Covenant of Works revisited

[Areopagus]

Thoughts on this:

http://www.biblicalhorizons.com/bh/bh053.htm

I'd particularly like Pastorway and/or the Webmaster to respond.

In Him,

Dustin...

 

[VanVos]

Hi Areopagus....concerning the article... oh dear.

Here's an article that I would say responds well to the claims found in the article you posted:

http://www.upper-register.com/ct_gospel/answering_objections.html

VanVos

 

[Areopagus]

Jonathan,

You must not have read the article. In fact, I don't see how you could have that quickly.

James Jordan doesn't disagree with the Covenant of Works. He, in fact, affirms it.

Dustin...

 

[VanVos]

I thought the article I posted might be helpful because it presents and defends the classic reformed view of covenant of works, where as Jordan's paper clearly does not:

The traditional covenant of works doctrine is wrong, then, when it implies that Adam was to earn life through merits. Adam already had life. His faithfulness was a maturation of that life. What Adam was to earn was glory, the reward of persevering faith.

VanVos


[Edited on 3-30-2005 by VanVos]

 

[Areopagus]

Jordan says:

The federal theology is summarized well in the Westminster Larger Catechism (qq. 20, 32-36, & 39) and the Westminster Confession of Faith (ch. 7). Nevertheless, the power of the federal paradigm is such that it pervades all aspects of one´s theology and so its exposition cannot be isolated to these portions of the Westminster Standards. Two covenants, a foedus operum and a foedus gratia, undergird the Confession's theological structure. The first covenant was made with Adam before the fall and promised eternal life to Adam upon condition of meritorious works of perfect obedience to God´s law. The covenant of grace is a postlapsarian arrangement made necessary by Adam´s breach of the covenant of works, founded upon Christ´s satisfaction of the justice of God as well as his perfect legal obedience, the elect being sovereignly and freely made parties to the covenant of grace through God´s mercy.

Where exactly did Jordan go wrong? Is he off here?

Dustin...

 

[RamistThomist]

He might only be outlining what the CoW is, not affirming it.

 

[Robin]

Hey Dustin,

The Jordan article is quite bad...I'm a lowly lay-person (equipped by Kim Riddlebarger) and can see huge holes in his exege...er...eisegesis....

Now I know why they refer to essays like this as a sort of "theological sniper" attack. (No dis-respect.)

Here is time better spent....check-out this additional link by Dr. Scott Clark to learn what a thorough explanation of Covenant and especially FV issues are all about:

http://public.csusm.edu/guests/rsclark/Sentences.htm

Jordan is presuming that the gracious Covenant is postlapsarian. What are the sources for this position?

I have more questions about where Jordan gets his authority to state that "federal theology" (whatever THAT is) is a "paradigm" over all of Scripture. How does that work? That would depend upon his eschatology....since all of Scripture IS eschatalogical by design. I'd go toe-to-toe with his understanding of Covenant. VanVos's link is excellent in unpacking this....I studied under Lee Irons....so I can say...it's a long story...but getting a firm grip of what Scripture defines IS a covenant is the only way to be productive on knowing what God is really doing with it.

For now, do read the above links --- they are some of the top scholars on the subject of covenant - and Biblical history.

With all courtesy,

Robin

[Edited on 3-31-2005 by Robin]

 

[Areopagus]

Robin,

Thanks, but actually, I understand the CoW. I never said I affirmed Jordan's position. I merely posted the link and said let's DISCUSS it. So, let's discuss it.

How does his thesis differ from the "orthodox" view of the CoW?

Dustin...

 

[Robin]

Hello Again, Dustin,

I just wanted to also add....you MAY contact either Lee Irons, Dr. Clark and/or my pastor Kim Riddlebarger to get more details on questions about the Jordan article.

Please do, OK?

I'm reviewing the article in-depth....there are SO many points - slimy-word shifts, Etc., Yikes! It's amazing. He violates the confessions numerous times --- pouring meanings into words that don't fit. What a mess.

As a start, I'd say he simply misses the "covenantal language" through-out all of Scripture. What I mean by that is - many times when covenants are being imposed and/or reaffirmed, the word "covenant" is frequently not used -- though the language/dialog makes it clear that a covenant is happening. A covenant is necessarily "works" oriented. What is important is, WHO is swearing the oath? Who is ratifying the oath? Is it God or the people?

