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 
But Lee Irons does not count, because he dared to point out that “the law” usually means “mosaic covenant law”.
Click to access redefining_merit.pdf
LikeLike
When this RP and anti-RP debate finally gets resolved I can then determine who I can safely go to for Pastoral confession or “wisdom” counseling. Until then my guide is summarized pretty good by this book reviewer of Barbara Duguid’s book, EXTRAVAGANT GRACE:
1) He started off with the following that I already mentioned: “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.”
2) He then names the chapters that are telling and hopeful for those who are dwelling in the wilderness (or the hood) but want to find a way out. Or, perhaps they are worried that they have been condemned to the wilderness until they die with no way out because of their frequent breaking of the commandments. Here they are with a little commentary afterwards:
“Individual chapters address the superiority of the heart over mere behavior in growth (ch. 1); the naiveté of newly converted Christians about how much sinfulness will remain in them throughout their lives (ch. 2); what true Christian maturity looks like (ch. 3); the crucial importance of humility in Christian growth (ch. 4); the unrealistic optimism about growth in many of our churches and the paradox of strength through weakness throughout the Christian life (ch. 5); the sovereignty of God over even our sin (ch. 6); the role of adversity in revealing to us our ongoing depravity (ch. 6); the unilateral work of God to sustain us in sanctification (chs. 8–9); the importance of patience and compassion toward sin, both ours and others’ (ch. 10); the transforming nature of God’s kindness and love (ch. 11); the implications of the grace of the gospel and the advantages of remaining sin (ch. 12); and the means of grace as we journey through this life to heaven (ch. 13).”
“Throughout, Duguid wants to free up Christians. It is in their weakness and messiness, not beyond it, that Christ and his grace are theirs. This insight is crucial because of the ineradicable proclivity even among believers to doubt God’s love in light of repeated moral failure. Yet while the New Testament does occasionally call for self-examination, the emphasis is not self-assessment but looking outside oneself to Christ (Heb 12:2), resting in the provisions of a grace that comes to us wholly from outside us. John Newton and his disciple Barbara Duguid capture this counter-instinctual biblical truth and drive it home.”
3) But then he almost takes away the hope by “wondering” too much:
“Three questions arose in my mind as I read, however, which could fall under the headings regeneration, divine anger, and hyper-Calvinism.”
“First, the main reason I wonder if the book succeeds in avoiding imbalance is that it seems as if regeneration and the new spiritual taste buds granted in the new birth get unhelpfully sidelined. Duguid does mention in a few places regeneration and the new impulse toward holiness that comes when the Holy Spirit sets up permanent residence within the believer (e.g., pp. 97, 129). But the general message is that the regenerate are no more capable of obeying God than the unregenerate. The mature Christian, we read, “is just as incapable of performing spiritual acts or resisting temptation on his own as he was on the day he was saved” (p. 63). Or: “at the moment of conversion [God] frees us from the spiritual power that our sin had to condemn us, but he leaves us with a sinful nature that will wage war against our new nature for the remainder of our lives” (p. 60). To be sure, we remain sinners in need of grace our whole lives long. Yet one wonders if Duguid overly mutes the decisive transformation wrought in the new birth and the animating power of the Holy Spirit, who grants both the desire and the ability to “walk in a manner worthy of the Lord, fully pleasing to him” (Col 1:10; cf. Phil 1:27; Eph 4:11; 1 Thess 2:12). One further wonders if Duguid has accurately presented the fullness of Newton’s own teaching at this point.”
John Y: I think that accurately summarizes the hopes and concerns of both sides of the issue.
LikeLike
Jeff,
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.
Missing from your “careful” and “thoughtful” analysis of Vos is any commentary on his concluding thoughts:
So allow me to help you with your conclusion:
* The NT church is also under a works principle whereby their possession of the heavenly inheritance will be grounded on their obedience.
LikeLike
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.
Alexander, simply stated and yet so convoluted. So was the arrangement quid pro quo or not? I can’t tell by what you say here. First God doesn’t owe for obedience (wrong), then he does (right, but you just said he didn’t…?) and it’s called an act of grace (huh?). But grace is what comes to one who hasn’t earned, while life is what comes to one who has earned.
