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 
Calvin—-the law here and there contains promises of mercy; but because they have been borrowed from elsewhere, they are not counted part of the law when only the nature of the law is under discussion. They ascribe to it only this function: to enjoin what is right, to forbid what is wicked; to promise a reward to the keepers of righteousness, and threaten transgressors with punishment; but at the same time not to change or correct the depravity of heart that by nature inheres in all men (2.11.7)
LikeLike
Jeff,
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.
I think you’re close, but I would want to amend your position (if you don’t mind) as follows:
The Mosaic Covenant was an administration of the Covenant of Grace in which the stipulation “Do this and live” was deliberately attached, as accidental and not substantive, for the purpose of leading Israel to Christ in two ways: First, to demonstrate their inability to merit God’s favor; Second, to reveal the righteous standard for the meritorious obedience of Christ, who was the second Adam.
But first, we start with a short and easy theorem:
Theorem: Typological features of the covenant of grace are always accidental, never substantial
Proof: By the definition of substance, anything about an object that changes without changing the identity of that object is necessarily accidental. And typological features of the covenant necessarily change (disappear) when the antitype appears. Yet, all sides agree that the substance of the covenant of grace remains the same from the fall through revelation.
It follows therefore that all typological features of the covenant of grace must be accidental and are never substantial, QED.
Sounds good to me.
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).
Yes! I agree.
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.”
I’m not sure whether I agree, but let me give my understanding and we can compare: Essentially he is saying that the difference between the OT and NT (or OC and NC) is not substantial but merely administrative (accidental) in that the former is administered by ceremonies that are rendered obsolete (because accidental) once Christ the substance appears. Is this basically how you understand him?
Hang on to that thought, for we proceed now from the ceremonies to the blessings and punishments under the Law.
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.
I’m not sure I understand you here, so again, let me give my interpretation of the Calvin’s citation and let me know whether you disagree. Calvin in this passage is not speaking of the Mosaic covenant proper; rather, he is speaking of the Mosaic covenant strictly considered (“as considered only in its own nature”), that is, abstracted from promises of grace. In this sense, the promises of mercy are “adventitious to it,” that is, they are not part of its substance. IOW, he is speaking of what we generally term “the moral law” (not the MC proper), which in and of itself demands perfect and personal obedience and gives no quarter. So the contrast he is making is not between the MC and the NC (which are the same in substance); rather, he is describing the law-gospel antithesis (which of course are different in substance). Would you agree?
He then goes on to discuss the state of Israelites under the law:
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.
Jeff, here is where you are going off the rails. Calvin is not talking about believers being under (or afraid of) a works principle. In the first part of the paragraph he is speaking of the moral law in its pedagogical use driving the Israelites to Christ (“… but feeling that by the Law they were oppressed like slaves, and vexed with a disquieted conscience, they fled for refuge to the gospel”). He says absolutely nothing about them being under a works principle (and I assure you he would vehemently deny it). In the second part of the paragraph, he is saying that the liberty of OT believers was essentially that of believers under the NT, yet they were still bound to the ceremonial observances. For corroboration, consider WCF 20:1:
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.
Huh? I never said that (and if I did, I certainly didn’t mean it). What I said was that the Jews misinterpreted the true intent of the law (pedagogue unto Christ) and devised a false end (covenant of works). As Turretin explains:
Neither Calvin nor Turretin posit the law as a works principle; rather for both it is a pedagogue unto Christ. It is only a works principle for those who perverted it.
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.
Sorry, I don’t recognize myself at all in your characterization….
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.
What is why? You’ve completely lost me….
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
Sorry, my friend, you have distorted Calvin beyond recognition. Here is where you’ve completely lost me and I believe completely lost Calvin. I’m tempted to stop here since we’ll agree on nothing from this point on but I’ll press on….
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.
What?! Whoever said that “the Law’s sanctions are the same in kind (but different in degree) from God’s treatment of believers in the New Covenant”? What I did say (or at least would say) is that the law’s sanctions of eternal life/damnation are proposed openly in the NT but typified by temporal sanctions in the OT. These temporal sanctions are accidental, as the substance is eternal sanctions, as you noted above. Daniel in exile was not substantially exiled from the presence of God (any more than an unbeliever during the peak of Solomon’s reign substantially experienced God’s favor).
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.
I will continue to maintain the principal that wherever you posit a works principle (accidental or not), you are positing a covenant (accidental or not). What you have constructed in this essay of yours is an accidental covenant, accessory to the CoG. You are reading this construction into Calvin.
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.
Maybe we need to define “works principle.” How about this: A works principle of inheritance (or retention) is that principle of inheritance whereby blessings are promised on the ground of obedience. How’s that?
If what you are saying is that Deut 28-30 presents the demands and sanctions of the covenant of works, then yes! I agree. If you take Deut 28-30 in and of itself, apart from its redemptive context, it is the covenant of works. If you enter into a covenant with God with Deut 28-30 as your charter, then you are under a covenant of works. But, as I thought you had agreed with me above, Deut 28-30 is not is not the charter of the covenant and only those who ignored the true end (pedagogue unto Christ) and devised a false one (covenant of works) found themselves under a works principle.
Please, if you have Turretin, read the entire section on “The Covenant of Grace and Its Twofold Economy” in volume 2. You won’t regret it!
(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)
No, I would not say that “The notion of a typological works-principle requires a redefinition of merit.” What I would say is that (1) a works principle entails a legal covenant distinct from the covenant of grace and (2) its the notion that sinners can merit anything but condemnation (by pactum or otherwise) that requires a redefinition of merit. The concept of pactum merit explains how innocent Adam could merit life by perfect and personal obedience. It does not explain how Adam post-fall (or Noah, Abraham, David etc.) could merit anything from God (temporal and typological or otherwise).
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 understand the principle. I just believe it’s terribly misapplied to post-fall reality.
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.
Of course I agree that we need to carefully define what we mean by conditions in the CoG/Pactum salutis. I don’t see the connection with this debate though….
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!
I don’t recognize this objection as one I would raise. In our discussion thus far, we have spoken of “accidental features” in two ways (or at least this is how I understand Calvin and also my own understanding): (1) The ceremonial law with its types and shadows of Christ were accidental to the CoG and were thus set aside when Christ the substance appeared, and (2) The law’s stipulation, “Do this and live” was accidental to the MC because its intent was pedagogical, i.e., not that Israel should embrace it as a covenant of works.
Again, the MC has one unitary meaning but those who pervert it devise another meaning.
Whew. I hope this helps clarify some things.
“Whew” is right…. Hopefully this helps clarify some things too….
LikeLike
@ David R: I am pleased that we agree on as much as we do.
