The Covenant of Works

[Alan Gross]

no biblical text provides for a covenant between the Father, Son, and Spirit;

no biblical text teaches that the covenants actually in God's Word are administrations of the covenant of grace.

Does the Bible really say that there was an everlasting covenant made between the Father, Son, and Spirit called the covenant of redemption?

ref: The Everlasting Council Between The Three Divine Persons,
Concerning The Salvation Of Men.

Ephesians 1:7; "In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;

8 "Wherein he hath abounded toward us in all wisdom and prudence;

Ephesians 3:10; "To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God."

Isaiah 6:8; The Father asks, "Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?"

the Son, knowing his Father's will, and assenting to it,
declared his agreement with it, "Here am I, send me";

and the Spirit approving of the Father's motion,
and the Son's consent joined with the divine Father
in the mission of him;

"Now the Lord God and his Spirit hath sent me", Isaiah 48:16, and what inexpressible pleasure must such unanimity give to a believing soul, to declare which is the design of the divine consultation.

I John 5:6-9, 11-12; "This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth.

7 "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

8 "And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one."

The Triune Godhead Witnesses of what?

That Jesus is the Son of God and the Absolutely Successful Savior of men and through the Spirit of God, God the Father has Given ETERNAL LIFE to HIS CHILDREN.

9 "If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son."

11 "And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son."

12 "He that hath the Son hath life, and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life."

The Everlasting Covenant Of Grace,
Between The Father, The Son, And The Holy Spirit.

Giving; 2. In what sense the word "covenant" is used in scripture, etc.

"2b. A covenant, when ascribed to God, is often nothing more than a mere promise; "This is my covenant with them, saith the Lord, my Spirit that is upon thee", &c. Isaiah 59:21 hence we read of "covenants of promise", or promissory covenants, Ephesians 2:12; ref: "That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:"

"and, indeed, the covenant of grace, with respect to the elect, is nothing else but a free promise of eternal life and salvation by Jesus Christ..."

3a. It is called, "a covenant of life", Malachi 2:5,

3b. It is called, "a covenant of peace", #Malachi 2:5 Isaiah 54:10,

3c. It is commonly called by men, "the covenant of Grace",

3d. It is by some divines called, "the covenant of redemption",

3e. This covenant ("the covenant of redemption") is the same with the covenant of grace; some divines, indeed, make them distinct covenants;

"the covenant of redemption, they say, was made with Christ in eternity;

"the covenant of grace with the elect, or with believers, in time: but this is very wrongly said;

"there is but one covenant of grace, and not two, in which the Head and Members, the Redeemer and the persons to be redeemed, Christ and the elect, are concerned;

"in which he is the Head and Representative of them, acts for them, and on their behalf..."

con't

 

[Alan Gross]

Chapter 8: the Part the Father took in the Covenant

Chapter 9: the Part the Son of God took in the Covenant

Chapter 10: Christ as the Covenant Head of the Elect

Chapter 11: Christ the Surety of the Covenant

Chapter 12: the Love of God

Chapter 13: Christ the Testator of the Covenant

Chapter 14: the Concern the Spirit has in the Covenant

Chapter 15: the Properties of the Covenant

Chapter 16: the Complacency
and Delight the Divine Persons
had in Each Other From Everlasting.

(I have very much enjoyed preaching on this/ it has always brought a very Sweat Spirit upon the congregation(s).

Does the Bible really present the Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic, and New Covenants as administrations of the covenant of grace?

These go into a lot of serious information on the subjects of Covenants, the Abrogation of the Old Covenant, The Law, and The Gospel, etc. and "the Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic, and New Covenants as administrations of the covenant of grace."

Lots of scripture.

I trust them implicitly.

ref: THE ACTS OF THE GRACE OF GOD
TOWARDS AND UPON HIS ELECT IN TIME

Chapter 1: the Manifestation
and Administration of the Covenant of Grace

Chapter 2: the Covenant of Grace
in the Patriarchal State

Chapter 3: the Covenant of Grace
under the Mosaic Dispensation (not Dispensationalism)

Chapter 4: the Covenant of Grace
in the Times of David and the Prophets

Chapter 5: the Abrogation of the Old Covenant

Chapter 6: the Law of God

Chapter 7: the Gospel

I am saying I reject the method because the "covenants" they use are not covenants in the Bible. Instead they are "covenants" Presbyterian scholars developed from the Bible. Those are very different things.

