David Strain makes a very good point about the doctrine of the two thingies:
If the Kingdom is not advanced by ‘the sword’, that is, by means of physical coercion, but the God ordained role of the civil magistrate is to use the sword to enforce the rule of law, how can the Christian’s work as a civil magistrate be the work of the Kingdom?
As part of my duty to follow Scott Clark’s marching orders on covenant theology, I’ll mention his post on parallels between the controversy over Federal Vision today and Machen’s contest with liberalism some eight decades ago:
Like the liberals and latitudinarians on the early 20th century the Federal Visionists of our times use similar tactics against the confessionalists. They have tried to silence the confessionalist critics through shame or through implied or express suggestions of ecclesiastical or professional pressure. When that doesn’t work, the other tactic is to suggest that the confessionalist critics are immoral or somehow disreputable. Just as in the case of Machen, the liberals and latitudinarians would rather have the churches focus on the ostensible bad behavior (or incorrect social views) of the confessionalists rather than upon the deviant doctrine or ecclesiastical practice of the theological revisionists.
When J. Gresham Machen was driven out of the PCUSA, the liberals and their latitudinarian accomplices did not “get him†on a doctrinal charge but on a charge of not playing nice with others. He refused to abandon his support for the Independent Board of Foreign Missions (confessionalists do care about the lost AND getting our theology right) so they charged and convicted him in a sham ecclesiastical trial of being disobedient to the church. In light of the developments, in the PCUSA, in the decades that followed the idea of trying and disciplining a minister for supporting an independent (non-denominational) missions agency is amusing but they were able to get away with it then because they had control of the levers of power and because they had the cooperation of the latitudinarians.
On further reflection about the idea of republication, how could the Westminster Divines have been by implication any clearer than when they wrote the Shorter Catechism? It goes like this:
Q. 39. What is the duty that God required of man?
A. The duty which God required of man was obedience to his revealed will.
Q. 40. What did God at first reveal to man for the rule of his obedience?
A. The rule which God at first revealed to man was the moral law.
Q. 41. Where in is the moral law summarily comprehended?
A. The moral law is summarily comprehended in the ten commandments.
100 Comments
Darryl
Would you agree with the assertion that whenever the law of God was given, reiterated or read before the people of God, they could not but help have been reminded of the covenant of works?
The law is a reflection of the holines and the will of God and thus has perpetual significance. It always requires obedience. Thus the resemblance of the content of Sinai and CoW (moral law)is indisputable. However, would you agree, that this does not necessitate that we take the covenantal arrangements at Sinai and the Garden to be of the same character?
Within the republication camp, you mention there might be some divergence of opinion. T David Gordon’s article articulates utter separation between Abraham and Moses stating “the Sinai covenant itself, as it was delivered by the hand of Moses 430 years
after the Abrahamic covenant, was a different covenant, different in kind, characteristically legal”. It seems to me that this leaves no room for the covenant of grace at Sinai, which many Klineans are clear is the substructure of Sinai. Is ths a fair comment?
Furthemore I’m wondering what else is going on in the republication camp that leads to an almost exclusive emphasis on works at Sinai. If the substructure of Sinai is grace, a point upon which most seem to agree, then I would expect greater discussion of the gracious elements of Sinai. From my limited reading of the histroy it seems that the good number of Reformed theologians who held to republication, spent most of their time dealing with the gracious elements of Sinai, and the works principle was largely viewed in terms of a “subservient covenant”, serving the purposes of the CoG. I concede, I may well have misread the republication camp on this. Are there other factors which lead to this emphasis?
Thanks
Matt
Ant. But whether were the ten commandments, as they were delivered to them on Mount Sinai, the covenant of works or no?
Evan. They were delivered to them as the covenant of works.
Nom. But, by your favour, sir, you know that these people were the posterity of Abraham, and therefore under that covenant of grace which God made with their father; and therefore I do not think that they were delivered to them as the covenant of works; for you know the Lord never delivers the covenant of works to any that are under the covenant of grace.
Evan. Indeed it is true, the Lord did manifest so much love to the body of this nation, that all the natural seed of Abraham were externally, and by profession, under the covenant of grace made with their father Abraham; though, it is to be feared, many of them were still under the covenant of works made with their father Adam.
Nom. Then, sir, it seems that the Lord did not renew the covenant of works with them, to the intent that they should obtain eternal life by their yielding obedience to it?
Evan. No, indeed; God never made the covenant of works with any man since the fall, either with expectation that he should fulfil it, 21 or to give him life by it; for God never appoints any thing to an end, to the which it is utterly unsuitable and improper. Now the law, as it is the covenant of works, is become weak and unprofitable to the purpose of salvation; 22 and, therefore, God never appointed it to man, since the fall, to that end. And besides, it is manifest that the purpose of God, in the covenant made with Abraham, was to give life and salvation by grace and promise; and, therefore, his purpose in renewing the covenant of works, was not, neither could be, to give life and salvation by working; for then there would have been contradictions in the covenants, and instability in him that made them. Wherefore let no man imagine that God published the covenant of works on Mount Sinai, as though he had been mutable, and so changed his determination in that covenant made with Abraham; neither, yet let any man suppose, that God now in process of time had found out a better way for man’s salvation than he knew before: for, as the covenant of grace made with Abraham had been needless, if the covenant of works made with Adam would have given him and his believing seed life; so, after the covenant of grace was once made, it was needless to renew the covenant of works, to the end that righteousness of life should be had by the observation of it. The which will yet more evidently appear, if we consider, that the apostle, speaking of the covenant of works as it was given on Mount Sinai, says, “It was added because of transgressions,” (Gal 3:19). It was not set up as a solid rule of righteousness, as it was given to Adam in paradise, but was added or put to; 23 it was not set up as a thing in gross by itself.
