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 
Todd (and Jeff),
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.
A great king enters into a covenant with a nation, granting them a kingdom but warning them that they will only remain prosperous if they faithfully serve him. If they prove themselves unworthy, he will take away the kingdom.
At the same time, he also covenants with a select group within that nation, promising them his eternal favor and blessing, no matter how they may lapse.
I analyze this situation and conclude that this is two different covenants. You disagree and say, “No, it’s just one covenant.” I ask, “How do you figure?” You respond, “Because the temporal and eternal blessings are operating at two different levels.” I respond, “Huh?” And you respond … how? If you can help me out of my box, please try one more time.
LikeLike
Charles Hodge on II Corinthians 3—-The second question is more difficult. Every reader of the New Testament must be struck with the fact that the apostle often speaks of the Mosaic law as he does of the moral law considered as, a covenant of works; that is, presenting the promise of life on the condition of perfect obedience. He represents it as saying, Do this and live; as requiring works, and not faith, as the condition of acceptance. Romans 10:5-10; Galatians 3:10-12.
Hodge–He calls it a ministration of death and condemnation. He denies that it can give life. Galatians 3:21. He tells those who are of the law (that is, Judaizers) that they had fallen from grace; that is, had renounced the gratuitous method of salvation, and that Christ should profit them nothing. Galatians 5:2,4.
Hodge–In short, when he uses the word law, and says that by the law is the knowledge of sin, that it can only condemn, that by its works no flesh can be justified, he includes the Mosaic law; and in the epistle to the Galatians all these things are said with special reference to the law of Moses.
Hodge–On the other hand, however, he teaches that the plan of salvation has been the same from the beginning; that Christ was the propitiation for the sins committed under the old covenant; that men were saved then as now by faith in Christ; that this mode of salvation was revealed to Abraham and understood by him, and taught by Moses and the prophets. This view is presented repeatedly in Paul’s epistles, and is argued out in due form in Romans 3:21-31, Romans 4, and Galatians 3.
Hodge—To reconcile these apparently conflicting representations it must be remembered that the Mosaic economy was designed to accomplish different objects, and is therefore presented in Scripture under different aspects. What, therefore, is true of it under one aspect, is not true under another. 1. The law of Moses was, in the first place, a re-enactment of the covenant of works. A covenant is simply a promise suspended upon a condition. The covenant of works, therefore, is nothing more than the promise of life suspended on the condition of perfect obedience.
Hodge–This is all that those who reject the gospel have to fall back upon. It is this principle which is rendered so prominent in the Mosaic economy as to give it its character of law. Viewed under this aspect it is the ministration of condemnation and death. 2. The Mosaic economy was also a national covenant; that is, it presented national promises on the condition of national obedience.
Charles Hodge: “It is to be remembered that there were two covenants made with Abraham. By the one, his natural descendants through Isaac were constituted a commonwealth, an external, visible community. By the other, his spiritual descendants were constituted a church. The parties to the former covenant were God and the nation; to the other, God and His true people. The promises of the national covenant were national blessings; the promises of the spiritual covenant (i.e., the
covenant of grace), were spiritual blessings, reconciliation, holiness, and eternal life.”
LikeLike
@ David R:
This is forward progress. Thanks for putting this out here.
DR: C. Hodge defines a covenant as “a promise suspended on a condition.” (Can we agree on this basic definition?)
For these purposes, it should be fine. The myriad of definitions of “covenant” out there are amusingly perplexing, and Hodge seems middle-of-the-road.
DR: 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.
Agreed to all of this.
A great king enters into a covenant with a nation, granting them a kingdom but warning them that they will only remain prosperous if they faithfully serve him. If they prove themselves unworthy, he will take away the kingdom.
At the same time, he also covenants with a select group within that nation, promising them his eternal favor and blessing, no matter how they may lapse.
I analyze this situation and conclude that this is two different covenants. You disagree and say, “No, it’s just one covenant.” I ask, “How do you figure?” You respond, “Because the temporal and eternal blessings are operating at two different levels.” I respond, “Huh?” And you respond … how? If you can help me out of my box, please try one more time.
Good. I’m encouraged that were are at this spot.
Your king is a Bolton-king, inasmuch as he delivers two sets of promises to two groups of people, suspended on two sets of conditions. And the key that makes this a Bolton arrangement is that both sets of promises have an independent reality. There is no typology involved, and no connection between the two sets.
Now imagine a Turretin-king who says this to his people:
This is loose, because I’m probably doing a mediocre job of adapting my understanding of republication to the metaphor at hand.
But the key features are
* The Mosaic Covenant is not coextensive with the Law. The MC includes the Law as the administrative side of the one covenant, which is of course by grace through faith.
In this way, the Mosaic Covenant is the covenant of grace wrapped in a robe of works.
* The promises of blessing and cursing under the Deuteronomic principle do *not* have an independent reality apart from belonging to the kingdom of God. They are typological only.
That is, if (somehow) a person managed to be blameless with respect to the Law, but not of the faith of Abraham, then he would not be entitled to any of the promises. Hey — that’s Paul’s point!
* There are not two covenants running concurrently (Mosaic, Abrahamic), but rather one covenant with two different layers (threads?!) running concurrently: The typological (or accidental) and the substantial.
Does that help?
LikeLike
Pushing this just a bit further, the Turretin-king has a good reason to say that “To [Israel] also, as a body politic, He gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the State of that people; not obliging under any now, further than the general equity thereof may require.”
Those laws were a part of the legal cloak, which has now been shed.
LikeLike
David,
I appreciate the question, and that you are willing to stick with it as we kick at each other a bit. I also agree that the pressing issue seems to be whether Kline has really redefined merit or not, though I would also argue that those who fail to see a works principle in Moses often have a poor and even dangerous understanding of grace, but that may be for another time. So if my answer satisfies (not that you agree with my conclusions but understand our differing terminologies) let’s move on to merit.
The box I believe you have created is not distinguishing the MC broadly and narrowly the way Kline and others have done. You are assuming that because it is called the Mosaic covenant, and a covenant is a divine promise or agreement, then the MC is either a covenant of works or grace. Narrowly speaking that is true. It cannot be both. But like the term nomos in the NT, which at times narrowly refers to the Sinai commands, and at other times to all Moses wrote, and even at times to the entire OT (John 10:34, 12:34, 15:25), the MC can also be considered broadly, as in everything God communicated to Israel in the old economy from Exodus to Malachi, and narrowly, as the specific covenant God made with Israel on Sinai with its blessings and curses.
For example, Patrick Gillespie wrote, “The Sinai Covenant may be considered, either more largely, for the whole economy and dispensation of the Covenant by Moses, as it taketh in the Ceremonial Law with the Morall; or more strictly for that part of that dispensation which we call the Moral Law; yet with the preface, promises and threatnings added to it.” Now, I do not agree with Gillespie’s conclusions, but simply making the point that theologians distinguished these two aspects of the MC.
So when Hodge, Kline, myself (not that I am worthy to be mentioned with them) speak of both works and grace operating in the MC, we are speaking of the MC broadly, not narrowly. Narrowly, as the covenant God made with Israel that pronounced blessings for obedience to the law and curses for disobedience to the law, that would not be a mixture of works and grace, but the principle of works to drove the Israelites to Christ. We might even say it was gracious for God to drive them to Christ this way, but he does this by placing them under a works arrangement he promised would fail.
Broadly, the MC included more that this narrow and temporary arrangement at Sinai, as the prophets of Israel reminded the sinning Israelites of the Abrahamic promise, whose operating principle was grace, and through the Abrahamic promise, ceremonies and types, encouraged them to look beyond the failed cov. between God and Israel to a new and better covenant that could not be broken.
As to your scenario, “At the same time, he also covenants with a select group within that nation, promising them his eternal favor and blessing, no matter how they may lapse.” God had already covenanted through Abraham (and even back in Gen. 3) the cov. of grace, so he did not really make this covenant with certain Israelites through Moses, but reminded the Israelites as they were punished for disobedience that their hope lie outside the Sinai covenant, which only condemned them (II Cor. 3), thus they must look to the previously published covenant with Abraham for hope of salvation.
As for three covenants, I don’t see any evidence that the first use of the law is called a covenant, but simply a principle, that one would need to obey perfectly to merit heaven, but I’m not overly concerned how one labels something compared to the substance of what one believes about the law and gospel, works and grace, which is why I believe the merit debate is a good one.
Hope this helps
LikeLike
Jeff,
Thanks for your continued interaction, and I’m grateful that you and I have been able to reach a good deal of agreement. I will continue to ponder your responses (and Todd’s also) and try to say more later, but one issue I think we could explore is the question of what it is that determines whether the legal feature of a covenant is accidental or substantial. If I’m reading you rightly, you argue that it’s the typological connection that renders the legal administration accidental, and your point is that typology is missing in Bolton but present in Kline (and Turretin), hence the legal aspect is accidental in both K and T. Is that correct?
If so, I agree that the typological connection is important, but I would argue that the decisive factor is the presence of a works principle. According to both Bolton and Kline, Israel was exiled because they broke a legal (works-based) covenant, i.e., they failed to merit the blessing. Hence (I would say), in both cases, the legal administration is substantial.
However, for Turretin (and Calvin too, as I think your earlier citation demonstrates), the reason for Israel’s exile was their defection from the covenant of grace (legally administered during that period). Hence, the legal administration is not substantial.
(To anticipate a common objection, we all agree that the CoG can’t be broken as to its essence, but we also agree that natural branches can be broken off for their unbelief. To anticipate another objection, if you interpret Jeremiah 31:31-34 the way Kline does, it’s hard for me to see how you’re not locked into a three-covenant position.)
I agree with you that a typological connection to Christ makes a covenant gracious, but I would argue that Kline is then inconsistent to posit a works principle.
Is this at all reasonable?
