The Covenant of Works

[JonC]

Now this is a debate issue. I am looking for somebody to change my mind (and I will, if I am proven incorrect vua Scripture). Not an ugly debate...just looking for a flaw in my thinking here.

I've been considering the "covenant of works" within modern Covenant Theology. I cannot help but to see it as problematic at best, unbiblical at worse...leaning strongly to the latter.

The Covenant of Works is a theological phrase which speaks of the pre-Fall agreement between God and Adam in which Adam was promised blessing and life upon obedience to the terms of the covenant and cursing and death should he disobey the terms of the covenant.


Let's look at what is stated in the Bible.

Genesis 2:16–17 The Lord God commanded the man, saying, “From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die.”

 

[JonC]

The first error Covenant Theology makes here is that Scripture presents God's words to Adam as a command and not a covenant. It is a command with a consequence.

Scripture does not present any promise should Adam not eat of the Tree, much less blessings and life

 

[JonC]

This brings me to the next problem.

The covenant of works is a logical fallacy (a form of denying the antecedent).

For example - "If you don't eat your meat you cannot have any puffing" does not mean "if you eat your meat you can have your pudding".

God told Adam if he ate of the fruit he would die.

It is a fallacy to assume this means if Adam did not eat the fruit he would receive blessings and life.

The Bible never makes that promise, we do not know what would have ultimately transpired in Adam's life had he obeyed that command, and it is a logical fallacy.

 

[JonC]

The "covenant of works", although unbiblical (as not in the Bible) and contrary to logic has one other issue. It is foundational to modern Covenant Theology.

Scripture offers the Noahic Covenant as the first covenant. Covenant Theology employs a logical error to come up with the Adamic covenant, assuming what is neither logical or in Scripture. But this assumption becomes essential to Covenant Theology and doctrine is built from the error.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

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).

 

[DaveXR650]

Now this is a debate issue. I am looking for somebody to change my mind (and I will, if I am proven incorrect vua Scripture). Not an ugly debate...just looking for a flaw in my thinking here.

I've been considering the "covenant of works" within modern Covenant Theology. I cannot help but to see it as problematic at best, unbiblical at worse...leaning strongly to the latter.

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.

The first error Covenant Theology makes here is that Scripture presents God's words to Adam as a command and not a covenant. It is a command with a consequence.

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.

 

[JonC]

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.

The purpose of "attacking" the theory is to generate challenges. That is how we grow and learn. So I offered up my view on "the covenant of works" so that counter arguments could be made. I was sincere when I said "change my mind".

The issue is that the logical fallacy remains. To say that Adam had blessing promised doesn't make any sense. Scripture does not say that Adam had blessings promised. And Adam already lived in the Garden. The "covenant of works" illogically assumes God would bless Adam by making that statement everlasting. But what if Adam got angry and killed Eve? What if Adam got lazy and did not care for Creation? What if Adam cursed God because Eve started complaining about him not fixing the screen door?

I understand how the covenant of works came to be. But that does not make it less unbiblical or less a logical fallacy.

I would agree that saying "God's moral law" is not in effect is incorrect. But neither Dispensationalism, Covenant Theology or NCT makes that claim.

Covenant Theology assumed the Old Covenant Law is in effect.

NCT believes God's moral law is eternal because it reflects God's moral nature. NCT argued the Old Covenant Law has ended but that we are under the Law of Christ which established the Old Covenant Law and IS God's moral law.

You have to keep in mind what Paul said about the letter and the Spirit. The Old Covenant Law dealt with the morality of ACTIONS. The Law of Christ is deeper. It deals with the heart of the people (with actual morality).

Again - this is more of an aggressive thread. Still, no unChristian behavior. Attack the doctrines and not the person kind of thing. Attack where you believe my assessment of the "covenant of works" is incorrect.

 

[Piper]

This brings me to the next problem.

The covenant of works is a logical fallacy (a form of denying the antecedent).

For example - "If you don't eat your meat you cannot have any puffing" does not mean "if you eat your meat you can have your pudding".

God told Adam if he ate of the fruit he would die.

It is a fallacy to assume this means if Adam did not eat the fruit he would receive blessings and life.

The Bible never makes that promise, we do not know what would have ultimately transpired in Adam's life had he obeyed that command, and it is a logical fallacy.

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.

