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 
@ McMark:
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?
I’ve been avoiding this question for some time, not because it’s not a good question, but because the answer threatens to turn into a huge thread. And I’m not sure I have a perfect answer, either.
I tend to agree with Berkhof on aspects, but I think he sells short the problem of knowledge.
To be “in the covenant of grace” is to be “united with Christ.” If externally in, then externally united as in John 15 or Rom 11. If internally in, by faith, then internally and truly united, as in Eph 1.
What is unclear is whether external means
* In the eyes of men only, which tends towards Baptist theology, or
* In the eyes of God but in a sense different from the internal, which shades anywhere from Berkhof and Bavinck all the way on down to Schilder.
Honestly, I don’t think Scripture gives us enough to know the exact nature of the external union. What we *know* is that Isaac was to treat Jacob and Esau as covenant members until one of them showed otherwise. From there, we make our own private peace with it …
LikeLike
Jeff,
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.
You’re latching on to the term “ground”; I’m latching on to “non-meritorious.” I think by “non-meritorious” he means “non-meritorious.” For my part, I don’t think Vos is saying anything different than Calvin does in what follows:
LikeLike
David, what do you think is essential reading to competently discuss this topic? Turretin and Burgess, to start with, I assume. Who/what else?
LikeLike
D.G.,
The Belgic says that we don’t merit for the reason that “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.’” Notice the reasoning, and notice that it eliminates the possibility of our meriting anything, no matter how mandane.
But Kline says (and you apparently agree?) that “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.”
Therefore, if you agree with the Belgic, then you must think that the Israelites too were indeed indebted to God for the good works they did. And if you also agree with Kline, then you must think that God entered into a covenant with Israel on an impossible condition (since they couldn’t merit).
So, do you indeed think that God entered into covenant with Israel on an impossible condition, and if not, then how do you ‘splain in light of the above?
LikeLike
Joel, I’m not sure about what’s essential for competent discussion, but in my opinion, Turretin and Burgess are indeed great places to start. There’s also lots of other helpful stuff on that website I’d linked to, for example, discussions by Francis Roberts and Patrick Gillespie. If you’ve been overly influenced by Klinean views of the Mosaic covenant (as I had), then I would also recommend the Kerux review of The Law is not of Faith.
LikeLike
Jeff,
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:
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 nation, and the enjoyment of external blessings that was made dependent on the keeping of the law, Deut 28:1-14.
— 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.
I believe you have misunderstood Berkhof. When he speaks of a “positive reminder of the strict demands of the covenant of works,” he is speaking in terms of perfect and personal obedience. Whereas what you quoted is part of his explanation that the law was not in fact a renewal of the CoW, but rather was subservient to the CoG. What he is saying in that passage is actually quite reminiscent of Vos’s discussion (which we’ve been laboring over), and probably indebted to him. But the typological intrusion of eschatological sanctions (which Berkhof, like Vos, refers to here though w/o Vos’s explanation) is something different from the reminder of the strict demands of the CoW. Of course, Berkhof is much terser than Vos, and therefore it would probably be even more difficult to reach agreement concerning him. But I believe I’m standing where Berkhof is.
LikeLike
Jeff,
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.”
I feel like this is old ground. The external economy is law. It presents the strict demands of the covenant of works. The internal economy is gospel. What can be less “commingling” than that?
On the other hand, it seems to me that your view commingles law and gospel by positing merit in the covenant of grace, which neither Calvin, Turretin, Vos or Berkhof did (I realize you disagree) and by positing a relaxed standard of legal obedience as well as the possibility of repentance within the (supposedly) legal aspect of the Mosaic covenant.
LikeLike
Essential:
Certainly read The Law is Not of Faith as the first resource.
The Kerux review never contacted the authors to get any clarifications or feedback and thus one ought to indeed be cautious as to how TLNF views are presented . I don’t know that the Merit and Moses authors had any back and forth with TLNF authors either.
Read Venema’s review and Fesko’s repsonse in the Confessional Presbyterian Vol. 9, 2013. It is a good example of how TLNF views are misrepresented by its critics.
An archive of republication historical’theological resources at Heidelblog: http://heidelblog.net/category/republication-of-the-covenant-of-works/
Check out Mark Karlberg and Lee Irons on Kline and republication.
