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 
Jeff,
Thanks. Now how about the covenant of works and the Mosaic?
LikeLike
Posted July 22, 2014 at 12:13 pm | Permalink
. . . I also much appreciate this one from Turretin:
Meanwhile it pleased God to administer the covenant of grace in this period under a rigid legal economy–both on account of the condition of the people still in infancy and on account of the putting off of the advent of Christ and the satisfaction to be rendered by him. A twofold relation ought always to obtain: the one legal, more severe, through which by a new promulgation of the law and of the covenant of works, with an intolerable yoke of ceremonies, he wished to set forth what men owed and what was to be expected by them on account of duty unperformed…. The other relation was evangelical, sweeter, inasmuch as “the law was a schoolmaster unto Christ” (Gal 3:24) and contained “the shadow of things to come” (Heb 10:1), whose body and express image is in Christ.
According to that twofold relation, the administration can be viewed either as to the external economy of legal teaching or as to the internal truth of the gospel promise lying under it. The matter of that external economy was the threefold law–moral, ceremonial and forensic. The first was fundamental; the remaining appendices of it. The form was the pact added to that external dispensation, which on the part of God was the promise of the land of Canaan and of rest and happiness in it; and, under the image of each, of heaven and the rest in him (Heb 4:3, 9); or of eternal life according to the clause, “Do this and live.” On the part of the people, it was a stipulation of obedience to the whole law or righteousness both perfect (Dt 27:26; Gal 3:10) and personal and justification by it (Rom 2:13). But this stipulation in the Israelite covenant was only accidental, since it was added only in order that man by its weakness might be led to reject his own righteousness and to embrace another’s, latent under the law.[12:7:31,32]
Posted July 23, 2014 at 8:50 pm | Permalink
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….
Sam the not so wise sham here,
First Turretin tells us about the two fold legal and gospel nature of the MC and then in the second, we are queried about the MC; up or down, black or white, works or grace. IOW T’s first is practically denied.
But before the last post, we are also challenged at to why Fesko mentions that Turretin’s condemnation in the Formula Consensus of the three covenant views of Cameron and Amyraut is not sustained at large among the reformed, with the insinuation that what? This makes room for Kline’s modern 3 covenant view?
Posted July 23, 2014 at 8:37 pm | Permalink
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?
So which is it? Turretin’s two covenant view allows for repub in a sense particularly his last paragraph, but he condemns 3 covenants, so T is interpreted to say K is out, but T is a minority so maybe K is really in, but then other repubs say K/repub is not 3 covenant but 2 covenant.
IOW what in the Sam Hobbit Hill is going on here?
Could it be that someone’s power of exposition exceeds their enthusiasm for their POV?
Like a certain other character in Woodinville who recently changed their mind?
Dunno. But if I may be excused. I need to go hide from the charge of uncharitableness.
LikeLike
The substance of the CoW was to obtain blessing by obedience and curse by disobedience.
In the Mosaic, this function was accidental only.
Here is Calvin establishing first the unity of Old and New in substance:
And then the difference in administration:
Note that for Calvin, possession of the land and temporal blessings in general were accidental, not substantial. They were also typological of the substance. If this is ringing any “Kingdom Prologue” bells, then good.
Finally, on the typological nature of temporal cursings and blessings:
Now obviously, Calvin doesn’t spend the 500 pages that Kline does in breaking down the structure of the Mosaic. But it is clear that paleoCalvinists should affirm that
* The Old and New are co-substantial in that they both promised eternal life through the merits of the Messiah (read all of Inst 2.10 to get the full sense of this).
* The temporal blessings of the Old belonged to the accidents.
* The means of acquisition of those temporal blessings — blessing for obedience, curse for disobedience — belonged to the accidents.
Those three points are quite clear above.
But wait, there’s more. When discussing the sanctions of the Law, Calvin says
And again
So we have these two features in Calvin, that blessings and cursings for obedience were typological, and that they were grounded in imperfect obedience.
If we agree to accept these features in Calvin’s thought, there seems little left about Kline to object to. Do you agree?
LikeLike
Jeff,
Do you have the same objections to Vos or Machen?
No. I don’t understand why you ask.
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).
You are using the phrase “administration of the CoG” in a way that differs from historic usage. I know what it has meant historically, but if I am to understand what you mean by it, you will have to explain. According to historic usage of that terminology, all of us within this discussion most certainly do not all agree that the Mosaic Covenant was an administration of the CoG (in my ever so sloppy, snarky and suspicious opinion).
LikeLike
I mean WCF 7.5. What do you have in mind?
