The phrase "covenant of works" isn't in the Bible

[pastorway]

And I think all of the points we have been making present a clear biblical case for understanding it to be a specific contract God made with Adam in which there were defined guidelines and consequences, and in which Adam's obedience to those guidelines was the sole determination for those consequences, and in which his eventual disobedience was imputed to all men immediately rather than merely infused at their first sin.

but the Bible does not call it a covenant! The Scriptres mention many covenants by name. And while we may very well all agree on WHAT happened, and the disagreement may very well be semantics - it is important to build our theology on the Word of God. Every word inspired, not a letter wasted or out of place. And that inspired Word of God does not tell us that Adam and God were in a COVENANT of WORKS.

That may be the bottom line.

What does the Bible say?

Phillip

 

[Augusta]

Just call it Headship Theology. It in the Bible!! Men are heads of the family as Christ is head of the church. So Adam could be called head of the sin family. In Deuteronomy 32:8 calls the Israelites "sons of Adam." Oh...but that might be an inference.

Sorry, what am I doing in here??
[Edited on 6-21-2005 by Augusta]

[Edited on 6-21-2005 by Augusta]

 

[Puritan Sailor]

Originally posted by pastorway

And I think all of the points we have been making present a clear biblical case for understanding it to be a specific contract God made with Adam in which there were defined guidelines and consequences, and in which Adam's obedience to those guidelines was the sole determination for those consequences, and in which his eventual disobedience was imputed to all men immediately rather than merely infused at their first sin.

but the Bible does not call it a covenant! The Scriptres mention many covenants by name. And while we may very well all agree on WHAT happened, and the disagreement may very well be semantics - it is important to build our theology on the Word of God. Every word inspired, not a letter wasted or out of place. And that inspired Word of God does not tell us that Adam and God were in a COVENANT of WORKS.

That may be the bottom line.

What does the Bible say?

Phillip

Then I would repeat Scott's challenge. The word "Trinity" is found nowhere in Scripture. Not a letter wasted or out of place. Should we stop using that too? Or how about original sin? Total depravity? Limited atonement? Hypostatic union? The infallibility and inerrancy of Scripture? Not a letter wasted or out of place on these either correct?

I know you wold disagree with the extreme position I just laid out. We use the terms for convention. Words convey ideas and principles. Reformed theology has had these consistent words to describe these consistent principles for 400 years now. When there is no principle disagreement, then there whould be no reason to argue about words either so long as all know what we mean by them.

 

[RamistThomist]

To paraphrase Patrick,
If it looks like a duck and walks like a duck...
Seriously,
I have enjoyed the discussion.

 

[crhoades]

Could be a platypus, no?

 

[RamistThomist]

Originally posted by crhoades
Could be a platypus, no?

That's my guess

 

[doulosChristou]

Originally posted by puritansailor
Then I would repeat Scott's challenge. The word "Trinity" is found nowhere in Scripture. Not a letter wasted or out of place. Should we stop using that too?

I actually view that as a red-herring because it is a totally different issue. First off, "Trinity," as you say, is found nowhere in Scripture. "Covenant," on the other hand, is found throughout Scripture. Secondly, "Trinity" need not be called "Trinity." It could be called "FiSH" or something else. It is simply shorthand for five related Scriptural truths:

God is one God (Deut. 6:4), God the Father is God (John 6:27), God the Son is God (John 1:1, 14), God the Holy Spirit is God (Acts 5:3-4), and God is a triune God existing in three equal persons (Matt 28:19).

Notice how every single ingredient that is essential to the doctrine we have historically called "Trinity" is established plainly from texts of Scripture. No good and necessary inferences are required. We could drop the word altogether and spell out the doctrine by exegeting the above verses. Not so with the CoW. "Trinity" and "Covenant of Works" are apples and oranges.

 

[pastorway]

apples, oranges......what about the:



seriously, Greg just hit the nail on the head. We can determine many doctrines with absolutely no inferences, even though we use non-Biblical terminology to describe the truths. But when we come to the covenants behind covenant theology they are not named as covenants in the Bible and further, must be logically and necessarily inferred...often to support a system.

PW



[Edited on 6-21-05 by pastorway]

 

[Wannabee]

It don't look like a duck. It don't smell like a duck. Doggonit, it don't even quack!

