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., this is completely fubar. If you say you’ve interacted with Scott Clark, then you know that repub’ists hardly appeal to Hodge only. And Merit and Moses does very little to appeal to anyone before Murray.
At a certain point, you lost your credibility.
LikeLike
Leave a few hours and return to find out from David that Kline, Fesko, etc… are not only in error, but dishonest to boot. Of course when David held the same position he was full of integrity, so congratulations to David.
LikeLike
Not so quick David R., which republicaitionist affirms three covenants?
LikeLike
Jeff, sorry to repeat your point.
LikeLike
D.G.,
I don’t know if you’re testing me or what…. The “republicists” appeal to older writers to try to back their claim that republication is “all over the place.” But when they want to claim a precedent for their own idiosyncratic view, they appeal to Hodge. When did I have any credibility?
LikeLike
D.G.,
Not so quick David R., which republicaitionist affirms three covenants?
We did this yesterday. I posted a link.
LikeLike
Todd,
Leave a few hours and return to find out from David that Kline, Fesko, etc… are not only in error, but dishonest to boot. Of course when David held the same position he was full of integrity, so congratulations to David.
Older three covenant guys were open and frank about their view and were able to clearly explain their position. The contemporary three covenant guys don’t have the tools or the inclination to do so. When I held something like your position I was no different. I’m not trying to impugn anyone’s character.
LikeLike
By “linked article”, are you referring to the Irons article?
In that article, there are three people who are mentioned as holding to three-fold covenant: cameron, Bolton, Amyrault.
Kline, meanwhile, holds a “two-layer” view.
The most that the article gives you is that Bolton and Cameron are precursors to Kline. That’s clearly not (yet) the same as “Kline holds to three covenants” or even less, “Fesko et al hold to three covenants.”
As to honesty: get to three covenants first before you start considering subterfuge.
There is always the real possibility that you misunderstand the view in some crucial aspect.
LikeLike
D.G. (and Jeff),
One more time.
LikeLike
Jeff,
As to honesty: get to three covenants first before you start considering subterfuge.
Frankly, when you refuse to stay with me on substance and accidents, I’m inclined to give up.
LikeLike
Guys,
I’ve done my best. Thanks all for the time. If anyone wants to discuss this further, I’m happy to do so….
LikeLike
David, you wrote “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.”
If that’s not impugning motives, what is it? You did better when you were attempting to deal with the substance of the view you are now opposing. If you wish to persuade us of error, be specific – suggesting we have not labelled our view accurately may have its place, but it does not get at the heart of the supposed error. Why don’t you succinctly explain the error of Kline’s view from your perspective.
LikeLike
I don’t understand. I thought we ended with agreement on substance and accidents: The substance of the new covenant is belonging to the kingdom of Christ. You agreed.
LikeLike
Todd,
In our interaction you clearly defined the MC in terms of a third covenant, but you are unwillng either to concede to a three covenant view or clarify why you don’t hold one and you won’t even acknowledge that one covenant can’t be of works and grace at the same time. That’s what I meant by dishonesty, but perhaps there’s a better word. Clarity? Forthrightness?
Regarding Kline, thank you for asking, I’ll give it a try (and no doubt lose more friends): In a nutshell, I think that his redefinition of merit causes a ripple effect throughout the system of doctrine, blurring various crucial distinctions, such as: (1) that between strict merit (Christ’s) and pactum merit (Adam’s), (2) between the covenant of works and the Mosaic administration of the covenant of grace, which also has the effect of overly dividing the Mosaic from the new covenant administration, (3) and that between man in the state of innocence (who could merit by pactum) and man in the state of grace (who merits only condemnation).
LikeLike
Jeff,
It’s hard to believe you say this with a straight face. Two different antitheses: Shadows/substance (yours), substance/accidents (mine).
