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 
David R., here’s why it might look sinful (read personal), because you can view everyone else who talks about some sort of works principle as okay but not the contributors to TLNF. And so far, none of theorizing you’ve done to justify your prejudice sticks. Not yet an extended quote from TNLF. I got it. Dennison “did” that.
LikeLike
David,
Jack, you apparently admit to being confused and perplexed,
Not at all. I’ve said nothing like that nor intimated that. Assuming that may fit into how you want to make sense of my comments given your position. So…
yet you’re sure that the critics of TLNF are not just wrong, but sinfully so. That doesn’t seem very consistent.
… in my thinking that the critics of TLNF are wrong in their assessments is not inconsistent. As I wrote I’ve read nothing that convinces me of their arguments. And where have I assigned sin to their views? Is there some possible projection going on here? Maybe, maybe not… Having the opinion that they have been less than charitable in their approach to the authors of TLNF is a different matter. They, in my opinion, assign conclusions to TLNF writings that the authors would deny. That being the case they’d serve the cause of truth and unity in a better way by asking for clarification. Similar to right now, as I don’t think you are being all that charitable in the way you are construing my words. Rather that concluding that I am confused and perplexed apart from me saying so and claiming I’m insulting someone, you’d better serve the conversation by asking if that is the case, i.e ask for clarification.
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.
Again, it seems it is you who is accusing of wrong. How have I insulted you or Burgess or the M&M people? Is to disagree with a view an insult? I made no comment on Burgess’s view other than his was one of many that where considered acceptable discourse among Reformed theologians of his time. Your response is troubling.
LikeLike
D.G., I haven’t read Murray in years so don’t know to what extent I’d agree or disagree with him, but if you’re asking whether I agree with his “recasting” of covenant theology, then no, I don’t. Happy?
LikeLike
D.G.,
David R., here’s why it might look sinful (read personal), because you can view everyone else who talks about some sort of works principle as okay but not the contributors to TLNF.
If by “you,” you mean me, how can it possibly be personal? Like I’ve said, Kline was my favorite living theologian for years. WSCal was my favorite seminary for years.
LikeLike
Jack, I really don’t want to get into a tit-for-tat. If you want to substantively interact with something I’ve said, I’d be more than happy to talk. But if what you’ve got to say is, “Your arguments are strained and you’re uncharitable to boot,” then I’ll just say that you’re certainly welcome to your opinion.
LikeLike
Darryl, here is an extended quote –
From Bryan Estelle’s essay conclusion in TLNF:
Entitlement to heaven is not some separate benefit of justification which is based upon the meritorious or even the demonstrative works of believers after they are justified. Rather, entitlement to heaven is something won by the satisfaction of Christ…
… In the garden of Eden, the probation was put in negative terms with an implicit positive promise, eschatological life. In the Mosaic economy, that was reversed: the probation was put in positive terms (temporal blessings) with an explicitly state punishment: extirpation from the land. Additionally, it was obvious that no mere man could earn life, gain entitlement to heaven that is, since he was only able always to sin. Nevertheless, God was well pleased to hold out the promise of life, with its temporal blessings, in order to teach the Israelites that there was an entitlement to a land beyond any geopolitical sphere. They could enter the rest of heaven, and a greater Joshua could lead them there one day, a true son of Israel (Heb. 4). Entitlement to heaven can be secured only by grace through faith, not works, not mere human works, this is.
LikeLike
David,
I think you’re correct that we’ve run our course for now. I would like to give a final statement, because I think I owe you a clear explanation of three things. After that, I have a final rebuttal of sorts that I hope will stimulate thought towards a future, fruitful line of discussion.
And I thank you for the exchange. It certainly has pushed me in some beneficial ways.
(Q1) How it is that “that the MC operated according to a works principle, and yet at the same time “that the essence of the Mosaic Covenant is gracious.””?
(Q2) Who are the parties to the MC, what is its condition and what does it promise?
(Q2a) (implied) Why is the MC a single covenant and not two different ones?
(A1) Let’s leave aside the contested term “typological republication” and go strictly with the Vosian and Berkhofian terms. If it is given that the MC is a “reflection of the CoW revived in the interest of the CoG” (Vos, Doctrine), and if it is given further that this reflection was in operation with respect to the external, national aspect of the MC (Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 298), then I reason as follows:
* A reflection of the CoW must of necessity have a reflection of both the stipulation and also the promise of the CoW. Else it is no reflection.
