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 
Bv says this: What the (f”)?
John Y: Some theologians talk like this:
LikeLike
Alexander says this: 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.
John Y: I am waiting for a response from Kent to this one
LikeLike
FWIW, one “obedience boy” who had many innings against the Federal Vision, and hence, Shepherd, is Rick Philips. Again, reference back to the original Ft. Lauderdale colloquium.
LikeLike
“What if growing in grace is more about humility, dependence, and exalting Christ than it is about defeating sin?” (p. 18). Duguid articulates a profound and neglected point in this rhetorical question and effectively draws it out throughout the book.”
From a book review of Barbara Duguid’s book, EXTRAVAGANT GRACE- I have not read it yet but want to.
LikeLike
Alexander, “antinomian” and “permissive” are not synonyms.
I feel free to drink (but rarely do) because I believe, and my presbytery agrees, that Scripture permits drinking but not drunkenness.
You seem to disagree, but that’s a question of what the law permits, not a question of whether the law should be obeyed.
LikeLike
I got no problem with mathematically correct theology. 🙂
(But Gaffin’s baffles a bit. I’m pretty sure he’s using a very loose analogy…)
LikeLike
Chris, I stand perfected.
LikeLike
David,
Kline is clearly not the end-all and be-all.
But he does at least put his finger on the sore spot here: What is the purpose of the national sanctions (Deut 28-30) and the judicial law?
If in fact both of those are operating by a principle of “do this and live”, then how are those a part of the covenant of grace whose principle is “believe and be saved”?
In our previous conversation, we seemed ultimately to agree that both Deut 28 and the judicial law are part of an external legal economy, not a part of the substance of the COG. Yes?
We also seemed to agree that the Decalogue is a restatement of the moral law, and that it, too, operates on a “do this and live” principle, with the understanding that none but Jesus would succeed.
If we agree so far, then the hard part is over with. We can eliminate the possibility that those are a separate covenant. What is left then is a covenant of grace wrapped in an external legal outer cloak, and all of those belong to that cloak.
So where is the problem?
LikeLike
Thesis: The doctrine of republication, even thought there have been multiple varieties, isn’t that complicated.
Evidence:
1. Making Some Sense of the Republication Debate (History) 1 (audio).
2. Making Some Sense Pt 2 (audio)
3. Making Some Sense Pt 3 (audio)
4. Is Republication Really All That Confusing?
5. More Questions From Ginger: Why Is Republication So Controversial?
6. Resources on Republication
LikeLike
I would like to hear how the competing schools of thought regarding sanctification and the law interpret a verse like this from the book of Job:
Job 4—-“Now a word was brought to me stealthily;
my ear received the whisper of it.
13 Amid thoughts from visions of the night,
when deep sleep falls on men,
14 dread came upon me, and trembling,
which made all my bones shake.
15 A spirit glided past my face;
the hair of my flesh stood up.
16 It stood still,
but I could not discern its appearance.
A form was before my eyes;
there was silence, then I heard a voice:
17 ‘Can mortal man be in the right before[ God?
Can a man be pure before his Maker?
18 Even in his servants he puts no trust,
and his angels he charges with error;
19 how much more those who dwell in houses of clay,
whose foundation is in the dust,
who are crushed like the moth.
20 Between morning and evening they are beaten to pieces;
they perish forever without anyone regarding it.
LikeLike
Jeff,
So where is the problem?
I tried to answer that question in my “state of the question” comment. ‘Member?
LikeLike
I tried to answer that question in my “state of the question” comment. ‘Member?
Link, please.
LikeLike
Rick P excludes the sanctions of the law in justification, but not in what he calls “sanctification”. Though he agrees with Gaffin about faith being before “union” and “union” before justification, he does not seem to endorse a “not yet aspect” to justification.
Rick P—“Evans cites me as saying that we must “pointedly separate [the necessity of good works] from justification,” and thus concludes that I am willing to speak of the necessity of works only as they pertain to sanctification. I understand how Evans draws this conclusion, so let me respond that this was not my intent. What I meant was that good works must be isolated from the instrumentality of justification, not from justification in an absolute sense.