LikeLike
Todd,
The box I believe you have created is not distinguishing the MC broadly and narrowly the way Kline and others have done. You are assuming that because it is called the Mosaic covenant, and a covenant is a divine promise or agreement, then the MC is either a covenant of works or grace. Narrowly speaking that is true. It cannot be both. But like the term nomos in the NT, which at times narrowly refers to the Sinai commands, and at other times to all Moses wrote, and even at times to the entire OT (John 10:34, 12:34, 15:25), the MC can also be considered broadly, as in everything God communicated to Israel in the old economy from Exodus to Malachi, and narrowly, as the specific covenant God made with Israel on Sinai with its blessings and curses.
Thank you for this. I am quite happy with the broad/strict distinction but the problem is (I believe) that you are using those terms differently than did Gillespie and other older writers who commonly made that distinction. For you, the MC strictly considered is the MC properly understood, and so you define the MC in terms of a meritorious condition and a temporal promise. Whereas for the old writers, the MC broadly considered (i.e., as connected with promises of grace) is the MC properly understood. For them, the MC strictly considered is the bare command abstracted (no apologies for using this term, though one side in the current debate hates it) from the promises of grace and thus misunderstood as a covenant of works (as in the case of the Pharisees). As Turretin explans:
So no, I don’t believe I’ve created any boxes….
LikeLike
Good and helpful interactions between David R., Todd, and Jeff…
LikeLike
Todd,
As I read through the Turretin citation again, it occurs to me that for you, the pedagogy of the law is in the MC strictly considered; whereas for him, its in the MC broadly considered. An interesting observation I think, fwiw…
LikeLike
David,
I think we may be talking past each other. I never suggested that Kline’s view of a typological covenant of works is found in all the reformed fathers. There were a variety of views as to how to understand and explain the Mosaic economy. As Ernest Kevan wrote in his study of Puritan theology,
“It is not possible to make an accurate classification of the Puritans on the basis of their views about the Mosaic Covenant, because many of them held several of the different views in varying combinations.”
You argued earlier that the MC cannot be both works and grace, and my response that broadly speaking it can have both these characteristics when proper distinctions are made. Because some older writers describe the narrow aspect of the MC a bit differently does not negate the point that your accusation against Kline is not valid since he makes the distinction between the Sinai covenant narrowly as the national cov of works and the MC broadly as including promises of grace, though he tended to use different language to make the same point. I am trying to move past titles and labels to focus on substance. So some theologians saw the MC as a national cov. of works alongside but distinct from the promises of grace in the Mosaic economy:
“First, (the MC) 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.” (Hodge)
“The national covenant did not refer to the final salvation of individuals: nor was it broken by the disobedience, or even idolatry, of any number of them, provided this was not sanctioned or tolerated by public authority…The outward covenant was made with the Nation, entitling them to outward advantages, upon the condition of outward national obedience; and the covenant of Grace was ratified personally with true believers, and sealed and secured spiritual blessings to them, by producing a holy disposition of heart, and spiritual obedience to the Divine law. (Thomas Scott)
“What was necessary on the nation’s part was, as M.G. Kline expresses it, an `appropriate measure of national fidelity.’ Enough covenantal obedience was necessary to keep the typology legible, serving its purpose of directing attention to the true and lasting kingdom of God that it prefigured. This does not mean that the world only needed a redeemer who could roughly approximate the requirement of perfect obedience. After all, the covenant of works made with Adam and his posterity still requires fulfillment if anyone is to be saved. There must be a second Adam, not just a second Israel.There are both continuities and discontinuities between the covenant of works made with Adam and the republication of the works-covenant at Sinai, differences that are determined largely by changing historical contexts (viz., the fall and God’s determination to have a typological system whose every detail was designed to prefigure his Son’s arrival in world history” (Michael Horton)
The point being we can both quote theologians who hold our position, some only saw the MC as a cov. of grace, and thus the curses for disobedience only a rejection of grace, and the principle of blessings for obedience a general principle of grace operating in both dispensations, some saw the works principle alongside grace operating only for those who misunderstood the law to be justified by it, and some saw the works principle not only for those who misunderstood, but typologically as it was properly understood as the nation as a whole prefigured the need for Christ to obey God in our place so we can receive God’s blessings. The debate has been going on for some time. So I stand by my original assertion that when the proper distinctions are made between the Mosaic economy as a whole and the works principle introduced at Sinai, there is no mixing of grace and works. I would even argue that the only ones who tend to mix grace and works are those who only see the Law as a covenant of grace.
So my questions for you are:
1. Since this has been an in-house debate for many centuries, and since Bolton, Kline, Hodge, Horton, etc. view has been seen as acceptable within the reformed camp, whether agreed with or not, what do you now see that all those in the past who accepted these views have not seen?
2. What is the actual danger to the faith in positing a typological cov. of works between God and Israel?
3. If you say Kline has introduced something new and unorthodox that Bolton, Hodge and others did not, are you suggesting it is okay to see a typological cov. of works between God and Israel that did not require perfect obedience like they did, or is the idea itself unorthodox?
4.) If only Kline is guilty, what was he specifically teaching that differed substantially from Bolton, Hodge, etc.? (if this brings us back to a supposed new view of merit we would need to progress to there and consider the accusations in the new book)
LikeLike
David R— a typological connection to Christ makes a covenant gracious,
mark–does “the covenant of works” have a typological connection to Christ” ? Is “the covenant of works” a gracious covenant?
LikeLike
Mark, yes to your first question, but not in the WCF 7.5 sense of covenants that communicate redemption by means of types, which is what I meant. (Interestingly, Kline, if I’m not mistaken, argued that Adam is not a type of Christ, notwithstanding the usage of that term in Romans 5, since the topic there is federal representation.)
LikeLike
“Interestingly, Kline, if I’m not mistaken, argued that Adam is not a type of Christ, notwithstanding the usage of that term in Romans 5, since the topic there is federal representation.)”
David, you may want to read more Kline, not sure where you’d get an idea like above.
“Now I start the article out by emphasizing the importance of the active obedience
of Christ. How is it that heaven is earned? The first Adam failed and we cannot earn it
anymore by ourselves. But of course, it is precisely the role of our Lord according to
Romans 5. It says that the first Adam is a type of Christ. It is precisely then the role of
Christ to pick up and to do that which Adam failed to do. Christ then is the one who by
his active obedience merits for us heaven.” (http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/ted_hildebrandt/digitalcourses/kline_kingdomprologue/kline_kingdom_prologue_text/kline_kingdomprologue_lecture10.pdf)
Also, you might read Lane Tipton’s notes on MK http://trueforms.wordpress.com/2013/08/06/meredith-kline-on-the-covenant-of-works/
LikeLike
Kline from his 1994 Covenant Theology Under Attack:
What is true in the covenant arrangement with the second Adam will also have been true in the covenant with the first Adam, for the first was a type of the second (Rom. 5:14) precisely with respect to his role as a federal head in the divine government. Accordingly, the pre-Fall covenant was also a covenant of works and there too Adam would have fully deserved the blessings promised in the covenant, had he obediently performed the duty stipulated in the covenant.
http://www.upper-register.com/blog/?p=169
LikeLike
Thanks, Jack. I was referring to this in the 1953/54 “The Intrusion and the Decalogue”
LikeLike
David,
I would suggest that the same mistake you just made concerning Kline – that he “argued that Adam is not a type of Christ,” even though Kline’s point was that Adam was a type of Christ, as long as we distinguish between the proper and improper connections between Adam and Christ, is the same mistake you are making concerning Kline and typological merit.
Heading out to worship, peace.
LikeLike
Todd, can I assume you haven’t yet read my comment (with Kline citation) just above yours?
LikeLike
David R.
Thanks, Jack. I was referring to this in the 1953/54[?] “The Intrusion and the Decalogue”
I thought you wanted to be working with his most recent views…
Yet, form Kline from above:
“Accordingly, the opinion that Adam’s rôle in the Covenant of Works was typical (in the specific sense) of the rôle of Christ in the Covenant of Grace is erroneous… What Paul teaches in Romans 5:14 and context is that God has dealt with mankind according to the principle of federal headship under the Covenant of Works and of Grace. This parallelism in the rôles of the first and last Adam is adequate explanation of Paul’s application of the term τύπος to the former.”
… I don’t see Kline denying Adam as a type of Christ, rather, he seems to be qualifying what that means under the CoG and CoW.
LikeLike
David,
no, I hadn’t read that before posting – carry on
LikeLike
David R: one issue I think we could explore is the question of what it is that determines whether the legal feature of a covenant is accidental or substantial. If I’m reading you rightly, you argue that it’s the typological connection that renders the legal administration accidental, and your point is that typology is missing in Bolton but present in Kline (and Turretin), hence the legal aspect is accidental in both K and T. Is that correct?
Precisely. More specifically, I think that legal-typology-as-accidental is (1) Biblically correct, (2) The view put forward in Calv Inst 2, and (3) Kline’s view.
David R: but I would argue that the decisive factor is the presence of a works principle. According to both Bolton and Kline, Israel was exiled because they broke a legal (works-based) covenant, i.e., they failed to merit the blessing. Hence (I would say), in both cases, the legal administration is substantial.
However, for Turretin (and Calvin too, as I think your earlier citation demonstrates), the reason for Israel’s exile was their defection from the covenant of grace (legally administered during that period). Hence, the legal administration is not substantial.
This doesn’t yet make sense to me (that is, I don’t yet understand what you’re saying).
I believe that you are saying that the presence of a works-principle would give a different substance to the covenant, so that a works-principle administration is a substantially different covenant. Is that right?
But then, you agree that Turretin speaks of a works-principle outer covering around the covenant of grace. So what is the difference that you see there?
Further, you seem to agree with me that a works-principle says “do this and live.” Would you agree that Deut 28-30 says “do this and live”? If not, then what is it saying? If so, then doesn’t this put a works-principle in the Mosaic Covenant (regardless of whose theory we are considering)?
Maybe another way of putting my confusion is, What is the specific way in which Turretin’s “legal clothing” is *not* a works-principle?
