The release of the new book Merit and Moses, a critique of the republication doctrine (that the Mosaic covenant was “in some sense” a republication typologically of the covenant of works) got me thinking about a certain anomaly in contemporary Reformed circles regarding a certain Mr. Murray (his given name was John and he did not have the extra one of Courtney). The endorsements of this book show an arresting feature of the Westminster Seminary tradition and reception of Geerhardus Vos.
After Vos, his successors broke into two camps, one represented by Murray, the other by Meredith Kline, who took markedly different views of covenant theology. After Murray and Kline, came Norman Shepherd, Richard Gaffin, and Bob Strimple. They pretty much all sided with Murray against Kline on matters of moment. And then came VanDrunen, Horton, and Fesko. They followed Kline and have been taking their lumps ever since.
Generally speaking, the anti-republicationists are anti-Kline and pro-Murray. Here’s a sampling:
For the past thirty years, a shift in Reformed covenant theology has been percolating under the hot Southern California sun in Escondido. Atop the bluff of a former orange grove, a quiet redefinition of the Sinaitic covenant administration as a typological covenant of works, complete with meritorious obedience and meritorious reward has been ripening. The architect of this paradigm shift was the late Meredith G. Kline, who taught at Westminster Escondido (WSCal) for more than 20 years. Many of Kline’s colleagues, former students (several now teaching in Escondido) and admirers (Mark Karlberg, T. David Gordon, etc.) have canonized his novel reconstruction of the Mosaic covenant—it is “not of faith”, but of works and meritorious works at that, albeit ‘typological’. What may now be labeled the “Escondido Hermeneutic” or “Kline Works-Merit Paradigm” has succeeded in cornering an increasing share of the Reformed covenant market in spite of its revisionism and heterodoxy. This newfangled paradigm has managed to fly beneath the radar of most Reformed observers, in part because of the aggressively militant demeanor and rhetoric of its advocates and defenders. Especially vitriolic have been attacks by the Kline acolytes upon Norman Shepherd and Richard Gaffin. . . . (1)
While it is certainly true that Murray clearly and self-consciously broke with the majority of the Reformed tradition on several points of doctrine, his teaching on the nature of the obedience required in the Mosaic covenant was not one of them. In fact, a strong case can be made that his position on the essential nature of the obedience required in the Mosaic covenant represented the mainstream consensus of Reformed theologians. Furthermore, some of Murray’s key exegetical observations (which, incidentally, these authors simply pass over rather than critically engage) lend his thesis strong support. (63)
Now the endorsements for the anti-republicationist book:
“The doctrine of Republication has a Reformed pedigree. But in what sense? Recent understandings of Republication sometimes depart significantly from what one finds among Reformed theologians in the Post-Reformation periods. It is to the merit of these authors for dealing with this thorny issue by offering some important insights into the precise nature of the debate, such as discussions on merit and justice and the nature of typology. I hope all involved in the debate will give this book a careful and sympathetic reading—at least more careful and sympathetic than those who have publicly opposed Professor John Murray on this issue.”
—Mark Jones, Senior Minister, Faith Vancouver Presbyterian Church (PCA), Vancouver, BC“I strongly recommend that everyone interested in the notion of Republication read the important book, Merit and Moses. By focusing on the guilt of every child of Adam and the only merit recognized by a holy God, the authors cut to the heart of Republication’s error. They show that to be the case by an insightful study of the Scriptures, of our most revered theologians—for example, John Murray, too often misunderstood and maligned by Republicationists—and of the Reformed confessions, showing that the doctrine of Republication cannot be harmonized with the teaching of the Westminster Standards.”
—Robert B. Strimple, President emeritus and Professor emeritus of Systematic Theology, Westminster Seminary California, Escondido, CA“In recent years, a number of Reformed writers have advanced the claim that the Mosaic covenant or economy was in some sense a republication of the covenant of works. According to these writers, the Republication doctrine was a common emphasis in the history of Reformed theology, and even forms an important part of the basis for the biblical doctrine of justification. The authors of this volume present a clear and compelling case against this claim. Rather than a reaffirmation of a forgotten, integral feature of Reformed theology, the authors argue that the modern republication doctrine seems inconsistent with the historic Reformed understanding of the covenant of works and the covenant of grace. A helpful contribution.”