.
Rick P— In complete agreement with Bill’s emphasis on union with Christ and the duplex gratia, I would enthusiastically agree that through union with Christ faith and works are not isolated but are joined (even while they remain distinct). Far from being “separate,” through union with Christ, faith and works are inseparable though distinct. So I agree with this and clarify that I was referring to works being excluded from the instrumentality of justification. ”
Here is the link to Rick P’s 2009 arguments against future justification according to works.
http://www.reformation21.org/articles/five-arguments-against-future-justification-according-to-works-part-ii.php
mcmark—if future “sanctification” is 100 percent God’s work and also 100 percent our works, and if future “sanctification” is the reason for future assurance of present justification, what is the practical difference between the position of the “federal vision” and those who teach faith alone means that faith is not alone “from justification in an absolute sense”? Perhaps some technical hangup about the Confessional language about what is “instrumental”???
LikeLike
Could someone direct me to a sermon from a P&R pastor in decent standing that clearly teaches the moral law is not binding on his flock?
LikeLike
Presbytery- sorry, classis!- meetings with Dr. Clark must be really short: “I refer my colleagues to post dated 5/6/12 on that issue; to post dated 7/2/10 on this issue”.
I don’t know that much about the critics of republication but I was asked to give examples of the discrepancies in certain people’s comments which I did. Drinking alcohol is not forbidden but Christians shouldn’t be going to pubs. And Dr. Hart promoted drinking in a very unsuitable way, encouraging behaviour that can only lead to immoral behaviour. And when someone shows mr modest dancing I’ll show them a flying pig.
As to Republication: this is a prime example of how American Reformed over complicate issues. The Westminster Confession clearly teaches that the moral law, given as a Covenant of Works, was dodo given to Moses the moral law is perpetually binding. If you want to call that republication be my guest. It’s also clear from Scripture that Israel was rewarded for obedience and punished for disobedience; just as the church has been rewarded for obedience and received judgement for disobedience. These are clear. Those who disagree are wrong and it’s that simple.
But those who advocate RD have complicated matters. They’ve confused others and themselves and it’s all so unnecessary. But they’ve done it with the so-called pactum salutis and union with Christ: starting arguments where there doesn’t need to be arguments.
Mr. Noe- David Murray’s point about complexity equalling eerie may not be the most solid principle but it has truth in it. Truth should always be able to be expressed simply, especially spiritual truth. Justification can get very complicated but its essence can be easily explained. And the three examples you give aren’t good ones because while it may be hard to explain in words the Trinity, the believer understands it, embraces it, rests in it. He doesn’t embrace uncertainty, or vagueness, but rock solid certain truth: he may not have a perfect metaphor but he knows what the Trinity is by experience and he believes it.
Zrim- Are you saying God wasn’t gracious in covenanting with Adam?
LikeLike
My last post contains a few typos- iPhones!- apologies.
LikeLike
Alexander: And when someone shows me modest dancing I’ll show them a flying pig.
BV: Haven’t you ever seen anyone do “The Carlton”?
I’d love to chime in some more but I’m off to happy hour with some friends from church. Gasp!
LikeLike
Thesis: The doctrine of republication, even thought there have been multiple varieties, isn’t that complicated.
However, the doctrine of republication that is actually being opposed really has only one variety, and complexity isn’t the problem.
LikeLike
Chris, do you know if Rick P has commented directly on the question of republication? Even though he may approve some kind of American Christendom, I don’t know of any evidence that Rick P ever endorsed a state-established church.
I don’t even know if Rick P agrees or disagrees with John Murray about ‘the covenant of works”. But then again, do we know if Gaffin and Mark Jones disagree with John Murray’s objections to “cov of works” language? Surely David Murray’s conclusion that John Murray believed in the “essence” of the “cov of works” sweeps too many of John Murray’s objections down the memory hole.
