pp. 61-63, The Marrow of Modern Divinity)

The footnote indicated at the * is an important restatement by Boston, in which he writes,

"It was not set up by itself as an entire rule of righteousness, to which alone they were to look who desired righteousness and salvation, as it was in the case of upright Adam, "For no man, since the fall, can attain to righteousness and life by the moral law," Lar. Cat. quest. 94. But it was added to the covenant of grace, that by looking at it men might see what kind of righteousness it is by which they can be justified in the sight of God; and that by means thereof, finding themselves destitute of that righteousness, they might be moved to embrace the covenant of grace, in which that righteousness is held forth to be received by faith. (p. 63, footnote, The Marrow of Modern Divinity)

And here is Pastor Michael Brown's blog on John Owen. I referenced him earlier in the thread because he wrote an article on John Owen and the Republication of the Covenant of Works in Moses.

pilgrim people-christ urc-reformed - the latest post - Owen on the MosaicCovenant

I still hold to a position that the Covenant of Works stands alone along side the Covenant of Grace due to the fact that the non Elect of Isreal were still under the Covenant of Works as much as the Elect of National Isreal were set apart in the Covenant of Grace which is also administered in Moses. Both of these covenants existed way before Abraham and Moses. They are administered and progressively revealed in the following Covenants that administer them.

I've been reading Michael Horton's "Introduction to Covenant Theology" and am now almost at the end of the section on 'The Covenant of Creation (Works)'.

It seems that the prelapsarian covenant that God made with Adam was predicated upon a "Do This and You Shall Live" paradigm that takes into account Adam's ability to carry out the stipulations of the covenant. If Adam did not fall, God would have kept His end of the bargain by allowing Adam to continually partake of the Tree of Life and live in His Sabbath rest perpetually. The nature of this covenant was not gracious because, as stated, Adam had the ability to not default (grace is operative only in the presence of sin). Of course, God decreed the subsequent eventualities, and any postlapsarian covenant that God makes with man must now necessarily entail grace as radical depravity has seeped into human genetics.

The republication of the covenant of works in Sinai carries with it the same paradigm as the prior Adamic covenant, but the benefit to be derived from stipulation-fulfillment would be a theocratic geopolitical identity, which is a type of the eternal Sabbath rest stipulated in the prior covenant, with the substance realized in Christ in the new. The Sinaitic covenant was republished in order to pave the way for national Israel to bring forth the seed that was to crush the serpent's head and does not promise salvation from sin and the wrath of God. Those under the Sinaitic covenant entered the eternal Sabbath rest (salvation) the same way everyone does—by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone—hence the covenant of grace was already operative then, and even in Eden through the protoevangelium, though the Adamic and Sinaitic covenants were themselves not gracious in nature.

Warren,
It seems to me that your view (or properly, Horton's view as you have presented it?) comes down to that final statement, "the Adamic and Sinaitic covenants were themselves not gracious in nature."

Somehow, this view has to be reconciled with the WCF's statement (ch7) regarding the Covenant of Grace,

5. This covenant was differently administered in the time of the law, and in the time of the gospel: under the law, it was administered by promises, prophecies, sacrifices, circumcision, the paschal lamb, and other types and ordinances delivered to the people of the Jews, all foresignifying Christ to come; which were, for that time, sufficient and efficacious, through the operation of the Spirit, to instruct and build up the elect in faith in the promised Messiah, by whom they had full remission of sins, and eternal salvation; and is called the old testament.

So, the NATURE of the Siniatic Covenant (called the Old Testament/Old Covenant) must be understood as gracious, when it is correctly perceived, that is to say according to it's nature.

Rev. Winzer and I have have made this point already in other threads (some old, some recent) but the interpretation of Horton/Kline presented only bears it out further: that if the Sinai covenant proper is assigned a single Nature according to Work, then this amounts to the creation of TWO covenants, side by side, rather than a single covenant having two aspects, or two layers.

Frankly, this view seems problematic for any committment to mainstream, historic covenant-theology, although (paradoxically, IMO) it contribues to the distinctly baptistic covenant-theology, which starting in the 17th century (with English separatist Baptists) has posited this very bi-furcation of covenant going back to Abraham.