"Presbyterian scholars developed from the Bible"
to formulate what from them?

Your decision will not affect your status as a child of God, but it will have an impact on how you understand (and what you can understand) of God's Word.

Your decision will not affect your status as a child of God; we hope not.

Do they go so far as to say anything that "would affect" whether someone was TO BECOME A saved child of God, "IF THEY ACTUALLY BELIEVED in their soul what was being taught?

This is an issue with Covenant Theology. They are so indoctrinated in the use of non-biblical covenants that there seems to be confusion on the biblical ones.

The Old Covenant Law was a covenant between God and Israel. That, not God's moral law, is what Paul refers to as the Law which ended. And that is what NCT refers to as the Law which ended.

O.K.

 

[JonC]

The problem is that those "covenants" are not biblical covenants. When we apply Christian philosophy to the Bible....even if it uses Bible verses and Bible truths...it changes the way one understands God,'s Word.

Had God meant to communicate His Word to us in Covenant Theology then He would have revealed His Word to us in that context. But He didn't. He gave His Word in the biblical narrative, progressing to the Promise.

 

[JonC]

In other words....I agree with the passages and even the content of @Alan Gross 's posts. But I do not see any value in organizing those passages and covenants under the Presbyterian system if Covenant Theology.

That said, people are different and understand things differently. I personally believe it is best to simply read and study Scripture as a narrative about and progressing towards the Promise and the New Covenant.

That said, I also believe that Presbyterian Theology, while not Catholic, has carried over doctrines (even if reformed doctrines) from the RCC when they would have done better to have simply read the Bible. As they were at one time Catholic, this probably could not have happened in a very short time span, but by cling to tradition and building on that tradition they have not moved nearly as much as they should have towards God's Word.

 

[Alan Gross]

Is there a reason (other than supporting the fuller Presbyterian system) to make this command into a covenant?

No.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Depending on your doctrine of the Trinity, it could be eisegesis. Mine isn't (the doctrine of the Trinity I affirm is in the text of Scripture)

I confirm the Covenant of Works as being in the text of Scripture in just the same way that the Doctrine of the Trinity is. The word 'Trinity' was coined by Tertullian, whose orthodoxy is certainly suspect in some of his writings. Nonetheless, was right here, and others have built on his foundation.

I do not believe you came to CT through the Bible.

So you call me a liar. Did you come to the Trinity solely through reading the Bible, or were you taught it and then came to agree it by your study of the Bible?
[QUOTE The reason is no biblical text teaches God made a covenant of works with Adam; no biblical text provides for a covenant between the Father, Son, and Spirit; and no biblical text teaches that the covenants actually in God's Word are administrations of the covenant of grace.[/QUOTE]
Yes they do, in all three cases. That you cannot find them is no indication that they are not there. I am still recovering from my hip operation, But I hope in a very few days to address this fully.

CT was developed in the Presbyterian academia.

Here you show your ignorance. One of the fathers of C.T. was Robert Ames, who was an Independent, and John Owen and Thomas Goodwin, who were leaders among those who developed it, were Congregationalists. You also seem ignorant of the fact that Baptist C.T. differs in several respects from the Paedobaptist version. As you said to me, Read!

So no, your claim that you arrived at all of those ideas simply through Scripture is not logical. It is just something you say, probably even believe, to justify adding to Scripture.

You are a Moderator. You can call me a liar in the same way you once called me a heretic, and there's nothing I can do about it. So carry on! My shoulders are broad.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I want to caution you about misrepresenting my views and making false accusations about what I believe.

I do not know why, but this has been a problem on this board, especially with hyper Calvinists

Our story begins in Exeter, Devon in 1717. It involved two Presbyterian ministers, Joseph Hallett and James Peirce. Hallett was also the Principal of a Dissenting academy in the city. Over a period of time, these two gentlemen became enamoured of Whiston’s theories, especially his denial of the deity of Christ. Rather than give up their positions in their respective churches, Peirce and Hallett practised deception upon their congregations. Peirce wrote:-

“In conversation, I had always avoided such intricate points, and might easily do so still. But my chief concern was about my preaching and praying. Concerning the former, I was resolved to keep more close to the Scripture expressions than ever, and venture to say very little in my own words of a matter about which I was in such doubt myself. As to the latter, I could not find there was any occasion for making much alteration, whichever notion should appear like the truth. I was by this time thoroughly convinced that the common doctrine was not according to the Scriptures, and was settled in my present opinion, and from my first coming I avoided the common doxology.”