—Cornelis P. Venema, President and Professor of Doctrinal Studies, Mid-America Reformed Seminary, Dyer, IN“This volume addresses a relatively recent appearance of the view that the Mosaic covenant embodies a republication of the covenant of works, a view that in its distinctive emphasis is arguably without precedent in the history of Reformed theology—namely, that during the Mosaic era of the covenant of grace, in pointed antithesis to grace and saving faith in the promised Messiah, the law given to Israel at Sinai was to function pedagogically as a typological overlay of the covenant of works made with Adam, by which Israel’s retention of the land and temporal blessings were made dependent on maintaining a level of meritorious obedience (works), reduced in its demand to accommodate their sinfulness. A particular strength in my judgment is their showing that the abiding demands of God’s holiness preclude meritorious obedience that is anything less than perfect, and so the impossibility of a well-meant offer to sinners of the covenant of works in any sense.”
—Richard B. Gaffin Jr., Professor of Biblical and Systematic Theology emeritus, Westminster Theological Seminary, Glenside, PA
Let the reader decide.
But also consider this. Mr. Murray was a strong proponent of exclusive psalmody, arguably the lone holdout of prominence in the OPC. And yet those who follow Murray on covenant theology are willing to argue quite decidedly against singing psalms only or even singing the imprecatory psalms (about which Murray had no qualms). Dick Gaffin recently wrote:
Among my continuing reservations about the Psalter-Hymnal project (March issue), here I’m only able to raise one concern about its commitment to total psalmody. The imprecations in Psalm 137, among others, have in view the Old Testament situation, when God’s covenant people were one nation, a single geopolitical entity (Israel), and their enemies were likewise ethnically and geopolitically defined (Babylon and Edom here). But now, after Christ’s finished work, that spiritual enmity, inseparably national, has ceased. Now the realization of God’s eternal saving purpose, anticipated throughout the Old Testament, is universal. His elect are no longer found only within Israel, but within every nation. Under the new covenant, the church is “in Babylon” (1 Peter 5:13) in a way it was not under the old: no longer are Jews in holy hostility towards non-Jews; now, in Christ, they are reconciled to each other (Eph. 2:11–22).
I recognize that the ethnic references like those in Psalm 137 are not only literal but also typological. Akin to the symbolic references to Babylon in Revelation, they point forward to the final destruction of the enemies of God’s people. Still, singing explicitly genocidal curses in public worship, without a whole lot of preparatory explanation (and perhaps even with that), risks leaving the impression that the congregation is calling on God for the large-scale destruction of people with Gentile ethnicity like most of us in the New Testament church. (20-21)
(Could there be some kind of ambivalence at work here with typological readings of the OT?)
So what I am wondering is what would happen to this argument against total psalmody if Orthodoxy Presbyterians knew it departed from Mr. Murray. I mean, if it is fair game to raise concerns about views that do not follow Murray’s reading of creation or the Mosaic covenant, why is that okay when it comes to Murray’s singing of David? Maybe the OPC needs to kick away the crutches, prepare for sacred cows to be wounded, and through delegated assemblies let word and Spirit do their work.
Old Life 
David R., “A covenant is defined by its conditions and sanctions. The CoW requires perfect obedience as the condition for eternal life (as you know!). Whereas the CoG graciously promises life and salvation in Christ received by faith, which is also a gift of grace.”
The Covenant of Grace only exists because Christ fulfilled the works principle of the Covenant of Works. The Covenant of Grace is not a mulligan on the Covenant of Works. It took our Lord to the cross.
LikeLike
Todd,
Thank you, I think it is pretty crystal clear now that you hold the MC to be a substantially distinct third covenant that promises the nation (corporately) temporal blessings on the condition of general (corporate) obedience. So it is actually not a republication of the covenant of works (because it has a different promise and different condition), but another legal, works covenant. Again, thanks, I will ponder this….
LikeLike
D.G.,
That’s what she Clark said.
Really? You mean the guy who speaks of “congruent merit” operative in the Mosaic covenant? (I’m still not quite clear whether he holds to this himself, or whether he merely thinks it’s an acceptable Reformed view.)
LikeLike
D.G.,
David R., can’t speak for Todd but a republicationist like Scott Clark — whom you disregard — does not say that the Mosaic Covenant is substantially distinct from the covenant of grace.
