# Is the Covenant of Works Biblical?



## WrittenFromUtopia (Aug 15, 2005)

1. Is the doctrine of the Covenant of Works Biblical? Why or why not?

2. Why is there a discrepancy between Continental and Scottish Reformed thought on this? Or is there not?

3. Does denial of the CoW lead to most forms of modern-day heresy and heterodoxy?


----------



## turmeric (Aug 15, 2005)

1.Yes, there's a Covenant of Works, at least that's what it seems to be describing.

2. Don't know enough history to speak to that.

3. I think it causes problems, but I think a denial of the imputation of Christ's active righteousness is more of a problem. It still seems to be affirmed in the Heidleberg Catechism, if I'm not mistaken.


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 15, 2005)

I think this horse was slaughtered/resurrected a while back. But it was premillennial baptist/reformedpresby debate.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Aug 15, 2005)

Reformed Baptist.... COW is biblical.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Aug 15, 2005)

I'm looking really for some of our Dutch members to step in and comment on this ...


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Aug 15, 2005)

Also, what of the claims by FV'ists that Calvin did not believe in a CoW at all?


----------



## Puritanhead (Aug 15, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> Reformed Baptist.... COW is biblical.




Yeah, and now we're under the Covenant of Grace! Yee-Haw!


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 15, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> ...



Would unbelievers still be under the CoW, though?


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 15, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> Also, what of the claims by FV'ists that Calvin did not believe in a CoW at all?



I think they mean that CoW was not clearly articulated by Calvin.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Aug 15, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> ...



Hmm.. most whom I have spoken with or read from that _persuasion_ has said that there isn't a CoW *at all*, and that Calvin (and others of prominence) taught this. *shrug*


----------



## Puritanhead (Aug 16, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> ...



Yeah -- doesn't do them a lot of good does it?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Aug 16, 2005)

Rom 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

1Co 15:21,22 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

1Pe 3:18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, *the just for the unjust*, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:

Something made everyone unjust.

[Edited on 8-16-2005 by puritancovenanter]


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Aug 16, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> ...



Holiness is good for everyone. The condemning of sin is good. For those of us in Christ, Mercy is great.


----------



## Puritanhead (Aug 16, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> ...



Well when our best works are like filthy rags in God's eyes (Isa. 64:6), and our own intrinsic righteousness profits nothing than unbelievers are in a real bind under the covenant of works... Mercy in Christ is great!


----------



## heartoflesh (Aug 16, 2005)

I believe it's biblical, but it has a terrible name. 

How about "Covenant of Creation", as O. Palmer Roberston suggests?


----------



## toddpedlar (Aug 16, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> ...



This is my perception as well in speaking first hand to those who are pro-FV. They argue that the covenant of works is a Puritan embellishment of bad ideas held by a very few people (Coeccius at the head of them, whose name at least one individual I am thinking of likes to say with expectorative flair). Calvin, some claim, argue that Adam was created under essentially the covenant of grace - that at his creation, he needed the grace of Christ to be in relationship with God. 

In making these arguments, they also claim that Christ's obedience has no merit, and therefore cannot be applied to us. Not only do they obliterate the covenant of works, but they also destroy the covenant of grace (or at least decimate it). 

Todd


----------



## Arch2k (Aug 16, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Rick Larson_
> I believe it's biblical, but it has a terrible name.
> 
> How about "Covenant of Creation", as O. Palmer Roberston suggests?



Why not COW? Wasn't it exactly that? Adam had to work to justify his posterity, just as Christ's works justify us.

I think that the attempt to change names ultimately confuses people, and can degenerate the true meaning of the doctrine. The name COW is historical, confessional and true to the essence of the doctrine.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Aug 16, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Rick Larson_
> ...



Amen Jeff.


----------



## Poimen (Aug 16, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> I'm looking really for some of our Dutch members to step in and comment on this ...



Okay.  

First, for the record, I believe in the covenant of works. 

