Language, Language

I present for your edification two carefully considered written statements.  Judge for yourself whether they are in agreement with each other.

The full context of the first statement can be found here:

The first covenant made with man was a covenant of works, wherein life was promised to Adam; and in him to his posterity, upon condition of perfect and personal obedience…God gave to Adam a law, as a covenant of works, by which He bound him and all his posterity, to personal, entire, exact, and perpetual obedience, promised life upon the fulfilling, and threatened death upon the breach of it, and endued him with power and ability to keep it.

The full context of the second statement can be found here:

We deny that continuance in this covenant in the Garden was in any way a payment for work rendered. Adam could forfeit or demerit the gift of glorification by disobedience, but the gift or continued possession of that gift was not offered by God to Adam conditioned upon Adam’s moral exertions or achievements. In line with this, we affirm that until the expulsion from the Garden, Adam was free to eat from the tree of life. We deny that Adam had to earn or merit righteousness, life, glorification, or anything else.

If those statements aren’t contradictory, then I don’t know what is.  (Wait a minute, yes I do!)

(I am not interested in any discussion of this post here at Blogorrhea. If you want a blow-by-blow of how the FV tries to weasel out of this obvious contradiction (or a place to drop your comments), you can jump into some steaming hot magma. Or you could add your contributions to the 300+ comments at the original source.)

%d bloggers like this: