# Semantics?



## Areopagus

Friends,

Upon finding this forum, reading thread after thread, and having a general interest in Covenant Theology, I've learned so much. As a matter of fact, I picked up [u:c243481399]The Marrow of Modern Divinity[/u:c243481399] by Edward Fisher after hearing Scott, or someone, suggest it. What an amazing book! I am an avid reader of J.I. Packer, Jonathan Edwards, Spurgeon, [i:c243481399]ad infinitum[/i:c243481399]. But I do have a question.

It seems that the label [quote:c243481399]Covenant of Works[/quote:c243481399], and [quote:c243481399]Covenant of Grace[/quote:c243481399], in light of the system of thinking known as Covenentalism, makes systematic what I don't see explicitly declared in Scripture. Now, I humbly confess that I am far from a learned expert in this theology. Thus, I am on this site, in this forum, hoping for clarification.

Q: Where is the [quote:c243481399]Covenant of Works[/quote:c243481399] spoken of in Scripture? Where is it that we are told that God and Christ made a covenant, one with the other, in eternity past?

Any help is appreciated.

In Him,

Dustin...


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

Welcome aboard!  

Think through this theological idea first : Is Jesus Christ the second Adam (Romans 5)? Also, is Jesus Christ in a Covenant with us or God? If Jesus is the second Adam, how does that translate or parallel in the first Adam?

Then Read Hosea 6:7.

Also, define "covenant."

These are some good beginning steps.


----------



## fredtgreco

Don't look for labels, but substance. You won't find the label "Trinity" anywhere in Scripture. You also won't find an explicit reference to Jesus Christ as One Person with Two natures (Divine and human), and yet both are true Biblical concepts.


----------



## Areopagus

Web, you say:

[quote:f32d779258]Think through this theological idea first [/quote:f32d779258]

Amen! And so I am here, yes?

Web says:

[quote:f32d779258]Is Jesus Christ the second Adam (Romans 5)?[/quote:f32d779258]

Yes.

Web says:

[quote:f32d779258]Is Jesus Christ in a Covenant with us or God?[/quote:f32d779258]

Good question. You ask me to define covenant, with implication that this will help. So, here it goes:

[i:f32d779258]Covenant 
(Hebrew berit or brit) A pact or formal agreement between two parties in which there are mutual obligations and expectations; covenant is used as a metaphor of God's relationship with his people; the major covenants in the Old Testament are God's covenant with Abraham (Genesis 15), and the Sinai/Moses covenant (Exodus 19-24) between God and Israel; the Priestly writer used a succession of covenants to track the development of salvation history; in Judaism, the covenant is a major theological concept referring to the eternal bond between God and the people of Israel grounded in God's gracious and steadfast concern (Hebrew chesed) that calls for the nation's obedience to the divine commandments (mitzvot) and instruction (torah); for Christianity (e.g. Paul), God has made a "new covenant" (rendered as "new testament" in older English) with the followers of Jesus in the last times, superseding the "old covenant" (thus, "old testament") with Moses at Sinai (see Jeremiah 31:31-34). See Part 1, Chapter 1, Chapter 2, Chapter 3, Chapter 5. 
[/i:f32d779258]

(http://www.hope.edu/academic/religion/bandstra/RTOT/GLOSSARY/C.HTM)

So, is Christ in a covenant with God, or with us? Neither, that I find. I find God and Christ, as One, being of the same mind and purpose, but with unique roles (not to be confused with Modalism). In John 6 I see, clearly, God as the giver, Christ as the fulfiller (is that a word?), and the Spirit as the power. It seems to be this way throughout Scripture. But, I do not see in John 6 a *covenant* made. I see the principle [i:f32d779258]implied[/i:f32d779258], but not stated. 

Hosea 6:7 doesn't seem to help. Maybe you could show me.

Again, where in Scripture do we find God making a covenant with Christ in eternity past? That would really help me.

Fred, you say:

[quote:f32d779258]Don't look for labels, but substance. You won't find the label "Trinity" anywhere in Scripture. You also won't find an explicit reference to Jesus Christ as One Person with Two natures (Divine and human), and yet both are true Biblical concepts.[/quote:f32d779258]

Agreed! This is why I'm here. The title of the thread, *Semantics?*, was a hint, not an interrogation or a conclusion. 

Humbly,

Dustin...


----------



## Areopagus

Web, you say:

[quote:0508990ccb]If Jesus is the second Adam, how does that translate or parallel in the first Adam? [/quote:0508990ccb]

I apologize, I forgot to address this. Also, I need to correct myself in the last post.

Christ is not the *second Adam," but the *last Adam.* This is what Scripture states.

1 Corinthians 15:45

[i:0508990ccb]Thus it is written, "The first man Adam became a living being";[1] the last Adam became a life-giving spirit.[/i:0508990ccb]

Where is Christ called the *second Adam?*

Fred, to extend my thoughts a bit. One can clearly show from Scripture that Christ is indeed fully man, fully God, and yet, the Christ. Do you agree? There are Scripture where Christ clearly declares His deity. Where in Scripture is this eternal covenant declared?

In Him,

Dustin...


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

Dustin,

Address this first:

[quote:3898bd7274]"So, is Christ in a covenant with God, or with us? Neither, that I find. "[/quote:3898bd7274]

Without understanding, first, the Covenant of Redemption, the rest of theology will be a big blur.

You need to be able to reconcile ANY relation AT ALL between Adam and Christ, and their involvement both with God and as Federal Representatives on behalf of men. If I am in covenant with God, which i am, then Christ is - for His work allows me to have HIS IMPUTED RIGHTEOUSNESS that I should have had, or rather, that Adam should have Had. All this is interrelated.

Second Adam or Last Adam will depend on your translation. Either works for me. They both mean the same thing and both talk about a same realtionship.

Hosea 6:7 But like [b:3898bd7274]Adam[/b:3898bd7274] they transgressed [b:3898bd7274]the covenant[/b:3898bd7274]; there they dealt faithlessly with me. 

How does this not relate?


----------



## JohnV

[quote:dd30ed430a]Where is Christ called the *second Adam?* [/quote:dd30ed430a]


1 Cor. 15:45 Thus it is written, "The first man Adam became a living being"; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. 
46 But it is not the spiritual that is first but the natural, and then the spiritual. 
47 The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven.
48 As was the man of dust, so also are those who are of the dust, and as is the man of heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. 
49 Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven.


----------



## Radar

Yea John!  

47 The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the SECOND man is from heaven. 

The second of two is last.

:^)


----------



## Areopagus

Web,

Thanks so much for your patience with me as I work all of this out. I also appreciate all of your input. Bear with me as we continue to refine one another.

You say:

[quote:3f5910d401]You need to be able to reconcile ANY relation AT ALL between Adam and Christ, and their involvement both with God and as Federal Representatives on behalf of men. If I am in covenant with God, which i am, then Christ is - for His work allows me to have HIS IMPUTED RIGHTEOUSNESS that I should have had, or rather, that Adam should have Had. All this is interrelated. 
[/quote:3f5910d401]

Within this statement is precisely my point. Let me explain. Is there a relationship between Adam and Christ? Yes, of course. Scripture is quite clear on this. Adam, the first man, [b:3f5910d401]transgressed[/b:3f5910d401] the [b:3f5910d401]command[/b:3f5910d401] of God, and thus, sin and death have entered into the world, and death to all mankind (Romans 5:12-13). [i:3f5910d401]This[/i:3f5910d401] is clear from Gods word. 

What is not clear, however, is how the word [b:3f5910d401]covenant[/b:3f5910d401] is inserted into the text. Is what happened in the garden between God and Adam a covenant? Well, the definition of covenant was given, and I do not see it in this scenario. The text says clearly:

[i:3f5910d401]And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, 'You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day you eat of it you shall surely die.'[/i:3f5910d401] (Genesis 2:16-17)

Where is the "pact or formal agreement between two parties," as covenant is defined? It seems that God decreed what was to be, and Adam, according to Gods foreordained plan, did what he was told. 

My question, again, is, where is the Covenant of Works spoken of?

My other question hasn't yet been answered either; namely, where is the eternal covenant, said to be made between the Father and the Son, spoken of?

So, Adam was a "Federal Representative" of man in so far as God had decreed it to be. Gods plan was not contingent upon Adams pact or formal agreement, yes?

What role does Christ play as the Federal Representative? Humbly, and with some trepidation due to the respect for your prior knowledge to this subject, I will try to give my view. 

Christ, is the "last Adam." Is He the second man? Yes, and no. He is not the "second man" as Adam was, that was to transgress the command of God so that Gods predetermined plan of redemption would be ushered in, and then, consequently, suffer physical and spiritual death. Rather, Christ was the second (last) Adam that was born to die so that He would live eternally, and in that resurrected spirit life, we too, are born again. This election is unconditional, predestined, and according to Gods good pleasure and will. This, I'm sure we would agree upon. So, Christ was the [i:3f5910d401]last[/i:3f5910d401] Adam in that His death, and subsequent resurrection, was the culmination of Gods [i:3f5910d401]eternal decree[/i:3f5910d401]. The first Adam was born to die - the last Adam was born to live.

Question: Would you agree that we are [b:3f5910d401]reconciled[/b:3f5910d401] by His death, but [b:3f5910d401]saved[/b:3f5910d401] by His life?

 Is this you yet? I pray this is not too frustrating. But I must confess, I just do not see what you are trying to point out.

John V, you say:

[i:3f5910d401]1 Cor. 15:45 Thus it is written, "The first man Adam became a living being"; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit.46 But it is not the spiritual that is first but the natural, and then the spiritual.47 The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven.48 As was the man of dust, so also are those who are of the dust, and as is the man of heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. 49 Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven.[/i:3f5910d401]

True. But what about verse 50?

[i:3f5910d401]I tell you this brothers: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.[/i:3f5910d401]

Web, forgive me for not addressing Hosea 6:7. I will get to it, most likely, later tonight. For now, I must dote on my lovely bride so that I am not thrashed. :thumbdown: 

In Him,

Dustin...


----------



## voided user1

Berkhof states, "All the elements of a covenant are indicated in Scripture, and if the elements are present, we are not only warranted but, in a systematic study of the doctrine, also in duty bound to relate them to one another, and to give the doctrine so construed an appropriate name."


----------



## Areopagus

[quote:d56d88eea4]Berkhof states, "All the elements of a covenant are indicated in Scripture, and if the elements are present, we are not only warranted but, in a systematic study of the doctrine, also in duty bound to relate them to one another, and to give the doctrine so construed an appropriate name."
[/quote:d56d88eea4]

I'm bound only by what Scripture declares. Scripture, in so far as I can see, does not declare a pre-temporal covenant made between the Father and the Son, a "Covenant of Works" between God and Adam in the garden, a "Covenant of Grace" thereafter, and a systematic theology called "Covenentalism." I say that with absolutely no ill will, disrespect, or sarcasm. I assure you.

I do see an overall, all encompassing [i:d56d88eea4]decree[/i:d56d88eea4] of grace. This grace was contingent upon [b:d56d88eea4]nothing[/b:d56d88eea4] but Gods own glory and pleasure. It was not a "pact" or "agreement" with anyone but Gods self.

My 2 questions remain:

[quote:d56d88eea4]My question, again, is, where is the Covenant of Works spoken of? 

My other question hasn't yet been answered either; namely, where is the eternal covenant, said to be made between the Father and the Son, spoken of? 
[/quote:d56d88eea4]

Thank you for the quote, but it bears no weight.

In Him,

Dustin...


----------



## voided user1

The quote bears weight, but obviously doesn't answer the question.

You seem to be asking two questions. The quote bears weight on the question, is there a place for systematic theology? I heartily affirm that there is.

Your second question, the biblical nature of the so-called covenants is not one I've undertaken to answer at this point. More soon...


----------



## Areopagus

Wymer,

The quote bears weight only in that we are to be immersed in the word, seeking wisdom through application, and above all things, growing to glorify Him. So, while one may say that it bears weight on the idea of these things being a systematic theology, it does not bear weight on the questions I've asked and the reality that the "Covenant of Works" and the "Covenant of Grace," and Covenant Theology for that matter, while very sound in principle, have been taken to an illogical extreme.

But as I said in the beginning, I may be completely wrong, they right, and God is using this to show me a deeper truth. 

Humbly,

Dustin...


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

Dustin,

Three things to consider:

Do you own Herman Witsius' "Economy of the Covenants Between God and Man?"

That would be a very helpful work to own and work through this issue.

Also, if you want to listen to nine lectures on the Covenant of Works and how that works out in Scripture then check here:
http://www.apuritansmind.com/CD/AudioSermons.htm

Check the section that says:
Book 1
Lessons 1-1 through 1-9 deal with the Covenant of Works, 
or, Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden:

If you befuddle the Covenant of Works, the rest of theology goes caput.

If Christ was in covenatn with God as the second Adam, then Adam was as well as the first man.

Honestly, denying all three of these covenatns as you are simply shows you are not reading through your whole bible, or at least ignoring huge portions of it. It does not sound like you are familiar with your Bible. I am not saying that to upset you, but you are denying huge, CLEAR, portions of the Scriptures. For instance, take Zechariah, one of many prophets speaking about the covenant between God and God:

Zechariah 6:13 Yes, He shall build the temple of the LORD. He shall bear the glory, And shall sit and rule on His throne; So He shall be a priest on His throne, And the counsel of peace shall be between them both." '

Here you have God and God makeing a counsel of peace between God and man and God executingt his. 

Psalm 110:4 The LORD has sworn And will not relent, "You are a priest forever According to the order of Melchizedek."

Here you have God dealing with sin with the Son before the world crated int he enthronement of the Messiah as a preist "forever". God and God again dealign with Sin before sin was even existent as Christ is the lamb slain before the foundation of the world.

This agreement between the Father and the Son to save men is very clear.

Albeit man, having brought himself into this woeful condition, be neither able to help himself, nor willing to be helped by God out of it, but rather inclined to lie still, insensible of it, till he perish; yet God, for the glory of his rich grace, hath revealed in his word a way to save sinners, to wit, by faith in Jesus Christ, the eternal Son of God, by virtue of, and according to the tenor of the covenant of redemption, made and agreed upon, between God the Father and God the Son, in the counsel of the Trinity, before the world began. 

The sum of the covenant of redemption, is this: God having freely chosen unto life, a certain number of lost mankind, for the glory of his rich grace, did give them, before the world began, unto God the Son, appointed Redeemer, that, upon condition he would humble himself so far as to assume the human nature of a soul and a body, unto personal union with his divine nature, and submit himself to the law, as surety for them, and satisfy justice for them, by giving obedience in their name, even unto the suffering of the cursed death of the cross, he should ransom and redeem them all from sin and death, and purchase unto them righteousness and eternal life, with all saving graces leading thereunto, to be effectually, by means of his own appointment, applied in due time to every one of them. This condition the Son of God (who is Jesus Christ our Lord) did accept before the world began, and in the fulness of time came into the world, was born of the Virgin Mary, subjected himself to t he law, and completely paid the ransom on the cross : But by virtue of the foresaid bargain, made before the world began, he is in all ages, since the fall of Adam, still upon the work of applying actually the purchased benefits unto the elect : and that he doth by way of entertaining a covenant of free grace and reconciliation with them, through faith in himself; by which covenant, he makes over to every believer a right and interest to himself, and to all his blessings. 

For the accomplishment of this covenant of redemption, and making the elect partakers of the benefits thereof in the covenant of grace, Christ Jesus was clad with the threefold office of Prophet, Priest, and King: Made a Prophet, to reveal all saving knowledge to his people, and to persuade them to believe and obey the same; Made a Priest, to offer up himself a sacrifice once for them all, and to interceed continually with the Father, for making their persons and services acceptable to him; And made a King, to subdue them to himself, to feed and rule them by his own appointed ordinances, and to defend them from their enemies. 

In dealing, then, with a covenatn of works with Adam in the garden, you seem to be looking for words that "and Adam entered into a covenant of works with God." If God did that with every dotrine, we would not need pastors and teachers to teach us!! That woudl be helpful, but unfortunately its just not that way. For instance, find me ONE SCRIPTURE that says the following:

"In the unity of the Godhead there be three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost: the Father is of none, neither begotten, nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father; the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son."

If you cannot find this exact wording int he BIble, do you throw out the doctrine of the "TRINITY" Of course not. 

Covenant as a pact between two parties is ALL throught eh bible, from what Christ did in doing the will of the Father, from Adam not doing the will of the Father.

The contracting parties of the covenant of works are God and man. In this covenant Adam sustained a two-fold relation, both as man and as representative of all men. He was created with a reasonable soul that has the capacity for interaction and power to act perfectly with knowledge, righteousness and holiness. The whole extent of the image of God created in Adam consists of three parts: 1) Antecedently, in that it consists in the spiritual and immortal nature of the soul and in the faculties of understanding and will, 2) Formally and principally in these endowments or qualities of the soul, viz. righteousness and holiness, and 3) Consequentially, in the immortality of the whole man, and his dominion over the creatures. As head and root, or representative of mankind the whole of history proves this fact as he was the first man to whom was spoken the creation ordinances and mandate.

God is righteous in governing the world in this fashion by the covenant with Adam in the garden. No one would have complained if Adam had obeyed. People often complain it is not fair since they were not there, and that they could have succeeded if they were. However, no one can say they could have done better. Since they are fallen now, they are thinking in a fallen state, and they think now that they could have done better than a perfect man who had no sin. But in Adam everyone has sinned personally. In Adam everyone sinned, as if they had been there.

The Law of the Covenant is twofold: the law of nature implanted in Adam which was done at his creation, and the symbolic law concerning the tree of the knowledge of Good and evil. The Law of nature is the rule of good and evil, inscribed by God on man's conscience, even at his creation, and therefore binding upon him by divine authority. This has not disappeared since the fall. It is compatible with love and not an enforcement or coercion but the obligation of a just act based upon the holiness of God. The law of nature is the same in substance with the Decalogue.

The Creator/creature distinction necessitates law. If God did not uphold the law He would deny Himself. God is the sovereign Creator, not man. If man were autonomous, then man would be "œgod." The law requires external and internal obedience. It governs not only our actions but our nature. The universal precepts of the law are founded upon the nature of God, that is, an expression of His character.

The symbolic law was the tree of knowledge of good and evil. (Gen. 2:26-17). There is a two-fold reason for the symbolic law - with respect to God, to test and try man's obedience, and with respect to man, probatory law with reward of eternal life and punishment of eternal death.

A perfect three-fold keeping of the law was required. First, of its parts with respect to subject and object: The whole man, body and soul, had to keep the whole law. Also of the degree to which it is to be kept: man had to keep the law with all diligence and heart. Also, man had to persevere: Man had to persevere in keeping the law without fault.

The Covenant of Works did include promises contrary to the Socinians. Man's natural conscience teaches him that God desires not to be served in vain, nor that obedience to his commands will go unrewarded and for nought. Rather, true faith is rooted in the word and promise of God. The tree of life represented the promise of eternal life. It would have a been a nonsensical statement for God to prohibited Adam from eating of the tree if something good were not to come from not eating. It was a seal of the promise of God to Adam if He obeyed. If no promise had been made, man would have lived without hope and lack of hope is characteristic of the fall, for the very threatening infers a promise.

The promise made to man was eternal life. Jesus came to do what the law could not do because man sinned. Jesus came to procure eternal life therefore it was promised to man from the beginning. If Adam persevered, he would have received what we received by faith in Jesus Christ. The law itself was ordained to life (Gal. 3:21). Christ, the second Adam, earned eternal life for us through the law. He did what Adam did not do.

If there was no reward, what kind of covenant would it have been? God would act unjustly against His character of rewarding those who diligently seek Him and all of Theology Proper would come crashing to the ground. God would then violate His character. 

The nature of the promise of God to Adam for eternal life has a number of foundational truths. God owes nothing to man. Man cannot merit anything from God. God cannot punish a holy creature for it would be wrong for God to send a creature to hell that is just and Holy. This would be a denial of Himself. God cannot refuse to grant a holy creature the communion of Himself. If He did that would throw, again His character in confusion. He would be saying that he does not delight in holiness and true piety. And God does not love something in vain.

There are various observations concerning the penal sanction to note (Gen. 2:17). Death is the consequence of sin and therefore not natural. The rebellious and disobedient and them alone are those set with the consequences of punishment. Death follows as a consequence of eating from the forbidden tree. Sin here expressed is the transgression of the symbolic law. The law seen in the tree of the knowledge of Good and evil, is the more full expression of the Law of God.

The term death is used generally to include all its meanings. It is to be taken in all of its meaning, not just physical death. It was spoken to Adam as the head of mankind. Corporeal and spiritual death on behalf of all men as the outcome of his disobedience. This penal sanction would be administered immediately. The moment he finished his sin in eating the fruit, he felt the change and it began immediately. Death is the separation of body and soul. Death means vanity or frustration of this life along with its pain and miseries. Death means spiritual death. Death means eternal death of body and soul.

The necessity of the penal sanction for sin is the majesty, holiness and justice of God. God is a jealous God for His own glory and majesty. God cannot deny Himself, nor can he deny His supreme majesty. It"(tm)s the manifestation of the jealousy of God that is seen here against sin. He must punish wickedness. The holiness of God demonstrates that God cannot be joined with a sinner without satisfaction made to his justice for He cannot look upon sin. A holy God hates sin and the sinner. God manifests his holiness when he punishes the wicked. The justice of God is an essential attribute of God. God's justice demands sin be punished with death. However, God does not delight in the death of the wicked. The penal sanction of death is based upon the just nature of God. Eternal death is not an arbitrary sanction. It depends on the holy nature of God. Sin is infinite in relation to its attack upon God who is infinite (and not in an absolute sense since there are degrees of sin), therefore punishment must be infinite as well. It cannot be removed but by Christ"(tm)s blood, it stands forever.

In the Covenant of Works there were sacraments. They are visible proclamations of the covenant. Daily Adam beholds the sacrament with his eyes, and remembers the promises given to him, and the threats. They are there to strengthen our faith in God's promises, and to confirm our faith (Heb. 6:17-18). They are also a foretaste of eternal blessings. Those eternal blessings will be without outward signs and simply grasp the thing itself signified in these lesser objects at that time, but now we must use them to strengthen faith for they remind us of our duty to God. They help us remember how one is bound to his covenant-God, and they bridle and restrain him in a certain degree from sin. The sacraments of the covenant of works are Paradise, the tree of life, the tree of knowledge of good and evil and the Sabbath. 

The sacrament of Paradise was the Garden of Paradise. It was a garden planted by God, given to man as steward to take care of it. Paradise signified heaven. (Luke 23:43; 2 Cor. 12:4; Gen 3:10, Rev. 22:1; Gen 2:12; Rev. 21:27). Paradise reminded Adam to be active. It was the pledge of heaven, and Adam was to cultivate that place continually. He was to keep the sanctuary of God pure and holy, so that God could come and "œmetaphorically "" eat of its fruits" with Adam in fellowship (Song 4:16). 

The sacrament of the tree of life signified the Son of God who is the source of life in all covenants. It was the sign of the covenant promise of eternal life. Adam was cut off from the sign when cast out of the garden. Being cut off from the tree demonstrated the need of a Mediator to bring them back to the tree. It was a holy example "" for "œthe fruit of the righteous is a tree of life (Proverbs 11:30)." 

The sacrament of the tree of knowledge of good and evil signified the promise of the covenant and the curse of the covenant. It stood as a memorial of our duty towards God. Adam should desire the chief good "" who is God. Man should not go after that which is simply pleasing to the body. God"(tm)s rule is the supreme authority before man, which Adam should have followed as signified by the tree. Had Adam obeyed, he would upon his trial have come to the knowledge and sense of his good to which he was called, and had a natural desire after, even "œeternal life and consummate happiness."

The last sacrament of the Covenant of Works is the Sabbath that began at Creation (Genesis 2:2-3). The first day was the day blessed "" the first day after six days of work. As a creation sacrament, it is binding upon all men for all time. It is binding simply on the basis of imitating God. Adam entered into the Sabbath rest upon completion of his creation. The first day Adam enjoyed was the Sabbath rest.

God rejoiced over His work. He ceased from creating anything new and contemplated his creation. He rejoiced over what was worthy of His labor "" which is consistent with the character of His goodness. This set a pattern which man is to copy. Adam was engaged on the first day of his creation to contemplate the Creator - resting and contemplating to abstain from every sin. On this day of rest God blessed man.

The Sabbath is set as a sacrament. God's resting signified His far more glorious rest for men in heaven (Heb. 4:10) Men enter this rest through the work of Christ which points to the mystical signification of the Sabbath and heaven. God's resting signified man's eternal rest in God after his probation.

The covenant in its whole constitution was violated by Adam's sin. The broken Covenant is seen in Hosea 6:7 and Romans 5:12. Adam was the root of mankind and all of mankind fell in that transgression. 

There are some important observations concerning Satan's temptation of Adam and what Satan did there. Satan doubts God's word. He doubts or undermines the penalty of sin. He instills Heresy (Rev. 13:11, "œHe speaks like a dragon"¦") He promises greater happiness upon obedience to him. Satan tempted him to obtain that new happiness through disobedience. He then appeals to God as a witness to his lie. "œDid God really say?" The serpent was overthrowing the nature of the priestly office of Adam by causing the priest to doubt God. Would the sanctuary of God, the holy place of God, be overthrown? Adam succumbed to the temptation and violated the covenant by making a covenant with the devil. 

Adam's sin was predetermined by God. The doctrine of concurrence teaches us this: for man to act, God has to act, and if God acts then man acts. Man cannot act independently from God. (1 Peter 1:19-20, Acts 17:28, Isa. 10:15). This is a necessity of consequence. It is not that God "œmade" Adam sin in his heart, but that God withholds His morally good influence in Adam. God's decree is the foundation for man's liberty and He cannot be the author of sin.

When Adam sinned, God imputed Adam"(tm)s sin to all his posterity. Romans 5:12, "œTherefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned." An actual sin is in view. "All" includes those who did not personally sin. Therefore Adam's sin was imputed to them. It is due to Adam's one sin that death came to all. It is analogous to salvation in Christ who is the Representative head of His elect. Only one sin of Adam is imputed to his posterity. All are fallen as a result.

"Do this and live" implies MUCH! Adam was to work before God upholding this covenant and God would have blessed Him if He did. God gives the conditions of the covenant, Adam must obey. Adam does not get to choose whether or not to be in covneant with God (And agreement God gave him and he must follow) but he can choose whether to uphold it or not (which he did not). Here he fell from grace and broke the covenant. If there was no covenant, then there is nothing for him to break. The law is meaningless unless it is backed up with stipulations, cursings, and blessings (which are clearly seen in Genesis - if you eat of the tree you shall surely die.) 