I agree with you that it’s wrong. But when I asked him that question a few months back he didn’t answer (though admittedly we did have a long back and forth and he took a decent amount of time with me), and my reception at his place is now increasingly chilly. I certainly do not disregard him. In fact, I’ve listened very closely to him over the last ten years or so and benefited from him greatly but I happen to think he’s quite mistaken on this issue, and I suspect he is perhaps unable to clarify what his view of the nature of the Mosaic covenant actually is (and he is not alone in this). So the advice I gave to Sean is just the advice I decided to take myself recently.
LikeLike
D.G.,
David R., “there are at least some in your camp who would claim to embrace something like the “subservient covenant” or “third covenant view,” which makes a point of distinguishing the MC from the covenant of grace.”
Who?
Not the people in TLNF.
Don’t bring straw men around here.
I’m referring to this.
LikeLike
D.G.,
The Covenant of Grace only exists because Christ fulfilled the works principle of the Covenant of Works.
Amen!
LikeLike
Todd,
I much appreciate the time you’ve spent with me and I have no right to ask for any more of your time now, but I have a final thought (actually two):
1. I know we’ve just been through this and you no doubt still disagree, but in my opinion, you would be truer to your actual position if you did not claim to hold that the Mosaic covenant is “an administration of the covenant of grace” or that it “administers grace,” because that is not what you believe (according to your above explanation). I realize you think you believe it, but a legal works-based covenant does not administer grace. (To say it does mixes law and gospel.) If you do want to say that it administers grace, then you will have to change your position.
2. You would be clearer and truer to your actual position if you did not claim to hold that the Mosaic Covenant “republishes the covenant of works,” since that is not what you believe (according to your explanation). What you actually believe is that the MC is a substantially distinct legal third covenant (in addition to the CoW and CoG). If you want to (honestly) say that you hold that the MC is a republication of the covenant of works, then again, you will have to change your position.
LikeLike
@ David R:
Your explication of Turretin is what I understand the Republication teaching to mean.
Why are you so sure that people hold a three-covenant notion? That’s not the usual explanation. It seems a little like you have odd-shaped boxes that you bid people to sit in…
LikeLike
Jeff,
I’m sure lots of people would agree with you about Turretin, but the fact of the matter is that it is Klne’s view, and only Kline’s view, that’s being opposed. Turretin’s position is entirely noncontroversial. But part of the problem is that the debate is muddied by the popular claim of “in some sense.” I’m sorry that you find my boxes uncomfortable, but they are not actually mine (I didn’t make them up). As to your question, I don’t know what to tell you but Todd (quite patiently) explained a third covenant position just now in his response to my questions. (Do you disagree that covenants are defined by their parties, promises and conditions?) Have you read the paper I linked to in my response to Dr. Hart a few comments up?
LikeLike
D.G.,
Also, if I’m not mistaken, T.D. Gordon has expressed his affinity for the “third covenant” view. (As I recall, he says in his essay in the book that the MC is substantially distinct from the Abrahamic covenant, which would seem to support this.) So no straw men….
LikeLike
David Gordon—Paul thus understood the Sinai covenant to be both subservient to the purpose of the
earlier Abrahamic covenant (by preserving the integrity of Abraham’s “seed” and the promises
made thereto) and an obstacle to the fulfilment of that covenant. Ironically, Sinai was necessary
(to preserve the “seed” and the promise) but Sinai was also a barrier (by excluding Gentiles, they
could not be blessed).
Gordon—For Paul, this means that the Sinai administration must have been temporary; instituted as a vehicle to carry both the Abrahamic promise and the Abrahamic “seed” until that moment when the “Seed” would come through whom the promise would be fulfilled and the nations would be blessed (3:19)….Paul’s objections to “nomos,” throughout Galatians, are NOT due to any MISUNDERSTANDING of it. His objection is to the members of one covenant (the New Covenant) implicitly or explicitly identifying themselves by the rites of another covenant (the SinaiCovenant). Paul objects to Christians observing the Sinai covenant per se; he does not object to their mis-observing it.