Nom. Then, sir, it should seem that the covenant of works was added to the covenant of grace, to make it more complete.
Evan. O no! you are not so to understand the apostle, as though it were added by way of ingrediency as a part of the covenant of grace, as if that covenant had been incomplete without the covenant of works; for then the same covenant should have consisted of contradictory materials, and so it should have overthrown itself; for, says the apostle, “If it be by grace, then it is no more of works; otherwise grace is no more grace: but if it be of works, then it is no more of grace; otherwise work is no more work,” (Rom 11:6). But it was added by way of subserviency and attendance, the better to advance and make effectual the covenant of grace; so that although the same covenant that was made with Adam was renewed on Mount Sinai, yet I say still, it was not for the same purpose. For this was it that God aimed at, in making the covenant of works with man in innocency, to have that which was his due from man: 24 but God made it with the Israelites for no other end, than that man, being thereby convinced of his weakness, might flee to Christ. So that it was renewed only to help forward and introduce another and a better covenant; and so to be a manuduction unto Christ, viz: to discover sin, to waken the conscience, and to convince them of their own impotency, and so drive them out of themselves to Christ. Know it then, I beseech you, that all this while there was no other way of life given, either in whole, or in part, than the covenant of grace. All this while God did but pursue the design of his own grace; and, therefore, was there no inconsistency either in God’s will or acts; only such was his mercy, that he subordinated the covenant of works, and made it subservient to the covenant of grace, and so to tend to evangelical purposes.
DGH:
Re: the shorter catechism. There is a big difference in 17th century Reformed theology between the law “as a rule for obedience” and the “law as a covenant of works.” Only the latter, properly speaking, would consitute a republication of the covenant of works. This distinction is clear enough in WCF 19:1-2 and 19:6 (law “as a covenant of works” vs. the law as “a perfect rule of righteousness”). See pages 83ff of the KERUX review for some argumentation on this point, where they make a pretty good case (in my opinion) for this. The catechism is arguing for a republication of the moral law, not a republication of the covenant of works (by implication or otherwise). These are quite different things (at least to 17th century Westminster-era theologians [as well as 18th century theologians], as they make clear in their primary documents). To fail to distinguish these things (as the divines did) is to muddle what they usually made very clear.
One major difference: the courts of the PCUSA were stacked with liberals. The courts of the PCA and OPC are by no means stacked with Federal Visionaries. So the pressure exerted by the liberals was quite real. Liberals in JGM’s day had the ability through synod action to force a congregation to accept a pastor they did not want.
The pressure exerted by FV’s seems to be of much smaller magnitude.
Another major difference: The FV’s position is that it is returning to Calvin’s original vision of federal theology, one that upholds the visible church as the locus of God’s work.
The liberal position was quite different; they were using supposed natural revelation as a tool to upend special revelation. Doctrinal progress and semper reformanda were the mantras. Rationality, not supernaturalism, was the order of the day.
(Interestingly, the FV also take up semper reformanda, but by it they mean an emphasis on the fullness of the sacraments in the sense of magnifying the supernatural activity in the action of baptism and of communion.)
So while the parallels are interesting, the play is not the same.
(Just explaining, not defending).
JRC
In response to David Strain, he does great right up till the last paragraph:
Tha’s what I’m sayin’
Jeff,
In response to David Strain, he does great right up till the last paragraph…
You’re going to think this is so way predictable (that’s a Presbyterian virtue though), but I think Strain’s point is pretty clear and immensely helpful: there are two kingdoms, one civil and the other spiritual and both comport under Jesus’ rule. The former is ruled by law and advanced by power, the latter is ruled by grace and is advanced by weakness. The believer is in that precarious position of having as foot in both, but if he wants to call his police work “kingdom work,†and if by “kingdom work†he means “kingdom of God work†instead of “kingdom of man†work, then he’ll be setting his captives free, which is actually really bad police work. Contrariwise, a pastor should be policing his congregation to see whom he can lock up instead of set free, which is pretty bad pastoring.
The best of both worlds is a believing cop who locks up criminals by day and sets captives free at night on home visits as an elder. Instead of calling it “kingdom work,†he can just say he’s carrying out his vocations the way God designed them. And I don’t know why a “plethora of kingdoms†is such a problem. You’re a butterfly guy, right? The only way to distinguish the Monarch from the Emerald Aguna is if we follow the dictates of natural law instead of special revelation. That was DVD’s point in his recent lecture at WSCal, that there are all kinds of kingdoms in the temporal beyond the State. Which makes sense to me. As a sociology minor I had an amateur theory of “households†but it’s the same idea: we all belong to a whole host of households or spheres (race, sex, martial status, northerner/southerner, American/European, healthy/sick, son/daughter, Neil Diamond fan/Neil Diamond hater), and all those households are ruled by law…not grace. Only the church is ruled by grace. Some talk about “hyphenated- or situated-Christians†which is also helpful.
Being a Neil Diamond fan, of course, should be regulated by law and not grace. *rimshot*
Strain’s point is clear, certainly. It is helpful to 2k-ers as a way to articulate their side of things. It is, however, not a compelling argument to move a non-2ker OR a non-van-Drunen-2ker over into your camp.
That is, as an argument that aims to grab ahold of me and compel me to become his strand of 2k by virtue of my own assumptions, it doesn’t work.
