The phrase "covenant of works" isn't in the Bible

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by Wannabee
I've been thinking about this.

Why are you so against the CoW? What doctrine would you have to give up if you accepted the CoW doctrine?

Perhaps it's not the doctrine itself, although I have a problem with it according to my post above. It's the attitude and elitism that is engendered by some who proclaim it. Statements like, "You can't believe in imputed righteousness if you don't believe in the CoW," attempt to set those who adhere to this system on a pedestal and shows a superiority complex that is very disturbing. Not all are guilty, but enough has been said on this thread alone to make my point.
If it is there then it's hidden. It's not clear from Scripture. The simple fact is that there is simply too much that is clear from Scripture to be binding people with doctrines that might be, or even probably are. We'll never mine the depths of what we can positively know, so focusing on the CoW is to take one's focus off of the clear teaching of Scripture. It will not help the widow raising children on her own. It will not make Christ clearer to the lost. And it does distract from the clear teaching of Scripture. No one is going to hell because they don't buy into the CoW. No one is less sanctified if they don't. No one is sinning if they don't. However, if, as I claim, it is not a valid doctrine, then all who adhere to it are guilty of adding to Scripture. So, I guess that is why I am threatened by the CoW.

Your comments are well taken. And I apologize if I was a little too zealous in my posts above. Please just understand my current situation: I am in a church that is excellent in many respects (Calvinist, expositional preaching, family-oriented, etc.), but my church is NOT covenantal at ALL. They don't believe in the covenant of works, the covenant of redemption, or the covenant of grace. If I had to try and pigeonhole my pastor right now, I'd say he is probably an NCT (New Covenant Theology) guy.

So please forgive me for being a little jumpy. I personally do believe in the covenant of works. And I think the Scriptures do support that belief. I think it is clearer than you do. But I'm ok with that, because I also agree with much of what you said. Disbelief in the CoW does NOT automatically mean that a person disbelieves in the imputed righteousness of Christ . . . (though it may mean a person is being inconsistent). Disbelief in the CoW does NOT mean someone is going to hell. It is a sin to disbelieve a true doctrine, but it is also a sin to add man-made doctrines to Scripture. So you and I are on opposite sides of the same dilemma. I look at it kind of like the baptist/paedobaptist war. Baptists believe that all of the reformers, puritans, and modern Presbyterians commit sin every time they baptize infants. But the reformers, puritans, and modern Presbyterians think that the Baptists are sinning every time they *refuse* to baptize infants. One group is correct, and the other is not. But the battle is not likely to be resolved anytime soon. And BOTH groups are certainly going to Heaven!

So you and I can disagree on the CoW and still get along. I'll think you're being a little inconsistent with Romans 5, while you will think that I'm adding "clarity" to Scripture that really isn't there at all. One of the two of us will need to change eventually. But God will take care of that in His time.

But I think the covenant of redemption and the covenant of grace are even clearer . . . and even more necessary to a proper understanding of Scripture than the CoW. Do you believe in the CoR and CoG? Or do both of those fall into the same category as the CoW for you?

Originally posted by Wannabee

By the way, nice looking family. You ever get up to Bonham? I have lots of family from all around that area, from OK down to Corsicana to Tyler to... well all around there. Beautiful country.

Thank you very much!!! I live fairly close to Bonham, and have been there a few times. Nice area! And I like Tyler too. Did you know that Tyler was named after the U.S. President, John Tyler? I thought that was pretty cool.

Do you visit North Texas often, to see family? Sometime when you're in town, let me know ahead of time, and maybe we can catch coffee or lunch or something.

Your brother in Christ,
Joseph

 

[Augusta]

Originally posted by Wannabee
I've been thinking about this.

Why are you so against the CoW? What doctrine would you have to give up if you accepted the CoW doctrine?

It will not help the widow raising children on her own. It will not make Christ clearer to the lost. And it does distract from the clear teaching of Scripture. ......... However, if, as I claim, it is not a valid doctrine, then all who adhere to it are guilty of adding to Scripture. So, I guess that is why I am threatened by the CoW.

Joe, I have to disagree with your statement above. I believe that CoW has helped me immensely in my understanding of scripture. I don't think it adds to scripture at all. It gives a title to something that makes it easier to understand. It doesn't subtract from anything and it does not add to anything. It clarifies. When I understood the distinction between law and gospel, and being under the law in condemnation or under grace. It helped me to see what Christ had done for me and it made it easier as a teaching tool for a lay-person like me to understand. How much simpler can it get with this new language. It's like when your math teacher gives you some different titles for existing ones that are intimidating and helps you to wrap your mind around a mathematical principle. Does it change that rock solid mathematical principle? No. It just gives you a new set of titles that bring it into the light a little more so that you can understand it better.