We can compare this contention regarding the Nature of the Siniatic covenant to the contentions over the Natures of the one Christ, human and divine. Saying that the Siniatic covenant is of the Nature (singular) of Work, is to say that there is a side-by-side Covenant having the Nature of Grace operating alongside the Siniatic. Perhaps Horton would call this the Abrahamic Covenant. But like Christ's essence is one but with two natures, some category must be the essence of human relation to God (higher or deeper than covenant), within which is found covenants having different natures. But again the WCF.7 is precise:

1. The distance between God and the creature is so great, that although reasonable creatures do owe obedience unto him as their Creator, yet they could never have any fruition of him as their blessedness and reward, but by some voluntary condescension on God's part, which he hath been pleased to express by way of covenant.

No overarching category is proposed in which to contain "covenant". Covenant is it, and we are either in one kind (Work) or the other (Grace).

But should an Abrahamic-[gap]-Siniatic apprehension of the Old Testament be reckoned the true manner of expressing the Covenant of Grace? How can we then say (if this dual-model is adopted) that the CoG was administered via the Siniatic construction? I contend that it must therefore be erroneous to place Moses alongside Abraham, or "offset" to Abraham (subordinate in rank, but separate).

Better by far to say that the Nature of the Siniatic Covenant is according to all such divine-human arrangements since the fall, namely according to Grace. But that the "external-administration" of the Covenant is (in the glory, and in its basic presentation) according to Work.

This view falls right in line with historic covenant-theology, which has repeatedly affirmed a single covenant having a two-fold administration: one inward according to the Spirit, and one outward according to the appearance. The latter will always have some measure (greater or less) of Law in its conduct, because men must judge mainly by the visible obedience of other men, since they are not heart-lookers.

The external adminstration of the Siniatic Covenant emphasized Work over Grace as abstracted from the Sacrificial system. Now the Sacrificial/Ceremonial aspects of the Law were themselves encrusted with "glory" (Work), which gave the whole cast of Israelite life-under-the-Law a laborious hue. But the gracious purpose of it was to drive men to the atoning/forgiving grace found in heart-religion, in the internal adminstration.

In a real sense the Covenant of Works could only be really issued to Christ because God knew that only He could keep it.

If God presented the Covenant of Works/ the law as a means to life, either to individual Israelites at Sinai, or to Israel collectively, it couldn't have been with the intention that they would try to save themselves that way, because for them to attempt to do that would be sinful. If God did this at Sinai - as the Republicationists say - then it must have only been in the sense that Jesus did it with the Rich Young Ruler; to impress on their hearts that they must be saved by grace.

Christ was the Covenant Head, Guarantor/Surety of the Covenant. As such He had to come from among the Covenant people. Christ was the Israelite par excellence and the Christian par excellence that fulfilled the Covenant of Works on the behalf of all true Israelites/Christians, thus meaning that all true Israelites/Christians under the Old and New Covenant Administrations (and under the Patriarchal Administration, the Fall to Moses) could enjoy salvations on condition of faith by unconditional grace.

Christ is the mediator. Messiah the Prince.

Quote from Randy

Originally Posted by PuritanCovenanter

Richard. You made some very good points. My Thanks button is all used up.

The Covenant of Works couldn't have been republished for any individual Israelite, because no individual Israelite could keep it, and thankfully God doesn't mock His people. The Covenant of Works couldn't be republished for the whole Israelite nation, because the whole Israelite nation could not render perfect obedience either.

I disagree with some of it obviously but just thought I would quickly post on this one topic and on the highlighted portion above. God commands everyman everywhere to repent. Is that mocking men who are not elect?

No because it's their own fault if they don't believe after hearing the Gospel even if they're not elect. The problem's in their will and is moral. Therefore they are fully responsible.

But if God was asking the Israelites to get to Heaven by perfect obedience, which the Covenant of Works with Adam really was, then He would have been mocking them. He would also be asking them to try something sinful.

I know that the Republicationists say that this is not what they're saying. Well if that's the case they should find another name for the doctrine, because "the Republication of the Covenant of Works" (to Israel at Sinai) sounds like what it says and is therefore utterly confusing, even for people who have some understanding of CT and believe that Adam was in the Covenant of Works.

I think they may be getting at something, because the Land of Israel was a bit like another Eden, and the Tabernacle guarded by it's cherubim, reflected aspects of Eden. Christ - the Last Adam - was the only Israelite that could fulfill the Covenant of Works on behalf of all true Israelites.

Now the whole Earth is Eden and those unbelievers who are outwardly in Covenant with God, may be cast out of the Covenant of Grace, into Hell if they don't meet the condition of the Covenant of Grace, which is faith.

But I doubt that "Republication" may have the import, of recasting e.g. Murray's Covenant Theology, many are ascribing to it. Anyway there are fourteen different views, some much less radical than others.

