David Murray concludes his four-part series on Merit and Moses — the book that is anti-republication — by boiling it down to this:
. . . my own concerns about RP have grown as I’ve increasingly come into contact with people who are using the RP to argue against any place of the law in the Christian life. They hear RP teachers saying that Israel obeyed the law to merit the land, but the NT believer is no longer under that arrangement. Thus they conclude, we don’t need to obey God’s law any more. Again, I know that’s not what RP intends but it is such a complex and confusing system that even those who have heard it explained many times still struggle to understand and communicate it accurately. I remember the first time I heard the RP preached, I thought, “What on earth was that?” To some degree, I still feel that sense of bafflement. With theology, I’ve often noticed that the more complex a system, the more likely that it’s wrong.
What is striking about this conclusion is that Murray (David, that is) winds up basically where Norman Shepherd started — Christians in the 1970s believed they could dispense with the law (thanks either to D. James Kennedy’s Evangelism Explosion or Jack Miller’s Sonship Theology). Shepherd opposed such antinomianism and wasn’t even contending with republication or 2-kingdom theology. He was, of course, sorting covenant theology out to some degree with Meredith Kline, who turned out to be one of the leading opponents of Shepherd. And Kline, as David Murray points out, represents for the authors of Merit and Moses the overreaction against Shepherd.
Has anyone yet to show us what the right reaction against Shepherd is? The folks who have been most vigorous in opposing where Shepherd led (i.e. Federal Vision) were some of the people who wrote for The Law is Not of Faith. Do they get credit for that? Not much. And what about the Murrayites (not David) who didn’t go the way of Federal Vision? Were they critical of Shepherd or Federal Vision? Or did they sit on their hands? Or how about the Obedience Boys? Have they had their innings with Norman Shepherd who argued for an obedient faith?
My contention is still that the very small world of U.S. conservative Presbyterian and Reformed believers has not yet gotten over Shepherd.
Old Life 
Yeah, but antinomianism!
I don’t follow Kline down the line on all points, but I am constantly amazed how his critics so often get him wrong. Part of that is understandable since Kline wasn’t a good writer. But with so much of his critics defeating a straw Kline in their writings, it makes me wonder if something not-so-sanctified is behind their work. For all of their professed concern over the law, they sure do bear false witness often.
LikeLike
They hear RP teachers saying that Israel obeyed the law to merit the land, but the NT believer is no longer under that arrangement. Thus they conclude, we don’t need to obey God’s law any more.
Two things: Who are those that are concluding they don’t need to obey the law? And if they’re out there in any number how is Murray concluding that they are basing their lack of necessary law-obedience on the RP teachings in TLNF?
And… How is it that all those TLNF authors who hold to the republication of the covenant of works at Sinai also teach that the moral law is binding on N.T. believers?
And… “complex and confusing system”? Maybe for those who also reject the Law/Gospel distinction as a “Lutheran” doctrine or who consider the covenant of works to be gracious.
LikeLike
Jack, what’s odd is that the Westminster Seminary California faculty (several of whom contributed to TLNF) held a conference in January on sanctification in which they made it very clear that Christians need to obey the law and that the moral law is still binding on NT believers. The TLNF authors have publishes on this extensively as well.
But that’s the point – most critics of republication don’t criticize what its proponents actually say, only what the critics want them to have said to make for an easier target. That seems a tad ironic coming from a group claiming a monopoly on caring about obedience to God’s law. Unless the 9th commandment doesn’t really count if you’re convinced you’re on the right side.
LikeLike
BV, shhh! Don’t mention the 9th commandment. That one doesn’t apply when you’re doing God’s work…
I was at the WSC conference on Sanctification. Excellent. The M&M boys and the obedience boys should listen to those talks. Although they may find it “complex and confusing…”
LikeLike
It appears to me that those who deny any sort of republication fail to do justice to the clarity of the New Testament. The law / gospel contrast is explicit, and the former is clearly related to the “elemental” principals in Galatians; yet the apostolic testimony is also clear in that the summary of the moral law (Sinai) is deepened and recaptured in the commands of the new covenant to love God and others.
The mosaic law may be said to recap in historic form the moral law in creation as well as its intensification in the probation. The probation for Israel was dependent upon the blessing/curse arrangement under the Mosaic covenant and these sanctions were temporal in nature, while at the same time for the individual Israelite the unity with the Abrahamic covenant was faith and a faithful walk before God.
