SRR #85 | A Biblical Defense of The Covenant of Works

I do a podcast.

I'm not interested in your podcast. The anathema of God was for those who denied justification by faith alone. When that is at stake, we need to be on the battlefield, exposing the air and combating.

The air. We are unabashedly, unashamedly, Clarkian. And so, the next few statements that I'm going to make, I'm probably going to step on all of the Vantillian toes at the same time. And this is what we do at Simple Riff around the radio, you know.

We are polemical and polarizing Jesus style.

I would first say that to characterize what we do as bashing is itself bashing. It's not hate. It's history. It's not bashing.

It's the Bible. Jesus said,.

Woe to you when men speak well of you, for their fathers used to treat the false prophets in the same way, as opposed to blessed are you when you have been persecuted for the sake of righteousness.

It is on. We're taking the gloves off. It's time.

To battle. Alright, ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the podcast. My name is Tim, and you are listening to Semper Reframanda Radio. So, if you were listening to our podcast, I think about two episodes back, I'd mentioned some things about my co-host Carlos.

And basically, there was a difficult situation going on at home with his dad, and that he probably was not going to be able to participate in the podcast in the near future. And that is why this is a very exciting episode, because Carlos had some free time, and he is actually going to be joining me in tonight's recording.

Now, we're going to break this up into two parts, so Carlos is actually going to be here for two weeks. Actually, we're just recording all of it tonight, and it'll be released in a two-part series. We're going to be covering the covenant of works, and we're going to be making a biblical defense for the covenant of works, and talking about some of the reasons why people I think reject the covenant of works.

But before we get into that, let me just welcome Carlos back to the show. And Carlos, let me give you an opportunity to say hello, and let me just ask if you would be willing to share what is going on with the situation with your dad, and all of that.

Yeah, sure. It's good to be back on the show. We've had a lot going on. Very turbulent, trying, sanctifying.

Situations.

With our family.

Right now.

Yeah, I think you gave a pretty good recap of what's going on with my dad, so I mean, I covet your prayers if you tune into that last episode. My dad has got some pretty bad end-stage cirrhosis, and it's been affecting him significantly.

He's very kind of.

Lost.

A lot of weight. His mind tends to come and go, so it's very hard to have a conversation with him. And, you know, he's stable now, but I mean, they're starting to put him on morphine because he's been in a lot of pain, and so it's just things are starting to get gradually.

Worse.

And I've had some conversations, I mean, obviously I've had a lot of spiritual conversations with him, but it's hard to gauge where he's at just because his mind tends to come and go so much. And some have been encouraging, some have been not so encouraging,.

But.

He does appear to know very well that Jesus is the.

Only way.

So that's been encouraging to some extent, and one thing I will say is, if you're in a situation with hospice, because my dad has hospice now, and thankfully we also qualified, my mom finally got the social security disability, so that's going to be a big help for them because my mom had to quit her job to take care of my dad.

But if you have a hospice, and you know, because sometimes they offer chaplains, hospice chaplains, and at least from what I've seen and experienced, I wouldn't recommend them because they tend to be very, they tend to cater a lot to what the individual wants, and it's really not about what they want.

You have to tell them the truth. That's very important because they're about to pass away, and so it's not, I don't think it's good to have somebody there who doesn't really know the person, and they're just kind of like getting a feel for it, and then they'll just give him what he wants.

So if he won't necessarily be direct in certain situations when it's called for, so, because my dad will sometimes say that he's a Catholic and stuff, and he's really not a Catholic. I've been wanting to confront him about that because he's not.

He denies basically all of the fundamental tenets of Catholic dogma, and his own church would, you know, the Catholic church would anathematize him, so it's important to be able to have direct conversations with those loved ones, and usually, you know, I don't know if some people might default to using hospice chaplains and stuff, but it's very important that if you're a believer, you're probably the best suited candidate for loved ones that are about to pass away, because, you know, I'm grateful that my dad seems to know, and he seems to be processing and registering a lot of what we've talked about, so but that's basically,.

Yeah.

