What exactly is so threatening about this?
Every Reformed minister loves preaching from Romans and Galatians. Presenting the Mosaic law as teaching a works principle really helps in explaining Paul’s doctrine of justification: what sin is all about, why people can’t rely on their own law-keeping, how faith is radically different from works, how Christ fulfilled the terms of the law so that we may be justified. That’s the gospel as I see it, but you can’t explain the gospel without understanding the law. Or take all of those Old Testament passages that call for Israel’s obedience and promise blessing and threaten curse in the land depending on their response. For example, the beginning of Deuteronomy 4, which tells Israel to follow the law so that they may live and take possession of the land. Or Deuteronomy 28, which recounts all sorts of earthly blessings in the land if the Israelites are careful to obey and all sorts of earthly curses if they aren’t. I don’t want a congregation to think that God was holding out a works-based way of salvation here, and I also can’t tell the congregation that this is the same way that God deals with the New Testament church when he calls her to obedience, for there’s nothing equivalent in the New Testament, no promise of earthly blessing for the church today if we meet a standard of obedience. Saying either of those things might by simple, but of course they’d be misleading, and damaging for the church to hear. (The Law is Not of Faith, 5)
Could it be that this view seems to allow Christians to think that law-keeping does not contribute to their salvation? Well, if the law requires “personal, perfect, and perpetual conformity and obedience thereunto, in the frame and disposition of the whole man, soul and body, and in performance of all those duties of holiness and righteousness which he owes to God and man: promising life upon the fulfilling, and threatening death upon the breach of it,” who is up to that challenge? Don’t be bashful.
Old Life 
I heard from our OPC RE back from GA about republication ‘issues’ causing a committee to be formed….I have read Dr. Leonard Coppes tract against the ‘new’ 2k and the ‘new’ republication controversey, but apart from that and a few blogs, I really can’t identify the antirepublication position. It seems to me to hover around whether we must consider the sinaitic covanent a CoW or a CoG. Is it really that simple? Can you help me to understand the opposing side?
Thank you
LikeLike
It’s not “threatening,” it’s just that it begs some important questions. Is this the only view that “seems to allow Christians to think that law-keeping does not contribute to their salvation?” Is this the view that the Scriptures teach? Calvin thought no. Turretin thought no. Berkhof thought no. Most Reformed theologians thought no.
LikeLike
Not to belittle genuine theological controversy in the OPC nor her desire for theological precision, but methinks this is a tempest in a teapot.
LikeLike
David,
I wasn’t sure if you were commenting on mine.if so, I am glad it is not threatening, since I am somewhat sympathetic to the republication POV, at least so far as I understand it. I did see that Berkhof wrote against republication in his ST, but did so in connection with dispensationalism. Is that not a different beast from what this admirable blog is referring to? I just do not understand how one can argue against the idea that the mosaic covenant contained a republication of the CoW, in some sense. I also cannot understand how one argues that the TEN are a publication of the CoG, unless it is immediately followed by ‘in some sense’. That sword cuts both ways.
I am interested in what exactly a non republication view looks like.
Thank you
LikeLike
I have begun reading TLNF, and have inquired about what it (Republication) means before this post, so this discussion is appreciated.
In my mind and to my understanding, I understand that Christ has fulfilled ‘all things’ for us already through his active obedience, and now He is conforming me to His image, or in shorthand, helping me to follow Him in His example of active obedience to the Law, though imperfectly rendered in this life. I see this as ‘reaching for the stars’, but I know it’s a fallible analogy because of God’s mysterious way of working His will, but somehow it helps.
Because Christ has completely fulfilled the Law/Covenant of Works already on my behalf, the work is already done, and I can *rest in His completed work (Justification), while at the same time He is conforming me to it in my (Sanctification). I am not privy to God’s secret counsel/will, but knowing the Gospel, I can *rest in Him.
It is not bothering me at all if I am on a trajectory of ‘walking out’ (after Christ’s example) conformity to the Covenant of Works in this life. Master and Apprentice model. That’s the way I see it. And I am not bothered or thinking about rewards. The reward for me is to know Christ, and to live for Him in this rebellious and tortured soul and body, where even the smallest daylight of seeing His goodness and grace means more than life itself.
* Denotes the Pietist’s freak-out word
LikeLike
Brian, the question isn’t whether the doctrine of the covenant of works was restated for pedagogical purposes under Moses. There are a number of issues and I tried to give my opinion on the state of the question in this thread (you’ll have to scroll down to the tenth comment on the page).
LikeLike
Watching “The Yakuza”, screenplay by Paul Schrader & Robert Towne. Brian Keith’s bodyguard has the last name of Hoekstra. That’s a little CRC Dutch Reformed shout out by Schrader…
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0073918/?ref_=nm_flmg_wr_24
LikeLike
Perhaps back in the days of Nixon– before I had dissipated all of my neuroplasticity learning about multivariable calculus, wave equations, Krebs cycle, synaptic junctions, upper motor neuron disorders and erythropoiesis– I could have grasped the significance of this debate.
Would somebody please let me know when they publish the Classics Comicbook version?
LikeLike
Could it be that the anti-repubs perceive or imagine other undesirable tendencies among the repub crowd? Are some of their tears crocodilian?
LikeLike
David R., what about Paul? You keep citing Reformed theologians as if you have a Ph.D. in historical theology or as if Reformed Protestantism has popes. I have yet to see you cite one passage of Scripture. And the way you read the Standards does not give me hope about the way you read Calvin and Turretin (not to mention that you don’t show much wiggle room in this matter of interpreting texts — your interpretation is the only one allowed, or you are the umpire of all interpretations).
LikeLike
David R., and if it is not threatening, then why are you obsessed?
I haven’t seen you comment on Ferguson, Missouri yet. Don’t you care?
LikeLike
Brian, My understanding is that everyone in the Reformed world believes the Mosaic Covenant was part of the Covenant of Grace. The question is how the law functions in the Covenant of Grace and whether the Mosaic covenant is decisive for all iterations of the covenant of grace. I find it hard to believe that the Mosaic covenant is decisive for the way Christians understand the law because of that fellow Paul.
LikeLike
CW, you mean this is another front in the obedience boys’ fight?
LikeLike
Berkhof wrote: “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.” (p. 298 in Systematic Theology) However, he goes on to write, “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.” (ibid.)
I like how Kline explained it in his Old Testament Hermeneutics class: On the foundational level of individual salvation the Sinai covenant was a continuation of the one covenant of grace, pointing to faith in the promised Messiah as the only way of salvation. But on the superadded, corporate level of national theocracy the Sinai covenant was a covenant of works, requiring total loyalty and obedience for retention of their standing in the promised land.
LikeLike
I’ve been re-reading The Marrow of Modern Divinity and have been struck by the fact that Fisher and Boston teach a form of republication. As the writers of TLNF point out, republication is not a new idea.
Fisher says, “in that long course of time betwixt Adam and Moses, men had forgotten what was sin… therefore, ‘the law entered,’ that Adam’s offense and their own actual transgression might abound, so that now the Lord saw it needful, that there should be a new edition and publication of the covenant of works, the sooner to compel the elect unbelievers to come to Christ, the promised seed, and that the grace of God in Christ to elect believers might appear the more exceedingly glorious.” (p. 83)
And here is part of Boston’s lengthy note entitled “Two Covenants Delivered at Sinai”:
“Wherefore I conceive the two covenants [i.e., of works and grace] to have been both delivered on Mount Sinai to the Israelites. First, the covenant of grace made with Abraham, contained in the preface, repeated and promulgated there unto Israel, to be believed and embraced by faith, that they might be saved; to which were annexed the Ten Commandments, given by the Mediator Christ, the head of the covenant, as a rule of life to his covenant people. Secondly, the covenant of works made with Adam, contained in the same ten commands, delivered with thunderings and lightnings, the meaning of which was afterwards cleared by Moses, describing the righteousness of the law and sanction thereof, repeated and promulgated to the Israelites there, as the original perfect rule of righteousness, to be obeyed; and yet were they no more bound hereby to seek righteousness by the law than the young man was by our Saviour’s saying to him, ‘If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments — Thou shalt do no murder…’ (Matt. 19:17-18). The latter was a repetition of the former.
“Thus there is no confounding of the two covenants of grace and works; but the latter was added to the former as subservient unto it, to turn their eyes towards the promise, or covenant of grace… Hence it appears that the covenant of grace was, both in itself and in God’s intention, the principal part of the Sinai transaction: nevertheless, the covenant of works was the most conspicuous part of it, and law most open to the view of the people.
“According to this account of the Sinai transaction, the ten commands, there delivered, must come under a twofold notion or consideration; namely, as the law of Christ [i.e., the law as the believer’s rule of life under Christ the Mediator], and as the law of works [i.e. the covenant of works]” (pp. 77-78)
(these quotes are from the 2009 edition by Christian Heritage)
LikeLike
David R., here is why you don’t make sense and (sorry) why I don’t trust you and think you are being purposefully perverse:
You say this is the state of the question:
But then you ask or assert the following many times,
that sinners do merit in the CofG:
So I am wrong to imply that sinners don’t merit in the CofG.
or this:
So the principle of inheritance is the same between Moses and me, and that identification warrants your saying the moral law applies to me (the good news is you think I’m a believer, I guess).
or this:
So you think Leviticus applies to Christians in the same way it applied to the Israelites. So the law is of faith.
or this:
So you think law and grace are complimentary in the Mosaic Covenant and the CofG — law and faith go together.
And then for general confusion this:
You think Kline is affirming merit as part of the CofG when he is precisely opposing it and does so by distinguishing the type (inheritance of the land by merit) from the substance (inheritance of eternal life through a second Adam who would keep “all that God had commanded.” Here the really confusing thing is that you fault Kline for affirming merit when you yourself then turn around and say that Christians are in a position similar to the Israelites, trusting in Christ nets eternal life but blessings in this life come through imperfect personal obedience boosted by grace.
David, you are all over the place. You don’t make sense. Your criticism of repub is incoherent. Hence, something personal is going on. Man crush on Dennison?
LikeLike
DG, and culturalists right and left, inasmuch as they associate it with 2k. Of course, any halfwit can see that. Tribalism’s fine. Let’s just be honest about it.
LikeLike
Ok. Sorry if my questions are more basic than not, but I am happy to see a new thread about repub (RPB?) since the other ones are not alive to converse on.
I have read a few things on it recently since our elder came back from the OPC GA talking like it was going to be the next ‘big thing’ since FV and NPP. I am hoping y’all can help me get a better handle on it all.
If one is a RPB fan, is that a denial that the mosaic covenant contains a part of the CoG?
Whose position, if any claims that it contains both COG and CoW components? And what is a problem with it being stated that way?
Is it NOT RPB if one thinks the CoG is there, but “made subservient” to the CoG?
Is this ultimately about law/gospel distinctions?
It am getting a sense that law/gospel, 2K, and RPB are all tied together, and possibly amil as well, is this inaccurate?
Thank you
LikeLike
Sorry, should read, “..if one thinks the CoW is there, but ‘made subservient’…”
LikeLike
Republication appears to be a threat to those who are eternal members of the Tin Foil Hat Brigade and/or scholars insanely bitter and jealous that Hart/Clark/Horton are able to write edifying books under real publishers that Reformed people talk about.
LikeLike
Republication seems to further confirm/verify/authenticate The Good News. And it should be hopeful for churches struggling with whether they are being obedient enough to merit God’s blessing – removes that element from the Old Testament altogether. I hope that people will read this post and begin THINKING and QUESTIONING ministries like EMBERS TO A FLAME.
LikeLike
@ Brian: yes, Law/Gospel in the area of sanctification is the practical prize here.
This is evidenced by the charge and countercharge leveled by each at the other: antinomian and neonomian.
LikeLike
David R. are you David Robertson, also known as the self proclaimed wee flea? I ask this because if you are for me at least it would explain why you get involved in these posts. I also ask if you are David Robertson because if you are then your staunch defence elsewhere forTim Keller, John Piper and Stuart Townsend’s ecclesiology shows why you have a personal interest in these posts. I also wonder if your extensive knowledge is on display to really engage with others or to demonstrate some kind of theological prowess. I do know that the wee flea can be a crafty debater and rather unkind in his choice of words; the denomination I am a member of (the EPCEW) didn’t have a kindly commendation from him.
LikeLike
D.G,
But then you ask or assert the following many times,
that sinners do merit in the CofG:
So do sinners merit in the covenant of grace or don’t they? Here you seem to imply that they don’t.
So I am wrong to imply that sinners don’t merit in the CofG.
No. What you are wrong to affirm is that they can merit in the OT administration of the CoG. I’m the one affirming they don’t, remember? You think they can. Sheesh….
LikeLike
Paul, no, I am not David Robertson.
LikeLike
Paul,
I don’t think David R. is your David R. Two David R’s. But I understand your reason for asking.
LikeLike
You think Kline is affirming merit as part of the CofG when he is precisely opposing it and does so by distinguishing the type (inheritance of the land by merit) from the substance (inheritance of eternal life through a second Adam who would keep “all that God had commanded.”
Opposing it by affirming it. A neat strategy….
LikeLike
I have tried mightily over the years to understand Reformed Covenant theology, but it seems like trying to nail Jello to the wall. There seems to be a tendency to retreat into scholasticism. I read this post:
Semper Reformanda
Posted August 30, 2014 at 5:16 am | Permalink
and think I understand it and agree. Is his understanding correct?
LikeLike
D.G.,
David R., what about Paul? You keep citing Reformed theologians as if you have a Ph.D. in historical theology or as if Reformed Protestantism has popes. I have yet to see you cite one passage of Scripture.
I don’t have a Ph.D. In exegetical theology either, but I think you’re just huffy because Calvin, Turretin, Vos, Berkhof et. al. disagree with your interpretation of the same two passages in Paul that you keep citing like it proves something.
LikeLike
David R., and you’re the one affirming the similarities between us and the Israelites. Your position is fundamentally contradictory. You’re also the one who says the Israelites inherit the type (eternal life) through imperfect obedience.
You are affirming things all over the place in order to what, not be repub?
You are also the one saying that we are required to be obedient to obtain salvation — full stop. You’re inner Shepherd has lots of mojo working.
LikeLike
To anyone invoking the name of VanTil, Kline, Hegel, Kant, et al.
If you honestly don’t have the academic chops to invoke them, PLEASE STOP IT!!
You are totally out of your league in doing so, making a total ass of yourself.
All those around you in life are ashamed of this horrible habit and wish you would stop doing this, especially during deacon-coffee after church fellowship.
LikeLike
Dan, it might be better to revolve around the idea that the Law is NOT of faith. There’s a purposeful setting off of grace and faith over against law and works by which the redemption through Christ in the gospel is placarded as GOOD NEWS such that saving faith is primarily characterized by receiving and resting upon Christ. It is finished. No, this doesn’t say everything, but this a primary point of tension. Semper seems to be on the right path.
LikeLike
David R., if you distinguish the law as one way of inheriting the land (which is impossible because the law can’t be followed perfectly and that’s why the law was a teacher to point to Christ who keeps the law) from grace as the way to inherit eternal life (by Christ’s doing what Adam did not and Israel could not do), then you can understand Paul who says the law is not of faith. Otherwise we are left with David R. (contra Paul) who tells us that the law is of faith — you know, obedience is required for salvation.
Confused? Perverse? You make the call.
LikeLike
So you think law and grace are complimentary in the Mosaic Covenant and the CofG — law and faith go together.
I was simply summarizing Turretin. That you disagree with him is no evidence that I’m “all over the place.”
LikeLike
Sean (and Semper), thank you. Before I could even read, my mother read the 23rd Psalm and John 10: 27-30 to me at bedtime many, many nights. I guess she thought that was what was most important. The older I get, the wiser she seems.
LikeLike
I wonder if one is allowed to be Reformed if he is not part of the Turretin fan club?
LikeLike
So you think Leviticus applies to Christians in the same way it applied to the Israelites. So the law is of faith.
Have you read Calvin’s comments on Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 28? Guess what, no works principle so far as he’s concerned. And yes, he interprets those passages as if they’re about us. But that’s because he understands them to speak of the same promise, eternal life, inherited in the same way, by grace through faith.
LikeLike
Does one have to believe every (infallible?) word Calvin said to be Reformed?
LikeLike
TBR, if one thinks that C and T conflated law and grace, it raises questions in the minds of others.
LikeLike
Kent: “All those around you in life are ashamed of this horrible habit…”
That’s funny.
LikeLike
Dan and Sean,
I really appreciate your encouragement and what you shared. The WSCAL Transforming Grace Conference in January of this year was tremendous, and when I went home, I felt as though I really understood Sanctification and was not troubled about it anymore like before. All of the sessions were awesome, but David’s spoke to me outright. There was something about how he unpacked the topics of Sin, The Law, Justification, and Sanctification in terms that I could really grasp. Three things still stand out to me from his presentation – even now – The Big Ugly Monster, The Club, and the Law is your Friend. I had never heard it explained to me like that before. You can watch or listen, here’s the link:
http://wscal.edu/resource-center/resource/sanctification-of-the-justified
It is difficult to write about what God does, but it’s so encouraging when others like yourselves offer reinforcement and affirmation.
LikeLike
David,
Darryl is exactly right in suggesting that Kline is opposing merit in the cov. of grace by affirming it in Moses. The very statement that the merit Israel was required in the MC was typological IS affirming that it is typological of something genuine, real, saving, (unlike the type), and that is the merit of Christ. If we say the animal sacrifices typified Christ, we are at the same time affirming that the animal sacrifices were NOT Christ and NOT efficacious. You may not grant this because you do not see the law-gospel contrast between Abraham and Moses like we do, or dare I say Paul does, but why do you think Klineans have been the most vocal opponents of Shepherd? Because we go the exact opposite direction you suggest our theology goes. In drawing a direct line from Israel to Christ, (opposed to your line from Israel to the visible church), we see Christ fulfilling all merit required of Israel, thus leaving no room for works as a condition of covenant blessing (yes, works are necessary evidences one is a recipient of the COG, but not a condition of blessing as per Deut 28.) As for Calvin, Berkhof, etc., no one is suggesting Kline follows them in every way on their understanding of the MC, and on their interpretation of Deut 28 and Gal 3:12 we believe many of the older writers were wrong, but when they end up explaining how the MC points to Christ and justification, we are all on the same page against legalists, neo-nomians, antinomians, etc. That is why up until the Dennison project nobody on either side of the debate was suggesting one is outside of reformed theology for holding either view of the MC, if one ended up with a proper understanding of justification and the necessity of obedience.
On a related note, our friend Gary North is warning the church against that evil fiend Kline as he seeks from the grave to covertly destroy conservative denominations.
http://teapartyeconomist.com/2014/08/30/baptists-beware-presbyterian-attack-creationism-headed-way/
I’m pretty sure Kline was somehow involved with 9-11 also.
LikeLike
David R. right. That you are all over the place is evidence that you are all over the place (but you are a single-issue all over the place commenter).
LikeLike
David R., “by grace through faith”? Where’s the obedience that’s required. Again, the David-R. flip-flop.
LikeLike
TRB, don’t think that David R. interprets Calvin correctly. After all, he doesn’t understand a lot of repubs.
LikeLike
David R., funny how Calvin and Turretin believed the Bible was authoritative. When do you ever address Paul who spent a lot of time (almost as much as you) figuring out the relation of Moses to Abraham.
LikeLike
Semper Ref, you are going to have to distinguish David VD from David R. I’m sure both would appreciate that distinction.
LikeLike
Clarification for earlier post, where I said
“removes that element from the Old Testament altogether”
I meant to say
” removes that element (Sinaic/Sinaitic Covenant) from the New Testmament altogether”
My apologies
LikeLike
Yes, Dr. Hart, Absolutely.
David Van Drunen is the principal author/general editor of
The Law Is Not of Faith
and David R. is not.
LikeLike
Dan,
I can identify with what you expressed about trying to understand all of this, too (Reformed Theology). It is still a struggle, but a lot of the concepts have been set now in my mind and thinking, and I have really become so persuaded/convinced.
My journey to begin to understand Reformed Theology began when I was in my late 40’s, and now I am in my mid 50’s. I became a Christian as a teenager in high school, so I practically spent 30 years without really understanding ‘The Good News’, and also, as Dr. Rod Rosenbladt says, that “the Good News is for Christians, too.
When I began listening to and reading Reformed materials, it was hard, even when the message was good – like, too good to be true. And there was also the aspect for me of wondering if I was truly being taught the truth, or that there was some fine print somewhere – must be a catch to this……….
LikeLike
Semper, I guess I’ve been fortunate in that the Church I grew up in and the Church I joined in college and still belong to at least tried not to beat the sheep with a heavy dose of legalism. I have always been suspicious of Reformed Covenant theology because I think many of its adherents are sneaking law in as somehow part of salvation. Trying to read the two Testaments together can be tricky business, though it is necessary. What helps me is maybe too simple, but it works for me: Scripture has one author, God, and its subject is truth, Jesus.
LikeLike
Isn’t David R. really David M.? My Reformed pastor asked me about two years to listen to D. Murray’s audios he gave in South Africa about biblical covenants. I must tell you – even as someone who was fairly clueless about covenants back then – it was the biggest load of rubbish I have ever listen to (ok, ok… since leaving the evangelical mess).
He kept on inserting ‘grace’ into the definition of the covenant of works, which basically turns it into a covenant of grace… what?
LikeLike
Todd,
Darryl is exactly right in suggesting that Kline is opposing merit in the cov. of grace by affirming it in Moses. The very statement that the merit Israel was required in the MC was typological IS affirming that it is typological of something genuine, real, saving, (unlike the type), and that is the merit of Christ.
Again, I don’t think Kline said that Israel’s obedience typified Christ’s (though I understand you disagree). He (like Vos) said that Israel’s obedience typified the godliness of the saints in heaven.
You may not grant this because you do not see the law-gospel contrast between Abraham and Moses like we do, or dare I say Paul does, but why do you think Klineans have been the most vocal opponents of Shepherd?
I keep hearing this but I don’t know if I buy it. True, Kline was a vocal opponent of Shepherd, but I can easily think of non-Klineans who have also been vocal defenders of the doctrine of justification, and some of them are critics of republication. And on the six member OPC justification committee, I believe only two of them were Klineans. But even granting your claim, opposing Shepherd doesn’t prove that one isn’t heterodox in some other way (though apparently many want to think otherwise). And what I’ve been seeing here amounts to opposition to standard Reformed theology.
As for Calvin, Berkhof, etc., no one is suggesting Kline follows them in every way on their understanding of the MC, and on their interpretation of Deut 28 and Gal 3:12 we believe many of the older writers were wrong, …
Thank you for forthrightly admitting that you think the older writers were wrong.
… but when they end up explaining how the MC points to Christ and justification, we are all on the same page against legalists, neo-nomians, antinomians, etc.
True, but let’s face it: You think their position ultimately opens the door to Shepherdism. And in trying to defend their position on the MC here, I’ve gotten nothing but push-back.
LikeLike
Dan,
I’m glad for you having that background. What a mercy and a comfort. I knew other believers (especially in college) who had a similar background as yours.
The suspicion you mentioned about Reformed Theology is a healthy one, because there are plenty of adherents out there who are sneaking Law back into the Good News, making it the ‘Bad News’. I think understanding covenants is critical to being able to rest in what God has done for us in and through Christ, so this topic-post by Dr. Hart is excellent for learning and understanding what it’s all about. What is amazing to me is how some theologians can refer to themselves as Reformed (I’m tracking with your suspicions here) and quote correctly from the Scriptures and the Confessions (like they are singing along on the same page) but eventually they ‘tell on themselves’.
LikeLike
…for y’all grammar nazigators… I meant to say “…it was the biggest load of rubbish I have ever listened to…”.
I still mean to say that.
LikeLike
Perhaps my questions from my last post are not relevant to the topic at hand. Would someone be able to direct me somewhere they might be more appropriate because I am very interested in learning more about this issue.
Thank you
LikeLike
David R., let’s be clear about a big dose of the push-back: ” I don’t think Kline said that Israel’s obedience typified Christ’s (though I understand you disagree). He (like Vos) said that Israel’s obedience typified the godliness of the saints in heaven.”
Obedience? In the words of Allen Iverson, we’re talking about OBEDIENCE. Of friggin’ Israel? What obedience? When did Israel obey anything?
And this may be a common problem among the anti-repubs — the capacity to overestimate obedience, like when David argues for partial obedience as the way of inheriting the land (when the Israelites and God said it was going to be “everything commanded” or like when the confession talks about personal, perfect, and perpetual obedience. And what goes with this is an underselling of sin — as in good works become good works minus the filthy rags of human sinfulness, or the sense that Christians really can be good.
LikeLike
David R: Would you say that the believer’s good works are a non-meritorious ground for inheriting eternal life?
LikeLike
TBR, no, David R. is not David M. though they may think alike.
We’re going into the final round of “What’s My Line?”
LikeLike
Brian, Scott Clark has lots of resources.
LikeLike
David R.,
Thank you for forthrightly admitting that you think the older writers were wrong.
Was Calvin wrong as to the role of the magistrate in the church? Were the Divines wrong on the same subject? Again, the issue gets back to exegesis of Scripture not the older guys… And that again is what I appreciate about TLNF guys. They interact very much with the older guys AND Scripture. David Murray even admits that is the weak point of the critics of TLNF. They don’t do much by way of interacting with the relevant passages of Scripture.
LikeLike
Sidenote:
Dee Murray was Elton John’s bass player – and the best bass player ever. Just listen to ‘Funeral for a Friend/Love Lies Bleeding in My Hand’ from the Goodbye Yellow Brick Road album.
Not the same D. Murray referenced in this post, but worth mentioning for the benefit of those who like strident riffs……
LikeLike
I’m looking forward to T. David’s (another David! – oh my…) yet-to-be published book on covenant-historical reasoning in Galatians: Promise, Law, and Faith.
LikeLike
@ SR: I’ll take your Dee Murray and raise you a Chris Squire. But point taken.
You know what album has aged really gracefully, though? CSNY’s Deja Vu.
LikeLike
“I keep hearing this but I don’t know if I buy it. True, Kline was a vocal opponent of Shepherd, but I can easily think of non-Klineans who have also been vocal defenders of the doctrine of justification, and some of them are critics of republication. ”
Well, Kline pointed out Shepherd’s dangers before anyone else did, but your point actually makes my point. Why did Klineans and non-Klineans together see the error of Shepherd? Because they agreed on justification and the nature of the CG. They ended up at the same place.
“But even granting your claim, opposing Shepherd doesn’t prove that one isn’t heterodox in some other way (though apparently many want to think otherwise). ”
Of course not. My point is more limited than that. The irony is the people you accuse of positing merit are usually the most vocal against anyone positing merit in the Cov of Grace. This alone should cause you to temper your accusations.
“And what I’ve been seeing here amounts to opposition to standard Reformed theology.”
I don’t think your particular view is “the” standard view, but apparently you do, so I’ll leave it there.
Thank you for forthrightly admitting that you think the older writers were wrong.”
You’re welcome
“… but when they end up explaining how the MC points to Christ and justification, we are all on the same page against legalists, neo-nomians, antinomians, etc.
“True,”
Thanks for admitting this. If this is not about an errant view of the cov. of grace, why are your knickers in such a twist?
“but let’s face it: You think their position ultimately opens the door to Shepherdism.”
Not true. Remember I said we all have happy inconsistencies. Calvin, Bolton, Berkhof, Hodge, Kline, etc. did not all agree on how to describe the MC, and some obviously did better than others, but they all agreed on the CG. To go the Shepherd route you have to purposely want to distort the doctrine of justification.
“And in trying to defend their position on the MC here, I’ve gotten nothing but push-back.”
First, I still do not believe most of us understand your view yet. However, you came on this blog with accusations against Kline, certain seminary professors within our reformed denominations, and pastors in good standing in our reformed churches. You really didn’t expect pushback?
LikeLike
Jeff, at Old Life, Chris Squire rules (among bassists).
LikeLike
Jeff, no, I would definitely not say that.
LikeLike
Also partial to Geddy Lee.
LikeLike
@ David: Good. Very Good.
Ok, so you would say, though (following Vos), that the nation’s obedience was a non-meritorious ground for land retention?
LikeLike
David R., then why do you continue to insist that obedience is required. Required in what sense?
LikeLike
D.G.,
David R., let’s be clear about a big dose of the push-back …
That’s what you call clear? I simply state Kline’s position on what Israel’s obedience typified and you respond with a rant about how thats “a common problem among the anti-repubs.” How you get from explaining Kline to underselling sin I can’t imagine but as long as it’s “clear” to you….
LikeLike
Darryl: ” …..And what goes with this is an underselling of sin — as in good works become good works minus the filthy rags of human sinfulness, or the sense that Christians really can be good.”
Me: thought about that strain the other day when reading this: WCF Chapt 9 “4. When God converts a sinner, and translates him into the state of grace, he freeth him from his natural bondage under sin; and, by his grace alone, enables him freely to will and to do that which is spiritually good; yet so, as that by reason of his remaining corruption, he doth not perfectly, nor only, will that which is good, but doth also WILL that which is evil.
5. The will of man is made perfectly and immutably free to good alone, in the state of glory only.
Simul justus et peccator
LikeLike
Jeff, as I recall, Vos doesn’t explicitly say “ground.” I believe he says “connection.” What I think I’ve been saying is that their obedience was “necessary” for them to remain in the land.
LikeLike
David R.,
Are you saying that Kline is underselling sin?
Would you please summarized in a couple sentences or so what you mean by Kline is “underselling sin?”
LikeLike
David R., obedience is required? You affirm this, right? So obedience has to be imperfect given our remaining corruption. But that’s no biggie. The law doesn’t require personal, perpetual, perfect obedience. That’s something Kline made up.
LikeLike
Sean, ding ding
LikeLike
Jack, please just go back and read the comment I’m responding to and then read mine again and try to understand. No, I’m not saying that.
LikeLike
D.G., the interaction has been eye opening, but I think it’s (past) time for me to bow out….
LikeLike
David R: What I think I’ve been saying is that their obedience was “necessary” for them to remain in the land.
OK, I’ll go with that. Vos does use the term “ground”, but it’s not clear whether he is disputing that term or simply restating it when he speaks of an “indispensable (but not meritorious) condition for receiving the inheritance.”
So to restate using Vos’s exact language, would you say that “obedience is an indispensable (but not meritorious) condition for inheriting eternal life”?
LikeLike
David R.,
Obviously I wan’t sure. But I reread your comment several times before I asked. It’s still not clear to me what you’re saying. But at least I’m glad you’re not saying what I that Kline is…
LikeLike
But at least I’m glad you’re not saying what I thought – that Kline is…
LikeLike
Best bass player ever: Billy Sheehan.
Dee Murray? Chris Squire? They couldn’t carry his amplifier.
LikeLike
Jeff,
So to restate using Vos’s exact language, would you say that “obedience is an indispensable (but not meritorious) condition for inheriting eternal life”?
You tryin’ to trick me? Vos’s “exact language” was wrt to “holiness as the indispensable (though not meritorious) condition of receiving the inheritance.”
LikeLike
Jack, perhaps you should also read the comment I’m responding to several times.
LikeLike
@ David R:
No, no tricks. I’m trying to understand what condition you think was necessary for Israel to retain the land. Clearly one has to state that condition very precisely …
LikeLike
“They couldn’t carry his amplifier.”
Or his hair.
LikeLike
@ David C Noe: Very, very impressive. Not my style of music (I like Eric Johnson or Joe Satriani over Steve Vai, for example), but I am quite impressed.
Interesting that the Wiki article on Billy Sheehan mentions his connections to King’s X.
LikeLike
Jeff, I understand Vos to be saying much the same thing as Calvin was when he spoke of good works as “inferior causes,” and also in the same vein as WLC 32 which speaks of obedience as “the way he hath appointed them to salvation.”
LikeLike
Ladies and gents: Willie Dixon
LikeLike
Oh no, 80’s hair bands. Where’s the Z28 and golden horn?
LikeLike
David R.,
Jack, perhaps you should also read the comment I’m responding to several times.
Wow, thanks for being so helpful. I never would have thought of that. How could I possibly misunderstand your crystal clear response to Darryl? – not.
never mind…
LikeLike
Usually, Sean, you speak such wisdom. Now you’re just acting like a follicle bigot.
LikeLike
Sorry, David. I just never went through an awkward, uncool, overcompensate, couldn’t get a girl phase. What’s it like? Well, there was Calvary Chapel for two years, followed by therapy, but other than that! But really, who couldn’t figure out Rob Halford was gay and Roth probably experimented and was running from himself and everybody else had corresponding mommy and daddy issues? That or somebody went to the state institution and said; “give me all your savant borderlines and I’ll dress them in tights and put them on stage and let them self-medicate. What could go wrong!”
LikeLike
No, no tricks. I’m trying to understand what condition you think was necessary for Israel to retain the land. Clearly one has to state that condition very precisely …
As I’ve said, I think they had to maintain corporately a measure of obedience appropriate for typifying the state of consummate holiness.
LikeLike
Uh, Bootsy Collins.
LikeLike
David R: As I’ve said, I think they had to maintain corporately a measure of obedience appropriate for typifying the state of consummate holiness.
Yes, you have said that, and I recognize the Vos in it. One of the reasons I’m confused is that you have said these things:
JRC: So in what sense do [Deut 28 et al] express the covenant of works?
DR: 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.)
and
DR: 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….
but
DR: One difference is that the old view posits a material republication of the original covenant of works (i.e., the same condition of perfect obedience, and the same promise of eternal life); not a modified works covenant in which less-than-perfect (“typologically legible”) obedience constitutes the meritorious ground for inheriting merely temporal blessings.
So I don’t understand yet what you view as the promise to the nation and the condition required of the nation for that promise. Was it eternal life on the condition of perfect obedience? Was it staying in the land on the condition of relative obedience? Was it staying in the land on the condition of perfect obedience? Was it staying in the land on the basis of faith?
I understand this is just a blog, so I’m not trying to ding you here as if you have failed to meet standards of consistency. I am assuming you have a clear picture in mind.
A second part of the confusion is that it is not obvious to me that Deut 28 is talking directly about eternal life. It looks like it’s talking about retaining the land (which we agree is a type of eternal life.) Can you explain why you think Deut 28 is talking about eternal life and not land?
LikeLike
Um. Paul McCartney. That baseline on Dear Prudence on the White Album? Sick.
LikeLike
Um…. Muddy. Why is Willie Dixon playing that big ole violin like that? Won’t it break?
LikeLike
Still ‘Dee Murray’……….John Entwhistle as runner up (Won’t Get Fooled Again)
You all are making me interested to look into your favorites ~
LikeLike
David C. Noe
Posted August 30, 2014 at 5:18 pm | Permalink
Best bass player ever: Billy Sheehan.
Dee Murray? Chris Squire? They couldn’t carry his amplifier.
The joke among the rest of the band–who are actually trying to make music–is what’s the only thing worse than a bad bass player?
–A great bass player.
____
Amish Ambush
Posted August 30, 2014 at 9:07 pm | Permalink
Um. Paul McCartney. That baseline on Dear Prudence on the White Album? Sick.
As they say around here, ding ding. Also the long instrumental in “She’s So Heavy.” Lennon came up with those cool chords and arpeggios, and then Paul topped it my turning them into the bass melody.
And if you listen to the first 4 years of the Beatles, George and John are playing simple chords, and Paul’s bass is the only real music happening.
And if melodic bass ain’t your thing, it was Entwhistle who pretty much invented playing your ass off. Squire and Sheehan are epigones.
LikeLike
At last! I agree with Tom Van Dyke. Check out Sir Paul’s bass lines… And also Entwhistle.
LikeLike
Y’all are sexists. Here’s some Tal
LikeLike
The (Old Life) Kids Are All Right……….
LikeLike
For Muddy Gravel and all the non-sexists out there…
LikeLike
David R., come on, you can’t answer a question about your leading assertion — obedience is required? For what?
LikeLike
David R., reading comprehension alert. Here’s the exact language of WLC 32:
Obedience is not a condition. It’s evidence, but this is precisely the problem that kept tripping Shepherd up.
If you can’t read the catechism aright, what about Calvin or Vos?
LikeLike
Jeff to David R., “A second part of the confusion is that it is not obvious to me that Deut 28 is talking directly about eternal life. It looks like it’s talking about retaining the land (which we agree is a type of eternal life.) Can you explain why you think Deut 28 is talking about eternal life and not land?”
Exactly.
So it turns out that the critics of repub are confused? Wouldn’t have thought of that.
LikeLike
Dr. Hart,
I do believe that your post above, where you describe the critical point and heart of the matter – obedience as evidence, and not as a condition – from WLC 32, defines the essence of the ongoing problem in Reformed circles today for pastors, elders, individual believers, and the church at-large.
Understanding the covenants is so critical:
Very quickly, our understanding of Christ’s finished and completed Work gets diluted, or diminished, if this is not thoroughly understood, and we are back to the Do This and Live basis of the Law………..and this is where it can get very tricky, depending on what each individual believer understands or knows:
– it can manifest itself as working to earn God’s favor or blessing in each believer’s personal life, or family, or church, or nation (especially the new Israel, the United States of America)
or
– it can, most probably, and most certainly does – fully morph into working for one’s salvation and Eternal Life
These are the ‘unspoken’ (until now) – and seldom, rarely/never taught – ‘theological points of distinction-instruction’ that practically never see the light of day in Reformed churches of today.
LikeLike
Speaking of good bassists. Chuck Rainey:
LikeLike
David Gordon—These various biblical covenants are not merely numerically distinct; they are different in kind, although they each contribute to God’s single purpose to rescue the human race in Christ, the last Adam. Covenants only conflict with each other if they propose different means for attaining the same ends; provided that their ends and means differ, there is no conflict.
David Gordon—People often say, for instance, that God “graciously” chose Israel to be a party to the Sinai covenant, when in fact God “sovereignly” chose them. But neither I nor the Israelites consider this sovereign election to be necessarily gracious. Recall that the Israelites thought they were better off in Egypt
:
Numbers 14:2 And all the people of Israel grumbled against Moses and Aaron. The whole congregation said to them, “Would that we had died in the land of Egypt! Or would that we had died in this wilderness! 3 Why is the LORD bringing us into this land, to fall by the sword? Our wives and our little ones will become a prey. Would it not be better for us to go back to Egypt?”
LikeLike
D.G.,
David R., come on, you can’t answer a question about your leading assertion — obedience is required? For what?
Because it is “the evidence of the truth of their faith and thankfulness to God, and as the way which he hath appointed them to salvation”? How’s that for reading comprehension.
LikeLike
All of this arguing over the place of obedience in the life of the Reformed Christian (to the point that we’re naming Boys after the concept) seems moot. If we affirm election we affirm that some will receive the gift of faith in Christ from God and those who receive the gift of faith will in some measure life a life of obedience to God’s Commandments. Since faith precedes obedience, why make obedience the focal point? It makes no sense.
For those who clearly live lives of disobedience — to the point that their sins become gross and evident even to pagans — we have church discipline and barring from the Lord’s table.
If obedience is your warp & woof go back to the Arminian Baptists from whence you came.
LikeLike
Erik, what about Xian economy? You’re advocating crop subsidies for carrot farmers and a policy that will put stick makers out of business.
LikeLike
Warning, Turretin quote to follow (non-members of the fan club, beware):
LikeLike
This is also the problem with attempting to carve out a portion of the law from the entire biblical context and create a “ministry” around it. You can’t help but distort it and create and idol. Some of the biggest idolaters in the church are the ones who at first glance appear to be the most pious.
LikeLike
Chortles,
I possess a massive level of boredom with and immunity from various Presbyterian & Reformed stick makers (and stick carriers) of various stripes. They can do what they like with their sticks, but I do have a suggestion…
LikeLike
The problem with all these movements is that they generally devolve to charismatic, authoritarian leaders with sycophantic followers and an eventual downfall of said leaders (usually involving sex), followed by sycophantic followers finding a new guru to follow. Lather, rinse, repeat.
LikeLike
One more time:
LikeLike
David R. joins the long line of Old Life detractors who have only one goal: to make us all question our salvation.
Well, if the most ‘biblical’ Richard Smith failed, what makes others think they’ll do better?
LikeLike
David R., where’s the thanks? You wouldn’t have been able to quote LC 32 if I hadn’t brought it to your attention.
Remember, this was your first try with LC 32:
Evidence of faith and thankfulness is a long way from “obedience is required for salvation.”
LikeLike
David R., have you heard of the Bible? Paul?
LikeLike
D.G., I get it. You don’t like Turretin, Warfield, Vos or the Larger Catechism.
LikeLike
Beware the Bible decoder ring. If you’re supposed to believe Deut 28 doesn’t mean what it means and pretend the NT treats the Mosaic Covenant as highly as it speaks of the Abrahamic Covenant, well that’s a Bible decoder ring.
LikeLike
MG – I’d prefer to call it pettifoggery.
LikeLike
John Murray—The Covenant of Grace—-It may plausibly be objected, however, that the breaking of the covenant envisaged in this case interferes with the perpetuity of the covenant. For does not the possibility of breaking the covenant imply conditional perpetuity? . . . .
Murray– Without question the blessings of the covenant and the relation which the covenant entails cannot be enjoyed or maintained apart from the fulfillment of certain conditions on the part of the beneficiaries. For when we think of the promise which is the central element of the covenant. ‘I will be your God, and ye shall be my people’, there is necessarily involved, as we have seen, mutuality in the highest sense. Fellowship is always mutual and when mutuality ceases fellowship ceases. Hence the reciprocal response of faith and obedience arises from the nature of the relationship which the covenant contemplates (cf Gen. 18:17-19; Gen. 22:16-18).
Murray—The obedience of Abraham is represented as the condition upon which the fulfillment of the promise given to him was contingent and the obedience of Abraham’s seed is represented as the means through which the promise given to Abraham would be accomplished. There is undoubtedly the fulfillment of certain conditions and these are summed up in obeying the Lord’s voice and keeping His covenant. It is not quite congruous, however,TO SPEAK OF THESE CONDITIONS AS CONDITIONS OF THE COVENANT.. For when we speak thus we are distinctly liable to be understood as implying that the covenant is not to be regarded as dispensed until the conditions are fulfilled and that the conditions are integral to the establishment of the covenant relation. And this would not provide a true or accurate account of the covenant. The covenant is a sovereign dispensation of God’s grace. It is grace bestowed and a relation established. The grace dispensed and the relation established do not wait for the fulfillment of certain conditions on the part of those to whom the grace is dispensed.
Murray— How then are we to construe the conditions of which we have spoken? The continued enjoyment of this grace and of the relation established is contingent upon the fulfillment of certain conditions. For apart from the fulfillment of these conditions the grace bestowed and the relation established are meaningless. Grace bestowed implies a subject and reception on the part of that subject. The relation established implies mutuality.
Murray— But the conditions in view are not really conditions of bestowal. They are simply the reciprocal responses of faith, love and obedience, apart from which the enjoyment of the covenant blessing and of the covenant relation is inconceivable….viewed in this light that the breaking of the covenant takes on an entirely different complexion. It is not the failure to meet the terms of a pact nor failure to respond to the offer of favorable terms of contractual agreement. It is unfaithfulness to a relation constituted and to grace dispensed. By breaking the covenant what is broken is not the condition of bestowal but the condition of consummated fruition.”
John Murray—The covenant does not yield its blessing to all indiscriminately. The discrimination which this covenant exemplifies accentuates the sovereignty of God in the bestowal of its grace and the fulfillment of its promises. This particularization is correlative with the spirituality of the grace bestowed and the relation constituted and it is also consonant with the exactitude of its demands. A covenant which yields its blessing indiscriminately is not one that can be kept or broken. We see again, therefore, that the intensification which particularism illustrates serves to accentuate the keeping which is indispensable to the fruition of the covenant grace.”
mark—Would it be too simple to summarize Murray’s position as “the more conditionality, the more grace.” ?
LikeLike
Jer. 31:31“Behold, days are coming,” declares the LORD, “when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, 32not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke</b?, although I was a husband to them," declares the LORD. 33"But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days," declares the LORD, "I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.…
Heb. 8:9 It will not be like the covenant I made with their ancestors when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they did not remain faithful to my covenant, and I turned away from them, declares the Lord.
Even though the Mosaic covenant was a temporary administration of the covenant of grace, there was definitely something very different about the Mosaic covenant, and not the Abrahamic covenant, in contrast with the New covenant…
Scott Clark:
Finally, the book of Hebrews, chapters 7-10, explicitly describe the Mosaic covenant as the “old covenant.” The “better promises” of the new covenant are not contrasted with Abraham but with Moses and the Mosaic priesthood. Hebrews 8:5 makes this contrast explicitly. From 8:6 Hebrews interprets Jeremiah 31:
But as it is, Christ has obtained a ministry that is as much more excellent than the old as the covenant he mediates is better, since it is enacted on better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second.
When v. 7 says “first covenant” it means the Mosaic, not Abrahamic covenant. This is confirmed by what follows:
For he finds fault with them when he says: “Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will establish a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt. For they did not continue in my covenant, and so I showed no concern for them, declares the Lord. For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my laws into their minds, and write them on their hearts, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall not teach, each one his neighbor and each one his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know me from the least of them to the greatest. For I will be merciful toward their iniquities, and I will remember their sins no more.”
The writer to/pastor of the Hebrew Christian congregation gives us a divinely inspired interpretation (Heb 10:15 claims this explicitly) of the prophecy of Jeremiah. It speaks to the contrast and comparison between the old, Mosaic covenant and the new, better, covenant. The comparison and contrast is not between Abraham and the new covenant but between Moses and the new covenant. The covenant that God made with Abraham was a covenant of grace, the covenant he confirmed with the “blood of the eternal covenant” (Heb 13:20).
The Mosaic covenant, the old covenant, is, in the language of 2 Cor, fading. According to Hebrews 8:13 it is “obsolete.” These things are not said about Abraham’s faith or the promise of salvation given to and through Abraham.
LikeLike
Turretin:
Legal = meriting of life, cause of life, Do This And Live, not admitted unless perfect and absolute.
Gospel = possession of life, fruit of life, admitted if sincere even if imperfect.
The Mosaic Covenant was a covenant of grace wrapped in a legal cloak.
Does that mean that there was an accidental merit principle in the Mosaic Covenant?
LikeLike
TBR, if the texts were actually THIS difficult, I’m pretty sure I’d quit and take up golf on sundays. Sacred text NOT being perspicuous is RC territory, and although that’s a heck of a lot more sincere than the adult high school group parading as church that I was compelled to attend this morning, thanks to my baptist relatives, it’s ultimately not worth the time either.
LikeLike
Does that mean that there was an accidental merit principle in the Mosaic Covenant?
Jeff, yeah, I think that works.
LikeLike
David R., well you did say LC teaches that obedience is required. If you interpret my pointing out that you misread LC 32 as my not liking the LC, then your interpretations look all the more dubious. But keep displaying your diminished reading skills. I give you credit for gumption.
LikeLike
@ David R:
OK, good.
Now the accidental merit principle would then have the condition of obedience — perfect or relative? — and the promise of — eternal life? temporal life in the land? Other?
LikeLike
Question: Does the Law hold forth a works principle only to those who receive it wrongly? Or does it hold forth a works principle to all, to be satisfied by Christ in those who believe?
We hold the latter, as did Ursinus and Calvin:
Ursinus, Comm Heid Catech, Qn 19.III, “In what the Gospel differs from the Law”
— Calv Inst 2.7.3, 6
So it is to be rejected as erroneous, the view that the merit principle of the Moral Law is a Covenant of Works only to those who receive it wrongly.
Rather, it must be correctly stated: The Moral Law presents and republishes a Covenant of Works, to be fulfilled in ourselves or by another. Having been fulfilled by the other, who is Christ, the Moral Law can now serve a different function, as a rule of life.
We must first die to the Law before we may live in Christ.
LikeLike
Jeff,
Très Amen! Let’s hear that again:
So it is to be rejected as erroneous, the view that the merit principle of the Moral Law is a Covenant of Works only to those who receive it wrongly.
Rather, it must be correctly stated: The Moral Law presents and republishes a Covenant of Works, to be fulfilled in ourselves or by another. Having been fulfilled by the other, who is Christ, the Moral Law can now serve a different function, as a rule of life.
We must first die to the Law before we may live in Christ.
LikeLike
Question: Are the temporal blessings and curses under the Old Testament Law of the same nature and type of the blessings and disciplines of believers under the New Testament? Or are they of a different nature?
Ans: They are of a different nature. For while it is true that God may bless our obedience or discipline our failure, His blessings and disciplines of us are not intended as a type of blessedness to come. And indeed, our obedience in the New Testament is attached not to blessing only, but to persecution and suffering. Further, when we pray for our daily bread, we are not promised it “if we have kept the Law, turning neither to the left nor to the right.” Instead, we appeal to God who is our Father by the Spirit of adoption.
— Calv Inst 2.11.3.
LikeLike
D.G – We get it. You don ‘t like poor reading skills.
LikeLike
Jeff,
Rather, it must be correctly stated: The Moral Law presents and republishes a Covenant of Works, to be fulfilled in ourselves or by another. Having been fulfilled by the other, who is Christ, the Moral Law can now serve a different function, as a rule of life.
I agree. I would just qualify that the republcation is material, not formal, but I agree with what you posted.
LikeLike
Now the accidental merit principle would then have the condition of obedience — perfect or relative? — and the promise of — eternal life? temporal life in the land? Other?
Perfect obedience / promise of eternal life.
LikeLike
For while it is true that God may bless our obedience or discipline our failure, His blessings and disciplines of us are not intended as a type of blessedness to come.
Agreed. As you’ll recall, this was on my list of things not in dispute.
And indeed, our obedience in the New Testament is attached not to blessing only, but to persecution and suffering.
But this was true for OT saints as well. Think of Joseph in Potiphar’s prison, Daniel in Babylon purposing to remain faithful, Jeremiah the “weeping prophet,” etc. And we’ve already looked at the OT background to Romans 8:36.
Further, when we pray for our daily bread, we are not promised it “if we have kept the Law, turning neither to the left nor to the right.” Instead, we appeal to God who is our Father by the Spirit of adoption.
But likewise, this was true for OT saints as well.
LikeLike
D.G.,
David R., well you did say LC teaches that obedience is required.
So your view is that the LC teaches that obedience is not required, correct?
LikeLike
Jeff,
So it is to be rejected as erroneous, the view that the merit principle of the Moral Law is a Covenant of Works only to those who receive it wrongly.
No one denies that the moral law republishes the matter of the covenant of works. But what is being criticized is the view that God actually entered into a covenant of works with Israel (or any other sinner(s)). Which is why it is pointed out that the Confession and catechisms characterize the moral law not as a CoW but as a “perfect rule of righteousness” with several uses, among them the pedagogical.
LikeLike
Amish, gong.
LikeLike
DR, you brought up LC 32 in support of the idea that obedience is required. LC doesn’t come close to affirming what you say, unless you put on some kind of neonomian spectacles, you know the kind Shepherd wore.
And you have yet to explain how your general and unnuanced insistence that obedience is required is orthodox. Please do remember the old adage about glass houses.
LikeLike
David R., again, reading comprehension alert. Who says God ACTUALLY enters into a covenant of works with sinners. Repub is all about a “works principle” — follow me here, that is not C-O-V-E-N-A-N-T-O-F-W-O-R-K-S — and the Mosaic Covenant is a republication “in some sense” — follow me again — that is not A-C-T-U-A-L-L-Y.
Tilt at windmills much?
LikeLike
David R: I’m glad that we’re back in a season of agreement.
So in our Hiding Behind Kilts days, you said this: If what you are saying is that Deut 28-30 presents the demands and sanctions of the covenant of works, then yes! I agree. If you take Deut 28-30 in and of itself, apart from its redemptive context, it is the covenant of works. If you enter into a covenant with God with Deut 28-30 as your charter, then you are under a covenant of works. But, as I thought you had agreed with me above, Deut 28-30 is not is not the charter of the covenant and only those who ignored the true end (pedagogue unto Christ) and devised a false one (covenant of works) found themselves under a works principle.
Alright, more questions. Again, this is not “gotcha”, but trying to get a clear picture. I myself am long past thinking that I understand all of the ins and outs here, so I’m just going to poke.
Based on your statement that Deut 28-30 presents the demands and sanctions of the CoW,
(1) Do you believe that Deut 28-30 is part of the gracious substance or of the legal cloak?
(2) Does Deut 28 promise land retention or eternal life, or both in different ways?
(3) How does relative obedience as a requirement for land retention figure in here? Does Deut 28-30 taken as a whole require strict obedience or relative?
LikeLike
D.G., you didn’t answer the question.
LikeLike
David R., again, reading comprehension alert. Who says God ACTUALLY enters into a covenant of works with sinners. Repub is all about a “works principle” — follow me here, that is not C-O-V-E-N-A-N-T-O-F-W-O-R-K-S — and the Mosaic Covenant is a republication “in some sense” — follow me again — that is not A-C-T-U-A-L-L-Y.
That might be crystal clear if it weren’t self-contradictory. Where there’s smoke, there’s fire, and–follow me–where there’s a works principle, there is A-C-T-U-A-L-L-Y a covenant of works “in some sense.”
LikeLike
@David R.
I’ve always understood the relationship between obedience and salvation to be like gray hair and age. Gray hair is not required in order to get old, but when we get old our hair goes grey.
Obedience is something that we do as a consequence of our sanctification rather than something that causes our sanctification…or so I’ve understood. Are you saying that obedience is causal?
LikeLike
sdb, I completely agree. But how do you understand the relationship of our obedience to our glorification?
LikeLike
@David R.
Thanks for the clarification. I’m just trying to get a handle on where the disagreement really lies. I’m just a layman, so I’m sure there are all kinds of subtleties I’m missing here. Is the crux of the matter glorification then? My understanding is that glorification is when our obedience will be perfected and our flesh utterly and completely mortified.
LikeLike
sdb, again, I agree (and I’m a layman too, btw). And implied in your explanation is an affirmation of the necessity of obedience. But D.G. seems insistent on denying that necessity.
LikeLike
@ David: I think you’re misreading DGH. Having seen the Oldlife buzzsaw in action before, I would say that he’s trying to get you to consistently nuance “necessary.” Anteriorly necessary, as in ground, or posteriorly necessary, as in consequence?