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.
This ironically sounds like someone who’s watched too many movies and read too many novels. But if you spent any actual time in an actual pub you’d know that most patrons comport themselves and things are pretty orderly. And “his manner…careless, unchaste, reckless and rowdy”? I know Darryl can defend himself here, but are you talking about the same guy who’s all about restraint and modesty to the chagrin of revivalists and semi-revivalists everywhere? What on earth are you talking about now? But my own sense is that this is the typical inflated smearing by a teetotaler of an imbiber. Your distinction-oh-meter needs tweaking not only doctrinally but morally. Let me guess, you also see no difference between a heavy drinker and an alcoholic?
LikeLike
David, HopCat tonight at 7. Don’t forget your unchaste pants—I want to get kicked out in a drunken stupor before 7:45. Because that’s what it’s there for, right?
LikeLike
Darryl, good question. I don’t know, but it was sheer grace that he invented dogs. What explains the advent of cats, not sure.
LikeLike
Zrim, yet again- God created Adam. Adam, as the creature, owed his obedience to God. In return for this obedience God did not owe him anything: his obedience was required of him by virtue of being created. However, God then entered into a covenant with Adam whereby as a reward of the obedience he owed God by virtue of his creation, Adam would receive eternal life. Adam always owed obedience but God, in His grace, covenanted to bestow life on Adam as reward.
It might be a thing to think about not using generalisations to attack a generalisation. But the fact you say “most patrons” you concede yourself that there are those in these establishments who do not, therefore Christians should not be there. Dr. Hart may promote restraint in regards “pietists” (he’s right to a point, but goes beyond that point and effectively denies spiritual experience by the believer) but not when it comes to alcohol or smoking.
I’m not sure what your point about the distinction between a heavy drinker and alcoholic is. There may be a distinction but are you talking about people who quite happily drink heavily? Such a person is clearly immoral.
LikeLike
@ David R:
Thanks. Here’s my help in return:
This is the most convincing proof that law-observance is not the meritorious ground of blessedness. God in such cases simply repeats what He did at the beginning, viz., receive Israel into favour on the principle of free grace. It is in agreement with this, when the law is represented in the Old Testament, not as the burden and yoke which it later came to be in the religious experience of the Jews, but as one of the greatest blessings and distinctions that Jehovah had conferred upon his people [Deut. 4.7, 8; Psa. 147.19, 20; cp. even Paul, Rom. 9.4, 5]. And in Paul’s teaching the strand that corresponds to this Old Testament doctrine of holiness as the indispensable (though not meritorious) condition of receiving the inheritance is still distinctly traceable.
So you say,
The NT church is also under a works principle whereby their possession of the heavenly inheritance will be grounded on their obedience.
Here, you’ve really repudiated WSC 19.6: Although true believers be not under the law, as a covenant of works, to be thereby justified, or condemned
Your words literally say that law observance will be the ground of the attainment of blessedness.
Oh, but you say, what about WSC 13.1: They, who are once effectually called, and regenerated, having a new heart, and a new spirit created in them, are further sanctified, really and personally, through the virtue of Christ’s death and resurrection, by His Word and Spirit dwelling in them: the dominion of the whole body of sin is destroyed, and the several lusts thereof are more and more weakened and mortified; and they more and more quickened and strengthened in all saving graces, to the practice of true holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord.
And here we distinguish between anterior and posterior conditions. Why is it true that without true holiness, no man shall see the Lord? Because, posteriorly, all who are justified receive the Spirit, and from that Spirit reap holiness. All who are justified, are also sanctified.
But the justification is the ground of being received into the heavenly dwellings. That’s basic, basic Reformed stuff.
Our holiness in obedience does not and cannot serve as the ground (antecedent condition) for our glorification. You have reworded Vos to mean something that he clearly repudiates.
This is dangerous turf, brother.
LikeLike
Alexander: But the fact you say “most patrons” you concede yourself that there are those in these establishments who do not, therefore Christians should not be there.
