I know that the "probationary" idea attached to the covenant of works is often criticized by people, or seen as eisegesis, rather than exegesis.
I believe in it, in the traditional fashion; I was thinking about how I would respond to such people. Would not the fact that Christ "fulfilled" the covenant of works, performed it, accomplished it, and imparted the benefits thereof to the elect, imply that it was, by its very nature, probationary?
In other words, Christ didn't have to live an endless life under the covenant of works; He lived a definite amount of time, made His substitutionary sacrifice, was resurrected and exalted. So do I legitimately infer from this that the covenant of works can Biblically be described as able to be "fulfilled" within a limited duration of time, thus proving some time of probation?
I believe in it, in the traditional fashion; I was thinking about how I would respond to such people. Would not the fact that Christ "fulfilled" the covenant of works, performed it, accomplished it, and imparted the benefits thereof to the elect, imply that it was, by its very nature, probationary?
In other words, Christ didn't have to live an endless life under the covenant of works; He lived a definite amount of time, made His substitutionary sacrifice, was resurrected and exalted. So do I legitimately infer from this that the covenant of works can Biblically be described as able to be "fulfilled" within a limited duration of time, thus proving some time of probation?