The appeal to glorification muddies the waters – it makes it seem as if you are saying that our obedience will be the cause of our glorification, which I would trust you would not believe.
LikeLike
David R., really, really lame. Words matter. Type, anti-type, republication are all ways of saying that something is not actually something else.
But since you seem intent on getching repub, “in some sense” becomes A-C-T-U-A-L-L-Y even when you arbitrarily neglect the same conclusion with others.
LikeLike
Meanwhile, what say you about Deut 28-30?
LikeLike
David R., you keep insisting but it’s like just your opinion. This is what the LC says is required to escape God’s wrath and curse:
No mention of obeying the law.
So you think there will be a Judgment Day 2. On Day 1, Jesus’ righteousness gets me in. On day 2, I need my obedience?
Say hello to Wesleyanism, Mr. Standard Reformed Theologian.
LikeLike
Uh oh, I read this in Resurrection and Redemption. Something about Union and final justification. It’d be nice if we could all just cut to the chase.
LikeLike
And just a little before LC Q. 153 is:
Q. 149. Is any man able perfectly to keep the commandments of God?
A. No man is able, either of himself, or by any grace received in this life, perfectly to keep the commandments of God; but doth daily break them in thought, word, and deed.
This kinda puts our “necessary” or consequent obedience which evidences true faith in a context worth keeping in mind…
LikeLike
Jeff, I’ve already done a little explaining and quoting. If the Old Life buzzsaw would like to give his view of the necessity of obedience or lack thereof, I’m all ears, but so far, all I hear is denial. If you think appealing to glorification muddies the waters, I’ll take solace from the fact that I’m in good company. And obviously, our present obedience is not a consequence of our glorification. (But in my view this is a rabbit trail.)
LikeLike
@ DGH: Weelll, someone (I hope not David) is going to trot out the argument that diligent use includes obedience to the Law (WLC 160). So law-keeping turns out to be one of the means by which Christ communicates the benefits of his redemption. Ta-da!
I have indeed encountered this position.
LikeLike
David R., you keep insisting on the necessity of obedience even when folks here notice from church teaching the impossibility of perfect, perpetual obedience — which is what the law requires. Do you then qualify? No. You use it somehow to show something even though you don’t really say that that is.
Meanwhile, you talk about obedience the way Shepherd did and you still won’t back away.
And now glorification?
What A-C-T-U-A-L-L-Y is the point your comments here?
LikeLike
D.G., have it your way. The LC teaches that obedience isn’t necessary.
LikeLike
Jeff, and that person would then need to figure out why the Divines, third use and all, put their discussion of the Decalogue before the question on how to escape the wrath and curse of God.
LikeLike
DR, “The LC teaches that obedience isn’t necessary.”
You said it, not I.
Fun game, isn’t it?
LikeLike
Q. 91. What is the duty which God requireth of man?
A. The duty which God requireth of man, is obedience to his revealed will.
Q. 92. What did God first reveal unto man as the rule of his obedience?
A. The rule of obedience revealed to Adam in the estate of innocence, and to all mankind in him, besides a special command not to eat of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, was the moral law.
Q. 93. What is the moral law?
A. The moral law is the declaration of the will of God to mankind, directing and binding every one to personal, perfect, and perpetual conformity and obedience thereunto, in the frame and disposition of the whole man, soul, and body, and in performance of all those duties of holiness and righteousness which he oweth to God and man: promising life upon the fulfilling, and threatening death upon the breach of it.
Q. 94. Is there any use of the moral law since the fall?
A. Although no man, since the fall, can attain to righteousness and life by the moral law; yet there is great use thereof, as well common to all men, as peculiar either to the unregenerate, or the regenerate.
So obedience is our duty, yet our obedience, even as believers, doesn’t meet the perfection of righteousness required by the moral law. Yet before the judgment seat, God will ask for a perfect obedience if one is to receive the promise of life and avoid the curse of death. Who’s obedience will the believer be talking about and offering at that point? Perspective…
LikeLike
David R: If you think appealing to glorification muddies the waters, I’ll take solace from the fact that I’m in good company. And obviously, our present obedience is not a consequence of our glorification. (But in my view this is a rabbit trail.)
I’m glad that it is obvious to you (and me), but it is not obvious to all. You say “good company”, I say “mixed company.”
It is commonplace that it is necessary to be careful with the word “necessary” as regards our works.
I’m just asking you, in the current pastoral context of the PCA and OPC, to be explicit, early and often, about the sense in which you mean “necessary.”
Can I please have an answer about Deut 28-30 now? Sorry to be impatient, but that strand of conversation was more fruitful than this.
LikeLike
Meanwhile, you talk about obedience the way Shepherd did and you still won’t back away.
No, actually I simply cited some sources, including the LC.
LikeLike
Jeff,
Can I please have an answer about Deut 28-30 now? Sorry to be impatient, but that strand of conversation was more fruitful than this.
I agree, and I appreciate the question. I’ll get to it but I’m still trying to figure out how to clarify.
LikeLike
David R., yes, you talk about obedience the way Shepherd did and you merely wave at the Standards.
LikeLike
D.G.,
David R., really, really lame. Words matter. Type, anti-type, republication are all ways of saying that something is not actually something else.
Okay, so you’re saying a works principle “in some sense” means a works principle not at all. Is that right?
LikeLike
David R., yes, you talk about obedience the way Shepherd did and you merely wave at the Standards.
Yeah, well, that’s just, like, your opinion, man….
LikeLike
DR, Jeff shares it though he is way more sanctified than I. You’re on the ledge brah.
LikeLike
DR, not A-C-T-U-A-L-L-Y. It means that I am simply reading what Moses wrote: “if you will not obey the voice of the Lord your God or be careful to do all his commandments and his statues which I command you this day, then all these curses shall come upon you and overtake you.”
That can’t mean eternal life. So it has to mean the land. Not that hard until you started in. And now glorification? Holy smokes.
LikeLike
D.G.
So according to your interpretation of that verse, Israel was, or wasn’t, under a covenant of works in some sense?
LikeLike
Or maybe your view is tha the MC was a subservient covenant with a works principle for land? (But now we’ve come full circle once again….)
LikeLike
@ David R: Good, thanks.
@ DGH: No, The ego runs deep.
LikeLike
D.G., tell me, what do I have to affirm or deny to not “talk about obedience the way Shepherd did”?
LikeLike
David R,
Have you ever read ‘The Pearl of Christian Comfort’ by Petrus Dathenus?
LikeLike
Jeff, the man think obedience isn’t necessary, after all. I wouldn’t get a swelled head.
LikeLike
Semper, haven’t finished it yet. Hope to sometime soon.
LikeLike
David R,
It is a wonderful read, and comments greatly on the the discussions of this posting.
LikeLike
Scott Clark, today, with a measured comment responding to a question on Kline and the view that he taught on republication:
http://heidelblog.net/2014/08/seven-short-points-about-republication/#comment-439097
Clark’s conclusion:
If you look at the quotes from Hodge, Berkhof, and Shaw linked above in the Republication category one can see arguably some precedent for what MGK was saying. Hodge wrote:
…the promise was national security and prosperity; the condition was the obedience of the people as a nation to the Mosaic law; and the mediator was Moses. In this aspect it was a legal covenant. It said, “Do this and live.”
and Berkhof wrote:
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.
Unless we’re willing to write out/off Berkhof and Hodge (and I’m not) then I don’t see how we can say that this approach is beyond the pale.
LikeLike
David R., isn’t it the case that everyone is under a covenant of works? God requires perfect, perpetual and personal obedience to his moral law. That’s what SC 39 seems to teach. So yes, in one sense the Israelites and everyone is under the covenant of works unless they have trusted Christ who has fulfilled all the demands of the cofw.
But in a temporal sense, to inherit the land, the Israelites were under a CofW arrangement, that the life might be long in the land the Lord was giving them.
What is so threatening about this?
LikeLike
David R., qualify. Qualify necessary in view of faith and Christ’s imputed righteousness. Qualify obedience in view of remaining corruption.
What’s so hard about that?
LikeLike
David R., tee hee.
LikeLike
“It is a wonderful read, and comments greatly on the the discussions of this posting.”
Semper channels blog spam. (three of my words could be nouns or could be verbs)
LikeLike
Gaffin—- where Calvin brings in the proposition, “faith without works justifies”- he says …although 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…. Notice what Calvin says. 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.
Gaffin: “Typically in the Reformation tradition the hope of salvation is expressed in terms of Christ’s righteousness, especially as imputed to the believer…however, I have to wonder if ‘Christ in you’ is not more prominent as an expression of evangelical hope…” p 110 , By Faith not by Sight
LikeLike
Gaffin, lectures on Romans, on 2:13:—-As that judgement decides, in its way, we’re going to wanna (sic) qualify that deciding, but as it decides the ultimate outcome for all believers and for all humanity, believers as well as unbelievers. That is, death or life. It’s a life and death situation that’s in view here. Further, this ultimate judgement has as its criterion or standard, brought into view here, the criterion for that judgement is works, good works. The doing of the law, as that is the criterion for all human beings, again, believers as well as unbelievers. In fact, in the case of the believer a positive outcome is in view and that positive outcome is explicitly said to be justification. So, again the point on the one side of the passage is that eternal life… depends on and follows from a future justification according to works. Eternal life follows upon a future justification by doing the law.
Gaffin, By Faith, Not By Sight, p 38—From this perceptive, the antithesis between law and gospel is not a theological ultimate. Rather, that antithesis enters not be virtue of creation but as a consequence of sin, and the gospel functions for its overcoming. The gospel is to the end of removing an absolute law-gospel antithesis in the life of the believer
LikeLike
David R., qualify. Qualify necessary in view of faith and Christ’s imputed righteousness. Qualify obedience in view of remaining corruption.
What if I say I affirm everything in WCF 11 and 13? But it really wouldn’t matter because you’d just conclude I must be a closet repub.
LikeLike
David R: What if I say I affirm everything in WCF 11 and 13?
Doesn’t work for me. Not because I don’t believe you – I do! – but because the issue is not “what you believe” but “how we explain this to congregations.”
And I guarantee that a congregation that hears “works are necessary for our salvation” will take it in directions you do not intend…
But it really wouldn’t matter because you’d just conclude I must be a closet repub.
Technically that was me being Wamba the Witless.
LikeLike
D.G.,
How long do you have David R. lined up to be playing the Tiki Room and are you considering a cover charge or a two drink minimum?
LikeLike
I haven’t encountered anyone this compelling & winsome since Llewyn Davis…
LikeLike
Doesn’t work for me. Not because I don’t believe you – I do! – but because the issue is not “what you believe” but “how we explain this to congregations.”
Then if you don’t mind, let’s just skip it and get back to repub. I hadn’t planned on the detour….
LikeLike
Ah, the OL hecklers. Gotta love ’em.
LikeLike
David,
I think Jeff’s question is pertinent and is very much part of the repub discussion. Could you venture some thoughts as to his question? I think it would help unpack how you see this issue playing out pastorally, i.e. where the rubber meets the road. Only a request.
LikeLike
Jeff,
I can attempt a more elaborate answer if it might be helpful, but for right now, here are some thoughts:
Based on your statement that Deut 28-30 presents the demands and sanctions of the CoW,
(1) Do you believe that Deut 28-30 is part of the gracious substance or of the legal cloak?
Legal cloak.
(2) Does Deut 28 promise land retention or eternal life, or both in different ways?
On the face of it, it promises land retention. But land retention is merely an accident of the covenant by which the substantial promise of eternal life is conveyed, typically and sacramentally. I view this as analogous to OT passages that typologically represent the condition of the covenant, for example, Leviticus 4:20: “And he shall do with the bullock as he did with the bullock for a sin offering, so shall he do with this: and the priest shall make an atonement for them, and it shall be forgiven them.” On the face of it, the promise is made there that forgiveness of sins will be granted on the grounds of a sacrifice being offered. And yet the writer to the Hebrews tells us that it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins (10:4) and that forgiveness only comes through Christ’s offering of Himself once for all (10:10. I don’t think that most of us would want to say that the sacrifices actually merit anything (though I think Todd might dissent).
So I think that just as with the condition of the covenant, the type means nothing apart from what it signifies, so it is with the promise of the covenant. Deuteronomy 28-30 offers the promise of land inheritance. And passages like Joshua 21:43-45 appear to indicate that God’s promises were all fulfilled with the initial conquest under Joshua. And yet Hebrews includes even David, who had been given rest from his enemies on every side (2 Samuel 7:1), among those who “received not the promise (11:39)” and who “desire a better country, that is, an heavenly” (11:16).
So to answer your question, I think the substance of the promise was eternal life. And I think this for precisely the same reason that I think the substance of the condition wasn’t sacrifices, but rather was Christ’s active and passive obedience.
(3) How does relative obedience as a requirement for land retention figure in here? Does Deut 28-30 taken as a whole require strict obedience or relative?
I would say it requires strict obedience, as that is always what the law requires, rendered either in their own persons (which of course is impossible) or in that of the Mediator (Christ, that is, not Moses….).
LikeLike
“I don’t think that most of us would want to say that the sacrifices actually merit anything (though I think Todd might dissent).”
No, I don’t dissent, that has actually been my point, they do not actually merit anything. Now apply that same principle to the Israelites and Deut. 28.
Nice to see you dealing with the Scriptures though.
LikeLike
Jack, I believe the last question Jeff asked was regarding Deuteronomy 28-30, so I’m not quite sure what you’re asking. But if you’re asking how I understand conditions in the covenant of grace, or how I think we should teach these things to congregations, well, I’m not a pastor, but I don’t know if I can think of anything that I’ve personally found more pastorally helpful than Calvin’s Institutes. (I cited some stuff earlier.)
LikeLike
Turretin’s good for clarity though….
LikeLike
EC, I keep asking David R. to talk about the other subjects. It is a tired act.
LikeLike
David R: Thanks.
I would agree with you on (1).
(2) is an interesting and intriguing take.
It does raise a question about the difference between corporate and individual salvation. Given that the ten tribes were exiled corporately pretty much forever, and the two southern were exiled for 70 years, how does the outward sign line up with the salvation of individual believers such as Daniel?
That is, given that he was saved and yet was removed forcibly from the land, it would seem that he was placed in an impossible position: treated as an unbeliever (excommunicated) with regard to the cult, yet in point of fact a believer and actually in God’s favor, even outwardly.
That’s not an argument against your position, but it does call for clarification: Does national retention or exile say something sacramentally about the salvation of individual Israelites? Or does it rather point to the meaning of salvation in the manner that baptism does?
DR: (3) I would say it requires strict obedience, as that is always what the law requires, rendered either in their own persons (which of course is impossible) or in that of the Mediator (Christ, that is, not Moses….).
OK, strict obedience makes sense in light of Deut 28.13 – 15. Connecting some dots, you might say that the requirement was absolute, but for the sake of Christ, God did not enforce the full requirements?
This does raise a question: Why does God attribute his forbearance to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob rather than to Christ?
But I do want to understand what you meant then by this: National Israel’s relative obedience was “the indispensable (though not meritorious) condition” of retaining the typological inheritance of Canaan.
Are there two things going on here: strict obedience for eternal life, relative for land retention? Or do you have something else in mind?
LikeLike
The Reformed one-hit wonder is indeed one of the more endearing features of our movement. Shares many similarities to athlete’s foot, the guy driving in the fast lane at 35 mph, and the neighbor having their dumpster emptied at 4 a.m. outside your bedroom window. You know, the things in life that make you look forward to assuming room temperature and going to heaven.
LikeLike
I love it when people give us 100,000 words on the only topic they appear to know anything about.
Next up: How microwave oven are melting all of our brains.
LikeLike
Yowza. I’m pretty sure, maybe, somewhere, somehow, in some way, there is a benefit to parsing the exact nature of the MC and pulling it apart and stacking it into it’s allotted piles but I’m pretty sure I understand why Paul drew the lines from Abrahamic to NC and used the MC as a foil to put in bold relief the NATURE of the NC as contrasted to the OC. Yeah for Paul.
LikeLike
While we’re on annoying topics – I DVR’ed CNN’s program on “The Sixties”. Will we still hear about the glories of the 60s (Mostly 1967-69) after the Boomers are gone? What must your life consist of when you look back at THAT as the pinnacle of your lives? Yeah, we took drugs and danced naked at Woodstock. Then we sold out, took corporate jobs, and are now looking forward to retirement and bankrupting Social Security, Medicare, and our kids.
What a legacy.
LikeLike
Erik, that great big sucking sound you hear every morning? That’s the boomers refusing to die and surrender the positions by which they continue to torment what’s left of their parent’s generation and all the generations that came after their own. They’re all overdue for a drive by. Except the ones I happen to make use of, of, of, of.
LikeLike
If you’ve got 4 hours some weekend watch D.A. Pennebaker’s “Monterey Pop” followed by The Maysles’ “Gimme Shelter” to see exactly how long it took sixties idealism to turn into a steaming pile of dung. Hint: Not long.
LikeLike
We got Boomer President Clinton, followed by Boomer President George W. Bush, followed by young Boomer President Barack Obama, followed by … Boomer President Hillary Clinton. After that we’ll probably have 25 trillion of debt and Boomer President Al Gore.
They’re not going away peacefully…
LikeLike
Erik & Sean,
look at this……the world of 1960……..
LikeLike
Semper,
The filmmaker didn’t foresee his grandchildren having a screw loose.
LikeLike
Old-Age Boomer Trait: Get dogs to keep you company during your golden years and then spoil the dogs so badly that your children want to punt them whenever they come to visit.
LikeLike
Erik,
Yeeayyyuuhhh!
LikeLike
Here’s one of the big touchstones of boomer religion. All sorts of derivations. Thanks Fuller.
LikeLike
Jeff, DR, and Jack,
How exactly is this a promise:
“And if you faithfully obey the voice of the LORD your God, being careful to do all his commandments that I command you today, the LORD your God will set you high above all the nations of the earth.” (Deuteronomy 28:1 ESV)
compared to this:
“I will make you exceedingly fruitful, and I will make you into nations, and kings shall come from you. And I will establish my covenant between me and you and your offspring after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your offspring after you. And I will give to you and to your offspring after you the land of your sojournings, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession, and I will be their God.” (Genesis 17:6-8 ESV)
When I promised fidelity to my wife, I didn’t say “if you stay healthy and make money.”
LikeLike
EC, but the Greatest Generation coddled us. Don’t parents get some blame? (I’m a victim.)
LikeLike
@ Erik et al: At least we’re on topic. Pthbbbb!
LikeLike
Does national retention or exile say something sacramentally about the salvation of individual Israelites? Or does it rather point to the meaning of salvation in the manner that baptism does?
I think that the typological aspect is first and foremost, that is, the communication via a system of types and shadows–an intrusion of heavenly realities, in Klinean terms–of the covenantal promise of heavenly blessedness, the possibility of exclusion from it, and the prerequisite of righteousness and holiness. But in terms of the sacramental aspect, and making the analogy with NT sacraments, perhaps we could say that there were unworthy partakers (e.g., Manassah), and there were worthy partakers who were providentially hindered (Daniel) and yet grace and salvation wasn’t inseparably tied to the sign. I’m kind of out on a limb here but maybe that helps….
LikeLike
Eric, I get it. But flattery’ll get you nowhere…. Btw, apple cider vinegar may help the athlete’s foot problem.
LikeLike
And I guarantee that a congregation that hears “works are necessary for our salvation” will take it in directions you do not intend…
Jeff, it depends. If the point has to do with what is the ground of salvation then it could be a way to emphasize the active obedience of Christ–which is ours through faith alone. I for one think there is much need for this emphasis in a time that tends to over-emphasize the passive obedience of Christ. If the point has to do with the consequence of salvation then perhaps (as Darryl once helpfully put it around here at one time) it would be better to say that works are inevitable to salvation.
LikeLike
Darryl, that was the line I fed Clark when he said we(Xers) and Y’s and Millenials(dolts) were a bunch of egalitarians. I tolla him to go look in a mirror.
LikeLike
I am coming in to this a little late (Labor Day and all of that has kept me mostly offline) but I am wondering if someone from the Republication camp could define the original covenant of works?
LikeLike
B, the edenic covenant with Adam. Strict justice and all.
LikeLike
David R., but is cider vinegar law or grace?
LikeLike
sean, I’m still a victim. You don’t know how hard it was living through the assassinations of the Kennedy’s, King, the suicides of Joplin and Morris, the Six Day War and the return of Jesus, the urban riots and mayoral responses from hyphenated Roman Catholic mayors (Dailey and Rizzo).
And I’ll be glad for you to come push me around in the nursing home, thank you very much.
LikeLike
Sean,
Thank you.
Would it be fair to summarize the Covenant of Works like this: God made the covenant of Works with Adam wherein God required perfect obedience of Adam and wherein God promised eternal life for perfect obedience and promised death for disobedience.
LikeLike
Jeff, it depends. If the point has to do with what is the ground of salvation then it could be a way to emphasize the active obedience of Christ–which is ours through faith alone…. If the point has to do with the consequence of salvation then perhaps … it would be better to say that works are inevitable to salvation.
And what if the point has to do with good works being necessary to salvation? (Rhetorical question, no need to respond.)
LikeLike
Darryl, I’m good with it. I’m used to bailing you guys out, my two older siblings have learned me well. Course I’ve learnt a little too good, when I’m done tapping y’all for what you can do for me, that wheelchair, occupant and all, might mysteriously find itself in rush hour traffic. All depends how much money is in that medical savings account.
LikeLike
You got it, B.
LikeLike
“works are necessary for our salvation” (from Zrim’s post above)
– Congregation that understands that it is Christ’s Works/Active Obedience/Finished Work, and it is His Work to produce the fruit/rewards in our lives is understanding Reformed Theology well
– Congregation that hears/understands that our works are necessary for our salvation (overemphasis on how we are being saved, and our fruitfulness-rewards are the evidence and do matter – Book of James) has missed it and lapsed into works-righteousness, and does not understand Reformed Theology at all
LikeLike
Jeff,
Trying my best to put a stake in the heart of the topic. When I see you go into these 500 comment debates with people, complete with mathematical formulas, my fondest wish for you is that you go enjoy some butterflies.
LikeLike
Back to David R. — I personally believe that each and every Reformed one hit wonder has one great 800 page book in them written in unreadable font. This is my fondest hope, at least.
LikeLike
Sean,
Put a fork in everything in that video.
What are these folks going to be like at 80? I shudder…
LikeLike
Following is evidence from the Westminster divine, Francis Roberts, that you don’t need repub to clearly distinguish law and gospel and preach Christ’s meriting of our salvation in His active and passive obedience. Isn’t this really all the repubs are after?
LikeLike
Jeff, pay no attention; it’s not your fault that Erik’s not a math guy.
LikeLike
Erik, does this mean you won’t review it?
LikeLike
D.G., grace, definitely grace.
LikeLike
David R., I’m not sure why the question is rhetorical, but that’s the active obedience point–yes, works are necessary to salvation, there is no hope without them. Of course, it all turns on whose.
LikeLike
EC, but 600 of those pages may well be quotations.
LikeLike
Jeff, DR, and Jack,
How exactly is this a promise…
DG, let me ask my wife…
Zrim, works are necessary to salvation, there is no hope without them. Of course, it all turns on whose.
Indeed! – just who is going to be leaning one whit on their own imperfect obedience on that Day? Yes, it is our duty to obey. Is our obedience necessary to securing our salvation? When it comes to salvation, obedience isn’t graded on a curve. We need the perfect obedience of Another, even as we in this life seek to walk, ever so feebly, in the direction of obedience to him.
LC Q. 39. Why was it requisite that the mediator should be man?
A. It was requisite that the mediator should be man, that he might advance our nature, perform obedience to the law, suffer and make intercession for us in our nature, have a fellow-feeling of our infirmities; that we might receive the adoption of sons, and have comfort and access with boldness unto the throne of grace.
Q. 55. How doth Christ make intercession?
A. Christ maketh intercession, by his appearing in our nature continually before the Father in heaven, in the merit of his obedience and sacrifice on earth, declaring his will to have it applied to all believers; answering all accusations against them, and procuring for them quiet of conscience, notwithstanding daily failings, access with boldness to the throne of grace, and acceptance of their persons and services.
LikeLike
Granted, Zrim, but the rhetorical question was concerning ours.
LikeLike
Erik, the next better step than the badly scanned 800 pager with “ff” instead of “s” is….
the archive.org claim that it has scanned this book into “text” for your reading pleasure…
hee hee hah hah…
those Puritans loved to fluff up 800 pages with about 650 pages being needless rambles of pieties and acclamations that they love the Trinity. You do???
LikeLike
The 800 page mystery came to light when I saw “the likely lads” of the Reformed world all giving 5 stars to the ENTIRE works of Goodwin, Flavel, that 700 page job on Colossians 3:11, Owen (and what Owen REALLY meant), and seven others.
They wouldn’t be able to have read all that decently with 200 lifetimes at their fingertips.
LikeLike
This topic started out so well. Now it’s gotten to the point where I’d rather hear sports guys talking about Micheal Sam.
LikeLike
and once again i’m let down by those telling me there is absolutely Blutarskian zero-point-zero Law at all in Sinai?
wish i could buy stock in an investment that none of them will come up with a decent argument until they incorporate WCF 19 and Galatians 3 and 4 in their answer….
LikeLike
Muddy, Michael Sam is a gay AND ‘allegedly’ showers nekid but so far they can’t find an eyewitness.
LikeLike
Sean, according to my inside sources they wanted him to wear those horse blinder things but then all the horse jokes got out of control.
LikeLike
Muddy, that’ll happen.
LikeLike
D.G.,
Yes, in Ye Olde English or Dutch, no less.
LikeLike
David R., then in that case one rhetorical question deserves another–who is clearly superior in upholding ye olde Protestant formulation of justification sola fide and article of faith on which the church is said to stand or fall, the repubs or the anti-repubs?
LikeLike
Zrim, rhetorical or not, maybe you missed it, but Todd and I covered this earlier in the thread.
LikeLike
Dr. T. David Gordon in his book “Why Johnny Can’t Preach: The Media Have Shaped the Messengers” (Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R Publishing, 2009)
“Some of the neo-Puritans have apparently determined that the purpose of Christian preaching is to persuade people that they do not, in fact, believe. The subtitle of each of their sermons could accurately be: “I Know You Think You Are a Christian, but You Are Not.” This brand of preaching constantly suggests that if a person does not always love attending church, always look forward to reading the Bible, or family worship, or prayer, then the person is probably not a believer…”
The hearer falls into one of two categories: one category of listener assumes that the preacher is talking about someone else, and he rejoices (as did the Pharisee over the tax collector) to hear “the other guy” getting straightened out. Another category of listener eventually capitulates and says: “Okay, I’m not a believer; have it your way.” But since the sermon mentions Christ only in passing (if at all), the sermon says nothing about the adequacy of Christ as Redeemer, and therefore does nothing to build faith in Christ.
“It is painful to hear every passage of Scripture twisted to do what only several of them actually do (i.e., warn the complacent that not everyone who says, “Lord, Lord” will enter the kingdom of heaven). And it is absolutely debilitating to be told again and again that one does not have faith when one knows perfectly well that one does have faith, albeit weak and imperfect…”
“So no one profits from this kind of preaching; indeed, both categories of hearer are harmed by it. But I don’t expect it will end anytime soon. The self-righteous like it too much; for them, religion makes them feel good about themselves, because it allows them to view themselves as the good guys and others as the bad guys – they love to hear the preacher scold the bad guys each week. And sadly, the temperament of some ministers is simply officious. Scolding others is their life calling; they have the genetic disposition to be a Jewish mother.” (pp. 83-84)
and here’s a case in point, http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2014/09/preaching-piety-are-we-donatis.php—-T. David Gordon’s book, Why Johnny Can’t Preach provides some valuable insight into why so much preaching today is poor. But, if I am not mistaken, he did not make a big deal of the fact that “Johnny is not godly.” This was a serious omission, I believe.
LikeLike
David R., answer demander heal thyself.
LikeLike
Thanks Jack ~ for the post ‘on whose works’…..
LikeLike
D.G., we’re not going to get an answer from you? Surprise.
LikeLike
D.R., all obedience, all the time.
LikeLike
D.G, since you’re in an answering mood (sort of), what do you think of the Francis Roberts quote? Do you think it “allow[s] Christians to think that law-keeping does not contribute to their salvation?”
LikeLike
@ David R:
Based on our agreements so far, I would like to put forward a thesis and get your comments.
(1) The land sanctions in Deut 28 – 30, as well Lev 20 and 26 are of a different kind from the temporal blessings and disciplines experienced by believers (under any dispensation)
Warrant:
(a) The land sanctions were a part of the legal cloak of the Mosaic Covenant. That cloak was not operative from Adam to Moses, and even if it is operative “in some sense” for the NT visible church, per Hodge, the temporal blessings and disciplines experienced by believers do not generally fall within its scope.
Thus, the land sanctions cannot be of the same kind as the blessings and disciplines of believers.
(b) The land sanctions, being a part of the legal cloak, had two purposes: To expose sin, and to drive to Christ. That is, because the nation was driven out for unfaithfulness, it showed to them the need for a Savior in a justifying sense. The blessings and disciplines received by believers do not have such an end in view, and are therefore different in kind from the land sanctions.
It was never the intent of God that the Deuteronomic sanctions would be fulfilled. Rather, his intent was pedagogical (Gal 4). It is by contrast the express intent of God that blessings to believers will carry forward into eternity.
(c) The land sanctions applied to all within the nation indiscriminately. The entire nation was exiled; the entire nation was restored; the entire nation was destroyed (speaking here of the theocracy, the object of those sanctions). Both believers and unbelievers within the nation partook of the blessings and curses.
By contrast, when good works of believers are rewarded, they are rewarded because they are in Christ by faith (WCF 16.6 and esp 16.7), while the “good works” of unbelievers do not proceed from faith and cannot be rewarded.
(d) The rewards given to believers are given on the basis of good works whose merit is found entirely in Christ on the ground of justification, of imputed righteousness. The disciplines that fall to believers are given on the basis of sonship through faith (Heb 12.4 – 13), for the purpose of restoration and strengthening. In all cases, whether reward or discipline, justification through faith is the ground.
By contrast, the sanctions announced in Deut 28, being a part of the legal cloak, are operating under an accidental merit principle. The only grace seen is patience on the part of God from exacting the strict standard, and in delaying the judgment that fell upon Israel until the full measure of its unbelief was manifest. This grace in delaying judgment was “for the sake of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob” — and possibly typologically, “for the sake of the seed of Abraham.” And the purpose of the delay was the preservation of the remnant, and the purpose of the judgment, when it finally fell, was destruction.
For these reasons, we must reject the notion that the land sanctions are “just like” the temporal blessings and disciplines experienced by believers today. Their aim was different (teaching v sonship); their end was different (failure v glorification); their mechanism was different (accidental merit v imputed righteousness).
There is an analogy between the two, of course. We understand from the Israelites who were “baptized in the cloud” that not all who are within the church necessarily stand. We understand from the fifth commandment that God is pleased to reward those who honor father and mother.
But we must not overlook the meritorious character of the land sanctions, belonging as they do to the legal cloak, and confuse them with the rewards given to believers on the ground of imputed righteousness.
Now to anticipate some objections.
Obj: In order for the Israelites to have fulfilled the land sanctions, they would have to have received God’s blessings by faith. Likewise, the blessings we receive must be received by faith. This shows that the land sanctions are of the same kind as the blessings to believers.
Reply: It is hypothetically true that the Israelites would have to obtained blessings by faith (and indeed, by being in Christ). But they did not, and it was never God’s intent that the nation would succeed under Moses. A better covenant was planned from the beginning.
So it is no objection to argue that if circumstances were entirely different, then the mechanism of receiving blessing would have been entirely different as well. They were not, and it was not.
As it stands, Deut 28 is clear that reward was grounded in antecedent obedience. And as all parties recognize, this passage is located within the legal cloak and is therefore operating under a merit principle belonging to the accidents of the covenant.
Obj: God’s grace in withholding and delaying judgment shows that Deut 28 was operating under a principle of grace and not merit.
Reply: The grace of being in Christ results in a complete transfer of judgment and imputation of righteousness. No judgment remains for those in Christ. By contrast, a withholding of judgment is not possible for those in Christ, save for those externally attached and who remain under the covenant of works and are still alive to the Law per Rom 7.
And this simply proves the point: if judgment is delayed but not rescinded, this shows that one is still under a works principle.
Obj: The punishment that eventually falls upon Israel is for their unbelief, and not because they failed to merit.
Reply: This objection wrongly attributes a genuine fact as a spurious cause. It is quite true that branches broken off were broken off for unbelief (Rom 11).
But for the theocracy as a whole, it was judged because it sinned. The theocracy is not the sum of its members, for if it were, then God would indefinitely withhold judgment as long as “ten righteous men remained.” (argument from lesser to greater: if for Sodom, then how much more for Israel?). The theocracy was a nation that stood or fell together, and when it ultimately falls (70 AD), its destruction is total.
Further, as we know, all those who are not of faith are judged by the law for the wickedness of their deeds — that is, they fall under the merit principle of the CoW.
So the true cause of “failure to obtain” is unbelief, but the true cause of judgment is unrighteousness judged by the moral law.
Obj: Excommunication is still operative for the NT church. This shows that temporal judgments still occur in the external economy of the church.
Reply: It is true that excommunication operates visibly within the external economy of the church, but excommunication is not a temporal discipline per se with land or health or success attached. It is rather of a spiritual nature, declaring the excommunicant to be outside the church as far as the eye can see.
Obj: Proverbs teaches that wisdom and folly carry a reward in all dispensations.
Reply: True, but those consequences fall to all men equally and thus are a part of the common grace economy.
LikeLike
David R., it was too long. Plus I have Paul.
I do know that “obedience is required” isn’t that helpful unless Zrim is saying it.
LikeLike
Sean,
To follow-up then on the covenant of works, can you describe where at Sinai God makes a covenant with Israel requiring perfect obedience and where he promises eternal life as a reward for that obedience?
Perhaps within the answer you could address why the blood of the covenant (Ex. 24: 1-10) is sprinkled on the people by Moses signifying the washing/cleansing of sins.
Thank you,
B
LikeLike
B, just to stay on the biblicist path, we would turn to the NT to interpret the OT. So, on that score, Gal 3 & 4, Rom 4, Rom 9 and Heb 10, should be more than adequate to explain Paul’s understanding of those covenants much better than my attempts. Just for a headstart, in more than one of those passages lev 18:5 is used by Paul to highlight the animating principle of the Siniatic covenant. So, maybe more could be said, but at least we DO know how Paul said it.
LikeLike
But, Darryl, I make exceptions for driving skyjacks–dirty pigs can’t tell me what’s what…
LikeLike
Galatians 3:10-13 teaches that Christ died by the law to save Christians.
10 For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.” (Deuteronomy 27:26)
11 Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for “The righteous shall LIVE by faith.” (Habbakuk 2:4)
12 But the law is not of faith, rather “The one who does them shall LIVE by them.” (Leviticus 18:5)
13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree”— (Deuteronomy 21:23)
14 so that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham would come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirit through faith
If “covenant conditionality” notices here that “the legal adoption” is before the giving of the Spirit, it can still insist that staying adopted (the not yet aspect of adoption) is conditioned on our being transformed by the Spirit..
Galatians 2:21 for IF righteousness were through (our keeping) the law, then Christ died for no purpose.
Galatians 3:18 For IF the inheritance comes by (our keeping) the law, it no longer comes by promise
Galatians 3:21 For IF a law had been given that could give life , then righteousness would indeed be by (our keeping) the law.
A “pastoral way” to get smoothly past this Galatians text is to say that God loves everybody and that Christ has done something to make an offer of love to everybody. And then you wait five seconds, and then the fine print— except we do need to do something and keep doing something to accept the conditions, so that we will be changed. Christ has changed everything, yes, but five seconds later, it does not work unless we change enough and keep doing so….Because in the end it’s not “ENTIRELY” about what Christ did, or even about what we have done yesterday, but about what we have done lately. And tomorrow…
LikeLike
Sean,
I agree to a large extent. If the Israelites looked at Sinai as a Covenant of Works (CoW) they were hopeless. If instead they viewed it as an unfolding of the Covenant of Grace and the manner in which they could bring glory to the God who redeemed them from bondage (Exodus 20:1), than their trust was in Jesus Christ alone and they were not in bondage to the law.
The New Testament texts, Galatians as the primary example, teach us that Sinai as a Covenant of Works was exactly the opposite purpose of Sinai. The moral law was good, the Jews had distorted it and made it into a Covenant of Works. Sinai was never meant to be a Republication of the Covenant of Works and any way of looking at it that way was a distortion of the gospel of Jesus Christ (Galatians) – the same gospel in Exodus as in Galatians.
It seems to me that viewing Sinai as a republication of Cov. of Works in Exodus is more closely a republication of Dispensational teaching. Similar, in that God institutes two methods of salvation. Can you help me understand how a view of Sinai as republication of CoW is not a republication of Dispensationalism?
Thank you for the interaction Sean,
B
LikeLike
Thanks, B. I don’t buy the misunderstood/misuse interpretation. It’s generally born of prior commitments to continuity, graciousness in the law, and faulty views of merit and justice and therefore bypasses the polarity that Paul describes in Galatians. As someone more astute than I has said, maybe Paul could’ve said more about the relationship but let’s not do away with what he has said. So, as far as dispensationalism, I don’t believe the OT saints were saved in a way different than the NT saints and that being by faith in Christ alone. I also believe Christ has torn down and done away with the ethnic distinction, as regards salvation, between Jew and gentile. I’m a bi-covenantalist on this score and comfortable with the legitimate discontinuity.
LikeLike
B, if you’re looking for COG continuity with the NC, the line is from Abraham to the NC and the MC line while not gracious as we’re using it, is still evangelical/pedagogical
LikeLike
It was necessary for Jesus to be born under the law. If the law was grace it seems there was not much point in Jesus dying under it.
LikeLike
Jeff,
Thanks for your work on the last comment. I would be happy to go through it point by point, but wanted to make a few quick comments up front:
1. There is a good amount I agree with in your argument, and that agreement I think is mostly because we both agree that the OT temporal sanctions were typological and that types don’t continue into the NT.
2. I do think there is a basic problem with your argument, and this is partly my fault. You had asked me earlier how I interpret the temporal sanctions and my response was “legal cloak,” but now upon further reflection I think I may need to revise that somewhat. The legal cloak restates the CoW, but doesn’t account for typology, which I think is an additional feature of the MC. So your argument, or parts of it, may need revision on that account (more details on this in #3 and #4).
3. Elaborating on #2, it seems to me that as we look at the big picture of the Mosaic covenant, we need to account for three basic features: (1) a typological intrusion of heavenly realities designed to reveal (a) the reward of eternal life promised to the elect, (b) the exclusion and damnation of the reprobate, and (c) the connection between holiness and blessedness in the consummate state, (2) a pedagogical restatement of the demands of the covenant of works, i.e., perfect and personal obedience, designed to drive sinners to Christ as well as reveal the legal condition to be fulfilled by Christ as Mediator/second Adam, and (3) the types and ordinances of the ceremonial law, designed to prefigure Christ and His benefits and thereby administer the covenant of grace.
4. So I think a problem with your argument surfaces when we observe that, in accordance with the typological feature I referenced just above, the requirement for Israel to remain in the land was not the perfect obedience required in the CoW, but rather general corporate obedience (we can even say “evangelical” obedience). Hence, it was not an impossible condition for them to meet (contrary to the “legal cloak”), nor (contrary to your argument) was it even a condition that they never actually met (though I agree that generally, and increasingly, apostasy was the rule).
5. Of course the big question under debate has to do with whether #4 (just above) constitutes a meritorious condition or not.
6. I am wondering about your reason for proposing this thesis. I realize that it touches on some of our past discussion, but I am wondering what you believe it would accomplish if you were able to prove it. For example, do you believe it would prove that the repub position is correct? (Personally, I think that it doesn’t get to the heart of the issue–which is simply the question of the compatibility of a works principle with the covenant of grace.)
7. Another problem with your main thesis: You propose that “The land sanctions in Deut 28 – 30, as well Lev 20 and 26 are of a different kind from the temporal blessings and disciplines experienced by believers (under any dispensation).” However, those land sanctions led directly to the temporal experiences of OT believers, and (as I’ve pointed out) those OT sanctions are, in the NT, connected directly with the suffering/cross borne by NT believers (for example, Paul’s citation of Psalm 44:22 in Romans 8:36). Did you deal with this question?
Again, these are a few quick thoughts and I realize this is just scratching the surface of what you’ve written, but I thought I needed to make a few observations, and I also didn’t want to wait forever (until I had a more thorough answer) before responding. I’ll read through your piece again and comment further as needed, and if you’d like me to interact with anything specific, just let me know. In the meantime, I am of course interested in your comments on what I’ve said here.
LikeLike
Sean,
Again, thank you for the interaction, I appreciate it the dialogue we are having.
To go between Exodus 24 and blood of the covenant being sprinkled on the people and of course looking forward to Christ’s own blood being shed and so clearly articulated in Hebrews, how can we view the Mosaic Covenant out of the line of the Abrahamic Covenant? The blood of the animals is sprinkled on the people in Exodus 24 signifying the payment of their sins by another, even Christ, to whom Moses looked forward too (Hebrews 11:23-29) even as did Abraham (John 8:56).
It seems to me in the Republication framework, one would have to argue that Moses and the Israelites saw the Mosaic Covenant as a Covenant of Works when Scripture, especially the NT, seems to me to argue the opposite. There were certainly temporal earthly blessings associated with the Theocracy established arguably at Sinai but the believers looked for a better country, that is a heavenly country. Their ultimate hope was never the immediate land which had the possibility to be temporary…it was something far greater…even eternal life with Christ.
God Himself at Sinai defines the relationship and it is the same relationship as with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. “I am the Lord thy God that brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.” The relationship is established by God, now listen to the Lord God and fear Him. …”Thou Shalt have no other gods before Me; Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image…” etc
Every time I read through Exodus and Galatians, and Hebrews, and Acts, etc… the covenant of grace overflows throughout the Sinai Covenant. My conviction of the graciousness of the Sinai Covenant is not simply because the WCF says it is, I believe it because Scripture teaches it throughout and I believe the WCF clearly summarizes this in Chapter 7.
Can you help me to understand in light of the Scripture mentioned, how the republication framework handles the establishment of the relationship at Sinai by God Himself and the sprinkled blood upon the people outside of the Covenant of Grace so well articulated with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob?
Thank you,
B
ps. No need to disclose this if you do not want to, but would you mind telling me which denomination you are a member in? I am in the OPC. Thanks again.
LikeLike
B, you’ll have to understand I’m not going to do dissertation work in a combox, particularly when my betters have done this elsewhere. You can pick up Kingdom Prologue, or read T David Gordon or read Todd Bordow(he prolly has something at Kingdom Kompilations) or Lee Irons or Heidelblog or West West and all the others I left out. What I was trying to shorthand before, was an answer to your question. The MC(mosaic covenant) served an evangelical/pedagogical purpose to the COG. Or as Paul would say, it was our tutor, taskmaster, prison guard. It’s roll was to prepare us in conscience(guilt) and typically(sacrifices, theocracy, kings, ceremonial) for the reality of the incarnate Christ. This is evangelical and pedagogical work. Again this is why, of ALL the things Paul could’ve said, he uses the MC as a foil to bring out the graciousness of the NC as contrasted with the works principle inherent in the MC-Lev. 18:5. We can complain that he should’ve said more or should’ve dealt with every other possible OT text bearing on the nature of the Abrahamic and Siniatic BUT this is what he chose to highlight. I’m eager to maintain his dichotomy. I’m in the PCA, taking names and brooding.
LikeLike
@ B: Here’s one way to think about it.
Take a believing Israelite living under David. This Israelite sins.
With regard to actual forgiveness, he is justified by faith. Yet he still owes a sacrifice. Why? Because as a member of the nation, he is under the law. The sacrifice does not of itself provide forgiveness, but pictures it. Yet unlike in the NT, where the sacraments are administered from the church to the man at no cost, here the man is required by threat of law and cutting off from his people, to provide his own sacrifice at a cost to himself.
So we have two layers: actual salvation by grace, typological pictures of salvation by law.
Does that help?
LikeLike
B,
Here are a couple of my sermons from Galatians if they help:
http://kingdomkompilations.com/bible-studies/galatians-3-the-law-is-not-of-faith/
http://kingdomkompilations.com/bible-studies/understanding-the-two-covenants-of-gal-421-31/
LikeLike
Jeff, to be fair to you, I really need to revise my answers to the questions you had asked me earlier regarding Deuteronomy 28-30. I’ll try to do that.
LikeLike
B, where is the threat to Abraham if he fails to do everything God has commanded (and what did God command Abraham to do other than circumcise his yute and slaves)? Where is the threat in Romans 8, no separation, no condemnation? Where does Paul say, “do this or else”? And where does God promise Israel through Moses that his burden is light?
LikeLike
Sean and DGH,
I appreciate DGH’s call for Scripture over theologians and I appreciate Sean bringing Paul into the picture early on as this is a significant angle.
I am persuaded, with others, that Galatians is speaking of two things: 1) Primarily, the ceremonial laws as opposed to the moral law (10 commandments) given with the Sinai Covenant in Exodus 20-24; and 2) a distortion of the Sinai Covenant that would change it into a republication of the covenant of works as opposed to its proper place in the unfolding of the covenant of grace.
Galatians aside, Paul summarizes the Sinai Covenant in Titus 2: 11-15. “For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,12 Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world;
13 Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;14 Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.15 These things speak, and exhort, and rebuke with all authority. Let no man despise thee.”
Titus 2 seems to me to be a republication of Mt. Sinai in NT terminology. Isn’t Titus 2: 11-15 what is going on in Exodus 20-24? The grace of God appeared to the Israelites in redeeming them from Egypt and with that came teaching (10 commandments) how to live, always looking forward to that blessed hope of Jesus Christ who would give Himself for them that He might redeem them from all iniquity and make for Himself a peculiar people zealous for good works. [Good works because they have been redeemed not in order to be redeemed]
The unity of the OT and NT, Moses and Christ, seems so apparent from passages like this. Can you help me understand why someone in the pew should view Sinai differently than Titus 2?
Thank you both again. Also, if you sense offense in my writing let me know, I am trying to be fair in the dialogue.
Have a good evening,
B
P.S. Todd, I was going to ask for a republication sermon so I will try to listen to one or both in the . My work schedule is rather hectic right now, but I will try to do so. Are futurethey available in script form as well as audio?
LikeLike
Todd, question answered, I see they are in script format so I will try and read. Thank you.
LikeLike
B – The unity of the OT and NT, Moses and Christ, seems so apparent from passages like this. Can you help me understand why someone in the pew should view Sinai differently than Titus 2?
Erik – Israel disobeyed, so they did not get to stay in the land.
If you disobey, do you not get to go to heaven?
If you say that Israel, really, really disobeyed but you only slightly disobey, are you not being lenient with yourself? How do you know your standard of judgment is correct?
It seems to me that this is how Roman Catholics think.
For them, Israel not getting the land is not all that troubling since they themselves are probably looking at a lengthy sentence to Purgatory. They don’t “get the land” either — at least not without enduring considerable punishment for their earthly sins first.
LikeLike
B,
Was the Spirit poured out on Sinai to enable them to obey the Mosaic commandments? Do you see a difference between Sinai and Pentecost? That is the point of II Cor 3 – the letter (Mosaic Law) kills, the Spirit, given through the gospel, gives life. If Sinai is grace why does Paul call it the ministry of death?
LikeLike
Todd, if you eliminate some letters from ministryofdeath you get mstrfath or Mister Faith.
Decoder ring.
LikeLike
B, couple of quick things. Titus? Just because there are indicatives in the NT doesn’t then make it Siniatic in nature. Galatians is just tough to sidestep, the law is NOT of faith. That’s a statement speaking to nature, innateness, role, purpose, function, essence. Then he doubles down with lev. 18:5, then he cordons off the whole administration with a start and end date; 430 years later until Christ comes. Then he juxtaposes law and flesh with spirit and faith. Then ties inheritance of Abraham with faith NOT law. And the law is what? NOT of faith. Then just in case we missed all that, he goes Hagar and Sarah on it and tells you to throw out the slave woman and her son. Now, I’m not the only reader in the world but I’m pretty good at nuance and gist and I’m even better when the teacher goes; “look here, dummy. This is what I mean.”
B, on the other issue you brought up, you’re not offensive, necessarily, but you’re at least a little leading.
LikeLike
Indicatives mean imperatives in my world.
LikeLike
@ David R: Thanks, I will await your revisions while I await the copy of Turretin in the mail.
Food for thought as you ponder. These questions don’t need point-for-point answers, but they give you a sneak preview of coming objections.
DR: The legal cloak restates the CoW, but doesn’t account for typology, which I think is an additional feature of the MC.
What if the legal cloak does account for typology? The sacrifices were certainly a huge part of that legal cloak, and they were typological to boot. What if the entire legal cloak, or even much of it, taught by means of type? Isn’t that Vos’s insight?
DR: we observe that, in accordance with the typological feature I referenced just above, the requirement for Israel to remain in the land was not the perfect obedience required in the CoW, but rather general corporate obedience (we can even say “evangelical” obedience). Hence, it was not an impossible condition for them to meet (contrary to the “legal cloak”), nor (contrary to your argument) was it even a condition that they never actually met (though I agree that generally, and increasingly, apostasy was the rule).
* What of Josh 24?
* Is it really true that Israel ever, once, met the condition of keeping all the Law and turning neither to the left nor to the right? That is the standard articulated in Deut 28. Perhaps there is a different explanation for their staying in the land than that they met the standard in a general corporate sense.
* Evangelical obedience requires actual justification, for the works of evangelical obedience require the merit of Christ to cover their imperfections, and the work of the Spirit to be produced in the first place. Given that not all Israelites were justified, in what sense possible?
And if the argument will be that Deut 28 was given to force them to first recognize their need for justification, then aren’t we back in legal cloak territory, with Deut 28 acting pedagogically?
But even more, is it not clear that God’s purpose was never that they be able to retain Canaan, since it was only a shadow of the heavenly city?
DR: You propose that “The land sanctions in Deut 28 – 30, as well Lev 20 and 26 are of a different kind from the temporal blessings and disciplines experienced by believers (under any dispensation).” However, those land sanctions led directly to the temporal experiences of OT believers…
Yes and No. And that was the point of bringing up Daniel: his experiences in Babylon showed on the one hand, being under discipline despite his faith; and on the other, being blessed for his faith apart from the general nation under exile.
So it is true that national failure led to temporal consequences for Israelites, but those temporal consequences were poorly correlated with the faith of the individual Israelites. Everyone was exiled, even the remnant. Everyone was brought back, even the unbelievers. And indeed, as they are brought back, the promise is made: It is time for a new covenant, not like this one.
You asked, I am wondering about your reason for proposing this thesis.
I have several, and one is to put the finger on the sore spot: There is evidently a real difference between the way God treats the nation as a theocratic unit, and the way that God treats individual Israelites. Rewards for evangelical obedience are given to justified individuals; the sanctions in Deut 28 are for the nation.
To make the two strictly equal is a category error.
Again, I don’t need responses to all of these. I just wanted to give some grist for the mill.
LikeLike
Todd and Sean,
Thank you for the responses.
I am a little confused by your responses as they seem to suggest more at Sinai than I am arguing. I am not arguing an equivalent to Pentecost or an equivalent to the New Covenant. The OC and NC operated under different administrations, no question there, but they were one covenant of grace. The NC is clearer, the antitype has come, no doubt about it. Why would the OC have to be equivalent to the NC in order for Sinai to be an unfolding of the Covenant of Grace instead of a republication of the Covenant of Works?
<p
It is interesting to me that there seems to be a suggestion that Galatians is so clearly in favor of Republication, yet it seems to be a newer interpretation that suggests Galatians is talking about the view of Sinai as presented by God in Exodus. In Exodus, the law is not given at Sinai for salvation. Is the law against the promises of God? God forbid! (Galatians 3:21). The law sweetly complied with the covenant of grace in Exodus as it does when properly understood today. WCF 7. Galatians is condemning the false view of the law, that is salvation can come through our works of the law. This was never the case with Sinai as presented by God in Exodus. Paul goes through OT history and shows that the law was never intended to save. But, the Jews in their sin and rebellion against the grace of God had made the law to be an ends of salvation which it was never intended to do nor was it able to do. The Galatian Jews had said that justification came by works of the law. This was a lie in the NC and the OC. Galatians 3:11 is a quote from the OT. The Just Shall Live by Faith! OC and NC…no difference there.
God is still our God, the God of true Israel. As our God, He still calls his people who He has redeemed to serve Him and Glorify Him. Again, I will come back to Titus 2.
Perhaps there needs to be a greater discussion on Galatians than on Sinai. If Galatians is speaking of Sinai as presented by God in Exodus, Republication would make a lot more sense to me.
Instead, I would argue, that God in Galatians is condemning the false view of Sinai and the Mosaic Covenant that the Galatian Jews had made up and were teaching. God through Paul was not opposing the actual gracious unfolding of the Covenant of Grace that God had presented some 1500+ years before with Moses at Sinai. Otherwise, God would be contradicting Himself. God through Paul is reminding the Galatians and us today of the actual gracious Sinai Covenant and warning against this false view of the Jews that made Sinai into righteousness through works.
Thanks again for the dialogue. I will probably stop here as readers can see the positions a bit better and I am not sure how much further we can get in blogs. Far better in person and in Presbyteries/GAs.
B
LikeLike
B, your responses do point to one thing that Repubs need to make clear: “Republication of the Covenant of Works” does not and cannot (should not) mean that God was once again giving the law as a means for salvation.
I can see from what you have written that this is your concern, and you can rest easy on that score. No-one is saying, and everyone would repudiate, the idea that God gave the Law to Moses in order to re-establish the covenant of works for the Jews.
LikeLike
B, I see nothing in Paul comparable to this:
Is the gospel conditional? No. Is Moses? Everywhere.
LikeLike
Jeff, but B also needs to make clear, when he asserts that the law sweetly complies with grace, that he is not saying faith + works = salvation.
It’s the repubs who are clear on that one. It’s the critics of repub who are not (which may explain the book you and David R. are writing).