LikeLike
My second question from above—Is “the covenant of works” a gracious covenant?
If I were to speak of a hypothetical law (eternal life for a finite time of obedience) based on a hypothetical fact (Adam not sinning), I would say no. Law is not gospel. A legal covenant is not a gracious covenant.
Romans 2: 4 Or do you presume on the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience, not knowing that God’s kindness is meant to lead you to repentance? 5 But because of your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God’s righteous judgment will be revealed.
6 He will render to each one according to his works: 7 to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; 8 but for those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury. 9 There will be tribulation and distress FOR EVERY HUMAN BEING WHO DOES EVIL the Jew first and also the Greek, 10 but glory and honor and peace for everyone who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. 11 For God shows no partiality. 12 For all who have sinned without the law will also PERISH without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be JUDGED BY the law. 13 For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the DOERS of the law who will be justified.
LikeLike
Jeff,
This doesn’t yet make sense to me (that is, I don’t yet understand what you’re saying).
I believe that you are saying that the presence of a works-principle would give a different substance to the covenant, so that a works-principle administration is a substantially different covenant. Is that right?
Yes, that’s exactly right.
Would you agree that Deut 28-30 says “do this and live”?
Yes.
If so, then doesn’t this put a works-principle in the Mosaic Covenant (regardless of whose theory we are considering)?.
No. The crucial difference is whether the works principle is:
A. (using Turretin’s language) “accessory and accidental, springing from an ignoring of the true end [i.e., “Christ for righteousness to every believer] and the devising of a false” end, i.e., “maintaining that the law was given in order that by its observance they might be justified before God and be saved,”
or
B. substantial, such that the true end is inheritance by works (which is necessarily the case in a legal covenant, even one that is said to subserve the covenant of grace).
In the former case (#A) the works principle is only operative because many pervert the true intent of the covenant. In the latter case (#B) the works principle is the true intent of the covenant (and thus explains the exile). I’ll try to unpack this more below.
Maybe another way of putting my confusion is, What is the specific way in which Turretin’s “legal clothing” is *not* a works-principle?
Good question. I continue to be encouraged by our progress and it seems to me that if we can get over this last hill, we’re just about home….
Consider the following thumbnail sketch account (forgive the length; I probably could have said as much with fewer words):
The Lord renews his covenant of grace with his people, inaugurating a new period of redemptive history in which he will give them a temporal kingdom typifying the perfected state of heaven. In accordance with the time (i.e., prior to Messiah’s advent), and due to their darkness and ignorance, he administers the covenant in a form that brings into sharp focus the demand of the covenant of works. He promises them eternal life (typified by temporal blessings) on the condition of perfect and personal obedience to his law—moral, ceremonial and civil—and he threatens hell (typified by temporal judgments) in the case of transgression.
The intent behind the stipulation, “Do this and live” is not to renew the covenant of works with a sinful people, but rather to “to awaken their consciences to flee from the wrath to come, and to drive them to Christ” (WLC 96), the substance of the covenant, prefigured in the types and ordinances of the ceremonial law, “for that time, sufficient and efficacious, through the operation of the Spirit, to instruct and build up the elect in faith in the promised Messiah, by whom they had full remission of sins, and eternal salvation” (WCF 7.5). The Lord’s elect people respond rightly in repentance and faith, but the others (i.e., those not partaking of the substance of the covenant) are hardened and either utterly forsake him, or, having misunderstood the pedagogical intent behind the legal stipulation, mistakenly embrace it as a covenant of works.
When the people as a whole (especially their leaders), apostatize, the Lord afflicts them with temporal judgments. He bears with them patiently for generations, but when their apostasy eventually reaches a climax, he drives them out of his land.
Question: In this scenario, can it be said that the people were exiled on account of their failure to merit continued possession of the kingdom under a legal (works-based) covenant? No! (Because the covenant was only legal for those who perverted it.) Rather, though the judgment took place on a grand scale, it was really principially no different from New Testament temporal judgments, which granted, are far less characteristic, but consider Jesus’s warnings to the churches in Revelation two, e.g., “Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent and do the works as at first; or else I will come unto thee quickly and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, unless thou repent” (v. 2), “Repent, or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will fight against them with the sword of My mouth” (v. 16), and “Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, unless they repent of their deeds. And I will kill her children with death …” (vv. 22-23).
IOW, in both the OT and the NT, the church can apostatize from the truth, thereby incurring temporal judgments and/or disqualifyng itself from continued possession of its outward privileges. (Again, I realize this phenomenon is far more characteristic of the OT administration, but I am arguing that this is a difference of degree, not kind). However, the true people of God persevere by grace in both testaments.
Now, whether or not you think I’ve given an accurate sketch of what the Bible teaches concerning the Mosaic covenant, can you see why the legal demand (works principle) in this scenario is merely accidental? And how this cannot be the case in a Bolton or Kline interpretation (i.e., that explains the exile in terms of failure to merit)? If I need to try to clarify further, just let me know….
LikeLike
Arggh, botched the formatting some….
LikeLike
Todd,
You argued earlier that the MC cannot be both works and grace, and my response that broadly speaking it can have both these characteristics when proper distinctions are made. Because some older writers describe the narrow aspect of the MC a bit differently does not negate the point that your accusation against Kline is not valid since he makes the distinction between the Sinai covenant narrowly as the national cov of works and the MC broadly as including promises of grace, though he tended to use different language to make the same point. I am trying to move past titles and labels to focus on substance.
This is substance and we can’t move past it until we resolve this issue. Let me review:
1. You say that the MC is both works-based and grace-based at the same time, and by way of undergirding your assertion, you invoke the orthodox broad/strict distinction.
2. I counter that you are cloaking an absurdity (analogously, would you assert that one color is red and purple at the same time?) in orthodox terminology and I explain that the traditional broad/strict distinction is a distinction between the MC as rightly understood on the one hand and the MC as perverted by the Pharisees (i.e., mistaken for a covenant of works) otoh.
3. You seem to be missing my point and you continue to insist that I am being unfair to Kline (and you) by challenging your use of this time-honored distinction.
Well then, I respond that we can also distinguish between a right understanding of the New covenant (i.e., a covenant of grace) versus a perversion of it that mistakes it for a covenant of works). On your principles, this means that the New covenant has a works principle. Can’t you see the problem?
LikeLike
“1. You say that the MC is both works-based and grace-based at the same time, and by way of undergirding your assertion, you invoke the orthodox broad/strict distinction.”
No, I have been clear not to say this. I have said the Mosaic economy as a whole displays both grace and works, but distinctly, not mixed. I do not recognize my position in your description of it.
“2. I counter that you are cloaking an absurdity (analogously, would you assert that one color is red and purple at the same time?) in orthodox terminology and I explain that the traditional broad/strict distinction is a distinction between the MC as rightly understood on the one hand and the MC as perverted by the Pharisees (i.e., mistaken for a covenant of works) otoh.”
And I have responded that there is not one “traditional” broad/strict distinction, but varying views. Your “mistaken cov. of works” view is only one among many, and some reformed church fathers did see a cov. of works between God and Israel, and they also distinguished the Mosaic economy broadly from the specific covenant arrangement between God and Israel.
“3. You seem to be missing my point and you continue to insist that I am being unfair to Kline (and you) by challenging your use of this time-honored distinction.”
If some of those who used this time-honored distinction came to opposite conclusion as you do, then it is not invalid to use those distinctions, but again, you seem much more concerned about how to describe a view than I am, I would rather debate the substance of the view.
“Well then, I respond that we can also distinguish between a right understanding of the New covenant (i.e., a covenant of grace) versus a perversion of it that mistakes it for a covenant of works). On your principles, this means that the New covenant has a works principle. Can’t you see the problem?”
No, I would actually suggest it is yours and Patrick’s view that fails to clearly distinguish works and grace. By not distinguishing the ordo salutis from the historia salutis, and thus suggesting the Israelites as a nation were under a covenant of grace as we are, that Deut. 28 is a cov. of grace, you need to somehow correlate their blessings for obedience and curses for disobedience with our relationship with God in the NC. But the differences are too clear to ignore:
1. When Israel was exiled, the righteous and wicked within Israel were both exiled, they both together received the covenant curse. They were all called “Lo Ammi” (Hos. 1:9).
2. In the NC, true believers are disciplined by a loving Father that disciplines because they are his sons (Heb. 12), not because they are no longer his people.
3. While according to Rev. God may remove his presence from a local church, he does not remove his presence from true believers in that church (Rev 3:4). Yet there was a sense (historia salutis, not ordo) that Jeremiah was exiled from God’s presence. (Jer. 52:3)
4. The basis of the MC was blessing for obedience and curses for disobedience. (Deut 28)
5. The basis of the covenant of grace is we that are are blessed in the heavenly places in Christ, he merited our spiritual blessings, and he took our curse.
6. Unlike OT believers who as members of Israel experienced God’s temporary curse of exile, NC believers are never said to experience God’s curse, for there is no condemnation for those in Christ, and he became a curse for us.
Thus by flattening out the old and new covenants into all grace, you end up conflating grace and works into the new covenant.
LikeLike
Todd,
Thus by flattening out the old and new covenants into all grace, you end up conflating grace and works into the new covenant.
I’ll get to your other points too, but just to be clear, are you suggesting that Calvin, Turretin, Gillespie, etc. were conflating grace and works into the new covenant, or do you just mean me?
LikeLike
@ David R: I’m closer, but still not there. I promise I’m not trying to be a pain in the neck!
You say,
So are you saying that Deut 28-30 is not a works-principle at all, OR that it is an accidental rather than substantial works-principle?
I think the latter, but the ‘No’ confused me.
Let me assume the latter. Then you are saying
(1) According to Turretin and yourself, there is an accidental works-principle in the MC.
(2) That accidental work-principle is active only for those who mistake the CoG for the CoW and try to inherit eternal life (or maybe even temporal life?) by obedience.
