371 thoughts on “Development of Doctrinal Dispute Stalled”

1. David R., have you noticed that come across as canonical?

   LikeLike

2. David,

   Kline would view Abraham and Noah’s obedience as types of the messianic king, not because they were under a works arrangement, but because their righteousness was applied to others in a representative way. Kline would see Israel’s obedience as typological of the works principle being fulfilled by Christ the true Israel through his active obedience. At the same time there are lessons we learn from Israel’s obedience and disobedience that do apply to our own walk with God in the NC, but that is a different category.

   It is interesting that after a month or so of you and Jeff exchanging views and challenging each other, you two are still unsure what each other believes about the Mosaic covenant, as it is not clear to either of you what Vos was saying about it either. This refutes David Murray’s notion that if it is complicated it must be wrong. Better to go with Jonathan Edwards, “There is perhaps no part of divinity attended with so much intricacy, and wherein orthodox divines do so much differ as stating the precise agreement and difference between the two dispensations of Moses and Christ.”

   The key is not where one begins, but where one ends up. For example, I do not like where John Murray begins on the Mosaic covenant, but when he explains justification I like where he ends up. I can live with what I believe is a happy inconsistency, as I realize I likely have happy inconsistencies in my theology.

   I think it would helpful to move on from what Vos or Kline might be saying to how our views of the new covenant might differ because of differing starting points. From what I can tell, our chief difference lies in describing the new covenant as breakable or not. Since Klineans see discontinuity between the works principle of Moses and the grace principle of the NC, we see one as breakable by works and the other unbreakable, as that is the nature of grace. Since you see continuity between the covenants, you suggest both covenants are breakable by apostasy. We would say that while an apostate surely spits upon the covenant of grace he claimed to believe, his apostasy did not
   “break the covenant,” as the cov. of grace is unbreakable because the obedience of Christ, not ours, is the surety of the covenant. The question then is; are there more differences between our understanding of the gospel and new covenant than simply different ways to describe it? If you have not gone the FV route, then that might be the question worth exploring.

   LikeLike

3. Todd,

   Kline would see Israel’s obedience as typological of the works principle being fulfilled by Christ the true Israel through his active obedience.

   You assert this once again but w/o answering my question. Again, how do I reconcile Kline with Kline?

   LikeLike

4. I agree that the question of where we differ concerning the NC is an interesting one. I certainly have my opinions about that. But if after a month, we still don’t know how each other views the MC, I’m not super optimistic about how we’ll fare with the NC. Still, I actually do think that Jeff and I have made progress and I always feel like we’re on the verge of a breakthrough…. Maybe it’s my personality but I like finishing one task before starting another….

   LikeLike

5. David,

   I didn’t mean to say there was no progress between you and Jeff, or that you should cease your interaction, but the reality that after all this time there “may be a breakthrough” only buttresses my point of the difficulty of this subject. But after all is said and done the key will be potential differing views of the covenant of grace. As for Kline vs. Kline, I tried to answer your question.

   LikeLike

6. Todd has a good point, which is related to what I said above: We are trying to mine a few paragraphs in Vos to determine his view on a topic that isn’t exactly the subject of his book. It would be better for us to return to Scripture.

   To get there, I would like to point out that Vos needs more study before we would be able to declare his views. So you have an argument,

   * Vos says that Israel’s obedience was “non-meritorious”
   * Thus he denies all kinds of merit principle in the giving of the law
   * Thus he denies any kind of work-principle in the law
   * Thus he agrees with you that the law was not a republication of the CoW.

   And off we go debating each point. Does Vos mean any form of merit or only strict merit? Is a work-principle the same as a merit principle? Etc.

   But it’s entirely likely that we have insufficient information in BT to draw a firm conclusion about Vos’s view of the covenant.

   For example, were you aware of this?

   From the above we can also explain why the older theologians did not always clearly distinguish between the covenant of works and the Sinaitic covenant. At Sinai it was not the “bare” law that was given, but a reflection of the covenant of works revived, as it were, in the interests of the covenant of grace continued at Sinai. It would be a mistake, however, to say that the above is the essence of the covenant. That natural relation in which man stands to God and this just claim made by the Creator, remain valid, also at each later stage and are presupposed in each act, including the covenant of grace.

