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

[VirginiaHuguenot]

A covenant is generally defined to be an agreement between two parties, on certain terms. In every covenant there must be two parties, and consequently two parts"”a conditionary and a promissory; the one to be performed by the one party, and the other to be fulfilled by the other party. If either of the parties be fallible, a penalty is often added; but this is not essential to a covenant.

There are two important truths to which our attention is here directed. First, That God entered into a covenant with Adam, promising him life upon condition of his perfect and personal obedience. Secondly, That this covenant was made with Adam, not only for himself, but for all his natural posterity.

I. That God entered into a covenant with Adam in his state of innocence, appears from Gen. ii. 16,17: "The Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: 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." Here, indeed, there is no express mention of a covenant; but we find all the essential requisites of a proper covenant. In this transaction there are two parties; the Lord God on the one hand, and man on the other. There is a condition expressly stated, in the positive precept respecting the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, which God was pleased to make the test of man's obedience. There is a penalty subjoined: "In the day thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die." There is also a promise, not distinctly expressed, but implied in the threatening; for, if death was to be the consequence of disobedience, it clearly follows that life was to be the reward of obedience. That a promise of life was annexed to man's obedience, may also be inferred from the description which Moses gives of the righteousness of the law: "The man that doeth these things shall live by them," - Rom. x. 5; from our Lord's answer to the young man who inquired what he should do to inherit eternal life: "It thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments,""”Matt. xix. 17; and from the declaration of the apostle, that "the commandment was ordained to life.""”Rom. vii. to. We are, therefore, warranted to call the transaction between God and Adam a covenant. We may even allege, for the use of this term, the language of Scripture. In Hos. vi. 7 (margin), we read, "They, like Adam, have transgressed the covenant." This necessarily implies that a covenant was made with Adam, and that he violated it.

II. That this covenant was made with Adam, not only for himself, but also for all his natural posterity, is a doctrine which has met with much opposition. It is denied by Pelagians and Socinians, who maintain that he acted for himself alone, and that the effects of his fall terminated upon himself. Arminians admit that the whole human race is injured by the first sin, but at the same time controvert the proposition, that Adam was their proper representative. This truth, however, may be easily established. The Scripture represents Adam as a figure or type of Christ,"”Rom. v. 14; and wherein does the resemblance between them consist? Simply in this, that as Christ was a federal head, representing all his spiritual seed in the covenant of grace, so Adam was a federal head representing all his natural seed in the covenant of works. In 1 Cor. xv. 45, 47, the one is called the first Adam, the other, the last Adam; the one the first man, the other the second man. Now, Christ was not the second man in any other sense, but as being the federal head or representative of his seed; and, therefore, the first man must have sustained a similar character, as being the federal head or representative of all his natural posterity. The extension of the effects of Adam's first sin to all his descendants, is another strong proof of his having represented them in the covenant made with him. That he has transmitted sin and death to all his posterity, is clearly taught in the 5th chapter of the Epistle to the Romans; and unless his public character, as a representative in the covenant, be admitted, no satisfactory reason can be assigned why we are affected by his first sin in a way that we are not affected by his subsequent transgressions, or the transgressions of our more immediate progenitors. We know that "the son shall not bear the iniquity of the father" (Ezek. xviii. 20); and had Adam been merely a private person, his sin could have affected us no more than that of our immediate parents. The conclusion is inevitable,"”that in the covenant of works, our first parent not only acted for himself, but represented all his natural posterity.

Often has this part of the divine procedure been arraigned by presumptuous man. The supposition that God called Adam to represent us in a covenant, into which he entered with him long before we had a being, and to the making of which we could not personally consent, is, it has been alleged, inconsistent with the divine goodness, and contrary to moral justice and equity. To this it might be sufficient to reply, that this transaction being the proposal and deed of God, it must be fit and equitable. "Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?" "He is a God of truth, and without iniquity, just and right is he." But though we ought to acquiesce in the propriety of this transaction, simply because it was the will of God, yet it might be evinced, by various considerations, that it was not only consistent with equity, but manifested much of the divine goodness. If Adam had fulfilled the condition of the covenant, and thus secured happiness, not only to himself, but also to all his posterity, no one, certainly, would have complained that Adam was constituted his representative; and why should that transaction, which, in this event, would have been deemed just, be pronounced unjust on the contrary event? Adam, being made after the image of God, was as capable of keeping the covenant as any of his posterity could ever be supposed to be; that he should fulfil it was as much his personal interest as that of any of his descendants, his own felicity, no less than theirs, being at stake; and he was intimately related to the persons whom he represented, and had the strongest inducement to take care of his numerous offspring, as well as of himself. Adam having such peculiar advantages and inducements to perform the demanded obedience, it may be fairly presumed that, had it been possible for us to be present when the federal transaction was entered into, we would have readily agreed that it was more eligible and safe for us to have our everlasting felicity insured by the obedience of our first parent, as our covenant head, than that it should depend upon our own personal behaviour. And who would complain of his being represented by Adam in the covenant of works, since God has opened up a way for our recovery from the consequences of the breach of that covenant, by another and a superior covenant?

Robert Shaw, An Exposition of the Westminster Confession of Faith

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

Originally posted by Larry Hughes

All that aside, <<<whatever covenant concepts you want to detract from Adam, you will have to detract from Christ>>>, being the second or final Adam. Whatever Christ did, Adam should have done. (Paul's Romans 5 argument). That's the first two books in Witsius, and a huge portion of the Institutes by Calvin.

Well stated for this is the crux of the issue & where, when denied as in disp. & ironically in Roman catholicism, a denial of Christ's positive righteousness being imputated to us begins to germinate - ultimately denying the Gospel altogether.

Ldh

Again, reread the above statement.

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by LawrenceU
Witsius. I wondered when the thirteenth apostle would be tossed into the fray

Guys, no one has touched on what Joe posted regarding the stacked plausibilities. It is a valid point. And it deals directly with his comments on the necessity of the inference being made. It appears to me that the inference of a CoW is not necessary unless you want to end up in a particular place. It is very circular, in my opinion.

Joe and Lawrence,

I agree that inferences are not the end of the matter. What I would like to know is how we interpret Adam's relationship to Christ (and each other's work to the other's) in light of Romans 5, without a covenant of works. Specifically:

1. How did "all sin" in the one sin of Adam (Rom. 5:12) ? Paul obviously does not say that men sin as a result of Adam's sin (i.e. the corruption of sin), but rather that death spread to all men because all sinned (i.e. the sin of everyone resulted in the death caused by original sin - or that all were accounted to have sinned in Adam). Literally, the Greek says that "upon which ( ἐφ ᾡ παÌντες ἡÌμαÏτον )

2. How is Adam "a type of him who is to come"? (Rom 5:14)

3. Romans 5:17 appears to make the clear parallel between Adam and Christ - that is, salvation and righteousness comes to us from Christ in the same way that death came to us from Adam. If Adam did not act as a covenantal head for us, how then do we obtain Christ's righteousness?

