The inconsistencies of the Covenant of Redemption, the Covenant of Works, and the Covenant of Grace

[FreeGrace2]

Let’s look at this. If God didn’t want Adam to sin, could He have done anything to prevent it?

That isn't even the question.

The point is that God created humanity all the while knowing exactly what would happen.

Of course God doesn't want anyone to sin. But He has always known everyone will.

So again, the cross is the solution to creation.

 

[Dr. Jack]

That is absolutely correct. God is what the WCF calls the 1st cause of all that happens.

Now think ... God is the 1st cause ... and God is sovereign ...
That means, Adam could only do what God decreed. That removes choice.

CHOICE

• : the act of choosing : the act of pickingor deciding between two or morepossibilities
• : the opportunity or power to choosebetween two or more possibilities : the opportunity or power to make a decision
• : a range of things that can be chosen

Merriam Webster 2019

The fact that God decreed or ordained the event to occur means that Adam had no choice but to fulfill that decree.

Hence, the reality of the fact is, since (according to Calvinism) Adam was decreed to sin, and could not have done otherwise; he had no choice. I would refer you again to the definition of "choice".

"the opportunity or power to choose between two or more possibilities : the opportunity or power to make a decision"

But He often brings to pass what He has predestined to come to pass through the free choices made by men - and that without doing violence to that will.

How can a predestined event occur by choice? (Meaning a "2nd cause choice", since the sovereign authority had already determined the outcome.)

No -your theology is precisely in keeping with Reformed theology.

Trust me, many Refomers would disagree with you!

You've thrown up so many straw men misrepresentations of Reformed beliefs over the years that you don't seem to be able to recognize when you're doing it.

Now you're making assertions to know what I have said for years, when you've known of me for only a few weeks.

 

[Dr. Jack]

No, not in the slightest. My proposition is that God created the human race KNOWING that sin would occur. See, I don't subserve God's omniscience under His sovereignty.


Absolutely not. God never needs a "plan B", since He is omniscience and has always known "whatsoever comes to pass", all without ordering it, decreeing it, or having to make it happen.

That is PRECISELY the issue that separates you and I from Determinism and Calvinism (Reformed Theology).
The idea that God can absolutely know what every person will choose, in every decision in his life, without being decreed, ordained, or predestinate to do so is absolutely unfathomable to Reformed Theologists ... yet, it is so simple, even children can grasp it!

 

[Dr. Jack]

Each time I discuss the inconsistencies of the Covenant of Redemption the Covenant of Works, and the Covenant of Grace, there is never an opponent that can successfully reconcile the problems. In the final analysis, there is never an answer provided that can explain the particular problem of God decreeing all events, and yet giving man a free will.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Each time I discuss the inconsistencies of the Covenant of Redemption the Covenant of Works, and the Covenant of Grace, there is never an opponent that can successfully reconcile the problems. In the final analysis, there is never an answer provided that can explain the particular problem of God decreeing all events, and yet giving man a free will.

Right.

When a Calvinist makes the claim that "whatever happens is ordered by God" (post #122), they have just backed themselves into a corner theologically.

Because that means that God ordered sin to occur. Which is a stunning claim.

 

[Butch5]

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).)

That's why I left Reformed theology. It contradicts the Bible way too much. Now that I'm no longer involved and have studied it from the other side I can see that it's a house of cards built on out context texts and inferences. Look at the "TULIP" there isn't a verse of Scripture that states plainly any of those five points. It's all by way of inference.