# Covenant of Works revisited



## Areopagus (Mar 30, 2005)

Thoughts on this:

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

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

In Him,

Dustin...


----------



## VanVos (Mar 30, 2005)

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

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

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

VanVos


----------



## Areopagus (Mar 30, 2005)

Jonathan,

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

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

Dustin...


----------



## VanVos (Mar 30, 2005)

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



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



VanVos


[Edited on 3-30-2005 by VanVos]


----------



## Areopagus (Mar 30, 2005)

Jordan says:




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



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

Dustin...


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 30, 2005)

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


----------



## Robin (Mar 30, 2005)

Hey Dustin,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

With all courtesy,

Robin

[Edited on 3-31-2005 by Robin]


----------



## Areopagus (Mar 30, 2005)

Robin,

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

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

Dustin...


----------



## Robin (Mar 30, 2005)

Hello Again, Dustin,

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

Please do, OK?

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

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

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

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

That's just for starters....

R.


----------



## Irishcat922 (Mar 30, 2005)

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


----------



## fredtgreco (Mar 30, 2005)

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

[Edited on 3/31/2005 by fredtgreco]


----------



## fredtgreco (Mar 30, 2005)

See this post here:

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

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

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

Jordan is extremely dangerous.


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 30, 2005)

Would John Murray hold to the Cow/CoG scheme?


----------



## fredtgreco (Mar 31, 2005)

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

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


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 31, 2005)

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


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Mar 31, 2005)

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



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


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Mar 31, 2005)

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



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

[Edited on 3-31-2005 by puritansailor]


----------



## kceaster (Mar 31, 2005)

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

Is that the crux of the issue?

In Christ,

KC


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Mar 31, 2005)

> _Originally posted by kceaster_
> Is it fair to say, then, that to deny the covenant of works means that one does not believe Adam could have merited eternal life?
> 
> Is that the crux of the issue?



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

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


----------



## Areopagus (Mar 31, 2005)

This article says:




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



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

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




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



It's also put this way:




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



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




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



The piece says this also:




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



Is this a true statement?

Then we read:




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



Thoughts on this statement?

Dustin...


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Mar 31, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Areopagus_
> Thoughts on this:
> 
> http://www.biblicalhorizons.com/bh/bh053.htm
> ...



Its not worth responding to.


----------



## Areopagus (Mar 31, 2005)

Ok. 

Dustin...


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Mar 31, 2005)

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



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

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

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

[Edited on 3-31-2005 by puritansailor]


----------



## Poimen (Mar 31, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by kceaster_
> ...



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

[Edited on 3-31-2005 by poimen]


----------



## Areopagus (Mar 31, 2005)

Patrick,

When you say:




> traditional covenant theologians



Who are you talking about?

Also, when you say:




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



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

Dustin...


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Mar 31, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Areopagus_
> Patrick,
> 
> When you say:
> ...


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





> Also, when you say:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yes. That has been the traditional formulation. 

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


----------



## Areopagus (Mar 31, 2005)

Patrick,

You say:




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



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

I posted this:




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



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

The piece says:




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



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

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

Dustin...


----------



## pastorway (Mar 31, 2005)

Just to clarify - 

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

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

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

Phillip

[Edited on 3-31-05 by pastorway]


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Mar 31, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Areopagus_
> Patrick,
> 
> You say:
> ...



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


> I posted this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


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



> The piece says:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


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


----------



## Areopagus (Mar 31, 2005)

Pastorway,

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

Patrick you say:




> with the capability to fulfill it.



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

Dustin...


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Mar 31, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Areopagus_
> Patrick you say:
> 
> 
> ...



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 (Mar 31, 2005)

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 (Mar 31, 2005)

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 (Mar 31, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Areopagus_
> Patrick,
> 
> Interesting. You say:
> ...



Was Adam created a sinful creature?


----------



## Areopagus (Mar 31, 2005)

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 (Mar 31, 2005)

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 (Mar 31, 2005)

> _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 (Mar 31, 2005)

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 (Mar 31, 2005)

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 (Mar 31, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Areopagus_
> Kevin,
> 
> You say:
> ...



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 (Mar 31, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Areopagus_
> Kevin,
> 
> You say:
> ...



Enter Jesus...stage left...