LikeLike
DGH,
I believe in almost every post I have made clear that salvation is by grace alone through faith alone. To establish that further and reaching back to the Reformers, Salvation is by grace alone through faith alone in Jesus Christ alone found in the Scripture alone all to the glory of God alone. The just shall live by faith in the OC/OT and NC/NT.
Now that we have established salvation, I would point you to Titus 2: 11-15 and Ephesians 2: 8-10, for how the Christian should live after salvation. Christ Himself and Christ through Paul spend so much time speaking of life after effectual calling/regeneration, but when we talk about that life afterwards the question arises: prove this is not faith + works. God, in His Word answers that question well.
I think it is actually this result of the gospel that leads many to scratch their heads with the Republication Paradigm. It sometimes sounds like, and please take this the way it is, I am not accusing, just expressing what it sounds like, that Ephesians 2:10 and Titus 2: 12-15 and similar passages do not exist in the Republication framework. I understand the constant worry about faith + works = salvation, but neither Paul nor I are making such a heretical claim. There are many who teach Roman theology as a new perspective in the protestant camp, but that is not happening here and I think that is clear.
LikeLike
DGH,
Does God require anything in order for you and I to escape His wrath and curse due to us for sin?
B
LikeLike
Recent Aquila Report article by Karlberg on [in defense of] republication controversy:
http://theaquilareport.com/republication-a-doctrinal-controversy-four-decades-in-the-making/
LikeLike
Wow, Karlberg is blunt.
I don’t agree that RTS is anti-repub, though. I learned repub first from Muether and then again from Jeff Jue at RTS.
LikeLike
B – God through Paul was not opposing the actual gracious unfolding of the Covenant of Grace that God had presented some 1500+ years before with Moses at Sinai.
Erik – If Sinai was an “actual gracious unfolding”, why was Israel kicked out of the land? Because they lacked faith? Or because they lacked works?
What was particularly gracious about Sinai?
How is “do this and you will live” and “do this and you will die” gracious?
People who view law in this way completely overlook the penalties of death, cursing, and exile that are attached to it.
It becomes Sowers-esque pretty quickly.
LikeLike
“Wow, Karlberg is blunt.”
And the Pope is Catholic.
I do agree with Jeff, the RTS’s, as far as I have seen, do not seem to take a stand for or against – there is freedom to disagree, though I may be wrong…the same btw is true at WSC, where Bob Strimple, a follower of Murray, and a good friend and former tennis partner of this Klinean, taught for years.
LikeLike
The practical problem with this viewing of the Law as gracioius is that people start to grade themselves on a curve, make up legalistic rules to assist them in keeping them law, and learn how to paint a picture of themselves that looks good to others. Then everyone is shocked, SHOCKED, to learn that they’ve been messing around with the nanny or sleeping with multiple women in the congregation. Oops, maybe the law was a little more difficult to keep than we thought…
LikeLike
The other thing you get is Mark VDM, Kloosterman, and even R. Scott Clark on certain days being impressed with outward expressions of righteousness and moral uprightness in the broader culture, As in, “as long as everything looks relatively decent and no one of the same sex is getting married, God won’t curse us.” It’s the whole national Israel paradigm imported to the 21st Century U.S. If I went back far enough in the archives I could find Mark & Kloosterman talking about the value of outward compliance with the moral law — by pagans, even — without regards to the heart. It’s goofy.
LikeLike
“Christian Renewal” is the scorecard of how well the U.S and Canada are doing at kinda-sorta upholding the Law of God.
LikeLike
Kline’s going to have a hard time being a “disputant” in these OPC debates since he’s been dead since 2007…
LikeLike
B, it’s pretty straightforward. None of the Repubs I’ve read deny third use of the law, or imperatives or progressive sanctification. We struggle with outright denials of sola fide, missing the rather explicit explanation of the covenants by Paul, prior commitments to justice, continuity, and abiblical covenantal understandings that obscure bi-covenantalism(just to keep it simple). So, whether it’s explicit, like Shepherd, or logical presuppositions or commitments that put one on Shepherd’s course, we object. We’ve seen the show before and somehow have been stuck with front row seats for the same show, different actors, for years now.
LikeLike
Those who want to advocate for a mixing of (gracious — whatever that means) works with faith in order to receive salvation have some staunch competition from a fellow who lives in Rome and heads up a far bigger church than the OPC (as Jeremy Tate reminds us whenever he has the opportunity). The CREC is also several steps ahead of the OPC on this issue and is ready to receive her members if the OPC doesn’t come around quickly enough for those who want to work the steps but are not yet ready to go to Rome.
LikeLike
B, but what you don’t seem to understand is that Eph 2 and Titus 2 are a long way from the sound and character of Deut 26-28. It seems to me that Paul is commending obedience. I have no problem with that. But to draw parallels between the Israelites under Moses and Christians under Christ not only flattens the freedom of gospel and the bondage of the law, but makes the world safe for Shepherd.
So if you want to assert that salvation is by faith alone and not of works or obedience, then it does seem that you need to qualify the nature of NT obedience and not draw (as some do) parallels between Moses and Paul. And the solution to this is Paul himself who says the law is not of faith.
Repub is doing justice to Paul. He’s the guy, after all, who likens the law/Sinai to Hagar, not the repubs (on their own).
LikeLike
B, according to the SC what is required (faith, repentance, using the means of grace) is not obedience to the law. I don’t see how the catechism could be any clearer about this since the law is what is require of man, not to escape the wrath and curse of God.
LikeLike
Oh, don’t worry, I can handle the law/grace mix and get the proper balance of good conscience in my righteousness during progressive sanctification.
As for the rest of you… well….. i don’t think you are going to be smart/clever/witty enough to understand it as perfectly as I do.
LikeLike
DGH,
The limitations of conversations on blogs…you need to move towards the South so we have opportunities to talk in person. Greenville isn’t too far away from me 🙂
I agree with your answer completely. My question was not looking for the law as an answer, I was looking for the catechism answer.
You said at 6:20am “Is the gospel conditional? No.”
Just now you implied their are requirements to salvation: faith, repentance, means of grace. I want to use “conditions” carefully as we are talking about conditions that are free gifts of God but never-the-less God does require things and those things He wholly and entirely gives of His free grace. I just want to be clear on this.
I hear very often people say, “the CoG is not conditional.” I always ask what they mean by that. In the worst extremes I have had someone tell me that faith or repentance is not needed to be saved because grace is unconditional.
Election is unconditional. While grace is Irresistible, God does require His free gifts of Repentance, Faith, and Means of Grace to be had by the believer to escape the wrath and curse of God. The Spirit is the sole giver of those requirements and they are not earned or merited.
My question was only for clarification, thank you.
B
LikeLike
DGH,
My concern is that republication aims to do justice to Paul and instead does injustice to both Paul and Moses. With God as the author of both Exodus and Galatians, there is a compliance between the two that Republication seems to me to be missing. I will not argue difference in tones and difference in administrations in OC and NC. I agree with this. My argument is that the Covenant made by God at Sinai with a focus on the response to redemption is an unfolding of the Covenant of Grace as outlined and begun with Exodus 20:1 and concluded in Exodus 24 with the sprinkling of the blood of the covenant on the people.
Perhaps we can have more dialogue in person in the future and thank you for your time via blog.
B
LikeLike
In other news, I read in yesterday’s WSJ that the American missionary doctor who was sent to Liberia to replace the American missionary doctor who was evacuated now has Ebola. No evacuation this time — yet another American missionary doctor was sent to treat the stricken American missionary doctor.
I see a pattern developing.
Does anyone stop to ask why Liberia still needs doctors and Christian missionaries in the 21st century?
African disfunction, Western guilt, and American evangelical do-gooderism make for an interesting cauldron of soup.
LikeLike
How about just viewing Sinai as a vivid picture that God painted to show us how incapable we are of keeping the law and saving ourselves? Period.
The poster boy for spinning the law to think you are keeping it is Bill Clinton and his “I did not have sex with that woman, Miss Lewinski.”
If you define “sex” as “sexual intercourse”, that’s true. If you define “sex” as oral sex, genital stimulation, or even looking at a woman lustfully (as Jesus does when he explains what adultery is), his assertion of lawkeeping becomes laughable.
This is the slippery slope of self-deception that viewing law as gracious leads to.
LikeLike
B, but because Paul is writing after Moses and after the fulfillment of Moses in Christ, doesn’t doing justice to both Paul and Moses miss what Paul is trying to do, and what he sees in relation to the epoch-making significance of the work of Christ?
LikeLike
I’m afraid to look Erik, so I’ll have to trust you on this.
Did one of the naysayers pull out John 3:16 and scream WHOSOEVER 15 times while reading it, trying to shake my unwise Calvinistic Republican ways?
LikeLike
– And isn’t Paul, in Galatians, authoritatively interpreting Moses, not simply giving his side of an Old/New equation?
LikeLike
It seems to me that what is gracious about the OC is that God made a covenant with Israel at all, when it was known they would fail, and that Jesus was born under and fulfilled it. What the Israelites failed to do typologically Jesus did really.
I’ve seen it said that the imperfect obedience of Israel staying in the land could not in any sense be acceptable to God who demands perfect obedience. But since when is type a perfect representation of the antitype? David was a man after God’s heart and messianic type, but he was also an adulterer and murderer. If imperfect typological obedience cannot be grounds for remaining in the land, how can David be a type of Christ, a man after God’s own heart, a murderer and adulterer?
I haven’t followed the entire thread so If I’m wacked that may explain it.
LikeLike
Mark G, it wasn’t a perfect representation of anything because Israel failed. It was a further reminder of the impossibility of keeping the covenant of works and the need for someone who could (even though the land was a type of Eden and “a better country”).
LikeLike
Mark,
You were actually better than some people who have followed entire threads for months on end.
LikeLike
This would appear to explain the logic of the obedience boys:
LikeLike
What do they (whomever “they” are) mean when they say Adam could not have merited salvation?
Before God entered into the CoW with Adam, Adam’s obedience would not have earned him salvation because it was what he owed to God: there was no arrangement for a quid pro quo. After God had entered into Covenant with Adam, Adam’s obedience would have earned him eternal life as that was the arrangement.
What am I missing?
LikeLike
Is it the anti-Republicationists who deny Adam’s merit-reward situation or the Republicationists? Why would the so-called Obedience Boys deny Adam could have merited eternal life?
LikeLike
Jeff,
Back to Deuteronomy 28-30. In a nutshell, my (revised) answer to your question is that what Deuteronomy 28-30 requires of Israel is repentance and faith and the diligent use of the ordinary means of grace.
It is true of course that the moral law requires perfect obedience, but that condition of the covenant was to be met by Christ the Mediator, not by the people.
It is also true that Israel was required to maintain a relative level of corporate obedience in order to retain possession of the land, but that was due to the OT mode of revealing the promised reward (and threatened punishment) typologically. That is, it was an accident of the OT administration and not the substantial promise of the covenant.
I’m happy to try to clarify as necessary….
LikeLike
Alexander, so Adam, created in the image of God, is no different from my cat Cordelia, until God enters into the covenant.
But do remember that the anti-repubs love Van Til and Van Til said that creation was fundamentally covenantal. So it’s a little difficult to turn God’s relationship with man into a higher life scheme, you know, justified, and then obedience and holiness makes sanctification complete.
LikeLike
Alexander, do you hear yourself?
You’re anti-repub and you don’t even know it.
LikeLike
Holy @#$@#$%(%%&!
Talk about flattening revelation. There goes kosher food, circumcision and no real need for Paul to work out how Gentiles come into relationship with God. It’s all there in the Pentateuch.
David R., read sensitively much?
LikeLike
Alexander is a one trick pony. All he can do is repeat the last few words of his “opponent” and mock or play the fake piety card.
When he has to give a new angle it is totally trash.
He makes a good Evangelifish
LikeLike
Jeff,
A couple of additional thoughts: Did Israel ever actually attain to the obedience required for them to retain possession of the land? Yes, I think so. Recall Vos:
“This did not mean that every individual Israelite, in every detail of his life, had to be perfect, and that on this was suspended the continuance of God’s favour. Jehovah dealt primarily with the nation and through the nation with the individual, as even now in the covenant of grace He deals with believers and their children in the continuity of generations. There is solidarity among the members of the people of God, but this same principle also works for the neutralizing of the effect of individual sin, so long as the nation remains faithful. The attitude observed by the nation and its representative leaders was the decisive factor. Although the demands of the law were at various times imperfectly complied with, nevertheless for a long time Israel remained in possession of the favour of God.”
You brought up Joshua 24, but there was also Joshua 23:1-11 (for example). Yes, it is true that apostasy was the general rule, and increasingly so, but there were also bright spots.
Was Israel’s obedience (when they obeyed) meritorious? No. It was evangelical obedience, which by definition isn’t meritorious. But wasn’t it merit by pactum? No. The only pactum merit in any administration of the covenant of grace is that accrued by Christ’s obedience.
But what of the fact that God’s dealings with the nation as a unit (i.e., by way of temporal sanctions) was different from His dealings with individual Israelites (i.e., by way of eternal sanctions)? I would say this is somewhat of an artificial distinction in that throughout, God was dealing with individuals by way of temporal sanctions typifying eternal sanctions. This was simply the OT mode of revealing eternal sanctions by means of types, but I don’t see that it necessarily entails a works principle.
LikeLike
Jeff,
Following is some corroboration from Calvin for my opinion that the requirement for retaining possession of the land was not an impossible one for sinners to meet. From his comments on Leviticus 26:3:
LikeLike
Talk about flattening revelation.
Talk about a dispensationalist response.
LikeLike
That’s the trouble with Dave and his ilk.
They don’t like the answer given and attack but they have nothing to improve on the 2k position.
And with this fake zealous attitude they are backed into a corner because their hostility has ruined any hope of a decent discussion.
And they love seeing their words on the internet, nobody else does
LikeLike
Dr. Hart- Well, Adam had an eternal soul and your cat doesn’t; Adam was given the moral law, your cat wasn’t; Adam was created a rational, reasoning, righteous, holy and wise being; your cat wasn’t. Basically what you’re saying is there is no inherent superiority of humans to animals or even difference, so far as I can see.
i’m not anti-Repub, if you mean what the Westminster Confession says. Boston says Sinai was both covenant of works and grace, that’s fine with me. I don’t know what more you and the likes of Clark are wanting to add to that doctrine, but clearly it’s something or else there wouldn’t be all this debate. I’m genuinely irterested in knowing what you’re saying which is beyond what WCF 19:2 says.
But Fisher’s Catechism and John Brown of Haddington say that from between Adam’s Creation and the formation of the Covenant of Works Adam was under obligation to obey but was not promised eternal life upon that obedience. Are they anti-Repubs?
and i’m afraid I really don’t know what you mean by higher life &c. Please can you keep the rhetoric at a minimum and then there might actually be some fruitful discussion. I don’t see why you react so aggressively when I’m only asking you questions.
Kent- you do realise that you do exactly what you accuse others of doing. The only posts I ever see from you are posts attacking and ridiculing other people. Where did I mock Dr. Hart? I asked him a question. Is he above being asked questions?
LikeLike
A relevant comment posted on another thread on this very same question/topic:
Take a passage like Deut. 28 with the blessings and curses. What are your options? Well, if you are Kline, you explain it as part of the typological-works principle that was unique to Israel. But if you don’t go that route, then you almost have to take this as part of an ‘evangelical obedience’ principle that would be true in any covenant of grace arrangement. And when you try to make something ‘all of grace’ that actually propounds a legitimate ‘works’ principle, the ground is ripe for Shepherd’s error. Or as Kline quipped, “He who finds grace everywhere will ultimately find it nowhere!” Shepherd, of course, would be his Exhibit A on that point.
LikeLike
And when you try to make something ‘all of grace’ that actually propounds a legitimate ‘works’ principle, the ground is ripe for Shepherd’s error.
First of all, “actually propounds a legitimate ‘works’ principle” begs the question. Secondly, I would explain Deuteronomy 28-30 (as I have) as part of the typological-intrusion principle that was unique to Israel, which is something other than a works principle (again, see Vos). Thirdly, no one denies that the moral law itself articulates a works principle.
LikeLike
David,
Thanks. So in your revised answer, is Deut 28 a part of the gracious substance or the legal cloak?
LikeLike
DR –
First of all, “actually propounds a legitimate ‘works’ principle” begs the question.
I don’t think so in this context. The commentor is simply saying where there is a legitimate ‘works principle’ and yet make it about grace, then you get a problem, i.e collapsing law and grace…
My view: to exclude any works principle on a national/typological level in Deut. 28-30 just doesn’t do justice to the obedience/conditionality of the text, in my humble plough-boy theologian opinion…
LikeLike
David R., only for the reading challenged. Flatten holy writ, lots of misreads follow.
On your reading of Deut. 26ff, why don’t we have the reception of new church members include a vow to “do everything you have commanded”?
I can’t imagine any reading, doctrine, or practice in the Reformed world — other than a neonomian penchant — that would get WSC 88ff out of the Pentateuch.
LikeLike
Alexander, all of that stuff you say about Adam was true at creation, not with stage two of the CofW.
So if you follow Fisher and Brown OF HADDINGTON (well, then), then did Christ merit anything? Be careful. If you disentangle the first and second Adams (why call them the same name?) then you may turn out like Nathaniel Taylor.
LikeLike
Jeff,
Thanks. So in your revised answer, is Deut 28 a part of the gracious substance or the legal cloak?
It’s part of the legal cloak, which is pedagogical. But for those who partake of the substance of the covenant, the law is a rule of life. Obviously Calvin, for one, understands the passage in terms of evangelical obedience (third use).
LikeLike
On your reading of Deut. 26ff, why don’t we have the reception of new church members include a vow to “do everything you have commanded”?
I’m not sure of your point, but I assume your Bible has the Great Commission?
I can’t imagine any reading, doctrine, or practice in the Reformed world — other than a neonomian penchant — that would get WSC 88ff out of the Pentateuch.
But only a (quasi?) dispensationalist would deny that God required those things of Israel. Btw, the prooftexts for WLC 153 include Proverbs 2:1-5 and 8:33-36.
LikeLike
DR –
But don’t the Proverbs passages point to Christ and the free favor that comes upon those who seek him and find him? Nothing about law-keeping obligations…
LikeLike
Jack, I have to disagree with “Nothing about law-keeping obligations.”
LikeLike
Jack, I have to disagree with “Nothing about law-keeping obligations.”
Therein might be part of what I would term “problematic.” It seems that if you are reading ‘law-keeping obligations’ into those two passages, then you are also doing the same with Q. 153. I’ll paraphrase Kline, He who imports law into grace will ultimately find grace nowhere…
LikeLike
That’s an ironic “paraphrase” in view of the fact that Kline imported law (works principle) into grace.
LikeLike
Please… in view of the fact that Kline imported law (works principle) into grace?
Not.
The Mosaic Covenant is not the Covenant of Grace. So to have a works principle in the MC (it’s an administration of) doesn’t undermine the Covenant of Grace nor import law into grace. By that reasoning Owen would have to be neonomian…
LikeLike
Jack, I disagree with everything you said there.
LikeLike
David R: “Jack, I disagree with everything you said there.”
Well, at least there’s progress on one front. Boundaries are good.
LikeLike
Baby steps….
LikeLike
Questions:
If the MC is the Covenant of Grace, then the C of G is a ministration of death with a fading glory? Are the promises of the New Covenant better than those of the C of G? Is the C of G found with fault like the Old Covenant? The Old Covenat (Mosaic) sacrifices couldn’t cleanse away sin – same for the sacrifice promised in the C of G?
No works principle in the MC? So you disagree with Boston, Hodge, Owen, Berkhof, Buchanan, Olivianus, Shaw, Polanus, Perkins…………………….
LikeLike
Your first paragraph argument doesn’t follow unless the contrast involves substantial rather than administrative differences (which it doesn’t). Your last sentence is just plain incorrect (imo).
LikeLike
DR, I think you’re equivocating. I wrote that the MC is Not the C of G. You wrote that you disagree with that. Now you want to qualify? As to my last sentence – all those I listed hold that there was a covenant of works principle (in various senses) in the Mosaic covenant.
LikeLike
Jack, I’m not qualifying what I said. I’m saying you are incorrectly understanding those texts to speak of substantial differences.
LikeLike
As DGH would say, your opinion…
All I said was “The Mosaic Covenant is not the Covenant of Grace. So to have a works principle in the MC (it’s an administration of) doesn’t undermine the Covenant of Grace nor import law into grace.”
You disagree with that statement. And those theologians I listed disagree with you. My opinion… And by the way, the WCF does sort of say that the Law, i.e. the MC, was an administration of the C of G. Not that it was the same as the C of G. Distinctions…
LikeLike
David,
Still waiting for Turretin to arrive. Meanwhile, you seem to be arguing now that the standard required in the Law for land-keeping was a lesser standard than complete obedience, citing Calvin for support. But earlier you seemed to argue that the standard required in the Law was complete obedience. Can you clarify?
For my part, I find Calvin on Deut 30.11-14 to be helpful. He, as it turns out, does not argue for a lesser standard, but a standard that is met in the Gospel. That’s a profound difference.
LikeLike
Jack, how about we agree to disagree and leave it at that. We’ve both expressed our opinions.
LikeLike
Jeff,
Meanwhile, you seem to be arguing now that the standard required in the Law for land-keeping was a lesser standard than complete obedience, citing Calvin for support. But earlier you seemed to argue that the standard required in the Law was complete obedience. Can you clarify?
The standard required in the law in order to inherit eternal life is perfect (i.e., legal) obedience, to be fulfilled by Christ (“met in the gospel,” as you say below). But the standard of obedience (i.e., evangelical) accepted by God (and rewarded) from His children is obviously much less than that, right? And the latter standard is the one that Calvin (and I think Vos agrees) connects with Israel’s retention of the land.
For my part, I find Calvin on Deut 30.11-14 to be helpful. He, as it turns out, does not argue for a lesser standard, but a standard that is met in the Gospel. That’s a profound difference.
I wonder if there’s a good index somewhere for searching Calvin’s harmony of the law. It’s always a pain hunting for a particular text…. Anyway, I did find it and he’s speaking there of the standard for inheriting eternal life.
I’m gratified that this conversation moved you to order Turretin! You won’t regret it.
LikeLike
Jack,
All I said was “The Mosaic Covenant is not the Covenant of Grace….
You disagree with that statement. And those theologians I listed disagree with you.
I have a feeling this will be futile, but let’s just take Berkhof:
LikeLike
BTW, Jeff, the Pope is Catholic comment was an inside joke for those who read Karlberg’s writings during the Shepherd controversy years ago.
David, I’m still not understanding your position. How exactly do the Deut. 28 blessings and curses apply to us today?
LikeLike
Todd, if it’s okay, for the moment I’d rather stick with the question of how it applied then, as we seem to have our hands full with that one.
LikeLike
David, I though you wanted to “agree to disagree and leave it at that?”
I have no problem with the Berkhof quote, especially as he is writing in the context of a dispensationalist view vs a Reformed covenantal view. But even in this abbreviated quote he points to distinctions which he fleshes out elsewhere.
If you are saying that to disagree with you as to the nature of a works principle necessarily makes one dispensational, then you are correct, this is indeed futile. The Berkhof quote ought to be put into the context of other parts of his teaching:
At Sinai the covenant became a truly national covenant. The civil life of Israel was linked up with the covenant in such a say that the two could not be separated. In a large measure Church and Sate became one. To be in the Church was to be in the nation, and vice versa; and to leave the Chuch was to leave the nation. There was no spiritual excommunication; the ban meant cutting off by death.
The Sinaitic covenant included a service that contained a positive reminder 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, Ex. 20:2; Deut. 5:6, and further in Rom. 3:20; Gal. 3:24. 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. The law served a twofold purpose in connection with the covenant of grace: (1) to increase the consciousness of sin, Rom. 3:20; 4:15; Gal. 3:19; and (2) to be a tutor unto Christ, Gal. 3:24.
I’m content to agree with your initial comment to agree to disagree…
LikeLike
David R., the New Testament has no “do everything I have commanded or die.” Again, your reading skills are questionable.
LikeLike
@ David: I don’t agree. Think about context … What passage are we in?
Calvin concludes that section with this: “But this is the peculiar blessing of the new covenant, that the Law is written on men’s hearts, and engraven on their inward parts; whilst that severe requirement is relaxed, so that the vices under which believers still labor are no obstacle to their partial and imperfect obedience being pleasant to God.”
So he is clearly talking about evangelical obedience. But now two things are of note, and one of them is crucial.
The first thing that is of note is that Calvin considers evangelical obedience to be a peculiar blessing of the new covenant. He doesn’t elaborate, and I haven’t seen that theme developed elsewhere, so I can’t say whether he means that absolutely.
If he does, your hypothesis is severely damaged.
But if not … And I’m assuming not … Then we would still have to say that evangelical obedience is limited to those who, as in the New Covenant, are in Christ.
And that’s the second and crucial point. In order for imperfect good works to be pleasing to God and receive reward, they must be covered by the merits of Christ. This is a sine qua non.
You by contrast have believers and unbelievers alike in Israel benefitting from a “lesser standard.” That’s not evangelical obedience, but something else entirely.
LikeLike
Jack, is it not odd that David R. accuses Kline of importing law into grace, and then David turns around and says that WSC 88 is no different from Deut 26-28.
Can you believe this guy?
Drum roll —- I can’t.
LikeLike
David R., “the standard of obedience (i.e., evangelical) accepted by God (and rewarded) from His children. . .”
I thought you said there was no merit in grace.
You’re all over the place.
LikeLike
I have no problem with the Berkhof quote …
Good, then you now agree that the MC is the CoG. If you don’t, then further discussion of this issue is certainly futile.
LikeLike
DR,
Have you considered that you might be making conversation futile by insisting on what I must believe (because you are so obviously “right”) or else? Fine. But some would say that’s not such a good way to win friends and influence people. cheers…
LikeLike
Nick Batzig weighs in:
With so much confusion floating around at present about the precise relationship between the Covenant of Works, the Law and the Mosaic Covenant, I thought that it might be helpful to set out what Geerhardus Vos wrote about some of the related issues in his Reformed Dogmatics and in Grace and Glory. In his section in Reformed Dogmatics on “The Covenant of Grace,” Vos gave the following explanation about the relationship between the Covenant of Works, the Law and the Covenant of Grace:
http://feedingonchrist.com/covenant-works-law-sinai/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=covenant-works-law-sinai
LikeLike
Jack, thanks. Here’s a quote from Vos (hold on to your seats for David R.’s spin):
LikeLike
David R:
Good, then you now agree that the MC is the CoG.
This is unacceptably sloppy. The MC is not simple, but has two parts. The substance is CoG, and even there, not fully revealed. The accidents are not the CoG, but administrative of it. They are in fact a reflection or shadow of the CoW.
It is not possible to accurately (over)simplify this structure to “the MC is the CoG”
If you don’t, then further discussion of this issue is certainly futile.
Hmph.
LikeLike
Jeff, an accident is not a “part.” It doesn’t change the essential nature of something.
LikeLike
Unnecessary quibbling. The point is that certain sections of the Law are (1) a part of the MC and yet are (2) a part of the legal cloak and not the gracious substance. You yourself have said this.
So the MC is not identical to the CoG, but instead is an administration of the CoG. Jack is exactly right, and you are hassling him uncharitably. Not cool.
LikeLike
More Vos via Nick:
“He then went on to explain why it was that God included the “content of the covenant of works” in the covenant of grace:”
When we say that it is a Covenant of Grace, then we must consider specifically the relationship of guilty man before God in this covenant. When one considers the Mediator of the Covenant, then naturally no grace is shown to Him. Considered in Christ, everything is a matter of carrying out the demands of the Covenant of Works according to God’s strict justice, though in another form. Grace never consists in God abandoning anything of His justice, taken in general. But He does in that He does not assert His justice against the same person against whom He could assert it. God shows grace to us when He demands from Christ what He can demand from us. Considered in Christ, everything is strict justice; considered in us, everything is free grace.2
“Picking up on the significance of Christ’s relationship to the Law in the Covenant of Grace as our Mediator, Vos noted:”
The Son, who as a divine Person stood above the law, placed Himself in His assumed nature under the law, that is to say, not only under the natural relationship under which man stands toward God, but under the relationship of the covenant of works, so that by active obedience He might merit eternal life. Considered in this light, the work of Christ was a fulfillment of what Adam had not fulfilled, a carrying out of the demand of the covenant of works.3
LikeLike
D.G., you left out this from Vos:
Also, where does Vos imply in what you quoted that Israel was under a works principle for land inheritance?
LikeLike
David R., but look at all that you left out.
And then you say that God rewards imperfect obedience but you deny a works principle. Which is it oh speaker who employs both sides of his mouth.
LikeLike
Jeff,
You by contrast have believers and unbelievers alike in Israel benefitting from a “lesser standard.” That’s not evangelical obedience, but something else entirely.
It is a relative level of corporate obedience suitable for the symbolic purpose. But any obedience acceptable to God from sinners post-fall is wholly a matter of grace and not works.
LikeLike
And then you say that God rewards imperfect obedience but you deny a works principle.
I’m tired of hitting softballs so I’ll just let this one pass.
LikeLike
David R., sure let your assertion that WSC 88 is merely a reiteration of Deut 26-28.
If only all opposition to the truth were this easy.
LikeLike
David R., sure let your assertion that WSC 88 is merely a reiteration of Deut 26-28.
Wow, that’s well beyond spin.
LikeLike
David R.
Sound familiar?
LikeLike
Jeff,
Unnecessary quibbling. The point is that certain sections of the Law are (1) a part of the MC and yet are (2) a part of the legal cloak and not the gracious substance. You yourself have said this.
No I haven’t said this, at least I didn’t mean that. It’s not that certain sections of the law are legal and others are not. The entire law is legal, revealing our sin and misery as well as the condition to be met by Christ as Mediator of the covenant. But under the veil of ceremonies, the gospel substance was revealed to the OT people of God, to be received by faith.
So the MC is not identical to the CoG, but instead is an administration of the CoG. Jack is exactly right, and you are hassling him uncharitably. Not cool.
To say that the MC is an administration of the CoG is to say that it is substantially the CoG. The same is true in the case of the NC. The NC is not the MC. But they are both the CoG. Analogously, Jeff standing is not Jeff sitting. But in neither case would I be incorrect to say, “That is Jeff.” And conversely, Jack would be incorrect to say, “That is not Jeff.”
LikeLike
D.G., yup. And you read that as an “assertion that WSC 88 is merely a reiteration of Deut 26-28”? Interesting….
LikeLike
D.G., you didn’t answer my question. Here, I’ll repeat it: Where does Vos say (in that section you quoted) that Israel was under a works principle for retaining possession of the land?
LikeLike
David R.,
If the Mosaic Covenant involved inheriting the land, which it did, I don’t see how you can think — well, actually I can — that the Covenant with Israel did not involve a works principle. As has been said many times, the CofG involves a works principle — the works of a mediator who keeps the law perfectly. The MC also involves a works principle if it is going to show the Israelites that they can’t keep the law and sends them into exile for not keeping the law.
What exactly are you tilting at? Don’t you have errands to run?
LikeLike
D.G., he doesn’t say it, and you know it (which is why you add your commentary).
LikeLike
G Vos via David R: The Sinaitic covenant is not a new covenant as concerns the essence of the matter.
It’s a good thing that we all agreed to this point many years ago.
Now if we can only all recognize that we have all agreed to this point, the conversation has a chance of breaking the logjam and becoming genuinely edifying.
LikeLike
JRC: The point is that certain sections of the Law are (1) a part of the MC and yet are (2) a part of the legal cloak and not the gracious substance. You yourself have said this.
DR: No I haven’t said this, at least I didn’t mean that.
!!!! You have said (1) and (2) multiple times in this conversation. !!!!
DR: It’s not that certain sections of the law are legal and others are not.
Of course not. It’s just that we have been discussing certain sections (Deut 28-30 e.g.) but not others. I was being specific, not exclusive.
However, the Mosaic Covenant is not coextensive with the law, either. It has both Law and Gospel within it. So again, the Mosaic Covenant is not the same as the covenant of grace. It is in substance the covenant of grace, with various legal accidents.
It is the covenant of grace in legal clothing. That’s irreducible simplicity.
LikeLike
Jeff, again, to say that “the MC is not the CoG” is akin to saying “Jeff sitting isn’t Jeff,” or “Jeff with a haircut isn’t Jeff,” or “Jeff in Tahiti isn’t Jeff.” It’s simply not a true statement (assuming the MC is an administration of the CoG).
LikeLike
If the sitting and standing are relevant to the discussion at hand, then one does not count for the other just because they are both “Jeff.”
Here, the discussion at hand is the function of Law in the Mosaic Covenant. You have argued “The Mosaic is the Covenant of Grace just as is the New Covenant; therefore, obedience to the Law functions the same way in the MC as it does in the New, as evangelical obedience only.”
Jack replies, in essence, that the legal character of the Mosaic Covenant means that we may not assume that law and obedience function in the same way in both covenants.
In the context of our discussion, a “covenant of grace with a legal cloak” is to be understood differently from a “covenant of grace, end of story.”
If our covenant of grace is “legaling”, then it seems silly to argue that it’s actually “gracing.”
LikeLike
On to better things. I think one of the issues here is found in this exchange:
JRC: Thanks. So in your revised answer, is Deut 28 a part of the gracious substance or the legal cloak?
DR: It’s part of the legal cloak, which is pedagogical. But for those who partake of the substance of the covenant, the law is a rule of life. Obviously Calvin, for one, understands the passage in terms of evangelical obedience (third use).
And there’s the problem. This will be hard to articulate correctly, so work with me. The issue is that a works principle and a grace principle are antonyms with regard to function, but not antonyms with regard to justice. In other words, “Do we then nullify the Law through faith? May it never be! On the contrary, we establish the Law.” (Rom 3.31).
You on the other hand have taken a works principle and a grace principle to be antonyms with regard to justice, so that if justice is demanded, then grace cannot be in operation. The problem, however, is that your argument is Fuller’s argument against the Law/Gospel distinction! He argues right down the line with you that Lev 18 is all about covenant obedience, and that this carries forward even to today. Clearly, since you don’t want to be there, then we have to distinguish your view from Fuller’s by something more than “all these arguments, but then Law/Gospel too.”
And what repub offers in the insight that law and gospel function side-by-side (never commingled) because of the way that Law and Gospel uniquely function. The Law demands. And the Gospel justifies because another fulfills those demands.
So let’s look first at the Decalogue.
* We agree that the Decalogue expresses and republishes the content of the CoW by way of material republication.
* We also agree that this material was not republished with the aim of Israel achieving their salvation by keeping the Decalogue, but rather that they would be driven to Christ.
* And we also agree that when Christ lived, He fulfilled the Law on our behalf.
* And we agree that this is the basis for our living under grace.
So how does the grace principle work? By resting on the works principle right there in the law! To be saved, there must be a merit principle — the merit of another.
That’s why every single Reformed Confession speaks of the “merits of Christ.” What were those merits? Well, he kept the Law. In so doing, he kept the CoW.
If there is no merit principle in the Law, then there is no merit of Christ for us.
So we must restate the idea that merit principle and grace principle are antonymic. It is better to say that we either receive reward on our own merit, or on that of another, and never both. We receive righteousness by faith or by works, but not by both.
Here’s where this matters: You have waffled on the notion of an accidental merit principle. First you denied, insisting that an “accidental merit principle” had to be a distinct covenant (Hiding Behind Kilts, p. 8); then you affirmed that there is an accidental merit principle in the MC (p. 3 of this thread); now you are denying again.
What is causing this back-and-forth? I think you have two incompatible goals.
(1) On the one hand you wish to affirm Turretin’s basic structure of “legal cloak = meriting, do this and live ; gracious substance = possession of life, obedience rewarded even if imperfect”
(2) On the other hand, you want to assert that a grace principle and a merit principle cannot coexist without two separate covenants.
One of those two desires must go unfulfilled. For Turretin is clearly saying that the legal cloak operates by a merit principle that coexists together with the grace principle — one at the level of accident, the other of substance. You cannot continue to hold to Turretin and at the same time continue to assert that an accidental merit principle is impossible.
LikeLike
David,
You’ve also expressed reluctance to make a hard distinction between the national and the individual within the Mosaic Covenant. However, I think this distinction is both legitimate and also helpful.
It is legitimate because God treated the nation of Israel as a unit, regardless of the justified status of its citizens. I’ve mentioned Daniel a couple of times, so I won’t again. But consider also Israel during the time of Elijah and Ahab.
All of Israel was placed under drought by God, even though we know that 7,000 Israelites had never bowed the knee to Ba’al. Even those 7,000 were under the drought. Why? Because of the disobedience of Israel’s leaders. There is a federal solidarity of the nation under its king such that his behavior affects the whole nation (see also: David and the census, Mannasseh, Hezekiah, etc.).
That this is so is recognized by all of Vos, Berkhof, and Hodge.
But this national aspect of the covenant is also a helpful concept in addition to being true. It untangles much of our discussion.
Consider the question of judicial law, which you’ve been reluctant to touch. Why is it that the judicial law operates strictly according to behavior?
Take two men in Israel, one a believer and one not. Both steal two sheep from their neighbors. Does one receive a different penalty than the other because his sins are forgiven in Christ? Not at all. Both receive justice, according to the demands of the law.
(That’s according to the command, although we both know that the law was poorly administered in Israel).
How do you account for this function of the law, a strict merit pactum principle?
I account for it like this: Since both men are citizens of the nation of Israel, they are subject to the outward, legal stipulations of justice required of the nation of Israel. The penalty received by each has nothing to do with justification or evangelical obedience.
Without that national/individual distinction, I can see no reason why the justified man and the unjustified receive the same treatment under the Divine Law. Under a human law, I could understand. But under the Divine Law?
With the national/individual distinction, the fog is cleared: justified individuals operate coram deo according to a principle of evangelical obedience. Thus Naomi and Ruth. Meanwhile, the nation operates according to a legal principle, never with respect to justification but only with respect to outward and typological elements, always with the goal of pedagogy.
LikeLike
Jeff, thanks and Amen. Very clear, much clearer than I could ever be.
LikeLike
David R., If it’s simply “not a true statement (assuming the MC is an administration of the CofG),” then how does Paul come up with “the law is not of faith”? So far, you have not addressed Paul. Lots of Turretin, Fisher and blah blah blah.
LikeLike
Jeff: a works principle and a grace principle are antonyms with regard to function, but not antonyms with regard to justice. In other words, “Do we then nullify the Law through faith? May it never be! On the contrary, we establish the Law.” (Rom 3.31).
mcmark: because they don’t have the same function, works and grace don’t contradict each other
Ephesians 2: 14 For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility 15 by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, in order to create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, 16 in order to reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility.
In Ephesians 2, Paul is not dividing the Mosaic covenant from its curse, or saying that the curse of the Mosaic covenant has been abolished. What has been abolished is “the law of commandments expressed in ordinances”. The Mosaic covenant itself has been abolished. Paul speaks in Ephesians 2 the opposite of the way he would have to speak if he thought that the curse and the Mosaic covenant were two different things.
Romans 3:31 accentuates the curse function of the Mosaic covenant, The emphasis in Ephesians 2 is the Mosaic covenant itself.
LikeLike
Machen: “The law itself brought about death … Since Chrisst died that death as our representative, we too have died that death. Thus our death to the law, suffered for us by Christ, far from being contrary to the law, was in fulfillment of the law’s own demands. “
It is impossible to maintain that only the curse divides the two groups in Ephesians 2, since both groups are under the curse. The curse divides God from humans. What stands between jew and gentile is the covenant mediated by Moses. Think of the parallel in Colossians 2:13 And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, 14 by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross.
The “record of death” against us is the same as the “legal demands” against us. It is difficult to see how the Mosaic covenant and its curse can be separated, when the Apostle integrates them together in this way. The demands are hostile to us. It is more than the removal of the curse that Christ’s law-work at the cross achieves. The cross brings about in some sense the abolition of the Mosaic covenant itself.
The curse does not attach only to the Mosaic ceremonies. Rather, the ceremonies picture the way out from the curse. If you say that “law” in these texts is only the ceremonies, then you have ceremonies that damn rather than ceremonies that prefigure Christ and the cross.
LikeLike
@ Mark: Right. The curse of the Law is not God’s wrath against shellfish eaters.
LikeLike
Francis Watson’s “Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith” (2004):
Paul is acutely aware of the tension between the unconditional Genesis promises and the conditional offer of “life” that derives from the law given at Mount Sinai. In the promise, God commits himself unconditionally to future saving action on behalf of Abraham and his seed — an action that will bring blessing to the entire world. In the law, “life” is now conditional on observance of the commandments. (pp. 276-77)
http://www.upper-register.com/blog/?p=95
LikeLike
I have said that Kline in his mature thought did not believe that the New Covenant threatened any curses. In response someone may object, “But isn’t excommunication a covenant curse?” The mature Kline would say, “No, because the New Covenant is not a covenant of works in which blessings and curses are conditioned upon obedience or disobedience.” The church’s act of putting someone outside of the visible church is not itself a punitive act, or a covenant curse, or the exercise of the wrath of God. It is merely a fallible judgment that a particular community of believers does not regard this person as a fellow believer. If the church’s judgment is correct, the person in question will indeed face covenant curse and divine wrath at the day of judgment — but not from the New Covenant per se…
… So excommunication from the church of the New Covenant is not a covenant curse. It is merely an administrative act of being removed from the New Covenant by the officers of the visible church. Barring repentance and restoration, such apostates will indeed suffer an eschatological curse, but the curse comes from a separate covenant, the Adamic covenant of works. The New Covenant has Christ as its mediator and surety (Heb 7:22; 8:6); therefore, properly speaking, it threatens no curses, but offers nothing but blessings. Even an excommunicated person may repent and return to the covenant fold, lay hold of Christ and his righteousness, and receive the blessings. In a covenant of works, by contrast, restoration is impossible once the covenant has been violated. In the New Covenant, the message is grace, grace, infinite grace. It is ever and always a message of blessing offered freely to all who will believe — even to the poor, the wretched, the repeat offender, and yes, even to the apostate:
“The one who comes to me I will certainly not cast out” (John 6:37).
“We beg you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God!” (2 Cor 5:20).
“Let the one who is thirsty come; let the one who wishes take the water of life without cost” (Rev 22:17).
Indeed, so far from being a covenant curse, excommunication may even be the means that God uses to reclaim the offender and bring them back to the fold.
http://www.upper-register.com/blog/?p=44
LikeLike
Jeff,
G Vos via David R: The Sinaitic covenant is not a new covenant as concerns the essence of the matter.
It’s a good thing that we all agreed to this point many years ago.
Now if we can only all recognize that we have all agreed to this point, the conversation has a chance of breaking the logjam and becoming genuinely edifying.
Now if we can all not just claim to agree with it, but also actually speak consistently with our claim to agree with it, then yes, the conversation genuinely has that chance….
Jack replies, in essence, that the legal character of the Mosaic Covenant means that we may not assume that law and obedience function in the same way in both covenants.
In the context of our discussion, a “covenant of grace with a legal cloak” is to be understood differently from a “covenant of grace, end of story.”
You roundly rebuked me over my rejection of Jack’s formula, “The MC is not the CoG,” accusing me of being “uncharitable,” and asserting that Jack was “exactly right.” I responded that for one to affirm that “The MC is an administration of the CoG” is to implicitly reject the (contradictory) proposition that “the MC is not the CoG.”
I don’t think you’ve dealt with this (and I’m not asking for an apology) but you’ll need to do so more adequately if we’re to make progress. To affirm that the covenant of grace when clothed with the form of a covenant of works “is not the covenant of grace” is to affirm a falsehood. Just as it is not true that marble clothed with the form of a human being is not marble, and it is also not true that Jeff poised over his keyboard is not Jeff; in like fashion it is not true that the MC was not the CoG. (Sorry to belabor this but I think it’s important.)
Of course, this will also have implications for how we understand the (moral) law to have functioned during the Mosaic period, to wit, precisely as it functions under all administrations of the CoG.
Otoh, if you want to deny that the MC was the CoG; you’re welcome to do so, but then you will have (by implication) adopted a “third covenant” position (and we can then argue over the ramifications of that if we wish….).
You on the other hand have taken a works principle and a grace principle to be antonyms with regard to justice, so that if justice is demanded, then grace cannot be in operation.
No, I do not hold that position (assuming I understand you). In the CoG, Christ as Mediator fulfills the terms of justice so that we sinners can be received on gracious terms. (You affirmed this in what followed and I completely agree with everything you said in those paragraphs.) So I would certainly not say that “if justice is demanded, then grace cannot be in operation.” In the gospel, “Mercy and truth are met together; righteousness and peace have kissed each other” (Psalm 85:10). As Francis Roberts put it:
(I wouldn’t be surprised if most of the broader repub contingent are really just wanting to affirm the above thought rather than repub proper.)
The problem, however, is that your argument is Fuller’s argument against the Law/Gospel distinction! He argues right down the line with you that Lev 18 is all about covenant obedience, and that this carries forward even to today.
But I hold that Leviticus 18:5 speaks in terms of legal obedience (not evangelical), that it restated the terms of the CoW in a manner subservient to the CoG. I also hold to a stark law-gospel antithesis between the principles of works/grace inheritance.
And what repub offers in the insight that law and gospel function side-by-side (never commingled) because of the way that Law and Gospel uniquely function. The Law demands. And the Gospel justifies because another fulfills those demands.
No, it’s not repub that offers that insight. That insight is actually offered by standard Reformed covenant theology. Repub offers something else, namely, the notion that Israel was under a works principle demanding relative corporate obedience for land retention.
So we must restate the idea that merit principle and grace principle are antonymic. It is better to say that we either receive reward on our own merit, or on that of another, and never both. We receive righteousness by faith or by works, but not by both.
As you now will have seen, I agree with this.
Here’s where this matters: You have waffled on the notion of an accidental merit principle. First you denied, insisting that an “accidental merit principle” had to be a distinct covenant (Hiding Behind Kilts, p. 8); then you affirmed that there is an accidental merit principle in the MC (p. 3 of this thread); now you are denying again.
No, I have not waffled on this. When you initially claimed (if I understood you) that the notion that Israel was under a works principle for land retention was “accidental merit,” I denied that this is possible on the grounds that a works principle cannot exist apart from a legal covenant (and that principle would be of the substance of that covenant). But when you later asked (if I understood you) whether the law’s demand for perfect obedience, in its pedagogical use, could be construed as an “accidental merit principle” in relation to those whom it drove to Christ for salvation; I responded that, yes, I thought that might be true. (And btw, this would be true in the New Covenant as well, as I think you’ve sort of acknowledged.) These are obviously two different things.
(2) On the other hand, you want to assert that a grace principle and a merit principle cannot coexist without two separate covenants.
I think this is for the most part true. Most Reformed theologians speak of Christ’s merits in terms of the pactum salutis (or covenant of redemption), a covenant distinct from the CoG (different parties, conditions and promises), and they then understand the CoG to be the historical administration of the PS. But even if you would prefer not to divide these into two covenants, you are still dealing with three distinct parties, God, Christ as Mediator, and man, each of them bound by differing stipulations. So the principle would still hold that the same party can’t be under both a grace principle and a works principle in the same covenant.
You’ve also expressed reluctance to make a hard distinction between the national and the individual within the Mosaic Covenant. However, I think this distinction is both legitimate and also helpful.
I happily acknowledge a distinction such as you describe, but what I want to guard against is the idea that there are two distinct covenants being worked out rather than the one covenant of grace, which, though outwardly administered to the entire visible church, was substantially entered into only by the elect. “For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel.”
All of Israel was placed under drought by God, even though we know that 7,000 Israelites had never bowed the knee to Ba’al. Even those 7,000 were under the drought. Why? Because of the disobedience of Israel’s leaders. There is a federal solidarity of the nation under its king such that his behavior affects the whole nation (see also: David and the census, Mannasseh, Hezekiah, etc.).
The temporal sanctions were simply the mode, during that period of redemptive history, by which (1) the promise of the heavenly inheritance, (2) the possibility of exclusion from it, and (3) the connection between righteousness/holiness and consummate blessedness, were revealed to the people of God. Today, under the gospel, that promise of eternal reward is proclaimed freely, but during that period it was communicated by means of a typological “intrusion” (Kline’s term I believe) of heavenly realities. This however does not entail a works principle of inheritance.
In terms of the principle of corporate solidarity you mention, I agree that the federal relation of leaders and people typified that of Christ and the elect.
Btw, here is a way that this period of redemptive history connected with Eden: In both situations, by means of a typological “holy land” (Eden and Canaan respectively), the promise was communicated of eschatological consummation to be attained via the obedience of a federal head (Adam and Christ respectively). This is one reason Vos observed that the doctrine of last things is an older strand of revelation than is the doctrine of salvation.
Consider the question of judicial law, which you’ve been reluctant to touch.
Well, we haven’t discussed it much, but that needn’t necessarily indicate reluctance….
Why is it that the judicial law operates strictly according to behavior?
This was an additional aspect of the same typological phenomenon I attempted to describe above. To be “cut off from [one’s] people” by death typified final judgment (as you know), much as did the national exile from Canaan.
How do you account for this function of the law, a strict merit pactum principle?
This isn’t pactum merit (which was only possible for man in the state of innocence).
With the national/individual distinction, the fog is cleared: justified individuals operate coram deo according to a principle of evangelical obedience. Thus Naomi and Ruth. Meanwhile, the nation operates according to a legal principle, never with respect to justification but only with respect to outward and typological elements, always with the goal of pedagogy.
I agree. I just deny that this legal principle entails merit or a works principle (as I explained above).
Let me know if I missed something here you’d like me to comment on….
LikeLike
D.G.,
So far, you have not addressed Paul. Lots of Turretin, Fisher and blah blah blah.
You’ve forgotten already? Let me help:
“The covenant of Sinai was essentially the same as that established with Abraham … The reason why it is sometimes regarded as an entirely new covenant is that Paul repeatedly refers to the law and the promise as forming an antithesis, Rom. 4:13 ff.; Gal. 3:17. But it should be noted that the apostle does not contrast with the covenant of Abraham the Sinaitic covenant as a whole, but only the law as it functioned in this covenant, and this function only as it was misunderstood by the Jews.”
Sound neonomian to you?
LikeLike
JRC: And what repub offers in the insight that law and gospel function side-by-side (never commingled) because of the way that Law and Gospel uniquely function. The Law demands. And the Gospel justifies because another fulfills those demands.
DR: No, it’s not repub that offers that insight. That insight is actually offered by standard Reformed covenant theology.
… which explains why I believe that republication is, in fact, standard Reformed covenant theology.
DR: Repub offers something else, namely, the notion that Israel was under a works principle demanding relative corporate obedience for land retention.
To be precise, I have offered the notion that Israel was under a typological, pedagogical works or merit principle demanding what amounted to relative corporate obedience for land retention.
As we unpack this, it appears that you hold to the notion that Israel was under a typological, pedagogical legal principle demanding relative corporate obedience for land retention.
Yes?
LikeLike
David R: [Is it the case that] the law’s demand for perfect obedience, in its pedagogical use, could be construed as an “accidental merit principle” in relation to those whom it drove to Christ for salvation; I responded that, yes, I thought that might be true.
JRC: (2) On the other hand, you want to assert that a grace principle and a merit principle cannot coexist without two separate covenants.
DR:I think this is for the most part true.
This is entirely opaque to me. You clearly agree with Turretin that the legal cloak operates on a merit principle. You clearly believe that the grace principle and merit principle cannot coexist without two covenants. You clearly believe that the Mosaic Covenant is one covenant and not two. You very definitely believe that the Mosaic Covenant is the Covenant of Grace simpliciter.
How can all four of these things be true at the same time? How can the first three be true at the same time?
LikeLike
As we unpack this, it appears that you hold to the notion that Israel was under a typological, pedagogical legal principle demanding relative corporate obedience for land retention.
Yes?
Rather, I would say that the pedagogical legal principle promised eternal life on the grounds of perfect and personal obedience. There was nothing typological about it (except that the promised reward was typified by land). The same pedagogical legal principle is operative under the NT (as explained in WLC 95 and 96).
However, the principle by which the nation retained the typological inheritance via relative corporate obedience was gracious. As witnessed by Calvin, “Consequently, ‘to walk in the commandments of God,’ is not precisely equivalent to performing whatever the Law demands; but in this expression is included the indulgence with which God regards His children and pardons their faults.”
LikeLike
David R., Paul?
LikeLike
Jeff, your heavenly crowns are becoming more numerous and shinier as you interact.
LikeLike
D.G.,
How can you possibly this:
And then you say that God rewards imperfect obedience but you deny a works principle. Which is it oh speaker who employs both sides of his mouth.
and then this:
Jeff, your heavenly crowns are becoming more numerous and shinier as you interact.
without employing both sides of your mouth?
LikeLike
DR:I think this is for the most part true.
This is entirely opaque to me. You clearly agree with Turretin that the legal cloak operates on a merit principle. You clearly believe that the grace principle and merit principle cannot coexist without two covenants. You clearly believe that the Mosaic Covenant is one covenant and not two. You very definitely believe that the Mosaic Covenant is the Covenant of Grace simpliciter.
How can all four of these things be true at the same time? How can the first three be true at the same time?
Okay, I think maybe I see what the problem is. I am viewing the covenant in terms of its essence, i.e., parties, promise and condition. What you are calling an accidental works principle, I view not as something that is truly part of the covenant (substantially), but rather something that is simply the mode of dispensing the covenant. It has actual “existence” only within its own covenant, that is, the covenant of works. But the law functions pedagogically in all administrations of the CoG, not just the Mosaic. I don’t know, does that help?
LikeLike
David R., Paul?
You mean where he says that Israel could merit land by imperfect obedience?
LikeLike
David, how do you deconstruct John 1?
“For from his fullness we have all received, grace upon grace. For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.”
LikeLike
Muddy, why would I need to deconstruct? How does John 1 prove a typological works principle for land inheritance? Why not rather understand it in terms of the standard Reformed view that at Sinai the law was delivered as a perfect rule of righteousness, declaring “the will of God to mankind, directing and binding every one to personal, perfect, and perpetual conformity and obedience thereunto, in the frame and disposition of the whole man, soul and body, and in performance of all those duties of holiness and righteousness which he oweth to God and man: promising life upon the fulfilling, and threatening death upon the breach of it”?
