BookMark,
I should remember this because we had this in our Sunday school class, but I didn't take notes and have a bad memory!
Our pastor gave us the verses that are used to support the idea that there was a Covenant with Adam. (He is a Presbyterian not a Baptist).
Also this was over on the Puritan Board posted by Bryan and answered by a student at the Baptist Seminary in Louisville KY, Ben who is known there as SolaScriptura.

Quote
Covenant Of Works

I've been discussing this with a freind. To me Hosea 6:7 and Genesis 2:16-17 offer all the evidance needed to support such a covenant. However my freind disagrees that it is not enough evidance to place a doctrine this important on. The following is his opinion, and I'm wondering if, since this is still new to me, anyone would be willing to direct me toward some things I may have missed:

"In your own opinion, for my benefit, would you say that the covenant of works is necessary for the remainder of the covenant theology? I am sincere in my doubt that Hosea 6:7 demands any such covenant, and I am equally doubtful that Gen. 2:16,17 constitutes a solemn agreement, much less the details of the solemn agreement. So unless you can give some credible scripture to support it, I will likely not accept it. But that won't mean that I will have to disregard all covenant theology, will it?"

jsut in regards to his question concering if a covenant of works is nesscary to understand the rest of Covenant Theology. To me it seems yes because if there wasn't a covenant of works then Adam was under a covenant of grace and then the verses in Genesis 2 don't make sense. Why would he be said to die if he sinned?

Thanks,

Bryan
SDG

Quote
I would ask him why he doesn't believe that Hosea 6:7 indicates a covenant with Adam.
Even my baptist OT professors - who are NOT covenant theologians! - agree that this points to some type of covenant. So since the text clearly states that Adam broke "the covenant," I would say the burden of proof is on him to explain how there wasn't a covenant to break!
Admittedly, though, if Genesis 2: 17-18 were all we had, I wouldn't argue for a full blown covenant (though in the light of Hosea 6, I will!!!) because Gen 2 could be interpreted simply as a command... and there are lots of times where God gives a command and it isn't the establishment of a covenant.

I would also argue from Rom 5: 12- 21 on the basis that Paul is drawing a comparison with Adam and Christ. Since Christ is clearly the mediator of the New Covenant, then it would seem for the logic of Paul's thought to remain intact then Adam would also have to be the "mediator" of a covenant.

But at the end of the day I really do think the buck stops at Hosea 6:7 and the burden of proof rests on those who would deny the face of the text.