# Does Denial of CoW = Denial of Imputation?



## RamistThomist (Feb 22, 2005)

Bear with me as I work a few things out.
I am going to try to summarize arguments that are similar to Jim Jordan's and ask if they lead to a denial of Imputation of Christ's Righteousness. Please keep in mind that I do not hold to Jordan's view.

1. Adam was not in the garden to merit eternal life.
2. Adam was to exercise "lordship" over the garden and was a type of Christ.
3. In order to defeat the serpent, Adam would recognize his own weaknesses and in a "deep sleep" similar to the one where God took out his rib, he would rise anew in his kingly robes and defeat the Serpent. During this "deep sleep" Christ would come and defeat the serpent.
4. All throughout the Garden episode, Adam would recognize his own inabilities, thus precluding any merit.

However,

`1. Does this entail that Christ did not come to merit eternal life for us? Problematic
`4. Despite claims to the contrary, it would appear that Adam is indeed "acuiring" or "doing" something to attain eternal life. If (3) is true, then precisely what does Christ's death on the cross do for us? He really doesn't answer this question.

All I am asking for here is help in outlining the consequences of Jordan's view, not statements concerning his orthodoxy.

[Edited on 2--23-05 by Draught Horse]


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 22, 2005)

I will elaborate:

If the denial of CoW leads to the denial of Christ's righteousness, then Rome is correct.

The denial of CoW does lead to the denial of Christ's righteousness (hypothetically for hte moment)

Rome is correct.

This is what I am trying to find out.


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 22, 2005)

I will continue the argument:

If Rome is correct, then we have to join in on the merit theology, which is what JOrdan is trying to avoid.

Rome is hypothetically correct if the denial of CoW entails the said mentioned.

Therefore,
Jordan, in trying to avoid merit theology, has ended up in Rome's camp.


----------



## AdamM (Feb 23, 2005)

Some like John Murray affirm the substance of the Covenant of Works, while hesititing on the use of the term covenant as the description. I think Murray called it the Adamic Administration instead of the Covenant of Works, but he was as strong on imputation as you get. What the FV is proposing amounts to basically a flat (mono) covenantal structure.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Feb 23, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> I will continue the argument:
> 
> If Rome is correct, then we have to join in on the merit theology, which is what JOrdan is trying to avoid.
> ...



You are right Jacob. Once you deny the covenant of works, your covenant of grace becomes a covenant of works. That's the problem with monocovenantalism. You have to redefine the work of Christ, especially regarding justification. With the NPP and FV guys, this entails a new merit structure called "covenant faithfulness." It's really a two edged sword. Because you also run the huge danger of becoming antinomian (especially in light of their version of presumptive regeneration). This is one problem I have with Hoeksema's mono-covenantal structure. He would be rolling over in his grave to see his mono-covenantal ideas being used by the FV as they are. He denied any conditions at all for man in the covenant, not even faith. Thankfully, he doesn't take his ideas to the logical conclusion of full blown antinomianism. But you can see the tension there. If Adam is not in covenant for his posterity, then you have to redefine what Christ does for his posterity. You also have to redefine original sin, the curse, etc.


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 23, 2005)

Thanks Patrick,
That's what I was asking for. I think I know how to evaluate it now.


----------



## Arch2k (Feb 23, 2005)

I agree that a denial of the CoW by implication denies the Covenant of Grace as we know it. In fact, it destroys Paul's comparison when he calls Christ the 2nd Adam. This is crucial to a proper Christian understanding of Jesus' work on our behalf.


----------



## AdamM (Feb 23, 2005)

> I agree that a denial of the CoW by implication denies the Covenant of Grace as we know it. In fact, it destroys Paul's comparison when he calls Christ the 2nd Adam. This is crucial to a proper Christian understanding of Jesus' work on our behalf.



Great point Jeff and one that needs to be repeated often. The whole understanding of the atonement is altered in monocovenantalism. 

Here is a very helpful section on merit from the recent Testimony on Justification issued by the faculty of Westminster West:



> The Merit of Christ
> 
> Our confessions repeatedly speak of the work of Christ as meritorious in the sight of God.
> 
> ...