LikeLike
david r— 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
mark–Thanks for the answer. So you see yourself as circling the wagons, tightening the boundaries of the antithesis. If you allow the conditional to creep into the unconditional tent, then pretty soon the Confession notion of two abstract a-historical covenants will be completely gone, and all that will be left is historical covenants. I think you may be correct about that being a possible trajectory. When David Gordon finishes his work on Galatians, there won’t be much left of “the covenant of grace”
But when one has left those two a-historical covenants behind, DOES that also mean the end of the law-gospel antithesis? Will those who follow John Murray’s denial of “covenant of works” end up saying that all covenants are about grace, but that this means that grace is about law?
Must there be one unchaning law for there to be one unchanging gospel? Where there is new covenant, can there be new law but still the same gospel?
It remains to be seen. Some dispensationalists know very well the difference between law and grace. Daniel Fuller’s dismissal of covenant theology (and dispensationalism) has left him with an “unity of the Bible” in which there is no difference between law and grace.
David Gordon—what I am less happy with is the language of the covenant of grace, because this is a genuinely unbiblical use of biblical language; Biblically, covenant is always a historic arrangement, inaugurated in space and time. Once covenant refers to an over-arching divine decree or purpose to redeem the elect in Christ, confusion Is sure to follow….
Gordon— Murray wrote that was not “any reason for construing the Mosaic covenant in terms different from those of the Abrahamic.” Murray believed that the only relation God sustains to people is that of Redeemer. I would argue, by contrast, that God was just as surely Israel’s God when He cursed the nation as when He blessed it. The first generation of the magisterial Reformers would have emphasized discontinuity; they believed that Rome retained too much continuity with the levitical aspects of the Sinai administration.
Gordon—When Paul and the other NT writers use the word covenant, there is almost always an immediate contextual clue to which biblical covenant is being referred to, such as “the covenant of circumcision” (Acts 7:8) The New Testament writers were not mono-covenantal regarding the Old Testament (see Rom 9:4, Eph 2:12; Gal 4:24)
LikeLike
Ephesians 2: 14 For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility 15 by abolishing the LAW OF COMMANDMENTS expressed in ordinances, in order to create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, 16 and in order to reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility.
In Ephesians 2, Paul is not dividing the law from its curse, or saying only that the curse has been abolished. What has been abolished is “the law of commandments expressed in ordinances”. In some sense, the Mosaic law covenant itself has been abolished. Paul speaks in Ephesians 2 the opposite of the way he would have to speak if he thought that curse and law were two different things.
While the Reformed distinction between law and curse lays the emphasis on the curse in Ephesians 2, the emphasis in context of Ephesians 2 is the law itself. Is it only the “ceremonies” which curse?
LikeLike
Jeff,
I haven’t overlooked your recent comments, but I wanted to get back to this one for a moment:
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.”
I don’t understand. I wouldn’t want to say that the law is gracious in any sense, but the purpose behind giving it was certainly gracious, i.e., to drive the Israelites to Christ, and then antecedently to serve as a rule of their obedience. What am I missing?
LikeLike
Jeff,
I mean WCF 7.5. What do you have in mind?
Well then, now that you know that T.D. Gordon views the MC as a third covenant, can we agree that he denies it to be an administration of the covenant of grace?
LikeLike
Jeff,
* 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.
The article observes that Bolton dissented from the majority view that two covenants structure redemptive history. As an alternative, he proposed a three covenant view. The article then suggests that Bolton is a precursor to Kline. Am I to suppose that the author thinks Kline holds to the standard two covenants?
LikeLike
DR: I wouldn’t want to say that the law is gracious in any sense, but the purpose behind giving it was certainly gracious, i.e., to drive the Israelites to Christ, and then antecedently to serve as a rule of their obedience.
Agreed.
What am I missing?
Possibly, this:
The Sinaitic administration is, for Murray, entirely gracious. So is the covenant of works. This now introduces complexity into our understanding of “grace.”
LikeLike
JRC: I mean WCF 7.5. What do you have in mind?
DR: Well then, now that you know that T.D. Gordon views the MC as a third covenant, can we agree that he denies it to be an administration of the covenant of grace?
No, not exactly. TDG is not a straightforward case. He thinks of covenants as being located historically, and is not comfortable with an overarching term “covenant of grace” (souce).
So when he talks about Sinai in TNLF, he alternates between the term “covenant” and “administration.” When he explains covenants, he presents them NOT as three, but as multifold (source).
In other words, he seems to be making a “biblical-over-against-systematic” point in his use of the term “covenant.”
I neither endorse nor criticize this approach, but it’s not mine.
So no, I would not say that TDG is evidence of a subservient covenant view. He seems to be more of a “lots of covenants” person.
