Covenant of works and the sacrifice of Christ.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Von

Von

Puritan Board Sophomore
I might be missing something here, and maybe someone can just give me a quick answer, but
If the Lamb was slain from the foundation of the world (Rev 13:8), how could the covenant of works be in place at the same time?
 
Von,

Von said:
how could the covenant of works be in place at the same time?
Click to expand...

1. To answer your question of “how”: We can make the distinction of “before time/space” and “in time/space”. The CoG & CoW was agreed upon and set to occur “before time/space” from eternity past (Covenant of Redemption). However both the CoW and the CoG have there unique starting points “in time/space”, Gen 1 and Gen 3:15. This is at least how I would attempt to reconcile your “how” question. I am sure my bi-covenant brothers may say it in a slightly different mannner.

Von said:
I might be missing something here, and maybe someone can just give me a quick answer, but
If the Lamb was slain from the foundation of the world (Rev 13:8),
Click to expand...

2. The Verse Rev. 13:8 :
Yes I think you are missing this verse slightly. The verse is better read that the book was written before the foundations of the world. This Book was titled The Lamb who was slain. In other words this verse deals more with the Lord’s Predestination of some men to eternal life. The way the ESV structures the sentence helps :detective:

See Gill’s Exposition:
And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him,.... The inhabitants of the Roman empire, the idolatrous part of it, the men of the world, earthly minded men; who are as they came into the world, and are of the earth, earthly, and seek only after earthly honours, pleasures, and profits; these are the admirers and adorers of the beast:

whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world; by which book is meant God's predestination of men to eternal life, or his decree of election; why this is called the "book of life"; see Gill on Revelation 3:5; and their "names being written therein from the foundation of the world", Revelation 17:8, for such a construction the words will bear, denotes that election is eternal, and is not an act of time, nor dependent upon anything done in time; and that it is of particular persons, and not of bodies of men, of nations and churches, and still less of propositions, or of persons so and so qualified, or under such conditions and circumstances; and that it is perfectly well known to God, and is sure and certain in its effects, and is unchangeable and irrevocable; for what is written in it, is written, and will always stand, not upon the foot of works, but of the sovereign grace of God; and this is called the Lamb's book; that is, Christ, who is compared to a Lamb for its harmlessness, meekness, and patience, and was typified by the lambs in the legal sacrifices; and this book is called his, because he was present at the making of it, and was concerned in putting down the names in it, John 13:18, and he himself stands first in it as the elect of God, and the head of all the elect, who, as members, were chosen in him: the act of election was made in him, and stands sure in him; and he is the author and giver of that life, which men are chosen unto both here and hereafter: and he may be said to be "slain from the foundation of the world"; in the decree and purpose of God, by which he was set forth, or foreappointed to be the propitiation for sin, and was foreordained, before the foundation of the world, to redeem his people by his blood, and in the promise of God immediately after the fall of man, that the seed of the woman should have his heel bruised, and he himself should bruise the serpent's head, which made it as sure as if it was then done; and in the sacrifices, which were immediately upon this offered up, and were types of the death and sacrifice of Christ; and in the faith of the saints, which brings distant things near, and considers them as if present; and also in his members, in Abel, and others, in whom he suffered, as he still does in his people; to which may be added, that such is the efficacy of the bloodshed and death of Christ, that it reached to all the saints from the beginning of the world, for the justification of their persons, the atonement of their sins, and cleansing from them; for the remission of sins, that are past, and for the redemption of transgressions under the first testament; for Old Testament saints from the beginning are saved by the grace of the Lord Jesus, as New Testament ones are. Something like this the Jews say (e) of the Messiah upon Genesis 49:11,

"he washed , "from the day that the world was created"; who is he? this is the King Messiah.--It is written Genesis 1:2; "and the Spirit of God", &c. This is the Spirit of the King Messiah; and from the day that the world was created; he washed his garments in wine;''

which the Jewish writers (f) understand of blood, which for its redness is like to wine; though they interpret it of the blood of the slain, with which the garments of the Messiah will be stained. Now such whose names are not written in this book of the Lamb, who have no interest in electing grace, nor in redemption by Christ, the slain Lamb of God, nor any right unto eternal life, who are reprobate persons, vessels of wrath fitted for destruction, who are foreordained to condemnation, and are given up to believe a lie, that they might be damned, these are the followers and worshippers of antichrist.

(e) Zohar in Gen. fol. 128. 2, 3.((f) Targum Jon. & Jerus. & Aben Ezra in Genesis 49.11. [\QUOTE]
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Grant Jones said:
Yes I think you are missing this verse slightly. The verse is better read that the book was written before the foundations of the world.
Click to expand...