LikeLike
Essential:
Certainly read The Law is Not of Faith as the first resource.
Yes, if you want to become more familiar with the view being critiqued.
The Kerux review never contacted the authors to get any clarifications or feedback and thus one ought to indeed be cautious as to how TLNF views are presented . I don’t know that the Merit and Moses authors had any back and forth with TLNF authors either.
Stop your bellyaching already….
Read Venema’s review and Fesko’s repsonse in the Confessional Presbyterian Vol. 9, 2013. It is a good example of how TLNF views are misrepresented by its critics.
Please cite one of example of Venema misrepresenting TLNF views.
An archive of republication historical’theological resources at Heidelblog: http://heidelblog.net/category/republication-of-the-covenant-of-works/
Again, for a version of the view being critiqued.
Check out Mark Karlberg and Lee Irons on Kline and republication.
Same thing.
LikeLike
Jeff,
(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.
Yes, national Israel.
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.
I should not have brought this up as it’s a distraction. This does not actually belong to the discussion of typology but rather to the discussion of the continuity between the visible church of the OT and that of the NT. If you don’t mind, let’s set it aside for now….
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.
But I think by now you realize I don’t think the law is a type?
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 don’t understand you here.
I think that type-antitype relationship needs clarification. Is the demand for obedience in the OT law functioning as type, antitype, or neither?
The demand for obedience is neither.
If not type, then how do you square up with Vos? If not type, then why is land possession promised as the reward?
Vos doesn’t say that the demand for obedience is a type. The things that he says are types are: the theocracy, Canaan, Israel’s obedience, Israel’s exile….
But otoh, if by “demand,” you simply mean the relative obedience that was required in order for Israel to remain in the land (as opposed to the perfection which the law actually requires), then yes, in that sense it was a type. So, there’s a distinction that needs to be made here….
LikeLike
I’ve found Ferry’s taxonomy *thesis* to be probably the most helpful thing I’ve read. In fact, I find myself rereading a lot of things with the new understanding that taxonomy provided. I will grant that he probably could have done better classifications of individuals; each individual probably deserves a paper, if not a thesis to have complete clarity about their views. I don’t think Venema, certainly not the Kerux authors, had read the thesis. Kerux was particularly uncharitable to Ferry. I found their writing almost unpalatable. Also, this sentence by Venema, “However, much of Witsius’ treatment of the question corresponds to the themes that we have seen previously in Calvin and Turretin, and cumulatively support the view that Witsius regarded the Mosaic covenant as substantively an administration of the covenant of grace,” made me wonder how well he understood this part of the debate. Venema was far more helpful overall, however.
LikeLike
Joel, one thing I appreciated about Ferry’s taxonomy was that it introduced me to the distinction between formal and material republication, which I have found extremely helpful as it is often reflected in the older writers.
I agree with you that Venema’s conclusion regarding Witsius’s view was somewhat awkward. But the funny thing about Witsius is, all down the line he reads like Calvin, Turretin, etc., until you get to the precise question of “What was the Sinai covenant?” and then (unlike the others) he wants to say that it was not the covenant of grace, but rather a national covenant renewal (or something to that effect). But then again, he seems to limit the Sinai covenant to a few verses in Exodus 19, so go figure….
LikeLike
Read Venema’s review and Fesko’s repsonse in the Confessional Presbyterian Vol. 9, 2013. It is a good example of how TLNF views are misrepresented by its critics.
Please cite one of example of Venema misrepresenting TLNF views.
Fesko does so quite thoroughly in his response to Venema. That’s why I suggested it.
As to the Kerux review, generally it’s considered good scholarly form to make sure one is accurately representing the views of those one is critiquing by running their understanding of those views past those one is reviewing…
LikeLike
I read Fesko’s response to Venema and I’ll just say I strongly disagree with your claim.
LikeLike
I read Fesko’s response to Venema and I’ll just say I strongly disagree with your claim.
It’s Fesko’s claim in his respnse not mine, and he happens to be one of the editors and authors of TLNF…
LikeLike
You just claimed that (and I quote) “Venema’s review … is a good example of how TLNF views are misrepresented by its critics.”
LikeLike
David R., so you think it was possible for Israel, fallen though they were, to obey all the law? That is the fall back on your side. So don’t make it seem like I’m the only one in knots here. You think Israel could have inherited the land by their obedience.
