# A Dialogue on Covenant Theology



## WrittenFromUtopia (Apr 26, 2005)

Covenant Theologian: Adam, as our federal representative, transgressed the Covenant of Works, wherein he was required to stay within complete obedience to God's moral law without waver, and, through his transgression, we inherit the status of breaking covenant with God, to the end of eternal death and the wrath of God at Christ's second coming. Agree?

*Dispensationalist/Baptist: Yes.*

CT: So, we are born into this world as "covenant breakers", and are "by nature children of wrath". We inherit the punishment of transgressing the Covenant of Works, which is eternal damnation. Sin is defined as "missing the mark" in Hebrew, that is, breaking God's perfect law. So, we inherit the nature of original Sin, wherein Adam transgressed the Covenant of Works, making all of mankind born as sinners. Agree?

*D/B: Yes.*

CT: So we are born into this world as covenant breakers?

*D/B: Yes, I would say so.*

CT: So we can be both _in covenant_ with God, and _break covenant_ with God, _without_ our actual knowledge of it?

*D/B: Yes.*

CT: Additionally, we can be born obligated to the Covenant of Works, without our knowledge, not receive the promised benefits of that covenant, and furthermore break such covenant, without our knowledge of it?

*D/B: Yes.*

CT: So, assuming Scripture is true in that God will not violate the covenant, and that it is everlasting... it is left logically to believe that the children of believers can be born into the Covenant of Grace, legally speaking and according to the everlasting Abrahamic promise, without their knowledge of it and without the requirement that they receive the promised spiritual benefits that go along with such a covenant?

*D/B: Well, that's a different covenant than the Covenant of Works. The Covenant of Grace, being salvation, is initiated by man's faith.*

CT: Actually, _all_ of God's covenants begin with _Him_ and _His initiation_. God outlines the covenant, makes the obligations, presents the promises for obedience, and imposes it upon whom He wills, with the promises and blessings given to those who meet the obligations of the covenant and curses or punishments given to those who transgress the obligations of the covenant; this is done in the same Ancient Near Eastern tradition of the suzerainty treaties, made between political unequals, the suzerain or paramount ruler and the vassal or subservient power. The purpose of suzerainty treaties, originating in the Hittite Empire (ca. 1500"“1200 B.C.), was to guarantee that a smaller state remained the faithful ally of the empire and did not pursue an independent foreign policy. In the same way, God imposes these covenantal obligations on believers and their children according to the _everlasting_ Abrahamic covenant, which we as Gentiles have been grafted into, according to Ephesians 2, Galatians 3, and Romans 11.

*D/B: Let's talk about something else.*

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Thoughts/comments/suggestions?


----------



## Puddleglum (Apr 26, 2005)

I'm going to try to keep from getting into a CT debate here . . . but I'd like to point out that your Dispensationalist/Baptist probably wouldn't agree to your first statement, because he probably wouldn't agree with a "covenant of works". (Even some - many? - calvinistic Baptists would disagree with it).


----------



## fredtgreco (Apr 26, 2005)

Dispensationalists would completely reject the entire concept.

For them, Adam's problem was sin, not a breaking of the covenant. They do not consider any after Adam in the same covenant. Sin is separate and apart from covenant breaking.

So you need to at least completely revise that point.


----------



## pastorway (Apr 26, 2005)

yep

assuming that everyone accepts the covenant of works is starting off on the wrong foot if you really want an honest discussion to take place.

Phillip


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Apr 27, 2005)

I guess my main starting point of agreement is the fact that we all (orthodox) believe in original sin. If we can then understand that original sin is a transgression of a covenant with God, the rest falls into place. Thanks for the advice!


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Apr 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> I guess my main starting point of agreement is the fact that we all (orthodox) believe in original sin. If we can then understand that original sin is a transgression of a covenant with God, the rest falls into place. Thanks for the advice!



Not all define original sin the same though. A dispensationalist would not attribute our natural depravity as a consequence of Adam's imputed sin, but rather passed biologically through the parents.


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 27, 2005)

Gabe,
The content was good and if you work out some of the assumptions that many D/B's wouldn't have, then I think you might be on to something.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Apr 27, 2005)

> Not all define original sin the same though. A dispensationalist would not attribute our natural depravity as a consequence of Adam's imputed sin, but rather passed biologically through the parents.



That's definitely understandable. I think if I was able to get them to understand that what is being passed on biologically is covenantal disobedience (transgressing God's law), then the rest of this might apply more readily to their thought process.

I've tried this with a few Baptist friends and they've all taken the bait and come to the last question pretty upset!  However, they all respond the same, with "but that's a different covenant."

[Edited on 4-27-2005 by WrittenFromUtopia]


----------



## kevin.carroll (Apr 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Puddleglum_
> I'm going to try to keep from getting into a CT debate here . . . but I'd like to point out that your Dispensationalist/Baptist probably wouldn't agree to your first statement, because he probably wouldn't agree with a "covenant of works". (Even some - many? - calvinistic Baptists would disagree with it).



 You presentation is clever...but you would never get past the first question with a real D/B.


----------



## turmeric (Apr 27, 2005)

D/B; What Adam did was to fail the test of the Dispensation of Innocence.

Nobody get upset, I'm just role-playing!


----------



## Robin (Apr 28, 2005)

I'm thinking work needs to be done to define "sin" more tightly....it is a "condition" not merely an "act" per se'. Maybe you can explain the reason death exists is because it is evidence of the curse -- the covenant sanction. ???

I've done similar strategies, Gabe....trust me, somehow "sin" needs to be clarified as a "curse." The tie-in is that the Covenant-Vassal-Second Adam must endure death because of of the outstanding debt on the part of the first Adam. (Thinking out loud...)

Robin


----------



## Rich Barcellos (May 11, 2005)

I am a Baptist and believe in the Covenant of Works. It is contained in my Confession of Faith - the 1689.


----------