That said, it was a clever rhetorical piece.
So van Drunen holds to a multiplicity of kingdoms?
JRC
And anyways, I think that fixing the Oldlife threading system should be considered kingdom work.
So van Drunen holds to a multiplicity of kingdoms?
Here:
http://www.wscal.edu/conference2010/
“The second thing I would note—and I think this is really significant—is that God has created other social institutions, other cultural institutions which have legitimate authority of their own, and government has no authority to take their authority away from them.â€
Granted, this is to make the larger point about “limited government,†but the interesting thing is that he is also making a point about sphere sovereignty. And an implication about sphere sovereignty is that there are multitudinous “kingdoms†that function the same way any civil sphere does—by law, and by implication, not grace. In the panel discussion (which I cannot locate, sorry), he makes another very good point about how we cannot take the idea of sphere sovereignty without two-kingdom theology. From Stellman:
This issue came up again in the Q&A session, at which time Dr. VanDrunen insisted that as Reformed believers we should be able to have our cake and eat it too, holding to both a two-kingdoms model as well as retaining sphere sovereignty. If we adopt the former only, we can end up collapsing the entire cultural kingdom into a one all-embracing category like the state (with its tendency toward tyranny). On the other hand, if we propound a sphere-sovereignty approach only, we can fall into the error of seeing the church as simply one of many institutions through which Christ exercises kingship, thus trivializing the sacred order. But if we embrace each concept we can have the best of both worlds, with the civil kingdom being understood to be much broader than merely the state, but also including the arts and sciences, sports, and education.
In other words, the only institution that lives by grace and not law is the church.
Jeff, the quote is at about 30:55 minutes in.
Eutyches’s Bane,
Both your comment and the pages that you cited to in the Kerux review argue against a straw man. Both attempt to refute the doctrine of republication by claiming that it teaches the Covenant of Works was republished per se. That’s not what the doctrine teaches.
Note how the Introduction to The Law is Not of Faith explains how WCF 19.1 and 19.2 support the doctrine:
“In this regard, the divines saw that the law given to Adam was of a piece with that given to Israel at Sinai. In other words, in some sense, the covenant of works was republished at Sinai. It was not republished, however, as the covenant of works per se, but as part of the covenant of grace, which pointed to the person and work of Christ. In terms of the classic threefold distinction on the uses of the law, the republication of the covenant of works falls under the pedagogical use of the law, that which drives the sinner to Christ by bringing the requirement for perfect obedience before the fallen creature, forcing him to turn to the only one who has been obedient….” (Page 11).
You and the Kerux authors are arguing against a bogey man of your own invention.
Couldn’t resist this. John Frame v. Kerux. Interesting comment by Frame, an ally of the Escondido guys?
http://www.thirdmill.org/answers/answer.asp/file/99732.qna/category/th/page/questions/site/iiim
Vern
It’s an interesting idea, Zrim.
The problem is that Jesus calls us to leave everything for the sake of His kingdom. So where do we locate that command, if the kingdom is found solely in the church? Doesn’t that re-establish the dividing wall between sacred and secular callings?
Or putting it on the other side of things, which items in our church budget count as money spent furthering the ministry of the church?
It’s those kinds of questions that lead me to believe that God’s kingdom cannot be neatly delineated into church only.
We recall that Calvin’s two kingdoms were “spiritual” and “physical”, not “church” and “culture.”
JRC
Vern, you probably knew this already, but I think Frame’s point is not to form alliances:
“In recent Reformed history, we have had these partisan battles over Van
Til’s apologetics (and now, different schools of Van Tillian apologetics), common
grace, the incomprehensibility of God, supra-/infralapsarianism, theonomy, the
relation between grace and law in the covenants, Shepherd’s view of justification,
nouthetic counseling, exclusive Psalmody, contemporary worship, means of
church growth, redemptive-historical preaching. None of these is resolved in our
Reformed confessions, but partisans act as if they were. They think their view
alone is orthodox, and their opponents are dangerous heretics. Can’t we just
lighten up a bit? Can we never admit our fallibility? Is there not a place, on some
issues, for teachability, even tolerance? Can’t we ever agree to disagree in peace
and love, working together on those matters where we agree?”
Of course, upholding the ideal is harder than articulating it. Nevertheless, I think he’s right.
JRC
Hi Jeff,
Earlier, you posted, “We recall that Calvin’s two kingdoms were “spiritual†and “physicalâ€, not “church†and “culture.â€
In 3.19.15 of the Institutes, Calvin says, “Therefore, in order that none of us may stumble on that stone, let us first consider that there is a twofold government in man: one aspect is spiritual, whereby the conscience is instructed; the second is political, whereby man is educated for the duties of humanity and citizenship that must be maintained among men….The one we may call the spiritual kingdom, the other, the political kingdom.” (Battles Translation).
Calvin’s distinctions are closer to church and culture, than you may think. Calvin sees the church as the present institutional manifestation of the spiritual kingdom, which God rules as its redeemer, and government as one among many of the institutional manifestations of the civil or cultural kingdom, which God rules as creator and sustainer.
RL:
Not sure why you are convinced it is a straw man. KERUX has in view not only the editors, but also RS Clark in view, who clearly is convinced that 19:1-2 teaches a full republication (see footnote 77). The review also references page 43 of LNF, not just page 11.
Even if I grant you your point for the quote on pg. 11, you still have to deal with pg. 43, and more especially, RS Clark. The fact is, several Klineans have argued from 19:1-2 that a person MUST hold to republication in order to be confessional. THAT argument (NOT the people who put it forth) is so wrong-headed, I am almost ready to call it stupid.