Remember, Dustin, God does not have to explain everything to us. In some places he did.

Hosea 6:7 But like Adam they transgressed the covenant; There they dealt treacherously with Me.

Adam trangressed the covenatn God made with him. The Israelites, like Adam, also transgresseed the Covenant God made with them. The Hebrew is comparitive. Adam was IN covenant with God and the Israelties were IN covenant with God.

How do you explain over 500 references to the covenant of works and grace away just in the OT alone?

There are important eternal truths that transcend the abrogation of the covenant. Perfect obedience is (still) required by all men. This should help us to see that God does not change just because men fall. God still speaks to people in His Word as if they are not fallen (Do this and live.), for perfect obedience is necessary to obtain eternal life (Galatians 5:3). Disobedience is still punished by death and men are still obliged to keep the requirements or face the consequences.

The Fall did not abrogate the duty to keep the law. James Arminius believed that it did. However, the obligation to obey is founded principally upon God and not a covenant. The execution of penal sanctions does not abrogate the law, and instead God administers a greater punishment. Inability to keep the law does not negate the responsibility to obey it. Man is the cause of his inability. Man's sin cannot diminish God's authority for that would be contrary to God's nature. The law does not change because God does not change (James 1:17, Romans 8:4)

The Gospel did not abrogate the duty to keep the law. The Covenant of Grace confirms the Covenant of Works. Perfect obedience is required to obtain eternal life because Christ's life and death was necessary to redeem his people. The very fact that there is a Covenant of Grace demonstrates the need to uphold the righteous character of God. The fruit of Christ's work does not change the law but the sinner. The law does not change because God does not change. This is critical to understanding the Covenant of Works. The abrogation on the part of God was that man could no longer obtain eternal life by the keeping of the law.

The Scriptures express the nature of divine covenants as a necessary part of intelligently comprehending God"(tm)s redemptive work in human history. Divine covenants contain a clear and lasting significance as to their importance in the manner in which God redeems men. A covenant is "œa bond in blood sovereignly administered by God." It is a bond that binds people together. It is a bond of life and death in blood demonstrating the ultimacy of the act of "œcovenanting." It is a bond that is sovereignly administered by God that disregards human bartering or contracting that regularly characterizes the manner in which fallen men attempt to merit salvation.


----------



## voided user1

Dustin-
Here's a summarization by John Piper of the three main hermeneutics.
http://www.desiringgod.org/library/theological_qa/law_gospel/disp_cov_ncov.html

I hope it's of some help!!

Jon


----------



## Areopagus

Web,

You say:

[quote:eeb6e792ff]Honestly, denying all three of these covenatns as you are simply shows you are not reading through your whole bible, or at least ignoring huge portions of it. It does not sound like you are familiar with your Bible. I am not saying that to upset you, but you are denying huge, CLEAR, portions of the Scriptures. For instance, take Zechariah, one of many prophets speaking about the covenant between God and God: 
[/quote:eeb6e792ff]

I will ignore this blatant [i:eeb6e792ff]ad hominem[/i:eeb6e792ff] because I greatly admire what I have read of you within the pages of this forum. Typically, [i:eeb6e792ff]ad hominem[/i:eeb6e792ff] stems from a need to draw diversion away from a topic one has no clear and Biblical answer for; or, it is used as a "rabbit trail" to distract until something better can be conjured. 

Just because I do not see your system of labels within the pages of Scripture does not mean that I do not see the clear covenants within the pages of the Bible. That is your first erroneus assumption. Second, just because I do not adhere to the alleged idea that God and Christ made a covenant in eternity past (which you have yet to show from Scripture), does not mean that I do not "know my Bible." Nor does it mean that I do not read each page with careful scrutiny. That was your second erroneus assumption. 

Web, can you show me, from Scripture, where God and Christ made a covenant with each other over the salvation of men? Can you do that for me? This is the third, or fourth, time I've asked. One would think that if such a transaction were made in eternity past, and thrust into temporal existence, and that, all for the glory of God, that it would be within the pages of the Word. I mean, for heavens sake, God speaks of His covenant after the flood. He clearly delineates the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenant, the New Covenant, etc. So why would He not clearly speak of this magnficient and eternal covenant made between the 2 Persons of the Godhead in eternity past. For that matter, what of the Covenant of Works in the garden? So, once more, can you show me from Scripture this covenant made between the Father and the Son?

I'll look into that book you mentioned. You can count on that. When I am done with [u:eeb6e792ff]The Marrow of Modern Divinity[/u:eeb6e792ff], which is a superb read, I will pick that one up. I can only order so many books at a time. My wife will eventually put the slap down on me for all the money I spend.  

So, let us recap; I believe, clearly, that God makes covenants with man. I believe that these covenants, obviously, involved the Godhead. I believe that these covenants explicitly involve man and salvation. By the way, your depiction of the salvific process was genuinely eloquent, and accurate. I differ with you in no way, I believe, concerning Gods unconditional predestination of His own for His own glory, and that, apart from any consideration for man. It is the idea of Covenentalism, as a systematic theology, that I just don't see. I don't see what you hold to so dogmatically that ends up provoking you to say some of the things you said in your post. 

Please answer those questions from Scripture for me. The Trinity is clearly seen in Scripture. One can walk a person through a myriad of Scriptures to prove this point. Can one do this for this idea of the covenant between the Father and the Son? Can one do this for the Covenant of Works you speak of?

In Him,

Dustin...


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

Dustin, 

You should know by now, if you have read anything I have ever said or written, that I do not ad in ad hominems to detract from a position. The Cow, CoR and CoG have been pivitol theological concepts since the beginning of the church. The burden of proof is actually on you to disprove them rather than me to teach them again. What irks me, honestly, is that men are in pastoral positions teaching the flock of God bad theology that has emerged out of the 20-21st century revivalistic church movement (i.e. they are throwing off 2000 yyears of Theological Traditionalism in order to go with new and novel doctrines of which they are ignornat they are new and novel!)


[quote:0be1b37823]Just because I do not see your system of labels within the pages of Scripture does not mean that I do not see the clear covenants within the pages of the Bible. That is your first erroneus assumption. [/quote:0be1b37823]

That means you reject the first 2000 years of systematic theought on the Bible.

[quote:0be1b37823]Second, just because I do not adhere to the alleged idea that God and Christ made a covenant in eternity past (which you have yet to show from Scripture), [/quote:0be1b37823]

Actualyl I did and you skipped over it.

[quote:0be1b37823]does not mean that I do not "know my Bible." Nor does it mean that I do not read each page with careful scrutiny. That was your second erroneus assumption. [/quote:0be1b37823]

Okay - burden or proof is on you to disprove historical theology... 
Actually, signing onto this board in general requires you to hold to the WCf or LBC. If you reject CT you hold to neither. We'll let that slide for now....

In any case, let's move on to talking about some key ideas.

How do you explain Psalm 110 and Zechariah?

With my "assumptions" I was simply stating that it is impossible to go through the bible and reject covenant Theology unless you are simply not reading your bible. You specifically said you have no warrant for ANY of the covenatn - CoW, CoR, and CoG. If none of these exist, then how can there be ANY covenant in the bible at all - you wither have a covenatn based on works, a covenant based on grace or....what then do covvenants means that God makes with men?

Then in your post above you said, contradicting your previous post, that God does make covenants with men. Are these gracious or not? or do men deserve them?

I understand about the books. Go to http:www.federaltheology.com and read the first book and second book. I think KC has them online. They cover the CoW and the CoR.

[quote:0be1b37823]The Trinity is clearly seen in Scripture. [/quote:0be1b37823]

No, actually its not. You are saying that [b:0be1b37823]ONLY [/b:0be1b37823]because of [b:0be1b37823]your presuppositions about the Trinity[/b:0be1b37823]. For example, find me a Scripture that uses the label "Trinity."

Acutally, find the something remotely close to this:

In the unity of the Godhead there be three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost: the Father is of none, neither begotten, nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father; the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son."

Do you believe the above THEOLOGICAL ASSERTION even though you do not have ONE SCripture that says anything REMOTELY close to this?

If you do believe that, when woudl it be difficult to use labels such as Covenant of Redemption, and the like, in describing the union betweent he servant and the Father, but contradictorily believe in the Trinity, and the assertion above without having any Scripture that explcitiely states this?

Now we are saying that theological ideas wrap up huge prostions of the bible. When someone says "I am a Calvinist" I know what he SHOULD mean. Or, "I am a Presbyterian " I know what he SHOULD mean. When some says "I do not believe in Covenant Theology" then thaey are saying they are Dispensationalists (again, a novel and new theological system). SO when we say "I believe in the Trinity" we have no Ssriptual proof for the assersion above except in a systematic theological system which we have to piece together. Even with Christ's baptism, which shows the complimentary economic Trinity at work in the Covenant of Redemption, you still have nothing about who they are or their being. You simply make an assumption based on other Scriptures you have to piece together.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

Okay - let's get knee deep into the CoR.

The consequence to the Fall was that the Covenant of works was broken and the New Covenant was established. Witsius says, "œWhen the covenant of works was thus broken by the sin of man, and abrogated the just judgment of God, wretched man was cast headlong into the deepest gulf of ruin, whence there could be no escape." Man was now without God, as Ephesians 2:12 states that he was, "œhaving no hope and without God in the world." As a result, a further covenant needed to be established with man "" the New Covenant, or Covenant of Grace.

A New Covenant was setup that promised a coming Mediator to overthrow the curse. It was new from the beginning, and characterized in that way throughout redemptive history, then epitomized in Christ. This is the foundation of God"(tm)s merciful plan to save sinners. 

The Covenant of Grace illustrates God's adorable perfections. Who can rehearse it all? Wisdom, power, truth, justice holiness goodness, philanthropy, good-will, mercy"¦and the like. It demonstrates that which Adam would not have known in the garden, but now revealed through mercy. 

It is helpful to define The Covenant of Grace, or New Covenant in the following way: "œThe covenant of grace is a compact or agreement between God and the elect sinner; God on his part declaring his free good-will concerning eternal salvation, and every thing relative thereto, freely to be given to those in covenant, by, and for the mediator Christ; and man on his part consenting to that good-will by a sincere faith." 

In other words the Covenant of Grace, made with the elect is the reality interposed in time of the covenant that God the Father makes with the Son. In time, this covenant is manifested as the Covenant of Grace.

The Covenant of Redemption is defined as "œThe Father gives the Son to be Head and Redeemer of the elect; and the Son presents himself as a Sponsor or Surety for them." This covenant is between God and the Mediator, not the elect and God. The elect simply reap the benefits of this agreement between God and the Mediator.

The Scriptures demonstrate the reality of such a covenant made and we want to demonstrate this by Scripture to prove the necessity of it. First, we should observe the nature of the sacraments, which Christ partook of for they are evidences for the Covenant of Redemption.. Luke 22:29 "And I bestow upon you a kingdom, just as My Father bestowed one upon Me." The Greek word [font=symbol:ae180aa194]diati,qemai[/font:ae180aa194], "œto dispose of a covenant" may be better worded "œand I engage by covenant unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath engaged by covenant unto me." (cf. Hebrews 7:22). He is a surety "" he represents us to God and communicates to us His promises. He undertook to perform the condition of the covenant where we could not (Galatians 3:17).

The contracting parties are, on one side, God, on the other, Christ; and the agreement between both is ratified. Christ is the seed to which all the promises of God are made and complete. He is the executor of the testament "" or [font=symbol:ae180aa194]diaqakh[/font:ae180aa194]. The economic relationship between the Father and Son, that is Christ calling God Father and God calling Christ servant, points to a Covenant of Redemption (Isaiah 49:5-6). In this servanthood, the whole nature of the covenant exists. Christ calls God his Father, and the Father calls Christ His servant.

The contracting parties of the covenant are the Father and Son. (Psalm 16:2; Isaiah 53:2). It was a covenant proposed by the Father (John 10:18), and includes a promise and right to ask for a promise upon obedience (John 10:18; John 12:49; Psalm 2:8; Isaiah 53:10-12) This covenant was accepted by the Son (John 14:31; Psalm 40:7-8). This is where many misunderstand how the covenant of grace is conditional upon obedience, but that Christ accepted such obedience on behalf of the elect and so the elect, and they alone will be able to keep such a covenant with God because of Christ. Christ had to perform and keep the covenant for all this to be effectual for the salvation of men, thus seen in his baptism to fulfill all righteousness. The Father declared that He accepted the suretyship, "œin thee I am well pleased (Luke 3:22)." These things were sealed by the symbol of the Holy Spirit falling upon Him.

Importance of the Covenant of Redemption is Foundational to Covenant Theology. It is the foundation to the whole of our salvation. This Covenant is divided in to three time frames or three periods: eternity, immediately after the fall, and in the incarnation. The time period of eternity for this covenant is proven from the Scriptures (1 Pet. 1:20; Prov. 8:23,; Eph. 1:4; John 17:6; Rev. 13:8). It was then engaged immediately after the fall. A need for a Mediator was given at the time of the fall (Gen. 3:15; Rom. 3:25; Zech 1:12-13). The time of the incarnation is also demonstrated by the Scriptures (Psalm 40:7; Hebrews 10:5; Galatians 4:4).

There is an importance to seeing how Christ related to the Law. As God He was subject to no one and nothing. He is the Son of God in this respect. As man He was subject to moral, ceremonial and civil laws. He partook of the ceremonies and types which He would fulfill. In this he was obedient. As mediator He was subject to earn eternal life and pay our debt of sin, i.e., active and passive obedience. The active subjection to the law was that he set himself under it as a rule of life (involuntary), but as a way to save sinners it was a way to obtain eternal life (voluntary). His passive obedience consisted of various miseries of body and soul from the cradle to the cross. Without His active and passive obedience sinners can never be saved. His human nature, then was truly subject to the law and his active obedience is appropriated to the God-man and not just the human nature which is necessary for the salvation of God's people.

The relationship between reward and the obedience of Christ is also critical to understand. Reward is promised to him which is the highest degree of glory (John 17:1). To receive this as a man is the perfect fruition of God., being exalted above all creatures. He is given the church, receives all power, and gives gifts for the church.

In order for salvation for men to accrue, the Savior must be true man, consisting of a soul and body (Heb. 2:10,11,16 17). This does not mean the human nature was taken into the divine nature. Rather, the divine nature "œassumed" or took upon the human nature. The Hebrews passage is an argument for the Incarnation, not simply a statement about it.

The Savior must be a righteous man. You have to be a perfect man in order to save men. He must fulfill as man what Adam failed to do as man. The justice of God would never be satisfied unless flesh kept the covenant bond (Ephesians 5:30; Galatians 4:4). He had to be a righteous man as Hebrews 4:15 states and Romans 5:19 demonstrates. The Covenant demands perfect holiness. There has to be a legal purity about the sacrifice for God to accept it, for an unrighteous man cannot save himself, and only a righteous man can save others.

The virgin birth immunized the Savior from original sin. There are two views seen here: the Symbolic view: the Virgin birth was a symbol appointed by God whereby he was separated from sinners. The miracle itself had no inherent power to keep the Savior from original sin; and the Literal view: Virgin birth had inherent power to keep the Saviour from original sin because it is possible that part of the body is not under the curse of sin nor a means of transferring guilt.

The Savior must also be true God (Isa. 43:11). Man is not the Savior, and salvation does not originate with him. Only God can restore us to true liberty, for he who sets us free, makes a purchase of us for his property and possession (1 Cor. 6:19-20). Only God can give us eternal life that is in Himself. Only God could raise the image of God back to its right state. Only God can give us the right to become sons of God. Only God can effect the new creation. Sinful man cannot but taint the soul. God must rescue the soul, and make it new.

The Savior must be God-man. He had to be man in order to obey, submit, and suffer. (1 Timothy 2:5l; 3:16) He had to be God at the same time in order to have his obedience, submission, and suffering to be of sufficient value for the redemption of the elect. He had to be God at the same time in order to be able to bear the fierceness of divine wrath and conquer death by his resurrection. The power of God had to support the human nature to offer it as a sacrifice.

Jesus Christ is called our "œSurety" because he made satisfaction to God for us. The Socinians define satisfaction as "œpartial satisfaction," where man must take up the rest of the story. The Biblical definition of satisfaction is complete satisfaction. 

Christ could, without injury or disgrace to himself, perform the satisfaction to God for us. He was lord of his life; able to lay His life down for others (John 10:18) As the God-man He could endure the punishment and perform an obedience of such value as to be more than equivalent to the obedience of all the elect. His life and death demonstrated an incomprehensible love for God and men. His taking on human flesh was not injurious to His deity since He did not cease from being God.

God the Father was able to accept the satisfaction of Christ because it satisfied the character and nature of God. It satisfied also the truth of God, the goodness of God, the justice of God, and the holiness of God - because it demonstrated the glory of God.

The relationship between the suretyship of Christ and the law is also important to observe. The law was not abrogated or derogated in any fashion. The law says that perfect obedience is required for eternal life and that every sinner who is not saved will suffer eternal death. The law does not state that the very person to be saved must perform the perfect righteousness or punishment. The law does not state that the punishment must be infinite with respect to duration. It was, though, fully satisfied by Christ (Rom. 8:4; Isa. 53:2; John 8:29,46). It was not unjust for Christ to be punished for us because God can lay the punishment for sin upon Christ, and Jesus willingly laid down his life for our sins. We must remember that it is God who determines what is just and not our intellectual reason.

The obedience of Christ was for our own good. His miracles demonstrated the truthfulness of his message. His holy life was an example to us (1 Pet. 2:21). His holy life pointed the way to heaven (Heb. 12:14). The obedience of Christ was performed by Him in our stead in order that we might receive eternal life (Rom. 5:16-19) and it was sufficient for all. His deity enabled his obedience to be of inestimable value for the elect. His humanity enabled Him to obey in our place. It should be noted that the obedience of Christ did not abrogate our responsibility to obey the law. 

All the sufferings of Christ during his humiliation are satisfactory for the elect and before God"(tm)s judgment seat. The Scripture speaks of the satisfactory sufferings of Christ in general terms (Isa. 53:1-7; Heb. 2:10; 5:8-9; 1 Pet. 2:21). The actual death of Christ is considered part of the satisfaction (Isa. 53:10; Matt. 20:18; John 10:15; 1 Pet. 3:18; Col. 1:21-22; Rom. 5:10; Heb. 9:15; Rom. 8:34). This is what we call a typological argument for this: the typical satisfaction was effected by the shedding of blood of the animal, thereby requiring separation of body and soul (Heb. 10:20) The veil (Christ's body) had to be rent which was done when he died as a sacrifice on the cross. Christ's physical sufferings (e.g. his scourging) are accounted as part of the satisfaction (Isa. 53:5; 1 Pet. 2:24) Christ's sufferings in the garden of Gethsemane are also considered part of His satisfaction. And it should be noted that His sufferings would violate the justice of God if they were not endured in our place.

Some argue that Christ's sufferings were not all satisfactory. However, Witsius responds to the arguments from Scripture. He says that the death of Christ was the completion of all of his sufferings. Christ was always a priest and mediator (Luke 2:49) since His birth though he was not publicly inaugurated until the thirtieth year. Moreover, the year is with reference to Levites and not priests. Christ's offering was completed on the cross but He was before that the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. Moreover, by their reasoning Christ would have had to die at one year old. Christ was still the beloved Son of God even while hanging on the cross. The creeds and Catechisms teach this also.

The efficacy of Christ's satisfaction is twofold. First, Christ obtained for himself, as Mediator, a right to all of the elect (Ps. 2:8; Isa. 53:10). Christ obtained for the elect immunity from all misery and a right to eternal life to be applied to them (Matt. 26:28; Gal. 1:4; Tit. 2:14). Christ did not achieve a bare possibility of salvation but actual salvation for His elect. The idea of redemption, ransom and price of redemption infers the reality and not possibility of salvation. Scripture declares that the proximate effect of redemption is actual salvation (Rom. 3:24; Eph. 1:7; Col. 1:14; Heb. 9:12; 1 Cor. 6:20; Acts 20:28; Gal. 4:4-5). Scripture does not speak of Christ's death as a possibility of the remission of sins or a hypothetical possibility, for it is absurd to believe that Christ died for one who would eventually be sent to hell. And, since possibility may never become reality, Christ may never receive the promise given to him by the Father. However, in terms of timing, the benefits of salvation are not bestowed upon the elect before effectual calling, faith, repentance, and actual union with Christ.

James Arminius argues against an actual salvation of God's elect by Christ's death. He says that God has full right to impart those benefits to whom he thinks proper, and on what conditions he is pleased to prescribe. He argues that if Christ's death accomplished salvation for the elect then "they are entitled to ask those benefits of God, in right payment and purchase made, without God's having any right to require of them faith in Christ and conversion to God." Also, "The righteousness wrought out by Christ is not ours as wrought out, but as imputed to us by faith."

Witsius answers Arminius"(tm) charges. First, God is bound to his promise. Faith and repentance are part of the blessings (Eph. 1:3) bestowed upon the elect on the merit of Christ's satisfaction. Faith and repentance are not requisite conditions before some effects of Christ's death are communicated to a person, e.g. regeneration. Secondly, God's elect can boldly ask for blessings because of what Christ has done. No one can ask for those blessings unless he has first been converted. Thus, God cannot require faith and obedience as the means to earn the right to ask for eternal life. This is based upon the person and work of Christ alone. Thirdly, faith is considered as applying the already accomplished salvation. It is the result of Christ's mediation. Salvation is ours with respect to its right in Christ before we are saved and ours by possession when we believe, otherwise known as passive and active justification which are vital for salvation.

Was Christ"(tm)s satisfaction necessary, or could have it have been done in another manner? The real issue at stake with regard to this controversy is not the absolute power of God. We must not ask if God by an act of His power could have saved man another way. That would be to overthrow divine revelation. God can do nothing but that which is consistent with his holiness, justice, truth and the rest of his attributes.

The real issue is the holiness and justice of God. Was Christ's satisfaction for salvation of the elect owing to the mere good pleasure of God or was it necessary to satisfy the justice and holiness of God?

The following may be set forth as real and true arguments in favor of the necessity of Christ's satisfaction. First, an unnecessary satisfaction is contrary to the goodness, wisdom and holiness of God. Second, an unnecessary satisfaction mitigates against the Scripture's stress on the great love of God as demonstrated in the giving of his Son. Third, Christ's satisfaction was a declaration of the righteousness of God which cannot be overthrown (Rom. 3:25). Fourth, animal sacrifices could not atone for sin (Heb. 10:1,4,11) only the sacrifice of Christ could atone for sin. Fifth, Hebrews 10:26 infers that sacrifice is necessary for pardon. Sixth, the necessary satisfaction of Christ exalts the attributes of God. Seventh, the necessary satisfaction of Christ promotes Christian piety. Eighth, the necessary satisfaction of Christ does not detract from any of God's attributes.

Particular atonement is the cornerstone to the Covenant of Redemption and its execution. Christ's satisfaction was sufficient for all, though the Scriptures do not make mention of a hypothetical possibility of how Christ could have saved all. Rather, Scripture demonstrates exactly what Christ did. Yet, it should be noted that Christ, as man, loved all men according to the commandment. Also, Christ's satisfaction has brought much good even to the reprobate in the manner in which it has affected society in general, or by way of what we would call common grace. In terms of the reach of the Gospel and the atonement extended to men, the Gospel is freely offered to all without distinction. Even though these truths about the general affects of the death of Christ in the world may be true, Christ only died for the elect.

There is ample Scriptural support for the doctrine of particular atonement. The "all" of 2 Cor. 5:15, Heb. 2:9, Col. 1:20, and 1 Tim. 2:6 is restricted to the elect, which means exegetical work is needful in order to understand the passages in question. The term "world" in such passages as 1 John 2:2 refers to "the collective body of believers or of the elect." Specifically, the Scripture says that Christ died for his sheep, his church, his people, and his peculiar people (cf. John 10:15; Acts 20:28; Eph. 5:25; Tit. 2:14). The accomplishment of Redemption is only as extensive as its application which means it can only be applied to the elect and was for them alone; Tit. 2:14. The accomplishment necessitates application as is implied in the words "ransom" and "bought." Also, the use of marriage to describe the relationship between Christ and his church is penetrating in its typological application (Eph., 5:25). The sacrifices in the Old Testament which were a type of the sacrifice of Christ were designed for Israel alone and not for all people. Even for one to say that the satisfaction of Christ was for all men, is ludicrous since having Christ die for the reprobate is unworthy of the wisdom, goodness, and justice of God.

It is important to study the role of the Sacraments in the life of Christ since they help us to see the nature of the Covenant of Redemption between Him and the Father, as previous noted. The use of the sacraments was not a matter of choice but a duty incumbent upon Christ to fulfill as righteousness, as He so told John the Baptist. 

For Christ, the sacraments were signs and seals of the covenant between God the Father and God the Son. It demonstrated the benefits of salvation for His church and that they were promised to Christ. As a result of these promises, Christ promised to faithfully redeem the elect.

The sacraments which Christ used were circumcision, baptism, the Passover, and the Lord's Supper. Christ is set in the center of transition from the Old Testament covenantal sacraments to the New Testament covenantal sacraments and partook of them all before God. Not because he was sinful and needed remission, but because He is the Lord over those sacraments and instituted them for our benefit, as well as fulfilling all righteousness in His pact or agreement with the Father.


----------



## Areopagus

Web,

Calm down.  I think you forgot a dose today. By the way, I say that in jest.

It is clear to me that I didn't clearly articulate my understanding of the covenants prior to my posting my not seeing Covenentalism as said by you so far. My apologies. It would have helped clear things up a bit.

For you to say that I reject 2000 years of church history, though, because I do not adhere to the systematic theology called Covenentalism is ludicrous. Paul never speaks of this covenant made in eternity past between the Father and the Son. The gospels do not. In fact, the OT doesn't speak of this covenant made in eternity past. So, I don't reject the church adhering to a covenant of redemption, just this covenant you speak of between the Father and the Son. This, as of yet, hasn't been shown anywhere in Scripture. Or, did I miss it?

As for your second post, quite honestly, I'm going to have to read it later tonight or tomorrow. My apologies. I do appreciate your sending all that you did. I'm excited to dig in.

Web, you will find me to be honest, open, and willing to listen. I pray you do the same rather than just dismissing me because I don't fit into your mold. Again, to be candid, your Hosea 6:7 verse has me deep in both thought and study. Who knows, maybe it is the sovereignty of God that I am in here so that I do learn this doctrine?! :bs2: 

I'll write more either later today or tomorrow.

Blessings to you friend,

Dustin...