Here's a fun project....start in Genesis 3 and travel through-out all the OT...into the NT....right into Revelation. Note how many times you see the phrase "I will be their God and they will be my people." (It is quite numerous.) This theme is the Gospel language (thread) that traces God's work in Redemption. God is swearing the oath.

Mr. Jordan's assertion that "federal" theology is the paradigm in all of Scripture is erroneous. Rather, I'd say the overall theme has to do with YHWH's oath: "I will be their God and they will be my people."

That's just for starters....

R.

 

[Irishcat922]

It sounds like he is saying that there is only one covenant made with man. I guess he is saying we should redifine the covenants as COW/G, or COG/W either way you get what the Apostle Paul strongly warns us against in Galatians.
Gal 2:21 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.

 

[fredtgreco]

Jordan neither affirms nor understands the doctrine of the Covenant of Works. He shows that in Merit vs. Maturity.

[Edited on 3/31/2005 by fredtgreco]

 

[fredtgreco]

See this post here:

http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=9429

and Fesko's criticism here:
http://www.genevaopc.org/resources/res_pdf_44.pdf

By the way, Merit vs. Maturity is a chapter in the book The Federal Vision, a clearly monocovenantal work.

Jordan is extremely dangerous.

 

[RamistThomist]

Would John Murray hold to the Cow/CoG scheme?

 

[fredtgreco]

Yes with some modifications. He would refer to the Adamic Administration instead of CoW.

But that does not put him in the same league as Jordan

 

[RamistThomist]

So meant the same thing as CoW but used different terminology, whereas Jordan does not mean CoW at all?

 

[Puritan Sailor]

Originally posted by Draught Horse
So meant the same thing as CoW but used different terminology, whereas Jordan does not mean CoW at all?

Correct. notice how he uses "initial covenant" and "completed covenant." And his emphasis on the necessity of "faith" before the Fall.

 

[Puritan Sailor]

Originally posted by Robin
Mr. Jordan's assertion that "federal" theology is the paradigm in all of Scripture is erroneous.

Actually he's not erroneous at all in this statement. It's completely true. Federal or Covenant theology is the paradigm of Scripture. That's the pattern God has chosen to reveal himself and illustrates how our salvation is accomplished from the CoW to the CoG. The problem here with Jordon is that he departs from the orthodox and historical understanding of federal theology.

[Edited on 3-31-2005 by puritansailor]

 

[kceaster]

Is it fair to say, then, that to deny the covenant of works means that one does not believe Adam could have merited eternal life?

Is that the crux of the issue?

In Christ,

KC

 

[Puritan Sailor]

Originally posted by kceaster
Is it fair to say, then, that to deny the covenant of works means that one does not believe Adam could have merited eternal life?

Is that the crux of the issue?

I think the major issue is the imputation of Adam's sin versus the imputation of Christ's righteousness. If you mess up imputation with Adam, ultimately you will mess up imputation with Christ. The reformed world historically has not been completely united in what "life" Adam would have merited through the CoW though all agreed that he would have been rewarded life for him and his prosperity.

The other issue, grace plus works. If you deny the CoW/CoG distinction, you end up with a covenant of grace that becomes a covenant of works.

 

[Areopagus]

This article says:

A thorough reevaluation of the federal theology is desperately needed today. John Murray, in his introduction to The Covenant of Grace (1953) appropriately reminds us that it is of the essence of being "Reformed" that we courageously subject even our most treasured theological schemes to intense scrutiny against the touchstone of biblical authority.

I agree with this statement. I believe it applies to every camp of doctrine. In other words, we must all be ready to "reform" if after careful scrutiny (regardless of how many years a doctrine may have been clung to) our position doesn't stand against the absolute of Scripture.

When we read "the federal theology" or "the covenant theology", this isn't a misapplied label, is it? I mean, I adhere to the federal theology of mankinds death *in* Adam. He was our federal representative. So, too, Christ is the Last Adam and is our federal representative in life. So the federal word of God (theology) is as such. The piece in question says it this way:

I use the term "the federal theology" to refer to the classical Reformed scholastic theological structure which is oriented around a bipolar covenantal scheme"”the covenant of works and the covenant of grace. Of course, "the federal theology" is equivalent to "the covenant theology," the Latin foedus being used by the Reformed scholastics to translate the biblical terms for covenant.