LikeLike
David R., I didn’t say Jeff’s good works are required for his salvation. You’ve repeatedly asserted that obedience is required for salvation.
I don’t suspect you to see the difference. Either you were jilted by a Klinean or you can’t think.
LikeLike
David R., no the Paul who anathematizes anyone who says obedience is required for salvation.
LikeLike
David R: Okay, I think maybe I see what the problem is. I am viewing the covenant in terms of its essence, i.e., parties, promise and condition. What you are calling an accidental works principle, I view not as something that is truly part of the covenant (substantially), but rather something that is simply the mode of dispensing the covenant. It has actual “existence” only within its own covenant, that is, the covenant of works … I don’t know, does that help?
Dear David, this is what I’ve been arguing all along.
LikeLike
David R: But the law functions pedagogically in all administrations of the CoG, not just the Mosaic.
This sentence I didn’t understand. Wait, maybe I do. So in the OT, all three parts of the law function pedagogically; in the NT, the moral law?
If so, I agree.
LikeLike
JRC: As we unpack this, it appears that you hold to the notion that Israel was under a typological, pedagogical legal principle demanding relative corporate obedience for land retention. Yes?
DR: Rather, I would say that the pedagogical legal principle promised eternal life on the grounds of perfect and personal obedience. There was nothing typological about it (except that the promised reward was typified by land). The same pedagogical legal principle is operative under the NT (as explained in WLC 95 and 96).
Certainly we would be in agreement with respect to the moral law here.
However, the principle by which the nation retained the typological inheritance via relative corporate obedience was gracious. As witnessed by Calvin, “Consequently, ‘to walk in the commandments of God,’ is not precisely equivalent to performing whatever the Law demands; but in this expression is included the indulgence with which God regards His children and pardons their faults.”
I’m choking on “was gracious, full stop.”
For one thing, you’ve already said several times that Deut 28-30 was a part of the legal cloak and not the gracious substance.
For another, it’s a strange kind of grace that destroys its object. And we must not lose sight of the fact that the theocracy is ultimately destroyed.
For a third, the text of Deut 28-30 is clearly (a) full of demand and sanction, and (b) speaking with reference to land and not eternal life.
So how is this?
LikeLike
Well, David, I should’ve just listened to RJ and let others deal with the MC. I just see you repeatedly bulldoze distinctions with your precommitments to what you see as positions we all must hold (or else!). One should read each particular historical covenant, concretely determine its agreements, conditions & consequences and only then proceed look to categories like law & grace to see how the particular covenant is best characterized. But you bring the allegedly mandatory categories in so early you don’t see the particulars, hence get tripped up when you have to account for the particulars.
LikeLike
One should read each particular historical covenant, concretely determine its agreements, conditions & consequences and only then proceed look to categories like law & grace to see how the particular covenant is best characterized.
If you’d care to demonstrate, I’m all ears.
LikeLike
This sentence I didn’t understand. Wait, maybe I do. So in the OT, all three parts of the law function pedagogically; in the NT, the moral law?
Right.
LikeLike
“If you’d care to demonstrate, I’m all ears.”
I’ve seen this conversation. It’s like when you go to bed with your head spinning, then you wake up expecting something different but it’s still spinning. I can only deal with the head spinning thing for so long. Although longer than most probably. The point is, you can’t even read Deut 28 without bulldozing it as you read it. In this case, the initial assessment of a 12 year old reading that chapter will probably be closer to the mark than yours because you’ve committed to the meaning before you’ve read the text.
LikeLike
Jeff, another crown just came off the glory assembly line.
LikeLike
For one thing, you’ve already said several times that Deut 28-30 was a part of the legal cloak and not the gracious substance.
Right, but I also pointed out that the legal cloak is pedagogical (thus, not a CoW). And that for those who partake of the (gracious) substance of the covenant, the law is a rule of life.
LikeLike
David,
The a priori commitment Muddy speaks is your assumption that God cannot enter into a covenant of works with post-fall sinners. This makes you unable to read Deut. 28 and accept what it clearly says. What you have not yet demonstrated is the why. If God can bind post fall man, as you noted “to personal, perfect, and perpetual conformity and obedience thereunto…,promising life upon the fulfilling, and threatening death upon the breach of it,” to show them their inability to obey and show their need for Christ, then why can’t he also do this on the typological level for the same reason?
LikeLike
Dr. Hart-
That was precisely my point that those things were true of Adam at Creation. But only when God entered into the CoW was Adam promised reward for his obedience. At Creation Adam was capable of obeying the law perfectly, but he wasn’t promised reward because his obedience was only what was due to God as his creator. Then God entered into covenant and said: if you obey perfectly you will inherit/earn eternal life. The difference is not in what Adam was able to do but in what he would receive for doing what he was able to do.
The need of Christ is in relation to the covenant of works. Because Adam is our federal head we are all under the covenant of works and therefore, because we cannot meet those conditions, we (Man) are all under God’s wrath. Christ, however, can and did meet the demands of the law and so those who are in the covenant of grace have his perfect righteousness and obedience imputed to them. If Adam had passed his probation then there woulddn’t have been the need for another to redeem Adam’s fallen seed: because there wouldn’t have been a fallen seed.
So Christ merited the salvation of His people, the elect, those in the covenant of grace by meeting the demands of the CoW: which all men are under but only to the elect will Christ’s atonement be credited. I’m not sure what I said that would imply otherwise. Why did you capitalise “of Haddington”?
LikeLike
Ephesians 1: 3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with EVERY spiritual blessing in the heavenly places,
“The hireling flees, because he is an hireling, and cares not for the sheep (John 10.13).” The hireling does not become a hireling by fleeing; he flees because he is a hireling.”But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you (John 10.26).” The individual was a hireling, and consequently acted as a hireling. Sheep believe because they are sheep. They bring forth the fruit of believing after their kind.
Those not His sheep will be rewarded, not for what they did, but for what they are (and were born being). Their deeds were but a manifestation of their nature. Their works are all fruits from a corrupt tree. “Every good tree brings forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree brings forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit (Matthew 7.16-18).”
Revelation 22 11 Let the evildoer still do evil, and the filthy still be filthy, and the righteous still do right, and the holy still be holy.” 12 “Behold, I am coming soon, bringing my recompense with me, to repay each one for what he has done.
Jesus Christ dos not say, “Your recompense is with me,” but “My recompense is with me.” Matthew 20:15— “Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with MINE OWN? “…Behold, his reward is with him, and his work before him (Isaiah 62.11).”
God the Father had given all authority to Jesus to reward both sheep and goats according to their judicial standing. The works of the non-elect did not cause their condemnation; if so, we would all be condemned. Good works by God’s children do not cause their election; their election caused their good works. Humans are rewarded by God on the basis of their calling.
Of what sort are our works? We do not work to gain assurance of our justification. We gain assurance of our justification in order to work with the proper motives of thankfulness to God, at the same time fearing God so that we know that no work of ours gives us anything extra before God because every blessing is given us by Christ’s work.
LikeLike
For another, it’s a strange kind of grace that destroys its object. And we must not lose sight of the fact that the theocracy is ultimately destroyed.
You asked me about the principle whereby they retained the land. If you asked me about the principle whereby they lost it I would give a different answer.
LikeLike
Alexander, so in entering the CofW with Adam, God was gracious?
LikeLike
David R., what? They lost the land by ontological merit?
LikeLike
For a third, the text of Deut 28-30 is clearly (a) full of demand and sanction …
Well, that’s the nature of law, isn’t it? But believers are delivered from it as a covenant of works.
… and (b) speaking with reference to land and not eternal life.
Sure, but again, that’s how the promise of eternal life was revealed in the OT.
LikeLike
Alexander: “but he wasn’t promised reward because his obedience was only what was due to God as his creator. ”
Me: This is an abstraction based on the philosophical considerations of the freedom of God and a creature’s dependency but makes a-covenantal and a-biblical presumptions as to the way/nature of the biblical God’s dealings(necessarily covenantal) and further bypasses the idea of an imago dei creation inherently crowned with sabbatical enthronement in distinction from all other creatures. The fall is likewise particular to the inherent nature of an Imago Dei creation. IOW, you’re trading on extra-biblical considerations of a transcendent deity.
LikeLike
The a priori commitment Muddy speaks is your assumption that God cannot enter into a covenant of works with post-fall sinners.
I have yet to see anyone else in this thread share your assumption that He has. Not to mention your insistence on the idea that this “covenant of works” He has entered into with sinners is the covenant of grace.
LikeLike
Dr. Hart-
Yes. Because any movement of God towards Man in Man’s favour is gracious. Otherwise, from the moment God created Man, He was in debt to Man. How can that be? How can God be in debt to anything unless He first, sovereignly, makes Himself a debtor? The two covenants are not the same; there is far more grace in the covenant of grace than in works. But remember these terms are extra-biblical. There have been numerous terms used by the Reformed for both covenants. But the substantive difference is that in the CoW Man had to justify himself; in the CoG the spiritually dead, Hell-deserving sinner- unable to justify himself- is justified by the work of another freely and graciously imputed to him.
Sean- I recognised most of the words but have no idea what they were saying.
LikeLike
D.G., you’re Santa’s little celestial helper?
LikeLike
Alexander, I’m saying that you’re letting philosophical abstractions as to the nature of a transcendent god, drive too much of your formulation. The encouragement is to let the scriptures dictate our understandings.
LikeLike
Sean- I recognised most of the words but have no idea what they were saying.
It’s Kline-speak. Just nod and smile.
LikeLike
I’ve seen this conversation.
Me too. And my guess is you wouldn’t be satisfied that I’ve been “faithful to the text of Scripture” unless my conclusions involved Gordon’s “difference in kind” and Kline’s “works principle in the typological upper stratum.”
LikeLike
David, at least is succinct and biblical. Some Heb 4 for the uninitiated:
……although his works were finished from the foundation of the world. 4 For he has somewhere spoken of the seventh day in this way: “And God rested on the seventh day from all his works.” 5 And again in this passage he said,
“They shall not enter my rest.”
6 Since therefore it remains for some to enter it, and those who formerly received the good news failed to enter because of disobedience, 7 again he appoints a certain day, “Today,” saying through David so long afterward, in the words already quoted,
“Today, if you hear his voice,
do not harden your hearts.”
8 For if Joshua had given them rest, God[b] would not have spoken of another day later on. 9 So then, there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God, 10 for whoever has entered God’s rest has also rested from his works as God did from his.
LikeLike
“I have yet to see anyone else in this thread share your assumption that He has.”
God established a typological cov. of works with Israel as a nation for Israel to remain in the land and receive his blessings listed in Deut. 28. No one has said that? What am I missing here?
“Not to mention your insistence on the idea that this “covenant of works” He has entered into with sinners is the covenant of grace.”
That has never been my insistence. I said the typological cov. of works furthers the purposes of the covenant of grace.
LikeLike
God established a typological cov. of works with Israel as a nation for Israel to remain in the land and receive his blessings listed in Deut. 28. No one has said that? What am I missing here?
Well, I for one would be interested in a show of hands from those who are happy with that formulation. I wouldn’t be surprised if there were a few others. But what continues to boggle my mind is how you can affirm that while also denying that what you’re describing is substantially different from both the CoW and the CoG.
LikeLike
“Well, I for one would be interested in a show of hands from those who are happy with that formulation.”
I’d be interested in hearing why you think this is unusual? I am simply summarizing Kline – shorthand of course.
“But what continues to boggle my mind is how you can affirm that while also denying that what you’re describing is substantially different from both the CoW and the CoG.”
It is not substantially different from the CoW with Adam. It is the CoW utilizing typology. I thought we covered this already.
LikeLike
Jeff,
Dear David, this is what I’ve been arguing all along.
But you had said: “You clearly believe that the grace principle and merit principle cannot coexist without two covenants.” I then responded that the works principle “has actual ‘existence’ only within its own covenant, that is, the covenant of works.”
So are you saying that you agree with me that a grace principle and works principle can’t coexist in the same covenant? (I’m not quite clear on what you’re saying you’ve been arguing all along….)
LikeLike
Some Heb 4 for the uninitiated:
Right, the typological intrusion of heavenly realities shared by both Eden and Canaan involves holy time as well as holy space. And yes, they also both feature a works principle of inheritance, but only for the two federal heads (imo).
LikeLike
Alexander, so because God hasn’t entered into a covenant with our cat, Cordelia, God is obligated to her?
That explains much.
LikeLike
David R., only ontologically.
LikeLike
David R., “I’ve been faithful to Scripture.” Funny, unless I missed the Obedience Boys Authorized Version with sections of Turretin and Calvin and notes supplied by Mark Jones.
LikeLike
David, which exactly makes the point, vis a vis the discussion with Alexander. And your pre-commitment to limiting even the hypothetical consideration in repub. leaves you explaining away Paul’s authoritative interpretation. At least as best as I’ve followed. I haven’t tried to keep up with every curve in the road you and Jeff have traveled.
LikeLike
David R., there goes my hand.
And there goes another indication that you haven’t had the slightest comprehension of republication. And you were a great adherent of it before your Hagar Road conversion to Kerux. Pssshaww.
LikeLike
Sean, I can’t affirm or deny, as I don’t know what you mean by “the hypothetical consideration in repub.”
LikeLike
David, hypothetical as in no sinner could keep it.
LikeLike
Sean, I’m still not clear on what you think I’m limiting but given that I was mislabeled as a Murrayite from my first comment, I’m not surprised at what anyone here imagines my precommitments to be.
LikeLike
David, fair enough. I haven’t stayed engaged the entire way through, so I don’t know every clarification you’ve made. I was primarily trading off the misinterpretation view, which you espoused to explain Paul which, last I read, was Murrayite.
LikeLike
Sean, no problem. Perhaps it depends on the nature of the misinterpretation or “misconception.” I’m not familiar enough with Murray to know precisely what he was arguing against, but it’s clear enough that Reformed theologians in general have argued that Paul’s opponents mistook a gracious covenant for a legal one (as we’ve seen from Berkhof, etc.). But that doesn’t mean those same theologians didn’t understand Leviticus 18:5 to teach the righteousness of the law.
LikeLike
D.G.,
David R., there goes my hand.
I can’t tell whether they allow poker up there on the glory crown assembly line or if you’re merely indicating assent to Todd’s view of the MC as a CoW.
And there goes another indication that you haven’t had the slightest comprehension of republication. And you were a great adherent of it before your Hagar Road conversion to Kerux. Pssshaww.
Since I’m unclear on the above, I’m also unclear on the cause of your additional insight into my profound ignorance; hence I can’t respond.
LikeLike
David R: So are you saying that you agree with me that a grace principle and works principle can’t coexist in the same covenant? (I’m not quite clear on what you’re saying you’ve been arguing all along….)
I’ve been arguing along that the works principle seen in the law (hence the MC) is administrative, non-substantial, typological, reflective of the CoW, pedagogical …
How many ways need it be said?
But no, I don’t agree with your principle as stated … Nor do you agree with yourself. On your view (and mine) the MC is one covenant, within which are a grace principle that is substantial and a works principle that is accidental (that, is the mode of administration only).
So the principle needs tweaking before your own view can be consistent with it.
LikeLike
Jeff, a few gems for the latest crown.
LikeLike
JRC: … and (b) speaking with reference to land and not eternal life.
DR: Sure, but again, that’s how the promise of eternal life was revealed in the OT.
Along with this, you have mentioned previously that possession of Canaan was “sacramental.”
Could you spell out carefully what your view is of land possession (and land non-possession, since that works on a different principle in your view). Would you say that land possession conveyed eternal life in a sacramental manner when partaken by faith? Are there Reformed authors that take a sacramental view?
Thanks. For better or worse, this particular construction is new to me.
LikeLike
@ DGH: OK, I’m laughing already. Is this a gentle way of saying “give it up”?
LikeLike
In reaction to the Zionists and to the premills (and to Harold Camping), not many of us seem to talk much anymore about Christ’s second coming. I agree with John Fesko that there will be no more extra judgment on that resurrection day for those who are already justified. Since every blessing for those who are justified is given by Christ’s finished work, none of Christ’s sheep will get extra crowns that other of Christ’s sheep don’t get. I am not saying that glorification means that we won’t envy the difference. I am saying there will be no difference, because Christ Himself is our great reward.
Click to access JETS_35-2_159-172_Blomberg.pdf
JT— “reward” (which is always in the singular in the NT) refers to entering eternal life. And the greatest joy of heaven will be seeing God face to face (Rev. 22:4). Every believer longs for the
day when “we shall be like him, because we shall see him as he is” (1 John 3:2), when we shall “enter into the joy of [our] master” (Matthew 25:21, 23). Five proof-texts reference believers receiving a “crown” (1 Cor. 9:25; 1 Thess. 2:19; 2 Tim. 4:8; James 1:12; 1 Pet. 5:4). Though it is popular to see these as different types of reward (crown of righteousness, crown of gold, crown of life, etc.) a majority of commentators believe these are different ways of referring to the one reward of eternal life.
Christ is eternal life. Knowing Christ is eternal life. Justification in Christ results in eternal life.
LikeLike
For the most part, I’ve been an observer on this debate, and pulled out my copy of TLNF to continue reading it.
I would say that next to holding to the Reformed view of Justification, this issue is paramount for the church to grasp and understand.
I can clearly see from this conversation why I had so much trouble being assured of my salvation through the years – it was the mixture of theology that contributed to it that was so prevalent in evangelical and Reformed circles. Also, on a corporate level with respect to churches, you can see why SO MANY REFORMED CHURCHES have gotten it wrong. They are actually in the land of Canaan again binding themselves to a contract, thinking that their piety is going to bring about God’s blessing. I sincerely wonder if this is the reason for heavy-handed discipleship and an abuse of church discipline (sin in the camp, God’s hand of blessing withdrawn until it’s dealt with). No wonder the PCA is in trouble. This would explain the reason for much of what is known as ‘discipleship’ today – it’s fear & obedience-based instead of love-based – fear of God’s wrath and displeasure on the individual and the flock, so obedience is prioritized over resting in Christ. As we rest, we are active, because we are given His desires, for others to know the Good News, and to minister to others – our family, neighbors, and fellow believers.
Just from watching and observing on this post, I see two dynamics at work:
– those who argue for ‘obedience’ as essential for salvation seem to me to be like I was for so many years – anxious, uncertain, unable to rest, unable to trust in Christ’s total and finished work, and are very concerned about rewards – otherwise, there would not be such a push for trying to authenticate ‘obedience’ as a biblical requirement for salvation. Among those not able to rest in Christ’s complete work, Republication is but one issue of contention among many – because of the inability to rest and trust Christ alone for salvation.
– those who argue for complete trust in Christ’s work are already resting in it, are desirous to always be changed by Christ, and seek to honor God’s Law in the 3rd use sense, but are not troubled about their imperfect obedience, because they know that they are unable to perfect themselves, and they are also not concerned about rewards – in the sense of seeking after them, earning them, etc. Christ is truly the author and finisher of their faith.
LikeLike
David,
Given Jeff’s struggle that you have not seemed to hear what he is saying all along, and given your surprise that I describe the MC as a covenant of works when I have been calling it a typological covenant of works all along, and given your not understanding what Sean meant by it being hypothetical when we have said all along it is hypothetical even on the typological level because the Lord announced from the beginning that they would not be able to keep the conditions of the covenant and would be exiled, is it possible DGH is correct that you may not understand the view you are criticizing? Have you actually read “The Law Is Not Of Faith,” or just the critiques?
LikeLike
Dr. Hart-
What on earth are you talking about? For a start, I said God is not obligated to do anything unless He makes Himself so. Ergo, before the CoW there was no requirement to reward Adam for his obedience because it was what he owed God; after the CoW was made there was the requirement to reward Adam because God said He would reward Adam. You’ve just switched it around in your comment about your cat.
Second, these references to your cat are just plain stupid and totally inappropriate to the matter being discussed. You need to learn to discern the difference between someone being polemical and someone trying to have a conversation. You are always on the offensive and it just gets tiring after a while. You come across as the Bayly brothers: unwilling to engage people’s questions because you assume they are doing what you typically do: just out to attack.
Sean-
I get your concern, but these things have to be ironed out. God is logical; faith is logical: we need to logically explicate these doctrines.
LikeLike
No, Jeff, it’s a way of saying you are way more sanctified (patient) than I (as if regulars didn’t know that).
LikeLike
Alexander, I don’t think your two-stage view of creation and covenant does justice to God. If he is loving and caring — which he is — why would he create a creature in his own image and have to decide whether to enter into a covenant with him?
Sorry, but you hurt God more than you hurt me or Cordelia.
LikeLike
Jeff,
Could you spell out carefully what your view is of land possession (and land non-possession, since that works on a different principle in your view …
Before I attempt that, let me just verify: Your main thesis has been (throughout this discussion) that under the terms of the MC, Israel was required to merit their retention of the land inheritance by their corporate obedience. Additionally, you argue that this is the position of historic Reformed covenant theology. Is this a fair construction?
LikeLike
Dr. Hart-
Well God DID go into covenant with Adam. We don’t have an alternative reality where this didn’t happen to look and see what that might be like. God did create Adam; Adam did owe obedience to God; God did enter into covenant with Adam.
But just because it seems, to us, unloving or uncaring for God to create Adam in the way I’ve described doesn’t mean it is. Since when did the Reformed view Man’s way of looking at things as determinative? If there’s any point in discussing the doctrine of God we have to discuss it objectively as well as subjectively. We have to be clear who and what God is. Are the doctrines of divine impassibility and simplicity “hurtful” to God because they paint Him in an abstract fashion?
LikeLike
Alexander, what is the point in maintaining that “before the CoW there was no requirement to reward Adam for his obedience because it was what he owed God”? A cursory read of even the confessions and catechisms doesn’t reveal they’re all that interested in this rather arbitrary point. Maybe because God is a personal and relating God and actually has a meaningful point in creating beings in his image. The way you hang onto this point makes God out to be closer to a distant and arbitrary deity.
LikeLike
Todd,
… given your surprise that I describe the MC as a covenant of works when I have been calling it a typological covenant of works all along …
Nice try…. I was not at all surprised that you describe the MC that way, as that is indeed consistent with what you have been saying all along. What I actually commented on though was what you said here: “The a priori commitment Muddy speaks is your assumption that God cannot enter into a covenant of works with post-fall sinners.” At least one person on “your side” of this debate has affirmed agreement with my “assumption.” I was merely curious to see where others stood on that specific question.
LikeLike
Zrim-
Well, the point in maintaining it is that’s it true. Again, the reason I “hang onto” this point is that it’s true.
I think you mean “why do I keep going on about it” and the answer is: because Dr. Hart keeps coming back at me on it. If I’m going to be continuously challenged and asked questions on a particular point I may well keep answering them. You have your minutiae, I have mine: why are you getting all up in my grill about mine when I don’t about yours?
Furthermore, it was a point made by both Fisher and John Brown of Haddington in their catechisms on the SC. They obviously felt it was important. And, actually, question 12 of the Shorter Catechism makes the point:
Q. 12. What special act of providence did God exercise towards man in the estate wherein he was created?
A. When God had created man, he entered into a covenant of life with him, upon condition of perfect obedience; forbidding him to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, upon the pain of death.
The covenant was made after God created him (Genesis 2:16-17).
Reformed theology is full of “minutiae” and the like. Why are you taking issue with me? Why are you not having a go at Jeff for making the same points over and over again?
LikeLike
Alexander, no. The estate wherein Adam was created included the covenant. You can read it that way as much as your way. And your way is at odds with Van Til and Kline for starters.
Or think about God creating man in knowledge, righteousness, and holiness. Wasn’t that image of God in man there from the very start. Creation of man was covenantal.
LikeLike
The presence of a heavy layer typology of works-covenant material bound up with the Sinai administration IS a major proof (or, it WAS a major proof in bygone days!) that there had been made a thoroughgoing Covenant of Works–merit and reward of eternal life–between God and man in Eden.
There was an unquestionably work-like character to the Mosaic administration. Act.15:10 well expresses the burdensome nature of it. How can one read that text–Peter’s sentiment–along with the Pauline characterization found in Galatians, and John’s Prologue, and Hebrews 8… and not “play up” the discontinuities?
Yes, there is but one covenant of grace; and the Old Covenant was an administration of it. But there was a “glory overlay,” and a “veil” (2Cor.3:14) put in place by God himself to blind the reprobate. Faith alone could penetrate all the distraction–including the 613 laws!–to discover the God of grace. Up-front, OT religion was intentionally a “theology of glory.” Which is to say: works encrusted the Old Covenant.
It is no wonder, then, that so many under the OC treated obedience to the commandments as meritorious for salvation, or adopted a kind of congruent-merit view–either personal, or liturgical (ala Jer.7:4). The legal-presentation of the law (in the absence of good teaching) lent itself to that interpretation.
If to that reality is added an Eden-like promise that legal obedience will prolong national life in the land (as in the Garden), and disobedience will bring expulsion, the shape of the first Covenant (of Works) ought not be missed. It doesn’t mean that the CoW has been “reestablished,” as much as the still-terrible doom of the original CoW is allowed to overshadow the national tenure. It is a “burden,” because every individual sinner should be painfully aware that he is so far from helping the cause of staying in the land; but he is rather an existential threat to the tenure.
The CoG and CoW aspects in Moses are not strictly parallel, or equal partners. I happen to disagree with Kline that they are “upper/lower register;” to me, those distinctions are much too esoteric. The CoG (theology of mercy) is fundamental and essential to Moses; David gets that, Ps.32:1. But the legal glory-overlay (theology of glory) gives Moses an overpowering works cast or character. It was meant to be so, in order that we might see that “grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.”
I am adamantly against anyone bringing human works into play anywhere in the Covenant of Grace. I cannot imagine the horror of standing for review in the last day clad in a single thread of my own creation. The language of some today, that “my works are necessary for my salvation,” meant in any sense, is subversive of the Reformed faith. How can we speak like this, who understand the theology of the cross: that I have been crucified with Christ; that I have died and been buried with him? The glory-overlay is GONE. The burden has been lifted.
“I cry out to you; save me, and I will keep your testimonies.”
We love him, because he first loved us.
LikeLike
Jeff, in addition to the above, you also argue that, at no point in their history did Israel actually attain to the level of relative corporate obedience requisite for them to merit retention of the land. Correct?
LikeLike
@ David,
My thesis, giving some redundant stuff for clarity, is
* During the Mosaic Covenant, salvation was by grace through faith, the merits of Christ being applied to his people.
* Additionally, the Law was proclaimed as a republication of the Covenant of Works. The republication was material and not formal, inasmuch as the demands of the CoW were restated, but were not enforced as in the Garden.
* The functions of the Law lay alongside grace, never commingled with it in substance.
* The Law served the traditional three functions of pedagogy, restraint, and rule of life.
* With regard to individuals, the Moral Law (given expression in the Decalogue) was pedagogical in that it demanded what no-one could deliver and exposed sin by means of transgression. This function was not typological in nature, inasmuch as it holds in all eras. Likewise, for believers in all ages, the Moral Law functions as a rule of life. This would have been true of all justified individuals in Israel, but not of the unjustified individuals.
* The Ceremonies were pedagogical in two ways: (1) the meaning of the ceremonies pointed to Christ, while (2) the legal demand of the ceremonies showed that sin demands sacrifice. Both of these ways were typological, and the legal demand of the Law fell upon both justified and unjustified alike. The (2) legal demand was administered according to obedience, not according to faith. However, for those who (1) sacrificed by faith, the sacrifices were sacramental in a manner similar to communion today.
* The Judicial Law was a type of God’s judgment upon sin and fell upon individual Israelites as members of the nation regardless of their faith or justified status. As such, it operated according to obedience and not by faith: The justified and unjustified alike were punished for their behavior, up to and including destruction.
Hence, the Judicial Law never formed a part of the “rule of life” for believing Israelites. I could only condemn.
* With regard to the nation, the land sanctions were a part of the judicial law applied to the nation as a corporate unit. The land itself is a type of future heaven, and the land sanctions showed the holiness that is necessary to enter God’s final rest. The land sanctions served only a pedagogical purpose: You are not able to serve the Lord your God, and when you do not, you will be destroyed (Josh 24). In that way, the people were driven to Christ depicted in the sacrifices.
At no point did the Israelites meet the standard of “Obeying all that I have commanded, turning neither to the left nor to the right.”
However, the land sanctions were not enforced strictly. Rather, for the sake of “Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob”, judgment was repeatedly delayed and rescinded. This also occurred federally under the headship of other typological mediators: Hezekiah, Moses (Ex. 32-34, esp 32.14), Joshua, the Judges.
For this reason, it is often said (truly) that God expected relative obedience for land possession. This is true in the pragmatic sense of how it turned out. However, as I think we’ve agreed, the mechanism for this relative obedience was First, the absolute demand of the Law, followed by Second, a delay or withdrawal of judgment on behalf of a mediator.
ALL of the land sanction framework operated pedagogically and typologically ONLY. The land was not God’s final rest, but a type thereof. The intercession obtained by Moses was not a remission of sins (how could it be?) but a type thereof. The exile to Babylon was not hell, but a type thereof.
It operated pedagogically in that it demonstrated that salvation could not come through obedience, for obedience was not possible.
All of this, so far, is as far as I know it, boilerplate Reformed theology with an eye particularly on Calvin, Hodge, and Vos.
What is unquestioned is that God required obedience as the pre-condition for staying in the land. What is now debated is whether we should call that situation “merit.” This is Kline’s addition to the conversation. I think it’s defensible, but I wouldn’t go to the stake for it.
I *don’t* think that the charge that Kline is commingling works and grace can stick, however. It is abundantly clear that the Law demanded obedience for keeping the land. If that demand was administered graciously, that does not lessen the demand, but fulfills it in another.
Your turn …
LikeLike
David R: Jeff, in addition to the above, you also argue that, at no point in their history did Israel actually attain to the level of relative corporate obedience requisite for them to merit retention of the land. Correct?
I would say that what the Law demanded was perfect obedience, or something very close to that. There’s a whole lot of “do not depart from my Law” everywhere throughout the Law and Joshua.
However, the Law’s demands were often remitted on behalf of another, such as Moses. Thus, the practical effect was that God required relative obedience to stay in the land.
Did Israel ever stay? Certainly. Did they ever stay because God said, “You have done well, my faithful nation, at least in a relative sense?” I cannot think of a single passage where this is said. Can you? What I see is Jeremiah 31.
LikeLike
Alexander, I already said why I am taking issue with your pre-covenant point–because it neglects the necessarily covenantal and relational nature of God with his people, which in turn makes him a demigod. When we took this up a few repub threads ago and you were making this very same point, I said the same thing in response. It’s true that God fundamentally deserves obedience, but as a creature I need more incentive than that. I want something in return. Maybe you think that impious, but I think that is how we were made in the first place and it is part of what makes Christianity distinct from any variety of paganism. The former treats human beings with dignity, the former as chattle.
LikeLike
Jeff,
With all that you said there I am still unclear as to whether or not you would agree or disagree with the way I formulated your thesis. Can you comment on that (all three points)?
Regarding all the points you just enumerated, I don’t see anything that I particularly disagree with, though I might want to ask a clarifying question or two.
The one thing you said that really touches on the debate is: “What is now debated is whether we should call that situation ‘merit.’ This is Kline’s addition to the conversation. I think it’s defensible, but I wouldn’t go to the stake for it.” If that question is not one you are fighting for, then I wonder if we are spinning our wheels.
LikeLike
Dr. Hart-
If I disagree with Van Til then I’m doing something right. The guy doesn’t even know how many persons there are in the Trinity (it ain’t four VT). The Genesis text clearly shows God making the covenant with a living, breathing Adam: he had already been created. I’m with the older Reformed: much safer ground.
Zrim-
But you’re not Adam. You’re not inherently righteous and holy. Maybe you are partly right: after all, Adam rebelled against God. But I don’t take Man’s view of things as determinative of God.
LikeLike
Alexander, but I do have Adam’s hard wiring, which includes notions of fellowship and reward and judgment and punishment. I want the former and not the latter, because God made it that way. If opposable thumbs are what distinguish me from the ape, then these notions are what distinguish me from the robot in perpetual prostrate position.
LikeLike
David, was this your statement? (Confused … I only see two points here)
Your main thesis has been (throughout this discussion) that under the terms of the MC, Israel was required to merit their retention of the land inheritance by their corporate obedience.
The main thesis would strike “merit” and replace “obtain.” The minor subthesis would be “and obtaining by obedience as precondition is a subspecies of merit.”
Additionally, you argue that this is the position of historic Reformed covenant theology. Is this a fair construction?
Yes, save for the use of the word “merit” here — but not the concept of requirement to obtain by obedience over against obtaining by receptive faith.
In other words, I view Calvin et al as putting forward Deut 28 – 30 as a straightforward portion of the Law that Israel was under, not like NT believers today. If one wishes to say, “Yes, but that isn’t merit exactly”, then I won’t argue. If one wishes to say, “No, Deut 28 – 30 is according to grace and not according to works”, then I will.
LikeLike
Jeff,
The main thesis would strike “merit” and replace “obtain.”
If that is your main thesis, then I really don’t see that I disagree.
The minor subthesis would be “and obtaining by obedience as precondition is a subspecies of merit.”
If this subthesis presupposes the historic definition of “merit,” then you would clearly be incorrect. But if you define “merit” along Klinean lines, that is another story.
Additionally, you argue that this is the position of historic Reformed covenant theology. Is this a fair construction?
Yes, save for the use of the word “merit” here — but not the concept of requirement to obtain by obedience over against obtaining by receptive faith.
I think I can agree, as long as you grant that “obtain by obedience” is not antithetical to “obtaining by receptive faith” (as would be the case if the obedience required was perfect and personal). Otherwise, how do you explain Calvin: “Consequently, ‘to walk in the commandments of God,’ is not precisely equivalent to performing whatever the Law demands; but in this expression is included the indulgence with which God regards His children and pardons their faults”?
LikeLike
I’m glad that we’re somewhere. A major goal in my interaction has been to establish that republication is not (necessarily? Primarily?) a sub-cov view, that when Todd and I say that the Mosaic Covenant was one and not two, that we are serious and clear-minded about that.
The larger, pastoral goal has been to expose some of the inconsistencies in the anti-repub position – not against you personally, but the position – because I view it as spiritually perilous to make a strict equivalence between Israel’s situation and ours, to say that their requirement to obey to keep the land was just an instance of third use of the Law.
For in the end, they were under the Law in a way that we are not. Further, the land sanctions were types that have expired. And most importantly, all of Israel, justified and unjustified, were treated alike under the land sanctions. This is why Jer 31 announces the coming of a new covenant that is not like the Mosaic.
So to make a strict equivalence of the two situations is really to put us back under the Law. And to do so for the reason of “combatting antinomianism” is a classic blunder.
That’s my hand. Now, how about land and sacrament?
LikeLike
Mark Jones, p 24–“There was a perfect synergy involved in Jesus’ human obedience and the Holy Spirit’s influence…Following this pattern, although man is completely passive at the moment of regeneration, he cooperates with God in sanctification.”
The Christology of Mark Jones consists of equating the justification of Christ with the sanctification of a sinner. Like the Galatian false teachers, Jones equates “living by faith’ with obeying the law.
Jones argues from the fact that Christ obtained salvation “bestowed on conditions” to the idea that we too must obtain “sanctification” in the same way, bestowed on conditions.
Instead of talking about the merits of Christ, he speaks of Christ’s living by faith, which was obeying the law, to get to the idea of our also living by faith, which then comes to mean our obeying the law.
On p 24, Jones argues from the fact that Christ “was not left to His own abilities but was enabled by the Spirit” to say that we Christians are enabled by the Spirit “to cooperate with God in sanctification.
God gives the elect the Holy Spirit as Christ’s gift. It is not the Holy Spirit who gives us Christ.
Accusations of antinomianism against those of who give priority to imputation do not prove the reality of our being against the law. To say that only Christ has satisfied the law “to obtain blessings on conditions” is to properly fear God.
LikeLike
McMark, I’ve also heard Jones say that Jesus’ baptism assured him of his father’s pleasure, just like ours. Way too much continuity for this sinner’s taste.
LikeLike
Machen (Christianity & Liberalism):
According to modern liberalism, in other words, Jesus was the Founder of Christianity because He was the first Christian, and Christianity consists in maintenance of the religious life which Jesus instituted. But was Jesus really a Christian? Or, to put the same question in another way, are we able or ought we as Christians to enter in every respect into the experience of Jesus and make Him in every respect our example? Certain difficulties arise with regard to this question…
But there is another difficulty in the way of regarding Jesus as simply the first Christian. This second difficulty concerns the attitude of Jesus toward sin. If Jesus is separated from us by his Messianic consciousness, He is separated from us even more fundamentally by the absence in Him of a sense of sin…
Once affirm that Jesus was sinless and all other men sinful, and you have entered into irreconcilable conflict with the whole modern point of view…
The religious experience of Jesus, as it is recorded in the Gospels, in other words, gives us no information about the way in which sin shall be removed.
Yet in the Gospels Jesus is represented constantly as dealing with the problem of sin. He always assumes that other men are sinful; yet He never finds sin in Himself. A stupendous difference is found here between Jesus’ experience and ours.
Jones (Antinomianism):
Christ is our mediator, our union with him means not only that we must be holy (i.e., necessity), but also that we will be able to be like him (i.e., motive)…
In other words, whatever grace we receive for our holiness first belonged to the Savior (John 1:16)…
How and in what power was Christ made holy? And what relation does his own pattern of holiness have to his people?…
He, like us, relied upon the Holy Spirit for his holiness (Isa. 11:2)….
Since Christ was rewarded for his good works, his people can rejoice that they too will be rewarded for their good works. In this way, the role of good works and rewards finds its Christological basis, which is crucial to any discussion of applied soteriology…
LikeLike
Jack, holy yikes!
LikeLike
Darryl, ah yes! But at least the world is a safer place with Tullian off the Gospel Coalition…
LikeLike
There is a name that escapes me right now for the belief that Jesus was a human being who became divine when indwelt with the Holy Spirit at his baptism.
This is not that, but it’s too close for comfort.
Separately, I had a professor, not at RTS, who taught that Jesus’ miracles were done as a human being through the power of the Holy Spirit, just as the miracles of the apostles were done. He and I didn’t get on well.
LikeLike
The congregation in which Mark Jones is the professional will always know that he’s the one with the “classical” view, and that those who disagree with him are idiosyncratic. But what they need to see is how antinomian Mark Jones is—by factoring into the not yet aspect of a future justification our continuing faith, and by redefining this faith as our works of obedience to the law, Mark Jones has lowered the perfect standard of God’s law, which is satisfied by nothing less (or more) than Christ’s righteousness.
His most recent Reformation 21 essay asks republicationists for more definitions, but Mark Jones has not bothered to define even the word “merit”. But he’s against it. When Mark Jones rejects the idea of Christ’s merits, he is saying that Christ Himself was saved by grace.
OPC Report on Philippians 2 (lines 796 ff)–James Jordan argued that this passage actually
rules out the notion of merit in regard to Christ’s obedience, because in 2:9 Paul uses the
word echarisato, which etymologically derives from the word for “grace,” charis, to describe God’s giving the name above every name to Christ. This indicates, he claims, that the Father exalted the Son not meritoriously but graciously.This argument as it stands fails, however.
Click to access redefining_merit.pdf
LikeLike
Gaffin, lectures on Romans, on 2:13:—-As that judgement decides, in its way, we’re going to want to qualify that deciding, but it decides the ultimate outcome for all believers and for all humanity, believers as well as unbelievers. That is, death or life. It’s a life and death situation that’s in view here. Further, this ultimate judgement has as its criterion or standard, brought into view here, the criterion for that judgement is works, good works. The doing of the law, as that is the criterion for all human beings, again, believers as well as unbelievers. In fact, in the case of the believer a positive outcome is in view and that positive outcome is explicitly said to be justification. So, again the point on the one side of the passage is that eternal life… depends on and follows from a future justification according to works. Eternal life follows upon a future justification by doing the law.
Gaffin, By Faith, Not By Sight, p 38—From this perceptive, the antithesis between law and gospel is not a theological ultimate. Rather, that antithesis enters not be virtue of creation but as a consequence of sin, and the gospel functions for its overcoming. The gospel is to the end of removing an absolute law-gospel antithesis in the life of the believer
http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2014/06/an-apologie.php
Mark Jones—Returning, then, to Mastricht: his point about good works having “in a certain sense” an “efficacy” is immediately explained: “in so far as God, whose law we attain just now through the MERIT alone of Christ, does not want to grant possession of eternal life, unless [it is] beyond faith with good works performed. We received once before the right unto eternal life through the merit of Christ alone. But God does not want to grant the possession of eternal life, unless there are, next to faith, also good works which precede this possession, Heb. 12:14; Matt. 7:21; 25:34-36; Rom. 2:7, 10
LikeLike
John Piper used to follow Daniel Fuller in rejecting the law/faith antithesis—“They thought that obeying the law is not a matter of faith, but a matter of works. Note very carefully, ‘works’ is not synonymous with obeying the law. That’s plain because Paul says you can pursue obedience to the law either by faith or by works. But God never meant for obedience to be pursued by works. That’s clear from the little phrase, ‘as though it were by works.’ ‘As though’ means obedience is not by works but by faith. So works is not simply efforts to obey the law of God. Works is a way of trying to bring about the fruit of obedience without making faith the root.” (The Pleasures of God, pg. 251)
Piper continued to follow Dan Fuller in his book Future Grace. Fuller defined all sin as “not believing the gospel”. 1. That means you don’t need law to define sin. 2. But this confuses, turns the gospel into law, because the gospel becomes that which condemns and defines sin and duty.
But in his response to NT Wright, The Future of Justification, Piper has turned against Daniel Fuller
Piper— Romans 9:32 does not exclude the meaning that there is a subordinate, short-term aim of the law that may suitably be described as “not of faith,” as in Galatians 3:12 (“But the law is not of faith, rather `The one who does them shall live by them'”).,,,
Paul is not dealing here with a programmatic analysis of the law in all of its aspects; rather, he is specifically discussing the long-term aim of the law: Christ for righteousness to all who believe.
The clearest evidence for this (that Israel’s failure to “attain the law” refers to her failure to attain the overall, long-term aim of the law: “Christ for righteousness”) is that the explanation for Israel’s failure
to “attain the law” is that “they have stumbled over the stumbling stone” (9:32). The stumbling stone is Christ, which is made clear in 9:33.
Piper– Romans 9:32 views the law as it points to and aims at “Christ for righteousness,” not in all the law’s designs and relations to faith. Therefore, it would be a mistake to use Romans 9:32 to deny, for example, that there is a short-term aim of the law that may suitably be described as “not of faith” as in Galatians 3:12 (“But the law is not of faith, rather `The one who does them shall
live by them'”). I myself have argued in the past, for example, without careful distinction, that “the law teaches faith” because Romans 9:32 says that you don’t “attain the law” if you fail to pursue it “by faith,” but pursue “as from works.” But the distinction that must be made is whether we are talking about the overall, long-term aim of the law,which is in view in Romans 9:32, or whether we are making a sweepingjudgment about all the designs of the law. We would go beyond what Romans 9:32 teaches if we made such a sweeping judgment, so as to deny that there is a short-term design of the law not easily summed up in the phrase “the law teaches faith” but fairly described in the words “the law is not of faith” (Gal. 3:12).
http://www.epubbud.com/read.php?g=ST9AALT4&p=10&two=1
LikeLike
McMark, it’s too bad for Gaffin that Rom 2:15, 16 follow shortly thereafter with the import of 15 being that the law shows it’s work on their conscience by accusing them. Paul’s remark that it(conscience) even EXCUSES them is a remark of rarity heading toward incredulity not one of possibility. Silly unionists looking to find a workaround.
LikeLike
Even though Gaffin was on the committee, the OPC report does not support what he teaches about Romans 2.
One more quotation tonight from the old John Piper, because I am not sure the new one has really repented of saying the kind of things Dan Fuller and Mark Jones say—the beauty of gospel threats….
John Piper—There is a real sense in which our justification depends on our sanctification. Now I want to stop and make sure that you are hearing what I believe the Scripture is saying, because it is not commonly said, but our lives hang on it. There is a real sense in which our justification depends on our sanctification. There is a sense in which whether we are acquitted before God depends on whether the law of the Spirit of life has freed us from the law of sin and death.
Piper—But how can this be? The sentence of “not guilty” has already been given, and it was given to those who have faith. How then can I say that the past sentence of “not guilty” is dependent on the present process of sanctification? And how can I say that to experience justification one must not only have faith but also be freed by the Spirit from the power of sin?
Piper—1) The faith to which justification is promised is not merely a single decision to acknowledge Christ’s lordship and accept him as Savior. The faith by which we are justified is an ongoing life of faith. When we read Romans 4 and James 2 carefully we see that Abraham believed God’s promise and it was reckoned to him as righteousness. He was justified by his faith. But then we notice that the illustrations of this faith in Romans 4 and James 2 are not merely its first act in Genesis 12 that caused Abraham to leave the land of Ur and follow God to Canaan, but also Abraham’s faith in God’s later promise in Genesis 15 to make his own son his heir, and the faith in Genesis 22 that enabled him to almost sacrifice his only son, Isaac. In other words, when Paul and James think of the faith by which Abraham was justified they think not merely of his initial belief but of his ongoing life of faith. Colossians 1:21–23, And you who once were estranged and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds, he has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death in order to present you holy and blameless and irreproachable before him, IF INDEED YOU REMAIN IN FAITH stable and steadfast, not shifting from the hope of the gospel.
Or as he says in 1 Corinthians 15:1, 2: I preached to you the gospel which you received, in which you stand, by which you are saved, IF YOU HOLD IT FAST—unless you believed in vain.
We are justified not ALONE by that initial reception of the gospel but by an ongoing life of faith.
Piper–2) Second, the coming of the Holy Spirit into a person’s life and the working of the Spirit to liberate that life from the law of sin and death always accompany genuine faith and there is no other way to have it….It is by faith that we receive the Holy Spirit, and it is by faith that the Spirit works within us. To live by faith and to live in the power of the Holy Spirit are the same thing, viewed from two different angles.
Paul says in Romans 8:14, “As many as are led by the Spirit of God are the sons of God.” . One must believe in Christ to be God’s child; one must be led by the Spirit to be God’s child. And these are not two conditions but one, for it is by faith that God supplies to us the Spirit, and it is by a life of faith he works miracles among us.
Now with these two insights I think we can solve our earlier problem. On the one hand Romans 5:1 says we have been justified by faith. . Freedom from condemnation is made conditional upon the work of the Holy Spirit freeing me from sin.
May no one react and say, O, that cannot be. All you have to do is believe in Christ as Savior; you don’t have to overcome sin by the power of the Spirit. That error cheapens faith, contradicts the teaching of Romans 8:1, 2, and runs the risk of hearing Jesus say on the judgment day: Depart from me, you evildoers, I never knew you.
Piper–You don’t want to believe in a Christ who makes no difference in your life, do you? Who wants a Jesus who is so nothing that all he can produce is a people who think, feel, and act just like the world? We don’t want that.
http://www.desiringgod.org/…/the-liberating-law-of-the…
LikeLike
Jeff,
I’m glad that we’re somewhere. A major goal in my interaction has been to establish that republication is not (necessarily? Primarily?) a sub-cov view, that when Todd and I say that the Mosaic Covenant was one and not two, that we are serious and clear-minded about that.
Well, as far as I can tell, your position and Todd’s are not the same. And what you just clarified as your thesis, I have no disagreement with, in fact, long ago I had listed essentially that as one of the items that is not in dispute, namely the question as to “whether … Israel was required to maintain a typologically readable level of corporate obedience in order to retain possession of the land.” We agree about that, but that is not repub.
The larger, pastoral goal has been to expose some of the inconsistencies in the anti-repub position – not against you personally, but the position – because I view it as spiritually perilous to make a strict equivalence between Israel’s situation and ours, to say that their requirement to obey to keep the land was just an instance of third use of the Law.
But no one is arguing for “a strict equivalence between Israel’s situation and ours.” And in fact, everyone agrees that Israel’s situation and ours are not strictly equivalent (this is not in dispute). But the actual question (i.e., one of them) is whether the discontinuity is to be explained in terms of a substantial or an administrative (accidental) difference of covenants. Regarding Israel’s requirement to keep the land, I thought we both agreed in assigning it to typology (which of course ceased at the end of the OT), in keeping with the mode of OT administration. I have been arguing that it therefore does not entail not a works principle, since this would not be consistent with either the substance or administration of the OT. You raise the issue of the third use of the law, but given that you hold the OT to be an admin of the CoG, you agree that the third use applied in OT times too, right?
For in the end, they were under the Law in a way that we are not.
Specifically, they were under the legal administration of the covenant of grace. They were not under the law as a covenant of works (i.e., the regenerate weren’t).
Further, the land sanctions were types that have expired.
Have I ever indicated anything but agreement with this?
So to make a strict equivalence of the two situations is really to put us back under the Law. And to do so for the reason of “combatting antinomianism” is a classic blunder.
I have not said one word about antinomianism.
That’s my hand. Now, how about land and sacrament?
I may have misspoken, but the point I was trying to get at is that the land was a pledge of heaven for those who were under grace. That should tell us something about the principle whereby they retained it.
LikeLike
McMark and all,
Thanks for sharing these manifestos of John Piper and Mark Jones. Hopefully, these erronious views will be challenged. After a while, there won’t be any more similar looking trees in the forest to blend in with doctrinally where the cover of plausible deniability or theological semantics can provide protection. I’ve never been a fan of John Piper, and have just now begun to learn about Mark Jones, and from what I have read of his writings, I’m not a fan of his theology either.
As long as the Greater Metropolitan Telephone Service Area keeps dialing into the same old telephone company monopoly for service, they will continue to get the old plug-in switchboards, delays, and disconnects, and unwarranted upcharges. When the Greater Metropolitan Service Area realizes that they can look elsewhere for better service, only then will they chuck the old outdated and antiquated telephone service.
LikeLike
David,
I have not disagreed with Jeff’s formulations yet, so I am not sure how different our views are.
As to your formulation, “they were under the legal administration of the covenant of grace.” the first time I saw that phrase was in the Kerux article critiquing Kline. That still does not make sense to me, and even appears oxymoronic. I wonder how you would explain that to a lay person (or a child) unfamiliar to the debate.
“the land was a pledge of heaven for those who were under grace. That should tell us something about the principle whereby they retained it.”
That depends. If the scriptures want to reveal that to enter heaven one must obey perfectly or have another obey as our representative, then the principle to enter the type would be works. If the scriptures want to reveal that one only receives God’s gift of eternal life through grace alone, then the principle of obtaining the type would be grace. In reality both principles are seen in different aspects of the Mosaic economy. In the aspect of the Israelites being given the land, the principle was grace. Since Moses was their typological representative, the picture is salvation by grace through a representative.
And yet Moses himself was not given a typological representative, so when he did not obey the Lord he was not allowed into the land. It would be a strange picture of grace indeed if Moses, who had been faithful to God for many years, disobeyed one command and as a result was not allowed into Canaan, the type of heaven. But if God is picturing the need for perfect obedience to enter the true Promised Land, then Moses’ lack thereof of obedience fits the need for a perfect Savior whose righteousness would be imputed to us to enter the Land.
Once Israel was in the land and without their typological mediator, Moses, she, like Moses, was required to obey the Law to retain the land blessings. (the later priests had representative symbolic roles but not to the same effect as Moses.) So the repub. position is that to enter the Land the principle being revealed was grace alone through the mediation of another, for as a whole they were rebellious sinners, and yet still given the land because Moses pleaded for them. Once in the land, the principle was works to show their need for a righteous representative to earn for them the blessings of eternal life. Both pictures point to Christ, one to his passive obedience (grace), the other to his active obedience (works). The point being that OT typology makes room for both grace principles and works principles, depending on the situation, both pointing to the different aspects of what Christ would do for us.
LikeLike
Todd,
As to your formulation, “they were under the legal administration of the covenant of grace.” the first time I saw that phrase was in the Kerux article critiquing Kline. That still does not make sense to me, and even appears oxymoronic.
This is standard Reformed theology and I can’t fathom how a Reformed minister can possibly be unfamiliar with it.
LikeLike
LikeLike
David,
I should have written I was familiar with the concept but had never seen it explained the way Kerux did. By the end of the article I still couldn’t state what their view was, nor could other men I asked smarter than me who read it. You still didn’t answer my question how you would explain it to others simply.s
LikeLike
Todd,
If you are indeed familiar with the concept, then can I assume you don’t actually think it “appears oxymoronic”? Let’s agree first that this is standard Reformed theology and then we can discuss how to explain it simply. If you mean to imply that the Klinean view is easier to explain, then I will strongly disagree. (As one piece of evidence, consider the fact that Klineans don’t even agree on how many substantially different covenants there are.)
LikeLike
David,
When I began reading years ago Turretin, Witsius, Calvin, Hodge, Olevianus, Berkhof on covenant theology, when most of them spoke on the legal aspect of the MC they were referring to, as Turretin,
“a new promulgation of the law and of the covenant of works, with an intolerable yoke of ceremonies, he wished to set forth what men owed and what was to be expected by them on account of duty
unperformed.” That I understood, and it is a fairly standard first use of the law. I don’t remember many of them using the exact phrase “a legal administration of the covenant of grace” but a few might have and I don’t remember, but the concept was there. Some of the early writers did not develop the theme of typology as much as I would have liked. But when Kerux tried to refute Kline, Sanborn I believe was attempting to explain the typological blessings and curses for obedience related to land retention, and this he described as a “legal administration of the covenant of grace.” His explanation went beyond the older views of the first use, and it was confusing to say the least, and yes, oxymoronic IMO.
So if you can put your insults asides concerning my ignorance, let’s deal with substance. How do you explain as a grace principle Moses not being allowed into the land because of his one act of disobedience? And how do you explain simply the blessings and curses of Deut. 28 as a cov. of grace legally administered?
LikeLike
Todd,
When I began reading years ago Turretin, Witsius, Calvin, Hodge, Olevianus, Berkhof on covenant theology, when most of them spoke on the legal aspect of the MC they were referring to, as Turretin,
“a new promulgation of the law and of the covenant of works, with an intolerable yoke of ceremonies, he wished to set forth what men owed and what was to be expected by them on account of duty
unperformed.” That I understood, and it is a fairly standard first use of the law.