 

[kyredneck]

Covenant Theology employs a logical error to come up with the Adamic covenant

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

 

[JonC]

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

I think we all have ideas about hypothetical situations, and I don't really see anything wrong with that. We wonder if Adam are of the Tree of Life before he sinned....or if God would have had him to do so afterwards....but hypotheticals are not really useful as Adam did not change God's plan when he transgressed that command.

The danger of the "covenant of works" comes from Presbyterians making it a doctrine and then building on that doctrine. That danger is one reason I believe Reformed churches have been in decline. When we encourage people to study Scripture but create doctrines that are less than biblical then we call into question the validity of our theology as a whole. People either move towards a more biblical view (there are several movements within Reformed theology to "reform the Reformed" and bring it closer to the Bible) or they give up on churches all together.

As an example of the former, we have movements within Reformed churches to bring their view of the Atonement to align more with the text of Scripture. And NCT has experienced a strong resurgence within Reformed circles.

Many see a problem, but many don't even look and refuse to examine the observations of others.

 

[kyredneck]

the "covenant of works" comes from Presbyterians making it a doctrine

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]

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

Reformed Baptists are in a tough position theologically speaking. They are a small sect within Baptists, but are not actually adherents of Reformed Theology (as a whole, and apart from their own theology).


Traditional Baptists reject Reformed Baptist theology. At the same time those Puritan writings reject Reformed Baptist theology. At one time Reformed Baptists would have rejected their theology (insofar as Covenant Theology goes).

They are an amalgamation of Presbyterian and Baptist belief and are, in a way, on a theological island defending themselves from both directions (from traditional Baptists and from the traditional Reformed).

So I understand the hostility we often see. Does make it right, just understandable.

More and more Reformed Baptists have simply become Presbyterians that do not baptize infants (they still reject Covenant Theology applied in terms of circumcision as a covenant aligning with baptism as a covenant).

 

[DaveXR650]

@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.

Reformed Baptists are in a tough position theologically speaking. They are a small sect within Baptists, but are not actually adherents of Reformed Theology (as a whole, and apart from their own theology).

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.

More and more Reformed Baptists have simply become Presbyterians that do not baptize infants (they still reject Covenant Theology applied in terms of circumcision as a covenant aligning with baptism as a covenant).

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.

 

[JonC]

@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.

Several good points in your post.

First, I agree that Presbyterian churches have slid somewhat from the gospel. But this is from my limited experience with a handful of churches. There is the gospel bring spread even in liberal Presbyterian churches (and I believe there are Christians present in the ones I have visited). I simply praise God that the gospel reaches out from Presbyterian Churches, Catholic Churches, Methodist Churches, Pentecostal Churches, traditional Baptist Churches, "non-denominational" Churches, and Reformed Baptist Churches. This fact is a testimony to God, that the gospel of Jesus Christ transcends human error.

I will point out what I observe as an error in your post (within this section). Reformed churches started dying out long before liberal doctrine crept through its doors. In fact, I would argue (I think I have argued) that one reason for the introduction of liberal error is theology that is not exactly biblical. When a generation starts recognizing human error in doctrine only to meet a wall of resistance even to consider that doctrine in favor of tradition ("it was good enough for the 17th century so it's good enough for us" mentality) all kinds of doctrine will creep in...or the church will simply die as people leave.

Second, I also read Puritan writings. I read Spurgeon. I read Wesley. I read Piper (not @Piper ...although I guess I read him too...but John Piper), Packer, MacArthur, Sproul, Keller, C.S. Lewis, Tozer, Torrance, Barth....I read the writings of Christians to see what they have to say. BUT my authority is the Bible.

The Puritan's had something to say in their setting. Unfortunately they were not always the most biblical or Christ-like (their piety often descended into legalism and they also had inherited traditions and experiences that affected their theology).

Third, it is not that Covenant Theology is the main part of preaching. The problem is Covenant Theology determines interpretation and the focus of preaching.

Fourth, you are incorrect about members here believing in Covenant Theology. There are several. But this is a Baptist board and Covenant Theology is primarily a Presbyterian framework. Even Reformed Baptists differ in points from the Reformed understanding of Covenant Theology. You will find more people holding Covenant Theology on Reformed forums. But if you look, you will find many here as well.

Lastly, here we are debating theology. We are not judging Christians who hold that theology. We never judge servants of Another. Christ will make them stand

But I absolutely welcome your posts defending Covenant Theology and I do consider what you write. I doubt I will ever see the framework as anything but error. However I am always open to being proven wrong, and would be grateful for any correction. That said, when it comes to doctrine I am a "biblicist".