Yet at the same time, in a sermon on Presbyterian ordination, he declared, “Those who are admitted to the office should be believers. The necessity of this is very obvious- that which is necessary in a private Christian, to give him a right in the sight in the sight of God to the communion of the Church, must be for those who are admitted into the ministry- a profession of faith.

Peirce and Hallett were not allowed to carry on their deceptions for very long. Indeed, Hallett and his students did not long conceal their admiration for the theories of Whiston. As for Peirce, “There was a vacuity in his ministrations felt by all who looked for spiritual nourishment……many freely expressed their doubts as to the soundness of [his] views.”(5). As a result, Peirce was requested to preach a sermon on the deity of Christ, in which his teaching was, to say the least, ambiguous. Suddenly suspicion fell upon all the Dissenting ministers in Exeter and the surrounding areas. Only one Pastor, John Lavington, “seemed to adhere firmly to the Trinitarian system”(6).

In the event, seven Presbyterian ministers were invited to attend a meeting in Exeter with thirteen deputed laymen to establish the true state of affairs. The ministers were invited to declare their faith in the Trinity in the words of the First of the 39 Articles of the Church of England. Now here is going down to Egypt for help with a vengeance! What had happened to the Westminster Confession of Faith that Non-conformists needed to go to an Anglican document to prove their orthodoxy? It seems that it had already fallen into disuse. Peirce, Hallett and some others declined this proposal, protesting that the Scriptures alone were the true rule of faith. “Fair enough,” replied their inquisitors, “But what doctrine do you deduce from the Scriptures? Do you draw from the Bible the teachings that have been held by the Church from ancient times and taught by the Presbyterian Church of which you are ministers?” When the ministers again refused to make an explicit declaration of their faith, the meeting drew to a close and the congregations served by these men were split. Some declined to listen any longer to their teaching, but others, whether unaware of, or unconcerned by, the controversy, continued to hear them.

 

[JonC]

I confirm the Covenant of Works as being in the text of Scripture in just the same way that the Doctrine of the Trinity is. The word 'Trinity' was coined by Tertullian, whose orthodoxy is certainly suspect in some of his writings. Nonetheless, was right here, and others have built on his foundation.

So you call me a liar. Did you come to the Trinity solely through reading the Bible, or were you taught it and then came to agree it by your study of the Bible?

The reason is no biblical text teaches God made a covenant of works with Adam; no biblical text provides for a covenant between the Father, Son, and Spirit; and no biblical text teaches that the covenants actually in God's Word are administrations of the covenant of grace.

Yes they do, in all three cases. That you cannot find them is no indication that they are not there. I am still recovering from my hip operation, But I hope in a very few days to address this fully.
Here you show your ignorance. One of the fathers of C.T. was Robert Ames, who was an Independent, and John Owen and Thomas Goodwin, who were leaders among those who developed it, were Congregationalists. You also seem ignorant of the fact that Baptist C.T. differs in several respects from the Paedobaptist version. As you said to me, Read!

You are a Moderator. You can call me a liar in the same way you once called me a heretic, and there's nothing I can do about it. So carry on! My shoulders are broad.

Please reread my post. I didn't call you a liar. I said I think you believe you arrived at Covenant Theology through Scripture. I just do not believe that to be the case as it is not in the Bible.

I did say you were lying with your last post, and I stand by that statement. I believe you to be a gossip as well, and I will stand by that claim. I did not call you a heretic (I believe you to be a Christian who is caught up in sin when it comes to those who disagree with your ideas).

I agree that the titles "Trinity" and "Covenant Theology" are not in the Bible. I never claimed they were. That is a stupid argument you have made several times. I don't care what a doctrine is called.

Yes, I arrived at the doctrine of the Trinity through verses the Bible.

If you cannot find verses in the text of Scripture that constitute the doctrine then don't hold it.

