Covenant of Works revisited

[Puritan Sailor]

Originally posted by Areopagus
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?

The law was written on his heart. He was made more than innocent or neutral. He was made in the image of God in knowledge, righteousness, and holiness. He was made upright with a positive disposition to love God and obey him. God called him "good." He was fully endowed with the ability to obey God. That's what makes his, and our, fall so great. There was no defect or propensity to sin in him. God did not create him with a sin nature. But to speculate further as to the specifics of what he "could have" done or what he "could have" inherited are not really profitable since Adam did not obey.
Just tying to close the lid on the

 

[Areopagus]

Patrick,

Interesting. You say:

But to speculate further as to the specifics of what he "could have" done or what he "could have" inherited are not really profitable since Adam did not obey.

But isn't that just what you are doing? You are asserting that Adam could have obeyed God. In fact, you said he was fully capable of doing so. But didn't God ordain/predestine the fall of Adam? If so, was there really the chance for Adam to fulfill the requirements of God's decree that Adam obey His commandment about the tree? I'll be interested to see your answers to these.

Patrick, are you not speculating of what you assert there should be no speculation about?

Dustin...

 

[Areopagus]

Patrick,

Also, you say:

The law was written on his heart.

Where does Scripture tell us that "the law" was written on Adam's heart?

Dustin...

 

[Puritan Sailor]

Originally posted by Areopagus
Patrick,

Interesting. You say:

But to speculate further as to the specifics of what he "could have" done or what he "could have" inherited are not really profitable since Adam did not obey.

But isn't that just what you are doing? You are asserting that Adam could have obeyed God. In fact, you said he was fully capable of doing so. But didn't God ordain/predestine the fall of Adam? If so, was there really the chance for Adam to fulfill the requirements of God's decree that Adam obey His commandment about the tree? I'll be interested to see your answers to these.

Patrick, are you not speculating of what you assert there should be no speculation about?

Dustin...

Was Adam created a sinful creature?

 

[Areopagus]

Wait Patrick, you made some assertions without substance. I'm asking for substance.

For instance, of Adam you say:

The law was written on his heart.

Well, Patrick, if "the law" was written on his heart, then wasn't Adam aware of what transgressing said law would be? If so, then when you say of Adam here:

But he freely chose to sin.

I would have to disagree. The very imposition of the covenant placed restrictions on Adam's "freedom" of choice. More, you said that "the law" was written on Adam's heart, thus placing more of an imposition on Adam's "freedom" of choice, yes?

And what "law" are you talking about that was written on Adam's heart? And again, where in Scripture do we read that "the law" was written on Adam's heart? These are issues you need to address since you asserted them.

You say of Adam:

He was made in the image of God in knowledge, righteousness, and holiness.

Ok, Scripture does say that Adam was created in the image of God, but where does it say that he was created in the image of God "in knowledge, righteousness, and holiness?" Can you substantiate that claim?

You say of Adam:

He was made upright with a positive disposition to love God and obey him.

Yes, I agree.

You say of Adam:

He was fully endowed with the ability to obey God.

"Fully endowed." What does that mean? Can you clarify? And even if Adam was "fully endowed" with the ability to obey God, was there that chance?

You say of Adam:

There was no defect or propensity to sin in him.

Really? Can you substantiate this from Scripture please?

You say ALL of this about Adam and then say:

But to speculate further as to the specifics of what he "could have" done or what he "could have" inherited are not really profitable since Adam did not obey.

Well, Patrick, it seems as though there can be no speculation because you've nailed down Adam's character, abilities, and "could have's" already.

Now, again, was the fall determined by God? If so, does this not negate Adam's "freedom" of choice (aside from the imposition of the covenant, etc)? If the fall was predestined by God, then how can we say of Adam that he "could have" obtained, attained, whatever, something further than what he already had?

Dustin...

 

[Puritan Sailor]

Sorry, Dustin, I was under the impression that these things were already common knowledge to us on the Board, at least to those of us who hold to the Westminster Confession of Faith. I don't have the time to go into detail at this time, so for now I will refer you to the Scripture references in the related chapters of the WCF and Catechisms. I'll try to get back to you later.

 

[kevin.carroll]

Originally posted by Areopagus
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...

Divine covenants are, by their very nature, imposed and unilateral. God does not bargain with us as equals. He graciously enters into relationship with us, but the basis and nature of the relationship is dictated by God. Covenants...well at least divine ones...are only bilateral in the sense that the carry obligations with them.

 

[Areopagus]

Patrick,

I'm not sure where the WCF agrees with you. I'd like to see that, when you have time.

The WCF says:

II. After God had made all other creatures, he created man, male and female, with reasonable and immortal souls, endued with knowledge, righteousness, and true holiness after his own image, having the law of God written in their hearts, and power to fulfill it; and yet under a possibility of transgressing, being left to the liberty of their own will, which was subject unto change. Besides this law written in their hearts, they received a command not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil; which while they kept were happy in their communion with God, and had dominion over the creatures.

I'm aware of this. I'm also aware that you adhere to it. My questions still remain though. Can you substantiate your assertions from Scripture?

Now, in the WCF under the heading "Of God's Eternal Decree" we find this:

IV. These angels and men, thus predestinated and foreordained, are particularly and unchangeably designed; and their number is so certain and definite that it can not be either increased or diminished.

I'm assuming that Adam falls under these who are predestined for life, correct? If so, what does it say about Adam's being designed?

I'll wait until you have the time to answer my previous questions, from Scripture.

Dustin...

 

[Areopagus]

Kevin,

You say:

Divine covenants are, by their very nature, imposed and unilateral. God does not bargain with us as equals. He graciously enters into relationship with us, but the basis and nature of the relationship is dictated by God. Covenants...well at least divine ones...are only bilateral in the sense that the carry obligations with them.

I agree. They are imposed and they do carry obligations. However, the obligation for perfect obedience is, was, and will always be an impossibility for man. That's why I find that the Covenant of Works theory is just that, a theory.

Dustin...

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by Areopagus
Kevin,

You say:

Divine covenants are, by their very nature, imposed and unilateral. God does not bargain with us as equals. He graciously enters into relationship with us, but the basis and nature of the relationship is dictated by God. Covenants...well at least divine ones...are only bilateral in the sense that the carry obligations with them.

I agree. They are imposed and they do carry obligations. However, the obligation for perfect obedience is, was, and will always be an impossibility for man. That's why I find that the Covenant of Works theory is just that, a theory.

Dustin...

Are you saying that Adam in his innocence was incapable of obeying God's command?

Doesn't that make God the author of sin?

 

[kevin.carroll]

Originally posted by Areopagus
Kevin,

You say:

Divine covenants are, by their very nature, imposed and unilateral. God does not bargain with us as equals. He graciously enters into relationship with us, but the basis and nature of the relationship is dictated by God. Covenants...well at least divine ones...are only bilateral in the sense that the carry obligations with them.