Huh. Scripture?
LikeLike
Zrim, I think there are at least two David’s here … I’d happily accept but for the little problem of 1000 miles or so…. I guess I’ll have to content myself with virtual libations.
LikeLike
Jeff- If you can’t give the time to write complete sentences don’t expect me to give up my time helping you in Christian 101.
LikeLike
Especially since you haven’t taken the time to answer my question to you on merit.
LikeLike
Alexander, why is the Christian in the Sudan’s suffering different? Don’t take offense. I can see all sorts of differences in civil and external matters. But what about spiritual suffering? Is it different?
And if Scotland was blessed, how do you know? By what standard? You want nuance, I’m asking for nuance — more like definition.
LikeLike
Zrim, men who wear bowties and tassle loafer gotta have furry companionship too.
LikeLike
Jeff, dangerous turf? It’s a different gospel: “The NT church is also under a works principle whereby their possession of the heavenly inheritance will be grounded on their obedience.”
But I do thank David R. for being candid. We now have a record of where anti-repub goes. Neonomian to the core.
WOW!!
LikeLike
Our holiness in obedience does not and cannot serve as the ground (antecedent condition) for our glorification. You have reworded Vos to mean something that he clearly repudiates.
No, Jeff, that was your conclusion I was helping you with. My point (obvious I thought) was that’s where your reading Vos takes you. What Vos is actually saying however, is that, just as obedience (albeit non-meritorious, non-instrumental and God-enabled) was a prerequisite for possessing the typological inheritance, so it is also for possessing the eternal one. (For corroboration, see the final clause of WLC #32.)
LikeLike
D.G., sorry to disappoint you (yet again). I was only being candid about where Jeff’s (mis)interpretation of Vos leads him.
LikeLike
Alexander, my guess is that you’re trying to protect God against being portrayed as unduly beholden to his creatures. I get it, seems impious, but not only does God not need your help, what you inevitably end up doing is reading grace back into the CoW where it simply cannot be. Belgic 14 says in part: “We believe that God created human beings from the dust of the earth and made and formed them in his image and likeness—good, just, and holy; able by their will to conform in all things to the will of God.” Grace wasn’t needed and it wasn’t one iota a part of the scheme, so why do you keep speaking as if it were?
Bad behavior is possible everywhere. You’re picking on pubs because you have a prior bias against drink and by extension those who affirm their freedom in Christ to imbibe, and it especially grinds you when they actually enjoy it and commend it to others.
LikeLike
Alexander – If there is a Mrs. Alexander, is it sinful to have sex with her? After all, some people have sexual addictions and some people rape! And while you’re at it, you shouldn’t visit any restaurants because those places exist for people to engage in gluttony (and most even serve alceehol). I know that because I always see a few obese people whenever I enter a restaurant. Same goes for grocery stores. Time to start gardening.
The memory verse I’m assigning to you today is Psalm 104:15.
LikeLike
David R., what are you talking about. That conclusion was precisely what Klineans and others saw in Shepherd. Now you’re saying that their position leads them right to Shepherd. This is stuff right out of Jack Van Impe, as in they don’t know what their doing but the anti-repubs do.
LikeLike
D.G., do I “virtually agree” with you, or am I “neonomian to the core”? Are the cats teaching you to be fickle?
LikeLike
I guess I need to spell it out:
Vos says that the obedience that was prerequisite for possessing the typological inheritance is also prerequisite for possessing the eternal inheritance.
Jeff misunderstands Vos to be saying that Israel’s obedience was the (meritorious?) “ground” for possessing the typological inheritance.
I then simply tried to show him the logical conclusion of his misunderstanding….
LikeLike
It’s time for deep breaths all around.
Alexander: I will hereby only use complete sentences in conversing with you, Lord willing. I hope that helps.
I am not remembering a question on merit. Let me scan for it. Ah, here it is:
So would you agree with Murray that the merit of Adam is different from the merit of Christ?