   — G Vos, The Doctrine of the Covenant in Reformed Theolgoy

   And as you already know, at least one reader of Vos’ Reformed Dogmatics summarizes his teaching thus:

   b) The covenant with Israel served in an emphatic manner to recall the strict demands of the covenant of works. To that end, the law of the Ten Commandments was presented so emphatically and engraved deeply in stone. This law was not, as Cocceius meant, simply a form for the covenant of grace. It truly contained the content of the covenant of works. But—and one should certainly note this—it contains this content as made serviceable for a particular period of the covenant of grace. It therefore says, for example, “I am the Lord your God.” Therefore, it also contains expressions that had reference specifically to Israel, and thus are not totally applicable to us (e.g., “that it may be well with you in the land that the Lord your God gives you”). But also, beyond the Decalogue, there is reference to the law as a demand of the covenant of works (e.g., Lev 18:5; Deut 27:26; 2 Cor 3:7, 9). It is for this reason that in the last cited passage, Paul calls the ministry of Moses a ministry of condemnation. This simply shows how the demand of the law comes more to the fore in this dispensation of the covenant of grace. This ministry of the law had a twofold purpose: 1) It is a disciplinarian until Christ. 2) It serves to multiply sin, that is, both to lure sin out from its hidden inner recesses as well as to bring it to consciousness (cf. Gal 3:19; Rom 4:15; 5:13). Paul teaches expressly that the law did not appear here as an independent covenant of works in Gal 3:19ff. That the law is also not a summary of the covenant of grace appears from the absence of the demand of faith and of the doctrine of the atonement.

   — Nicholas Batzig, Geerhardus Vos on the Mosaic Covenant and the Covenant of Grace

   So I think something more subtle is going on here than Kerux represents in their Vos archives. He is clearly not using the exact language of republication, but he is certainly appealing to some of its categories over against the categories of repubs.

   For example, he is comfortable saying that the law contains the content of the covenant of works, repackaged in the service of grace. That’s certainly very different from what I’ve heard you say.

   LikeLike

7. My previous comment contained TWO hyperlinks and is therefore in Moderation Purgatory.

   In it, I appeal that we follow Todd’s advice and return to Scripture. In particular, I want to understand how you conceive of this as a non-works-principle:

   If you walk in My statutes and keep My commandments so as to carry them out, then I shall give you rains in their season, so that the land will yield its produce and the trees of the field will bear their fruit. Indeed, your threshing will last for you until grape gathering, and grape gathering will last until sowing time. You will thus eat your [c]food to the full and live securely in your land. I shall also grant peace in the land, so that you may lie down with no one making you tremble. I shall also eliminate harmful beasts from the land, and no sword will pass through your land … So I will turn toward you and make you fruitful and multiply you, and I will confirm My covenant with you. You will eat the old supply and clear out the old because of the new. Moreover, I will make My dwelling among you, and My soul will not [e]reject you. I will also walk among you and be your God, and you shall be My people …

   ‘But if you do not obey Me and do not carry out all these commandments, if, instead, you reject My statutes, and if your soul abhors My ordinances so as not to carry out all My commandments, and so break My covenant, I, in turn, will do this to you: I will appoint over you a sudden terror, consumption and fever that will waste away the eyes and cause the soul to pine away; also, you will sow your seed uselessly, for your enemies will eat it up. I will set My face against you so that you will be struck down before your enemies; and those who hate you will rule over you, and you will flee when no one is pursuing you. If also after these things you do not obey Me, then I will punish you seven times more for your sins … ‘If they confess their iniquity and the iniquity of their forefathers, in their unfaithfulness which they committed against Me, and also in their acting with hostility against Me— I also was acting with hostility against them, to bring them into the land of their enemies—or if their uncircumcised heart becomes humbled so that they then make amends for their iniquity, then I will remember My covenant with Jacob, and I will remember also My covenant with Isaac, and My covenant with Abraham as well, and I will remember the land. … Yet in spite of this, when they are in the land of their enemies, I will not reject them, nor will I so abhor them as to destroy them, breaking My covenant with them; for I am the Lord their God. But I will remember for them the covenant with their ancestors, whom I brought out of the land of Egypt in the sight of the nations, that I might be their God. I am the Lord.’”