Terms like "agreement" and "contract" do not fit the context. Adam wasn't made an offer. From the testimony of Scripture all we can know is that he was given one negative commandment, period. There are no clear positive commandments. You may eat of every tree. Adam named the animals. Is this a command? I would argue that it was a privilege of his status in creation. Did Adam have a choice? Of course not, but he didn't care. It wasn't work or toil, they were part of the curse.
If Adam hadn't sinned (a rhetorical impossibility) then he would have gone on living in his created condition. No gain, no loss. God didn't offer him a single thing he didn't already actively possess. All covenants give a promise for something better. So, I think you're right, it looks more like a platypus.

And yes, OT Israelites did have a better offer than pre-Fall Adam. Adam would never have had the opportunity to be glorified with Christ if not for the Fall. While the Fall makes men depraved, it also paved the way for men to receive the righteousness of Christ and be glorified with Him in heaven. Rather than Adam's condition (able to not sin), glorified men will not be able to sin. Yes, much better than Adam's created position.


To reiterate Greg's statement. Trinity is a non-biblical word used to describe a clearly biblical concept. The comparison is not valid. Covenant is a biblical term used throughout Scripture. The components are not all there. In order to see them one has to read certain aspects into the text.

Another argument that has been presented is history. CT points out the possible arrogance of going against 400 years of teaching. What about the previous 1600 years? What about semper reformata? Shall we sit on the theology of the majority of the reformers and consider the emitomy of theology achieved? The Anabaptists got a bad rap because of some bad eggs, and because the majority of the reformers, and the Catholic Church, cast them in such a bad light. Further study will reveal some incredible minds and great godliness that chose rather to follow their consciences as they were lead by the clear teaching of the Word of God than capitulate to the strongarm tactics of the religious authorities, reformed and Catholic alike.

[Edited on 6-21-2005 by Wannabee]

 

[Puritan Sailor]

Originally posted by doulosChristou

Originally posted by puritansailor
Then I would repeat Scott's challenge. The word "Trinity" is found nowhere in Scripture. Not a letter wasted or out of place. Should we stop using that too?

I actually view that as a red-herring because it is a totally different issue. First off, "Trinity," as you say, is found nowhere in Scripture. "Covenant," on the other hand, is found throughout Scripture. Secondly, "Trinity" need not be called "Trinity." It could be called "FiSH" or something else. It is simply shorthand for five related Scriptural truths:

God is one God (Deut. 6:4), God the Father is God (John 6:27), God the Son is God (John 1:1, 14), God the Holy Spirit is God (Acts 5:3-4), and God is a triune God existing in three equal persons (Matt 28:19).

Notice how every single ingredient that is essential to the doctrine we have historically called "Trinity" is established plainly from texts of Scripture. No good and necessary inferences are required. We could drop the word altogether and spell out the doctrine by exegeting the above verses. Not so with the CoW. "Trinity" and "Covenant of Works" are apples and oranges.

As we have pointed out already, the principles which embody the "Covenant of Works" are clearly there. You even agree to that. There's an arrangment of some sort which makes Adam a federal representative and provides a framework for teh imputation of sin based upon Adam's disobedience. You just refuse the term that the Reformed churches have used. Scripture doesn't call it a covenant supposedly? But Scripture doesn't call the Triune God a Trinity either. We have so many names for God in Scripture, but never a Trinity. How can you warrant that usage? Or how about "believers baptism"? How about "Congregational" church government, or all the other theological terms we use to describe biblical truth?

We all agree we use theological language as a convention, which will result in "new" terms not found in Scripture for short hand reference. Is your objection really about the words? Or is it about the principle behind them?

They may be apples and oranges and but their all fruit

 

[Me Died Blue]

to Patrick's comments.

Phillip, if we were to set aside the issue of semantics, do you then at least agree with the characteristics of the garden situation proposed by those of us advocating the so-called Covenant of Works, which are that 1) God made an agreement with Adam with guidelines and consequences, and that 2) Those consequences were solely dependant upon Adam's obedience to those guidelines, and that 3) Adam's disobedience to those guidelines counted as immediate representative disobedience on the part of every human that was to be brought forth in Adam?

If you do agree with those three characteristics of the garden situation, then the issue essentially is semantics. That is because we are simply referring to the first of those characteristics as a "covenant," referring to the second of those characteristics as "meritorious" or "works-based," and referring the third of those characteristics as "federal headship." Keeping with Packer's point, if you do not happen to like those terms, fine - but disagreeing with what they are used to convey is another thing. Do you agree with Packer's point?