LikeLike
“In our interaction you clearly defined the MC in terms of a third covenant, but you are unwillng either to concede to a three covenant view or clarify why you don’t hold one and you won’t even acknowledge that one covenant can’t be of works and grace at the same time. That’s what I meant by dishonesty, but perhaps there’s a better word. Clarity? Forthrightness?”
David, I am rarely accused of not being forthright about my views. After all, I am one of the theonomists’ favorite punching bags for my political libertarianism. What I am not conceding is granting your starting premise that the Mosaic covenant is either a covenant of works or a covenant of grace, period. That would be like saying there is either a first use of the law, or a third use, and you must choose one or the other. There can be an aspect of the MC that involves the works principle, and there can be an aspect that is evangelical in character. The works principle within the MS can be seen on two levels, the national covenant between God and Israel which is temporary and typological, and the obligation on the individual to obey the law perfectly to receive eternal life, the standard first use of the law. The evangelical character of the covenant is seen in the provision of sacrifices, and promises such as Deut. 18:17&18. Now you may want to label this a three covenant view, it really doesn’t matter what you want to label it, but I quote Hodge because this is what he taught and I agree with it, and it was perfectly acceptable in the church to this point, though many disagreed with it.
LikeLike
It would be interesting to know, David R, the motives and psychology involved in your change of mind. I don’t ask in order to argue for the truth or falsity of the view (or any view of the Mosaic and Adamic covenants).
As one who has changed my mind about some things, I want to say–it’s the texts (and the history of the exegesis of the texts) which changed my mind. But I still want to ask—did something happen to make you fear dispensationalism more than you used to? Are you now worried more about antinomianism? Have you become unsettled about our minority situation in the world? Have you gotten more sensitive about “supercessionism” or other kinds of “anti-Judiasm”? Have you been enticed by Dan Fuller’s gospel of conditionality? I hope you take these questions as real questions, because I am outside the loop, and don’t know you, as it seems some of the other fellows do.
Kline—“The loss of the national election given to Israel in the Mosaic covenant compels all who confess the sovereignty of God’s grace to recognize the presence of a works principle in that covenant.” KP, p 322
John Murray—“Even where there is no sin and therefore no wrath, we cannot eliminate the fear of incurring God’s displeasure as one motive deterrent to the commission of sin.” Principles of Conduct, p 235
Dan Doriani—“Legalists motivate by guilt. If you don’t obey, God will be angry or withhold his blessings. Legalists motivate by fear. If you don’t obey, God will punish you.”
Jeremiah 31: 31 “Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, 32 not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the Lord.
LikeLike
David R., but who says their view is idiosyncratic? You? You following Dennison? Why isn’t Dennison idiosyncratic if he isn’t Van Tillian?
LikeLike
David, Lee Irons is not representative in the current debates. That’s like saying the Baylys are representative of the anti-repub’s.
For shame.
LikeLike
David R., but Jeff is right about substance and accidents and you are not.
LikeLike
David R.,
Then why is it that Kline was one of the most forthright critics of Shepherd well before others who endorsed Merit and Moses? And why is it that the republicationists have been the strongest in defense of justification by faith, rather than collapsing it with sanctification into union (in ways that make the Federal Visionists happy)?
We don’t need more scholasticism. We need more history.
LikeLike
My question to David, Patrick, et al. who agree with the Merit and Moses critique…
If we grant that both the active and passive obedience of Christ is typified in the OT, and since the active obedience of Christ is meritorious, would we not be able to speak of typological merit when we explain the OT types as they point to Christ’s active obedience, as long as we make the proper qualifications, just as we do concerning the passive obedience of Christ?
For example, we know from Heb. 10:4 that it is “impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.” Thus ultimately the animal sacrifices were useless in procuring God’s forgiveness and pleasure. And yet throughout the OT we have passages like Lev. 4:20, that upon the sacrifice of a young bull, the priest was to make atonement for the unintentional sin of the congregation, “and it shall be forgiven them.” So how do we harmonize this statement with Heb. 10? John Gil put it well, “By offering the ram he brought, by which a typical, but not real atonement was made; for the blood of bulls and goats, of sheep and rams, could not take away sin; but as they were types of Christ, and led to him, the Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world.”
