Steve Paynter
Puritan Board Freshman
I have learnt from the thread about the "covenant of grace" and have deliberately omitted the controversial word "Reformed" from this question.
I know that historically different people have preferred different names .... "covenant of nature"; "covenant of works"; "covenant of creation"; and even "Adamic covenant (or administration)" ... but, as I understand it, these have all referred to the same basic "covenant". Is this right?
I also know that most posit, i) the blessing of eternal life, if the prohibition(s) are kept for an unspecified probationary period; but that ii) some have criticised this idea as not being present in the text, and see only an on-going requirement for covenantal obedience.
I think I know that it is normal to distinguish the "works principle" which states that God's morally capable creation - in virtue of its nature as creation - owes obedience to their Creator, from the "covenant of works". However, I am unclear whether this distinction is only necessary if the covenant of works is understood to have a positive promise of eternal life involved in it. I am also unclear whether this creation "works principle" is equivalent to or is based on the idea of "natural law". Do some thinkers confuse the concept of covenant of works with the creation works principle?
I guess most of these questions become important in one's systematic theology for how they impact one's understanding of the work of the second Adam, and how his active righteousness comes to be imputed to us.
I know that historically different people have preferred different names .... "covenant of nature"; "covenant of works"; "covenant of creation"; and even "Adamic covenant (or administration)" ... but, as I understand it, these have all referred to the same basic "covenant". Is this right?
I also know that most posit, i) the blessing of eternal life, if the prohibition(s) are kept for an unspecified probationary period; but that ii) some have criticised this idea as not being present in the text, and see only an on-going requirement for covenantal obedience.
I think I know that it is normal to distinguish the "works principle" which states that God's morally capable creation - in virtue of its nature as creation - owes obedience to their Creator, from the "covenant of works". However, I am unclear whether this distinction is only necessary if the covenant of works is understood to have a positive promise of eternal life involved in it. I am also unclear whether this creation "works principle" is equivalent to or is based on the idea of "natural law". Do some thinkers confuse the concept of covenant of works with the creation works principle?
I guess most of these questions become important in one's systematic theology for how they impact one's understanding of the work of the second Adam, and how his active righteousness comes to be imputed to us.