David Gordon: Murray’s followers confuse: -works and faith (Norman Shepherd), since the Mosaic covenant was not primarily characterized by faith, but by works (Gal. 3:12), and, presumptively, the Sinai covenant was not different in kind from the New Covenant; and confuse the imputation of the obedience of Christ with our own personal obedience
David Gordon—I’d like to retain the right, after a generation or two of discussion, to change my mind and remove Murrayism if we discover that his views are genuinely fatal to consistent federalism. My current “tolerance” of his view is due, in no small measure, to the fact that in two of his published works (The Imputation of Adam’s Sin, and the Romans Commentary), Murray defends the historic federal position.
David Gordon– The “Federal” theologians… don’t appear to have a biblical understanding of what a covenant is or whether the Bible contains more than one. Simply as a matter of intellectual integrity, theirs should be called “The Non-Federal Vision.” And when they suggest that we need to do theology from a covenantal perspective, we should demand that they do the same, and candidly acknowledge that the Bible not only records a multiplicity of covenants, but also speaks of them in the plural.
Reflections on the Auburn Theology – T. David’s Page
http://www.tdgordon.net/theology/auburntheology.doc
LikeLike
The problem for many with the term “works” appears to do with whether a created being can earn something by right thereby obligating God to reward; and along with this the following question, can we call this meritorious?
In the two cases of God’s administrational arrangements with man under discussion, He condescends by His voluntary and free covenant to bless and / or curse. God is obligated by His own will and oath in entering into covenantal arrangements such as in the case with both the original covenant of works with Adam, and in the temporal blessings and cursings which accompany the Mosaic covenant as Kline affirmed. God’s obligation is to His own Word in these cases and His response to the “works” of the creature are covenantally meritorious based upon the stipulations given by God Himself whether absolute or relative, and eternal or temporal. Merit is thereby recognized as relative only under the terms of each covenant and man’s attitude within them in looking to God to respond is grounded in God’s word itself and man’s trust in Him which is part and parcel of these covenants.
However, if the integrity of faith (trusting God) from first to last even under the covenantal arrangement(s) discussed devolves into the creature’s ontological/autonomous claim of a right based upon his own being and doing, the creature breaks the character of the covenant stipulations.
Faith appears to be the norm under each covenant in this way.
LikeLike
mcmark, I stand imperfected. Ding ding.
LikeLike
Kent, the New Republic would be all over that pastor. Must not exist.
LikeLike
Alexander, it is clear that the Bible tells Israel to keep all of God’s commandments or else die. It is clear that God did not say that to Abraham. It is clear that Paul contrasts the law given at Sinai to the promise given to Abraham. It is also clear that the NT nowhere threatens the church with “if you don’t keep everything I have commanded, you die.”
I know that harmonizing all that takes some work. It’s so complicated that Paul links the law to Hagar instead of Sarah. But if you keep reading the Bible and progress in your sanctification, you might get it.
LikeLike
David R., and we know that when you finally explain your objections to republication you actually hold a position virtually the same as republication.
Talk about ungrateful.
LikeLike
DGH, i just consider that David Murray has partnered up with Tim Challies, nothing wrong with that but it speaks volumes.
I have never heard a Reformed or decent Baptist tell me directly that the pursuit of personal holiness isn’t a part of the faith.
Come to think of it i have heard nothing but the demand to increase holiness…
LikeLike
Randall, here’s my problem with the way some construe “voluntary condescension.” Why would a loving and caring and providing God, who created a creature good and in his own image, have to be regarded as doing something so vastly beneath him to establish a covenant the creature? It’s as if Adam was dirty and God decided to hold his nose when he promised eternal blessedness based on perfect obedience. Is God really that squeamish about the pinnacle of his visible creation? Was man so deprived that God had to do something beneath him to have a relation with man?
Be careful. What you say about Adam could have implications for the incarnate Christ.