----------



## VanVos (Feb 27, 2005)

> You are right Jacob. Once you deny the covenant of works, your covenant of grace becomes a covenant of works. That's the problem with monocovenantalism. You have to redefine the work of Christ, especially regarding justification. With the NPP and FV guys, this entails a new merit structure called "covenant faithfulness." It's really a two edged sword. Because you also run the huge danger of becoming antinomian (especially in light of their version of presumptive regeneration). This is one problem I have with Hoeksema's mono-covenantal structure. He would be rolling over in his grave to see his mono-covenantal ideas being used by the FV as they are. He denied any conditions at all for man in the covenant, not even faith. Thankfully, he doesn't take his ideas to the logical conclusion of full blown antinomianism. But you can see the tension there. If Adam is not in covenant for his posterity, then you have to redefine what Christ does for his posterity. You also have to redefine original sin, the curse, etc.



Couldn't agree more. I soon as we give up the bi-covenantal view of scripture we lose the Law and Gospel distinction. I would say that this is also true when it comes to the Mosiac Covenant. Those who see it as gospel lead a lot people into confusion. It in important that we make clear distinction between conditonal (Cov of Works) covenants with the unconditional covenants (Cov of Grace)

The Law was given through Moses, but grace and truth were realized through Jesus Christ (John 1:17)

For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from the works of the Law (Romans 3:28)

But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace (Romans 11:6)

These women are two covenants: one proceeding from Mount Sinai bearing children who are slaves ... but the Jerusalem above is free (Galatians 4:24, 26)

For if the first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion sought for a second ... When he said, 'A new covenant,' he made the first obsolete (Hebrews 8:7, 13) 

VanVos

[Edited on 2-27-2005 by VanVos]


----------



## Larry Hughes (Feb 27, 2005)

> You are right Jacob. Once you deny the covenant of works, your covenant of grace becomes a covenant of works. That's the problem with monocovenantalism. You have to redefine the work of Christ, especially regarding justification. With the NPP and FV guys, this entails a new merit structure called "covenant faithfulness." It's really a two edged sword. Because you also run the huge danger of becoming antinomian (especially in light of their version of presumptive regeneration). This is one problem I have with Hoeksema's mono-covenantal structure. He would be rolling over in his grave to see his mono-covenantal ideas being used by the FV as they are. He denied any conditions at all for man in the covenant, not even faith. Thankfully, he doesn't take his ideas to the logical conclusion of full blown antinomianism. But you can see the tension there. If Adam is not in covenant for his posterity, then you have to redefine what Christ does for his posterity. You also have to redefine original sin, the curse, etc.



Exactly, I couldn't agree more. Rome sneeks back in if the CoW is denied.

lh


----------



## doulosChristou (Feb 27, 2005)

I disagree. I think it is tempting to try to say that the rejection of one pillar of my theological system leads to a denial of the gospel and to Rome, but it's just not always the case. The CoW certainly necessitates the imputation of Christ's obedience. That is certain. However, one may reject outright the existence of the CoW and hold, and consistently so, to the imputation of Christ's obedience to the believer. A rejection of imputation leads necessarily to Rome or some such form of nomism, not a rejection of the CoW. One may consistently reject the CoW and believe that there is no standing before holy God by sinful man apart from the imputed righteousness of our representative Head and the imputation of guilt from the sinner to Him. Murray is just one example, and few have a better grasp of imputation than Murray. Luther didn't believe in a CoW, yet I would argue that he had a firm grasm of imputation. He wrote, "Lord Jesus, you are my righteousness, I am your sin. You took on you what was mine; yet set on me what was yours." [Luther, Martin _Letters of Spiritual Counsel_, 110. I do, however, admit that a denial of the CoW does make it easier for one to reject the imputation of Christ's merit since the CoW truly demands it. It just does not necessarily follow, especially since the Scripture is so clear on God's demand for perfect righteousness, on the filthy rags of man's own righteousness, on Adam and Christ's representative headship, and on the three great imputations.  from one who has yet to find a CoW in the Bible,


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Feb 27, 2005)