Man, I am glad that your dad is receptive to some of the things that you're saying, because I know that you've been talking to him for quite a while, for a couple of years, actually, and I know that it's been a difficult journey, and one of the things that you said that I really appreciate is the fact that even though your dad professes to be a Catholic, that he's really not a Catholic, and I think that we need to be careful in situations like that, because as I've always said, like, if you're really a Roman Catholic, then you're not a Christian, and if you're a Christian, then you're really not a Roman Catholic, because the Church of Rome anathematized the Gospel, and so if we fall into a situation like this, I think a lot of times people are tempted to say, well, I know a Roman Catholic, like your dad, who's professing to be a Roman Catholic, I know someone who's a Roman Catholic and is actually saved, and what that does is it actually, in some sense, affirms the Roman Catholic faith as a system of faith in which a person could be saved, despite the fact that they preach a false Gospel, and so I think it's really helpful to make that distinction.

I really appreciate you doing that and just sticking to the Gospel with your dad, and I know that his time is short, and I know that your mom's a believer, but this is a very difficult situation, so our prayers and our thoughts are with you, and I mean, I live in the same city as you, so if you need anything you can just give me a call, but with that, let's go ahead and take a break.

We're going to get back in a little bit, we're going to talk about the Covenant of Works, but first, let's go ahead and play a commercial with Tom Giuditis from the Trinity Foundation, and we'll be right back.

Or print over 300 articles, or listen to over 200 MP3 audio lectures, and check out our over 65 titles of books and other media. And if you are between the ages of 16 through 25, you can enter our 2018 Christian Worldview Essay Contest on the topic of the book, The Emperor Has No Clothes, Richard B. Gaffin, Jr.'s Doctrine of Justification, by author Stephen Cunha.

Thank you, and remember, the Bible alone is the Word of God.

The Covenant of Works Defined and Defended

Alright, I want to say thank you to Tom for that, and I want to encourage our listeners to go and check out all that the Trinity Foundation has to offer. So, let's go ahead and get into our topic for today.

We are going to be talking about the Covenant of Works, as I had already mentioned, and we want to give a biblical defense for the Covenant of Works as it has been defined by Protestant Reformed Orthodoxy.

Now, before we make a biblical defense for the Covenant of Works, I think it's best to just define what the Covenant actually is. I know that some of our listeners might not be familiar with this, but it is a major tenant of Reformed Theology.

So, the term Covenant of Works is shorthand for the theological view that God made a covenant with Adam in the Garden of Eden. Now, in Reformed Theology, this covenant that God made with Adam is most commonly referred to as the Covenant of Works, as seen in the Confession of Faith, but it is also referred to as the Covenant of Life, as we see in the larger Catechism, Question Number 20, and the shorter Catechism, Question Number 12.

But the Westminster Confession of Faith in Chapter 7, Subsection 2, writes thus,. The first covenant God 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.

And in Chapter 9, Subsection 1, we read, 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.

And so I think it's important right here to just point out that the Covenant of Works did not originate with the Reformers, but it was during the Protestant Reformation that the view or the theological concept of the Covenant of Works was refined and systematically formulated.

And let me just say this, I think that it's also equally important to point out that this theological concept of the Covenant of Works has been rejected by many prominent theologians in our day. To name a few, we could point to people like Norman Shepard, Daniel Fuller, Thomas Schreiner, and John Piper.

But most notably, it has been rejected by entire schools of theology. In the late 19th century, for example, the theology of dispensationalism emerged as a new theological system which rejected the notion of a Covenant of Works.

And now we see a new and developing system called New Covenant Theology, which also rejects this theological concept of a Covenant of Works. So today, our goal is to give a biblical defense for the Covenant of Works from its objectors and to illustrate this, to illustrate what we're talking about, people rejecting the Covenant of Works.

Let's go ahead and play a clip from our old friends at Conversations from the Porch. Now, let me just point out that I don't think that Conversations from the Porch is actually podcasting anymore, but their content is still up on BibleThumpingWingNet Network.

And some people might question, why are you rehashing stuff with Conversations from the Porch? This is not a personal issue. We have nothing against these guys. I like these guys. We are just trying to address the theological disagreement.

There is a theological disagreement, and that's really all that we're trying to address. So let's go ahead and play a clip just to illustrate that this view is rejected by some people who hold to New Covenant Theology.

I love to talk. I love to talk theology. I love to talk...

You're in the right place, then.

I see that. Well, I've got a question.

Here, Chris. Watch this. Garden. Covenant or No Covenant? No. No.

All right! That's from Missouri originally. Show me.

Oh, no.

It's not there.

Yeah, it's the only covenant in the Bible that the Bible doesn't call a covenant. You don't know that?