I agree. They are imposed and they do carry obligations. However, the obligation for perfect obedience is, was, and will always be an impossibility for man. That's why I find that the Covenant of Works theory is just that, a theory.

Dustin...

Enter Jesus...stage left...

 

[Areopagus]

I'm saying that Scripture says that God created Adam in His image. Scripture says that God placed Adam in the garden WITH the tree He told him not to partake of. I'm saying that Scripture says that everything happens according to the counsel of God's will and for His good pleasure. More, Scripture says that justification by works was never a possibility.

So, Fred, do you assert that Adam truly had the capability to obtain eternal life through his own merit? If you do not, then I'm confused.

Do you assert that God did not ordain the fall? If you do not, then I'm confused.

Dustin...

 

[Areopagus]

Kevin,

Amen. That is exactly the point.

God is not the author of sin simply because He creates a man to fall. He creates the man, and uses him as a secondary means to the determined end.

Dustin...

 

[Puritan Sailor]

Originally posted by Areopagus
I'm saying that Scripture says that God created Adam in His image. Scripture says that God placed Adam in the garden WITH the tree He told him not to partake of. I'm saying that Scripture says that everything happens according to the counsel of God's will and for His good pleasure. More, Scripture says that justification by works was never a possibility.

A quick comment before I head home. Justification by works is not a possibility to sinners. That is true. But if you rule it out entirely, then Christ, the last Adam, could not do it either. The covenant of works sets up the legal framework for the work of Christ on our behalf.

 

[Areopagus]

Patrick,

You say:

But if you rule it out entirely, then Christ, the last Adam, could not do it either.

So Christ, God come in the flesh, couldn't do what Adam could not do? You are saying that if I rule "it" (justification by works) out, then Christ cannot do what Adam could not do. Will you please show me that in Scripture???

I assert that Adam was created to do what he did for the express purpose of displaying the worth, power, character, and glory of God in that the creation can never do what only the Creator can do. All of this is a grand display of the supremacy of Christ and the inability of man.

In your "legal framework" I see that man could have done what Christ had to come and do. Yet man failed, thus ushering in Christ. However, and again, God created Adam to be who he was (even the WCF states such a thing). The fall was predestined.

Now, Patrick, please provide the substantiation for your assertions.

Dustin...

 

[SolaScriptura]

Originally posted by Areopagus
Wait Patrick, you made some assertions without substance. I'm asking for substance.

For instance, of Adam you say:

The law was written on his heart.

Well, Patrick, if "the law" was written on his heart, then wasn't Adam aware of what transgressing said law would be? If so, then when you say of Adam here:

But he freely chose to sin.

I would have to disagree. The very imposition of the covenant placed restrictions on Adam's "freedom" of choice. More, you said that "the law" was written on Adam's heart, thus placing more of an imposition on Adam's "freedom" of choice, yes?

And what "law" are you talking about that was written on Adam's heart? And again, where in Scripture do we read that "the law" was written on Adam's heart? These are issues you need to address since you asserted them.

You say of Adam:

He was made in the image of God in knowledge, righteousness, and holiness.

Ok, Scripture does say that Adam was created in the image of God, but where does it say that he was created in the image of God "in knowledge, righteousness, and holiness?" Can you substantiate that claim?

You say of Adam:

He was made upright with a positive disposition to love God and obey him.

Yes, I agree.

You say of Adam:

He was fully endowed with the ability to obey God.

"Fully endowed." What does that mean? Can you clarify? And even if Adam was "fully endowed" with the ability to obey God, was there that chance?

You say of Adam:

There was no defect or propensity to sin in him.

Really? Can you substantiate this from Scripture please?

You say ALL of this about Adam and then say:

But to speculate further as to the specifics of what he "could have" done or what he "could have" inherited are not really profitable since Adam did not obey.

Well, Patrick, it seems as though there can be no speculation because you've nailed down Adam's character, abilities, and "could have's" already.

Now, again, was the fall determined by God? If so, does this not negate Adam's "freedom" of choice (aside from the imposition of the covenant, etc)? If the fall was predestined by God, then how can we say of Adam that he "could have" obtained, attained, whatever, something further than what he already had?

Dustin...

Dustin"¦ the above comments seem to indicate a most cynical and skeptical outlook. Are you sure that you really believe the 1689 or WCF?

I´ll respond to some of your requests, but I suspect that you won´t be satisfied"¦
I think that your post is latent with problems. You contradict yourself and you commit various logical fallacies:

First, you challenge the premise that Adam was created in the image of God in "œknowledge, righteousness, and holiness." Yet you implicitly affirm the presence of those qualities by granting, in the very next line I might add, that Adam was "œmade upright with a positive disposition to love God and obey him."

Second, you challenge the notion that there was "œno defect or propensity to sin in him." Yet above you agree that Adam was made upright and with a positive disposition to love God and obey him! In the first case, it is an insult to God´s creative power to say that he declared "œvery Good" something that was defective and that had been created with a bent towards sinning! In the second case, by affirming that we was made "œupright and with a positive disposition" you undermine the basis of your objection. To posit these things is like saying that Adam was going around, in a pre-fall state mind you, in some sort of Rom 7 conundrum.

Third, your question about there "œeven being the chance" that Adam could have obeyed God is moot. Adam was fully endowed - that is, God had given him all the resources he needed to not eat from the Tree. Yet, by analogy, the Sanhedrin and Pilate in Jesus day were fully endowed with the moral and legal powers to decide rightly and to therefore NOT put Jesus to death. It is precisely that they didn´t do so that makes them morally culpable. But their being fully endowed to make a right decision does not mean, in light of God´s sovereign decree, that they actually could have done anything other than what they did. In the case of Adam, God issued a command to him, Adam had everything at his disposal that he needed to obey, but God decreed that Adam would not obey, although God´s decree is irresistible, Adam is still morally culpable because he freely chose to disobey. If your question pertains to the perennial question of the relationship of God´s sovereignty and man´s freedom, then say so. But don´t act as if God´s decreed failure of Adam to keep the covenant somehow nullifies the existence of that same covenant.

Fourth, by questioning that God determined or decreed the fall you actually imply that we should instead think that it happened by accident, and this further implies that the rest of Scripture is God´s "œplan B!" If God determined the murder and death of Jesus and yet those guilty actually ARE GUILTY, then what is the philosophical difference between that and affirming God´s sovereign decree of the Fall? Though I believe that Paul responds best to your type of sentiment in Rom 9:19-21.

 

[Areopagus]

Ben,

You make no sense. Your post is latent with problems and you contradict yourself. I'll reply though in hopes that this might be cleared up.

First, you say that I "challenge" Adam being created in the same "knowledge, righeousness, and holiness" of God. Where, Ben, did I "challenge" this? Or did I actually ask Patrick to substantiate, from Scripture, such a claim? I think the latter is true? Why ask him to substantiate such a claim if I do think Adam may have been in this state, you might ask? The answer: so that we begin to go to Scripture for our presuppositions and assertions rather than just asserting things, i.e. *non sequitur.*

Now, Adam being created with a disposition to love and obey God is, in my opinion, far different than being in the very image of God's holiness, righeousness, and knowledge. Don't you? I mean, did Christ merely have the disposition to love and obey God, or was He actually the express image of God's character, i.e. righteousness, holiness, and knowledge?