LikeLike
DR: The article observes that Bolton dissented from the majority view that two covenants structure redemptive history. As an alternative, he proposed a three covenant view. The article then suggests that Bolton is a precursor to Kline. Am I to suppose that the author thinks Kline holds to the standard two covenants?
If you’re asking my advice on understanding “precursor”, then I would say that it does not imply carryover of any specific properties. In other words, don’t assume.
Glycerin is a precursor of nitroglycerin. One makes lovely cakes. The other doesn’t.
Take Patrick Ramsey, who also asserts that Kline was a subservient guy. His evidence:
What DPR does not observe is that difference #2 makes all the difference between two distinct covenants (Bolton) and a covenant of grace with an outward administration of works (Turretin).
So by investing the word “precursor” with the meaning “has the same subservient covenant structure”, I think you go too far.
Now, you may have additional evidence. I don’t know with certainty that Kline was bi- and not tri-covenantal. But having read several of his works, I never picked up on a tri-covenantal thesis.
So if you have additional evidence, fire away.
LikeLike
Ephesians 2:15 teaches that the Mosaic law was the instrument of condemnation and death. The emphasis is on the code, the “commandments expressed in ordinances”. Instead of separating out the curse from the code, Paul actually writes of the abolition of the commandments themselves. This can be seen from the statement itself, and also from the context which speaks of the joining of jew and gentile into the body.
It is impossible to maintain that only the curse itself is that which divides the two groups, since both are under the curse equally. No, the curse divides God from humans. What stands between jew and gentile is the law itself, the code, the covenant mediated by Moses. It is not grace adminstered differently, because law is not grace.
Think of the parallel in Colossians 2:13 And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, 14 by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross.
The “record of death” against us is the same as the “legal demands” against us. It is difficult to see how the law and its curse can be separated, when the Apostle integrates them together in this way.
It is the demands which are hostile to us. Colossians 2: 16 goes on to say: “Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath.” It is more than the removal of the curse that the law-work of the cross achieves. The cross brings about in some sense the abolition of the law itself. Nobody has to do anymore what the Mosaic covenant commands to be done because the Mosaic covenant commands it. There is new covenant, and there is new law, because Christ is not the new Moses but Lawgiver, Lord, and the one who has satisfied law for all of the elect.
LikeLike
Jeff,
The Sinaitic administration is, for Murray, entirely gracious. So is the covenant of works. This now introduces complexity into our understanding of “grace.”
1. I have never claimed in this discussion to follow Murray. In fact I disagree with his redefinition of covenant.
2. Just an FYI for you, given his redefinition of covenant, Murray argued that the “Adamic administration” was not covenantal. (I disagree with him about that as well.)
So, again, what am I missing?
LikeLike
David Gordon—-It was not the Law, as allegedly perverted a millenium after Moses that Paul discussed in Galatians 3, but the law which came 430 years after the Abrahamic covenant that Paul discusses(Gal. 3:17). When he illustrated the matter in chapter 4, for instance, citing Sarah and Hagar, he did not say that these two women were figuratively two ways of understanding the covenant, one right and one wrong. Rather, he said “these women are TWO COVENANTS (au|tai gavr eijsin duvo diaqh’kai). One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery;she is Hagar” (Gal. 4:24)
LikeLike
David Gordon—The Sinai covenant-administration was no bargain for sinners, and I pity the poor Israelites who suffered under its administration, just as I understand perfectly well why 73 (nearly half) of their psalms were laments. I would have resisted this covenant also, had I been there, because such a legal covenant, whose conditions require strict obedience (and threaten severe curse-sanctions), is bound to fail if one of the parties to it is a sinful people.
LikeLike
@ Mark: the notion of “resisting the covenant” is a frankly puzzling feature of Gordon’s thought. It hearkens back to classic Dispensationalism.
It makes it sound as if the Israelites should have told Joshua, “OK, we won’t serve the Lord, then.”
I’m sure TDG doesn’t think that, but what alternative does he envision?
LikeLike
Jeff,
I wasn’t asking for your advice in understanding the term, but since you’ve given it, I’ll suggest that the article is rather using the term in the more commonly understood sense of Merriam Webster’s first definition: “precedes and indicates the approach of another.” But of course you already knew this. I will submit that there is no sensible reader who can come away from that article with any question about which of the two camps the author thinks Kline lands in.
But by way of clarification, I have never argued on this thread that Kline was a “three covenant guy.” If you’ll recall, at the beginning of my interaction with Todd, I explained that I really can’t figure out where Kline comes down on the two-covenants-or-three question and I was hoping Todd could help me gain clarity. In our interchange I learned that Todd thinks the MC offers temporal life conditioned on “general” obedience. This jibes with a three covenant view but not a two covenant view. But then he also insisted that the MC administers grace, which jibes with a three covenant view but not a two covenants view. Todd is inconsistent but denies the inconsistency and (apparently) thinks he can have it both ways (which I have found to be commonly true of “republicationists”). So no clarity (for me) resulted.