* The reflection of the stipulation is found in the principle “do this and live.” This echoed the command to Adam.
* The reflection of the promise is found in the type: the land was promised as a reflection or type of eternal life to come. The promise was typological.
* It is therefore most reasonable to view the reflection of the stipulation to be typological as well. That is, “do this and live” does not function in the MC as it did in the CoW, but in a lesser way, as a picture. Instead of strict obedience, a lesser obedience is required. This is explicit in Deut 30, where imperfect obedience can be repented of, and restoration can occur.
* Further, it is most reasonable that a reflection of the CoW would contain a reflection of the merit principle of the CoW, that the reflection of the stipulation would function in a manner that echoed the stipulation’s function in the CoW.
Whereas Adam merited in condign fashion, with perfect obedience fulfilling the terms of the pact, Israel would merit in congruous fashion, with imperfect obedience being rewarded. Practically, this was worked out as God in His patience tempered the demands of law with His grace towards national Israel.
All of this is in reference to the national and external aspect of the covenant, which Berkhof says that Turretin says is the “outward administration” of that covenant (B 285).
Further, this does not exhaust the typology in the MC, such as the sacrificial types, but answers solely with reference to the stipulation of national Israel keeping the land on the ground of obedience.
That ground of obedience is a reflection of the merit principle of the CoW.
(A2) So then, who are the parties to the MC, what is its condition, and what does it promise?
We distinguish. With regard to the internal substance of the covenant, the parties are the elect individual and God. Its condition is perfect righteousness, and its promise is eternal life.
As regards that perfect righteousness, it cannot be obtained by law-keeping but is instead obtained by faith receiving the righteousness of the Messiah.
With regard to the external legal cloak, or aspect, of the covenant, the parties are the nation of Israel and God. Its condition is imperfect righteousness, and its promise is life in the land.
As regards that imperfect righteousness, it is not obtained by faith receiving the merit of the obedience of Christ, but by the obedience of the nation. That is to say, Jesus’ merit was not the ground of land retention. For if it were, then the retention of the land would be sure and infallible – which clearly did not occur.
(A2a) How then are these two aspects not two different covenants, for they seem to have two different conditions and promises?
This is in some ways already clear, for the internal aspect of the covenant resembles the external. The condition is righteousness (actual v. type), and the promise is life (eternal v. type).
What makes the substance gracious, however, is that the perfect righteousness that obtains eternal life is that of another. What makes the external aspect non-gracious and a reflection of the CoW is that the required righteousness is that of the nation. To the extent that there was grace given in the external administration, it was always in spite of a failure of the condition.
And what makes the external covenant to be a reflection “in the service of grace” is that it taught what we knew that it would teach: That the nation (and indeed no man) can obtain or retain the reward on the ground of his own righteousness. He needs that righteousness of another. And in this way it served grace, by making the futility of righteousness by the law clear.
That is as clear as I can make it.
LikeLike
Typo correction in the second paragraph of Estelle’s conclusion:
“…the probation was put in positive terms (temporal blessings) with an explicitly stated punishment: extirpation from the land.”
LikeLike
Now for a final rebuttal. The first point is going to be blunt, so skip it until you’re in the mood. It’s the least important of the points
(1) I find your view confusing because your expressions of it are seemingly contradictory and make inconsistent use of your sources.
On the one hand, you insist that the MC was in essence gracious. On the other, you insist that Deut 28-30 ” … promise[d] eternal life (typified by temporal blessings) on the condition of obedience to the law and threaten death in the event of transgression… [it] restates the demands of the CoW. (Same condition, same promise.)”
It really sounds here like you are saying that the MC has the some condition and promise as the CoW.
And that would mean it has the same substance as the CoW … which would make it non-gracious, unless you think that the CoW was in essence gracious, which was the point of DGH’s question to you.
Likewise, I cannot make head or tail of what you mean by “non-meritorious ground of reward.” In Vos, that phrase makes sense — he clearly delimits merit to mean “strict merit” (or possibly “condign merit”). But to claim that a ground for reward is different from merit in any sense of the word seems like a simple contradiction. We might as well talk of “non-round circles.” Right now, you have “claritude” — a feeling of clarity without actually being clear.
Further, you lean on Berkhof, yet disregard what he says. In Berkhof, the “service that contained a positive reminder of the strict demands of the covenant of works” is external, national, and directed towards physical rewards:
— Berkhof, ST, 298.