Gregg, I would agree with you, that a denial of the CoW doesn't always mean a denial of imputation, but it certainly leads that way. True, Luther did hold to imputation, as do many who denied the CoW idea (i.e. Hoeksema, Schilder, most Lutherans, etc.). But I think also, at least with Luther, they often defined the Law in such a way that it functioned similar to what we would call the CoW. The law defines what that obedience of Christ was. But you will see that it didn't take long for Melencthon to mess it up and ground justification upon the sinners own exercising of faith (synergism), rather than faith as only an intrument to recieve that righteouness. The other problem is that those who would deny the CoW have to explain original sin without imputation. Usually the biological route is explained as the means to pass on original sin. But this doesn't make sense of the legal imputation described in Romans 5 when Adam's transgression is said to be imputed. So, sure, as long as you hold to the imputation of Christ's righteousness that is good. But then you have to wrestle with the other issues (i.e. What defines that righteouness? What exactly did Christ have to fulfill for us? How can Adam's transgression be *justly* imputed to his posterity (who had not sinned in his likeness) without a federal agreement to represent his posterity? Why is it the natural tendency of man to earn his salvation by works?)


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 27, 2005)

I just relistened to the debate between James White and Doug Wilson. Doug Wilson said he affirmed imputation. James White said Doug Wilson affirmed imputation. It might be safe to suggest that Doug Wilson affirms imputation. This complicates the argument, unless DoulousChristou is correct.

This means that I might have to alter my argument if I were to disagree with Barach or Wilson, as Jordan is a horse of a different color. James White said that not all of the FV agree on what they are accused of. Doug Wilson affirmed that statement. 

Take these as audible ramblings.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Feb 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> I just relistened to the debate between James White and Doug Wilson. Doug Wilson said he affirmed imputation. James White said Doug Wilson affirmed imputation. It might be safe to suggest that Doug Wilson affirms imputation. This complicates the argument, unless DoulousChristou is correct.
> 
> This means that I might have to alter my argument if I were to disagree with Barach or Wilson, as Jordan is a horse of a different color. James White said that not all of the FV agree on what they are accused of. Doug Wilson affirmed that statement.
> ...



You also have to examine what they say is imputed. And what the effect of that imputation is. Scripture teaches that we have complete acceptance with God because of the imputed righteouness of Christ, apart from our works either to earn or maintain our salvation. They may argue that righteousness may be imputed,and then on the other hand contradict themselves and require "covenant faithfulness" to keep that imputed righteousness on our account and remain acceptable to God.


----------



## doulosChristou (Feb 28, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> Gregg, I would agree with you, that a denial of the CoW doesn't always mean a denial of imputation, but it certainly leads that way. True, Luther did hold to imputation, as do many who denied the CoW idea (i.e. Hoeksema, Schilder, most Lutherans, etc.). But I think also, at least with Luther, they often defined the Law in such a way that it functioned similar to what we would call the CoW. The law defines what that obedience of Christ was. But you will see that it didn't take long for Melencthon to mess it up and ground justification upon the sinners own exercising of faith (synergism), rather than faith as only an intrument to recieve that righteouness. *The other problem is that those who would deny the CoW have to explain original sin without imputation.* Usually the biological route is explained as the means to pass on original sin. But this doesn't make sense of the legal imputation described in Romans 5 when Adam's transgression is said to be imputed. So, sure, as long as you hold to the imputation of Christ's righteousness that is good. But then you have to wrestle with the other issues (i.e. What defines that righteouness? What exactly did Christ have to fulfill for us? How can Adam's transgression be *justly* imputed to his posterity (who had not sinned in his likeness) without a federal agreement to represent his posterity? Why is it the natural tendency of man to earn his salvation by works?)



Are you saying that one cannot believe in Adam's representative headship and God's gracious imputation of Adam's guilt to all his posterity and at the same time deny the existence of a CoW? If so, I must disagree. One need not call the Adamic arrangement at creation a "covenant" in order to make sense of the legal imputation described in Romans 5 when Adam's transgression is said to be imputed to us. This may be mostly a semantical difference, however.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Feb 28, 2005)

> _Originally posted by doulosChristou_
> Are you saying that one cannot believe in Adam's representative headship and God's gracious imputation of Adam's guilt to all his posterity and at the same time deny the existence of a CoW? If so, I must disagree. One need not call the Adamic arrangement at creation a "covenant" in order to make sense of the legal imputation described in Romans 5 when Adam's transgression is said to be imputed to us. This may be mostly a semantical difference, however.


A few questions:

1) In what way to you think the act of the imputation of Adam's sin to his posterity was gracious? It was a judgment resulting in eternal death. That doesn't seem very gracious to me. 