I am glad that you understood them, as that is the view I am referring to.
Some of the early writers did not develop the theme of typology as much as I would have liked.
For that I would recommend Vos as a supplement.
But when Kerux tried to refute Kline, Sanborn I believe was attempting to explain the typological blessings and curses for obedience related to land retention, and this he described as a “legal administration of the covenant of grace.” His explanation went beyond the older views of the first use, and it was confusing to say the least, and yes, oxymoronic IMO.
I don’t recall much of Sanborn’s explanation, only that he pointed me to the older writers.
How do you explain as a grace principle Moses not being allowed into the land because of his one act of disobedience?
It’s not a grace principle per se, though the purpose is gracious. The temporal typological curse is a feature of the legal administration.
And how do you explain simply the blessings and curses of Deut. 28 as a cov. of grace legally administered?
We’ve covered this already a number of times. I would follow Vos’s explanation in terms of the “symbolico-typical sphere of appropriateness of expression.” In general I find Vos’s explanation of the Mosaic covenant to be helpful.
LikeLike
Todd, in terms of teaching the view that the Mosaic covenant is the covenant of grace legally administered, I might start with WCF 7:3-5 and 19:2-4.
LikeLike
David, what happened to WCF 19.1
Checkmate
LikeLike
Kent, sorry you’ve lost me, but then again I’m not much of a chess player. 19.1 is not the covenant of grace legally administered.
LikeLike
David R: But no one is arguing for “a strict equivalence between Israel’s situation and ours.” And in fact, everyone agrees that Israel’s situation and ours are not strictly equivalent (this is not in dispute). But the actual question (i.e., one of them) is whether the discontinuity is to be explained in terms of a substantial or an administrative (accidental) difference of covenants.
Hm. Which of the anti-repubs have you read?
I ask because this is what C. Venema has to say as he explicates John Murray on Lev 18:
C. Venema, ‘The Mosaic Covenant: A “Republication” of the Covenant of Works?’ in MAJT 21 (2010), 82.
— ibid, 87.
— ibid, 91.
So … not “no-one.” Venema equates our situation with that of Israel.
And antinomianism is right out on the table:
— ibid, 97.
I’m sure you can see the substance of a charge of antinomianism wrapped in the accidents of academic language here.
The pastoral point is that Venema, and Jones, and Ramsey, and certainly David Murray (who also mentions antinomianism), and seemingly you yourself, argue that what was required of the Israelites was of the same kind as what is required of us: The third use of the Law. And from that equivalence flows the idea that our law-keeping secures blessings that are analogous to the blessings promised to Israel, but in a spiritual sense, blessings that sanctify.
Over against this, I say: The arrangement under Deut 28-30 was unique and non-replicable, belonging to the legal administration that is no more. The land sanctions were of a different kind than the blessings and disciplines of believers under all administrations (including the Mosaic).
Todd gives an excellent example in Moses. Daniel is another. If all that is happening in the land sanctions is a type of the third use of the law, then what does it say, typologically, that Moses was kept out of the land of promise for one act of disobedience? What does it say that Daniel was exiled though himself “relatively righteous” and clearly a man of faith?
The anti-repub position provides “claritude”: Seeming clarity, but at the expense of muddy accounts of the Biblical texts.
LikeLike
Jeff,
David R: But no one is arguing for “a strict equivalence between Israel’s situation and ours.” And in fact, everyone agrees that Israel’s situation and ours are not strictly equivalent (this is not in dispute). But the actual question (i.e., one of them) is whether the discontinuity is to be explained in terms of a substantial or an administrative (accidental) difference of covenants.
Hm. Which of the anti-repubs have you read?
I ask because this is what C. Venema has to say as he explicates John Murray on Lev 18:So … not “no-one.” Venema equates our situation with that of Israel.
I’ll grant that you’re halfway correct. It does seem that John Murray (though again, I haven’t read much of him) argues for fairly strict equivalence. Venema otoh, doesn’t argue one way or the other. You’ll recall that he also explicated Calvin’s (legal) view of Leviticus 18:5, and he doesn’t express a preference for Murray over Calvin. He was making the same point in both cases and that point was not “strict equivalence, but rather (as I recall), that discontinuity between OT and NT was not explained by historic Reformed theology in terms of a works principle in the former but not the latter, but rather, in terms of accidental differences. The anti-repub argument does not in any way depend on, or require, ignoring legitimate discontinuity. It just explains that discontinuity differently, in a way that is consistent with the administration of grace.
Regarding antinomianism, I didn’t say that no one is discussing it (that would be silly). I only said that I hadn’t mentioned it. I really don’t think it’s central to the argument against repub. However, since you bring it up, it is certainly true that a number of repub guys minimize the direct application of the Decalogue to the Christian life, and I don’t think that’s an accident. And the last few weeks here have been eye-opening for me in terms of the extent to which some deny the need for obedience. Nuff said…. But I don’t think that repub will necessarily lead to this.
If all that is happening in the land sanctions is a type of the third use of the law …
For the umpteenth time…. That’s not all that’s happening. But you haven’t answered my question: Did the third use apply to Israel or not?
LikeLike
“For that I would recommend Vos as a supplement.”
I have read (in English) just about everything Vos has written. Love Vos. When it comes to the MC, I think Kline is clearer.
“It’s not a grace principle per se, though the purpose is gracious. The temporal typological curse is a feature of the legal administration.”
All sides in this debate believe the purpose was gracious. You have denied before a works principle related to the land. If it’s not a grace principle per se, and not a works principle, is there a third principle, or mixture? I’m looking for a clear explanation as to why an act of disobedience kept Moses out of the land.
LikeLike
David R. “a number of repub guys minimize the direct application of the Decalogue to the Christian life.”
Who?
And is it an accident that the anti-repubs downplay the priority of justification to sanctification?
You’re going to go to the mat for the law? Will that be your hope on judgment day?
LikeLike
David R: For the umpteenth time…. That’s not all that’s happening. But you haven’t answered my question: Did the third use apply to Israel or not?
I did actually answer, but you know how these discussions go…
The third use of the law applied to justified Israelites, but it did not and could not apply to the theocracy as a whole.
Also, the land sanctions were not administered under the third-use principle. We know this partly for the aforementioned reason, partly because justified individuals were excluded from the land at times, while unjustified individuals were permitted to remain, partly because the land sanctions were a matter of type and not substance and were therefore pedagogical, falling under the first (pedagogical) use of the law.
Instead, the land sanctions were administered under a principle whose ground floor was a reflection of the CoW (per Deut 28), but mitigated by grace for the sake of mediators.
LikeLike
David R: And the last few weeks here have been eye-opening for me in terms of the extent to which some deny the need for obedience. Nuff said…. But I don’t think that repub will necessarily lead to this.
Here you’ve been over-reading (and under-reading) what has been said. No-one has said that the obligation to the Law is gone.
What has been said is that when God receives us, He will receive us ONLY on the ground of Christ’s obedience.
I trust that you agree? And if so, then I trust that you can see the problem wit Venema: “the redemption promised in the covenant required the response of faith … And obedience…”
Is that right? From one point of view. Is that wrong? From another, more profound point of view. Is it therefore poorly expressed theology? Absolutely.
LikeLike
Todd,
You have denied before a works principle related to the land. If it’s not a grace principle per se, and not a works principle, is there a third principle, or mixture?
The third principle I suppose is the “symbolico-typical sphere of appropriateness of expression,” which of course we have been over ad nauseum. Or if you prefer to speak in terms of typological intrusion, that works too. In Kline’s explanation of intrusion in SBA, I note that he does not once resort to the notion of a works principle in the mosaic covenant.
You may argue that the fact that there is not a one-to-one correspondence between enjoyment of the typical and antitypical inheritances is proof of a works principle in the Mosaic covenant, but how does that follow? If one (e.g., Moses) deserves an eternal curse, as of course we all do; it is grace that, by virtue of God’s electing love, he only has to endure a temporal one.
I’m looking for a clear explanation as to why an act of disobedience kept Moses out of the land.
Hopefully the above is helpful, though of course additional questions would deal with such issues as the nature of Moses’s sin, the responsibilities entailed in his office, etc. (see WLC 151). There is also the question of the typological import of his action, e.g., see Clowney’s The Unfolding Mystery, chapter 6, where he provides some explanation w/o resorting to the notion of a works principle in the Mosaic covenant. In fact, I wonder if one pre-Kline exposition of that text can be produced that explains the passage in terms of Moses having broken a covenant of works.
Whenever I’ve ever attempted to draw any lines of continuity between the OT and the NT here I’ve caught flack, but it’s interesting to note that at least some editions of the WCF (including the OPC one) cite this text as proof for the fact that “Nevertheless, they [i.e., the saints] may, through the temptations of Satan and of the world, the prevalency of corruption remaining in them, and the neglect of the means of their preservation, fall into grievous sins; and, for a time, continue therein: whereby they incur God’s displeasure …” (chapter 17.3 on the perseverance of the saints).
LikeLike
D.G.,
David R. “a number of repub guys minimize the direct application of the Decalogue to the Christian life.”
Who?
Deja vu? I responded last time but this time you can add two and two.
LikeLike
Calvin, in his Deut. commentary, seems to give Moses’s exclusion from Canaan a rather works principle cast – using words like punishment, fault, penalty, justice, guilt, transgression:
For, although he by no means enters into debate with God, as if he had been unjustly condemned for the faults of others, still he indirectly reflects upon the people, since it was well that they should be all reminded that the punishment which had been inflicted upon God’s distinguished servant was incurred by the guilt of them all. We have elsewhere seen how it was that the penalty of their common transgression was with justice imposed upon Moses…
… the bitterness of his punishment…
LikeLike
Jeff,
Sowers is holding on line 2. Something about wanting you to talk him out of theonomy. Smith is on line 3 wanting to give up pietistic, revivalistic biblicism, Cross is on line 4 wanting you to talk him off the Papsist ledge, and Greg is on 5 asking which film he should check out tonight.
LikeLike
David,
“In fact, I wonder if one pre-Kline exposition of that text can be produced that explains the passage in terms of Moses having broken a covenant of works.”
I wouldn’t say that either – a works principle doesn’t always entail a covenant. God never covenantally promised Moses that if he disobeyed a command he would not enter the land.
“If one (e.g., Moses) deserves an eternal curse, as of course we all do; it is grace that, by virtue of God’s electing love, he only has to endure a temporal one.”
The question though is, why does God, in typifying grace, allow rebellious sinners into the Holy land, yet a truly righteous man he does not allow based on one act of disobedience? While the former clearly pictures the principle of grace, the latter pictures…grace also?
I think more telling than our differing views of the MC is your accusations of genuine anti-nomianism, which may be at the heart of all this, but others it seems are challenging you on this so I’ll let it go.
LikeLike
Erik, no matter how much people think they are winning here (by ignoring basic Reformed theology and ignoring advanced Reformed arguments), they aren’t even hitting the tip of the iceberg of past greats.
But people wasting what has to be 12 hours of their life in an argument going right down the tubes from the first second is never helpful.
LikeLike
… a works principle doesn’t always entail a covenant….
This has been, and continues to be, our basic disagreement.
The question though is, why does God, in typifying grace, allow rebellious sinners into the Holy land, yet a truly righteous man he does not allow based on one act of disobedience? While the former clearly pictures the principle of grace, the latter pictures…grace also?
To your second question, no.
I think more telling than our differing views of the MC is your accusations of genuine anti-nomianism, which may be at the heart of all this, but others it seems are challenging you on this so I’ll let it go.
You deny that the repub view has any implications for one’s position on the question of the direct application of the Decalogue to the Christian life?
LikeLike
David R: For the umpteenth time…. That’s not all that’s happening. But you haven’t answered my question: Did the third use apply to Israel or not?
I did actually answer, but you know how these discussions go…
The third use of the law applied to justified Israelites, but it did not and could not apply to the theocracy as a whole.
Fair enough. Now is there any connection at all between the “third use” and the theocracy’s obedience, and in particular that of its leaders (when it/they were obedient)?
Also, the land sanctions were not administered under the third-use principle. We know this partly for the aforementioned reason, partly because justified individuals were excluded from the land at times, while unjustified individuals were permitted to remain …
Sure, but that just means its not the only principle involved. In general, the blessing sanction was connected with (corporate) obedience flowing from principles of grace (as is always the case with the post-fall obedience of sinners).
… partly because the land sanctions were a matter of type and not substance and were therefore pedagogical, falling under the first (pedagogical) use of the law.
I think you’re mistaking categories here….
Instead, the land sanctions were administered under a principle whose ground floor was a reflection of the CoW (per Deut 28), but mitigated by grace for the sake of mediators.
On the contrary, the blessing sanctions reflect the CoG (i.e., they foreshadow its promised blessing). I would agree that the curse sanctions foreshadow the threatened eternal curse of the CoW.
David R: And the last few weeks here have been eye-opening for me in terms of the extent to which some deny the need for obedience. Nuff said…. But I don’t think that repub will necessarily lead to this.
Here you’ve been over-reading (and under-reading) what has been said. No-one has said that the obligation to the Law is gone.
Well, I strongly disagree but I am glad to know that you, for one, do not deny the necessity of obedience.
What has been said is that when God receives us, He will receive us ONLY on the ground of Christ’s obedience.
But that has never been in dispute.
I trust that you agree? And if so, then I trust that you can see the problem wit Venema: “the redemption promised in the covenant required the response of faith … And obedience…”
Is that right? From one point of view. Is that wrong? From another, more profound point of view. Is it therefore poorly expressed theology? Absolutely.
The sentence fragment you’ve provided ain’t much to go on, but as you point out, there’s nothing heterodox there (or in what I quoted from Warfield some time ago to similar effect). But my purpose has never been to defend Venema’s formulations (or Dennison’s, or those of anyone else writing today).
LikeLike
From John Colquhoun, who isn’t often accused of mixing law and gospel:
LikeLike
More from John Colquhoun — Treatise on the Covenant of Works (pp. 5-6,15, 45, 197). Sinai sure seems to have a covenant of works element given what he writes:
1. This contract between God and the first Adam, is in sacred writ, expressly styled a covenant. “These are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agare.” Here are two covenants mentioned, the one of which, genders to bondage, and the other, to liberty or freedom. The covenant of grace, or “The law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus,” is the one which genders to liberty, or which makes free from the law of sin and death. The one, therefore, which genders to bondage, must be that law or covenant of works, which was republished to the Israelites, from mount Sinai; which required perfect obedience to the ten commandments, on pain of death, and contained a promise of life, to the man who should do, or perform such obedience. This covenant, which ” the thunderings, and lightnings, and thick cloud, and voice of the trumpet exceeding loud, on the mount,” proclaim to have been a covenant of works, “gendereth to bondage.” By the awful manner, in which it was then displayed; by the strictness of its precepts, and the dreadful severity of its penalty, it tends to beget a slavish and servile spirit, in all who are under the dominion of it, and to subject them to bondage of the most ignominious kind. Now this covenant, is here contrasted with the covenant of grace, which, for his comfort, was revealed to Adam immediately after the fall; and, therefore, it must have been made with him, before the fall. And indeed, we cannot suppose that Jehovah, to whom infinite Goodness, as well as infinite Justice, is always essential, could have published such a covenant of works, from Sinai, to man in his state of sin, in which he is “without strength to obey, if he had not already entered into it with him, in his state of innocence…
If the Spirit of inspiration, in one of these passages, refers to Adam’s covering of his transgression, and in another, to the death to which, by his transgression, he became obnoxious; is it not natural to conclude, that in the third, he refers to the transgression itself, which occasioned both the one and the other? Since then the Israelites transgressed, like Adam, the covenant, under which they at that time were, it follows, that Adam transgressed some covenant…
It is evident from the cope of the Apostle in the context, and from the words themselves, especially when compared with the 10th and 13th verses of the third chapter of this epistle [Galatians], That by the “law” here, we are chiefly to understand the moral law, the foundation of the ceremonial and judicial laws, given to the ancient Israelites; that law, which in sacred writ is presented to us, under no other general form, than either that of a rule of life, or of a covenant of works. The Apostle here informs us, that Christ, the eternal Son of the Father, was ” made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law.” But is it the moral law considered as a rule of life, that is meant? Let us suppose for a moment that it is, and then attend to the consequence of such a supposition. It will make the Apostle’s meaning to be this: “God sent forth his Son, — made under the law ” as a rule of life, “to redeem them that were under the law” as a rule, from subjection to the authority of it, or from obligation to perform obedience to it.—This detestable doctrine, if admitted to be true, would at once, dissolve the believer’s obligations to holiness, and make Christ the minister of sin.
Far be it from me to believe that this, can be the meaning of the holy Apostle. If, then, Christ was not made under the moral law as a rule of duty, to redeem his people from subjection to it, the Apostle must be understood to mean, That he was made under it as a Covenant of Works, to redeem them from the dominion and curse of it under that form. —This, and no other, must be his meaning.
2. It is also to be observed, that this natural law is the law of the ten commandments, or the moral law, which was long afterward, promulgated from mount Sinai. The ten commandments are, as Moses expresses it, those statutes and judgments, “which if a man do, he shall live in them; and which the apostle Paul styles, “The commandment which was ordained to life,” and the law which “was weak through the flesh.” It is also the moral law, which the same Apostle mentions in Gal. iii. 10, 12, when he says, “It is written, cursed is every one, that continueth not in all things, which are written in the book of the law, to do them.” — “And the law is not of faith; but, the man that doeth them, shall live in them.” The tenor of the covenant was, “Do, and thou shalt live.” Hence our blessed Lord, thus replied to the young Pharisee: “If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments…”
LikeLike
Thanks for the tip, David and Jack. Reading Colquhoun is a genuine pleasure.
And he puts me in mind (on p 39) of a point that I think we have already agreed to, but need to make explicit.
The moral law has always demanded perfection, not simply for the attainment of life in the Garden, but even now for believers. What makes our situation different from that of Adam in the Garden is that another has fulfilled the law’s demands on our behalf.
So when Berkhof or Vos speaks of “relative obedience” or “typologically appropriate obedience”, I don’t understand that to mean that God relaxed the standard, as if “be careful to obey all the Law” really meant “get close enough.”
Rather, I understand them to mean — I hope they mean — that God did not enforce the standard with rigor. Just as with us, God does not enforce the sanctions of the CoW because they have been enforced upon another.
So the ground floor is a demand of perfect obedience. The upper story is then acceptance of the obedience of a mediator in the stead of perfect obedience. This is different from a changing of the standard to be that of relative obedience.
Agreed?
LikeLike
David R., “You deny that the repub view has any implications for one’s position on the question of the direct application of the Decalogue to the Christian life?”
Get your head out of the sand. OL is repub and pro-fourth commandment. Call your physician when your head stops spinning.
LikeLike
“as to resemble the obedience of God’s spiritual Israel in its connection with their spiritual privileges under the gospel.”
The Leviticus lesson that “the law is not of faith” is often contradicted by the Romans lesson that “whatever is not of faith is sin”, so that lawbreaking is unbelief and belief is law-keeping.
Matt Perman—-By faith in Romans 14:23 Paul means the belief that a certain behavior is right. Paul is not using faith in the sense of believing in Christ for salvation. But even if Paul were speaking of saving faith in Romans 14, it would not follow that faith and obedience are the same thing. Paul is simply saying that what is not from faith is sin; Paul is not saying that anything which is not faith is sin.”
http://www.oocities.org/mattperman/romans45.html
LikeLike
If we all agree with Colquhoun and Boston, what’s the disagreement? Sinai was both covenant of works and grace.
LikeLike
@ Alexander: Thank you.
LikeLike
@ David R: You are correct that Calquhoun views the condition of obedience for land-keeping as posterior and not antecedent. If you back up a view pages, you can see why. For Calquhoun, the land promises were unconditional promises given to Abraham and his seed. Hence, it is impossible that some antecedent condition could be later attached to nullify that promise.
On this one point, I would be to disagree with an otherwise masterful work, and I am joined in dissent by both Vos and Berkhof, who state clearly that remaining in the land was conditioned upon obedience (in an antecedent way, as their discussions make clear).
Were Calquhoun here, I would argue that the land promise given to Abraham was a promise to the true descendants of Abraham, that they would inherit the new heavens and new earth (per Rom 4). That promise did not therefore carry over unconditionally to all who were born Israelites.
For Vos, by contrast, the Israelites can and do lose possession of the land when they fail to meet the condition, and are restored after repentance. This is clearly an antecedent condition in Vos’s mind.
I don’t believe that Calquhoun’s view is central to the rest of his work.
LikeLike
… I am joined in dissent by both Vos and Berkhof, who state clearly that remaining in the land was conditioned upon obedience (in an antecedent way, as their discussions make clear).
Really? Take (yet) another look at Vos:
LikeLike
Jeff,
Also, if it is true “that remaining in the land was conditioned upon obedience (in an antecedent way,” then it would also appear to be true (according to Vos) that for a NT Christian, remaining a church member in good standing is conditioned on obedience in an antecedent way:
LikeLike
D.G.,
Get your head out of the sand. OL is repub and pro-fourth commandment.
Does this mean you think obedience to the fourth is necessary? What about the other nine?
LikeLike
Yes, really. What you cite appears to be speaking of the substance of the covenant and not the legal accidents of it and in any event does not contradict what I said. But I didn’t catch the reference?
Wrt remaining a church member in good standing, you are absolutely correct: it is antecedently conditioned on remaining outwardly faithful to your vows. There’s no particular mystery there: if you remain outwardly faithful, you stay. If not, you leave.
Our salvation is not so conditioned precisely because of justification on the forensic side (not outwardly visible) and the indwelling Spirit on the transformative side (also not outwardly visible). So the invisible economy works on a different principle from the visible – else, excommunication would be Roman, entailing actual loss of grace.
LikeLike
Jeff, IOW, for Vos, expulsion from the land and excommunication from the church occur for essentially the same reason, i.e., apostasy. Thus, your assertion of an antecedent condition in the former case would seem to prove too much.
LikeLike
No, it proves exactly the right thing: that the external does not operate on the same economy as the internal.
What is different between the Old legal economy and the New “external aspect of the covenant” is that the latter is intended to much more depict grace. So while church disicipline is administered on the ground of lawbreaking (1 Cor 5), it is unto restoration rather than unto destruction.
None of that has direct impact on eternal reality, but rather depicts it.
LikeLike
Jeff, so then, if I follow you, you are saying that Christians remain members in good standing according to a principle of works? And does it also then follow that for you, the distinction between works (or merit) and grace does not correspond to the distinction between OT and NT, but rather to the distinction between the church visible and invisible?
LikeLike
Exactly Alexander.
Sinai is a Covenant of Works and the best of us lay and lettered theologians agree to find Grace in it as well.
LikeLike
Kent- I don’t think that’s quite what I meant but I’ll take advantage of this period of accord 🙂
LikeLike
What is different between the Old legal economy and the New “external aspect of the covenant” is that the latter is intended to much more depict grace. So while church disicipline is administered on the ground of lawbreaking (1 Cor 5), it is unto restoration rather than unto destruction.
Agreed!
LikeLike
David R: Jeff, so then, if I follow you, you are saying that Christians remain members in good standing according to a principle of works?
No, that would be vastly oversimplifying a complex situation. I would begin by saying that the visible church is “the church as man sees it”, and it is therefore administered according to outward forms that are intended to correspond to spiritual realities. Hence, synods have real spiritual authority, and yet are not infallible. The sacraments convey grace when partaken by faith, but not in the bare taking of them. As a result, some of the outward forms are of necessity administered on principles different from the corresponding spiritual reality.
In the case of membership, there are outward conditions that are antecedent to becoming a member: making a credible profession of faith on the one hand, or being born of visible church members on the other.
Are those works or meritorious? Inasmuch as they are antecedent conditions, I suppose so. They are certainly treated as such by non-believers. But even here, we see the pictorial element of grace. What does it mean that the “work” admitting a baby into the visible church is simply to be born?
It points to the inward spiritual reality: that to make a genuine (not merely credible) profession, one must first believe, which is the work of God alone and according to his election. Faith is then a posterior condition for the inward reality of being elect and regenerate, while profession of faith (or being born) is of necessity antecedent to becoming a visible member.
And does it also then follow that for you, the distinction between works (or merit) and grace does not correspond to the distinction between OT and NT, but rather to the distinction between the church visible and invisible?
This is then vacated, since the premise is false. The distinction between the two is that the antecedent conditions in the Old were everywhere and “intolerable” (as Turretin puts it, citing Colossians). They pointed to inability as well as to merit extra nos. By contrast, the antecedent conditions in the New are not administered so as to point to inability, but only to merit extra nos.
But, if put to it, churches certainly have the ability to turn church discipline into an intolerable yoke.
LikeLike
So here’s a second layer of complexity to the inward/outward situation: God guards His glory. When circumstances warrant, independent of principles of grace or works, He acts.
I think this explains the deaths of Annanias and Sapphira, an event that I think we agree was unique in the NT economy. It might also explain Rev 2-3, but that’s a tentative hypothesis.
LikeLike
Jeff, you agree then that the ground whereby Israel retained the land and the ground whereby church members retain their good standing is essentially the same?
LikeLike
What is a “gracious covenant of works”? Does this paradox deny that God has a character that would make any idea of “intrinsic merit” possible? Does a “gracious covenant of works” mean that God arbitrarily (merely) values obedience only by (graciously) accepting obedience AS I that obedience was perfect (and enough to merit)?
Does God the Father accept the finished work of Christ as if it had merit?
Mark Jones—if we are also prepared to recognize the nature of Adam’s reward was disputed – then perhaps we will think carefully before impugning the orthodoxy of men whose views on the covenant of works would not be considered odd in the Reformed theological context of the seventeenth century. It’s easy to bring up Barth, Shepherd, or someone else as a convenient rhetorical maneuver to slander people, but not so easy to do the hard (but necessary) work of reading the primary sources. Mark Jones would like to thank the dozens of Reformed ministers (OPC [definitely no names will be given], PCA [only one cared enough], CREC [oops!], ARBCA [See, I love Baptists], TGC [errr…], APC [look them up], URCNA [wannabe Dutch], CANREF [wannabe Canadians], REF21 [wannabe TGC], MOS [wannabe nobody], RPCNA [wannabe hymn-singers]) who read this piece and all gave me the thumbs-up. The persons shall remain nameless, for now…)
– See more at: http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2014/09/the-gracious-covenant-of-works-1.php#sthash.obi0fxN8.dpuf
LikeLike
Using the word “merit”, without distinctions about condign and congruent, is not something odd in the Reformed tradition. God “must” reward the work of Christ because it would be unjust for God not do so so.
“It becomes God to return the love of the creature who loves Him; a loving God cannot not wish and do well to one beloved,” Johannes Heidegger
John Owen, A Dissertation on Divine Justice, chapter 13 (book 10, 587) answers Twisse who wrote “it cannot be maintained that God cannot forgive sins by his power, without a satisfaction.”
“For,” says Twisse, “if God by his might or absolute power cannot pardon sin, then it is absolutely impossible for sin to be pardoned, or not…it is evident that man not only can pardon, but that it is his duty to pardon his enemies when they transgress against him.”
Owen’s Answer: “. “If you say that God hath it in his power not to hate sin, you say that he hath the contrary in his power, — that is, that he can love sin; for if he hate sin of his free will, he may will the contrary. This Scotus maintains, and Twisse agrees with him. But to will good and to love justice are not less natural to God than to be himself. ”
“But it is manifest,” says Twisse, “that man not only can pardon, but that it is his duty to pardon his enemies; and, therefore, this does not imply a contradiction.”
Owen’s Answer: The supposition is denied, that God may do what man may do. Divine and human forgiveness are plainly of a different kind. The forgiveness of man only respects the hurt; the forgiveness of God respects the guilt…. Although a private person may, at certain times, renounce his right and dominion in certain cases, and ought to do so, it doth not follow from that that God, whose right and dominion is natural and indispensable, and which he cannot renounce unless he deny himself, can do the same.
“But neither,” says Twisse, “can it be consistently said that God cannot do this because of his justice, if it be supposed that he cando it by his power. But Scotus reasons with more judgment and accuracy on this point. ‘The divine will is not so inclined towards any secondary object by any thing in itself,’ says he, ‘that can oppose its being justly inclined towards its opposite.”
Owen’s Answer: “We maintain that God from his nature cannot do this, and, therefore, that he cannot either by his power or his justice. To Scotus we answer: The divine will may incline to things opposite, in respect of those attributes which constitute objects to themselves, but not in respect of those attributes which suppose a condition of God’s character. For instance: God may justly speak or not speak with man; but it being supposed that he wills to speak, the divine will cannot be indifferent whether he speak truth or not.
“If, then,” says Twisse, “God must punish sin from a natural necessity, he must necessarily punish it to the extent of his power”.
Owen’s Answer: “That necessity from which God punisheth sin does not require that he should punish it to the extent of his power, but so far as is just. We do not conceive God to be a senseless, inanimate agent, as if he acted from principles of nature, after a natural manner, without a concomitant liberty. For God does all things freely, with understanding and by volition, even those things which by supposition he doth necessarily, according to what his most holy
nature requires.
But Twisse replies, “If God punish as far as he can with justice, — that is, as far as sin deserves, — then it must be either as far as sin deserves according to the free constitution of God, or without any regard to the divine constitution. If according to the divine constitution, this is nothing else but to assert that God punishes not so far as he can, but so far as he wills. If without any regard to the divine constitution, then without the divine constitution sin so deserves punishment that God ought to punish sin because of his justice. If disobedience deserve punishment in this manner, obedience will also, deserve a merited reward without the divine constitution.”
John Owen: “God’s right that rational creatures should be subject to him, either by obedience or a vicarious punishment, is indispensable.
LikeLike
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).
The covenant is the revelation of God’s justice. It follows, therefore, that Kline must reject the distinction between condign and congruous merit. The problem with this distinction is that congruous ex pacto merit becomes gracious when it is placed by way of contrast beneath condign merit as something less than full and real merit. Thus, grace inevitably enters the definition of congruous merit
Lee Irons—We must begin by questioning the doctrine of the the absolute power of God as it was formulated by the nominalists. 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.
Click to access redefining_merit.pdf
LikeLike
DR: Jeff, you agree then that the ground whereby Israel retained the land and the ground whereby church members retain their good standing is essentially the same?
“Same” in what way? Antecedent grounding? Yes. Administered legally as under a reflection of the CoW? No.
Again: the purpose of the land sanctions was typological. The purpose of visible church membership is not. The intent of the land sanctions was failure from a historia salutis perspective. The intent of church membership is not.
Trying to equate Israel the theocracy to individual church members is muddying the waters.
LikeLike
There are different types of grace. There is the grace of the rain and the sun and the many providences bestowed upon all men. There is also the grace of forgiveness of sins and salvation. The covenant of works was gracious in that it was a condescension on God’s part to man to give him a reward for doing what was his duty anyway; but it still required perfect obedience.
Those are my two cents anyway. After 529 posts are we any closer to a resolution?
LikeLike
Jeff,
You are one who said that “church disicipline is administered on the ground of lawbreaking (1 Cor 5) …” What I’m trying to find out is if you think Israel lost possession of the land on some other ground or on the same ground.
Again: the purpose of the land sanctions was typological. The purpose of visible church membership is not.
Of course my good man. But that’s not the question.
Trying to equate Israel the theocracy to individual church members is muddying the waters.
I agree, but that’s not the question either.
LikeLike
David R.-
I think you’re reading too much into Jeff’s point. The session has to deal with the public witness of the church, in the members of the church. If the behaviour of a member is scandalous or brings the church into disrepute the session has to act. It’s not if a member sins he loses his privileges: all believers sin, every day. It’s when those sins become public and contradict the professor’s witness- and that of the church- that the session intervenes. And of course they are protecting the sacraments as well.
LikeLike
Alexander,
I hear you but it seems to me that Jeff sees essential continuity wrt the ground but discontinuity in that one case is typical and emphasizes law; whereas the other case isn’t typical and emphasizes gospel. If that’s what Jeff is saying then I’m not sure where we disagree.
LikeLike
Mike Horton—In the federalism of the Westminster Standards on this point, the divines speak of God’s relationship to Adam in terms of “voluntary condescension.” However, this is not the same as grace; a term that would have been used if that is what was intended. The divines knew exactly what they were doing (and Ursinus defended every one of their points before the Assembly ever met). “Voluntary condescension” is hardly grace. Why is that so? In the first place, the former simply means that God was not compelled by any necessity to create: it was a free act. Second, by pronouncing his benediction (“It is very good,” not just “good”), God was approving Adam’s standing. But upon what basis was Adam currently acceptable before God? On precisely that basis indicated by the benediction: his intrinsic worthiness as a loyal son and servant.
Third, to conflate “voluntary condescension” and “grace” is to empty grace of its most precious scriptural meaning. Scripture nowhere speaks of this relationship as gracious, and with good reason: grace happens to sinners. Friendship, condescension, familiarity, goodness: these in no way entail graciousness on God’s part, since the relationship was not yet marred by sin. Grace is not treated in scripture as merely unmerited favor, but as demerited favor, God’s favor toward sinners despite their having deserved the very opposite. In that sense, grace and mercy are interchangeable terms, just as the “covenant of grace” has sometimes been called the “covenant of mercy.” God cannot be regarded as gracious or merciful to creatures who as yet do not deserve otherwise,. “Goodness” and “condescension” are not equivalent to grace and mercy. http://spindleworks.com/library/CR/horton.htm
LikeLike
I’m not sure whether to play or not. You know that your line of reasoning will muddy the waters but you pursue it anyway?
IF we stipulate that national Israel is not directly comparable to individuals under the NC,
IF we stipulate that the land sanctions were administered by God against sins actually committed, while excommunication is administered by people against sins judged to have been committed,
IF we stipulate that the land sanctions were typical, while visible church membership is not,
IF we stipulate that neither has to do with the third use of the law,
THEN yes, both are in their own sphere conducted on the antecedent ground of disobedience.
What did that get us?
LikeLike
IF we stipulate that national Israel is not directly comparable to individuals under the NC …
Though it IS directly comparable to the visible church of the NT. You would agree that making direct comparisons between the visible church under the MC and that under the NC is not muddying the waters, right? That would certainly have to the case if the MC is the covenant of grace.
LikeLike
David R.,
Is a mixed covenant position allowable by Westminster?
LikeLike
DR, it’s necessary to keep the day holy. Do you think it’s necessary to be saved?
LikeLike
Jeff, you now have a flat history of redemption.
Hallelujah!
LikeLike
I want a thesis. Where are we going?
LikeLike
And just to be clear, the theocracy is not exactly the same as the visible church. During the exile, there was no theocracy, but there was the visible church. Post-Solomon, the theocracy was split into two kingdoms, but not so the visible church (despite the effort to set up a second site at Dan).
LikeLike
Joel, I don’t know if I am familiar enough with that view to answer, but if what you mean is that the MC was a CoW for the unregenerate, then I think 19.1-2 strongly suggests a “no” answer.
LikeLike
That is good you acknowledge the existence of WCF 19.1 expanding down the rest of the paragraphs
LikeLike
kent, care to elaborate?
LikeLike
Yes, you’ve summarized it well enough, though I have no idea how you could say that 19.1-2 contradicts it. Do you think a divine like William Strong was just confused on the subject?
LikeLike
Joel, I don’t really know. I’m pretty sure I recall reading recently a critique of Strong’s position to the effect that what he should have said was that what had been established by God as a CoG had been falsely perverted by the unregenerate into a CoW.
LikeLike
How does 19.1-2 contradict a mixed covenant? Have you read the pertinent sections of Strong?
LikeLike
Jeff,
The thesis I’ve been trying to defend (but not w/o getting sidetracked), starting a few weeks ago when I began commenting, has been simply that a works principle is inconsistent with the Mosaic covenant.
I conclude this from the fact that a works principle is, by definition, inconsistent with (any administration of) the covenant of grace. But we agree that the Mosaic covenant was (an administration of) the covenant of grace. Ergo …
A related thesis, and one that also follows from the MC being an administration of the CoG, is that the MC principle of inheritance was by grace alone through faith alone on account of Christ alone. Period. (D.G., your problem is with the Reformed tradition.)
I would be interested to see you or someone else who also holds the MC to be an administration of the CoG try to refute these pretty basic arguments.
Regarding the question of whether this is the historic Reformed consensus, we have already looked at Turretin, Vos, Berkhof (I realize you disagree with me wrt these), Calvin and Calquhoun; now let’s take another look at Calvin.
In book three of the Institutes, chapter 17, Calvin reconciles the conditional promises of the law with the gracious promises of the gospel (Institutes 3.17.1-3). He does this in response to a Romish objection to the doctrine of justification sola fide on the grounds that the MC promises the inheritance to the obedient. He does not solve the problem by arguing for a works principle in the MC wrt the typical inheritance that gives way to a grace/faith principle in the NC wrt the antitypical one (though if he believed this was the case, it would have been the perfect place to give that explanation). Instead, he demonstrates that in both cases (MC and NC), and wrt the one inheritance (though revealed typically in the MC) the promises that the law makes to obedience are, by virtue of the gospel, received by grace alone. To summarize his explanation (which comes from sections 1-3, you’ll have to scroll):
1. The promises of the law are only granted on the condition of perfect obedience.
2. Since post-fall sinners are unable to render such obedience, the promises of the law are null and void, and all humanity is left under the curse.
3. In the gospel, God mercifully grants what was promised in the law to those who receive the imputed righteousness of Christ by faith alone.
4. Once God freely justifies and accepts believers on account of Christ alone, he also accepts their works, pardons their imperfections and rewards them with the blessings promised to those who perfectly keep the law.
This, I take it, is essentially Calvin’s answer to your question about Deuteronomy 28.
You have been accusing me of muddying things by likening Israel’s situation to ours under the NT, but the alternative is that you are muddying things by overly differentiating.
Your objection: Under the MC, both the righteous and the wicked enjoyed the land inheritance, and when the nation apostatized, they all went into exile together, the righteous with the wicked. This shows that the land inheritance wasn’t retained by grace throughout faith, but rather by relative corporate obedience.
My response: (1) While it is true that many reprobate temporarily enjoyed the land inheritance, ultimately they were purged from it, never to be restored. (2) The OT saints who enjoyed the land inheritance knew that it wasn’t their final destination, viewed themselves as aliens and strangers and fixed their sights on the heavenly city. (3) The OT saints who were deprived of the land inheritance willingly suffered the reproach of Christ, knowing that there would be a future restoration (typical/antitypical).
Therefore, the fact that the nation corporately retained or lost temporal blessings does not prove that the principle of inheritance in the MC (retention as well as reception) was not by grace alone through faith alone on account of Christ alone.
LikeLike
Hi David,
Thanks for laying out the thesis clearly. It is clear to me that you track pretty closely with Dennison et al, so I am interested in your responses to my Quiz over at the “Flattening” thread.
Here is my refutation: The claim that “a works principle is inconsistent with the Mosaic covenant” ignores the many, many Reformed sources that treat with the Mosaic covenant as having an outward administration according to the Covenant of Works.
To be precise, your thesis as stated fails to distinguish between substance and accidents. If it were true that a works principle were in fact incompatible with a works principle, period, then there could be no works principle, period, not even in the accidents.
Since I know from previous discussion that you have held to such a distinction, I wonder whether this is an oversight or a retreat. I assume oversight?
But I am in some doubt, for in your treatment of the land sanctions, I see a failure to consistently work out the substance/accident distinction to its proper conclusion. The Reformed sources tend to do this.
Chief among those is Turretin. Now that I have him in hand, I am positive that you have not grasped the significance of the “legal cloak”, and I will develop this idea at a future time.
Here is one example of a Reformed source who places the works principle within the MC:
— Fisher’s Catechism on the WSC, Qn 40.
Notice that Fisher comes pretty close to a “sub-cov” view, but speaks of the one “Sinaitic Transaction.” He does not agree with you that the Mosaic Covenant is incompatible with a works principle, but rather that the works principle is in operation in a different sense from the grace principle.
DR: Your objection: Under the MC, both the righteous and the wicked enjoyed the land inheritance, and when the nation apostatized, they all went into exile together, the righteous with the wicked. This shows that the land inheritance wasn’t retained by grace throughout faith, but rather by relative corporate obedience.
This is close, but misses the meat of the argument on the one hand, and is imprecise on a crucial point on the other.
The meat of the argument is that those who are justified are not destroyed, as the theocracy was; those who are not justified cannot be rewarded under grace.
Your view has the unjustified being rewarded under grace, while the justified are treated just as if they broke the covenant.
The point on which you are imprecise is to say that “This shows that the land inheritance wasn’t retained by grace throughout faith, but rather by relative corporate obedience.”
I distinguish: The requirement articulated for the land sanctions was perfect obedience. The enforcement of that requirement was not according to stipulation, but was softened on behalf of mediators. The net effect was that God accepted relative obedience, but not because the requirement was relative obedience.
DR: the fact that the nation corporately retained or lost temporal blessings does not prove that the principle of inheritance in the MC (retention as well as reception) was not by grace alone through faith alone on account of Christ alone.
The fact that the theocracy was destroyed proves absolutely that the theocracy was not justified on account of the merits of Christ alone. I will go to the stake for this point.
LikeLike
David R., and your problem is you can’t read or write because you have quoted (really?!?) plenty of Reformed theologians who say just the opposite of your “clear” contention. Do you need Lithium?
LikeLike
“But if we consider the Law strictly, so it contains the sum of the Covenant of Works, which God did therefore reveal, because it was even wholly obliterated, and blotted out of the mind of man; and therefore it was speculum primitivae hominis justitiae, &c. a glass of the primitive righteousness of man. And unto all men out of Christ in an unregenerate state, it remains as a Covenant of Works, binding them to personal and perfect obedience, if they hope to attain life. (1) The Moral Law is the same to the sinner out of Christ that it was unto Christ our Surety; for what it was to the Surety, that it was to the sinner; for he did put his name into our bond; only in us it was necessary, in him voluntary. But Gal. 4.4. the Law was unto Christ a Covenant of Works; therefore to every sinner out of Christ it remains so. (2) That which teaches us Justification and life by doing, that is a Covenant of Works; but so does the Law strictly taken; and it is therefore opposed unto the Gospel; there is the righteousness of the Law, and the righteousness of the Gospel. (3) The Curse under which all unregenerate men are, is the curse of the Moral Law, but that is the curse of the Covenant of Works; therefore the Moral Law is a covenant of Works. (4) Therefore the Apostle makes it a distinct Covenant, from the Covenant of Grace. The Law thus taken strictly as a copy of the Covenant that God made with Adam, and containing the sum of the Covenant of Works, and being delivered in the form of this Covenant, this Covenant has the Lord made subservient and subordinate unto the Covenant of Grace, as Hagar to Sarah.” – William Strong in Discourse of the Two Covenants
LikeLike
Here is my refutation: The claim that “a works principle is inconsistent with the Mosaic covenant” ignores the many, many Reformed sources that treat with the Mosaic covenant as having an outward administration according to the Covenant of Works.
To be precise, your thesis as stated fails to distinguish between substance and accidents. If it were true that a works principle were in fact incompatible with a works principle, period, then there could be no works principle, period, not even in the accidents.
I’m not sure what you’re saying since you seem to have some typos. But no, I’m not ignoring the distinction between substance and accidents. The administration (accidents) has to do with the mode by which the substance (promises/conditions) is communicated. In terms of the CoG, this is covered (as you know) in WCF 7.5-6.
The law is always administered together with the gospel (CoG), but it is not either of the substance or of the administration of the CoG (though the types concealed under the ceremonies were).
LikeLike
DR: But no, I’m not ignoring the distinction between substance and accidents.
I figured you probably were not mentally doing so, but your thesis omits that distinction entirely. Would you mind rephrasing your thesis so that it is clear what you understand the relation of the works principle to be in the MC? Is it entirely absent, acting as accident, or other?
Typos … scanning … ah, yes, right. That para should read:
If it were true that a works principle were in fact incompatible with a grace principle, period, then there could be no works principle, period, not even in the accidents.
LikeLike
Would you mind rephrasing your thesis so that it is clear what you understand the relation of the works principle to be in the MC? Is it entirely absent, acting as accident, or other?
I hope this helps (though it is somewhat redundant):
1. There is (by definition) no works principle in existence apart from the existence of a covenant of works (or legal covenant) between two parties (which we agree the MC was not).
2. In the economy of redemption, the (moral) law is administered as a rule of righteousness (not as a CoW), and as such, it has (at least) these uses: (1) antecedently, as a pedagogue, and (2) consequently, as a rule of life.
3. Antecedently, the moral law subserves the covenant of grace as a pedagogue, convincing elect but unregenerate sinners of their sin and misery and driving them to Christ. It does this, however, not by bringing them under a works principle, but rather by revealing the demands and sanctions of the broken CoW, that is, the works principle that they are already under, and thus liable to the threatened curse.
4. What distinguished the MC revelation of law from that of the NC is not that the former brought the church under a works principle whereas the latter does not. It is rather that in the former, the law’s demand and threat were very conspicuously and emphatically revealed, by contrast with the gospel remaining relatively hidden; whereas in conjunction with the latter, by virtue of the Messiah’s advent, the gospel is openly revealed and proclaimed and the church is thus released from the typical observances and constant threat of temporal curse. (Not to mention that the obligation to obey the moral law under the NC is strengthened, WCF 19.5. D.G., you have your allergy pills handy?)
5. This is the correct category for the material you cited from Fisher’s Catechism (though obviously the terrifying audio/visual phenomena, voice of God, threats, etc. were unique to Sinai). This is also the category for Turretin’s external economy. It is also what is explained in WLC 93-96.
6. The law (as law, i.e., apart from the typological significance of the ceremonies) is not of the substance of the CoG (obviously) nor of its administration (since law cannot administer grace). Though it is true that the law is always administered with the gospel and the CoG; the law (as law) does not itself administer the gospel nor CoG (I think you agree?).
7. Therefore, my thesis stands as is (w/o needing rephrasing) since it concerns only the CoG and its administration, not the law that was administered along with it.
LikeLike
David R., at least I am not as you are allergic to Paul who you continue to ignore. Curious.
LikeLike
David R., to be clear, the law, works, and the curse are not of the substance of the MC because the MC is an administration of the CoG? Presumably, also, since there was no actual curse in the MC, but the only actual curse was in the Adamic Covenant, there is no one cursed under the MC, but only under the AC. It also seems that Christ did not bear the non-existent curse of the MC for us, but only that of the AC.
LikeLike
This is vey helpful and we are very close in many ways. Responses:
(1) Agreed, I think. I would say that the CoW is the legal, natural, “of works” covenant, and that the legal economy reflects its demands. That seems mappable to your (1) … until we get to (7)?
(2) Yes.
(3) Right. There is not at Sinai an additional demand of works, but rather a repetition of what was already true. “Death reigned from Adam until Moses”
(4) This one is squishy. On the one hand, I agree following from (3) that the church was not placed under a new covenant of works. On the other hand, I would say that all of Israel was placed under a legal economy. Here you might consider Turretin 12.7.37-38: Who was made afraid by the rigor of the law?
(5) Right. And to extend, this is the proper category for Berkhof’s “positive reminder of the strict demands of the covenant of works.” And for Hodge’s “In this view the parties were God and the people of Israel; the promise was national security and prosperity; the condition was the obedience of the people as a nation to the Mosaic law; and the mediator was Moses. In this aspect it was a legal covenant. It said. “Do this and live.” Secondly, it contained, as does also the New Testament, a renewed proclamation of the original covenant of works.”
What all of these have in common, over against Ramsey and Dennison, is a positive affirmation that under the legal economy or aspect or layer or thingy, the Israelites were required (not necessarily successfully) to first obey antecedently to receiving the blessings, and that this requirement was of works.
That is, in the legal economy and only in the legal economy, there was a legal requirement: obey to obtain. The meaning of the term “legal” is really clear in Turretin 8.3.4-5, by the way, which makes the term “legal economy” much easier to understand.
6. The law (as law, i.e., apart from the typological significance of the ceremonies) is not of the substance of the CoG (obviously) nor of its administration (since law cannot administer grace).
You would seem to be arguing, then, one of two things, neither of which I think you actually believe.
(6a) “The law is therefore not a part of the Mosaic Covenant, which is an administration of the CoG.”
Since the law is neither of the substance nor the administration, would it not follow that it is no part of an administration of the CoG?
And yet it is self-evident that the Law is the prominent feature of the Mosaic Covenant!!
So that’s not right. So we try
(6b) “The Mosaic Covenant is actually two covenants at once: The CoG given to post-fall Adam and then Abraham, to which is appended the CoW given to pre-fall Adam.”
But this would actually be a subservient covenant view! Two different covenants, different stipulations (same promise), one subserving the other.
And I feel very, very confident that you’re not trying to say that.
So I actually need to disagree with (6). The Law is a part of the administration of the CoG in the Mosaic Covenant. Not that the law administers grace! But rather, that it administers law for the admitted pedagogical purpose.
In other words, I take “administration” and “economy” and “mode of dispensation” to be synonyms. Here, Turretin 12.12.5, 17, 19. Especially 17, in which Turretin argues that the sub-cov view is actually just a confused substance/mode of economy view.
(7) So here then I would think (6) points the way to the problem and solution. To restate: If it’s really true that works-principle and grace-principle cannot coexist in the Mosaic, then there can be no legal cloak. By contrast, if it’s really true that works and grace can coexist, serving different functions (the law condemning, grace giving life), then the thesis is vacated. I am sure that Turretin affirms the latter and not the former. See his discussion of the ceremonial law 11.24.8-9 where the ceremonial law serves different functions with respect to the moral law and to the people and to grace, or sec 11.24.11 where the ceremonial law has a double relation, one legal and one grace.
If a works principle (syn.: legal) is neither a part of the MC nor its administration, then the ceremonial law is left hanging in mid-air.
Or put another way, your point (3) militates against (6).
LikeLike
This is vey helpful and we are very close in many ways.
Good. I too feel like we’re getting somewhere….
Responses:
(1) Agreed, I think. I would say that the CoW is the legal, natural, “of works” covenant, and that the legal economy reflects its demands. That seems mappable to your (1) … until we get to (7)?
If we agree about this one, the rest should be cake.
(4) This one is squishy. On the one hand, I agree following from (3) that the church was not placed under a new covenant of works. On the other hand, I would say that all of Israel was placed under a legal economy. Here you might consider Turretin 12.7.37-38: Who was made afraid by the rigor of the law?
I’m not sure what you are opposing here. I agree that “all of Israel was placed under a legal economy,” but I don’t know why you think I’m saying otherwise.
David R: 6. The law (as law, i.e., apart from the typological significance of the ceremonies) is not of the substance of the CoG (obviously) nor of its administration (since law cannot administer grace).
You would seem to be arguing, then, one of two things, neither of which I think you actually believe.
(6a) “The law is therefore not a part of the Mosaic Covenant, which is an administration of the CoG.”
I wouldn’t put it this way because “not a part of” is ambiguous. The law does not administer grace, but in its pedagogical use, it subserves the administration of grace (see my #3, which you agree with).
Since the law is neither of the substance nor the administration, would it not follow that it is no part of an administration of the CoG?
Yes and/or no (depending on what that ambiguous “no part of” means)….
And yet it is self-evident that the Law is the prominent feature of the Mosaic Covenant!!
So that’s not right. So we try
(6b) “The Mosaic Covenant is actually two covenants at once: The CoG given to post-fall Adam and then Abraham, to which is appended the CoW given to pre-fall Adam.”
But this would actually be a subservient covenant view! Two different covenants, different stipulations (same promise), one subserving the other.
And I feel very, very confident that you’re not trying to say that.
We really need to work this one out, as this is key. Try this by way of clarification:
(6c) The moral law, in its antecedent pedagogical use (i.e., wrt the unregenerate), though it subserves the CoG, is not of the substance of the CoG (obviously), nor of its administration (since law cannot administer grace). But consequently (i.e., following faith and repentance), it serves as a rule of life for believers (third use), and is in this way taken in under the CoG.
WLC 32 again:
So I actually need to disagree with (6). The Law is a part of the administration of the CoG in the Mosaic Covenant. Not that the law administers grace! But rather, that it administers law for the admitted pedagogical purpose.
Again, to say that the law “is a part of” the administration of the CoG seems to me ambiguous. (But see above.)
In other words, I take “administration” and “economy” and “mode of dispensation” to be synonyms. Here, Turretin 12.12.5, 17, 19. Especially 17, in which Turretin argues that the sub-cov view is actually just a confused substance/mode of economy view.
I agree with this, but the question in each particular usage of the term is whether the specific “economy” is of grace, as in the “internal economy,” or of law, as in the “external economy.”
(7) So here then I would think (6) points the way to the problem and solution. To restate: If it’sreally true that works-principle and grace-principle cannot coexist in the Mosaic, then there can be no legal cloak.
I’ll be interested in your response to my “(6c),” above.
By contrast, if it’s really true that works and grace can coexist, serving different functions (the law condemning, grace giving life), then the thesis is vacated. I am sure that Turretin affirms the latter and not the former. See his discussion of the ceremonial law 11.24.8-9 where the ceremonial law serves different functions with respect to the moral law and to the people and to grace, or sec 11.24.11 where the ceremonial law has a double relation, one legal and one grace.
Again, law and gospel are administered together, but the one does not administer the other (as I know you agree).
If a works principle (syn.: legal) is neither a part of the MC nor its administration, then the ceremonial law is left hanging in mid-air.
I am not sure what you’re saying here. The ceremonial law, as law, i.e., as it functions in the external economy, does not administer grace. But in terms of its typological significance, i.e., as it functions in the internal economy, it does administer grace.
Or put another way, your point (3) militates against (6).
Hopefully you now see that it does not.
LikeLike
Good interchange.
—
I should say that I am comfortable with the basic architecture that you’re working from (Turretin’s), but I continue to push at this point for two reasons:
(1) The way in which you articulate that architecture is misleading — not that you are trying to mislead others, but that you have been misled to believe that Kline is on a radically different page from yourself. And it all comes back to this proposition that is being used unqualifiedly: “A works principle is inconsistent with the Mosaic covenant.” When viewed from a certain angle, that proposition is absolutely true. But from other angles, including the one that is being used to bash Kline, it is false. When viewed from the Turretin angle, the works principle lies alongside the grace principle, each performing its separate function, the works principle subserving that of grace. They are not “incompatible”, but “antithetical.”