 

[JonC]

Our story begins in Exeter, Devon in 1717. It involved two Presbyterian ministers, Joseph Hallett and James Peirce. Hallett was also the Principal of a Dissenting academy in the city. Over a period of time, these two gentlemen became enamoured of Whiston’s theories, especially his denial of the deity of Christ. Rather than give up their positions in their respective churches, Peirce and Hallett practised deception upon their congregations. Peirce wrote:-

“In conversation, I had always avoided such intricate points, and might easily do so still. But my chief concern was about my preaching and praying. Concerning the former, I was resolved to keep more close to the Scripture expressions than ever, and venture to say very little in my own words of a matter about which I was in such doubt myself. As to the latter, I could not find there was any occasion for making much alteration, whichever notion should appear like the truth. I was by this time thoroughly convinced that the common doctrine was not according to the Scriptures, and was settled in my present opinion, and from my first coming I avoided the common doxology.”

Yet at the same time, in a sermon on Presbyterian ordination, he declared, “Those who are admitted to the office should be believers. The necessity of this is very obvious- that which is necessary in a private Christian, to give him a right in the sight in the sight of God to the communion of the Church, must be for those who are admitted into the ministry- a profession of faith.

Peirce and Hallett were not allowed to carry on their deceptions for very long. Indeed, Hallett and his students did not long conceal their admiration for the theories of Whiston. As for Peirce, “There was a vacuity in his ministrations felt by all who looked for spiritual nourishment……many freely expressed their doubts as to the soundness of [his] views.”(5). As a result, Peirce was requested to preach a sermon on the deity of Christ, in which his teaching was, to say the least, ambiguous. Suddenly suspicion fell upon all the Dissenting ministers in Exeter and the surrounding areas. Only one Pastor, John Lavington, “seemed to adhere firmly to the Trinitarian system”(6).

In the event, seven Presbyterian ministers were invited to attend a meeting in Exeter with thirteen deputed laymen to establish the true state of affairs. The ministers were invited to declare their faith in the Trinity in the words of the First of the 39 Articles of the Church of England. Now here is going down to Egypt for help with a vengeance! What had happened to the Westminster Confession of Faith that Non-conformists needed to go to an Anglican document to prove their orthodoxy? It seems that it had already fallen into disuse. Peirce, Hallett and some others declined this proposal, protesting that the Scriptures alone were the true rule of faith. “Fair enough,” replied their inquisitors, “But what doctrine do you deduce from the Scriptures? Do you draw from the Bible the teachings that have been held by the Church from ancient times and taught by the Presbyterian Church of which you are ministers?” When the ministers again refused to make an explicit declaration of their faith, the meeting drew to a close and the congregations served by these men were split. Some declined to listen any longer to their teaching, but others, whether unaware of, or unconcerned by, the controversy, continued to hear them.

I'm not a Presbyterian (I don't care).

My concern is your post telling the board what I believe (contrary to my own statements).

I realize that you were a part of the gossip board (4 of you were) and it was shut down by that hosting site. And I suppose it is better to talk about people where they can respond rather than behind their backs (you four gossipped about several members of this and another board). But it is still gossip.

Accurately representing my words is a small thing. Accurately representing God's words is a big thing.

If you cannot be trusted with the small things then how can you be trusted with the big things?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I want to caution you about misrepresenting my views and making false accusations about what I believe.

I do not know why, but this has been a problem on this board, especially with hyper Calvinists.

I want to caution you about misrepresenting my views and making false accusations about what I believe.

I do not know why, but this has been a problem on this board, especially, and indeed, almost exclusively, with you

I have never posted that Adam would have died even had he had obeyed God in in regards to that command. What I posted was that it is a logical fallacy to assume Adam would have never died had he not sinned by eating of the fruit.

This is just evidence that you do not know what a logical fallacy is.

What I have posted repeatedly is that the wages of sin is death.

So, what would have happened is Adam had not eaten the fruit? Would he have died 'in the day that' he didn't eat it? Telling me that he might still have died because he might sometime later have eaten the fruit or transgressed another of God's laws is possibly true, but extra-biblical. But, if he didn't do that, he would have lived forever, Right? or wrong? I wrote:

You believe that Adam would have died whether he ate the fruit or not. You have said so several times

As indeed you have, and you have repeated it in the post above. There is no mention of death before Genesis 2:16-17. Had Adam not sinned, he would have lived forever. Yes or no?
.

 

[JonC]

This is just evidence that you do not know what a logical fallacy is.