(3) The purpose of Deut 28-30 is to awaken the conscience, with the result of repentance unto faith and life.
So let me ask two further questions, hoping that we’re on track so far.
(a) In Rom 6, when Paul says, “sin shall not be your master, for you are under grace and not under Law”, you would paraphrase as:
“Sin shall not be your master, for you properly receive the covenant by faith, and not according to a works-principle.”
That is, being “under the Law” is a synonym for “misapprehending the covenant”?
(b) But in Galatians 4.4, when Paul says, “But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law, so that He might redeem those who were under the Law, that we might receive the adoption as sons.”
I would assume here that you do not believe that Jesus was “under the Law” in the sense of “misapprehending the covenant.” How do you understand “under the Law” in both places in this verse?
With all of that in place, I think I will understand your position.
LikeLike
Why is it so difficult to understand that the Mosaic law is not grace? Perhaps the answer is as simple as knowing that the law is not grace. Romans 11:5—“So too at the present time there is a remnant, chosen by grace. But if it is by grace, it is not on the basis of works; otherwise grace would not be grace.” The nomist reduces the demand of the law on us to something important but not of the essence (accidental, something other than permanent death) so that those in the covenant can still be a factor in staying in the covenant. Even worse, the nomist call this grace..
John Murray—The Covenant of Grace—-It may plausibly be objected, however, that the breaking of the covenant envisaged in this case interferes with the perpetuity of the covenant. For does not the possibility of breaking the covenant imply conditional perpetuity? . . . .
Murray– Without question the blessings of the covenant and the relation which the covenant entails cannot be enjoyed or maintained apart from the fulfillment of certain conditions on the part of the beneficiaries. For when we think of the promise which is the central element of the covenant. ‘I will be your God, and ye shall be my people’, there is necessarily involved, as we have seen, mutuality in the highest sense. Fellowship is always mutual and when mutuality ceases fellowship ceases. Hence the reciprocal response of faith and obedience arises from the nature of the relationship which the covenant contemplates (cf Gen. 18:17-19; Gen. 22:16-18).
Murray—The obedience of Abraham is represented as the condition upon which the fulfillment of the promise given to him was contingent and the obedience of Abraham’s seed is represented as the means through which the promise given to Abraham would be accomplished. There is undoubtedly the fulfillment of certain conditions and these are summed up in obeying the Lord’s voice and keeping His covenant.”
“It is not quite congruous, however,TO SPEAK OF THESE CONDITIONS AS CONDITIONS OF THE COVENANT.. For when we speak thus we are distinctly liable to be understood as implying that the covenant is not to be regarded as dispensed until the conditions are fulfilled and that the conditions are integral to the establishment of the covenant relation. And this would not provide a true or accurate account of the covenant. The covenant is a sovereign dispensation of God’s grace. It is grace bestowed and a relation established. The grace dispensed and the relation established do not wait for the fulfillment of certain conditions on the part of those to whom the grace is dispensed.
Murray— How then are we to construe the conditions of which we have spoken? The continued enjoyment of this grace and of the relation established is contingent upon the fulfillment of certain conditions. For apart from the fulfillment of these conditions the grace bestowed and the relation established are meaningless. Grace bestowed implies a subject and reception on the part of that subject. The relation established implies mutuality.
Murray— But the conditions in view are not really conditions of bestowal. They are simply the reciprocal responses of faith, love and obedience, apart from which the enjoyment of the covenant blessing and of the covenant relation is inconceivable….viewed in this light that the breaking of the covenant takes on an entirely different complexion. It is not the failure to meet the terms of a pact nor failure to respond to the offer of favorable terms of contractual agreement. It is unfaithfulness to a relation constituted and to grace dispensed. By breaking the covenant what is broken is not the condition of bestowal but the condition of consummated fruition.”
“It should be noted also that the necessity of keeping the covenant is bound up with the particularism of this covenant. The covenant does not yield its blessing to all indiscriminately. The discrimination which this covenant exemplifies accentuates the sovereignty of God in the bestowal of its grace and the fulfillment of its promises. This particularization is correlative with the spirituality of the grace bestowed and the relation constituted and it is also consonant with the exactitude of its demands. A covenant which yields its blessing indiscriminately is not one that can be kept or broken. We see again, therefore, that the intensification which particularism illustrates serves to accentuate the keeping which is indispensable to the fruition of the covenant grace.”
mark—I suppose it would be way too simple to summarize Murray’s position as “the more conditionality, the more grace.” I am reminded of Orwell—the more law, the more grace. Murray says so, and if we do not agree, it must be only because we do not understand.
LikeLike
David,
I asked a similar question of you yesterday that you haven’t answered. Did all those in the past who did see a typological cov. of works between God and Israel mix grace and works into the OC, and were they all guilty the way you suggest Kline is guilty?
While Calvin is much more inserted in the ordo than historia, (see Fesko http://www.prpbooks.com/samples/9781596381001.pdf,) Calvin was able to distinguish Moses and Christ, law and gospel, in a way I do not see you and Patrick doing. The fact that Klineans only add that the way God used the law to drive them to Christ was not only individually but corporately (thus typologically) does not change the general distinctions between Moses and Christ we wish to affirm.
So Calvin writes: “The Old Testament is literal, because promulgated without the efficacy of the Spirit: the New spiritual, because the Lord has engraven it on the heart. The second antithesis is a kind of exposition of the first. The Old is deadly, because it can do nothing but involve the whole human race in a curse; the New is the instrument of life, because those who are freed from the curse it restores to favour with God. The former is the ministry of condemnation, because it charges the whole sons of Adam with transgression; the latter the ministry of righteousness, because it unfolds the mercy of God, by which we are justified…In Scripture, the term bondage is applied to the Old Testaments because it begets fear, and the term freedom to the New, because productive of confidence and security… As the offspring of Agar was born in slavery, and could never attain to the inheritances while that of Sara was free and entitled to the inheritance, so by the Law we are subjected to slavery, and by the Gospel alone regenerated into liberty. The sum of the matter comes to this: The Old Testament filled the conscience with fear and trembling—The New inspires it with gladness. By the former the conscience is held in bondage, by the latter it is manumitted and made free. If it be objected, that the holy fathers among the Israelites, as they were endued with the same spirit of faith, must also have been partakers of the same liberty and joy, we answer, that neither was derived from the Law; but feeling that by the Law they were oppressed like slaves, and vexed with a disquieted conscience, they fled for refuge to the gospel; and, accordingly, the peculiar advantage of the Gospel was, that, CONTRARY TO THE COMMON RULE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT, IT EXEMPTED THOSE WHO WERE UNDER IT FROM THOSE EVILS. Therefore, seeing they were obliged to the anxious observance of ceremonies (which were the symbols of a tutelage bordering on slavery, and handwritings by which they acknowledged their guilt, but did not escape from it), they are justly said to have been, comparatively, under a covenant of fear and bondage, in respect of that common dispensation under which the Jewish people were then placed.” (Capitalization mine)
Unlike what you and Patrick seem to be arguing, Calvin would not suggest NC believers suffer God’s judgments because they are part of a visible church who as a whole may be unfaithful,attempting to reconcile this with believers’ experience under the Old Covenant curses.
My other question is, according to your view, how is the NC not like the covenant God make with Israel, which they broke? If the MC was a covenant of grace, how can the NC be “not like” the covenant Israel broke?
LikeLike
Witsius seems to teach that imperfect but sincere obedience works as a Mosaic condition, even though he also writes that the original “covenant of works” has not been abrogated by Adam’s sin.
Witsius– when the law was given from Mount Sinai or Horeb there was a repetition of the covenant of works. For those tremendous signs of thunders and lightnings, of an earthquake, a thick smoke and black darkness, were adapted to strike Israel with great terror. And the setting bounds and limits round about the mount, whereby the Israelites were kept at a distance from the presence of God, upbraided them with that separation which sin had made between God and them. “In a word, whatever we read, Exodus. 19 (says Calvin, on Hebrews 12:19) is intended to inform the people, that God then ascended his tribunal, and manifested himself as an impartial Judge. If an innocent animal happened to approach, he commanded it to be thrust through with a dart; how much sorer punishment were sinners liable to, who were conscious of their sins, nay, and knew themselves indicted by the law, as guilty of eternal death.” And the apostle in this matter, Heb. 12:18–22, sets Mount Sinai in opposition to Mount Sion, the terrors of the law to the sweetness of the gospel.
How does a condition imperfectly kept fit with “To display the nature of the law, which by demanding PERFECT obedience, wonderfully strikes sinners to the heart, and without any measure of gospel grace, leads to despair, and is to them the ministry of death and condemnation.” 4:4:12
—Herman Witsius, The Economy of the Covenants Between God and Man: Comprehending a Complete Body of Divinity (4.4.48), trans. William Crookshank, vol. 2 (London: T. Tegg & Son, 1837), 188.
http://heidelblog.net/2014/06/witsius-the-law-given-at-sinai-was-a-repetition-of-the-covenant-of-works/
LikeLike
Jeff,
@ David R: I’m closer, but still not there. I promise I’m not trying to be a pain in the neck!
Not at all, I appreciate your efforts to track!
So are you saying that Deut 28-30 is not a works-principle at all, OR that it is an accidental rather than substantial works-principle?
I think the latter, but the ‘No’ confused me.
Sorry for not being clearer. Yes, I think you’re tracking, but let me try to hone this a little. Deut 28-30 does indeed express the demands and sanctions of the covenant of works, but I would want to distinguish the law’s legitimate use—as a pedagogue unto Christ (and antecedently as a rule of life)—from its illegitimate use, as a means of being justified by works.
Let me assume the latter. Then you are saying
(1) According to Turretin and yourself, there is an accidental works-principle in the MC.