It's also put this way:

To avoid misunderstanding, and at the risk of unnecessary repetition, Weir speaks of "the covenant theology" or "the federal theology" because he has in mind not some vague tradition of covenantalism, but the specific system of covenant theology as it developed in the sixteenth and seventeenth century and is best articulated in the Westminster Standards.

Forgive my lack of knowledge when it comes to the history of the covenant theology camp. Is this statement correct:

Before the development of the covenant of works others had conceived of God´s relationship with Adam in covenantal terms, but the distinctive meritorious and strictly legal relationship associated with the classical prelapsarian covenant which appeared in the 1560´s appears to have had little or no antecedent in the history of theology. The bipolarity of the early Reformers´ covenantal theology revolved around the old and new covenant distinction, not the covenant of works and the covenant of grace. The development of a meritorious pre-fall covenant, which, as Weir strongly argues, was absent from the early Reformers (Calvin & Beza), was foundational in the development of the theological system we now know as the federal or covenant theology.

The piece says this also:

Weir´s thesis is that "the prelapsarian "˜covenant of works´ or "˜covenant of nature´ emerged as the key identifying feature of federal theology" in the period from 1560-1590 (vii). Furthermore, the reason for the development of such a doctrine lies in the need to answer certain troubling questions about the justice of God that arose out of controversy concerning the sovereignty of God and Adam´s fall. "The prelapsarian covenant with Adam was a means by which orthodox Calvinists of the late sixteenth century, some of whom adopted the Bezan Form of explaining predestination, could maintain the tension between prelapsarian Adamic human responsibility and divine sovereignty.... [T]he prelapsarian covenant with Adam did not "˜soften´ the decree of God concerning the Fall; rather, it affirmed it, expanded it, explained it, and worked it out" (16). "It is the contention of this book that the idea of the covenant of works, or prelapsarian covenant, was introduced by Reformed theologians to help resolve the question of God´s providence and Adam´s original sin" (22).

Is this a true statement?

Then we read:

The real questions for modern covenant theologians have to do with the legitimacy of the development of the federal theology according to the rigid categories of works and grace. Closing our eyes to real doctrinal development and acting as if it didn´t happen won´t accomplish anything. The fact of doctrinal development is here to stay. There´s no denying it. The issues for us are: Did the development of the covenant of works represent a legitimate, biblically rooted progress in Reformed systematics or was it a theological cul-de-sac. Is the twin covenants hermeneutics really scriptural or has it been imposed upon the Bible in order to justify other systematic concerns (as Weir argues)? Then there are all the questions that have to do with the very idea of a covenant between God and man whereby man´s essential relationship to God is defined as legal and dependent upon meritorious acts. Can Adam´s relationship with the Lord be captured in the business-like language of a contractual agreement? Shouldn´t the whole covenant of works idea be reevaluated?

Thoughts on this statement?

Dustin...

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

Originally posted by Areopagus
Thoughts on this:

http://www.biblicalhorizons.com/bh/bh053.htm

I'd particularly like Pastorway and/or the Webmaster to respond.

In Him,

Dustin...

Its not worth responding to.

 

[Areopagus]

Ok.

Dustin...

 

[Puritan Sailor]

Originally posted by Areopagus

The real questions for modern covenant theologians have to do with the legitimacy of the development of the federal theology according to the rigid categories of works and grace. Closing our eyes to real doctrinal development and acting as if it didn´t happen won´t accomplish anything. The fact of doctrinal development is here to stay. There´s no denying it. The issues for us are: Did the development of the covenant of works represent a legitimate, biblically rooted progress in Reformed systematics or was it a theological cul-de-sac. Is the twin covenants hermeneutics really scriptural or has it been imposed upon the Bible in order to justify other systematic concerns (as Weir argues)? Then there are all the questions that have to do with the very idea of a covenant between God and man whereby man´s essential relationship to God is defined as legal and dependent upon meritorious acts. Can Adam´s relationship with the Lord be captured in the business-like language of a contractual agreement? Shouldn´t the whole covenant of works idea be reevaluated?