   I see in this all of the elements of a works principle: blessing for obedience, cursing for disobedience. And yet those elements are not applied strictly, as with Adam, but with the possibility of repentance and renewal. And those elements are applied not to eternal life, but to possession of the land (which we all agree was a type of possession of eternal life).

   Why would you call this anything other than a works-principle?

   LikeLike

8. Jeff, I am perfectly happy with those passages from Vos. Regarding Deuteronomy 28 and other passages that republish the moral law, yes, those are expressive of the covenant of works. If anyone entered into covenant with God on the basis of those passages alone, they would be under a works principle of inheritance. But as Vos says just under the part you emboldened, “It would be a mistake, however, to say that the above was the essence of the covenant.”

   LikeLike

9. You do realize that I’ve been affirming all along that the essence of the Mosaic Covenant is gracious?

   LikeLike

10. But my impatience aside, your response does need some clarification.

    For you say that Deut 28 et al are “expressive of” the covenant of works. This is either ambiguous or else not literally true. The CoW required keeping of the moral law

    (1) In perfection (“the day you eat, you shall surely die”)
    (2) For the attaining of eternal life.

    In Deut 28, perfection is not required, in that repentance and restoration were possible. And the reward was not the attaining of eternal life, but of the symbol (Canaan) of eternal life. So Deut 28 does not literally express the CoW in the same way that Ex 20 does.

    So how should we refine your statement?

    LikeLike

11. Meanwhile, Berkhof:

    The Sinaitic covenant included a service that contained a positive reminded of the strict demands of the covenant of works. The law was placed very much in the foreground, giving prominence once more to the earlier legal element. But the covenant of Sinai was not a renewal of the covenant of works; in it the law was made subservient to the covenant of grace. This is indicated already in the introduction to the ten commandments … It is true that at Sinai a conditional element was added to the covenant, but it was not the salvation of the Israelite but his theocratic standing in the naion, and the enjoyment of external blessings that was made dependent on the keeping of the law. Deut 28:1-14. The law served a twofold purpose in connection with the covenant of grace: (1) to increase the consciousness of sin … (2) to be a tutor unto Christ …

    L. Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 298.

    I’ve noted in your comments elsewhere that you’re already happy with Berkhof. It would seem then to me that we are just quibbling over whether we can properly call “receiving X reward on the ground of Y action” to be synonymous with “meriting X by Y.”

    LikeLike

12. Todd-

    If Murray’s proposition is wrong and Edwards is right then perhaps those who advocate republication in the ways the WSC guys and others do shouldn’t be so dogmatic on the point, if after all their attempts to explain their position people are still confused. Let’s stuck with the Westminster standards. If- a big if- the older divines weren’t able to explain this distinction- in which case we could just read them- then these modern guys sure ain’t gonna succeed. I don’t know if your noticed but this isn’t exactly a golden age of theology.

    LikeLike

13. Jeff-

    Hello again. Re: Berkhof quote. Does that mean there was no republication? I thought you were arguing there was? I’m so confused.org.uk

    LikeLike

14. @ Alexander:

    Excellent question. My citation of Berkhof means rather that republication is *not* a matter of renewal of the CoW, but of reflection.

    But we need to get David’s response first before developing that idea.

    LikeLike

15. Alexander,

    Not sure what you mean by dogmatic. The Standards do not answer all the questions on this issue, but make general statements. The divines offered their viewpoint in their writings, as did those who wrote “The Law is Not of Faith.” Is it dogmatic to put your view in writing? I don’t remember the book suggesting all other viewpoints should be banned or disciplined or such.

    LikeLike

16. Lee Irons—The ontological elements in the medieval view of the sacraments were removed, so that they became signs and seals of the covenant rather than rites which ex opere operato infused the divine nature into the soul. These developments flow from the nominalistic development of the notion of pactum. And, therefore, to a certain extent we in the Reformed camp today are all
    the theological heirs of the via moderna. But have we carried the covenantal revolution to its logical conclusion? or does our system still perpetuate remnants of an ontologically-based notion of merit and justice? ….

    Lee Irons—-Note the fundamentally voluntarist reasoning of the Westminster Confession’s opening statement on the covenants: The distance between God and the creature is so great, that although reasonable creatures do owe obedience unto him as their Creator, yet they could never have any fruition of him as their blessedness and reward, but by some voluntary condescension on God’s part, which he hath been pleased to express by way of covenant (WCF VII.1). All the basic elements in this statement are derived directly from the Franciscan notion of covenantal or congruous merit.

    LikeLike

17. Lee Irons p 17—The covenant becomes a way, therefore, of circumventing strict justice, making possible the arbitrary acceptance as meritorious of that which is not actually meritorious….. Casting about for some way of bridging the awesome metaphysical gap between God and the creature, the voluntarist seizes on the notion of a condescension expressed by way of covenant… The voluntarist definition of merit must be qualified as a lesser merit that cannot even exist apart from God’s gracious acceptation.

    Lee Irons—But Kline searches for an entirely new definition of merit: “God’s justice must be defined and judged in terms of what he stipulates in his covenants”….Kline’s understanding of covenant is different. It is not a voluntary condescension of divine grace but a revelation of divine justice. …God’s freedom must be maintained, but not at the expense of the divine perfections (i.e., wisdom, goodness, justice, holiness, truth, and rationality). God does not act arbitrarily, for all his actions are expressive of and delimited by his attributes.

    LikeLike

18. Jeff,

    Quick question: You say,

    For you say that Deut 28 et al are “expressive of” the covenant of works. This is either ambiguous or else not literally true. The CoW required keeping of the moral law

    (1) In perfection (“the day you eat, you shall surely die”)
    (2) For the attaining of eternal life.

    In Deut 28, perfection is not required, in that repentance and restoration were possible. And the reward was not the attaining of eternal life, but of the symbol (Canaan) of eternal life. So Deut 28 does not literally express the CoW in the same way that Ex 20 does.

    However, I don’t believe Deuteronomy 28 mentions any possibility of repentance, though Leviticus 26 does. But Exodus 20 is also clear about the possibility of repentance, for example in the promise of mercy appended to the second commandment. Likewise, Exodus 20 promises long life in the land (fifth commandment) but makes no explicit mention of eternal life.

    So, how is it that you claim that Exodus 20 expresses the covenant of works but Deuteronomy 28 doesn’t?

    LikeLike

19. The repentance and restoration are found in the continuation, Deut 30.

    I’m not tracking with you on repentance found in the second commandment. I wouldn’t rule it out, but the language seems dichotomous rather than sequential to me.

    That’s a fair point about the land promise in the fifth commandment. It is fair to say that while Ex 20 is the most pristine expression of the moral law in the MC, even it is not thoroughly decoupled from the typological.

    My point was that Ex 20, inasmuch as it presents moral law, shows the righteous requirement for eternal life that only Jesus can meet. By contrast, passages like Deut 28-30 do not have eternal life in view.

    But don’t get hung up on Exodus 20. The major point is contained in the two numbered items above: the CoW required keeping the commandment to perfection and offered eternal life. Deut 28-30 and Lev 20 and Lev 26 do not.

    So if we agree that Deut 28 “reflects” or “expresses” the CoW, then in what way? Clearly not literally so.

    LikeLike

20. Jeff,

    My point was that Ex 20, inasmuch as it presents moral law, shows the righteous requirement for eternal life that only Jesus can meet. By contrast, passages like Deut 28-30 do not have eternal life in view.

    I still don’t get it. If both Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 28-30 demand obedience and promise temporal blessings, then on what basis can you say that the former has eternal life in view but the latter doesn’t?