----------



## FrozenChosen

[quote:1aa1f941c0="webmaster"]Okay - let's get knee deep into the CoR.[/quote:1aa1f941c0]

You little sneaker. That's [i:1aa1f941c0]definitely[/i:1aa1f941c0] [b:1aa1f941c0]chest[/b:1aa1f941c0] deep.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Dustin writes:
[quote:9734669b1c] Paul never speaks of this covenant made in eternity past between the Father and the Son. The gospels do not.[/quote:9734669b1c]

Dustin, Remember, Paul was the Jew of Jews....Could it not be possible that this concept was so typical that the apostle did not see the need to articulate it? This is the same rationale I would apply to woman taking the supper, tithing in the New Testament, infant/family baptism's.

By the way Dustin; I know the best Mexican Restaurant in San Antonio! On Blanco Road. The Blanco Cafe!!!


----------



## Craig

[quote:13c1601b08]John 17:1-5
[i:13c1601b08]1After Jesus said this, he looked toward heaven and prayed: 2"Father, the time has come. Glorify your Son, that your Son may glorify you. For you granted him authority over all people that he might give eternal life to all those you have given him. 3Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent. 4 [b:13c1601b08]I have brought you glory on earth by completing the work you gave me to do. 5And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.[/b:13c1601b08] 
[/i:13c1601b08][/quote:13c1601b08] 

Can it be any clearer than with these words from Christ Jesus Himself?


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

[quote:29debda5d2]Web, you will find me to be honest, open, and willing to listen. I pray you do the same rather than just dismissing me because I don't fit into your mold. Again, to be candid, your Hosea 6:7 verse has me deep in both thought and study. Who knows, maybe it is the sovereignty of God that I am in here so that I do learn this doctrine?![/quote:29debda5d2]

Okay brother. May God be glorified in our discussions.


----------



## pastorway

Ah yes, read the Bible and see if it contains a Covanant of Redemption, a Covenant of Works or a Covenant of Grace. God decided to save His people and the Trinity (the Trinity is a concept CLEARLY in the pages of Holy Writ) has worked out this plan, but this decision from God is nowhere referred to as any kind of covenant between parties of the Trinity. The outworking of His decision to save is the New Covenant in Christ's blood. 

While we can throw theological language back and forth all day, the truth is that in the Scriptures we see clearly these Covenants which include God as a party:

1. The Covenant with Noah "" Gen. 9:8-17
2. The Covenant with Abraham "" Gen. 12:1-3; Heb. 10:34; 11:8-16
3. The Covenant with Israel through Moses "" Exodus 19-31
4. The Covenant with Priests "" Num. 25:10-13
5. The Covenant with David "" 2 Sam. 7:8-16
6. The New Covenant through Jesus Christ "" Rom. 11:11-12; Gal. 3:29

The first (Noah) remains in effect until the end of this world, as God will never destroy the world by flood. The next 4 point to the last, the New Covenant. It is the final Covenant which fulfills or replaces these others.

Stick to the Scriptures. [i:9a376f4160]Tradition[/i:9a376f4160] or a [i:9a376f4160]system[/i:9a376f4160] tend at times to contradict , obscure, or even add to the Scriptures in a man made attempt to undestand God, whose thoughts are above ours! To say that one must first understand the covenant of redemption, when the Bible mentions no such covenant, is to build you theology about God upon the thoughts of men. Don't replace His Word with the writings of men. Don't settle for second best!

Phillip


----------



## Areopagus

Web,

The very long thesis you posted for me to read, was that your own work? I ask because I found the exact same piece written here:

http://www.apuritansmind.com/Baptis...ok 2 "" Explaining the Covenant of Redemption

If it isn't your work, and up to this point, I have no reason to believe it isn't yours why did you not pay respects to the one who wrote it? In fact, by all rights, we are all led to believe that it is due to the fact that there are no quotes, references, or accolades given to the one, if it isn't yourself, that put so much time into that

As for the content: Well, it's precisely what I've been trying to understand, Web. That entire piece was built upon a presupposition that says God must have an overall covenant with the Son (yet, it is nowhere spoken of in Scripture - even piece milled; Craig, I'll address your *clear* reference in a few). Then, after assuming this eternal covenant, and building off of the clear truth that God is a covenant making God, one begins to place the labels and go from there. Next, there is an assumed CoW, CoG, and so forth. Covenant, covenant, covenant. Odd! Why not just say that God works in decrees, and that those decrees will be carried through because He is a decree making God? At least then we could see clearly from Scripture the truth in this. We could then say, "Ah yes, and because God is a decree making God, within those decrees are ministries/programs called *covenants* whereby He makes a pact, a formal agreement with His creation, and again, carries that promise forth with full assurance, because, after all, He's a God who decrees"?

Yes, God has made a covenant of grace, clearly. The New Covenant confirms this. And yes, I believe that this covenant of grace was decreed by God in eternity past, in Himself. I believe that this grace has been since the moment of creation, because we cannot sever one part of Gods eternal plan from another, yes? I believe that the Law was a tutor unto Christ, and that it still plays an intricate part in the life of the believer because it illustrates with brutal clarity of our continual inability. I believe that God initiated covenants throughout the course of history. And on it goes. Were you to discard the assumed label of the eternal CoR, which is Gods grace in election according to His own good pleasure, and then admit that the CoW is yet another label placed on something that God decreed, and then allowed, we might get somewhere. Again, unless I am just completely ignorant and cannot see this, I maintain my position.

Interesting, Web, when I point out your [i:d016f8f113]ad hominem[/i:d016f8f113], you say:

[quote:d016f8f113]You should know by now, if you have read anything I have ever said or written, that I do not ad in ad hominems to detract from a position.[/quote:d016f8f113]

But let's look at the entire context of your remarks:

[quote:d016f8f113]You should know by now, if you have read anything I have ever said or written, that I do not ad in ad hominems to detract from a position. The Cow, CoR and CoG have been pivitol theological concepts since the beginning of the church. The burden of proof is actually on you to disprove them rather than me to teach them again. What irks me, honestly, is that men are in pastoral positions teaching the flock of God bad theology that has emerged out of the 20-21st century revivalistic church movement (i.e. they are throwing off 2000 yyears of Theological Traditionalism in order to go with new and novel doctrines of which they are ignornat they are new and novel!) 
[/quote:d016f8f113]

So, am I to understand that the clear implication that your being irked by men in "pastoral positions teaching the flock of God bad theology" isn't a reference to my being a teacher? Am I also to believe that this isn't [i:d016f8f113]ad hominem[/i:d016f8f113]? Further, am I to understand that when you speak of this bad theology "that has emerged out of thet 20-21st century revivalistic church movement" that you are not implying that I am not a part of that horrific movement, just because I do not agree with what you cannot prove? Am I to believe that this wasn't [i:d016f8f113]ad hominem[/i:d016f8f113]? And lastly, although we could continue, am I to understand that when you say "they are throwing off 2000 years of Theological Traditionalism in order to go with new and novel doctrines of which they are ignorant they are new and novel", that you aren't implying that I fall into that category? Am I to understand that this wasn't [i:d016f8f113]ad hominem[/i:d016f8f113]? And all of this in the very same opening paragraph where you say you do not "ad in ad hominems."

By the way, it is also interesting that you clearly identify your assumption in the statement that to not adhere to Covenentalism is to throw "off 2000 years of Theological Traditionalism." Where, might I ask, besides in the 2 or 3 Scriptures that keep being mentioned, is this doctrine so clearly taught? It isn't. In fact, you have yet to show me that there was an eternal pact or formal agreement made between the Father and the Son, whereby, there was a correspondence that held contingencies. It is clear to me that in eternity past God decreed all that was to happen. He predestined Christ to be the Redeemer. He predestined the Spirit to be the worker/power. He had ministries of covenants throughout, that He decreed. Yet in all of this I see no CoR, CoW, CoG, as Covenentalism defines it. 

Hosea 6:7. At first glance I was impressed with the forthwright appearance of this text. However, after reading it over and over, in context; after seeking out the great minds before us; and after seeking wise counsel, it seems that your presupposition has swayed your view of this text. That is my opinion, not an indictment. Yes, Israel was IN covenant with God. Yes, Adam was IN covenant with God. Yes, they both transgressed that covenant. But just what was the covenant, Web? Are we to let Covenentalism alter the meaning? Or, are we to understand that God decreed in eternity past that He made a covenant with Himself to initiate creation, make man as He did with the ability to sin, exhaustively foreknowing they would do so, and yet without being the Author of sin; write His law on the hearts of all, unconditionally elect His own and damn others, bring forth His own begotten, crucify Him and raise Him from the dead, and so on, all under the umbrella of Gods decree that involved works, covenants, and grace? Yes, Israel, like Adam, transgressed the covenant they were in with God. And?

Craig, you say:

[quote:d016f8f113]Can it be any clearer than with these words from Christ Jesus Himself?[/quote:d016f8f113]

Again, forgive me if I am just blatantly ignorant, but no, it is not any clearer! I see in this pericope, and throughout the whole of Scripture (although Web assumes I don't read every page, or read them carefully - and that's not [i:d016f8f113]ad hominem[/i:d016f8f113] :no: ) that God decreed what was to be. I see that God put forth, and that everything and everyone is obedient to Him. Notice, Christ prayed TO the Father. Christ proclaims that God gave Him the authority over all flesh. Christ declares that God gave Him those whom He would redeem. Where is the covenant mentioned Craig? Answer me that and maybe it will clear up my misconception.

Oh, Web, I almost forgot. You say:

[/quote]The burden of proof is actually on you to disprove them rather than me to teach them again.


> This is just blatantly wrong. In any dialogue, especially where the word is concerned, the "burden of proof" doesn't sway more on one side than the other. It does lay on both parties to present their cases accurately and thoroughly.
> 
> [i:d016f8f113]1I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom: 2preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching. [/i:d016f8f113]
> 
> 2 Timothy 4.
> 
> Yes, let us refine one another. I am here, willingly, humbly, and honestly searching. I pray that I am not chastised or dismissed as stupid and heretical because I do not see the doctrine you adhere to. I'm fully aware that some great men have adhered to this. But I'm also fully aware that a great many men do not (John Piper being one of those men). In addition, a great many men adhered to covenant theology, and yet, theistic evolution. Do not present a false dichotomy of false theology due to the questioning of your position, while assuming without humility that you may in fact be wrong.
> 
> Pastorway,
> 
> Great words. Great points. I do appreciate your posting. I do hope you stick around.
> 
> In Him,
> 
> Dustin...


----------



## Craig

[quote:5eae7a0d8f]Where is the covenant mentioned Craig? Answer me that and maybe it will clear up my misconception.[/quote:5eae7a0d8f]
The whole prayer is based on an assumed covenant between the Father and the Son.

Very early on you defined covenant this way: [quote:5eae7a0d8f]Covenant 
(Hebrew berit or brit) A pact or formal agreement between two parties in which there are mutual obligations and expectations[/quote:5eae7a0d8f]
Christ in this prayer I quoted, is requesting that He be glorified with the Father [i:5eae7a0d8f]because of His faithfulness in accomplishing what He did[/i:5eae7a0d8f]. Wouldn't this be a covenant by the very definition you use? Christ glorified the Father, and in return, the Father glorifies the Son.

I'll let the Webmaster flesh this out more, as he is far more knowledgable than myself. But, you said:[quote:5eae7a0d8f]It is clear to me that in eternity past God decreed all that was to happen. He predestined Christ to be the Redeemer.[/quote:5eae7a0d8f]
Did God the Father decree this (we agree together that God has decreed all that comes to pass)? Did He trample over the Personality of the Son, though? The very doctrine of the Trinity presupposes a relationship within the Godhead. There really would be a trampling of Personhood rather than an interdependency if this was simply a decree from the Father (apart from the Divine relationship) and the Son just followed suit with the rest of creation.

The whole covenant of Redemption is dependent upon God's own covenant within the Godhead: His faithfulness between Father and Son means our redemption is secure...I would argue ALL the covenants are essentially a fulfillment of God's covenant within Himself...when He passed through the the split animal, He in effect showed He Himself would accomplish salvation...Him alone, and He said "let Me be as this animal if I am not faithful": In eternity past, God the Father made covenant with the Son to redeem a people for Himself. It is the very faithfulness of God Himself, to Himself that has made our covenant an everlasting, imperishable one.


----------



## Areopagus

Craig,

You say:

[quote:36de8bf746]Christ in this prayer I quoted, is requesting that He be glorified with the Father [/quote:36de8bf746]

Wow, please show me from within this text:

[quote:36de8bf746]When Jesus had spoken these words, he lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, "Father, the hour has come; glorify your Son that the Son may glorify you, 2 since you have given him authority over all flesh, to give eternal life to all whom you have given him. 3 And this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent. 4 I glorified you on earth, having accomplished the work that you gave me to do. 5 And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed.
[/quote:36de8bf746]

...just where is Christ [b:36de8bf746]requesting[/b:36de8bf746] anything from God?

You say:

[quote:36de8bf746]Wouldn't this be a covenant by the very definition you use? [/quote:36de8bf746]

In this prayer, no. In no way. How would you prove there was a pact or formal agreement made in this prayer?

You say:

[quote:36de8bf746]Did He trample over the Personality of the Son, though?[/quote:36de8bf746]

This is emotive language meant to sway and traffic a response. I'm sorry, I don't buy into that. How can God *trample* over the Son at all? God is the Son, and the Son is God. They are co-equal and co-eternal. Thus, they are one in purpose and mind, yes? Or do you suppose that they are at times at odds with each other? God decrees, the Son does. God makes covenants, they are fulfilled. Where is the issue?

You say:

[quote:36de8bf746]There really would be a trampling of Personhood rather than an interdependency if this was simply a decree from the Father (apart from the Divine relationship) and the Son just followed suit with the rest of creation. 
[/quote:36de8bf746]

Again, this is emotive language that assumes SO much. God decrees and the Son follows suit because the Son is God. He is begotten (egeneto) of the Father. He is the I AM. How would it be trampling the Personhood? Unless you presuppose Covenentalism, this isn't an issue.

In Him,

Dustin...


----------



## Craig

[quote:788763dda6]Wow, please show me from within this text: [/quote:788763dda6]
Are you serious?
Here you go:
[quote:788763dda6]I glorified you on earth, having accomplished the work that you gave me to do. 5 [b:788763dda6]And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed[/b:788763dda6][/quote:788763dda6]
[quote:788763dda6]In this prayer, no. In no way. How would you prove there was a pact or formal agreement made in this prayer? 
[/quote:788763dda6]
The Webmaster gave you bible verses...and as I've already pointed out: Christ requested glory from the Father.
[quote:788763dda6]his is emotive language meant to sway and traffic a response.[/quote:788763dda6]
It really wasn't. I knew you would agree with me that Christ is God, and as God, He [b:788763dda6]agrees[/b:788763dda6] with the Father.
[quote:788763dda6]He is begotten (egeneto) of the Father. He is the I AM. How would it be trampling the Personhood? [/quote:788763dda6]
Christ was always [i:788763dda6]with[/i:788763dda6] God the Father: in a face to face relationship. I don't claim to understand the Divine relationship...but it exists. 

But, on to your question: How does it trample personhood? Well, if I take your defintion of decree, I end up with a trampling of Personhood by God the Father. I understand the Trinity as orthodox Christians do. The way I see it is that a decree is made...and the Son is in agreement with it...[i:788763dda6]necessarily[/i:788763dda6] so, but is in agreement. 

You missed a significant paragraph in my post...I'll repost it here:[quote:788763dda6]The whole covenant of Redemption is dependent upon God's own covenant within the Godhead: His faithfulness between Father and Son means our redemption is secure...I would argue ALL the covenants are essentially a fulfillment of God's covenant within Himself...when He passed through the the split animal, He in effect showed He Himself would accomplish salvation...Him alone, and He said "let Me be as this animal if I am not faithful": In eternity past, God the Father made covenant with the Son to redeem a people for Himself. It is the very faithfulness of God Himself, to Himself that has made our covenant an everlasting, imperishable one.[/quote:788763dda6]


----------



## Areopagus

Craig,

Again, both you and Web continue to prove your assumptions.

You say:


[quote:ec54e45527]Christ requested glory from the Father. 
[/quote:ec54e45527]

Yet, nowhere in that verse do we see a request. You know this. So you say:



[quote:ec54e45527]The way I see it is that a decree is made...and the Son is in agreement with it...necessarily so, but is in agreement. 
[/quote:ec54e45527]

Yes, a decree is made, and by [b:ec54e45527]necessity[/b:ec54e45527] the Son is in agreement. You see, we agree. Amen! You removed the conjured label *Covenant of Redemption* that is alleged to be made between the Father and the Son in eternity past, that yet there is no evidence for, and we agree. 

Craig, here you say something interesting:

[quote:ec54e45527]In eternity past, God the Father made covenant with the Son to redeem a people for Himself. It is the very faithfulness of God Himself, to Himself that has made our covenant an everlasting, imperishable one.[/quote:ec54e45527]

Look carefully at the wording, *God the Father [b:ec54e45527]made covenant[/b:ec54e45527] with the Son... Yes. Agreed. They, as you rightly say, by necessity agreed upon the covenant that they decree because they are one in purpose. But, you don't say *the covenant* here, as in, the Covenant of Redemption that all other ministries of covenant must fall under in Covenentalism. 

So again, where is this *request* made by the Son, to the Father, in this verse? It isn't even implied. It's assumed.

In Him,

Dustin...


----------



## Craig

[quote:cf7a48119c]Yet, nowhere in that verse do we see a request.[b:cf7a48119c] You know this. So you say:[/b:cf7a48119c][/quote:cf7a48119c]
 I like how you skipped over the bold portion of the verse I quoted...Christ specifically seeks glory from the Father...just because there may not be a question mark saying "pretty please" makes it no less a request.
[quote:cf7a48119c] You removed the conjured label *Covenant of Redemption* that is alleged to be made between the Father and the Son in eternity past, that yet there is no evidence for, and we agree.[/quote:cf7a48119c]
 
And now for the conspiracy...note: Careful readers how I'm [i:cf7a48119c]caught[/i:cf7a48119c] 
[quote:cf7a48119c]Look carefully at the wording, *God the Father made covenant with the Son... Yes. Agreed. They, as you rightly say, by necessity agreed upon the covenant that they decree because they are one in purpose. [b:cf7a48119c]But, you don't say *the covenant* here[/b:cf7a48119c], as in, the Covenant of Redemption that all other ministries of covenant must fall under in Covenentalism. 
[/quote:cf7a48119c]
Fine...[b:cf7a48119c]the covenant of redemption[/b:cf7a48119c].

You're simply quibbling with words...I enjoy a real exchange, not your failed attempts at manipulation with my own words.

I wasn't going to point this out...but I guess I ought. You asked the Webmaster if he was the author of that article, and if not, why didn't he give credit where it's due....well, if you looked at the author's name on the article, and took the time to read part of the Webmaster's signature...you would in fact see they are one in the same person. Honestly, you're not even taking the time to look at who is who: obviously you're not really interacting with what more able men than myself have said. I'm not trying to make fun of you, but it is telling that you didn't even notice this detail, yet took the time to write out what can only be construed as a failed attempt at showing dishonesty on the part of our Webmaster.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

Web, 

[quote:8a06cbdd65]The very long thesis you posted for me to read, was that your own work? I ask because I found the exact same piece written here: 

http://www.apuritansmind.com/Baptism/McMahonSummaryWitsiusEconomy.htm
#Book%202%20""%20Explaining%20the%20Covenant%20of%20Redemption [/quote:8a06cbdd65]

Yes, it is my work. It is an expanded summary of Witsius"(tm) first and second book.
[quote:8a06cbdd65]As for the content: Well, it's precisely what I've been trying to understand, Web. That entire piece was built upon a presupposition that says God must have an overall covenant with the Son (yet, it is nowhere spoken of in Scripture - even piece milled)[/quote:8a06cbdd65]
Your are ignoring the exegetical facts as a systematic whole. Actually, you use different language and acquiese to it when you talk about Predestination. Historically, can you tell me who thought the Covenant of Redemption was important and who combined it into one Covenant of Grace? 
[quote:8a06cbdd65]Then, after assuming this eternal covenant, and building off of the clear truth that God is a covenant making God, one begins to place the labels and go from there.[/quote:8a06cbdd65]
Everyone uses labels. If you believe in the Trinity, you use labels. Labels are good. Labels tells us and others where we are at and what we believe in systematic theology. Why do you hate labels?
[quote:8a06cbdd65] Next, there is an assumed CoW, CoG, and so forth. Covenant, covenant, covenant. Odd! Why not just say that God works in decrees, and that those decrees will be carried through because He is a decree making God? [/quote:8a06cbdd65]
Because God is a covenant making God and He uses the idea of covenant in every relationship he has, including creation. 
[quote:8a06cbdd65]At least then we could see clearly from Scripture the truth in this. We could then say, "Ah yes, and because God is a decree making God, within those decrees are ministries/programs called *covenants* whereby He makes a pact, a formal agreement with His creation, and again, carries that promise forth with full assurance, because, after all, He's a God who decrees"? [/quote:8a06cbdd65]
This is really where you are getting befuddled. Its not really a matter of systematic, for you, it is a matter of hermeneutics "" the basics of hermeneutics. Find me one statement, as I have asked you three times, for a comprehensive verse on the Trinity. Or if you would like "" where Jesus says of Himself "œI am God." Not where you would have to deduce these things, but that "" to use your language "" we could "œsee clearly from Scripture". (i.e. you mean "" verbatim). If you do not mean verbatim, you should have no problems with labels.
[quote:8a06cbdd65] Yes, God has made a covenant of grace, clearly. The New Covenant confirms this. And yes, I believe that this covenant of grace was decreed by God in eternity past, in Himself. [/quote:8a06cbdd65]
You have changed your position from your first post which said God did not do this. I am glad now you think so. You may find this very helpful "" it is a paper I wrote on Turretin"(tm)s view of the Covenant of Grace "" whereby he talks about how the Covenant of Grace is divided into two NECESSARY sections dealing with Eternity past and the era of time. To befuddle these is to remain confused in CT. 
http://www.apuritansmind.com/Baptism/McMahonCovenantConceptsTurretin.htm
[quote:8a06cbdd65]I believe that this grace has been since the moment of creation, because we cannot sever one part of Gods eternal plan from another, yes? [/quote:8a06cbdd65]
Depends on what you mean. All our knowledge of God is accommodated, and we must think in parts. Our knowledge of God is essential in parts when we speak about God"(tm)s holiness, righteousness, justice, etc. God is not compartmentalized, but we think that way to understand the progression of Redemptive history. When I talk about God"(tm)s plan, there are stages to it. Otherwise we would not be able to differentiate the progression of the plan that God makes radically clear throughout Scripture.
[quote:8a06cbdd65]I believe that the Law was a tutor unto Christ, and that it still plays an intricate part in the life of the believer because it illustrates with brutal clarity of our continual inability. [/quote:8a06cbdd65]
Agreed. I like "œbrutal clarity" too.
[quote:8a06cbdd65]I believe that God initiated covenants throughout the course of history. And on it goes. Were you to discard the assumed label of the eternal CoR, which is Gods grace in election according to His own good pleasure, and then admit that the CoW is yet another label placed on something that God decreed, and then allowed, we might get somewhere. [/quote:8a06cbdd65]
Isn"(tm)t this exact what has been said of the Covenant of Redemption already? Election/Predestination through and In Christ is exactly what the Suffereing Servant comes to accomplish according to the will of the Father. That IS the Covenant of Redemption. You seem simply not to like the division but have not offered a reason why except that "œit is not clear" to you in Scripture because Scripture does not use the term. Again, that goes back to accepting "œrinity" or "œOriginal Sin."

[quote:8a06cbdd65]Again, unless I am just completely ignorant and cannot see this, I maintain my position. [/quote:8a06cbdd65]
I think you have not really wrestled with the whole idea of Covenant in general. Its bigger than you are allowing. 
[quote:8a06cbdd65]So, am I to understand that the clear implication that your being irked by men in "pastoral positions teaching the flock of God bad theology" isn't a reference to my being a teacher? [/quote:8a06cbdd65]

No, definitely a reference. I am saying that I am saddened by the state of the church. You SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERING THESE THINGS! They should have ALREADY been considered before you stepped into a pastoral position. You should WELL VERSED in Historical Theology, Systematic Theology, Apologetics, etc, BEFORE getting into the pulpit or a teaching position. That means when I ask you, as a PASTOR, have you read through the Institutes, or Witsius, or Turretin, or Hodge, you SHOULD SAY "" OF COURSE I HAVE, FOR I WOULD NOT BE IN A PASTORAL POSITION, LEADING THE FLOCK WITHOUT STUDYING FIRST!! 

[quote:8a06cbdd65] Am I also to believe that this isn't ad hominem? [/quote:8a06cbdd65]

Its ad hominem with a twist. If you have time, you would understand what I mean by reading this paper (yes, I know, so many papers so little time):
http://www.apuritansmind.com/Creeds/WestminsterConfession/McMahonTheologicalTraditionalism.htm

[quote:8a06cbdd65]Further, am I to understand that when you speak of this bad theology "that has emerged out of thet 20-21st century revivalistic church movement" that you are not implying that I am not a part of that horrific movement, just because I do not agree with what you cannot prove? [/quote:8a06cbdd65]

Read the above paper I quoted. As for the "œprove point" well, that assumption on your part. You yourself said you were thinking through this. Both Craig and I offered a number of Scriptural idea to think about. Just the nature of Christ"(tm)s office of Prophet, Priest and King prove our point. 

[quote:8a06cbdd65]Am I to believe that this wasn't ad hominem? And lastly, although we could continue, am I to understand that when you say "they are throwing off 2000 years of Theological Traditionalism in order to go with new and novel doctrines of which they are ignorant they are new and novel", that you aren't implying that I fall into that category? Am I to understand that this wasn't ad hominem? And all of this in the very same opening paragraph where you say you do not "ad in ad hominems." [/quote:8a06cbdd65]

I add them in to spark a little stir, not because they prove a theological point (although sometimes they do).

[quote:8a06cbdd65]By the way, it is also interesting that you clearly identify your assumption in the statement that to not adhere to Covenentalism is to throw "off 2000 years of Theological Traditionalism." [/quote:8a06cbdd65]

That is correct.

[quote:8a06cbdd65]Where, might I ask, besides in the 2 or 3 Scriptures that keep being mentioned, is this doctrine so clearly taught? It isn't. [/quote:8a06cbdd65]

If that is attitude, then we have nothing to discuss. If you would rather stick with what you have, fine with me. I have no burden to prove. You need to disprove (after reading) historical theology. Now that would be a task.