I wouldn’t say it quite like that because to say it is “accidental” is to say that it is not “in the MC” (i.e., part of the MC), but rather accessory to the MC (as the clothing I wear is not a part of me but accessory). As you know by now, I like Turretin’s phrase “clothed with the form of …” That is to say that the matter and form (and therefore the essence) of the MC are all that of the covenant of grace, but it is clothed with the form of the CoW. Analogously, the matter and form (and therefore the essence) of a statue is marble but it is clothed with the form of a human being. The matter and form (and therefore the essence) of Bert Lahr was human, but in the movie, The Wizard of Oz, he was clothed with the form of a cowardly lion.
(2) That accidental work-principle is active only for those who mistake the CoG for the CoW and try to inherit eternal life (or maybe even temporal life?) by obedience.
When we speak of classes of people under a works principle, I think we’re limited to (1) Adam pre-fall, (2) Christ in the state of humiliation, and (3) the unregenerate under God’s wrath and curse. (Did I miss any?….)
(3) The purpose of Deut 28-30 is to awaken the conscience, with the result of repentance unto faith and life.
Yes.
So let me ask two further questions, hoping that we’re on track so far.
(a) In Rom 6, when Paul says, “sin shall not be your master, for you are under grace and not under Law”, you would paraphrase as:
“Sin shall not be your master, for you properly receive the covenant by faith, and not according to a works-principle.”
That is, being “under the Law” is a synonym for “misapprehending the covenant”?.
Hmmm, I think I would want to say that (1) we (the NT church) are “not under the law” in the sense that we are not under the legal administration of the CoG; but also, and especially, that (2) we (believers, whether OT or NT) are “not under the law” in the sense that we are freed from God’s wrath and curse incurred by the broken CoW.
(b) But in Galatians 4.4, when Paul says, “But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law, so that He might redeem those who were under the Law, that we might receive the adoption as sons.”
I would assume here that you do not believe that Jesus was “under the Law” in the sense of “misapprehending the covenant.” How do you understand “under the Law” in both places in this verse?
I think I would say that to speak of Christ being “born under the law” is to speak of His role as the second Adam voluntarily subjecting Himself to the law as a covenant of works in order to redeem His people and therefore “those who were under the Law” are elect sinners, all of whom by nature were subject to the curse of the broken CoW.
With all of that in place, I think I will understand your position.
Well? Are we there yet?…
LikeLike
David,
Sorry for the many typos in my last post. Not sure what happened.
LikeLike
Mark, thanks for the links to Karlberg.
Why call me naive, but even Nicky and St. Jason of Woodinville could profit from reading them.
LikeLike
Todd,
(No problem on the typos though I did wonder at first what you meant by “inserted in the ordo”…..)
I do appreciate your patience in hanging in there with me but our conversation has gone absolutely nowhere; we have made no progress at all and can’t even agree on a couple of basic definitions. Our dialogue serves to confirm for me that I was on the right track in the thoughts I tried to express in my initial comment on this thread. Still I’m happy to keep chipping away if you are….
Also, please know I’m not intentionally avoiding answering any of your questions. I’d love to spend more time at this, but I’m not a particularly facile writer and I need to be careful not to take too much away from ordinary responsibilities (which happened last week….). I will try to get to the questions and if I neglect to, I’m happy to be reminded.
No, I would actually suggest it is yours and Patrick’s view that fails to clearly distinguish works and grace. By not distinguishing the ordo salutis from the historia salutis, and thus suggesting the Israelites as a nation were under a covenant of grace as we are, that Deut. 28 is a cov. of grace, you need to somehow correlate their blessings for obedience and curses for disobedience with our relationship with God in the NC.
To quote you, “I do not recognize my position in your description of it.”
So my questions for you are:
1. Since this has been an in-house debate for many centuries, and since Bolton, Kline, Hodge, Horton, etc. view has been seen as acceptable within the reformed camp, whether agreed with or not, what do you now see that all those in the past who accepted these views have not seen?
First of all I don’t accept your assumption that this is the same debate that’s been going on “for many centuries.” Second, I don’t accept your apparent assumption that this is simply about a particular view held in common by “Bolton, Kline, Hodge, Horton, etc.” (I don’t think they hold a common view). Third, regarding the notion that Kline’s view “has been seen as acceptable within the reformed camp,” sure, but as you well know, it’s also been seen as quite unacceptable and there’s no need to rehearse the evidence for that….
4.) If only Kline is guilty, what was he specifically teaching that differed substantially from Bolton, Hodge, etc.? (if this brings us back to a supposed new view of merit we would need to progress to there and consider the accusations in the new book)
Yes, the merit issue is absolutely the crux of the matter. If Kline were simply advocating for Bolton’s (Amyraldian) view of the MC, I don’t know if anyone would much care (though it’s interesting how often that view was refuted). Regarding the issue of merit, some questions I’m interested in at the moment are:
1. Is it acceptable to teach that Adam could merit eternal life in strict justice?
2. Is it acceptable to teach that OT saints could (and did) merit temporal blessings (notwithstanding the typological significance of said blessings)?
3. Is it acceptable to teach that the Mosaic covenant was a legal (works-based) covenant stipulating “typologically legible” obedience as a meritorious condition?
LikeLike
Since John Owen did not agree that the Mosaic covenant was an administration of “the covenant of grace”, Owen can be safely ignored in the work of the committee on republication, because we need to start with the WCF and not always be reforming or looking at different Reformed Confessions
John Owen—“Having noted these things, we may consider that the Scripture does plainly and expressly make mention of two testaments, or covenants, and distinguish between them in such a way as can hardly be accommodated by a twofold administration of the same covenant…Wherefore we must grant two distinct covenants, rather than merely a twofold administration of the same covenant, to be intended.”
Owen– “Having shown in what sense the covenant of grace is called “the new covenant,” in this distinction and opposition to the old covenant, so I shall propose several things which relate to the nature of the first covenant, which manifest it to have been a distinct covenant, and not a mere administration of the covenant of grace.”
The Scripture’s Doctrine on the Difference Between the Covenants Expounded on 17 Particulars:
#4 In Their Mediators:
They differ in their mediators. The mediator of the first covenant was Moses. “It was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator,” Galatians 3:19. And this was no other than Moses, who was a servant in the house of God, Hebrews 3:5. And he was a mediator, by God’s design, chosen by the people, following the dread that befell them on the terrible promulgation of the law. For they saw that they could no way bear the immediate presence of God, nor deal with him in their own persons. Wherefore they desired that there might be a go-between, a mediator between God and them, and that Moses might be the person, Deuteronomy 5:24-27.
24 And ye said, Behold, the LORD our God hath shewed us his glory and his greatness, and we have heard his voice out of the midst of the fire: we have seen this day that God doth talk with man, and he liveth. 25 Now therefore why should we die? for this great fire will consume us: if we hear the voice of the LORD our God any more, then we shall die. 26 For who is there of all flesh, that hath heard the voice of the living God speaking out of the midst of the fire, as we have, and lived? 27 Go thou near, and hear all that the LORD our God shall say: and speak thou unto us all that the LORD our God shall speak unto thee; and we will hear it, and do it.
But the mediator of the new covenant is the Son of God himself. For “there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; who gave himself a ransom for all,” 1 Timothy 2:5. He who is the Son, and the Lord over his own house, graciously undertook in his own person to be the mediator of this covenant; and in this the new covenant is unspeakably superior to the old covenant.
LikeLike
John Owen (on Hebrews 8)—-The Sinai covenant thus made, with these ends and promises, did never save nor condemn any man eternally. All that lived under the administration of it did attain eternal life, or perished for ever, but not by virtue of this covenant as formally such. It did, indeed, revive the commanding power and sanction of the first covenant of works; and therein, as the apostle speaks, was “the ministry of condemnation,” 2 Cor. iii. 9; for “by the deeds of the law can no flesh be justified.”
Owen—And on the other hand, the Sinai covenant directed also unto the promise, which was the instrument of life and salvation unto all that did believe. But as unto what it had of its own, it was confined unto things temporal. Believers were saved under it, but not by virtue of it. Sinners perished eternally under it, but by the curse of the original law of works. …No man was ever saved but by virtue of the new covenant, and the mediation of Christ in that respect.”
Augustine—-“In that testament, however, which is properly called the Old, and was given on Mount Sinai, only earthly happiness is expressly promised… But then some happy persons, who even in that early age were by the grace of God taught to understand the distinction now set forth, were thereby made the children of promise, and were accounted in the secret purpose of God as heirs of the New Testament.”
LikeLike
David,
I think we are getting some somewhere, but this format makes it difficult. Let me try to summarize our differences.
1. You do not accept my broad, narrow descriptions of the Mosaic economy because you do not think that is how the terms were used. For the sake of debate I will instead use historia and ordo, if that helps. Or simple state as Kline did, “Also contradicting the contention that no divine covenants have ever been governed by the works principle is the irrefutable biblical evidence that the Mosaic economy, while an administration of grace on its fundamental level of concern with the eternal salvation of the individual, was at the same time on its temporary, typological kingdom level informed by the principle of works.” (Kingdom Prologue)
2. You identify Kline’s view with Amyraldianism, I do not. Amyraut posited his three covenant system to water down Calvinism to four points and deny total depravity. Kline does not. Amyraut did not speak of a typological cov. of works doomed to fail because of Israel’s hard-heartedness. Kline does. So the similarities between Amyraut and Kline are superficial but not substantive.
3. You separate Kline from earlier writes who taught a typ. cow because Kline uses the term merit. But Kline presupposes merit wherever works oppose grace as a principle of inheritance. Merit is simply another way to say works in this setting. You do not grant this, I do.
How we doing so far?
So before I answer your questions, let’s catch up with mine.
1. What is the fundamental difference between Kline and earlier writers like Hodge who speak of a typ. cow between God and Israel?
2. How is the new covenant not like the MC (Jer 31), which Israel broke? If the MC is a covenant of grace how is it not like the NC?