Click to access abraham_and_sinai_contraste.pdf
LikeLike
David Gordon—How many long years of blessedness did Moses and Aaron enjoy in the so called “promised land”? Zero. And why was this so? Because the people disobeyed. While the land was eventually given to the Israelites, the terms of the Sinai covenant delayed their inheritance by forty years, and diminished the actual blessedness of the land during the generations of their tenure there. And even the inheritance of the land was due not to the stipulations of Sinai, but due to the promises made to the patriarchs, as Moses interceded for the Israelites in those terms:
“Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, your servants, to whom you swore by your own self, and said to them, ‘I will multiply your offspring as the stars of heaven, and all this land that I have promised I will give to your offspring, and they shall inherit it forever.’ And the Lord relented from the disaster that he had spoken of bringing on his people” (Ex. 32:13-14).
LikeLike
Christ satisfied the law in order to give the blessings of the new covenant. We do not have to say that the Mosaic covenant is “a covenant of works” in order to tell the gospel truth about Christ. But then again, neither do we need to deny that the Mosaic covenant is a legal covenant in order to tell the gospel truth about the grace which comes because of the doing and dying of Christ (and not by our doing)
Charles Hodge:—-Besides this evangelical character which unquestionably belongs to the Mosaic
covenant, it is presented in two other aspects in the Word of God. First, it was a national covenant with the Hebrew people. In this view the parties were God and the people of Israel; the promise was national security and prosperity; the condition was the obedience of the people as a nation to the Mosaic law; and the mediator was Moses. In this aspect it was a legal covenant. It said, “Do this and live.”
Systematic Theology, vol. II, p. 375.
LikeLike
“I know we’ve just been through this and you no doubt still disagree, but in my opinion, you would be truer to your actual position if you did not claim to hold that the Mosaic covenant is “an administration of the covenant of grace” or that it “administers grace,” because that is not what you believe (according to your above explanation). I realize you think you believe it, but a legal works-based covenant does not administer grace.”
David,
I’m starting to wonder if you are actually reading what I write or trying to lay a trap. I wrote that the MC as it displays types, sacrifices, promises administers grace, the MC as bare command for blessings and curses for disobedience administers law. This is the last time I am going to state this.
“You would be clearer and truer to your actual position if you did not claim to hold that the Mosaic Covenant “republishes the covenant of works,” since that is not what you believe (according to your explanation).”
In typology there is an analogous relationship between archetype, type and antitype, not an identical one. To republish the cov. of works into a typological situation would not entail a one-to-one correspondence with the original. The correlations are not difficult to see:
Adam placed in Garden – Israel placed in Holy Land
Adam given a law he must obey to attain blessings – Israel given a law to obey to attain blessings
Adam exiled from God’s presence if he broke the covenant – Israel exiled from God’s presence if she broke the covenant.
There will be as many differences between the original and type as there is between a lamb and Jesus, but that doesn’t negate the typological arrangement.
Again, see Hodge above for my view.
LikeLike
Jeff,
Sorry, perhaps I should attempt a bit more explanation (forgive me if this gets too pedantic). The problem has to do with sloppy use of language.
When Reformed theologians discuss the divine covenants, they commonly invoke the scholastic distinction between substance and accidents (or at least they used to). As you know, the substance of something is what the thing actually is, and the accidents are features that don’t affect what it is. By way of illustration, a man dressed for the gym looks quite different dressed for a business meeting and even more different dressed as Santa Claus; nonetheless he is substantially the same man and the differences in appearance, vast as they may be, are merely accidental.
It was generally held by Reformed theologians that there are only two substantially distinct divine covenants, the covenant of works and the covenant of grace (we can add the pactum salutis, which would make it three). What determines the substance of a covenant is its parties, promises and conditions (especially the latter two).
It was also generally held by covenant theologians that the covenant of grace has only two distinct administrations, that is, the OT administration (by “promises, prophecies, sacrifices … foresignifying Christ to come”), which begins after the fall and continues to the time of Christ, and the NT administration (by “the preaching of the Word, and the administration of the sacraments”). It is important to note that these differences in administration are considered accidental, not substantial.
Therefore, when a Reformed theologian said that a particular covenant is “an administration of the covenant of grace,” what they were saying is that that covenant substantially IS the covenant of grace, that is, that its parties, promises and conditions are identical with those of the covenant of grace, and that however different it may look from the covenant of grace or any other administration of the covenant of grace, the differences are merely accidental.