LikeLike
Gen. 26:4 “I will make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and will give them all these lands, and through your offspring[a] all nations on earth will be blessed, 5 because Abraham obeyed me and did everything I required of him, keeping my commands, my decrees and my instructions.”
LikeLike
Be careful. What you say about Adam could have implications for the incarnate Christ.
…and boom goes the dynamite.
Deeg, I think this is where the kids say. “Oh no you di-int!”
What is curiously missing from the republication arguments is where God accedes to himself ‘covenantal properties’ at creation (by repub detractors, e.g. Oliphint), and how this reading of covenant bleeds over into theology proper. Talk about stretching to make a point.
LikeLike
Are you saying God wasn’t gracious in covenanting with Adam?
Alexander, if by gracious you mean to say that God was good to Adam in holding out the promise of eternal life in return for obedience, fine. But that’s different from saying, as you did originally, “the CoW was gracious.” It is one thing to say that God is gracious in his character, but another entirely to say law involves grace, for law inherently is devoid of grace as much as grace is inherently devoid of law.
You also said, “Drinking alcohol is not forbidden but Christians shouldn’t be going to pubs. And Dr. Hart promoted drinking in a very unsuitable way, encouraging behaviour that can only lead to immoral behaviour.” Well, if consuming alcohol isn’t a problem then how is going to a place that serves it? What if I meet David Noe at Hop Cat and only have some cracked fries? And to what exactly are you referring when you say he promoted it in a very unsuitable way–by speaking approvingly of going to a pub? If so (and on top of the first and second questions), what are you saying, that going to a pub always and ever leads to a blatant breaking of God’s law?
LikeLike
Where’s Viking, The when we need him??
LikeLike
In his book, From Embers To A Flame, Rev. Harry Reeder referenced the ‘Sin of Achen’ and how the Israelites were defeated in battle, and then drew upon a personal example of his own repentance in confessing to cheating on an exam to his seminary teacher two years after it happened. I must say that I admired his integrity, and there have been times in my own life where I did feel the need to confess in particular instances, and on the home front, it happens a lot more. I still do not feel, though, that ‘being blessed’ should mean that I should have the most excellent ‘confessions of sin’ after the tradition and manner of C.J. Mahaney, Bill Gothard, and others who follow the mystics. Someone quoted the Welsh revivalist once, Evan Roberts? (glad for the correct name) who said that to have a revival you should confess all known sin, etc., etc. And as much as I have benefited from Martin Lloyd-Jones on certain points, I don’t agree with his adulation over the Calvinistic Methodists……sorry.
In Rev. Reeder’s book, his take on the ‘Sin of Achen’ and applying the principle seems more ‘Sinaic’ than ‘Abrahamic’ in terms of understanding the covenants. I do acknowledge and honor God’s Word – “he who covers his sins does not prosper” – but I must say that I was given advice years ago about confession of sin that remains with me as invaluable counsel for life – basically, that confession of sin is a ‘wisdom issue’. Someone could alleviate their guilty conscience while at the same time destroying someone else with their confession of sin. This is the danger in the camp of those who emphasize this type of piety/discipleship/confession of sin/accountability/via one-on-one and small group accountability. Calvin said that we should find someone ‘suitable’ to confess to. There are people I know that I would never want to confess to, even pastors, as well as elders. I do share with people I find suitable, and it’s a 2-way street as well – mutually being built-up. Most of all, I confess to Christ, and appreciate the pastoral prayer at our church so that I can confess with our congregation.
LikeLike
@Zrim: regarding HopCat, please don’t use imaginary scenarios. Only things that REALLY happened, k? What are fries with crack anyway?
LikeLike
Zrim, i hope Alexander is able to walk even 10% of the path that he tries to burden us with.
What was that saying about money talks and something else walks?
LikeLike
David: I tried to answer that question [that is, identify the problem] in my “state of the question” comment. ‘Member?
Yes, I do. Here it is.
Then our discussion somewhat trickled off. But my response was that most of the “questions of controversy” were not actually disagreements.
Then that led to “further thoughts”, and we left things unresolved.
