# Covenant of Redemption.Question?



## ladodgers6 (Sep 25, 2012)

I hold to a Covenant Theology teaching.I am still a some what a novice,but learning.I have a question for those who hold in the traditional CT theology of the Reformation.If there is a covenant between the members of the Godhead in eternity past for Redemption,then why a Covenant of Works w/Adam?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Sep 25, 2012)

Because a CoW serves the redemptive interest of the Godhead.

A CoW that man fails at keeping, and the consequent ruin of the human race, sets the stage for the introduction of the historical outworking of the Trinitarian counsels: the Covenant of Grace (CoG).

The CoW sets forth the glory of God in one way. It does it's job admirably, and it does it all the _*same*_ irrespective of whether it is "kept" by the creature or not. The CoG sets forth the glory of God in an entirely different way. The CoG is a means whereby God maximizes the glories of all his attributes, including those that could not be set forth under a CoW only. Under an exclusive CoW, there can be no display of perfect forgiveness and mercy, unless it comes at the expense of perfect justice and righteousness. Some beauty either suffers, or else it is not manifested; which lack would impoverish the creature in some way; which would besmirch divine generosity.

And these are conclusions we can only reach precisely because we are in fact living under the revelation of the plan God actually instituted.


----------



## Peairtach (Sep 25, 2012)

ladodgers6 said:


> I hold to a Covenant Theology teaching.I am still a some what a novice,but learning.I have a question for those who hold in the traditional CT theology of the Reformation.If there is a covenant between the members of the Godhead in eternity past for Redemption,then why a Covenant of Works w/Adam?



There can be no redemption of Man unless and until he sins. There is no need to redeem a man or men who haven't sinned. This Man did under the CoW. Furthermore, the nature of the CoW was such that all Mankind sinned and fell with Adam in it, all Mankind breaking the CoW with Adam, and the guilt and pollution of Adam's breach being transferred to them.

The CoW was a gift of God's superabundant goodness (grace if you want, although it's good not to confuse the CoW and CoG) to Adam, Eve and their children, by which Adam could easily obtain eternal confirmation in righteousness and eternal life for himself and his children in a short period of probation.

After the Fall the CoW becomes completely hypothetical as a way of salvation for sinful Mankind, but is "picked up" by Christ on behalf of His people.

The CoG is the historical revelation and application of the eternal CoR in Christ.

The moral law remains as the standard by which someone who seeks to be saved by works (the CoW) must be saved.

The penalty of the CoW - eternal death - remains for those who never truly are of the CoG.


----------



## ladodgers6 (Sep 25, 2012)

Contra_Mundum said:


> Because a CoW serves the redemptive interest of the Godhead.
> 
> A CoW that man fails at keeping, and the consequent ruin of the human race, sets the stage for the introduction of the historical outworking of the Trinitarian counsels: the Covenant of Grace (CoG).
> 
> ...



Correct me here,so in essence Adam did not have a choice.I understand the concept of CT,but here I am struggling to comprehend because then Adam could have never kept this CoW? So Adam never had a free will or for that matter a righteous disposition? These are some of the question I have,because God made Adam upright and good.Adam walked and talked with God in Paradise.And another passage that boggles my mind is the Tree of Knowledge;knowing good and evil.So does this mean that Adam did not know good and evil?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Sep 25, 2012)

When you say that what you see is Adam having "no choice," this strikes me as attempting to see things from a "God's-eye-view" of things, and not simply from the level of created reality.

Was Adam presented with "real-world" conditions, in which he exercised his rational faculties and will, making bona fide decisions--even rebellious ones? Certainly.

Were his free-actions nevertheless foreordained from before the world's foundation? Indubitably.

Can we figure all this out? Reconciling the divine decree and human responsibility by a strict calculus seems beyond us; more beyond us than reconciling particle and quantum physics.

But somehow we are able to rationalize less "divine" government of created worlds, without casting aspersions upon the human creators. I'm thinking of novelists. I'm thinking of playwrights. I'm thinking of movie producers. We have storylines, and free agents all over; in some cases, we even have live human beings living out their scripts, their characters seemingly wholly unconscious of being a part of a preestablished narrative. Or consider how the actors themselves suffuse their roles with a distinctive personality, something a writer can only hint at, and the director can only manage.

Now, consider the God of heaven is able to write and direct a script of his choosing, while incorporating perfectly free actors, who live within their fixed physical and ethical constraints, never feeling overborne by their God (whom they may even deny altogether), but who has never been less than perfectly and minutely in control. Can we not concede that God is infinitely better at what he does than the greatest human writer or director that ever employed his imagination?

Was there an "alternative world" of possibility, harbored in the mind of God, as to what should happen upon a different (obedient) fulfillment of the probation? We ought to be cautious about proposing any series of possible outcomes of a world that "might have" come to be under other different divine purposes than what he chose to instantiate. But it seems reasonable to infer that omniscient God knows forever ALL possible permutations of every conceivable branching of will--supreme and subordinate--that ever could be before the first moment of space-time. An "obedient" Adam was a real possibility under the conditions that he experienced, as well as out of the various outcomes God could have contemplated.

God has always known/determined exactly what he wanted to accomplish with his world. Scripture does not describe a kind-of macroplan, a big picture vision that simply absorbs whatever lesser proposals man makes on his own within the framework. If anything, this unbiblical notion is very much like Greek fatalism. I once read a critique of Calvinism that equated predestination with "Greek thought," i.e. fatalism. The writer went on to describe "biblical truth" as: man having free will, only being guided by God's secret manipulations of human circumstances in order to bring about his ulterior designs--a _classic_ description of Greek fatalism!

We know what God has actually chosen to do, by what has happened. By the explanations he has given. There is one "script" from beginning to end, and I for one am simply grateful to God for his mercy. And for some insight into his wisdom that he has condescended to bestow on my low-level of creaturely apprehension.