2) How can Adam's sin be imputed to his posterity without some sort of agreement for him to act in that capacity without God being unjust to his posterity? In other words, how can God justly impute a sin to us that we have not done?

3) What is your objection to the concept of there being an agreement established by between God and Adam?


----------



## Larry Hughes (Feb 28, 2005)

> Are you saying that one cannot believe in Adam's representative headship and God's gracious imputation of Adam's guilt to all his posterity and at the same time deny the existence of a CoW? If so, I must disagree. One need not call the Adamic arrangement at creation a "covenant" in order to make sense of the legal imputation described in Romans 5 when Adam's transgression is said to be imputed to us. This may be mostly a semantical difference, however.



That´s really interesting to ponder. Can we have federal representation apart from a covenantal relationship? I don´t want to speak for you but I´m assuming you affirm federal representation by both the old and new Adam (Christ) as your post states regarding imputation and "œAdam´s representative headship"¦". The question becomes the CoW, is it necessary? And is it merely an issue of semantics? Interesting.

Chewing on it! Chewing on it!

Just thinking out loud:

What would or should we call the "œarrangement"? An arrangement? Would it be an Arrangement of Works? Or something similar? Would it function the same as Covenant? And thus denying the CoW is the same as denying the AoW ultimately achieving the same end"¦back to Rome. Of course the Scriptures never later use the term "œarrangement" but rather covenant for similar "œarrangements" if you will.

I suppose we´d have to distinctly define "œfederal" (assuming this captures the term arrangement sufficiently) then "œcovenant".

Generically federal is of or relating to a compact or treaty. It is formed by a compact between individual units that surrender their individual sovereignty to a central authority but retain limited residuary powers of government. The word federal in governing usage and in a general sense refers to the nature of an agreement between or among two or more states, nations, or other groups that merge into a union in which control of common affairs is held by a central authority created by and with the consent of the members. Now that´s generic mind you. 

The issue here would be a difference between a desired surrender or a forced surrender. Luther might have seen this as the free-heart that is unconstrained and that loves the Law as if the Law didn´t exist sans fear of punishment or hope of reward.

And again generically a covenant is a binding agreement or promise usually under a seal between two or more parties especially for the performance of some action. 

Under the common law a covenant was distinguished from an ordinary contract by the presence of a seal (interesting). Because the presence of a seal indicated an unusual solemnity in the promises made in a covenant (very interesting), the common law would enforce a covenant even in the absence of consideration.

Interestingly as a side piece of information: Covenants are more or less obsolete in the American, English and other jurisdictions that use the tradition of common law. In such seals no longer have much significance, especially after the adoption of reforms that affected contracts, such as the Uniform Commercial Code which allows contracts to be formed with fewer formalities. I find that interesting because the concept of a biblical covenant in general in American Christian circles is almost an entirely lost concept. Could this be why we struggle with much of Scripture? That is to say our time-historical place can hardly identify with the time-history of the Scriptures, thus we insert into it our time-history understanding missing much of its truth, even skewing it? In other words are we unaware reading into rather than out of Scripture based upon our secular societal influences? Thus, the resistance to covenantal thinking? And American Christians broadly take a very very low view of signs and seals but rather replace them with all kinds of inventions. The Lord´s Table for example is at an all time low in use today, if at all in many churches. A side point to ponder.

Now both of those definitions are generic. So does federal equal covenant? I don´t know? Is it semantics? Could we equally say Covenant of Works and something like a "œFederal Relationship of Works" and mean the same thing conceptually, element for element yet under differing titles? Kind of like 6 or half a dozen? Again though the scriptures actually use the term covenant rather than federal or relationship or arrangement.

Is this (CoW/CoG) what Luther saw in a more narrow sense in the Law and Gospel, yet unformulated as "œcovenant"? 

Because at the end of the day it´s very simple: either Christ paid for all the Christians sin debt AND fulfilled all the Christians required righteousness into the future, or else you have no hope what-so-ever. Thus, the denial of the CoW, federal fulfillment of Christ or whatever term one tags the principle with ultimately must deny the positive aspect of Christ´s work and this is leading back to Rome.

ldh


----------



## doulosChristou (Feb 28, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> 
> A few questions:
> 
> 1) In what way to you think the act of the imputation of Adam's sin to his posterity was gracious? It was a judgment resulting in eternal death. That doesn't seem very gracious to me.