And, by the way, so do I. It’s just the land is not eternal life. As I say, spotting the difference between the kingdom of Israel and the New Jerusalem is pretty easy if you can tell the difference between civil and spiritual righteousness. But you’re always conflating the two, as so many theonomists, neo-Calvinists, and Federal Visionaries do.
LikeLike
David R., the commingling is thinking that repubs are talking about the Israelites inheriting eternal life and you thinking Belgic regards the Mosaic Covenant.
Buy a vowel.
LikeLike
Jack, re: the Kerux review — it’s also scholarly not to publish a work you wrote in a journal you edit. That’s why I never take the Nicotine Theological Journal seriously.
LikeLike
David R., a word to the wise: you’re coming across obsessed.
Chill out and comment on Mark Driscoll, vaginal orgasms, or Michael Brown.
LikeLike
D.G., you didn’t answer my question….
LikeLike
The full quote: Read Venema’s review and Fesko’s response in the Confessional Presbyterian Vol. 9, 2013. It is a good example of how TLNF views are misrepresented by its critics.
LikeLike
In other words, Fesko, in his response, chronicles a number of misrepresentations of Venema’s review… I happen to agree, but they are his criticisms. Best for someone to go there and read both essays rather than me pulling and pasting quotes…
LikeLike
David R., if you can read into TLNF what you think is objectionable, surely you can read a response to your question. Paul surely thinks the Mosaic Covenant was impossible to keep. Why do you think it was possible?
LikeLike
D.G.,
Okay, I think I’m clear now that your answer is yes, God indeed entered into covenant with Israel promising temporal blessings on an impossible condition (since it is impossible for sinners to merit anything from God, as our good works actually indebt us further), to which they agreed.
Paul surely thinks the Mosaic Covenant was impossible to keep. Why do you think it was possible?
Paul thinks it was impossible, not because merit post-fall is a metaphysical impossibility (though it is), but because the law as a covenant of works cannot be kept by sinners. And he doesn’t think the MC per se couldn’t be kept. (It was an administration of the CoG after all.)
LikeLike
Part of dgh’s attempt in TLNF to turn the stalled engine over and get the old jalopy rolling down the right road again…
D.G. Hart, Princeton and the Law:
“But even if the Princeton Theology lacks the scholarly curves that excite academics, the intellectual feat of planting one foot in Reformed scholasticism and the other in Scottish moral philosophy has its own marvelous quality. The reason has less to do with the apparent inconsistency or naiveté of Princeton theologians than with their ability to hold together notions about law and grace that apart from covenant theology look antithetical. but when viewed aright those seeming disparate elements of Princeton Theology emerge as part of a complexly coherent system of theological reflection. One instance of these doctrinal subtleties is the relationship of the Mosaic economy to the covenant of works and the covenant of grace. Princeton perpetuated the long-standing Reformed habit of seeing the Decalogue as a republication of the covenant of works and as a pedagogue unto the covenant of grace’s promise of a redeemer.” (p. 75)
Darryl, the Old Life bus may lack what some would call the more scholarly curves (not referring to you personally of course!) but at least its rolling down the right Reformed road…
LikeLike
Jack, thanks.
LikeLike
Bavinck: “…When the covenant of grace is separated from election, it ceases to be a covenant of grace and becomes again a covenant of works. Election implies that God grants man freely and out of grace the salvation which man can never again achieve in his own strength. But if this salvation is not the sheer gift of grace but in some way depends upon the conduct of men, then the covenant of grace is converted into a covenant of works. Man must then satisfy some condition in order to inherit eternal life.
“So far from election and the covenant of grace forming a contrast of opposites, the election is the basis and guarantee, the heart and core, of the covenant of grace. And it is so indispensably important to cling to this close relationship because the least weakening of it not merely robs one of the true insight into the achieving and application of salvation, but also robs the believers of their only and sure comfort in the practice of their spiritual life.”
Notice how far reaching this is – reformulating the reformation truth of the covenants leads to a messed up view of election (saying there are different degrees of election), justification (injecting our works there where they do not belong), and sanctification (making justification dependent on sanctification). It also throws our salvation back into stormy waters, teaching that only those who make it to the life raft will get out of the seas of death. Who can be truly pious when their salvation depends on something they do?