So if we make this qualification when it comes to the OT types of Christ’s passive obedience, why is it illegitimate to make these same qualifications when it comes to the OT types Christ’s active obedience? If Noah’s righteousness typified Christ’s, and through Noah’s righteousness Ham was saved from the flood judgment, why can’t we say that here the merit of Christ is pictured, that Noah’s righteousness was meritorious in a typological sense as it was the basis of Ham’s temporary and earthly salvation, but as only types, and as no sinner can truly merit salvation, Noah’s merit for Ham only pictured Christ’s merit for his elect?
If positive affirmations of Christ’s passive obedience in the sacrifices can be made concerning the temporary effects of the animal sacrifices before God without assuming we are violating ontological and eternal categories on forgiveness before God, why can’t the same be done in the OT types of Christ’s active and meritorious obedience? Would not the key in both instances be to ensure that the proper qualifications of types are affirmed and the ultimate, eternal realities that these types pointed to equally affirmed?
LikeLike
D.G.,
David R., but who says their view is idiosyncratic? You? You following Dennison? Why isn’t Dennison idiosyncratic if he isn’t Van Tillian?
I have written a few things on your blog in addition to the word “Kerux,” you know. I don’t know much about Dennison, but I liked the book (though due to Clark panning it on his blog, I didn’t read it for a number of years). You read the book yet? I can’t recall that they do any apologetics in it.
LikeLike
Todd,
What I am not conceding is granting your starting premise that the Mosaic covenant is either a covenant of works or a covenant of grace, period. That would be like saying there is either a first use of the law, or a third use, and you must choose one or the other.
I really doubt that Kline would agree with you on this one.
LikeLike
David R., are you the David R. who wrote this, or another?
LikeLike
Mark,
No, it’s none of those things. It’s that I came to realize that the Reformed tradition had correctly framed the law-gospel distinction in terms of the covenant of works and the covenant of grace. These two covenantal arrangements are like black and white; there is nothing anyone could possibly do to increase their antithesis and it would be foolish to try. But Kline comes along and tries anyway, and only succeeds in making things gray.
LikeLike
Jeff, I am (or was) that one.
LikeLike
Todd, here’s where I’m stuck: Sinners merit only condemnation. Noah is a sinner. Ergo….
LikeLike
David R., but once idiosyncratic, always idiosyncratic, right?
LikeLike
Todd: What I am not conceding is granting your starting premise that the Mosaic covenant is either a covenant of works or a covenant of grace, period.
David: I really doubt that Kline would agree with you on this one.
Todd: Actually, Kline sees both grace and works operating at different levels in the MC
“Fuller’s thinking would not have taken this unfortunate turn if he had distinctly discerned and taken account of the explanation of the combination of the principles of grace and works within the Mosaic economy which as held central place in the covenant theology tradition. As is properly perceived in this traditional view, under the old covenant a typological kingdom was superimposed as an overlay on the stratum that constitutes the continuity of all redemptive administrations and issues in the eternal antitypical kingdom. At the level of the underlying stratum, the Ievel of individual attainment of the eternal kingdom in Christ, the principle of inheritance under the old covenant as under all redemptive covenants was the principle of sovereign soteric grace. But the administration of the provisional earthly kingdom, the typological overlay peculiar to the old covenant, was informed by the principle of works in that the Israelites’ compliance with the covenant stipulations was made the ground of tenure with respect to the kingdom blessings. Had Fuller reckoned with the additional option presented by this distinctive form of covenant theology, the exegetical possibilities would have been radically altered for him as he dealt with such key contexts as Romans 10 and Galatians 3. As it is, he makes his way by a process of tortuous exegesis to conclusions in flat contradiction of the teaching of these passages that a works principle was in effect within the Mosaic economy. Clearly it was Paul’s recognition of the presence of this works principle at the typological overlay level of the old covenant that made him raise the question whether this “law” arrangement annulled the earlier Abrahamic Covenant of promise. And it was his recognition of the simultaneous presence, within the Mosaic economy, of the overlying stratum with its principle of grace controlling the reception of the eternal kingdom that made it possible for him to affirm that the Mosaic Covenant had not annulled God’s promise to Abraham.” (“Of Works and Grace” Presbyterion 9:1-2 Spring/Fall 1983: 85-92)
LikeLike
“Todd, here’s where I’m stuck: Sinners merit only condemnation. Noah is a sinner. Ergo….”