The majority of Reformed theologians held that the Mosaic covenant period belonged to the same OT administration of the covenant of grace as the Abrahamic covenant period, that is, the Mosaic covenant was thought not only to be substantially in the same category as the Abrahamic; it was also administratively in the same category (“promises, prophecies, sacrifices, etc….), in spite of the differences in appearance.
A few Reformed theologians (I’m not sure of the proportion) held that the MC was different in substance from the covenant of grace (and the covenant of works) and so spoke of it as a “third covenant” that promised temporal blessings in Canaan on the condition of perfect and personal obedience. Therefore, they were compelled to deny (and happily did so) that the MC was “an administration of the covenant of grace.” They also denied that the MC was a republication of the covenant of works (though the condition was the same, the promise different).
So what’s the point? Lots of Reformed guys today say they hold the MC to be “an administration of the covenant of grace,” but then they proceed to define it in terms of a substantially (not just administratively) distinct covenant. The same guys also say they hold the MC to be a republication of the covenant of works, but then they define it in terms that reflect a substantial difference (e.g., a promise of temporal blessings instead of eternal and a condition of relative instead of perfect obedience).
Does this help?
LikeLike
David R, given the variety of ways that Reformed theologians have held to republication, I’m not sure anyone — yourself included — can be particularly picky about the way that Clark formulates it. It’s all over the place.
But what is surprising is that the infusion of biblical theology in our circles has cut us off from a point that was so widely held even in various ways. And that puts a lie to your notion that the opponents of repub are really doing scholastic theology. Most of the opponents of repub deny the pactum salutis.
LikeLike
David R., it’s only Kline being opposed? Not Gordon, Estelle, VanDrunen, Fesko? They are merely Kline?
And why such hostility to Kline. Even Jim Dennison doesn’t agree with Van Til on apologetics (which is part of the OPC’s training for all ministers).
Why the selectivity?
LikeLike
@ David R:
That does help, thanks. The issue then is what counts as “substantial” v “accidental.”
As your interchanges with Todd show, those terms are not well-defined, so that you two cannot even agree on the content of his view. I think that his point is that typological is not substantive.
For my part, the Deuteronomic curses and blessings would count as administrative, republicative, and accidental.
LikeLike
Todd,
I’m starting to wonder if you are actually reading what I write or trying to lay a trap. I wrote that the MC as it displays types, sacrifices, promises administers grace, the MC as bare command for blessings and curses for disobedience administers law. This is the last time I am going to state this.
The only thing I’m trying to trap you into is clarity. I am reading what you write but it seems to me that you are saying things that are incompatible with each other. Not to belabor this, but we’re agreed that a covenant is defined by its promises and conditions. If it’s a works covenant, it promises life conditioned on obedience. If it’s a grace covenant, it offers life and salvation by Jesus Christ. If you want to say that it does both of those things, then you are actually speaking of two different covenants, not one.
In your explanation yesterday, you were pretty clear that you believe the MC to be a legal covenant that offers temporal blessings on the condition of general obedience. That’s fine, but once you’ve committed yourself to that, you’ve closed the door on saying that the “MC … administers grace” because then you would be saying that the MC offers life and salvation in Jesus Christ, which would contradict what you said earlier, i.e., that it offers temporal blessings on condition of general obedience. It’s got to be one or the other but it can’t be both. You see the problem?
Now what you said above is that “the MC as it displays types, sacrifices, promises administers grace, the MC as bare command for blessings and curses for disobedience administers law.”
That doesn’t really make sense because you have one covenant acting like two covenants. If you want to make sense, you need to amend either the first or the second clause of that sentence. For example, following are two possible adjustments:
1. “The covenant of grace as it displays types, sacrifices, promises administers grace, the MC as bare command for blessings and curses for disobedience administers law.”
(The above seems consistent with your explanation yesterday.)
2. The MC as it displays types, sacrifices, promises administers grace, the MC considered as abstracted from its promise of grace, as bare command for blessings and curses for disobedience administers law.”
(The above would more closely reflect the view that the MC is an administration of the covenant of grace.)
LikeLike
Jeff,
The issue then is what counts as “substantial” v “accidental.”
Think of it this way: The substance is the promises and conditions. The accidental has to do with how the substance is administered.
LikeLike
David,
The MC is a broad category understood a number of ways, just like the concept of nomos itself. There is nothing wrong speaking of the MC as Hodge did: “Besides this evangelical character which unquestionably belongs to the Mosaic covenant, it is presented in two other aspects in the Word of God.”
