Featured where are the Covenants of Works and between the Father /Son in Bible?

Yeshua1

Pink addressed this in the article you quoted;
There is a certain class of people, posing as ultraorthodox, who imagine they have a reverence and respect for Holy Writ as the final court of appeal which surpasses that of their fellows.

They say, Show me a passage which expressly states God made a covenant with Adam, and that will settle the matter; but until you can produce a verse with the exact term “Adamic covenant” in it, I shall believe no such thing.

Our reason for referring to this paltry quibble is because it illus*trates a very superficial approach to God’s Word which is becoming more and more prevalent in certain quarters, and which stands badly in need of being corrected.

In your own words the elements of Covenant were in place before the fall

,
You are substituting this language for covenant relationship

All through scripture God is revealed as the Covenant making and
covenant keeping God.
The original account of the fall is given to Moses years later.It focuses on the creation ordinances and the fall. after the flood the language of Covenant is more specific using the word...
8 And God spake unto Noah, and to his sons with him, saying,

9 And I, behold, I establish my covenant with you, and with your seed after you;

The Covenant is described as "my Covenant"...it's origin was God Himself.

In the same way....Jesus explains what the theologians have named the Covenant of Redemption here;In Jn6-

29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.

32 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven.

37 All that the Father giveth me

When did the Father give Jesus the elect?

9 Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,

The language showing the covenant was among the members of the trinity is in Heb6

17 Wherein God, willing more abundantly to shew unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath:


The promise and oath are the Covenant. Jesus being sent by the Father as the elect Servant is the Covenant;

0 Behold, the Lord God will come with strong hand, and his arm shall rule for him: behold, his reward is with him, and his work before him.

42 Behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth; I have put my spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles.

2 He shall not cry, nor lift up, nor cause his voice to be heard in the street.

3 A bruised reed shall he not break, and the smoking flax shall he not quench: he shall bring forth judgment unto truth.

4 He shall not fail nor be discouraged, till he have set judgment in the earth: and the isles shall wait for his law.

5 Thus saith God the Lord, he that created the heavens, and stretched them out; he that spread forth the earth, and that which cometh out of it; he that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein:

6 I the Lord have called thee in righteousness, and will hold thine hand, and will keep thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles;



The work is the active obedience of Christ.Jesus is the law giver,and He keeps it perfectly on our behalf as part of the Covenant of Redemption.

His will is submitted to the Father.Adam in the fall listened to the lie of Satan.Satan suggested "free will" as an option.Act independantly of the will of the Father......break the covenant relationship.
[remember how you described the terms of what is covenant] Adam failed.Jesus always submits His will to the Father as Covenant keeper.



38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.

39 And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.

40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.



God indeed made Covenant among the three Divine persons it is clearly seen here;

 

This thread is so far afield of the OP, it ought to be shut down. This thread is not about the Adamic Covenent (and even the OP'ster has gotten off track here!) but asks if there is a covenant of works between the Father and the Son. That would have very little to do with Adam and the promises given him by God, but would have a great deal to do with whether or not those promises can be seen as "commands" from the Father to the Son. Whether Adam received the promises or not is unquestionable, and whether that is known as the Adamic Covenant or not is a question for first-year seminary students.

The issue is originally stated as the question (through the thread title) "Where are the Covenants of Works between the Father/Son in [the] Bible" which is then followed by the succinct OP:

This concept comes from what is known as "Federal theology." That is, the theory of the eternal covenant between the Father and the Son. According to this theory, the work of atonement and therefore the covenant of grace given to the Church, is possible because of a legal agreement between the Father and the Son that if the Son becomes incarnate and atones for sin that the Father will reward Him and give redemption to the Church. This theory goes back to Johannes Cocceius, the 17th century German theologian who founded Federal theology.

First, it is absurd to think of God making an agreement with God. The Father and the Son are separate persons, but not separate entities. They subsist in the being of the one God. God doesn't need to make an agreement with Himself to get things done. He just does them.

Secondly, this is a very legalistic viewpoint. Instead of thinking of the gospel as something that breaks in from outside of existence under the law, those who would adhere to Federal theology can't fathom God simply acting out of unilateral grace. They see God as tied down within the straightjacket of the law. Therefore, He can't give grace unless a legal agreement prompts Him to do so. It is an absurd and completely unbiblical viewpoint.

 

thisnumbersdisconnected

There is no gospel without The law keeping of the Son.There is no need of grace if there is not a broken law with it's penalty.You do not understand the cross if you do not understand this.

Your post is an absurdity. Jesus is the law giver and in the incarnation the law keeper.
21 The Lord is well pleased for his righteousness' sake; he will magnify the law, and make it honourable.


4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,

5 To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.

 

Yeshua1

God has no "need" period.He wills and does of His goodpleasure

Could you offer scripture that supports this?
When did the Father give the elect to the Son?
When was it purposed that the Son would come to earth to accomplish redemption?

What was it based on.....give some scripture if you would.

explain hos 6
7 And they, as Adam, transgressed a covenant, There they dealt treacherously against me.

 

Meredith kline says the same here

 

I understand you and probably all would disagree but if your understanding was as mine in the thread concerning Trinity then there would be a covenant between the two.

From John 4:23,24 between The Father, Spirit the God who has an only begotten Son.