[quote:8a06cbdd65]In fact, you have yet to show me that there was an eternal pact or formal agreement made between the Father and the Son, whereby, there was a correspondence that held contingencies. It is clear to me that in eternity past God decreed all that was to happen. He predestined Christ to be the Redeemer. He predestined the Spirit to be the worker/power. He had ministries of covenants throughout, that He decreed. Yet in all of this I see no CoR, CoW, CoG, as Covenentalism defines it. [/quote:8a06cbdd65]

You are not really listening to what we are posting, or the Holy Spirit is not illuminating it to you. You should at least be able to reiterate what Reformed Theology teaches before you dismiss it. Remember, church history agrees with Reformed Theology, not deviations from it unless we get back to "œother theologies".

[quote:8a06cbdd65]Hosea 6:7. At first glance I was impressed with the forthwright appearance of this text. However, after reading it over and over, in context; after seeking out the great minds before us; and after seeking wise counsel, it seems that your presupposition has swayed your view of this text. [/quote:8a06cbdd65]

Not really. What "œgreat minds" do you mean? Calvin, Turretin, Witsius, Edwards? You ONLY have one of two options with the text. 1) Adam was in a covenant of works with God "" and the Israelites broke their covenant as Adam broke his. Or, the Israelites broke a covenant like men broke a covenant "" that depends on how you translate the Hebrew. If you choose the former, it theologically sensible. If you choose the latter you are going to have to do some VERY fancy exegetical footwork to come up with a covenant in the Scriptures that god made apart from Israel that He made "œwith men". This is impossible. Secondly, as I already pointed out, Christ was the second Adam "" or second man, if you prefer. IF Christ is in any kind of relationship with God to fulfill the law (the Covenant of works), then being the second Adam, you would have to rewrite theology to come up with a new way of dealing with the first Adam. Adam was not in a Covenant of Grace. The stipulations were based on work. Reward is based on work. But he transgressed the covenant.

[quote:8a06cbdd65]That is my opinion, not an indictment. [/quote:8a06cbdd65]

And THAT, my friend, is why I am being difficult on you. We are not about opinions, we are about Confessional Subscriptionism to historical theology that has been taught since God made covenants with men. And THAT is our great difference.

[quote:8a06cbdd65] Yes, Israel was IN covenant with God. Yes, Adam was IN covenant with God. Yes, they both transgressed that covenant. But just what was the covenant, Web? Are we to let Covenentalism alter the meaning? Or, are we to understand that God decreed in eternity past that He made a covenant with Himself to initiate creation, make man as He did with the ability to sin, exhaustively foreknowing they would do so, and yet without being the Author of sin; write His law on the hearts of all, unconditionally elect His own and damn others, bring forth His own begotten, crucify Him and raise Him from the dead, and so on, all under the umbrella of Gods decree that involved works, covenants, and grace? Yes, Israel, like Adam, transgressed the covenant they were in with God. And? [/quote:8a06cbdd65]

You are mixing too many components together. Adam and Christ are working, we are under grace. To mix the distinction is to befuddle more than your question, it really turns into Universalism 9and I know from what you posted you don"(tm)t believe that.)


----------



## Areopagus

Craig,

Actually, your point is still assumed. I just do not see Christ requesting anything. You have yet to show that.

Web,

Honestly, I take all of this very seriously. And your input is greatly appreciated. I differ with you, yes. Still, I do. However, I am willing to continue to press into this.

At this point I am going to take a step back and study your thoughts. I'll get back with you.

By the way, and in all seriousness, your paper was amazing.

In Him,

Dustin...


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

Dustin,

OK my brother. I will speak to you soon. Just slap out a post and we can get back into it.


----------



## Areopagus

Web,

Just a quick few questions concerning the "Covenant of Works" as I continue to study:

1. Do you say that God made a covenant with Adam because there are two contractual parties; God and man? The duty that God required of man is not to eat of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, yes?

2. The contingency on the contract is, "If you eat of the fruit I told you not to, you will die." 

3. The flip side of the contingency in #2 is that were Adam to obey, he would somehow earn eternal life by means of obedience unto the "Covenant of Works"?

4. Man accepted these terms in #'s 1-3 which constitute the Covenant?

Thanks for any feedback.

Humbly,

Dustin...


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

On a basic level (and there is much more to each question):

[quote:81b058fc27]1. Do you say that God made a covenant with Adam because there are two contractual parties; God and man? The duty that God required of man is not to eat of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, yes? [/quote:81b058fc27]

God made a covenant with Adam because that is the way He works with men. Yes, there are two contractual parties involved.

[quote:81b058fc27]2. The contingency on the contract is, "If you eat of the fruit I told you not to, you will die." [/quote:81b058fc27]

Yes, that is part of it.

[quote:81b058fc27]3. The flip side of the contingency in #2 is that were Adam to obey, he would somehow earn eternal life by means of obedience unto the "Covenant of Works"? [/quote:81b058fc27]

Yes. The law ordains to eternal life. (See Romans.)

[quote:81b058fc27]4. Man accepted these terms in #'s 1-3 which constitute the Covenant? [/quote:81b058fc27]

Yes, but that is not how a covenant is necessarily made. God sovereignly adminsters the covenant, and man is involved in it whether he "wants to" or not. For example, every member of the human race fell in Adam. If you were to ask them right now (any of them) if they like the idea that God has imputed Adam's sin to them as if they are as guilty as committing the act, they would either deny it outrightly, or hate the reality of it. Man can accept these terms, but that is almost a non-issue in the idea at large.

Adam though would have loved to do what God desired of him and would not have fought (did not fight) God on making those stipulation (curses and blessings) because Adam knew God is God.


----------



## Areopagus

[quote:007816369e]1. Do you say that God made a covenant with Adam because there are two contractual parties; God and man? The duty that God required of man is not to eat of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, yes? 


God made a covenant with Adam because that is the way He works with men. Yes, there are two contractual parties involved. 
[/quote:007816369e]

So might we say that God made a covenant [i:007816369e]to[/i:007816369e] Adam, rather than [i:007816369e]with[/i:007816369e] Adam? In other words, God made the covenant, as you say, sovereignly. Then you say:

[quote:007816369e]God sovereignly adminsters the covenant, and man is involved in it whether he "wants to" or not.[/quote:007816369e]

and...

[quote:007816369e]Adam though would have loved to do what God desired of him and would not have fought (did not fight) God on making those stipulation (curses and blessings) because Adam knew God is God.[/quote:007816369e]

So God made a covenant [b:007816369e]to[/b:007816369e] Adam sovereignly. Adam was a part of this covenant whether he "liked it" or not. Yes?

Then:

[quote:007816369e]3. The flip side of the contingency in #2 is that were Adam to obey, he would somehow earn eternal life by means of obedience unto the "Covenant of Works"? 


Yes. The law ordains to eternal life. (See Romans.) 
[/quote:007816369e]

Where exactly in Romans are you talking about? And, can you give me a short synopsis of your exegesis? If you can't give a short one (I know how us theologues work  ), then just give me whatever you wish. I hope to take a good look at that. 

Thanks so much. 

Humbly,

Dustin...


----------



## Areopagus

Web,

Might you have the time, after we discuss the idea that God decreed (made a covenant) [i:894e786300]to[/i:894e786300] Adam rather than [i:894e786300]with[/i:894e786300] Adam, and after you share with me your exegesis of Romans (probably chapter 5), can you help me see where, [i:894e786300]in Scripture[/i:894e786300], Adam was serving a probationary period whereby, had he maintained perfect obedience, he would have attained eternal life?

Thanks,

Dustin...


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

Dustin, probably the most helpful thing I can do for you at this point is to point you to a detailed systematic and exegetical work on the subject.

If you read book 1 of Witsius, all your questions will be answered in detail.

It is here:
http://www.federaltheology.org/witsius_book_1_chap_1.htm

This is basically what I would write...so instead of cutting and pasting, you can check it at your own leisure here.


----------



## Areopagus

Web,

Thank you for the link. I have already begun digging. You'll see me again. 

And everyone said...  

Dustin...


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

I look forward to further discussion as time permits!


----------



## Areopagus

Web,

Do you have a link, or an attachment you can send me, or some information on a succinct and concise definition of the "Covenant of Works" as espoused by Covenant Theology?

Everything I have found (and believe me, there has been a TON of material I've read by you, Edwards, Packer, Witsius, et al) tends to blur the concise meaning.

Thanks,

Dustin...


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

[quote:d0180ef7ff]"tends to blur the concise meaning"[/quote:d0180ef7ff]
uzzled: 

Not really. Most of the time they are in systematics, or books that cover the topic. I would stick with Witsius which, in Book 1, explains it quite, ah, unblurred. 

If you are looking for "concise" then go with this:

WCF - chapter 7:1-2.

I. The distance between God and the creature is so great, that although reasonable creatures do owe obedience unto him as their Creator, yet they could never have any fruition of him as their blessedness and reward, but by some voluntary condescension on God's part, which he hath been pleased to express by way of covenant.[1]

1. Isa. 40:13-17; Job 9:32-33; 22:2-3; 35:7-8; Psa. 113:5-6; Luke 17:10; Acts 17:24-25

II. The first covenant made with man was a covenant of works,[2] wherein life was promised to Adam; and in him to his posterity,[3] upon condition of perfect and personal obedience.[4]

2. Gen. 2:16-17; Hosea 6:7; Gal. 3:12
3. Gen. 3:22: Rom. 5:12-20; 10:5
4. Gen 2:17; Gal. 3:10


Or you could try this:

http://www.apuritansmind.com/Baptism/WitsiusDecalogueCovenant.htm


----------



## fredtgreco

For something short, I would look at Donald Macleod's (a supurb Scottish 20th century theologian) article on "Covenant Theology" in the [i:4263622574]Dictionary of Scottish Theology[/i:4263622574]. It is short (4 pages) and deals with all three covenants (works, grace, redemption) in concise fashion. He also has an excellent series of articles in the Banner of Truth Magazine on the Covenant (139:19-22; 141:22-28; and 125:21-28).

For a longer, comprehensive work that treats almost every Reformed writer, I would recommend Heinrich Heppe's section in [i:4263622574]Reformed Dogmatics[/i:4263622574] (pp. 281-319, 371-409)


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

This may be of help as well:


Answering Objections to the Covenant of Works

from Kingdom Prologue (2000), pp. 107-17
by Meredith G. Kline


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A principle of works - do this and live - governed the attainment of the consummation-kingdom proferred in the blessing sanction of the creational covenant. Heaven must be earned. According to the terms stipulated by the Creator it would be on the ground of man's faithful completion of the work of probation that he would be entitled to enter the Sabbath rest. If Adam obediently performed the assignment signified by the probation tree, he would receive, as a matter of pure and simple justice, the reward symbolized by the tree of life. That is, successful probation would be meritorious. With good reason then covenant theology has identified this probation arrangement as a covenant of works, thereby setting it in sharp contrast to the Covenant of Grace 


This standard Reformed analysis of the covenants with its sharp law-gospel contrast has come under attack from various theological quarters, including of late the broadly Reformed community. Indeed, it has been contended that in bestowing the blessings of his kingdom God has never dealt with man on the basis of law (i.e., the principle of works as the opposite of grace). Paternal love informs all such transactions and, so the argument runs, that fatherly beneficence is not compatible with the legal-commercial notion of reward for meritorious works, of benefits granted as a matter of justice. Appeal is made to the fact that man as a creature is an unprofitable servant even when he has done all that has been required of him in the stewardship of God's gifts. Or, stating it from the reverse side, man cannot possibly add to the riches of his Lord's glory for God is eternally all-glorious; everything belongs to the Creator. Hence, the conclusion is drawn that in the covenant relationship we must reckon everywhere with the presence of a principle of "grace" and, therefore, we may never speak of meritorious works. The rhetoric of this argument has gone to the extreme of asserting that to entertain the idea that the obedience of man (even sinless man) might serve as the meritorious ground for receiving the promised kingdom blessings is to be guilty of devilish pride, of sin at its diabolical worst. With respect to the over-all structuring of covenant theology, once grace is attributed to the original covenant with Adam, preredemptive and redemptive covenants cease to be characterized by contrasting governmental principles in the bestowal of the kingdom on mankind. Instead, some sort of continuum obtains. A combined demand-and-promise (which is thought somehow to qualify as grace but not as works) is seen as the common denominator in this alleged new unity of all covenants. (The following discussion of this radical departure from the classic law-gospel contrast reflects my studies "Of Works and Grace," Presbyterion 9 (1983) 85-92 and "Covenant Theology Under Attack," New Horizons 15/2 (1994) 3-5, critiques of the teachings of the Daniel P. Fuller-John Piper-Norman Shepherd school.)


Other Instances of the Works Principle (Christ and Israel)


Contrary to the sweeping denial of the operation of the works principle anywhere in the divine government, the biblical evidence compels us to recognize that God has in fact employed that principle. Indeed, the principle of works forms the foundation of the gospel of grace. If meritorious works could not be predicated of Jesus Christ as second Adam, then obviously there would be no meritorious achievement to be imputed to his people as the ground of their justification-approbation. The gospel invitation would turn out to be a mirage. We who have believed on Christ would still be under condemnation. The gospel truth, however, is that Christ has performed the one act of righteousness and by this obedience of the one the many are made righteous (Rom 5:18,19). In his probationary obedience the Redeemer gained the merit which is transferred to the account of the elect. Underlying Christ's mediatorship of a covenant of grace for the salvation of believers is his earthly fulfillment, through meritorious obedience, of his heavenly covenant of works with the Father.


Since the works principle is thus foundational to the gospel, the repudiation of that principle - in particular, the denial of the possibility of meritorious works where paternal love is involved (as it certainly is in the relation of the Father and the Son) - stands condemned as subversive of that gospel. What begins as a rejection of works ends up as an attack, however unintentional, on the biblical message of saving grace. Moreover, in the attributing of diabolical pride to the one who thinks to do something deserving of the reward of the kingdom glory there is, in effect, a blasphemous assault on the religious integrity of Jesus himself. For Jesus, the second Adam, regarded his works as meritorious. He claimed for himself the Father's glory on the basis of his having glorified the Father (John 17:4,5; cf. Phil 2:8,9). Here in the relation of Jesus with the Father, where we encounter pure religion and undefiled, the holy validity of the works principle receives divine imprimatur.


Also contradicting the contention that no divine covenants have ever been governed by the works principle is the irrefutable biblical evidence that the Mosaic economy, while an administration of grace on its fundamental level of concern with the eternal salvation of the individual, was at the same time on its temporary, typological kingdom level informed by the principle of works. Thus, for example, the apostle Paul in Romans 10:4ff. and Galatians 3:10ff. (cf. Rom 9:32) contrasts the old order of the law with the gospel order of grace and faith, identifying the old covenant as one of bondage, condemnation, and death (cf. 2 Cor 3:6-9; Gal 4:24-26). The old covenant was law, the opposite of grace-faith, and in the postlapsarian world that meant it would turn out to be an administration of condemnation as a consequence of sinful Israel's failure to maintain the necessary meritorious obedience. Had the old typological kingdom been secured by sovereign grace in Christ, Israel would not have lost her national election. A satisfactory explanation of Israel's fall demands works, not grace, as the controlling administrative principle. 


According to ample and plain biblical testimony, God has dealt with man on the basis of the works principle in covenantal arrangements within even redemptive history, and these arrangements of God the Father with God the Son and with his son Israel have been at the same time expressions of the most intense paternal love. Manifestly, paternal love and the legal justice of the works principle are not mutually exclusive but entirely compatible. The revulsion felt at the concept of meritorious works in divine-human relationship by those who reject meritorious human works in the avowed interests of making room for divine love is not attuned to the teaching and spirit of the Scriptures. In particular, it is inimical to a Scriptural theology of the Cross. We are obliged by the biblical facts to define works and justice in such a way that we can apply both the legal-commercial and family-paternal models to explicate the same covenants.


From the presence of the works principle in these other divine covenants it is clear that there can be no a priori objection to the standard view of the original Edenic order as a covenant of works. Moreover, the works-covenants already adduced are so related to God's covenant with mankind in Adam as to demonstrate the works character of the latter. This is particularly clear in the case of the works-covenant of the Father with the Son as second Adam. Correspondence in God's dealings with the two Adams is required by the very analogy that Scripture posits in its interpretation of the mission of Christ as a second Adam, succeeding where the first Adam failed. Adam, like Christ, must have been placed under a covenant of works.


Likewise, the identification of God's old covenant with Israel as one of works points to the works nature of the creational covenant. Here we can only state a conclusion that study of the biblical evidence would substantiate, but the significant point is that the old covenant with Israel, though it was something more, was also a re-enactment (with necessary adjustments) of mankind's primal probation - and fall. It was as the true Israel, born under the law, that Christ was the second Adam. This means that the covenant with the first Adam, like the typological Israelite re-enactment of it, would have been a covenant of law in the sense of works, the antithesis of the grace-promise-faith principle.


1st Objection: "If Adam could merit a reward, he would enrich God by adding to His glory; but this is impossible"


In the introduction to this discussion we mentioned factors which, according to those who reject the Covenant of Works concept, make it impossible that man could merit reward and compel us to attribute whatever blessings he enjoys to divine grace. Among the factors appealed to were some that obtained from the very beginning of man's existence, and before it. There was the nature of God, the eternal Creator, all glorious, all sovereign; the very thought of his further enrichment from any outside source is inconceivable. And corollary thereto was man's nature as a creature and the unprofitable character of the service that he might render, even when he had done his utmost. 


Since these factors are always present in the religious relationship, they would - if they were valid arguments against the works principle - not only prove the creation covenant was not a covenant of works but negate the possibility of a covenant of works anywhere else. Therefore, the biblical teaching that there actually have been covenants of works shows that these factors do not in fact negate the operation of the works principle nor demonstrate the presence of its opposite, grace; no more so in the creational covenant than they do elsewhere. 


Furthermore, though Adam could not enrich God by adding to his glory, it was nevertheless precisely the purpose of man's existence to glorify God, which he does when he responds in obedience to the revelation of God's will. And according to the revelation of covenantal justice, God performs justice and man receives his proper desert when God glorifies the man who glorifies him.


To be so rewarded is not an occasion for man to glory in himself against God. On the contrary, a doxological glorying in God in recognition of the Creator's sovereign goodness will become the Lord's creature-servants. But if our concepts of justice and grace are biblical we will not attribute the promised reward of the creation covenant to divine grace. We will rather regard it as a just recompense to a meritorious servant, for justice requires that man receive the promised good in return for his doing the demanded good. Indeed, if we do not analyze the situation abstractly but in accordance with the created, covenantal reality as God actually constituted it, we will see that to give a faithful Adam anything less than the promised reward would have been to render him evil for good. For we will appreciate the fact that man's hope of realizing the state of glorification and of attaining to the Sabbath-consummation belonged to him by virtue of his very nature as created in the image of the God of glory. This expectation was an in-created earnest of fullness, to be denied which would have frustrated him to the depths of his spirit's longing for God and God-likeness. Whatever he might have been granted short of that for his obedience would be no blessing at all, but a curse. 


According to God's creational ordering it is a necessary and inevitable sequence, in preredemptive covenant as well as in redemptive history, that "whom he justified, him he also glorified" (Rom 8:30). Within the framework of this judicial-eschatological bonding of glorification to justification, once it has been determined on what principle justification operates under a given covenant, the principle governing the grant of eschatological blessings in that covenant has also been determined. If justification is by grace through faith, as it is under the gospel, glorification will not be by works. And if justification-approbation is secured on the grounds of works, as it clearly is in the preredemptive covenant, glorification will not be by grace. Bestowal of the reward contemplated in the creational covenant was a matter of works; it was an aspect of God's creational love, but it was not a matter of grace.


2nd Objection: "God's goodness as shown to Adam in the creational covenant was unmerited grace"


By clarifying the biblical-theological concept of grace we may further expose the fallacy of those who would inject the idea of grace into the analysis of the creational covenant, thereby clouding and indeed contradicting the meritorious character of the probationary obedience and the works-justice nature of the covenant. Grace lives and moves and has its being in a legal, forensic environment. In the biblical proclamation of the gospel, grace is the antithesis of the works principle. Grace and works could thus be contrastively compared only if they were comparable, that is, only if the term grace, like works, functioned in a forensic context. Grace does not exist then except in relation to the rendering of divine judgment on situations involving acts of human responsibility, acts of man as accountable to God for compliance with appointed duty.


Divine judgment may be by the principle of works or of grace but in either case the standard by which man is measured in the great assize is covenant law. In a judgment according to works, blessing rewards meritorious obedience and curse punishes the transgressor. In a judgment by the principle of grace, blessing is bestowed in the face of violation of stipulated moral-religious duty, in spite of the presence of demerit. (Divine justice will, of course, be satisfied whether it be a judgment of works or of grace.)


The distinctive meaning of grace in its biblical-theological usage is a divine response of favor and blessing in the face of human violation of obligation. Gospel grace takes account of man in his responsibility under the demands of the covenant and specifically as a covenant breaker, a sinner against covenant law. Accordingly, the grace of Christ comes to expression in his active and passive obedience, together constituting a vicarious satisfaction for the obligations and liabilities of his people, who through failure and transgression are debtors before the covenant Lord, the Judge of all the earth. Gospel grace emerges in a forensic framework as a response of mercy to demerit.


Theologically it is of the greatest importance to recognize that the idea of demerit is an essential element in the definition of grace. In its proper theological sense as the opposite of law-works, grace is more than unmerited favor. That is, divine grace directs itself not merely to the absence of merit but to the presence of demerit. It addresses and overcomes violation of divine commandment. It is a granting of blessing, as an act of mercy, in spite of previous covenant breaking by which man has forfeited all claims to participation in the kingdom and has incurred God's disfavor and righteous wrath. It bestows the good offered in the covenant's blessing sanctions rather than the evil of the threatened curse even though man has done evil rather than good in terms of the covenant stipulations. 


Because grace cannot be defined apart from this context of covenantal stipulations and sanctions and is specifically a response of mercy to demerit, it must be carefully distinguished from divine love or beneficence. For God's love, though it may find expression in gospel grace, is also expressed in the bestowal of good apart altogether from considerations of the merits of man's response to covenantal responsibility. Such is the goodness or benevolence of God displayed in the act of creation. This marvelous manifestation of love seen in God's creational endowment of man with glory and honor had nothing to do with human merit. Without prior existence, man was obviously without merit-rating one way or the other when the Lord creatively assigned him his particular ontological status, with its present good and eschatological potential.


We might speak of this creational act of love as unmerited, but it would be better to avoid that term. It is an abstraction whose use, whether for God's creational goodness or redemptive mercy is liable to considerable theological confusion. In the only situation where merit enters the picture (that is, in connection with human response to divine demand) there is either merit or demerit. In this situation of accountable response to covenant duty obedience brings merit and failure to perform the probationary task incurs demerit. There is either merit or demerit, but no "unmerit." Unmerited is not, therefore, a proper description of the blessings bestowed against an historical background of (unsatisfactory) exercise of covenant responsibility. And to speak of the goodness of God shown in the act of creation as unmerited is not apropros since there can be no thought of merit at all in that context.


Unfortunately, however, gospel grace has been commonly defined by the term unmerited. Then, when unmerited is also used for the divine benevolence in creation an illusion of similarity, if not identity, is produced. As a result the term grace gets applied to God's creational goodness. And the mischief culminates in the argument that since "grace" is built into the human situation at the outset, the covenant that ordered man's existence could not be a covenant of works, for works is the opposite of grace. If we appreciate the forensic distinctiveness of grace we will not thus confuse the specific concept of (soteriological) grace with the beneficence expressed in the creational endowment of man with his ontological dignity. We will perceive that God's creational manifestation of goodness was an act of divine love, but not of grace. And we have seen that the presence of paternal love in a covenantal arrangement is no impediment to its being a covenant of works.


3rd Objection: "The disproportion between Adam's work and the promised blessing forbids us to speak of simple justice"


Another form of the attack on the Covenant of Works doctrine (and thus on the classic law-gospel contrast) asserts that even if it is allowed that Adam's obedience would have earned something, the disproportion between the value of that act of service and the value of the proferred blessing forbids us to speak here of simple equity or justice. The contention is that Adam's ontological status limited the value or weight of his acts. More specifically his act of obedience would not have eternal value or significance; it could not earn a reward of eternal, confirmed life. In the offer of eternal life, so we are told, we must therefore recognize an element of "grace" in the preredemptive covenant. But belying this assessment of the situation is the fact that if it were true that Adam's act of obedience could not have eternal significance then neither could or did his actual act of disobedience have eternal significance. It did not deserve the punishment of everlasting death. Consistency would compel us to judge God guilty of imposing punishment beyond the demands of justice, pure and simple. God would have to be charged with injustice in inflicting the punishment of Hell, particularly when he exacted that punishment from his Son as the substitute for sinners. The Cross would be the ultimate act of divine injustice. That is the theologically disastrous outcome of blurring the works-grace contrast by appealing to a supposed disproportionality between work and reward.


Of a piece with the specific teaching that God's dealings with mankind in Adam were on the basis of the forensic principle of works-justice is the general biblical teaching that the rewarding of obedience and punishing of disobedience are foundational to God's government of the world, an expression of the nature of God as just. In the divine juridical order one's eschatological harvest is what he has sown as the Lord renders to every man according to his works (Rom 2:6-10; Gal 6:7). This law of recompense is positive as well as negative, for the verdict of justification and praise belongs to the doers of the law (Rom 2:13,29; cf. Heb 6:10). And in its distinctive, vicarious way of grace the gospel order honors this principle too.


On the approach that mistakenly contends that the presence of God's paternal love involves grace and so negates the possibility of meritorious works and simple justice, divine justice ceases to be foundational to all divine government. A negative, punitive justice may be recognized, as in the retribution against the wicked in hell, to which paternal love does not reach. But there is no place in that view for positive justice; those who advocate it must deny that the rewarding of doers of the law with life forms the reverse side of the negative justice which punishes the breakers of the law with death. They cannot consistently confess that justice is the foundation of God's throne (Pss 89:14(15); 97:2).


The disproportionality view's failure with respect to the doctrine of divine justice can be traced to its approach to the definition of justice. A proper approach will hold that God is just and his justice is expressed in all his acts; in particular, it is expressed in the covenant he institutes. The terms of the covenant - the stipulated reward for the stipulated service - are a revelation of that justice. As a revelation of God's justice the terms of the covenant define justice. According to this definition, Adam's obedience would have merited the reward of eternal life and not a gram of grace would have been involved. 


Refusing to accept God's covenant word as the definer of justice, the disproportionality view exalts above God's word a standard of justice of its own making. Assigning ontological values to Adam's obedience and God's reward it finds that weighed on its judicial scales they are drastically out of balance. In effect that conclusion imputes an imperfection in justice to the Lord of the covenant. The attempt to hide this affront against the majesty of the Judge of all the earth by condescending to assess the relation of Adam's act to God's reward as one of congruent merit is no more successful than Adam's attempt to manufacture a covering to conceal his nakedness. It succeeds only in exposing the roots of this opposition to Reformed theology in the theology of Rome.