So, what would have happened is Adam had not eaten the fruit? Would he have died 'in the day that' he didn't eat it? Telling me that he might still have died because he might sometime later have eaten the fruit or transgressed another of God's laws is possibly true, but extra-biblical. But, if he didn't do that, he would have lived forever, Right? or wrong? I wrote:

As indeed you have, and you have repeated it in the post above. There is no mention of death before Genesis 2:16-17. Had Adam not sinned, he would have lived forever. Yes or no?
.

No, your assumption is a logical fallacy by definition.

What would have happened had Adam not eaten of the fruit? Adam would not have died as a consequence of eating the fruit.

Would Adam have lived forever? Nobody knows. It's hypothetical. I believe that had Adam not eaten of the fruit but a year later cursed God for something that that would constitute sin and death would enter the world. It maybe God would have had him eat of the Tree of Life. Maybe he would somehow be born of the Spirit and die to the flesh from which the desire to sin arose. Nobody knows.

 

[JonC]

Then you haven't looked hard enough.

No. I looked. I said I think you believe that you arrived at Covenant Theology by reading Scripture but also that I believe you did not.

You have a bad habit of accusing anybody who disagrees with you as calling you a liar, and anybody who disagrees with your philosophy as calling you a heretic.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I'm not a Presbyterian (I don't care).

You should care. The General Baptist collapsed into Unitarianism and/or Quakerism at this time, and even the Particular Baptists lost several churches to Unitarianism. Interestingly, they were rescued, to a large extent, by two people, one of whome was John Gill.

My concern is your post telling the board what I believe (contrary to my own statements).

Well if you were less opaque about what you believe, maybe it wouldn't happen.

I realize that you were a part of the gossip board (4 of you were) and it was shut down by that hosting site. And I suppose it is better to talk about people where they can respond rather than behind their backs (you four gossipped about several members of this and another board). But it is still gossip.

It was not a "gossip board." It was started by two people who wanted to establish your views. I was invited to join, made possibly two posts and haven't been back. I don't know that it has been taken down.

Accurately representing my words is a small thing. Accurately representing God's words is a big thing.

If you cannot be trusted with the small things then how can you be trusted with the big things?

As I understand it, the whole purpose of the board was to try and establish your views. Most of it was taken up with direct quotations from your posts on this and other boards. You should be flattered.
But I agree that your words and God's word are two very different things.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I believe that had Adam not eaten of the fruit but a year later cursed God for something that that would constitute sin and death would enter the world.

And this isn't hypothetical?

 

[JonC]

You should care. The General Baptist collapsed into Unitarianism and/or Quakerism at this time, and even the Particular Baptists lost several churches to Unitarianism. Interestingly, they were rescued, to a large extent, by two people, one of whome was John Gill.

Well if you were less opaque about what you believe, maybe it wouldn't happen.

It was not a "gossip board." It was started by two people who wanted to establish your views. I was invited to join, made possibly two posts and haven't been back. I don't know that it has been taken down.

As I understand it, the whole purpose of the board was to try and establish your views. Most of it was taken up with direct quotations from your posts on this and other boards. You should be flattered.
But I agree that your words and God's word are two very different things.

I don't. The reason is Presbyterian Theology retained far too much Roman Catholic Theology (I agree with the Baptists in that one).

You have misunderstood the purpose of this board. It s not to establish my views. I did not even start this board.

I know my beliefs very well. I'm sure you know yours well also.

The problem comes in when you post that I did not express my belief but instead hold to an idea to which I have never ascribed.

If you want to know what I believe then we can have that discussion. But to know what I believe you would have to be content with what I post that I believe (when you make up stuff and that stuff is what I believe then you not only create confusion...I suspect that is your purpose....but you also seem to confuse yourself (you seem to forget what I actually posted, confusing that with what you falsely attributed to me). There can be no value in that.

 

[JonC]

And this isn't hypothetical?

Asking if Adam would have lived forever had he obeyed that command is hypothetical by definition. It is only in your mind that God promised Adam that he would live forever if he never ate of the Tree (which is why you cannot provide a verse in the Bible stating your belief).

You indicated that this was like the doctrine of the Trinity (the teaching that God is One, the Father and Son are One, and the Spirit is the Spirit of God). You say that is not actually in the Bible, and I do not believe you are lying. You are of course wrong, but I can easily believe that you have not yet stumbled across such passages in your studies.