I'll get back to the book.

I find it quite interesting that Herman Witsius in his The Decalogue: Covenant of Works or Covenant of Grace, states that it was "formally neither the one nor the other."

What was it then? It was a national covenant between God and Israel, whereby Israel promised to God a sincere obedience to all his precepts, especially to the ten words; God, on the other hand, promised to Israel, that such an observance would be acceptable to him, nor want its reward, both in this life, and in that which is to come, both as to soul and body. This reciprocal promise supposed a covenant of grace. For, without the assistance of the covenant Of grace, man cannot sincerely promise that observance; and yet that an imperfect observance should be acceptable to God is wholly owing to the covenant of grace, It also supposed the doctrine of the covenant of works, the terror or which being increased by those tremendous signs that attended it, they ought to have been excited to embrace that covenant of God. This agreement therefore is a consequent both of the covenant of grace and of works; but was formally neither the one nor the other. A like agreement and renewal of the covenant between God and the pious is frequent; both national and individual. Of the former see Josh. xxiv. 22. 2 Chron. xv. 12. 2 Kings xxiii. 3. Neh. x. 29. Of the latter, Psal. cxix. 106. It is certain, that in the passages we have named, mention is made of some covenant between God and his people. If any should ask me, of what kind, whether of works or of grace? I shall answer, it is formally neither: but a covenant of sincere piety, which supposes both.

Originally Posted by WAWICRUZ

I've been reading Michael Horton's "Introduction to Covenant Theology" and am now almost at the end of the section on 'The Covenant of Creation (Works)'.

It seems that the prelapsarian covenant that God made with Adam was predicated upon a "Do This and You Shall Live" paradigm that takes into account Adam's ability to carry out the stipulations of the covenant. If Adam did not fall, God would have kept His end of the bargain by allowing Adam to continually partake of the Tree of Life and live in His Sabbath rest perpetually. The nature of this covenant was not gracious because, as stated, Adam had the ability to not default (grace is operative only in the presence of sin). Of course, God decreed the subsequent eventualities, and any postlapsarian covenant that God makes with man must now necessarily entail grace as radical depravity has seeped into human genetics.

The republication of the covenant of works in Sinai carries with it the same paradigm as the prior Adamic covenant, but the benefit to be derived from stipulation-fulfillment would be a theocratic geopolitical identity, which is a type of the eternal Sabbath rest stipulated in the prior covenant, with the substance realized in Christ in the new. The Sinaitic covenant was republished in order to pave the way for national Israel to bring forth the seed that was to crush the serpent's head and does not promise salvation from sin and the wrath of God. Those under the Sinaitic covenant entered the eternal Sabbath rest (salvation) the same way everyone does—by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone—hence the covenant of grace was already operative then, and even in Eden through the protoevangelium, though the Adamic and Sinaitic covenants were themselves not gracious in nature.

Warren, you sound radically confused.

There is one Covenant of Grace in various administrations from the protoevangelium to the end of time, by which people were and are saved on condition of faith which is produced in the individual by unconditional and irresistable grace.

I've never read Mike Horton. Try reading John Murray on the Covenant of Grace and O. Palmer Robertson "The Christ of the Covenants."

From a post I made somewhere else.

Originally Posted by PuritanCovenanter

Herman Witsius

Rich Barcellos sent this to me when i asked about a reference for it.

The edition I have is den Dulk Christian Foundation distributed by P&R, reprinted 1990. Vol. II, p. 186, Witsius says of the Mosaic Cov.,

"It was a national covenant between God and Israel... [It] supposed a covenant of grace. ...It also supposed the doctrine of the covenant of works... This agreement therefore is a consequent both of the covenant of grace and of works; but was formally neither the one nor the other... If any should ask me, of what kind, whether of works or of grace? I shall answer, it is formally neither: but a covenant of sincere peity, which supposes both."

I believe the Mosaic is subservient to both the Covenants of Grace and Works.

This is the whole paragraph that is quoted in Witsius. It is the eight paragraph in the artlcle listed below.