Propositions that can be either true or false, depending, are generally not good theology unless there is no other alternative.
(2) The prize has nothing to do with Kline. He has gone on to glory, and whatever mistakes he had in his theology have long been corrected. The anti-repubs have no concern on his behalf. Rather, what is at stake for them is to defend and rehabilitate the Murray thesis, which goes all the way back to Ball:
And of course, having read Turretin, you see that this is incompatible with Turretin’s characterization of the cloak as “legal” — meaning: dependent on an antecedent condition of obedience, over against the covenant of grace in which obedience is a posterior condition.
There are rocks ahead for you on the anti-repub ship. You will not be able to continue to keep Law and Gospel distinct.
—
DR: I agree that “all of Israel was placed under a legal economy,” but I don’t know why you think I’m saying otherwise.
Well, because you say that
* Believers in Israel were not under the Covenant of Works.
* The legal economy was the CoW, subserving the CoG.
Whence it should follow that believers in Israel were not under the legal economy.
DR: (6c) The moral law, in its antecedent pedagogical use (i.e., wrt the unregenerate), though it subserves the CoG, is not of the substance of the CoG (obviously), nor of its administration (since law cannot administer grace).
You still have two distinct covenants, though, one subserving the other.
Take the first commandment. Is it contained within the Mosaic Covenant? Yes. Is it of the substance of the CoG? According to you, no. So is the Mosaic Covenant one in substance with the CoG? It logically cannot be.
In fact, most of the Mosaic Covenant is legal sanction, which according to you is not of the substance of the CoG, but must be referred in its legality to the CoW and functioning pedagogically.
So it is impossible for you to self-consistently affirm that “the MC was the CoG, period.”
But consequently (i.e., following faith and repentance), it serves as a rule of life for believers (third use), and is in this way taken in under the CoG
Sure. But notice the careful distinction: The third use of the law adds grace alongside the law (specifically, Christ’s merits imputed and infused), giving the law a new function. The third use of the law does not turn the law into grace. The Mosaic Covenant’s legal cloak doesn’t “become gracious” by grace. It continues to be law — but with the requirement fulfilled by Christ.
So now you can see how inept the reasoning of Dennison et al is:
Law? Gospel? Who can tell the difference? For Dennison, obedience to the commands becomes a means of grace, the antecedent condition on which life is granted. It doesn’t count as “merit” for Dennison, as it would have for Turretin, because Dennison defines merit in a strict sense.
Turretin is much better (sorry, Dennison): The requirements of the law were antecedent requirements, therefore meritorious in the sense of pact and part of the legal economy. I don’t remember the exact cite at the moment, but I quoted it above somewhere.
As such, the legal requirements applied to all. He’s very definite about the legal requirements applying even to believers.
But life came on a different condition: faith. Only faith is antecedent to receiving life, and obedience is a “condition” only in the consequent sense.
So Turretin and Dennison are much, much further apart than Turretin and even genuine sub-covenantals.
This is huge, and it’s at the heart of what’s at stake in our entire discussion. It is what drives me to keep talking after all this time.
LikeLike
(1) The way in which you articulate that architecture is misleading — not that you are trying to mislead others, but that you have been misled to believe that Kline is on a radically different page from yourself.
You already know I disagree, so I won’t comment further.
And it all comes back to this proposition that is being used unqualifiedly: “A works principle is inconsistent with the Mosaic covenant.” When viewed from a certain angle, that proposition is absolutely true.
Good.
But from other angles, including the one that is being used to bash Kline, it is false. When viewed from the Turretin angle, the works principle lies alongside the grace principle, each performing its separate function, the works principle subserving that of grace. They are not “incompatible”, but “antithetical.”
I’m not clear on how it is false from other angles (but you knew that).
(2) The prize has nothing to do with Kline. He has gone on to glory, and whatever mistakes he had in his theology have long been corrected. The anti-repubs have no concern on his behalf. Rather, what is at stake for them is to defend and rehabilitate the Murray thesis, which goes all the way back to Ball:
I disagree. First of all those few sentences from Murray should not be controversial in Reformed circles. He is saying in those few sentences nothing essentially different than what Calvin, Turretin, Berkhof, et. al. also say, i.e., what necessarily is the case if the MC is an administration of the CoG. Gordon’s difference with Murray (and also with Calvin, Turretin, Berkhof, et. al.) is a difference over the essential nature of the MC.
And of course, having read Turretin, you see that this is incompatible with Turretin’s characterization of the cloak as “legal” — meaning: dependent on an antecedent condition of obedience, over against the covenant of grace in which obedience is a posterior condition.
I have no idea what you’re arguing here. Turretin is entirely compatible with that Murray quote because they both agree concerning the essence of the MC.
There are rocks ahead for you on the anti-repub ship. You will not be able to continue to keep Law and Gospel distinct.
On the contrary, I am anti-repub in the interests of keeping law and gospel distinct. As I’ve said, I think Kline muddied the L-G distinction (by importing works and merit into the CoG). Calvin, Turretin, et. al. get it right.
DR: I agree that “all of Israel was placed under a legal economy,” but I don’t know why you think I’m saying otherwise.
Well, because you say that
* Believers in Israel were not under the Covenant of Works.
* The legal economy was the CoW, subserving the CoG.
Whence it should follow that believers in Israel were not under the legal economy.
Believers in Israel were certainly not under the CoW. But where did I ever refer to the legal economy as “the CoW”? Maybe we can dispel some confusion by dealing with the question of what precisely it means to say that believers in Israel were under the legal economy. For example, does it mean that …
1. they were under a very conspicuous and continual proclamation of the law, by contrast with a relatively sparse scattering of gospel promises and a veil of ceremonies hiding the gospel substance? Yes.
2. they were witnesses (if they were present at Sinai) to the display of God’s avenging wrath in the thunder, lightning, audible divine voice, threats, etc.? Of course.
3. they were under the law as a covenant of works? No, not in any sense.
4. they were under the law as a pedagogue? Yes and no. Yes, in the redemptive-historical sense of #1. But no, wrt the ordinary sense of that terminology (i.e., the use of the law to the unregenerate).
5. they were obligated to obedience to the ceremonial and civil law (in addition to the moral)? Of course.
6. they were subject to the temporal curse on account of national apostasy? Of course.
Can you think of anything else? Those are most of the ways I can think of that believers in Israel were under the legal economy (and what that does and doesn’t mean).
You still have two distinct covenants, though, one subserving the other.
Take the first commandment. Is it contained within the Mosaic Covenant? Yes. Is it of the substance of the CoG? According to you, no. So is the Mosaic Covenant one in substance with the CoG? It logically cannot be.
That is terribly confusing. In what sense is the moral law “contained within the Mosaic covenant”? As a covenant of works? No. As a pedagogue and as a rule of life? Yes, which is precisely the same sense that the moral law is “contained within” the new covenant.
DR: But consequently (i.e., following faith and repentance), it serves as a rule of life for believers (third use), and is in this way taken in under the CoG
The third use of the law does not turn the law into grace. The Mosaic Covenant’s legal cloak doesn’t “become gracious” by grace. It continues to be law — but with the requirement fulfilled by Christ.
Of course, but why would you think I disagree?
So now you can see how inept the reasoning of Dennison et al is …
That may or may not be. I am not well versed in Dennison, et. al.
Turretin is much better (sorry, Dennison): The requirements of the law were antecedent requirements, therefore meritorious in the sense of pact and part of the legal economy. I don’t remember the exact cite at the moment, but I quoted it above somewhere.
As such, the legal requirements applied to all. He’s very definite about the legal requirements applying even to believers.
Okay, but in what sense? (See above list.)
So Turretin and Dennison are much, much further apart than Turretin and even genuine sub-covenantals.
Could be, but I doubt it. (Btw, I really don’t see much distance between Bolton, a self-described “modest” proponent of the subservient covenant, and Turretin.)
This is huge, and it’s at the heart of what’s at stake in our entire discussion. It is what drives me to keep talking after all this time.
If the issue for you is the law-gospel distinction, then I’m 100% with you on that score. I will stand with you and anyone else here when it comes to defending the law-gospel distinction against nomism. If someone wants to argue that Murray muddied the L-G distinction, then fine, I won’t necessarily argue. If someone wants to argue that Kline returned us to “classic covenant theology,” well, in some ways he was helpful to that end, but in other crucial ways (i.e., those under discussion), not so much. If Kline was right, then Calvin, Turretin, et. al. confused law and gospel. Imo we should seek to genuinely recover classic covenant theology and agree to reject whatever departures from it, whether issuing from the house of Murray, Kline or you-name-it. Can I get an amen?
LikeLike
John Murray: In reality, there is nothing that is principally different in the necessity of keeping the covenant and of obedience to God’s voice, which proceeds from the Mosaic covenant, from that which is involved from the Abrahamic
DR: I disagree [that Turretin is incompatible with the above]. First of all those few sentences from Murray should not be controversial in Reformed circles. He is saying in those few sentences nothing essentially different than what Calvin, Turretin, Berkhof, et. al. also say, i.e., what necessarily is the case if the MC is an administration of the CoG. … Turretin is entirely compatible with that Murray quote because they both agree concerning the essence of the MC.
Definitely not. Yes, they both agree, at least on the surface, concerning the essence of the MC.
No, they do not agree concerning the nature and function of the accidents, and in particular on the necessity of obedience. They have a very different understanding of how the “legal cloak” functions. I will address that in detail below.
JRC: Take the first commandment. Is it contained within the Mosaic Covenant? Yes. Is it of the substance of the CoG? According to you, no. So is the Mosaic Covenant one in substance with the CoG? It logically cannot be.
DR: That is terribly confusing. In what sense is the moral law “contained within the Mosaic covenant”? As a covenant of works? No. As a pedagogue and as a rule of life? Yes, which is precisely the same sense that the moral law is “contained within” the new covenant.
Back up. The downside of scholastic distinctions is that they sometimes obfuscate the obvious.
The moral law is contained within the Mosaic Covenant in the plain sense that Exodus 20 is a subset of the document called the Mosaic Covenant.
The moral law is in the Mosaic Covenant.
Now we can ask, how does it function within the MC? You suggest, as a pedagogue leading unbelievers to Christ, and as a rule of life for believers. I agree with both of those. It has a third function, per Turretin, and that is to hold the entire nation under bondage as a child. (Esp 12.7.37-38). That bondage functions according to a legal principle, which for Turretin means, according to works in the sense that he uses that term, which is “according to an antecedent condition.”
It is this function that Berkhof, Vos, and Hodge are describing as “national.”
It is also this function, and only this function, that Kline is talking about as the “upper level.”
In every other function of the law, both hypothetically requiring obedience for justification (fulfilled by Christ) and also evangelical obedience (fulfilled by the believer in Christ, or perhaps the Spirit of Christ in the believer), the principle is “according to a posterior condition” or “a condition that is also a promise” (12.2.28 – 12.3.2). All five are united in affirming this.
The odd man out here is Murray, who cannot abide talk of believers being under bondage, hence insists that the law for believers administered only grace. Here is the tell: In reality, there is nothing that is principally different in the necessity of keeping the covenant and of obedience to God’s voice, which proceeds from the Mosaic covenant, from that which is involved from the Abrahamic
For Turretin, the necessity is different. Abraham’s necessity was one of posterior condition; the Mosaic legal economy had a necessity that was antecedent.
But let’s circle back to that point after we have clearly established Turretin’s structure, because I’m pre-sensing some agitation about the whole nation being under a works-principle.
LikeLike
Turretin’s Structure of the Covenants
FT considers all covenants between God and man to be acts of condescension because God and man are not peers (8.3.1). The covenants are two-sided: a promise on God’s part, a condition on man’s part (8.3.3).
In particular, there is a “two-fold covenant”, or more simply, two covenants.
The first is characterized as “natural, legal, of works.” The second is “gracious, evangelical, of faith.” (8.3.4) The CoW is natural in that it takes man as perfect and unfallen and relies on “his integrity and powers” (8.3.5). It is “legal” because the condition is one of observation of the law. It is “of works” because it “depended on his works or proper obedience.”
The law in the covenant of works necessarily binds the one receiving it to “punishment denounced through the same” (8.3.7) but indemnity to the one obeying. For Turretin, the nature and sanction of the law of the CoW, particularly the promise of life on condition of obedience, is expressed in these passages: Lev 18.5, Dt 27.26, Ezx 20.11, Matt 19.17, and Gal 3.12.
The obedience required was required to have these characteristics: sincere, universal, perfect, perpetual. (8.3.13).
It is important to observe what “law” and “legal” mean for Turretin. “Legal” means “upon condition of observing the law.” Now that raises the question for the attentive reader: is it an antecedent or posterior condition, or sometimes one and sometimes the other?
Certainly in the covenant of works with Adam, the condition is anterior, which is reflected in the term “of works.” Put simply:
In order to obtain life, Adam had to obey.
But now arises the question: does the covenant of works in fact require “merit”? For Turretin, strict merit of condignity is impossible even for man in his natural state (he agrees with Ursinus on this). Therefore, we say that there was merit according to the pact.
— 8.3.16-17.
We pause here to notice the term as Turretin has defined it.
merit means acquiring the promise by fulfilling the condition, or what I have repeatedly referred to as acquiring on the ground of the condition.
Finally, we observe that for Turretin, the condition and promise contained in the CoW was repeated in the law of Moses as the means by which Christ merited eternal life for us (8.6.4-5). He says,
Second, [the fact that eternal life was promised to Adam] is confirmed by this — Christ acquired the eternal and celestial life which he bestows upon us in no other way than that (being made under the law) he fulfilled the righteousness of the law for us (Rom 8:4, Gal 4:5). This could not have been done unless the law had promised heavenly life to the obedient. For as he rendered to God the Father no other obedience than what the law demanded, so by fulfilling the law, he acquired no other life than what was promised by the law. — 8.6.5.
There is much more in FT concerning the CoW, but this is sufficient to the purpose. We notice already that
Theorem 1: Turretin was a republicationist in the sense that he affirmed a hypothetical CoW principle in the Law: If one obeyed the Law, one’s (sincere, universal, perfect, perpetual) obedience life according to pact.
This theorem can be made stronger, but it is a starting point that I believe we agree to. I would imagine that you probably agree to everything above.
[Disclaimer: I recognize that these are not theorems proper in that they are not deductively proven.]
Now, the covenant of grace likewise has promise and stipulations. But the reason that the CoG is gracious is that God fulfills the stipulations (12.1.9, 11).
— 12.1.11
Can I get an amen?
The promise is remission of sins and salvation to man gratuitously on account of Christ (12.2.5), and the stipulations are faith and obedience. (8.2.5).
And here he repeats the contrast: First, a legal covenant (or one of works), which is characterized by the phrases “do this and live” and “cursed is he who continueth not.” Second, an evangelical covenant of faith, entered into with the elect (12.2.3).
Thus the two covenants. The one is natural, legal, of works. In it, Adam merits life. The other is gracious, evangelical, of faith. In it, life is merited for us by Christ.
The first is legal because it requires obedience antecedently: Obey in order to live.
The second is evangelical because obedience is not only required posteriorly but also given by promise: Obey because you live.
LikeLike
Turretin’s Understanding and Language of Merit
We have already seen that for FT, man is never assigned merit of condignity from God (8.6.10), but rather according to gratuitous pact (8.7.16-17). In several places, Turretin makes clear what it means to fulfill a condition meritoriously. The most direct is 12.3.2:
Condition is used either antecedently and a priori, for that which has the force of a meritorious and impulsive cause to obtain the benefits of the covenant (the performance of which gives man a right to the reward); or concomitantly and consequently a posteriori, for that which has the relation of means and disposition in the subject, required in the covenanted
This flows directly into the contrast between Law and Gospel:
Although the covenant of grace be conditional, the promises of the law and the gospel are not therefore to be confounded. There always remains a manifold difference: (1) in the matter, because the legal condition is an entire and perfect obedience to the law (Rom 10:5), but the evangelical is faith (Rom 10:9; Jn 3:16) — not perfect and free from all blemish, but living and sincere (1 Tim 1:5, Jam 2:14); (2) in origin, because the legal condition should be natural, flowing from the strength belonging to nature, but the evangelical is supernatural, depending upon grace. The former is only commanded, but not given or promised; but the latter is both commanded and promised and also given (Jer 31:33…). (3) In the end, the legal condition has the relation of a meritorious cause (at least congruously and improperly) of the promised thing (namely, of life) — “Do this and live.” Thus life is granted to him because he has done and on account of his own obedience; but the evangelical condition cannot properly be called the cause of salvation, much less merit, because it si the pure gift (charisma) of God (Rom 6:23). It may only be called an instrument by which the thing promised is apprehended (Acts 26:18, Rom 5:17) and without which it cannot be obtained (Heb 11:6) — 12.3.6.
We notice here the terms that are used as synonyms: A legal condition is one that requires obedience a priori and therefore requires merit.
As to works, they were required in the first [CoW] as an antecedent condition by way of a cause for acquiring life; but in the second, they are only the subsequent condition as the fruit and effect of the life already acquired. — 12.4.7.
FT sees this demand for a priori obedience clearly in the Mosaic Law (12.3.8) in terms of its pedagogical usage. Hence, the Mosaic Law demands merit. No-one earns it (save Jesus), but the Mosaic Law demands it.
Thus merit in Turretin. The meaning is “earning by fulfilling an a priori condition”; the qualification is “according to pact”; and the adjective that signals that merit is required is “legal.”
LikeLike
Moral and Ceremonial Law
In Chapters 11 and 12, FT embarks on the difficult and still-debated topic of the Law and its relationship to the CoG.
Of note is that FT identifies the moral law (the Decalogue) as being the same for substance, but different in mode of delivery from the natural law (tablets v conscience). Interestingly, he says that the moral law applies only to those called by the word, while the natural applies to all. Shades of van Drunen. (11.1.12). He then argues that the moral law, being in substance the natural law [hence from God’s nature], is not abrogated, while the judicial and ceremonial, being of positive right [according to God’s voluntary will], are abrogated (11.2.9ff).
After a discussion of the Decalogue, he now considers what is its use, and he divides here. Absolutely, the law is a rule of obedience (11.22.2). But relatively, according to the states of man, it has three uses (11.22.7ff):
(1) For the innocent Adam and Christ, as the contract of the CoW.
(2) For those under sin, for conviction, restraint, and condemnation.
(3) For the elect, conviction and pedagogy prior to conversion; a rule of life thereafter.
Here we pause to consider a question: Does “rule of life” mean “a rule to direct my life” or “a rule that gives life”? This question is important because it is sometimes taught that obedience is a way to obtain life. For Turretin, however, the phrase “rule of life” seems always to mean “a rule that directs our lives.” And so it is here (11.22.11).
All of these uses pertain to the moral law.
Next: Is the moral law abrogated? Yes: ‘We’ (believers? all? unclear in this sentence) are no longer under the law to obtain justification from it, for we cannot. Yes: believers are no longer under the curse of the moral law. And now he introduces a new idea:
Third, the question does not concern restraint and rigor (which was the case under the Old Testament) because we are no longer under that servile training and dispensation in which the spirit of bondage exercised its power. Rather, we are under the gospel economy… (11.23.2)
In other words, the freedom of believers from the curse of the moral law is unrelated to the restraint and rigor that obtained in the OT. This idea is developed later in ch 12.
But is the moral law abrogated? No: We are still under its direction and observance (11.23.2ff), and in particular to the law of nature (11.23.15).
Now as he considers the other aspects of the law, the civil and ceremonial, he makes this helpful observation:
— 11.24.2.
This vindicates the idea that we should distinguish between the individual and the nation when considering the law. The individual deals with the moral law, as pedagogue when unjustified, as rule of life when justified. The “third use of the law” is likewise referred here and applies to individuals only.
Meanwhile, when considering the nation, we should look to ceremonial (cult) and civil (national) law for our understanding.
FT considers the ceremonial law to have various uses according to its various relations. (1) It subserved the moral law by showing guilt (11.24.8). (2) It served as a national marker to separate Israel from the Gentiles (3) It served to the church to show misery, Christ’s remedy, and our debt of gratitude. Or in other words, “what he is by nature, what he has received by grace; and what he owes by obedience” (11.24.9), which latter I take to be “third use.”
But was the ceremonial law “legal”, demanding obedience? Or was it “gracious”, holding forth Christ?
It was both (11.24.11). It was legal, referring to the CoW; it was gracious, referring to Christ. And, says FT, these two relations are “so connected that whoever wishes rightly to understand the nature of the OT economy and the use of the ceremonial law, ought always to join them together; nor can they be wrested asunder except at a heavy expense of the truth.” (11.24.12).
Pause for a moment and consider how different this is from the David R dictum that the Mosaic Covenant can only administer grace.
For Turretin, the ceremonial law has grace and law lying side-by-side, each performing its own function. In this way, grace is ultimately administered. The law continues to demand, in relation to the CoW; and yet not being the CoW.
So what was demanded and what was offered in the ceremonial law? What was offered was not justification or sanctification per se “since it was concerned only with a carnal commandment and things earthly and corporeal ‘which could not make the conscience perfect’ (Heb 9:9). It reached no further than to the ‘purifying of the flesh’ (v. 13)” (11.24.18).
What was demanded was a sacrifice. What was given in response to the sacrifice was a “typical and ceremonial expiation by which the impurity of the flesh was taken away” (11.24.19).
Now pause again and consider Turretin’s categories.
The externally guilty or unclean person (whether believer or not) had an antecedent condition of offering a sacrifice. If he did, he received typical and ceremonial expiation. This function of the Law was in relation to the CoW (inasmuch as it demanded antecedently and did not provide the sacrifice itself, that being demanded of the sacrificer). It was also in relation to the CoG (inasmuch as it typified grace).
Turretin: Therefore a twofold effect of that law must be attended to: the taking away of carnal impurity … [and] the signifying and sealing of the grace and all the benefits to be obtained from the Mediator (11.24.19).
Now what do we (does Turretin) call an antecedent condition upon fulfillment of which a reward is given? Merit. The ceremonial law required of all Israelites, believer and non-believer (11.25.1) to merit typical expiation. It was not justificatory merit, which of course no-one could attain. It was external, typical, church-wide merit that was required of the church. Such was the “rigor” of the legal economy under the ceremonial law.
That is what typological merit is all about. And it was right there in the Law, which is why FT noticed that fact and spent so much time calling portion of the law a “legal economy.” The word legal means that merit is required.
And in the eternal sense, merit cannot be attained, so that the true sacrifice had to be provided; all of the conditions had to be given by promise; and the end is infallible.
But in the temporal, typical sense, the sacrifice was not provided. The condition was not given by promise (usually); and the end was quite fallible.
And to be crystal clear, these two lie side-by-side, not commingled, in the ceremonial law. Offering up the animal did not, of itself, provide any eternal forgiveness of sins. Failing to offer the animal did not withhold any eternal forgiveness of sins. Being justified did not excuse one from the requirement to sacrifice. Being unjustified did not reduce in any way the outward expiation provided by the sacrifice.
Hence we have established:
Theorem 2: Turretin was a republicationist in the sense of Thm 1 AND in the sense that he held that the ceremonial law republished in pictorial form the demands of the CoW.
This function of the ceremonial law was a typical use, tied as a type and shadow to the grace offered. The end of this republication was, for unbelievers, pedagogical; for believers, to remind of misery, remedy, and obedience out of gratitude.
I’m zonked. What’s left on the table is the “legal economy” in contrast to and subserving the covenant of grace. Hopefully I can get there tomorrow.
And then I’ll really need to quit for a while.
LikeLike
Jeff, if I stand close to you in glory, will you give me a crown?
LikeLike
Thanks, Jeff.
LikeLike
David R.,
Are you leaving the public library workstation to shower at least occasionally? The people at the neighboring workstations would thank you if you did.
LikeLike
Turretin and the Judicial Law
Turretin has less to say about the judicial law, considering it under the question Whether the Judicial Law has been abrogated.
We recall that while the moral law was applicable to individuals and the ceremonial, to the church under age, the judicial law had reference to Israel as a theocracy (11.24.2).
He considers that the question of abrogation is a matter of hitting a middle ground (11.26.2) between entire annulment (Antibaptists, Antinomians) and entire retention (Carlstadt, Castellio). To hit that middle ground cleanly, he distinguishes ends.
The end of the judicial law to distinguish Jews from Gentiles and to be a type of the kingdom of God is abrogated because there is no longer a distinction between Jew and Gentile (11.26.3). Further, they *ought not* be observed any longer (11.26.6)
As to good order, there is no abrogation with regard to those things found in the natural law, hence moral law, hence Decalogue (11.26.3). But those laws that are of positive right, referring only to the Jewish state (e.g.: primogeniture) are no longer to be observed (11.26.7).
Later, Turretin reasons from the fact that the judicial law distinguished Jew from Gentile to the conclusion that the covenant of grace is not universally dispensed, over against the Arminians (12.6.11).
The question we would want answered, of course, is whether the judicial law operated on a works-principle or a grace-principle. Turretin addresses this only obliquely, yet definitely.
— 12.7.37 – 39.
Here Turretin is clearly wrapping together both ceremonial (cleansing) and judicial (punishment) as operating under a works-principle, as seen in these ways:
* Outward external forgiveness is given in contradistinction to actual forgiveness.
* It is given on the condition of sacrifice. Turretin does not say “a priori condition”, but he emphatically and repeatedly calls this the “legal economy”, signaling a works-principle.
* The condition of obedience is not given as well as promised. Individuals and the nation to forfeit blessing or to incur punishment by acts of disobedience, thus failing to meet the condition. In the grace-principle (for Turretin), what is required is also promised and given.
* And most importantly, the immunity from temporal punishments was granted without relation either to repentance or faith. This makes entirely clear that for Turretin, both ceremonial and judicial laws with respect to temporal things were operating under a works-principle.
Hence we say
Theorem 3: Turretin was a republicationist in the sense of the previous two theorems AND because he believed that temporal blessings and punishments under the judicial law operated according to a works-principle.
Now, we need to carefully distinguish. For NOT ALL temporal blessings and punishments fell under the category of “what was required by law”, and thus not all temporal blessings and punishments in the Old Testament were according to works.
Chief among these was the promise to Abraham and his seed that they would inherit the land of Canaan, which was given to Abraham by faith. BUT in what sense?
* The promise to Abraham and descendants that was by grace through faith was the eschatological promise to inherit the world (Rom 4), and it was to the elect only, who are the only ones under grace.
That promise is given under the conditions of faith and evangelical obedience, but even the conditions themselves are promised and given, so that it cannot fail.
* The promise to the nation of Israel that they would inherit Canaan and retain it was on the a priori condition of obedience, which was itself not promised (in contradistinction to the New Covenant, Jer 31) nor given (as evidenced by the failure of the theocracy). This promise was a type only, and had to pass away, so that the antitype above could come in its fullness.
From this vantage point, then, Kline’s essential architecture is seen to be identical to Turretin’s, EXCEPT possibly his language about the covenants.
Objection: But a works-principle requires entire obedience to the whole law. This was not required. Hence, the ceremonial and judicial laws must have been operating according to a grace principle.
Answer: It is not a question whether, with regard to justification and inheritance of eternal life, that entire obedience to the entire moral law is required. This is granted.
Nor is it a question of whether some temporal blessings and even disciplines come to individuals within the covenant of grace. This is granted also, David being an example of both.
It is rather a question of whether the external, temporal functioning of ceremonial and judicial laws was according to grace or according to works.
On the one hand, some (DR, e.g.) argue that perfect, from the heart obedience was not required by the ceremonial and judicial laws; hence, they operated according a grace principle.
Over against this is the preponderance of evidence given above and which will not be repeated here. The fact that the theocracy failed is absolute proof that the condition was not given and was therefore not by grace.
We must conclude, then, that the premise of the objection is faulty in a manner that is unclear. It may be that it is best to say imperfect obedience was required; or it may be best to say that perfect obedience was required, but imperfect was accepted. But the premise that imperfect obedience was accepted; therefore grace is clearly wrong.
For the conclusion is inescapable: The ceremonial and judicial laws were legal and demanding of works in relation to the outward elements.
LikeLike
@Jeff
Gather up everything on your MC discussion from this thread, the “Flattening” thread, the “Is Everything Grace” thread, and the “Kilts” thread and send it along to Estelle as he prepares.
Good stuff…
LikeLike
Turretin’s Legal Economy
It is impossible to hit everything here. In brief, Turretin views the from the Fall onward to be a single covenant of grace resting on the pact between Father and Son (12.2). The duties required in the covenant are faith and repentance, but what makes this covenant peculiarly gracious is that the conditions themselves depend upon the grace of God and pass over into promises. This is the reason why it cannot be made void as the first covenant (which was founded upon man’s strength). (12.2.29).
We notice here that infallibility is connected to grace, while fallibility is connected to nature.
This idea is developed in 12.3 further, which I’ve already cited at length.
The CoW is then contrasted with the CoG in multiple ways (12.4): authorship (God as Lord, God as Redeemer); parties (no mediator, mediator); foundation (obedience of Adam, obedience of Christ); promise (life, salvation AND life); condition (obedience, faith); end (declaration of justice, manifestation of mercy); order (first works, then grace); extent (universal, elect); and effects (various).
Of interest to both Patrick Ramsey and Mark Jones is the discussion of faith and works in each covenant:
Nor can it be objected here that faith was required also in the first covenant and works are not excluded in the second (as was said before). They stand in a far different relation. For in the first covenant, faith was required as a work and a part of the inherent righteousness to which life was promised. But in the second, it is demanded — not as a work on account of which life is given, but as a mere instrument apprehending the righteousness of Christ (on account of which alone salvation is granted to us). In the one, faith was a theological virtue from the strength of nature, terminating on God, the Creator; in the other, faith is an evangelical condition after the manner of supernatural grace, terminating on God, the Redeemer. As to works, they were required in the first as an antecedent condition by way of a cause for acquiring life; but in the second, they are only the subsequent condition as the fruit and effect of the life already acquired. In the first, they ought to precede the act of justification; in the second, they follow it. — 12.4.6.
Of the greatest interest to us is how Turretin affirms that the Mosaic economy is the covenant of grace in substance, yet under a legal cloak.
He first affirms that the Old Testament covenant is the covenant of grace. This is in contradiction to the Pelgians and their heirs: Remonstrants (not including Arminius himself), Socinians, Anabaptists. These taught that the Old Covenant had reference to external earthly goods only, and the promises of the gospel, to the extent seen, were for believers in the future New Covenant (12.5).
Over against this, FT argues that Christ was not only predicted but also promised to the fathers and by his grace they were saved under the Old Testament no less than we are saved under the New… (12.5.6). The OT fathers were given the same promise under the same condition (12.5.14-15). This is not to deny that the administration was different under the Law, but that the law was given to prepare as a schoolmaster: The moral convicting of sin and stimulating to seek expiation; the judicial constituting the polity of Israel; the ceremonial foreshadowing the Messiah (12.5.22). And here FT heralds his coming argument:
For the Law and the Prophets with the promulgation of the law always had the promises of grace, but they treat only of the legal and prophetic ministry in opposition to the evangelical, especially as to clearness of manifestation (12.5.26)
Turretin is extending familiar themes: law and gospel lie side-by-side, with the law serving the gospel.
He makes this structure more explicit:
The old covenant is taken in two ways, either for the covenant of works or the legal covenant strictly understood, made with our first parents before their fall and afterwards renewed in the desert; or for the second covenant of grace made with our first parents after the fall and confirmed in the Mosaic economy. (12.5.33)
We notice several points here:
(1) FT allows two ways of speaking about the old covenant. One is as the covenant of grace, the other as a renewed covenant of works. This is very different from flat assertions that the MC is the covenant of grace, period.
(2) Here in the discussion of the economy, he makes clear that the language of “legal covenant” is deliberately synonymous with “covenant of works”, thus reminding us that “legal” has reference to works and merit.
After considering the question of universality (No! — 12.6), he now asks the question we’ve all been wondering: “Why did God will to dispense the single covenant of grace in different ways? In how many ways? What was its economy?” (12.7)
For FT, the fundamental break happens with the advent of Christ. Prior to Christ, all is type and shadow; after Christ is the reality, arguing from Heb 1.2 (12.7.1). Within that old economy are three distinct stages: Adam to Abraham, in which the gospel was seen in the Gen 3.17 promise (12.7.11 – 17); Abraham to Moses, in which promises of both temporal and eternal blessings were made, and the conditions of faith and obedience are set forth (12.7.18 – 23).
And now the most difficult, the age from Moses to Abraham, in which “the appearance of things was far different.” During this age, “the law was promulgated.” (12.7.24 – 25).
We pause to consider the weight of this statement. “The law” is already explicated in chapter 11 as being coextensive with the moral, natural law as well the legal and ceremonial laws, whose function we have already seen.
Thus, from the forgoing, we understand that during this period, a works-principle was promulgated. But in what sense? That will be the burden of the rest of Turretin’s discussion.
And hence we can clearly gather what is to be determined about a question here agitated by some — whether the Decalogue promulgated on Mount Sinai contained nothing except the covenant of grace and its pure stipulation. For since from what has already been said, it is evident that the manner of this lawgiving was terrific, smiting with fear their consciences and by the severity of its threatenings removing them from the sight of God, everyone sees that this was not the manner or the genius of the covenant of grace (which exhibits God to us as appeased and recalls sinners to itself by the sweetness of its promises). Besides, the law (contained in the Decalogue) is of natural right, founded on the justice of God; while the covenant of grace is of positive and free right, founded on his good pleasure and mercy. The latter sets for a surety, promises remission of sins and salvation in his satisfaction; not only demands but also effects obedience. But in the Decalogue, no mention either of a surety or promise of salvation to be given to sinners occurs; but a bare promise of life to those doing and a threatening of death to transgressors. Hence the law of works (comprised in the Decalogue) is everywhere contradistinguished by Paul from the law of faith and the promise of grace (Rom 3.27, Gal 3.17-18) for as the law is not of faith (Gal 3.12), so neither is faith of the law. So great is the contrariety between these two means that they are wholly incompatible with each other. This we do not say, as if we wished either to deny that the covenant of grace had then been made with the Israelites … or as if we supposed the Decalogue had nothing in common with the covenant of grace and was nothing else than the covenant of works itself, renewed for the purpose of recalling the people to it, that they might seek life from it. (12.7.28-29).
We observe the following: That to state that the MC was nothing more than a covenant of grace is a mistaken “agitation.” For the law does not give what it demands.
Instead, rather, the Decalogue belonged to the covenant of grace; yea, in a measure flowed from it inasmuch as it was promulgated from the counsel of God that it might serve him — both antecedently as a schoolmaster, by convincing of sin … and consequently as a rule, prescribing the measure of obedience and holiness demanded by God in the covenant of grace… (12.7.30)
Here we see both first use and third use of the moral law. But notice how the law is not of itself gracious at any time, for it never provides what it demands. The law serves the covenant of grace by being legal. In the case of non-believers, it is legal unto conviction. In the case of believers, it is legal unto requirement, and grace supplies that requirement.
… Meanwhile it pleased God to administer the covenant of grace in this period under a rigid legal economy … A twofold relation ought always [emph add] to obtain: the one legal, more severe, through which by a new promulgation of the law and of the covenant of works, with an intolerable yoke of ceremonies, he wished to set forth what men owed and what was to be expected by them on account of duty unperformed. In this respect, the law is called the letter that kills…The other relation was evangelical, sweeter, inasmuch as “the law was a schoolmaster unto Christ” (Gal 3.24) and contained “a shadow of things to come.” (Heb 10.1) (12.7.31).
We notice here that the legal economy did not consist only of the Decalogue, but also of the ceremonial. We suspect also the judicial, which suspicion is confirmed in 12.7.32.
This is important in our third-use discussion because the outward uses of the ceremonial and judicial law were equally applicable to believer and non-believer alike — that is, they were not amenable to the “third use of the Law.” I don’t say this with reference to the sacramental nature of the sacrifices, but with reference to the ceremonial cleansing.
To what end was the economy? It was external, with reference to the coming Messiah, and bondage, and rigor and severity, and external [the text says “eternal”, which is probably a typo] purity.
For our purposes: Who was under bondage and rigor? Was it unbelievers only? No, it was all of Israel: …the ancient church was in subjection to the law, the pact of slaves (Gal 4.24-25), which, with respect to those who salvation by the law) was absolute and total; but to those who beheld Christ in it, only relative … those, however, who accepted it in faith were indeed slaves in body, but not in soul (12.7.36). It created fear in all (12.7.37) and required obedience through compulsion (12.7.38).
Under all of this were signified the same spiritual promises of the New Testament: remission of sins and justification, adoption, sanctification, the gift of the Spirit – all of which were possessed in some degree in the OT, but in fullness in the NT (12.7.45).
How can we summarize all of this? I would sloganize: The legal economy was legal.
Meaning: That the legal economy operated by a works-principle. In the case of the moral law, by an absolute demand for obedience, not to the end of justification but of despair of self-righteousness. In the case of the judicial and ceremonial law, a demand for obedience upon which a priori condition, external purity was offered, and physical punishments for failure, without regard to the justified status of the recipient.
But now we come to an important question: Is this merely saying then that the legal economy was a separate covenant with separate promises and conditions?
No. For the legal economy served a purpose: To lead to Christ. It did not serve its own end, but that of leading to Christ (12.8.4-5). Hence:
Those of our party (such as Rollock, Piscator, Trelcatius and others) who make two covenants diverse in substance, take the old covenant strictly, not only separating the promise of grace form it, but opposing the one to the other. In this sense Paul seems to take it frequently (as 2 Cor 3; Gal 4), so that the old covenant is the covenant of works and the new the covenant of the gospel and of faith. On the other hand, they who maintain only one (as Calvin, Martyr, Ursinus) take the word covenant more broadly, as embracing also the promise of grace (although somewhat obscurely) (12.8.6).
This is in distinction from the Lutherans, who denied (and continue to deny, confessionally, AFAIK) that the Old Testament is a legal covenant, period. (12.8.7 – 11), which Turretin refutes by distinguishing between the opposition of Old and New over against the opposition of law and gospel: The difference between the law and gospel is absolute (12.8.17), while the difference between Old and New is only accidental and not substantial (12.8.18).
He then rehearses these accidental differences, including: As to freedom because under the Old Testament the spirit of bondage unto fear prevailed (Rom 8.15). For although the fathers were sons of God and under that name masters and heirs, still they did not differ from servants (as to the external disposition). As infants and minors, they were held under the severe and rigid schooling of the law (as under tutors and governors b whom they were drive to duty through fear of punishment and by threatenings and stripes, rather than by promises and the virtue of love, Gal 4.1-2)…But in the New Testament, it is a time of freedom (12.8.23).
Moving past questions that are resolved for us (whether the OT fathers had sins expiated), FT returns again to the question of a third, subservient covenant (12.12). He discusses Cameron. He refutes Cameron on the grounds that there are only two covenants distinct in species: one of works, one of grace. The scriptures speak of no other (12.12.7) nor can there be any other modes than “Do this and live” or “believe and be saved” (12.12.8), with no middle road in which there is a covenant neither of works nor of faith.
Let’s pause and consider this point: We have seen already that there is a works-principle in the judicial and ceremonial laws that pertains to external punishment and purity. How then can this be?
Only by one principle: The judicial and ceremonial laws do not constitute a separate covenant, but only accidental features of the one covenant.
So what would Turretin say of sub-covs? He says that the subservient covenant view is simply speaking of the true view in mistaken terms: To say that this covenant subserved the covenant of grace is really to say that it was not a covenant, but only a dispensation. (12.12.17).
How different this is from tone and conclusions that we hear today…
But back to Turretin, why does this matter? Because if we speak only of the Mosaic covenant in its strict sense, then we elevate the legal condition to full covenant status. It cannot sustain that relation because the legal condition (says Turretin) requires imperfect obedience, which is neither CoW nor CoG (12.12.22). Likewise, the promise of the land of Canaan was not primary and principal, but only secondary and less principal…only a diversity of dispensation may be inferred which even the other differences between the Old and New Testaments here adduced concerning the spirit of bondage (12.12.24).
In other words, orthodoxy requires understanding that the land promises and sanctions were only types, which is the only kind of promise and sanction that is suitable to a condition of imperfect obedience.
Thus Turretin. To recap:
* The legal economy is legal. It operates according to a works principle.
* The legal economy did not deliver any spiritual benefits in exchange for works, but external benefits typifying spiritual benefits.
* Underneath, the legal economy held images of spiritual benefits which were received by believers by their faith (and *not* works).
* The legal economy subserved the covenant of grace in its various parts: The moral law, holding forth the hypothetical promise of justification for perfect obedience (which offer was given to Christ only), the judicial giving the polity of the nation and separating it from the Gentiles, and the ceremonial, which offered external purity as an image of purity of heart.
* The legal economy was not a distinct covenant, but only a form over the covenant of grace.
LikeLike
I cannot and will not attempt to vindicate Kline here of all charges (not an expert, Kent). But I do observe a couple of ways in which anti-repub arguments differ from Turretin either in contradiction to his teaching or else in spirit and emphasis.
* The AR charge that Kline redefines merit by allowing for a “typological works principle of imperfect obedience” falls flat. Merit for Turretin is meeting an a priori condition, period. Turretin affirms that imperfect obedience was allowed under the Law (12.12.22), and this fact proves that the Law was not a distinct covenant.
* Likewise, Kline’s “two level” Mosaic covenant is in no way a subservient covenant view (I can’t speak of Gordon here — I am somewhat baffled by his construction).
* The AR argument fails because it elevates the land sanctions out of the level of type and up to the level of blessings as might be received by believers. In other words, it fails to give typology its due weight.
* Finally, and importantly, those ARs who argue that blessings and disciplines under the Mosaic were identical to those under the New, fail to reckon with the rigor of the legal economy. In that failure, they back-handedly return believers to that legal economy, under the name “grace.”
Selah.
LikeLike
@Jeff, thanks again…
LikeLike
Jeff,
* The AR charge that Kline redefines merit by allowing for a “typological works principle of imperfect obedience” falls flat. Merit for Turretin is meeting an a priori condition, period. Turretin affirms that imperfect obedience was allowed under the Law (12.12.22), and this fact proves that the Law was not a distinct covenant.
I have a lot to say regarding your last few posts, but for now, just an observation regarding that first sentence of 12.12.22: “The specific difference of a covenant cannot make a diversity of condition, expressed by the law and the gospel–of the former imperfect obedience; of the latter in faith.”
If you read the rest of that paragraph, as well as the surrounding context, you will see that this has to be a garbled translation. (I wish I could read Latin, maybe someone can help.) Everywhere else in that context he speaks of the law demanding perfect obedience, and this view was affirmed by both the orthodox and the subservient covenant group. Thus, I am sure that sentence should be saying something to the effect that “A diversity of condition, expressed by the law and the gospel–of the former perfect obedience, of the latter faith, does not prove a specifically [i.e., substantially] different covenant.”
Read that section and the context again and see if you don’t agree.
LikeLike
Jeff, save some crowns for the rest of us.
LikeLike
David, I think you’re right.
Here’s the Latin
Discrimen specificum Foederis non potest facere diversitas conditionis Lege & Evangelio expressae, illius quidem in perfecta obedientia, istius vero in fide.
I am not enough of a Latinista to certain of the translation, but it seems clear that ‘in perfect obedience’ was mangled.
Good catch. The next question then is, what does that do to the argument? Clearly I need to retract some of the above, but that’s not for this morning.
Have a good Lord’s Day.
LikeLike
Jeff, thanks much for tracking that down.
LikeLike
errata
sic
This is in distinction from the Lutherans, who denied (and continue to deny, confessionally, AFAIK) that the Old Testament is a legal covenant, period. (12.8.7 – 11)
recte
This is in distinction from the Lutherans, who denied (and continue to deny, confessionally, AFAIK) that the Old Testament is a gracious covenant, period. (12.8.7 – 11)
sic
So when I first read 12.12.22 as translated, I understood FT to be contrasting the legal economy, including judicial and ceremonial, with the specific moral law. That is, the first sentence was in reference to the whole legal economy; the rest in reference to the moral law. This is clearly not the case.
I believe, but am not sure without a crystal-clear translation, that he is arguing that having two covenants would not be able to account for or create (non potest facere) the diversity of conditions. But the logic of that argument is obscure, so it’s best to say that I don’t understand that sentence.
So I would strike the above and replace:
recte
Likewise:
sic
* The AR charge that Kline redefines merit by allowing for a “typological works principle of imperfect obedience” falls flat. Merit for Turretin is meeting an a priori condition, period. Turretin affirms that imperfect obedience was allowed under the Law (12.12.22), and this fact proves that the Law was not a distinct covenant.
recte
* The AR charge that Kline redefines merit by allowing for a “typological works principle of imperfect obedience” does not reckon with Turretin’s construction of the judicial and ceremonial laws. Merit for Turretin is meeting an a priori condition, period. The offender was punished under the judicial laws without regard for his justification or his faith. The offering of sacrifice was accepted for external cleansing without regard for justification or faith.
Little wonder, then, that when Israel as a nation (and federally under kings) disobeys, it is exiled — the justified and unjustified alike. When, as a nation, it repents, it is returned — the justified and the unjustified alike.
LikeLike
To anticipate a coming objection, you say,
DR: Everywhere else in that context he speaks of the law demanding perfect obedience, and this view was affirmed by both the orthodox and the subservient covenant group.
Actually, he does consistently say this with regard to the moral law. He says more: that upon condition of perfect obedience, eternal life was offered.
So notice that the moral law
(1) Requires perfect obedience,
(2) Operates on “one strike, out of the garden”
(3) Gives eternal life.
Not so with the land sanctions. So clearly, they are not operating exactly as the CoW. So “grace”, right? No again.
For grace
(1) Gives what it commands,
(2) Is grounded in the merits of Christ,
(3) And has concomitant conditions, “Obey because you live” and not “obey in order to live.”
(4) Is not contingent upon conditions for success, but guarantees success by giving the conditions.
The land sanctions fail all four of those tests for national Israel.
So something has to give somewhere. If you want to take the land sanctions as “blessings for third use”, then you have to reckon with how they were in fact dispensed, to believer and unbeliever alike. No faith, no third use.
I would suggest that what gives way should be to replace your belief that “all of the law in its strict sense demanded perfect obedience” with “the moral law in its strict sense demanded perfect obedience and offered eternal life, while judicial and ceremonial in their strict senses demanded something less and offered something less.”
LikeLike
Back up. The downside of scholastic distinctions is that they sometimes obfuscate the obvious.
The moral law is contained within the Mosaic Covenant in the plain sense that Exodus 20 is a subset of the document called the Mosaic Covenant.
The moral law is in the Mosaic Covenant.
That’s true, so let’s clarify further: Yes, the moral law was in the Mosaic covenant. But as you know, the parties to the CoG are not just God and sinners, but God, sinners and Christ the Mediator, and thus, the CoG can be viewed either as (1) established with Christ and the elect in Him, or (2) established with the elect in Christ. WLC 31 for example, takes the former perspective, “The covenant of grace was made with Christ as the second Adam, and in him with all the elect as his seed.” From this perspective, the covenant of grace was (for Christ) a covenant of works, and the moral law, i.e., the Decalogue (with ceremonial and civil law appended), constituted the meritorious condition to be fulfilled via His active obedience. So yes, the moral law is indeed of the substance of the covenant of grace (or more specifically, of the pactum salutis), and therefore of the substance of the Mosaic covenant. The Decalogue reveals (republishes) the righteous requirement according to which Christ would merit life and salvation for OT and NT saints alike (amen?).
Clarifying my “(6c),” this then yields:
(6c) The moral law (with ceremonial and civil law appended) in its use as a covenant of works for Christ, according to the terms of which He merited life and salvation for the elect, is of the substance of the covenant of grace (or more specifically of the pactum salutis). But the moral law in its antecedent pedagogical use (i.e., wrt the unregenerate), though itsubserves the CoG, is not of the substance of the CoG, i.e., from the perspective of its establishment with the elect (since law is antithetical to grace), nor of its administration (since law cannot administer grace). But consequently (i.e., following faith and repentance), the moral law serves as a rule of life for believers (third use), and is in this way taken in under the CoG.
Thus, the MC functioned as a covenant of works for Christ, not for Israel. I like the way Francis Roberts captures the connection between the MC, the CoW and the CoG:
LikeLike
Correction: I should have said “the law functioned as a covenant of works for Christ, not for Israel.”
LikeLike
DR: From this perspective, the covenant of grace was (for Christ) a covenant of works, and the moral law, i.e., the Decalogue (with ceremonial and civil law appended), constituted the meritorious condition to be fulfilled via His active obedience. So yes, the moral law is indeed of the substance of the covenant of grace (or more specifically, of the pactum salutis), and therefore of the substance of the Mosaic covenant. The Decalogue reveals (republishes) the righteous requirement according to which Christ would merit life and salvation for OT and NT saints alike (amen?).
Hm. See, we agree on the fact that Christ fulfilled the Law for us, and that this fact makes the pactum salutis possible.
But you take it in a far different direction than I. For you, this makes the moral law to become of the substance of the CoG. I would say rather that the moral law is brought under the CoG, without changing its essence as law. The law continues to demand, continues to promise life for perfect obedience, etc., but those demands are now subordinated to grace by the merits of Christ.
This seems to be where Turretin is also (12.3.6, 12.8.4), and even Roberts. Though he says digested into, incorporated with, and wholly swallowed up by, he does not say changed into the substance of.
Where does this matter?
* In understanding Galatians. When Paul says “the Law is not of faith”, he is speaking of the law as it is in its absolute nature, apart from gospel. Thus Turretin also.
* In getting our soteriology straight. If the covenant of works were to be “of the substance” of the covenant of grace, then Christ’s obedience would no longer be meritorious for us. There would need to be a secondary works-principle that he obeyed, prior to the CoW (that is now of the substance of the CoG). Ad infinitum.
* At what point in time would the change take place, in which the substance of the CoW is changed into the substance of the CoG?
So I would say, strike any thought of the moral law being of the substance of the CoG. Instead, let it be of the accidents of the Mosaic Covenant. And when grace is added to it — not mingling in substance, but lying alongside and taking the law under itself — then believers fulfill the law’s demands in Christ.
The substance of the moral law is to demand contingently, without giving what is demanded. It is of nature.
The substance of grace is to provide what is demanded. These two contraries cannot be mutated into one another, substance-wise.
LikeLike
Jeff, to say that the law was of the substance of the CoG as defined in WLC 31: “The covenant of grace was made with Christ as the second Adam, and in him with all the elect as his seed,” should not be controversial, much less lead to those conclusions you say it does. It is just to say that the CoG was a CoW for Christ, who rendered satisfaction to God’s justice on our behalf, not just by suffering under the curse of the law (passive obedience), but also by obeying it perfectly (active obedience).
LikeLike
David R., so if you quote Machen so approvingly, why do you assert as you have repeatedly that obedience is necessary for salvation. You seem to talking out of both sides of law’s mouth.
LikeLike
For the most part, I agree with everything up to and including your “theorem 1.” However …
Now what do we (does Turretin) call an antecedent condition upon fulfillment of which a reward is given? Merit. The ceremonial law required of all Israelites, believer and non-believer (11.25.1) tomerit typical expiation. It was not justificatory merit, which of course no-one could attain. It was external, typical, church-wide merit that was required of the church. Such was the “rigor” of the legal economy under the ceremonial law.
This doesn’t follow.
1. You (apparently) forget that for Turretin, the legal condition, the fulfllment of which merits the reward (“from the pact and the liberal promise of God”), is perfect obedience to the moral law, not just external obedience to the ceremonial. You also (apparently) forget that for Turretin, the reward is eternal life, not typical expiation. Turretin is abundantly clear that, not only is proper merit out of the question for man in any state whatsoever (even the state of innocence) but that the improper sense of merit by from the pact only obtains in the case of perfect obedience (and is therefore entirely out of the question for anyone except innocent Adam). Your problem is that your formula, “an antecedent condition upon fulfillment of which a reward is given,” is insufficient to account for Turretin’s actual concept of merit.
2. Thus, Turretin never says nor implies that “the ceremonial law required of all Israelites … to merit typical expiation.” You can only draw that conclusion if you chop off essential parts of his definition of merit, and then read your own concept of it back into his exposition of the ceremonial law. It is one thing to say that Christ’s merit was typified (which is true). It is quite another to say that the Israelites merited (which is false).
Theorem 2: Turretin was a republicationist in the sense of Thm 1 AND in the sense that he held that the ceremonial law republished in pictorial form the demands of the CoW.
You seem to be mixing the legal with the pictorial (typical) here. In terms of their demand, he held that the ceremonies were legal. But in terms of what they pictured, they were gospel (i.e., CoG, not CoW). You think you even said this yourself earlier….
LikeLike
That last sentence should be “I think you even said this yourself …”
LikeLike
D.G.,
David R., so if you quote Machen so approvingly, why do you assert as you have repeatedly that obedience is necessary for salvation. You seem to talking out of both sides of law’s mouth.
LikeLike
David R., you didn’t answer my question.
Sound familiar?
I question your powers of reading comprehension.
Sound familiar?
Where does Machen say obedience is required for salvation?
If I sin I am condemned?
LikeLike
D.G., yes (sadly), ditto, and it depends…
LikeLike
Well, this is forcing both of us to be picky. At some point, we’ll need to call it quits. For now:
DR: Jeff, to say that the law was of the substance of the CoG as defined in WLC 31: “The covenant of grace was made with Christ as the second Adam, and in him with all the elect as his seed,” should not be controversial, much less lead to those conclusions you say it does. It is just to say that the CoG was a CoW for Christ, who rendered satisfaction to God’s justice on our behalf…
Hm. You’re interpolating here, and I think incorrectly.
True: The covenant of grace was made with Christ as second Adam.
True: Christ rendered satisfaction on our behalf.
Dubious: The covenant of grace “was” a covenant of works for Christ.
First issue: There aren’t multiple covenants of works. There was one covenant of works and one of grace (speaking both for Turretin’s view and mine also). The moral law is of the substance of the first and not the second.
So to say “the CoG was a CoW for Christ …” is to say that the one covenant was also the other, which is certainly not so.
Aren’t you really trying to say that “The CoG required Christ to fulfill the CoW as a mediator on our behalf”? Isn’t this what Turretin is saying when he says that Nor is it absurd that in this way justification takes place by works and by faith — by the works of Christ and by our faith. And thus in sweet harmony the law and gospel meet together in this covenant (12.12.22)?