You on the other hand say that Deut 28 promised eternal life on condition of keeping the law.
Wherever you are standing, it’s not where Berkhof is standing.
Thus ends the bluntness. I say all this with the knowledge that you have clearly been reading, researching, and wrestling, and also with the knowledge that I need to do the same. I am certain that I need to get ahold of Turretin’s Institutes and Vos’s Dogmatics before I can make progress here. So I’m not trying to denigrate you or arrogate myself, but to say, dear brother, there’s more work to be done on both our parts.
(2) Joel’s questions have sparked an insight.
The central question here is architectural: Within the MC, do the elements of grace and law lie side-by-side, working together in a single covenant, OR do they commingle to work as “lawce” or “graw”?
In RCC soteriology, grace and law commingle. God’s grace enables the keeping of the law of love, which keeping in turn merits (congruently) the grace of ongoing justification.
In the view I’ve tried to present, law and grace lie side-by-side, working together in a single covenant. The merit principle is external, typical, non-salvific. The grace principle is internal, substantial, salvific. That architectural feature of distinguishing but not sundering law and grace is what I am really willing to spend a lot of capital defending.
What I perceive in your view, at least in tendency, is a commingling of law and grace. Perhaps that’s not your view, but you need to find a way to make that really clear. By encompassing the law within the gracious aspect of the MC, you seem to mix the two into a new kind of substance that “seems like CoW but is really CoG.”
Again, this is my perception and may well not be your reality. But it is my perception, as a reasonably skilled (but imperfect) reader.
By contrast, Vos and Berkhof and Turretin and Calvin and … well, most everyone, place grace and law alongside one another without commingling. The law is added externally to the CoG. So even though your view has legitimate points of contact with all of those, and it might even do a better job than mine at points, it still has this architectural flaw, that you seem to want to the call the law “gracious in essence.”
(3) Your explanation of type and antitype is quite opaque. On the one hand, you hold that Israel is the type of the saints in glory. But then you use Deut 28 to explain what’s happening in Rev 2-3. That makes it seem as if you view Israel under the law as a type of the NT church that is … under? not under? … the law. Likewise, you agreed with the central theorem that the typological is always accidental, but then you disputed my characterization of the law as accidental because typical. And you have (again) Deut 28 articulating a principle of inheriting eternal life, but at the same time promising the type. It’s type and antitype in the same passage, two-for-the-price-of-one!
I think that type-antitype relationship needs clarification. Is the demand for obedience in the OT law functioning as type, antitype, or neither? If not type, then how do you square up with Vos? If not type, then why is land possession promised as the reward?
(4) You need to distinguish in your explanation between the MC with regard to the individual and the MC with regard to the nation. That was the point of my asking about the judicial law, which applied to individuals. If the law really did promise eternal life on the condition of obedience, same condition and same promise as the CoW, then what did it mean for the slob caught gathering wood on the Sabbath?
Did he miss out on eternal life, as typified by his physical punishment? Was Daniel damned during the time of the exile?
Those are both rhetorical questions, obviously, but I don’t see you how you give a No answer to both and remain consistent with your previous statements.
Well, that’s all. I will of course read any reply that you care to make.
Grace and peace,
Jeff
LikeLike
Jeff,
Thanks for your synopsis in your second to last comment. Very helpful and clear from where I sit. Would you consider your understanding/views that you expressed to be more or less in the ballpark of those in TLNF?
Thanks…
LikeLike
David R., you still didn’t answer the question so I’m not happy. Is the Covenant of works gracious?
LikeLike
David R., you don’t watch enough movies or read enough memoirs. To say that Kline and WSC were your “favorites” and now you turn on them suggests all the more that this is personal. It’s like a girl on whom you have a crush. How do you lose it? It’s not by becoming “objective.” More like she turns out to be going out with one of your least favorite people.
LikeLike
Jeff, very good stuff, way better than Old Life deserves.
LikeLike
@ Jack: I probably need to re-read TNLF with this conversation in mind. When I first read it, it was in the context of the Federal Vision dispute. At that time, I was comparing Gordon to Murray and thinking that Gordon probably was righter than Murray.
Now on re-reading Gordon, I wonder why he multiplies the covenants the way he does.
I certainly don’t view them as condoning or making the world safe for antinomianism, which is where the pastoral rubber meets the road.