The only reason I had produced the Irons article is that DGH challenged my assertion that some of the “republicationists” embrace the three covenant view. That is, I wasn’t trying to prove Kline’s view (which I still don’t know).
LikeLike
Jeff,
What DPR does not observe is that difference #2 makes all the difference between two distinct covenants (Bolton) and a covenant of grace with an outward administration of works (Turretin).
Mind fleshing this out some?
LikeLike
@ DR:
Re #1: right, the point is not to attribute Murray to you, but to point out that the ur-anti-repub position, the precursor, if you will, is a comingling of grace and law under the category of “condition”: the Murray family of anti-repub arguments have in common the belief that the Old and New Covenants are alike in stipulating *conditions* of personal obedience for reception of blessing, with obedience being the fruit of faith.
Ramsey is in this family. IIRC, so is van Jones.
In the Klinean family, the term *condition* is rejected as not so much wrong, but confused. In its place is the term “ground.” In the CoW, Adam’s obedience is the ground for blessing. In the CoG, Christ’s obedience is the ground.
Re #2: right, Murray spoke of an Adamic administration, not a separate Adamic covenant. This led some to believe that he was proposing monocovenantalism, though this is contested.
LikeLike
David Gordon: It was necessary for there to be a covenant that, at a minimum, preserved two things: memory of the gracious promises made to Abraham and his “seed,” and the biological integrity of the “seed”itself. Sinai’s dietary laws and prohibitions against inter-marrying with the Gentiles, along with Sinai’s calendar and its circumcision, set Abraham’s descendants apart from the Gentiles,
“saving” them (in some degree) from their desire to inter-marry with the Am ha-Aretz until the time came to do away with such a designation forever.
Gordon–. Such a covenant would need, by the harshest threats of curse-sanctions, to prevent inter-marriage and idolatry among a people particularly attracted to both. Sinai’s thunders did not prevent this perfectly, but they did so sufficiently that a people still existed on earth who recalled the promises to Abraham when Christ appeared, and the genealogy of Matthew’s gospel could be written.
Genesis 17: 9 And God said to Abraham, “As for you, you shall keep my covenant, you and your offspring after you throughout their generations. .. both he who is born in your house and he who is bought with your money, shall surely be circumcised.
LikeLike
Jeff,
These are good points.
DR: Well then, now that you know that T.D. Gordon views the MC as a third covenant, can we agree that he denies it to be an administration of the covenant of grace?
No, not exactly. TDG is not a straightforward case. He thinks of covenants as being located historically, and is not comfortable with an overarching term “covenant of grace” (souce).
So when he talks about Sinai in TNLF, he alternates between the term “covenant” and “administration.” When he explains covenants, he presents them NOT as three, but as multifold (source).
By way of clarification, when Gordon says Sinai “administration,” he means something different than WCF 7.5 means by the use of that term. Gordon is referring to the administration of a covenant that he views as devoid of grace.
In other words, he seems to be making a “biblical-over-against-systematic” point in his use of the term “covenant.”
I neither endorse nor criticize this approach, but it’s not mine.
So no, I would not say that TDG is evidence of a subservient covenant view. He seems to be more of a “lots of covenants” person.
Yes, you are right. But you’re funny. First you fight me over my claim that Irons thinks Kline holds to three covenants. Now you’re arguing that Gordon holds to more than three.
So then, can we agree that Gordon (at least implicitly) denies the MC to be an administration of the covenant of grace?
LikeLike
David came with a box and he ain’t leavin’ until he’s got some people in it. What, no volunteers?
LikeLike
Muddy, don’t worry, I only stay as long as people interact. If you’d like me to leave, just persuade them to stop.
LikeLike
Re: T. David Gordon,
I strongly suspect that he has not expressed his full view in the articles I’ve cited. Here are the possibilities:
(1) He affirms WCF 7.5, with a quibble about terms. My guess would be, “One plan of salvation from Gen 3 to Rev 21, administered under different historically situated covenants.”
(2) He takes exception to WCF 7.5 and really believes that God has enacted substantially different covenants under Noah, Abraham, etc. If this is true, end of story, then he’s a full-blown Chafer or Ryrie dispensationalist, and no-one in his presbytery has ever called him on it.
I think (1) is a lot more likely than (2), wouldn’t you agree?
LikeLike
Todd,
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.”