In the current atmosphere of the church today. This distinction is so important. Fundamental pietism is rampant in churches today. I come from one. They give lip service to the verse "there is now therefore no comdemnation" and then they comdemn their neighbor if they don't live just like they think is right. They don't follow the blue laws. No drinking, smoking, or dating girls that do. The health and wealth gospel. If you are not healthy then you just are trusting God enough or you don't have enough faith.

I understand what it means to be "in Christ" better. Christ was born under the law to redeem those under the law. We were under law now we are under grace. Covenant of Works and Covenant of Grace just clarifies that. Now I am free to follow the law to please my Lord first and then my neighbor. I know that it is for him and not to impress my neighbor because that will not save me. All I do is in service to my Lord who saved me from the covenant of works and made me a slave to him and not the law.

NOTE: when I say new set of terms I have no idea how long the CoW and CoG distinctions and names has been used. It was new to me coming out of fundamentalism which is why I say new.

[Edited on 6-23-2005 by Augusta]

 

[biblelighthouse]

 

[Larry Hughes]

 

[Wannabee]

I've waited a while to address this topic so that it could cool down. I don't want to hash out the validity of the CoW now, but point out some things and hopefully get some people thinking.

First I'll address Traci's comment, then general observations from this thread. Please understand, I'm not debating, but rather attempting to point out that some of the argumentation here is not submissive to the Bible. I'm not arguing against conclusions, but methods and suppositions. Hopefully this will be read as more exhortive, and not combative in any way.


Traci,
I understand your comments, and the heart behind them. However, regardless of one's conclusions, if someone under my care came to me with these statements I would be concerned, not with their doctrine so much as with the way they came to their conclusions.
Without proving that the CoW is indeed valid, you have concluded that it has helped you. However, if it is a false doctrine then this is impossible. You may have come to correct conclusions, but it must be from clear teaching of Scripture, not from experiencial reference. If you are going to claim a doctrine as your own you must be sure of it and be able to defend it first. No conclusions can be drawn until the doctine itself is sound. The reasoning you have described is that the doctrine was presented to you as fact, which enlightened you in regard to Scriptural teaching. But you have not defended the CoW itself, which must come before conclusions. This is very simlar to the "exegesis" used by the sensationalists and charismatics.
You asked, "How much simpler can it get with this new language?" Good question. What are the ramifications of this? New language? I ask you to ponder this.

Joseph and Larry, I appreciate you encouraging your sister in Christ. It might have been good to agree with Traci's conclusions, but exhort toward a more foundational hermeneutic. Amens piled high to not make a doctrine right, nor does a positive experience.


Now, I'm just going to quote a few statements and ask that you and others consider how they draw their conclusions. Throughout this discussion I asked for a comprehensive and reasonable proof to be provided through valid hermeneutical proceedure, which was not provided. Again, this is not to debate further, but to encourage others to consider the means by which they draw their conclusions.

Guys, your stacking up plausibilities here. Sure, what you proposing is possible. However, your basing your doctrine on a stack of possibiliites. They might even be probabilities, however, the further you get from clear Scriptural teaching the more shaky and unstable your stack gets. Probability supporting plausability leads to a possibility, which, when more probability is added soon becomes an impossibility. It's just too many layers removed from clear Scriptural teaching.

"I hold that the words of Scripture were intended to have one definite sense, and that our first object should be to discover that sense, and adhere rigidly to it... To say that words do mean a thing merely because they can be tortured into meaning it is a most dishonourable and dangerous way of handling Scripture." Ryle

Joseph,
Are you saying that you never use necessary inference in your exegesis?

Keyword, "NECESSARY."

You can substitue "inferences" in the above post for "plausibilities" or even for "probabilities." You can even say on occassion, where the analogy of faith makes it obvious, that they are necessities. However, once one has departed from the clear irrufutable meaning of the Text one can't be too cautious. To make any "inferences" that stack upon themselves is extremely dangerous, and eventually irresponsible.

Here's the challenge: Without extensively quoting the works of men, can you give clear Scriptural exegesis for the CoW? Furthermore, if you make "inferences," please explain the hermeneutical principles used in your exegesis that allow you to make those "inferences." Furthermore, please share what restraints you adhere to in using any hermeneutical principles that allow you to expound on your use of these "inferences."