You have the same dilemma with animal sacrifices as explained above. It is the nature of typology.
LikeLike
D.G.,
David, Lee Irons is not representative in the current debates. That’s like saying the Baylys are representative of the anti-repub’s.
Alright, how about T.D. Gordon? Is he representative?
LikeLike
D.G.,
Then why is it that Kline was one of the most forthright critics of Shepherd well before others who endorsed Merit and Moses?
And in his commendable zeal, he not-so-commendably became their mirror image, or at least some of his followers did.
And why is it that the republicationists have been the strongest in defense of justification by faith, rather than collapsing it with sanctification into union (in ways that make the Federal Visionists happy)?
I won’t grant you this one.
We don’t need more scholasticism. We need more history.
Ya got something in the works?
LikeLike
D.G.,
David R., but Jeff is right about substance and accidents and you are not.
Though given that book’s editor, this can’t count for much, right?
LikeLike
Todd,
If Noah’s righteousness typified Christ’s, and through Noah’s righteousness Ham was saved from the flood judgment, why can’t we say that here the merit of Christ is pictured …
Up to this point I agree.
… that Noah’s righteousness was meritorious …
But this goes too far (as it embraces the above contradiction).
LikeLike
David,
When you cut off the essential qualification from a quote concerning typology of course it appears to go too far. You must interact with the entire quote:
“Noah’s righteousness was meritorious in a typological sense as it was the basis of Ham’s temporary and earthly salvation, but as only a type, and as no sinner can truly merit salvation, Noah’s merit for Ham only pictured Christ’s merit for his elect”
LikeLike
David R., A sentence does not prove your point. Though I’m not sure what the point is. The Confession of Faith says as much.
Plus, Jeff’s point was about the substance of salvation in the Old Covenant.
You seem to be working awfully hard on this one but it’s not exactly clear why.
LikeLike
David R., could the becoming the mirror image apply to you?
So which anti-Repub’s have taken the lead in opposing defections from the doctrine of justification?
LikeLike
Gordon is though he doesn’t speak for everyone. No repub’st does.
LikeLike
D.G.,
Gordon is though he doesn’t speak for everyone. No repub’st does.
And besides, he’s a “strawman,” right? And you question my credibility?
LikeLike
@ David R:
No, it’s none of those things. It’s that I came to realize that the Reformed tradition had correctly framed the law-gospel distinction in terms of the covenant of works and the covenant of grace. These two covenantal arrangements are like black and white; there is nothing anyone could possibly do to increase their antithesis and it would be foolish to try. But Kline comes along and tries anyway, and only succeeds in making things gray.
That’s interesting. I agree with you that law-gospel is correctly aligned in terms of CoW and CoG. But for me, Kline’s work mostly helped clarify that alignment, whereas most of the anti-repub material I’ve read has muddied it.
Do you have the same objections to Vos or Machen?
Here’s the basic problem: If we agree that the Mosaic Covenant was an administration of the CoG (and all of us within this discussion *do* agree), then we next have to understand what it means that Israel was “under the law as a tutor” (Gal 4).
Turretin’s solution, as I understand, is that the “under the Law” aspect was accidental to the CoG. Kline’s solution, as I understand, is that the “under the Law” aspect was accidental to the CoG.
This cleanly separates CoW from CoG, but at the expense of some complexity in understanding the structure of the Mosaic Covenant.