I don’t see what’s so difficult to harmonize. It’s impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins. Period. Don’t we understand the sacrifices to have been sacramental? What did the sacrifices gain for those who didn’t rightly use them?
a Brakel:
LikeLike
JRC: What DPR does not observe is that difference #2 makes all the difference between two distinct covenants (Bolton) and a covenant of grace with an outward administration of works (Turretin).
DR: Mind fleshing this out some?
Sure. Mark Beach does a good, extensive, expensive job of explaining this. Here’s the cheap version.
To summarize the summary of the summary, the three-fold covenant leaves “belonging to Christ” out of the substance of the “legal” (Mosaic) covenant. The aim of the legal covenant was to bring people to Christ, but in substance, it operated strictly on the basis of obey and be blessed, period.
Turretin opposes this by re-affirming the twofold division of CoW/CoG, and then stating that the Mosaic administration wears the outward, typological cloak of a CoW while being in substance the CoG.
So with that distinction in mind, we go back to the Irons article. Bolton, a tri-cov (or “sub-cov”, subservient covenantalist), is the precursor to Kline, BUT Kline holds to a two-fold administration of the CoG. This displaces the sub-cov position in his thought.
Quoting Irons, Yet, although I see continuity between Bolton and Kline, I also
recognize that Kline, using Vosian biblical theology, takes covenant theology a couple of
steps beyond Cameron and Bolton. The primary areas where Kline goes beyond them are:
(1) Kline’s “two-layer” model more clearly affirms the underlying substratum of
the covenant of grace during the Mosaic epoch…(2) Kline emphasizes the type-antitype relationship between the typal kingdom of
Israel (first level fulfillment) and the eternal kingdom of Christ (second level fulfillment)…(3) Kline sees the Mosaic republication of the Adamic covenant of works as
having a Christological purpose.
Right there, Kline concedes every point that Turretin makes.
The continuity between Bolton and Kline, the “precursorship”, lies in a different area, in the untangling of law and grace. Acc to Irons, Bolton’s burden is to address the problem that
“the covenant of grace under the Old Testament seems to be so presented as if it were
still a covenant of works to man””
This is likewise Kline’s burden. Keep in mind that defending against theonomy and moralism is a life-long burden for Kline, and his construction of the Mosaic Covenant moves in the same direction as Bolton because they share the same pastoral concern. But “moving in the same direction” does not mean “shares the same structure”, which is where our discussion lies.
So this sensible reader does not agree that Irons thinks Kline is sub-cov. Irons appears to read Kline as presenting a view with Reformed roots. Why Irons did not appeal to Turretin, I don’t know, although the issue might be that Turretin was unavailable (IIRC) in English until 1997, and it may be that he hadn’t read Turretin at that time.
LikeLike
Jeff,
I strongly suspect that he has not expressed his full view in the articles I’ve cited.
Agreed.
Here are the possibilities:
(1) He affirms WCF 7.5, with a quibble about terms. My guess would be, “One plan of salvation from Gen 3 to Rev 21, administered under different historically situated covenants.”
(2) He takes exception to WCF 7.5 and really believes that God has enacted substantially different covenants under Noah, Abraham, etc. If this is true, end of story, then he’s a full-blown Chafer or Ryrie dispensationalist, and no-one in his presbytery has ever called him on it.
I think (1) is a lot more likely than (2), wouldn’t you agree?
No. From the sources you linked, he is clear that he views the covenants as substantially different (as you even noted in a recent comment). But that doesn’t make him a dispy because (unlike them) he understands the relationship between the OT and the NT as that of type to antitype; whereas they do not acknowledge realized eschatology in the present age.
LikeLike
Jeff,
Why Irons did not appeal to Turretin, I don’t know, although the issue might be that Turretin was unavailable (IIRC) in English until 1997, and it may be that he hadn’t read Turretin at that time.
See here.
LikeLike
Interact?
We’re still waiting for an explanation why the anti repubs aren’t hoisted on their own petard if they want to quote Turretin 12:7:31,32.
Or is it only Kline’s version?
Again from More Vantilian Than Thou thread:
David R.
Posted July 22, 2014 at 12:13 pm | Permalink
CW,
Thanks, I have perused that quote by Shaw many times. He is one of my standard go-tos for commentaries on the WCF (it also doesn’t hurt that he can be accessed free online). I find his analysis helpful. I also much appreciate this one from Turretin:
Meanwhile it pleased God to administer the covenant of grace in this period under a rigid legal economy–both on account of the condition of the people still in infancy and on account of the putting off of the advent of Christ and the satisfaction to be rendered by him. A twofold relation ought always to obtain: the one legal, more severe, through which by a new promulgation of the law and of the covenant of works, with an intolerable yoke of ceremonies, he wished to set forth what men owed and what was to be expected by them on account of duty unperformed…. The other relation was evangelical, sweeter, inasmuch as “the law was a schoolmaster unto Christ” (Gal 3:24) and contained “the shadow of things to come” (Heb 10:1), whose body and express image is in Christ.
