Featured The Covenant of Works

I agree with you on all points. Perhaps except that I don't know how critically foudational it is to Covenant Theology. There is no "covenant" supplied in the Genesis narrative. I would also add that the negative consequences of Adam's sin are presented as an almost unavoidable response on God's part to the reality of what has occured, not as "justice" for an affront:

Gen. 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
Gen 3:23 Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken
Gen 3:24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.

There is a "because of this, therefore that." Not a Because you did this, I am going to punish you with that. God implies that man's remaining alive now that he has the knowledge of good and evil is a state of affairs which simply CANNOT be allowed. The consequences are unimaginably horrible (and God acts as though he cannot or simply will not speak of it)

Verse 22 simply trails off unresolved as an incomplete thought:

"Lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever...........................{Well what?? What would happen?}
God does not say, he will not say. It is almost a mercy that Adam is not permitted to live forever as a sinner. He is kicked out of the garden, not to be made miserable, or as a punishment per se but, because the tree of life is there.
Ultimately this is not crime vs. punishment justice and judgement. It is event vs. consequences.

I do not know how "foundational" it is to Covenant Theology it really is. I can imagine embracing Covenant Theology generally while this "covenant" seems superfluous to the real important issues. (Then again, I've never embraced it, and am no authority on the topic).

 

OK. You asked. I'm a novice at covenant theology simply because none of the churches I have ever attended emphasized it as a primary means of explaining salvation. But, when I take a look at R.C. Sproul's explanation of the covenant of works I notice a couple of things right away:
The Covenant of Works by R.C. Sproul
The issue is really in his mind that the rejection of it stems from differences in opinion on the imputation of Christ's active obedience and on objections to the Reformed view of the Atonement. I tend to ask, when someone attacks a teaching "What is the purpose of this". I find that quickly gets to the bottom of what is going on. That also goes for someone searching for answers on their own. In other words, if I say that theologically I have discovered that the God's moral law is no longer in effect for today am I wanting a richer, more committed approach like Christ taught or do I really just hope there is a way to avoid the old fashioned strictness of God's commands? It actually makes all the difference so I would look there first.

This in no way lessens the idea of a covenant. One thing I do know is that those who teach covenant theology point out that the Old Testament era covenants, even those among other people groups always involved one side having absolute power over the other side. The approach was from the strong side and seen as a condescending act of mercy more than a two party contract. So all covenants with God look like commands because they are and the difference is that the initiator of the covenant is graciously adding blessings or at least mercies. And to say that Adam had no blessing promised when he lived in the days of pristine, delightful conditions doesn't make any sense.

 

Joe Rigney, President of Bethlehem College and Seminary believes, only hypothetically, that God would have required Adam to learn, grow and become sanctified, and the effects of the curse would not have slowed him. (I may not be perfectly presenting his case) But he admits that we do not know what would have transpired. The only things we can know are what God has said. So, I tend to agree with you.

 

I've always considered it is as unscriptural. I agree with you that it is a command w/consequences, not a 'covenant'.

 

Agree. Not Baptist. I grew up in the SB Church and had never heard of it till meeting the 'Puritan herd' on this board.

 

@JonC . I don't know of any Reformed Baptist churches that use covenant theology to explain salvation doctrine. So, I don't feel any obligation to defend it as a Baptist. And in addition, I started reading Puritan theology as a Baptist for their value in teaching a seriousness and a piety that I felt was missing in my traditional Baptist church. But I also found that their teaching on salvation was just as much an individual coming to Christ in repentance and belief as any good Baptist preacher. The whole reason I like the Puritans so much is that they have their theology and love to discuss it and argue about it among themselves and with other groups yet when it comes to preaching they did not frame it in theological terms either in terms of doctrines of grace or covenants. So I wanted to get that out of the way because there seems to be an attempt to refute something we don't assert.

I can only speak for myself but the only thing Reformed Baptists do is correct two errors that crept into Baptist churches. One is that they became semi-Pelagian in their "soul winning" where is was sometimes said "you give me 30 minutes with almost anyone and I can get them saved". The rediscovery of the emphasis on the work of the Spirit in a person coming to Christ was needed badly. Two, is that we had drifted away from the idea of sanctification as being necessary for salvation. We forgot that salvation is by faith alone but a faith that is never alone and that once saved a person would persevere did not mean that once making a profession of faith you would automatically be saved no matter if you continued or not. In reading the literature, Baptists did pick up on the discussion of covenants and doctrines of grace but that is NOT the main point of preaching.

