Recently I have been taking time to assess and evaluate the Covenant of Works in greater detail. Let me say from the outset that I approach this from the position as a 1689 Federalist.

One argument that I have commonly seen used against the teaching that Adam’s obedience to God’s Commandment could merit eternal life is that he already had possession of it. It is asserted that rather than meriting eternal life, Adam would have simply continued in the eternal life that God had already graciously given to him. “Adam had no need to merit life because God had already graciously given it to him”, some will say.

This is one line of argumentation used by some in order to reject the traditional Reformed doctrine of the Covenant of Works. They will argue that if Adam could not merit or gain eternal life by his obedience because he already possessed it, then the Reformed teachings of the Covenant of Works falls flat and must be re-casted. Federal Visionist Doug Wilson, for example, argues in his Westminster Systematics that if Adam was able to “merit” eternal life, “then we have to deny the Covenant of Works.”

However, it is my argument that if one wants to use this line of reasoning to argue against the Reformed understanding of the Covenant of Works, it comes with several serious issues that must be considered.

The first issue is that by affirming that Adam already possessed eternal life, it means that Adam would have possessed and secured eternal life and then lost it entirely. Is it possible for one to possess eternal life and then lose it? As Calvinists, we obviously reject this line of thinking because we take what God says seriously about perseverance and eternal life (John 10:28). We believe that if someone possesses eternal life it means that they actually possess it for eternity. In order to argue that Adam already possessed eternal life, it also requires that you must affirm that he lost it upon disobedience. This seriously undermines the doctrine of perseverance.

The second issue is that it simply does not take seriously what God says in Genesis 2:15-17, or what God says about the presence of the Tree of Life in the Garden. Clearly, we see that obedience to God’s commandment gave Adam access to the Tree of Life (Genesis 2:9; 2:16). Once Adam disobeyed God’s commandment, the Tree and the Garden both were taken away from him (Genesis 3:23-24). Since disobedience caused the Tree to be taken away, it’s logical to argue that continuing in obedience would have given Adam eternal life because he would have been free to eat of the Tree of Life. Since obedience to God’s commandment clearly gave Adam access to the Tree (which also would have sacramentally bestowed eternal life), it logically follows that Adam did not already possess everlasting life. To sum this point up, I will point to the words of Sam Waldron. Waldron has said, “He [Adam] did not have eternal life, but this is what eating of the tree of life would have given. Living forever is the same language as eternal life throughout the Bible.”

So as we see, eternal life was something yet to be gained for Adam, and it was conditioned upon his obedience. This is why it was taken away from him upon his disobedience. This clearly undermines the argument that Adam already possessed eternal life. The affirmation of this argument will lead to one of two places: Abandoning Calvinism, or at least holding to a very inconsistent form of it, and/or seriously eisegeting Genesis which will naturally lead to other issues down the road, especially in regards Christology and Soteriology.

Advertisements

2 thoughts on “Obedience To The Covenant of Works and Eternal Life Merited

  1. Is it possible that Adam and Eve lived under the some ‘form’ of covenant everyone (from Abraham to Christians) live under, faith. Let me explain. What did God require of them but to ‘believe’ what He said was true about the eating of the fruit? Isn’t that still the case, God requires us to believe…the ‘covenant of faith’ still in effect!

    Like

    1. I think the way I’d explain it is like this, and maybe this will help clarify:

      Adam and Eve were under a Covenant that we (by we, I mean those of the Reformed Tradition) refer to as the Covenant of Works. That covenant differed from the rest of the redeptive-historical covenants in various ways. The terms of that redemptive-historical Covenant were if they ate of the tree, they would die. If they didn’t, they would live. It was marked by faithfulness to the commandment of God. God required perfect and perpetual obedience. If Adam succeeded, he would secure eternal life for him and his posterity. He didn’t succeed in that obedience, and broke the terms of that covenant and brought upon him and his posterity the curses of that covenant which was death, both spiritually and physically.

      It differs from the Covenants made with Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, and the New Covenant. Different covenants made with different individuals at different times for different purposes. But, the New Covenant (The Covenant of Grace) is revealed more and more through each of those different covenants.

      The Abrahamic Covenant created a people which would bring forth the Messiah. The Mosaic Covenant gave them a land and law. The Davidic Covenant gave them a king. The New Covenant expands on those things in various ways, and fulfills many of those promises. For example, Christ is the sum of the Abrahamic promise. He was the seed Abraham was promised (Gal. 3:16;29). He was the fulfillment of the sacrificial system of the Mosaic Economy (The book of Hebrews expands on this). He was the promised king of the Davidic Covenant.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s