How difficult is this to understand (contra David Murray)???
LikeLike
D.G. shows once again that he knows where all the bodies are buried. Don’t tick him off!
LikeLike
Quite frankly, and to their credit, most of the people who say they disagree with Kline, admit to having not read him. They’ve heard some or perused an article, but they haven’t engaged the material.
LikeLike
Norman Shepherd commanded us to view election by means of “covenant”, so that there would be only one kind of church membership. Shepherd (Call of Grace, p 60 ) —The prophets and apostles viewed election from the perspective of the covenant of grace, whereas Reformed theologians of a later day have tended to view the covenant of grace from the perspective of election The result of this, it is argued, is that the reformed preacher no longer says “Christ died for you” – but, when these words are construed, not from the point of view of election, but of the covenant, then “The Reformed evangelist can and must say on the basis of John 3:16, Christ died for you.”
Sinclair Ferguson: First, Shepherd appears to adopt the view of the prevailing academic critique of the covenant theology of the seventeenth century (forcefully presented decades ago by Perry Miller), which suggests that the doctrine of covenant somehow makes God’s secret counsels less harsh. We ought therefore to look at covenant, and not at election. This analysis, both historically and biblically we reject… To use Shepherd’s own citation – the fact is that some passages, e.g. Ephesians 1:1-14, do employ the mode of looking at covenant from the viewpoint of election. Indeed, in that passage it is necessary for the reader to look for covenant in the context of election.”
http://www.misterrichardson.com/fergusonbr.html
Not of Works: Norman Shepherd and His Critics, by Ralph Boersema, p 151 quoting Cornelius Venema—“Norman Shepherd’s strength is his insistence on the conditionality of the covenant. The covenant of grace is conditional in its administration. To view salvation in terms of God’s electing grace would make it impossible to do justice to human responsibility and to ward off antinomianism.”
LikeLike
Sean, I’m sure you’re right if referring to people in the pews. But that’s certainly not an accurate portrayal of ministers and professors who have published critiques of Kline or republication.
I do think there’s a reasonable critique to be made of republication and some of Kline’s other contributions. But it drives me crazy when I see ministers of the gospel publicly slander him by grossly misrepresenting his views and the views of his successors. If people are really concerned about obedience to God’s law, then they should present charges against church officers guilty of the more gratuitous examples of this. Or maybe they’re only concerned about obedience on their own terms.
LikeLike
mark Karlberg—According to the view of Gaffin and Strimple, there is no works-principle functioning in the covenant God made with Israel through Moses, mediator of the old covenant. This means that the sole principle underlying the old covenant is the principle of (saving) grace, identical to what is the case in the new covenant. …..What the Murray school of interpretation must conclude, to be theologically consistent is to say that believers under the new covenant are likewise subject to both the blessings and the curses of redemptive covenant in accordance with (non-meritorious) good works. This point is crucial: in this school of thought there is no genuine difference between the two economies of redemption, wherein reward is bestowed “on the basis of” or “in accordance with” the believer’s works of obedience. This is precisely the doctrine Shepherd and Gaffin have been eagerly advancing; and they have taken the argument one step further by eviscerating the law/grace antithesis entirely in their doctrine of the covenants (pre- and post-Fall).
http://patrickspensees.wordpress.com/2014/07/21/was-kline-a-republicationist/#comment-1187
Footnote:
For a full account of developments at Westminster Seminary regarding the doctrine of the covenants and justification by faith (among other cardinal doctrines), see Mark W. Karlberg, Gospel Grace: The Modern-Day Controversy (2003), Federalism and the Westminster Tradition (2006), and Engaging Westminster Calvinism (2013). Foundational to these studies is my prior work Covenant Theology in Reformed Perspective (2000). All are published by Wipf and Stock. For a summary update on these matters see also my essay published as the Special May 2014 Issue of The Trinity Review
LikeLike
Accusations of antinomianism against those of us who give priority to God’s federal imputations do not prove the reality of our being against the law. To say that only Christ has satisfied the law is to properly fear God.