According to that twofold relation, the administration can be viewed either as to the external economy of legal teaching or as to the internal truth of the gospel promise lying under it. The matter of that external economy was the threefold law–moral, ceremonial and forensic. The first was fundamental; the remaining appendices of it. The form was the pact added to that external dispensation, which on the part of God was the promise of the land of Canaan and of rest and happiness in it; and, under the image of each, of heaven and the rest in him (Heb 4:3, 9); or of eternal life according to the clause, “Do this and live.” On the part of the people, it was a stipulation of obedience to the whole law or righteousness both perfect (Dt 27:26; Gal 3:10) and personal and justification by it (Rom 2:13). But this stipulation in the Israelite covenant was only accidental, since it was added only in order that man by its weakness might be led to reject his own righteousness and to embrace another’s, latent under the law.
LikeLike
I see your point about Irons.
At the same time, his two-view taxonomy is not the same as T’s four-view taxonomy, so that Irons includes many more under the subservient tent.
Let’s grant the worst for sake of argument: Irons views Kline as sub-cov. Now what?
Wrt TDG, you would have to put the question to him directly. Having grown up dispie, I can assure you that they are all about types and antitypes.
LikeLike
Bob S.
Interact?
We’re still waiting for an explanation why the anti repubs aren’t hoisted on their own petard if they want to quote Turretin 12:7:31,32.
Or is it only Kline’s version?
You think the “republicationists” are only saying what Turretin was saying?
LikeLike
Jeff,
At the same time, his two-view taxonomy is not the same as T’s four-view taxonomy, so that Irons includes many more under the subservient tent.
True, I think Irons may conflate two views in that paper.
Let’s grant the worst for sake of argument: Irons views Kline as sub-cov. Now what?
Then we can reconsider the question whether “all of us” affirm the MC to be an administration of the covenant of grace.
Wrt TDG, you would have to put the question to him directly. Having grown up dispie, I can assure you that they are all about types and antitypes.
Of course but they say none of them have been fulled yet and Israel and the church are forever distinct.
LikeLike
David R. and Jeff,
Brief commercial interruption – Brenton Ferry in his WTJ article, Cross-Examining Moses’ Defense: An Answer to Ramsey’s Critique of Kline and Karlberg, quotes of Kline disavowing the subservient covenant view as well as the three covenant view, while affirming the organic unity between the Mosaic and New covenants. Ferry makes a convincing case that Ramsey did more to muddy the conversation on republication than to clarify.
Now back to the regularly scheduled conversation…
LikeLike
You think the “republicationists” are only saying what Turretin was saying?
David,
Don’t know and haven’t really seen you demonstrate it.
Yeah, it’s a combox, but Kerux’s views aren’t a slam dunk and I don’t remember them mentioning Turretin at all.
Still got to get to Kline.
LikeLike
Jack, Kline changed his views on things during the course of the controversy over Shepherdism. The Ferry article quotes only the old stuff, which is not particularly controversial. So no, Ferry’s case is anything but convincing.
LikeLike
David R.,
Are you saying that Kline wrote things later on where he disavows the earlier writings Ferry cites? Or is it just things written later that others interpret as so doing? If so, then I wouldn’t think it’s such an open and closed case…
cheers
LikeLike
“According to that twofold relation, the administration can be viewed either as to the external economy of legal teaching or as to the internal truth of the gospel promise lying under it. ”
David, Muddy is correct, you are forcing your opponents into a box of your own making. Shaw’s point above is also Kline’s in that section of his I cited earlier. One of the problems is that you are assuming the first use of the law entails a whole other separate covenant, and thus if anyone holds to typological republication he must hold a three covenant view. Then when we do not accept that premise you cry inconsistent or not forthright. Because Jesus used the law in its first use with those attempting to justify themselves does not mean that use of the law was a whole other separate covenant between God and Israel. The covenant Israel agreed to obey was not to individual, perfect obedience of every Israelite, though hypothetically one would have to be perfectly obedient to all God’s laws to merit heaven. So while not demonstrating exegetically three covenants in Moses you are attempting to push republicationists, whether Hodge, Kline or Gordon or myself, who see a typological cov. of works alongside the promises and symbols of grace within the MC, into a corner of your own making.