Yes. I am not absolutely certain as to whether that difference is better described as “strict merit” or “merit pactum under the eternal covenant”, but in either case, the merit of Adam is different from that of Christ.
LikeLike
I have a question… on what ground or basis would we say that Israel was exiled from the land of Canaan?
LikeLike
David R: I am relieved that you weren’t representing your own view.
You aren’t representing mine, either, which I hope is good news for you.
So why is that not my position, and why do I think I’ve gotten Vos right?
Let’s break this down more carefully:
But, while this is so, it might still be objected that law-observance, if not the ground from receiving, is yet made the ground for retention of the privileges inherited. Here it can not, of course, be denied that a real connection exists. But the Judaizers went wrong in inferring that the connection must be meritorious, that, if Israel keeps the cherished gifts of Jehovah through observance of His law, this must be so, because in strict justice they had earned them. — G.Vos, BT
* Vos is not denying that law-observance was the ground for retention of privileges inherited: “Here it cannot be denied, of course, that a connection exists.”
* He is denying that that connection operates according to strict merit.
So do I.
Next, why would you wrongly think that my position means that the NT church is under a works principle? Here, there are too many assumptions left out for me to accurately speculate. So let me inaccurately speculate and you can correct me about your own thoughts.
You emphasized Vos: And in Paul’s teaching the strand that corresponds to this Old Testament doctrine of holiness as the indispensable (though not meritorious) condition of receiving the inheritance is still distinctly traceable.
So perhaps your argument is,
(1) Jeff thinks that Vos thinks that law-keeping was the ground for retention of the land.
(2) Vos thinks that Paul’s teaching about holiness as an indispensable condition for receiving the inheritance is exactly parallel to the situation with Israel.
(3) Therefore, the principle for Israel’s retention and the principle for our retention must be the same.
(4) Whence Jeff is compelled to believe that law-keeping would be the ground for our retention of salvation.
Is that a fair reconstruction?
If so, it breaks down at (2). Having “a strand discernible” is not the same as “is an exact parallel to.” Vos is not saying, “Just as with national Israel, so also with us.” For if he were, then defectible salvation would be the necessary conclusion, since it was certainly possible for Israel to fail to remain in the land (as in fact did happen), whereas it is not possible for a Christian to fail to inherit.
So we cannot over-read Vos here.
—
Having sorted all that out, I would like for you to deal with the judicial law square on. How do you understand that as a dispensation of the covenant of grace?
LikeLike
Alexander: But the fact you say “most patrons” you concede yourself that there are those in these establishments who do not, therefore Christians should not be there.
Please defend that reasoning from Scripture.
LikeLike
Jeff, besides the distinction in covenantal parties; CoW vs. CoR. Are you saying that adam’s potential merit was less strict or somehow not commensurate to potential reward or curse?
LikeLike
I’m saying that Adam’s obedience would have been commensurate inasmuch as it would have been obedience to the stipulated command.
Eating a fruit of itself is hardly equivalent to eternal life.
LikeLike
David, can’t tell where you are.
LikeLike
Jeff,
Is that a fair reconstruction?
Yes.
If so, it breaks down at (2). Having “a strand discernible” is not the same as “is an exact parallel to.” Vos is not saying, “Just as with national Israel, so also with us.” For if he were, then defectible salvation would be the necessary conclusion, since it was certainly possible for Israel to fail to remain in the land (as in fact did happen), whereas it is not possible for a Christian to fail to inherit.
You are not making the correct parallel. The correct parallel is not “Israel” and “Christian”; it is Old Testament church/New Testament church. In both cases, there is the possibility of apostasy and consequent loss of privilege. In both cases, obedience is prerequisite to possessing the inheritance, though in neither case is it the meritorious ground or instrumental ground. (In both cases of course, the elect persevere.)
Having sorted all that out, I would like for you to deal with the judicial law square on. How do you understand that as a dispensation of the covenant of grace?
If you don’t mind, I think it might be more productive if you explain how you understand Vos’s parallel between the OT and NT in terms of prerequisite obedience (since I think you now are clear on my view?).
LikeLike
Jack, apostasy.
LikeLike
David R. Hello! The church has no holy land except for dispensationalist Christians who still pine for Jerusalem. Is that you?
If you take away the judicial and ceremonial laws from Israel, what do you have?
LikeLike
Jeff, I’ll assume( I know I know) that you mean more by that than hell is equally incommensurate to biting a piece of fruit. My point is covenant is not an add on to the native relationship of creator and creature, nor should it be assumed that strict justice isn’t possible in the edenic situation . Rather, viewed covenantally, it should be considered inherent to the nature of a just God and His Imago Dei creation.
LikeLike
Maybe I can just put it this way: Obedience was a prerequisite for the OT church to remain in the land in precisely the same way that obedience is a prerequisite for a NT church to keep its lampstand. That obedience is a condition of maintaining privilege doesn’t prove a works principle in the former case any more than it does in the latter.
LikeLike
Zrim-
You just cannot argue that God owed man anything merely by His creating him. God is not dependent upon, nor obligated to, anyone or anything outside of Himself unless He chooses to condescend and covenant with said person. Which is what happened with Adam. Adam, by virtue of his being a reasonable creature, was obligated to obey the moral law; but God was not obligated to reward him for that.
John Brown of Haddington on the CoW:
Q. Was Adam, by virtue of his creation, under this covenant? A. No; he was only under the law of God.
Q. Wherein did that law, and the covenant made with him, differ? A. The law made him God’s servant, and required perfect obedience, without promising any reward; but this covenant made him God’s friend and ally, and promised a glorious reward to his obedience to which himself had engaged.
Q. What moved God to enter into this covenant? A. His own free favour and bounty, Job 7:17: What is man that thou shouldest magnify him? and that thou shouldest set thine heart upon him?
Q. How doth that appear? A. Because God as a Creator might justly have executed all the service man was capable of, without giving him any reward; and, notwithstanding, punished him for disobedience, Luke 17:10: So likewise ye, when ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to do.
Q. Was very much grace manifested in the covenant of works? A. Yes, very much free favour and bounty.
Q. How so? A. In God’s not only promising to reward man’s obedience; but also in so framing this covenant, as to admit a covenant of grace, if it was broken.
Q. Why then is it not called a covenant of grace? A. Because there was far less grace manifested in it than is in the second covenant, Rom. 5:20, 21
Fisher’s Catechism:
Q. 4. What do you understand by God’s writing the law upon the table of his heart?
A. God’s inlaying a principle of obedience in his heart, disposing him to obey out of love to God, and a supreme regard to his authority, Eccl. 7:29.
Q. 5. What was the peculiar favour which God manifested to man in a state of innocence, besides writing the law upon his heart?
A. The reducing that law to the form of a covenant, by which man became confederate with heaven.
Q. 19. Was there any mercy or favour in restricting man from eating of this tree?
A. Much every way; for this restriction taught him, that though he was lord of the creatures, yet he was God’s subject: it was a beacon set up before him to beware of sin; and it pointed him away from the creatures to God himself for happiness.
Q. 30. Was there any proportion between Adam’s obedience, though sinless, and the life that was promised?
A. There can be no proportion between the obedience of a finite creature, however perfect, and the enjoyment of the infinite God, Job 22:2, 3 — “Can a man be profitable to God? Is it any pleasure to the Almighty, that thou art righteous? or, is it gain to him, that thou makest thy way perfect?”
Q. 31. Why could not Adam’s perfect obedience be meritorious of eternal life?
A. Because perfect obedience was no more than what he was bound to, by virtue of his natural dependence on God, as a reasonable creature made after his image.
Q. 32. Could he have claimed the reward as a debt, in case he had continued in his obedience?
A. He could have claimed it only as a pactional[21] debt, in virtue of the covenant promise, by which God became debtor to his own faithfulness, but not in virtue of any intrinsic merit of his obedience, Luke 17:10.
Q. 33. What then was the grace and condescension of God that shined in the covenant of works?
A. In that he entered into a covenant, at all, with his own creature; and promised eternal life as a reward of his work, though he had nothing to work with, but what he received from God, 1 Cor. 4:7.