EB
EB,
-”I am almost ready to call it stupid”
To insult people under a pseudonym isn’t very brave (or becoming). Own up to your statements and your opinions; be responsible for the things you say.
Matt
Vern,
Thanks for the tip about Frame. He writes there: “However, among those who appreciate redemptive history there has also developed a rather sectarian, even fanatical group, namely those associated with the publication Kerux. These folks have developed rather fanciful ways of “finding Christ” in OT texts, and they oppose any attempt to “apply” Scripture or to use biblical characters as moral examples. Their sermons are often jargon-laden. Worse, they accuse anyone who disagrees with them of “moralism,” “legalism,” etc. Yours is not the first church that has suffered division over this issue, and I consider it shameful people have made a test of orthodoxy over such a half-baked theory.”
As always, he speaks his mind but I’m not sure it’s loving, you know, as in “Speaking the Truth in Love.”
Mr. Bane, I don’t see the difference in chap. 19. It looks even more direct than the Shorter Catechism in favor of republication. 19.1 “God gave to Adam, a law, as a covenant of works. . . . 19.2 This law, after his fall, continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness and, as such, was deliverd by God upon Mount Sinai, in ten commandments.”
You and Kerux may see a big difference, and you may claim one in the 17th century. Do you have the Holy Grail with the divines’ own cliff notes on the Standards?
Jeff,
The courts of the 1920s were not packed with liberals. There were few liberals in the PCUSA outside New York (does anything good in American Presbyterianism come from New York?). The church was dominated by a moderate middle, neither confessional nor liberal, and some like Charles Erdman and Robert Speer, were known for their evangelicalism, and they turned out to be Machen’s biggest opponents.
BTW, if you’re going to cite Christ in favor of leaving everything for the kingdom so that the kingdom has to be bigger than the church, then are you going to cut out your eye the next time you look too long at an attractive girl? Hyperbole, dude!
Anyway, the church as a spiritual entity and the kingdom of Christ finds very good support in WCF 25.2, and in the Shorter and Larger Catechism on the second petition of the Lord’s Prayer.
Matt Holst, I’m no specialist on republication so I’m not really the one to be asking. But at the root of the republication idea, as I understand it, is that Sinai is a type of the CoW, so by its very nature it is not of the same character.
As far as the law being gracious, it all depends on what you mean by grace. When I read the decalogue, with its demand for perfect perpetual obedience, I’m not entirely encouraged, unless it points me to Christ.
The problem is that Jesus calls us to leave everything for the sake of His kingdom. So where do we locate that command, if the kingdom is found solely in the church? Doesn’t that re-establish the dividing wall between sacred and secular callings?
No, it makes the case for both authentic six-day labor and serious Sabbath day rest (antithesis) and against the flattening out of things. I suppose if one thinks “all of life is worship†and “worship as homeroom†is a good thing this all sounds pretty off. And Protestants aren’t monastic’s; just because the Kingdom of God is said to be solely located in the church it doesn’t mean that’s the only place to be 24/7. It’s the place to be one in seven. After all, the fourth commandment does say something about labor.
Bane,
There is nothing damning on page 43 of the TLNF either. On that page Fesko argued that the formulations of the doctrine of republication as found in the work Calvin and Witsius were widely held among Reformers and post-Reformation theologians. Here’s the paragraph in full:
“One also finds the same legal characterization of the Mosaic covenant even in terms of the republication of the covenant of works, with the Westminster Confession bearing similarities to both Calvin and Witsius. The divines write that “God gave to Adam a law, as a covenant of works” (19.1) and that “this law, after his fall, continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness, and, as such, was delivered by God upon Mount Sinai” (19.2). While space does not permit a full-blown exposition of these points, it is nevertheless useful to see that Calvin’s and Witsius’s were certainly in the mainstream of Reformation and post-Reformation thought. So, then, whether in Calvin’s more grammatical-historical or Witsius’s more redemptive-historical hermeneutic, one finds that both were making essentially the same point with different emphases: the Mosaic covenant is unique in that it is legal in nature, demonstrating vis-a-vis the ordo salutis man’s inability to fulfill the demands of the law, which drives man to Christ, and in terms of the historia salutis, painting a typological portrait of Christ’s person and work.” (Emphasis added).
So, I don’t think there is anything to deal with on page 43. Honestly, TLNF is not nearly as controversial as the Kerux review makes it out to be. Several times the Kerux review comes very close to being libelous.
As to RSC’s view, the Kerux reviewers cite to a footnote of his in an article he wrote about preaching for a book about pastoral ministry. I’ve let someone borrow my copy of the Covenant, Justification, and Pastoral Ministry, so I can’t view the quote in context. Putting other quotes from the Kerux review in context have shown the reviewers to be either careless or dishonest or both, so I withhold judging RSC’s argument until I can read it in context.
Hi RL,
Duly noted. Nevertheless, there is a subtle but important distinction between the two divisions, “spiritual and physical” v. “church and culture”. This distinction comes out in Calvin’s belief that the magistrate was obligated to the moral (but not civil) law from Sinai in his governance. The discussion in Inst. 4.20.15-16 is interesting … he comes very, very close to sounding like van Drunen, but with this one difference: for Calvin, the 10 Commandments is the rule, aim, and end of all laws: “Now, as it is evident that the law of God which we call moral, is nothing else than the testimony of natural law, and of that conscience which God has engraven on the minds of men, the whole of this equity of which we now speak is prescribed in it. Hence it alone ought to be the aim, the rule, and the end of all laws.”