Neonomians turn out to be antinomians. To think that one can produce “sanctification” by our 100 perecent cooperation (because of infusions and impartations) in addition to what God has done in Christ is to not yet fear God as the Holy One who demands perfection. There are some puritans who put themselves on a superior level to the rest of us because of what they think they have been enabled to do and because of the righteousness they think they can and will now produce. They don’t deny imputed righteousness, but they dare not trust in it alone.
The Precisianist Strain: Disciplinary Religion and Antinomian Backlash in Puritanism to 1638 , by Theodore Dwight Bozeman, p 20: “Penitential teaching expressly echoed and bolstered moral priorities. In contrast, again, to Luther, whose penitential teaching stressed the rueful sinner’s attainment of peace through acknowledgment of fault and trust in unconditional pardon, many puritans included moral renewal. In unmistakable continuity with historic Catholic doctrine that tied ‘contrition, by definition, to the intention to amend,’ they required an actual change in the penitent.
However qualified by reference to the divine initiative and by denial of efficacy to human works, such teaching also adumbrated Puritan teaching of later decades.”
LikeLike
Accusations of antinomianism against those of us who give priority to God’s federal imputations do not prove the reality of our being against the law. To say that only Christ has satisfied the law is to properly fear God.
Neonomians turn out to be antinomians. To think that one can produce “sanctification” by our 100 perecent cooperation (because of infusions and impartations) in addition to what God has done in Christ is to not yet fear God as the Holy One who demands perfection. There are some puritans who put themselves on a superior level to the rest of us because of what they think they have been enabled to do and because of the righteousness they think they can and will now produce. They don’t deny imputed righteousness, but they dare not trust in it alone.
Theodore Dwight Bozeman, p 20: “Penitential teaching expressly echoed and bolstered moral priorities. In contrast to Luther, whose penitential teaching stressed the rueful sinner’s attainment of peace through acknowledgment of fault and trust in unconditional pardon, many puritans included moral renewal. In unmistakable continuity with historic Catholic doctrine that tied ‘contrition, by definition, to the intention to amend,’ they required an actual change in the penitent.
However qualified by reference to the divine initiative and by denial of efficacy to human works, such teaching also adumbrated Puritan teaching of later decades.”
LikeLike
BV, but when Shepherd actually did say, those critical of Kline were no shows.
LikeLike
Sanctification is not ladder-climbing on the rungs of our personal righteousness.
LikeLike
BV, does it help to notice that Kline did not contribute to TLNF? But any excuse to try MK?
LikeLike
Randall, yes, forget Murray/Murray and Kline. Let’s read Paul. “The law is not of faith.”
Holy moly.
LikeLike
Is no one going to take issue with Murray’s contention that as the complexity of a theological system increases so does the probability of its being wrong? The converse of his suggestion – the more simple a theological system the more likely it is to be correct – has no precdent in the history of theology, to my knowledge.
Few ideas in the history of Christian theology are more complicated than 1.) the hypostatic union; 2.) the Trinity; 3.) Reformed sacramentology.
These would not pass the test of anyone concerned about complexity in theological system.
LikeLike
David CN, floor’s yours.
LikeLike
Deej – exactly and exactly.
LikeLike
And Kline wasn’t exactly pumping the word ‘merit’ either. According to Lee Irons responding to one of my comments on another site:
“I think the M&M boys may be hanging too much on the use of the word ‘merit’.” Good point, Jack Miller. Not only does the WCF not use that term very often, even Kline only uses that word once (as far as I can tell) in connection with the Mosaic Covenant. He normally speaks rather of the Mosaic Covenant being governed by the works principle.
LikeLike
Thanks DG. Cue the strobe light.
To be brief, I take issue with Murray’s contention that as the complexity of a theological system increases so does the probability of its being wrong.
LikeLike
BV, I’ll give you ministers and profs who’ve published critiques. But the other 99% of the reformed community who think they don’t agree, pastors and profs included, haven’t read him. And yes, being one who entered the reformed world quite unaware, you better get familiar with Murray’s mono-covenantalism and the Shepherd controversy or you might end up courting, doing a reverse dowry(assuming you’re the dude), being a practicing RC on birth control issues, homeschooling and going patriarchal, cuz king jesus, and finally ending up RC on soteriology.
LikeLike
I will try to not send this one twice.