Oh, man.

There we go again.

Okay, well, I'll give you... Let's say there is a covenant. What are the terms? What are the stipulations? What's the sign?

The oath. That's good.

What did God promise? He always makes promises. I mean, I still have not seen why our New Covenant brothers, why they feel the need to go there, because I don't see how it helps anybody.

Yeah, yeah. That's good. I don't know. I think Long has some good argumentation. From the Bible? Yeah. Oh, no! Oh, no!

All right, so there you have it. You have an example of New Covenant theologians rejecting the idea that there is a covenant in the Garden. And that comes to us from our old friends at Conversations from the Porch.

Again, we have nothing against these guys. We don't want any hate mail. Don't call my pastor. This is really nothing more than a theological disagreement and a theological discussion. So let's just leave it at that.

Let's be mature about it. That was Conversations from the Porch Episode 52 titled Interview with Pastor Doug Gooden, Cross to Crown Ministries, Timestamp 10430.

So.

We're going to give a positive case for the Covenant of Works. And hopefully for our listeners, we will satisfy some of those demands that were made. And we're not going to be able to cover all of it in this episode, so we do have another episode coming up.

But what I want to do is I want to break this down like this. We want to make a positive case, as I said, but we also want to discuss three principal reasons as to why people and in particular New Covenant theologians often reject this view of a Covenant of Works.

So the first reason is I believe that they commit the word-concept fallacy. The second reason is that they do not allow for logical inferences. And the third reason is that the New Covenant theology guys are not consistent with their own professed hermeneutical principle.

And we're going to get into that probably in the second episode. We probably won't have time to cover that here. But first, let's get into our point number one. The first is an error in reasoning in which the individual commits the fallacy, which is called the word-concept fallacy.

Dr. Richard Barcelos has pointed this out on a number of occasions, including his book titled Getting the Garden Right. And I can personally attest to this that I've heard a number of proponents of NCT say things like, there's no mention of a covenant in Genesis.

And then they will make demands of us to show them where it specifically says there's a covenant. Where's the word covenant? And when they raise this objection, I think it's appropriate to point out that they are committing the word-concept fallacy.

Now the word-concept fallacy is to make the mistake that because the word or term isn't used or found in the text, that therefore the concept isn't there as well. And for this let me also go to I want to point people to Robert Raymond's Systematic Theology book.

It's titled The New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith. And on page 430, Robert Raymond gives a really brief and excellent exegetical basis for the presence of a covenant in Genesis 2. And he writes, although the word covenant does not appear in Genesis 2, there are four reasons for regarding the arrangement between God and Adam as a covenant as the Westminster Confession of Faith teaches.

And in point number 1, he goes on to write, the word covenant does not have to actually be used at the time a covenant is made in order for a covenant to be present as it is made clear from 2 Samuel chapter 7 where although the word is not employed, according to Psalms 89 verses 19 through 37 God covenantally promised David that his dynastic house would rule over Israel.

And so I'd like to also ask my NCT friends if they view marriage as a covenant. Nowhere in Genesis is marriage referred to as a covenant, yet we see in Malachi chapter 2 verses 14 that God considers marriage a covenant.

So here we can safely say that the complaint of a lack of the term covenant is not a valid objection and we've demonstrated why, because we see two examples in which a covenant is made and later on it's revealed that it's a covenant, even though the term isn't actually used when the covenant is ratified.

Carlos, did you have something to add to that?

Yeah, if I can jump in here real quick. So I want to first just real quickly define what we mean by covenant, because that has a lot of different definitions, you know, by different schools and stuff like that.

So I think Reformed Baptists have a very solid biblical definition that encompasses basically every type of covenant that you find in Scripture and that's not overly narrow, as you might find in some Reformed, more of the Presbyterian authors, for example, like Opalmer Robertson.

So what we mean by covenant is that it is basically a commitment with divine sanctions. And so not all covenants are necessarily with a higher to a lower individual, like a king and a suzerain vassal or, you know, somebody is imposing the terms on the lesser individual, because you also have, for example, marriage, in which they are equals who are mutually consenting to a covenant that they are engaging in.

And so it also obviously has divine sanctions. Every covenant has a divine sanction. And so that meaning that there are divine blessings or consequences to the covenant that you make with somebody. So that's just to give a little overview.