Gregory, you say that the "Covenant of Works" and "Trinity" comparison is a non-sequitor because the characteristics of the latter don't require inference, whereas those of the former do. For one thing, if the inference can be shown to be good and necessary, I don't think that difference would matter. But even aside from that, without wanting to take issue with your example of the "Trinity" characteristics not requiring inference, what about Patrick's other example of "inerrancy"? Can you prove the inerrancy of our 66 books from Scripture without using inference in that proof? I also have the same question about "Limited Atonement" or "Particular Redemption."

 

[Me Died Blue]

Originally posted by Wannabee
Terms like "agreement" and "contract" do not fit the context. Adam wasn't made an offer.

What do you think of the comments I posted regarding this in my previous reply to you? If the government tells you that you will get a speeding ticket for going over 65, would you not also take that to be an offer of being free from the burden of speeding tickets if you stay under 65? Likewise, by God telling Adam that he will die if he eats of the one tree, was God not also telling Him in the same breath that He will have the reward of no death if he refrains from eating of it?

Now, it doesn't have to imply that by the laws of logic alone, since "If X, then Y," doesn't necessarily imply "If not X, then not Y." But we know that God does not judge people for violating a command He has not given them - thus, we know that since God only told Adam that he would die if he ate of the tree, we know that He was also telling him that he would live if he refrained from eating of it. So yes, Adam was made a positive offer.

Originally posted by Wannabee
From the testimony of Scripture all we can know is that he was given one negative commandment, period. There are no clear positive commandments. You may eat of every tree.

The positive commandment is, "You shall refrain from eating of this tree." What do you think of the comparison I made of obedience and works in my previous reply to you?

 

[Puritan Sailor]

Originally posted by Wannabee
Terms like "agreement" and "contract" do not fit the context. Adam wasn't made an offer. From the testimony of Scripture all we can know is that he was given one negative commandment, period. There are no clear positive commandments. You may eat of every tree. Adam named the animals. Is this a command? I would argue that it was a privilege of his status in creation. Did Adam have a choice? Of course not, but he didn't care. It wasn't work or toil, they were part of the curse.

Actually it fits the pattern of Middle Eastern covenants quite nicely, as a lord dictating the terms of the covenant to his vassal. If the vassal refused, he was simply wiped out. Of course Adam being upright and holy would have no problem accepting this covenant interposed by God.

There are different types of covenants. Those between equals, and those interposed by superiors upon inferiors.

So again, as I asked in a previous post, what's your definition of a covenant?

If Adam hadn't sinned (a rhetorical impossibility) then he would have gone on living in his created condition. No gain, no loss. God didn't offer him a single thing he didn't already actively possess. All covenants give a promise for something better. So, I think you're right, it looks more like a platypus.

How do you know it would be "no gain, no loss"? What grounds do you have for such an inference?

To reiterate Greg's statement. Trinity is a non-biblical word used to describe a clearly biblical concept. The comparison is not valid. Covenant is a biblical term used throughout Scripture. The components are not all there. In order to see them one has to read certain aspects into the text.

Which use of "covenant" in Scripture did you have in mind? There are several.

 

[Wannabee]

I'm not sure what you're referring to Chris. Is it this?

I was taken by surprise when you said you see a difference between obedience and works. What is the difference? In Scripture, what else constitutes good works except obedience to God's Law? When we say we reject any doctrine of salvation by works, are we not saying that we reject a system that would posit salvation by following the Law? If a Roman Catholic told you, "I don't believe in salvation by works, I believe in salvation by obedience," would you not accuse him of simply playing a meaningless word-game?

Also, I fail to see a principled difference between "do this and live" and "do the opposite of this and die." Adam was told that he would die if he ate the fruit of one tree; surely you would not claim that he might have died as a result of another act as well, would you? And if not, he had assurance that he would live as long as he did not eat of that tree. If the government tells you "if you go X miles per hour, you will get a speeding ticket," are they not also saying, "if you always stay under X miles per hour, you will have the reward of never getting a speeding ticket"? If Adam disobeyed, he would lose his life. Likewise, we see that he continued to have possession of that promised life as long as he obeyed.

I think I've made it pretty clear in the above post how I see a difference between obedience and works. By not committing adultery I am not producing good works. It really is that simple.
As for the Catholic question, I like it. I wouldn't assume he was talking of works righteousness, first-because he had just said that he didn't; second-because I don't perceive obedience as works, for the reasons I've already mentioned. I would have to explore what he meant, which, at this point, could be a whole host of things.