And I would like to pause for a moment and say something that didn’t come out in my last. And that is this: at the core, we are both trying to preserve the graciousness of the covenant of grace.
That is, we are both (in our own ways) trying to keep the Law-Gospel distinction clear and alive.
In other words, our discussion is about means and not the end. And for that, I am glad.
LikeLike
OK, I need to poke at some things that seem confused.
The first is that you keep returning to this point:
(1) a works principle entails a legal covenant distinct from the covenant of grace
This is really the central premise of your entire objection to republication, as I understand it. The short-hand of your argument appears to be,
(1),
Therefore republication entails a subservient covenant,
which we know is wrong,
so republication must be wrong.
However, (1) is precisely the issue on the table. So I would ask you to back up a moment and satisfy my stupidity: How do you know that (1) is true? Can you substantiate it with teaching from Scripture? Or is it simply obvious to you?
Specifically, how do you know that (1) is true in the face of an alternative possibility: That the sanctions of the Law were added to the covenant of grace in an accidental or accessory manner, rather than a substantive one?
The second is that you appear to contradict yourself. And perhaps I’m simply not understanding you, but here it is.
JRC: For you, the failure to understand the covenant of grace turned that covenant into a covenant of works.
DR: Huh? I never said that (and if I did, I certainly didn’t mean it). What I said was that the Jews misinterpreted the true intent of the law (pedagogue unto Christ) and devised a false end (covenant of works).
DR: It [the Law] is only a works principle for those who perverted it.
DR: If you take Deut 28-30 in and of itself, apart from its redemptive context, it is the covenant of works. If you enter into a covenant with God with Deut 28-30 as your charter, then you are under a covenant of works. But, as I thought you had agreed with me above, Deut 28-30 is not is not the charter of the covenant and only those who ignored the true end (pedagogue unto Christ) and devised a false one (covenant of works) found themselves under a works principle.
DR: In our discussion thus far, we have spoken of “accidental features” in two ways (or at least this is how I understand Calvin and also my own understanding): (1) The ceremonial law with its types and shadows of Christ were accidental to the CoG and were thus set aside when Christ the substance appeared, and (2) The law’s stipulation, “Do this and live” was accidental to the MC because its intent was pedagogical, i.e., not that Israel should embrace it as a covenant of works.
Again, the MC has one unitary meaning but those who pervert it devise another meaning.
It’s hard for me to understand how you are not saying that the Law (which is certainly a part of the Mosaic Covenant) becomes a covenant of works for those who misunderstand it.
In fact, when you get here, you seem to be fully agreeing with me!
DR: What I did say (or at least would say) is that the law’s sanctions of eternal life/damnation are proposed openly in the NT but typified by temporal sanctions in the OT. These temporal sanctions are accidental, as the substance is eternal sanctions, as you noted above.
Can you unravel the seeming contradiction here? Perhaps these two questions might help.
Do you understand “do this and live” to be something that (say) Deut 28-30 actually says? Or does it not actually say it?
Likewise, for those who misunderstood the covenant, did the law actually become for them a curse, or did they only imagine that they were under a curse?
I would think that if Deut 28-30 actually says “do this and live”, then to perceive that it says so is not a misunderstanding.
Likewise, if the OT law became an actual, real curse for some group (even if because they had misunderstood the substance of the covenant), then does it not follow that the OT law contained that curse within it?
The third thing is that you seem to be vacillating back and forth between the moral law and the Mosaic covenant. For example, you write
DR: Calvin in this passage [Inst 2.11.7-8] is not speaking of the Mosaic covenant proper; rather, he is speaking of the Mosaic covenant strictly considered (“as considered only in its own nature”), that is, abstracted from promises of grace. In this sense, the promises of mercy are “adventitious to it,” that is, they are not part of its substance. IOW, he is speaking of what we generally term “the moral law” (not the MC proper), which in and of itself demands perfect and personal obedience and gives no quarter. So the contrast he is making is not between the MC and the NC (which are the same in substance); rather, he is describing the law-gospel antithesis (which of course are different in substance).
This is an impossible reading. For Calvin is pointing out the differences between the Mosaic covenant proper and the New Covenant proper. This paragraph is describing the third of five such differences. If were speaking of the moral law (which he does elsewhere, and does, as you say, ascribe a works-principle to it with regard to justification), then he could not posit this as a difference between the two covenants, for as you know, the moral law remains constant between Old and New Covenants.
Further, in the very next paragraph, he makes explicitly clear that he is speaking of the contrast between the Old and New Covenants.
Now where we do agree is that Calvin is describing the law-gospel antithesis. But it is important to understand that the Old Testament Law, the part of the Mosaic Covenant delivered on Sinai, is for Calvin a shadowy reflection of the moral.
And I refer you again here for emphasis:
JC: The three last contrasts to which we have adverted (sec. 4, 7, 9), are between the Law and the Gospel, and hence in these the Law is designated by the name of the Old, and the Gospel by that of the New Testament. … And here also, with regard to the holy fathers, it is to be observed, that though they lived under the Old Testament, they did not stop there, but always aspired to the New, and so entered into sure fellowship with it. Those who, contented with existing shadows, did not carry their thoughts to Christ, the Apostle charges with blindness and malediction. — Inst
Note that he identifies the Law (which contrasts with Gospel) with the Old Testament and with shadows, and not solely with the moral law. The self-same identification occurs (in boldface!) in the section you quoted from Turretin.
The same vacillation occurs in your treatment of the next section:
DR: Calvin is not talking about believers being under (or afraid of) a works principle. In the first part of the paragraph he is speaking of the moral law in its pedagogical use driving the Israelites to Christ (“… but feeling that by the Law they were oppressed like slaves, and vexed with a disquieted conscience, they fled for refuge to the gospel”). He says absolutely nothing about them being under a works principle (and I assure you he would vehemently deny it). In the second part of the paragraph, he is saying that the liberty of OT believers was essentially that of believers under the NT, yet they were still bound to the ceremonial observances.
Again, if Calvin were speaking of the moral law, then he could not be speaking of a contrast between Old and New. For the moral law has in no way been diminished in force in the New Covenant.
I understand how you connect Calvin here to WCF 20.1. But you overlook the judicial law. Were the Israelites afraid because they were forbidden to eat shellfish? Or were they rather afraid because if caught collecting wood on the Sabbath, they would be stoned to death?
It is principally in the judicial law that we see the works-principle typified. The judicial law did not make a distinction between believer or non-believer. It operated on the principle of “obey and live; disobey and be punished.” Faith was no part of that equation.