The Decalogue:
Covenant of Works or Covenant of Grace
by Dr. Herman Witsius
Taken From "Economy of the Covenants", Pages 182ff

What was it then? It was a national covenant between God and Israel, whereby Israel promised to God a sincere obedience to all his precepts, especially to the ten words; God, on the other hand, promised to Israel, that such an observance would be acceptable to him, nor want its reward, both in this life, and in that which is to come, both as to soul and body. This reciprocal promise supposed a covenant of grace. For, without the assistance of the covenant Of grace, man cannot sincerely promise that observance; and yet that an imperfect observance should be acceptable to God is wholly owing to the covenant of grace, It also supposed the doctrine of the covenant of works, the terror or which being increased by those tremendous signs that attended it, they ought to have been excited to embrace that covenant of God. This agreement therefore is a consequent both of the covenant of grace and of works; but was formally neither the one nor the other. A like agreement and renewal of the covenant between God and the pious is frequent; both national and individual. Of the former see Josh. xxiv. 22. 2 Chron. xv. 12. 2 Kings xxiii. 3. Neh. x. 29. Of the latter, Psal. cxix. 106. It is certain, that in the passages we have named, mention is made of some covenant between God and his people. If any should ask me, of what kind, whether of works or of grace? I shall answer, it is formally neither: but a covenant of sincere piety, which supposes both.

The article is good...... I recommend giving it a read.
http://www.apuritansmind.com/Baptism...ueCovenant.htm

Originally Posted by Richard Tallach

Originally Posted by WAWICRUZ

I've been reading Michael Horton's "Introduction to Covenant Theology" and am now almost at the end of the section on 'The Covenant of Creation (Works)'.

It seems that the prelapsarian covenant that God made with Adam was predicated upon a "Do This and You Shall Live" paradigm that takes into account Adam's ability to carry out the stipulations of the covenant. If Adam did not fall, God would have kept His end of the bargain by allowing Adam to continually partake of the Tree of Life and live in His Sabbath rest perpetually. The nature of this covenant was not gracious because, as stated, Adam had the ability to not default (grace is operative only in the presence of sin). Of course, God decreed the subsequent eventualities, and any postlapsarian covenant that God makes with man must now necessarily entail grace as radical depravity has seeped into human genetics.

The republication of the covenant of works in Sinai carries with it the same paradigm as the prior Adamic covenant, but the benefit to be derived from stipulation-fulfillment would be a theocratic geopolitical identity, which is a type of the eternal Sabbath rest stipulated in the prior covenant, with the substance realized in Christ in the new. The Sinaitic covenant was republished in order to pave the way for national Israel to bring forth the seed that was to crush the serpent's head and does not promise salvation from sin and the wrath of God. Those under the Sinaitic covenant entered the eternal Sabbath rest (salvation) the same way everyone does—by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone—hence the covenant of grace was already operative then, and even in Eden through the protoevangelium, though the Adamic and Sinaitic covenants were themselves not gracious in nature.

Warren, you sound radically confused.

There is one Covenant of Grace in various administrations from the protoevangelium to the end of time, by which people were and are saved on condition of faith which is produced in the individual by unconditional and irresistable grace.

I've never read Mike Horton. Try reading John Murray on the Covenant of Grace and O. Palmer Robertson "The Christ of the Covenants."

Richard, can you objectively cite where in my post did I ever claim that there was a multiplicity of "Covenants of Grace"? In fact, cf. "Those under the Sinaitic covenant entered the eternal Sabbath rest (salvation) the same way everyone does—by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone".

Originally Posted by WAWICRUZ

Originally Posted by Richard Tallach

Originally Posted by WAWICRUZ

I've been reading Michael Horton's "Introduction to Covenant Theology" and am now almost at the end of the section on 'The Covenant of Creation (Works)'.

It seems that the prelapsarian covenant that God made with Adam was predicated upon a "Do This and You Shall Live" paradigm that takes into account Adam's ability to carry out the stipulations of the covenant. If Adam did not fall, God would have kept His end of the bargain by allowing Adam to continually partake of the Tree of Life and live in His Sabbath rest perpetually. The nature of this covenant was not gracious because, as stated, Adam had the ability to not default (grace is operative only in the presence of sin). Of course, God decreed the subsequent eventualities, and any postlapsarian covenant that God makes with man must now necessarily entail grace as radical depravity has seeped into human genetics.

The republication of the covenant of works in Sinai carries with it the same paradigm as the prior Adamic covenant, but the benefit to be derived from stipulation-fulfillment would be a theocratic geopolitical identity, which is a type of the eternal Sabbath rest stipulated in the prior covenant, with the substance realized in Christ in the new. The Sinaitic covenant was republished in order to pave the way for national Israel to bring forth the seed that was to crush the serpent's head and does not promise salvation from sin and the wrath of God. Those under the Sinaitic covenant entered the eternal Sabbath rest (salvation) the same way everyone does—by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone—hence the covenant of grace was already operative then, and even in Eden through the protoevangelium, though the Adamic and Sinaitic covenants were themselves not gracious in nature.