David Murray— What did Norman Shepherd believe and teach? (pp. 23-27)
.
Covenant condition: God required the condition of covenant faithfulness in every covenant administration, pre- and post-fall. God’s promise secured or guaranteed the believer’s covenant inheritance but that inheritance can only be received on the condition of the believer’s covenant keeping. That single condition is the same for Adam, Israel, Christ and the NT believer.
David Murray–As John Murray taught the opposite, he can in no way be blamed for Shepherd’s teaching or Federal Vision
John Murray (The Covenant of Grace)– 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).
John 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.”
John Murray—“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…. 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.
John Murray— “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.”
John Murray—“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.
John Murray—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 INDISPENSIBLE to the fruition of the covenant grace.”
LikeLike
dgh—forget Murray/Murray and Kline. Let’s read Paul. “The law is not of faith.”
David Murray—Merit and Moses makes little or no attempt to base its arguments on exegesis of Bible verses or to deal with some of the verses that SEEM to support RP (e.g. Lev. 18:5 and Gal. 3:12). It’s a relatively short book and the authors probably decided to restrict their case to systematic and confessional theology. However, there’s still a need for a similar kind of work that presents the exegetical case for the non-RP view of the Mosaic covenant and that also takes on the RP interpretation of a few key Bible verses in both the OT and NT. Although I do not agree with all of TLNF’s exegesis, at least they make an attempt to wrestle with vital verses. I don’t believe that MM offered a convincing explanation of the covenant rewards in Leviticus and Deuteronomy.”
http://headhearthand.org/blog/2012/09/17/id-rather-err-with-the-baptists/
LikeLike
I find the assertion that republication is “confusing and complex” to be without merit. The basic tenants of republication are simple and easily explained and understood. Now, it is true that one can present the doctrine in a confusing and complex manner, but that is equally true of any doctrine.
Furthermore, many doctrines foundational to Christianity are complex or contain complexities when examined in detail, such as the Trinity, the attributes of God, etc. Clearly, in these cases complexity is not a barrier to acceptance in the Reformed world.
Perhaps when those who pass judgment on republication for its complexity, rather than exposing an erroneous doctrine, instead reveal their own lack of theological acumen. Just sayin…
LikeLike
BV
Lots of people have conferences, do they teach it clearly to the flock? Can they teach it clearly to the flock?
DGH,
Can you point me to a current or recent WSC professor who has written a book or books in the last year that you would consider as readable as “With Reverence and Awe” or “Defending the Faith”?
Thank you,
B
LikeLike
DGH,
That should have said, “last 5 years” not “last year”.
Thank you
LikeLike
RS Clark Recovering the Reformed Confession; Our Theology, Piety and Practice
LikeLike
David CN, sounds like the sort of thing an engineer would say — our a counselor.
LikeLike
Mad H, but union with Christ is crystal clear.
LikeLike
B, I guess your point is that the WSC guys are not clear? VanDrunen is always clear, if you ask me. The WSC volume on justification was clear.
I wonder if you apply the same standard to WTS.
LikeLike
John Piper used to channel Dan Fuller on “the law is not of faith”. (The Pleasures of God, pg. 251)
“They thought that obeying the law is not a matter of faith, but a matter of works. Note very carefully, ‘works’ is not synonymous with obeying the law. That’s plain because Paul says you can pursue obedience to the law either by faith or by works. But God never meant for obedience to be pursued by works. That’s clear from the little phrase, ‘as though it were by works.’ ‘As though’ means obedience is not by works but by faith. So works is not simply efforts to obey the law of God. Works is a way of trying to bring about the fruit of obedience without making faith the root.”
But in his reply to NT Wright, in The Future of Justification, in an appendix, Piper backs away from Fuller (and John Murray and Shepherd and Gaffin)—-“The law that may suitably be described as “not of faith” as in Galatians 3:12 (“But the law is not of faith, rather `The one who does them shall
live by them'”). I myself have argued in the past, for example, without careful distinction, that “the law teaches faith” because Romans 9:32 says that you don’t “attain the law” if you fail to pursue it “by faith,” but pursue “as from works.”