You say:

Second, you challenge the notion that there was "œno defect or propensity to sin in him." Yet above you agree that Adam was made upright and with a positive disposition to love God and obey him!
___

Yes, and?

You say:

In the first case, it is an insult to God´s creative power to say that he declared "œvery Good" something that was defective and that had been created with a bent towards sinning!
___

This shows the driving force of your presupposition - self driven definitions. Why must I accept your definition of "good" in this case? Is it not also a reality that what God defines as "good" someone might define as evil? God defines what is good and what is evil. Many times His definition is most assuredly not our definition. Now, if God created Adam to sin (which I believe He did), then people come along and cry, "Oh my, you make God the Author of sin." Really? How so? If I say that God created Adam in His own image, and yet in line with His divine ability, created this same *man* with the end purpose of sinning, then someone runs along and cries, "Oh my, you make God out to be _____." Really? How so? So, your "conundrum" is a self perceived conundrum. It's your own logical fallacy shining through Ben.

You say:

Third, your question about there "œeven being the chance" that Adam could have obeyed God is moot. Adam was fully endowed - that is, God had given him all the resources he needed to not eat from the Tree. Yet, by analogy, the Sanhedrin and Pilate in Jesus day were fully endowed with the moral and legal powers to decide rightly and to therefore NOT put Jesus to death. It is precisely that they didn´t do so that makes them morally culpable. But their being fully endowed to make a right decision does not mean, in light of God´s sovereign decree, that they actually could have done anything other than what they did. In the case of Adam, God issued a command to him, Adam had everything at his disposal that he needed to obey, but God decreed that Adam would not obey, although God´s decree is irresistible, Adam is still morally culpable because he freely chose to disobey. If your question pertains to the perennial question of the relationship of God´s sovereignty and man´s freedom, then say so. But don´t act as if God´s decreed failure of Adam to keep the covenant somehow nullifies the existence of that same covenant.
___

So, endowed means that they had the *resources* to do something, but not the *ability?* I agree then. In your analogy of the Sanhedrin and Pilate you are correct. They had the *resources* to do something, but most definitely they did not have the *ability.* I assert that it was the same way with Adam in the garden. He had the *resources* to be obedient, but his end was already determined and this included his moral capabilities.

And so in line with your above assertions, I affirm your thinking that Adam *could not* have done anything but what he was created to do. It's not like God looked down the corridors of time and went, "Oh, that's what Adam does," and then He decreed the end. No, His plan was His glory all the way through. Adam was merely a part of the plan. So, Adam obtaining some sort of extra life or blessing, or whatever, for perfect obedience was never a possibility. Thus, the Covenant of Works as outlined as I understand it is merely a theory.

Which leads us to your last paragraph:

Fourth, by questioning that God determined or decreed the fall you actually imply that we should instead think that it happened by accident, and this further implies that the rest of Scripture is God´s "œplan B!" If God determined the murder and death of Jesus and yet those guilty actually ARE GUILTY, then what is the philosophical difference between that and affirming God´s sovereign decree of the Fall? Though I believe that Paul responds best to your type of sentiment in Rom 9:19-21.
___

This just doesn't make sense to me. I never questioned God's decree. In fact, I'm the one who's been embracing it as the crux of the issue. So, I think your drive to outpost or "prove" me wrong clouded your thinking.

Thanks for the post.

Dustin...

 

[Robin]

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... [/quote]

Dustin - I hope you will read this carefully and look up all the Scripture references.

The Belgic Confession 1561

Article 14 - The Creation and Fall of Man and his Incapability of Doing What is Truly Good

We believe that God created man of dust from the ground1 and He made and formed him after His own image and likeness, good, righteous, and holy.2 His will could conform to the will of God in every respect. But, when man was in this high position, he did not appreciate it nor did he value his excellency. He gave ear to the words of the devil and willfully subjected himself to sin and consequently to death and the curse.3 For he transgressed the commandment of life which he had received; by his sin he broke away from God, who was his true life; he corrupted his whole nature. By all this he made himself liable to physical and spiritual death.4

Since man became wicked and perverse, corrupt in all his ways, he has lost all his excellent gifts which he had once received from God.5 He has nothing left but some small traces, which are sufficient to make man inexcusable.6 For whatever light is in us has changed into darkness,7 as Scripture teaches us, "œThe light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it" (Jn 1:5); where the apostle John calls mankind darkness.

Therefore we reject all teaching contrary to this concerning the free will of man, since man is but a slave to sin (Jn 8:34) and no one can receive anything except what is given him from heaven (Jn 3:27). For who dares to boast that he of himself can do any good, when Christ says: "œNo one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him" (Jn 6:44)? Who will glory in his own will, when he understands that the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God (Rom 8:7)? Who can speak of his knowledge, since the unspiritual man does not receive the gifts of the Spirit of God (1 Cor 2:14)? In short, who dares to claim anything, when he realizes that we are not competent of ourselves to claim anything as coming from us, but that our competence is from God (2 Cor 3:5)? Therefore what the apostle says must justly remain sure and firm: God is at work in you both to will and to work for His good pleasure (Php 2:13). For there is no understanding nor will conformable to the understanding and will of God unless Christ has brought it about; as He teaches us: "œApart from Me you can do nothing" (Jn 15:5).

1Gen 2:7, 3:19; Ecc 12:7 2 Gen 1:26-27; Eph 4:24; Col 3:10 3 Gen 3:16-19; Rom 5:12 4 Gen 2:17; Eph 2:1, 4:18 5 Ps 94:11; Rom 3:10, 8:6 6 Rom 1:20-21 7 Eph 5:8

Btw...I disagree with the idea that it is "covenant" that is Scripture's paradigm. Rather it is the "Kingdom of God." The Covenants are the lens to view the Kingdom through.



Robin

 

[Areopagus]

Robin,

Quite honestly, I'm not sure what point your post made.

I don't question the absolute sovereignty of God. I don't question mans slavery to death. I don't question any of this. Again, I affirm that God was, is, and will always be absolutely sovereign over every event that unfolds. None of it is by accident. He has ordained it all.

Dustin...

 

[Puritan Sailor]

Originally posted by Areopagus
Patrick,

I'm not sure where the WCF agrees with you. I'd like to see that, when you have time.

The WCF says:

II. After God had made all other creatures, he created man, male and female, with reasonable and immortal souls, endued with knowledge, righteousness, and true holiness after his own image, having the law of God written in their hearts, and power to fulfill it; and yet under a possibility of transgressing, being left to the liberty of their own will, which was subject unto change. Besides this law written in their hearts, they received a command not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil; which while they kept were happy in their communion with God, and had dominion over the creatures.