One covenant broadly speaking can act like two covenants if God so ordains it. As the MC broadly included sacrifices and reminders of the Abrahamic promise, it administered grace. As it narrowly set forth blessings and curses for obedience and disobedience to retain the land blessings it administered law to drive Israel to trust in the merits of Christ. While I understand the complexity and difficulty in labeling views, which has been a historical difficulty, I see no need to redefine according to your terms. I also do not see any need to continue this discussion, though it was helpful that you answered my question as to what you saw as the danger in Kline’s formulations. Please have the last word.
LikeLike
D.G.,
David R, given the variety of ways that Reformed theologians have held to republication, I’m not sure anyone — yourself included — can be particularly picky about the way that Clark formulates it. It’s all over the place.
That’s part of the “narrative” I was talking about with Sean yesterday. I used to hold to it. Don’t anymore.
But what is surprising is that the infusion of biblical theology in our circles has cut us off from a point that was so widely held even in various ways. And that puts a lie to your notion that the opponents of repub are really doing scholastic theology. Most of the opponents of repub deny the pactum salutis.
Okay, then let’s just agree that we should all (both sides) be doing scholastic theology more than we are.
LikeLike
D.G.,
David R., it’s only Kline being opposed? Not Gordon, Estelle, VanDrunen, Fesko? They are merely Kline?
I think I said “Kline’s view,” right? That would embrace all those guys more or less, no?
And why such hostility to Kline. Even Jim Dennison doesn’t agree with Van Til on apologetics (which is part of the OPC’s training for all ministers).
Why the selectivity?
I don’t know Dennison’s apologetics, so I can’t really say.
LikeLike
Todd,
While I understand the complexity and difficulty in labeling views, which has been a historical difficulty, I see no need to redefine according to your terms.
They aren’t my terms. This is just standard covenant theology and those definitions have been in place since the beginning. You want to reject those definitions and then you want me to accept your rejection of them. Sorry, but no go.
I have read Hodge on this question many times, but I will take another look and see what I can see. Thanks again for the interaction, I do appreciate it.
LikeLike
Jeff,
I think that his point is that typological is not substantive.
The types are the means by which the substance is communicated.
For my part, the Deuteronomic curses and blessings would count as administrative, republicative, and accidental.
I think we would want to say that they typify eternal sanctions.
LikeLike
David, methinks thou protest too much. That the law, as an “accident”, was added does not change the covenant of grace substantially. If you want to keep pushing a string, that’s your business, but we’re not talking about Cameron or Calamy’s 3rd covenant, though at the time of the Assembly, republication included those views.
LikeLike
4) As to God’s love for the reprobate: I do tent to find this discussion a bit confusing. Pink seemed pretty adamant that God does not love the reprobate- but then apparently he’s a supralapsarian. But Scripture does tell us that God desires all to repent, and that he does not delight in the death of the wicked. It is the saints’ deaths in which He delights. Yes there are contexts to these passages- I’m certainly not advocating universalism. However, it’s also true that they are expressions of God’s mercy. He has given time for all men to repent. Whether they take the chance to do so is another matter. God is merciful as well as just. All these things have to be reconciled.
Alex, it is an aside in the context of the OP and where the discussion has gone, but God has no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that they repent and believe in Christ. Calvin’s Calvinism p.100. IOW don’t separate what is connected and conditional in order to posit a amyrauldian/archetypal/modern moderate and ineffectual love of God for the reprobate.
LikeLike
Bob S.
David, methinks thou protest too much.
Yeah, you’re right. Forget I said anything. It’s not important.
LikeLike
JRC: The issue then is what counts as “substantial” v “accidental.”
DR: Think of it this way: The substance is the promises and conditions. The accidental has to do with how the substance is administered.
And there’s our difference. I would say that the substance is the eternal city and citizenship thereof, whereas the accidental was the nation of Israel and citizenship thereof. The typological did indeed, as you say, point to the substantive. But it was not of itself substantive. For if it were, then the substance of the covenant would have changed when the typological passed away.