—
Rather than go fifteen rounds at this time on those questions, I would like to circle around these two very different questions:
(1) Does Vos support an anti-repub case?
(2) Is David Murray correct to identify merit as “any work to which a reward is due from justice on account of its intrinsic value and worth and requires two essential things: Moral perfection, and Ontological equality”?
I will develop those questions below. The first is important because you have appealed to Vos, and I didn’t have my copy of BT handy at the time. The second is important because you have identified “Kline’s redefinition of merit” as an issue even more important than republication proper.
LikeLike
David R., and we know that when you finally explain your objections to republication you actually hold a position virtually the same as republication.
Let me get this straight: I List 13 things that the RPs affirm but their critics deny. He responds that he only affirms 6 of those 13 things. Your assessment is that our position is “virtually the same.” And now you want me to thank you?
LikeLike
Here is Vos. First, he lays out the nature of the problem. How are we to understand the law? If we understand that the Pharisees were wrong to try to find eternal life in the law, what are we to make of the law’s promised blessing to its keepers? In the background is Vos’s development of the redemption from Egypt as the type of redemption from sin (BT,pp 109- 119).
Now, he solves the problem. What is the meaning of the blessings and sanctions promised under the law? Those blessings belong to the symbolico-typical sphere of appropriateness of expression.
Before continuing the quote, I want to observe here that Vos is firmly on the side of those who see the “do this and live” principle in the law as typical.
You, David, have resisted this point, when you say
DR: The republication of the moral law, or matter of the CoW (or Turretin’s external economy), is legal, not typological. It simply says “Do this and live,” promises eternal life upon the doing and threatens eternal condemnation upon the not doing.
In the typological sphere however, what we see (in keeping with I.5 and I.6 above) is that Israel’s exile prefigures the final judgment of the wicked and their everlasting exclusion from the heavenly kingdom. IOW, what is published in the sphere of typology is not the CoW per se, but rather a preview of the threatened punishment (under the terms of the broken CoW) that ultimately befalls those who know not God, and obey not the gospel of Jesus Christ.
So, not “typological republication,” but a straight-forward republication of the principles of justice together with (yet distinct from) a typological preview of judgment to come…
The difficulty with your analysis is one of identifying the pieces in play. You correctly observe that the republication of the moral law in the Decalogue is something more than type. It is a reaffirmation of the principles of justice (which as we agree only Jesus would fulfill).
But this is not the only piece in play, and it is not where the heart of the Klinean thesis lies.
The issue is the judicial law and the national sanctions. Those are the material that are identified as being “a republication of the covenant of works in a moral sense.”
And indeed, Vos goes there, using different terminology.
Let’s break this down. Israel’s possession of the land was
* On the ground of their obedience,
* Nationally,
* And not according to strict justice, but tempered with grace,
* And typical of the state of blessedness,
* Culminating in a convincing proof that blessedness cannot be had be law-keeping.
So Vos is not your ally here. He looks like it, since he divides between a “legal sphere of merit” and an “appropriateness of expression.” On that basis, you have concluded that any legal principle cannot ipso facto be a typical principle also.
But that division is between the moral law on the one hand, which was abiding and “real” and gives eternal blessing for perfect obedience, and the temporal sanctions on the other, which were temporal and “symbolico-typical” and gave temporal blessings for imperfect obedience. This whole discussion on pp 126-128 is to explain the meaning of the promises of blessing for law-keeping. It is separate from his discussion of the moral law in the Decalogue, which is on pp 129ff.
So the correct contrast in Vos is between “strict merit” and “symbolico-typical.” The one refers to eternal blessedness, the other to possession of the land. The one operates on perfect obedience, the other on imperfect. The one is “real” because eternal; the other is “typical” because temporal.
This was a really long post because I wanted to get the primary source material out here for discussion. Let me summarize:
* Vos affirms that possession of the land on the ground of (imperfect) obedience is typical.
* This is in reference to the temporal sanctions, not the moral law.