 

[DaveXR650]

But I absolutely welcome your posts defending Covenant Theology and I do consider what you write. I doubt I will ever see the framework as anything but error. However I am always open to being proven wrong, and would be grateful for any correction. That said, when it comes to doctrine I am a "biblicist".

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.

 

[JonC]

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.

I know exactly what you mean. When I was in college I wrestled with what I saw as "shallow theology". What I mean is I was often told what to believe but never really a reason for that interpretation over another. I came to the conclusion I was holding beliefs that were truly not my own.

One example was the doctrine of eternal security. We get verses, but we didn't get other views (it was "the Bible says this, so believe that"). Don't get me wrong, I still believe the doctrine. The difference is now it is a belief I truly own (I have examined, and understand, opposing views).

What I did was transfer to a Christian college and change my major to Religion. Then for grad school I went to seminary.

In seminary I became a Calvinist. One thing was I gravitated to philosophy (especially Christian philosophy). But another was I viewed Calvinism as seriously addressing questions I had that were previously ignored or glossed over.

While I did not preach Calvinism (I preached the gospel) Reformed theology certainly affected how I viewed the gospel.

I was invited to preach at a church one Sunday morning on the Cross. I framed the sermon in a Calvinistic way (not intentionally, but driving home some points I thought important). It was a well received sermon, and I want to bed thankful.

When I woke up I had a string conviction that I had preached my own philosophy rather than God's Word. I mean, it was out of the blue and not a feeling but a strong conviction.

I bought a couple of dry erase boards, out then on the wall in my office and went through specific aspects of my theology. Over the next couple of months I wrote out every supporting passage I could find. Then I erased everything that did not actually support the doctrine. I ended up with two blank boards.

That was tough for me because I am a biblicist when it comes to doctrine. I believed God revealed to us what we are to believe in His Word, and any doctrine important enough to hold firm should be found in the Bible.

I stopped preaching and teaching for some time and focused on studying God's Word for what is actually written.

So I identify with you in moving towards Reformed Theology. The difference is God led me away from that place.

I had to decide what was most important (admittedly, God forced my decision as I had put a lot into Reformed studies...in a way, I would have preferred to have stayed).

Each believer has to make such decisions. Do we gravitate to emotional expressions? Do we gravitate to legalistic doctrine? Do we gravitate to ritualistic worship? Do we gravitate to the poetic, or the philosophical, or the literary, or the social? We all have predispositions.

But what does the Bible say?

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

Does the Bible really say that God entered into a covenant with Adam that he would be blessed and have life if he did not eat of the fruit?

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

I am not answering that for you, although I certainly offer my own views. Your answer is between you and God.

My goal is simply to encourage people (and myself) to continually review and test their positions against the Bible. This cannot be done in a vacuum, or an echo chamber.

Iron sharpens iron, but they remain distinct pieces of iron.

I wish you all the best in your studies, no matter what path you choose to follow.

 

[Alan Gross]

The Covenant of Works is a theological phrase which speaks of the pre-Fall agreement between God and Adam in which Adam was promised blessing and life upon obedience to the terms of the covenant and cursing and death should he disobey the terms of the covenant.

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).

 

[DaveXR650]

My goal is simply to encourage people (and myself) to continually review and test their positions against the Bible. This cannot be done in a vacuum, or an echo chamber.

Iron sharpens iron, but they remain distinct pieces of iron.

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.

 

[JonC]

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.

Thank you for the conversation.

I absolutely agree with the above. We are not only to guard against doctrines and philosophies that are not in Scripture but we are to guard our churches, families, and hearts against immorality.

Too often we see the idea that if we harm nobody else we can do as we please (Wiccan) or "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law" (Crowley, Church of Satan) in today's culture.

But Christians hold that we are to keep God's moral law. In fact, God disciplines His children when they violate this law.

That is what I appreciate about NCT, as it takes God's moral law more seriously - in a deeper way than Covenant Theology - because it genuinely believes Paul's words that we establish the moral law in Christ (God's law written not on stone but in our hearts).

Where the Covenant Theology tells us not to violate the Ten Commandments , NCT tells us that any violation of God's moral law points to us not walking in the Spirit, commands us to constantly go before God in repentance.

That is why church discipline is so important within NCT. We guard against sin not only in our personal lives but in our congregations. A little sin, if allowed, will act as a cancer in our lives and also in the life of our congregation.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

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.

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. .