If Calvin did not teach it, he came close: 



> John Calvin. The promise, which gave him hope of eternal life as long as he should eat of the tree of life (arbore vitae), and, on the other hand, the fearful denunciation of death the moment he should taste of the Tree of Knowledge of of good and evil, were meant to test and exercise his faith (Institutes, 2.1.4).



Find more quotes here:

http://public.csusm.edu/guests/rsclark/foedusoperum.html

That the covenant of works was an invention of the Puritans is a joke because Robert Rollock (1555-99) was already teaching it well before the WCF was written and shortly after Calvin's death.

The Heidelberg Catechism and the Belgic Confession do not explicitly speak of a covenant of works though they seem to imply it.



> Belgic Confession, Article 14
> 
> We believe that God created man out of the dust of the earth, and made and formed him after his own image and likeness, good, righteous, and holy, capable in all things to will agreeably to the will of God. But being in honor, he understood it not, neither knew his excellency, but willfully subjected himself to sin and consequently to death and the curse, giving ear to the words of the devil. *For the commandment of life,* which he had received, he transgressed; and by sin separated himself from God, who was his true life; having corrupted his whole nature; whereby he made himself liable to corporal and spiritual death. And being thus become wicked, perverse, and corrupt in all his ways, he has lost all his gifts which he had received from God, and retained only small remains thereof, which, however, are sufficient to leave man without excuse; for all the light which is in us is changed unto darkness, as the Scriptures teach us, saying: The light shines in darkness, and the darkness did not apprehended it; where St. John calls men darkness.





> Heidelberg Catechism Q&A 6
> 
> Q. Did God create man thus wicked and perverse?
> 
> A: No, but God created man good and after His own image, that is, in righteousness and true holiness, that he might rightly know God his Creator, heartily love Him, *and live with Him in eternal blessedness, to praise and glorify Him.*



Many Dutch Reformed people either do not believe in it or even know what it is. That is troubling because A Brakel, Witsius, Voetius, Bavinck and others speak clearly to the issue. 

However, in answer to Meg's statement, the continental confessions do openly and explicitly profess the active righteousness of Christ.



> Belgic Confession, Article 22
> 
> We believe that, to attain the true knowledge of this great mystery, the Holy Spirit kindles in our hearts an upright faith, which embraces Jesus Christ with all His merits, appropriates Him, and seeks nothing more besides Him. For it must needs follow, either that all things which are requisite to our salvation are not in Jesus Christ, or if all things are in Him, that then those who possess Jesus Christ through faith have complete salvation in Him. Therefore, for any to assert that Christ is not sufficient, but that something more is required besides Him, would be too gross a blasphemy; for hence it would follow that Christ was but half a Savior.
> 
> Therefore we justly say with Paul, that we are justified by faith alone, or by faith apart from works. However, to speak more clearly, we do not mean that faith itself justifies us, for it is only an instrument with which we embrace Christ our righteousness. *But Jesus Christ, imputing to us all His merits, and so many holy works which He has done for us and in our stead, is our righteousness.* And faith is an instrument that keeps us in communion with Him in all His benefits, which, when they become ours, are more than sufficient to acquit us of our sins.





> Heidelberg Catechism Q&A 60
> 
> Q. How are you righteous before God?
> 
> A. Only by true faith in Jesus Christ: that is, although my conscience accuses me, that I have grievously sinned against all the commandments of God, and have never kept any of them, and am still prone always to all evil; yet God, without any merit of mine, of mere grace, grants and imputes to me the perfect satisfaction, righteousness and holiness of Christ, as if I had never committed nor had any sins, *and had myself accomplished all the obedience which Christ has fulfilled for me;* if only I accept such benefit with a believing heart.



Good?


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Aug 16, 2005)

Thanks Rev. Kok. I forgot that Witsius was continental Reformed, and obviously he holds to the CoW (either that or its a misprint in my copy of _Economy.._). 

I think the name Covenant of Works is fine. There is no reason to change it at all.


----------



## Larry Hughes (Aug 17, 2005)

Unbelievers are under the CoW either under Adam as unbelieving Gentiles or under Moses as unbelieving Jews. Death, physical death, is the greatest sign that it is still enforced and not abolished.