Our Reasonable Faith (260-269)
LikeLike
D.G.,
I assume that you and everyone else have had more than enough of this topic, so I will thank you again for your tolerance of my publishing of my opinions here. I have a response to one of your recent comments followed by a thought about Charles Hodge and then I’ll leave it at that….
David R., so you think it was possible for Israel, fallen though they were, to obey all the law?
They could not obey it as a covenant of works, and were not under it in that sense. However, they (i.e., the true believers among them) could obey it as a rule of life given to those under grace.
That is the fall back on your side. So don’t make it seem like I’m the only one in knots here.
I honestly don’t know what knots you think I’m tied in, but I’m glad to see you concede that your position is a knotty one….
You think Israel could have inherited the land by their obedience.
That’s pretty ambiguous, so let me summarize what I think: First of all, the inheritance offered was the eternal inheritance, though indeed typified by the land. Secondly, inheriting on the grounds of obedience requires perfect obedience, which of course they couldn’t render. Thirdly, the MC offered life and salvation in Jesus Christ, whose meritorious obedience alone secures the inheritance on behalf of the elect. Fourthly, they (i.e., believers) were under grace, and thus the obedience required of them was the sincere obedience that flows from life, not the perfect obedience necessary in order to inherit life. Finally, what was required of the typological kingdom in order to remain in the typological inheritance was merely a relative corporate obedience, suitable for typifying the consummate holiness of the saints in heaven.
And, by the way, so do I.
But in your scheme they merited by imperfect obedience, a notion which, it seems to me, has little or no precedent in Reformed theology prior to Kline. That doesn’t necessarily make it erroneous, but in my opinion, you guys should stop hiding behind the cloak of “There were lots of acceptable views connecting the MC to the CoW; therefore this one is acceptable too.” Perhaps we can at least agree that the acceptability question is worth the time and energy of a study committee….
It’s just the land is not eternal life.
Well, I think it’s important to keep it straight that the promise of the MC was not land. Rather, it was the eternal inheritance, typified by land (assuming of course that the MC was an administration of the CoG and not a subservient covenant).
As I say, spotting the difference between the kingdom of Israel and the New Jerusalem is pretty easy if you can tell the difference between civil and spiritual righteousness.
Maybe I’m missing something, but this does not at all seem like an apt comparison, since spiritual righteousness was required in the kingdom of Israel.
But you’re always conflating the two, as so many theonomists, neo-Calvinists, and Federal Visionaries do.
I can’t tell whether you intend to include me in one or all three of the above groups, or if you’re just saying I’m as bad as they are, but I do recognize that in your vocabulary there isn’t much worse you can say about someone’s doctrine. And this is an example of what, in my opinion, is one of the worst fruits growing from the repub tree, namely that you guys can’t seem to tell the difference between standard vanilla Reformed theology (granted, my feeble attempts to represent it) of the sort OldLifers profess to hold to, and several deviations therefrom.
LikeLike
Now for a couple of quick observations concerning your recently-quoted reflections on Old Princeton, specifically: “One instance of these doctrinal subtleties is the relationship of the Mosaic economy to the covenant of works and the covenant of grace. Princeton perpetuated the long-standing Reformed habit of seeing the Decalogue as a republication of the covenant of works and as a pedagogue unto the covenant of grace’s promise of a redeemer.”
Granted, that’s just a couple of sentences, and obviously you are privy to primary source material that I am not, but it is interesting to note that Hodge’s discussion of the Decalogue in his Systematic Theology occurs all the way over in volume three, following his discussion of the application of redemption, and inserted smack dab between the chapter on sanctification and the one on the means of grace. And there he characterizes the Decalogue not as a republication of the covenant of works, but as a “rule of duty.” Perhaps you’re aware of another of Hodge’s writings where he calls the Decalogue a republication of the covenant of works, but there’s no evidence of this in the Sys Theo.
Secondly, back in volume two where Hodge discusses the Mosaic covenant, when he speaks explicitly of the republication of the covenant of works, lo and behold, he is clear that he thinks it’s republished in the New Testament as well: “Secondly, [the Mosaic covenant] contained, as does also the New Testament, a renewed proclamation of the original covenant of works. It is as true now as in the days of Adam, it always has been and always must be true, that rational creatures who perfectly obey the law of God are blessed in the enjoyment of his favour; and that those who sin are subject to his wrath and curse.”