LikeLike
Jeff-
You would agree, though, that the believer inherits eternal life based on his being able to offer a perfect obedience of the law, either his or another’s? As man cannot do this, it must be another’s he offers, namely Christ’s. Which, of course, is what is so gracious about the covenant of grace.
Does that not come into your argument above, or is it a seperate point?
As to pubs: revelling is forbidden in Galatians 5 in the table of the works of the flesh, and pubs are a place of revellings, ergo Christians should not be there. They are also a place of drunkenness and lewd behaviour, ergo Christians should not be there. They are also a place of profanity, blasphemy and all sorts of unchaste behaviours and conversations that Christians should not be there.
LikeLike
So Jeff, what I’m trying to say is that you reason wrongly here:
“Vos is not saying, ‘Just as with national Israel, so also with us.’ For if he were, then defectible salvation would be the necessary conclusion, since it was certainly possible for Israel to fail to remain in the land (as in fact did happen), whereas it is not possible for a Christian to fail to inherit.”
It seems to me you reason as follows:
Vos’s parallel can be exact only if NT saints are liable to failure to inherit.
NT saints are not liable to failure to inherit.
Ergo, Vos’s parallel can’t be exact.
Is this fair? Assuming it is, the problem is with your major premise.
LikeLike
Alexander,
I think your pubs are different from my pubs. The last time I went to a pub, I had a quiet burger and fries with an elderly couple. The tables around were filled with families.
There was a bar off to the side. It was low-key.
LikeLike
Zrim-
If you’re saying grace wasn’t needed by Adam in order for him to obey the law, then that would appear to make sense. As the standards tell us Adam was created in knowledge, righteousness and holiness and able to obey. But I haven’t argued that Adam needed grace to obey the law. I’ve argued that the covenant of works is gracious, in the sense that 1) God was not obligated to enter into it and 2) God owed man nothing for his obedience but, graciously, offered him eternal life in exchange for said obedience.
So, yes, Adam was able to obey the law, but he was obligated to obey the law.
LikeLike
It sounds like you’re talking about a diner or bistro, not a bar or pub.
LikeLike
“God owed man nothing for his obedience but, graciously, offered him eternal life in exchange for said obedience.”
Alexander, not according to Romans 4 – “Now to the one who works, wages are not credited as a gift but as an obligation.”
If we say the reward of eternal life was not a just reward commensurate with Adam’s obedience then hell does not need to be a just punishment commensurate with Adam’s disobedience, which would bring God’s character into question, would it not?
LikeLike
DR – Maybe I can just put it this way: Obedience was a prerequisite for the OT church to remain in the land in precisely the same way that obedience is a prerequisite for a NT church to keep its lampstand. That obedience is a condition of maintaining privilege doesn’t prove a works principle in the former case any more than it does in the latter.
How is that not a works principle? Keep the stipulations of the covenant > Obedience = stay in the Land. Break the stipulations of the covenant > Disobedience = exiled from the Land. Which Scripture teaches. Both elect and non-elect Israelites were exiled in the second case when, for instance, Solomon the king of the nation disobeyed by setting up worship of foreign gods for his wives, even though that exile was delayed. In other words, as far as the nature of the covenant regarding the nation wasn’t it “Do this (keep the stipulations) and live”, i.e. Remain in the Land… and “Disobey (do not keep the stipulations) and die”, i.e. Exiled from the Land? Wasn’t this a works principle operating on some level?
Rather than bring in the “lampstand” of Revelation isn’t more helpful to talk in terms of the marks of a church? Do churches that stop preaching the gospel and rightly administering the sacraments get temporally exiled? We might rightly call them false churches but that doesn’t equate to any temporal punishment. Are you saying that the nation of Israel is a type (“precisely the same way”) of individual NT churches? Sorry for the questions but this seems to be what you are implying.
LikeLike
Jack, I have already answered the question of your first paragraph numerous times. As to your second paragraph, the question wasn’t concerning the form that loss of privilege takes (which we agree was different in the OT than it is in the NT) but rather, the prerequisite for maintaining privilege, which I argue is the same in the NT as it was in the OT.