----------



## Areopagus (Mar 31, 2005)

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 (Mar 31, 2005)

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 (Mar 31, 2005)

> _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 (Mar 31, 2005)

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 (Mar 31, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Areopagus_
> Wait Patrick, you made some assertions without substance. I'm asking for substance.
> 
> For instance, of Adam you say:
> ...



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 (Mar 31, 2005)

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 (Mar 31, 2005)

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 (Mar 31, 2005)

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 (Mar 31, 2005)

> _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.
> ...


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 (Mar 31, 2005)

> _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 (Apr 1, 2005)

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

Phillip


----------



## SolaScriptura (Apr 1, 2005)

> _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 (Apr 1, 2005)

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 the*knowledge* 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 (Apr 1, 2005)

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 (Apr 1, 2005)

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 (Apr 1, 2005)

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 (Apr 1, 2005)

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 (Apr 1, 2005)

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 (Apr 1, 2005)

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 naÃ¯ve as when dispensationalists say that "œIsrael" always means the same thing. But perhaps you believe that too?


----------



## Areopagus (Apr 1, 2005)

Ben,

Ok, thanks for your thoughts. Your indictments have been read, dismissed for what they are, and I'll continue to speak with those who have something to offer.

Thanks for your time.
____

Robin,

Thank you for your post. I'll have to address it either later tonight or tomorrow. I'm off to play some racquetball and value my own opinions (pun on Ben). 

Dustin...


----------



## Robin (Apr 1, 2005)

We interrupt this program for a moment of Scripture Meditation....

2 Peter 2

But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction. And many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of truth will be blasphemed. And in their greed they will exploit you with false words. Their condemnation from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep. 

For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to chains of gloomy darkness to be kept until the judgment; if he did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a herald of righteousness, with seven others, when he brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly; if by turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to ashes he condemned them to extinction, making them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly;and if he rescued righteous Lot, greatly distressed by the sensual conduct of the wicked (for as that righteous man lived among them day after day, he was tormenting his righteous soul over their lawless deeds that he saw and heard); then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trials, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment until the day of judgment, and especially those who indulge in the lust of defiling passion and despise authority. 

Bold and willful, they do not tremble as they blaspheme the glorious ones, whereas angels, though greater in might and power, do not pronounce a blasphemous judgment against them before the Lord. But these, like irrational animals, creatures of instinct, born to be caught and destroyed, blaspheming about matters of which they are ignorant, will also be destroyed in their destruction, suffering wrong as the wage for their wrongdoing. They count it pleasure to revel in the daytime. They are blots and blemishes, reveling in their deceptions, while they feast with you. They have eyes full of adultery, insatiable for sin. They entice unsteady souls. They have hearts trained in greed. Accursed children! Forsaking the right way, they have gone astray. They have followed the way of Balaam, the son of Beor, who loved gain from wrongdoing, but was rebuked for his own transgression; a speechless donkey spoke with human voice and restrained the prophet's madness. 

These are waterless springs and mists driven by a storm. For them the gloom of utter darkness has been reserved. For, speaking loud boasts of folly, they entice by sensual passions of the flesh those who are barely escaping from those who live in error. They promise them freedom,but they themselves are slaves of corruption. For whatever overcomes a person, to that he is enslaved. For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome, the last state has become worse for them than the first. For it would have been better for them never to have known the way of righteousness than after knowing it to turn back from the holy commandment delivered to them. What the true proverb says has happened to them: "The dog returns to its own vomit, and the sow, after washing herself, returns to wallow in the mire."

Selah

R.

[Edited on 4-2-2005 by Robin]


----------



## Areopagus (Apr 1, 2005)

Robin,

If all of that was meant to be an insinuation, well, you show the weakness of your position by such blatant and unwarranted _ad hominem_. 

He who must scream the loudest from the platform has the weakest position. 

Selah,

Dustin...


----------



## Robin (Apr 1, 2005)

Dustin,

I mis-spoke (brain-glitch)....I meant to say "God coerced Adam to fail" as the question you're posing. (The former post was edited.)

If God coerced Adam to fail or a flaw/weakness was in Adam's nature so as to succumb...that is a problem.

There's no problem with "decree" because that is coincides with His sovreign rule.

Btw, this is a pointless argument if you're insisting to find Scripture that reveals more than it already says about creations' qualities. Holy Scripture clearly lays out: 1. Man was created in God's image (good-righteous); 2. God is NOT the Author of evil; yet man is culpable for his transgressions. 