Thoughts on this statement?

Dustin...

The problem with their criticism, is that traditional covenant theologians do not look at the CoW as just "business-like language." Its a baseless accusation. And though all agreed that the covenant was bilateral in a sense, it was clearly defended as God imposing this covenant upon Adam and setting the terms by which Adam could fellowship with God and obtain further blessing.

It's this same type of thinking which legitimizes immorality among couples because they just don't want a "peice of paper" to legitimize their relationship.

The covenant secured the relationship between God and Adam in both it's blessings and obligations. It was not just a peice of business, unless you wish to decribe the marriage relationship that way.

[Edited on 3-31-2005 by puritansailor]

 

[Poimen]

Originally posted by puritansailor

Originally posted by kceaster
Is it fair to say, then, that to deny the covenant of works means that one does not believe Adam could have merited eternal life?

Is that the crux of the issue?

I think the major issue is the imputation of Adam's sin versus the imputation of Christ's righteousness. If you mess up imputation with Adam, ultimately you will mess up imputation with Christ. The reformed world historically has not been completely united in what "life" Adam would have merited through the CoW though all agreed that he would have been rewarded life for him and his prosperity.

The other issue, grace plus works. If you deny the CoW/CoG distinction, you end up with a covenant of grace that becomes a covenant of works.

Yes! Excellent point. For the sake of upholding grace before the fall works were added afterwards (as a meritorious condition).

[Edited on 3-31-2005 by poimen]

 

[Areopagus]

Patrick,

When you say:

traditional covenant theologians

Who are you talking about?

Also, when you say:

And though all agreed that the covenant was bilateral in a sense, it was clearly defended as God imposing this covenant upon Adam and setting the terms by which Adam could fellowship with God and obtain further blessing.

Are you saying that God "imposed" a covenant upon Adam, set the terms, and then there was a possibility that Adam could obtain further blessing by adhering to such a covenantal imposition decreed by God?

Dustin...

 

[Puritan Sailor]

Originally posted by Areopagus
Patrick,

When you say:

traditional covenant theologians

Who are you talking about?

Most covenant theologians for the last 400 years, minus the dissenters from the last century.

Also, when you say:

And though all agreed that the covenant was bilateral in a sense, it was clearly defended as God imposing this covenant upon Adam and setting the terms by which Adam could fellowship with God and obtain further blessing.

Are you saying that God "imposed" a covenant upon Adam, set the terms, and then there was a possibility that Adam could obtain further blessing by adhering to such a covenantal imposition decreed by God?

Dustin...

Yes. That has been the traditional formulation.

There's a great book out now by Rowland Ward called God and Adam. It's a study on the development of the covenant of works, in Reformed history. It's a great book. I would suggest reading it before you give any credit to modern criticisms of this doctrine which are often strawmen, as with the criticism you quoted above.

 

[Areopagus]

Patrick,

You say:

I would suggest reading it before you give any credit to modern criticisms of this doctrine which are often strawmen, as with the criticism you quoted above.

Where did I give the criticism credit? Be careful with accusations. They are unbecoming.

I posted this:

Before the development of the covenant of works others had conceived of God´s relationship with Adam in covenantal terms, but the distinctive meritorious and strictly legal relationship associated with the classical prelapsarian covenant which appeared in the 1560´s appears to have had little or no antecedent in the history of theology. The bipolarity of the early Reformers´ covenantal theology revolved around the old and new covenant distinction, not the covenant of works and the covenant of grace. The development of a meritorious pre-fall covenant, which, as Weir strongly argues, was absent from the early Reformers (Calvin & Beza), was foundational in the development of the theological system we now know as the federal or covenant theology.

Is this true? It doesn't make what is known as the CoW false if it is true. I'm simply asking if it is an accurate few sentences.

The piece says:

Then there are all the questions that have to do with the very idea of a covenant between God and man whereby man´s essential relationship to God is defined as legal and dependent upon meritorious acts. Can Adam´s relationship with the Lord be captured in the business-like language of a contractual agreement? Shouldn´t the whole covenant of works idea be reevaluated?