Now it’s possible that in your reflections you did not intend to limit the Princeton view of the republication of the CoW to the “Mosaic economy.” However, from where I sit, it appears that Hodge may only avoid being tarred with the “theonomists, neo-Calvinists, and Federal Visionaries” brush by having his theology subtly recast in the image of Meredith Kline’s….
LikeLike
David R., well if you don’t like the fruit then don’t grow the tree of saying that repubs are off the ranch.
Like those other folks, theonomists, neo-Cals, and FV’s, you confuse the substance of grace with the accidents of the Mosaic Covenant. You keep saying the MC promised Christ. Where? And if you’re right, then Paul would never have written what he did about the law in Galatians and elsewhere.
Think of yourself as Hagar and repub as Sarah.
LikeLike
David R., btw, your comment which follows was highly revealing:
So you think the covenant of grace requires obedience from believers no matter how imperfect or no matter how non-meritorious, though if it is required I’m not sure how the covenant of grace becomes anything less than conditional. So we are back to the neonomian vs. antinomian debate, or back to Shepherd after all. And for good measure, I am not sure how your understanding of the Covenant of Grace is fundamentally different from Roman Catholicism — except that you don’t sound very sacramental.
But in your view, there goes the hope that many of us find in the gospel. To quote the Belgic Confession:
Who were the Christians defending good works in the sixteenth century? Who were the Christians saying that good works proceeded from grace? And which Christians said:
Which Christians are saying that today? Three guesses, the first two don’t count.
LikeLike
Like those other folks, theonomists, neo-Cals, and FV’s, you confuse the substance of grace with the accidents of the Mosaic Covenant.
I distinguish; it’s just that I don’t separate. You apparently separate.
You keep saying the MC promised Christ. Where?
Ah, so you take an exception to WCF 7.5.
LikeLike
David R., so I see the strategy — catch the church officer in his words. Are you wearing a recording device?
I don’t know, though, that you’d think I take exception to 7.5 except that you do seem to have trouble with reading comprehension. The confession says:
The confession DOES NOT SAY that the covenant of grace was administered by the law and obedience to it. So what am I missing.
And while you’re pulling out your confession, take a look at the OPC’s proof texts. None come from the Torah or OT for that matter. And all pertain to the work of Christ as high priest, the promises (not the or else), and the sacraments.
Catch me if you can. But you’re the one on thin ice.
LikeLike
Gal. 3:17-18:
This is what I mean: the law [Mosaic covenant], which came 430 years afterward, does not annul a covenant [Abrahamic covenant] previously ratified by God, so as to make the promise void. For if the inheritance comes by the law [Mosaic covenant], it no longer comes by promise; but God gave it to Abraham by a promise.
and John 1:17:
For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.
LikeLike
D.G.,
So you think the covenant of grace requires obedience from believers no matter how imperfect or no matter how non-meritorious, though if it is required I’m not sure how the covenant of grace becomes anything less than conditional. So we are back to the neonomian vs. antinomian debate, or back to Shepherd after all.
Or maybe we’re back to the Reformed vs. antinomian debate. You really want to say that the covenant of grace does not require obedience?
LikeLike
D.G.,
You think I sound Romish when I say that “Fourthly, they (i.e., believers) were under grace, and thus the obedience required of them was the sincere obedience that flows from life, not the perfect obedience necessary in order to inherit life.”
But are you willing to give Old Princeton a pass? Following is some wisdom from B.B. Warfield:
LikeLike
D.G.,
David R., so I see the strategy — catch the church officer in his words. Are you wearing a recording device?
No recording device here. But you sure are sounding uncharacteristically paranoid….
The confession DOES NOT SAY that the covenant of grace was administered by the law and obedience to it. So what am I missing.
What you are missing is that I NEVER SAID that the covenant of grace was administered by the law and obedience to it. So I don’t think I’m the one having trouble with reading comprehension….
LikeLike
David R., the way I learned the Reformation it was faith alone, not faith plus obedience. Embrace your inner Shepherd. Then read this:
LikeLike
David R., so far as I know, Warfield is neither infallible nor confessed by any Reformed church (unless you have antinomianly created the Warfield Church of Christ). I prefer this:
Or this:
I don’t see the law as part of that requirement, which is odd on your view since the divines just spent over fifty questions discussing the law that came with Moses.