LikeLike
Addendum to forestall an objection: When I speak of Israel being required to merit, that doesn’t mean that they ever did. It simply means that that was the requirement in the national covenant.
Consider the many many places in which it is affirmed that we cannot merit: https://sites.google.com/site/themosaiccovenant/Home/merit-in-the-reformed-confessions
And now we ask a simple question: how did all the reformed fathers in the faith learned that we cannot merit? Answer: The Law taught them so. What Israel was required to do, it could not do.
LikeLike
Jeff,
Gordon’s view on the covenants is to be further addressed, by him that is…
“In my 500-page (not yet published) book on Galatians, I argue that Paul can use “promise,” “law,” and “faith” in Galatians as synecdoches to refer to three particular covenants, characterized respectively by promise, law, and faith. So the Abrahamic covenant is indeed called “promise” in Gal. 3:17. So Paul can use many terms to designate particular covenants…”
LikeLike
D.G.,
Do you mean in this sense explained by Robert Shaw? (He must have been reading Murray….)
LikeLike
David R., why is it so hard to answer? Why hide behind kilts?
But I’ll take that as a yes. God deals graciously with man when he enters into covenant with Adam.
So what is so bad about a works principle in the Mosaic Covenant as repubs argue? You’re really arbitrary on this. And until you become a divine, it’s like just your opinion (verbose though it may be), man.
LikeLike
D.G.,
David R., you don’t watch enough movies or read enough memoirs.
Probably true!
To say that Kline and WSC were your “favorites” and now you turn on them suggests all the more that this is personal. It’s like a girl on whom you have a crush. How do you lose it? It’s not by becoming “objective.” More like she turns out to be going out with one of your least favorite people.
IOW, you find out the girl isn’t who you’d thought she was. She lets you down or perhaps betrays you. You realize she wasn’t worthy of your attention in the first place…. Maybe not more “objective” but more realistic.
LikeLike
So what is so bad about a works principle in the Mosaic Covenant as repubs argue?
Because that would imply that God entered into a works inheritance covenant with sinners, which (I think) you’ve already denied, haven’t you?
LikeLike
David R., but God did enter into a works principle based covenant with sinners. It’s called the Covenant of Grace and it is based on Christ fulfilling the Covenant of Works.
So again, who made you the arbiter?
LikeLike
David R., betray? So it is personal.
You know, theology is not like rooting for a baseball franchise.
LikeLike
David R., but God did enter into a works principle based covenant with sinners. It’s called the Covenant of Grace and it is based on Christ fulfilling the Covenant of Works.
So do sinners merit in the covenant of grace or don’t they? Here you seem to imply that they don’t.
LikeLike
Calvin on Leviticus 26:3:
LikeLike
Calvin on Leviticus 26:14:
LikeLike
David R., sure they merit. By trusting Christ, his righteousness, his merit, is mine. No hope on judgment day without it.
LikeLike
David R., so you can cut and paste Calvin. The point? Grace before the fall. We merit salvation. VanDrunen should be tarred and feathered?
LikeLike
D.G.,
David R., sure they merit. By trusting Christ, his righteousness, his merit, is mine. No hope on judgment day without it.
But the TLNF crowd say they merited by their own works. Seems like you’re being fickle again….
David R., so you can cut and paste Calvin. The point?
Calvin thinks those passages are about us. You agree?
LikeLike
“But the TLNF crowd say they merited by their own works. Seems like you’re being fickle again….”
Quote?
LikeLike
David R., like Todd said.
Why would you think that I don’t believe the OT law (the moral, not the ceremonial or judicial — repub anyone?) doesn’t apply to me? You think I’m antinomian? You’ve not read anything here about the Sabbath — that would be the fourth commandment?
So come out and say it rather than dancing around either with answers or quotes. Be like Dennison. Sure you can.
LikeLike
“But the TLNF crowd say they merited by their own works. Seems like you’re being fickle again….”
Quote?
Kline, Kingdom Prologue, p. 322:
LikeLike
If you think is compatible with Calvin, then I don’t know what to say (though that doesn’t seem to stop me….). But hey, there were thousands of orthodox views on Moses, therefore they must all be acceptable, right?