Yeah, so I think that's really good that you included marriage because we do see that marriage is a covenant, yet in Genesis, marriage is not described as a covenant. And so I would like to know if our New Covenant Theology friends, if they view marriage as a covenant.

So, you know, semper .refermanda .radio at gmail .com. Go ahead and write me. Let me know if you think that marriage is a covenant. And if so, how did you arrive at that conclusion? Because nowhere in Genesis do we see that marriage is a covenant.

Carlos, did you have something else to add?

Yeah, that's an excellent point, Tim. I don't think, I haven't really seen anybody make that point that God clearly married Adam and Eve in the Garden, and that marriage is a covenant. So the word is clearly not there, and yet God clearly did the act of performing a marriage when He created Adam and Eve and bounded them together by the marriage covenant.

And so that's a very powerful point. And let's have some fun with this because I just so happen to have a copy of Peter Gentry and Steve Wellam's Kingdom Through Covenant, courtesy of Brother Ryan Denton, who you know is another one of our co-hosts.

So I want to read some of the stuff that they've said on their book here about the covenant of works. And also, we also dealt with this a little bit in a previous episode. The episode I did with Owen regarding how NCT tries to justify their position with the First London Baptist Confession, we also gave a little bit of a proof of the covenant of redemption by virtue of the fact that marriage is a covenant.

And so if you want to revisit that, that'll help you kind of go over some of the stuff that we talked about. We also laid out a lot of the groundwork that we're going to be discussing in this episode.

And so, this is really interesting. So I think a lot of people, and this is very important for New Covenant Theology subscribers to listen to this as well. If you have an NCT person that you know, send them this episode because they might be very surprised to hear this from somebody who is coming from an NCT perspective.

Okay, so I'm going to read page 612 of Kingdom Through Covenant. They say this, Even though this formulation is standard for covenant theology, numerous people have questioned the validity of a covenant of works or any covenant in Genesis 1 through 2.

We will not rehearse all the arguments for a rejection of such a covenant since those arguments were covered in detail in chapter 6. Instead, we will focus on the most central objections. First, exegetically since the word covenant which is not found in the text and it is not used until Genesis 6 .18, some have concluded that we should not speak of a covenant prior to Noah.

Second, exegetically and theologically, some have questioned the notion of a covenant of works. Is Adam attempting to earn his salvation? Does he not already stand in a right relationship with God? And, though he obviously has everything to lose if he disobeys, should we think of it in a quote-unquote works sense?

Here we go, okay? This is still them. Why then do we argue that there is a covenant with creation, quote-unquote, with Adam serving as the covenant mediator? Five points summarize our overall argument and by highlighting these points, we also want to stress the foundational role Adam plays in the development of the covenants.

This is really kind of fun because a lot of what you pointed out, they make the very same arguments themselves for their view of the covenant with creation as they call it. And they do so because they do have some differences they make some distinctions and differences between the traditional covenant of works and how they see it.

But, by and large, it's very hard to distinguish their view from Reformed Baptist covenant theology, from the Reformed Baptist covenant of works. And so, what's really interesting is that the first point they address is that very notion that you covered about the absence of the word covenant.

They say this, the absence of word covenant in Genesis 1 -2 does not entail that there is no covenant. Exegetically, as argued in chapters 5 -6, William Dumrill is correct to note the crucial distinction between the two words cut and established, the covenant.

In Genesis 6 -17 -18 and 9 -18 -17, the covenant with Noah is established and not cut. Generally, the word cut refers to the initiation or origination of a covenant, while established assumes that a covenant relationship is already in place.

Or it refers to a covenant partner fulfilling an obligation or upholding a promise in a covenant previously initiated so that the other partner experiences in history the fulfilling of this promise. That is, one makes good on his promise, and he lists a bunch of references.

So, Genesis 17 -7, 19 -21, Exodus 6 -4, Leviticus 26 -9, Deuteronomy 8 -18, 2 Kings 23 -3, Jeremiah 34 -18. It is legitimate then to conclude that the phrase established by covenant in Genesis 6 -18 and in Genesis 9 -9, 11 -17, refers to the maintenance of a pre-existing covenant relationship which can only be found in Adam and rooted in creation.

Well, Carlos, I'm really glad that you're reading from this book because I think that it's important to point out that not every New Covenant theologian does reject the idea that there's a covenant between God and Adam.