Subversion of the Reformation Gospel 


The drift toward Rome is evidenced by the fruits as well as the roots of the views that repudiate the idea of merit and the law-gospel contrast. For blurring the concepts of works and grace in the doctrine of the covenants will inevitably involve the blurring of works and faith in the doctrine of justification and thus the subversion of the Reformation message of justification by faith alone.


Marking this view that repudiates the works principle as a radical departure from classic Reformed theology is its drastic revision of the fundamental theological construct of federal-representative probation and forensic imputation. According to the biblical data, the probationary role of the two Adams called for a performance of righteousness that was to be imputed to the account of those they represented, serving as meritorious ground for justification and inheritance of the consummate kingdom. What was in view was not merely the transmitting from the one to the many of a subjective condition of righteousness but the judicial imputation to the many of a specific accomplishment of righteousness by the federal representative. That decisive probationary accomplishment involved the obedient performance of a particular covenantal service, and accordingly it is characterized as "one act of righteousness" (Rom 5:18).


This standard doctrine of probation and imputation is obviously not compatible with the position that disavows the works principle. On that position, a declaration of justification and conveyance of eschatological blessings in consequence of a successful probation, whether of Adam or Christ, would be an exercise of grace, not of simple justice. But if there is no meritorious accomplishment possible, the rationale of the imputation arrangement in general becomes obscure, if the whole point of it is not in fact lost. In the case of the gospel, if there is no meritorious achievement of active obedience on the part of Christ to be imputed to the elect, then this cardinal doctrine of soteric justification in its historic orthodox form must be abandoned.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

Also this:


Two Adams, Two Covenants of Works

selections from Kingdom Prologue (2000)
by Meredith G. Kline


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

I. The Creator's Covenant of Works with the First Adam 


Scriptural Evidence
Eschatological Sanctions
Probation

II. The Father's Covenant of Works with the Second Adam 


Scriptural Evidence
Gospel of Redemptive Judgment





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. THE CREATOR'S COVENANT OF WORKS WITH THE FIRST ADAM 

Scriptural Evidence (KP, pp. 14-21) 


Covenant theologians have generally taken the position that the covenant concept can accommodate the entire history of the kingdom of God. Thus, the original creational stage of the kingdom and the entire subsequent redemptive phase have been comprehended under the headings of Covenant of Works and Covenant of Grace. Since here in Section A of our study we will be dealing with the data of Genesis 1-3 under a covenantal heading, this is the place to discuss the biblical warrant that exists for regarding the pre-Fall kingdom as a covenantal affair. 


It is to be observed in the first place that even though the term berith does not appear in the immediate biblical record of the creational kingdom, the substance of covenant is the stuff that forms the contents of Genesis 1-3. It is, therefore, altogether appropriate to give the covenantal phenomena that are found here the label that identifies them elsewhere. That, by the way, is what covenant theology does elsewhere when, for example, it extends the category of Covenant of Grace to the redemptive situation before the days of Noah (although the term berith does not appear until Gen 6:18) or when it subsumes the Abrahamic history in Genesis 12-14 under the category of the Abrahamic Covenant (although the term berith does not appear in that history until the Gen 15 transaction).


Actually, it is possible that the Bible itself, in later references back to Genesis 1-3, applies the term berith to the situation there, just as 2 Samuel 23:5 and Psalm 89:3 refer to God's covenantal revelation to David as a berith, though that term is not employed in the account of it in 2 Samuel 7. Isaiah 24:5 and Hosea 6:7 have been suggested as instances of this. Although the meaning of both passages is disputed, the everlasting covenant of Isaiah 24:5 definitely appears to refer to the creational arrangements and Hosea 6:7 probably refers to Adam as the breaker of a covenant. Also, comparison of Jeremiah 33:20,25 and Jeremiah 31:35-37 suggests that the former applies the term berith to God's ordering of the world of nature as described in Genesis 1, though the use of the term berith here possibly reflects the use of berith in Genesis 9 for the postdiluvian reestablishing of the order of nature according to the measure of common grace. Even though the Jeremianic reference would not be to the Genesis 1-3 arrangement precisely, it would nevertheless show that covenants may be found in historical narratives from which the term berith is absent.


Certainly the substance of berith was present in the kingdom order described in Genesis 1-3. It was characterized by precisely those elements that constitute a covenant, for it was produced through divine words and acts of commitment and it was subject to the sanctions of ultimate divine blessing and curse.


The words and acts that expressed God's creational commitments had the character of oaths and bonds. Of God it can truly be said that his word is his bond. The author of Hebrews says that when God added his oath to his promise to Abraham there were then two immutable things on which Abraham's faith could rest - "two" because God's previous simple word of promise was itself the equivalent of an immutable oath (Heb 6:13-18). Similarly, God's making of promises to David in 2 Samuel 7 is referred to in Psalm 89:3 as the swearing of an oath. Since, when God is the speaker, the truth character of a simple word of commitment is guaranteed as by oath, to identify the speaker as God is to identify the word as an oath. Hence, the divine self-identification, "I am Yahweh," may be understood as an introductory oath-formula. Thus, in Ezekiel 20:5, God's swearing (literally, lifting up his hand) to Israel is explained as an act of making himself known to them, saying "I am the Lord your God." God's spoken self-identification is here regarded as an equivalent of the physical oath-gesture of raising the hand to heaven, a verbal counterpart to a theophanic appearance in the oath-stance. In the Exodus 6 passage, which is apparently the one chiefly in view in Ezekiel 20:5, God's words of commitment are bracketed within the introductory and concluding oath-formula: "I am Yahweh" (vv. 2 and 8). This means that the ancient treaty-form as adopted by the Lord God when making covenant with his people was tantamount to a divine oath document, for the customary self-identification of the suzerain in the preamble was now a divine self-identification and so a virtual oath-formula (see Exod 20:2a; cf. Gen 17:1ff.; 26:24; 28:13; 35:11). Accordingly, the Sinaitic Covenant could be interpreted as a divine pledging of troth (see Ezek. 16).


In the beginning God's covenanting bond-words took the form of creative fiats. By these fiats God dictated into existence a covenantal kingdom order and implicit in the structuring-defining words spoken by the beneficent Creator was his oath commitment to maintain by faithful providential oversight the good world he had made and given its meaning. As noted above, Jeremiah interprets the establishment of the order of heavenly luminaries with their control of the day-night cycle as a divine covenantal commitment (Jer 31:35-37 and 33:20,21), with the implicitly covenantal character of the original creation process becoming explicit in the postdiluvian reestablishment of that order. The divine creation fiats were then covenant fiats too.


Before the first creative fiat is heard in Genesis 1:3, the divine speaker is portrayed in Genesis 1:2 as God the Spirit overshadowing the deep-and-darkness. As we shall be observing further below, this form of divine presence is to be identified with the Glory-cloud epiphany. At the ratification of the old covenant at Sinai, this cloud-pillar form of theophany represented God standing as witness to his covenant with Israel. Once again at the ratification of the new covenant at Pentecost, it was God the Spirit, appearing in phenomena that are to be seen as a New Testament version of the Glory-fire, who provided the confirmatory divine testimony. And the book of Revelation pictures the consummation of creation's history as involving a reappearance of the Glory-Spirit of Genesis 1:2, now enveloping the incarnate Son, his hand lifted in oath to heaven as he swears by himself, the Creator, that the mystery of God was to be completed (Rev 10:1,5-7; cf. Rev 1:15; 2:18). 


As I have written elsewhere: "In the interpretive light of such redemptive reproductions of the Genesis 1:2 scene, we see that the Spirit at the beginning overarched creation as a divine witness to the Covenant of Creation, as a sign that creation existed under the aegis of his covenant lordship. Here is the background for the later use of the rainbow as a sign of God's covenant with the earth (Gen 9:12ff.). And this appointment of the rainbow as covenant sign in turn corroborates the interpretation of the corresponding supernatural light-and-clouds phenomenon of the Glory (the rainbow character of which is explicit in some instances) as a sign of the Covenant of Creation." (Images of the Spirit, pp. 19f.) The effect of the Genesis 1:2 portrayal of the Creator in oath-stance is to reinforce powerfully the commitment character of his ensuing words of creative fiat recorded in Genesis 1:3ff.


Another act of the Glory-Spirit with special covenantal significance appears at the sixth day climax of the creation narrative, namely, the forming of man in the image of God. Elsewhere in the Bible this creative act is interpreted as a marriage, as a covenantal pledging of troth by the Creator. (Here only a brief summary is presented of my review of the biblical data in Images of the Spirit, chapter 2).


One of the biblical figures for the bestowing of the divine image on man is that of covering him with a robe emblematic of God's Glory. The outstanding instance of this symbolism in the Old Testament is found in the placing of the sacred vestments on the high priest of Israel. Now in the allegory of Ezekiel 16 such an act of investiture with the image of God is used as a symbol for an act of covenant ratification. Presenting the Sinaitic covenant-making in nuptial imagery, Ezekiel depicts the divine pledging of the marriage troth as God's act of adorning the bride-Israel with the sacred vestments of his Glory-likeness. The prophet thus interpreted the Sinai covenant-making as a redemptive re-creation event culminating (as did the original creation) in the production of a covenant people fashioned in God's image, and he interpreted that climactic episode of investiture with the divine image as an act of divine commitment, sealing the marriage covenant. The specific historical reality behind Ezekiel's portrayal of the covering of the bride with her divine husband's robe of glory was the bringing of Israel at Sinai under the overshadowing canopy of the Glory-cloud. And that was, of course, the counterpart in the exodus re-creation to the Glory-Spirit's overarching of the deep-and-darkness in the original creation, preparatory to his creating of mankind in his Glory-likeness on the sixth day. Thus, for the Creator to adorn mankind with his image in the beginning, was, from the biblical perspective, to create mankind in a covenant of marriage, as bride of the Maker-Lord, with all the commitment of promise and obligation inherent in such an alliance.


In a special sense then the particular divine fiat to create man as one invested with the Glory-image of God was a covenantal fiat. Right here it is, of course, patent that the covenantal relationship of God and man had its origin in the very act of creating man. It is not the case, as some theological reconstructions would have it, that the covenant was superimposed on a temporally or logically prior noncovenantal human state. The covenantal character of the original kingdom order as a whole and of man's status in particular was given along with existence itself. For the Creator of Genesis 1 gave name and existence simultaneously in his creative fiat - and his creative fiat-names were covenantal fiat-names of divine commitment, especially so the fiat-name that called man into being in the divine image. 


By investing man with the divine image, God appointed him to privileged status over the rest of creation (Gen 1:26-30). This sovereign determination of the relationship between man and the world can be viewed as an instance of God acting as third party or mediator in the arranging of a covenant between two parties. (Such mediation of covenants by a third party is attested in ancient international diplomacy.) In the account in Jeremiah 27:2-8, God's giving of dominion over the nations to Nebuchadnezzar is portrayed in symbolic act and word as the imposing of the yoke of a vassal treaty upon those nations, obliging them to serve the Babylonian suzerain. Nebuchadnezzar's position is described in terms evocative of the narrative of man's original dignity in Eden. (Reflection of the primal situation of man is still clearer in the picture of Nebuchadnezzar's suzerainty in Dan 2:38.) Accordingly, the Creator's giving of the earth and its creatures into man's hands in Eden may be viewed as the placing of the covenantal yoke of man's lordship upon the earth.


Such authoritative mediating of a covenantal order by the Creator clearly involved commitment on his part to supervise and enforce that covenant. In fact, divine arranging of a kingdom order wherein nature serves man's well-being is at times in the Bible expounded as a covenant that God makes between himself and man, God committing himself therein to secure man in a state of peace (see Ezek 34:25; Hos 2:18[20]). Viewed in these terms, the Lord's assignment of dominion to man over the world under conditions of Edenic beatitude (Gen 1:28) can be seen as signalizing a covenantal relationship between God and man. Indeed, it is likely that the later identification of episodes of subordination of nature to the service of man in terms of a covenant of God with man reflect an understanding of the original order with its similar relationship of man and nature as such a covenant.


Conspicuous among the stipulated terms of the original divine-human relationship were the paired divine sanctions of life and death, the curse of death threatened against any breach of fealty and the blessing of life promised for loyal obedience. Now divine sanctioning is an essential element in covenants. Moreover, in a divine covenant the divine sanctions coalesce with the commitments made by God as one party to the covenant, for here, uniquely, the covenant suzerain is himself the divine witness and enforcer of the sanctions of the covenant. Thus, in pointing to the notable role of the dual sanctions in Eden, we are also adducing further evidence of the presence there of the feature of commitment, which is the hallmark of covenants. 


In part, the blessing sanction of the Edenic arrangement was expressed in the sign of the Sabbath, and this may be singled out as of particular interest for the covenantal identity of the original kingdom order. (We assume here conclusions that will be reached in our discussion of God's Sabbath below.) 


For one thing, the setting of man's kingdom labors in a sabbatical framework imitative of the pattern of God's work of creation was an expression of man's identity as image of God and as such the sabbatical ordinance also served to identify man as a creature in covenant with God. By the Sabbath ordinance God made covenantal commitment that man with his God-like endowment would move on in the way of obedience to a consummation of rest, indeed, to the glory of God's own Sabbath.


Also, the Sabbath ordinance appointed for man's observance celebrated the reality of the archetypal Sabbath of the Creator's seventh day, and in doing so highlighted aspects of the creation order that were distinctly covenantal. God's entrance upon his Sabbath rest was an enthronement of the Creator, an assumption by him of his rightful position as Lord of the world, of all lands and peoples. The Sabbath ordinance thus called upon all earthly kingship to acknowledge itself to be a vassal kingship under the heavenly Suzerain. Now such a relationship is the kind of covenantal relationship that was defined by the ancient suzerain-vassal treaties. Agreeably, when God later made covenant with Israel, adopting for this purpose the form of these ancient political covenants, he appointed the Sabbath ordinance as a seal of this covenant (Exod 20:8-11; 31:16,17), signifying thereby that the people and the land belonged to him (cf., e.g., Lev 25:2-4). The Sabbath declared that Yahweh was covenant Lord of the kingdom of Israel. And if the Sabbath ordinance serves as a symbolic sign of God's covenantal lordship in the holy kingdom of Israel, it is surely because the original divine Sabbath represented the Creator's covenantal lordship over the world. Indeed, this connection is conspicuous in the appointing of the Sabbath to Israel. For this later Sabbath observance is explained as a remembering of God's creation acts, a celebrating of the glory of his covenantal kingship first established by his work of creation and now being reestablished through the redemptive sanctifying of a covenantal people renewed in God's image under God's lordship (Exod 20:8-11). In short then, the Sabbath ordinance in Eden was a sign of the covenant of God with man already in effect there. The very fact that the Genesis creation prologue is cast in sabbatical form tells us that the creation of the world was a covenant-making process.


Further, there is the familiar fact that the biblical accounts of redemptive covenants, the old and the new covenants, depict these covenant histories as divine works of re-creation. The point here is much the same as we were making about the appointing of the Sabbath ordinance as a sign of the covenant to Israel, but with our view extended now to include all the creation motifs that are used in the Scriptures to set forth the nature of God's covenantal action through Moses and Jesus Christ, the mediators of the old and new covenants. In interpreting these later covenants as creational, the biblical authors reflect their understanding of the creation as covenantal. 


It is especially significant for our present thesis that in the Mosaic economy there was a reproduction of the creational order as a whole (within the limitations of the fallen situation and with the adjustments resulting from the redemptive process), including specifically the nature of the original Edenic order as a holy paradise-kingdom and as a probationary-works arrangement. The covenant identity of the reproduction points compellingly to the covenantal nature of the original.


Another such parallel is found in the Bible's use of the two-Adams scheme in its comprehensive analysis of God's government through history. If the role of Christ as the second Adam is recognized as covenantal, this scheme provides further clear warrant for classifying the arrangement made with the first Adam as covenantal.


Our conclusion is, therefore, that Genesis 1-3 teems with evidences of the covenantal character of the kingdom in Eden. We have in fact seen that the covenantal identity of this creation order was given to it with its very existence, particularly in the creation of man, its head, in the image of God. The creational covenant will here be called "The Creator's Covenant of Works with Adam." By continuing the use of the term "works" we preserve an important advantage that the traditional name, "Covenant of Works," has when combined with use of "Covenant of Grace" for redemptive covenant - the advantage of underscoring the fundamental law-gospel contrast. And our additional terms, "Creator's" and "with Adam," will serve to bring out the parallelism between this covenant of works and what we shall be calling "The Father's Covenant of Works with the Son" (i.e., the eternal intratrinitarian covenant), namely, the parallelism of the two Adams scheme, each of these covenants involving, as it does, an Adam figure, a federal representative under probation in a covenant of works.


As the analysis of this covenantal administration of God's kingdom lordship with its dual sanctions unfolds in the following chapters, we will see that it involves not only the bestowal of the kingdom on a holy people of God but an offer to make the kingdom given in creation a permanent possession on a glorified level of existence. Described in terms of varieties of international covenants familiar at the time of the writing of the book of Genesis, the original covenant with Adam was thus a suzerain-vassal covenant plus the proposal of a special grant to the vassal for loyal service.


Within the Scriptures are treaty texts (like the Decalogue) produced for particular covenant ratification transactions and displaying the literary-legal form attested in the contemporary ancient international treaties. The several standard sections of this treaty-form provide serviceable categories for analysis of the creational covenant. The first two chapters of the following analysis include data that would be found in the preamble and historical prologue, the opening sections of the treaty form. Chapter Three corresponds to the section of treaty stipulations or law; Chapter Four, to the sanctions section. Finally, Chapter Five will trace the history of the creational covenant, with the tragic failure of the first man to obtain the proposed grant of the eternal kingdom. Our use of the standard sections of the ancient treaty-form in this way should not be misunderstood as suggesting that the earliest chapters of Genesis have the literary form of a treaty. However, the fact that these treaty sections serve as satisfactorily as they do as an analytical framework for describing the sum and substance of these chapters does support illuminatingly the identification of the creation order as a covenantal arrangement.


[Chapters 1-3 may be found on pp. 22-90 of Kingdom Prologue. We now proceed to chapter 4.]


Eschatological Sanctions (KP, pp. 91-103)


Balancing the review of the past presented in the historical prologue of ancient suzerain-vassal treaties was a section of sanctions pointing to the future of the covenant. They expressed the determination of the suzerain that his dominion should be irresistibly enforced and indefinitely continued in his ongoing dynasty. His promise of blessing and, even more, the curse of appalling desolation which he threatened against disloyalty were calculated to impress upon his vassals the wisdom of performing faithfully the obligations laid on them in the treaty stipulations.


Similarly, the future of God's covenant with Adam was revealed in the form of covenant sanctions. That the Creator's sovereign rule would endure was certain, but just how it would be ultimately manifested must be determined through a probationary testing of mankind. Eschatological destiny, the choice of eternal weal or woe, was set before man in the dual sanctions of the covenant "¦


Man's confrontation with the alternatives of the curse and blessing sanctions signalizes the condition of probation that obtained in the first phase of the covenant in Eden. Along with our examination of the precise nature of those sanctions as such, the promise of life and threat of death, we shall, therefore, include an account of the governmental principles operative in this probation and the specific means employed in administering it. 



a. The Promised Blessing 



Man's creation as image of God meant, as we have seen, that the creating of the world was a covenant-making process. There was no original non-covenantal order of mere nature on which the covenant was superimposed. Covenantal commitments were given by the Creator in the very act of endowing the man-creature with the mantle of the divine likeness. And those commitments were eschatological. The situation never existed in which man's future was contemplated or presented in terms of a static continuation of the original level of blessedness. For the God in whose likeness man was made is the consummating God of the Sabbath. This sabbatical aspect of the divine image was present in the image as imparted to man and it came to expression in the promise of consummation contained in the creational ordinance of the Sabbath. Blessing sanction promising a consummation of man's original glory as image of God was thus built into man's very nature as image of God. This eschatological prospect was in-created. It was an aspiration implanted in man's heart with his existence as God's image. That being so, to restrict man to the mere continuation of his original state of beatitude would be no blessing at all, but a curse. For it would frustrate man's longing to realize his in-created potential as image of God by disappointing his hope of entering into the Creator's Sabbath rest and thereby experiencing the perfecting of his likeness to the divine paradigm of the Glory-Spirit. The blessing sanction was, therefore, no artificial addition to the covenant but was already involved in man's God-like eschatological-sabbatical nature and was essentially nothing other than the perfecting of that nature "¦


Perfecting of the imago Dei coincides with the attainment of the sabbatical goal of completing the construction of the temple of God as mandated in the kingdom commission. (See above, chapter three.) Identification of the blessing sanction with this sabbatical temple directs us once again to the creational origins of the revelation of that sanction. For the sabbatical temple is constructed according to the original divine pattern revealed on the mountain of God in Eden. The Glory-Spirit-temple was the archetype temple, the promise-paradigm and, more than that, the matrix of the Sabbath-temple of man in the Spirit. From this perspective too, then, it can be seen that the eschatological blessing sanction of the creational covenant, the Omega-hope of the covenant, was disclosed from the earliest beginning in the theophanic Alpha-Original of the human temple-image. 



Another reproduction of the theophanic Glory-Spirit, a symbolic one, was planted by the Creator in the midst of the trees of the garden-sanctuary (Gen 2:9), and therewith another revelation was given of the offer of ultimate beatitude by which the covenant was sanctioned. In the wonder of the trees that God made, light is transformed into a tangible glory, a delight to the eyes, with fruit for food to nourish the life of man. And these lords of the plant world, these majestic by-forms of light, the Creator put to further use as earthly symbols of the heavenly Glory-light.


Two aspects of the theophanic Glory that reappear as elements in the replication of that Glory in man are judicial dominion and the light of immortality (cf. Rom 2:7; 1 Tim 1:17; 6:16; 2 Tim 1:10). The two special trees in Eden's sanctuary were designed to function as symbolic means in man's participation in those aspects of God's glory. In these trees the heavenly divine Glory was represented in an earthly form that expressed God's intention of making that glory available to man for his appropriation. How the tree of knowledge was to figure in the development of man's judicial likeness to God will be discussed below. Here we focus upon the tree of life as the sacramental seal of man's participation in the glory of immortality "¦


It was not life of the kind or at the level bestowed on man in creation that was signified by the tree of life but life consummated through eschatological transformation. This is intimated by the identity of the tree as a symbolic replica of the immortal Glory. It is also indicated by the relationship of the tree of life to the probation, particularly to the outcome of the probation. This tree is introduced in the narrative in conjunction with the tree of probationary testing, whose location in the midst of the garden it shared (Gen 2:9); it is mentioned again in connection with the consequences of the probation in Genesis 3:22, where it is regarded as a seal of everlasting life; and subsequently in revelation in the course of redemptive history it reappears in the context of the consummated glory of the restored paradise of God (Rev 2:7; cf. Ezek 47:7,12; Rev 22:2).


No mere endless existence was signified by this arboreal sign of the promised blessing of the covenant. Unending existence is a feature of the curse as well as of the blessing sanction. One thinks of how the fate of the wicked raised up to endless life in the lake of fire is called the second death (Rev 20:13-15; 21:8). Eternal life properly so called, the life signified by the tree of life, is life as confirmed and ultimately perfected in man's glory-likeness to God, life in the fellowship of God's Presence. Access to the tree of life and its fruit is only in the holy place where the Glory-Spirit dwells; to be driven from there is to be placed under judgment of death. Here again it is relevant to recall the identity of the tree of life as an earthly symbolic replica of the immortal Glory. Consummation of man's life and God-likeness, like their creation, is of God, the Alpha and Omega Glory-Spirit.


Clearly sounded through the blessing sanction was the call to covenant-keeping whereby man might maintain his enjoyment of the presence of God and so of his access to the symbol and the reality of eternal life. Piety and total prosperity were united in the creational order. More than that, the fullness of life, the true summum bonum, consisted in the religious life, the union and communion of man with God, the Source of life. This truth appears in redemptive history in Jesus' identification of himself as the resurrection and life of his people. Those united to him never die (John 11:26). That which is called death, and for others is death, is "the first resurrection" for believers, whom dying unites more closely to Jesus so that they live and reign with and in him (Rev 20:5,6). And the prologue of John's Gospel tells us that this redemptive identity and function of the Son of God stands in continuity with what was already true of him as the Logos in the beginning. "In him was life; and the life was the light of men" (John 1:4). The tree of life was, in a figure, the Logos, the life of man "¦


Obedience with respect to the tree of knowledge would qualify man to avail himself of the invitation of the Logos-Life to partake of the sacramental tree of life. By that sacramental communion he would be confirmed in the beatitude of the covenant; the promise of glorified life would be sealed unto him. He would experience Sabbath rest in the sense that he would be placed beyond the onus of probation; established by the Spirit in indefectible righteousness and holiness, no longer subject to a fall into sin and exposure to the covenant curse; and confirmed as the heir of the full-orbed, luminous glory of the imago Dei "¦


According to the promise made to man in his endowment with likeness to the One revealed in theophanic Light, physical glorification was also contemplated in the blessing sanction. Here, and in our entire attempt to portray the heavenly hope of the covenant, disclosures of the eternal state provided in the biblical revelation of the consummation of redemptive history help us draw out the eschatological prospects that were intrinsic to the imago Dei and were signified by the Sabbath and tree of life. Caution is called for in exploiting this analogy because features peculiar to God's redemptive response to man's Fall are taken up into the nature of the heaven to which Christ brings his church. Nevertheless, the biblical identification of Jesus as the second Adam guarantees that his redemptive achievement fits into the basic eschatological framework that informed the covenant with the first Adam. Indeed, Christ's work is explicitly expounded by the Scriptures as a re-creation and perfecting of the imago Dei and as a bringing of his people into their Sabbath rest in the land of access to the tree of life. Hence, we may properly resort to the analogy of the eschatological glorification of Christ's redeemed people. They are assured that their present earthly bodies, designed for genealogical history, will be transformed into spiritual bodies suited for a state of existence in which earthly marriage has no place. This physical transformation belongs to the re-creation of the new mankind in the image of the incarnate Glory, the Light of man. By this analogy we can more readily perceive that the prospect of ultimate glorification was implicit in the nature of the first Adam as image of the theophanic Glory "¦


Heaven is not a human achievement; it is not the end-product of human culture. God created it in the beginning (Gen 1:1) and it requires a supernatural act of God to bring man into participation in the reality of heaven. The consummation of human earth history consists in the removal of man's limitation to the earthly. Or, positively, it consists in the transformation of man's perceptive capability and total experiential capacity with respect to the cosmos whereby he can apprehend the heavenly dimension(s) and particularly that epiphanic Glory, which, filling all, gives to the whole, from the perspective of human history, the character of a new heavens and earth. Glorification, by which man enters this Sabbath realm of glory, is as much a supernatural act of God as the original act of man's creation. Man's own historical cultural enterprise could take him only so far toward gaining a maximal creaturely mastery of the world. Only by an eschatological injection of divine creative power does man move past the days of his cultural working and come to the Sabbath enthronement in which his dominion over the world, under God, is perfected.