So to recap:
* Defend (1)
* Help me understand the seeming contradiction
* Clarify why you seem to vacillate between the moral law and the Old Testament Law in reading Inst 2.11.
LikeLike
Buzzer-beater!
DR: What you have constructed in this essay of yours is an accidental covenant
You may have been being witty here, but you do understand that there can be no such thing as “an accidental covenant.”
Accidents are characteristics of substances, adjectives for the nouns. “An accidental covenant” has as much meaning as “a pretty” or “a jogging.”
I wonder if you are reading the word “accidental” to mean “not intended”? Or perhaps you were just being funny.
LikeLike
So I don’t own Turretin, and at $100/3 vol, I’m not likely to purchase the whole thing soon.
So I will grant that you have the advantage of context in the reading of FT.
Still and all, Bob S’s quote seems quite dispositive to me. Here again:
FT, quoted by BobS: Meanwhile it pleased God to administer the covenant of grace in this period under a rigid legal economy–both on account of the condition of the people still in infancy and on account of the putting off of the advent of Christ and the satisfaction to be rendered by him. A twofold relation ought always to obtain: the one legal, more severe, through which by a new promulgation of the law and of the covenant of works, with an intolerable yoke of ceremonies, he wished to set forth what men owed and what was to be expected by them on account of duty unperformed…. The other relation was evangelical, sweeter, inasmuch as “the law was a schoolmaster unto Christ” (Gal 3:24) and contained “the shadow of things to come” (Heb 10:1), whose body and express image is in Christ.
According to that twofold relation, the administration can be viewed either as to the external economy of legal teaching or as to the internal truth of the gospel promise lying under it. The matter of that external economy was the threefold law–moral, ceremonial and forensic. The first was fundamental; the remaining appendices of it. The form was the pact added to that external dispensation, which on the part of God was the promise of the land of Canaan and of rest and happiness in it; and, under the image of each, of heaven and the rest in him (Heb 4:3, 9); or of eternal life according to the clause, “Do this and live.” On the part of the people, it was a stipulation of obedience to the whole law or righteousness both perfect (Dt 27:26; Gal 3:10) and personal and justification by it (Rom 2:13). But this stipulation in the Israelite covenant was only accidental, since it was added only in order that man by its weakness might be led to reject his own righteousness and to embrace another’s, latent under the law.[12:7:31,32]
Notice that the “external economy of legal teaching” does not arise from a misunderstanding. Further, it is identified as a “new promulgation of the law and of the covenant of works.” Further, that external economy set forth “what men owed and what was to be expected by them on account of duty unperformed.”
It would appear that we have * an external (accidental) legal framework that, * is a republication of the CoW, that *operates by a works-principle.
So help me understand how Turretin is saying anything different from what I’ve said? How does the larger context change things?
LikeLike
Hey, you know what? I realized this morning that we’re wading into shoulder-high weeds. Let’s do this a much easier way. Let’s start with something that I feel confident that we have 100% agreement on: the moral law and justification. I’m sure that we agree to the following principles:
* The moral law was given to Adam as a covenant of works. WCF 19.1.
* It was republished at Sinai. WCF 19.2
* The moral law, of itself, functions according to a works-principle: do this and live, disobey and die.
* That works-principle was unable to be satisfied by anyone except Adam (hypothetically) and Jesus (actually) because of the sin nature.
* So the republishing of the moral law at Sinai was not intended that Israel would actually be able to fulfill it, but rather for Israelites to see their inability and thereby perceive the Messiah through the sacrifices.
* But the republishing of the moral law at Sinai *was* intended that Jesus should fulfill it.
* The works-principle of the moral law, therefore, was not of the substance of the Mosaic covenant, but accidental to it.
* And in particular, the giving of the law at Sinai to Israel (who would fail) was a type of the fulfillment of the Law by Christ, the true Israel and the true son of David (thus, federal head of Israel).
If we agree so far, as I am confident that we do, then you must abandon (1). For it is unquestionable that
* The Mosaic Covenant contained the moral law as a component (10 Commandments!)
* The moral law operates according to a works-principle of itself. This is true in all ages: pre-Abrahamic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, and New. (Calvin discusses the works-principle of the moral law in Inst 2.7)
* The works-principle within the moral law was not therefore operative only for non-believers, but for all. To Israelites, as a source of failure. To Jesus, as the ground for purchasing our salvation.
* Therefore, the Mosaic Covenant contains within it a component that operates by works-principle — yet not of the substance (for it was never intended that Israelites should be able to keep the law and live), but as accident, as a type of Christ keeping the moral law on their and our behalf.
Thus the moral law. And this reasoning directly falsifies the proposition (1), that anything operating by a works-principle would necessarily belong to a separate covenant. On the contrary, in the moral law republished at Sinai, we have an echo of the covenant of works that is functioning *not as a separate covenant* but as an accidental (meaning: attribute, not substance) feature of the covenant of grace.
LikeLike
Jeff,
Thanks for all of the above. I’m pondering it, and will say more later, but for now, but let me try this (at the risk of being repetitious):
When Jesus said to the rich young ruler, “Do this and you will live,” the stipulation was accidental, because Jesus’s intent was not actually to enter into a covenant of works with the man, i.e., place him under a works principle of inheritance. On the contrary, Jesus’s intent was to humble the man in the sense of his sin and misery and help him to a clearer sight of his need for Christ (WLC 95). IOW, Jesus was preaching the law in its second use.
Do you agree?
Therefore, if the RYR, after listening to Jesus, then set about to endeavor to merit life by his obedience, we would conclude that he has seriously (and fatally) misunderstood Jesus’s intent, wouldn’t we? And the precise nature of the misunderstanding would not be in thinking that someone who perfectly obeys inherits eternal life (which is true), but rather in thinking that he should attempt to merit life by his own obedience (which is false).
Agreed?
What I have been trying to argue is that this is precisely how the law was intended to function as given to Israel. The stipulation was accidental, i.e., God never intended to enter into a legal (i.e., works-based) covenant with Israel, nor did he ever enter into such a covenant with them. It was only those who misunderstood the intent of the giving of the law who devised a sort of counterfeit CoW for themselves.
Does this help any?
LikeLike
Jeff,
Maybe this is a way to simplify it:
I take it for granted that, in order for a works principle to exist, two things are necessary:
1. Two parties must enter into a covenant.
2. The condition of that covenant must be works.
Given the above, I then reason that God’s dealings with Israel don’t satisfy #2. Ergo, no works principle.
What have I missed?