The anti-repub solution, as I understand, is that the Law was “gracious in some sense.” This *also* cleanly separates CoW from CoG, but at the expense of complexity in understanding the nature of the biblical term “grace.”
The complexity is unavoidable, since Deut 28 so clearly articulates obedience as the ground for blessing, while Gen 15 so clearly articulates faith as the sole instrument for belonging to the covenant. You have to have complexity somewhere.
For my part, it makes a lot more sense to have the complexity located in the structure of the Mosaic Covenant, than to have it located in our understanding of grace.
LikeLike
Jeff, are you paying attention?
LikeLike
“For my part, it makes a lot more sense to have the complexity located in the structure of the Mosaic Covenant, than to have it located in our understanding of grace.”
Amen! Excellent observation
LikeLike
DGH: David R., but Jeff is right about substance and accidents and you are not.
David R, quoting FT: How the old and new covenants differ from each other: whether essentially (as to substance of doctrine) or accidentally (as to the manner of dispensation). We make distinctions.
You actually completely missed my point. The question was not “substance/accident v. substance/shadows”, but “What is the substance and what are the accidents?”
LikeLike
David R: Jeff, are you paying attention?
Yes, in fact.
Let’s review the bidding.
* I made a point about substance and accidents. You missed it entirely.
* I read the linked article by Lee Irons. Just for good measure, I’ve now re-read it. I observed that the article at no point attributes a “subservient covenant” view to Kline. You overlooked or ignored my point and re-reposted the article as evidence that Kline holds to subservient covenants.
* Todd has observed that he doesn’t hold a three-covenant view (up to the point where, in disgust, he said “call it whatever you want”). You ignored that also.
I am at least paying enough attention to observe who says what.
—
Look, it’s pretty hard to “lose friends” because you change views. Diversity of thought is not punished around here. Heck, I’m even allowed to think that John Frame has some good points.
But with your change in view seems to have come a change in personality. The old David R was thoughtful, careful, gracious. I had a lot of respect for him. He had some valuable things to say about imputation.
The new David R is suspicious, sloppy, and snarky. He makes ungrounded personal accusations, and he doesn’t read carefully anymore. If there’s any connection between your change in view and your change in presentation, please reconsider one or both of those. Our exchange has colored my view of anti-repub’s.
LikeLike
David R., when did I say Gordon was a straw man? I’m just lowering your expectations for my answering for every republicationist (the way you seem to for Dennison et al).
If your credibility is in question, it is because you seem to have a bee in your bonnet over this one, and so far you haven’t explained what is so pressing — especially since the allegation by you and Patrick is that repub undermines Reformed soteriology. I thought Shepherd did that.
LikeLike
David R., did Gordon write on three covenants in TLNF (I don’t have it memorized)? Could it be that you are reading repubs the way white people look at Asians — they all look the same?
LikeLike
D.G.,
David R., did Gordon write on three covenants in TLNF (I don’t have it memorized)?
Nope, he wrote on two. But in addition to those, I assume he holds to the covenant of works, no? But what’s your point since the question was whether or not any of the authors holds the view (not wrote explicitly about it)?
LikeLike
Jeff,
You actually completely missed my point. The question was not “substance/accident v. substance/shadows”, but “What is the substance and what are the accidents?”
It’s possible that I did. Perhaps if you state your view of the substance and accidents of the covenants of works and grace and the Mosaic, it will help me to understand (that is, if you can stomach further interaction with such a suspicious, sloppy, and snarky guy).
LikeLike
Naturally, given that you can bear with my hectoring.
I thought we had agreed that the substance of the CoG, in all of its administrations, is to belong to the kingdom of God.
If so, then would it not follow that the accident that corresponds is to belong to the visible family of Abraham? That would be the line of Seth/Noah/Abraham prior to the Law, the nation of Israel under the Law, and the visible New Testament church in these latter days.
So we have substance and accidents, corresponding but not identical.
LikeLike