    LikeLike

21. Bill Baldwin—Come, walk in obedience to Christ. But do not do this because you fear the threats of this Psalm. Those threats are in the past tense for you. You have passed through them already in Christ. And do not walk in obedience because you hope by that obedience to gain the blessings of this psalm. Christ has already gained the blessings of this psalm on your behalf. Every single one of them!

    Come even dare to delight in the Law. The law is no longer terrifying to you, for it’s terrors have already been borne on your behalf at the cross. Now the Law speaks of Christ, of his beautiful righteousness, of his perfect compassion, and awesome holiness—and all those things belong to you. Come to the Law and let the Law bring you to Christ who has fulfilled the Law. Let Christ be your meditation day and night, for in him the righteousness and wisdom and glory of God are perfectly and finally revealed.

    http://www.mountainretreatorg.net/sermons/psalm1.shtml

    LikeLike

22. Jeff,

    I see in this all of the elements of a works principle: blessing for obedience, cursing for disobedience. And yet those elements are not applied strictly, as with Adam, but with the possibility of repentance and renewal. And those elements are applied not to eternal life, but to possession of the land (which we all agree was a type of possession of eternal life).

    I know we’ve already been through this ad nauseum with little to show for it (maybe Todd’s right) but it seems like you really want to say that the MC operated according to a works principle, and yet at the same time “that the essence of the Mosaic Covenant is gracious.” I submit that until you either convince me that this is a metaphysical possibility, or I convince you that it isn’t, we won’t get anywhere.

    Much as I hate to do this, I don’t know how to proceed, or to gain clarity on your position, without asking the same questions I had asked Todd: Who are the parties to the MC, what is its condition and what does it promise? (If your answers are not identical to the answers you would give if I asked you the same question of the covenant of grace, then I will know that you conceive of the MC as essentially different from the CoG and we can proceed from there….)

    LikeLike

23. David R: I submit that until you either convince me that this is a metaphysical possibility, or I convince you that it isn’t, we won’t get anywhere.

    Much as I hate to do this, I don’t know how to proceed…

    For my part, it would help the proceedings if you would now provide answers to the two questions left into suspense:

    (1) Explain how the judicial law functions in your scheme.

    (2) Deut 28-30, Lev 20, and Lev 26 do not “express the covenant of works” (as you put it) in a literal sense. So in what sense do they express the covenant of works?

    LikeLike

24. I am curious what you both, Jeff and David, think of William Strong’s understanding of the Mosaic Covenant as being in substance a CoW for the unregenerate, yet in substance a CoG for the regenerate, and an administration of the CoG?

    LikeLike

25. David R., but Murray says all covenants are gracious in character, including the Covenant of Works Adamic Administration. If you’re following Murray, as all the anti-Klineans are (though you don’t seem to stay on the trail), then you’re defending a view that has grace and works principle bound together from the get go. Why throw the flag on repub but not on Murray?

    LikeLike

26. Jeff,

    (1) Explain how the judicial law functions in your scheme.

    I don’t know what your asking. WCF 19.4. But I think you’re asking something else?

    (2) Deut 28-30, Lev 20, and Lev 26 do not “express the covenant of works” (as you put it) in a literal sense. So in what sense do they express the covenant of works?

    In that they promise eternal life (typified by temporal blessings) on the condition of obedience to the law and threaten death in the event of transgression, they restate the demands of the CoW. (Same condition, same promise.)

    LikeLike

27. Joel, I think the problem with Strong’s view is that the substance of the covenant is an objective thing (though certainly some who are externally admitted never partake of its substance). Hence the more typical Reformed explanation, e.g., that of Turretin:

    In this sense [i.e., with regard to the doctrine delivered], the Old Testament is taken most especially in two ways, either broadly or strictly. Broadly, it denotes in general the whole dispensation under which the fathers lived from the beginning of the world until Christ. It contained the doctrine of grace delivered to the ancients, promising salvation and life to the people openly (indeed, under the condition of perfect obedience rendered to the moral law and the threatening of transgressors with death, together with the intolerable burden of ceremonies and the yoke of the most restricted Mosaic polity); reservedly, however, under the condition of repentance and faith in the Messiah about to come. In this respect, the Old Testament embraces three things most especially: (1) old doctrine, partly legal and partly evangelical; (2) an old servile form of worship and ecclesiastical service, laborious and shadowy; (3) the old method of external polity down to one people and place.