At the consummation man leaves behind the external culture he has developed through his earthly history. He then has no further need for the instruments he has devised to protect himself from whatever in nature has been inhospitable or to extend his influence over the world or to enhance the splendor of his person. Glorification has made all of this superfluous. Clothed in the luminosity of his transfigured nature, man has no need for his former man-made garments whether for beauty or protection, nor for the cultural extensions of clothing in the earthly architecture of the city. This divine investiture of men with the glory-light which is the perfecting of the imago Dei makes obsolete the fashions of human culture. Such too is the enduement of the glorified nature with the Spirit of power and knowledge that man has no need for his former cultural aids for the processing of information, communication and transportation. Man's external culture was intended to serve only a provisional purpose during man's preconsummation history. It was merely a temporary substitute for glorification, the real and permanent thing "¦


Typological terminology may be applied to this relationship; historical human culture is prototype and the divine heavenly-glorified culture is antitype. We should remember too that the Glory-Spirit stands at the beginning of history as the archetype of all created glory. Scripture endorses such typological analysis by portraying the heavenly goal of redemptive history after the model of the cultural preformations of earthly history. Glorified mankind is depicted as the city of God, the fullness of the new heaven and earth, the ultimate realization of the cultural mandate. Prototypal culture performs its necessary function, then passes away at the advent of the heavenly antitype culture, which is not just a top-story superimposed on the earth-founded prototype but an eschatologically new reality through and through. And this metaculture, which renders all prototypes obsolete, comes down from heaven, from God, its Architect-Creator.


New Jerusalem is the name of the metaculture in biblical prophecy. The city of God at the goal of the redemptive process bears the distinctive impress of the specifically redemptive history that has led to it. Specifically, the antitype at the consummation of the new covenant is depicted in the mode of the typological model of it that was developed under the old covenant. But stripping away the peculiarly redemptive features, we are still left with the generic image of a city in the biblical vision of the consummation. The metaculture is a metapolis. Particularly, then, when it comes to the consummate cosmos, the ultimate eschatological blessing proferred in the sanctions of the creational covenant, Metapolis may serve as its name. New Jerusalem is a specifically redemptive version of Metapolis.


In an unfallen world, cultural history would have been a tale of one city only. Starting from Eden man was to work at constructing this one universal kingdom-city. Blessed by the Great King of the city, man would have prospered in that task and eventually the extended city might have been aptly called Megapolis. But such a worldwide community of the human family would have marked the limits of the cultural potential of earthly man. God himself must perfect the promise of the covenant by transforming prototypal Megapolis into antitypal Metapolis. 


Metapolis is not just an enlarged Megapolis, but a Megapolis that has undergone eschatological metamorphosis at the hands of the Omega-Spirit. Nothing of earthly culture external to man enters Metapolis. Even man himself cannot enter it as mortal flesh and blood (1 Cor 15:50). Only as the glorified handiwork of God can man pass through the gates of the eternal city. Actually, to speak of glorified men entering Metapolis is to speak with a pronounced typological accent. For Metapolis is not a city that glorified man inhabits. It is rather the case that glorified man is Metapolis; in the redemptive dialect, the bride of the Lamb is the New Jerusalem (Rev 21:9,10). In the Metapolis enterprise materiel and personnel coincide. 


"Yahweh-is-there" is another name for Metapolis (Ezek 48:35; cf. Rev 21:3; 22:3). The eternal city of glorified mankind in the Spirit is a temple of God's Presence. To produce this temple-cultus was the ultimate objective of man's cultural enterprise, as we concluded from an analysis of the programmatic stipulations of the original covenant. But from our analysis of the blessing sanction of that covenant we must conclude that whatever contribution of personal materiel ("living stones") is in a secondary sense supplied by human culture, it is the Lord God, the Alpha and Omega, who creates and consummates his Spirit-temple. 


Scriptures' identification of the eternal city with the glorified church (Rev 21:9,10) is accompanied by its proclamation of a new heaven and earth (Rev 21:1) and thus intends, of course, no negation of the cosmic dimension of consummated creation. In Metapolis, glorified mankind is incorporated into the archetypal Spirit-temple with which, from the epiphanic flash of the absolute beginning, the cosmos has been integrated. Hence, Metapolis is at once the people-temple and the cosmos-temple, together consummated in the Glory-temple. 



b. The Threatened Curse


Blessing belonged properly to the creational covenant. In its created condition that covenantal order was one of beatitude and the eschatological perfecting of that beatitude was its proper goal. Nevertheless, a threat of curse was included within the total disclosure of the terms of this covenant. "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat thereof you will surely die" (Gen 2:17).


Something of the form of this death specter might be descried by way of analogy in the phenomena of death in the subhuman creation. We have suggested above that this was one of the nature parables the Creator had made available by which his spoken revelation might be illustrated. What was threatened in the curse could be ascertained in more of its human particularity, however, by way of antithesis to what was revealed in the promised blessing sanction. Death was failure to realize the eschatological potential of the imago Dei and the loss of all the glory of the divine likeness, ethical and regal, already bestowed in the creation of man. It was frustration of the hope of completion of man's historical mission beaconed by the covenant sign of the Sabbath. It was the denial of the consummation of life that was proferred in the tree of life. It was the loss of all these things, and it was their opposite.


The curse was the reversal of man's original and proper relationship to the world. He who should have exercised dominion over all the earth would be humiliated and tormented by the world. Instead of becoming a realm of cosmic freedom and luminous fulfillment, man's world would be turned into a prison of diabolical darkness, the very lake of fire prepared for the devil and his angels, as it is known to us from subsequent biblical revelation, which names it "the second death." It is to be observed that this "second death" does not involve what we know as physical death but on the contrary is something experienced by the wicked after they have been raised from the grave in the resurrection of damnation. Accordingly, the disembodied state we commonly identify as death was not contemplated in what was threatened in the curse sanction of Genesis 2:17. In fact, apart from the intervention of the program of redemption after the Fall, death as physical disembodiment would have served no necessary historical function. Death of that (mitigated) sort is the form that death assumes only as part of the common curse with which God afflicts fallen mankind while the judgment of the lake of fire is delayed during the time that the foreordained salvation-history is introduced and runs its course. Once this kind of death exists as a first kind of death experience for fallen mankind, the death-curse of the lake of wrath, which in the beginning would have been simply "death," comes to be distinguished as a "second" death.


Just as our analysis of the covenant blessing led to an exploration of the eschatological concept of heaven, so our analysis of the covenant curse turns out to be a matter of delineating the nature of hell. These are the primal subjects of biblical prophecy.


The severity of the curse answered to the gravity of the offense of covenant-breaking. In the ancient international treaties the terrible retaliation threatened in the curse sanction against the offending vassal had its rationale in the fact that the vassal's disloyalty to the suzerain was also an act of defiance against the gods by whom the covenant oath had been sworn. Closely associated with the curses in the treaty was a section in which the gods of the oath, individually named in long array, were invoked to witness the covenant ratification and so assume their role as supervisors and, in case of violations, as avengers of the covenant. With such surveillance no transgression of the stipulations could go undetected and, since any such offense constituted an impious challenge to the gods, it was not only foolhardy but deserving of the total destruction detailed in the curse sanctions. Under the Creator's covenant with Adam the character of covenant-breaking as a sin against deity was directly entailed in the divine nature of the Lord of the covenant himself. Disloyalty to the covenant Lord was in itself disruption of the religious relationship and it is in terms of this alienation of man from his God that the curse sanction of death is, in the last analysis, to be perceived.


God's Glory-Presence was the executor of both the dual sanctions. Thus, in Israel's exodus history, the same Glory that functioned to bless Israel was the divine Agent to inflict God's curse on the Egyptians. The Glory-cloud was a protective shade to one, a bewildering darkness to the other. The Glory-fire was a guiding light to one, but to the other a blinding, consuming blaze. So it was from the beginning. The Spirit-Presence was the holy Sanctifier who made the garden a sanctuary. As Sanctifier he enforced the sanctions that maintained the holiness of God's house. Man's blessedness, his life, consisted in the Spirit's sanctifying him, fashioning him in the likeness of the Spirit, so that he might abide in joy before God's Face lifted up over him in holy beauty and in the benediction of peace. The curse would consist in the putting of another visage on the Presence-Face. Death would be the wrathful glare of the Glory that makes intolerable to those on whom it is directed the presence of the holy Glory-Spirit, the Breath of life.


It was then not simply that the punishment threatened in the covenant would be commensurate with the crime; the curse would take its shape from the nature of the offense. In sinning man would contradict the norm of the imitation of God, despise his likeness to the Spirit, repudiate the Face of Glory. The curse of death would deliver the sinner over to his hatred of the Glory-beauty of God, the hatred that makes him turn away from God's Face and separate himself from it. But to be thus separated from the vivifying-glorifying Spirit is to be cut off from participation in the divine Glory-likeness. And in the eyes of God, for creatures whom he has made in his image, men and angels alike, to lose the glory of the imago Dei is to perish.


Probation (KP, pp. 103-17) 


In its original form as produced through creation the covenant order was already one of beatitude, but, as previously observed, this covenant contained the proposal of a special grant to man, the servant-son, for loyal service to his Lord. It offered an eschatological advance in kingdom glory conditioned on man's obedience.


If the Lord of the covenant were to fulfill his offer of confirming his servant in a state of blessedness, if man's entrance into the promised Sabbath were not to be delayed forever, the testing of man's obedience could not be endlessly prolonged. The arrangement could not be one of permanent conditionality. The testing must have temporal limits; that is, it must be a probation. And that being the nature of the necessity of the probation, its proper purpose was clearly not to put man in jeopardy of losing his beatitude but to bring him on the way to its consummation. 


Another factor was present in the divine ordering of the covenant that required that the days of man's probation be shortened. This factor was the governmental principle of federal representation. Mankind was to undergo probation as a corporate whole represented by the first Adam, rather than on an individual basis. But the proliferation of responsible covenant servants before the issue of the probation had been settled would conflict with the operation of this principle of federal representation. The Lord, therefore, arranged that the probationary issue should be settled prior to such a development by bringing the test of Adam's obedience to a point of crisis where a prompt, decisive response was unavoidable. In view of the momentous consequences of the probation for all humanity, it was in any case a desideratum that the crucial testing should probe man's covenantal commitment at its most radical depths.


Two measures were introduced by the Lord to achieve this intensification of the probationary process. One was to add to the general obligations of the covenant a special proscription (Gen 2:16,17). If we call this the probationary stipulation, our intention is not to suggest that man's covenantal obligations and testing were reduced to this one requirement, but simply to indicate that this stipulation had a special function to perform in bringing the probation into concentrated focus for a radical decision. The second measure was to subject man to a direct satanic solicitation to disobedience. The two measures were not unrelated. Indeed, it is through an appreciation of their relationship to one another that we can best apprehend the meaning of the probation tree and the significance of Satan's role in the probation episode, and thus the nature of the probationary assignment.


Both in its form and substance the special probationary proscription was exceptional within the law of the covenant. Whereas the other stipulations were framed positively and set man forward on his cultural-cultic journey, the negative form of the special stipulation confronted man with a limitation on his way which he must not transgress. In its substance, this proscription introduced an exception into the pattern of consecration by which God had interpreted the world and man's place in it. Man's investment with dominion over the earth, according to which all earth's hosts were consigned to his use, was contradicted by this prohibition. Specifically, the probationary stipulation separated one tree from the realm of plants and trees that God himself had subjected to man and had defined as "for food" (Gen 1:29,30; 2:16) and assigned it the opposite meaning: "You shall not eat of it" (Gen 2:17). The prohibition removed the eating of the fruit of this tree from the category of good or lawful and sovereignly reclassified that act as unlawful.


In the probation tree man found himself face to face with the claims of absolute lordship. Restricting man in the exercise of his royal authority and privileges, the probationary commandment compelled him to acknowledge that his own kingship was that of a vassal-king, that the world was his only in stewardship. It demanded that in the naming-interpretive task, the wise man role that was ancillary to man's kingship, he must follow without question the direction of the Logos-Creator. Even when God addressed to him an apparently arbitrary word that constituted an exceptional instance within divine revelation, man must not assume an autonomous, critical stance over against his Lord, selecting for himself a canon within the canon of God's word. He was rather held responsible to recognize the canonical word at every point, to grasp it, and submit his thought and life to all that God said. The effect of this special probationary prohibition was to confront man head-on simply and solely with God's absolute authority and thus to face him inescapably with the demand for a clear-cut confession of his sovereign Lord. And in this way the test of man's covenantal loyalty was brought to its decisive issue.


To find the significance of the probation tree we naturally begin with its name, "the tree of the knowledge (or knowing) of good and evil" (Gen 2:17). Good and evil are viewed in this designation of the tree as opposites between which a choice is to be made (the usual usage where this pair is found in the Bible), not as an antonymic pair indicative of a totality (as is sometimes the case in ancient literature). Repeatedly in biblical usage the good-evil pair appears in the context of references to the ability to discern between things and especially to exercise a legal-judicial kind of discrimination (cf. Mic 3:1,2). The references are largely to the rendering of verdicts. "Good" and "evil" may at times even be legal terms used in pronouncing judgments (cf., e.g., Isa 5:20,23; Mal 2:17). In clear allusion to the probation tree, God identifies man's knowing of good and evil as an aspect of his likeness to God and angels (Gen 3:22). The same connection is recognized in Satan's perverse suggestion (Gen 3:5). Now, as we have previously observed, when the discerning of good and evil is elsewhere noted as a mark of likeness to God and his Angel or of the possession of God-like wisdom, the reference is precisely to a king engaged in rendering judicial decisions (2 Sam 14:17; 1 Kgs 3:9,28). The probation tree was the judgment tree.


God-like judicial prerogative was signified by the name of the probation tree and in the course of the probation this tree would be instrumental in man's exercise of the royal-priestly function of rendering judgment, the function inherent in his status as image of God. It would be by the appearance of the satanic agent at this judgment tree in the garden of God that man would find himself compelled to discern in judicial act between good and evil. Here man as priestly guardian of the sanctuary would be called upon to enforce the demands of God's exclusive holiness against the unholy intruder. It might seem strange that this tree should simultaneously signify something to do as well as something not to do, that along with the prohibition against partaking of its fruit it should also present the positive obligation to perform the work of judgment expressed in its name as the tree of the knowing of good and evil. Perhaps the explanation of this combination is in part that precisely when man was being exalted to the high authority implied in the requirement to pronounce judgment on heavenly beings it was opportune to remind him, as the prohibition compellingly did, of his subordination to the ultimate and absolute authority of God.


In the event, the negative and positive aspects of the probation tree would come together as the evil one centered attention in the encounter which transpired at the site of the tree on the prohibition concerning it. Refraining from the forbidden fruit and performing of the holy judicial function against the tempter were thus intertwined. It appears, then, that the name of the tree pointed not so much to something man would acquire as to something he must do. It referred not to knowledge of a certain kind that he might gain, but to knowledge in action, knowledge engaged in pronouncing judgment. At the same time this tree would be instrumental in an acquisition man would make. For by doing what was signified by the name of the judgment tree, man would advance in the glory of his judicial likeness to the Lord of the heavenly council. (According to Gen 3:22, in a formal sense this regal dimension of man's likeness to God came to intensified expression even when he rendered a false verdict). Thus, this tree would, like the tree of life, be instrumental in man's maturing participation in the imago Dei.


In the judicial encounter with Satan at the tree of judgment man was obliged to come to a crucial decision as to his own ultimate personal loyalty by committing himself to the side of good or evil in the conflict between God and Satan. And his choice between good and evil in the form of opposing covenant suzerains constituted a choice of good or evil in the sense of blessing or curse, life or death, for man himself. The tree of the knowing of good and evil was indeed the probation tree. By this tree it would be determined whether man, by faithfully fighting the Lord's battle in the war against Satan, should receive from his Sovereign approbation and the proposed grant of the kingdom. The whole covenant order ought not to be reduced to this one feature of the probation tree and the requirements centering in it as though this were the sum and total substance of the covenant. But the outcome of the probation crisis at the tree of judgment was decisive for the future of the entire covenant order. It was the hinge on which everything turned. 



A principle of works - do this and live - governed the attainment of the consummation-kingdom proferred in the blessing sanction of the creational covenant. Heaven must be earned. According to the terms stipulated by the Creator it would be on the ground of man's faithful completion of the work of probation that he would be entitled to enter the Sabbath rest. If Adam obediently performed the assignment signified by the probation tree, he would receive, as a matter of pure and simple justice, the reward symbolized by the tree of life. That is, successful probation would be meritorious. With good reason then covenant theology has identified this probation arrangement as a covenant of works, thereby setting it in sharp contrast to the Covenant of Grace "¦


Our finding is that under God's covenant with mankind in Adam attainment of the eschatological kingdom and Sabbath rest was governed by a principle of works. Adam, representative of mankind, was commissioned to fulfill the probationary assignment; he must perform the one meritorious act of righteousness. This act was to have the character of a victory in battle. An encounter with Satan was a critical aspect of the probationary crisis for each of the two Adams. To enter into judicial combat against this enemy of God and to vanquish him in the name of God was the covenantal assignment that must be performed by the servant of the Lord as his "one act of righteousness." And it was the winning of this victory of righteousness by the one that would be imputed to the many as their act of righteousness and as their claim on the consummated kingdom proferred in the covenant.


We conclude then that covenant theology has been biblically sound in its traditional formulation of God's original kingdom administration in Eden as the Covenant of Works. However, it is also the case that the redemptive order, though a covenant of grace in contrast to works when viewed from the perspective of God's covenantal offer of the kingdom to men, at the same time included as a foundation under that covenant of grace a covenant of works in the form of the eternal intratrinitarian counsel envisaging the Son as second Adam.





**************


II. THE FATHER'S COVENANT OF WORKS WITH THE SECOND ADAM (KP, pp. 138-49) 

"For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous" (Rom 5:19). There was a first man Adam and a first covenant of works. And for the redemption of the lost world there is a second and last Adam, the Adam from heaven (cf. l Cor 15:45-49), and another covenant of works. This second covenant was kept, this second man was obedient and his obedience under this covenant of works is the foundation of the gospel order. The redemptive program as well as the original kingdom order in Eden is thus built on the principle of works.


This second covenant of works is the eternal covenant, which we shall call "The Father's Covenant of Works with the Son." The series of temporal administrations of redemptive grace to God's people are subsections of what we shall call "The Lord's Covenant of Grace with the Church" (or, for brevity's sake we may use the traditional "Covenant of Grace"). Preeminently the Covenant of Grace finds expression in the new covenant, but it also includes all those earlier covenantal arrangements wherein the benefits secured by the obedience of Christ in fulfillment of God's eternal covenant with him were in part already bestowed during premessianic times, in each case according to the particular eschatological phase of covenant history. 


Though interlocking, these two redemptive covenants, the eternal and the temporal, are nevertheless to be clearly distinguished from each other for they differ in several most basic respects. In the eternal covenant, (1) the Son is assigned the role of covenant servant; (2) the second party is the Son in his status as second Adam and thus, included along with him, the elect whom he represents, and them exclusively; and (3) the operative principle is works. Contrariwise, in the series of historical administrations of the gospel, (1) the messianic Son is Lord and mediator of the covenant; (2) the second party is the church, the community of the confessors of the faith and their children, including others beside the elect; and (3) the operative principle is grace.


Scriptural Evidence


[Above] we defended the propriety of the biblical theologian's applying the term covenant to arrangements not labelled berith (or diatheke) in the Bible. In the case of the intratrinitarian covenant, the justification for the covenantal designation is once again that the substance of a berith is found in the biblical intimations afforded us of the eternal counsel between God the Father and the Son. Commitment was there, and divine sanctioning - there if ever! 


Jesus' life is portrayed as a mission. His very identity as Messiah involved commissioning and his messianic consciousness was revealed in statements reflecting his awareness of having been sent by the Father on a special mission with a commandment to obey (John 10:18), a righteousness to fulfill (Matt 3:15), a baptism to be suffered (Luke 12:50), and a work to finish (John 17:4). This special mission of the Son is interpreted in the New Testament within the context of various covenants. When the fullness of time was come, he was sent by God as one under law (Gal 4:4), as the Servant of the Lord prophesied by Isaiah (cf. Isa 42; 49; 50; 52-53), and thus as the true Israel, the true covenant servant that Israel failed to be. Indeed, covenant sums up the mission of the Isaianic Servant (Isa 42:6; 49:8). Or again, as we have seen, Jesus was sent forth as another Adam, to be the obedient covenant servant that the first Adam failed to be. Also, he was the image of God (2 Cor 4:4) and, as observed above, covenantal relationship was inherent in the first Adam's possession of that image.


The messianic mission performed on earth began in heaven: "For I came down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him that sent me" (John 6:38). Jesus was sent forth from heaven to earth on a covenantal mission with covenantal oath-commitments from his Father. Messianic psalms reveal to us the eternal communion between the Father and Son, in which the Father covenants to the Son a kingship on Zion over the uttermost parts of the earth (Ps 2:6-9) and grants him by oath an eternal royal priesthood (Ps 110:4; cf. Heb 5:6; 7:17,21). Jesus, identifying himself as the divine royal Son of those psalms declared to his disciples: "As my Father appointed unto me a kingdom, so I appoint unto you that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel" (Luke 22:29, 30). It is interesting that the verb translated "appointed" (diatithemi) is the verb to which diatheke, "covenant", relates. Indeed, this affirmation of Jesus stands in the context of his ordaining the sacramental seal of the new covenant, in association with his statement, "This is my blood of the new covenant" (Matt 26:28; Mark 14:24; Luke 22:20; 1 Cor 11:25). Hence, in this biblical passage we have the next thing to an actual application of the term "covenant" to the arrangement between the Father and the Son. A justifiable rendering would be: "My Father covenanted unto me a kingdom." On that same occasion, the Son of God in prayer recalled the Father's commitment to him in love before the foundation of the world, a commitment to grant him as obedient messianic Servant the glory he had with the Father before the world was (John 17:5,24). He presented his claim of merit as the faithful Servant who had met the terms of the eternal covenant of works by obediently fulfilling his mission: "I have glorified thee on the earth; I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do" (John 17:4). And then he made his request that the grant of glory proposed in that covenant now be conferred: "And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was" (John 17:5). Jesus, the second Adam, standing before his judgment tree could declare that he had overcome the temptation to eat the forbidden fruit and that he had accomplished the charge to judge Satan, and, therefore, he could claim his right of access to the tree of life.


Heavenly commitments of the Father to the Son are reflected in words of covenant promise spoken by God to man. In the Abrahamic Covenant God promised to Abraham and his seed royalty and a mediatorship of blessing to all nations. And in the Davidic Covenant that royal seed of Abraham was identified as a coming son of David, concerning whom God swore that his throne should endure as the days of heaven, higher than the kings of the earth (cf. 2 Sam 7 and Ps 89). In the New Testament, Paul, expounding God's ancient covenant, quotes its promise and interprets: "And to thy seed, which is Christ" (Gal 3:16), and he identifies this descendant of Abraham, the Christ, as "the seed to whom the promise was made" (Gal 3:19). Jesus Christ was the one to whom God's covenantal commitment, given in promise and oath, was directed. Thus, both in the inner divine communication of heaven's eternity and in the revelation provided in the course of earthly history the Son of God received, along with his commissioning to redemptive suffering, his Father's covenantal commitment of a reward of kingdom glory.


Enough of the evidence has been cited to show that the biblical theologian will certainly want to identify these eternal commitments between the Father and Son as a covenant. Incidentally, since this arrangement between the Father and the Son, viewed as the second man, is the second half of the two Adams structure (cf. Rom 5 and 1 Cor 15), to demonstrate its covenantal character is also to corroborate yet further the case that has been made for identifying God's relation to the first Adam as a covenant - and, indeed, as a covenant of works.


Because God was pleased to constitute both the first and second Adams as federal representatives of a corporate humanity, the obedient performance of the obligations of the covenant of works administered to each of them would have the result that all whom they represented would receive with them the proposed grant of God's kingdom-glory. In the case of the first Adam all the predestined mankind that should descend from him was represented by him in his covenant of works and all would, therefore, have been beneficiaries, if he had kept the covenant. In the case of the second Adam, however, not all of mankind is elect in him and represented by him in his covenant of works and, therefore, not all men but only those who, by the sovereign election of divine grace, are in Christ are the actual beneficiaries of the eternal glory bestowed through the Covenant of Grace.


In the historical administration of the Covenant of Grace until the Consummation, membership in the covenant community is not coextensive with the elect. This is the case not so much because of the anomaly that some elect persons who belong in the visible covenant community might not unite themselves with it, but rather because numerous persons


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

This too:



Several Quick Arguments
That the Covenant of Works Is Not Gracious

Bill Baldwin



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The tide of Reformed opinion is that the covenant with Adam was somehow gracious. The grace enters in two places: 1) God was not bound to offer Adam any reward for his obedience but could have required such obedience from him without any reward. That God chose to offer a reward through a covenant is considered gracious. 2) The reward God offered is so out of proportion to the obedience required that the size of the reward constitutes a further act of grace.


A veritable All-Star team of Reformed heroes have subscribed to one or both of those points, asserting or implying grace in the covenant of works: William Ames [1], the Westminster Divines [2], Francis Turretin [3], John Owen [4], Thomas Boston [5], R. L. Dabney [6], John Murray [7], Louis Berkhof [8], Anthony Hoekema [9]. Only a handful -- e.g., Herman Witsius, Johannes Heidegger, Charles Hodge, Meredith G. Kline -- hold out against this tide. And Witsius does so after much agonizing. He knows what he's up against (see Appendix below).


In recent years we have begun reaping the whirlwind of the majority report's philosophical speculations. Daniel Fuller, pursuing these thoughts, has obliterated Scripture's antithesis between works and grace, replacing that sharp distinction with a continuum. Thus has the door been opened not only for introducing grace into works, but necessarily as well for introducing works into grace. A new history of redemption is being written in which Romans 11:6 lies on the cutting-room floor.