LikeLike
Paul’s reasoning in Galatia is covenant-historical. Paul distinguishes the Abrahamic covenant from the Sinai covenant as each was instituted by God, not as either covenant was or was not later perverted either by Jews or by Christians. When he says “nomos,” he most emphatically does not mean some first-century aberration of that covenant, whether Jewish or Christian. He means the Sinai covenant as it was instituted by God through the hand of Moses…
This translation error, erroneous enough in its own right, also flies in the face of the text.
Note that Paul does not condemn any alleged abuse of the Sinai covenant here. It is not those
who abuse (“rely on”) the law who are under a curse; it is those who are covenantally under the
law that are under its threatening curse-sanction. Twice here Paul quotes the law’s own words,9
indicating that the curse-sanction was an inherent part of the administration itself, long before
anyone allegedly perverted or distorted it. It was not, that is, some later false reliance on the law
that cursed; it was disobedience to its statutes and ordinances in the first generation (and in all
subsequent generations) that cursed…
… it was not some famous (or obscure) first-century Jewish sectarian who said, “The one
who does them shall live by them;” it was Moses who said this in Leviticus 18:5. It was not the
Law, as allegedly perverted a millenium after Moses that Paul discussed in Galatians 3, but the
law which came 430 years after the Abrahamic covenant that Paul discusses (Gal. 3:17).</i?
Click to access abraham_and_sinai_contraste.pdf
LikeLike
Jeff,
* The Mosaic Covenant contained the moral law as a component (10 Commandments!)
* The moral law operates according to a works-principle of itself. This is true in all ages: pre-Abrahamic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, and New. (Calvin discusses the works-principle of the moral law in Inst 2.7)
* The works-principle within the moral law was not therefore operative only for non-believers, but for all. To Israelites, as a source of failure. To Jesus, as the ground for purchasing our salvation.
Has the moral law been abrogated? Therefore you would argue that the works principle continues to be operative for all?
It is true that the moral law in and of itself is the charter for the covenant of works. But since the fall, that use of the moral law has been rendered obsolete. What I am saying is that the moral law was given to Israel as a pedagogue unto Christ and antecedently as a rule of life, and that this is precisely the way the moral law is given under the NC.
LikeLike
Q. 93. What is the moral law?
A. The moral law is the declaration of the will of God to mankind, directing and binding every one to personal, perfect, and perpetual conformity and obedience thereunto, in the frame and disposition of the whole man, soul, and body, and in performance of all those duties of holiness and righteousness which he oweth to God and man: promising life upon the fulfilling, and threatening death upon the breach of it [CoW].
The uses of the moral law can be to lead one to Christ and also as a rule of righteousness (as well as all that is in Q. 97). But it would seem according to Q. 93 that some aspect of the covenant of works is intrinsically part of the the moral law. Therefore the reprobate is today still under it (i.e the moral law as a covenant of works) and therefore liable to its sanction of death for not providing complete obedience. The elect are not under the law as a CoW but under grace as a covenant (Rom. 6:14) because Christ Jesus as their Surety replaced them under law (Gal. 4:4) and he, having born their curse and fulfilled the moral law for them as a covenant of works, merited the promise of life for the elect under the Covenant of Grace. This only makes sense if the promise and curse of the CoW is still put forth in the moral law. It remains but as a believer I’m not under it.
LikeLike
David R: Thanks.
DR: if the RYR, after listening to Jesus, then set about to endeavor to merit life by his obedience, we would conclude that he has seriously (and fatally) misunderstood Jesus’s intent, wouldn’t we? And the precise nature of the misunderstanding would not be in thinking that someone who perfectly obeys inherits eternal life (which is true), but rather in thinking that he should attempt to merit life by his own obedience (which is false).
Yes. Specifically, he would bring his inability into contact with the covenant of works, and die thereby.
DR: When Jesus said to the rich young ruler, “Do this and you will live,” the stipulation was accidental, because Jesus’s intent was not actually to enter into a covenant of works with the man, i.e., place him under a works principle of inheritance. On the contrary, Jesus’s intent was to humble the man in the sense of his sin and misery and help him to a clearer sight of his need for Christ (WLC 95). IOW, Jesus was preaching the law in its second use.
OK, good, we’ve isolated the issue.
YES to your characterization of intent. Jesus’ intent was to humble the man in the pedagogical sense. So if we’re thinking about the Mosaic covenant and the republication on Mt Sinai per WCF 7.2, Jesus’ intent is to use the shadow of the CoW to direct the man to the reality of the CoG.
A partial NO to your characterization of accident. When Jesus says “do this and live”, there is a pedagogical use in the Mosaic Covenant that is accidental (because typological). But there is also, underlying that, a very real expression of the CoW. It is literally true that the moral law requires “do this and live”, and that the very person (Jesus) standing before the RYR is the one who will actually keep the Law.
So “do this and live” is substantial with respect to the moral law. The moral law in the form of the Decalogue is attached administratively, hence accidentally, to the Mosaic Covenant in order to have a pedagogical use.
So I would say that the RYR was *already* under the CoW, and already dead because of it (both federally under Adam and actually because of his own sin). Jesus is not inviting him to enter into a CoW, but inviting him to realize his death, and need for life, and to understand that “no one is good but God” (as in, Jesus).
Where we differ appears to be on this question of the meaning of ‘accident.’ You seem to think (maybe? I’m interpolating here) that ‘accident’ is a synonym for ‘not intended’, as in:
Jesus did not intend for the RYR to enter into the CoW, so his expression of ‘do this and live’ is accidental.
Whereas I am understanding ‘accidental’ to mean ‘an attribute not of the essence’, as in:
The essence of the Mosaic Covenant was grace through faith, the essence of the CoW was ‘do this and live’. So Jesus’ expression of ‘do this and live’ was accidental wrt the Mosaic, substantial wrt the CoW. He is intended for the RYR to realize his death under the CoW so that he may have live under the CoG.
LikeLike
DR: Has the moral law been abrogated?
No.
Therefore you would argue that the works principle continues to be operative for all?
Absolutely! Inability of course means that all are under the sentence of death, both in Adam and of themselves. But if the works principle were no longer operative, there would be no guilt.
It is true that the moral law in and of itself is the charter for the covenant of works. But since the fall, that use of the moral law has been rendered obsolete.
I think you want to mean that since the fall, there is no real possibility of fallen man meriting life under it. But if that use had been rendered obsolete, then (1) there would be no guilt for those who are reckoned as disobedient, and worse (2) it would be impossible for Jesus to have merited life for us by his obedience.
Pause for a moment here and think about the statistical correlation between those who oppose republication and those who deny active obedience. I know that you are not one of those, but you must admit that every single denier of active obedience is also an opponent of republication. This is not an ‘accidental’ (heh-heh) connection. If we deny that that works-principle continued in force, then we cannot believe that Christ’s obedience was meritorious on our behalf.