4. Romans 5:18 continues this pattern, So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men.
. Literally, "one transgression was unto judgment for all men" and "one righteous act was unto justification of life for all men"

5. How do we explain how Christ's righteousness is makes us righteous, since it is directly parallel with Adam making us sinners? (Rom. 5:19)

Notice that I do not even once have to refer to Calvin or Witsius.

 

[RamistThomist]

I think Fred has summarized the biblical position quite well and if I had to summarize my position I hope it would sound something like his.

Joe,
Just out of curiosity, would your critique also critique the monocovenantalism of the Federal Vision?

 

[Wannabee]

Sorry Jacob, I have to plead ignorance on that one. Monocovenantalism of the Federal Vision?? (just typing that made my hand hurt ) I did look it up briefly. If you asking if I see one Covenant beginning with Adam, then no, I don't.

Well Fred, I really appreciate you coming along and using Scripture. Here's one aspect of your argument that I find frustrating: You didn't really present an exegetical case for the CoW. You presented a bunch of problems, but not an answer. If that was your intention, then there's no reason for my frustration. If you were presenting your case, it seems to be you didn't finish, you only opened up the questions that need to be addressed.

1. You won't like my answer. I'm not sure that the parallel is necessary. Let me ask you this, do we sin because we're sinners, or are we sinners because we sin?

2. I don't see the relevance. This does not necessitate a CoW.

3. Again, just simple facts. Adam brought death to the human race. Jesus brought life.

4. yup

5. But this does not necessitate a covenant. Adam's transgression brought judgment/death to mankind. Jesus brings a covenant by dying in order to save men. That's all the parallel we need.


One observation that I know you won't like. The words "in Adam" are only found on one place in Scripture. 1Co 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all will be made alive. While there may be an argument that a covenant is implied here, it is not clear. This is not a covenantal passage. It is a simple comparison.


I was hoping you'd jump in Fred. You've posed questions, I've given short, admittedly, less than adequate answers. The burden of proof is not mine. I have no need to defend what isn't clearly illuminated in Scripture. The burden of proof is on the claimant. Again:

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.

Fred, convince me, sola Scriptura.

 

[LawrenceU]

Fred,
I, too, appreciate your response; and the fact that the WCF was not dragged out as the final authority, or the LBC for that matter.

In response to your positions:

Is it not possible in God's eyes to have Adam as the federal head of man, seeing his seminal position without a covenant between the two? Perhaps I am splitting hairs, but a covenant is a serious matter and to hinge one's view of soteriology upon an inferred covenant seems a bit dicey to me. Perhaps I'm simple, but if God says that all men sin in Adam that settles it.

God ordained the fall. There was not a chance of Adam living according to a CoW anyway. If there was a covenant it would be more aptly named the Covenant of Death.


BTW, I like both Calvin and Witsius. :bigsmile:

 

[Larry Hughes]

What is it about the covenant of works that makes it so removed from the clear Scriptural teaching? Is it just because the phrase 'covenant of works' isn't found in the text, or is it something about the covenant itself?

Bob,

I do think this is much of the problem. It is especially a concept from dispensational type mind sets. Actually, strictly speaking it is this "œliteralistic" rendering of Scripture that develops "œDispensationalism" as a formal system. For such literalistic renderings (not the same as literal sense) have developed similar systems to dispensationalism in the past "“ they just were not called Dispensationalism. For example, Calvin´s comments toward the anabaptist of his time breaking the continuity of God´s Word into pieces fit perfectly toward dispensationalism.

Though the Anabaptist preceded formal dispensationalism which did not occur for a few more centuries. So, it is really the reading of the text(s) literalistically calling it "œliteral" that formulates the thought which in turn the system develops out of. We see this similarity today in the more traditional dispensationalism where they read the Law as in OT only and the Gospel as in the NT only, ergo (according to this faulty fracturing of the text), the Law/Gospel distinction is one of "œtime" (OT/NT). Which confuses monumentally both Law and Gospel to tremendous damage and dare I say horrid heresy. The irony is that this view is not that far removed from many Roman Catholics like my supervisor who see the God of the OT as mean and harsh, yet the God of the NT loving and forgiving (a common RC thought if you ever talk at length with them).

When one fractures the text outside of a covenant structure all sorts of weaknesses slip in that end up not only confusing Law and Gospel, but by virtue of the confusion end up preaching/teaching neither. This is why Calvin´s rebuke of the Anabaptist fits well the dispensationalist and a whole slew of others.

How does this come about? I think a great deal of it is as you said, "œthe phrase CoW isn´t found"¦" And this from a literalistic, not literal, view of the text.

Maybe an example will help, this example is ironically, I think, why I came to Covenantal, Calvinism and Continental Reformed so quickly "“ I understood via the same process of science. The example is a bit humorous but I think clearly illustrates the point. And to be fair we all struggle with degrees of this kind of mistake, I have in the past and do today. That´s why we learn! So, I was DD in my example once to!

Example: Dispensationalist Dan and Covenantal Carl visit a zoo. They see various animals and visit their cages with the labels on the cages as to what the animals are. They come upon a cage labeled "œDucks". Carl says, "œDan, look at those ducks, amazing creatures of God´s creation wouldn´t you say. Webbed feet for swimming, oily feathers to keep them dry, a bill for scooping up food and they make this quacking noise that is so distinctive of them." Dan replies, "œYes Carl, amazing creatures of God´s."

Later on they are in a park area of the zoo where no caged and labeled animals are eating their lunch together. When down flies about 4 "œWild" Mallard Ducks. Carl says, "œLook Dan, there´s some more of those ducks "“ wonderful creatures aren´t they!" Dan replies, "œCarl, I don´t think those are ducks, we cannot be so sure." Carl stunned replies, "œDan, how can you say such a thing, you are kidding right? Look at the webbed feet, bills and they quack like a duck." Dan, "œCarl, you spiritualizing the information and impressing upon it what you want. There is no sign that says, "œDuck" hanging on them."

Now, that is an exaggeration in order to make a point and not to cut someone down, as I said, "œI´ve been there before" and have much to learn my whole Christian life. But I did it to bring forth the point more clearly. Certainly not to offend. This is why strong dispensationalism and similar other doctrines have a problem with clear logical inference "“ in short - it´s not spelled out.

Ldh

 

[blhowes]

Larry,
Thanks for your response and the humorous story. I think it helped get your point across very well. What would make your story even more relevant for a layman like myself would be to add two zoo keepers, both of whom are experts in their field, into the story when Dan and Carl get to the park area. Both zoo keepers are experts in the field of zoology, have multiple degrees from different distinguished universities, and have spent many hours caring for the ducks. When asked to settle Dan and Carl's disagreement, each zoo keeper gives their learned opinion, one favoring Dan's conclusion and the other Carl's.