The point Chris, is that there is no referent to Adam having to do anything. There is not a positive commandment. You said, "You shall refrain from eating of this tree." That is a negative commandment. It is a restraint, not a command to do anything. This is at the heart of the difference between the condition in the Garden and biblical covenants.

Your speed limit analogy-of course it gives me free reign to drive up to that speed, however, it doesn't tell me I have to drive. It gives me permission to. This is a great example. There was no reward in life for Adam. He already had life. He already had eternal life. No, he wasn't glorified, but he was walking with the Lord and enjoyed a sinless life. Again, God didn't offer Adam a single thing. Adam had all he was going to have for eternity, if he didn't eat of the forbidden fruit.



Okay, now back to Patrick, then it's off to bed with me. It is not Scriptural to say that Adam accepted anything. There was no moral or covenantal choice to be made, other than not to eat of the one tree.

How do you know it would be "no gain, no loss"? What grounds do you have for such an inference?

C'mon Patrick. This is rather silly. There is obviously nothing in Scripture to say that Adam's condition would change as long as he didn't eat of the fruit. It's the only condition made. The clear meaning of the passage is that Adam's condition would remain the same. If you disagree then make your case. If you're just making a point... well taken.

I gave a pretty significant definition of a covenant a page or two back. You're right, there were different kinds of covenants, some between equals, some imposed. However, all of the biblical covenants have a promise attached to them. Even the Noahic covenant required Noah to build the ark in order to be delivered from judgment. There is not a single covenant in the Bible that does not have a promise of something better as a result of obedience. In Adam's case the elect actually receive something better because of his disobedience!

As to which covenant, it really doesn't matter. The components are not all there. There is only one condition clearly stated in the Garden. If you want to call that a covenant, then go ahead. However, to hang your theological system on this is tenuous at best. There is not one single reference to Adam agreeing to anything. There is not one single reference to anything that Adam had to do that required him to make a choice, other than not eating the fruit. God never promises to give Adam anything he didn't already possess. There is no reference in Scripture to works in the Garden having any merit whatsoever. All of this has to be read into the text in order to conclude a CoW.

[Edited on 6-21-2005 by Wannabee]

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

Wannabee, you need to address the issue about what exactly a covenant is, especially in the case of God and His people ... we don't have to "agree" to anything to be in covenant with God. All reprobates are covenant breakers in Adam and punished for it, and I doubt you'd find many that would admit they broke covenant with God, and it doesn't matter - they're still accountable.

 

[blhowes]

This kept coming to mind on the train ride to work:

Patrick wrote:
If there is no covenant with Adam as the federal representative of mankind, then God has no just grounds to impute Adam´s transgression to them.

I was wondering if anybody had any further thoughts about this. Is it really necessary for there to be a covenant? Could Adam be my federal representative without there being a covenant involved? Why or why not?

 

[blhowes]

This may be a rabbit trail that leads nowhere, but while reading and thinking about Romans 5, a couple of perhaps unrelated and disjointed thoughts came to mind.

I was reading the beginning of the chapter, and the transition from verse 11 to 12 seemed interesting.

Rom 5:11 And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement.
Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

After reading about the justification by faith, peace with God, Christ dying for the ungodly, and ending in verse 11 saying that we now have the atonement, the transition into verse 12 where its talking about Adam's sin seemed interesting. I was once taught that whenever you see the word 'therefore' (or, in this case wherefore), you should stop and ask what that's therefore.

Thinking about the atonement got me thinking about redemption, which reminded me of Romans 3:19 and Galatians 4:4, 5:

Rom 3:19 Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God.

Gal 4:4,5 But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons.

Here's my rabbit trail question:

Jesus was born of a woman so he could be born under the law so that he could redeem those who were under the law. Since, as I read Romans 3:19, everybody is under the law, how were those from Adam to Moses under the law? Since Christ came to redeem those who were under the law, how, for example, would Seth, Adam's son, be considered to be under the law and therefore redeemed by Christ?...by a covenant?

[Edited on 6-21-2005 by blhowes]

 

[Me Died Blue]

Originally posted by Wannabee
I think I've made it pretty clear in the above post how I see a difference between obedience and works. By not committing adultery I am not producing good works. It really is that simple.
As for the Catholic question, I like it. I wouldn't assume he was talking of works righteousness, first-because he had just said that he didn't; second-because I don't perceive obedience as works, for the reasons I've already mentioned. I would have to explore what he meant, which, at this point, could be a whole host of things.