It was thoroughly gracious in that by allowing us all to die in Adam rather than individually as the fallen angels, God thereby allowed for many to be made alive in Christ. That seems very gracious to me, brother.



> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> 
> 2) How can Adam's sin be imputed to his posterity without some sort of agreement for him to act in that capacity without God being unjust to his posterity?



It is not unjust; again, it is gracious.



> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> 
> 3) What is your objection to the concept of there being an agreement established by between God and Adam?



My objection is simply that I can't find that doctrine in the pages of Scripture. The doctrine of imputation and Adam's representative headship is clearly taught, but I read nothing of a covenant cut with Adam in the garden. And I side with Calvin on Hosea 6:7.


----------



## doulosChristou (Feb 28, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Larry Hughes_
> 
> Because at the end of the day it´s very simple: either Christ paid for all the Christians sin debt AND fulfilled all the Christians required righteousness into the future, or else you have no hope what-so-ever.



I trust we can all say Amen to that!


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Feb 28, 2005)

Larry, 
One objection people have to the "covenant" concept is because they don't like the idea of God and Adam making an agreement as equal parties, since are not by any means equal parties. But this is too narrow a definition of covenant, and the Reformed mainstream definition of the covenant of works has never portrayed God and Adam as equals, contrary to the accusations of many today. The Reformed understanding has always defined God as _ condescending_ to make such an agreement with Adam, not that Adam could ever merit eternal life by his own obediance as a creature in his own right. Berkhof explains that there are two types of covenants, those between equals, and those between a superior to an inferior. But both still retain the same formula of an agreement with stipulations and promises. I use "agreement" here because it is less strong but still get's the point out. "Covenant" is used multiple ways in Scripture. It can be used as an agreement to establish a relationship (Joshua 9), it can be used to to continue and solidify a relationship (1 Sam. 18:3), and it can me used in reference the sign of the covenant (Gen 17:10,11). There's a couple other uses too. Either way, if you believe there is an agreement with Adam to represent his posterity, then you believe there's a covenant, whether you like to use the word or not. If you hold to that concept in defining imputation to Adam's posterity then you will not violate God's justice for imputing Adam's sin to us. But you may cause confusion down the road for others, as we have seen with how some people today using Murray's idea of "Adamic Administration" and running away with it completely contrary to where he wished to go. I know we get so detailed here on this point but it has such important consequences.


----------



## JohnV (Feb 28, 2005)

Larry:

You should think out loud more often.


----------



## Larry Hughes (Feb 28, 2005)

Patrick,

Your kidding!?!? I wasn't aware that people do not like "covenant" because it implies equals. That's just plain foolishness. How can they support such an absurd idea for is not the New Covenant a covenant between unequals?

In the government realm we draw up covenants all the time such as "Covenants Not To Sue". In such we, the State, are the sovereign local power agreeing with a land owner that if they meet certain regulatory criteria, the State will protect against future liability merely by its superior authority to do so. I don't see how people could sustain this. I admit I was unaware of that.

I believe the Covenant term is correct in the CoW. For "relationship" is a bit spurious since covenant is at least used later in Scripture abundantly, whereas "relationship is not.

Greg,



> It was thoroughly gracious in that by allowing us all to die in Adam rather than individually as the fallen angels, God thereby allowed for many to be made alive in Christ. That seems very gracious to me, brother.



Don't we have to be careful here on two fronts? It may afford a certain graciousness but it is not itself grace for many fall in Adam never to be justified. I see what your saying but caution must be used here! All mankind without exception fell in Adam federally, yet not all of the same are federally raised in Christ.

Secondly, the angel analysis is dangerous is it not? We have little to nothing to go on here in Scripture pertaining to the angels. For if they could fall individually could not another unfallen angel die for a fallen angel and pay his price, though one paying would do so eternally being finite themselves? And to not do so would that not violate the Law of God itself, Love your neighbor as yourself?

Just some thoughts.

ldh


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Feb 28, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Larry Hughes_
> Patrick,
> 
> Your kidding!?!? I wasn't aware that people do not like "covenant" because it implies equals. That's just plain foolishness. How can they support such an absurd idea for is not the New Covenant a covenant between unequals?