LikeLike
Patrick Ramsey—-I understand how a gracious covenant … administers the gospel through types/shadows …But how can the gospel be administered by a law/works/meritorious covenant? How does “do this and live” administer the gospel: “believe and you shall be saved”? Undoubtedly, the answer will be by typology.
Ramsey—- The problem with this answer is that the law covenant itself does not administer grace to the covenant member. It simply demonstrates through typology how eternal life is achieved. It is not itself an administration of grace. After all, it is a law/works/meritorious covenant. And only a gracious covenant can administer grace. A works covenant cannot administer grace. Hence, it seems to me that to call a law covenant an administration of the covenant of grace is to misuse the language of the Confession and to confuse law and gospel
LikeLike
Three quick thoughts in between coding projects here.
(1) David R: I wouldn’t say it quite like that because to say it is “accidental” is to say that it is not “in the MC” (i.e., part of the MC), but rather accessory to the MC (as the clothing I wear is not a part of me but accessory).
Turretin is using the term “accidental” in its Aristotelian sense as simplified by Aquinas (here). That is, an “accident” is an outward form, specifically the Aristotelian accident of “raiment”, of a substance, the covenant.
In other words, the Mosaic is a covenant of grace with a worksy outward clothing.
The term “accessory” would suggest that the works-principle is a separate entity, a separate substance, and hence a distinct and subservient covenant. That’s NOT where you are trying to be! 🙂
(2) Way back, David, you said of Todd, “2. I counter that you are cloaking an absurdity (analogously, would you assert that one color is red and purple at the same time?) in orthodox terminology ”
This is the root of the communication problem. Todd is saying (if I may?) that there is one ribbon (covenant) with two sides: red (grace as to inheritance of eternal life, the substance) and purple (works as to typological retention of the land).
You counter that he is saying that red is purple.
He isn’t saying that. Now, you believe that it is impossible to have such a ribbon, so that his view would eventually entail that red is purple. And that’s the meat of this argument.
But you need to be clear on what he’s actually *saying* first.
(3) If you’re going to talk about merit you’ll eventually have to get to merit pactum. Just sayin’.
LikeLike
Jeff,
Turretin is using the term “accidental” in its Aristotelian sense as simplified by Aquinas (here). That is, an “accident” is an outward form, specifically the Aristotelian accident of “raiment”, of a substance, the covenant.
In other words, the Mosaic is a covenant of grace with a worksy outward clothing.
The term “accessory” would suggest that the works-principle is a separate entity, a separate substance, and hence a distinct and subservient covenant. That’s NOT where you are trying to be!
Thanks for the Aquinas link, that looks like a helpful resource. I think I got “accessory” from Turretin.
I think you’re saying that in order for the law to exist it needs a covenantal form? If so, I would respond that the law (moral, with civil and ceremonial added) can (and does) take other forms; for example, as delivered on Mt. Sinai, the moral law was a “perfect rule of righteousness” (WCF 19.2) and not a covenant (WCF 19.1). Whether in the form of a pedagogue or rule of life, the law is not a covenant.
(2) Way back, David, you said of Todd, “2. I counter that you are cloaking an absurdity (analogously, would you assert that one color is red and purple at the same time?) in orthodox terminology ”
This is the root of the communication problem. Todd is saying (if I may?) that there is one ribbon (covenant) with two sides: red (grace as to inheritance of eternal life, the substance) and purple (works as to typological retention of the land).
You counter that he is saying that red is purple.
He isn’t saying that. Now, you believe that it is impossible to have such a ribbon, so that his view would eventually entail that red is purple. And that’s the meat of this argument.
But you need to be clear on what he’s actually *saying* first.
Yes, that’s helpful. I have been working with the definition, “a promise suspended on a condition” (btw, I am also happy with Kline’s “mutual commitment with divine sanctions”), but (unless I’m mistaken) Todd never assented to that definition, so maybe instead of suggesting that he was “asserting” something I could have used “implying.” But it’s true, Todd and I won’t make much progress until we can agree about what a covenant is. And yes, in my view, what he has been describing (as I’ve understood him) can’t exist in reality as just one covenant.
(3) If you’re going to talk about merit you’ll eventually have to get to merit pactum. Just sayin’.
I am more than happy to talk about merit pactum; the idea is explained in WCF 7.1 (using different terminology). But that’s precisely the central issue in the first question I raised in my last response to Todd.
LikeLike
David,
To continue,
Looking back I see that you may not be suggesting Kline holds to an Amyraldianist view of the MC, but earlier I thought you did because you identified it with his (Amyrault) three covenant view. So you may want to clear that up for me.
To Jeff you wrote, “Whether in the form of a pedagogue or rule of life, the law is not a covenant.”
This is the point I made to you earlier, that the first use of the law Kline does not, as far as I am aware, label a covenant. So there is no three covenant view with him.
As far as my definition of a covenant, I usually use Ursinus’ definition “A covenant in general is a mutual contract, or agreement between two parties, in which the one party binds itself to the other to accomplish something upon certain conditions, giving or receiving something, which is accompanied with certain outward signs and symbols, for the purpose of ratifying in the most solemn manner the contract entered into.” (Zacharius Ursinus Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism, 97.)
Your questions:
1. Is it acceptable to teach that Adam could merit eternal life in strict justice? Yes, though God condescended to make man and endow him with good gifts, I believe the terms of the covenant of works were based on God’s justice
2. Is it acceptable to teach that OT saints could (and did) merit temporal blessings (notwithstanding the typological significance of said blessings)?
Yes, with the proper qualifications:
A. Sinful man can do no eternal, spiritual good before God (Total depravity)
B. Sinful man can only be justified before God by grace through faith in Christ apart from works (Sola Fide)
C. In the same way that God accepted the sacrifice of animals and offered a temporary forgiveness to the nation or, even better, a withholding of judgment, even though animals could not truly offer forgiveness in the ordo salutis, so there is a pactum or covenant merit that God agreed he would accept only for temporary blessings serving on the typological level as a type of the merit of Christ. Maybe the best example is the Book of Judges; when the nation turned from other gods, the Lord rescued them from oppressors, even though it is clear their hearts had not changed.
3. Is it acceptable to teach that the Mosaic covenant was a legal (works-based) covenant stipulating “typologically legible” obedience as a meritorious condition?
If you are speaking of the MC as it was ratified as a covenant at the end of Deuteronomy, then yes, with the qualifications stated above.
LikeLike
Todd,
As far as my definition of a covenant, I usually use Ursinus’ definition “A covenant in general is a mutual contract, or agreement between two parties, in which the one party binds itself to the other to accomplish something upon certain conditions, giving or receiving something, which is accompanied with certain outward signs and symbols, for the purpose of ratifying in the most solemn manner the contract entered into.” (Zacharius Ursinus Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism, 97.)
Thanks. I’ll respond to your other questions too, but this jumped out at me so I’ll follow up now. Given this definition (which contains the standard components of parties, promise and condition), would you agree with me that whenever we find a situation where “one party binds itself to the other to accomplish something upon certain conditions,” we can be sure that what we have found is a covenant, and that if there are two sets of parties, promises and conditions, then there are two covenants? And if you agree with this, then doesn’t it follow that for Kline, the MC and the CoG are distinct covenants (since in his view, they each have differing parties, promises and conditions)?
LikeLike
Todd,
1. You do not accept my broad, narrow descriptions of the Mosaic economy because you do not think that is how the terms were used. For the sake of debate I will instead use historia and ordo, if that helps. Or simple state as Kline did, “Also contradicting the contention that no divine covenants have ever been governed by the works principle is the irrefutable biblical evidence that the Mosaic economy, while an administration of grace on its fundamental level of concern with the eternal salvation of the individual, was at the same time on its temporary, typological kingdom level informed by the principle of works.” (Kingdom Prologue)
I don’t think using “historia” and “ordo” will help. (But I do think the definition you just provided from Ursinus might help!)
However, in case it is helpful, I can briefly outline how I understand the historia (which I think is more or less compatible with Vos): There are two administrations of the CoG: (1) the OT administration, characterized by type and shadow, beginning with the fall and continuing until Christ, the substance appears, and (2) the NT administration. Within the OT administration, there are three periods: (a) Adam to Abraham (characterized by the first promise), (b) Abraham to Moses (characterized by the AC), and (c) Moses to Christ (characterized by a more testamentary form).
2. You identify Kline’s view with Amyraldianism, I do not. Amyraut posited his three covenant system to water down Calvinism to four points and deny total depravity. Kline does not. Amyraut did not speak of a typological cov. of works doomed to fail because of Israel’s hard-heartedness. Kline does. So the similarities between Amyraut and Kline are superficial but not substantive.
I didn’t intend to identify Kline with Amyraldianism, but (if I’m not mistaken) it was they who formulated Bolton’s subservient covenant view. That’s all I meant.
3. You separate Kline from earlier writes who taught a typ. cow because Kline uses the term merit. But Kline presupposes merit wherever works oppose grace as a principle of inheritance. Merit is simply another way to say works in this setting. You do not grant this, I do.
Yes, I don’t think a condition necessarily implies merit. For example, Thomas Scott (btw, thank you for introducing me to him; he does seem to be a precursor to Kline in not only separating the MC from the CoG but also positing corporate obedience as the covenantal condition) does not suggest or imply that the condition of the MC is meritorious and I expect he would vehemently deny it.
So before I answer your questions, let’s catch up with mine.
Happy to oblige….
1. What is the fundamental difference between Kline and earlier writers like Hodge who speak of a typ. cow between God and Israel?
I don’t believe that Hodge labeled the MC “typological,” did he? (In another comment I can tell you why I don’t believe claiming Hodge for your position helps much. I do agree that there are superficial similarities, but a big problem is that his remarks (in the Sys Theo text) are so brief that his position is debatable. In fact I think it is just as likely, if not more so, that Hodge’s “national covenant” is the same as Turretin’s “external economy.” IOW, saying “My view is Hodge’s” doesn’t help if we can’t agree on what Hodge’s view actually is.)