Note that all laws ought to aim, for Calvin, at upholding the moral law.
JRC
This part is not really the contentious part. The issue for me is the notion that Israel also positively merited their tenure in the land by relative obedience. I haven’t read Fesko yet, so I don’t know whether he holds this. But I can say that Kline did.
It is this notion of positive merit that … pushes on the boundaries? … of admitting human merit (as a works principle) before God.
JRC
What is your opinion of the history given here? Are there any inaccuracies? The article gives the impression that Machen’s court in New Joisie was dominated by signers of Auburn and opposition to Machen’s doctrine. Would you dispute this?
Granted: Jesus uses hyperbole in his teaching. What makes you certain that Luke 14 or Matt 10 or Matt 19 is hyperbolic?
JRC
Matt:
Well, I guess I tried to qualify the “stupid” statement as being directed at the argument, and not at the people. But apparently that didn’t soften it enough and it caused offense.
I should have thought more carefully before writing that. I retract it, and apologize to everyone whom I have offended or insulted by it.
Jeff, Re:RL, you know, Calvin may sound like you think he does in an anti-2k way, but why don’t the critics of 2k ever sound like Calvin when he sounds like 2k? In other words, maybe the 2k folk are actually getting a part of the Reformed tradition that biblicists, transformationalists, and evangelicals entirely miss. But do 2kers miss the moral law, how could they if they think natural law overlaps largely with the moral law?
Regarding the Presbytery of New Jersey, it had signers of the Aub. Aff. It would be wrong to say that it was dominated by them. It would also be wrong to say that evangelicals like Erdman had problems with the Affirmationists.
I agree with you, at least in general. Categories can be misleading, as you know.
Because they haven’t yet articulated a meta-ethic that allows one to “read” the natural law. It seems that they are just hoping that we’ll use the natural law and *poof* it will look like the decalogue.
Also, significantly, REPTers want the natural law to look like the 2nd table of the law only. That may or may not be a good thing, but it is a significant departure from Calvin that I think would be best to acknowledge upfront (it’s obscured by the “paleoCalvinist” slogan)
It’s hard to know the inner workings of the conference, but if we think of 1936 evangelicals as the mushy middle, it sure looks like the liberals carried the day in Machen’s trial. That, more than numbers, speaks to dominance. No?
Of course, we could also think of 1936 evangelicals as crypto-liberals, but that would simply make my point stronger.
I think your concern, though, is that evangelicals of today are opening the door to massive liberalism of tomorrow. In which case I would share the concern, at least as a live possibility.
JRC
Jeff,
You asked, “What makes you certain that Luke 14 or Matt 10 or Matt 19 is hyperbolic?”
I don’t know if I’m certain that these passages are hyperbolic. But if they aren’t viewed as hyperbole, if they are viewed as literal, then isn’t Jesus reintroducing “positive merit” before God?
Luke 14:12-14: “And He [Jesus] also went on to say to the one who had invited Him, “When you give a luncheon or a dinner, do not invite your friends or your brothers or your relatives or rich neighbors, otherwise they may also invite you in return and that will be your repayment. But when you give a reception, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind,and you will be blessed, since they do not have the means to repay you; for you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous.”
If you rake the leaves, you get an ice cream. If you invite the poor, you will be repaid at the resurrection.
In Matt 10:40-42, Jesus said: “Whoever receives you receives me, and whoever receives me receives him who sent me. The one who receives a prophet because he is a prophet will receive a prophet’s reward, and the one who receives a righteous person because he is a righteous person will receive a righteous person’s reward. And whoever gives one of these little ones even a cup of cold water because he is a disciple, truly, I say to you, he will by no means lose his reward.”
If you rake the leaves, you get an ice cream. If you give a little one a cup of cold water, you will not lose your reward.
Matt 19:16-22: “And behold, a man came up to him, saying, “Teacher, what good deed must I do to have eternal life?” And he said to him, “Why do you ask me about what is good? There is only one who is good. If you would enter life, keep the commandments.” He said to him, “Which ones?” And Jesus said, “You shall not murder, You shall not commit adultery, You shall not steal, You shall not bear false witness, Honor your father and mother, and, You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” The young man said to him, “All these I have kept. What do I still lack?” Jesus said to him, “If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.” When the young man heard this he went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions”
This looks like a straight up republication of the covenant of works to me. Do this to receive eternal life. The obviously implied negative statement is that if the rich young man fails to do these things, he will not receive eternal life. Right?
Even more so than Charles Eerdman and Speer the man who really stabbed J. Gresham Machen in the back in the 1930′s was Clarence McCartney.
RL,
Good question. We might also add in here Josh 1.7-8 in which God tells Joshua that he will be successful (the Hebrew is singular at this point) if he keeps the law.
I would argue, as the Confession also does, that good works such as the ones you cite are evidences of faith and are rewarded because their source is in God Himself (cf. Eph. 2.10):
“Notwithstanding, the persons of believers being accepted through Christ, their good works also are accepted in Him; not as though they were in this life wholly unblameable and unreproveable in God’s sight; but that He, looking upon them in His Son, is pleased to accept and reward that which is sincere, although accompanied with many weaknesses and imperfections. ” (WCoF 16.6).
So that far from being a reward on a merit principle, there is an entirely different principle going on here: the principle of grace that follows on salvation. It is significant that the crucial element for the acceptance of the works is “being accepted through Christ.”