LikeLike
I meant to say “If you think Kline is compatible with Calvin …”
LikeLike
Here is the one place where Kline uses “merit” (the verb) in reference to the Mosaic order: “At the level of the secondary, typological stratum of the Mosaic order, continuance in the election to kingdom blessings was not guaranteed by sovereign grace on the basis of Christ’s meritorious accomplishments. It was rather something to be merited by the Israelites’ works of obedience to the law” (KP 322). And note that, although Kline uses the verb “merited,” he expressly adds the qualifier that this is “at the level of the secondary, typological stratum.” And see his additional qualifier on the next page, where he states that “their election to receive the typological kingdom in the first place was emphatically not based on any merit of theirs (cf. Deut 9:5,6)” (KP 323) but rather was based on God’s promises to Abraham.
– Lee Irons
LikeLike
Why would you think that I don’t believe the OT law (the moral, not the ceremonial or judicial — repub anyone?) doesn’t apply to me?
I don’t think you don’t believe the moral law applies to you. But Calvin thinks the principle of inheritance is the same.
LikeLike
More Bryan Estelle from TLNF:
In sum, if Paul, under the influence of increasing eschatologizing exegetical tendencies (both in the Hebrew Bible and early Judaism), understood the reward of human obedience leading to life as offered in Leviticus 18:5 as eternal life which was necessarily contrary to fact because of man’s impotence; and if Deuteronomy 30:1-14 is a predictive prophecy suggesting that faith in Jesus Christ is the only answer to that prophecy which earns life; then, life in the Pauline mind-set leads to entitlement to eschatological life, that is, heaven, through the faith principle and in no other way. There has been a divine reversal. What mere man could not accomplish, God has. Moses says no mere man may gain entitlement to heaven through the works principle, but the righteousness of faith says that Jesus has won entitlement to heaven and now the principle of faith receives that gratuitous gift. It is grace in the end. As Machen so apply states in another context, “for what the Apostle is concerned to deny is any intrusion of human merit into the work by which salvation is obtained. That work, according to the Epistle to the Galatians and according to the whole New testament, is the work of God and God alone.” (p. 146)
LikeLike
question for Jeff–are all those “in the covenant of grace” also united to Christ? Have those in “the covenant of grace” always been united to Christ even during the Mosaic administration? Or is “union with the risen present Christ” different during the new covenant age?
Marcus Johnson, One with Christ, Crossway, 22013
Johnson: William Evans argues that Berkhof’s soteriology is the logical conclusion of a federal theological trajectory, epitomized by Charles Hodge, in which union ceases to function as an umbrella category unifying all of salvation.
mcmark: Johnson rejects “imputation priority” because he has already rejected the federal transfer of Adam’s guilt (see his chapter 2 on incarnation) AND because he has already rejected what he calls a “mechanical transfer” of sins to Christ.
I would say “the sins of the elect” but Johnson does not consider the doctrine of election in his discussion of imputation and justification. Election for him seems to be only an “apologetic doctrine” which he does not deny but which plays no part in his soteriology. (His accusation against those of us with “justification priority”, is that the incarnation and the Trinity are no part of our gospel., p 41)
Johnson: Both Horton and Fesko subordinate union with Christ to justification, indicating that they see union with Christ as reducible to sanctification.
mark: Johnson denies the reality of legal imputation, and subordinates imputation as merely one benefit of “union”, and then he defines “union” as the personal presence of Christ in us because of our faith (given to us by the Holy Spirit). So Johnson subordinates the work of Christ to the person of Christ, and then accuses those who disagree with him of dividing person and work. And then Johnson subordinates the imputation of Christ’s work to the work of the Holy Spirit, who he thinks is the one who unites us to Christ’s person by creating faith in us.
Johnson does not deny “union with Christ in election” (p 35) but he never ever says that any human is not elect, Johnson’s doctrine of “union with Christ in the incarnation” (p 36) ignores election and focuses on the human nature of Christ as the human nature of every sinner. Having ignored any notion of Christ having died for the elect alone, Johnson announces that “the normal referent of the phrase union with Christ in this book is to subjectively realized EXPERIENTIAL union by the power of the Holy Spirit.” p 39
Not denying the eternal election in Christ, Johnson insists that there is only one “union” (not two, as he describes the position of Horton, Fesko, and Berkhof), but then he takes his “one union” and agrees that it has different “aspects” of which election is one, but then he takes the “application of the union” as being his working definition of “the union”.
This fits with the Barth/Torrance notion of “actualist” election and of the atonement as that which the Holy Spirit does in creating faith (and thus creating a “real” union).
LikeLike
David R., what about “secondary, typological stratum” don’t you understand?