I'm aware of this. I'm also aware that you adhere to it. My questions still remain though. Can you substantiate your assertions from Scripture?

First, now that you concede my opinions are not just my own, but also those of the Westminster Divines, and all those who followed them, let's not just call these my "assertions."

Adam was made in the image of God and in His likeness (Gen. 1:27). This entailed that he was upright in his nature (Ecc. 7:29) before his fall. By upright, he had a postive good nature, inclined to obey God and do good. He obeyed the law in it's fullest sense, from teh heart, because that's how he was designed. He was made without sin. The law was written on his heart as part of his created uprightness, and this law remains in man though corrupted by his fall (Rom. 2:14-15) (unless you wish to speculate another time when the law was written on the hearts of all men). This is further demonstrated by what man is restored to. In Col. 3:10, we are renewed in knowledge, according to the image of Him who created him. Hence, knowledge is part of the image of God. And this thought of renewal is also expressed in Ephesians 4:23-24 where we are to put on the new man, created according to God, in true righteousness and holiness. Hence, the rationale for why WSC says "created after the image of God in knowledge, righteousness, and holiness." Adam was had the ability in his morally upright nature to obey God, and hence obtain life by that covenant of works which God condescended to make with him.

The Scriptures are clear that man may inherit eternal life by one of two covenants. In the covenant of works, he must keep the law perfectly and satisfy the righteous requirements of the law on his own (Mark 10:17-21, Gal. 3:10-12, Rom. 10:5). But obviously because of Adam's sin as our head, his sin is imputed to us, and we inherit his corrupt nature, and so as sinners, we can no longer obtain life by that covenant (Rom. 5:12-21).
So we must obtain life through the work of another federal head, the last or second Adam, Christ. He satisfied the righteous requirements of the law for us (Rom. 3:21-26, 5:1-11, 8:1-4). His obedience to the law is imputed to us through faith and our punishment imputed to him (2 Cor. 5:21, Gal. 3:13).
You already know this I believe. I just repeated it to stress to you the mechanism which God ordained for our inheriting eternal life and enjoying communion with God. The reward for obedience, or justification by works, is fundamental to inheriting eternal life. Christ had to obey the law for us because Adam failed to do that for us.

Now, in the WCF under the heading "Of God's Eternal Decree" we find this:

IV. These angels and men, thus predestinated and foreordained, are particularly and unchangeably designed; and their number is so certain and definite that it can not be either increased or diminished.

I'm assuming that Adam falls under these who are predestined for life, correct? If so, what does it say about Adam's being designed?

Of course Adam's fall was decreed. I never denied that at all. But that doesn't mean Adam was not created upright and fully capable of obeying God, regardless of the decree. The "design" being refered to is the decree regarding the number of elect and reprobate, not the nature of the creatures. If God created creatures who desire to sin, then He has made a creature evil, contrary to His own righteous nature. You would have to conclude God the author of sin in that case.

Consider the first paragraph from that same chapter on the Decree:
God from all eternity did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to passa) yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin,(b) nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.(c)

(a) Eph. 1:11; Rom. 11:33; Heb. 6:17; Rom. 9:15, 18.
(b) Jam. 1:13, 17; I John 1:5.
(c) Acts 2:23; Matt. 17:12; Acts 4:27, 28; John 19:11; Prov. 16:33.

For me, there is no conflict between Adam's ability to obey, and God's soveriegnty, especially 6000 years or so after the fact. God decreed to accomplish his purposes through secondary causes, not by creating a defective creature. And further more, after the fact, we now see the genius of God's plan in this covenant with Adam, because by it, the second Adam was able to justly and mercifully satisfy the righteous requirements of the law and inherit eternal life for His elect. That which God required of Adam (and us in him), he provided in Christ (for those in Him).

Consider also the WCF on Free Will especially regarding Adam:
I. God hath endued the will of man with that natural liberty, that is neither forced, nor by any absolute necessity of nature determined to good or evil.(a)

(a) Matt. 17:12; James 1:14; Deut. 30:19.

II. Man, in his state of innocency, had freedom and power to will and to do that which was good, and well pleasing to God;(b) but yet, mutably, so that he might fall from it.(c)

(b) Eccles. 7:29; Gen. 1:26.
(c) Gen. 2:16, 17; Gen. 3:6.

Consider further these:
The Law of God
I. God gave to Adam a law, as a covenant of works, by which He bound him and all his posterity to personal, entire, exact, and perpetual obedience; promised life upon the fulfilling, and threatened death upon the breach of it: and endued him with power and ability to keep it.(a)

(a) Gen. 1:26, 27 with Gen. 2:17; Rom. 2:14, 15; Rom. 10:5; Rom. 5:12, 19; Gal. 3:10, 12; Eccles. 7:29; Job 28:28.

And from the Larger Catchism:
Q17: How did God create man?

A17: After God had made all other creatures, he created man male and female;[1] formed the body of the man of the dust of the ground,[2] and the woman of the rib of the man,[3] endued them with living, reasonable, and immortal souls;[4] made them after his own image,[5] in knowledge,[6] righteousness,and holiness;[7] having the law of God written in their hearts,[8] and power to fulfil it,[9] and dominion over the creatures;[10] yet subject to fall.[11]

1. Gen. 1:27
2. Gen. 2:7
3. Gen. 2:22
4. Gen. 2:7; Job 35:11; Eccl. 12:7; Matt. 10:28; Luke 23:43
5. Gen. 1:27
6. Col. 3:10
7. Eph. 4:24
8. Rom. 2:14-15
9. Eccl. 7:29
10. Gen. 1:28
11. Gen. 3:6; Eccl. 7:29

Q20: What was the providence of God toward man in the estate in which he was created?
A20: The providence of God toward man in the estate in which he was created, was the placing him in paradise, appointing him to dress it, giving him liberty to eat of the fruit of the earth;[1] putting the creatures under his dominion,[2] and ordaining marriage for his help;[3] affording him communion with himself;[4] instituting the sabbath;[5] entering into a covenant of life with him, upon condition of personal, perfect, and perpetual obedience,[6] of which the tree of life was a pledge;[7] and forbidding to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, upon the pain of death.[8]

1. Gen. 2:8, 15-16
2. Gen. 1:28
3. Gen. 2:18
4. Gen. 1:26-29; 3:8
5. Gen. 2:3
6. Gal. 3:12; Rom. 10:5
7. Gen. 2:9
8. Gen. 2:17

Q21: Did man continue in that estate wherein God at first created him?
A21: Our first parents being left to the freedom of their own will, through the temptation of Satan, transgressed the commandment of God in eating the forbidden fruit; and thereby fell from the estate of innocency wherein they were created.[1]
1. Gen. 3:6-8, 13; Eccl. 7:29; II Cor. 11:3

So, what I "asserted" is nothing more than what traditional Reformed theology has held too. There's Scripture references a plenty. Hopefully you understand where I'm coming from. Now where are you coming from?