Patrick, you say that God imposed a covenant upon Adam, it was based upon meritorious works, and that Adam could have gained blessing (I can't remember exactly what you said - I can't see the thread), right? Yet, God decreed the fall. Adam wasn't created neutral in disposition, but with his fall in the unthwarted plan of God, right? So how is it that Adam could have merited life, blessings, or whatever?

I'll post more when I can figure out how to see the thread.

Dustin...

 

[pastorway]

Just to clarify -

someone who does not hold to covenant theology can indeed deny the Covenant of Works and still at the same time believe that the Scriptures teach that in Adam all men fell and are conceived sinners as Adam's sin is imputed to them. One can believe that Adam is the federal or representative head of the human race without using covenant terminology. And that Christ had to do what Adam failed to do - be perfectly obedient to the Law of God and impute that obedience to those who would be saved.

Let's not go so far as to declare that anyone who denies the CoW is a heretic or cannot believe in imputation from Adam (and then from the last Adam - Christ).

One does not have to hold to the Covenant of Works to believe the truth of Scripture regarding these matters. Many in fact in this camp do not use the terminology because neither does the Scripture! Some prefer to talk about the covenants that the Bible directly identifies as covenants while rejecting the idea of any additional covenantal terminology not used in the Bible.

Phillip

[Edited on 3-31-05 by pastorway]

 

[Puritan Sailor]

Originally posted by Areopagus
Patrick,

You say:

I would suggest reading it before you give any credit to modern criticisms of this doctrine which are often strawmen, as with the criticism you quoted above.

Where did I give the criticism credit? Be careful with accusations. They are unbecoming.

I was not making any accusations but speaking generally. Other people read these threads too, many who have fallen prey to these false accusations about the traditional understanding of the covenant of works.

I posted this:

Before the development of the covenant of works others had conceived of God´s relationship with Adam in covenantal terms, but the distinctive meritorious and strictly legal relationship associated with the classical prelapsarian covenant which appeared in the 1560´s appears to have had little or no antecedent in the history of theology. The bipolarity of the early Reformers´ covenantal theology revolved around the old and new covenant distinction, not the covenant of works and the covenant of grace. The development of a meritorious pre-fall covenant, which, as Weir strongly argues, was absent from the early Reformers (Calvin & Beza), was foundational in the development of the theological system we now know as the federal or covenant theology.

Is this true? It doesn't make what is known as the CoW false if it is true. I'm simply asking if it is an accurate few sentences.

I would say it's true, to some extent. But not because the thought wasn't there at all. All the elements are there, it just wasn't developed cohesively yet. That's why I recommend Ward's book. He goes into detailed analysis of the historical development of the doctrine. The doctrine really developed as the covenantal understanding of Christ's work was more fully understood, hence, giving us a more covenantal understanding of the role of Adam as decribed in Romans 5.

The piece says:

Then there are all the questions that have to do with the very idea of a covenant between God and man whereby man´s essential relationship to God is defined as legal and dependent upon meritorious acts. Can Adam´s relationship with the Lord be captured in the business-like language of a contractual agreement? Shouldn´t the whole covenant of works idea be reevaluated?

Patrick, you say that God imposed a covenant upon Adam, it was based upon meritorious works, and that Adam could have gained blessing (I can't remember exactly what you said - I can't see the thread), right? Yet, God decreed the fall. Adam wasn't created neutral in disposition, but with his fall in the unthwarted plan of God, right? So how is it that Adam could have merited life, blessings, or whatever?

I'll post more when I can figure out how to see the thread.

Dustin...

The possibility of fall doesn't negate the legal aspects of the covenant or Adam's responsibility. He was created upright, and thus fully endowed with the capability to fulfill it. But he freely chose to sin. In fact, if Adam couldn't earn the reward by his obedience, both for himself and his posterity, then that also implies that Christ couldn't either. The covenant of works set up a federal structure, by which salvation could be earned by Christ for all in Him, just as life was lost to all in Adam by his sin. It changes the whole role of the obedience of Christ and how that applies to the believer if you remove the idea of reward for obedience.

 

[Areopagus]

Pastorway,

Agreed. Great post. And that's my point in pointing some of this out. The CoW is one part of an entire system.

Patrick you say:

with the capability to fulfill it.

Really? Adam could have fulfilled the requirements of the unwritten law? Where do you find this?

Dustin...