And quite ahead of his time, R. L. Dabney has been on record for over 100 years as denying that the work of Christ merited the salvation of his people:



Nor would we attach any force to the argument, that if Christ made penal satisfaction for the sins of all, justice would forbid any to be punished.... Christ's satisfaction is not a pecuniary equivalent, but only such a one as enables the Father, consistently with His attributes, to pardon, if in His mercy He sees fit.... There would be no injustice to the man, if he remaining an unbeliever, his guilt were punished twice over, first in his Savior, and then in Him. [10]

This is more than a rejection of an argument for limited atonement; this is a rejection of the gospel. And it flows quite naturally from the thought that the first Adam could not have merited God's favor except by some condescension on God's part. So Dabney maintains consistently that the second Adam could not have earned salvation by a "pecuniary equivalent" but that God accepts Christ's obedience as "in His mercy He sees fit." Dabney's statement is appalling; but observe this well: his crime is a foolish consistency that his theological forbears eschewed.


The chickens have come home to roost. These are the necessary theological brats of a theological speculation that thought it was only preserving the sovereignty and freedom of God. 


For the minority report to prevail we need to establish two points by way of refutation: 1) God is required to enter into covenant with any creature created in his image. 2) The reward of eternal life is not disproportionate. It is, in fact, the only just reward for fulfilling a covenant of works. Seven arguments are presented to establish those points -- the justice of God, the nature of sin, the light of nature, the purpose of man, the meaning of the Sabbath, the antithesis of grace and works, and the work of the second Adam. These headings suggest the seriousness with which this author views the error in question. Basic doctrines are at stake.


The Justice of God


If offending the infinite holiness of God merits hell, then pleasing an infinitely holy God merits heaven. God by nature must render to each man according to his deeds. We know that God is just and therefore will by no means clear the guilty (Exodus 34:7). God must punish sin or deny his own nature. By the same token, he must reward righteousness. Note Psalm 58:10,11: "The righteous shall rejoice when he sees the vengeance; He shall wash his feet in the blood of the wicked, so that men will say, 'Surely there is a reward for the righteous; Surely He is God who judges in the earth.'" It is God's judgment of the wicked that the Psalmist points to as proof that God also rewards righteousness. You can't have one without the other. For God to fail in rewarding righteousness would be as heinous as failing to punish sin. And if sin can only properly be punished by hell, then righteousness can only properly be rewarded by heaven.


The Nature of Sin


Sin presupposes covenant. Paul says, "Sin is not imputed where there is no law" (Romans 5:13). And John says, "Sin is the transgression of the law" (1 John 3:4). These are covenantal definitions of sin. Sin cannot be imputed apart from a covenant because sin by definition is the transgression of a covenant. Does anyone really wish to suggest, even hypothetically, that apart from covenant, Adam could have sinned without the guilt of that sin being imputed to him? Any sin is an offense against God which, as argued above, must be punished. But for the hypothetical man in a state of nature, nothing has been transgressed, so the sin is not imputed and therefore cannot be punished.


If we say that Adam was created in the image of God, we are saying he was created a morally responsible being. But he was not confirmed in righteousness and was therefore capable of sin. If sin is defined covenantally -- as in Scripture (above) and in the Westminster Standards as well (WSC #14; WLC #24; WCF IV.2) -- then the very fact that Adam was created capable of sinning proves that he was created in covenant with God. To speak of a man created apart from covenant is to speak of a creature without the image of God, with no moral capacity, who nonetheless looks and acts like a man. 


Sin, by it's nature, prevents the enjoyment of a sinless God. All who sin fall short of God's glory (Romans 3:23). Thus, those who don't sin do not fall short of God's glory. Otherwise Paul's statement makes no sense. Paul would simply be saying that we -- who by nature fall short of the glory of God -- also happen to fall short by sin as well. Understood correctly, the verse maintains that if Adam had not sinned he would necessarily have entered into God's glory, i.e. eternal life.


Summary: Adam was created in the image of God, but lapsably. Since he was capable of sinning, he must have been created in covenant with God because sin is impossible apart from covenant.


The Light of Nature


The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all who practice unrighteousness. Unbelievers therefore know the decree of God that those who practice such things deserve death. They have the work of the law written on their hearts (Rom 1:18,31; 2:15). The sanctions of the covenant of works are revealed in nature, hard-wired into creation itself. Adam would have known them apart from special revelation. How can the sanctions of the covenant be hard-wired into creation without the covenant being hard-wired as well?


Or look at it another way: Creation only reveals law, not grace. This is because creation reveals the nature of God but not his free decisions (excepting, obviously, the free decisions to create, what to create, and how to providentially care for it once it's been created). If God is under no obligation to grant a covenant of works to a creature in his image, then the decision to do so is not necessitated by his nature but according to his mere good pleasure. If that is so, then creation cannot reveal this covenant. But Paul says it does. Therefore the covenant must be necessitated by God's nature.


Man's Chief End (The Teleological Argument)


Man's chief end is to glorify God and to enjoy him forever (WSC #1). WLC #1 expands "... fully to enjoy him forever." But if the covenant of works is gracious, then God could theoretically create a man and give him no ability to fulfil his purpose. This would be capricious and unjust. If I said that God created porcupines to fly, it would rightly be pointed out that porcupines have no ability to fly and any reasonable definition of their purpose must take that into account. Assuming porcupines have not forfeited their right to fly, then flying cannot be their created purpose. The abilities of the porcupine determine the way in which it glorifies God. So if man's chief end is to glorify God and enjoy him forever, he must as originally constituted have had the means to fulfil his purpose. The logical implications of WSC #1 contradict the statement of WCF VII.1.


Geerhardus Vos is one Reformed theologian who saw this. Although he repeats the traditional "voluntary condescension" formula of WCF VII.1, he moves in the opposite direction when he speaks of the highest enjoyment of God in the state of eschatological confirmation as that "toward which [man] is disposed" by virtue of his creation in the image of God. He describes man's fulfillment of the covenant of works as a movement from the pre-eschatological, unconfirmed state to the eschatological, confirmed state in which the image of God in man is "brought out" and "extended." "In a certain sense [the image of God] must be extended, for in that he can still sin and die man is not God's image bearer "¦ With deep moral earnestness he is immediately directed not to his own bliss but to the honor of the Creator, and assigned a task so that, by completing it, he might enter the full enjoyment of his covenant God." [11]


The Meaning of the Sabbath


Hebrews 4:3a,4-6a:



For we who have believed do enter that rest.... For He has spoken in a certain place of the seventh day in this way: "And God rested on the seventh day from all His works;" and again in this place: "They shall not enter My rest." Since therefore it remains that some must enter it.... 

The passage's argument depends upon the notion that God, in resting on the seventh day, extended an offer of entry into that rest. The author invokes God's sabbatical rest, reminds us that "they" (i.e. unbelievers, cf. 3:19) were prohibited from entering, and concludes that some must enter it or the offer implicit in that sabbatical is a sham. God's resting on the seventh day constitutes an offer to Adam that he may fully enjoy God by entering into that same rest.


The question then arises on what condition that offer was extended. The structure of the creation story provides the answer. First God worked, then he rested. So Adam, being in the image of God and thus called to emulate God, must first work and then enter into rest. The heavenly archetype indicates the connection between Adam's labors and his eschatology. Hebrews 4:10 makes this connection explicit: "For the one who has entered His rest has himself also rested from his works, as God did from His." 


The Antithesis of Grace and Works


To speak of a continuum of grace and works is nonsense. Adam would have obtained his reward by works or by grace; there is no middle ground. Romans 11:6 says exactly this regarding election according to God's grace: "And if by grace, then it is no longer of works; otherwise grace is no longer grace." The Textus Receptus addition to this statement is probably an interpolation, but it is logically implied: "But if it is of works, it is no longer grace; otherwise work is no longer work." God either elects by grace or according to works, never by a combination. God rewards according to grace or works, not some mixture. If Adam was to be received into eternal life by grace, then the covenant with him was all of grace. But if it was of works, it was not in any sense by grace, or work is no longer work. Adam would have earned his entry into heaven, just as Paul says: "And to the one who works, wages are counted as debt" (Romans 4:4). There can be no talk here of grace, even of God graciously offering the covenant when he didn't have to, or of offering more reward than was necessary. Then the wages are debt only because God has chosen to obligate himself (in which sense even our reward in Christ must be counted as debt and there is no longer any distinction between the method of entry into life offered to Adam and to us.)


The Work of the Second Adam


If the first Adam couldn't have merited heaven, then the second one didn't. As Meredith Kline points out, "The parallel which Scripture tells us exists between the two Adams would require the conclusion that if the first Adam could not earn anything, neither could the second. But, if the obedience of Jesus has no meritorious value, the foundation of the gospel is gone." [12]


Without the assurance that Christ earned our salvation, that he paid our debt, we are robbed of the comfort of the gospel. 1 John 1:9 joins Romans 11:6 on the cutting-room floor: "If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins." John not only invokes the covenant faithfulness of God to keep his promises; he says the justice of God demands our forgiveness because Christ has already paid the penalty. This is exactly what Dabney denies in the quote above. Romans 8:34 also fails to make the team: "Who is he who condemns? It is Christ who died...." We can take no comfort from that thought unless the death of Christ on our behalf must turn aside the condemning wrath of God. Paul, in pointing to that death as the removal of condemnation, assures us that it must. 


Remember your history: Reformed theologians understood the covenantal framework of the work of Christ long before they understood that Romans 5 therefore meant that Adam was in covenant as well. Follow their lead and finish what they began, understanding the work of Adam through the work of Christ. If Christ merited eternal life, so Adam -- as originally constituted -- might have done as well. 


This is exactly what Charles Hodge argued:



Sometimes [the word condition] means the meritorious consideration on the ground of which certain benefits are bestowed. In this sense perfect obedience was the condition of the covenant originally made with Adam. Had he retained his integrity he would have merited the promised blessing. For to him that worketh the reward is not of grace but of debt. In the same sense the work of Christ is the condition of the covenant of redemption. It was the meritorious ground, laying a foundation in justice for the fulfillment of the promises made to Him by the Father. [13]

I hope the reader has begun to see what's at stake in speaking of grace in the covenant of works: God is no longer just; sin no longer requires punishment; the image of God has no moral component; God in brute and capricious force could create man for an impossible purpose; grace and works become confused so that we not only speak of grace in the covenant of works but works in the covenant of grace and thus return to the Tridentine errors of Rome; and the sacrifice of Christ itself avails only because God decides to let it. These blasphemies against God and this shambles of the gospel must appall every believer. And rejecting them, we must reject the root from which they spring.





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

APPENDIX


The following quotes attempt to show that, although a minority, there were some Reformed theologians who recognized that God's offer to man of a way whereby he might attain the higher state of an eternal, unforfeitable enjoyment of God, was not a purely voluntary act that might have been omitted, but something rooted in God's goodness and justice.


Herman Witsius [14]



This therefore is settled; God promised to Adam eternal life. But here it may be and is usually asked whence this promise flows, whether from the mere good pleasure of the divine will, so that God would have acted nowise unworthy of himself, had he made no such promise to man: or, whether God's making the covenant with man in this manner was from the divine nature, and from what was suitable to it? Here indeed, I think, we are to be modest; I shall therefore propose, what I imagine I know, or may reasonably think or believe concerning God, with fear and trembling. O my God, grant that what I shall speak on this point may be managed with a holy awe, and in a manner becoming thy majesty!

And first, I lay this down as an acknowledged truth, that God owes nothing to his creature. By no claim, no law is he bound to reward it. For all that the creature is, it owes entirely to God; both because he created it, and also, because he is infinitely exalted above it. But where there is so great a disparity, there is no common standard of right, by which the superior in dignity, can become under an obligation to give any reward, Rom. xi.35, 36 "¦


Whatever then is promised to the creature by God, ought all to be ascribed to the immense goodness of the Deity. Finely to this purpose speaks Augustine, serm. xvi. On the words of the apostle, "God became our debtor, not be receiving any thing, but by promising what he pleased. For, it was of his own bounty that he vouchsafed to make himself a debtor." But as this goodness is natural to God, no less than holiness and justice; and equally becoming God to act, agreeably to his goodness, with a holy and innocent creature; so, from this consideration of the divine goodness, I imagine the following things may be very plainly inferred.


1st. That it is unbecoming the goodness, I had almost ventured to add, and the justice of God, to adjudge an innocent creature to hell torments. A paradox which not only some scholastic divines, but, which I am very sorry to say, a great divine of our own, with a few followers, scrupled not to maintain. Be it far from us, to presume to circumscribe the extensive power of God over his creatures, by the limits of a right prescribed to us, or by the fallacious reasoning of a narrow understanding. But be it also far from us, to ascribe any thing to him which is unbecoming his immense goodness and unspotted justice "¦ And I own, I was struck with horror, when I observed the most subtle Twiss, in order to defend this paradox, choose rather to maintain, it were better to be eternally miserable, and endure the torments of hell, than not to exist at all "¦ To what length is not even the most prudent hurried, when he gives too much way to his own speculations? "¦


2dly. Nor can God on account of his goodness, refuse to communicate himself to, or give the enjoyment of himself to, an innocent, an holy creature, or to love and favour it, in the most tender manner, while it has a being, and continues pure according to its condition. For, a holy creature is God's very image. But God loves himself in the most ardent manner, as being the chief good: which he would not be, unless he loved himself above all. It therefore follows, he must also love his own image, in which he has expressed, to the life, himself, and what is most amiable in him, his own holiness. With what shew of decency could he command the other creatures to love such as are holy, did he himself not judge them amiable? Or, if he judged them so, how is it possible, he should not love them himself?


Further, God does not love in vain. It is the character of a lover, to wish well to, and to do all the good in his power to the object of his love. But in the good will of God, consists both the soul's life and welfare. And as nothing can hinder his actually doing well by those whom he wishes well to: it follows, that a holy creature, which he necessarily loves from the goodness of his nature, must also enjoy the fruits and effects of that divine love.


Besides, it is the nature of love to seek union and communion with the beloved. He does not love in reality, who desires not to communicate himself to the object of his affection. But, every one communicates himself such as he is. God, therefore, being undoubtedly happy, makes the creature, whom he loves and honours with the communion of himself, a partaker of his happiness "¦ 


The same thing may be demonstrated in another manner, and if I mistake not, incontestably as follows: The sum of the divine commands is thus: "Love me above all things; that is, look upon me as thy only chief good; hunger and thirst after me; place the whole of thy happiness in me alone; seek me above all, and nothing besides me, but so far as it has a relation to me." But how is it conceivable, that God should thus speak to the soul, and the soul should religiously attend to, and diligently perform this, and yet never enjoy God? Is it becoming the most holy and excellent Being, to say to his pure unspotted creature, (such as we now suppose it), "Look upon me as thy chief good; but know, I neither am nor ever shall be such to thee. Long after me, but on condition [of] never obtaining thy desire; hunger and thirst after me, but only to be forever disappointed, and never satisfied; seek me above all things, but seek me in vain, who am never to be found"? He does not know God, who can image that such things are worthy of him.


After all, if it cannot be inferred from the very nature of the divine goodness, that God gives himself to be enjoyed by a holy creature, proportionable to its state; it is possible, notwithstanding the goodness of God, that the more holy a creature is, the more miserable. Which I prove thus: the more holy any one is, he loves God with greater intenseness of all his powers; the more he loves, the more he longs, hungers, and thirsts, after him; the more intense the hunger and thirst, the more intolerable the pain, unless he finds wherewith to be satisfied. If therefore, this thirst be great to the highest degree, the want of what is so ardently desired, will cause an incredible pain. Whence I infer, that God cannot, consistent with his goodness, refuse to grant to his holy creature the communion of himself "¦


And this is the proper question: whether the promise of eternal life, to be entered upon by all after a complete course of obedience, flows from the natural goodness of God, or, whether it is of free and liberal good pleasure? Indeed, I know not, whether the safest course be not to suspend the decision of this, till coming to see God face to face, we shall attain to a fuller knowledge of all his perfections, and more clearly discern what is worthy of them. 


For, on the one hand, it appears to me hard to affirm, and somewhat too bold, for any one obstinately to insist, that it would have been unbecoming God and his perfections, to enter into covenant with man in this manner: namely, "If thou keepest my commands, thou shalt certainly have my favour and most endearing love, I will not only save thee from all uneasiness, but also load thee with every benefit, and even bless thee with the communion of myself; till having performed thy part, and being amply enough rewarded, I shall at length say, 'Now return to that nothing out of which thou was created, and my will is, that this my last command be no less cheerfully obeyed than the others, lest thou forfeit by this last act of disobedience, all the praise of thy former obedience.'" Has the creature any cause to complain of such a stipulation? Nay, rather, may it not give him joy, since it is far better to have existed for a few ages in a state of holiness and happiness, than never to have existed at all?


On the other hand, I can scarce satisfy myself in my attempts to remove some difficulties. For since (as we before proved) God does, by virtue of his natural goodness, most ardently love a holy creature, as the living image of himself, how can this his goodness destroy that image, and undo his own work? Is it good unto thee that thou shouldst despise the work of thine hands without deserving such treatment? Job x.3. If it was good, and for the glory of God, to have made a creature to glorify himself, will it be good, and for the glory of God, to annihilate that creature, who thus glorifies him? And thus in fact to say, thou shalt not glorify me for ever? Besides, as God himself has created the most intense desire of eternity in the soul, and at the same time, has commanded it to be carried out towards himself, as its eternal good, is it becoming God to frustrate such a desire, commanded and excited by God himself? Further, we have said, it was a contradiction, to suppose God addressing himself to a holy soul in the manner following: "Hunger after me, but thou shalt not enjoy me." Yet in the moment we conceive the holy creature just sinking into annihilation, it would in consequence of that divine command hunger and thirst after God, without any hope of ever enjoying him again. Unless we would choose to affirm, that God at length should say to that soul, "Cease longing for me any more, acquiesce in this instance of my supreme dominion, by which I order thee to return to nothing." But I own it surpasses my comprehension, how it is possible a holy creature should not be bound to consider God as its supreme good, and consequently pant after the enjoyment of him.


Lord Jehovah, how little do we poor miserable mortals know of thy Supreme Deity, and incomprehensible perfections! How far short do our thoughts come about thee, who art infinite or immense in they being, thy attributes, thy sovereignty over the creatures! What mortal can take upon him to set bounds to this thy sovereignty, where thou dost not lead the way! Lord, we know that thou art indebted to none, and that there is none who can say to thee, what dost thou, or why dost thou so? That thou art also holy, and infinitely good, and therefore a lover and rewarder of holiness. May the consciousness of our ignorance in other things kindle in our hearts an ineffable desire of that beatific vision, by which, knowing as we are known, we may in the abyss of thy infinity behold those things which no thought of ours at present can reach. 


Johannes Heidegger [15]



The further question now arises as to the source from which flows the promise mentioned of eternal and heavenly life for man, if he fulfills the law. Is it of the sheer eudokia and judgment (arbitrium) of the divine will, or of theoprepeia of the virtues proper to God's nature, such as principally His goodness and holiness? Those who affirm the former rely on the principle that God is free either to present the innocent creature with life or to annihilate, punish, torture it eternally. This is the hypothesis of most Scholastics. Our view then must clearly be that it becomes God to return the love of the creature who loves Him, and that since a loving God cannot not wish and do well to one beloved, He must give and impart Himself entire to be enjoyed. Love is an affect of conjunction; as proceeding from Himself, God cannot fail to approve it as good or to desert it as bad.





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NOTES


[1] William Ames: "In this covenant the moral deeds of the intelligent creature lead either to happiness as a reward or to unhappiness as a punishment. The latter is deserved, the former not." The Marrow of Theology, translation and introduction by John Dykstra Eusden (Durham, NC: The Labyrinth Press, 1968; originally published, 1629), Book One, ch. X, Â§11, p. 111. 


[2] WCF VII.1: "The distance between God and the creature is so great, that although reasonable creatures do owe obedience unto him as their Creator, yet they could never have any fruition of Him as their blessedness and reward, but by some voluntary condescension on God's part, which he hath been pleased to express by way of covenant." But see WLC #1 and #24, and especially WCF IV.2 for indications that the Divines believed or implied that Adam was created in covenant with God. The Westminster Standards are a human document and from time to time contradict themselves. E.g. they suggest that the covenant of grace is with the elect in one place (WLC #31) and in another with the visible church (WLC #166). I think we must recognize some tension in the Standards respecting the present discussion as well.


[3] Francis Turretin: "By his own right, God could indeed have prescribed obedience to man (created by him) without any promise of reward. But in order to temper that supreme dominion with goodness, he added a covenant consisting in the promise of a reward and the stipulation of obedience "¦ If therefore upright man in that state had obtained this merit, it must not be understood properly and rigorously. Since man has all things from and owes all to God, he can seek from him nothing as his own by right, nor can God be a debtor to him -- not by condignity of work and from its intrinsic value (because whatever that may be, it can bear no proportion to the infinite reward of life), but from the pact and the liberal promise of God." Institutes of Elenctic Theology, vol. 1, translation by George Musgrave Giger, ed. James T. Dennison, Jr. (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1992; originally published, 1679-85), Eighth Topic, Third Question, pp. 574-78.


[4] John Owen: "[A]lthough the promises wherewith man was encouraged unto obedience, which was that of eternal life with God, did in strict justice exceed the worth of the obedience required, and so was a superadded effect of goodness and grace, yet was it suited unto the constitution of a covenant meet for man to serve God in unto his glory." An Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews, vol. 2 (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1991; originally published, 1854), p. 337. Sinclair Ferguson comments, "In other words Owen teaches that there is the grace of promise even in the covenant of works, although it is not the covenant of grace "¦ [E]ven if a man were to keep the covenant of works, he would acquire no merit." Ferguson, John Owen on the Christian Life (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1987), p. 23.


[5] Thomas Boston: "It was certainly an act of grace, favour, and admirable condescension in God, to enter into a covenant, and such a covenant, with His own creature. Man was not at his own, but at God's disposal, nor had he any thing to work with but what he had received from God. There was no proportion between the work and the promised reward." Human Nature in its Fourfold State (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1964; originally published, 1720), pp. 48-49.


[6] R. L. Dabney: "God's act in entering into a covenant with Adam, if it be substantiated, will be found to be one of pure grace and condescension. He might justly have held him always under his natural relationship; and Adam's obedience, however long continued, would not have brought God into his debt for the future. Thus, his holiness being mutable, his blessedness would always have hung in suspense. God, therefore, moved by pure grace, condescended to establish a covenant with His holy creature, in virtue of which a temporary obedience might be graciously accepted as a ground for God's communicating Himself to him, and assuring him ever after of holiness, happiness, and communion with God. Here then is the point of osculation [kissing] between the covenant of works, and the covenant of grace, the law and the Gospel. Both offer a plan of free justification, by which a righteousness should be accepted, in covenant, to acquire for the creature more than he could strictly claim of God "¦ In both, there was free grace; in both a justification unto life; in both, a gracious bestowal of more than man had earned." Syllabus and Notes of the Course of Systematic and Polemic Theology, Lecture XLIII (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1985; originally published 1871), p. 302.


[7] John Murray: "The term [covenant of works] is not felicitous, for the reason that the elements of grace entering into the administration are not properly provided for by the term 'works' "¦ From the promise of the Adamic administration we must dissociate all notions of meritorious reward. The promise of confirmed integrity and blessedness was one annexed to an obedience that Adam owed and, therefore was a promise of grace. All that Adam could have claimed on the basis of equity was justification and life as long as he perfectly obeyed, but not confirmation so as to insure indefectibility. Adam could claim the fulfilment of the promise if he stood the probation, but only on the basis of God's faithfulness, not on the basis of justice. God is debtor to his own faithfulness." Collected Writings of John Murray, vol. 2 (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1977), pp. 49, 56.


[8] Louis Berkhof: "Even if [Adam] did all that was required of him, he would still have to say, I am but an unprofitable servant, for I have merely done that which it was my duty to do. Under this purely natural relationship man could not have merited anything "¦ In addition to the natural relationship He, by a positive enactment, graciously established a covenant relationship." Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), p. 215.


[9] Anthony Hoekema: "The idea of calling this arrangement a covenant of works does not do justice to the elements of grace that entered into this 'Adamic administration.' For, though it is true that Adam and Eve were to receive the blessing of continued life in fellowship with God along the path of 'works' (that is, by perfect obedience to God's commands), it by no means follows that they would by such obedience earn or merit this continued fellowship, understood by many to include everlasting life. God was indeed entitled to perfect obedience from his human creatures; he was not obligated, however, to give them a reward for such obedience. That he promised (by implication) to give man such a reward must be understood as a gift of God's grace." Created in God's Image (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986), p. 119.


[10] R. L. Dabney, Systematic and Polemic Theology, p. 521.


[11] Geerhardus Vos, "The Doctrine of the Covenant in Reformed Theology," in Redemptive History and Biblical Interpretation, ed. Richard B. Gaffin, Jr. (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1980), pp. 244-45.


[12] Meredith G. Kline, "Covenant Theology Under Attack." 


[13] Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, vol. 2 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993; originally published, 1872-73), pp. 364-65.


[14] Herman Witsius, The Economy of the Covenants, vol. 1, translation by Crookshank (Escondido, CA: The den Dulk Christian Foundation, 1990), pp. 76-82.


[15] Quoted in Heppe, Reformed Dogmatics, p. 296.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

You may also want to check Owen. He has lots to say on it. He uses the term over 400 times.

[quote:6aa1ac5b2e]The whole entire nature of the covenant of works consisted in this, ""
that upon our personal obedience, according unto the law and rule of it, we
should be accepted with God, and rewarded with him. Herein the essence
of it did consist; and whatever covenant proceeds on these terms, or has
the nature of them in it, however it may be varied with additions or
alterations, is the same covenant still, and not another. As in the
renovation of the promise wherein the essence of the covenant of grace
was contained, God did ofttimes make other additions unto it (as unto
Abraham and David), yet was it still the same covenant for the substance
of it, and not another; so whatever variations may be made in, or additions
unto, the dispensation of the first covenant, so long as this rule is retained,
"œDo this, and live," it is still the same covenant for the substance and
essence of it.[/quote:6aa1ac5b2e]


----------



## fredtgreco

Ok, listen closely, for you will barely ever hear this from me:

Don't go to Owen here. His treatment of the Covenant of Works, while good at points, is flawed by his "missing the mark" on Sinai. Ironically, Owen does not take his position to its logical extension. If he did, he would be an antinomian!

For more regularly scheduled programming, I would have to disagree with Matthew in his endorsement of Kline. While being beneficial at points, his analysis is fundamentally flawed by his penchant for the odd. Examples:
Kline believes there was death before the fall
Kline believes there was animal sacrifices to God before the Fall (for what, I have no idea?)
Kline is INCREDIBLY weak on the decalogue, especially the 4th commandment.

He is not a place to START. You may review him, but if you use him as a starting point, be aware that the vast majority of orthodoxy reformed theologians (Calvin, Berkhof, etc) disagree with him on major issues. If you can't tell, I'm not a big Kline fan.


