Sometimes baptists resist looking at Covenant theology even though it is at the heart of the Gospel. Here Richard Barcellos does a fine job handling some basis objections that you yourself might have had. http://www.rbap.net/a-typical-objection-to-the-covenant-of-works/ Objection stated: Probably the most obvious objection, and a very common one, is that the word “covenant” is nowhere to be found in the first two chapters of Genesis. In fact, the Hebrew word for covenant does not occur in the book of Genesis until chapter 6. These observations lead to the conclusion, so goes the objection, that there is no covenant in the Bible until Genesis 6. The covenant of works, then, is unbiblical and absolutely lacks biblical evidence. It is an extra-biblical, human construct imposed on the Bible to justify one’s theological system, which obviously needs re-casting. The covenant of works has human origins, not divine. It is man’s theology, not God’s. Put in the form of a question, this objection can be stated as follows: How can there be a covenant in Genesis 2 if Moses does not say so? Objection answered: I will answer under the four points below. First, this objection assumes that if a word is not in a text its concept cannot be there either. This is the word-concept fallacy. The Bible itself, however, sees concepts in texts and then uses words that do not occur in the text being referenced to describe those concepts. For example, consider Acts 2:22-31. Here Peter references Psalm 16:8-11. Then notice what he does in 2:31. He uses terms that are not in the Psalm to describe concepts from the Psalm. He says that David “spoke of the resurrection of the Christ.” The terms “resurrection” and “Christ” do not occur in the Psalm. Peter uses words to describe concepts implicit in the Psalm though not used explicitly by the psalmist. The point is this: Concepts can be present in texts without the words we normally use to describe them. If I said, “Base hit, home run, strike three, and walk-off single,” you would, most likely, reduce those phrases and the concepts indicated by them to a single word – baseball – yet I did not use the word baseball.