Obviously, New Covenant theology is not monolithic as pretty much every New Covenant theologian will tell you, and so there are variations within the camps, but for those who do deny that there's a covenant that God made between himself and Adam, the pushback that we've gotten when we've tried to point out that they're committing the fallacy of the word-concept fallacy is that it's not just the word that's missing from the account, but the concept as well is also missing from the account.

And so this brings me to point number two in Robert Raymond's four points that he's making for an exegetical basis for the presence of a covenant in Genesis. He writes, covenant elements, which are parties, stipulations, promises, and threats are present.

And so we would say that most certainly there is the concept of a covenant given in Genesis, and this really should be easy to see. I don't think it's that difficult, but I do think that there's a lot of resistance here when we try to point this out.

And so I went to a New Covenant Theology Facebook page and I asked the question, why was there a tree of life in the garden? And I wasn't there to cause trouble, I just wanted to see what they were going to say,.

And.

Pretty much everybody said we don't know. It's speculative to try to figure that out. The Bible doesn't explicitly tell us. And so I want to challenge our listeners to just stop and think about this. Maybe you haven't thought about this.

Why was there a tree of life in the Garden of Eden? We know that there was a tree of knowledge of good and evil, which God said, do not eat of this tree lest you die. You will surely die. But why was there a tree of life as well?

My question is, let's just ask this. Let's work this out. Did Adam live forever? Well, the answer is no. I mean, obviously he's dead, so that tells us that he did not eat of the tree of life. Because if he had eaten of it, even just once, he would have lived forever.

In Genesis 3, verses 22 through 24, we read,. Then the Lord God said, Behold, man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil. Now lest he reach out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat and live forever.

So right there we notice that he has not eaten of the tree of life lest he live forever, lest he also take of the tree of life and live forever. Verse 23, Therefore the Lord God sent him out of the garden of Eden to work the ground from which he was taken.

He drove out the man, and at the east of the garden of Eden he placed the cherubim and the flaming sword that turned every way to guard the way to the tree of life. So it should be easy to see that if Adam had eaten of the tree of life, then he would have had eternal life.

So there in the tree was the promise of eternal life. So my question is, why did God cut him off, or why did God guard him from eating of the tree of life? Well, when I asked the New Covenant Theology guys, they said something to the effect that God didn't want Adam to stay in his sin forever.

Well, obviously that's true, but I'm not asking for the motivation, but more of what was the cause? What caused him to restrict him or to prevent him from eating this? Why was he denied eternal life? That's my question.

And the reason is simple, because he disobeyed God and therefore he was not granted access to the tree. Now, the pushback that I got was that it's speculative to think that if he had obeyed, then God would have not cut him off from the tree, but would have instead granted him eternal life.

That's speculative. Well, here's why it's not speculative, because it impugns on the justice of God to say that if Adam had obeyed perfectly, that God would not have granted him his reward of eternal life.

So, stop and think about that. To deny that the first Adam could have earned eternal life, if he had obeyed, is to impugn the justice of God. Because what we see is that the second Adam does exactly what the first Adam should have done, but couldn't do.

And, you know, I was talking to my friend about this, and I asked him, you know, what was the first Adam supposed to do? And he kept saying that, you know, we don't know, because God had ordained the fall, and he became very predestinarian on me, and he just kept saying that this was speculative.

And so, I do think that there's a bit of a resistance here to just walk this out. In the tree of life, was the promise of eternal life.

And.

That was cut off from him because he disobeyed. So, Carlos, I'm going to let you jump in here.

Yeah, obviously, it can get a little misleading when you're talking about whether it was possible for Adam not to sin. Because, obviously, in God's decree, God decreed Adam to fall, to not fulfill the terms.

And so, of course, it was not possible for Adam to satisfy those terms. But the problem, like you just said, that doesn't mean that he wasn't obligated to fulfill the covenantal obligations that God imposed on him.

That's exactly why, when he fell, he suffered the consequences of death. And another interesting point that the Reformed tradition and Reformed Baptists also have pointed out is that, like Richard Barcelos, for example, in his new book Getting the Garden Right.

So, Adam was created in a mutable state, like you said, like you pointed out. He was not created in a state of eternal life. He did not have eternal life because he was fallible. Fallible means you're capable of falling.

And so, by virtue of the fact that God said, do not eat of this or you will surely die, that clearly tells you, that's an explicit warning to Adam that he will die if he does not follow God's instruction.