2. How is the new covenant not like the MC (Jer 31), which Israel broke? If the MC is a covenant of grace how is it not like the NC?
But again, if the MC isn’t a covenant of grace, then how can it possibly not be a distinct covenant from the covenant of grace?
But to answer your question, the newness of the NC is administrative (accidental), not substantial. Here’s Calvin:
LikeLike
Todd,
To Jeff you wrote, “Whether in the form of a pedagogue or rule of life, the law is not a covenant.”
This is the point I made to you earlier, that the first use of the law Kline does not, as far as I am aware, label a covenant. So there is no three covenant view with him.
I do not understand this argument since the uses of the law is a different question from that of the nature of the MC.
LikeLike
Afterthought: However, if the law was a temporary legal covenant that was broken and not renewed, then doesn’t it become more difficult to view the moral law (as given in the Decalogue) as a rule that “does forever bind all”?
LikeLike
“And if you agree with this, then doesn’t it follow that for Kline, the MC and the CoG are distinct covenants (since in his view, they each have differing parties, promises and conditions)?”
David, we may be at the end because I feel like I am answering the same questions over and over, and you just don’t like the answers. So forgive me for the length of this post, but I at least I want the readers following us to understand the view regardless of their level of agreement.
As to your question above, the two are distinct in the principle of inheritance for the blessings of the covenant, one (the MC at the typological level), the blessings are inherited through Israel’s own obedience, and the other (COG) the blessings of the covenant come through the obedience of a representative. They are not distinct as to their aim – both reveal Jesus Christ as the only savior of sinners, one revealing grace through promises, symbols, types, etc., the other, demonstrating the necessity of obedience through a works arrangement that drives them to Christ because only he can attain their blessings through his obedience on their behalf.
“Yes, I don’t think a condition necessarily implies merit.”
Not in every situation, sure, there are conditions (faith) to receive the blessings of the COG, but faith is not a work before God, faith is a gift. When God grants the condition there is no type of merit involved. But God did not grant the Israelites the obedience required to fulfill the conditions of the MC, or they would not have failed and broken it. Thus in any cov. arrangement where works are required from man to fulfill it, whether Adam in the Garden or Israel in the typological MC, we can use the word merit with its proper qualifications.
“For example, Thomas Scott (btw, thank you for introducing me to him; he does seem to be a precursor to Kline in not only separating the MC from the CoG but also positing corporate obedience as the covenantal condition) does not suggest or imply that the condition of the MC is meritorious and I expect he would vehemently deny it.”
Scott wrote: The outward covenant was made with the Nation, entitling them to outward advantages, upon the condition of outward national obedience; and the covenant of Grace was ratified personally with true believers, and sealed and secured spiritual blessings to them, by producing a holy disposition of heart, and spiritual obedience to the Divine law.
As above, once you accept the notion of a condition being fulfilled through outward national obedience, there is pactum merit involved. It is anachronistic to suggest Scott would reject an understanding of pactum merit that wasn’t really in use yet. But the point is that Kline could avoid the term merit but still teach exactly what Scott writes above. As a matter of fact when I studied under Kline back in the 90’s he simply used the terms as expressed above; a national, typological covenant of works, I do not remember him ever speaking of merit in the classroom, nor were there any objections to his formulations such as with the accusations found in the book mentioned here.
I don’t believe that Hodge labeled the MC “typological,” did he?
Hodge wrote: “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.” Secondly, it contained, as does also the New Testament, a renewed proclamation of the original covenant of works.”
Hodge makes the same distinctions as Kline, a national, legal cow, but the law also individually demonstrating that the requirement of man back in the garden had not been revoked, the need for perfect obedience to attain eternal life. Because Hodge did not write that the national legal cov was typological does not mean he did not believe so. When he writes, “In the Old Testament there are frequent intimations of another and a better economy, to which the Mosaic institutions were merely preparatory,” it would be safe to assume that the national legal cov. he spoke of a few paragraphs before were included as preparatory, and since he believed Christ fulfilled the works principle of the law, then how else to understand a nat. legal cov. except that as a type it was fulfilled by Christ?
BTW, John Owen had no problem speaking of Israel’s potential merit after the fall – “It was not just any law, but the Mosaic Law that Christ fulfilled (Matt 5:17-18)… For this reason the Mosaic Covenant had to be a covenant of works. If it had not been, there would have been no hope for humanity… Imputed righteousness cannot exist without a covenant of works… In this sense God’s law does not exist outside of a covenant… This means that it was necessary for a covenant of works to be in operation during the life of Christ. For Christ to merit righteousness, He had to be born under the law; that is, born under a legal covenant of works… Otherwise, there would be no covenant to reward Him for His righteousness… If all this is true, then the Mosaic Covenant had to be a covenant based upon works; our salvation depended upon it… The Mosaic Covenant gave man another opportunity to merit life.” (Fatal Flaw 145-147)
(Not arguing Kline agrees in every way with Owen, just that Owen can speak of the potential of merit under Moses)
One more thing – it’s important to remember that in Kline’s view Israel never fulfilled the terms of the MC. Merit for blessing was held out as a possibility but according to the terms of the covenant they did not merit anything. Though the process was long for Israel to make their apostasy official and corporal, from the beginning they were turning to other gods. That’s why the prediction of failure as soon as the covenant was enacted and accepted (Deut. 31). The typological merit in different places in the old economy (Noah, the kings as their obedient acts were representatively applied the the people, etc.,) were not the successful fulfillments of the term of the covenant, but simply pictures of the active obedience of Christ.
I think we are back where we started. The authors of the book believe Kline and some WSC profs, in speaking of Israel’s merit in the MC in any sense, have introduced a Pelagianism into the reformed camp. I think you will see when the OPC study committee presents their findings on republication that as long as the proper qualifications and distinctions are made, there is nothing Pelagian about the view explicated in the book, The Law is Not of Faith”
I will leave you with one more quote from Kline explaining the view:
“A variety of purposes can be discovered to explain the insertion of the old covenant order and its typal kingdom into the course of redemptive history. Of central importance was the creation of the proper historical setting for the advent of the Son of God and his earthly mission (cf. Rom 9:5). In accordance with the terms of his covenant of works with the Father he was to come as the second Adam in order to undergo a representative probation and by his obedient and triumphant accomplishment thereof to establish the legal ground for God’s covenanted bestowal of the eternal kingdom of salvation on his people. It was therefore expedient, if not necessary, that Christ appear within a covenant order which, like the covenant with the first Adam, was governed by the works principle (cf. Gal 4:4). The typal kingdom of the old covenant was precisely that. Within the limitations of the fallen world and with modifications peculiar to the redemptive process, the old theocratic kingdom was a reproduction of the original covenantal order. Israel as the theocratic nation was mankind stationed once again in a paradise-sanctuary, under probation in a covenant of works. In the context of that situation, the Incarnation event was legible; apart from it the meaning of the appearing and ministry of the Son of Man would hardly have been perspicuous. Because of the congruence between Jesus’ particular historical identity as the true Israel, born under the law, and his universally relevant role as the second Adam, the significance of his mission as the accomplishing of a probationary assignment in a works covenant in behalf of the elect of all ages was lucidly expressed and readily readable.”
LikeLike
Todd,
Very clear and helpful post…
Jack
LikeLike
David,
To avoid a potential objection, I didn’t mean the term “pactum merit” was unknown in Scott’s time, but covenant, typological merit as Kline defines it avoiding medieval categories of merit the earlier writers did not usually avoid.
Carry on (my wayward son?)
LikeLike
I’ve temporarily given up on the coding. If anyone is familiar with using images in Matlab, let him speak up.
—
We need to sort some stuff out. I would like to straightforwardly argue for the correctness of this position:
The Mosaic Covenant was an administration of the Covenant of Grace in which a works-principle was deliberately attached, as accidental and not substantive, for the typological purpose of leading Israel to Christ in two ways: First, to demonstrate their inability to merit God’s favor; Second, to symbolize the meritorious obedience of Christ, who was the final Israel.
The argument that follows is long and essentially walks through Calv Inst 2.10-11. If you have that available, now is a good time …
But first, we start with a short and easy theorem:
The obvious application of the theorem is the OT sacrifices, which typified Christ who was to come. When he appeared, they became of no effect (Hebrews), from which we see that they were not of the substance of the covenant of grace.
The application at hand, however, are the various promises of temporal blessing and cursing on the condition of obedience.
Here is what Calvin had to say about those promises:
It is possible, indeed, to explain both in one word. The covenant made with all the fathers is so far from differing from ours in reality and substance, that it is altogether one and the same: still the administration differs. — Inst 2.10.2
After this, he goes into an extended disputation with Servetus and various Anabaptists, who had argued that the purpose of the Old Covenant, the end of it, was to bring the Jews to worship God in their own land. Over against this, he says,
Therefore, even from this confession of David, let us learn that the holy fathers under the Old Testament were not ignorant that in this world God seldom or never gives his servants the fulfilment of what is promised them, and therefore has directed their minds to his sanctuary, where the blessings not exhibited in the present shadowy life are treasured up for them. This sanctuary was the final judgment of God, which, as they could not at all discern it by the eye, they were contented to apprehend by faith. Inspired with this confidence, they doubted not that whatever might happen in the world, a time would at length arrive when the divine promises would be fulfilled. — Inst 2.10.17.
His argument comes to a climax here: that whenever the Prophets make mention of the happiness of believers (a happiness of which scarcely any vestiges are discernible in the present life), they must have recourse to this distinction: that the better to commend the Divine goodness to the people, they used temporal blessings as a kind of lineaments to shadow it forth, and yet gave such a portrait as might lift their minds above the earth, the elements of this world, and all that will perish, and compel them to think of the blessedness of a future and spiritual life. — Inst 2.10.20.
