- Mar 9, 2019
- 839
- 120
- 63
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Private
What is the Covenant of Works?
The following excerpts were taken from ... carm.org - Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry
"The Covenant of Works, also known as the Edenic Covenant, is the covenant that God had with Adam in the Garden of Eden where Adam would maintain his position with God through his obedience to the command of God to multiply and fill the earth, subdue it, and also not eat from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil."
"Some say this is not a covenant, but according to Hosea 6:7 it is. "But like Adam, they have transgressed the covenant; There they have dealt treacherously against Me." Covenants are usually accompanied with stipulations of rewards and punishments. The implication of keeping the requirements of God would be that Adam would have been blessed in his endeavors, which is implied in the "tree of life." The curse of breaking the covenant resulted in his death (Genesis 2:17), and death in the case of Adam and Eve began the moment they sinned."
My comments: The first thing I must say is that I am NOT denying a "covenant"; what I AM questioning, is the CONTENTS of the covenant.
What I want people to notice here is that the Author of the above uses for a 'first' line of defense: 'Is this an actual covenant'? Yes it is; but what does it actually say?
Notice the author's words from the second excerpt ... "The implication of keeping the requirements of God would be that Adam would have been blessed in his endeavors, which is implied in the "tree of life.""
What blessing is this author referring to? We can see the answer at another Calvinist site ...
Ligonier Ministries
"To understand the covenant of works, we must consider Adam’s state in the garden of Eden before the fall. God created Adam “good” and in the proper relationship with Him (Gen. 1:31). He was not as good as could be, however. By obeying the command to not eat the forbidden fruit (vv. 16-17), Adam could have reflected God’s glory more fully, and would have merited eternal life for himself and his descendants. We know this to be the case because that is what Jesus did, and Jesus is the second Adam tasked with fulfilling the vocation of the first Adam (1 Cor. 15:45)."
It is the belief of Calvinist's that had Adam NOT transgressed in the Garden of Eden, Adam would have "merited eternal life for himself and his descendants".
This however is impossible for a minimum of two reasons.
1) The reason Jesus was able to secure enternal 'spiritual' life for mankind was because He was God in the flesh.
2) (According to Calvinism) Adam was determined, and decreed by the Sovereign God to transgress in the Garden of Eden; while God had by His own determinate counsel was decreed to be the Redeemer; meaning, it would be impossible for Him to transgress in any way. Since the two Adams were decreed for opposite purposes, it would be impossible for the first Adam to accomplish anything other than what he did accomplish.
Hence, for the Calvinist to claim what the first Adam could have done 'by implication' is an absolute fallacy.
We must then consider what the text actually does state.
2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. Genesis
We have here a text with two parts:
1) the command [But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it:];
and 2) the consequence [for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die].
Each day that Adam and Eve obeyed God, it reflected their belief in God. (Spiritual life)
But the day they disobeyed God, it reflected their unbelief in God. (Spiritual death)
The Tree of Life possessed something that prolonged, (or at least sustained) physical life. This is why they were removed from the Garden of Eden, had they continued to eat of the Tree of Life, their physical bodies would not die; condemning them to physical immortality, while suffering from spiritual death. In the resurrection, in Christ, we will have full restoration (if you would) of both.
Hence, we have the issue of the Covenant of Redemption being a cause of the Fall of Adam (God in fact decreed it).
Then we have the issue of God actually making a Covenant of Works that would have allowed man to "merit" eternal life, which would give no glory to God.
Then we have the issue of God making a Covenant of Works, which He had already decreed to fail. (The Covenant of Redemption as presented by Calvinists required the decree of God for Adam to transgress his law.)
Finally, the Covenant of Works completely contradicts the Covenant of Grace ... and why wouldn't it. (It's the idea that the same God made both Covenants (according to Calvinism).)
The following excerpts were taken from ... carm.org - Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry
"The Covenant of Works, also known as the Edenic Covenant, is the covenant that God had with Adam in the Garden of Eden where Adam would maintain his position with God through his obedience to the command of God to multiply and fill the earth, subdue it, and also not eat from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil."
"Some say this is not a covenant, but according to Hosea 6:7 it is. "But like Adam, they have transgressed the covenant; There they have dealt treacherously against Me." Covenants are usually accompanied with stipulations of rewards and punishments. The implication of keeping the requirements of God would be that Adam would have been blessed in his endeavors, which is implied in the "tree of life." The curse of breaking the covenant resulted in his death (Genesis 2:17), and death in the case of Adam and Eve began the moment they sinned."
My comments: The first thing I must say is that I am NOT denying a "covenant"; what I AM questioning, is the CONTENTS of the covenant.
What I want people to notice here is that the Author of the above uses for a 'first' line of defense: 'Is this an actual covenant'? Yes it is; but what does it actually say?
Notice the author's words from the second excerpt ... "The implication of keeping the requirements of God would be that Adam would have been blessed in his endeavors, which is implied in the "tree of life.""
What blessing is this author referring to? We can see the answer at another Calvinist site ...
Ligonier Ministries
"To understand the covenant of works, we must consider Adam’s state in the garden of Eden before the fall. God created Adam “good” and in the proper relationship with Him (Gen. 1:31). He was not as good as could be, however. By obeying the command to not eat the forbidden fruit (vv. 16-17), Adam could have reflected God’s glory more fully, and would have merited eternal life for himself and his descendants. We know this to be the case because that is what Jesus did, and Jesus is the second Adam tasked with fulfilling the vocation of the first Adam (1 Cor. 15:45)."
It is the belief of Calvinist's that had Adam NOT transgressed in the Garden of Eden, Adam would have "merited eternal life for himself and his descendants".
This however is impossible for a minimum of two reasons.
1) The reason Jesus was able to secure enternal 'spiritual' life for mankind was because He was God in the flesh.
2) (According to Calvinism) Adam was determined, and decreed by the Sovereign God to transgress in the Garden of Eden; while God had by His own determinate counsel was decreed to be the Redeemer; meaning, it would be impossible for Him to transgress in any way. Since the two Adams were decreed for opposite purposes, it would be impossible for the first Adam to accomplish anything other than what he did accomplish.
Hence, for the Calvinist to claim what the first Adam could have done 'by implication' is an absolute fallacy.
We must then consider what the text actually does state.
2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. Genesis
We have here a text with two parts:
1) the command [But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it:];
and 2) the consequence [for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die].
Each day that Adam and Eve obeyed God, it reflected their belief in God. (Spiritual life)
But the day they disobeyed God, it reflected their unbelief in God. (Spiritual death)
The Tree of Life possessed something that prolonged, (or at least sustained) physical life. This is why they were removed from the Garden of Eden, had they continued to eat of the Tree of Life, their physical bodies would not die; condemning them to physical immortality, while suffering from spiritual death. In the resurrection, in Christ, we will have full restoration (if you would) of both.
Hence, we have the issue of the Covenant of Redemption being a cause of the Fall of Adam (God in fact decreed it).
Then we have the issue of God actually making a Covenant of Works that would have allowed man to "merit" eternal life, which would give no glory to God.
Then we have the issue of God making a Covenant of Works, which He had already decreed to fail. (The Covenant of Redemption as presented by Calvinists required the decree of God for Adam to transgress his law.)
Finally, the Covenant of Works completely contradicts the Covenant of Grace ... and why wouldn't it. (It's the idea that the same God made both Covenants (according to Calvinism).)