Theo 8

It seems i have unleashed something by first trying rewrite Covenant of Works. Perhaps there is still time to close the box.

The problem with changing the idea of works relates to internalizing merit and turning it into something closer to grace. The image of God is complex theologically since it has applications and atonement in the new testament. Thus it is extended its application not just to 2nd adam (christ) but to all. Yet, in a way it also internalizes demerit. This requires complex dealings with imputation. By internalizing demerit and turning it into something outside of works there exists questions of how christ takes up that demerit or rather iniquity in making satisfaction. This includes further iniquities and sin outside of original sin not covered in just the correction of image. This begs to ask should the works of sin see punishment or just the fallen persons of those works who sinned in christ. This may seem strange to ask by separating the two yet necessary when the two are so closely joined. It is also hard to do such without staying in Orthodoxy. Since everything hinges on justification.

Thus this series practically served to express doubts as I worked through this other idea. There is hope for this sort of internalization. It has implifications to personal responsiblity. Primarily on the person not the works hence the reason to re-examine covenantal responsibilty of Adam. It is also tantalizing to push works righteousness over a cliff once and for all. It begs to ask how or what quality is it that vessels of wrath and vessels of mercy are responsible to God. It begs also to answer the question christ rhetorically asked. "Why do you call me good, No one is good except God." When Christ says this, is he rejecting merit or claiming divinity or both?

The theology of image bearing still needs to be cooked out further. This requires finding biblical support since this series lacked it. By this I mean direct exigesis. I was working off of my impressions of what is in the bible and what evidences could be marshalled. This does not meant it is unbiblical perse but rather that it needs work. There is lack of support on the covenant of works to from direct exigesis. It would require much more work that what I have put in. It would require a whole book. My impressions may be flawed or right. Or some combination of the two; they need testing.

In the mean time, I may still consider this internalization of Covenant of works and also with respect to merit/grace to image. I have evidence from orthodox between the external and internal references to this covenant. They seem to float around when people are less precise than they aught. Yet, I also do not want to be the one for spliting hairs. The covenant of works is definitely correct in its implifications toward christ. I will not be equivocal here but the question is are there more implifications if it is internalized. Or are there problems. It presents a whole other system. I am more concerned with if it can be worked out as to why and how this other system for this covenant. It is outside of relying on forensic/substitutional imputation of merely the effects. It rather imputes or substitutes causes of fulfilment in the person himself.