Covenant of works In his lecture against the FV, JwR says that denying the covenant of works leads to antinomianism. He then quotes James on the matter concluding that perfect obedience is required since to break one law is to break them all. Does this follow? Is this not a non sequitor? I think it is.Here is what James says.
Listen, my beloved brethren: did not God choose the poor of this world rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom which He promised to those who love Him? But you have dishonored the poor man. Is it not the rich who oppress you and personally drag you into court? Do they not blaspheme the fair name by which you have been called? If, however, you are fulfilling the royal law according to the Scripture, “YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF,” you are doing well. But if you show partiality, you are committing sin-convicted by the law as transgressors. For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one, he has become guilty of all. For He who said, “DO NOT COMMIT ADULTERY,” also said, “DO NOT COMMIT MURDER.” Now if you do not commit adultery, but do commit murder, you have become a transgressor of the law. So speak and so act as those who are to be judged by the law of liberty.
Now, does James mean to imply that perfect obedience is required here? Maybe. Or, as I grew up hearing, “James teaches us that all sins are equally heinous in the sight of God. Murder is just as bad as lying!” Is it? I’d much rather be lied to than the other. You?
But rather, is not the context of the passage love? Is not the arch stone of the commandments love? If so, then to break any of them is to violate only one law of any significance: love. If I lie I do not love. If I murder I am not loving. If I fail to worship God I do not love.
This is only one of the places where I see Robbins falling short in his exegesis. Others will follow. And they will show that his ST is grossly over-emphasised while his BT is sorely impotent.