It is clear (to me) that this is entirely different from a relative merit principle that would reward people, some unsaved, for partially meeting the stated standard.
Now, it may be that in Kline’s treatment of Gen 26 that he has in mind WCoF 16.6. Maybe not. But whether or no, it is unfortunate that he conflates this with a merit principle.
So we note that the mere presence of “if” does not indicate a merit principle at work. Instead, we have to consider the underlying principle as stated. In the case of Deut. 28, the underlying principle as stated is strict merit. In the case of the rich young ruler, it is less clear … I would appeal to Hebrews 3 and James 2 to help interpret this passage and say that the ryr is exhibiting a lack of faith.
JRC
Jeff, where does the Bible command a meta-ethic for interpreting natural law. One important difference here is that 2kers are not anal. They really do trust that God is control, even when Saddam Hussein is ruling in Iraq. It seems that the 2k critics, the ones who want comprehensive, non-dualistic worldviews — the idealists and planners that traditionalist conservatives actually worry about because comprehensive outlooks so often wind up in ideology and utopianism — are the ones who can’t seem to believe that God is in control even when bad things happen to the Son of God on the cross.
And if 2kers want natural law to look like the second table of the law, they’re only following the 2k critics who somehow think the magistrate can convict for murder but not for blasphemy. Do I really need to trot out again without two kingdoms, two decalogues?
Jeff:
I think that Jesus is presenting a strict-merit standard to the young ruler–He is republishing the covenant of works. That’s why Jesus can say that “There is only one who is good” in Matthew’s account and “No one is good except God alone” in Luke’s account. I think that Jesus’ republication of the covenant of works in this conversation serves the same goal that the republication served at Sinai: by bringing the requirement for perfect obedience before the fallen creature, the republication forces the creature to turn to the only one who has been obedient.
I want to withhold comment on Kline’s treatment of Gen 26. Having exchanged comments with you in the past, I sense that you have a particular work or passage of Kline’s in mind, and I’m willing to bet that you’ve cited to it in a previous post (probably in the comment section of the “Right Chronology, Wrong Professor Post,” which I haven’t had a chance to read through yet). If you do have a particular passage or work in mind, point me to it. We’ll make more progress that way.
Though you would suspect the opposite from reading the Kerux review, a prominent and oft repeated point in TLNF is the notion that republication means republication of a strict-merit standard. I don’t know if this helps shed light on your understanding of Kline, but this is how VanDrunen in TLNF describes the interplay between merit, grace, and the temporal blessings received under the Mosaic covenant (please forgive the lengthy citation):
“As other essays in this collection also explore, the presence of the works principle in the Mosaic covenant does not make it the only thing present in it. As the Westminster Standards teach, the Mosaic Covenant is an administration of the covenant of grace, and thus God administered redemption to his OT people through it. As I discuss below, the Mosaic works principle itself served redemptive-historical, typological purposes. In light of what I argued about Romans 2 at the immediate end the previous section, I would note that the Mosaic law (reflecting the natural law) clearly demanded perfect obedience: the love of God with all of one’s heart, soul, and might (Deut. 6:5), the keeping of the whole commandment given by God (Deut. 11:8), the keeping of all of the commandments always (Deut. 11:1). This accords with Paul’s explicit interpretation in Gal. 3:10: a curse upon all who do not do all of the things written in the law. Because both the works principle and redemptive grace were administered in the Mosaic covenant, God did not enforce the works principle strictly and in fact taught his people something about the connection of obedience and blessing by giving them, at times, temporal reward for relative (imperfect) obedience.” (Emphasis in the original).
Yes, I am thinking of something specific. Take a look at Kingdom Prologue, pp. 309ff. It’s long; one significant quote is here, with which I fully agree:
But he then changes tack when it comes to the land promise in the Abrahamic covenant. On p. 333 (too long to quote here) he splits the AC, in a move eerily reminiscent of dispensationalism, into an eternal life promise and a land promise. The eternal life promise was by grace through faith; the land promise operated according to strict merit.
And he finds in Abraham’s actions, such as his military conquest with the king of Sodom, a merit principle at work in Abraham wrt to the land, confirmed for him by Gen 26.
That’s the idea I have in mind. It appears to me that Kline goes too far in arguing
Works led to reward … so … merit!
when (1) the Confession clearly states that our works lead to reward, yet without having a meritorious ground of themselves, and (2) Abraham’s track record measured under strict merit is presented in the text of Genesis as lousy. (“Do I have to be your ‘sister’ again?!”)
Kline fixes (2) in the same way that van Drunen does, by saying that grace causes the works to be evaluated by a softer, relative standard.
I think this is well-intentioned but misses the point of (1). The republication of the Law at Sinai functioned always only negatively, just as it functioned for the rich young ruler. It was “2nd use” of the Law.
There is no “4th use” of the Law that says, “We perform works that God evaluates by a softer standard, leading to reward based on merit.”
Instead, the works that we perform are evaluated as if we were in Christ, through the lens of justification, and rewarded on that ground.
In other words, Kline on p. 319 needs to have words with Kline on p. 324.
In other other words, WCoF 16.6 is at odds with the notion of “reward for relative merit.”
(Just my opinion. I recognize that Kline was brilliant and all, so it may well be that I’m missing something.)
JRC
A meta-ethic means a procedure for determining what is right and wrong. So it’s not a matter of a command, it’s a matter of practice: if one wants to use the Natural Law, then great … how? That’s what I’m asking.