LikeLike
Berkhof:
Vos:
LikeLike
David R., so you’re obsessed and I’m paranoid. But you know, they didn’t appoint a committee of the Assembly to which I owe some deference to study the views of anti-repubs.
You have asserted several times that inheritance of the land which is a type of eternal life is obtained through imperfect obedience. Why else are you telling me that obedience is required and quoting Warfield to tell that obedience is required for salvation, you know, prefigured by the land.
You just asked: “You really want to say that the covenant of grace does not require obedience?” Now you say “I NEVER SAID that the covenant of grace was administered by the law and obedience to it.”
Then why are you asking me whether the covenant of grace requires obedience if you say it doesn’t?
Some might think you haven’t really figure this out. Maybe it’s because you’re really Hagar.
LikeLike
D.G., ah okay, Warfield sounds Romish too…. Well, at least you’re consistent. But how is it that you can’t tell the difference between what’s required of us in order to be saved, versus what’s required of us once we are saved?
LikeLike
David R., maybe because I haven’t bought your phony notion that God accept imperfect obedience as legitimate obedience. But maybe it’s because I can read. What can’t you tell about the language of the catechism?
Then the exposition of the Ten Commandments handed down at the launch of the Mosaic Covenant.
Then exposition of faith, repentance, and the means of grace.
What is required in the law and what is required to escape God’s wrath and curse once we break the law are two different things that you collapse.
Are you related to Shepherd?
LikeLike
What is required of us once we are saved? Can you state it for me, David R., succinctly?
LikeLike
David R., again the quotations without comment. If I were grading your paper, you get a D. You gotta tell us what this means to you (in your heart).
I know you don’t believe this, but repub is trying to make sense of this exactly: “The covenant that proceeds from Sinai and centers in the earthly Jerusalem, is placed over against the covenant that proceeds from heaven and centers in the Jerusalem that is above, that is, — the natural and the spiritual.”
In contrast, you identify the imperfect obedience that inherits the land with eternal salvation.
Yowza!
LikeLike
David R., so you’re obsessed and I’m paranoid.
We can always finish this dialogue in the asylum.
But you know, they didn’t appoint a committee of the Assembly to which I owe some deference to study the views of anti-repubs.
With your zeal, maybe it’s high time you draft an overture?
You have asserted several times that inheritance of the land which is a type of eternal life is obtained through imperfect obedience. Why else are you telling me that obedience is required and quoting Warfield to tell that obedience is required for salvation, you know, prefigured by the land.
What I asserted was this: “First of all, the inheritance offered was the eternal inheritance … Thirdly, the MC offered life and salvation in Jesus Christ, whose meritorious obedience alone secures the inheritance on behalf of the elect. Fourthly, they (i.e., believers) were under grace, and thus the obedience required of them was the sincere obedience that flows from life, not the perfect obedience necessary in order to inherit life.”
It’s hard for me to believe you think that’s controversial.
You just asked: “You really want to say that the covenant of grace does not require obedience?” Now you say “I NEVER SAID that the covenant of grace was administered by the law and obedience to it.”
You’re conflating things again…. Regarding the OT administration of the covenant of grace, we confess WCF 7.5. Regarding the requirement of obedience for those under grace, we confess WCF 19.5-7. You see? The law and the gospel “do sweetly comply … the Spirit of Christ subduing and enabling the will of man to do that freely, and cheerfully, which the will of God, revealed in the law, requires to be done.”
LikeLike
David Noe, if you’re asking about the obedience required once we’re saved, again, I think Warfield’s article 17 in “Brief and Untechnical Statement” is good. Also, WCF 19.5-7.
LikeLike
D.G.,
David R., again the quotations without comment. If I were grading your paper, you get a D. You gotta tell us what this means to you (in your heart).
If I were writing a paper I would tell you what it means to me. But the parts I emboldened should point the way well enough.
LikeLike
What is required in the law and what is required to escape God’s wrath and curse once we break the law are two different things that you collapse.
So once we escape God’s wrath and curse, we’re no longer required to obey? Or is the point that you take an exception to WCF 19:5-7 too? (No recording device so you can be honest….)
LikeLike