LikeLike
DR: Let me get this straight: I List 13 things that the RPs affirm but their critics deny. He responds that he only affirms 6 of those 13 things.
I think you may have forgotten what you wrote. There’s no way that you affirm all thirteen of those things.
Here are the first three:
1. whether sinners can merit (in any sense) anything but condemnation,
2. whether God has ever entered into a legal (inheritance by works) covenant with sinners,
3. whether the Mosaic covenant was a substantially distinct covenant from the covenant of grace (which is affirmed by some republicationists),
I have greater than 95% confidence that you do not affirm any of those.
LikeLike
So does David Murray do justice to the Reformed and Klinean notions of merit when he accuses Kline of “redefining merit”?
I think he gets both of them wrapped around an axle.
Here he is:
Here, Murray introduces a strawman of “strict merit” that confuses the issues.
The notion of “strict merit” involving both moral perfection and ontological equality was uniformly rejected not merely by the Reformers, but even by Catholics as being a term unsuitable to describe the merit required of Adam (CCC 2007).
So to say that Kline or any republicationist believes in “strict merit” in the sense that Murray introduces it is absurd. They are more likely to be Dispensationalists than “strict merit”-ists.
Instead, when republicationists talk about “merit”, they are talking “obedience as a ground” — in other words, merit pactum, earning a reward by fulfilling the requirement of the covenant.
This is clearly what Adam was supposed to do. No-one supposes that refraining from eating a fruit is somehow strictly morally equivalent to receiving eternal life.
Here is how the WLC describes Adam’s situation:
Question 20: What was the providence of God toward man in the estate in which he was created?
Answer: The providence of God toward man in the estate in which he was created, was the placing him in paradise, appointing him to dress it, giving him liberty to eat of the fruit of the earth; putting the creatures under his dominion, and ordaining marriage for his help; affording him communion with himself; instituting the sabbath; entering into a covenant of life with him, upon condition of personal, perfect, and perpetual obedience, of which the tree of life was a pledge; and forbidding to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, upon the pain of death.
What characterized the covenant of works was not “strict merit” but “upon condition of personal, perfect, and perpetual obedience”
Now, what were the terms of Israel’s remaining in the land? “If you obey, you remain; if not, you leave; if you repent, I will restore you.”
Israel remains in the land on the grounds of national, imperfect, and continued obedience.
What is the appropriate term for this arrangement? Kline calls it “a typological republication of the covenant of works.” Does that entail strict merit? No. Does that entail an exact match to Adam’s or Jesus’s situation? No — types do not have to be exact matches to their antitypes.
So when Murray says,
He needs to clarify how 5 and 6 do not contradict each other. If “merit” does not have the qualities of moral perfection and ontological equality, then it isn’t “strict merit.”
The stake is not strict merit, but obedience as a ground. If Israel’s continuance in the land was grounded in her obedience, then we are talking about merit pactum. If her continuance in the land was grounded solely in God’s work, with no reference to obedience, then we are talking about grace.
There are no other categories.
LikeLike
Dr. Hart- Throughout Scripture God makes it plain that those who follow Him will receive blessing. Nations will be blessed, the people of God will be blessed. “Righteousness exalteth a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people”. I’m bit talking prosperity gospel- the saints in Scotland were often very poor and lowly- but that light will he given. But when a people turn away from God, there are consequences.
Zrim- Man was made under law. He owed God obedience and God owed him nothing. But God chose to covenant with Adam and to promise him life in exchange for obedience. That was an act of grace. Read John Brown of Haddington’s commentary on the SC.
Pubs are places of drunkenness and revelling and raucous behaviour; their whole purpose us to encourage as much drinking as possible. That is an environment at odds with a Christian walk. And the problem with Dr. Hart- in this area- is his manner of talking about alcohol: careless, unchaste. He encourages the sort of reckless, rowdy attitude to drink that is so dangerous.