LikeLike
Bob S- Yes, God does not desire the death of the wicked, rather He desires they turn unto Christ. If they don’t they will be punished and God’s justice will be vindicated. What did I say that contradicts that? Stop throwing the accusation of Amyraldian around it’s a very serious one. Nowhere have I denied- but indeed espoused- limited atonement. This issue of God’s love for mankind is far too involved a discussion for such lazy and knee jerk accusations.
LikeLike
Jeff, the covenant and the kingdom are different things (substances).
LikeLike
I understand that the kingdom and the covenant or different objects, but the substance of the new covenant is to belong to the kingdom of Christ. That is the invariant through all ages about the covenant of grace.
LikeLike
Jeff, agreed.
LikeLike
David R, So you now hold that republication is wrong all the time? Or that only Jim Dennison properly understands republication?
How can you conceivably say that you don’t believe republication is all over the place? Do you believe in a flat earth?
You may not agree with all the affirmations of repub or their variety, but then you’re not pope or council.
LikeLike
David R., so now that you do know Dennison is an evidentialist, what say you? Should we overture GA to find out if apologetical differences are at the root of the PNW controversy?
BTW, you’re being selective. Is that scholastic?
LikeLike
Jeff, ding ding.
LikeLike
D.G.,
David R, So you now hold that republication is wrong all the time? Or that only Jim Dennison properly understands republication?
Not at all. I’m mostly trying to channel Strother Martin in Cool Hand Luke.
How can you conceivably say that you don’t believe republication is all over the place? Do you believe in a flat earth?
As to your first question, it comes down to maybe 4-5 views (e.g., see Turretin’s taxonomy) which can be broken down to essentially two views, i.e., bi-covenantal and tri-covenantal. (Though I’ll grant that there’s different language used to express that the doctrine of the covenant of works is republished under Moses.)
BTW, thanks for allowing me freedom to publish my unpopular opinions.
LikeLike
D.G.,
David R., so now that you do know Dennison is an evidentialist, what say you? Should we overture GA to find out if apologetical differences are at the root of the PNW controversy?
(Sigh)
LikeLike
D.G.,
Why do you suppose it is that the “republicationists” invoke the guy whose Systematic Theology “put an end to scholasticism at Princeton,” while the “anti-republicationists” go to the older writers?
LikeLike
Yeah, you’re right. Forget I said anything. It’s not important.
David, thanks for
sharingthe substantive interaction.Yes, God does not desire the death of the wicked, rather He desires they turn unto Christ. If they don’t they will be punished and God’s justice will be vindicated. What did I say that contradicts that? Stop throwing the accusation of Amyraldian around it’s a very serious one. Nowhere have I denied- but indeed espoused- limited atonement. This issue of God’s love for mankind is far too involved a discussion for such lazy and knee jerk accusations.
Read your #4 Alex. You find it all confusing, but now you don’t. Good.
cheers
LikeLike
John Fesko, The Theology of the Westminster Standards, Crossway, 2014, p 150—Burroughs contends that the administration of the Mosaic covenant had different elements “annexed” to the covenant that New Testament believers no longer live under….Confirmation that Bolton held to the subservient view comes from the fact that he published Cameron’s Theses on the Threefold Covenant of God as an appendix to his True Bounds of Christian Freedom….
Thomas Blake–” There are those phrases in Moses, which holding out a covenant of works, and in a rigid interpretation are no other; yet in a qualified sense, in a gospel sense, the phrases in Moses hold out a covenant of grace and the conditions of it.”
Fesko, p 153—The views defy a neat and tidy taxonomy….They all identify Christ as the “substance” of the covenant
19: 3. Beside this law, commonly called moral, God was pleased to give to the people of Israel, as a church under age, ceremonial laws, containing several typical ordinances, partly of worship, prefiguring Christ, his graces, actions, sufferings, and benefits; and partly, holding forth divers instructions of moral duties. All which ceremonial laws are now abrogated, under the new testament.
19: 4. To them also, as a body politic, he gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the State of that people; not obliging any other now, further than the general equity thereof may require.
mark: was Christ’s obedience to the Mosaic “ceremonial laws” imputed to those elect who were never under those Mosaic “ceremonial laws”?
LikeLike
Are “others” (sinners who are not “true believers’) under the law as a covenant of works? Which law? If not the law given to Adam, and not the law given through Moses, which “covenant of works” are unbelievers under”.