Isn't that how it is quite often?

 

[Reformed1]

Joe, I think Fred has some very valid points. You glossed over point #2 without providing a real answer. But it is a very strong argument. If we deny the COW, how is it then that Adam is a "type" of Him who was to come? There is a clear analogy going on here. But if we say that Jesus represented us a in a Covenantal fashion whereas Adam didn't, I feel it confuses the issue. Adam, in that case, would not have been a "type" of Christ and Paul's words would be confusing.

 

[Me Died Blue]

I think the key here is not simply that Adam brought death and Christ brought life, but how Adam brought death and how Christ brought life. As Fred pointed out, Romans 5 makes a clear parallel on the "how" issue - and we all agree that Christ brought life covenantally and on the basis of merit.

 

[Wannabee]

Rick and Chris (and Fred),

This is an understandable question, but still misses the point that a clear case has not been made. Fred asked valid questions, but failed to give a clear answer. I don't know if he is intending to answer, but I hope so. It's hard to proceed from there because you're asking me to deal with inferences based on your position. For now I would appreciate it if we could just get the questions answered. I don't know how many times I've asked for clear exegetical work on this. Maybe someone is pursuing that, but for now all we have is commentary and philosophy. 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.

So, rather than trying to put me in a corner with loaded questions, once again I ask:

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.

This really is a simple request. Furthermore it is in line with the teaching of The Westminster Confession.

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

Again, convince me, sola Scriptura.

 

[Reformed1]

Joe, I don't intend to answer for Fred, but I guess we can take our questions and turn them around into affirmations (in fact, they are affirmations posed as questions). Here is the point:

Romans 5 claims that Adam was a "type" of Christ. Christ is clearly our covenant head in the New Covenant and his righteousness is imputed to us by faith. All those who belong to Christ by faith are imputed this righteousness.

Drawing from that, certain aspects of our relationship to Adam are made abundantly clear:

1) Adam (by the necessity of the analogy drawn between Adam and Christ) is also our covenant head and his sins are imputed to us by posterity. All men took part in the sin of Adam by imputation.

2) Since Paul says that Adam was a "type" of Christ than our relation to Christ must be the same as our relation to Adam (and vice versa). If you choose to deny this, I would lay the burden of proof upon you since this is (at least to me) the clear meaning of the words.

3) Since we see that Christ brings righteousness to us covenantally there is no reason in the world to assume that the same would not be in the case of Adam. Again, the burden of proof is upon the person who denies the COW for this is the clear meaning of the words.

It is my assertion that those who deny the COW confuse the analogy made by Paul between Adam and Christ. Christ is the second Adam. How can he be the second Adam if the way in which he brings righteousness to his people is completely different than the way his people contracted sin? in my opinion, this is confusing (which is one of the reasons why I reject Dispensationalism as an option. It's just plain confusing).

Perhaps someone more articulate than I can clarify even more?

 

[Puritan Sailor]

I agree that inferences are not the end of the matter. What I would like to know is how we interpret Adam's relationship to Christ (and each other's work to the other's) in light of Romans 5, without a covenant of works. Specifically:

1. How did "all sin" in the one sin of Adam (Rom. 5:12) ? Paul obviously does not say that men sin as a result of Adam's sin (i.e. the corruption of sin), but rather that death spread to all men because all sinned (i.e. the sin of everyone resulted in the death caused by original sin - or that all were accounted to have sinned in Adam). Literally, the Greek says that "upon which ( ἐφ ᾡ παÌντες ἡÌμαÏτον )

2. How is Adam "a type of him who is to come"? (Rom 5:14)

3. Romans 5:17 appears to make the clear parallel between Adam and Christ - that is, salvation and righteousness comes to us from Christ in the same way that death came to us from Adam. If Adam did not act as a covenantal head for us, how then do we obtain Christ's righteousness?

4. Romans 5:18 continues this pattern, So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men.
. Literally, "one transgression was unto judgment for all men" and "one righteous act was unto justification of life for all men"

5. How do we explain how Christ's righteousness is makes us righteous, since it is directly parallel with Adam making us sinners? (Rom. 5:19)

I think the key here is not simply that Adam brought death and Christ brought life, but how Adam brought death and how Christ brought life. As Fred pointed out, Romans 5 makes a clear parallel on the "how" issue - and we all agree that Christ brought life covenantally and on the basis of merit.

Fred and Chris Have already answered your question Joe. Romans 5 tells us how the covenant heads acted for whom they represented. You may not like the answer but it's there. Those in Christ obtained life by His obedience because He represented them legally and covenantaly. Everyone agrees with that. In order to make any sense out of the Rom. 5 comparison with Adam, there has to be a parrallel relationship. The justice of God demanded that Christ act in the capactiy of a covenantal head in order to obtain life for us by His own obedience since we were in our sinful estate unable. It is unjust of God to impute righteousness to a sinner UNLESS Christ had not first agreed to act in that capacity as a covenantal head for His own.

And it is unjust of God to impute sin to people who have not committed that very sin, UNLESS Adam was acting in that capacity as a legal and covenantal reprentative. All in Adam, have the judicial sentence of death for his sin because he covenantally represented us, therefore making it our sin as well. Lawrence posited the biological or seminal spread of corruption through Adam, but this simply doesn't satisfy the justice of God. How can God justly allow children to be born in a state of condemnation and corruption in judgment for a sin they did not commit? The only way to make sense out of that passage is to understand Adam operating in the same function for mankind that Christ was for his people. Both arrangments depended upon the obedience of the head for the reward/punishment merited on behalf of those represented. Obedience = works. Adam was in a covenantal relationship for his posterity that depended upon his works, hence, for the sake of short hand, we may call that relationship a covenant of works.

I don't understand the problem here Joe. The elements of a covenant are clearly there, especially when comparing Adam to Christ. The narrative of Genesis 2 illustrated the elements of the covenant, which you also admited could at least be called a "covenant of death." Apparently you see some sort of covenantal relationship there. When Romans 5 describes that relationship in comparison to the covenantal work of Christ, it seems to me no problem at all to use a term, covenant of works, to describe that relationship. Perhaps you could think of another term we could all agree on?

 

[Reformed1]

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

 

[Wannabee]

I really hate to do this, because no one has yet to fully engage my questions. Inferences have been made, but proof hasn't. I can understand how one could logically come to the conclusion proposed by CT, but even then the CoW seems to be a necessarily added component to make the system work, rather than the other way around.

All are depraved because of the Fall. It's as simple as that. Why does there need to be a parallel covenant? It's simply not necessary. We are all depraved because of Adam's transgression.