    Strictly, however, it denotes the covenant of works or the moral law given by Moses, the unbearable burden of legal ceremonies being added, absolutely and apart from the promise of grace. The former was signified properly and of itself (if the scope and intention of the lawgiver be considered) because in that first economy he joined together these three things by giving the old covenant or legal dispensation, not to abolish the promises, but to lead unto Christ. The latter is accessory and accidental, springing from an ignoring of the true end and the devising of a false. The true end was Christ for righteousness to every believer (Rom 10:4), but the self-righteous Jews did not obtain this end because it was proposed under veil (2 Cor 3:14), i.e., under a wrappage of types and of figures because the promise of grace on account of Christ was clothed with legal rites. Hence they invented a false end, maintaining that the law was given in order that by its observance they might be justified before God and be saved (Rom 10:3-5).

    LikeLike

28. D.G., I stand by my first comment in the other thread.

    LikeLike

29. David,

    For the unregenerate, the curse given because of their failure to obey the law is not hypothetical or “false.” Doesn’t the “scope and intention” of God include the curse of the law to be on those who rely on their own works? The unregenerate perceive rightly that they are judged by works, they just believe wrongly that they may achieve the hypothetical end of salvation by their works. That end is false, but God’s end for those who do not obey is the curse. The curse is of the substance of the MC.

    LikeLike

30. Joel, the curse is not of the substance of the covenant of grace in any of its administrations. To say that it is, is to turn it into a covenant of works.

    LikeLike

31. David R., which was what, that you deny the Covenant of Works as gracious? Murray said it was gracious as all covenants are. Kline said it wasn’t gracious. Moses and Merit authors believe Kline is wrong. You believe Kline is wrong. So you must believe the Covenant of Works is gracious.

    LikeLike

32. David R., who says the curse is the substance? You keep defining your terms as you make them up. The curse was part of the Covenant of works and the Mosaic Covenant. Where is the curse in the New Testament? “Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and be saved.”

    LikeLike

33. Gaffin in defense of Kinnaird—-This is from Calvin’s commentary on the prophet Ezekiel. Now, I understand that Dr. Lillback referred to this last week…..”This needs prudence and sound interpretation. For this proposition that faith without works justifies is true, yet false … true, yet false… according to the different senses which it bears. The proposition that faith without works justifies by itself is false. Because faith without works is void. But if the clause, without works,’ is joined with the word, ‘justifies,’ the proposition will be true. Therefore faith cannot justify when it is without works because it is dead and a mere fiction. Thus faith can be no more separated from works than the sun from its heat. Yet faith justifies without works because works form no reason for our justification.

    Gaffin—-Just these comments. What you can see then is that Calvin considers the proposition “faith without works justifies,” that proposition taken by itself, Calvin says, or he considers it to be, ambiguous. He doesn’t use that word but that is clearly what he is saying. Notice what he does say. It needs prudence and sound interpretation. It is true yet false. Now there is a paradox. True yet false, depending on the way it is read…..”

    LikeLike

34. D.G.,

    David R., which was what, that you deny the Covenant of Works as gracious? Murray said it was gracious as all covenants are. Kline said it wasn’t gracious. Moses and Merit authors believe Kline is wrong. You believe Kline is wrong. So you must believe the Covenant of Works is gracious.

    I’m pretty sure there’s a flaw in that logic somewhere….

    David R., who says the curse is the substance? You keep defining your terms as you make them up. The curse was part of the Covenant of works and the Mosaic Covenant. Where is the curse in the New Testament? “Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and be saved.”

    I don’t know what you think I’m making up. Joel (in the comment above mine) said that the curse is of the substance of the MC. You apparently agree. But I prefer to side with Turretin and the majority of Reformed theologians on this one.