Oh, you’re dangling that in front of me aren’t you? Won’t bite. Must … restrain … snappy comeback …
I’m glad to hear it, but the line of reasoning is confusing. As well you know, Reformed thought (with the exception of the Clark school) has traditionally distinguished between the providential or hidden will of God and the preceptual or revealed will of God. God is in control in terms of His providential decrees (WCoF 3.1). Separately from this, He has also revealed His preceptual will to us in the Law.
So God’s being in control, even when Saddam is ruling, is neither here nor there to the question, “What should Saddam do, given that God is in control?” Or again as I said last year, “We don’t obey Christ in order to make him Lord; we obey Him because He already *is* Lord.”
So we come back once again to the question, “How should the magistrate act?” Does he look to the Decalogue for the general equity thereof, or does he look to Nature? Or some combination of both? Or are the two identical, and if so, then how do we know this?
JRC
A meta-ethic means a procedure for determining what is right and wrong. So it’s not a matter of a command, it’s a matter of practice: if one wants to use the Natural Law, then great … how? That’s what I’m asking.
But, Jeff, this doesn’t seem to really answer the question of where the Bible demands a meta-ethic or scriptural framework for interpreting natural law. It seems to simply assert, again, that epistemological enigma that we don’t know what we know without being told how to know it. More tabula rasa.
But the Israelites didn’t shake in their sandals at the foot of Sinai when Moses descended because they were being informed for the first time that stealing and adultery were wrong (who shakes at new knowledge?). They quaked because their obedience was being used to ratify the covenant, and they knew their disobedience would make hay of their reward and ground their punishment. And the point about Hussein is the same one Jesus and Paul make about rendering unto Caesar who is appointed by God. The instruction is to submit because he has been appointed for your own good, not to question whether his actions meet the litmus test of the meta-ethic-scriptural-framework. I realize that sounds counter-intuitive to the American ear trained to examine the civil magistrate to make sure he’s on the up-and-up. But there’s just no category for that in the NT. All there seems to be are categories for authority and submission. Hussein is God’s appointed man as much as insert-your-favorite-American-leader-here. 2Kers really, truly believe that. If 2K critics are being honest, they must admit they really don’t see it that way, one is probably less authoritative than the other.
Zrim, if your meta-ethic is just “let your conscience be your guide”, then you can just say that. It was my understanding that Natural Law theory was something different.
One which is less authoritative than the other what?
Jeff,
Yes, the theory of natural law is different from the dictates of modern autonomy. One is grounded in God, the other the individual, one idolizes the conscience, the other considers it fallen but as sufficient to use as any other created faculty. But the question for you still seems to stand: where does the Bible command a meta-ethic for interpreting natural law? Doesn’t it actually have a command to obey the law, as in “do this and live, don’t and die”?
My point was, it’s a confused question.
If you say, “We are going to use the Natural Law”, then the next question is, “How will you go about it?”
So it’s not a matter of the Bible commanding or not commanding, it’s a matter of asking, “What does your program look like in action?”
So when DGH asks, “Where does the Bible command a meta-ethic for interpreting natural law?”, it’s like asking, “Where does the Bible command a hermeneutic for interpreting Scripture?”
I mean, we can stumble along without a hermeneutic … we’ve all seen *that* before … but in the end, the hermeneutic is just the method for understanding.
Now maybe DGH meant, “Where does the Bible command this or that meta-ethic for interpreting natural law?” implying that there’s liberty in our interpretation.
In which case, I’ll grant the liberty … but I’d be happy to have just *one* example of a working meta-ethic.
I’m not sure what you mean by the last question. There is a command … but it came by special revelation, not general …
Jeff, On a meta-ethic, Ecclesiastes forbids one. As I keep saying, Ecclesiastes is the transformationalists’ epistle of straw.
On the magistrate, why don’t you ask about he laws of the land or the constitution? Why is it always the Bible? It’s like a Sr. VP saying in response to a question about for whom he works saying, “I work for the Lord.” Well, actually, you work for the president. And if that president (or law) is illegitimate, then maybe you don’t take the job. But just because you’re a Christian doesn’t mean that you can do an end run around established law and authority.
Missed that passage. So: we’re going to use the Natural Law, but an un-named passage in Ecclesiastes forbids us from asking *how* we’re going to use the Natural Law?
Yikes, man.
Because no-one here has been making the case that we disobey the laws of the land. If one did, rest assured I would join you in a little Romans 13-ery.
Consider the context. The question is: How should the Christian magistrate function? Obeying the laws of the land? Yes. But as it turns out, the laws of the land are not a complete set. And crafting the laws of the land is not exhaustively guided by the Constitution.
So … ?
JRC
If you say, “We are going to use the Natural Lawâ€, then the next question is, “How will you go about it?â€
Really? When I tell my daughter to set the table it is usually considered bad form to respond with, “I need a meta-ethic, Dad. Just how would you like this done?†Has sort of a disobedient tone to it, doesn’t it? But I have found the most succinct and effective form of verbal discipline came from my own mother who said, “You know how to behave. Do it.†It’s my wife who can spend inordinate amounts of time explaining the why’s and wherefore’s. Personally, I find that a potentially exasperating form of discipline, to treat someone like s/he is really that stupid. Hey, isn’t there something somewhere about exasperating one’s kids?
Jeff:
How do you think the Christian Magistrate should function? Let’s pick from issues facing our leaders presently. Show me how the Bible instructs the Christian Magistrate in any of the following situations:
1. Are political campaign contributions by individuals and corporations speech as protected by the First Amendment? Should there be a limit as to how much a person or corporation can contribute? What should that limit be? Should a sitting president openly ridicule a panel of life-tenured Supreme Court Justices in his SOTU address?