LikeLike
Jack, this discussion over the past few days has kinda worn me out and I can’t really get into this now but if you don’t want to take my word for it (and why should you?), then look around, as there’s been a decent amount of discussion. Better yet, check out the Kline page for yourself and compare and contrast. But for testimony from someone on “your side,” this series of blog posts may be a good place to start.
LikeLike
What they said.
I’m open to re-opening the question, “Are any repubs also sub-covs?”
So far, your list of candidates includes
(1) Lee Irons, who endorses a sub-cov that is different from the one that Turretin criticized and 1st Helvetic rejected. (And is no longer an OPC minister, but let’s not throw him under the bus.)
(2) T David Gordon, whom you believe to be a multi-covenantalist flying under the radar in broad daylight.
(3) Todd, who keeps telling you that you’re mistaken.
If we’re going to re-open the question, however, we need to start at the top:
What is the essential difference between Turretin’s view, which we all agree to be orthodox, and Bolton/Cameron’s, which we agree to be non-orthodox? What markers distinguish one from the other?
Having done that, it should be easy to make your case.
For my part, I think I’ve done so by identifying the substance of the covenant as possession of the kingdom, and the accidents of the covenant as membership in the visible community and all that goes with that, including the types and signs.
Do you have a different proposal?
LikeLike
jeff–then he’s a full-blown Chafer or Ryrie dispensationalist, and no-one in his presbytery has ever called him on it.
mark: Are you suggesting that all who disagree with the WCF about two a-historical covenants are “dispensationalists”? And would your definition of ‘dispensationalist” be anybody who does not agree with the WCF? or anybody who thinks that the Mosaic and the new covenants are the “two covenants” in question in Galatians?
This is a serious question, because I notice your qualification ‘full blown Chafer or Ryrie” dispy. Does this mean you see some people somewhere between Chafer and the WCF? Why would you not theorize that David Gordon has perhaps become a progressive covenant guy (or a progressive dispy) who denies that the new covenant is future etc? Should we take a guess that you don’t beat your family a. often but b. only on occasion. My guess is that it’s more likely b….
David Gordon—“My own way of discerning whether a person really has an understanding of covenant theology is to see whether he can describe it without reference to dispensationalism. When Paul and the other NT writers use the word covenant, there is almost always an immediate contextual clue to which biblical covenant is being referred to, such as “the covenant of circumcision” (Acts 7:8) The New Testament writers were not mono-covenantal regarding the Old Testament (see Rom 9:4, Eph 2:12; Gal 4:24).”
LikeLike
@ Mark:
So TDGs paper on covenants outlines many different covenants. If we take DRs line, that Gordon is speaking of covenants in the same sense as WCF 7, then he really is (would be) viewing redemptive history as divided into many distinct covenants. That’s a distinctive feature of dispensationalism over against covenant theology, above and beyond a general rejection of WCF 7.
In addition, if TDG were viewing the Mosaic covenant as a strictly legal covenant, then he would fall in the Chafer or Ryrie categories of dispie thought.
Naturally, I think all of this is improbable. It is more likely that TDG is using “covenant” as a synonym for “administration” out of a deference to the Biblical usage.
LikeLike
Somewhat of an aside, but anybody read Karlberg and have any recommendations?
Thanks.
LikeLike
Karlberg on the Mosaic covenant
http://www.apuritansmind.com/covenant-theology/reformed-interpretation-of-the-mosaic-covenant-by-mark-w-karlberg/
Jeff–viewing redemptive history as divided into many distinct covenants. That’s a distinctive feature of dispensationalism over against covenant theology, above and beyond a general rejection of WCF 7.
mark–no, it’s not a feature distinctive or unique to dispensationalism. That’s a false alternative. Dan Fuller rejects both dispensationalism and covenant theology, in the name of the “unity” of all covenants. Robert Rayburn Jr reads Hebrews as if “new covenant” means the correct attitude and interpretation of “covenant”. And certainly David Gordon can and does see distinct biblical covenants without insisting on a a future gentile/ Jew distinction
While it is necessary to deny “the covenant of grace” to be a dispensationalist, that is not a sufficient condition of being a dispensationalist. Most dispies have a false gospel, but they have the one false gospel, the same during all dispensations. David Gordon understands the gospel, and one of the reasons he does is that he knows that Galatians and Hebrews describe “covenants” plural, and not “administrations” in one a-historical covenant.
Jeff—It is more likely that TDG is using “covenant” as a synonym for “administration” out of a deference to the Biblical usage.
mark: Well, I am all for deference to the biblical usage. Maybe more of us should try that (on words like sanctification , and phrases like “in Christ) But you do not understand Gordon if you think he still means “administration of the covenant of grace”, when he says (with the biblical usage) covenants (distinct, plural) He’s been clear that “the covenant of grace” theory is not helpful in understanding Galatians.