    LikeLike

35. David,

    I asked this question rhetorically before, but I think I’d like a specific answer, if you will.
    “Doesn’t the “scope and intention” of God include the curse of the law to be on those who rely on their own works?”

    The curse of the law here serves an intended function that isn’t of the substance of the CoG. It isn’t unintended by God on account of the subjective error of the self-righteous Jew. It objectively curses those self-righteous Jews that God reprobated.

    LikeLike

36. Joel, that is indeed the scope and intention of God for those who lie under the curse of the covenant of works. But it is not the scope and intention of God in administering the covenant of grace, in any administration, including the Mosaic. The MC and the covenant of grace are the same in substance.

    LikeLike

37. David,

    This seems to be using the accident of the administration to define the substance of the MC. The substance of the MC must be both the curses as well as the blessings, unless you make the curses hypothetical (which apparently means they are false). Of course, I’m not saying that the curses and blessings both belong to the substance of the CoG, but only the MC.

    LikeLike

38. David,
    Are you saying that the curses of the MC are only hypothetical, and only the curse of the CoW is actual?

    LikeLike

39. Joel, the curse was part of the pedagogy of the law, not of the substance of the covenant.

    LikeLike

40. Turretin again:

    [The Sinaitic covenant] was really the same with the covenant made with Abraham, but different as to accidents and circumstances (to wit, clothed as to external dispensation with the form of a covenant of works through the harsh promulgation of the law; not indeed with that design, so that the covenant of works might again be demanded with the sinner [for this was impossible], but that a daily recollection and reproaching of the violated covenant of works might be made; thus the Israelites felt their sin and the curse of God besides hanging over them and acknowledged the impossibility of a legal righteousness; driven away from that hope, they so much the more ardently thirsted for the righteousness of redemption and were led along by the hand to Christ). Hence in it there was a mixture of the law and the gospel: the former to strike terror into sinners and press upon the neck of the stiff-necked people; the latter to lift up and console the conscience contrite and overpowered by a sense of sin.

    LikeLike

41. I’ve followed this debate over the last several years and have always walked away a bit befuddled by the arguments. I believe this piece from Ligonier helps clear the air:

    “It was not because you were more in number than any other people that the Lord set his love on you and chose you … but it is because the Lord loves you and is keeping the oath that he swore to your fathers, that the Lord has redeemed you from the house of slavery” (vv. 7-8).

    – Deuteronomy 7:6-8
    Of all the covenants that the Lord has made with His people, perhaps none is more misunderstood than the Mosaic covenant, which we more commonly refer to as the old covenant. Fundamentally, the covenant with Israel that was mediated by Moses is a gracious covenant. It is part of the unfolding of the covenant of grace, and does not introduce a new principle of salvation in opposition to the Abrahamic covenant of promise.

    Along with such luminaries as Charles Hodge, we could say that in some sense the Mosaic covenant is “a renewed proclamation of the original covenant of works”; in that it sets forth a theoretical (for sinners) way of salvation via perfect obedience to its commands (see Lev. 18:5; Gal. 3:10-14). But the Lord never meant for the Israelites to think that they could fulfill the covenant and keep His law with the perfection He demands for justification. The very existence of the sacrificial system, for example, presupposes that they would not. In fact, the sacrifices of the Mosaic covenant are a testimony to its being part of the one covenant of grace, added to show people their transgression and to cultivate the hope of a Messiah who would offer the final sacrifice for sin. But the Mosaic covenant is not a republication of the covenant of works in the sense that it is opposed to the covenant with Abraham; in fact, it is part of the covenant of grace, a gracious gift of God to reveal His demands, point people finally to Christ, and provide a blueprint that outlines holy living for those who have been justified by faith alone.

    In the Mosaic covenant, God’s promises to Abraham begin to reach a more glorious fulfillment. The twelve tribes made up of the patriarch’s descendants are constituted as a nation as the Lord starts to make the number of Abraham’s progeny as numerous as the stars (see Gen. 12:1-3; 15:1-6). God comes to dwell among His people in the tabernacle (Ex. 40:34-38), and the Israelites are called to be a holy nation that testifies to the Lord’s grace and encourages the Gentiles to come to Him for blessing (19:1-6; Deut. 4:1-8; Micah 4:1-5).