If all blessings are given on the basis of Christ’s satisfaction of law for the elect, how can there be positive sanctions (blessings on our performance of the law) for “true believers”? if all guilt, curse, and death (negative sanctions) have been satisfied by Christ’s righteousness, His obedience even to death, how can “true believers” be threatened? Is not condemnation for those not in Christ? Is not saving grace for those found in Christ?
19: 6. Although true believers be not under the law, as a covenant of works, to be thereby justified, or condemned; yet is it of great use to them, AS WELL AS TO OTHERS; in that, as a rule of life informing them of the will of God, and their duty… together with a clearer sight of the need they have of Christ, and the perfection of his obedience.
It is likewise of use to the regenerate, to restrain their corruptions, in that it forbids sin: and the threatenings of it serve to show what even their sins deserve; and what afflictions, in this life, they may expect for them, although freed from the curse thereof threatened in the law.
The promises of it, in like manner, show them God’s approbation of obedience, and what blessings they may expect upon the performance thereof: although not as due to them by the law as a covenant of works. So as, a man’s doing good, and refraining from evil, because the law encourageth to the one, and deterreth from the other, is no evidence of his being under the law; and, not under grace.
LikeLike
Turretin—Canon XXV: We disapprove therefore of the doctrine of those who fabricate for us three Covenants, the Natural, the Legal, and the Gospel, different in their entire nature and essence, and in explaining these and assigning their differences, so intricately entangle themselves that they greatly obscure and even impair the nucleus of solid truth and piety. Nor do they hesitate at all, with regard to the necessity, under the OT dispensation, of knowledge of Christ and faith in him and his satisfaction and in the whole sacred Trinity, to speculate much too loosely and dangerously.
http://turretinfan.wordpress.com/2008/07/27/justification-part-ii/
John Fesko, p 158, The Theology of the Westminster Standards, Crossway, 2014—“There is nothing which comes close to this statement in the Confession. The Formula Consensus Helvetica was never widely adopted as a confession of faith…perhaps because it was too strict on matters that were deemed genuine areas of disagreement between different parties who were considered “orthodox.”
LikeLike
I feel vindicated.
LikeLike
You should feel vindicated – if anyone had said that there are three covenants: natural, legal, and gospel.
But given the number of times various people have said that there are not three covenants, I wonder at the vindication. It seems a little more like you’ve been having a Smeagol/Gollum debate or something. 🙂
I read Fesko and vanDrunen and never once understood them to be arguing for three covenants. Ditto Kline, though he’s harder to be clear about.
So is the “three covenants” coming from actual primary sources, or are you relying on others’ readings?
LikeLike
Jeff,
First of all, I posted a link to a paper yesterday that I asked you to take a look at. Did you ever do that?
LikeLike
Anyway, when you look at that link, you’ll have your answer.
But second of all, you have pinpointed a difference between the old three covenant guys and the contemporary ones. The old ones were honest about it. But let me ask you this: Why do you think Dr. Fesko, in that little snippet above that Mark posted, is so eager to suggest that “The Formula Consensus Helvetica was never widely adopted as a confession of faith…perhaps because it was too strict on matters that were deemed genuine areas of disagreement between different parties who were considered ‘orthodox.'” Don’t you find that a bit telling?
LikeLike
Thirdly, Jeff, let’s rehearse a little bit of my interaction with Todd yesterday, okay?
Me: 1. What precisely is the condition of the Mosaic covenant? (For example, is it perfect obedience, like in the covenant of works, or something less than that?)
Todd: Since we are dealing in typology, and we are dealing with a nation as a whole, it cannot be perfect individual obedience to remain in the land, but a general obedience that worships Jehovah and not other gods.
Me: 2. What is the promise? (Eternal life? Temporal blessings?)
Todd: The blessings of Deut 28 are earthly, thus temporary
Jeff, which covenant is defined here? The covenant of works? Of grace? Well then, maybe ol’ Smeagol ain’t as dumb as we looks….
LikeLike
David R., But I thought the point of Merit and Moses and Kerus is that republication is unpopular.
LikeLike
Bob S,
David, thanks for sharing the substantive interaction.
You’re welcome, Bob, I try to return favors. As you’ll recall, I spat out at least twenty paragraphs arguing for something and you said I protest too much. I thought my interaction with you was pretty substantive. But we can try again if you’d like.
LikeLike