That is a fundamental difference between your belief and mine. I believe that we are to test doctrine against God's Word (against what is written in the text of Scripture).

You and I both, for example, believe in the Trinity. BUT we believe it for very different reasons. I can find it in the text of Scripture. You cannot, but your tradition holds it as true so you believe it on that authority.

 

[JonC]

Well if you were less opaque about what you believe, maybe it wouldn't happen.

It was not a "gossip board." It was started by two people who wanted to establish your views. I was invited to join, made possibly two posts and haven't been back. I don't know that it has been taken down.

Just ask me what I believe and I'll tell you. I'm not gonna author a book. You certainly don't need a gossip forum to discuss my beliefs.

And it was a gossip board (that was it's only purpose). No doctrine was discussed. You guys merely took posts from this site, insulted and ridiculed about 8 Christians from this site and 3 or 4 from another Christian site. And you were a part of it.

It was taken down because the Administrator posted that he would physically confront two Christians here (not me) and could find where they live. Then he posted the site on this forum, publicly, for all to see.

I removed the gossip board from view on this site because this is a Christian forum. As discussions of whether legal action would be necessary it was copied on the staff section.

The host took the gossip site down because it violated the terms of agreement by making physical threats against people.

If you want to know what I think of Reformed people, that is it. That is your witness and your identity in the eyes of several here who have read the gossip forum. I think most Reformed just have the wisdom to keep the gossip amongst themselves.


IF anybody wants to know what I believe they can simply ask.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Asking if Adam would have lived forever had he obeyed that command is hypothetical by definition. It is only in your mind that God promised Adam that he would live forever if he never ate of the Tree (which is why you cannot provide a verse in the Bible stating your belief)

I just go by the Scriptures. Genesis 2:15-17. And the LORD God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to tend and keep it........' There is a the first part of provision. God places Adam in idyllic surroundings, with only light tasks to do (no weeds back then).
'........And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, "of every tree in the garden you may freely eat........"' there is a further gracious provision.
'........"but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day you eat of it you shall surely die,"' And here is the prohibition and the sanction. Don't eat the forbidden fruit; if you do it will represent the forfeiture of the covenant and you will die.
Now none of this is conjecture; it is all straight from the Scripture. But to say that Adam would have died anyway is conjecture. If you hear a policeman shout after you, "Stop, or I'll shoot!" If it is a logical fallacy to suppose that if you stop he will not shoot you, then you will do best to keep on running and hope for the best. But especially with God, who cannot lie, the logical fallacy is to assume that He will lie which is what you are doing, unconsciously no doubt. No less is it a conjecture and a logical fallacy to suppose that if the policeman doesn't shoot you now he will certainly shoot you later.

Now a cord of three strands in not easily broken, so let's look at Romans 5:12. 'Therefore just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin.' I assume that you will not deny that the one man was Adam. It was his sin that brought death into the world.
'........and thus death spread to all men because all sinned.' Adam was a public person. He acted for all his progeny.
Romans 5:13-14. 'For until the law, sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.' Here we see that God's moral law was in the world from the beginning, otherwise there would have been no death until the time of Moses. We also see that Adam is a type of Christ. He stood as a covenant head in the same way that our Lord is a covenant Head. He represented all his progeny, and in his fall, all fell; and in His death, all died. But Christ stood against the devil's temptations and was faithful unto death; and in His standing, all stand who are in Him; He represented all those the Father had given Him (John 6:39 etc.), and in His resurrection and eternal life, all live.
Romans 5:19. 'For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man's obedience many will be made righteous.' Paul repeats himself so that even the slowest intellect can understand. A covenant, arrangement, disposition - call it what you will - was made with Adam which he failed to keep. But another covenant had been agreed, long before, which our Lord kept down to the smallest detail (eg. John 19:28-30).

And for our third strand, we turn to 1 Corinthians 15:21-22. 'For since by one man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive.' It was that sin of Adam which brought death into the world, and it was our Lord's obedience and substitutionary atonement which brought life to all His people (eg. Hebrews 2:13-15). See also 1 Corinthians 15:45-49.

So the Covenant of Works is no less in the Bible than the New Covenant. The two are, as it were, inseparable twins. If Adam did not represent his progeny, then not only are the Scriptures untrue, but there is no need for a second Adam to come and redeem them.