Then I will ask again, in Scripture, what else constitutes truly good works except obedience to God's Law? Actually, I see this as the real imposition on Scripture here. You seem to be making the distinction that "works" are positive actions and "obedience" is negative restraint - but when God commands us to do a positive action, we see that "obedience" can refer to both positive and negative commandments. So show me from Scripture where what is referred to as "works" is said to only be positive commands.

Would you agree that following the positive commands Christ gave us to love God with all our beings and love our neighbor as ourselves constitute "good works"? If so, recall that He also said that those two commands are the foundation for the entire Old Testament Law - and we know that the majority of that Law (particularly the Ten Commandments) is composed of negative restraining commands! So again, I fail to see your dichotomy in Scripture, but in fact see just the opposite.

Originally posted by Wannabee
The point Chris, is that there is no referent to Adam having to do anything. There is not a positive commandment. You said, "You shall refrain from eating of this tree." That is a negative commandment. It is a restraint, not a command to do anything. This is at the heart of the difference between the condition in the Garden and biblical covenants.

See above.

Originally posted by Wannabee
Your speed limit analogy-of course it gives me free reign to drive up to that speed, however, it doesn't tell me I have to drive. It gives me permission to. This is a great example. There was no reward in life for Adam. He already had life. He already had eternal life. No, he wasn't glorified, but he was walking with the Lord and enjoyed a sinless life. Again, God didn't offer Adam a single thing. Adam had all he was going to have for eternity, if he didn't eat of the forbidden fruit.

Is a continuation of that life not a reward? God did not owe him eternal life in any respect. He could have simply ordained to create humans as mortal beings from the start, and been fully just in doing so. But He didn't - He chose rather to give Adam the reward of continuing, eternal life on the condition that he obey the command God gave him.

 

[kceaster]

Bob...

In Isaiah 42, God says to His Son, "I, the LORD, have called You in righteousness, And will hold Your hand; I will keep You and give You as a covenant to the people, As a light to the Gentiles, To open blind eyes, To bring out prisoners from the prison, Those who sit in darkness from the prison house."

If God gives His Son as a covenant, or in a covenant, or by a covenant, or to a covenant people, doesn't that mean that covenant surrounds the giving of the Messiah?

But even more than that, Christ's blood represents the blood of the new covenant. Without the blood, there would be no new covenant. Therefore, Christ again is associated with covenant.

What does Christ bring? Redemption. What did Adam bring? condemnation. Because the two are held in contrast and because they are clearly federal heads, it would be hard to prove, at least to my thinking, that covenant did not surround Adam like it did Christ.

And lest we forget, God's divine administration of the creatures made in His image is one of righteousness according to the law. Adam was under this every bit as much as we are as his sons. Created in God's image, Adam is to render to God the first table of the law. Adam's role on the earth and his position as vicegerent meant that he was bound to carry out the 2nd table towards God's creation. Adam was created in righteousness. The law did not stand against him in any way, nor was it inherent within him to sin. The stipulations of God's relationship with him was that He obey the commandments of God, in particular, that he not eat of the forbidden tree.

Christ was under this type of relationship, too. Paul says He was born under the law. Some would point back to Moses only. But we can see from other clear references that mankind was under law further back than Moses. The 6th chapter of Genesis shows us that man was evil and wicked. How could man be evil and wicked in the sight of God apart from there being a law in place that condemned them? Therefore, under the law means that all flesh has become like Adam in his fall.

So, it seems to me that if Christ was given as a covenant and that everything centering on His federal headship for the elect is contained within covenant, I really do not see how Adam was not in covenant as well.

In Christ,

KC

 

[kceaster]

It looks like we posted at about the same time, and had the exact same thought, Bob.

I think you're on track, and not just because you go to work by train.

In Christ,

KC

 

[kceaster]

Joe...

Perhaps there's more to the tree of Life than what you seem to be granting.

You'll notice that God didn't allow Adam to eat of the tree of life. Why? Because it would make him immortal in the ruined flesh he wore? That's a bit short sighted.

Look into what the tree of Life means in the context of Revelation and you might get your answer. The tree of Life certainly sounds like it is set apart as reward for those who obey. If it may be applied in that context at the end of the age, I do not see any reason why it could not be applied at the beginning.

In Christ,

KC

 

[blhowes]

Originally posted by kceaster
I think you're on track, and not just because you go to work by train.

Originally posted by kceaster
It looks like we posted at about the same time, and had the exact same thought, Bob.

Does that mean that my collection of unrelated, disjointed thoughts weren't so disjointed and unrelated after all?