As to the Tree of Knowledge: Adam's issue was that he had only the rudimentary knowledge of good and evil, and of God, that a child might have. He had a first-class mind, an adult mind, but he only just began exercising it. Besides, knowledge of God is _personal_ knowledge; and at the same time _ethical_ knowledge, because God is Love. How could we truly know God before we got to know him?

A proper use of the Tree would have given to Adam a more God-like acquaintance with the contrast between good and evil than he began with. By "use" I mean: his *not-eating* of the Tree. Does God know evil by _participation_? No. Adam would have a more God-like understanding of good and evil if he had obeyed God by not-eating of the Tree. His power to obey would have been strengthened, his confidence to trust God enhanced. By believing God's Word over the Serpent's, he would have learned the falsity of the Serpent's assertions, he would have understood evil's inherent weakness, he would have recognized the depths of depravity compared to the goodness of God.

As it was, Adam learned evil by participation, a knowledge of the subject that is both inferior to the knowledge he might have had by other means, as well as being knowledge that brings guilt, and ultimately destroys life and all knowledge.


----------



## MW (Sep 25, 2012)

ladodgers6 said:


> If there is a covenant between the members of the Godhead in eternity past for Redemption,then why a Covenant of Works w/Adam?



There must be an administration which establishes the legal and judicial basis on which man as man shall be blessed of God, and that administration must be fitted to Adam's condition as being made (1) in the image of God in knowledge, righteousness and holiness, (2) to inherit the eschatological rest of God. Romans 2 looks at this administration in terms of its negative and penal impact on man as fallen, and shows how all men as men are judged in accord with the strict demands which God's law placed on men in the covenant of works. Romans 3 demonstrates the universality of man's lost condition, but then immediately sets forth the pre-arranged administration for delivering man from this lost condition through Christ. What follows in chapter 5:12-21 illustrates for us that the work of redemption accomplished by Christ is properly understood and appreciated in terms of the moral and judicial basis established in the covenant of works. The covenant of works, then, was vital for building the "legal," "judicial," and "penal" framework within which the purpose and pact of redemption is accomplished.


----------



## Jackie Kaulitz (Sep 26, 2012)

Contra_Mundum said:


> When you say that what you see is Adam having "no choice," this strikes me as attempting to see things from a "God's-eye-view" of things, and not simply from the level of created reality.
> 
> Was Adam presented with "real-world" conditions, in which he exercised his rational faculties and will, making bona fide decisions--even rebellious ones? Certainly.
> 
> Were his free-actions nevertheless foreordained from before the world's foundation? Indubitably.



That was perfect. You're good. That's exactly the question (I like how you re-phrased it "God's eye view") and exactly the best answer. Love it!


----------



## ladodgers6 (Sep 29, 2012)

Peairtach said:


> ladodgers6 said:
> 
> 
> > I hold to a Covenant Theology teaching.I am still a some what a novice,but learning.I have a question for those who hold in the traditional CT theology of the Reformation.If there is a covenant between the members of the Godhead in eternity past for Redemption,then why a Covenant of Works w/Adam?
> ...



I understand this Cow.But does not CoR come prior to CoW. Because CoR is not a plan B covenant correct according to Scripture and CT,correct?


----------



## BarryR (Sep 30, 2012)

ladodgers6 said:


> I understand this Cow.But does not CoR come prior to CoW. Because CoR is not a plan B covenant correct according to Scripture and CT,correct?



First, the CoR is made by the Godhead. Next, the CoW is made between God and man (Adam) - this is still a key component of the CoR because this is what Christ fulfills for His people after all. Lastly, the CoG is the revealed in history becoming clearer and clearer until Christ is revealed - making the historic unfolding of the CoG crystal clear as we look back over it. The CoG was not plan B. It was always the plan


----------



## Peairtach (Oct 1, 2012)

Jackie Kaulitz said:


> Contra_Mundum said:
> 
> 
> > When you say that what you see is Adam having "no choice," this strikes me as attempting to see things from a "God's-eye-view" of things, and not simply from the level of created reality.
> ...



It's useful to think about how "easy" it was for Adam to fulfill the conditions of the CoW. The Lord in His superabundant goodness (or grace) to Adam and mankind, made the CoW as easy as possible, and as Dabney points out, the arrangment was much better than each human being having to fulfill the probation individually, or some other conceivable arrangement.

If Adam had fulfilled the conditions he wouldn't have has anything to boast about, but he and the rest of Mankind would only be filled with thanks to God for such an arrangement.

"Green Baggins" -Rev. Lane Keister - explains the nature of Adam's merit (or "merit") here:

http://www.puritanboard.com/f31/condign-congruent-pactum-merit-66235/


----------



## ladodgers6 (Oct 4, 2012)

Contra_Mundum said:


> When you say that what you see is Adam having "no choice," this strikes me as attempting to see things from a "God's-eye-view" of things, and not simply from the level of created reality.
> 
> Was Adam presented with "real-world" conditions, in which he exercised his rational faculties and will, making bona fide decisions--even rebellious ones? Certainly.
> 
> ...


 
I understand and agree,and I am a 5 point Calvinist.I guess this area is obscured because the Scriptures does not explain this.As Johnathan Edwards tried to do,and did not succeed,which is to explain,"Why did Adam who was created upright,sinned!" Because another thought is the Tree and of Knowledge of Good and Evil.Did Adam possess this knowledge before eating it? These will be questions that we will not have answers because the Bible simple does not say.

By the way I read Sacred Bond and I highly recommend it to everyone,even though some are not fans.

Well,thanks for your comments and hope to learn more from you.

In Christ's imputed righteousness through God's Mercy Alone!!

Amen


----------