Christ's imputed righteousness seems to be well understood and agreed to by all, so there really is not need to expound on it.

I'll ask again, are we sinners because we sin, or do we sin because we're sinners? This has a huge bearing on our understanding of depravity.

You've blanketed Lawrenc's proposal without any proof. Why wouldn't this proposal satisfy God's justice? The answer to the sin or sinner first question has ramifications here.

Let me ask another question. In what way was Adam's sin imputed to the human race? In what capacity? Be clear. Say it so that even a dispensationalist could understand it.

Patrick, there was no reward for obedience. This is an assumption. Adam was offered nothing he didn't already have. This is the complete opposite of any biblical covenant. It doesn't even look like a duck. Adam was alive and well, with all the benefits inherent in the creation, until he disobeyed. He wasn't told, "do this and live." There was nothing he had to do. To claim otherwise is to add to God's Word. He was simply given one restriction. Now, you say that Obedience = works. If that is true then I would have to admit that there is probably a CoW. However, if I tell my child not to answer the door if anyone knocks, he's not working by not answering the door. He's simply obeying.

By saying that it might be called a covenant of death I was simply reiterating that no works were involved. I can't see it. It doesn't have all the characteristics of a covenant. To support a system with this doctrine is extremely tenuous.

Perhaps, and I stress PERHAPS, part of the reason I do not accept this, besides what I've written above, is that Christ's covenant is unlike anything other covenant. It is similar to the covenants of the OT, but, even if there were a CoW, it is so completely different than the work of Jesus Christ that I just cannot see any parallel inferred here. Again, this is just a though "off the cuff" so to speak.

Rick, even you say that it's your opinion that the meaning is clear. Opinions are great, but they don't present a clear case. Just sit back and read Roman's 5, attempting to set your preunderstanding aside, and see what it says. There's no way that this is a clear reference to a CoW. Furthermore, to hang one's theology on one single passage is tenuous. Will the CoW fall apart without your interpretation of Romans 5? I suggest it would. If that is the case, and the passage is less than perfectly clear, it might be better to step back and start searching through your theology from the bottom up, without any preconceptions other than the inerrancy of God's Word.


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.


I continue to ask the same question:

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.

Maybe it would be good to start another thread that simply gives a clear definition of the CoW. Then we can leave this one exegetical analysis...

[Edited on 6-20-2005 by Wannabee]

 

[fredtgreco]

Joe,

I am not able right now to give a full answer, do to personal obligations. But I will say that you have just loaded up assumptions as well. The burden is not just on those who would prove a covenant of works, but on any Christian teacher to explain how we are saved.

Originally posted by Wannabee
All are depraved because of the Fall. It's as simple as that. Why does there need to be a parallel covenant? It's simply not necessary. We are all depraved because of Adam's transgression.

But the question which you keep avoiding is how all are depraved because of Adam's transgression? In other words, how does the action of one man bring depravity on all? If I incur a debt to the bank, does that mean that the who world owes the bank? Of course not. The whole world is not in privity (to use a legal term) with the bank. But if you signed a guaranty for me, you would be obligated - because of the relational/contractual/covenantal obligation. So how do we get from Adam to us? You have to be able to answer this question with something else than, "I don't know, but it is not a covenant. The entire doctrine of original sin, and hence the entire doctrine of salvation, depends on it. That doesn't mean that it is impossible to make a case outside of the covenant of works, but that it is necessary to make that case.

Originally posted by Wannabee
Christ's imputed righteousness seems to be well understood and agreed to by all, so there really is not need to expound on it.

No actually, it is not. How is Christ's righteousness imputed to us? What is the context? I believe it is in the context of the covenant of works. That is, how did Christ earn the merit that He gives to us? If you say simply that it is the original righteousness/holiness of God, than I say fine - but that makes you a proponent of NT Wright and the New Perspective. If you say that it is the merit of Christ earned by His obedience (active and passive) on earth, than I say fine, but what is the context in which it is transferred to us? If you say that Christ kept the law for us, and paid its debt for us, then fine - but that is a federal (covenantal, from foedus) act.

I'll ask again, are we sinners because we sin, or do we sin because we're sinners? This has a huge bearing on our understanding of depravity.

You've blanketed Lawrenc's proposal without any proof. Why wouldn't this proposal satisfy God's justice? The answer to the sin or sinner first question has ramifications here.

Good question. The answer is that we sin because we are sinners. That is the point of Romans 5:12-13. Otherwise, if we only are sinners because we sin, the best thing we could do for all infants is to kill them, because that would make them sinless. They would go to heaven before they had the opportunity to sin.

Let me ask another question. In what way was Adam's sin imputed to the human race? In what capacity? Be clear. Say it so that even a dispensationalist could understand it.

Adam's sin was imputed to us in exactly the same way that Christ's righteousness was imputed to us. Adam stood in our stead, as our representative, acting for the whole human race. If he had obeyed, it would have been counted as if every person would have obeyed, and no one else would have had the probationary command. Because he sinned, we are all counted as having actually sinned, without the act of sin. Just as Abraham was accounted righteous by faith, without having performed the acts necessary for righteousness (perfect obedience).

Patrick, there was no reward for obedience. This is an assumption. Adam was offered nothing he didn't already have. This is the complete opposite of any biblical covenant. It doesn't even look like a duck. Adam was alive and well, with all the benefits inherent in the creation, until he disobeyed. He wasn't told, "do this and live." There was nothing he had to do. To claim otherwise is to add to God's Word. He was simply given one restriction. Now, you say that Obedience = works. If that is true then I would have to admit that there is probably a CoW. However, if I tell my child not to answer the door if anyone knocks, he's not working by not answering the door. He's simply obeying.

So I take it then, Joe, that you believe Adam and his progeny were required to perpetually, perfectly and personally obey all the commands of God with their free will. And there would never have been glorification, since man was always to be in danger of sinning. Because, if Adam would have ever ceased to be on probation, that would be a reward/benefit for obedience. This is another case where the "solution" is far worse than the "problem" caused by a covenant.

And what do we make of Lev. 18:5 and Gal. 3:12?

Leviticus 18:5 'So you shall keep My statutes and My judgments, by which a man may live if he does them; I am the LORD

Galatians 3:12 However, the Law is not of faith; on the contrary, "HE WHO PRACTICES THEM SHALL LIVE BY THEM."

Are we to assume that the Israelites were offered more in their sinful state than Adam was? Namely that Adam could perpetually obey, and not be assured of life, but that they could have life by obeying?

By saying that it might be called a covenant of death I was simply reiterating that no works were involved. I can't see it. It doesn't have all the characteristics of a covenant. To support a system with this doctrine is extremely tenuous.