There is precedent for Von's reading in 1 Peter 1:19,20.

Many things existed in the eternal counsel of God's will before the world began.
 
I think Grant answered your question as I understood it. As far as the structure of the sentence in Rev. 13:8 some translations tend to through me off as too be misinterpreted as presenting the atonement to have literally happened in time before there was time. A time warp so to speak.

NASB best captures the text "... everyone whose name has not been written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who has been slain."

A brief synopsis might read "Predestined election recorded in a book belonging to the one who would be and now has been killed."

Hope that helps.
 
Von said:
I might be missing something here, and maybe someone can just give me a quick answer, but
If the Lamb was slain from the foundation of the world (Rev 13:8), how could the covenant of works be in place at the same time?
Click to expand...
Until Adam fell, he did not need the Messiah....
 
Yes. Gen. 3:15 is the first administration of the CoG. God redeemed Adam and justified him through his faith in, and new allegiance to the promised seed of the woman, this second Adam, his mediator. He then clothed them as a sign of His love for them. Adam would, as a faithful father and follower, teach his children of this Covenant keeping God. Abel would be worshipping this same God who his parents worshipped when he by faith brought the "better sacrifice". (Hebrews 11:4)
 
Bill Duncan said:
Yes. Gen. 3:15 is the first administration of the CoG. God redeemed Adam and justified him through his faith in, and new allegiance to the promised seed of the woman, this second Adam, his mediator. He then clothed them as a sign of His love for them. Adam would, as a faithful father and follower, teach his children of this Covenant keeping God. Abel would be worshipping this same God who his parents worshipped when he by faith brought the "better sacrifice". (Hebrews 11:4)
Click to expand...
True, but the full manifestation/administration of the CoG would be the NC itself.
 
Dachaser said:
True, but the full manifestation/administration of the CoG would be the NC itself.
Click to expand...
Von asked if Adam shared in the Covenant of Grace. He did not ask about the New Covenant Administration. Adam was saved under the Covenant of Grace., for he could not be saved otherwise. Trying to keep him out of the weeds.
 
Bill Duncan said:
Von asked if Adam shared in the Covenant of Grace. He did not ask about the New Covenant Administration. Adam was saved under the Covenant of Grace., for he could not be saved otherwise. Trying to keep him out of the weeds.
Click to expand...
This was one off the primary reasons that drove me out of classical Dispensational theology viewpoint, as I could not see how anyone could have ben saved by keeping the OT law, as Scofield and others held with regarding how sinners were saved in the OT.
 
@Dachaser
To come back to my OP: At the heart of my question is the fact that without Christ, no one gets saved.
Now, if Adam could've been saved under the CoW, how did the Scofield theology drove you away? Since both teaches that at some stage man could've been saved without Christ.
(Hope I don't come across as attacking/aggressive - I'm asking out of curiousity...)
 
Adam was never in need of saving under the CoW. The test in the garden with the probation tree was not a salvation test as he was not in need of salvation at the time. He had not sinned. The test in the garden was about approbation or approval. Had Adam passed the test he would have advanced to the Glorified state. He was in the State of Innocence, possible to sin and possible not to sin. He chose wrongly by placing his fidelity in or loyalty to Satan and fell into a state of sin, where he only could sin. The Covenant of Grace offered to Adam unilaterally in Christ alone as the redeemer, whom Adam would understand to be the Seed of the Woman who would ultimately defeat Satan, ushered him into a state of grace, so that he might have the ability to renew his allegiance to God and be reunited to his creator. Adam will await, just as we do, the coming of the Lord and his establishing the New Heavens and the New Earth and receive the glorified state.
 
Bill Duncan said:
Adam was never in need of saving under the CoW. The test in the garden with the probation tree was not a salvation test as he was not in need of salvation at the time. He had not sinned. The test in the garden was about approbation or approval. Had Adam passed the test he would have advanced to the Glorified state. He was in the State of Innocence, possible to sin and possible not to sin. He chose wrongly by placing his fidelity in or loyalty to Satan and fell into a state of sin, where he only could sin. The Covenant of Grace offered to Adam unilaterally in Christ alone as the redeemer, whom Adam would understand to be the Seed of the Woman who would ultimately defeat Satan, ushered him into a state of grace, so that he might have the ability to renew his allegiance to God and be reunited to his creator. Adam will await, just as we do, the coming of the Lord and his establishing the New Heavens and the New Earth and receive the glorified state.
Click to expand...