Warren, you sound radically confused.

There is one Covenant of Grace in various administrations from the protoevangelium to the end of time, by which people were and are saved on condition of faith which is produced in the individual by unconditional and irresistable grace.

I've never read Mike Horton. Try reading John Murray on the Covenant of Grace and O. Palmer Robertson "The Christ of the Covenants."

Richard, can you objectively cite where in my post did I ever claim that there was a multiplicity of "Covenants of Grace"? In fact, cf. "Those under the Sinaitic covenant entered the eternal Sabbath rest (salvation) the same way everyone does—by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone".

Sorry Warren, I was a bit brusque in saying you were "radically confused" . Please forgive me brother. I've never read Horton on CT.

Re one of your first points, If Adam had passed the period of probation, he would have thus purchased salvation for himself, Eve and his posterity. The Creation Mandate would have continued until completed and then Adam, Eve and their posterity would have entered the eschatalogical realm of incorruptible life, a new order in which work, rest, play and worship will be arranged differently to the Seven Day Week and Weekly Sabbath, which typify and point forward to that new order.

Adam and Eve were already resting in God as their Creator, Sustainer and Providential Governor from day to day. On the Sabbath Day they were invited to enter and enjoy worship and rest in God's rest from the work of creation in a special way.

Sin was transmitted to Adam's posterity by legal imputation because of the Covenant of Works, see e.g. John Murray, "The Imputation of Adam's Sin", thus resulting in radical depravity which no doubt affects our genetic propensity for certain sins. Sin/radical depravity wasn't transmitted genetically from Adam.

The Sinaitic Covenant must have been gracious as grace was portrayed in the ceremonial law that was instituted at Sinai. Maybe it had more and different conditions than the New Covenant, that we in our New Covenant liberty would find irksome (see the Apostle Peter's comment in Acts 15) but it was still gracious.

Maybe it also had a typological caste that harked back to Eden and also anticipated the New Covenant with its New Israel (the Church), New Land (the Earth) and New Adam (Christ). But it couldn't and shouldn't be called a RoCoW because the only way that Israel could have remained in the Land was by grace leading them to true faith and obedience and to live godly lives collectively.

The Sinaitic Covenant can't be the same paradigm as the CoW, but must be a gracious advance on the CoW which nevertheless reflects some elements of the pre-Fall situation. In turn, the New Covenant is a gracious advance on the Sinaitic Covenant which nevertheless reflects some elements of the pre-Fall situation.

I'm not sure what this means (?):-

but the benefit to be derived from stipulation-fulfillment would be a theocratic geopolitical identity, which is a type of the eternal Sabbath rest stipulated in the prior covenant, with the substance realized in Christ in the new.

Are you talking very hypothetically about what would have happened if Israel hadn't sinned and rejected Christ? It gets complicated!

The Sinaitic covenant was republished in order to pave the way for national Israel to bring forth the seed that was to crush the serpent's head and does not promise salvation from sin and the wrath of God.

But the ceremonial law was an inherent part of the Sinaitic Covenant, and did it not eloquently teach the Gospel of God's grace by penal substitutionary imputation? Also all sin was covered by the sacrifices of the ceremonial law but the grossest, most flagrant and most presumptious of the 10C, which were punished by physical death in the penal law, but not leading to eternal death if you were a believer.

Is that not a gracious advance on the CoW in which death was specified for the least infringement? I think that the Sinaitic Covenant is much more gracious for the Israelites, as it had to be to lead to the salvation of those who were already sinners, than the CoW, which did not involve salvation by grace.

For Christ Himself, of course, He had to "fulfill all righteousness" for Himself and us.

You can't mix salvation by works and grace. I believe that Sinai was a gracious covenant and not a RoCoW. Nevertheless, Sinai had elements and conditions that harked back to Eden and looked forward to the New Covenant and the Eschatalogical Realm while being tailored not for a sinless Adam who could save himself, but for a sinful people, that could only be saved by grace.

God didn't mock the Israelites by giving them things to do, that sinners can't do, like save themselves by works?

Sorry Warren, I was a bit brusque in saying you were "radically confused" . Please forgive me brother. I've never read Horton on CT.

It's no biggie, brother.

By the way, I believe I've addressed the issues you raise here on my post at the other thread.