[Edited on 4-1-2005 by puritansailor]

 

[SolaScriptura]

Originally posted by Areopagus
Your post is latent with problems and you contradict yourself.

Actually, it's not. Read it again. And where do I contradict myself? I'm not known for having a propensity towards that, yet I am a man so I don't deny this is a possibility.

I will say that your objections against Adam's nature seem more founded on a desire to depart... from orthodoxy... than from sound exegesis. God never calls sinners "good." (In this fact lies the hermeneutical key to Jesus' point in Matt 5:17) Christian testimony is uniform that when God called man's creation "very good" this (among other things) means that he was without defect. It is not a logical fallacy to assert that this means that he was without a propensity to sin. On the contrary, a propensity to sin is a defect of the highest order! To say otherwise is special pleading. If you are going to assert that God called his creation "very good" and try to posit a definition other than that which has been accepted... well, the proof is on you.

By the way, you didn't answer my question... do you actually believe the 1689 LBCF or the WCF?



[Edited on 4-1-2005 by SolaScriptura]

 

[pastorway]

The 1689 does not mention a Covenant of Works.....

Phillip

 

[SolaScriptura]

Originally posted by pastorway
The 1689 does not mention a Covenant of Works.....

Phillip

No... but it uses the language.
Besides... the 1689 says a lot of things that Dustin is either challenging or denying in his posts above...

4.2After God had made all other creatures, he created man, male and female, with reasonable and immortal souls, rendering them fit unto that life to God for which they were created; being made after the image of God, in knowledge, righteousness, and true holiness; having the law of God written in their hearts, and power to fulfil it, and yet under a possibility of transgressing, being left to the liberty of their own will, which was subject to change.

6.1. Although God created man upright and perfect, and gave him a righteous law, which had been unto life had he kept it, and threatened death upon the breach thereof, yet he did not long abide in this honour; Satan using the subtlety of the serpent to subdue Eve, then by her seducing Adam, who, without any compulsion, did willfully transgress the law of their creation, and the command given unto them, in eating the forbidden fruit, which God was pleased, according to his wise and holy counsel to permit, having purposed to order it to his own glory.
( Genesis 2:16, 17; Genesis 3:12,13; 2 Corinthians 11:3 )

6.2. Our first parents, by this sin, fell from their original righteousness and communion with God, and we in them whereby death came upon all: all becoming dead in sin, and wholly defiled in all the faculties and parts of soul and body.
( Romans 3:23; Romans 5:12, etc; Titus 1:15; Genesis 6:5; Jeremiah 17:9; Romans 3:10-19 )

6.3. They being the root, and by God's appointment, standing in the room and stead of all mankind, the guilt of the sin was imputed, and corrupted nature conveyed, to all their posterity descending from them by ordinary generation, being now conceived in sin, and by nature children of wrath, the servants of sin, the subjects of death, and all other miseries, spiritual, temporal, and eternal, unless the Lord Jesus set them free.
( Romans 5:12-19; 1 Corinthians 15:21, 22, 45, 49; Psalms 51:5; Job 14:4; Ephesians 2:3; Romans 6:20 Romans 5:12; Hebrews 2:14, 15; 1 Thessalonians 1:10 )

6.4. From this original corruption, whereby we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil, do proceed all actual transgressions.
( Romans 8:7; Colossians 1:21; James 1:14, 15; Matthew 15:19 )

6.5The corruption of nature, during this life, doth remain in those that are regenerated; and although it be through Christ pardoned and mortified, yet both itself, and the first motions thereof, are truly and properly sin.


Dustin seems to think that prior to the Fall Adam had a propensity to sin. And he apparently denies that God's law was written on Adam's heart.
Both the 1689 and the WCF teach these things. So asking him if he believes either of these documents is not an unfair question...

[Edited on 4-1-2005 by SolaScriptura]

 

[Areopagus]

Ben,

You ask:

By the way, you didn't answer my question... do you actually believe the 1689 LBCF or the WCF?

I believe much of them, but I don't adhere to them as dogma. I don't believe this is necessary for me to be orthodox. Adhering to a code outside of Scripture isn't necessary for sound theology - only systems. Do I believe that confessions are inherently bad? Of course not. I admire the WCF greatly.

Hopefully your other misunderstandings and false accusations will be cleared up when I answer Patrick.
____

Patrick,

Thanks for your post. Truly, I appreciated it. Much of what you were asserting without any clarity is now better understood. Definitions are very important.

You say:

First, now that you concede my opinions are not just my own, but also those of the Westminster Divines, and all those who followed them, let's not just call these my "assertions."

These assertions were merely yours Patrick. There was nothing referenced at all. Granted, I understood your presupposition was a confession, but you didn't say as such. I pressed you for the purpose of us having some sort of objective standard to look to rather than just you saying, "This is how it is."

You say:

Adam was made in the image of God and in His likeness (Gen. 1:27).

Yes, I agree. But just what does this mean Patrick? You say:

This entailed that he was upright in his nature (Ecc. 7:29) before his fall.

Solomon did not say that. Solomon said:

See, this alone I found, that God made man upright, but they have sought out many schemes.

Is this an inherent disposition, or just a position? In other words, I'm not so quick to assert that Adam was upright because of an inherent worth or innocent nature. Scripture is silent on that issue Patrick. When I see "upright" used in Scripture it is declarative of a position as given by God, not a worth or ability found in man.

More, I read in Genesis 3:22:

Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil. Now, lest he reach out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat, and live forever - "

Before the fall Adam, it would seem, had no knowledge of "good" and "evil." Scripture says "he (Adam) has become like one of us in knowing good and evil." So before the fall did Adam know good and evil?

You say:

By upright, he had a postive good nature, inclined to obey God and do good. He obeyed the law in it's fullest sense, from the heart, because that's how he was designed.

Do "good?" In what sense? How could Adam aspire to what he, up to that point, was not aware of?

You say:

He was made without sin.

I agree.

You say:

The law was written on his heart as part of his created uprightness, and this law remains in man though corrupted by his fall (Rom. 2:14-15) (unless you wish to speculate another time when the law was written on the hearts of all men).

Romans 2:14-15 says:

14For when Gentiles, who do not have the law...

So was Adam a Gentile?

by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law.

Who's the "they" and the "themselves" here? And what does it say about them having the law or not?

They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them

Again, who are the pronouns referring to here? More, does it say that "the law" is written on their hearts, or "the work of the law?" Maybe I'm arguing semantics, but I just want us to say what only Scripture says.

So, am I to apply Romans 2:14-15 to Adam's character before the fall, even though Genesis says that Adam had no knowledge of "good" and of "evil," like God?

You say:

This is further demonstrated by what man is restored to. In Col. 3:10, we are renewed in knowledge, according to the image of Him who created him. Hence, knowledge is part of the image of God.