 

[JonC]

I just go by the Scriptures. Genesis 2:15-17. And the LORD God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to tend and keep it........' There is a the first part of provision. God places Adam in idyllic surroundings, with only light tasks to do (no weeds back then).
'........And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, "of every tree in the garden you may freely eat........"' there is a further gracious provision.
'........"but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day you eat of it you shall surely die,"' And here is the prohibition and the sanction. Don't eat the forbidden fruit; if you do it will represent the forfeiture of the covenant and you will die.
Now none of this is conjecture; it is all straight from the Scripture. But to say that Adam would have died anyway is conjecture. If you hear a policeman shout after you, "Stop, or I'll shoot!" If it is a logical fallacy to suppose that if you stop he will not shoot you, then you will do best to keep on running and hope for the best. But especially with God, who cannot lie, the logical fallacy is to assume that He will lie which is what you are doing, unconsciously no doubt. No less is it a conjecture and a logical fallacy to suppose that if the policeman doesn't shoot you now he will certainly shoot you later.

Now a cord of three strands in not easily broken, so let's look at Romans 5:12. 'Therefore just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin.' I assume that you will not deny that the one man was Adam. It was his sin that brought death into the world.
'........and thus death spread to all men because all sinned.' Adam was a public person. He acted for all his progeny.
Romans 5:13-14. 'For until the law, sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.' Here we see that God's moral law was in the world from the beginning, otherwise there would have been no death until the time of Moses. We also see that Adam is a type of Christ. He stood as a covenant head in the same way that our Lord is a covenant Head. He represented all his progeny, and in his fall, all fell; and in His death, all died. But Christ stood against the devil's temptations and was faithful unto death; and in His standing, all stand who are in Him; He represented all those the Father had given Him (John 6:39 etc.), and in His resurrection and eternal life, all live.
Romans 5:19. 'For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man's obedience many will be made righteous.' Paul repeats himself so that even the slowest intellect can understand. A covenant, arrangement, disposition - call it what you will - was made with Adam which he failed to keep. But another covenant had been agreed, long before, which our Lord kept down to the smallest detail (eg. John 19:28-30).

And for our third strand, we turn to 1 Corinthians 15:21-22. 'For since by one man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive.' It was that sin of Adam which brought death into the world, and it was our Lord's obedience and substitutionary atonement which brought life to all His people (eg. Hebrews 2:13-15). See also 1 Corinthians 15:45-49.

So the Covenant of Works is no less in the Bible than the New Covenant. The two are, as it were, inseparable twins. If Adam did not represent his progeny, then not only are the Scriptures untrue, but there is no need for a second Adam to come and redeem them.

I absolutely agree with those passages

I am starting to realize that you do not even see what you are adding to Scripture. That is the danger inherent in studying the Bible via a tradition. They tell you the ink blot is a bat so many times you cannot see the ink blot.

None of the passages you offered even come close to describing God making a covenant with Adam that promises life. All you have shown is a command that Adam transgressed and the wages of that sin.

The difference between the covenant of works and the New Covenant is the former is human philosophy while the latter is God's Word.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I absolutely agree with those passages

If you agree with those passages, you would understand that there is a provision by God, a prohibition and a sanction. That is what makes it a covenant.

I am starting to realize that you do not even see what you are adding to Scripture. That is the danger inherent in studying the Bible via a tradition. They tell you the ink blot is a bat so many times you cannot see the ink blot.

None of the passages you offered even come close to describing God making a covenant with Adam that promises life. All you have shown is a command that Adam transgressed and the wages of that sin.

The difference between the covenant of works and the New Covenant is the former is human philosophy while the latter is God's Word.

You have now reached a position where you cannot see the covenant without losing face. I have explained to you the covenant nature of the agreement between Adam and God, but you refuse to see it and insist that it is no more than a command, when a child can see that there is more to it than that. That is the danger inherent in studying the Bible via a tradition. I am now starting to realize that you do not even see what you are leaving out of Scripture. They tell you something's not there when it is, so many times that you really cannot see it. You can't even bring yourself to say that Adam was a federal head, even though Romans 5 tells you over and over again.

There really is no point in continuing the discussion if all you're going to do is say 'taint so over and over again.