Perhaps, and I stress PERHAPS, part of the reason I do not accept this, besides what I've written above, is that Christ's covenant is unlike anything other covenant. It is similar to the covenants of the OT, but, even if there were a CoW, it is so completely different than the work of Jesus Christ that I just cannot see any parallel inferred here. Again, this is just a though "off the cuff" so to speak.

Again, the question is how does Christ earn merit? I am not concerned now here with how we appropriate Christ's merit to ourselves - that is the New Covenant. But the New Covenant has nothing to do with how Christ is termed righteous as the One Mediator between God and man (Gal 3:20; Heb. 8:6; 9:15; 12:24). Christ brings His benefits and merit to the believer through the New Covenant, but we have to explain from the Bible how Christ earns His merit. You see, if you say that Adam had no merit in obedience, then Christ cannot have any merit either. He is the Second Adam.

 

[Reformed1]

to Fred's post. If you deny the federal headship of Adam you must also deny the federal headship of Christ. He is the Second Adam.

 

[Puritan Sailor]

Originally posted by Wannabee
I really hate to do this, because no one has yet to fully engage my questions. Inferences have been made, but proof hasn't. I can understand how one could logically come to the conclusion proposed by CT, but even then the CoW seems to be a necessarily added component to make the system work, rather than the other way around.

All are depraved because of the Fall. It's as simple as that. Why does there need to be a parallel covenant? It's simply not necessary. We are all depraved because of Adam's transgression.

It's not that simple though. Romans 5 tells us how we became depraved through the Fall. Our depravity is a judicial consequence of Adam's disobedience as our representative. His disobedience is ours.

Christ's imputed righteousness seems to be well understood and agreed to by all, so there really is not need to expound on it.

I'll ask again, are we sinners because we sin, or do we sin because we're sinners? This has a huge bearing on our understanding of depravity.

For us, we sin because we are sinners. But the real question is how did mankind become sinners? This goes back to Adam. Adam became a sinner because he sinned. And he did so on our behalf.

You've blanketed Lawrenc's proposal without any proof. Why wouldn't this proposal satisfy God's justice? The answer to the sin or sinner first question has ramifications here.

Let me ask another question. In what way was Adam's sin imputed to the human race? In what capacity? Be clear. Say it so that even a dispensationalist could understand it.

Adam's sin was imputed the same way as Christ's righteousness is imputed to those He represents. In so far as their representation is concerned, there is a perfect parallel. The difference is the merited consequences. Adam's sin was imputed to our account, therefore we as well are guilty, and recieve the death sentence. That is where we get our depravity. That's also why babies die. That's why death reigned from Adam to Moses. They were punished for Adam's sin. It was counted as their own.

In like fashion Christ's obedience and therefore the merited reward for it are also counted as the believers own, because he represented them, and imputed all His work to them.

The parental transmission doesn't match what Paul tells us of Adam's sin imputed to them. Again, God can't justly impute condemnation and punish with depravity, children who didn't commit the sin they are accused of, unless there was a previously designed relationship to satisfy that just sentence.

Both Adam and Christ stand in relation to God as representatives. Their relationships to their posterity are defined by the representative work on their behalf. Can you at least agree to that inteprretation of Romans 5?

Patrick, there was no reward for obedience. This is an assumption. Adam was offered nothing he didn't already have. This is the complete opposite of any biblical covenant. It doesn't even look like a duck. Adam was alive and well, with all the benefits inherent in the creation, until he disobeyed. He wasn't told, "do this and live." There was nothing he had to do. To claim otherwise is to add to God's Word. He was simply given one restriction. Now, you say that Obedience = works. If that is true then I would have to admit that there is probably a CoW. However, if I tell my child not to answer the door if anyone knocks, he's not working by not answering the door. He's simply obeying.

Adam had plenty of work to do. He also received positive commands of God, especially the moral commands of God as a righteous creature. The command to not eat must be interpreted as probationary, extraordinary, for the purpose of testing. This point at least, the Church has been rather unanimous on in history to my knowledge. Both Adam and Christ suffered temptation as covenant heads. Adam failed, Christ did not.

By saying that it might be called a covenant of death I was simply reiterating that no works were involved. I can't see it. It doesn't have all the characteristics of a covenant. To support a system with this doctrine is extremely tenuous.

Was not Adam required to do good works? Isn't that part of being righteous? Obedience equals works. Now, where does reward come in? There is reward thoughout Scripture. Reward for obedience and disobedience. I'm not sure why you object to that idea.

Perhaps, and I stress PERHAPS, part of the reason I do not accept this, besides what I've written above, is that Christ's covenant is unlike anything other covenant. It is similar to the covenants of the OT, but, even if there were a CoW, it is so completely different than the work of Jesus Christ that I just cannot see any parallel inferred here. Again, this is just a though "off the cuff" so to speak.

I would hope that you would see, we do not accept the COW because it is popular. Actually the COW is very unpopular these days. We hold to it because we believe it accurately describes the relationship of God and Adam, and us in him.

Historically, and as we've seen on this thread, the doctrine was developed by reflecting upon the nature of Christ's work for his people. Paul makes the parallel. He tells us the nature of the relationship between Adam and his posterity. We must seek to understand it now. Both the obedience and merited consequences earned by Adam and Christ were granted to their posterity by imputation.

I continue to ask the same question:

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.

Obviously, if the 400 years of Reformed history has not convinced you then their is little we can do. Read Berkof, Boston, and Girardeu. They defend much better than we will, and do so from Scripture, not from citing Confessions. I have attempted to do the same by simply reflecting on Romans 5. This also requires some recipricol reflection on your part. You may try to poke holes in the traditional idea of the CoW but you have offered no alternative for us to consider which address the same questions that the CoW tries to answer.

Maybe it would be good to start another thread that simply gives a clear definition of the CoW. Then we can leave this one exegetical analysis...

Here's an attempt at a definition by a precis I wrote for class. Criticize as you see fit:

By Puritan Sailor
The covenant of works is defined as an agreement established between the Triune God, as Creator and Lord, and Adam, as the federal head and representative of humanity, which secured a relationship of service, friendship, and communion; wherein God benevolently condescended to His upright creature made in His image, and promised to Adam, and to his posterity in him, eternal life and communion with God upon the condition of personal, perfect, and perpetual obedience to the revealed will of God, and as a probationary test, forbid him to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil upon the pain of physical and eternal death, both for himself and for those whom he represented.

This covenant has also been called by some as a covenant of life, covenant of nature, or Edenic covenant, but the term covenant of works should be preferred because it more accurately describes the nature of the covenant and distinguishes it from the covenant of grace.