The "this" is proceeding your remarks about "the law" being written on the heart of Adam before the fall. Then you say that "this" is what we are restored to, i.e. the knowledge. Am I understanding you correctly? You then cite Colossians 3:10 as proof for this claim.

Colossians 1:10:

"bearing fruit in every good work and increasing in the knowledge of God."

The knowledge is aimed at knowing the person of God - not an inherent ability or natural disposition.

Colossians 2:2-3:

"...to reach all the riches of full assurance of understanding and theknowledge of God's mystery, which is Christ, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge."

Again, the "knowledge" if focused upon the person of Christ - God.

Colossians 3:10:

"...and have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge after the image of its Creator."

So the being renewed in "knowledge," again, is directly tied to being in the "image of" the Creator.

Romans 8:29:

For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son...

You say:

And this thought of renewal is also expressed in Ephesians 4:23-24 where we are to put on the new man, created according to God, in true righteousness and holiness. Hence, the rationale for why WSC says "created after the image of God in knowledge, righteousness, and holiness."

Ephesians 4:23-24:

"...and to be renewed in the spirit of your minds, and to put on the new self, created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness."

The renewal is tied to the "spirit of your minds." Then there is a separation. Then Paul goes on to talk about putting "on the new self." Yes, the new self is "created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness" because it is a Spirit wrought work in sanctification (Phil. 2:12-13) that we are predestined for (Rom. 8:29) by the foreordained plan of God. But again, the "renewal" part if tied to the "spirit of your minds." What does that mean Patrick?

Romans 12:2:

Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind...

Why?

"....that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect."

But you look at Ephesians 4:23-24 and make the jump to:

Adam was had the ability in his morally upright nature to obey God, and hence obtain life by that covenant of works which God condescended to make with him.

Where did it say that Patrick? Where does Scripture say that Adam had a "natural ability" to obey God. Where does it say that this "ability" came from him being "morally upright" in nature? I'll get back to the last part of that assertion, i.e. the covenant of works aspect, in a bit.

You say:

The Scriptures are clear that man may inherit eternal life by one of two covenants.

I don't believe that the Scriptures are clear on this. I believe that the Scriptures state just the opposite. Man strives to obtain eternal life by obedience, but did, does, and always will fail to do so. Adam never could have. God ordained it so. You agree to this. And in Adam we all inherit his corrupt nature. I agree. So what he could not do being in the very midst of God in the garden, we certainly cannot do living in a corrupt world that groans in anticipation for its resurrection.

I believe God ordained the fall, as I said before, to display what man could never do. And even though he was "fully endowed" with the resources to be obedient, he could never have achieved such perfect obedience. Only God could satisfy God's requirements. All of this has always been about the manifestation of the infinite glory of God.

And you assert that Adam could have obtained eternal life by perfect obedience to God's command, but where does the Scripture say this? Scripture says that Adam already had life. But, we aren't to speculate about such things, are we?

Then you say:

In the covenant of works, he must keep the law perfectly and satisfy the righteous requirements of the law on his own (Mark 10:17-21, Gal. 3:10-12, Rom. 10:5).

I agree that Adam was required to obey God. God decreed what Adam was to do and to not do. But could Adam have ever obeyed this perfectly? Of course not. God decreed it to be so. Adam had the "resources," but not the ability.

You say:

But obviously because of Adam's sin as our head, his sin is imputed to us, and we inherit his corrupt nature, and so as sinners, we can no longer obtain life by that covenant (Rom. 5:12-21).

I agree with all of that except the obtaining eternal life part. You say we can "no longer" obtain eternal life by works. I say we never could have. But then again, that is our contention isn't it?

In fact, Galatians 3:21 seems to agree with me:

"For if a law had been given that could give life, then righteousness would indeed be by the law."

You say:

So we must obtain life through the work of another federal head, the last or second Adam, Christ. He satisfied the righteous requirements of the law for us (Rom. 3:21-26, 5:1-11, 8:1-4). His obedience to the law is imputed to us through faith and our punishment imputed to him (2 Cor. 5:21, Gal. 3:13).

Praise the Lord. Amen! Well put.

You say concerning the WCF:

Of course Adam's fall was decreed. I never denied that at all. But that doesn't mean Adam was not created upright and fully capable of obeying God, regardless of the decree. The "design" being refered to is the decree regarding the number of elect and reprobate, not the nature of the creatures.

I know you don't deny Adam's fall. Patrick, a lot of times we both make rhetorical statements for the sake of clarity or precision. I know your sound in your essentials. I am too. We are just working other things out. This is part of that process. I don't want you to think that I believe you are "off" or whacky or something. I appreciate the dialogue, as long as it remains civil.

Still, I have an issue with the assertion that Adam was created with this ability you speak of, but I don't want to belabor that.

You say:

For me, there is no conflict between Adam's ability to obey, and God's soveriegnty, especially 6000 years or so after the fact. God decreed to accomplish his purposes through secondary causes, not by creating a defective creature. And further more, after the fact, we now see the genius of God's plan in this covenant with Adam, because by it, the second Adam was able to justly and mercifully satisfy the righteous requirements of the law and inherit eternal life for His elect. That which God required of Adam (and us in him), he provided in Christ (for those in Him).

Now see, I agree with most of this Patrick. I don't agree, as I've said, with the "ability" part you speak of. I would say that God decreed and demanded of Adam perfect obedience, albeit decreeing Adam's fall. So in what way did God decree Adam's fall Patrick? Did God set all the pieces up and then sit back and go, "Come on Adam, fall!" I know you don't think so. There's the rhetoric I was talking about. By us agreeing that God decreed Adam's fall, what do we mean by that? I know what I mean, but what do you mean?

If God created Adam in such a way that he had the resources to obey AND transgress the commandment, and decreed that Adam would in fact transgress His requirements, and He used this secondary means (Adam) for His ultimate purposes, then how is this flawed? I don't believe that it is.

The WCF you cite says:

II. Man, in his state of innocency, had freedom and power to will and to do that which was good, and well pleasing to God;(b) but yet, mutably, so that he might fall from it.(c)

Elaborate please. Adam's "will" had "freedom and power to will?" What does that mean? What is Adam's "will." Can you define "the will" for me? How did this inanimate ability referred to as a "the" possess qualities like "freedom and power?" More, what would the scope of the "freedom" be? What would the scope of the "power" be?

More importantly to the discussion at hand is the elaboration of the "mutably" part. Please elaborate upon this "will" Adam had, with all of its "freedom and power," that was mutable. I'm interested.

The WCF:

I. God gave to Adam a law, as a covenant of works, by which He bound him and all his posterity to personal, entire, exact, and perpetual obedience; promised life upon the fulfilling, and threatened death upon the breach of it: and endued him with power and ability to keep it.(a)

Without going off on all the little things again, in what way was Adam "endued with power and ability" to keep God's requirements? And if the fall is decreed, how could Adam have done so?