Jeff, you want to put Gordon in a box–either mean “administration” when you say “covenants”, or be a dispensationalist, and for you that means “more than one gospel, more than one salvation”
LikeLike
This info is worth everyone’s attention. When can I find out
more?
Look at my site – Solpria all natural diet (http://www.sarahsfunnybones.blogspot.com)
LikeLike
If I understand your point, Mark, it is that there are outliers like Fuller who do not fit into major schools of thought. Perhaps TDG is one.
And that’s a valid complaint, which suggests a minor modification to my argument:
Either TDG is using “covenant” to mean “administration” OR he espouses a covenantal arrangement very similar to dispensationalism, that no-one in his presbytery ever called him on.
See, the point wasn’t to find the right box for TDG. The point was the unlikeliness that TDG would be a minister in good standing, while holding the view that David R attributes to him.
And the larger point is, If you want to know TDGs view on WCF 7, you have to look at places where he addresses that specifically. Just pointing to the word “covenant” is not enough, since he clearly uses that term idiosyncratically.
LikeLike
David Gordon uses the word “covenants” idiosyncratically, because he defers to the biblical use instead of to the Confessional use?
I think our focus should not be on Dan Fuller who simply denies the law-grace distinction, but on those who teach distinct historical covenants but who do not subscribe to the distinctive points of dispensationalism OR to the “adminstrations of one covenant” view of the WCF.
This is not me trying to say anything more about Gordon and the WCF. This is me saying that, if you see my point about Dan Fuller, then maybe you should see my point about something else than dispensationalism also being alternative to the WCF.
There are many who disagree with “the covenant of works” who are far on the opposite side from Norman Shepherd and those in the (non-federal) “federal vision”. (They questioned the concept long before John Murray said that covenant alwys meant grace in some sense) As much as we might dislike agreeing with Norman Shepherd about anything, our objections to non-historical “covenant overload” is not at all motivated by Shepherd’s desire to collapse the distinction between faith and works. To the contrary, some of us even deny extra rewards for Christians because we deny that even Adam “could have” merited immortality on the basis of a probation of finite obedience. (Nobody can how long the probation time was, because nobody can show in the text the probation, but only infer from representative death that there must have been representative immortality possible..)
I am not at all speculating on what Gordon (or Lee Irons) would say about the idea of diversity of rewards for less than perfect obedience. Karlberg has made some good objections.
David Gordon—- ”My own way of discerning whether a person really has an understanding of covenant theology is to see whether he can describe it without reference to dispensationalism.
LikeLike
MM: David Gordon uses the word “covenants” idiosyncratically, because he defers to the biblical use instead of to the Confessional use?
Yes. “Idiosyncratic” meaning “peculiar to himself”, not “wrong.”
It’s an issue of communication and not correctness: what does TDG mean by “covenant”? My answer: you have to ask him directly, rather than looking at WCF 7. He is using the term in a manner different from the Confession.
LikeLike
Jeff,
What is the essential difference between Turretin’s view, which we all agree to be orthodox, and Bolton/Cameron’s, which we agree to be non-orthodox? What markers distinguish one from the other?
I think I covered this in my initial long (pedantic) response to you. I’m happy to take another stab, but before I do, I’ll remind you that there are other things about the “republicist” position that are even more cause for concern, particularly the redefinition of merit (which doesn’t enter into the question of the number of covenants).
Having done that, it should be easy to make your case.
For my part, I think I’ve done so by identifying the substance of the covenant as possession of the kingdom, and the accidents of the covenant as membership in the visible community and all that goes with that, including the types and signs.
I don’t see how your dichotomy helps to distinguish Turretin from Bolton; they were in agreement on the substance of the covenant of grace, no? (But if I’m misunderstanding you, let me know).
Getting pedantic again: We analyze covenants by determining their promises and conditions. C. Hodge defines a covenant as “a promise suspended on a condition.” (Can we agree on this basic definition?) So if the condition is legal, “Do this and live,” the covenant is legal. If the condition is gracious, “Believe and be saved,” so is the covenant.
So was the Mosaic covenant gracious or legal?
For Turretin, it was a gracious covenant. The legal “clothing” doesn’t enter into the essence; it merely presents the demand of the covenant of works pedagogically. For Turretin, the MC is essentially the covenant of grace, i.e., life and salvation in Jesus Christ.
For Bolton, otoh, the MC was essentially a legal covenant, therefore it did not administer “one gram of grace” (to borrow a phrase). Of course, this does not mean that elect Jews weren’t saved during the time of the MC; they were, but through a different covenant (the covenant of grace) which it subserved, and which was operating at the same time.
How am I doing?
LikeLike