I find it amazing that one of the central issues concerning Covenant Theology is rarely addressed in this discussion. Maybe it is something that I hold too dear to. But I absolutely love the doctrine of the Covenant of Works and the Bi-Covenantal system of understanding our Bible. I include the Covenant of Redemption in the Covenant of Grace. Sorry if that bothers some of you. Well, not really.
The Federal Vision advocates hate this system of theology. Now they will acknowledge some form of the CofW but all of them that I have known of hold to a monocovenantalism which teaches only one Covenantal structure of grace for understanding the workings of God in historical redemption. This simply amazes me. This is so far from being Confessional that it ought to make the Confessional Church rise up and cry against it. It totally changes the Work of Christ and what He did. John Coloquoun made a great observation concerning this issue.
John Coloquoun
Although eternal life was, in the covenant of works, promised to Adam and his posterity on condition of his perfect obedience, and that only, yet a man is to be counted a legalist or self-righteous if, while he does not pretend that his obedience is perfect, he yet relies on it for a title to life. Self-righteous men have, in all ages, set aside as impossible to be fulfilled by them that condition of the covenant of works which God had imposed on Adam, and have framed for themselves various models of that covenant which, though they are far from being institutions of God, and stand upon terms lower than perfect obedience, yet are of the nature of the covenant of works. The unbelieving Jews who sought righteousness by the works of the law were not so very ignorant or presumptuous as to pretend to perfect obedience. Neither did those professed Christians in Galatia who desired to be under the law, and to be justified by the law, of whom the apostle therefore testified that they had "fallen from grace' (Galatians 5:4), presume to plead that they could yield perfect obedience. On the contrary, their public profession of Christianity showed that they had some sense of their need of Christ's righteousness. But their great error was that they did not believe that the righteousness of Jesus Christ alone was sufficient to entitle them to the justification of life; and therefore they depended for justification partly on their own obedience to the moral and ceremonial law. It was this, and not their pretensions to perfect obedience, that the apostle had in view when he blamed them for cleaving to the law of works, and for expecting justification partly on their own works of obedience to the moral and ceremonial laws, they and the apostle informed them, were fallen from grace; Christ had become of no effect to them. And they were "debtors to do the whole law" (Galatians 5:3-4). By depending for justification partly on their imperfect obedience to the law, they framed the law into a covenant of works, and such a covenant of works as would allow for imperfect instead of perfect works; and by relying partly on the righteousness of Christ, they mingled the law with the gospel and works with faith in the affair of justification. Thus they perverted both the law and the gospel, and formed them for themselves into a motley covenant of works.
A Treatise on the Law and Gospel
pp. 18,19
John Coloquhoun
Published by Soli Deo Gloria
Here is what Federal Vision advocate Douglas Wilson says about the Covenant of Works.
Furthermore, because the first covenant with Adam was a gracious covenant, coming from a gracious God, with the condition of the first covenant being the covenantal faithfulness of Adam, not merit, FV proponents suggest that believers should recognize the essential unity of the covenants from Adam through Christ. They are all basically the same with the same condition, covenant faithfulness. In addition, FV writers unanimously reject the concept of merit under the covenant of works: “God did not have an arrangement with Adam in the garden based on Adam’s possible merit. Everything good from God is grace. If Adam had passed the test, he would have done so by grace through faith". Douglas Wilson, “Beyond the Five Solas,” Credenda/Agenda 16/2:15
I also discussed this with Dr. R. Scott Clark whom some of you might or might not like. He responded to a similar question concerning Wilkin's that I had asked him so I just used it as a response to the Doug Wilson quote.
Here is Dr. Clark's response.
The classic Reformed folk tended to use the expressions "covenant of works" and "covenant of life" and "covenat of nature" (and the like) interchangeably.
Works refers to the terms.
Life refers to the goal.
Nature refers to the setting.
It's not that complicated.
Wilkins clearly denies the substance of the covenant of works. According to W. the prelapsarian covenant is legal-gracious and the post-laps. cov. is gracious-legal.
To admit a purely legal prelapsarian covenant does profound damage to the covenant moralist scheme because it entails the sort of law/gospel dichtomy which they abhor and which the Protestant faith embraces.
Wilkins is advocating a "trust and obey" scheme before and after the fall. The Westminster Confession doesn't. Neither do the rest of the Reformed confessions. They have it that Adam was righteous, holy, good and able to obey. He chose not to obey. He sinned. He fell and we with him. (The truth is, Adam) He didn't fall from grace. He broke the law. The Wilkins account confuses law and grace. Of course, the Apostle Paul has no such problem.
This off base doctrine of monocovenantalism and teaching that the Covenant of Works is a gracious covenant is unconfessional and should be dealt with. Christ fulfilled the law on our behalf. He fulfilled what the first Adam failed to fulfill. If he didn't then the justice of God was not met in Christ's sacrificial atonement. There is no propitiation. The person and work of Christ is demerited by these men who teach this unconfessional and very unbiblical doctrine.