Precisely Adam was sinless ...men tend to think of Adam as "sinless" ...but because there was in sin in the world Adam did not know what sin was.. he was innocent. not sure about the idea of a "glorified state"but we do know that the fall was part of Gods plan to show forth His Glory , His Mercy and His grace
 
terry43 said:
Precisely Adam was sinless ...men tend to think of Adam as "sinless" ...but because there was in sin in the world Adam did not know what sin was.. he was innocent. not sure about the idea of a "glorified state"but we do know that the fall was part of Gods plan to show forth His Glory , His Mercy and His grace
Click to expand...
Hi Terry,

What I meant by glorified state was State of Glory as the fourth of man's fourfold state of nature. 1) Innocence/ pre-fall 2) Sin/ post-fall 3) Grace/ regenerated 4) Glory/Consummate. Adam would have advanced from 1 to 4.
 
Von said:
Just to be fair - I don't think that any of the loud voices in modern Dispensational theology thinks in this way.
Click to expand...
True, but the classical theology as expressed in the Old Scofield Bible notes did express though the idea of god saving under the OC by Law keeping, and that was the view that started me to think about what was wrong in that view of theology.
 
Von said:
@Dachaser
To come back to my OP: At the heart of my question is the fact that without Christ, no one gets saved.
Now, if Adam could've been saved under the CoW, how did the Scofield theology drove you away? Since both teaches that at some stage man could've been saved without Christ.
(Hope I don't come across as attacking/aggressive - I'm asking out of curiousity...)
Click to expand...
Those notes seemed to suggest 2 different ways of salvation, as Israel and the Church came to God under the Law and by the Gospel.
 
Bill Duncan said:
Adam was never in need of saving under the CoW. The test in the garden with the probation tree was not a salvation test as he was not in need of salvation at the time. He had not sinned. The test in the garden was about approbation or approval. Had Adam passed the test he would have advanced to the Glorified state. He was in the State of Innocence, possible to sin and possible not to sin. He chose wrongly by placing his fidelity in or loyalty to Satan and fell into a state of sin, where he only could sin. The Covenant of Grace offered to Adam unilaterally in Christ alone as the redeemer, whom Adam would understand to be the Seed of the Woman who would ultimately defeat Satan, ushered him into a state of grace, so that he might have the ability to renew his allegiance to God and be reunited to his creator. Adam will await, just as we do, the coming of the Lord and his establishing the New Heavens and the New Earth and receive the glorified state.
Click to expand...
If Adam would have never sinned, would he not have remained immortal, but not in a glorified state of body as all of us redeemed under the NC shall experience?
 
Dachaser said:
If Adam would have never sinned, would he not have remained immortal, but not in a glorified state of body as all of us redeemed under the NC shall experience?
Click to expand...
We will probably have to agree to disagree on this one since you are looking from a Baptist Covenantal perspective. Also I try not to speculate as to what would have become of Adam after the probation tree event, Supralapsarian as I am. His fall was decreed, though I respect anyone who has a different view. Not the hill I want to die on.

However there would have been no need for any other Covenant. Man was created for Glorification. Adam would have advanced in glory upon approbation for his faithfulness to his calling as vicegerent of Jehovah. Ultimately that was what man was created for. Adam could only have ruled over the creation, angels included, in a glorified state, as those who are the called will at the consummation of all things.

Someone with more knowledge can get me out of the deep end on this one.
 
Bill Duncan said:
We will probably have to agree to disagree on this one since you are looking from a Baptist Covenantal perspective. Also I try not to speculate as to what would have become of Adam after the probation tree event, Supralapsarian as I am. His fall was decreed, though I respect anyone who has a different view. Not the hill I want to die on.

However there would have been no need for any other Covenant. Man was created for Glorification. Adam would have advanced in glory upon approbation for his faithfulness to his calling as vicegerent of Jehovah. Ultimately that was what man was created for. Adam could only have ruled over the creation, angels included, in a glorified state, as those who are the called will at the consummation of all things.

Someone with more knowledge can get me out of the deep end on this one.
Click to expand...
The resurrected body of Jesus was the template God used for our own yet to come, so if Adam never fell, why would he had been glorified, would he not just had lived forever in a human flesh body, unaffected by sin?
 
I'll have go with Calvin on this one. "In reading scripture we should constantly direct our inquiries and meditations to those things which tend to edification, not to indulge in curiosity, or in studying things of no use."

This line of reasoning falls into all those categories for me. Not edifying, not curious, and no use.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top