We are not privy to peek behind the curtain of God's inscrutable will.....Paul teaches it's not our business (Romans 9) nor are we capable of grasping reconciling these two (appropriate) tensions: God is Sovreign and not the Author of evil; pre-Fall Adam was splendid in nature an image-bearer of God that commits treason of which he is culpable.

Meanwhile, I'm afraid there is a problem with Vincent Cheung's "Systematic Theology" of which you may hold to. (Shall we call them VC's C?) Though he means well...he unfortunately uses the gender neutral NIV - which brings about weak exegesis; his take on anthropology is flawed - he asserts that the Imago Dei is only intellect (p. 118)(discounting morality as a Godly attribute man shares.) He is a self-appointed teacher asserting man does not have a God-given moral sense. Mr. Cheung is NOT helping! (Though, I'm sure he is a nice guy.)

It's not possible for any of us to assert we are "independent" of holding to Confessions of some sort...whatever they are: Geisler; Cheung; Berkhoff; Calvin...or even a self-appointed "non-denominational" (btw, there is no such animal)....all theological ideas line-up in some fashion and link to somebody's teaching. Bottom line: we are to agree with the Apostles teaching. Paul's systematic theology is what interests me. Paul didn't get hung-up on Adam's pre-Fall condition....Paul focused on Christ.



Robin

PS. I think your remarks to Ben, your overall tone& attitude towards Patrick and the others in this thread are arrogant; un-Christian and unworthy of someone claiming to bear an office of authority in the church. Rather, humility would first consider its own propensity to sin and reflect that the time will come to account for the manner in which we represent Christ. You have been offensive.

Matt. 18

[Edited on 4-2-2005 by Robin]


----------



## SolaScriptura (Apr 1, 2005)

Dustin, your own arrogance is what I was hoping to point out... the others have repeatedly shown valid exegesis - their exegesis being backed by the exegesis of every thoughtful Christian in the history of the church... and still you persist.
Seeing that you present your self as an intellectual, I pointed out your own fallacies and internal contradictions that flow from the inferences and implications of your varying propositions... to which you were so unaware that when pointed out you simply acted confused. I offered ( since that is what you imply that I haven't done) a biblical fact pertaining to the God labeling Adam "very good"... to which you didn't (and cannot) respond.
So pardon me if I don't play patsy with someone who (obviously) thinks they've got an insight into Scripture not seen by anyone else.
So you can disregard my potency, but the bottom line is that I defended (in a very traditonal manner) an orthodox view of Adam... to which all you can do is hem and haw.


----------



## Areopagus (Apr 1, 2005)

Ben,

No, you pointed out your _system_ of thinking. You've done nothing worthwhile. You and Robin may deem that arrogant, but that is no matter. I merely point out what I see, just as you point out what you see. Funny though how I'm deemed a self proclaimed intellect (although I never touted myself as such) and arrogant, but all I've done is present my case in a Biblical and succinct manner. So why is it that I'm different than you Ben? Did I become immature and say things about Clintonesque questioning, etc? Did I take on an arrogant tone as you did in your first onslaught? No Ben, I did not. 

Your screaming about arrogance and self proclaimed intellectual whatever is empty. Your post have been empty. Your claims of logical fallacies and contradictions are empty. You've presented nothing Ben. You really haven't. I know it all makes sense in your head, but that doesn't make it right. And just because you stand on the coat-tails of a man and say, "See, he was smart," that doesn't make you right. 

I'm not surprised anymore when I speak with people like you and Robin. Neither of you have presented anything challenging at all. Patrick on the other hand has made me think. I'm hoping he jumps back in here. 
____

Robin,

I'm not sure what to say to you anymore. Your dogma is obvious. Your faithfulness to confessions and systems is obvious. I guess that's just how it is. And just because I won't succumb to your way of thinking, you deem me unworthy, a false prophet, and so forth. How interesting Robin. On the way home tonight from playing racquetball, I told my friend, "You know what? I bet I get home and those 2 folks on the Puritan site have judged me and begun to lower themselves to name calling." Lo and behold, I was right. How did I know that? Because whenever I speak with people from the Covenants system (which I do here in San Antonio quite often) the majority of them are threatened and emotional when you won't become submissive. The ironic thing is that you are the one being arrogant and intellectually snobbish. 

Blah! If you have something of substance to talk about, let's talk. Until then, I'll wait for Patrick.

Dustin...


