The Law is NOT the Covenant of Works

Status
Not open for further replies.

Justified

Puritan Board Sophomore
From Complete Works of Thomas Boston, Volume 11 A View of the Covenant of Works, pg. 192
This law [the natural law] was afterwards incorporated into the covenant of works, and was the chief matter of it. I say, afterwards; for the covenant of works is not so ancient as the natural law. The natural law was in being when there was no covenant of works; for the former was given to man in his creation, without paradise; the latter was made with him after he was brought into paradise, Gen. ii. 7, 8, 15, 16, 17. The natural law had no promise of eternal life; for God might have annihilated his creature, though he had not sinned, till once the covenant of works was made. But then God put the natural law a a promise of eternal life, and a threatening of death, and so it became a covenant of works.
Emphasis mine.
 

TheOldCourse

Puritan Board Sophomore
Better for the thread's title to read "The Natural Law Incorporated into the Covenant of Works", no? ;)
Probably, but I thought that this would be a more provocative, polemical title! ;)
Polemical against who? Do people actually argue the total equivalence of the Law and the Covenant of Works? I'm not sure I've seen that though I don't really keep abreast of a lot of the contemporary covenant revisionism.
 

Justified

Puritan Board Sophomore
Better for the thread's title to read "The Natural Law Incorporated into the Covenant of Works", no? ;)
Probably, but I thought that this would be a more provocative, polemical title! ;)
Polemical against who? Do people actually argue the total equivalence of the Law and the Covenant of Works? I'm not sure I've seen that though I don't really keep abreast of a lot of the contemporary covenant revisionism.
Some Klineans. They believe that man by his very creation in the image of God is in a covenant of works. While it is partially polemical, my Klinean brothers are still dear brothers and sisters in Christ.
 

TheOldCourse

Puritan Board Sophomore
Better for the thread's title to read "The Natural Law Incorporated into the Covenant of Works", no? ;)
Probably, but I thought that this would be a more provocative, polemical title! ;)
Polemical against who? Do people actually argue the total equivalence of the Law and the Covenant of Works? I'm not sure I've seen that though I don't really keep abreast of a lot of the contemporary covenant revisionism.
Some Klineans. They believe that man by his very creation in the image of God is in a covenant of works. While it is partially polemical, my Klinean brothers are still dear brothers and sisters in Christ.
Oh right, I remember coming across that now that you mention it--it's been a long time since I've read any Kline. Wouldn't they still see a categorical distinction between the moral law and the covenant of works even if they don't see a temporal distinction in that the law requires cursings and blessings to be annexed to it to comprise a covenant? Or are those things so intrinsically connected in their eyes that one cannot be abstracted from the other?
 

Justified

Puritan Board Sophomore
Better for the thread's title to read "The Natural Law Incorporated into the Covenant of Works", no? ;)
Probably, but I thought that this would be a more provocative, polemical title! ;)
Polemical against who? Do people actually argue the total equivalence of the Law and the Covenant of Works? I'm not sure I've seen that though I don't really keep abreast of a lot of the contemporary covenant revisionism.
Some Klineans. They believe that man by his very creation in the image of God is in a covenant of works. While it is partially polemical, my Klinean brothers are still dear brothers and sisters in Christ.
Oh right, I remember coming across that now that you mention it--it's been a long time since I've read any Kline. Wouldn't they still see a categorical distinction between the moral law and the covenant of works even if they don't see a temporal distinction in that the law requires cursings and blessings to be annexed to it to comprise a covenant? Or are those things so intrinsically connected in their eyes that one cannot be abstracted from the other?
You're right. Most of them still recognize a distinction between the two, such that most, like Scott Clark, still recognize the normative use of the law. Nevertheless, their close association of the two lead to errors in the law-gospel distinction and their overall view of the law.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top