You say:

A21: Our first parents being left to the freedom of their own will, through the temptation of Satan, transgressed the commandment of God in eating the forbidden fruit; and thereby fell from the estate of innocency wherein they were created.[1]

Yet it's decreed to be so, yes? In other words, God declared that this is what would be. There was no other possibility, right? Adam was in fact, going to fall, right? And while I don't deny that He has every right to still hold Adam morally responsible, after all, He is God, I don't see how Adam ever had the chance to obtain eternal life through perfect obedience by way of some "will" that had "freedom and power." But, you are going to elaborate on this I hope.

You say:

So, what I "asserted" is nothing more than what traditional Reformed theology has held too.

Well, maybe. I guess it depends on what you mean by "traditional Reformed theology." I know that the Covenant of Works was not addressed until much later than what it is touted to be. In fact, Covenant Theology, although I know you will say was there, but just not called as such, etc, is a system that has been formulated. But let's not get into that, yet.

Patrick, thanks for dialoguing. Thanks for your generosity in time and knowledge.

Dustin...

[Edited on 4-1-2005 by Areopagus]

 

[Robin]

Dustin,

The point that I tried to make -- that was missed --- is that Adam DID have free will and could have succeeded....(though God appointed all things.)

Only 3 people in human history have free-will:

Adam, Eve, Jesus.

And we all know what Adam & Eve did with theirs....the time of "free-will" ended for mankind at the Fall.

The point is, Christ, the Second Adam, reversed the Curse by His life, death, resurrection...and continues to reverse it via the Gospel. Of course we know, the Imago Dei was horribly marred at the Fall --- Christ restores this, however -- His work was necessary to restore man's humanity.

It is NOT normal for human beings to be sinful. That is why the Fall IS the FALL from humanity and "grace" -- in a sense - for man was God's crown of creation. With that came Adam's ability to fulfill God's probation.

Confusion arises from not making distinctions between life and "eternal life." There are differences in quality.

To minimize Adam's humanity before the Fall - is to offend God's creative prowess.

R.

 

[Areopagus]

Robin,

You say:

The point that I tried to make -- that was missed --- is that Adam DID have free will and could have succeeded....(though God appointed all things.)

Only 3 people in human history have free-will:

Adam, Eve, Jesus.

Robin, I don't understand your post. What do you mean by "free will?" Can you explain what a "will" is and what it means for this "will" to be "free?" You really need to clarify these terms in order for us not to talk past one another.

For example, if you are telling me that inside of people there is a thing called a "will," then I have to disagree. We have a process of events, i.e. logic, reason, bias, emotions, and so forth, that produce responses that we call choices. These responses that we call choices are called in Scripture, a will. If by "will" you mean this, then I agree. But then in what sense is it "free?" Do you mean that it isn't determined by something, or anything? If so, I disagree. You need to define "free." Our emotions, biases, logic, reason, and so forth are in fact determined by a great many things. Adam's will was subject to God, His decree/commandment, His creation which Adam was to take care of, emotions, ad infinitum. So in what sense was Adam's "will" free?

Then after your assertion you say that Adam could have succeeded, "though God appointed all things." Robin, oh please can you explain how this is reconciled? I'm not even going to comment on this. I just want you to reconcile it.

Then you make another assertion. Namely, that only 3 people in the world have had a "free will": Adam, Eve, and Jesus.

Really?

So, although Adam and Eve were both infinitely influenced by God, His decrees, nature, God's ordination of all things (which you affirm), and so forth, they were "free" in their "will" things to do...what? And how?

More, is it your claim that Jesus' "will" was free? In what sense? As best I can tell Christ was bound to the will of God. Thus, the will of Christ was not free at all. Christ affirms this all throughout Scripture. For example, might Christ have willed to create a round square? Might Christ have willed to lie? Might Christ have willed to sin? If not, why? My guess is because Christ is bound to the will of the Father, His eternal plan, logic and reason, etc. These things were carried out by Christ through the work of the Holy Spirit according to the counsel of God's will. It is the same way in us. Our only hope before the fall and after is Christ. The motivations (all that makes up "the will") of Christ were influenced in ways we cannot even comprehend.

Please can you explain what you mean by all of that? Please reconcile your remarks.

Dustin...

[Edited on 4-1-2005 by Areopagus]

 

[Robin]

Dustin,

I only have a moment here....

First, I DO mean total free agency for Adam and Eve BECAUSE they bear the Imago Dei. God ordained Adam as viceroy-regent and priest of God's "garden temple" and was imbued with responsibilities as such. Adam was also the first Son of God - in a sense - the typology between Adam and Christ is rich (too much for now.)

As Fred points out -- if Adam could not succeed, that would make God the Author of sin. (A big deal.) Plus, that would disqualify Adam for the viceroyship -- making Christ, the Second Adam, inconsistent with fulfilling the office of "viceroy/king and priest." The design of ancient mid-eastern convenant treaties show a "Suzerain-King" or great-king, imposing rules upon a lesser-king/suzerain or viceroy. God is the Great Suzerain and Adam was the lesser-suzerain. (This is basic to how a covenant operates.) This is why Christ is the Second Adam and King and Priest. There is a real kingdom with a heirarchy.) The understanding of ancient middle eastern covenant treaties and how the ruling system worked is frequently confused or mistaken with modern day presumptions. Scripture's covenant system is not like the Old English feudal system. Let us take note of our contemporary presuppositions.

Please don't waste time with the Arminian free-will (John Locke) silliness, OK? Everyone knows I don't mean that.

You have yet to deal with the Belgic article 14 that was glossed over...

Btw, the Covenant of Works (though Adam failed it) was still in place through-out the OT. At it's core, the doctrine of Justification is based upon a "works requirement" (gasp)...meaning S O M E B O D Y must succeed in the Eden probation. Get it? Adam did not; Israel did not; enter Jesus Christ. Jesus succeeded in obeying the covenant of works imposed upon Adam. It is Christ's WORKS that secure eternal life for mankind. Christ both pays the price of human treason against the Eternal Creator King and as God's Viceroy, finally secures the right to partake of the Tree of Life (Revelation 2:7.)

All I can say, now (and will take a while to get back at it) reading Genesis without the proper eschatalogical grid causes all kinds of confusion. It's a huge-unorthodox leap to presume things not mentioned in the Text.

Just because we can't know HOW God does a thing -- doesn't mean we can construct another system of how He might have done something. I'm sure you'd agree, right?

So far, you have yet to address the good solid studies of Scripture (WCF; Belgic) that offer insight to what the Bible says. Opinions are not going to blow away 500 years of scholarship by some of the most valiant saints.

Most serious is --- your implications that Adam was bound by God's decree to fail? Do you hear that? God coerced Adam to fail the test? Hmmm....doen't that make Him the Author of Sin? I invite you to explain THAT from Scripture, please.

In all meekness,

Robin

[Edited on 4-2-2005 by Robin]

 

[Areopagus]

In all meekness? Ok.

You say:

First, I DO mean total free agency for Adam and Eve BECAUSE they bear the Imago Dei. God ordained Adam as viceroy-regent and priest of God's "garden temple" and was imbued with responsibilities as such.

