Dr. Clark.... Help!

[PuritanCovenanter]

Dr. Clark your email is not working for me right now. So I am gonna post this here.....


I am asking for your assistance in addressing the rediculous notions of Mark Horne and Wilkins on the Covenant of Works. http://www.auburnavenue.org/documents/Wilkins9DeclarationsResponse.pdf
I see that Mark Horne has removed his article on the CoW from his site. It was here.
http://www.auburnavenue.org/documents/Wilkins9DeclarationsResponse.pdf

I showed it to my Pastor and he was dissappointed with it. But Horne's article sounded just like Wilkins' response. Do you know of any resource that deals with their view of the CoW.

Anyways these guys wanna make the CoW a covenant which included some form of grace as you will see in Wilkins 1st response to the declarations. Can you direct me to a resource that deals with these guys on this topic.

I believe God placed Himself in debt to Adam concerning life as long as Adam did what he was suppose to do and didn't do what he was not suppose to do. Maybe I am off base here. But in my understanding Christ fulfilled the CoW on my behalf. He earned life by fulfilling the CoW. Adam didn't earn life so Jesus did it for us. The Lord fulfilled the CoW when Adam didn't. Thus the Second Adam is my saviour and I am am righteous because of this exchange that I have with Christ. He became sin and I became righteous. His death would mean nothing had he not earned or worked within the confines of the CoW.

Am I off base here?

Any help would be appreciated....

Thanks, Randy Snyder

 

[greenbaggins]

http://greenbaggins.wordpress.com/2007/06/20/the-covenant-of-works-2/

and

http://greenbaggins.wordpress.com/2007/01/03/federal-vision-index/

ought to give you at least some interaction on the CoW. Not all of it directly addresses Wilkins, but I have dealt extensively with Wilkins on my blog. Not to toot my own horn too much, the book _Covenant, Justification, and Pastoral Ministry_ deals extensively with the CoW.

And thanks for directing your attention to Wilkins's response to the 9 declarations. I will shortly be blogging about it.

 

[ReformedDave]

"Dr. Clark"? If you're writing Dr. Gordon Clark it might be a while...........

 

[R. Scott Clark]

Hi Randy,

I don't have time to do a great deal with this.

The classic Reformed folk tended to use the expressions "covenant of works" and "covenant of life" and "covenat of nature" (and the like) interchangeably.

Works refers to the terms.

Life refers to the goal.

Nature refers to the setting.

It's not that complicated.

Wilkins clearly denies the substance of the covenant of works. According to W. the prelapsarian covenant is legal-gracious and the post-laps. cov. is gracious-legal.

To admit a purely legal prelapsarian covenant does profound damage to the covenant moralist scheme because it entails the sort of law/gospel dichtomy which they abhor and which the Protestant faith embraces.

Wilkins is advocating a "trust and obey" scheme before and after the fall. The Westminster Confession doesn't. Neither do the rest of the Reformed confessions. They have it that Adam was righteous, holy, good and able to obey. He chose not to obey. He sinned. He fell and we with him. He didn't fall from grace. He broke the law. The Wilkins account confuses law and grace. Of course, the Apostle Paul has no such problem.

That's the best I can do for now.

rsc

Dr. Clark your email is not working for me right now. So I am gonna post this here.....


I am asking for your assistance in addressing the rediculous notions of Mark Horne and Wilkins on the Covenant of Works. http://www.auburnavenue.org/documents/Wilkins9DeclarationsResponse.pdf
I see that Mark Horne has removed his article on the CoW from his site. It was here.
http://www.auburnavenue.org/documents/Wilkins9DeclarationsResponse.pdf

I showed it to my Pastor and he was dissappointed with it. But Horne's article sounded just like Wilkins' response. Do you know of any resource that deals with their view of the CoW.

Anyways these guys wanna make the CoW a covenant which included some form of grace as you will see in Wilkins 1st response to the declarations. Can you direct me to a resource that deals with these guys on this topic.