Thanks for your post and your emphasis on Jesus and his covenant. Looking at Jesus first as head (and substance) of the covenant may be a good way to approach looking at Adam and his covenant (if there is one).

Thanks,
Bob

 

[Ravens]

This might be a bit off-topic, but is there a reason why the credobaptists are tending to argue against a covenant of works, while the paedobaptists are arguing for it?

Does the covenant of works directly affect the doctrine of baptism (that is, the credo or paedo positions)?

 

[Puritan Sailor]

Originally posted by Mudandstars
This might be a bit off-topic, but is there a reason why the credobaptists are tending to argue against a covenant of works, while the paedobaptists are arguing for it?

Does the covenant of works directly affect the doctrine of baptism (that is, the credo or paedo positions)?

Not necessarily. There are baptists who hold to the covenant of works too. and there are plenty of peado-baptists who deny the covenant of works today.

 

[blhowes]

Originally posted by Mudandstars
This might be a bit off-topic, but is there a reason why the credobaptists are tending to argue against a covenant of works, while the paedobaptists are arguing for it?

I think the answer is the same for both sides - both are trying to allow scripture to speak for itself...baptists think the paedos are hearing things, while paedos think baptists are deaf.

Originally posted by Mudandstars
Does the covenant of works directly affect the doctrine of baptism (that is, the credo or paedo positions)?

I don't think so, but stick around and I'll bet the debate 'evolves' into a baptism debate.

...so, Joshua, what do you think? I've been looking at the covenant with Jesus and eventually I'll see how that compares to the covenant (if there is one) with Adam. Regarding Jesus' new covenant, who do you think are the members of it?

(seems we're always just one step away from a baptism debate)

[Edited on 6-21-2005 by blhowes]

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by Mudandstars
This might be a bit off-topic, but is there a reason why the credobaptists are tending to argue against a covenant of works, while the paedobaptists are arguing for it?

Does the covenant of works directly affect the doctrine of baptism (that is, the credo or paedo positions)?

The classic and standard Reformed baptist position is that of the covenant of works. It is set forth in the 1689:

7.1. 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 attained the reward of life but by some voluntary condescension on God's part, which He hath been pleased to express by way of covenant.

And is held to by the vast majority of contemporary Reformed baptist theologians (Waldron, Chantry, Martin, Barcellos, etc.)

 

[Larry Hughes]

I would like to ask one more question though. Now, I'm not disagreeing with the idea that we sin because we're sinners. I agree wholeheartedly. My question is directed at the CoW. If we are all guilty of the Fall, then by necessity we are sinners because we sinned. If all sinned in Adam, then our condition is a result of our action, not the other way around. Perhaps I'm missing something in your understanding, but I see now way around it from here.

Joe,

I am admittedly a lay person and wrestled with this for my part on both sides. I´m not about to pretend to be able to "œconvince" you nor would desire to do so by force of my understanding directed to you. None-the-less I would offer some food for thought at least.

Some people blame systematic theologies saying these "œimpress" upon the scriptures, etc"¦ In one sense this is very possible and true. But in the other sense (the one we must be aware of especially today with the gross individualism out there) no one is devoid of a systematic theology and purely extracts from Scripture. Teaching and making disciples, as commanded directly per the Great Commission and numerous other Scriptures, assumes systemizing the Word. The very call by the Holy Spirit for teachers, and few at that, assumes a systematic learning and teaching of the Scriptures. "œStudying to show thyself approved"¦" again, assumes a systematic study and proving of one´s understanding of Scripture. For me and you to put together the fundamental of the faith that 1. My sin was imputed to Christ and He bore my punishment, and 2. That His righteousness and life was imputed to me whereby I am declared not just innocent and guiltless of my former infinite crimes against God, but just as if I never sinned and have performed all righteousness on account of Christ "“ REQUIRES that I systematize that very assemblage of ideas together into one cohesive thought in order for it to be made sense of and rested upon by faith (as a quick side all of ideas 1 & 2 assume a federal relationship of myself with Christ a.k.a. covenantal). As a matter of fact the other direction, chaos and confusion, is signatory of the enemy. Taken to its logical absurdity, an anti-systematic teacher is really a relativist if he be consistent entirely with his anti-systematic bend. This is why strong independent type denominations are in complete flux and chaos now, every thing is individual to the local church and relative to the same. Thus, in our area for example one can visit four SB churches within a single city and none of them are cohesive in their theology with the other. Those with strong hypocritical anti-systematic theology bends should not in the least be surprised that church order and leadership is lacking in the same churches. This is the greatest issue in the SBC right now. Just try and insert elders and biblical deacons in the place of the trustees and general church body in most SB churches "“ I know of several whose pastors tenor is short and thin for doing so. I use the SB as an example because that is merely what I personally know, not to single them out. I´m sure it happens elsewhere.

