The 'Covenant of Works' and the collapse of God

Posted on by

There are actually moments in this video where you can catch a glimpse of my “punky” side πŸ˜‰ (I’m also rather dry, but amazingly provocative πŸ˜‰ ). It’s hard to talk into a camera, without a live person in front of me; but I think doing videos can be a good exercise for me. Anyway . . .

9 thoughts on “The 'Covenant of Works' and the collapse of God”

  1. Bobby,

    I’ve never really believed in the Covenant of Works, as I’ve never seen it mentioned – nor even implied – in the bible. I remember a bible study once at a “Reformed” church (I was a Christian only a few months) where a friend of mine mentioned that he didn’t see the COW in the bible. I’ve never seen such a commotion at a bible study since. Man, some sacred cows (no pun intended until I realized one) hurt when they get skewered.

  2. Trying to follow the flow of thought, but it’s difficult since I don’t buy the CoW (as it’s understood by many at least) …

    This (your critique) is only a problem, surely, if the stipulations of creation/ the original covenant are not from/ rooted in God’s inner life, right? So a concept of creation and of the original covenant as gracious solves this?

    There’s plenty of Classic Tulip-loving Calvinists who’d agree. [Even the Westminster Divines weren’t uniform on it, hence sometimes it’s called ‘covenant of life,’ sometimes CoW, sometimes it seems that it’s being described as gracious, sometimes it seems like it’s being associated with a traditional understanding of ‘law’]

  3. Yes, there are certainly, zealots for this. My friend would be one of those as well. In America it is typically the “Westminster Seminary” guys/gals who seem to be most zealous for this.

  4. Hey Pete,

    There are certainly those want to frame it as a “gracious covenant” which shapes the CoW or Life. In fact I’m reading Lyle Bierma on Ursinus’ view on the CoW (as one of its developers). He is trying to argue the same way you are about Ursinus.

    Yes, your 2nd paragraph is right. This is only a problem if it is grounded in creation and not in God’s life. So it’s only a problem if that’s what you do. Even so, even if this isn’t what someone explicitly does; the problem still remains since Federal Calvinism, of all stripes, speaks of the absolute decrees abstracted from God’s life (as ‘impersonal’ things that God in God-self must fulfill, and the decrees are grounded in creation/salvation history).

  5. Long before i read Barth, i had rejected the covenant of works, along with the imputed righteousness of christ, it’s salvific corollary. it seemed to me that, despite salvation being by grace, it is still, in the federal scheme, by works, if only the merit of them imputed to us, but those works go back to the CoW, as filtered through the Mosaic law. Hence, we must preach the law before we can preach the gospel. It’s a logical schema, but just not biblical. for a while i rejected calvinism in toto, as I was not aware of any alternates to the Westminsterisation of it. Biblical theology seemed to be the way – how i loved my set of NSBTs! – but not a way forward, since you don’t preach BT, you lecture on it. I did trace the revelation of the covenant of grace back to Adam, but I must admit i like the way Barth traces it back to Cain in CD 2.1!!

  7. Good critique Bobby! Most of Western Theology is built on and centers around the necessity of Jesus needing to fulfill the requirements of the Mosaic Law in order for God to be able to show us mercy etc…Within that framework God’s own law dictates to God how He can and cannot relate to His own creation…You hear so much anymore about how God has to satisfy His justice so that He can show us mercy…..A lot of theology unfortunately paints a picture of a schizophrenic God….So many Christians are confused about who God is because of this kind of theology….God is the I AM…He is free to be Himself…Jesus is the full revelation of God…..Many Christians have their theology rooted in the Mosaic Law and not in the person of Jesus…..Hmmm…Sounds just like the religious institution in Israel about 2,000 years ago who defined God by the Law…The tax collectors and sinners loved to be around Jesus…So what does that tell us about who God is? God is easy to live with…His yoke is easy and His burden is light…Being joined to Him is a glorious reality….The early church didn’t spend time trying to prosecute people with the Law to prove that they were sinners…..They just proclaimed Him-His death,burial,resurrection,and ascension…The best sermons ever preached are found in the book of Acts because they are filled with the person and work of Jesus….Jesus said to the apostles you will be witnesses of Me when the Holy Spirit comes….The gospel is the power of God unto salvation……Jesus is so beautiful and glorious and majestic……:-)

  8. Amen, Chris, thanks!

    That’s why I like ‘EC’ it is personal and emphasizes Jesus and the Triune relating God. Which at the same time, being ‘personal’, it is only ‘personal’ as grounded in Jesus for us . . . avoiding the pietisitc personalism that starts and focuses on the self (which is where William Perkin’s a Puritan theology starts . . . I’ll post on him tomorrow).

Comments are closed.