I believe God placed Himself in debt to Adam concerning life as long as Adam did what he was suppose to do and didn't do what he was not suppose to do. Maybe I am off base here. But in my understanding Christ fulfilled the CoW on my behalf. He earned life by fulfilling the CoW. Adam didn't earn life so Jesus did it for us. The Lord fulfilled the CoW when Adam didn't. Thus the Second Adam is my saviour and I am am righteous because of this exchange that I have with Christ. He became sin and I became righteous. His death would mean nothing had he not earned or worked within the confines of the CoW.

Am I off base here?

Any help would be appreciated....

Thanks, Randy Snyder

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

"Dr. Clark"? If you're writing Dr. Gordon Clark it might be a while...........

He use to live and teach here at Butler university. But he is long gone. RIP

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Hi Randy,

I don't have time to do a great deal with this.

The classic Reformed folk tended to use the expressions "covenant of works" and "covenant of life" and "covenat of nature" (and the like) interchangeably.

Works refers to the terms.

Life refers to the goal.

Nature refers to the setting.

It's not that complicated.

Wilkins clearly denies the substance of the covenant of works. According to W. the prelapsarian covenant is legal-gracious and the post-laps. cov. is gracious-legal.

To admit a purely legal prelapsarian covenant does profound damage to the covenant moralist scheme because it entails the sort of law/gospel dichtomy which they abhor and which the Protestant faith embraces.

Wilkins is advocating a "trust and obey" scheme before and after the fall. The Westminster Confession doesn't. Neither do the rest of the Reformed confessions. They have it that Adam was righteous, holy, good and able to obey. He chose not to obey. He sinned. He fell and we with him. He didn't fall from grace. He broke the law. The Wilkins account confuses law and grace. Of course, the Apostle Paul has no such problem.

That's the best I can do for now.

rsc

Thanks Dr. If you have time to give me some reference material recommendations that deal with this stuff I would appreciate it. If your book does that I will splurge on it. To bad I can't get it in hardback. Or is there such an animal?

Anyways I want to be able to define the CoW in terms that makes it legal and not gracious at all. I just want to be able to give a good argument to his understanding. I can do this somewhat but want to be better equipped.

Thank you
Thank you
Thank you

You are one of my heroes.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

And thanks for directing your attention to Wilkins's response to the 9 declarations. I will shortly be blogging about it.

No Problem. I have dealt with this stuff for a while now. And I am burnt out on it. I hate how these guys say they hold to something but they have redefined it. Sounds like the same things a non Christian cult does. Doesn't it.

I will check out your blog this weekend.
Thank you very much.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

No Problem. I have dealt with this stuff for a while now. And I am burnt out on it. I hate how these guys say they hold to something but they have redefined it. Sounds like the same things a non Christian cult does. Doesn't it.

I will check out your blog this weekend.
Thank you very much.

Look at the thread on Conditional Election a few months back to highlight that fact. It really is quite annoying that this happens. I wish people would just get comfortable with their novelty and admit it as such. If both Barth and Brunner could claim that Calvin was a closet dialectical theologian then these guys can perform like gymnastics.

 

[R. Scott Clark]

Bryan Estelle has a chapter on the Covenant of Works in CJPM. The volume edited by Gary Johnson and Guy Waters is useful here too.

Check out the stuff at

http://www.wscal.edu/clark

under covenant theology and the FV/NPP (links on the left)

rsc

Thanks Dr. If you have time to give me some reference material recommendations that deal with this stuff I would appreciate it. If your book does that I will splurge on it. To bad I can't get it in hardback. Or is there such an animal?

Anyways I want to be able to define the CoW in terms that makes it legal and not gracious at all. I just want to be able to give a good argument to his understanding. I can do this somewhat but want to be better equipped.

Thank you
Thank you
Thank you

You are one of my heroes.