What I am saying is that the moral law was given to Israel as a pedagogue unto Christ and antecedently as a rule of life, and that this is precisely the way the moral law is given under the NC.
I would say rather that the moral law as republished in the Decalogue serves those exact functions *because* it points to the real requirement of righteousness under the CoW, which when combined with our inability leaves but one possibility: righteousness extra nos.
LikeLike
Jeff,
Related to what I wrote about, your premise above that “The Mosaic Covenant contained the moral law as a component (10 Commandments!)” is unclear to me because I am not sure what you mean by “component.” In my view, the moral law had precisely the same uses under the MC as it does under the NC, but in your use of that term (component), I wonder whether you would agree with me.
LikeLike
Jeff,
Me: Therefore you would argue that the works principle continues to be operative for all?
You: Absolutely! Inability of course means that all are under the sentence of death, both in Adam and of themselves. But if the works principle were no longer operative, there would be no guilt.
But the question is whether the works principle is operative FOR ALL, including believers. Hopefully we would both deny.
LikeLike
Jeff, we are agreed on the term “accident.”
LikeLike
But the question is whether the works principle is operative FOR ALL, including believers.
Not sure what you mean by “operative”, but I’ll bite and say that it is “operative” for believers. The catch being that they have Someone who, according to the Covenant of Grace, has step into their place under that works principle and took their penalty and fulfilled their obligations. So that when my conscience is trouble or afflicted by the accuser with the dread of the law’s penalty I don’t reply that the CoW isn’t operative. Rather I reply that my Savior has paid the price and fulfilled the obligation under the CoW so that I can rightly say that I have fulfilled the works principle in Christ Jesus.
Q. 97. What special use is there of the moral law to the regenerate?
A. Although they that are regenerate, and believe in Christ, be delivered from the moral law as a covenant of works, so as thereby they are neither justified nor condemned; yet besides the general uses thereof common to them with all men, it is of special use, to show them how much they are bound to Christ for his fulfilling it, and enduring the curse thereof in their stead, and for their good; and thereby to provoke them to more thankfulness, and to express the same in their greater care to conform themselves thereunto as the rule of their obedience.
LikeLike
I would say that Rom 7 addresses this: believers are transferred out of the CoW into the CoG.
We under one covenant at any given time.
LikeLike
Jeff,
David: It is true that the moral law in and of itself is the charter for the covenant of works. But since the fall, that use of the moral law has been rendered obsolete.
Jeff: I think you want to mean that since the fall, there is no real possibility of fallen man meriting life under it. But if that use had been rendered obsolete, then (1) there would be no guilt for those who are reckoned as disobedient, and worse (2) it would be impossible for Jesus to have merited life for us by his obedience.
No. I think you are conflating the use of the law as a CoW with its uses as a perfect rule of righteousness. What I am saying is no different from WLC 94, “Although no man, since the fall, can attain to righteousness and life by the moral law: yet there is great use thereof …”
(I am not denying that the hypothetical promise of life on the condition of perfect and personal obedience still stands, and, as you pointed out, I affirm Christ’s active obedience.)
LikeLike
Jeff,
If we deny that that works-principle continued in force …
But no one is denying this.
LikeLike
Have used MATLAB a fair bit, not too much with the image library, I deal with satellite images in C++. But I know people that prototype the kind of stuff I work on in MATLAB.
LikeLike
Jeff,
A partial NO to your characterization of accident. When Jesus says “do this and live”, there is a pedagogical use in the Mosaic Covenant that is accidental (because typological).
No. It was not accidental because it is typological. It was accidental because “it was added only in order that man by its weakness might be led to reject his own righteousness and to embrace another’s, latent under the law” (Turretin).
LikeLike
DR: It is true that the moral law in and of itself is the charter for the covenant of works. But since the fall, that use of the moral law has been rendered obsolete.
DR: I am not denying that the hypothetical promise of life on the condition of perfect and personal obedience still stands
JRC: If we deny that that works-principle continued in force …
DR: But no one is denying this.
Lost me. You say that the use of the moral law as the “charter for the covenant of works” is obsolete, yet the works-principle continues in force?
What other works-principle is there, other than the one chartered under the covenant of works? What other promise of eternal life on the condition of perfect and personal obedience is there, other than the one chartered under the covenant of works?
How then obsolete?
And again: if the CoW had been obsolete since the fall, then under what principle did Christ merit for us?
LikeLike
Jeff,
If we deny that that works-principle continued in force, then we cannot believe that Christ’s obedience was meritorious on our behalf.
Please reflect for a moment on what I argued above:
In order for a works principle to exist, two things are necessary:
1. Two parties must enter into a covenant.
2. The condition of that covenant must be works.
Given the above, I then reason that God’s dealings with Israel don’t satisfy #2. Ergo, no works principle.
Therefore, in what situations has a works principle existed?
1. Jesus (representing the elect) was under a works principle by virtue of the pactum salutis.
2. Adam (representing his posterity) was under a works principle by virtue of the CoW (and therefore his posterity continue under God’s wrath and curse).
In keeping with what I’ve said above, the hypothetical promise of life contingent on perfect obedience (which does indeed continue in force) does not constitute a works principle except in the case of someone who actually enters into covenant with God on that basis.
Does this clarify anything?
LikeLike
JRC: When Jesus says “do this and live”, there is a pedagogical use in the Mosaic Covenant that is accidental (because typological).
DR: No. It was not accidental because it is typological. It was accidental because “it was added only in order that man by its weakness might be led to reject his own righteousness and to embrace another’s, latent under the law” (Turretin).
These are two ways of describing the same action. You are correctly describing the intent. I am correctly describing the means.
How is man led by its weakness to reject his own righteousness and to embrace another’s? Because the commandments pointed backwards to the CoW on the one hand, and pointed to Christ as the fulfiller of the Law on the other.
LikeLike
Jeff,
Pause for a moment here and think about the statistical correlation between those who oppose republication and those who deny active obedience. I know that you are not one of those, but you must admit that every single denier of active obedience is also an opponent of republication. This is not an ‘accidental’ (heh-heh) connection.
This is not persuasive to me since my contention is that the view being propounded today is not compatible with historic Reformed theology. Yet Reformed theologians have affirmed (with few exceptions) the IAOC. All I’m saying is please don’t go there….
LikeLike
DR: Therefore, in what situations has a works principle existed?
1. Jesus (representing the elect) was under a works principle by virtue of the pactum salutis.
2. Adam (representing his posterity) was under a works principle by virtue of the CoW (and therefore his posterity continue under God’s wrath and curse).