Though death for the believer, praise God's immeasurable grace, is more like a vehicle. It's there but on account of Christ the sting is gone.

That's my understanding of it.

Ldh


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Aug 17, 2005)

Gabriel,

On the history see:http://public.csusm.edu/guests/rsclark/History_Covenant_Theology.htm

The claim that Calvin didn't hold the covenant of works is premised on the old "Calvin v. the Calvinists" reading of Calvin. That entire approach has been discredited by modern scholarship.

That the Dutch did not teach the covenant of works would surprise generations of 16th and 17th century Dutch theologians who did, including those who did the notes for what was, in effect, the Dort Study Bible in 1637.

What folks should say, as Rev Kok noted, is that in the 20th century there has been a widespread abandonment of the covenant of works under the influence of Barth and others. It does not follow that, because folks abandoned it in the 20th century, it was not held previously. As Daniel noted, the primary authors of the Heidelberg Catechism both taught it explicitly.

As to the names, it has been called a covenant of works with respect to its terms, covenant of life with respect to its goal and a covenant of nature with respect to its location.

As to renaming it, please remember that whatever we say about Adam affects what we'll say about Christ. Did he "work"? Did he "obey"? Did he "earn" and "merit" our justification? YES! Well then, why not say that about Adam? 

Sinful folks can't "earn" etc anything. Adam, before the fall, was not sinful. Folks seem to forget this basic fact, and yet if we do, as is evident in much of FV writing, the spectre of Pelagianism looms before us. Any move from Adam to us (instead of Adam to Christ) with respect to justification is doomed to Pelagianism.

rsc


----------



## Texas Aggie (Aug 17, 2005)

For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace." (Romans 6:14). 

This scripture tells us that being under the law or under grace is an either/or concept (for both Jew and Gentile). You are either "under the law" or you are "under grace." 

If you are a man, alive in this world, you are either under the condemnation of the law (which demands your eternal death) or you are under grace where there exists no condemnation whatsoever.


----------



## heartoflesh (Aug 17, 2005)

> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> 
> 
> As to renaming it, please remember that whatever we say about Adam affects what we'll say about Christ. Did he "work"? Did he "obey"? Did he "earn" and "merit" our justification? YES! Well then, why not say that about Adam?



I'm fine with Covenant of Works, as it has been explained above. Could not Covenant of "Creation" encompass a broader idea of all Creation, which originally knew no death nor futility, but which was affected by Adam's fall, and is (was) restored by Christ as a New Creation?


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Aug 17, 2005)

> I'm fine with Covenant of Works, as it has been explained above. Could not Covenant of "Creation" encompass a broader idea of all Creation, which originally knew no death nor futility, but which was affected by Adam's fall, and is (was) restored by Christ as a New Creation?



This is one of the labels/terms that has been used. It is essentially identical to the "covenant of nature."

It might be worth noting here that one of the differences between the Protestants, the Anabaptists, and Rome (and the Medieval church) is how grace and nature are related.

The medieval church (and Trent following it) had grace supplementing nature: Grace perfects nature. The Anabaptists (and most revivalists and pietists following them) have grace obliterating nature. 

The Protestants, otoh, had grace RENEWING nature. Before the fall, nature did not need to be renewed. Contra Rome, nature wasn't broken or defective. We didn't have innate concupiscence (moral greeblies) needing grace to suppress it. We were good, in the image of God. We were holy. We were just and capable by the exercise of our divinely created faculties of remaining thus and more, of meeting the probationary test and entering into a glorious eschatological state. 

This, BTW, is why confessional Protestants are adamant about affirming the goodness of creation per se, against those quasi-gnostic fundamentalists and evangelicals who want to treat creation as if it were evil by virtue of being created. 

As Ken Myers noted in a White Horse Inn interview recently, one of the first things Jesus did after his resurrection was to make a meal of fish. What is more earthy and affirming of the goodness of creation than making and sitting down to a meal? 

Nothing we say about the covenant of works/nature/life/creation should imply that we were defective morally or ontologically before the fall.

rsc


----------