Furthermore, in a very real sense every Sunday when I go and hear a preacher/teacher expound and preach upon a passage/text, I the hearer of the one teaching, am hearing a systematic theology (right or wrong) being presented to me. Every time a pastor, even if he uses only Scripture, studies and reads then prepares a message (which is nothing less than a systematic explanation of a thing "“ hence the term "œmessage") he is systemizing it to reproduce for the hearer. It really boils down to is the system part of the larger body of Christ throughout various churches within the body and throughout time, or is it an atomized off-shoot claiming to "œknow it all" divorced entirely from the body (individual church) or partially divorced via denominational affiliation from afore mentioned total body of Christ.

In this sense we must honestly recognize if we are all to be honest with ourselves that it is nothing less than sheer arrogance, pride and self-righteousness to assert against other systematic theologies as if one is above the "œfray" so-to-speak. This kind of bend against systematic theologies to in essence "œargue for" one´s own theological system is hypocritical (I´m not saying this is what you are doing "“ I need to clear that up right now before an assumption is made here, others do this though).

Now to the one observation that really struck me that you made.

If all sinned in Adam, then our condition is a result of our action, not the other way around

The key there is "œsinned IN Adam", not sinned by my own action before I/you/we came into being. We were indeed sinners because we sinned IN Adam which assumes by necessity a federal or covenantal relationship to TIE us to Adam. But after the fall, we sin because we stand now federally or covenantally as sinners by nature and relationship to our federal head Adam (all mankind). You and I were born with the sin nature and the only way that is possible is by some kind of federal or covenantal linking "“ not genetics as evolutionist would proffer. We are not genetically predisposed because God´s creation is very good. But our link federally/covenantally to Adam sets us forth, post-fallen, as sinners first whereby our actions reflect our fallen hearts nature and we do indeed actually sin. That is why Paul can say in Romans that apart from faith ALL is sin. He literally means that. If an unbeliever save a million lives and dies for his country in unbelief all is lost and all is sin in the eyes of God, and this is linked to our federal/covenant relationship in Adam "“ and today this systematic compilation of biblical truth is headed under the title Covenant of Works, sometime the title Covenant of Nature is given the same system.

It is not the denial of the term "œCoW", per se, that leads to a denial of the Gospel and a defamation of Christ very similar to Rome "“ but rather a denial of all the system that the biblical teaching entails regarding this capture by the term CoW that leads to, ultimately, a denial of the Gospel and Christ´s precious work. This is why there is a strong tendency, tendency mind you, among those who deny and loose this systematic teaching/understanding over time and fall back into confusion, and deny the positive righteousness of Christ being imputed to the believer. Today it is not some much explicitly stated this way but rather that such end up being functioning medieval Roman Catholics, though verbally they think they affirm the fullness of the Gospel. This is why certain dispensationalist otherwise strong teachers have slipped and defined saving faith as itself to include as its third leg obedience and not trust in Christ for me (this was the center of the war for the Reformers). This is why certain other wonderful teachers have slipped up and said that God save sinners with an eye toward their sanctification. And so forth.

This is just how important the Covenantal structure and theological proper law/gospel distinction is. Loose this and one will get lost in Scripture.

I hope that is at least food for thought and not to be taken ANY other way.

Yours In Christ,

larry

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

If you believe in original sin, as outlined in Scripture (and Romans especially), then you believe in the CoW, whether you admit it or not.

 

[Wannabee]

Some quick thoughts, then it's to the books with me. Slept well though, thanks for asking.

Fred,
I've been thinking of what you said about the NPP. I just don't see how that adds up. NPP is the natural progression of CT taken too far, just as Open Theism is the natural progression of Arminianism taken too far. So I just don't get the analogy.

Gabriel,
If I micommunicated I apologize. I've already given a good definition of covenant, one that you would find no problem agreeing with. I didn't say that we had to agree. Someone else mentioned it in an earlier post and I was disagreeing with them... just like you are with me. So, in essence we're agreeing by disagreeing, but you didn't realize that you weren't disagreeing with me. Agreed, we are all covenant breakers. We have all transgressed the Law. I'm not really sure who you're debating with. And you last post really needs some more 'splainin'. You're assuming too much.