The scriptural basis for the covenant of works is found in the following:
1) In the narrative of Genesis 2, God gave to Adam all trees in the garden for food, but forbid him to eat of the one tree of the knowledge of good and evil, threatening him with death. The promise of life is implied if Adam should continue in obedience. That Adam consented to this covenant is evidenced first, by his upright nature in delighting to do the will of his heavenly Father, and second, in light of the evidence that Eve was instructed by Adam regarding the stipulations to not eat of the tree (Gen. 3:2-2). Thus, the elements of a covenant are present with two parties, God and Adam, and promises and stipulations agreed to. In light if this evidence, there can be no denying a covenant relationship was established.
2) Hos. 6:7 states that Adam was in a covenant, "œthey like Adam have transgressed the covenant."
3) The Scriptures teaches that there are two different covenants by which man may inherit eternal life, either through the law of works or by the law (or hearing) of faith (Rom. 3:27, Gal. 3:5, Gal. 4:21-26). All men are born under the law of works (Rom. 2:5-16, 3:19-20). Eternal life is inherited in the law of works by the principle "œDo this and live" (Lev. 18:5, Gal. 3:10-12, 4:21-26, Mat. 10:17-19, Rom. 10:5), which is merely a republishing of that same agreement with Adam and his posterity. Thus the law of works and the covenant of works are the same.
4) Scripture teaches that there are two federal heads of men, Adam and Christ (Rom. 5:12-21, 1 Cor. 15:45-49) in which only a covenantal or federal understanding can explain the consequences to their respective posterity without contradicting the justice of God. The consequence of death to all men is explained in the transgression of Adam being imputed to mankind, and that Adam was a type of Christ in this respect. Just as Adam acted on behalf of those whom he represented, so Christ acts on behalf of those whom He represents. If there is no covenant with Adam as the federal representative of mankind, then God has no just grounds to impute Adam´s transgression to them.

Since the Fall, the covenant of works, as a means of inheriting eternal life, has been abrogated for sinners, because man is unable, in his estate of sin and misery, to obtain life by that covenant. He remains under the curse of the law for his sin (Gal. 3:10) and subject to God´s wrath (Rom. 3:19-20). But, God has not abrogated the covenant in it´s stipulations to man for perfect obedience to the revealed will of God, nor in the punishment for disobeying God´s revealed will, nor in the promise of eternal life to one who would perfectly satisfy the righteous requirements of the law.

Two common objections to the covenant of works:
1)The term "œcovenant" is not used in the text of Genesis 2 to describe the relationship: ,
Answer: It is true the term may not be in the narrative but as shown above: a) Hos. 6:7 does refer to a covenant with Adam, b) the elements necessary for a covenant are clearly present in the narrative, c) Rom. 5:21, and 1 Cor. 15:21-22 clearly teach that Adam performed a covenantal or federal role for mankind typical of what Christ does for His posterity.
2) It is impossible for Adam, a mere creature, to in anyway merit a reward from the infinite God.
Answer: This is true in that Adam, by virtue of his relationship as a creature, owed perfect obedience to God his Creator without expectation of reward. But the sovereign God condescended to His creature to provide this covenant and made a promise to Adam, with stipulations by which to inherit the promise, thus designing, in His own good pleasure and free favor, a means by which Adam may inherit the promise of eternal life. Boasting on the part of Adam would also be excluded because of the condescending nature of the covenant to him and because it would be contrary to his upright and holy nature to boast.

[Edited on 6-20-2005 by puritansailor]

 

[Me Died Blue]

Originally posted by Wannabee
All are depraved because of the Fall. It's as simple as that. Why does there need to be a parallel covenant? It's simply not necessary. We are all depraved because of Adam's transgression.

If it was as simple as that, it would have to be as simple as that with the Cross as well, saying that all elect are saved because of Christ, period. But we know it is not that simple with Christ. Scripture expounds on the Cross and puts it in a covenantal setting, and describes the meritorious nature that Christ saved us. Thus, the parallel to Adam tells us more about how we died in him than just telling us that we did.

Originally posted by Wannabee
Christ's imputed righteousness seems to be well understood and agreed to by all, so there really is not need to expound on it.

We are expounding upon it because Scripture tells us that He redeemed us in the same way Adam killed us - so if we want to biblically understand the latter, how can we neglect expounding on the former? Systematic theology is necessary for proper biblical theology.

Originally posted by Wannabee
I'll ask again, are we sinners because we sin, or do we sin because we're sinners? This has a huge bearing on our understanding of depravity.

To answer that question about our sin in Adam, I would simply ask the same thing about our righteousness in Christ - are we righteous because we act righteously, or do we act righteously because we are righteous? The biblical answer agreed upon by everyone here (and all of historic Protestantism) is of course the latter. Likewise, when we draw the parallel back to Adam, we sin because we are sinners.

Originally posted by Wannabee
Let me ask another question. In what way was Adam's sin imputed to the human race? In what capacity? Be clear. Say it so that even a dispensationalist could understand it.

I'm not quite sure what you're asking for here. Adam's sin was imputed to his children in the same way and capacity as Christ's righteousness was imputed to God's children.

Originally posted by Wannabee
Patrick, there was no reward for obedience. This is an assumption. Adam was offered nothing he didn't already have. This is the complete opposite of any biblical covenant. It doesn't even look like a duck. Adam was alive and well, with all the benefits inherent in the creation, until he disobeyed. He wasn't told, "do this and live." There was nothing he had to do. To claim otherwise is to add to God's Word. He was simply given one restriction. Now, you say that Obedience = works. If that is true then I would have to admit that there is probably a CoW. However, if I tell my child not to answer the door if anyone knocks, he's not working by not answering the door. He's simply obeying.

I think this reveals a lot of what could be causing misunderstanding here. I was taken by surprise when you said you see a difference between obedience and works. What is the difference? In Scripture, what else constitutes good works except obedience to God's Law? When we say we reject any doctrine of salvation by works, are we not saying that we reject a system that would posit salvation by following the Law? If a Roman Catholic told you, "I don't believe in salvation by works, I believe in salvation by obedience," would you not accuse him of simply playing a meaningless word-game?

Also, I fail to see a principled difference between "do this and live" and "do the opposite of this and die." Adam was told that he would die if he ate the fruit of one tree; surely you would not claim that he might have died as a result of another act as well, would you? And if not, he had assurance that he would live as long as he did not eat of that tree. If the government tells you "if you go X miles per hour, you will get a speeding ticket," are they not also saying, "if you always stay under X miles per hour, you will have the reward of never getting a speeding ticket"? If Adam disobeyed, he would lose his life. Likewise, we see that he continued to have possession of that promised life as long as he obeyed.

Originally posted by Wannabee
Perhaps, and I stress PERHAPS, part of the reason I do not accept this, besides what I've written above, is that Christ's covenant is unlike anything other covenant. It is similar to the covenants of the OT, but, even if there were a CoW, it is so completely different than the work of Jesus Christ that I just cannot see any parallel inferred here. Again, this is just a though "off the cuff" so to speak.