That is one objection. Another is that "covenant" is not used in the genesis narrative to describe the relationship. Another criticism is that such an arrangment makes covenant theology legalistic. And one of the more recent criticisms, usually accompanying the equal party accusation, is that imposing such a legal framework undermines that beauty and nature of the "relationship." These were some of Hoeksema's objections. And these ideas are also promoted by some of the Federal Vision advocates (i.e. Ralph Smith- see Matt's review of his book on APM). Instead they redefine "covenant" as "relationship of freindship" instead of as a binding legal agreement probably because it makes them feel all nice and squishy inside to say it that way. Of course the problem with this they misunderstand teh function of the covenant. As I noted above, the traditional understanding is in no way opposed to enjoying the depths of freindship and communion with God. In fact, the traditional understanding of that legal covenant secures, not dimishes, that understanding of our personal relationship to God. It also secures and protects the graciousness of the covenant of grace.


----------



## seansgame (Mar 15, 2005)

"The Reformed understanding has always defined God as condescending to make such an agreement with Adam, not that Adam could ever merit eternal life by his own obediance as a creature in his own right."

Interesting point, but not necessarily the consensus view. Those such as Meredith Kline would argue that while God was not under obligation to create and that He did create was good, once He created, He by His own nature, and thereby of necessity (we can say this because from a BT perspective God has not entered into a non-covenantal relationship with his creation who were created in His image, even the unregenerate post Eden have the Noahic covenant in which they live, move and have their being), entered into a covenant relationship with Adam, and this covenant relationship was one of STRICT merit, if this were not so, than the creature would have cause for objection to the punishment of hell for transgressing the covenant. In other words, if Adam could not truly(i.e. strictly) EARN heaven than he does not truly or strictly earn hell as a punishment for transgression of the Edenic covenant. Murray's monocovenantal recasting, creates a capricious and unjust God.


----------



## fredtgreco (Mar 15, 2005)

> _Originally posted by seansgame_
> "The Reformed understanding has always defined God as condescending to make such an agreement with Adam, not that Adam could ever merit eternal life by his own obediance as a creature in his own right."
> 
> Interesting point, but not necessarily the consensus view. Those such as Meredith Kline would argue that while God was not under obligation to create and that He did create was good, once He created, He by His own nature, and thereby of necessity (we can say this because from a BT perspective God has not entered into a non-covenantal relationship with his creation who were created in His image, even the unregenerate post Eden have the Noahic covenant in which they live, move and have their being), entered into a covenant relationship with Adam, and this covenant relationship was one of STRICT merit, if this were not so, than the creature would have cause for objection to the punishment of hell for transgressing the covenant. In other words, if Adam could not truly(i.e. strictly) EARN heaven than he does not truly or strictly earn hell as a punishment for transgression of the Edenic covenant. Murray's monocovenantal recasting, creates a capricious and unjust God.



I think you would be hard pressed to find anyone referring to Kline's views on almost anything as the "consensus Reformed view"


----------



## seansgame (Mar 15, 2005)

I think you would be hard pressed to find anyone referring to Kline's views on almost anything as the "consensus Reformed view"

Good point. I should have not worded it that way, it wasn't my intent to convey that, sorry. I do think it SHOULD be the "consensus view", but it obviously is not.


----------



## Arch2k (Mar 15, 2005)

An interesting read regarding the subject of the implications of denying the COW is Mark Karlberg's (Author of Covenant Theology in Reformed Perspective) article The Changing of the Guard.


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 16, 2005)

Has anybody read Lilliback's _The Binding of God: Calvin's Idea of the Covenant_?


----------



## Mayflower (Mar 16, 2005)

Dear puritansailor :

You wrote :
" True, Luther did hold to imputation, as do many who denied the CoW idea (i.e. Hoeksema, Schilder, most Lutherans, etc.). "

I did not know that Schilder en Hoeksema deny the COW idea. Can you explain, what they believe, because iam very interessed to know that ? And can they still call themselves reformed with denying the COW ?


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Mar 16, 2005)

They held to a form of mono-covenantalism. The original covenant with Adam was not a covenant of works, but the covenant of grace. Read Hoeksema's Reformed Dogmatics. Interesting enough in light of this discussion, he also held to eternal justification. 

[Edited on 3-16-2005 by puritansailor]


----------