Not “the law is the gospel”, but “the law and gospel meet together.”
Not “the covenant of works is (or becomes, or was) the covenant of grace”, but “The gospel does not destroy the law, but establishes it.”
Second issue: you seem to have some implicit assumptions about what “substance” means and how it works, and I’m not sure what those assumptions are.
My cards: I am working on the assumption that substance refers to an object, particularly an object in its essence or species, according to the features that make it uniquely “what it is.” So the covenant of works (of which there is exactly one) is the CoW because it demands perfect obedience and promises life on the attainment of it, and is of nature and not grace. That is its substance.
Meanwhile, the CoG is the CoG because it requires and provides salvation and life through faith. That is its substance.
The gap between those two covenants is then the pactum salutis, which requires Christ the mediator to fulfill the CoW according to its stipulations, so that merit can be made available to us.
I would word that arrangement as “the CoW is taken under the CoG.” WLC 31 words it more Christocentrically, but with identical meaning: The “CoG was made with Christ as second Adam”, meaning that Christ had to fulfill what Adam could not, that the CoW is made to subserve the purposes of the CoG.
None of this gets us to your language, “The CoG was the CoW for Christ” or “the [moral] law was of the substance of the CoG.” Operating under my assumptions, that would require me to say that the law itself now operates graciously, by giving what it requires. My read of your words (not your intent, just the words) is that the law is now (having become at some point in time?!) of a different substance than it was. And that would of course be wrong. You would agree that Christ Himself supplies what the law requires, through imputation (justification) and the Spirit (sanctification).
Take a look at the “If the Mosaic Covenant…” thread and notice how DPR has started arguing that what the moral law requires under grace is a lesser standard of obedience. That is what a change of substance looks like. It is also what a law/gospel confusion looks like.
Question: Can you point to any place in Turretin or the WCF/WLC/WSC/3FU that directly says that “the moral law is of the substance of the CoG”? Do you have explicit teaching in mind or are you working on inference?
Question: Would you be willing to substitute the language “The CoG requires Christ to fulfill the CoW for us” in place of “The CoG was the CoW for Christ”?
LikeLike
JRC:
DR:
You have a double-mistake here that is getting you wrapped around an axle. The first mistake, throughout the posts above, is that you shift smoothly back and forth between the moral law and the entire law.
It is absolutely true that Turretin says repeatedly and unequivocally that the moral law, because it is natural and contains the stipulation of the CoW, requires perfect obedience and delivers eternal life to the fulfiller. We are in complete agreement on the moral law.
Then you transfer that property of the moral law over to the entire law, and that keeps you from reading Turretin in his plain sense with respect to judicial and ceremonial.
Question: Can you point to a place where Turretin says that the judicial and/or ceremonial laws require perfect obedience and offer eternal life upon fulfillment?
I’m going to stick out my neck and bet you an eBeer that you will find no such place. Instead, you will find that the ceremonial law offers eternal life by faith to those who trust in the promises that lay under the signs, but not by obedience to the requirements.
That’s not “eternal life for obedience.”
And you will find that the ceremonial law offers external cleansing to all who sacrifice, without regard to faith or repentance.
And that’s not “eternal life for obedience.”
So that’s my bet. Find a place in Turretin where the judicial and/or ceremonial law is said to offer eternal life on the condition of perfect obedience. Prove me wrong and the eBeer is yours.
The second mistake, entangled with the first, is that you conflate Turretin’s definition of merit and his description of the merit required under the CoW. When you think of “merit” in Turretin, you think it synonymous with “the merit required by the CoW.”
By conflating those two things, you call anything that is not “merit under the CoW” to be “not merit.”
But Turretin is not operating under such a conflation. The terms “legal” and “works” are defined in 8.3.5 and expanded upon in 12.3.2. To be meritorious means that
Condition is used either antecedently and a priori for that which has the force of a meritorious condition and impulsive cause to obtain the benefits of the covenant (the performance of which gives man a right to the reward), or concomitantly… (12.3.2).
And we understand of course that he’s referring to merit pactum.
That’s what Turretin means by merit, and it is a general definition that is not tied to the CoW specifically. In the very next section, he employs that definition, NOT to explain the CoW, but to ask whether the CoG is “of works” also (12.3.3). This point requires careful attention. If “merit” were tied by definition to the CoW, then section 12.3.3 would never be written:
(And here, and in the paras that follow, he is taking oblique aim at Rome, which taught and teaches that God imputes faith for righteousness.)
If your conflation were correct, he would have to argue
* Merit is ONLY perfect obedience in exchange for life, and
* Faith does not require perfect obedience, so
* No merit in the CoG.
Instead, he argues,
* Merit means meeting an a priori condition for a reward, and
* Faith is not a priori, so
* No merit in the CoG.
Why does this incredible nitpickiness matter? Because by assuming that “merit” always means (in Turretin) the “merit required in the CoW”, you have made it hard for yourself to read Ch 12 naturally. Why in the world does Turretin repeat the word “legal” a bazillion times? It’s simple and obvious: The legal economy is legal. It requires obedience a priori. And why does he say over and again, in different ways, that the legal economy had the form of a covenant of works (12.12.25)?
How is it even possible to “have the form of a covenant of works” and not require some kind of a priori condition?!
So yes, I think my definition of “merit” is adequate because it is the one that Turretin supplies. It is distinct from his description of “merit required under the CoW.” And since we understand that the moral law — only — is coextensive with the CoW, we are not surprised that the merit required under the CoW and the promise attached to the CoW is the same for the moral law, but not necessarily the same for the judicial and ceremonial law.
And in fact, is not the same — unless you win my bet.
LikeLike
DR: 2. Thus, Turretin never says nor implies that “the ceremonial law required of all Israelites … to merit typical expiation.” You can only draw that conclusion if you chop off essential parts of his definition of merit, and then read your own concept of it back into his exposition of the ceremonial law. It is one thing to say that Christ’s merit was typified (which is true). It is quite another to say that the Israelites merited (which is false).
I think you’ll have to carefully explain 12.7.39, then. What principle is in operation here?
Here comes in the immunity from temporal punishments in the court of earth which (as to sins not committed with uplifted hand) was granted through the sacrifices, which (without relation either to repentance or faith) restored men to their rank and rendered them free from all forensic punishment.
How is this the covenant of grace when it is “without relation either to repentance or faith”, which are precisely the two conditions of the covenant of grace?
…but in terms of what they pictured, [the ceremonies] were gospel
Not entirely. See 11.24.11 and 15. Of note is the repeated use of Col 2.14 to describe the ceremonial law as the “handwriting against us.” All of this is in reference to the ceremonial law in its “legal relation”. (11.24.11,14,15). The ceremonial law pictured misery in its legal relation as intolerable yoke, but relief on its gospel relation as a shadow of Christ to come.
Final thought: The one [relation] legal, more severe, through which by a new promulgation of the of the law and of the covenant of works, with an intolerable yoke of ceremonies, he wished to set forth what men owed…
Doesn’t this strongly suggest that the ceremonial law (a) operated by a legal principle in its legal relation, but (b) was distinct from the covenant of works proper?
LikeLike
Dubious: The covenant of grace “was” a covenant of works for Christ.
First issue: There aren’t multiple covenants of works. There was one covenant of works and one of grace (speaking both for Turretin’s view and mine also). The moral law is of the substance of the first and not the second.
As far as I know, it’s unusual to speak in terms of two covenants of works correlating with the two Adams. For example:
Berkhof (Sys Theo):
Also Meredith Kline (Kingdom Prologue, p 109):
Second issue: you seem to have some implicit assumptions about what “substance” means and how it works, and I’m not sure what those assumptions are.
We’ve talked about this but it’s been several weeks now…. By “substance” I mean the essential components of a covenant, especially its (a) promise(s) and (b) condition(s). For example, the reward of eternal life is of the substance of both the CoW and the CoG because it is the promised reward in both cases. Whereas the condition of perfect and personal obedience is of the substance of the CoW, but not of the CoG (i.e., as distinguished from the pactum salutis). But if we view the CoG in the comprehensive sense of WLC 31 (with Christ is a party in the covenant), then we have to say that the condition of perfect and personal obedience is of its substance since it had to be fulfilled by Christ as our representative and surety.
LikeLike
It is absolutely true that Turretin says repeatedly and unequivocally that the moral law, because it is natural and contains the stipulation of the CoW, requires perfect obedience and delivers eternal life to the fulfiller. We are in complete agreement on the moral law.
Then you transfer that property of the moral law over to the entire law, and that keeps you from reading Turretin in his plain sense with respect to judicial and ceremonial.
By way of clarifying your thesis, are you arguing that under the MC, Israel merited their retention of the land by their obedience to the ceremonial and judicial law alone, with no respect to the moral law whatsoever (so that whether or not they obeyed merely externally, and therefore hypocritically, made no difference to their meriting of land retention)? If this isn’t what you’re saying, would you mind clarifying?
LikeLike
Question: Can you point to a place where Turretin says that the judicial and/or ceremonial laws require perfect obedience and offer eternal life upon fulfillment?
I’m going to stick out my neck and bet you an eBeer that you will find no such place. Instead, you will find that the ceremonial law offers eternal life by faith to those who trust in the promises that lay under the signs, but not by obedience to the requirements.
That’s not “eternal life for obedience.”
The law can (and should) be distinguished, but it should not be separated (i.e., not during the Mosaic period). The moral law, as a perfect rule of duty, demands obedience to whatever positive laws God may additionally command, including the ceremonial law. When God prescribes ordinances of worship (e.g., in the ceremonial law), the moral law demands that His people keep “pure and entire, all such religious worship and ordinances as God has instituted in his Word (WLC 108).
Here’s one place (oft cited by us both) where Turretin clearly says that in the external economy of legal teaching during the Mosaic period, perfect obedience to the entire law was held out as the condition for life inheritance (whether temporal or eternal):
Here is another place where he speaks of the perfection of the moral law as requiring perfect obedience wrt every duty (which of course would have to include the duty to obey the ceremonial law):
Here’s Charles Hodge (Systematic Theology) making the same point:
WLC 99:
Specifically, worship ordinances are regulated by the second commandment, and I think we would agree that the ceremonial law contained the ordinances of worship during the Mosaic period. Thus, perfect obedience to the second commandment would have necessarily entailed perfect obedience to the ceremonial law. See Ursinus on the second commandment:
Will you be emailing that beer soon?
LikeLike
No beer for you, yet. In every single one of the five quotes, the writer is speaking either of the moral law, or of the law taken in all three parts: moral, judicial, and ceremonial.
I repeat the terms: Can you point to a place where Turretin says that the judicial and/or ceremonial laws require perfect obedience and offer eternal life upon fulfillment?
You try to smuggle obligation to judicial and ceremonial in under the moral law, but even there, you’re relying on the sanction of the moral law to do your heavy lifting.
LikeLike
No beer for you, yet. In every single one of the five quotes, the writer is speaking either of the moral law, or of the law taken in all three parts: moral, judicial, and ceremonial.
I repeat the terms: Can you point to a place where Turretin says that the judicial and/or ceremonial laws require perfect obedience and offer eternal life upon fulfillment?
So what you’re asking me is if Turretin ever says that the judicial and/or ceremonial laws require perfect obedience and offer eternal life upon fulfillment even if the moral law is transgressed? Of course he never says that, but if I had known that’s what you were asking, I wouldn’t have wasted my time.
Now if you wouldn’t mind answering my question:
By way of clarifying your thesis, are you arguing that under the MC, Israel merited their retention of the land by their obedience to the ceremonial and judicial law alone, with no respect to the moral law whatsoever, so that even if they obeyed merely externally and hypocritically they still would have merited land retention? If this isn’t what you’re saying, would you mind clarifying?
LikeLike
DR: By way of clarifying your thesis, are you arguing that under the MC, Israel merited their retention of the land by their obedience to the ceremonial and judicial law alone, with no respect to the moral law whatsoever…?
No, and that’s a good question. As you recall from Turretin (not in front of me at the moment, forgive the lack of cites), the ceremonial and judicial laws are tied into the moral law.
So for example: A man is taken in adultery. That’s a violation of the moral law. The man is now tried, convicted, and receives the death penalty. That penalty is
* Given under the judicial law,
* Given without regard to faith or repentance,
* Applied whether the individual is justified or unjustified, and
* Is not in fact the actual penalty that derives from breaking the moral law (eternal death), but instead
* Pictures God’s judgment for sin.
So the judicial law ties into the moral law in the sense of punishing outward violations of the moral law. Yet it is distinct from the moral law because it punishes with a sanction that is different from, yet depicts the actual sanction under the CoW.
The moral law always brings eternal death to its breakers and eternal life to its keepers. That’s why imputation is so necessary, right?
Judicial and ceremonial did not do so. They were legal economy, not CoW per se.
Another example: A man steals some sheep. That’s a violation of the moral law. He does not receive God’s penalty for violating the moral law (eternal death), but a different penalty (repaying four-fold). He also has to offer a sin-offering.
The offering of that sin-offering is under the ceremonial law because his outward violation of the moral law has made him ceremonially guilty apart from any question of whether he is justified. The offering then typifies being made clean by blood, which is familiar territory for both of us.
When he offered that offering, his external guilt was removed, without reference to sincerity, or faith, or repentance (that’s per Turretin, as I’ve pointed out above).
So the legal economy policed outward violations of the moral law in a manner that depicted both grace (in its evangelical aspect) and law (in its legal aspect).
Specifically, the land sanctions depicted God’s wrath to violators of the moral law. Outward violations were punished and outward (and even some inward) obedience was promised a reward per Deut 28, 29. The whole thing happened within the framework of type.
Within this framework, there was also a picture of grace, as occurred whenever God relented for the sake of Moses or another mediator.
But this was all “in the sandbox” of typology. None of it was literally the Covenant of Works, which has but one stipulation (perfect, permanent, sincere, natural obedience) and but one promise (eternal life). Nor was it literally the Covenant of Grace, which has but two stipulations (faith and repentance, required and given) and but two promises (salvation and eternal life).
Instead, it was a dispensation or economy that, inasmuch as it rewarded obedience as an a priori condition, it was legal. That aspect depicted the Covenant of Works.
That’s what the sanctions of the judicial law were. That’s what the demands for sacrifice were (distinct from the promises given under the sacrifices).
So I would put my thesis like this: Under the judicial law, Israel was required to merit land retention by remaining obedient as a condition that had to be met in order to (that is, a priori) stay in the land.
I don’t think they were successful at it, but instead required the constant intervention of this mediator or that. So if the objection is that “no-one could merit”, then, yeah, I would agree. Berkhof would have it that imperfect obedience was required … OK, maybe.
But no matter, that merit required under the land sanctions is not same as the merit required under the CoW, nor was the land promise the same as the promise offered under the CoW, nor was it even the same as the land promise to Abraham (which was really, as we know, the promise to inherit the whole world). CoW and legal economy had different, but typologically related, promises and different, but typologically related, stipulations (recall that in Deut 30, Israel was allowed to repent as a condition for return after exile. This is clearly not a stipulation in the CoW, nor is it a stipulation in the CoG).
Instead, the land sanctions required merit within the confines of a typological picture. It was legal, but it was not the Covenant of Works. It policed violations of the moral law, but it was not itself the moral law.
The whole thing was a living picture, not real eternal reality.
LikeLike
Yes, the bet was intended to be rhetorical. Sorry that wasn’t clear.
LikeLike
So I would put my thesis like this: Under the judicial law, Israel was required to merit land retention by remaining obedient as a condition that had to be met in order to (that is, a priori) stay in the land.
I’m not clear yet. You are saying that Turretin says that the meritorious condition for Israel to stay in the land was perfect obedience to the moral law, but imperfect obedience to the ceremonial/judicial?
Imperfect obedience to all three?
Could sinners hypothetically fulfill this condition or not?
Was it the same as the condition required to merit eternal life or different?
LikeLike
You’re right, I haven’t made clear the difference between FT and my own interpolations. So let me do that here. I’ll put out some things that I think FT teaches that clearly respond to your questions, and then add some of my interpolations that complete that response. And you can indicate “agree” or “disagree.”
For Turretin,
(1) The moral law re-expresses the covenant of works. It holds out the requirement of perfect, perpetual, sincere, natural obedience and promises eternal life as reward.
(2) In the Mosaic Covenant, this re-expression is hypothetical for all but Christ because of inability.
(3) The ceremonial law in its legal aspect is an intolerable yoke of ceremonies.
(4) It requires sacrifices and observances upon which is contingent external purity and distinction of Israel from the Gentiles.
(5) The external purity acquired through the sacrifices is without regard to faith or repentance.
(6) The ceremonial law in its legal aspect pictured what was deserved for sin.
I’m not looking at the moment, but I believe all of those are pretty close to direct quotes.
My interpolations:
(7) For FT, the condition of the ceremonial law is not perfect, sincere, perpetual obedience. No word on “natural.”
(8) Likewise, the promise is not eternal life but external purity.
(9) Therefore, the ceremonial law in its legal aspect is not, directly, the CoW NOR the CoG. Different stipulations, different promises.
(10) In its evangelical aspect, the ceremonial law is directly the CoG: eternal life and salvation is pictured — and actually obtained by faith.
(11) We understand therefore that the legal economy wrt the ceremonial law is neither CoW, nor CoG, nor a distinct covenant that mixes the two, but an economy under which the CoG is administered. Israelites DID NOT actually come under the CoW anew. They COULD come under the CoG by faith. They DID come under something (a legal economy) that depicted elements of both covenants.
That’s my understanding of Turretin. Much of my understanding of the ceremonial law rests on Turretin’s assertion that external purity came without regard to faith or repentance, which explicitly disqualifies the legal aspect from being “of the substance of the CoG”, since it is entirely apart from its stipulations.
Now, the judicial is more speculative, inasmuch as FT does not dwell on it. There, I am relying on his categories rather than his direct statements. I reason:
(12) The judicial law provided sanctions for failure to obey the moral law.
(13) Those sanctions were meted out to believers and unbelievers alike, without regard for faith or repentance. Thus the two examples above.
(14) In the case of the land sanctions specifically, punishments were applied to people whom we know were of faith (Moses, Daniel).
(15) Hence, if the land promises were purely by faith per the CoG, both Moses and Daniel would have received them.
(16) And they didn’t; hence the land promises were not purely by faith.
(17) The stipulations actually required for possession of the land are best found by examining two classes of texts: the Pentateuch, and the lawsuits brought by the prophets, esp Hosea etc.
(18) In those texts, we find something resembling the CoW (“do not turn to the left or right”) but not actually the CoW, inasmuch as repentance was allowed after failure.
(19) But nor is it the CoG, inasmuch as faith in Christ is no part of the condition for land sanctions.
(20) Nor is it the CoG in that failure was a real possibility, indicating that the requirement was not given by promise, which is the defining feature of the CoG.
(21) But the sanctions did resemble the CoG inasmuch as the interventions of mediators took away God’s wrath at disobedience, at times.
Putting all this together:
(22) The judicial laws fall under the same category as the ceremonial, as a part of the “rigor” of the legal economy, having a form of the CoW but not being an exact copy of it.
(23) And the land sanctions, in particular, in that they defined national Israel and set it apart from the Gentiles, were a part of that judicial law.
I hope that answers your question? Not “perfect obedience”, but “something like perfect obedience” was stipulated. In practice, not “the merits of Christ” but “the intervention of mediators” was accepted in place of national obedience (leaving the vexed term ‘merit’ out of the equation for the moment).
What did NOT happen was that Israel retained the land under the terms of the CoG, which required (and gave) faith and repentance, which we know that Israel in general did not possess — and the CoG gives what it requires.
LikeLike
Number 20 needs to be stronger.
recte
(20) Nor is it the CoG in that failure was a real and realized possibility. Israel broke the covenant, which point is the defining contrast with the New Covenant, which God explicitly makes unbreakable, and the promise to Abraham, which is eternal. Hence, the land sanctions are not to be identified with a condition under the CoG. What is required is not given, in contrast to Jer 31.
LikeLike
Thanks. I agree with your (1) through (6). However….
(7) For FT, the condition of the ceremonial law is not perfect, sincere, perpetual obedience. No word on “natural.”
Disagree. Rather, the external economy required morally perfect obedience to the entire law, including the ceremonial. I think that’s clear in the stuff I posted recently. (Obviously, one didn’t have to be morally perfect to be ceremonially purified, but see below.)
(8) Likewise, the promise is not eternal life but external purity.
Disagree. The external economy, of which the ceremonial law was certainly a part, promised eternal life, typified by the land inheritance. (Again, more below.)
(9) Therefore, the ceremonial law in its legal aspect is not, directly, the CoW NOR the CoG. Different stipulations, different promises.
You are intent on extracting from poor Turretin some sort of covenant, or quasi-covenant, that was legal, yet didn’t demand perfect obedience nor promise eternal life. But you can’t do it (without distorting) cuz it ain’t there….
The question we need to address is, What was the purpose of the ceremonial law wrt the legal relation? You seem to want to say that it “republished” the CoW pictorially via the worshippers meriting ceremonial purification by offering sacrifices.
But that’s not in Turretin. According to him (and likewise Calvin) the design of the rites of ceremonial cleansing was to be a “handwriting of ordinances” (Colossians 2:14), that is, an ongoing testimony to the presence of sin and guilt, which those ceremonies, though continually repeated, were inefficacious to remove. In this way, the ceremonial law helped the moral law to convince the Israelites of their sin and misery.
(10) In its evangelical aspect, the ceremonial law is directly the CoG: eternal life and salvation is pictured — and actually obtained by faith.
Yes.
(11) We understand therefore that the legal economy wrt the ceremonial law is neither CoW, nor CoG, nor a distinct covenant that mixes the two, but an economy under which the CoG is administered. Israelites DID NOT actually come under the CoW anew. They COULD come under the CoG by faith. They DID come under something (a legal economy) that depicted elements of both covenants.
No. The external economy definitely repeated the demands and promise of the CoW. It did not administer grace at all, but rather, subserved the CoG pedagogically by exposing sin and misery. The ceremonies functioned in both the exernal (legal) and the internal (gospel) economies. As law (to recap), they functioned pedagogically (alongside the moral law) as “handwriting,” testifying of sin and misery on account of the broken CoW. But wrt their typological function, in the internal economy, they revealed Christ and His benefits.
The following is from Calvin, not Turretin, but is nonetheless helpful regarding the question of the function of the ceremonial law as to its legal relation:
LikeLike
DR:The question we need to address is, What was the purpose of the ceremonial law wrt the legal relation? You seem to want to say that it “republished” the CoW pictorially via the worshippers meriting ceremonial purification by offering sacrifices.
But that’s not in Turretin. According to him (and likewise Calvin) the design of the rites of ceremonial cleansing was to be a “handwriting of ordinances” (Colossians 2:14), that is, an ongoing testimony to the presence of sin and guilt, which those ceremonies, though continually repeated, were inefficacious to remove. In this way, the ceremonial law helped the moral law to convince the Israelites of their sin and misery.
Then address away. Turretin does indeed say that worshipers who offered sacrifices received external expiation without regard to faith or repentance. I’m not making that up, and you haven’t touched it
What does he mean, and how is that functioning?
In particular, explain how you can agree with (4-5) and disagree with (7) with any consistency?
LikeLike
I think in your objection to (8) you are conflating the evangelical aspect and the legal aspect of the ceremonial law.
This goes to my warning to you: You will not be able to sustain your strong law/gospel clarity AND sustain an anti-repub position.
LikeLike
Then address away. Turretin does indeed say that worshipers who offered sacrifices received external expiation without regard to faith or repentance. I’m not making that up, and you haven’t touched it
I did address it and I did so by summarizing what Turretin actually says, not by interpolating. The legal relation was a testimony to sin and misery, and the evangelical relation typified Christ and his benefits. Sacrifices and carnal purity were simply two signs appointed by God, and those who offered those sacrifices deserved (i.e., merited) nothing but condemnation (and that condignly). But those who offered them in faith received forgiveness. You are imposing your own categories on Turretin.
LikeLike
I think in your objection to (8) you are conflating the evangelical aspect and the legal aspect of the ceremonial law.
Again, I’m just going by what Turretin actually says.
LikeLike
I’m sorry, but you are not addressing what Turretin actually says.
You say, the legal relation was a testimony to sin and misery, and the evangelical relation typified Christ and his benefits.
Turretin says,
That rigor was not without purpose; the wantonness of Israel could hardly otherwise be thoroughly tamed, whom Moses and the other prophets so often reproached for its hard neck and adamantine heart. To that economy belonged [external] purity of the flesh or immunity from carnal guilt, purged of which (from the institution of the law) they could freely mingle in public assemblies and perform public worship together with others, such as consisted in the observance of ceremonies (Heb 9.13); in contradistinction to this is purity of conscience and immunity from the spiritual guilt of sin. Here comes in the immunity from temporal punishments in the court of earth which (as to sins not committed with uplifted hand) was granted through the sacrifices, which (without relation to either repentance or faith) restored men to their rank and rendered them free from all forensic punishment
Your summary completely ignores what he says and substitutes categories that come from other sections dealing with other issues. On the strength of your importation, you merge external purity (which Turretin locates in the institution of the law) with what it typified, actual freedom from guilt, which Turretin locates in the gospel, EVEN THOUGH Turretin explicitly places them in contradistinction here.
Again, please deal with the above directly and clearly. What is going on with “external purity”? Who receives it? On what condition? What is happening with “freedom from forensic punishment”? Who receives that freedom? On what condition?
If your basic analytic method is “stipulation and promise”, then now is the time. What are the stipulations and promises in the above paragraph?
LikeLike
On the strength of your importation, you merge external purity (which Turretin locates in the institution of the law) with what it typified, actual freedom from guilt …
Where did I do that? So you think that passage teaches that the Israelites merited carnal expiation? Or maybe that the dead animals merited carnal expiation on behalf of the Israelites? No thanks, I’ll stick with Turretin’s actual explanation and leave the interpolating to you.
LikeLike
A quick primer on merit in Turretin and Reformed theology:
1. What did innocent Adam merit? Nothing, because his obedience was a debt. But by virtue of the covenant and God’s free promise, he was placed into a position to merit (in an improper sense) eternal life for himself and his posterity.
2. What do sinners merit? Eternal condemnation.
3. But didn’t the Israelites merit carnal expiation by offering sacrifices? No (see #2).
4. What did Christ merit? Life and salvation for those whom He represented.
That about covers it I think.
LikeLike
The primer is helpful for understanding your overall framework, but it doesn’t answer the question.
Again: In the above paragraph, who receives external purity? On what condition? Who is restored to rank and free from forensic punishment? On what condition?
LikeLike
If your basic analytic method is “stipulation and promise”, then now is the time. What are the stipulations and promises in the above paragraph?
As much as you give a denial of a third covenant with one hand, you keep taking back that denial with the other…. As for me, I see no stipulations and sanctions per se in that paragraph. What I see are carnal ordinances, characteristic of the external economy, that could not, in and of themselves, remove sin, but rather (as he elsewhere explains) by their repetition underscored the worshippers’ sinfulness and thus their liability to wrath, thereby driving them to Christ, the doctrine of whom was concealed under those ordinances. If that is mixing law and gospel, then at least I’m in good company….
Calvin again, speaking of the same thing:
LikeLike
You claim to be “relying on Turretin’s categories” in your (14) – (20), but I cannot for the life of me figure out which of his categories you’re referring to. What you’ve presented is clearly drawn from your own categories (which you outlined pre-Turretin), and is nothing like Turretin’s clear law-gospel distinction (yet you caution me …). I guarantee that the following has no relation to Turretin’s categories:
(18) In those texts, we find something resembling the CoW (“do not turn to the left or right”) but not actually the CoW, inasmuch as repentance was allowed after failure.
(19) But nor is it the CoG, inasmuch as faith in Christ is no part of the condition for land sanctions.
(20) Nor is it the CoG in that failure was a real possibility, indicating that the requirement was not given by promise, which is the defining feature of the CoG.
LikeLike
To quote Arlo Guthrie, “I’m not proud … Or tired.”
Once more, with feeling and four-part harmony: in the passage above, who receives external purity? On what condition? Who is restored to rank and freed from temporal punishment? On what condition?
Until you deal with the text, I. Wont. Move.
It’s fine if you think that Turretin elsewhere says that these sacrifices underscored sinfulness as a legal handwriting. I agree with you, and him.
But that isn’t what he says here. Admit it. Deal with what he says.
LikeLike
Once more, with feeling and four-part harmony: in the passage above, who receives external purity? On what condition? Who is restored to rank and freed from temporal punishment? On what condition?
And once more, with drum intro and instrumental accompaniment, you are imposing your own categories on Turretin. I have answered you already but I will try once more….
Utilizing Turretin’s expressed categories, we find that in the external economy, the condition demanded was perfect and personal obedience to the threefold law. The promise held out was eternal life, typified by temporal blessings. The threat was eternal punishment, typified by temporal punishment.
The problem however, which the external economy was designed to highlight, was the presence of sin, and therefore liability to the threatened curse (and the hopelessness of obtaining the promised blessing).
The obligation to continually offer sacrifices in order to avoid temporal punishment (constituting as it did a perpetual “handwriting against them”), served to further underscore the problem of sin, but did not actually deal with it, because the sacrifices (in and of themselves) did not purify the conscience, nor did they render the Israelites immune from the spiritual guilt of sin, nor did they free them from the threatened curse of eternal punishment.
Thus, the ceremonial law served alongside the moral law to expose the Israelites’ sin and misery and thereby drive them to Christ to be purified from their sins, saved from God’s wrath, and granted the promised inheritance according to the terms of the covenant of grace, administered via the types hidden under those same ceremonies.
That should cover your questions, but if it is not to your satisfaction, I don’t know that I can help any further.
Regarding categories, for Turretin, there is the CoW and the CoG, law and gospel, with all stipulations and sanctions connecting to either one or the other, or both. But what you won’t find in Turretin is a category for “something resembling the CoW … but not actually the CoW … But nor is it the CoG …”
That’s not in Turretin. Admit it. Deal with it.
LikeLike
DR: That should cover your questions, but if it is not to your satisfaction, I don’t know that I can help any further.
Dear David,
You are working way too hard at this. I am simply trying to draw your attention to the obvious thing that is in front of our faces. Perhaps it seems insulting to your intelligence, but we’ve reached the point where I’m not entirely convinced that you are reading as opposed to interpreting without reading. To get anywhere, we have to agree on what is said before we can hope to discuss to what is meant. And right now, I’ve asked you five times going on six to simply acknowledge basic facts, to answer some basic reading comprehension questions.
In asking those questions, I’m not trying to set a trap, I’m asking you the questions I ask myself as a reader: who, what, when, where, why?
You, so far, seem stubbornly unable to address those questions. I don’t get that.
Once more: In the paragraph above, who receives external purity? On what condition? Who is restored to rank and free from forensic punishment? On what condition?
When you have satisfied me that you are actually reading those words, we can move on to questions about Turretin’s categories. When we do so, I will cheerfully let you give me primers on Turretin, and respond in kind.
So for example, I will admit that Turretin does not use the word “merit” in the above paragraph. I think he’s talking about “merit” in his broad, improper sense, and I’m prepared to fully defend the correctness of my understanding of his categories. But I admit that I’m interpreting at that point. Honesty requires me to admit that.
I’m asking you to do the same, to separate your interpretation from the basic data that is in front of us. That’s a fundamental part of being honest.
So until I am satisfied that you can correctly articulate what he says and not what you think he means (or in this case, doesn’t mean), we’re not moving on.
I hate this, frankly. I think of you as being smarter and more honest than this.
LikeLike
Jeff, you lost a few gems on that one (but that’s from someone who envies all your bling ((and who has had similar frustrations with DR))).
LikeLike
Jeff,
I am not intentionally being stubborn or dishonest (or stupid). It is just that I see where you are going with your reading of the doctrine of merit-by-imperfect-obedience into Turretin’s teaching on the ceremonial law, and I have been trying to save you from what I consider to be a fool’s errand. But alas….
I’m not entirely convinced that you are reading as opposed to interpreting without reading.
This is precisely my beef with you. What I’ve seen from your “interpolations” in some cases directly contradict Turretin’s plain teaching. For example, you had said: “Much of my understanding of the ceremonial law rests on Turretin’s assertion that external purity came without regard to faith or repentance …” But what I don’t get is why you (stubbornly?) insist on deriving your understanding of Turretin’s view of the ceremonial law from your interpolation of one paragraph , while completely ignoring things he explicitly teaches in his several pages of exposition of the ceremonial law and its purposes, as well as his clear teaching on other related subjects (e.g., merit, the covenants). Perhaps you need to remove the log from your eye?
You are no doubt smart enough to understand my previous answers to your questions, but since you insist that I play your game and pretend that the one paragraph in isolation from everything else is determinative for grasping Turretin’s categories, and since you insist on utterly ignoring my repeated protests, and since my efforts to dissuade you from continuing down a dead-end path have failed, and even though you now attack my character and intelligence, I will acquiesce.
In the paragraph above, who receives external purity?
Israel.
On what condition?
Through the sacrifices.
Who is restored to rank and free from forensic punishment?
Israel.
On what condition?
External purification of the flesh.
So for example, I will admit that Turretin does not use the word “merit” in the above paragraph. I think he’s talking about “merit” in his broad, improper sense, and I’m prepared to fully defend the correctness of my understanding of his categories.
I assume that what you are fully prepared to defend is the claim that Turretin teaches (implicitly) that the Israelites merited external purity and freedom from forensic punishment by offering a sacrifice, and furthermore, that they merited their continued possession of the land by imperfect corporate obedience? If so, and if you are planning to defend the correctness of this claim by reading your own categories into one isolated paragraph while completely ignoring context and explicit teaching, then frankly, I’m not interested. (I’ve seen too much of that sort of thing from others recently.) But if you are prepared to make your case from an honest reading of, and engagement with, Turretin’s categories, derived from a careful reading of his entire teaching on the issues involved, then I’m all ears, and looking forward to your attempt.
LikeLike
I do not think badly of your character. I think we had a bad interaction, and I apologize for contributing to that with my snark and strong-willed-ness.
LikeLike
The Category of Merit in Turretin
I’ve already addressed this above, but we can refine and supplement here.
For Turretin, there are two categories of the word “merit.” The first is proper and strict, denoting that work to which a reward is due from justice on account of intrinsic value and worth (17.5.2). Turretin denies that any creature, not even Adam in the state of innocence, was capable of this kind of merit (17.5.7 and 8.3.17).
The second category is improper and broad, used for the consecution of any thing (17.3.2) [meaning: the relation of consequent to antecedent]. Fulfilling an antecedent condition is said (broadly) to “merit” the consequent.
This is a very broad definition indeed, and Turretin follows it up with a set of examples from the church fathers in which “merit” is used broadly to mean “gain”, “obtain”, or “attain.” Even ludicrously or ironically, this includes phrases such as “guilt merited a redeemer” (17.3.2).
Turretin’s fundamental complaint with Rome’s notion of merit, which follows in 17.5, is that Rome has taken the broad meaning and confused it with the strict:
…the phrases of the fathers being received badly and contrary to their meaning, they [church doctors] began to say that men properly merited eternal life by their works and that good woks are meritorious of eternal life, not only from the covenant, but also by reason of the work itself. (17.5.2)
In other words, there has been (acc to Turretin) a category confusion in the Roman doctrine. They have taken what could broadly be called merit and labeled it “strict.”
He then knocks down Romish doctrines of merit in the following sections, NOT ONLY on the grounds of sinful inability, BUT ALSO on the grounds that strict merit is impossible for man in any state. In particular, he says that Adam himself, if he had persevered, would not have merited life in strict justice, although … God promised him by a covenant life under the condition of perfect obedience (which is called meritorious from that covenant in a broader sense because it ought to have been, as it were, the foundation and meritorious cause in view of which God had adjudged life to him (17.5.7).
This same distinction is in play in 8.3.17, in which Adam is required under the CoW to “obtain this merit” not in a strict sense, but because the CoW “demanded antecedently a proper and personal obedience…”
So: Two kinds of merit — strict (of the value of the work itself), impossible for created man; broad (the consecution of any thing), which includes the merit pactum of the CoW.
We notice with some puzzlement or dissatisfaction that “broad merit” is really, really broad. Is Turretin serious about such a broad category? Yes. More anon.
Further, we note that these definitions of merit do not yet have reference to covenants. When we get to the CoW/CoG category, the definition of merit will come into play.
Meanwhile, if you believe that Turretin has other categories of merit, now is a good time to interject with citations. I’ve got taxi duty. Next up: the category of conditions.
LikeLike
The Category of Conditions in Turretin
This has also been covered above, but it now takes shape when considering “merit.”
The need to discuss conditions arises because “some” of the evangelical party had wished to deny that the CoG had any conditionality whatsoever (12.3.1). Since Turretin has already defined a covenant in terms of conditions (or duties) and promises (12.1.8), he clearly is not of this party. However, he does wish to keep a clear distinction between law and gospel. In order to preserve both conditionality and law/gospel, he makes the following distinctions, re-quoted for convenience:
(12.3.2).
Here, we see the force of what puzzled us above. Why does Turretin make “broad merit” such a weak condition? Because he wishes to exclude any antecedent condition whatsoever from the covenant of grace.
In particular, he wishes to deny that faith itself is antecedent and meritorious (12.3.11). That’s the prize, the benefit of the category of merit established above.
So conditions: a priori and meritorious, or a posteriori and concomitant; natural or of grace.
LikeLike
The Category of Covenants in Turretin
This has to be abbreviated, but for Turretin, a covenant proper is a mutual agreement between equals concerning certain goods and offices exchanged for a common utility (8.3.1). Given this definition, there are no covenants proper between God and man.
Instead, there are two covenants of condescension, the first of works and the second of grace. Each of these has promises and stipulations.
And even more broadly, there are covenants that God makes that consist of promises with no stipulations, such as the promise never to flood the world again. Yet strictly and properly, covenant denotes the agreement of God with man by which God promises his goods (and especially eternal life to him), and by man, in turn, duty and worship are engaged (certain external signs being employed for the sake of manifestation) (8.3.3) We see here that “strictly and properly” means “relative to God’s condescension.”
The characteristics of the Covenant of Works are that it is
* of nature — requiring obedience in man’s own strength
* of works — dependent on works or proper obedience
* legal — requiring as a condition the observation of the law of nature written within (8.3.5)
the Covenant of Grace meanwhile is
* of grace — resting on God’s grace
* of faith — depending on faith
* evangelical — (“of good news”) supplying the required condition. (12.3.6)
Here in the last we see the category of condition coming into play: The CoW is legal because the condition is demanded a priori, while the CoG is evangelical because the condition is supplied and is concomitant. (12.4.6-7)
Faith can consist only with the promises of the gospel, which sets life before man, not as to be acquired (like the law), but as already purchased. (12.3.11e)
Hence the two covenants. The one promises eternal life; the other, salvation and eternal life. The characteristics of the one are natural, legal, of works; of the other, of grace, evangelical, of faith.
LikeLike
The Categories of Law in Turretin
Turretin distinguishes natural law, moral law, ceremonial law, and judicial or forensic law.
The natural and moral law have the same content, but the former is written on the heart per Adam, while the moral law was given on two tablets. The distinguishing feature is that the natural law is of the nature of God and thus immutable (11.1-2, 23).
The moral law, being the law of nature, was and is the stipulation required in the CoW. It is in absolute nature the rule directing our lives (11.22.2). It speaks to men as individuals (11.24.2).
Relative to man in
* innocence: was the stipulation of the CoW (11.22.8)
* sin: brings conviction, restraint, condemnation (11.22.9)
* pre-conversion election: humbling, schoolmastering (11.22.10)
* post-conversion grace: directs in the ways of the Lord (11.22.11)
The ceremonial and judicial law on the other hand is of positive right (of God’s arbitrary decree) (11.1.4, 11.24.3) Their precepts are good only inasmuch as God has commanded, and not according to who He is (11.24.5).
The ceremonial law differs from the moral in that it treats Israel as the church expecting the promised Messiah (11.24.2). Very importantly, Turretin is clear that the ceremonial concerns itself with external elements only. That is, it is subservient to the moral law (11.24.3); it gives “carnal commandments and ordinances” (11.24.4, 11.24.18) that are external rites and sacred accidents, but are not of themselves the worship of God (11.24.5).
It therefore had a manifold end (11.24.7): to provide good order to worship in its external form; to subserve the moral law in convincing of sin and guilt; to distinguish Jew from Gentile; and to serve the CoG by showing sin and misery as well the mercy of Christ.
In particular, man’s misery was shown in the legal relation of the ceremonial law. God’s mercy and the duty of gratitude were shown in the sacraments of evangelical grace (11.24.9).
These three were expressly designated in the sacrifices. For as they were a “handwriting” on the part of God representing the debt contracted by sin, so they were a shadow of the ransom to be paid by Christ and pictures of the reasonable and gospel worship to be given to God by believers. (11.24.9).
However, these relations are so connected that whoever wishes to rightly understand he nature of the Old Testament economy and the use of the ceremonial law, ought always to join them together; nor can they be wrested asunder except at a heavy expense of the truth. (11.24.11).
So in particular, we cannot attribute the ceremonial law to either the broken CoW ONLY nor the CoG ONLY (11.24.13). But rather, we can speak of the legal relation or the gospel relation; the two worked side-by-side, sometimes two external things pointing to one antitype (11.24.16) and sometimes one external thing pointing to more than one antitype (11.24.17).
This category is clearly the most complicated, so we must summarize:
* The ceremonial is of positive right,
* Subserves the moral law, but also
* Subserves the CoG,
* Concerns external matters only according to its strict nature,
* Yet shadows spiritual matters by type,
* And these relations are connected such that they cannot be separated (“distinguished but not separated” could be an effective slogan). Nor is there a one-to-one correspondence between signs and things signified. Rather, the relations work side-by-side.
Finally, the judicial law served Israel as a theocracy (11.26.1). It restrained, kept good order, and in particular punished violations of the moral and ceremonial laws. Whatever is of positive right is abrogated; of nature remains in force (11.26.3-10).
So we see the three-fold category of law:
* The moral is natural, a law for life, always in force; in this age, it convicts, schoolmasters — and directs believers in grateful obedience.
* The ceremonial is complicated, subserving the moral law in the legal relation; subserving the covenant of grace in types and shadows; and also generally providing order for God’s worship — all of this in external and carnal ordinances.
* The judicial provided for restraint of violations of the moral law, generally identified with the law directed at the theocracy.
LikeLike
“Relations”
Turretin commonly uses the term “relation”, and it is the “legal relation” of the ceremonial law (as well as the “legal dispensation of the covenant of grace”) that we have been debating.
For FT, the legal relation of the ceremonial to the moral is as follows:
* The ceremonial law provided external commands regulating the first table (11.24.1, 6, 8).
* It convinced of sin and misery. This subserved BOTH the moral law and also the covenant of grace (11.24.8,9), in particular by [keeping] up the expectation and desire of [Christ] by that laborious worship and by the severity of its discipline to compel them to seek him; and to exhibit the righteousness and image of the spiritual worship required by him in that covenant (11.24.9).
The evangelical relation of the ceremonial law to the covenant of grace is as follows
* It shadowed Christ to come by type, and
* It showed God’s mercy, and
* It showed the duty of gratitude (11.24.9-10), speaking here of third use of the law.
LikeLike
Economy v. Covenant
The final category is the distinction between a covenant and its economy, or mode of dispensation, the way in which its goods are dispensed.
For FT, a covenant in the broad sense has distinct stipulations (optional) and promises. But the covenants of God with man have an especial promise (eternal life) (8.3.3). For this reason, because there are only two modes of obtaining happiness and communion with God (12.12.8), there can only be two covenants, selah.
And in particular, for FT, since the legal relation subserved the covenant of grace proves that it pointed to Christ — and since it had that end, it was really a dispensation of the CoG rather than a distinct covenant (12.12.17). The promises attached to the law were not primary and principal, but accessory. This is particularly true of the land promise:
The promise of the land of Canaan given to the people was not primary and principal, but only secondary and less principal (added by way of proposition); of addition to the primary concerning God about to be their God and indeed as a pledge and symbol of the heavenly Canaan (of which it was a type, Heb 4), to which the fathers looked. Therefore, a specific diversity of covenant cannot (except falsely) be inferred from the diversity of that promise from the one given us in the gospel. Rather only a diversity of dispensation may be inferred which even the other differences between the Old and New Testaments here adduced concerning the spirit of bondage (of which we have spoken before) imply. (12.12.24).
Likewise, the legal economy had different stipulations from the covenant of grace:
— (12.12.4) .
Yet these different requirements did not make a difference in covenant (12.12.22)
So the legal economy was an economy and not a separate covenant because
* Subserved the CoG because its end was Christ.
* Had “a diversity of promises” from the gospel promise, but only secondarily and not as the end.
* Had a “diversity of conditions” from the gospel promise, but not in the same way nor to the same end. The end of the legal requirements was conviction and misery IN ORDER TO point to Christ; the end of the gospel promise was Christ.
So the covenants dispensed goods according to stipulation, and the good they dispensed was eternal life. The legal economy also dispersed goods, diverse from that of the CoG, according to conditions diverse from those of the CoG, and yet secondarily and always with the end of pointing to Christ.
Put another way, the legal economy dispensed Christ indirectly by making those under it ready to receive Christ through rigor, ceremony, and type.
LikeLike
Now that the categories are clear, the following also becomes clear as well:
It is a great error to say that a difference in stipulation or difference in promise makes a difference in covenant.
Turretin is clear: a diversity of conditions does not make a different covenant; a diversity of promises does not make a different covenant.
In fact, he explicitly says that the legal economy had different stipulations from the covenant of grace. Those stipulations did not make the economy a distinct covenant, because the end of those stipulations was the same as the end of the covenant of grace.
He also explicitly says that the legal economy had different promises from the covenant of grace. Those different promises (FT explicitly mentions the land promise as the example) did not make a different covenant, but only a diversity of dispensation.
The core principle, repeated for emphasis:
A specific diversity of covenant cannot (except falsely) be inferred from the diversity of that promise from the one given to us in the gospel. Rather only a diversity of dispensation may be inferred … (12.12.24)
So for example, your quip above about “As much as you give a denial of a third covenant with one hand, you keep taking back that denial with the other…” is quite mistaken.
We need to both be clear about what does and does not constitute a difference in covenant. A diversity of promise doesn’t do it. A diversity of condition doesn’t do it.
What makes one covenant different from the other is a difference in mode of happiness and communion with God. There are only two of these; there are only two covenants.
What makes one covenant different from the other is a difference in end: communion with God by natural obedience, or by Christ.
LikeLike
Finally, I’m prepared to defend my statements above about sacrifices.
Did the Israelites “merit” carnal expiation by the sacrifices?
What kind of “merit” is in view? “Broad improper merit”, defined by Turretin as the consecution of any thing, or obtaining by fulfilling a condition.
On the a priori condition of offering the sacrifice, the Israelite — whether believer or otherwise — received external expiation (12.7.39), was restored to rank, was free from forensic punishment.
That’s it. Nothing further is implied. To refute this, you would have to show that either (1) The condition was a posteriori, not a priori, or (2) that external expiation was not actually received by the sacrificer. I’ll take an eBeer on that one, too.
Now, what bothers you about this is indicated in your comments above. You tie the outward ceremonies with what they signify, so that the two cannot be separated absolutely.
And I absolutely agree with you there. The primary thing in view in the sacrifices was actual cleansing from guilt, and that was received by faith. That’s the end of the sacrifices, not to provide external expiation. I’m not suggesting for a moment — and have never intended! — that the external expiation was somehow an end in itself.
But it’s one thing to deny separation. It is another to deny distinction at all.
In fact, we can distinguish between
* The external expiation (sign, ceremonial law) versus the real cleansing signified (gospel).
The law did not provide that real cleansing, not even through the agency of faith. The law was legal, and could only require. The gospel provided the faith needed to receive the real benefits signed. Hebrews were not forgiven by grace-enabled law-keeping, but by faith receiving the promise.
And, we can distinguish also between
* The generic Israelite who by virtue of the sacrifice received an outward expiation, versus the believing Israelite who, by faith, received the real propitiation.
And, we can distinguish between
* The legal mode of dispensation of the outward expiation, according to an a priori condition, versus the evangelical mode of dispensation of the genuine propitiation, according to a concomitant condition of faith supplied by God.
Those distinctions show how the law and gospel worked side-by-side, never commingled, to serve Turretin’s various ends of the ceremonial law:
* It was legal in convincing people of their misery: They needed expiation, and they were compelled to sacrifice of their own to provide it; yet their own best-of-flock provided only outward forgiveness and had to be repeated, to no real avail. Message: Expiation requires blood and cost, more than I can pay.
* Evangelical in signifying a remedy not of their own flock. Message: God Himself will provide a lamb.
Why do I care in making these distinctions? To defend the real “otherness” of the legal economy. Taken of itself, according to its nature, it was of the Covenant of Works (12.12.25 and many other places). It was legal. According to Turretin, this is the proper way to understand Paul’s “the law is not of faith” and the other passages that pit Moses against grace.
But taken in context, the legal economy was subservient to the end of the covenant of grace by doing all those things that we agree on: conviction, schoolmastering, etc.
LikeLike
Jeff,
Thanks, and my apologies too for being at least as stubborn and strong-willed….
Very nice little summaries. The crux of the issue of course is FT’s categories of merit. You are definitely helping me process, and reading your stuff, I realize I’m not as clear yet as I had hoped…. I’ve been pondering though, and I don’t believe you’ve quite captured FT’s categories (though you’ve made a good start). I think some additional data (and perhaps an important correction or two) may impact your conclusions (or maybe not). Some comments forthcoming….
LikeLike
David R. and Jeff, once you finish with Turretin, maybe you can work on Paul? It’s all pretty interesting and I am learning. But I was not aware that Turretin had been added to the canon.
Just keeping it Protestant.
LikeLike
Why DGH, I seem to have pushed you into Something Close To Biblicism! 😉
LikeLike
Jeff, be careful with those crowns. Give some credit to Ken Loses, Foxy Lady, and Susan. Nothing brings out the sola scriptura in you more than following the RC blogs and news stories.
LikeLike
What did Aquinas & Cross say on the matter?
LikeLike
D.G., you’re the same guy who once argued thusly, or are you throwing caution to the wind?
LikeLike
David R., but so far you’re not even concerned with what Paul says. You only seem to have a vendetta against Kline. Could it have something to do with your work for Jews for Jesus? Are you a Christian Zionist?
LikeLike
D.G., very funny, but I completely agree with Kline on Romans 11, so try again.
LikeLike
There are people in Christian churches who do not consider Paul’s writings to be valid. Used to attend an E-Free Church which such a family. Tom Van Dyke is down on Paul, although he does not appear to attend a Christian Church regularly.
LikeLike
Jeff,
Some initial thoughts by way of response to what you’ve written regarding Turretin’s categories of merit. One challenge in determining those categories is that he nowhere comprehensively lays them out, but rather offers them piecemeal, as they relate to particular controversies. Hence it’s necessary to gather from what he’s scattered among the several volumes. As far as I can tell, the primary places where he offers his categories of merit are within the contexts of the following controversies: 8.3 (“The Covenant of Nature”), 9.4 (“Venial and Mortal sin”), 14.13 (“The Matter of the Satisfaction”), and 17.5 (“The Merit of Works”).
As you note, in 17.5, he initially speaks of two usages of the term “merit,” i.e., (1) “strictly and properly,” denoting intrinsic value and worth, and (2) “broadly and improperly,” denoting “the consecution of any thing,” often used by the church fathers in the sense of “to gain,” to “obtain,” or “to attain.” One example he cites is from Augustine: “The sinner ought not to despair of himself because Paul obtained pardon.”
My question: Does this second (broad and improper) merit category actually reflect Turretin’s own view? For one thing, it would prove far too much, e.g., that believers merit (albeit broadly and improperly) forgiveness of sins, as in the Augustine citation. Another clue that he doesn’t personally endorse this notion is his observation, “The Romanists don’t deny the abuse of this word” (17.5.2), i.e., in the church fathers.
Granted, Turretin isn’t terribly concerned about the church fathers’ equivocal usage of the term, and even seems willing to excuse them, except that they opened the door to the later RC abuses (which I agree largely involved confusion of the strict category with the broad one). However, I think you are mistaken to assume that this broad and improper usage of the term is one that Turretin would own. Rather, I think it’s clear that he is simply documenting how the term had been used by the church fathers, and then how their usage was later abused by the scholastics. This is merely historical background for his polemics against the doctrines of congruent and condign merit. (He does indeed have an improper merit category, but defined differently, more on this to follow). And obviously, if this isn’t one of Turretin’s categories, then your conclusions don’t follow. More to come…..
LikeLike
DR: Does this second (broad and improper) merit category actually reflect Turretin’s own view?
Right, this is definitely the right question. Just so we’re clear on the lay of the land, my argument is “yes”, not merely because Turretin mentions it here, but because
* He repeats that definition multiple places elsewhere,
* He relies on that definition to show that Adam was required to merit under the CoW, and
* He relies on that definition to show that faith does not merit justification in any sense, and
* He intertwines the definition of merit with the category of “condition.”
I just wanted to be clear that you’re not trying to stare down a bare assumption there …
LikeLike
* He repeats that definition multiple places elsewhere,
Can you point me to where? The only time I see him using utilizing a “broader” category of merit is with Adam in the CoW.
* He relies on that definition to show that Adam was required to merit under the CoW, and
Right.
* He relies on that definition to show that faith does not merit justification in any sense, and
Where? You have a reference?
* He intertwines the definition of merit with the category of “condition.”
Reference?
LikeLike
It’s all in the above, but I’ve distracted you. Go ahead and make your argument.
LikeLike
Jeff,
My arguments, in brief, are as follows. There’s more to say regarding your last few posts on Turretin, but I think this is more than enough for now. If need be, I can try to flesh out or clarify anything.
1. FT does not own the equivocal broad merit category as defined and used in the church fathers (signifying not merit, but consecution); rather, he’s simply giving historical background for his polemics against congruent/condign merit. According to this usage, Augustine could say that Paul “merited” forgiveness of sins, which we know FT didn’t hold in any sense. (17.5)
2. FT argues that man cannot properly merit from God (in any state) because, limited by his creaturehood (and post-fall by his sinfulness), he is unable to fulfill the five qualifications demanded of properly meritorious work, i.e., that the work be (1) undue, (2) proportional to the reward, (3) free from taint (innocent Adam could meet only this one qualification), (4) his own work, and (5) deserving of the reward from strict justice. (17.5.6)
The question is, does he qualify the above in any way?