In that case, since you see such a lack of parallel between Christ's salvific covenant and those of the OT, and thus reject our interpretation of Romans 5, I'm honestly curious what you do take out of Romans 5. What does it tell us about Christ, about Adam, and about what they each did and how they relate? Be specific.

 

[Wannabee]

Sorry guys. I had some bullet points written out, but they were eaten by the evil computer.

Fred, thanks again for chiming in. Your challenges are well thought out and appreciated.

Obviously much of what I'm saying is either being misunderstood, miscommunicated or misrepresented. For the record, I do have a systematic understanding of Romans 5. This is not the place for it though. Not because it's not relevant, but because my view will simply not be accepted here. It is most assuredly NOT in line with CT. It's not in line with DT either. This is why I've persisted in asking you guys to make a clear presentation of the CoW. If I'm wrong in my understanding then I want to know. In fact, I know that there are some major problems with my understanding. Where's it right? Where's it wrong? We all need to ask this question of our system. It's not necessary at this time for me to propose my thoughts here though. I simply asked for clear exegetical proof along with an explanation of the hermeneutical principles used to come to the CoW conclusion. Some good explaining has been done, but it seems far from irrufutable. That's why I asked to be convinced.


Patrick, I don't have the stomach for criticizing your hard work, even without the sarcasm. You've always been respectful and given an good account for yourself when I've been involved in discussions with you. I really have no desire to goad you or denigrate your labor. I've addressed much of what you've written already. Of course I have problems with it, but you knew I would. I really do appreciate the energy and thought you've put into it.


Those of you who know me know my hermeneutic is simple and literal. It may be called wooden even. I make no bones about it. As far as I'm concerned, this is the heart of sola Scriptura. This is probably why we can't come to a common understanding. My hermeneutic is not accepted here as a valid method of interpretation. I simply refuse to accept what isn't clear from Scripture, and the CoW has too many holes in it. Now, because of my hermeneutic many will cry "Dispensational." If you mean that my hermeneutic is similar, then I'll take the label. However, my conclusions are not all the same, so keep that in mind. This is another reason I asked that any explanation be accompanied by an explanation of the hermeneutical principles applied. If you can't define them 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.


I would like to ask one more question though. Now, I'm not disagreeing with the idea that we sin because we're sinners. I agree wholeheartedly. My question is directed at the CoW. If we are all guilty of the Fall, then by necessity we are sinners because we sinned. If all sinned in Adam, then our condition is a result of our action, not the other way around. Perhaps I'm missing something in your understanding, but I see now way around it from here.


Thanks guys. I do appreciate the challenge.

[Edited on 6-20-2005 by Wannabee]

 

[Scott Bushey]

Joe,
I know that I have not added a lot to this discussion and I am prone to attack the weakness in your claim instead of providing that which you are requesting. However, do you remain consistant with this theory of sola scriptura across the board? For instance, as I have asked before, do you allow for woman to partake of the supper where the scriptures do not specifically show that they should? The Trinity? The NT tithe?

 

[pastorway]

[pastorway sticks his nose in the thread and mentions a few thoughts to ponder]

how come covenant theology is built upon a series of covenants that are never mentioned specifically by name in the Bible?

works, redemption, grace

The Bible speaks clearly and plainly of many covenants (Noah, Abraham, David, Priests, Moses [Old], Christ [New]) - but the crucial "covenants" upon which CT rests its whole foundation are never mentioned specifically as a covenant within the text of Scripture but are raised only by the works of men making inferences to support a system........if God really did want to teach us SYSTEM o theology don't you think He would have said, "I made a covenant of works with Adam....."???

Why would God state so many things so clearly in Scripture and yet leave the foundational aspects of theology, those planks upon which the whole building stands or falls, to INFERENCES????

Further, to be clear, one does not have to embrace the terminology of a covenant of works in order to uphold the imputation of Christ's righteousness to the believer, nor does a denial of the existence of a covenant of works automatically lead to damning heresy.

My

Phillip

 

[Scott Bushey]

Phillip,
All of us hold to NI in one way or another. To attack one portion, one must remain consistant and throw out all other NI to remain consistant. Is not the trinity important? God never uses the term trinity, or speaks of it in the scriptures to the extent that it is clearly seen without ANY difficulty. Joe is stating that the COR is not in scripture. For him to hold to this idea, or you for that matter, you would both have to remain consistent and throw out all the other NI's in the bible.

 

[Puritan Sailor]

Originally posted by Wannabee
Patrick, I don't have the stomach for criticizing your hard work, even without the sarcasm. You've always been respectful and given an good account for yourself when I've been involved in discussions with you. I really have no desire to goad you or denigrate your labor. I've addressed much of what you've written already. Of course I have problems with it, but you knew I would. I really do appreciate the energy and thought you've put into it.

Understood. I appreciate your zeal to understand the Scriptures as well. Your challenges are necessary and valid but I believe they have already been answered by many in the past. I was just trying to provide a definition to work with for the sake of discussion. Certainly my definition though isn't any different than what you've already heard. We are all working with the same verses. The question then comes down to interpretation of those verses.

I would like to ask one more question though. Now, I'm not disagreeing with the idea that we sin because we're sinners. I agree wholeheartedly. My question is directed at the CoW. If we are all guilty of the Fall, then by necessity we are sinners because we sinned. If all sinned in Adam, then our condition is a result of our action, not the other way around. Perhaps I'm missing something in your understanding, but I see now way around it from here.

You are correct. Our condition is a result of our action. But it was our action in Adam as our head, acting on our behalf. He spoke and acted for us. So yes, in that sense, we are sinners because we sinned. All our depravity and condemnation is the punishment of the choice Adam made on our behalf. But because of his status as covenant head, it was our choice as well.

John Girardeau answers this very specifically in his little book called Federal Theology, It's Import and Regulative Influence. I would highly recommend it since he answer the very questions you are asking, and the book is only about 50 pages, so it's a quick read.

 

[doulosChristou]

Originally posted by puritansailor
Our condition is a result of our action. But it was our action in Adam as our head, acting on our behalf. He spoke and acted for us. So yes, in that sense, we are sinners because we sinned. All our depravity and condemnation is the punishment of the choice Adam made on our behalf. But because of his status as covenant head, it was our choice as well.