As for being a small sect among Baptists, last I heard 35% of seminary graduates are now Calvinists. That is not a small sect. I do admit that because of the internet savvy of the YRR their influence may seem greater than what it is, still, it's not a small sect.

The main danger I see for the Reformed Baptists is that the wokeness that started at one of the T4G meetings several years ago threatens to blow the whole YRR movement apart and has probably done irreparable damage, but that's another story.

I have said the same thing before, joking, and if you go over to the Puritanboard site you can see how an argument gets started whenever anyone says Baptists can be truly reformed. But I know some Presbyterians and I can tell you most of them have zero practical knowledge of anything concerning salvation and don't want to know. The Presbyterian church by and large died when most of the other mainstream denominations took a liberal (theologically) turn. There are good Presbyterian churches and teachers, we have had some as guest speakers, but they seemed to have benefited from the recent Calvinistic resurgence as much as we did in Baptist churches.

Anyway, there seems to be no one left on here who cares about covenant theology. I have explained where I am on it so I guess that's it.

 

And I appreciate you always taking the time to give thoughtful replies. You know, stepping back, and looking at the whole issue of Reformed Baptists, many of us who came to those types of churches came because we were in a spiritual sense starving to death. Sermons at our non-Reformed Baptist churches were more and more banal and filled with meaningless stories and illustrations with mostly entertainment value. When I started listening to Reformed Baptist preaching all I can say was that it was and still is a notch above what I had been listening to. And I don't mean the intellectual stimulation of the theology, I mean just the seriousness and the emphasis put on doing God's will. I know that the help I got from Puritan and Reformed preaching might just as well have come from another source. It's just that for me, it was them so I hold them in high regard.

 

reference of Gill's thoughts on it:

A Body of Doctrinal Divinity by John Gill.

Part III: Of the Eternal Works of God.

Section 7. Of the Law Given to Adam,
and the Covenant made with Him in the State of Innocence...

Part 4. Fourthly, The law given to Adam, as it had the nature of a covenant, it contained a promise in it and had a sanction annexed to it.

4a. It contained a promise; which was a promise of life, of natural life to Adam, and of a continuation of it so long as he should observe the condition of it;

"just as life was promised to the Israelites, and a continuance in it, in the land of Canaan, so long as they should observe the law of God;

"for neither the law of Moses, nor the law of nature, made promise of any other than of natural life.

"Some divines, and these of great name and figure in the churches of Christ, think, and indeed it is most generally received, that Adam continuing in his obedience, had a promise of eternal life.

"I cannot be of that mind.

"There is, indeed, an ambiguity in the phrase "eternal life";

if no more is meant by it than living forever in his present life, it will not be denied;

but if by it is designed such a state of glory and happiness, which saints shall enjoy in Heaven to all eternity;

that must be denied for the following reasons:

4a1. Adam's covenant was but a natural covenant; and which was made with a natural man, as Adam is called by the apostle (1 Corinthians 15:46,47), and which covenant promised no supernatural blessing, neither grace nor glory;

for as for spiritual blessings, these the elect are blessed with only in heavenly places in Christ (Ephesians 1:3).

4a2. It was in another covenant more early than that of Adam's, in which eternal life was promised and secured;

God, that cannot lie, promised it before the world began;

and this promise was put into Christ's hands, even from all eternity;

and the blessing itself was secured in him for all for whom it was designed (Titus 1:2; 2 Timothy 1:1; 1 John 5:10).

4a3. Eternal life is only through Christ as the Mediator of the covenant of grace;

it comes by no other hands but his;

it is "through Christ Jesus our Lord";

he came to open the way of it, that "we might have life, and that more abundantly";

a more abundant, durable, and excellent life, than Adam had in innocence: Christ, as Mediator, had a "power to give eternal life" to as many as the Father has given him;

and he does give it to all his sheep, that know his voice, hearken to him, and follow him (Romans 6:23; John 10:10; 17:3; 10:28).

4a4. If eternal life could have been by Adam's covenant, it would have been by works; for that covenant was a covenant of works; and if by works, then not of grace; it would not have been the gift of God, as it is said to be;

"The gift of God is eternal life", ÷áñéóµá ÷÷ááññééóóµµáá ÷áñéóµá, a free grace gift.

Eternal life is no other than consummate salvation in the future state; and that is said to be of grace, and denied to be of works; (see Romans 6:23; Ephesians 2:8,9).