LikeLike
Jeff- But what’s your complaint? Murray doesn’t say that Adam offered strict merit but covenant merit. You both seem to be saying that Adam’s obedience was accepted on the terms of the covenant- a gracious condescension- rather than as merit that inherently earned him life.
Dr. Hart- Man is a creature, God is the creator. There’s a difference and an infinite distance. Otherwise why do we say it was a humiliation for Christ to take the form of man? Man is not God, maybe you should keep things in perspective.
LikeLike
Question:
Kevin DeYoung’s views generally tend to promote subscribing to the Sinaic covenant
(51% and beyond in terms of what he emphasizes).
Agree?
Disagree?
LikeLike
Jeff,
Here are the first three:
1. whether sinners can merit (in any sense) anything but condemnation,
2. whether God has ever entered into a legal (inheritance by works) covenant with sinners,
3. whether the Mosaic covenant was a substantially distinct covenant from the covenant of grace (which is affirmed by some republicationists),
I have greater than 95% confidence that you do not affirm any of those.
Maybe you should rub the sleep out of your eyes before posting…. Those items are the first three of the thirteen that I said your side affirms and the critics deny. You agreed with me on six of them (if I counted right).
LikeLike
Patrick, seriously? That only confirms the point that some people get righteous because another obeyed the law — you know, like the gospel. Abraham’s descendants are blessed because of Abraham’s faithfulness.
Where is the threat, “don’t do this and die”?
LikeLike
Zrim, and if God was gracious to Adam before the fall, is God gracious to animals before the fall? Does his providential care for them qualify as grace? Or was he gracious only with the critters that made it to the Ark?
LikeLike
Jeff, you’re on a roll. Careful and thoughtful.
LikeLike
Alexander, and throughout Scripture God tells us that suffering is a blessing. So which is it? Is God blessing us when we rule or when we are persecuted?
LikeLike
alex: Jeff- But what’s your complaint? Murray doesn’t say that Adam offered strict merit but covenant merit. You both seem to be saying that Adam’s obedience was accepted on the terms of the covenant- a gracious condescension- rather than as merit that inherently earned him life
My complaint is that Murray wrongly attributes “strict merit” to repubs, which is ludicrous.
LikeLike
@ David:
Quite right, I read you backwards. Sorry.
But your count did surprise me, as I thought we were in closer agreement at the time. Perhaps it would be helpful if you answered those same questions.
LikeLike
Speaking of being sleepy, I have a massive erratum above.
I wrote, “Those are the material that are identified as a republication of the covenant of works in a moral sense.”
That should have read “in a typological sense”
Apologies for any confusion.
LikeLike
Jeff- Ah I get ya. So would you agree with Murray that the merit of Adam is different from the merit of Christ? This distinction seemed to make sense to me, but I wasn’t aware that he was saying that Republicationists were saying Adam had or offered strict merit.
Dr. Hart- Why do you create all these dichotomies which aren’t there in Scripture? And why do you read blessing as power, whether economic or military or whatever? That’s so Second Temple Judaism!
I repeat my example of Scotland: after the Reformation for a good number of generations the Gospel light shone in this country and many, many souls were saved. Scotland was blessed. The Lord’s people didn’t necessarily receive temporal improvements- like money or power- and there were times of persecution as the agents of darkness sought to quench the light, but still the people and the nation were blessed as they turned to God.
Sometimes it might be temporal blessings for a nation- such as a civic morality which is widely ascribed &c.- although I don’t think we need to say the blessings of Israel for obedience- remaining in the land, military security- are necessarily transplanted exactly but the principle remains: that Scripture clearly teaches that those nations which fear God will be blessed and those which don’t, won’t. But that doesn’t preclude suffering, but also why must Christians always be sufferering, and how do we define that suffering? Is your suffering the same as the Christians in Sudan? No. The world is always at enmity towards the soul which has grace, and the believer is always aware of that enmity, but usually he is more aggrieved at the sin within and the war between the old and new man. But Christians can also experience triumph in this life.
Some things require a little nuance.
LikeLike