He then summarizes: Let us then lay it down confidently as a truth which no engines of the devil can destroy—that the Old Testament or covenant which the Lord made with the people of Israel was not confined to earthly objects, but contained a promise of spiritual and eternal life, the expectation of which behaved to be impressed on the minds of all who truly consented to the covenant. Let us put far from us the senseless and pernicious notion, that the Lord proposed nothing to the Jews, or that they sought nothing but full supplies of food, carnal delights, abundance of wealth, external influence, a numerous offspring, and all those things which our animal nature deems valuable. — Inst 2.10.23.
It is abundantly evident, then, that Calvin
(1) viewed the temporal promises to the Jews as types of the heavenly blessings to come,
(2) thereby viewed the Mosaic Covenant was of one substance with the New, for it promised the same blessing,
(3) and thereby did not view the temporal blessings of the Mosaic Covenant to be substantial in that covenant, but accidental to it (using our Theorem).
What then are the differences between the Mosaic and New? These he deals with in the next chapter. Acc to Calvin, there five, all administrative and not substantial — that is, accidental and not substantial.
These differences (so far as I have been able to observe them and can remember) seem to be chiefly four, or, if you choose to add a fifth, I have no objections. I hold and think I will be able to show, that they all belong to the mode of administration rather than to the substance. — Inst 2.11.1
They are
This is a repetition of his previous argument in 2.10.
And then he makes a subtle distinction. Not all typologies are acceptable:
That is, the typology was not towards us only, but towards the Jews as well. It is for this reason that the Mosaic was of the same substance as the New: it held out hope of salvation to the Jews, typified in their temporal blessings.
He then finishes beating this horse:
— Inst 2.11.3.
So that we notice here that not only were the terrestrial blessings, but also the bodily punishments, were types.
He moves on …
This is obviously similar to 1., but the difference here will focus not on the promises but the ceremonies.
— Inst. 2.11.4.
Notice the logic: “Although these were merely accidents of the covenant, or at least additions and appendages, and, as they are commonly called, accessories, yet because they were the means of administering it, the name of covenant is applied to them, just as is done in the case of other sacraments.”
Hang on to that thought, for we proceed now from the ceremonies to the blessings and punishments under the Law.
— Inst 2.11.7-8
Notice what Paul says of the Law in contrast to the Gospel: (1) the promises of mercy within the Law are accidental, not substantial; (2) the function of the law is to reward right behavior and punish wrong.
This is a genuine contrast between the Mosaic and the New. In what sense a contrast? In that it is administrative, not substantial.
He then goes on to discuss the state of Israelites under the law:
— Inst 2.11.9
Notice that this is in opposition to the principle that you articulated, that “the works-principle was in operation only for unbelievers.” For Calvin, the works-principle delivered fear to all, but less to believers than non-believers.
Calvin now pauses to consider the four differences alleged:
Here, finally, we have the principle that you have been waiting for: that believers properly understood the covenant of grace, while non-believers did not.
Notice how different Calvin’s construction is from yours, however. For you, the failure to understand the covenant of grace turned that covenant into a covenant of works. For Calvin, the works-principle is present to all, typifying eternal judgment to come. Failure to apprehend this fact left the OT unbeliever in a state of fear.
This is a crucial difference. For Calvin, faith receives the grace of Christ found in the types. Faith is an instrument.
Your position, on the other hand, appears to make faith the ground of blessing: because of faith, the OT believer experienced grace, while the unbeliever experienced works.
This is why the repubs have concerns about positions like Murray’s, and why we believe that the anti-repub position ultimately mingles faith and works.
Finally, to the fifth difference:
Let us summarize the argument so far. For Calvin, the works-principle of the Law was
* An accidental feature of the covenant because
* It was in reference to temporal blessings and punishments, which
* Were types of the real blessing contained in the substance of the covenant of grace: possession of the eternal kingdom.
* Was tied to a specific nation-state of Israel
This construction is incompatible with the view that the Law’s sanctions are the same in kind (but different in degree) from God’s treatment of believers in the New Covenant.
Objections:
(1) But if there is a works-principle in the Law, then this means that the Law was a separate covenant. Since we know that the Mosaic was of one substance with the New, it follows that the Law contained no works-principle within it (except to unbelievers).
This objection errs in the first premise. The works-principle was administrative, typological, accidental.
The easiest way to see the error is to observe that there is self-evidently a works-principle in Deut 28-30. If the objection were to be correct, it would follow that Deut 28-30 could not be a part of the Mosaic Covenant, which is absurd.
(2) The works-principle arose because of the unbelief of the Israelites: They attempted to use the Law as a means of justification, and were destroyed by their unbelief.
This objection takes two correct facts and wrongly relates them. It is certainly true that (some) Jews encountered by Paul and Jesus attempted to use the Law as a means of justification. And it is also true that they were destroyed because of their unbelief (Hebrews again!)
But their unbelief consisted in failing to see Christ in the symbols. Their hope, their justification rested in the type, not the substance.
Hence, it is false reasoning to move from
* The Jews failed to recognize the substance in the types
* And they failed by unbelief
to
* And therefore, there was no works-principle in the types.
There is no logical “there” there.
(3) The notion of a typological works-principle requires a redefinition of merit: Since in the repub position, the Israelites merited temporal blessings by obedience, it follows that a crypto-Pelagian notion of merit must be in play: that Israelites would have to have merited without the assistance of grace.
This objection fails because it assumes that “merit” (or even “strict merit”) has reference to congruent merit, rather than merit pactum.
But in fact, the repub position does not posit that Israel’s obedience would have of itself been meritorious so as to earn the land of Israel. No, the only merit in view here is the merit per the terms of the covenant. (I’ll go out on a limb: There is no such thing as congruent merit, inasmuch as there can only be value according to contract … but I digress)
If the merit is relative to the terms of the covenant, then there is no possibility of a Pelagian scheme. It mattered not whether the obedience would have been “on their own” or “graciously assisted.” It still would have met the condition required by the covenant, and hence would have been the ground for reward.
I want to reiterate that point, because it underscores my discomfort with the general term “condition.” You have repeatedly noted that faith is the “condition” for participation in the New Covenant. Strictly speaking, this is true.
But conditions come in many flavors. One of the most common is “ground” — because of X, you receive Y. And “ground” is the term associated with merit.
So the proposition “faith is the condition of the New Covenant” comes close to saying that we are received into the New Covenant on the ground of our faith. And we agree, I hope, that this construction is unConfessional.
For that reason, I try to be clear about the difference between condition (generic) and ground (specific).
Objection: The accidental features of the covenant were only for those who did not receive its substance — that is, for unbelievers.
In some ways, this objection is a repetition of the second, but with the focus on the heart condition of the recipients.
This objection fails because it would force the covenant to have two different meanings according to the heart condition of the recipient: For those who receive it by faith, the Mosaic was the covenant of grace; for those who received it by works, it was a covenant of works.
Did God’s word have two meanings? May it never be. When God delivered the covenant at Sinai, it had one unitary meaning — a substance of grace, administered by accidents of works. Those who received it by faith received the grace by peering through the veil of the sacrifices. Those who did not, failed to receive the grace that was genuinely offered to them.
Their unbelief did not change the meaning of the covenant!
—
Whew. I hope this helps clarify some things.
LikeLike
Unlike those who will contrast the Mosaic covenant with the new covenant, but who will not contrast the law for Abraham’s children with the new covenant conditioned only on Christ, Hodge saw a distinction between the different promises given to Abraham and his children.
Hodge—-“If, then, the Church is the body of Christ; if a man becomes a member of that body by faith; if multitudes of those who profess in baptism the true religion, are not believers, then it is just as certain that the external body consisting of the baptized is not the Church, as that a man’s calling himself a Christian does not make him a Christian.
Hodge—As the Church is holy, the body and bride of Christ, the temple and family of God, all members of that organization are holy, members of Christ’s body, and partakers of his life… Then, moreover, as Christ saves all the members of his body and none other, he saves all included in this external organization, and consigns to eternal death all out of it… It becomes those who call themselves Protestants, to look these consequences in the face, before they join the Papists and Puseyites in ridiculing the idea of a Church composed exclusively of believers, and insist that the body to which the attributes and promises of the Church belong, is the visible organization of professing Christians.
Hodge—That the Church is a visible society, consisting of the professors of the true religion, as distinguished from the body of true believers, known only to God, is plain, they say, because under the old dispensation it was such a society, embracing all the descendants of Abraham who professed the true religion, and received the sign of circumcision… The Church exists as an external society now as it did then; what once belonged to the commonwealth of Israel, now belongs to the visible Church. As union with the commonwealth of Israel was necessary to salvation then, so union with the visible Church was necessary to salvation now. And as subjection to the priesthood, and especially to the high-priest, was necessary to union with Israel then, so submission to the regular ministry…. is necessary to union with the Church now. Such is the argument of Romanists; and such we are sorry to say is the argument of some Protestants, and even of some Presbyterians.”
Hodge—The fallacy of this whole argument lies in the false assumption, that the external Israel was the true Church… The attributes, promises, prerogatives of the one, were not those of the other. If it were true, then the true Church rejected and crucified Christ; for he was rejected by the external Israel, by the Sanhedrin… Paul avoids this fatal conclusion by denying that the external Church is, as such, the true Church, or that the promises made to the latter were made to the former.
Hodge—It is to be remembered that there were two covenants made with Abraham. By the one, his natural descendants through Isaac were constituted a commonwealth, an external, visible community. By the other, his spiritual descendants were constituted a Church. The parties to the former covenant were God and the nation; to the other, God and his true people. The promises of the national covenant were national blessings; the promises of the spiritual covenant, (i.e. of the covenant of grace) were spiritual blessings, reconciliation, holiness, and eternal life. The conditions of the one covenant were circumcision and obedience to the law; the condition of the latter was, is, and ever has been, faith in the Messiah as the seed of the woman, the Son of God, and the Savior of the world. There cannot be a greater mistake than to confound the national covenant with the covenant of grace, and the commonwealth founded on the one with the Church founded on the other.”
LikeLike