In keeping with what I’ve said above, the hypothetical promise of life contingent on perfect obedience (which does indeed continue in force) does not constitute a works principle except in the case of someone who actually enters into covenant with God on that basis.
Does this clarify anything?
No, I’m not clear about your understanding of Adam’s posterity. Are they under the works-principle (unless and until transferred to the CoG)? Or are you saying that they are simply under wrath, without being under a works-principle?
If the former, then the CoW is not obsolete (but also, not directly relevant to Israel’s situation). If the latter, then I have to take strong exception.
LikeLike
DR: In order for a works principle to exist, two things are necessary:
1. Two parties must enter into a covenant.
2. The condition of that covenant must be works.
OK, so we would agree that there was a covenant, the CoW, that operated with a works-principle. And the charter of that works-principle was the moral law.
So now, the moral law is republished at Sinai. So what is the meaning of that republication?
We really only have two options.
(1) Either the republication is functioning as a genuine works-principle in its own right – in which case the Mosaic Covenant was a covenant of law, OR it had a subservient covenant of law. OR
(2) The republication is pointing backwards to a covenant previously made — the CoW — as a way of symbolizing the curse from which the Israelites must flee, by coming under a new covenant, the CoG.
So we only have two options. Either the law given on Sinai is actually a works-principle, or it is a type of the works-principle. There really aren’t any other possibilities.
LikeLike
DR: All I’m saying is please don’t go there….
OK. With respect to you, yourself, I have confidence that we need not go there. With respect to the larger debate, I would argue that the anti-repubs have moved the goalposts with respect to what historic Reformed theology looked like. And we see where the goalposts are by seeing how far out the boundaries lie.
I am amazed, not at you, but in general, that republication even needs a defense.
LikeLike
Jeff,
So now, the moral law is republished at Sinai. So what is the meaning of that republication?
Precisely the same meaning as the republishing of the moral law in the NT.
LikeLike
Fair enough. So what is then the meaning of “the moral law as charter of the CoW is obsolete”?
I understand what it would mean to say that “there is no possibility of meriting righteousness under the moral law because of inability.”
But the moral law itself being obsolete as the charter of the CoW? That would entail that the CoW itself is obsolete, which would entail that the condemnation promised under it would no longer apply.
Are you saying that Adam’s posterity are not under the CoW?
LikeLike
Jeff,
Fair enough. So what is then the meaning of “the moral law as charter of the CoW is obsolete”?
I simply meant that God never entered into a CoW with sinners. I did not mean that the CoW is no longer in effect in terms of the hypothetical promise and the punishment due.
LikeLike
Ah. OK, I agree with you. God has not entered into an (additional?) Covenant of Works with any fallen persons.
Where are we now?
Let’s take this:
DR: I take it for granted that, in order for a works principle to exist, two things are necessary:
1. Two parties must enter into a covenant.
2. The condition of that covenant must be works.
Given the above, I then reason that God’s dealings with Israel don’t satisfy #2. Ergo, no works principle.
So we agree that the giving of the Law on Sinai was not a covenant of works. Do we agree that it articulated a principle of “do this and live; disobey and die” with respect to temporal blessings and punishments?
Another way of asking this is, What do you understand of Turretin’s “legal economy”?
LikeLike
So we agree that the giving of the Law on Sinai was not a covenant of works. Do we agree that it articulated a principle of “do this and live; disobey and die” with respect to temporal blessings and punishments?
I would say it articulated that principle with respect to eternal sanctions (which of course were typified by temporal sanctions).
Another way of asking this is, What do you understand of Turretin’s “legal economy”?
LikeLike
Wow, we seem really close at this point. You say,
I would say it articulated that principle with respect to eternal sanctions (which of course were typified by temporal sanctions).
That is precisely how I would explain republication.
You then go on to cite FT; in your citation, you have
* an external dispensation,
* of a promise of land, etc.
* on the condition of obedience.
This sounds very similar to a works-principle. Is it not a works-principle?
And we would agree that FT is certainly not positing the creation of a distinct covenant apart from the CoG, right?
So don’t we have a legal economy that operates according to a works-principle, yet is external, or administrative, to that covenant, for the purpose of imaging heaven?
LikeLike
David Gordon—“It is not those who abuse (“rely on”) the law who are under a curse; it is those who are covenantally under the law that are under its threatening curse-sanction. Twice here Paul quotes the law’s own words,indicating that the curse-sanction was an inherent part of the administration itself, long before anyone allegedly perverted or distorted it.”
John Armstrong’s Reformation and Revival Journal (Luther 2) endorsed the conditional theology of Daniel Fuller, with a review essay on Fuller’s “Unity of the Bible” by Huckaby. Though Daniel Fuller himself simply accused Calvin of being too unconditional , Huckaby spends a lot of his time trying to say that Calvin was also conditional. (This is how Lillback misunderstood Calvin in his Binding of God)
.
Since the old covenant and the old law both command faith, Fuller argued, what we need to do is avoid MISUNDERSTANDING so that our works are “works of faith” and not “merit without faith.” According to Fuller, salvation is not “nothing of works”. Rather, according to Fuller, salvation is of a right kind of works, works of faith. So instead of trusting only the finished work of Christ, Daniel Fuller must constantly suspect ourselves, and look to see if we have works, and to see if these works are properly motivated. Fuller endorses the “conditionality” of grace, and the “beauty of threats”.
Huckaby quotes a puritan: “The spiritual law of Romans 7:12 cannot be the same as the ‘letter’ of II Cor 3:6. The ‘letter’ from which we are released is the one without the Spirit…and thus is the very opposite of the spiritual law of Romans 7.” This is the “misunderstanding” reading:—neither Romans 7 or II Cor 3 are seen as being about redemptive history and the change brought by the new covenant. Daniel Fuller reads these texts warnings, proper for any time or any covenant, to NOT MISUNDERSTAND, to not be a “legalist with wrong motives”.
Huckaby quotes Cranfield to support his reading of II Cor 3: “Paul does not use ‘letter’ as a simple equivalent of ‘the law’.” “Letter” is rather what the legalist is left with as a result of his misunderstanding, and misuse of the law in isolation from the Spirit is not the law in its true character….”
This “misunderstanding” view is what many “Reformed” folk have done and are doing to minimize the discontinuity between law and grace. If we can only get the law back to its “true character”, they argue, then salvation is also by law. Conditioned on Christ at one level, but conditioned on the sinner at another lvel. If you get works back to being enabled by sovereign grace, then they argue that it’s not problem to teach a not-yet aspect of justification based on works.
The “misunderstanding view” worries about us saying that God DID what the law could NEVER do (Romans 8:3). That sounds “antinomian” to them..