 

In reality I think I believe God covenanted within himself.

In this context. And Abraham said, “My son, God will provide for Himself the lamb

I Am that I Am.

A Son.

 

Again, what has that to do with whether or not there was a covenant of works between Father and Son??

That's my point exactly. As I said, it is an absurd and completely unbiblical viewpoint.

 

Which was not your original question, and which assumes man was ever under a covenant of works, and I don't see anything on the thread that establishes the argument for that, either.

 

Adam was a type of Christ....

14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.


14 but the death did reign from Adam till Moses, even upon those not having sinned in the likeness of Adam's transgression, who is a type of him who is coming.


So simply put...Jesus in his humanity...comes as being sent by the Father..under Covenant obligations as per the Isaiah verses.

God deals with mankind by Covenant....all the time...as it was in place before the world was.
When you see the work that was ordained for the Son ......go back and look at what you posted when i asked you for what is the essence of a Covenant.....Jesus work fulfills that definition.

So when you look at Jesus perfect work...you see what Adam failed to do.

 

How the covenant of works is typically understood 1) forces an understanding on the text, 2) inadequately accounts for the relational aspect of the covenant, and 3) avoids reading redemptive themes back into the creation account.

Michael Williams' article on Adam and Merit (Presbyterion 35/2 (Fall 2009): 87-94) gives a more than adequate response to the concept of a "covenant of works," regardless of whether the recipient of the covenant is understood to be man, or Christ.

I would agree with Williams. God is always about covenantal relationship with man, but the Federal theology that Reformed have chosen to describe that type of relationship through fails to grasp the reality of God.

 

thisnumbersdisconnected

Not really....it is more that looking at the bible as a completed revelation and seeing what Jesus accomplished with His Active Obedience instructs us as to what actually took place.

Well ...let's take a look at your link;

This is his own poor thoughts on this.Jesus in coming as the sent one was not mercenary, or self centered...but fully submitted to the will of the Father.:thumbs:

God does not enter into such a covenant.So this line of carnal reasoning is sub biblical.

This is not appropriate to speak of a Divine covenant in this way.

This is misguided and not seeking to provide a biblical solution.

He did not present it properly.

fully submitted to

Anyone who understands Covenant theology understands it in terms of;

God's self imposed obligation for the reconciliation of sinners unto HIMSELF.

 

Jesus is the Son of God. Jesus is the lamb of God. The lamb who was without spot and without blemish would die. That is cease to be, living. He would be dead. This was foreordained to take place before the foundation of the world. Before the first man Adam. the living soul was created in the image of his creator. Adam was created subject to death and corruption, so that Spirit the God who cannot die, would have a being created in his image by which he could bring forth his only begotten Son for death. Because this Son was going to die God, who cannot lie also made the promise of hope of eternal life.

That is the promise being spoken of in Gal. 3:19. The promise of life from the dead was made for the Son of God, the seed of Abraham see verse 16.

God the Father raised Jesus the Son from the dead, giving him the promise of God and also giving him the promise of the Holy Spirit which could be shed on mankind, Gentiles see Acts 2:32,33 and verse 14 Gal 3.

That shedding of the Holy Spirit on us gives us the earnest of that same promise of which the Son received making us heirs also of the hope of eternal life. Heirs not yet inheritors. Titus 3:6,7

This was the covenant God made within himself of sending forth a Son born of woman born under the law. That Son dying with the promise of the hope of eternal life. Gal 3:23 says the faith about to be revealed. The faith of God was revealed when Jesus his Son was raised from thew dead. Jesus became the substance of things hopped for the evidence of things not seen.


Is that not what took place?

They locked a thread today of which this post would have been relative to.
God the Father and the Son of God, both today quickening Spirit beings one Spirit flesh and bones.

Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. 1 Cor 15:46
For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. Col 2:9


Btw this is also relative to Icon's post 34.

The covenant came through the first man Adam through which came the last Adam.

 

Iconoclast --

You waste your time addressing anything to me. I've seen enough of what you have to say on this board to know that nothing you say would be of interest to me. You are sold out to an understanding of the Bible that is so far afield of the One True God that you don't know Him well enough to attempt to introduce Him to me or anyone else. I don't have you on ignore. I simply don't waste my time reading what you post.

God bless you and keep you, but save your computer's energy, please. Thank you.

 

That's a shameful post meant to be inflammatory and is a personal attack and insult. Ridiculous banter. Then you end it with God bless you?

 

When a member constantly harangues on a single subject, when that member cannot make a post without referencing his/her one, single, incessant theme, and when that member simply declines to discuss that theme from any aspect other than demanding to be recognized as the resident authority and as such offers opinion with condescending attitude -- opinion that was neither sought nor desired -- then there is nothing shameful, inflammatory, or personally affronting about telling him/her to simply not waste time and effort addressing someone who stopped listening long ago.

Yes. Rather than enlarging fonts and changing colors of others' posts in order to unnecessarily call attention to perceived "error", I choose to offer blessings even to those who don't believe they need them from other members of the board, even those with whom I disagree, and particularly with those who don't care whether I disagree with them or not, being so thoroughly convinced of their "rightness" that the opinions of others, or the likelihood that they are given much attention, matters little or not at all to them.