----------



## Areopagus

Fred,

I tend to lean towards your analysis of Kline. I've read much from him on www.mongerism.com. So far I've enjoyed Edwards and Packer the most. However, Edwards doesn't seem to be a suppoter of the system now called Covenant Theology. He seems to simplify them rather than systematize them. I've enjoyed what he has had to say on the idea of a Covenant of Works. I'll look into the 2 references you suggested.

Matt (Web),

You write a lot.  I say that not because of your last two posts of pasted work, but because of your own original writings on this site. I appreciate all of your hard work, time, and effort. I have gleaned much from your desire to serve God.

I'm still digging through the stuff from Witsius. I thoroughly examine everything. Also, I adore the WCF. I read it often. It's brilliant. So, thank you for suggesting it.

I'll keep looking and studying.

Humbly,

Dustin...


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

Fred, I also agree with what you said about Kline not being the starting point. Also, I agree on his flakeyness with certain points. But he does have some good things to say about "covenant" in general.

Owen is good if you read what is surrounding the CoW in terms of ADAM. (Which was Dustin's question).

There is not much out on the web as a whole on this issue in what he is looking for.


----------



## Areopagus

Fred, Matthew, et al,

Donald Macleod says:

[quote:58ece5422d]The Adamic covenant

First of all, there is the Adamic covenant. God laid before the first man certain stipulations. In particular, He announced that if Adam ate a certain fruit he would face death. This is a rather peculiar covenant because, in essence, it is not so much a conditional promise as a conditional threat. God tells Adam, `If you eat of it you will surely die' (Genesis 2:17). But enfolded within this there was total security for mankind because man knew that provided he observed this one condition he was secure with God. Bear in mind all the elements of grace: the abundance of God's provision for man in terms of all the other fruit of the garden and the ability God had given man to keep His covenant. Provided man avoided this one fruit he would continue not only to exist but to exist in fellowship with God. God did not say to man, `The day you eat this fruit you will cease to exist.' He said, `If you eat this fruit then you will cease to live', that is, `in fellowship with Me.' In other words, God was giving man a solemn promise that if he avoided this one fruit then he would continue to enjoy forever this stable, loving, rich relationship with God. Man, as we know, under the devil's promptings, violated God's conditions and came under the operation of God's threat. He lost all; but he lost it covenantally. He lost it despite the tenderness and generosity of God's stipulation, despite the abundant provision of grace by which to comply with the stipulation and despite knowing exactly where he stood with God.

Some people have enormous trouble with this because they find the whole notion of a covenant of works distasteful. But it is clear beyond a doubt that the reason why man was expelled from the garden was his disobedience. There is nothing whatever inherently improper in a covenant of works. Our very salvation rests on the obedience of the Last Adam and that obedience was compliance with a covenant of works. Christ saved us by finishing the work given to Him to do (John 17:4). He was `obedient unto death' (Philippians 2:8). `By the obedience of one shall many be made righteous' (Romans 5:19). There were, indeed, gracious elements in the Adamic covenant. But we must accept that the primary relation between God and man is a relationship of works and obedience. That has never been abrogated. It is still true that the man who does the things contained in the law shall live by them. More important, it is still true that Christ saved us by putting His own personal obedience over against Adam's disobedience.

[/quote:58ece5422d]

I can actually agree with this idea. I have no issues at all (not that my issues would matter :bs2: ). 

Let me ask though:

1. Why must we call this a covenant when Scripture is silent here? In other words, God is obvious about every other covenant, but this one? And just because we can say it implies, or has qualities of a covenant, does this mean that it is one?

2. Is not the "probationary period" assumed into the text? It seems, to me, to be pure conjecture.

In Him,

Dustin...


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

[quote:0a08299bfe]1. Why must we call this a covenant when Scripture is silent here?[/quote:0a08299bfe]

The stipulations and results reflect God's covenantal work. Having a template (seen throughout the bible) on "what is a covenant?" gives us the proper framework to understand the account in Genesis. If Christ is second Adam "working" for our salvation (for example) so is Adam.

But it is the NATURE of "covenant" that really helps us to understand "covenant" in the Genesis account.

[quote:0a08299bfe]In other words, God is obvious about every other covenant, but this one? [/quote:0a08299bfe]

Sometimes, for different reasons, God is not necessarily as explicit as we would like him to be. For example, God did not have Christ simply say, "I am God - the eternal God of the universe here in the flesh". That would have been nice. But sometimes (many times) God wants us to pick at His mind revealed in the Scriptures. Just because something is harder or more difficult to understand (say like the Trinity over the healing of a blind man) that does not mean one is less authoritative or true than the other. just think - if God had simply made everything "perfectly" plain (as it will be in heaven) we would have no need of "teachers" or "pastors" or "apostles" or "prophets" through the history of the church to teach us these things. God has chosen to reveal some things easily, and other things very obscurely - but no less true.

[quote:0a08299bfe]And just because we can say it implies, or has qualities of a covenant, does this mean that it is one? [/quote:0a08299bfe]

Yes, but not simply based on that fact, but others as well (i.e. the work of Christ as well).

[quote:0a08299bfe]2. Is not the "probationary period" assumed into the text? It seems, to me, to be pure conjecture. [/quote:0a08299bfe]

If we were to ask - did God know the fall would take place? Of course he did. Did he ordain it? Of course he did. If He did ordain it, then that time period was not intended to las t"eternally" so to speak. Adam was going to fall, and he was going to fall based on God's decree. That time period, covenantally, was probationary because it was a time period in which Adam could the obey or disobey. Probation is simply a term used to talk about the period of time in which those two choices could take place.

I would not agree with the above paragraph that Adam was given "grace" as we normally define it. Grace is ALWAYS associated with Christ, and is only used ONE TIME in all of Scripture to refer to a non-salvific covenantal time (in Luke's reference in reference to Christ growing up "growing in grace"). Otherwise, grace is always associated with salvation. With Adam, it was not associated with salvation as grace, but work. Which is why the distinction between the work that Adam did not do, and the work that Christ did do divides FOR US the covenant of works (that we are born under) and the CoR and CoG that we are saved by.


----------



## Areopagus

Matthew,

You say:

[quote:770ea6f524]The stipulations and results reflect God's covenantal work. Having a template (seen throughout the bible) on "what is a covenant?" gives us the proper framework to understand the account in Genesis. If Christ is second Adam "working" for our salvation (for example) so is Adam. 

But it is the NATURE of "covenant" that really helps us to understand "covenant" in the Genesis account. 
[/quote:770ea6f524]

I agree. And in light of Hosea 6:7, it seems explicitly clear that God did have a covenant with Adam, albeit sovereignly declared vs. synergistic, in the Garden.

You say:

[quote:770ea6f524]Sometimes, for different reasons, God is not necessarily as explicit as we would like him to be. For example, God did not have Christ simply say, "I am God - the eternal God of the universe here in the flesh". That would have been nice. But sometimes (many times) God wants us to pick at His mind revealed in the Scriptures. Just because something is harder or more difficult to understand (say like the Trinity over the healing of a blind man) that does not mean one is less authoritative or true than the other. just think - if God had simply made everything "perfectly" plain (as it will be in heaven) we would have no need of "teachers" or "pastors" or "apostles" or "prophets" through the history of the church to teach us these things. God has chosen to reveal some things easily, and other things very obscurely - but no less true. 
[/quote:770ea6f524]

I agree.

You say:

[quote:770ea6f524]If we were to ask - did God know the fall would take place? Of course he did. Did he ordain it? Of course he did. If He did ordain it, then that time period was not intended to las t"eternally" so to speak. Adam was going to fall, and he was going to fall based on God's decree. That time period, covenantally, was probationary because it was a time period in which Adam could the obey or disobey. Probation is simply a term used to talk about the period of time in which those two choices could take place. 
[/quote:770ea6f524]

Matthew, this seems like an equivocation. Especially where you say that this was all decreed, ordained, etc. Suddenly though, you switch and say that "it was a time period in which Adam could obey or disobey." Can you elaborate?

I'm not going to address the last paragraph because I don't think whether there was grace in the CoW is critical to my embracing it, as of yet. 

Humbly,

Dustin...


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

[quote:58e6af8b28]Matthew, this seems like an equivocation. Especially where you say that this was all decreed, ordained, etc. Suddenly though, you switch and say that "it was a time period in which Adam could obey or disobey." Can you elaborate? [/quote:58e6af8b28]

I am definitely not trying to avoid committing myself to what I mean. The relationship between God's decree and man's will is an important topic in and of itself.

God ordained the fall. Scripturally I think we both can agree that our God is in the heavens, he doth whatsoever He pleases. We know that even evil acts are [i:58e6af8b28]ordained [/i:58e6af8b28]by Him - (Acts 4, Herod and Pontious Pilate killed Christ by God's ordination). That does not mean the will of the creature (the mind choosing) was [i:58e6af8b28]violated[/i:58e6af8b28]. God so [u:58e6af8b28]manipulated [/u:58e6af8b28]the situation that Herod and Pilate chose to follow their will and God's decreed will [i:58e6af8b28]even though they disobeyed His preceptive will[/i:58e6af8b28].

With Adam, this is not different. Adam chose to disobey. He could have chosen to live righteously, and thrashed the devil right there. At that point, the Devil would have been given over to eschatological judgment that we currently wait for. However, instead, he chose to sin. [b:58e6af8b28]God [/b:58e6af8b28]so set the [b:58e6af8b28]circumstances [/b:58e6af8b28]that [i:58e6af8b28]Adam chose[/i:58e6af8b28], according to his current desire, [i:58e6af8b28]out of his own heart[/i:58e6af8b28], which was directed ultimately by God and secondary causes, [i:58e6af8b28]to sin[/i:58e6af8b28]. God decreed Adam's sin yet he chose according to his own desire? Absolutely - no equivocation there at all. I'm committed to that.

Adam sinned by his own volition, but God did not violate his heart - which is the erroneous doctrine of [i:58e6af8b28]equal ultimacy [/i:58e6af8b28]where God CREATES evil in Adam's heart. That is complete [i:58e6af8b28]nonsense[/i:58e6af8b28]. Rather, providence dictates the outcome, but will use the desires, so manipulated by God's providence, to [b:58e6af8b28]enact [/b:58e6af8b28]a given outcome.

If you want to get into that, which is a great topic, I would start with Calvin's work, "Calvin's Calvinism". It is a treatise Calvin wrote against Pighius and Georgias on God's decree and His secret providence. It is an excellent treatment of this subject, and its [b:58e6af8b28]free [/b:58e6af8b28]online. (But beware of the text - there are spelling errors and so forth).

http://www.reformed.org/documents/calvin/calvin_predestination.html

[quote:58e6af8b28]I'm not going to address the last paragraph because I don't think whether there was grace in the CoW is critical to my embracing it, as of yet[/quote:58e6af8b28]

OK.


----------



## Me Died Blue

Matt, the philosophical explanation you give above for the perfect co-existence of God's sovereign providence and man's honest free agency in thinking and acting is likewise the explanation that seems biblical to me, and is how I've always explained it to people. However, often I get a negative response wherein people say that it's abominable to depict God as "a mighty manipulator" per se, and that to do so would be against His character. They say that each of us can testify to the fact that we don't like being manipulated. I usually respond by saying that God and other people are quite different, but they still object that God is not "genuine" per se in doing so, and that it's contrary to good character. At that point, all I know to say is, "Well, that's what God does in Scripture, and unlike other humans, He is all-wise so that His manupulation shouldn't be viewed in the same negative way as humans." How do you respond when fellow-Christians would be comfortable with providence in all other respects, but squirm when it gets to this idea of God as a manipulator?

And Dustin, I realize that you're not inquiring about the Covenant of Works as being gracious or not at this point, but I'm just going to say this for anyone who's reading this thread in general. As I see it, a key danger in speaking of even a hint of grace in the Covenant of Works is that man failed to attain life through that initial covenant - so if it was partially gracious, what does that say about the nature and efficacy of God's grace? (And we can't just attribute the same nature to it that we do to common grace, since by definition it would be covenant grace.) If God's covenantal grace was part of the Covenant of Works, and yet we still failed to attain life through it, what grounds do we have for knowing that the Covenant of Grace will not also fail to bring us life?

Another danger in introducing grace into the Covenant of Works made with the first Adam is that it would logically follow that the Covenant of Works made with Christ was also gracious, and thus Christ's perfect obedience would in fact not be necessary to secure our redemption in Him. At that point, the doctrine of imputation begins to get muddied, and we approach the whole realm of the New Perspective and Auburn theology, and eventually the Roman doctrine of infusion. I hope it's clear why the nature of the Covenant of Works is ultimately so foundational to the root of our thinking about redemption, even if we often take it for granted.


----------



## Areopagus

Matthew,

Thank you for the clarification on what seemed an equivocation. Now that you elaborate, I see that we see eye to eye. Hopefully you can see how I might have misinterpreted your first remarks.

Me Died Blue,

I'm not sure what to think about your post. Honestly, while I don't find it necessary to label the events in the Garden a "Covenant of Works," nor do I find it necessary to adhere to the system called Covenant Theology, I do see eye to eye (at least thus far) with what has been discussed today. So, while you might say, [i:66179db390]Yessir, Dustin is now a supporter of the Covenant of Works[/i:66179db390], you would also have to recognize that there is still much to work through. 

For instance, your speaking of grace or no grace in the events in the Garden. From everything I've read, Covenant people are split on this issue, and quite a few others. So, I have no right to act as though I understand whether in your system there was grace or not. Personally, I see grace overarching all that transpires because God has predestined the beginning and the end. The event you call the Covenant of Works, which so far I agree with, seems like it could not be divorced from the chronology. While one covenant (the "Covenant of Grace") may not have been actuated, it was still interwoven into the entirety. Am I way off?

In Him,

Dustin...


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

[quote:4d40a4b9fb]How do you respond when fellow-Christians would be comfortable with providence in all other respects, but squirm when it gets to this idea of God as a manipulator? [/quote:4d40a4b9fb]

Their idea and God's idea of manipulation are two very different things. They think manipulation is a bad thing when it comes from men who are trying to get their way. This is NOT the way God utilizes providence (which is why we do not say "The Manipulation of God" but rather, "The Providence of God.")

They need to accpe tht efact that God REALLY is sovereign in every way, bar none. Otherwise they are still falling into an Arminian Schematic (howbeit ever so mild) that allows men to be "more free" than God allows them in this sense of the word.

I like to take them to passages like this:

Genesis 20:5-6 "Did he not say to me, 'She is my sister'? And she, even she herself said, 'He is my brother.' In the integrity of my heart and innocence of my hands I have done this." 6 And God said to him in a dream, "[b:4d40a4b9fb]Yes, I know that you did this in the integrity of your heart. For I also withheld you from sinning against Me; [u:4d40a4b9fb]therefore I [/u:4d40a4b9fb]did not let you touch her[/b:4d40a4b9fb]."

1 Kings 22:32-33 So it was, when the captains of the chariots saw Jehoshaphat, that they said, "Surely it is the king of Israel!" Therefore they turned aside to fight against him, and Jehoshaphat cried out. 33 And it happened, when the captains of the chariots saw that it was not the king of Israel, [b:4d40a4b9fb]that they turned back [/b:4d40a4b9fb]from pursuing him."

etc.

Dustin,

[quote:4d40a4b9fb]Hopefully you can see how I might have misinterpreted your first remarks.[/quote:4d40a4b9fb] 

Sure, no problem.


----------



## Me Died Blue

[quote:251482be91="Areopagus"]The event you call the Covenant of Works, which so far I agree with, seems like it could not be divorced from the chronology. While one covenant (the "Covenant of Grace") may not have been actuated, it was still interwoven into the entirety. Am I way off?[/quote:251482be91]

As traditional Covenant Theology understands it, the Covenant of Grace did not even start until after the Fall. It is essentially the covenant through which we gain the favor and benefits that Christ gained from the Father through their Covenant of Works.

God made the Covenant of Works with Adam first, and then with Christ. Both of these men represented their people in their time (Adam's people being his natural descendants, Christ's people being the elect, His bride). Adam was our first representative, and could attain God's favor through perfect obedience. Christ was our second representative, and could likewise attain God's favor through perfect obedience. In those covenants, there was no grace - both Adam and Christ had to have perfect obedience in order to keep the Covenant of Works with God.

The key difference in the two CoW's is that Christ's Covenant of Works was accompanied by a new covenant, the Covenant of Grace. This is not an introduction of grace [i:251482be91]into[/i:251482be91] the Covenant of Works, but rather it is a separate covenant that serves alongside it, to link and impart to us its benefits rightly earned by Christ. The CoW made with Adam was not accompanied by a second, gracious covenant as such. So in conclusion, there are two things I see as primarily distinguishing Adam's CoW from Christ's Cow: 1) Christ is God and thus is perfectly certain and trustworthy to keep His Covenant of Works, unlike Adam, and 2) Christ's obedience to the Covenant of Works is freely granted to us as well through a linking covenant called the Covenant of Grace, whereas Adam's obedience to the CoW was not accompanied with a free link to us as such, but was perpetually conditional upon his descendants' obedience to it as well.


----------



## Areopagus

MDB,

Yes, but aren't the covenants covered under the sovereign plan of God, i.e. Covenant of Redemption? In other words, although not yet actuated, wasn't the Covenant of Grace already ordained, just not yet in motion? 

You say:

[quote:6d91d37611]God made the Covenant of Works with Adam first, and then with Christ.[/quote:6d91d37611]

But didn't the Triune God sovereignly decide this in eternity past? 

You say:

[quote:6d91d37611]Adam was our first representative, and could attain God's favor through perfect obedience[/quote:6d91d37611]

Theoretically. Realistically, however, no law could lead to life (Gal. 3). Adam's fate, and consequently, our fate, was already predestined. 

You say:

[quote:6d91d37611]In those covenants, there was no grace - both Adam and Christ had to have perfect obedience in order to keep the Covenant of Works with God. 
[/quote:6d91d37611]

Isn't this also semantics? While I agree that in the specific performance, or lack thereof where Adam is concerned, there was no grace involved because the actual work was demanded for merit, wasn't grace always the end of the means?

You say:

[quote:6d91d37611]The key difference in the two CoW's is that Christ's Covenant of Works was accompanied by a new covenant, the Covenant of Grace. This is not an introduction of grace into the Covenant of Works, but rather it is a separate covenant that serves alongside it, to link and impart to us its benefits rightly earned by Christ. The CoW made with Adam was not accompanied by a second, gracious covenant as such. [/quote:6d91d37611]

I notice things here:

[b:6d91d37611]...was accompanied...[/b:6d91d37611]

[b:6d91d37611]...it is a separate covenant...[/b:6d91d37611]

[b:6d91d37611]...that serves alongside it...[/b:6d91d37611]

[b:6d91d37611]...link and impart...[/b:6d91d37611]

It seems as though although we may see them chronologically separated because we see different administrations (dispensations) carried out, they are all intertwined and inseperable. 

Help me out here.

Humbly,

Dustin...


----------



## Me Died Blue

Indeed, you are right on in saying that they were all ordained from eternity-past. And what's important to a proper understanding of redemption is to correctly understand how they relate to each other.

When you ask, "wasn't grace always the end of the means," it depends on what you mean. It is true that the purpose of the Covenant of Works with Adam was essentially to demonstrate man's incapability of saving himself; to entify man's need for redemption through grace. But that is still very different from saying that God had already actually given some of that grace during the period of Adam's Covenant of Works, because of the implications that would have about the efficacy of grace that I discussed above. Likewise, saying that Christ's Covenant of Works with God is imparted to us through a separate Covenant of Grace is very different from saying that God actually gives grace in His Covenant of Works with Christ, for like reasons.

From your comments, you seem to definitely be on the right track in understanding all of this.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

Dustin,

I agree with Christopher in his assessment of your thought process. You are on the right track.

Some of the questions you brought up in terms of how decrees realte in eternity past is ANOTHER big discussion on the lapsarian issue. Some are supralapsarian, some are sublapsarian, some are infralapsarian. There is a very good work called "Diversity Within the Reformed Tradition" by Fesko that deals with this issue in-depth. It is quite helpful. (However, be prepared to have your mind twisted and turned inside out - there is much to consider on that playing field...)

The reason I bring that up because the "relationships" as MDB brought up are important. It will not necessarily affect the RELATIONSHIP of the covenants that lapsarianism will dictate depending upon the camp one falls into, but it will dictate how "someone" think about how "God thinks about" how He ordained everything.

Keep studying!!


----------



## Areopagus

MDB,

You say:

[quote:2f4143d6a6]From your comments, you seem to definitely be on the right track in understanding all of this.
[/quote:2f4143d6a6]

On the right track? Or, maybe I already do understand?! Remember the name of this topic. I'm not trying to understand [i:2f4143d6a6]what[/i:2f4143d6a6] Covenant Theology says the Covenant of Works is, but, how they explain its intricacies. A system of theology sometimes complicates terminology. Also, a system will sometimes complicate theology. So, my intent is to better understand how you, and other Covenant camp people (I mean that with no disrespect), explain these systems.

For instance, both you and I would agree that God commanded Adam not to do something. Adam was created to respond to God as He did. So God was then in an agreement with Adam that bore heavy ramifications if transgressed. You call this a Covenant of Works. That's fine. The terms of Gods command were based on Adams works. I would be ok with saying that as well, although I wouldn't find calling it that specifically, detrimental to my understanding or explaining it. 

We would both say that there was a time period in between Gods command and the transgression. This is chronological. You call that a probationary period. That's fine. I believe that is a term that is unwarranted, but not critical. Regardless of whether it was a probationary period, a testing period, or simply an unknown frame of time ordained by God (which it was I find in Scripture), the results are the same.

We both say that Adam was already living in a state of right relationship with God. He had all that he needed in the Garden. Thus, had he not transgressed the commandment of God, he would have continued to enjoy this state of existence. Covenant Theology says that the reward for perfect obedience to Gods commandment would have been eternal life, yes? I agree, albeit acknowledging (as Web did) that this could have never been because God decreed it would not be so.

Have I missed any of the big details? I know there are smaller, more intimate, details. However, is that the grand scope? 

I do appreciate your input and patience with me. Web, you too. I know that for you guys this must be frustrating becuase you've already got it all down succinctly. Just keep praying that God would refine you through my ignorance. 

 

In Him,

Dustin...


----------



## Ianterrell

"Realistically, however, no law could lead to life (Gal. 3). Adam's fate, and consequently, our fate, was already predestined. "

1) This statement of Paul to the Galatians is regarding works based righteousness of DEPRAVED men. He is not discussing a meritorious system with a pre-fall adam. Paul's rebuke to sinful Jews and God fearing gentiles cannot negate a meritorious covenant of works.

2)we must not be fatalistic in our dealing with God's sovereignty. God's ordination is not in opposition to the responsibilty of man, nor is it against the will. God ordains both means and ends. Just as Christ's ordained works were necessary for our salvation, Adam's ordained works were necessary for our fall. In each case there were real human decisions that God ordained to be a means to his ordained ends. We do not have fates, there are simply fixed ends determined by God.

The danger inherent in missing this point is that we end up with a morbid determism. This is the calvinism that the Arminian imagines in his nitemares. A salvation without repentence, a damnation without sin. In both cases the Arminian, the hypercalvinist, or the fatalist, denies God's decree of means and ends.


----------



## Areopagus

Iantrell,

You say:

[quote:b2ede88b80]Adam's ordained works were necessary for our fall. In each case there were real human decisions that God ordained to be a means to his ordained ends. [/quote:b2ede88b80]

Agreed. Galatians 3:10 still applies. There will never be a law that can lead to life. The Garden pointed to the total inability of works to justify. Praise God for grace!

In Him,

Dustin...


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

Dustin, Don't ever think everyone has things down pat. I read all I can I find new things to incorporate every day. i look at other things I should study and haven't and shake my head - so much to learn and so little time.

Take you time and digest things slowly. You are eating some big steaks on these issues.


----------



## Areopagus

Web,

I had replied a moment ago, but it disappeared.

Anyway, I agree with your words. None of us ever have it down pat. Every time I think I have "it" down pat, God twists it a bit to remind me that He will not be put in a box. Do you apply that same maxim to your own study? I ask in seriousness, not as an accusation. 

I have found that systems, any system, tends to drive the hermeneutic rather than allowing the Scripture to just say what it says apart from adhering to some camp or system. When I study I deeply desire to see Scripture for what it says apart from a camp, system, or ulterior motive. Thus, I try even not to read my own thoughts I have now, into the Scripture. This way, when I draw a conclusion about something, it's not because the system said it, a respected writer says it, or because my "camp" says it, but because Scripture says it.

In Him,

Dustin...


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

Dustin,

[quote:6e229d7edb]"Do you apply that same maxim to your own study?"[/quote:6e229d7edb]

Yes, but I also remind myself that God has given us revelation so we can know and understand him as much as we are able. We all believe we can know things about God and that God reveals himself to us in certain ways over and above others ways (God is infinite, eternal, etc. and does not have feathers though Psalm 90 would make you think He did). So hermeneutics ([i:6e229d7edb]proper [/i:6e229d7edb]biblical interpretation) is vitally important.

I can't put God in a box, but that does not mean I cannot understand maxims and axiomatic theology surrounding given revelation. There is a line we must balance on here.


----------



## Areopagus

Web,

[quote:8444fc4cc0]Yes, but I also remind myself that God has given us revelation so we can know and understand him as much as we are able. [/quote:8444fc4cc0]

Of course. And that revelation is always tested against itself, not a system. That was my point.

[quote:8444fc4cc0]We all believe we can know things about God and that God reveals himself to us in certain ways over and above others ways (God is infinite, eternal, etc. and does not have feathers though Psalm 90 would make you think He did).[/quote:8444fc4cc0]

Correct. Again, I agree. God, in His word, has revealed these things to us. 

[quote:8444fc4cc0]So hermeneutics (proper biblical interpretation) is vitally important. [/quote:8444fc4cc0]

Right. Which is why I study Scripture apart from anothers systematized way of thinking. As you rightly said, [i:8444fc4cc0]proper[/i:8444fc4cc0] Biblical interpretation is critical. 

[quote:8444fc4cc0]I can't put God in a box, but that does not mean I cannot understand maxims and axiomatic theology surrounding given revelation.[/quote:8444fc4cc0]

We all understand maxims and axiomatic theology to the best of our abilities, yes? And you are right, these things [i:8444fc4cc0]must[/i:8444fc4cc0] be determined, as best we can determine them, in their surrounding context, in the proper context, and apart from a systems presuppositions.

[quote:8444fc4cc0] There is a line we must balance on here.[/quote:8444fc4cc0]

And I agree. It seems to me like we agree on a great many things.

In Him,

Dustin...


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

Amen!


----------

