A Critique of the Covenant of Works in Contemporary Controversy

Protestant Reformed Theological Journal
Theological Seminary in Philadelphia in the late 1970s and early
1980s and has continued to be an issue in the controversy. Among
those who are opposed to the movement, the doctrine of the covenant
of works has become something of a shibboleth by which they guard
the fords of their churches. Buckets of ink and reams of paper are
being used to defend the covenant of works. This vigorous defense
of the covenant of works is illustrated by recent reports from synodically
appointed study committees, articles in magazines, a plethora
of articles and blogs on the Internet, books, and learned papers in
theological journals.
The 2010 report on the FV received by the United Reformed
Churches contains a large defense of the covenant of works. It
calls the denial of the covenant of works by the FV “one of its most
significant features” and one that “bears directly on the doctrine
of justification.” The report argues that “in the Three Forms of
Unity the absence of the terminology of a ‘covenant of works’…
does not alter the fact that all of the elements or components of the
Reformed doctrine are present ‘materially’ in them.” 25 In this light,
and arguing in favor of the covenant of works, the report states
that to say that the Three Forms of Unity do not teach the covenant
of works is “too hasty.” 26 The report argues that the covenant of
works promised eternal life to Adam, that it was the means to his
attaining eternal life, that Adam would have merited eternal life,
and that maintaining this doctrine is essential to the controversy
with the FV.
Virtually the same is the 2007 report on FV by the Presbyterian
Churches of America (PCA), which states,
The covenant made with man before the Fall, is called by our Standards
a covenant of works (respecting its terms or conditions) (WCF 7.2), a
covenant of life (respecting its goal or end) (LC 20), a covenant with
Adam (respecting its party or representative) (LC 22), and the first
covenant (respecting its chronological priority and indicating that
25 https://www.urcna.org/urcna/StudyCommittees/FederalVision/Federal_Vision_Study_Committee_Report.pdf,
34, 36.
26 Ibid.
14
Vol. 44, No. 2