2. Should the “9/11 mastermind” Khalid Sheik Mohammed be tried in a criminal court or a military tribunal? What procedural safeguards should be required? A jury of peers? A right to counsel? Can he be sentenced to death? Should his trial be open to the public?
3. When sentencing a criminal whose crimes were motivated by drug addiction, when is rehab an appropriate alternative to imprisonment? Should the victim have a say in determining the punishment?
4. What should the fine be for speeding in a school zone?
5. What grade of copper tubing should be required in the plumbing of new buildings?
How does your biblical meta-ethic inform these decisions?
RL, I’m still working through these issues, so I’ll give a general idea of an answer, but I’m not going to have complete specification. I’ll leave out the secret Bible code numerology that instructs us on campaign contribution limits.
First, I don’t take Scripture as exhaustive. It provides norms, which function positively as goals and negatively as checks. The means of achieving those norms are subsumed under Christian liberty. For me, the means will be highly data-driven, but your mileage may vary.
Second, there is a distinction to be made between individual behavior and societal law. Killing another man in revenge is wrong; enacting the death penalty on a proved murderer is probably not (unless the improbable reading of Rom 13.4 as “police force” is sustained). I favor personal theonomy for all.
Third, I take as basic the Confession’s teaching that the Mosaic Law has expired as the law of nations “except for the general equity thereof.” Thus, I do not favor public theonomy.
So that said, I would suggest that the president’s remarks of last night are the easiest, and are covered by Proverbs. That’s not a matter of public policy but rather of personal behavior.
For #1, there are certain Scriptural norms that do apply: the rule of law matters (e.g. Prob 31.4-5), so I would tend to take an approach that defers to precedent. The issue, if I understood, in the recent “Hillary Movie” case, was whether corporate speech is protected speech under the 1st Amendment.
The primary argument of the majority is that “money == speech” is settled law; that corporations are persons under the law; so that the 1st Amendment trumps McCain-Feingold (I’m working off of a popular understanding, so feel free to correct me). And I believe that the mode of expression was at issue: if we can ban the showing of “Hillary”, then we can ban books, or ‘Net postings, or whathaveyou.
The dissent was that corporations are different from flesh-and-blood people, and that a lower standard of 1st Amendment protections applies to them (with settled precedents also appealed to).
Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that the various precedents cancel one another out — that the state of the legal question is quite open, and that you and I are sitting amongst the Nine Old Persons and giving them advice.
I would ask then, “Are there Scriptural norms that should direct my thinking here?”
One of those would be the necessity of not favoring either the rich or the poor. So I would have to consider whether my ruling would tip the scales of speech in favor of one constituency or another (IMO, McC-F favored established news organizations over others).
There would likely be other norms.
Having considered those, I would then consider how to craft a ruling that would sustain those norms, to the best of my ability.
That’s about the best I can do.
What would you do?
You’ll notice, though, that a key theme for me is to separate “ought” from “is”; that is, “ends” from “means.” Scripture speaks much more strongly to ends than to means.
JRC
It’s interesting as an historical footnote to this discussion to recall that the Magistrate can’t help consulting biblical/natural law norms when he/she consults the law of the land. Scholars of legal history recognize that our Anglo-American legal system was decisively influenced by biblical Christian ethics from top to bottom. Since the advent of the Court of Chancery in the 12 century (and especially since the 14th) until the modern era, the Lord Chancellors of England were churchmen. Their legal decisions cited Scripture. Their opinions were often persuasive authority to the common law judges and so their laws of equity and conscience over time influenced not only the law of equity but the common law. So that by the time of Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England, there was blatant confusion of the two kingdoms in that Blackstone felt the need to provide biblical justification or support for many of the laws on which he commented.
When the English settled America, the common law/equitable principles of Great Britain were imported into American law. Of course, modern law has evolved and no longer adheres strictly to old common law. But to this day, it’s interesting to see the vestiges of Christian influence stubbornly surviving. For example, if you look at state code books containimg statutes written in the 19th century that copied statues enacted in the 18th century, some of the old theological categories and language remain. (Ex: employment law codes that refer to the “common callings.” Or old causes of action like “alienation of affections,” which originated in the old form books written by churchmen. The cause of action allowed a spouse to sue a homewrecker who lured his/her spouse into adultery. The cause of action was an effort to establish a legal remedy that put the force of law behind the seventh Commandment.)
Accordingly, much of our American law, especially equitable principles (that originated from the Lord Chancellor’s pen) is shot through with Christian values that incorporate much of Christian ethics unwittingly. At least in the case of the Anglo-American legal system, then, the Magistrates over the last 800 years were not groping in the dark and finding natural law; they were to one degree or another explicitly embracing Christian/ecclesiastical/Scriptural norms. And to some degree still unwittingly do, despite the fact that Christian norms are fast losing their grip on our culture.
CVD, Any chance you want to throw in the contributions of the pagan Romans to legal developments in the West, not to mention the Roman Catholics?
Why all this boasting?
Jeff, have you ever considered Ecclesiastes? All under the sun is vanity. There is a doubleness built into the preacher’s reflections and it doesn’t look good for those who overestimate this world or its signficance.
If the Constitution is not exhaustive, how so is the Bible when it wasn’t given to be a book of laws for the state? Anyway, how would a Christian magistrate on your view serve a Mormon constituency other than by going for something you share in common with them, not by going to the book that separates you from them?
I continue to wonder how you are not making the world safe for theonomy.