# unconditional and unilateral?



## Preach (May 28, 2005)

I'd like to ask if only Paedobaptists would respond. Thanks. It's my understanding that the Divine covenants are unconditional, including the COW. It is also my understanding that all the covenants are unilateral. If I am wrong in these assumptions, please let me know.

My question regards the COW. Is the COW also an unconditional covenant? I have my thoughts. Could you give your answer and the reasons? Thanks.
"In Christ",
Bobby


----------



## fredtgreco (May 28, 2005)

The covenants are not unconditional. The covenant of grace is conditioned on faith. But God fulfills the condition on our behalf.


----------



## Scott Bushey (May 28, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> The covenants are not unconditional. The covenant of grace is conditioned on faith. But God fulfills the condition on our behalf.



as is the COW; 

Gen 2:16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: 
Gen 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. 

Do ythis and live, or do this and die.


----------



## Preach (May 28, 2005)

Fred ad Scott. I agree totally. What I meant to say is that the covenants are unconditional with elements of conditionality contained. They are unconditional in the sense that God provides the enablement to fulfill the conditions for the covenant keepers. Does this sound right? Is the COW purely conditional? 

Am I right in saying they are unilateral? I know there is debate on conditionality and unilateralness.

Thanks,
Bobby


----------



## Arch2k (May 28, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Preach_
> Is the COW purely conditional?



It is actually hotly debated among reformed folk if there is any grace at all in the COW. Kline (et al) take the position that the COW is purely conditional, and therfore involves no grace. Others (Hoeksema, O.Palmer Robertson) see some amount of grace in the COW. 

I do not see any grace in the COW. I view it a PURELY works/condition based. Grace is always (with one exception) viewed in reference to sin in the scriptures. The one exception is Luke 2:40. If grace is to be viewed in reference to sin, than there was no sin while the COW was not broken. Christ's work was the fulfillment of the COW, and was based on his merit.

Grace and Works are completely antithetical in the bible.



> Rom 11:6 But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (May 28, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Preach_
> Fred ad Scott. I agree totally. What I meant to say is that the covenants are unconditional with elements of conditionality contained. They are unconditional in the sense that God provides the enablement to fulfill the conditions for the covenant keepers. Does this sound right? Is the COW purely conditional?
> 
> Am I right in saying they are unilateral? I know there is debate on conditionality and unilateralness.


The covenant of works was a condescension on God's part to Adam. Adam did not bargain with God. God came as a Lord to His vassal, and imposed the agreement to which Adam, with all the blessings granted him by God, and being upright, humbly accepted. The stipulations and the promise were made by God. In that sense it is unilateral. But it is conditional because Adam had obligations to fulfill on his own, and he was sufficiently endowed to keep those obligations if he chose to. The covenant of grace is not the same arrangment for us. All that God requires of us in the covenant of grace, God provides to us, because of the perfect work of Christ on our behalf.


----------



## Preach (May 28, 2005)

Patrick,
I fully agree. So, what is your opinion of the COG. Is it conditional (we all agree God provides the ability to fulfill the condition), or is it unconditional (Again, God providing the ability for us to be covenant keepers), but just because He does provide the condition it would be seen as unconditional, God Himself assuring that it will come to pass.

See what I'm trying to get at? We are all in agreement as to what God is actually doing and our responsibilities, but I just want to make sure I get the terminology right so there will not be confusion (or at least limited confusion-ha ha) when I speak on the issue.

Thanks brother,
Bobby


----------



## Puritan Sailor (May 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Preach_
> Patrick,
> I fully agree. So, what is your opinion of the COG. Is it conditional (we all agree God provides the ability to fulfill the condition), or is it unconditional (Again, God providing the ability for us to be covenant keepers), but just because He does provide the condition it would be seen as unconditional, God Himself assuring that it will come to pass.
> 
> See what I'm trying to get at? We are all in agreement as to what God is actually doing and our responsibilities, but I just want to make sure I get the terminology right so there will not be confusion (or at least limited confusion-ha ha) when I speak on the issue.


You just have to be careful with your distinctions, that's all. Clearly the covenant in unconditional as far as our legal and meritorious responsibilities are concerned, because Christ performed and fulfilled that for us. God designed, stipulated, and fulfilled the whole for us. That is why it is gracious to us, in comparison with the covenant of works which depended upon Adam's own obedience for the blessing. 

But we as God's redeemed people, and children, still have obligations, namely faith and renewed obedience or repentence. We fellowship with God as children and freinds. In this sense it is bilateral and conditional. We have a role to play in response to the grace given and we are enabled to perform this role by the Spirit.


----------