Piper–” But the distinction that must be made is whether we are talking about the overall, long-term aim of the law, which is in view in Romans 9:32, or whether we are making a sweeping judgment about all the designs of the law. We would go beyond what Romans 9:32 teaches if we made such a sweeping judgment, so as to deny that there is a short-term design of the law not easily summed up in the phrase “the law teaches faith” but fairly described in the words “the law is not of faith” (Gal. 3:12).
Piper—For example, one short-term aim of the law was to “imprison everything under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe” (Gal. 3:22). That is, the law functions, in a subordinate, short-term way, to keep people in custody, awaiting the fullness of time, which is a time of faith, as Galatians 3:23 says, “Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed.” If, in some sense, “faith” had not yet come, but was “to be later revealed,” then it would not be strange to say “the law is not of faith” if the faith being referred to is the faith of Galatians 3:23, that is, faith in the Son of God who has come in the fullness of time (Gal. 4:4). This is probably what Paul means when he says in Galatians 3:12, “The law is not of faith.” The faith that was to come–to which the law was leading Israel, as it held
them in custody–is faith that is consciously in Christ, “the end of the law for righteousness for all who believe.”
http://www.epubbud.com/read.php?g=ST9AALT4&p=10&two=1
LikeLike
DGH,
I wish more people could write like Machen, or even with the orderliness/outline format of some of John Owen’s work. From my post, (flatter the moderator warning) I obviously appreciate DGH’s writing style as well. I have benefited from some of the apologetic works from WTS in the past 5 years but I do not hear about as many large books from WTS as I do from WSC.
I remember back to the Christ the Center debate/interview series with Tipton and Horton. I listened to Horton for hours, read much of his work, and had extreme difficulty discerning what he was actually saying. Tipton used some large words but was clear, concise, and seemed to care for the lay people and non-seminary grads that may have been listening.
Just some observations to back up Dr. Murray (David that is…though I don’t mind John),
B
LikeLike
dgh—- where Norman Shepherd started — Christians in the 1970s believed they could dispense with the law (thanks either to D. James Kennedy’s Evangelism Explosion or Jack Miller’s Sonship Theology). Shepherd opposed such antinomianism….”
mcmark–Those today who reject the “narrow distinction” between law and gospel are promoting a “large commanding gospel” . For example, Mark Jones (in his P and R book on Antinomianism) argues from the propitiation (the Trinity’s wrath on the Son for imputed sins) to the idea that God loving Christians means that God will be angry with Christians.
From the conclusion that “God was never happier with the Son than when God was angry with the Son” (p 95), Jones reasons that God loves Christians less when Christians obey the law less. But using Christ’s life of atonement as the analogy for the Christian life misses out on the gospel news about Christians being legally united to Christ’s death.
Romans 6:14 14 For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace. 15 What then? Are we to sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means!
Romans 7:4 Likewise, my brothers, you also have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead, in order that we bear fruit for God. 5 For while we were living in the flesh, our sinful passions, aroused by the law, were at work in our members to bear fruit for death. 6 But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive
Instead of seeing that the teaching of Romans 5 (the two imputations, the two headships) leads to the question of Romans 6, Jones claims that “Paul’s teaching of definitive and progressive sanctification” proves that “Paul could hardly be accused of antinomianism.” (p 121) I agree that Paul was not antinomian but not that Paul was not so accused. In Romans 3:2-8, Paul responds to the accusation by affirming the condemnation of antinomians.
But for Jones to claim that Paul had a “large commanding gospel” in which the question could or should not be asked is to ignore not only the context (Romans 5) but the content of Romans 6, which teaches that Christ was ‘alive to sin” (because of imputed sins) and that Christians are justified from sin (6:7) because the power of sin in question in Romans 6 is the power of the law over a person “alive to sin” (guilty before God, as Christ was by imputed sin).
LikeLike
I know it’s not what the critics of republication intend, but the idea that my repentance and law-keeping is what causes God to accept me is so intuitive for my Adamic nature that I am always in danger of going down that road when the law-gospel distinction gets blurred. Whenever I hear people preach that the law is gracious, I am inclined to think, “That makes sense.” With theology, I’ve often noticed that the more intuitive the system, the more likely that it’s wrong.
LikeLike
Has anyone yet to show us what the right reaction against Shepherd is?
The right reaction is precisely what Kline said it was, namely, a return to classic covenant theology. The only problem is, Kline wasn’t always the most reliable guide to getting there.
