The Covenant of Works and the Catholic Orthodoxy

IS THERE A COVENANT OF ORIGINS BESIDES THE COVENANT OF GRACE?

If there is no Adamic Covenant in some sense separate from the Covenant of Grace, then the sin that leads to death is apostasy from the Covenant of Grace.  Adam apostatized from the Covenant of Grace, rather than breaking some Adamic Covenant.

And, since we know that not every sin done in the Covenant of Grace leads to death, because of the retroactive benefit of Christ-to-come, we have to introduce the distinction between mortal and venial sin.  Then, we may ask, "Could Adam have committed a venial sin?"  But we all agree that it is not Scriptural to say that he could have.  All Adam's sins would have been mortal.

Again, following the Adamic analogy of supposed apostasy from the Covenant of Grace, would it be the case that your apostasy would doom your offspring to eternal death, just as it did in the case of Adam?  We know that this is wrong, too.

Therefore, we conclude that if the Covenant of Grace subsumes into itself all the events, activities, sins and judgments that are traditionally considered part of the Adamic Covenant, then theological conclusions seem to be reached that are just wrong.

Therefore, we conclude that Adam, as head of the original creation, must have been related to God in a way that is originally NOT exactly like the Covenant of Grace.

The Adamic Covenant is the Covenant of -- something else.

WHAT IS THIS OTHER COVENANT?

It is traditional in any orthodox theology to view the original Adamic relationship with God as intolerant of any kind of sin at all, and therefore as being a relationship with God different from the relationship we have through the grace of Christ.  This is also true for Reformed Theology, as an orthodox theology of origins.

Any supposed promises made to Adam, or any fruition of his relationship to God which comes about through his perseverance in his sinless deportment is speculation and not -- to my knowledge -- any part of the catholic church doctrine.  However, the later Reformed Theology does have a developed doctrine of this original relationship, which goes beyond the real, historic dogma of the universal church.  This developed covenantal relationship is called the Covenant of Works.

Sometimes arguments are made that Reformed Theology originally had no Covenant of Works.  While it is true that the original Reformed Theology had no developed doctrine of the Covenant of Works, it did hold to the catholic orthodoxy on the Adamic relationship, namely, that the original Adamic relationship is not the Covenant of Grace.

The developed doctrine of the Covenant of Works slowly evolved during the 16th century (and later), though there are hints that lead to this in the Institutes (1559).  However, most of the Reformed Standards of doctrine currently in use do not appear to mention the Covenant of Works.  This is true of the Heidelberg Catechism, Belgic Confession, etc., even though the Heidelberg Catechism was produced in the German Reformed region where the doctrine of the Covenant of Works seems to have originally developed.  It is commonly said that this doctrine is first brought out in doctrinal standards by Westminster.  However, in my opinion, the Westminster Standards do not give a clear statement of the developed doctrine.  You can find an excellent discussion of the developed doctrine of the Covenant of Works in Herman Bavinck's Reformed Dogmatics. 

WHAT THE WESTMINSTER STANDARDS TEACH

It appears to me to be the case that there is reduced coverage in the presentation of the doctrine of the Covenant of Works in the Westminster Standards:

1)  I think that most evangelical Presbyterians just take the Covenant of Works in the standards as being a reference to the fact that Adam was under a covenant which made no provision within itself for any remedy for sin.  In other words, the Covenant of Works is just an expression of the idea that a life free from sin on Adam's part would not lead to the Fall.  When he sinned, he inevitably fell.

2)  However, the actual doctrine of the developed Covenant of Works is that Adam did not have eternal life, but was promised eternal life (in the future) based on his perseverance in a sinless life and proper covenantal achievement for a period of time.  The most highly developed form of this doctrine (see Bavinck) regards the promised eternal life as being received through the same transition to new humanity that we are promised in Christ at the resurrection, but that this transition is accomplished without the Incarnation of the Second Person of the Trinity or any Atonement.  I would suggest that few in evangelical Presbyterianism are aware of the doctrine in this form.

I don't know for sure, but do suspect that the Westminster Assembly was divided on this, and that this might have resulted in the reduced exposition of the Covenant of Works within the Standards.  (There may be enough documentation in books to check this, but I don't know it as I write).

If it is true that there is an intentionally reduced exposition of the doctrine of the Covenant of Works, then it may have been the purpose of the Assembly to craft a confession and catechisms that minimized the commitment required by those who do not believe in the developed doctrine of the Covenant of Works.  This would allow those who simply held to the catholic orthodoxy to sign off on the Standards.

I suspect that this is what is actually happening in most cases in evangelical (Princetonian and Southern) Presbyterianism today, since one never hears the true, developed doctrine of the Covenant of Works exposited.

I have other papers on this subject here.