Clearing Up Confusion Over Distinctions #7

Below is an essay by New Covenant Theology proponent, John Reisinger titled, "Covenant of Works?". Again, I am assuming that NCT count his words as representative in some aspect so I feel safe in presenting them for a critique of NCT as a whole.


" 'Mr. Reisinger, if God did not make a covenant of works with Adam in the Garden of Eden, then exactly what was the arrangement?'

I view the situation in the Garden of Eden as follows: Suppose I put you on a large farm and tell you that everything on it was for your personal use and enjoyment. I promise to pay all of the bills for everything, the fertilizer, the animal's feed, the electric bill, etc. You need only work the farm and you may sell or use all the produce, animals, etc. for yourself. There is only one condition. There is a small building out back of the barn that belongs to me and you may not go into it. The day you go in that building, you are going to be thrown off the farm. That is exactly like the arrangement that God made with Adam. Those are the same promises, conditions and terms laid on Adam in Eden. Everything in the Garden was Adam's to do with as he chose. The only restriction was to not eat of one tree.

Question: Is there anything in my 'farm deal' with you that states, or in anyway remotely implies, that if you do not enter that little house for X number of weeks, months, years or some period of time, I will reward you by moving you to a bigger, better or different farm? There is not a thing to that effect! Total silence! Is there any inference of any kind that if you do not go into the little house for a specific period of time that I will tear down the little house. No! Not even a hint of such a thing."

For some reason, Reisinger thinks that by referring to the relationship between Adam and God as a "deal", he has avoided its covenental implications. That's just not the case. the fact remains that God promised that Adam could remain in paradise if He obeyed the stipulation of the "deal" and He promised to curse Adam if he did not render obedience. Unless one has a predisposition against a covenental architecture in the Bible, there is no way to avoid seeing this relationship between God and Adam as a covenant of obligation.

"Is that not the exact 'deal' God made with Adam? I ask again, where in Genesis 1-3 is there a promise of a better life (or bigger farm) as a reward for Adam's obedience to a so-called covenant of works? There is not a single word or inference to that effect. There is indeed a threat of death for disobeying the one commandment, but there is no promise to Adam that he could gain, by works, something he did not already possess. Remember we are not talking about a minor point of doctrine. A covenant of works with Adam whereby he could literally "earn life" by obedience is an essential building block in the system of covenant theology. No covenant of works with Adam, no covenant theology."

It seams to me that Reisinger has missed the point. He seems to think that because the promise of God to Adam was not a better future in a better place, then the idea of that relationship being covenental is untenable. but this is irrelevant on the whole. The concept of a covenant of works between God and Adam does not necessitate a promise of a future different paradise. The promise was to maintain his current existence in the Edenic paradise wherein his relationship with his creator was personal and immediate.

"By the way, what was missing in Eden that Adam needed and God promised him he could earn by personal obedience? I always thought Eden was a pretty good deal that did not need any improvements. I think Adam had everything that any heart could desire."

Here again there is a misunderstanding of Covenant Theology. No covenant theologian I know of says that something was missing in Eden that Adam would gain by way of his obedience.

"I repeat, the whole system of covenant theology is build on the absolute necessity of Adam being under a covenant of works wherein he was promised 'life' as a reward for obeying that covenant. But He already had life! He already had fellowship with God. The great tragedy of Eden was not that "an opportunity to earn life was lost." The tragedy was the life Adam already had was lost when he disobeyed. Where in Gen 2:17 is there the slightest inference that if Adam obeys a covenant for X number of months, or years, he will get a bigger and better garden or God would remove the tree. Genesis is a simple and straightforward narrative and covenant theologians superimpose a whole unproven system of theology on it."

I think Reisinger here needs to see the distinction between saying, Adam was promised life in the future, and that Adam was promised continued life (as Covenant theology would proclaim). It would have been helpful in this essay if he had cited sources of Covenant Theology stating the former instead of the latter. The latter half of his paragraph above is a straw-man argument; Covenant Theology does not claim that God promised a bigger and better garden or removal of the tree upon Adam's obedience.

"That there are many arguments for different terms or labels used by different covenant theologians for the "covenant of whatever" is proof of my original statement. We do not have to argue about labeling a doctrine when it is established from texts of Scripture. However, when you are discussing inferences and deductions, you have many conclusions that have no clear biblical (meaning textual) proof. One man's idea is as good as another when we are discussing ideas. That is not true when we discussing the words inspired by the Holy Ghost."

1. In order for this argument to have teeth, the different nomenclature surrounding the name of the covenant God made with Adam would have to be a symptom of different understandings of the covenant.

2. Limited atonement, definite atonement, particular redemption...would Reisinger draw the same conclusion about this doctrine?

3. The existence of arguments about the labels that certain doctrines will assume, doctrines that arise from the Bible, has no power over the legitimacy of the doctrine over which the label is being argued; there is no logical connection between the existence of those arguments and the illegitimacy of the doctrine in question.

It's difficult to take seriously Reisinger's arguments against Covenant Theology when he makes them with the sloppy-logic that characterizes an anti-Calvinist's rantings against the straw men he sets up to misrepresent Calvinism.