You do a very impersonation of a gnat.
LikeLike
David R., why wouldn’t it be the same if I am righteous thanks to imputation?
Or are we talking about secondary typological or primary real deal inheritance?
LikeLike
Jeff,
* A reflection of the CoW must of necessity have a reflection of both the stipulation and also the promise of the CoW. Else it is no reflection.
Yes.
* The reflection of the stipulation is found in the principle “do this and live.” This echoed the command to Adam.
Yes (that reflects the promise as well).
* The reflection of the promise is found in the type: the land was promised as a reflection or type of eternal life to come. The promise was typological.
Yes.
* It is therefore most reasonable to view the reflection of the stipulation to be typological as well. That is, “do this and live” does not function in the MC as it did in the CoW, but in a lesser way, as a picture. Instead of strict obedience, a lesser obedience is required. This is explicit in Deut 30, where imperfect obedience can be repented of, and restoration can occur.
No, this does not follow from your previous points (your “therefore” does not signal the conclusion of an argument). In order to for the stipulation to truly reflect that of the covenant of works, it must require what was required in the covenant of works, namely, perfect and personal obedience. Besides, strict obedience is always required by God’s law, not a lesser obedience, though of course sincere but imperfect obedience is accepted from those under grace. And apart from the principle of grace (which is opposed to that of works), repentance and restoration are not possible. Thus, the fact that repentance and restoration could occur shows that works were not actually the meritorious ground of inheritance.
Also, earlier I thought you had said that you agreed with Turretin, who clearly understood the reflection of the stipulation to be literal, that is, demanding perfect and personal obedience. Do you no longer agree with the following?
So, while it is true that the promise of the covenant of works is reflected in the Mosaic covenant via a type (blessings in Canaan), it does not follow from this that the stipulation is also reflected via a type.
LikeLike
D.G., I understand it fine. What about continuance in the election to kingdom blessings was not guaranteed by sovereign grace on the basis of Christ’s meritorious accomplishments. It was rather something to be merited by the Israelites’ works of obedience to the law don’t you understand?
LikeLike
David R. well, doesn’t it depend on “kingdom blessings”? I understand the kingdom to be temporal and typological. But if you want to say it is spiritual and eternal, you better book a flight to Tel Aviv soon.
LikeLike
Belgic Confession, article 24:
LikeLike
David R., you keep quoting without commenting. We’re not mind readers and you aren’t clear.
So which TNLF contributor do you think disagrees with that? The rewards don’t come here and now, right? The Vossians call us to suffer, you know, humiliation before exaltation.
LikeLike
Okay, so you agree then that Israel’s
Correct?
LikeLike
Kline: “It was rather something to be merited by the Israelites’ works of obedience to the law.”
Belgic: “… what would we merit? Rather, we are indebted to God for the good works we do, and not he to us, since it is he who “works in us both to will and do according to his good pleasure” …
Were the Israelites indebted to God for the good works they did? Did God enter into a covenant with them on an impossible condition?
LikeLike
David R., this is pathetic. You’re using the Belgic to figure out how to interpret what the Israelites were to hear and understand with “do this and live”?
If you think we are in the same situation as the Israelites, have I got an author for you? Paul.
LikeLike
Jeff,
(1) I find your view confusing because your expressions of it are seemingly contradictory and make inconsistent use of your sources.
On the one hand, you insist that the MC was in essence gracious. On the other, you insist that Deut 28-30 ” … promise[d] eternal life (typified by temporal blessings) on the condition of obedience to the law and threaten death in the event of transgression… [it] restates the demands of the CoW. (Same condition, same promise.)”
It really sounds here like you are saying that the MC has the some condition and promise as the CoW.
And that would mean it has the same substance as the CoW … which would make it non-gracious, unless you think that the CoW was in essence gracious, which was the point of DGH’s question to you.
The external economy of the MC, which is legal and pedagogical, has the same promise and condition as the CoW. But the internal economy, which is gospel, administers the covenant of grace. I think this is consistent with what I’ve been saying all along.
LikeLike
D.G., why do I have to answer your questions but you never answer mine?
LikeLike
David R., well, it’s a blog I run. You don’t. And in case you didn’t notice, I don’t run it according to a works principle. If I did, you’d have been booted long ago.
But to answer your question, how do I answer a quotation? Or is disagreeing with you not an answer? When did you become a 4th-grade teacher?
LikeLike