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 1, 2005)

In the meanwhile I am going to bring up something that I teased at on the board a few weeks ago. It is from the thread "Does a Denial of CoW necessitate a Denial of Imputation of Christ's Righteousness?"

This is a summary and critique of Jim 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. 

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. 

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. 
Now, if any in the AAPC camp can show me that this is not logically necessary I would be interested to hear it. And I to appreciate many of the works that Jordan and Leithart put out.


----------



## turmeric (Apr 2, 2005)

Dustin,
Which confession do you hold to - the WCF or the 1689 Baptist one? Inquiring minds want to know.


----------



## pastorway (Apr 2, 2005)

ADMIN NOTE of WARNING - 

MOST posters in this thread are out of line in your attitudes, ad homs, and inciteful language. This has not been a charitable debate.

Get to the point or this one is history!

Phillip


----------



## Robin (Apr 2, 2005)

Never under-estimate the power of Rome, Jacob! Under all the weasel-words, this "recasting" of the covenants is Roman by design.

For a worthwhile explanation, check-out Rev. Phillips' essay at www.alliancenet.org "Covenant Confusion"....

The upshot of this issue is redefinition of words. Apparently, the meaning of the word "covenant" has been revised to mean "relationship"....not a binding agreement with blessings and curses.

R.



[Edited on 4-2-2005 by Robin]


----------



## Robin (Apr 2, 2005)

Inquiring minds want to know....

*Baker's Evangelical Theological Dictionary* on "Covenant" says:

The New Testament word for covenant has usually been translated as covenant, but testimony and testament have also been used. This Greek word basically means to order or dispose for oneself or another. The though of the inequality of the parties is latent.

The generally accepted idea of binding or establishing a bond between two parties is supported by the use of the term berit [tyir.B]. When Abimelech and Isaac decided to settle their land dispute, they made a binding agreement, league, or covenant to live in peace. An oath confirmed it (Gen 26:26-31). Joshua and the Gibeonites bound themselves, by oath, to live in peace together (Joshua 9:15), although Yahweh commanded that Israel was not to bind themselves to the people living in the land of Canaan (Deut 7:2; Judges 2:2). Solomon and Hiram made a binding agreement to live and work in peace together (1 Kings 5:12). A friendship bond was sealed by oath between David and Jonathan (1 Sam 20:3,16-17). Marriage is a bond (covenant) for life.

The covenants referred to above were between two equal parties; this means that the covenant relationship was bilateral. The bond was sealed by both parties vowing, often by oath, that each, having equal privileges and responsibilities, would carry out their assigned roles. 

Because a covenant confirmed between two human parties was bilateral, some scholars have concluded that the covenant Yahweh established with human beings is also bilateral. This is not the case. 

God initiated, determined the elements, and confirmed his covenant with humanity. It is unilateral. Persons are recipients, not contributors; they are not expected to offer elements to the bond; they are called to accept it as offered, to keep it as demanded, and to receive the results that God, by oath, assures will not be withheld.

Scholars have learned by studying tablets found by archaeologists that legal treaties between kings (suzerains) and subjects (vassals) existed during the time of the biblical patriarchs, Moses, Joshua, the judges, and the first kings of Israel. These treaties were written on tablets for the purpose of establishing a continuing relationship as determined and authorized by the suzerain. Once written, the covenants were not to be altered or annulled although parts could be explicated or elaborated. Did biblical writers borrow the idea of the covenant and its integral elements from pagan sources when the Old Testament was written"”elements such as a self-presentation of the suzerain and his activities, including those done on behalf of the vassals, statements of intent, stipulations, and assurances of well-being if obedient and of curses if disobedient? The legal covenants included provisions for continuity, with emphasis on the suzerain's claim to vassals' children, and were confirmed by an oath or a special ratification ceremony, like the cutting in half of an ox or cow or the sharing of a meal as the conclusion of the act of covenanting.

These nonbiblical covenants were intended to serve a number of purposes, two of which are especially important to understand. The suzerain stated that as victor and lord over the vassals he had spared them in battle, delivered them from extenuating circumstances, and placed them in situations of life and well-being. This was an undeserved favor. The suzerain's covenant was also intended to serve an administrative function. It informed the vassals how the king would govern them and what they were to do in obedient response to him. These two purposes, the reminder of deliverance and the information on administration of affairs in daily life, appear in Yahweh God's covenanting with his people but in radically different ways.