Make it clear. Keep it Scriptural. Prove that the CoW is indeed clearly taught in Scripture. Convince me.

If we deny the COW, how is it then that Adam is a "type" of Him who was to come?

THIS RESPONSE IS NOT A QUOTE, BUT AN OBSERVATION:
This is working the problem backwards. We must start with Scripture and define our theology from there. Read through each passage and allow them to complement one another without any preconceptions other than the inerrancy of Scripture.

for now all we have is commentary and philosophy [lack of exegesis]. Furthermore, those who aren't able to prove it from the text use the anti-literal copout. Let's deal with the text guys.

Also, I don't propose to have all the answers. I can say that it's certainly more responsible to admit one's lack of understanding and live with it than to present as fact something that God never intended Scripture to convey. One is simple lack of knowledge, the other is adding to God's Word.

The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man, or Church; but wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the author thereof: and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God (2 Pet. 1:19, 21; 2 Tim. 3:16; 1 John 5:9; 1 Thess. 2:13). Paragraph 4

sola Scriptura

Now, we have guys piling on with their assent to the CoW. This is expected considering the nature of this forum. However, keep in mind guys, that popularity does not equal solid doctrine. We cannot vote on what God's Word means. I'm not saying that this is what's happening, but we bet more bold and tend to examine ourselves less when others come along and join us. The same goes for lemmings. Be wise, thoughtful and careful with the text.

If you can't define [your hermeneutical principles] then you have no boundaries. You will translate as you see fit to make it work in your system. That's been seen here, to a certain degree. However, if your boundaries are clear then your system will be subject to your exegesis. This has been the focus of my questioning all along, but no one has been willing to take the challenge head on... yet.

And while we may very well all agree on WHAT happened, and the disagreement may very well be semantics - it is important to build our theology on the Word of God. Every word inspired, not a letter wasted or out of place.

CT points out the possible arrogance of going against 400 years of teaching. What about the previous 1600 years? Shall we sit on the theology of the majority of the reformers and consider the epitomy of theology achieved? The Anabaptists got a bad rap because of some bad eggs, and because the majority of the reformers, and the Catholic Church, cast them in such a bad light. Further study will reveal some incredible minds and great godliness that chose rather to follow their consciences as they were lead by the clear teaching of the Word of God than capitulate to the strongarm tactics of the religious authorities, reformed and Catholic alike.

We don´t adapt something because there isn´t another good or better explanation. We build our system of FACTS that can irrefutably be proven. Otherwise what we present is simply our thoughts applied to Scripture. We may be right, but have to acknowledge that our theories may be inaccurate. So, rather than sitting at the feet of the reformers and divines, stand on their shoulders and prove what the text itself says. For those who think we need the wisdom of the reformers and that they were par excellence, I ask, "œWhat did the early church do?" Were they in the dark because Calvin wasn´t there to explain theology to them? How about Augustine? Is his theology errant because he didn´t have the wisdom of Witsius? These guys are simply tools for us. They´re not infallible. In fact, much of what they´ve written is quite fallible.

The burden of proof is always on the one who claims something is, not on one who claims something isn't, at least until the first one has given substantial proof.

So my point is that we need to know why we know something.


Really!
You have to start with the text. From there, what are the prinicples that allow you to assert your conclusions?
If you are not ready to accept the literal meaning of the text, then what guidelines are you using to allow you to allegorize?
What guidelines are in place to keep you from over-allegorizing? [One theologian says that all rounded numbers of high value are allegorical - millennium, 144000, etc. Interesting, but on what authority?]
Once you think you've figured out what the text says then the rest of Scripture must be brought to bear.
What did the original author intend?
How would the readers of the time perceive it?

This challenge is in no way exhaustive, but the point is that we have to know the boundaries of how we draw our conclusions. If we don't define them then we can make Scripture say anything we want it to, whether it's pretrib, CoW, NPP, easy believism or Arianism.

Here's the challenge: Without extensively quoting the works of men, can you give clear Scriptural exegesis for the CoW? Furthermore, if you make "inferences," please explain the hermeneutical principles used in your exegesis that allow you to make those "inferences." Furthermore, please share what restraints you adhere to in using any hermeneutical principles that allow you to expound on your use of these "inferences."

Make it clear. Keep it Scriptural. Prove that the CoW is indeed clearly taught in Scripture. Convince me.

For our King
Joe