    The gracious character of the Mosaic covenant is most evident when we consider the context in which the Lord gave it. As we see in today’s passage, there was nothing in Israel that motivated God to enter into covenant with the nation. In fact, it was His decision alone to do so and keep the oath He swore to the patriarchs (Deut. 7:6-8). Furthermore, salvation comes first. God saves the Israelites from Egypt, and only then does He reveal His law.

    Coram Deo

    By revealing His law to Israel after redeeming the nation from Egypt, our Creator establishes the basic principle of sanctification. Strictly speaking, we do not make ourselves holy. First, God saves us from sin and sets us apart as His holy people. Then, we receive and obey His law, expressing our gratitude for His gracious redemption. The Mosaic law is God’s gift of grace, given not as a means to save ourselves but to show us how to live in thankfulness for His salvation.

    LikeLike

42. David, so you’re saying the design of the MC was to not curse anyone, because they had already received the curse of the CoW. The cursings are hypothetical to drive those who are not under a curse to the gospel.

    Why doesn’t this invalidate the idea that the MC has the substance of the promise as well, since they had already received the promise in Abraham? If the cursings of the CoW make the MC’s cursing hypothetical (or at least not of the substance of it), why doesn’t the blessings of the Abrahamic Covenant not make the blessings of the MC hypothetical as well, or at least not of the substance of it?

    I see that Turretin says that the MC is really the same as the AC, but why couldn’t I say that for the unregenerate, the cursings of the MC are really the same as the CoW? It seems that Turretin affirms that the cursings are the same.

    Was the MC not really made with all of Israel, both self-righteous and faithful alike?

    Thanks for using Turretin, BTW.

    LikeLike

43. Joel, the question is, what is the MC?

    Is it the CoW? The CoG? A third covenant?

    LikeLike

44. Given how the issue of the Covenant of works and its relationship to the Mosaic covenant is being hotly debated today I can’t help but think that these words of Anthony Burgess from the time of the Assembly (cited by Fesko in his book “The Theology of the Westminster Standards”) are meant to apply to our time as well:

    “I do not find in any point of Divinity, learned men so confused and perplexed (being like Abrahams Ram, hung in a bush of friars and brambles by the head) as here” (p.153).

    LikeLike

45. I like what Strong said, that largely considered, it is a CoG, but strictly considered, it is a CoW. I think that position is called a mixed covenant.

    LikeLike

46. Jack, but Anthony Burgess didn’t shy away from writing an elaborate treatise in the interests of clearing up the confusion and perplexity. Have a read.

    LikeLike

47. David,
    Jack, but Anthony Burgess didn’t shy away from writing an elaborate treatise in the interests of clearing up the confusion and perplexity

    As did many others leading up to the time of the Assembly and subsequent to it. Burgess wasn’t unique. There were a number of differing views, all held by various orthodox reformed theologians of that time, as there are today. The labeling of TLNF as “error” is a rather unfortunate and uncharitable turn. I know you think that their teaching has no continuity with those of earlier times and therefore worthy of disapprobation . Yet the reasoning I’ve read here and elsewhere seems rather strained. I’ve yet to read anything that convinces me otherwise (e.g. Jones, you, Murray, Venema, the original NWP documents). And the “anti-Repubs”, as of yet, haven’t presented much of a Biblically based argument as have the authors of TLNF.

    I look forward to the OPC study finding…

    LikeLike

48. Jack, I do as well, very much.

    LikeLike

49. Jack, you apparently admit to being confused and perplexed, yet you’re sure that the critics of TLNF are not just wrong, but sinfully so. That doesn’t seem very consistent. But if you think those words of Burgess you quoted are apropos, then why not take a look at the treatise in which they’re contained instead of just dismissing it with an insult. I assure you it contains plenty of the biblically based arguments you claim to be looking for.

    LikeLike

50. David R., answer the question. Do you agree with Murray on the Covenant of Works as gracious?

    LikeLike

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.