LikeLike
Mr. Miller,
The WSCAL Conference on Sanctification was tremendous – and it totally cleared my head of all the confusion about sanctification. I agree that those who are of the Wesleyan Holy Club mindset (my metaphor) should view these sessions.
I’ll follow up again – thanks for sharing, and to Dr. Hart and all.
LikeLike
B – That you think Horton is hard to understand says much more about you than Horton. Unless you’re talking about one of his few “heady” philosophically-focused books like Covenant and Eschatology, most grandmas and teens can understand Horton without any problem.
Scroll up and read Jack Miller’s point about complex doctrines not necessarily being unbiblical/unconfessional. If it’s simplicity you desire, try Unitarianism.
LikeLike
B, that’s not the way I remember those interviews. I don’t always think Mike is as clear as desirable. But the pro-unionists have a vocabulary that requires a glossary. Here’s a sample.
LikeLike
David R., you mean the classic covenant theology that leads us to think God still has a covenant with Scotland? Or the U.S.?
LikeLike
Perspicuous? Dr. Gaffin explaining the approach to interpreting the data and events of Scripture:
[T]he exegete, despite every cultural and temporal dissimilarity, stands in principle…in the same situation as the writers of the New Testament and, therefore, is involved with Paul (and the other letter writers) in a common interpretive enterprise…
… Redemptive events constitute a function (f), the authentication and interpretation of the New Testament its first derivative (f′) and the interpretation of the later church its second derivative (f″). F′′, to be sure, is of a different order than f′, since the former, the infallible verbal revelation (Scripture) which has God as its primary author, is the basis (principium) of the latter. But both, as derivatives, have a common interpretive reference to f. Indeed, it may be said that…f″ “goes beyond” f′ by seeking to make more explicit the structure implicit in the latter.
LikeLike
What the (f”)?
LikeLike
D.G.,
David R., you mean the classic covenant theology that leads us to think God still has a covenant with Scotland? Or the U.S.?
Funny, it didn’t lead American Presbyterians to think that….
LikeLike
Well, the Covenant of Works is gracious: God owed nothing to man. Adam was under obligation to obey by virtue of being the creature but God was gracious and promised eternal happiness on condition of obedience.
Also, perhaps the issue people have with the advocates of RD is that whilst they keep affirming the Westminster standards on sanctification, what are they saying with their other works and blog posts. One can affirm sanctification all day but if your example and your other statements imply something else there’s a problem.
LikeLike
Alexander – This is the part where you supply evidence to give teeth to your accusation that advocates of republication deny sanctification in their “other works and blog posts.”
LikeLike
Well there’s Dr. Hart’s numerous articles on the movies and tv shows he watches and his promotion of going to pubs and drinking and Dr. Clark’s saying dancing is acceptable for Christians and that it’s ok to partake in recreations during on Sabbath- so long as they don’t miss the service of course.
All these are in plain violations of various commandments and therefore hardly in keeping with the Westminster doctrine of sanctification.
LikeLike
Alexander… and where in Scripture or in the Standards is having an alcoholic drink, non-lascivious dancing, or going to a pub defined as sin or not in keeping with sanctification?
LikeLike
David R., It didn’t? Why do you think Presbyterians put Abe Lincoln at apex of the arch above their Philadelphia headquarters? It had nothing to do with “almost chosen nation”?
LikeLike
Alexander – Trying to follow your argument here. So critics of republication don’t watch TV or movies, drink alcoholic beverages, or partake in a first dance with their wives at their weddings? If they do any of these, then does that mean anti-republicationists deny sanctification? I think your issue has nothing to do with republication and everything to do with fundamentalism.
As a side note, if you spent any time with the men behind TLNF you may be surprised to learn that they observe the Sabbath more strictly than most of their critics. As does Darryl. But don’t let any of that get in the way of your narrative.
LikeLike
Alexander, if your neonomism is what Murray means by “…using the RP to argue against any place of the law in the Christian life,” then his utter confusion now makes sense–you RP critics basically cannot distinguish between the law of God and the laws of men. Hello, Fundamentalism. As far as the CoW being gracious, more distinction confusion. But do you really want your sheriff doling out at least as much grace as law (and your pastor at least as much law and grace)?
LikeLike