Hey there Carlos, et al,
I meant to answer this last week, but developments here at work as well as recent posts by 1Saved have been taking up my time. I am somewhat caught up on work, and 1saved seems to have slowed down his posting, so I can return briefly to my discussion of the Covenant of Works.

Quote
I would disagree that this is just a simple creator-creature distinctive. The fact that word "covenant" is not stated explicitly does not in of itself negate the reality of i t


Well, on the contrary, I believe there is a significance to the fact that it is not called a covenant, particularly because no actual covenant takes place. By that I mean a couple of things:

First, as I pointed out, there is no specific mention of it being called a covenant. Now, I realize covenant proponents argue that lack of terminology is irrelevant, because the wording suggests such a covenant took place. However, contrasted to the biblical recorded of what we know are covenants, it would seem that if God had meant for his commands to Adam to be revealed as a covenant with him, he would have called it as such. If a succesion of covenants, built upon an eternal covenant of redemption and grace and one of works in time with Adam is how God deals in human history, there would be specific words to solidify such a system of theology. I would argue the same with Dispensationalists who believe God reveals His purposes in differing administrations. I don't find such terminology being used in relation to God's purposes either. The problem with covenant proponents, at least in my mind, is that there is a reading into the language of Genesis 2 that does not warrant such an inference. Usually, the reponse to my objection is to appeal to the term "Trinity." The Trinity is not mentioned in the Bible by name it is argued. Granted, that is true, however the theology of what is summarized by the word "Trinity" is something that is founded by the exegesis of the text of scripture. I don't believe such evidence, at least from what Covenant propents offer, is compelling, at least under the scrutiny of exegesis.
Second, I don't find the terminology of a covenant being expressed in Genesis 2. First, pulling from O. Palmer Robertson's book The Christ of the Covenants, his working definition for a covenant is A bond in blood sovereignly administered I would agree with his definition, but strangely, he abandons it when he appeals to a Covenant of Works. If his definition is accurate, then where is the bond in blood of the covenant of works? There is none. Second, with all the covenants mentioned in the OT, they are spoken of by either God, or the one to whom the covenant is made as an everlasting covenant, or one that is made forever, which speaks of it being unalterable. We see this with every major covenant Genesis 9:16, 17:7, 2 Samuel 23:5, Jeremiah 31:31ff, etc. I don't find the promise of everlasting or forever made with Adam, or even the type of promises God makes with the other individuals participating in those covenants.

Quote
Not only that, as been stated before, Hosea 6:7 makes a strong case for it, and the onus is on those who disagree. No doubt others have attempted to change it to mean "like man" or "at adam", where the former makes no sense and the latter simply is not attainable.


(Fred) I am not sure you can make such a strong case for Hosea speaking about a Covenant of Works with Adam. I have read all of the various covenantal literature on this passage, and they all pretty much acknowledge that it is such an unclear verse to hang their hats on, but even after admitting such a problem with the passage, still insist that Hosea is talking about a Covenant with Adam. Now, I want to hear why you think the translation of this verse as "like man" makes no sense, when the immediate context implies that it does. If you look at the context, that begins back in verse 4, Ephraim and Judah are compared to being like men, or the typical way man in general transgress due to their sin. Hosea is setting up a series of contrasts to express the disobedience of God's people. Gilead, in the next set of verses, is said to be evildoers. Regardless of how the Hosea 6:7 is to be translated, I find it unusual that Covenant folks would go to such lengths to defend this so as to make their theologial system work. It is one of those obscure verses, and to appeal to it in defense of a supposed pivital doctrine that is foundational to a system of theology is stretching it in my opinion.

Quote
Also, do you agree that the decalogue is no longer binding upon believers? if so, How is that possible in light of Matthew 5:17-48, Matthew 22:36-38?


(Fred) I would say that the law (decalogue) is no longer binding upon believers in that keeping it keeps idividuals in good standing as a member of a theocratic community as Israel was. Whereas the OC expression of the decalogue was external, the NC expression of it is now internalized by the members of the Church. That is a rather simplistic answer, but I am short on time and want to post this before days end. Maybe we can develop this aspect of your discussion in further posts.

I realize that more than likely I have wrestled to the ground a big tar baby by my responses. I expect a deluge of posts, but I must say that we are busy here at work and I may not get a chance to answer in a timely fashion. Please don't take that as a dodge; I am just forewarning everyone that I may take a while in responding.

Fred


"Ah, sitting - the great leveler of men. From the mightest of pharaohs to the lowest of peasants, who doesn't enjoy a good sit?" M. Burns