LikeLike
In his commentary on Romans 10:5 Calvin writes,
As evangelical promises are only found scattered in the writings of Moses, and these also somewhat obscure, and as the precepts and rewards, allotted to the observers of the law, frequently occur, it rightly appertained to Moses as his own and peculiar office, to teach what is the real righteousness of works, and then to show what remuneration awaits the observance of it, and what punishment awaits those who come short of it. For this reason Moses is by John compared with Christ, when it is said, ‘That the law was given by Moses, but that grace and truth came by Christ’ (John 1:17). And whenever the word law is thus strictly taken, Moses is by implication opposed to Christ.
In his commentary on 2 Corinthians 3:6 Calvin writes,
The Apostle says that the law was but for a time, and required to be abolished, but that the gospel, on the other hand, remains forever. There are various reasons why the ministry of Moses is pronounced transient, for it was necessary that the shadows should vanish at the coming of Christ, and that statement – The law and the prophets were until John (Matthew 9:13) applies to more than the mere shadows. For it intimates that Christ has put an end to the ministry of Moses, which was peculiar to him, and is distinguished from the gospel.
“The Lord declares by Jeremiah that the weakness of the Old Testament arose from this, that it was not engraven on men’s hearts (Jeremiah 31:32-33). For my part, I understand that abolition of the law, of which mention is here made, as referring to the whole of the Old Testament, in so far as it is opposed to the gospel, so that it corresponds with the statement – The law and the prophets were until John. For the context requires this. For Paul is not reasoning here as to mere ceremonies, but shows how much more powerfully the Spirit of God exercises his power in the gospel than of old under the law.”
http://matthewtuininga.wordpress.com/2013/07/29/calvin-on-law-and-gospel-a-way-out-of-the-impasse
LikeLike
Romans 6: 14 as modified by the WCF. For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law as a curse but under grace, and also under law not as a curse. But still under the same law. And therefore there was never but one law. And even though some in both the Mosaic and in the new covenants (which are not two covenant but one) will end up under the curse of the one law, the rest in both the covenants (which are not two) will still be under the law but not as a curse..
Ephesians 2:15 teaches that the law is the instrument of condemnation and death. The emphasis is on the code, the “commandments expressed in ordinances”. Instead of separating out the curse from the law- code, Paul actually writes of the abolition of the commandments themselves. This can be seen from the context which describes the joining of Jew and gentile into one body. But the WCF modification of that would explain that the gentile was also under the same law but did not know it, and so the real need is to subtract off the curse, and then the same one law can continue for those in the one body.
It is impossible to maintain that only the curse is that which divides the two groups, since both are under the curse equally. The curse of the law divides God from humans. What stands between Jew and gentile is the law itself, the code, the covenant mediated by Moses.
Think of the parallel in Colossians 2:14— canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross.
The “record of death” against us is the same as the “legal demands” against us. It is difficult to see how the law and its curse can be separated, when the Apostle integrates them together in this way. It is the demands (not only the curses) which were hostile to the “us”.
It is more than the removal of the curse that the law-work of Christ’s death achieved. The death of Christ brought about in some sense the abolition of the law itself. The moral/ceremonial distinction was often used by Roman Catholics against the Reformers, when the topic was justification by imputation vs justification by our law-keeping. Calvin would not allow the Romanists this distinction in order for them to say that only some kind of our works were not a condition of salvation. Calvin ruled out all of OUR WORKS (even “works of faith”) as having any part in our justification.
LikeLike
Wow, we seem really close at this point. You say,
I would say it articulated that principle with respect to eternal sanctions (which of course were typified by temporal sanctions).
That is precisely how I would explain republication.
It is a republication—i.e., of the moral law. But it’s not what the republicationists mean by the use of that term, for:
1. It doesn’t entail a works principle (The covenant wasn’t framed according to the terms of the moral law). But their version posits a works principle.
2. It promises eternal life on the condition of perfect and personal obedience; whereas in their version the demand is for less-than-perfect (i.e., typologically legible) obedience and the promise is of temporal blessings only (retention of typological inheritance).
3. It’s a republication that occurs in the NT also (as we’ve seen); but their version is a strictly Mosaic phenomenon.
You then go on to cite FT; in your citation, you have
* an external dispensation,
* of a promise of land, etc.
* on the condition of obedience.
This sounds very similar to a works-principle. Is it not a works-principle?
Nope. Recall that for a works principle to exist, there has to be: (1) a covenant and (2) the covenant condition has to be works. So if God had entered into a covenant with Israel according to the terms of the moral law strictly considered, or according to the terms of the MC external economy, then yes, Israel would have been under a works principle. But God did make any such covenant with Israel. On the contrary, the covenant that God made with Israel was framed according to gracious terms, i.e., the free offer of life and salvation in Jesus Christ, the requirement of faith that they may be saved, and the promise of the Holy Spirit to all those ordained to eternal life to make them willing and able to believe (WCF 19.3).
LikeLike
Sorry, the WCF reference should be 7.3.
LikeLike
According to Turretin as cited, the promise of land was on “the stipulation of obedience to the whole law or righteousness both perfect (Dt 27:26; Gal 3:10) and personal and justification by it (Rom 2:13).”
Dt 27.26: “‘Cursed is he who does not confirm the words of this law by doing them.’ And all the people shall say, ‘Amen.’”
Gal 3.10: “For as many as are of the works of the Law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who does not abide by all things written in the book of the law, to perform them.”
Rom 2.13: “who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified.”
There is nothing here about “free offer of life and salvation”, “requirement of faith” or “promise of Holy Spirit.”
I feel a little gyped here :-). We have a “pact” whose terms are “perfect and personal obedience” (all of course with reference to possession of the land). I met your requirements … and now you tell me that the terms are something else entirely!
(This is all tongue-in-cheek)
But seriously, before we talk about the grace that is surely in background here, please address the words on the page. Aren’t Turretin’s words *saying* that the external economy operated by a pact that meets your definition of a works-principle?