LikeLike
David R. you mean keeping a lampstand like the church in Corinth?
LikeLike
Jeff, do you live in Dublin? Sounds like a pub over there. Over here, we have bars. Public house. psshaw.
LikeLike
David R., so the church has a works principle to maintain the ministry of the word.
How is it that if a repub guy affirms works principle in the Mosaic covenant you go all ape____. But when you do it it’s fine.
Is your objection that repub is soft on the works principle? They really need to be theonomists about it?
LikeLike
Alexander, fair enough perhaps, but it’s not obvious what is to be gained by characterizing the CoW as gracious even in a modified sense. I mean, when the judge acquits me because the law has vindicated me as not guilty but innocent, I don’t call him gracious for doing so. I call him just. Indeed, I’ve no problem saying that he as the agent of justice owed me an acquittal, even if that’s a tad awkward. Gratefulness for justice is a better posture. But gracious? No.
On bistros and pubs, so what happens when my bistro gets unchaste and the pub stays orderly? It can happen, the world is a complex place where neatly defined expectations get turned on their heads. Happens all the time, and the pious rigidity with which you evaluate pubs becomes a useless and legalistic ruler to help me live in the real world as a believer.
LikeLike
Alexander: You would agree, though, that the believer inherits eternal life based on his being able to offer a perfect obedience of the law, either his or another’s? As man cannot do this, it must be another’s he offers, namely Christ’s. Which, of course, is what is so gracious about the covenant of grace.
Full agreement.
Does that not come into your argument above, or is it a separate point?
It is a separate-but-related point.
Here is one way in which that point is related to the larger discussion. David R and I agree (I think!) that the Decalogue was an actual republication of the moral law — the requirements of the CoW — at Sinai.
If this were not so, then Jesus would not have merited our salvation.
LikeLike
JRC: If so, it breaks down at (2). Having “a strand discernible” is not the same as “is an exact parallel to.” Vos is not saying, “Just as with national Israel, so also with us.” For if he were, then defectible salvation would be the necessary conclusion, since it was certainly possible for Israel to fail to remain in the land (as in fact did happen), whereas it is not possible for a Christian to fail to inherit.
DR: You are not making the correct parallel. The correct parallel is not “Israel” and “Christian”; it is Old Testament church/New Testament church.
So this is a really interesting point, and I’m glad that you raised this issue. My first reaction was, “absolutely fair point.” My second was, “But is that what Vos meant?”
Let’s unpack a bit, and I hope you’ll adduce additional evidence for your view. It is certainly clear that you have structural parallelism on your side.
The reason that I thought Vos was paralleling Israel to Christian individuals is that I cannot think of a place — perhaps Eph 5, “washing her with water” — where Paul has a “strand that corresponds to this Old Testament doctrine of holiness as the indispensable condition of receiving the inheritance” in reference to the Church as an entity.
Paul does speak of holiness in reference to individuals, frequently, as does Heb 12.14.
But there’s more. You want the type to be the OT church, but in fact Vos is explicitly talking about the theocracy, which is subtly different.
Further, Vos is clearly speaking in the “symbolico-typological” realm. Is the OT theocracy used as a type for the NT church in Scripture? I can’t think of any references off the top, but perhaps you can.
Israel as a nation is a type of Christ (Matthew).
And the OT church is certainly continuous with the NT church as symbolized by the tree (Rom 11) and the temple (Eph 2).
But is the OT church a type of which the NT church is the antitype?
So I am not yet convinced that the structural parallelism, as attractive as it is, is what Vos has in mind. He clearly is talking about the OT theocracy and not the OT church. He would seem to be talking about the “holiness without which no one will see the Lord”, which is in reference to Christian individuals.
And the notion of broken-off branches and removed lampstands is not operating in the “symbolico-typological” realm.
So say more. What is your reasoning?
LikeLike
D.G., wait I think you’re the one affirming a works principle and I’m denying…. I have that right, don’t I?
LikeLike