Chris,
I'm not sure why this is so difficult. It's also a rabbit trail from the fact that no one has given what's been asked for. Obedience is both, restrictive and active. Works are the outpouring of effort expended as a result of our faith in salvation (and all that goes along with that--please don't nitpick, you understand what I'm saying). James is pretty clear on this, I think. If you disagree with this definition they you see obstaining from morality as good works, I don't. But it is obedient.
Continuation of life is a reward for us, because we deserve death, immediate death. Adam did not. He did nothing to merit either life or death until he sinned. I'll follow up in my comment on KC's question.

Hi Kevin,
Hope all is well with you. I'm still in touch with Marco. What a great work he has going.
On the tree of life. But God did allow Adam to eat of the tree of life before the Fall, didn't he. You can eat of any tree of the garden, except this one. Did I say that Adam didn't obey? I hope not. If I did then I was erroneous (nice way to say WRONG!). He obeyed, until he ate the fruit. However, I don't see a clear reference to him being rewarded for obedience. The difference in the beginning was that Adam had no knowledge of good and evil. He didn't know death. It was simply a non issue for him.

Larry,
Systematics are necessary, agreed. I already affirmed that earlier, and don't think I've said otherwise. What I did say is that we cannot be shackled by a system. God's Word isn't. Scripture needs to drive our system, and we must jealously keep our focus on Scripture so that our theological system doesn't take over. It's like exegeting the WBC. And I'm quite familiar with the SBC, in fact I've been told of one SB church that has elders and is looking for a pastor .
Forgive me, but I'm going to take sort of a shotgun approach to your discussion here. I hope you can sort it out, and read graciously between the lines. Sinning in Adam can also assume seminal ties. Either argument has it's good points. Our sin natures are a result of Adam's sin, but this does not necessitate a CoW unless your system demands it. You may rest assured that I have no delusions about Christ's righteousness not being imputed to the elect. I think that is clear from both Scripture and my posts. While obedience is not required for salvation, it is a requirement of salvation. 1 John makes that clear I think.
Thanks Larry. I appreciate you and what you've said.



Not aimed at anyone in particular, nor everyone. Just some thoughts. This does not fit all who have responded.
It really seems that many who are threatened by the idea of there not being a CoW are more concerned with discrediting anyone that disagrees with them rather than making their case. Unfortunately, this is a typical tactic of CT argumentation. Not that others don't do it, but it really seems to be rampant in both CT (especially hyper-CT) and Ultra-DT (you can't join our church if you're not pre-trib). Rather than trying to back me into a corner, which some here are obviously trying to do, simply give what's been asked for.

Blessings
Joe

 

[kceaster]

Originally posted by Wannabee
Hi Kevin,
Hope all is well with you. I'm still in touch with Marco. What a great work he has going.
On the tree of life. But God did allow Adam to eat of the tree of life before the Fall, didn't he. You can eat of any tree of the garden, except this one. Did I say that Adam didn't obey? I hope not. If I did then I was erroneous (nice way to say WRONG!). He obeyed, until he ate the fruit. However, I don't see a clear reference to him being rewarded for obedience. The difference in the beginning was that Adam had no knowledge of good and evil. He didn't know death. It was simply a non issue for him.

It doesn't really say where this tree was. But the important part is that after Adam disobeyed God, God definitely didn't want him eating of it. Why? What does that tree represent?

Sacramentally it means eternal life. I say, sacramentally, because that tree is a symbol of the one in the new city. It would be a stretch to say that the tree of life in Revelation is different than the tree of life in Genesis, so the Revelation account must be weighed in order to see whether or not the tree of life is held out as a reward of Adam's obedience.

Incidentally, Adam did not have to die to gain reward. If the reward was eternal life in the full enjoying of God, then that does not necessarily mean that death has to come before that reward. Death is a result of the fall, so had Adam not fallen, he would never have died in the flesh, but gained the reward of eternal life with God.

In not finding reward for obedience, you must look at it a bit differently. If there is punishment for disobedience, then there must be reward or blessing for obedience. We can see that Adam already had blessings, but were these blessings the end? In other words, was that as good as it gets?

If you would, please answer how Christ has earned our reward for us, if Adam had no reward to look forward to. Why does the Bible call eternal life a reward? Why are blessings a reward?

In Christ,

KC

P.S. I just saw Marco a few months ago and we chatted for a while. He was very glad to have met you and spent time with you.