You don't even see the fallacy in your own presupposition. I'm not surprised, but I thought I'd point it out. You say that Adam had "total free agency," but that he was a "viceroy-regent" and was "imbued with responsibilities as such." The 2 assertions do not reconcile Robin.

More, extra assertions about 500 years of "valiant saints," ignored confessional issues, whatever, does not lend support to your case. I look to Scripture, not confessions. Again, are confession inherently bad? No. However, when they become the Doctrines and Covenants, so to speak, then there's an issue.

You say:

As Fred points out -- if Adam could not succeed, that would make God the Author of sin.

Here is yet another assertion without proof. It's just as easy for me to say, "No Robin, you are wrong." And I do think you are wrong.

You didn't address my post at all. Your assertion of "free will" makes no sense.

You say:

Plus, that would disqualify Adam for the viceroyship -- making Christ, the Second Adam, inconsistent with fulfilling the office of "viceroy/king and priest."

Why? Don't give me a confessional schema. Tell me why from Scripture.

You say:

Let us take note of our contemporary presuppositions.

Yes, let's.

You say:

Please don't waste time with the Arminian free-will (John Locke) silliness, OK? Everyone knows I don't mean that.

Then address my post. What did you mean? A simple explanation of Adam's "free will" would be nice Robin.

You say:

Btw, the Covenant of Works (though Adam failed it) was still in place through-out the OT. At it's core, the doctrine of Justification is based upon a "works requirement" (gasp)...meaning S O M E B O D Y must succeed in the Eden probation. Get it? Adam did not; Israel did not; enter Jesus Christ. Jesus succeeded in obeying the covenant of works imposed upon Adam. It is Christ's WORKS that secure eternal life for mankind. Christ both pays the price of human treason against the Eternal Creator King and as God's Viceroy, finally secures the right to partake of the Tree of Life (Revelation 2:7.)

Remove your contemporary presupposition about the CoW, and I completely agree with this statement. I've never denied any of this. Honestly, I don't think you critically and objectively read my posts. No matter.

I've consistently said that God demanded of Adam obedience to His command, albeit decreeing the fall of His own creation. God used a secondary means to bring about His primary end. How is this not correct? I've brought up Scriptures, dealth with the ones given me (verse by verse I might add), and brought up other issues that still aren't being addressed (although I know Patrick, he will address them). So, your assertions are empty Robin. Although I appreciate your attempt.

You say:

It's a huge-unorthodox leap to presume things not mentioned in the Text.

Boy, it sure is. I'm glad I strive with great passion to stay away from that. That's why I lean upon the text alone for my views.

You say:

Just because we can't know HOW God does a thing -- doesn't mean we can construct another system of how He might have done something. I'm sure you'd agree, right?

Oh most assuredly. For example, how God created Adam, placed him in the garden, placed the tree in front of him tha He told him not to partake of, placed the woman there with him, placed the serpent in the garden, had exhaustive foreknowledge of every action and reaction, and had even decreed the end of it all. Yet, He, God is absolutely innocent of being the Author of anything evil. Whew! Try that one on for size. And so you are right, I shy away from creating another system of how to explain what isn't in Scripture. God did it how He did it. He did it for His glory. I'm fine with that. Are you?

You say:

So far, you have yet to address the good solid studies of Scripture (WCF; Belgic) that offer insight to what the Bible says. Opinions are not going to blow away 500 years of scholarship by some of the most valiant saints.

Yes, actually, I believe that I have. The "valiant saints" aren't the final authority Robin, are they? The WCF isn't the final authority. The BC isn't the final authority, is it? Insights are good, but the direct revelation is better. Again, I don't discount at all the saints gone before us. Praise God for wisdom. But just because my conclusions do not agree with yours doesn't make them any less tenable or correct.

You say:

Most serious is --- your implications that Adam was bound by God's decree to fail? Do you hear that? God's decree brought about the Fall? Hmmm....doen't that make Him the Author of Sin? I invite you to explain THAT from Scripture, please.

This is why I don't think you are reading my posts.

Does that make Him the Author of sin? No. It's been explained. Does it fit within your presupposition? Well gosh, no. That makes it wrong huh?

Dustin...

 

[Robin]

Questions about "free-will"? .........

With regard to abilities in temptation to sin: Pre-Fall, Adam was capable of suceeding in his trial. Genesis 1:26

Christ was completely incapable of failing in His. Hebrews 7:26

Let us be cautious to consider Adam's sin (use of will) was NOT like our sinfulness (use of will): Romans 5:14

Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.

The Geneva commentary for Romans 5:14 is here;

http://bible.crosswalk.com/Commentaries/GenevaStudyBible/gen.cgi?book=ro&chapter=005

Theology Encyclopedia on "Image of God":

http://bible.crosswalk.com/Dictionaries/BakersEvangelicalDictionary/bed.cgi

More thoughts:

Adam was under the sovreign rule of God and yet was given dominion to rule (Viceroyship); Christ was obedient to the Father and yet IS God -- ruling over all.

Could it be said that Adam was a true image bearer if he was unable to obey God? I mean, how could a perfect God create a being that was imperfect? How could this being be His "son"? If there was any taint at all in God's creation (Adam) doesn't that make God imperfect? Then God goes and creates Eve by using Adam's body-parts (Gen 2:22) so is this more tainted stuff God us using? A bad batch? What?

Ephesians 4:24 speaks of the "new man" bearing the image of God. Uh, Oh....this is a reference to Genesis 1:26. Is this a "do over" for God? (humor) I'm just wondering....rather, I think this comports perfectly with Christ, the Second Adam, finally succeeding where Adam did not (and if Adam could not -- what kind of victory is that, after all?) Not a very majestic story, I'd say. Christ restores humanity to it's pre-Fall condition....and more.....



R.

 

[SolaScriptura]

Dustin, I´ve read your posts "“ your arguments, your Clinton-like questioning of the meaning of just about every word someone uses in their post, your use of Scripture, particularly in the most recent posts- and I must say, that your views on Adam are, quite frankly, a departure from what just about every sound thinking Christian to grace the planet has ever said. Your comment about "œThe WCF isn't the final authority. The BC isn't the final authority, is it? Insights are good, but the direct revelation is better." Is a total cop out. All that pious sounding language means is that at the end of the day your opinion is what matters most to you. Sure you say that you "œdon't discount at all the saints gone before us. Praise God for wisdom." But in light of all you said, it is abundantly clear that you DO discount the saints that have gone before us"¦ unless they happen to agree with you!

Your use of Scripture is faulty from the go because you are constantly comparing apples with oranges"¦ there is a world of difference between the state of a prefall, untarnished by sin Adam and his fallen posterity. Additionally"¦ your apparent belief that the word "œlaw" always means the same thing in every context is about as naïve as when dispensationalists say that "œIsrael" always means the same thing. But perhaps you believe that too?