Should the question of the young man in the gospel, and Christ's answer to it, be objected (Matthew 19:16-22). "Good Master, what good thing shall I do that I may inherit eternal life you will enter into life, keep the commandments";

it may be observed, Christ answers him, and deals with him on his own principles;

the man was upon the bottom of his own good works, and seeking for eternal life by them; and since he sought for life that way, Christ directs him to keep the commands, there being no good thing better than keeping them;

the young man asked him what they were; he tells him;

upon which he was very alert, and thought himself in a very good way for Heaven: but Christ, further to try him, and to convince him that eternal life was not to be enjoyed by any good thing done by him, bids him, if he would be perfect, sell all that he had, and give to the poor;

on which he went away sorrowful, unwilling to part with his possessions; and so found that eternal life was not to be had by doing.

4a5. Life and immortality, or an immortal, eternal life, and the way to it, are only brought to light by the Gospel (2 Timothy 1:10), not by the light of nature, nor by the law of Moses; only by the Gospel of Christ.

4a6. There is no proportion between the best works of man, even sinless obedience and eternal life; wherefore, though the threatening of death to Adam contains in it eternal death, it does not follow that the promise of life includes eternal life; since, though eternal death is the just wages and demerit of sin; yet eternal life is not the wages and merit of the works of men; it is the free gift of God (Romans 6:23).

4b. The sanction of the law and covenant made with Adam, was death; "In the day you eat thereof you shall surely die" (Genesis 2:17), which includes death corporal, spiritual, or moral, and eternal.

4b1. A corporal death; which lies in a separation of soul and body; as this was threatened, so the sentence of it was pronounced on the day man eat of the tree; "Dust you are, and to dust you shall return" (Genesis 3:19).

Adam was at once stripped of the immortality of his body, that gift was at once withdrawn from him, and he became a mortal man;

the seeds of death took place in him;

and he was immediately subject to diseases, disorders, and miseries, which issue in death.

4b2. A spiritual, or rather moral death seized upon him; which lies in a separation of the soul from God, and communion with him; in an alienation from the life of God; in a deformation of the image of God; in a corruption and defilement of the several powers and faculties of the soul; in impotency and disinclination to that which is good; he became dead in trespasses and sins, as all his posterity are.

4b3. An eternal death, which lies in a separation of soul and body from God; in a loss of the divine presence, and in a sense of divine wrath; both which are contained in these words, "Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire";

a symbol of which was the ejection of Adam out of paradise;

as eternal life is the gift of God, so eternal death is the wages of sin (Matthew 25:41; Romans 6:23).

 

Thanks Jon. Martyn Lloyd-Jones seemed to have a very high view of Richard Baxter and Wesley, both of whom he said had deficient theological views. He pointed out that what we call Calvinism, if understood correctly should be fairly broad minded as to whether people who are believed to have mistaken views would be saved, because the word is heard and the Holy Spirit does the rest, either directly or at least in a leading and convicting way. So Calvinists should be the last people quick to condemn over second tier theological differences if we truly believe in the essential nature of the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit. But that doesn't always seem the case.

But grace works both ways, and if you are a student of the theology, or if you are a pastor or clergyman in a Reformed church either Baptist or other, and someone claims a core building block of your theology is unbiblical or a logical fallacy I can see how it would deserve a rigorous response. I'm not there so it doesn't bother me in that way. But I do tend to look at where differences will lead. So when I see popular pastors saying woke things I'm thinking where's this going, and when I see YRR gurus saying the Spirit gifts of tongues are still in operation, same thing. And when I see someone attacking Reformed theology at a point where the Reformed theologians think it's essential, I tend to wonder what the goal is. Same thing with the Atonement. So what I'm trying to say is that while I don't have theological training I have been a Christian for a long time and I do know that can happen when you change our relationship to the moral law or change the meaning of the Atonement. These are things you can observe as a Christian, without a theological axe to grind or a threat to your professional position.

I say all that just to repeat that I see great danger in any theology that tends to have an aversion to the seriousness of making a conscious effort in sanctification through minimizing the continuity of the moral law. And the same thing goes even more so with views of the Atonement.

 

Amen, brother! I shall always owe a huge debt of gratitude the the Brethren chapel where I was saved, but as soon as I started to look for meat rather than milk, it wasn't there. The leaders were dear people, but they couldn't answer my questions; nor, more importantly, my children's questions.
One day we were told that the only Christian bookshop in the area had a sale on. I went along with no idea what I ought to be looking for. I might easily have bought something by Benny Hinn But the biggest book with the largest discount was The Sermon on the Mount by Martyn Lloyd-Jones so I bought that, and suddenly there was something to get my teeth into. .