I mean, this is Theology 101, right? Because when you have eternal life, you can't lose it, unless you're an atheist and you have a lot of sense of the Bible as a whole. But that's what we do when we systematize Scripture.

We have to make sense of the whole. And so, an eternal life is something that you have and that you can't lose because the Father will give them to Christ and Christ will never lose them from His hand.

And so, eternal life is eternal. You don't lose it and you always have it. And another concept is a very basic concept in Romans that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. In other words, when Adam sinned, he fell short of God's glory.

He fell short of His glorification because he didn't have it before and in order to have it, he had to obey God's command, God's explicit command, to not eat of the fruit. And he did. So, he fell short of God's glory and he did not have God's glory before that.

He didn't have it prior to that, otherwise.

He would.

Have had eternal life and this wouldn't have been an issue, right? So, that's where people get it confused. It's basically a cop-out or an excuse when you hear NCT folks say, well, it wasn't possible because God decreed it.

They get very predestinarian at that point because they don't want to draw out stuff that they're afraid of. They're afraid of drawing too much in the text, right? But just to help them out a little bit more, I'm going to read the second part of Kingdom Through Covenant by Gentry and Wellam, which just so happens to be the second point similar to Raymond's point, second point.

So, this is really fascinating stuff. They say here, Contextually, when we turn to Genesis 2, it is not improper to see a covenantal context, quote-unquote. Though the word covenant is not used, all of the elements of a Lord-Vassal agreement are in the context, including conditions of obedience with sanctions for disobedience.

Instead of viewing it as a covenant of works, it is probably best to view it as a covenant with creation, that is, an original unique situation which involved especially, in light of the rest of Scripture, Adam in a representative role on behalf of the human race.

And they quote, they cite Romans 5, 12 -21, 1 Corinthians 15, 20 -21. This point is buttressed by the incredible truth that Adam and the entire human race are created as God's image-bearers and by the link between image and sonship.

Even though there is a dispute over the exact image of Imago Dei, so then they get into another discussion about the image of God. But this is a very similar point that Richard Barcelos makes as well, because as image-bearers, Adam was an image-bearer, and that makes you a representative of what they just said here, what they.

Said that.

The entire human race are created as God's image-bearers and by the link, I'm not sure if this is a typo, and by the link between image and sonship. This is very, I mean, it's very similar to the case that we're making.

I mean, we could practically read this and almost come up with the same conclusion.

Good and Necessary Consequence in Scripture

Yeah, and so let's get into the second objection, or the second reason why I think that these guys oftentimes miss the covenant of works. And that is because of a rejection or at least a resistance to making logical inferences by good and necessary consequence.

And for a good introduction on logic and the Bible, I'd recommend an episode I did with Tom Giuditis titled Christian Apologetics and Logic. And in the show notes, there's also some really good articles from the Trinity Foundation on logic, logic in the Bible, logic in God, some really good stuff.

So go there to check that out. I believe it is episode 82. I might be wrong on that, but the title is Christian Apologetics and Logic. And in that episode, we pointed out that the reformers used the law of contradiction in their interpretive method.

This is something that Gordon Clark wrote. He writes then to the principle that the scriptures are their own infallible interpreter and that what is unclear in one passage can be understood by comparison with another passage is nothing other than the application of the law of contradiction.

Logic, therefore, must have been the only test the reformers could have used. And he's speaking about a test of rationality. And so the use of logical inference was so important to the reformers that it was given confessional status by the Westminster Divines.

In chapter 1, section 6, we read the whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith, and life as either expressly set down in scripture or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from scripture.

Now the reason that I bring this up here, this is important because it's like why am I bringing this up? Because we've seen New Covenant theologians either mock or disparage this principle of interpretation by stating that the reformers invented or came up with the idea that we're supposed to believe that which may be deduced by good and necessary consequence.

And to that we argued or we pointed out that and I pointed this out in my episode with Tom Giordano so I'm not going to go over all of it but we pointed out that this is a principle that we get directly from scripture because we see that Jesus deduced the resurrection from the tense of a verb in Matthew 22 verses 23 through 37.

When the Sadducees, beginning in verse 23 it reads when the Sadducees came to him who say there is no resurrection and asked him and so they come to him to question him but in verse 23 it points out that the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection and so Jesus gives them a reply and then in verses 31 he writes or it reads and as for the resurrection of the dead have you not read what was said to you by God?