Covenants, neither suzerain-vassal nor biblical, were not made (nor did they function) in a vacuum. Covenants presupposed a king, a domain, a way of life, people, and often mediating servants. The covenant was an important administrative means within a kingdom. Etc.

More on this description is at:

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


----------



## Areopagus (Apr 2, 2005)

Turmeric,

I don't "hold" to a confession. Nor do I need to hold to a confession in order to understand Scripture.
____

Pastorway,

I apologize for any part I played in an uncharitable debate. I was a little frustrated with regurgitation and blind dogma. I'll consider this one history.

In Him,

Dustin...


----------



## SolaScriptura (Apr 2, 2005)

Today is a good day to be... Really ReformedÂ® 
:bigsmile:


----------



## Areopagus (Apr 2, 2005)

Ben,

While I firmly disagree with your position and I wish that we could have had a meaningful dialogue, I do want to apologize for any speech or actions that were not meant for our refinement, edification, or unity.

Maybe some day down the road we can pick this back up.

Dustin...


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Apr 2, 2005)

Dustin, I would be glad to interact more, but I am working this weekend. So I will get back to this thread later (if you all don't fry it first). In the mean time, I would suggest you peruse the Scripture references to the chapter in the WCF on "Free Will", and also the WSC question, "What is effectual calling?" with it's Scripture references. That's where I will be coming from. Hope you don't mind some homework


----------



## kevin.carroll (Apr 2, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Areopagus_
> Turmeric,
> 
> I don't "hold" to a confession. Nor do I need to hold to a confession in order to understand Scripture.
> ...



Dustin,

I know you *think* you do not hold to a confession, but you do. The "no creed but Christ, no book but the Bible" psoition sounds very spiritual, but it is an empty position to hold.

Why? Because the instance you define who Christ is or what the Bible is, you have adopted a creed. True, it may not be writte down, but it is a creed nonetheless.

I think much of the concern in this thread has been trying to ferret out exactly what it is you do believe and where you are heading with your arguments.

It's a valid question to ask what creed you subscribe to, as it, among other things, creates a reference point from which a discussion can arise.

You've been very eloquent attacking the WCF and other Reformed creeds. What is your own? If you truly have none, then you are, at the very least, heterodox.


----------



## Areopagus (Apr 2, 2005)

Kevin,

Herein again lies the problem. I'm being indicted with unnecessary and empty claims. I said that I do not "hold" to the BC, the WCF, or any other of the confessions being asked about. That's all that I said. I never said that I have no creed. Please, please quit these, quite frankly, ignorant indictments. I am not heterodox because I do not "hold" to one of your creeds.

Do I have _a_ creed? Well of course. 

More, I've never "attacked" the WCF, etc. Never. I've merely pointed out issues that I see. Is that called an attack? If so, you, Ben, Robin, Patrick, et al, have all attacked me by pointing out errors you see. We are all attacking each other. Uh oh. Do you see the fallacy in this line of thinking? Somehow I doubt that you do.

As I said, for whatever part I played in any part of an uncharitable debate, I apologize. At this point I'll bow out. It is now me against the system/creeds. I won't win because I don't use the language, submit to the system, or succumb to the consensus. 

Praise the Lord.

Dustin...


----------



## Scott Bushey (Apr 2, 2005)

Dustin,
For the record, what creed do you hold to?


----------



## SolaScriptura (Apr 2, 2005)

I'm no moderator or administrator, but I'd swear that the membership requirements say:



> [T]he Puritan Board has two Confessional Standards (that conflict at points): the Westminster Confession and the 1689 London Baptist Confession. *Joinee's must embrace and appreciate* the tenets set forth here in one of these documents. This in no way implies that Puritan Board and it's moderators see these confessions as either equal to the word of God; We do not! We see these confessions as documents that sufficiently comprise our beliefs. The *adherence * to either of these two documents assure that the board will be kept "like-minded" and the fellowship "exhortive and encouraging."


----------



## Scott Bushey (Apr 2, 2005)

Ben,
That is exactly why I have inquired.............


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Apr 2, 2005)

Dustin, this is problematic:



> I won't win because I don't use the language, submit to the system, or succumb to the consensus.



Here is why:

The Illumination of the Holy Spirit & Theological Traditionalism


----------



## Robin (Apr 2, 2005)

As you've said, Matt:

Theological Traditionalism correctly demonstrates the Spirit´s work through the history of the church in and through gifted pastors and teachers. These pastors and teachers, through the history of the church have solidified orthodox doctrine in the creeds and confessions of the Church. Such orthodox confessions should be followed as they agree with the Scripture and with each other in their interpretation of the Scripture. These "œconsensus" interpretations are then found to be coherent in the subscriptionist Confessionalism of the orthodox creeds and confessions throughout the history of the church, and no Christian has the right to reject them as unorthodox to elevate a schismatic "œme and my bible" hermeneutic. To do so is to bring reproach against the Spirit´s work through history in His illumination of men, and to sin against God.



Dustin, apology accepted....my heart hopes that you will note something important though...

A except from your churches' creed:

BRIDGEWAY BIBLE CHURCH'S STATEMENT OF FAITH

DOCTRINAL STATEMENT

The human phraseology employed in this statement is not inspired, but the truth set forth is held to be essential to established orthodox Christian belief and practice. No claim is made that it contains all the truth in the Bible, only that it covers traditionally fundamental matters of Christian faith.

1. THE SCRIPTURES INSPIRED

The Holy Scriptures, comprised of the Old and New Testaments, are fully and verbally inspired by God and are therefore infallible in the original writings and completely trustworthy in all areas in which they proclaim. Their central salvation message and essential teachings are clear and accessible to all who follow the standard and self-evident rules of literary interpretation. They are therefore the supreme, unmediated, and final authority of faith and practice for every believer (2 Tim. 3:15Å¡17; 1 Pet. 1:23-25; Heb. 4:12, II Peter 1:20,21; Mark 13:31; John 8:31,32; John 20:31; Acts 20:32).


*Notice* that it's design is the SAME as any and all historic confessions/creeds/catechisms - meaning there's a summary of Biblical doctrine with Scripture references. We all know that the creeds don't supercede Scripture -- UNLESS they ARE Scripture - which some are: "Jesus Christ is Lord" is a creed, btw.

Sensible, mature questions for anyone attending any church with their own "self made" confession - is WHO's study makes the statement of doctrine; WHERE did they get that understanding; HOW sound is it with Bible and HOW does it compare to the Church-catholic (small c) over time? Adherence to the creeds is hardly blind devotion -- it is worshipping God to struggle to think about Who He is....studying the "bible studies" of saints that have gone before is doing this -- much like you'd say studying your pastor's written sermons would be. (I've noticed that he's posted them in written form. Bravo!)

With all due respect, I don't know if you're the pastor at Bridgeway....it doesn't matter....but Biblical church government must be defended and upheld. That is why it's important to deal the question of "self-appointed" teachers.

Thank you, Matt, for such a thorough effort to clarify the issue.

R.


----------



## kevin.carroll (Apr 2, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Areopagus_
> Kevin,
> 
> Herein again lies the problem. I'm being indicted with unnecessary and empty claims. I said that I do not "hold" to the BC, the WCF, or any other of the confessions being asked about. That's all that I said. I never said that I have no creed. Please, please quit these, quite frankly, ignorant indictments. I am not heterodox because I do not "hold" to one of your creeds.
> ...



I don't recall attacking you. I don't recall making an ignorant indictment. I was seeking information. I was merely pointing out that your "me and the Bible" position is untennable. Whether or not you claim a particular creed or confession, you still have one. And whatever one it may be is guiding your doctrinal arguments. I was simply asking which one it was so I could discuss issues with you more cogently. I was pointing out that if you cannot affirm even the most basic Christian creeds--the Nicean, the Apostles', for instance--then you are, as I said before, heterodox.

Now I am not suggesting that you are. I'm just saying if you cannot affirm orthodox doctrine in even a minimalistic fashion, you are by definition heterodox...at least. It is easy to argue when all you do is ask questions and attack responses. While this is the heart of debate, you are debating somewhat unethically in that you refuse to present your own positions or name your own beliefs.

I see you are from a Bible Church. Does this mean you belong to the IFCA? If so that tells me a great deal. It tells me that you have high-regard for the Bible. It also tells me you are Calminian, dispensational, and probably baptistic. Knowing that, I can reason with you on your own turf. But you seem to prefer to want to keep your cards close to the vest and seem distraught when we call you on it. So if you want to debate, let's debate. Civilly. But if you just want lob grenades and take no intellectual risks with your own positions, at least be up front about it.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Apr 2, 2005)

Dustin will not be returning to the board. He has decided to resign his membership.

In light of this, I am closing this thread.


----------