Patrick,

I follow what you're saying in the first part when you talk about all of us sinning in Adam who acted not just for himself but in our behalf as our head, but you lose me when you move from there to speaking about Adam as "covenant head." Romans 5 makes it clear that Adam was our representative head, and we sinned in him. It is only through being put in Christ by grace alone through faith alone that we are saved. It appears that I believe everything that you are saying follows from the Covenant of Works doctrine, but I believe these truths without needing a Covenant of Works to exist. I would have to say that nothing in Scripture precludes the CoW concept, and it may very well be that God did cut a covenant with Adam in Eden. The whole thing is very logical and adds a certain euphonical symmetry to theology. So I'm not saying that He did not cut a covenant with Adam, just that we don't have enough information to say with certitude. In the end, I don't believe it is important to the Gospel as long as we understand clearly the plain teaching of Romans 5, that we all sinned in Adam and our only hope is to be made alive in Christ, the second Adam who substitutionally lived and died on behalf of His elect so that His righteousness may be reckoned ours and our guilt His. Whether we make a covenant out of the admittedly covenantal language of Genesis 2-3 or call it an arrangement or whatever seems ultimately immaterial to the great transaction which lays at the heart of Reformed soteriology.

Blessings in Christ,

dC

 

[Dan....]

Just wanted to point out that Patrick, Fred and Chris aren't just pulling together some inferences and claiming them to be true arbitrarily. The question is whether they be necessarily true.

It is a matter of logical consistency.

What I don't see is those here who are opposed to those inferences demonstrating how those inferences (whether you want to call them COW or "arrangement with Adam as federal head" or whatever) do not necessarily follow from the truths presented in scripture.


[Edited on 6-21-2005 by Dan....]

 

[Dan....]

I follow what you're saying in the first part when you talk about all of us sinning in Adam who acted not just for himself but in our behalf as our head, but you lose me when you move from there to speaking about Adam as "covenant head." Romans 5 makes it clear that Adam was our representative head, and we sinned in him. It is only through being put in Christ by grace alone through faith alone that we are saved. It appears that I believe everything that you are saying follows from the Covenant of Works doctrine, but I believe these truths without needing a Covenant of Works to exist. I would have to say that nothing in Scripture precludes the CoW concept, and it may very well be that God did cut a covenant with Adam in Eden. The whole thing is very logical and adds a certain euphonical symmetry to theology. So I'm not saying that He did not cut a covenant with Adam, just that we don't have enough information to say with certitude. In the end, I don't believe it is important to the Gospel as long as we understand clearly the plain teaching of Romans 5, that we all sinned in Adam and our only hope is to be made alive in Christ, the second Adam who substitutionally lived and died on behalf of His elect so that His righteousness may be reckoned ours and our guilt His. Whether we make a covenant out of the admittedly covenantal language of Genesis 2-3 or call it an arrangement or whatever seems ultimately immaterial to the great transaction which lays at the heart of Reformed soteriology

Well said. Sounds good to me.

Whether we accept the term "covenant of works" or "the arrangement with Adam", you're saying the same thing.


...though I must ask, what type of arrangement, or "great transaction" was Adam in as our representative head?


[Edited on 6-21-2005 by Dan....]

 

[Puritan Sailor]

Originally posted by doulosChristou

Originally posted by puritansailor
Our condition is a result of our action. But it was our action in Adam as our head, acting on our behalf. He spoke and acted for us. So yes, in that sense, we are sinners because we sinned. All our depravity and condemnation is the punishment of the choice Adam made on our behalf. But because of his status as covenant head, it was our choice as well.

Patrick,

I follow what you're saying in the first part when you talk about all of us sinning in Adam who acted not just for himself but in our behalf as our head, but you lose me when you move from there to speaking about Adam as "covenant head." Romans 5 makes it clear that Adam was our representative head, and we sinned in him.

Very well. We agree Adam was a representative head. We agree his sin is imputed to us. But, how did Adam ever end up in such a relationship? How did we end up in such a relationship in him? How did Christ ever end up in such a similar relationship to His people?

It is only through being put in Christ by grace alone through faith alone that we are saved. It appears that I believe everything that you are saying follows from the Covenant of Works doctrine, but I believe these truths without needing a Covenant of Works to exist. I would have to say that nothing in Scripture precludes the CoW concept, and it may very well be that God did cut a covenant with Adam in Eden. The whole thing is very logical and adds a certain euphonical symmetry to theology. So I'm not saying that He did not cut a covenant with Adam, just that we don't have enough information to say with certitude. In the end, I don't believe it is important to the Gospel as long as we understand clearly the plain teaching of Romans 5, that we all sinned in Adam and our only hope is to be made alive in Christ, the second Adam who substitutionally lived and died on behalf of His elect so that His righteousness may be reckoned ours and our guilt His.

It is important to gospel because the covenant defines the role of obedience in the relationship between God and man. Obedience is owed to God by His creatures no matter what, simply by the fact that He is God. In the covenant relationship, God designs a plan for the obedience of the federal head to accomplish something, and move beyond what only his finiteness owes without expectation of reward.

How did Christ ever become a representative head? What enabled him to merit salvation for us by His obedience?

Whether we make a covenant out of the admittedly covenantal language of Genesis 2-3 or call it an arrangement or whatever seems ultimately immaterial to the great transaction which lays at the heart of Reformed soteriology.

Perhaps this is the crux of the issue, the definition of a covenant. I simple go by the definition that a covenant is an agreement between two or more parties which secures a relationship. It may be an arrangment between parties as equals, or an arrangment between a superior party dictating terms to an inferior party. How are you defining "covenant"?

 

[Me Died Blue]

Originally posted by Dan....
Just wanted to point out that Patrick, Fred and Chris aren't just pulling together some inferences and claiming them to be true arbitrarily. The question is whether they be necessarily true.

It is a matter of logical consistency.

What I don't see is those here who are opposed to those inferences demonstrating how those inferences (whether you want to call them COW or "arrangement with Adam as federal head" or whatever) do not necessarily follow from the truths presented in scripture.

Also, of course one does not have to use the term "Covenant of Works" to understand the garden setup biblically - kind of like how some people use "Covenant of Redemption" to express the agreement between the Father and Son regarding redemption, and some prefer to use the biblical language of "Counsel of Peace" (Zechariah 6:13), while still others prefer to simply refer to it as the invisible aspect of the Covenant of Grace (such as the Westminster Divines). But all three titles refer to the same thing in substance. It's just like what J. I. Packer said about the term "Calvinism": "This question presumably concerns, not the word, but the thing. Whether we call ourselves Calvinists hardly matters; what matters is that we should understand the gospel biblically. But that, we think, does in fact mean understanding it as historic Calvinism does. The alternative is to misunderstand and distort it."

So it is with the "Covenant of Works." And the points I made in my previous post in particular (in response to Joe), as well as the points Fred, Patrick and others have been making, are simply concerned with acknowledgment of the necessary biblical characteristics of the garden situation, particularly regarding its relation to original sin and to redemption in Christ. And I think all of the points we have been making present a clear biblical case for understanding it to be a specific contract God made with Adam in which there were defined guidelines and consequences, and in which Adam's obedience to those guidelines was the sole determination for those consequences, and in which his eventual disobedience was imputed to all men immediately rather than merely infused at their first sin.