LikeLike
T.L Donaldson—-” Israel serves as a representative sample for the whole of humankind. within Israel’s experience, the nature of the universal human plight–bondage to sin and to the powers of this age– is thrown into sharp relief through the functioning of the law. The law, therefore, cannot accomplish the promise, but by creating a representative sample in which the human plight is clarified and concentrated, it sets the stage for redemption. Christ identifies not only with the human situation in general, but also with Israel in particular…. “The Curse of the Law and the Inclusion of the Gentiles”, NT Studies 1986, p 105
cited in S.M. Baugh in Galatians 5:1-6 and Personal Obligation, p268, in The Law Is Not Of Faith, P and R, 2009
David Van Drunnen: “Justification is indeed ultimately not about whether a person is under the Mosaic law as a member of corporate Israel, but about whether a person is under the federal headship of the first Adam or the last Adam. But insofar as one of the chief divine purposes for the Mosaic law was to cause OT Israel to recapitulate Adam’s probation and fall, being under the Mosaic law was a profound illustration of the plight of humanity under the first Adam.” “Israel’s Recapitulation of Adam’s Probation”
LikeLike
According to Turretin as cited, the promise of land was on “the stipulation of obedience to the whole law or righteousness both perfect (Dt 27:26; Gal 3:10) and personal and justification by it (Rom 2:13).”
Dt 27.26: “‘Cursed is he who does not confirm the words of this law by doing them.’ And all the people shall say, ‘Amen.’”
Gal 3.10: “For as many as are of the works of the Law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who does not abide by all things written in the book of the law, to perform them.”
Rom 2.13: “who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified.”
There is nothing here about “free offer of life and salvation”, “requirement of faith” or “promise of Holy Spirit.”
Of course not. The external economy of the MC was purely legal. But those Scripture passages have just as much application today as they did under Moses, don’t they?
I feel a little gyped here :-). We have a “pact” whose terms are “perfect and personal obedience” (all of course with reference to possession of the land). I met your requirements … and now you tell me that the terms are something else entirely!
Well, I’m feelin’ kinda gyped myself! You want two covenants for the price of one, but I’m not gonna give ’em to ya….
First of all, the pact described is with reference to eternal life, typified by land, not land per se. (IOW, it is essentially the the original CoW. Isn’t this alone a clue that this is not Kline’s view?) Second, the “pact” in question is not the MC proper, but the MC strictly speaking, which is the CoW. Are you telling me you think Turretin is saying that God entered into a CoW with Israel? (We’ve already agreed that God doesn’t do that with sinners.)
Again, I think it is axiomatic that where there is a works principle, there is a legal covenant. You can have your works principle if you insist on it, but then you cannot refuse the legal covenant that necessarily attaches to it. IOW, an “accidental works principle” is a figment of your imagination….
But seriously, before we talk about the grace that is surely in background here, please address the words on the page. Aren’t Turretin’s words *saying* that the external economy operated by a pact that meets your definition of a works-principle?
No. What Turretin is describing is substantially the pedagogical use of the law, which of course continues from the fall to the end of the world. WLC:
When a minister preaches the law in its second use, is there a works principle?
LikeLike
JRC: There is nothing here about “free offer of life and salvation”, “requirement of faith” or “promise of Holy Spirit.”
DR: Of course not. The external economy of the MC was purely legal.
So I would say that “economy” and “administration of the covenant” are synonyms. Do you agree?
LikeLike
Jeff, plus, Patrick Ramsey seems to think that 7.8 and 30.3 of the Confession embody a works principle. So some anti-repubs are fine with a works principle and others (David R.) aren’t (except when he talks about the Mosaic Covenant having relevance today — no pork?!?!).
LikeLike
As long as you have one “the covenant of grace, two administrations” and also have a “works-principle for us” in the Mosaic administration, there is going to be a “works principle for us” in “the covenant of grace”.
So, DGH, are you fine with that, or do you have a problem with it? Don’t forget that being confessional means you have no choice about the “one covenant, two administrations” thing.
Ligon Duncan— in the New Testament, our Lord Jesus stresses that blessing comes from obedience. Put in Old Testament terms, blessing comes from law keeping. And the other side of that is that the New Testament continues to stress that chastening to those who violate God’s law.
Duncan– Jesus and Paul stress that our judgment will be by works. The moral law of the Mosaic era continues to be relevant to believers. Blessing comes from keeping the law. Look at Ephesians 6:2. This is the only commandment with a promise. Obedience to parents yields living long in the land of your fathers.
Duncan–Jesus stresses that blessing comes from obedience. In Matthew 5:17-19, He who teaches and keeps all the law, he will be blessed, he will be considered great in the kingdom. In Matthew 7 verses 24-27, the culmination of the Sermon on the Mount, what is Jesus’ point? It was the man who acted upon the demands, the claims of Christ, building his house on the rock, he was the one whose house stood up under the waves. He didn’t just hear the words and think that they were really nice, and was deeply moved by them; he built his house on the rock.
Duncan—The blessing comes from obedience. Hebrews 12:6 stresses that chastening will be done to those who violate God’s law. So there is blessing and cursing in the New Covenant, which again shows the continuing function of the law. And as we said, Christians under the New Covenant will be judged by works. Matthew 25 verses 31-33, II Corinthians 5:10, Grace reigns in righteousness, to borrow Paul’s words from the end of chapter 5 of the book of Romans, remembering that the purpose of grace in the life of believers is not fire insurance, but it is that we would be transformed into the image of the Son
http://www.fpcjackson.org/resource-library/classes-and-training/the-mosaic-covenant
mcmark: There you have it. The righteousness by which grace reigns in the last verse of Romans 5 is NOT the righteousness earned by the second Adam described earlier in that chapter, but the righteousness which is our transformation, and all that talk about imputation and the two Adams would be sheer antinomianism if there were no longer any “works principle for us” to keep it real.
LikeLike
Jeff, yes I would agree. But the external economy is an administration/promulgation of law, not grace.
LikeLike
Jeff, IOW, the external economy is not an administration of “the covenant” (which we agree is a CoG) any more than a minister preaching the 2nd use of the law is administering “the gospel” (in his preaching of the law). But in both OT and NT, law is never administered w/o gospel nor is gospel administered w/o law (in both its 2nd and 3rd uses).
LikeLike
Vos: it comes down to finding the connection between this being-in-the-covenant and living in the fellowship of the covenant. There must be a close tie. By freely entering the covenant, these two must immediately coincide if no discrepancy is to arise.
Vos–But what if one is born into the covenant? Is then the one possible without the other? We here face the difficulty that the covenant relationship appears powerless to bring covenant fellowship in its wake. We get a covenant that remains unfruitful. An “ought to be,” appears to take the place of the glorious realities that mention of the covenant brings to our minds.
Vos—This is in fact the point where, by means of the covenant idea, the Pelagian error could gain access to Reformed doctrine. If the covenant idea is in fact the all-encompassing expression of life under and in grace, how then can it comes to us first of all as something that “ought to be,” a relationship that still lacks realization?
Geerhardus Vos Reformed Dogmatics (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2013) vol. 2, ch. 3 Q. 30
http://feedingonchrist.com/geerhardus-vos-sides-administrations-conditionality-covenant-grace/
LikeLike