3. Yes, but the only caveat FT offers to the above (#2) is wrt innocent Adam’s stipulation in the CoW. If Adam had stood the probation, it would not have been properly meritorious—because he would have fulfilled only one of the conditions for proper merit, i.e., freedom from taint (which, btw, constitutes the image of God). However, by virtue of God’s condescension in entering into the CoW, Adam was enabled to merit (in a broader sense) eternal life for himself and his posterity on the ground of his perfect and personal obedience. Thus, “pactum merit” is FT’s merit category #2, and this is the only improper merit category he ever argues for. (8.4.17; 17.5.7)
4. According to FT, Christ properly merited (i.e., meeting all five qualifications) life and salvation on behalf of the elect. This could only be achieved by a divine Person (as four of the five qualifications necessitated this). Christ’s proper merit as the foundation of the CoG corresponds to Adam’s improper merit as the foundation of the CoW. Christ’s merit is FT’s category #1. (E.g., 12.4.4; 14.12.6; 14.13.12)
When FT speaks of conditions in the CoG, it is that which Christ’s merit purchased, i.e., the obtaining of the benefits of the covenant, that FT excludes as a condition (for the elect).
5. According to FT, Adam’s posterity properly merit eternal punishment by virtue of Adam’s sin and their own. Thus, merit category #3. (E.g., 9.4.8, 21.)
6. These three are FT’s only merit categories. When he refutes the doctrines of congruent/condign merit, he does not argue that they have been mislabeled as proper merit and would not be objectionable as improper merit; rather, he argues against them absolutely on the ground that sinners (whether believers or not) can’t merit from God.
7. Regarding those other topics you mention, i.e., conditions in the CoG, etc., the only two categories of merit FT ever references in connection with them are Christ’s and innocent Adam’s.
I think that perhaps you are too heavily freighting the term “antecedent”? For FT, it’s a relative term that he uses in connection with all three conditions that he enumerates in the CoG (not only the meritorious cause). To wit,
1) FT explains (as you know) that wrt the obtaining of the benefits of the covenant the CoG is unconditional because the righteousness of Christ is the only meritorious cause (antecedent condition) of the obtaining of those benefits and thus whatever other conditions there be are graciously bestowed (consequent conditions).
2) But otoh, wrt receiving the benefits of the covenant faith is the instrumental cause, and in that sense, is “antecedent.” See 12.3.15-16.
3) Finally, FT argues that repentance/new obedience is also a condition, though not causal in any sense. However, wrt glorification, he states that there is a non-causal connection as means to end, antecedent to consequent, etc. See 17.3.14 and 17.5.13.
IOW, for FT, all meritorious conditions are “antecedent”; but not all “antecedent” conditions are meritorious. Wrt the connection between the topic of merit and the topic of conditions in the CoG, the point that FT is careful to stress is that category #1 (i.e., Christ’s obedience) is the only meritorious cause, not that no other conditions are “antecedent” in any sense.
8. Regarding your claim that the Israelites merited external expiation by virtue of the sacrifices, I would argue in response: If so, it’s either proper merit or pactum merit (since for FT, there is no other). We agree it’s not proper merit. Neither is it pactum merit because that requires perfect obedience. Additionally, a number of FT’s arguments against congruent/condign merit also would apply here. For example,
1) Nothing good can be done by sinners not yet renewed, and thus they cannot merit. (17.5.8)
2) Enemies of God can deserve nothing. (17.5.8)
3) Either this merit arises from all works or from some only. No one would say all, but it can’t be some either because he who sins in one is guilty of all (James 2:10). (17.5.8)
4) Man would be giving something to God first (contrary to Romans 11:35). (17.5.8)
5) Believers are the servants of God, and thus can do nothing that they don’t already owe. (17.5.20)
LikeLike
Therefore …
* He repeats that definition multiple places elsewhere,
The only merit categories he repeats multiple places elsewhere are Christ’s proper merit and Adam’s improper (which he defines narrowly in terms of perfect and personal obedience, and which continues as the hypothetical condition of eternal life).
* He relies on that definition to show that Adam was required to merit under the CoW, and
He does speak in terms of a “broader” category, but he defines it narrowly and specifically in terms of Adam’s obedience, not in terms of the church fathers’ usage.
* He relies on that definition to show that faith does not merit justification in any sense, and
Again, he uses a much narrower definition.
* He intertwines the definition of merit with the category of “condition.”
I think the problem is that you are confusing the church fathers’ broad usage of the term (“for the consecution of any thing”, which FT illustrates using absurd examples) with FT’s category for Adam’s merit, had he stood, “which is called meritorious from that covenant in a broader sense.”
These are two vastly different categories for broader merit.
LikeLike
David,
Thanks for putting all this together. I’ve read it carefully a couple of times and am working on a response.
LikeLike
David,
Thanks for laying out your view. I’m ready to wind our discussion down, so I’m going to (1) speak to the obstacles that keep me from accepting your view, (2) respond to some of your objections, and (3) give a final statement indicating why I think this is theologically important. In particular, I want to stress again the connection between Turretin’s categories as I have outlined them, and a proper distinction between law and gospel. In these responses, I will bring in others as confirming witnesses.
I have valued your time and industry and hope we can speak again in the future.
As I understand your view, Turretin uses “merit” in three possible ways:
(1) Strict merit (which none earn save Christ);
(2) Merit pactum, meaning, merit according to the terms of the CoW;
(3) The “merit” of eternal punishment for Adam’s posterity under the terms of the CoW. (would “demerit” be an appropriate term here?). From this, the rest follows — your objections to my own view, and indeed the broader anti-Repub position.
Just for comparison, I repeat my own read of Turretin:
(1) Merit may be “strict” or “broad.”
(2) Conditions may be antecedent, hence meritorious; or posterior, hence concomitant.
(3) Under the CoW, Adam was antecedently required to have “broad” merit that was sincere, natural, perfect, perpetual. It is the antecedence relation that makes this covenant “of works.”
(4) From this flows the rest of my points.
Objections
These are the major objections or obstacles to your reading as I see them. I would consider that all of these objections would need a robust answer before your view would be able to stand scrutiny as a viable possibility.
(O1) Your method pieces together Turretin’s category of merit from three disparate sections dealing with three loosely related topics. This is contrary to Turretin’s standard category form. Thus, it is likely that you have discovered a spurious category.
When Turretin creates a category or distinction, he has a somewhat standard “category format”:
Distinction --> Detail --> Use.For illustration, we can consider a section that we both agree on: Topic 15 on Calling and Faith.
He begins with a definition (15.1.1-3) of “calling.” He then distinguishes types of calling (visible, invisible, 15.1.5 – 6), then giving further detail and answering objections to the category (15.1.7 – 9), followed by giving additional distinctions (15.1.10). He then goes on to use that category of visible/invisible to answer an important controversy: Does God call all, and if so, is He a hypocrite? (15.2). Then follows a new category of Grace (sufficient v. efficacious) in 15.3ff, which follows the same format.
We observe in 15.1-2 the pattern Distinction –> Detail –> Use, where “definition” is optional and rolled up into the Distinction section.
This pattern is so typical for Turretin that I confidently generated our example by turning to an arbitrary chapter not involved in our discussion and going straight to the first question in that chapter. It was good odds ahead of time that we could find a distinction being made, details given, and then distinction used, according to the standard pattern. I could have picked almost any chapter and found several instances of that same pattern.
The upshot is that we can easily identify when Turretin is creating a category: We just look for the structural clues.
However, your asserted category of “strict merit/pactum merit/demerit” is not found in that pattern anywhere in the three-volume institutes. There is no place in which Turretin says anything along the lines of, Merit is of three-fold usage: The orthodox speak of strict merit, or else of merit pactum according to the terms of the CoW, or else of the demerit of punishment earned under the CoW.
How great of a problem is this? Well, if Turretin did not address the definition of merit anywhere, then we might consider pulling in different sections to see how he uses the word variously.
But given that he defines ‘merit’ in his usual pattern Distinction –> Detail –> Use in 17.5, it seems like a risky methodology to first ignore his own distinction, then cobble together your own from different sections. Given the evidence, your method seems likely to produce a spurious result.
As confirming evidence, we consider what AA Hodge does with the same question:
— Outlines of Systematic Theology 32.18. Incidentally, it is clear from 32.20 that he is deriving this from Turretin.
Same category, but without the distractor of including absurd examples.
So it appears that you have ignored Turretin’s really clear textual clues and instead cobbled together your own construction of his view. FT has a really clear structure that your view ignores and even dismisses.
To address this objection, you need to first show why you can safely ignore 17.5, which explicitly follows the “category format”, and then further show why you are justified in piecing together your own distinction and calling it his.
(O2) The question on conditions, 12.3, appears to be a strong falsifier for your view
Turretin in 12.3 creates a category of conditions: There are two kinds of conditions.
— 12.3.2.
The language here is unambiguous: There are antecedent conditions, which have the force of meritorious causes. All antecedent conditions are meritorious.
Then there are concomitant conditions, which have the relation of means and disposition. No concomitant conditions are meritorious.
This apparently strongly falsifies your view, since you claim that only the antecedent condition of the CoW counts as “merit”, which contradicts the plain language that “antecedent conditions have the force of meritorious causes.”
Now for comparison, we pull up John Colquhoun, “Law and Gospel”:
Notice “is that which gives a pactional title to it” – that’s merit pactum (as indeed JCol uses it in other places as well).
So we have essentially identical categories from both men. FT is not speaking idiosyncratically, nor am I reading him idiosyncratically.
[To be fair to your side: Colquhoun considers the land promises to be concomitant conditions. So he and I are not on the same page in every matter. But with regard to the basic category of condition, and its importance for the Law/Gospel distinction (O3), we are on the same page]
Further, FT’s language here fits perfectly with his merit category of 17.5: Broad merit is any “the consecution of any thing.” Here in 12.3.2, he narrows a bit: A meritorious condition ” is an antecedent condition (hence, “merit pactum”, or “according to the agreement”).
So the objection is simple: Turretin admits of only two kinds of conditions: those that are antecedent, hence meritorious; those that are concomitant, hence not. It immediately follows that any fulfillment of an antecedent condition is by his definition “meriting.”
To overcome this objection, you would need to find a place in Turretin that overcomes the apparently clear, unambiguous, and elsewhere attested (Colquhoun) language of conditions.
Now, you’ve given this a good shot with 12.3.15-16. However, 12.3.3 is controlling: the conditions of the covenant of grace are “a posteriori” and thus “instrumental causes”, not “antecedent.”
Clearly there’s something going on in 12.3 that needs further consideration, since FT says that faith is both not antecedent and also that it is. This will be dealt with in the “Responses” post below. But nibbling around the edges is not going to overturn the basic category: There are two kinds of conditions. Antecedent conditions, when met, count as “merit.”
(O3) Your view vitiates the distinction between the legal and the evangelical. As such, it unintentionally opens the door to Law/Gospel confusion.
The CoW is legal and “of works” acc to Turretin because God required obedience as a condition for life: “Obey in order to live.” The CoG is gracious because God gives by promise the condition that is required. Hence, “Obey because you live.”
The key difference between the two is NOT the matter of the condition, for perfect obedience is required in both. Instead, the difference is in the logical relation of the condition: perfect obedience is antecedent in the CoW (“Do this and live”), but consequent (because imputed) in the CoG.
Theologically, this distinction functions for the Reformed as a kind of filter or net to identify and reject legalism. Anything required as a precondition is seen as a work. Hence, the CoG is not “of works” because its conditions are given concomitantly: We are brought into and sustained in the covenant by the work of Christ and not our own. Conversely, anyone who relies on preconditions of any sort (and not merely perfect obedience), counts as a legalist. This includes faith itself, which is why the Confession rejects the idea that faith is of itself meritorious.
Here is John Colquhoun’s analysis, showing why faith is not an antecedent condition for justification or eternal life:
— John Colquhoun, “Treatise on Law and Gospel”, p. 124
And analyzing legalists
ibid, 22 ff, emph add.
And Thomas Boston’s analysis
Thomas Boston, “Of the Covenant of Grace”
(Notice that Boston goes further here than FT or JC, denying “condition” whatsoever! I read Boston as intending “proper condition” as he says elsewhere in the piece).
All these men lay out the net to catch legalists: Anyone who makes salvation antecedently conditioned on anything, even faith or repentance, is overturning the CoG.
But your view shrinks the net by conjunction. In requiring “merit” to satisfy two different conditions: antecedence and perfect obedience, you allow someone to say that “sincere, imperfect obedience is a condition for salvation” (no qualification) or even “precondition for salvation”, and the net fails to serve its function because the “perfect obedience” clause was not met.
Anti-repub in general says that Israel was required to have antecedent, imperfect obedience to keep the land, which was “of grace” because perfect obedience was not required. Likewise, it is argued, we are required to have antecedent, non-meritorious obedience in order to inherit eternal life.
Repub responds: No, any antecedent condition counts as “of works.”
That’s what this whole fight is about, as I have said many times.
So your understanding of merit breaks the net and lets in the legalists.
To overcome this objection, you would have to … I don’t even know how you could overcome this objection. You would have to show that I am wrong to understand that placing works of any sort as an antecedent condition for salvation is legalistic.
(O4) Your view confuses the form, or logical arrangement, of merit pactum with the matter of the condition of the CoW.
As Turretin presents it, the form of improper merit (or a meritorious condition) is the logical relationship
Antecedent condition + promised reward => condition met => reward given BECAUSE condition met.
And the word “merit” (and associated terms “legal” and “or works”) have to do with the form. Hence, the term: “merit of the pact”, signaling that the merit occurs when the agreed-upon condition is met.
Colquhoun makes the same distinction between form and matter:
— “Law and Gospel”, 16.
It is not the matter (“perfect obedience”) that makes the covenant “of works”, but rather the antecedent relation between obedience and reward: “Do in order to live.”
To overcome this objection, you would need to show that perfect obedience is, in general, a part of the meaning of merit pactum, and not simply the matter of the CoW. So far, you have only argued “by vigorous assertion”, as the saying goes.
(O5) Your definition of merit does not fit well with the larger theory of the text
In particular, these questions go entirely unanswered.
* What is “legal” about the “legal economy”? And in what sense is that legal economy no longer operative for us?
So far, your theory has not provided a coherent answer as to why this economy functioned the way it did, and as to why it was “legal” or “of the law.” It is clear why the moral law was legal (inasmuch as it repeated the matter of the CoW), but the ceremonial and judicial law? It had, acc to FT, “different stipulations” and “different promises”, including external expiation.
At one point, we agreed that this was a “typological merit principle”, but I think you’ve since decided against that.
So how does your theory fit with FT’s choice to call the legal economy “legal”, both the republicated CoW in the moral law and also the unbearable yoke of ceremonial law?
* Why does Turretin deny that the Covenant of Grace is conditional in the sense of any antecedent conditions? What is his prize?
Right now, you actually seem to deny that Turretin does this, appealing to 12.3.15-16 but again: 12.3.3 is really forceful, as is Colquhoun as cited above.
So you need to explain how 12.3.3 fits into your larger theory of the text.
To overcome this objection, you would need to give a big-picture understanding of Topics 11-12 and explain how your reading of “merit” fits within it.
Forthcoming: “Responses”
LikeLike
Jeff, you win. Longest comment yet at OL.
LikeLike
Yet there is still nothing there that refutes anything that Bryan Cross has said.
LikeLike
Can we get the Cliff Notes?
😉
LikeLike
Only the vikingtard would make a longer post
LikeLike
Yeah, but that would be a cut and paste job of poorly formatted script written in ye olde english…
LikeLike
@ DGH: I’m not Zrim, for sure.
@ Jack: “The legal economy was legal.”
@ Erik: That’s just your individualistic interpretation.
@ Kent: Who? Nevermind.
LikeLike
Jeff,
I just knew you hadn’t refuted Bryan Cross without even reading your post because it’s never been done and never will be done.
Even by his wife.
LikeLike
Responses
You object
DR: My question: Does this second (broad and improper) merit category actually reflect Turretin’s own view? For one thing, it would prove far too much, e.g., that believers merit (albeit broadly and improperly) forgiveness of sins, as in the Augustine citation. Another clue that he doesn’t personally endorse this notion is his observation, “The Romanists don’t deny the abuse of this word” (17.5.2), i.e., in the church fathers.
I reply:
Yes, it does reflect his view insofar as conditions are concerned, and not his only, but also the views of Colquhoun and Hodge the younger. I think I substantiated that fully in (O1) above.
Now, I admit that Turretin’s language is not universal. Hodge the elder treats of strict merit only (and would have Adam meriting in the Garden), and Ursinus likewise treats of strict merit only (Comm Heid Cat, Q91.VI). However, Ursinus takes the law in general to require a condition in order to obtain a reward, implying that a distinction between antecedent and concomitant conditions to be at the heart of the Law/Gospel distinction (ibid, Q92.I)
The absurd examples that we observe in 17.5.2 are not put forward to discredit the category of “broad merit” altogether – after all, Turretin uses it to describe Adam’s merit – but to show that not every instance of “merit” in the church fathers is of the strict sense.
Keep context in mind: FT lives in a time in which distinguishing and defending the Reformed faith against external (Romish) and internal (e.g. Arminian) errors is the order of the day. Topic 17.5 needs to be read in that context: He argues, There is no such thing as “congruent or condign merit”, which require virtue in the action itself; but not all “merit” in the fathers is of that sense.
Hence the ad absurdum examples. They are introduced to refute Bellarmine, not Kline.
You object
DR: When he refutes the doctrines of congruent/condign merit, he does not argue that they have been mislabeled as proper merit and would not be objectionable as improper merit; rather, he argues against them absolutely on the ground that sinners (whether believers or not) can’t merit from God.
I reply
Actually, I think that’s an incorrect objection. He argues that congruent and condign merit are impossible because it is impossible for creatures – not just sinners – to merit from God. He’s working from Bellarmine’s “merit properly so called” (17.5.5) and knocks it down as impossible for all creatures (17.5.7, 22). The sinfulness of fallen man is an additional argument, but not the chief one.
The issue for FT is the “intrinsic worth” of the works (17.5.14), which he denies even if the works are sourced in grace and not nature (17.5.17ff)
You object
JRC’s paraphrase: Turretin speaks of antecedent conditions in 12.3.15-16 and again in 17.3.14, 17.5.13. In all those places, there is no merit of man, yet there is an antecedent condition. This falsifies your [JRC’s] claim that “antecedent conditions are meritorious conditions.”
I reply
This is a good objection, in that it goes to the heart of the argument. What is going on in 12.3.15-16?
Short answer: Relative sense of the word “antecedent.” Strange as it may seem, faith is an “a posteriori condition, antecedent relative to repentance and obedience.”
Long answer: Let’s walk through 12.3. Coming into this section, FT has previously established that the conditions of the CoG are faith and repentance (12.2.29). However, both of these conditions are promised as gifts from God, with the result that that CoG cannot fail as the CoW did (12.2.30).
That said, FT announces his purpose: To preserve the conditionality of the CoG while continuing to distinguish Law and Gospel (12.3.1). He does so by creating a category: There are a priori and a posteriori conditions. The former are meritorious, the latter not. (12.3.2). Then:
These things being laid down, we say first, if the condition is taken antecedently and a priori for the meritorious and impulsive cause and for a natural condition, the covenant of grace is rightly denied to be conditioned. It is wholly gratuitous, depending upon the sole good will of God and upon no merit of man. Nor can the right to life be founded upon any action of ours but on the righteousness of Christ alone. But if it is taken consequently and a posteriori for the instrumental cause, receptive of the promises of the covenant and for the disposition of the subject, admitted into the fellowship of the covenant (which flows from grace itself), it cannot be denied that the covenant is conditional (12.3.3) (and proofs follow).
So there’s our lead: the conditions of the CoG are a posteriori and instrumental causes, NOT a priori and impulsive causes. And this distinction keeps Law/Gospel separate (12.3.6) WHILE preserving the obvious conditionality of the CoG (12.3.3, 12.3.10). It also preserves the “efficacy and immutability” of the CoG (12.3.7).
Then follows a discussion of whether faith alone is the condition, or faith AND repentance/obedience? (12.3.10). He then reiterates: faith is a condition ONLY as relatively and instrumentally and not materially, as a work; not as a meritorious and principal cause, but as an “organic and instrumental” cause (12.3.11-12). As far as I can tell, he is here repeating 12.3.3 using different words.
Within this discussion (started in 12.3.10) he then points out that faith bears the relation of instrumental cause only “in reference to Christ” as a means of uniting us to him (12.3.13); and our knowledge of its efficacy is only a posteriori from its effects, and not a priori from the (perceived) quality of our faith. (12.3.13-14). I take this to be a supporting argument to show that faith is instrumental, not principally causal.
Finally then he considers faith in relation to repentance and obedience, and he distinguishes them: faith is antecedent; repentance/obedience are posterior:
— 12.3.15
And then he goes on to assert that faith has instrumental cause in receiving Christ and his benefits, while repentance and obedience are the “mean and way” but not the cause of either justification nor eternal life (12.3.16).
What’s going on? He seems at first glance to be significantly retrenching. After expending much Latin to show that faith is not an antecedent condition, now here he says that it is.
I think a certain answer is probably impossible, but here is my take: In 12.3.15, he is speaking of faith relative to repentance and obedience. He continues to affirm that faith does not have the force of an “a priori, meritorious cause”, but is an instrumental cause (hence “a posteriori” per 12.3.3 and 12.3.10-11).
But relative to repentance and obedience, it is “antecedent” in the sense that it comes prior in the ordo: faith first, uniting us to Christ; then repentance and obedience.
This would be consistent with Calvin’s Institutes as well with all of the sources I cited back in our union discussions – but not, of course, Ursinus or AA Hodge who place justification as prior to union!
That’s my best shot at untangling this according to the text.
Here’s what I feel very confident about, though: He does not admit of faith to be “a priori” or “antecedent” in the sense of 12.3.2-3. Whatever is going on in 12.3.15, he is not so addled as to simply contradict himself.
And so it goes also in 17.3.14: Good works are antecedent in ordo but not in sense of an antecedent condition in 12.3.2. We are not rewarded with glorification because of the goodness of our works (a priori condition), but we are rewarded according to them after they have been done (antecedent to glorification).
In 17.5.13, there is a similar logic, oddly expressed: Works have a relation to reward as “means to end, antecedent to consequent” – but “not causally.”
In all three of those sections, I sense that FT is wrestling with how to describe something that is caused by grace, first to last, just as Eph 2.8-10 describes.
Hence: all antecedent conditions are meritorious, but not all “antecedences” are antecedent conditions. Some are simply antecedent relative to other things in the ordo. That’s my best shot.
You object
Regarding your claim that the Israelites merited external expiation by virtue of the sacrifices, I would argue in response: If so, it’s either proper merit or pactum merit (since for FT, there is no other). We agree it’s not proper merit. Neither is it pactum merit because that requires perfect obedience. Additionally, a number of FT’s arguments against congruent/condign merit also would apply here.
I reply
Since merit pactum does not mean what you say, but means rather “merit according to pact”, or “fulfilling an antecedent condition for a reward”, this argument falls to the ground. Nor do the arguments against congruent/condign merit help, for they are both species of “strict” merit for FT (in which the action has virtue of itself), and he argues against them accordingly (17.5.7).
But let’s take the objection behind the objection, which you have mentioned before:
You object
(JRC’s paraphrase) If the Israelites merited external expiation by virtue of the sacrifices, then we have mixed Law and Gospel in the Mosaic Covenant
(JRC adds) And anyways, why doesn’t Turretin call it ‘merit’?
Here, I want to be clear about what is NOT being said.
* It is not a question of whether Israelites could be justified by works in any sense. We agree this did not happen.
* It is not a question of Israelites finding favor in God’s eyes by their works. We agree this did not happen.
* It is rather a question of whether the works required under the ceremonial law were legal in nature; and whether the punishments levied under the judicial law were legal in nature, or whether both were of grace. The former I affirm, the latter I deny, but anti-repubs affirm.
* Hence, it is a question of whether we can look to the promises and sanctions under the judicial and ceremonial law, including the land sanctions, and take them as a model for temporal blessings and disciplines of believers. Are they the same in kind? I deny; anti-repubs affirm.
So at the outset, it is clear that there is no mixing of Law and Gospel in the repub position for the simple reason that the stipulated, typical, outward obedience did not have the promise of eternal life or communion with God annexed to it. Obedience to the ceremonial law, with respect to externals, did not provide forgiveness of sins. There was no “life” on the table, but only a picture of life. The stipulations and rewards were not of the substance of the covenant, but of its accidents, of the legal economy only, serving to teach through type in the service of the CoG.
Now, I want to be clear about what is and is not important in this question
* It is not important that we insist on the term “merit” (in the broad sense) to be used of the external commands, benefits, and sanctions under the ceremonial and judicial law. I believe Kline used this term purposefully as a polemic against Shepherd, but the term itself is not of the utmost importance.
* It IS important that we understand that the “legal cloak was legal.”
The external benefits such as external expiation were granted upon an antecedent condition such as sacrifice. The “yoke of ceremonies” set forth “what men owed what men owed and what was to be expected by hem on account of duty unperformed.” (12.7.31). And those outward benefits were “granted through the sacrifices” “without relation either to repentance or faith.” (12.7.39).
In that sense, those benefits and sanctions were “of works”, holding under bondage (Gal 4.3), and were hostile to us per Col 2.14. They served, NOT as a source of benefit and life, but as a source of misery, pedagogy, and tutelage. This is where Turretin takes the discussion in 12.7.34 – 41. The “external purity” and “free from all forensic punishment” were all in the relation of “bondage”, “rigor”, and “severity”, not to gospel promises:
As to spiritual punishment in the court of heaven, freedom from it could not be obtained by the sacrifices of beasts as such (12.7.39).
Hence, against the anti-repubs, I insist: Our blessings and disciplines are of an entirely different quality from the terms of this legal economy.
Now, I think that Turretin does not call this “merit”, while Kline does, because of their different polemical environments. Turretin is arguing against the Catholics in discussions of merit. To have brought up “merit” here – even though the logical description fits – would have clouded his argument.
Kline, meanwhile, is arguing in a context (much like today’s) in which teachers were boldly saying that God requires of believers an antecedent condition of imperfect obedience as a condition for obtaining eternal life. Kline’s point: That’s of works. Their response: But there were antecedent conditions in the Old Testament economy! His counter: That was of works, too.
That’s how I read the argument from 30,000ft.
As I have said before, I am not sold on using the term “merit” to describe the legality of the law. I think it causes an allergic reaction to many, and with cause. However, I am quite sold on being clear that the legal economy did not operate on the same principle that believers are under today. It was of works, and we are not of works. Believers in the OT were under bondage, relatively speaking, as “slaves in body, but not in soul” (12.7.36, 37).
We aren’t under the Law! That’s my big thesis, for which I will fight, die, and write horribly long posts about.
LikeLike
@Jeff… “The legal economy was legal.”
Game over, man! Game over…
LikeLike
Final thoughts:
Everything needful, and more, has been said above. My greatest hope for you is that you will consider more carefully the important relationship between the nature of conditions and legalism. Even if I, as a “repub in some sense” am a flawed messenger for that message, I hope that you will read Colquhoun and Boston side-by-side with the anti-repubs to see the huge gulf between.
And I hope that I’ve persuaded you, if nothing else, that the legal economy was legal. It operated on a principle of works, severity, bondage, rigor — and in the case of the ceremonial law, with respect to the outward signs over against the things signified.
If I’ve convinced you of that, then you can cheerfully be a crypto-repub-anti-repub. 🙂
But seriously, thanks for your time and efforts. May God bless you and keep you through no merit of your own.
LikeLike
@ Jeff. Thanks from this spectator in the bleachers… “The legal economy was legal.”
Deut. 15:4b … for the LORD will bless you in the land that the LORD your God is giving you for an inheritance to possess-
5 if only you will strictly obey the voice of the LORD your God, being careful to do all this commandment that I command you today.
LikeLike
Jeff,
Thanks for your thorough explanation of your objections to my view. I too have valued our interaction, but I’m happy to wind down if you’d like. I am considering what you’ve most recently written and will offer some responses as I am able.
First, a quick comment or two about how you’ve summarized our respective views….
As I understand your view, Turretin uses “merit” in three possible ways:
(1) Strict merit (which none earn save Christ);
(2) Merit pactum, meaning, merit according to the terms of the CoW;
(3) The “merit” of eternal punishment for Adam’s posterity under the terms of the CoW. (would “demerit” be an appropriate term here?). From this, the rest follows — your objections to my own view, and indeed the broader anti-Repub position.
Just for comparison, I repeat my own read of Turretin:
(1) Merit may be “strict” or “broad.”
(2) Conditions may be antecedent, hence meritorious; or posterior, hence concomitant.
(3) Under the CoW, Adam was antecedently required to have “broad” merit that was sincere, natural, perfect, perpetual. It is the antecedence relation that makes this covenant “of works.”
(4) From this flows the rest of my points.
A couple of things:
1. Whereas your summary of my position on merit in Turretin (and Reformed theology in general) is relatively complete; you have, for some reason, given only a partial summary of yours. To make it complete, in the interests of full disclosure, it seems to me that you would need to add (at least?) something like the following:
(4) Under the MC, Israelites merited external expiation by offering sacrifices; and national Israel was required to merit their retention of their land inheritance by their external obedience to the ceremonial and judicial law.
2. I’ll also observe that, even with that addition, you would still have an inadequate (and inaccurate) summary of the repub view. A more adequate summary of that view would be along these lines:
(1) Merit is defined according to the terms of God’s covenants, and thus, the traditional category of intrinsic merit is an unscriptural abstraction.
(2) Both Adam and Christ were required to merit the eternal inheritance by their perfect obedience, according to the terms of their respective covenants of works.
(3) Noah and Abraham merited, by their typologically legible obedience, temporal typological kingdoms (as covenants of grant) for their posterity.
(4) According to the terms of the MC, Israel was required to merit the retention of the typological kingdom by their typologically legible obedience.
Obviously Turretin and repub don’t agree in some important areas; but it’s still not clear to me whether you acknowledge this to be the case, and if so, where you differ with the one or the other.
LikeLike
Jeff,
Following is my major objection to (or at least, question about) your overall position regarding Turretin’s discussion of merit.
Just for comparison, I repeat my own read of Turretin:
(1) Merit may be “strict” or “broad.
…
But given that he defines ‘merit’ in his usual pattern Distinction –> Detail –> Use in 17.5, it seems like a risky methodology to first ignore his own distinction, then cobble together your own from different sections. Given the evidence, your method seems likely to produce a spurious result.
First of all, I don’t know why you think I’m ignoring Turretin’s distinction. But more importantly, I am not clear as to how you understand his explanation of the church fathers’ “broad and improper” usage of the term “merit,” and especially why you think that their equivocal (as I understand it) usage is so important to preserving the law-gospel distinction.
If we could review 17.5.2 once again, Turretin distinguishes two uses of the term, “merit.” Here he is not giving an orthodox definition (after all, “merit” is not an article of the faith), but simply explaining how the term is used in the patristic literature. The definition he provides for the church fathers’ “broad and improper” usage of the term is, “the consecution of any thing.” He further explains that, “In this sense, the verb ‘to merit’ is often by the fathers put for ‘to gain,’ ‘to obtain,’ ‘to attain.’” He then cites several examples, such as: “The sinner ought not to despair of himself because Paul obtained pardon” (Augustine), “O Water! which hast merited to be the sacrament of Christ, which dost wash all things, and art not washed” (Ambrose), and “O happy guilt, which merited to have a Redeemer” (Gregory).
Now, if anything is obvious, it is that this is an equivocal usage of the term that does not actually signify “merit” in any meaningful sense.
You cited A.A. Hodge’s definition of improper “merit,” but I am unclear as to what you think that citation adds, since he appears to simply be summarizing Turretin. To your Hodge citation, we can add another one from R.L. Dabney, also a disciple of Turretin, also apparently summarizing Turretin’s initial explanation in 17.5:
Thus, according to the church fathers’ broad and improper use of the term “merit,” the works of the regenerate are meritorious (i.e., praiseworthy, approvable), and can even be said to “merit” eternal life.
I realize that the cash value for you in claiming this as Turretin’s view of merit is that it enables you to argue that the Israelites “merited” external expiation, and that they were also required to “merit” their retention of the land by their imperfect obedience. But if (in this “broad and improper” sense of the term), it can also be said that Christians’ good works are “meritorious,” and even that they “merit” eternal life, then how precisely does this help you preserve the law-gospel distinction? After all, according to your view, innocent Adam’s merit and that of believers (post-fall) are apparently indistinguishable.
IOW, your argument proves too much (as I’ve already observed somewhere above), and contrary to your purported intent, it actually blurs (if not obliterates) the distinction between the CoW and the CoG, since “merit” is apparently the same in both. Now, I have no doubt that you will disagree with at least some of what I’ve said here, but I don’t see that you’ve spoken to this objection yet, and if you’d like to, I’d be interested in hearing.
LikeLike
Jeff,
Here finally are some thoughts in response to your first objection (perhaps a bit wordier than it needs to be).
These are the major objections or obstacles to your reading as I see them. I would consider that all of these objections would need a robust answer before your view would be able to stand scrutiny as a viable possibility.
(O1) Your method pieces together Turretin’s category of merit from three disparate sections dealing with three loosely related topics. This is contrary to Turretin’s standard category form. Thus, it is likely that you have discovered a spurious category.
As I see it, this objection fails to account for a number of things:
1. “Merit” is not an article of the faith, and thus, it is not to be expected that FT would give a comprehensive account of it anywhere, as he does with, e.g., “calling and faith” (the example you used to undergird the objection) or “justification,” etc. Therefore, though you have made some interesting observations regarding the basic structure of his teaching, it is not surprising that “[t]here is no place in which Turretin says anything along the lines of, ‘Merit is of three-fold usage: The orthodox speak of strict merit, or else of merit pactum according to the terms of the CoW, or else of the demerit of punishment earned under the CoW,’” and indeed it would be strange if he were to do so.
2. You argue: But given that he defines ‘merit’ in his usual pattern Distinction –> Detail –> Use in 17.5, it seems like a risky methodology to first ignore his own distinction, then cobble together your own from different sections. Given the evidence, your method seems likely to produce a spurious result.”
But I am not ignoring FT’s distinction in 17.5. In fact, a good deal of my understanding of FT on merit comes from that section, but that is not the only section in which he deals with the subject of merit, and since he nowhere gives a comprehensive account, it is necessary to gather from several sections.
3. To demonstrate that I am not ignoring 17.5, let’s quickly review that data again….
1) FT discusses two senses of merit used in the church fathers, (1) the first is strict and proper, meaning intrinsically worthy of the reward, and (2) the second is broad and improper, meaning, “the consecution of any thing.” Now, as I’ve observed, this broad and improper category is obviously SO BROAD and so improper that we (and FT) would agree that it includes things that are not meritorious in any sense, not even improperly, for example, “Paul merited pardon.”
Regarding the definition, “consecution” literally means “sequence,” though if you want to argue for a closer relationship, that’s fine with me. You cited A.A. Hodge: “What are the different senses which have been applied to the term ‘merit?’ It has been technically used in two different senses: 1. Strictly, to designate the common quality of all services to which a reward is due, ex justicio, on account of their intrinsic value and dignity. 2. Improperly; it was used by the fathers as equivalent to that which results in or attains to a reward or consequent, without specifying the ground or virtue on account of which it is secured.” Notice Hodge says that the ground for the reward is not stated. IOW, the improper merit in view here could just as conceivably be grounded on Christ’s merits (as in the example, “Paul obtained pardon”) as on the merits of whomever (or whatever) it is who “attains to a reward or consequent.” Thus, broad improper merit, meaning consecution (sequence), to gain, to obtain, to attain, etc., attributes merit to someone or something w/o the ground for the reward necessarily being stated.
2) Following FT’s definitions comes his list of five qualifications for intrinsic merit, which is concluded with his incidental observation that not even Adam in the state of innocence could strictly and properly merit. But then FT makes the caveat that “although (through a certain condescension) God promised him by a covenant life under the condition of perfect obedience (which is called meritorious by that covenant in a broader sense because it ought to have been, as it were, the foundation and meritorious cause in view of which God had adjudged life to him).” (Btw, this is in the only place in 17.5 where improper merit can legitimately be connected with FT’s concept of an antecedent condition as a meritorious cause, 12.3.2.) I agree with you that Adam’s broader merit in the CoW is a subset of the patristic broad merit usage (“consecution”) that FT had provided.
3) Now we can make a few key observations:
a) Swimming in that vast ocean constituting the entire set of consecutive things embraced in patristic “broad and improper” merit, there is the subset of things that we agree do not involve merit in any sense (not even improperly). For example, “Paul merited pardon,” but you I both agree that the forgiveness of sins Paul experienced was grounded on the merits of Christ alone and not one iota on Paul’s “merit.” We also know, due to FT’s explanation of how the controversies later developed over congruent and condign merit (when the later scholastics mistook the fathers’ broad merit for strict merit), that the fathers had written to the effect that the unregenerate broadly and improperly merited justification (later developed into the congruent merit idea) and that the regenerate improperly merited eternal life (later developed into condign merit). But of course, neither of these situations involve merit, not even improperly speaking.
b) Included in that same broad and improper merit set is another subset that includes innocent Adam’s possibility of meriting under the terms of the CoW. The distinguishing feature of this subset, and the way in which it contrasts with the one described above, is that Adam’s improper merit would actually have been grounded on his own obedience, “the foundation and meritorious cause in view of which God had adjudged life to him.” IOW (unlike the above examples), his merit actually was (broadly) meritorious.
c) Thus, within the set constituting patristic broad and improper merit, we can delineate at least two subsets, one of which is improper merit indeed (because actually grounded on the obedience of the one meriting), and the other which is not merit at all, not even improperly (because not grounded on the obedience of the one “meriting”).
d) Thus, an unavoidable conclusion is that, the mere fact that a situation fits the patristic definition of broad and improper merit does not entail that merit, even in a broad and improper sense, is actually involved. Therefore we are forced to conclude that not everything embraced by the patristic definition of broad and improper merit would be considered broad and improper merit by FT.
4. This question regarding FT (and Reformed covenant theology in general) on merit is a “big picture” sort of question which can be answered fairly easily by simply looking at the various covenants and their parties, for example: (1) We agree that according to FT, man cannot properly and strictly merit in any state, even that of innocence. (2) We agree that FT says that in the CoW, God condescended, allowing Adam to merit (more broadly) eternal life by perfect obedience. (3) We agree that sinners merit eternal condemnation. (4) We agree that the merits of Christ, properly and strictly speaking, purchased salvation for the elect.
I would think we basically agree on all of the above; where we would differ is that, whereas I believe this pretty much covers it; you think that additionally, under the Mosaic covenant, Israel/Israelites, whether believers or not, could merit things by imperfect obedience to the ceremonial/judicial law.
But my point is that taking a bird’s eye view of the big picture and observing obvious relationships is not the same thing as “cobbling” something together, especially if I am also paying attention to the details, which I believe I am.
To address this objection, you need to first show why you can safely ignore 17.5, which explicitly follows the “category format”, and then further show why you are justified in piecing together your own distinction and calling it his.
I believe I’ve met this qualification. I’m not ignoring 17.5, and I’m justified in piecing together a big picture account because FT does not give a comprehensive account of “merit” anywhere (since it is not an article of faith and only discussed as related to particular controversies), and thus if he refers to merit in other sections (which he does), I am justified in making use of those to supplement.
Next, objection (O2)….
LikeLike
David,
Thanks for posting this. To check for understanding, your defense is
* That Turretin in 17.5 is not giving a comprehensive and Reformed understanding of merit, but an account of how the term is used in the patristics. In particular, “merit” is not an article of (symbol of?) faith, so that he is not concerned to define it in an orthodox way.
* Therefore it is legitimate to piece together a big-picture account.
* That account is not ignoring 17.5, but supplementing it.
Your position as articulated is that
* Turretin puts forward two ways in which “merit” is used in the patristics: strict and broad.
* Strict is according to the five characteristics.
* Broad is a very broad category encompassing anything in sequence.
* That category is so broad that includes instances that FT himself does not believe qualify as “merit.” This is one subset.
* It also includes at least one instance, Adam’s merit, that FT himself does believe qualifies as “merit.”
* Hence, not everything that would be considered “broad merit” by patristic usage would also be considered “broad merit” by FT.
Is this complete and correct? Do you also want comments at this time, or later, or never?
LikeLike
Jeff,
Yes, that’s pretty much it. My point was that merit is not a doctrine of the Christian faith (i.e., to be believed by Christians), but is a merely concept that comes up in relation to the doctrine of good works; thus it doesn’t require a comprehensive treatment. And as you recently pointed out I think, the purpose of FT’s introduction to the patristic discussions of broad merit is to later demolish the scholastic perversions of it.
Nevertheless, I am realizing that he at least touches in 17.5 on all the categories I labeled, as follows:
1. Man can’t properly merit, no matter his state (17.5.7).
2. According to the CoW, Adam could improperly merit by pactum (17.5.7).
3. Sinners merit only condemnation. “… and the temporal delights of sinners are most worthy of eternal punishment…. The sins of the wicked are also rightly said to deserve an infinite punishment on account of the infinity of the offended majesty …” (17.5. 22).
4. Christ properly merited life and salvation for the elect: “Christ fully merited life and salvation for us; hence there can be no room for our merits” (17.5.18).
Finally, to nitpick a little, wrt your sentence, “It also includes at least one instance, Adam’s merit, that FT himself does believe qualifies as ‘merit,'” I would qualify that as improper merit, though I’m sure that’s what you meant.
But yes, I think you’ve got the basic idea. And yes, I’m always glad to hear your comments in response.
LikeLike
(1) Good job. I think you’ve satisfied this objection, in the main.
Two things particularly helped. You rearticulated the position. Formerly, I understood you to be saying that there are two kinds of merit, strict and CoW. Now, you seem to be saying there are two kinds of merit, strict and broad, with CoW-merit being a species of broad. This brings everything into the framework he lays out.
I assume you will argue from here that CoW-merit is sui generis, the only species of broad. But that will be O2.
Another rearticulation is that you now express your view as starting with 17.5 and then supplementing from other passages.
With those two, I feel comfortable with your general method.
(2) Just to observe: The patristics come into play after the “used in two ways, broadly or strictly” sentence. That is, he does not limit his focus to the patristics.
(3) I agree with (3d) and yet I feel uncomfortable with it. I think both you and I have not quite got the exact sense of FT here. For we are arguing that he is saying, “there is broad merit, as evidenced by some things that are obviously not broadly meritorious.” And that seems not quite right, especially for FT, for it would be on its face contradictory.
I would propose that we need to think more carefully on this.
Rather than say that the extreme examples (or “abuse” — also in the Latin) are “not meritorious”, I think FT is presenting them to show how broad (i.e., specifically, NOT STRICT, Bellarmine!) the usage can be.
(4) As a followup to that: One way to understand the very broad usage is that “merit” in the broad sense is really not that big of a deal unless we are specifying what the specific condition and reward are.
So for example, to say that Israelites merited external expiation under the ceremonial law doesn’t carry the same freight as saying they merited eternal life under the moral law (which they didn’t).
(5) I’m going to argue that “consecution” be understood as a logical relation of antecedent to consequence, X because Y and not merely Y after X. Reasons:
(a) That is its strict meaning, (here)
(b) It is also the strict meaning of the Latin consecutione translated as consecution here.
(c) All of his FT’s examples are ones of logical antecedent to consequent, even the extreme examples.
(d) Hence also Hodge: reward and consequent are the consequence; ground or virtue are the antecedent; and those are logical, not merely temporal, relationships. By saying that the ground is not specified, Hodge is not saying “there is no ground”, but that it is not mentioned in usage:
He merited an ice-cream.
On what ground? It wasn’t said.
I know this doctor who commonly says (in jest), “He just earned a trip to the emergency room…” That’s a consecution: X because Y.
LikeLike
Jeff, (1) thanks, (2) good observation, (3) I’m still pondering, but I think I agree that the point is the broad usage, (4) I don’t think I quite follow you yet (though I’m sure we’ll discuss it further), and (5) yes, I think that makes sense.
LikeLike
Correction! “Y because X, not Y after X”
LikeLike
Jeff,
I’m realizing I don’t quite understand your objection (O2). I’m not sure why you think that FT’s distinction between meritorious and concomitant conditions appears to falsify my view. You mind elaborating a bit?
LikeLike
Certainly.
As I understand Turretin (and relying on Colquhoun for confirmation), he lays out two classes of conditions, which cover the two possible ways that things X with Y following after (in time) could be conditioned.
The one way is logically antecedent: Y because X, or “If X then Y.” These conditions have the force of meritorious causes (at least in terms of covenants, though I think he’s speaking more generally).
The other way is logically concomitant: Y because it always goes with X, or “Y only if X also.” These have the relation of means and disposition.
Your position, as I have understood it, is that the only “merit” possible for man in any condition, even in a broad sense, is CoW-merit.
But you have also agreed that the ceremonial law required antecedent conditions, upon which ground was given external expiation, to both believers and non-believers.
And since antecedent conditions are, for FT, meritorious causes, then at least one of the following would have to obtain:
* The ceremonial law requirement was a CoW requirement — impossible since believers were under the requirements also, yet we agree they were not under the CoW; or
* The ceremonial law requirement was (contrary to our previous agreement) actually concomitant and not antecedent (hence a CoG requirement) — impossible since unbelievers were not under the CoG; or
* Your view is falsified, since we have an antecedent hence meritorious condition that is not a CoW condition (but rather a part of the “intolerable yoke” that came with the reproclamation of the moral law).
That’s the objection. To attack it, I think you would have to show that there is a third class of condition, antecedent but not meritorious. But to do so plays right into O3, so be careful…
LikeLike
Thanks, got it.
LikeLike
Jeff,
Your objection (O2), as I understand it, goes like this: The ceremonial law granted external expiation on an antecedent condition. All antecedent conditions are meritorious. Ergo …
I can meet your objection easily enough by showing that the minor premise is false.
In order to do this, we can take a look at something by John Flavel, who has a more detailed discussion of conditions than FT (and Colquhoun), though I think they are in harmony. The following is from Vindiciarum Vindex, which I believe is an extended argument that the CoG is conditional. (I think there is more than one edition of the complete works of Flavel, but in my edition, this discussion is found on pp. 306-308.)
Flavel notes:
Flavel continues with a brief explanation of consequent conditions that parallels FT’s, after which he then goes on to discuss antecedent conditions:
Thus, contrary to the minor premise of your argument (as I formulated it above) it is not true that all antecedent conditions are meritorious, and thus your objection is met. (If you want to try reformulating your argument, or correct my formulation of it, I’d be happy to continue on this topic since there is certainly much more to be said about conditions in the CoG. Or we can just move on to objection (O3)….)
LikeLike
David R., I thought you were debating FT. Now you bring in JF for help? Why not Paul?
No peace, no justice.
LikeLike
David:
I’m confused by your response. Are you saying that “Flavel says, therefore Turretin is saying…” or that “Flavel says, therefore Turretin should have said…”?
LikeLike
Jeff, I think that Flavel is clarifying the nature of antecedent conditions. I don’t think FT and JF are at odds.
LikeLike
No, I don’t think your response disposes of this objection.
(1) The method is problematic.
Flavel is saying one thing
* Two kinds of conditions: Antecedent and Consequent
* Two sub-kinds of antecedent conditions: Those that signify the force of a meritorious cause, and those that do not.
Meanwhile, Turretin is saying another.
* There are two kinds of conditions: antecedent, which have the force of a meritorious cause; and concomitant, which do not.
They aren’t saying the same thing at all.
But could they be harmonized? Perhaps Flavel is simply making an additional distinction? He’s clearly read Turretin, since he cites him at a couple of points.
But not even there. Flavel seems to be carrying on a running gun battle with a Mr. Cary over the propriety of infant baptism. He has landed on the question of whether the CoG is conditional as part of the larger question of whether Abraham was under conditions, which in turn is part of the larger question of whether Abraham was under two covenants, one of works and one of grace.
In this context he states that faith is an “antecedent condition” — not of the meritorious kind, but of the non-meritorious kind. And here, he uses language very similar to FT, so similar that one could believe that he is either trying to reproduce FT or else is drawing from the same sources as FT.
And yet FT’s account is strikingly different.
First, because for FT a condition being “natural or supernatural” is a question separate from being “antecedent or concomitant.” (12.3.2(1 and 2)) For Flavel, being natural is rolled up into the type of antecedence.
Second, FT places the conditions of the covenant as concomitant conditions:
These things being laid sown, we say first, if the condition is taken antecedently and a priori for the meritorious and impulsive cause and for a natural condition, the covenant of grace is rightly denied to be conditioned. It is wholly gratuitous, depending upon the sole good will of God and upon no merit of man…But if it is taken consequently and a posteriori for the instrumental cause, receptive of the promises of the covenant and for the disposition of the subject, admitted into the fellowship of the covenant (which flows from grace itself), it cannot be denied that the covenant is conditional. — FT, Institutes, 12.3.3.
Is faith an antecedent condition? Flavel affirms, Turretin denies.
For Flavel, faith is clearly antecedent to justification, yet non-meritorious because it is of God. It is, in his words to describe antecedent conditions, an act upon which justification is suspended until we perform it.
For Turretin, faith is concomitant because eternal life is already purchased. It is not a work that obtains, but an open hand that receives (Inst 12.3.11e).
It is only when we get to faith in relation to repentance and obedience that Turretin now says that faith is antecedent in comparison to the other two. (Inst 12.3.16).
Flavel is even further from Colquhoun, who says:
Now conditions are of two sorts: antecedent, or consequent:
antecedent, when the condition is the cause of the thing promised, or is that which gives a pactional
title to it… — J Colquhoun, Treatise on Law and Gospel, 76.
(He then goes on to argue that the obedience of the Israelites was a consequential and not antecedent condition to land inheritance, which was guaranteed in title through the covenant with Abraham)
By contrast, Flavel says of a non-meritorious antecedent condition that it according to the constitution of the covenant, is required of us, in order to the blessings consequent thereupon, by virtue of the promise. And, consequently, the benefits and mercies granted in the promise, in this order, are, and must be, suspended by the donor or disposer of them, until it be performed.
That is, those non-meritorious antecedent conditions give pactional title to the blessings.
But when Colquhoun comes to faith as a condition, he says,
– ibid, 123 -125.
So on the face of it, this method is really messy. It is not at all obvious that Flavel is clarifying FT; nor that he is even trying to say the same thing as FT. I will grant: Flavel has clearly read FT. But he seems to be adding his own material to the mix.
I ask you: Are you comfortable with saying that “We are justified because of our faith, given by God”? That’s what Flavel is saying.
I’m not accusing him of heterodoxy per se or in general (!), but I think here that he is trying to reshuffle the classification of conditions in a way that is not Turretinic. And also … in a way that is problematic.
(2) But let’s suppose for a moment that Flavel and FT are on exactly the same page. In other words, let’s momentarily assume for the sake of argument that FT would have allowed antecedent, non-meritorious conditions.
Would this have helped your analysis of obedience to the ceremonial law?
Why … no.
For obedience to the ceremonial law, according to FT, gave external expiation without regard to faith. In other words, it was of natural strength for the non-believer at least.
And antecedent conditions that are of natural strength are, even for Flavel, meritorious: Such antecedent conditions which have the force of a meritorious and impulsive cause, which being performed by the proper strength of nature, or, at most, by the help of common, assisting grace, do give a man a right to the reward or blessings of the covenant.
So Flavel would give you non-meritorious antecedent causes if he were agreeing with Turretin (though he isn’t). But with regard to the specific question of the ceremonial law, he makes your life harder, because obedience to the ceremonial law is not one of those.
The basic dilemma for you seems to be this: If we make external expiation a benefit of the CoG, then you have a hard time explaining how it was available without regard to faith. If we make it a benefit of the CoW proper, then you have a hard time explaining its existence at all, much less how it could be available to unbelievers.
The only solution is that external expiation belonged to the external, legal administration of the CoG, whose benefits were dispensed legally rather than graciously.
LikeLike
Jeff,
I understood your objection (O2) to be that FT says that all antecedent conditions are meritorious, and therefore offering sacrifices is meritorious because antecedent. But the fact is that, for FT as well as Flavel, antecedent is a relative term (I tried to explain this earlier), which requires one to ask the question, “Antecedent relative to what?” Is it antecedent to obtaining the benefits of the covenant, or is it antecedent to the covenant’s first application to the believer, or is it antecedent to the covenant’s perfect consummation, or is it antecedent to something else? FT uses the term in all these ways, and I cited Flavel as additional confirmation for this usage. (I think that FT and JF are easily harmonizable.) My point is that you cannot simply say, “External expiation required offering sacrifices as an antecedent condition, therefore the offerer merited external expiation by sacrificing.” IOW, contrary to your claim, FT’s discussion of conditions in the CoG is not in fact a “strong falsifier” for my view, because, contrary to your claim, not all antecedent conditions are meritorious.
LikeLike
Is faith an antecedent or concomitant condition, according to Turretin?
LikeLike
Relative to what? Relative to the institution of the covenant, it’s a concomitant condition, but relative to the application of the covenant it’s an antecedent one.
LikeLike
LikeLike
Jeff, the solution to your conundrum is that when FT references a meritorious condition, he does not just say generically, “antecedent condition, but rather he specifies “which has the force of a meritorious and impulsive cause” (or something akin to that).
LikeLike
David R., what? The solution isn’t Flavel?
LikeLike
DR: Relative to what? Relative to the institution of the covenant, it’s a concomitant condition, but relative to the application of the covenant it’s an antecedent one.
That’s close, but that is not what he says. His actual words, please. (Partial credit for getting “both”, though)
LikeLike
I don’t have a conundrum. I am very clear about what Turretin says, and pretty clear about what Flavel says, and about the similarities and differences between them.
I don’t feel a compulsion to make them be in harmony because, unlike Scripture, they are not infallible nor inspired and carried along by a common Author. Hence, it is proper to represent each man on his own terms, without trying to force one man into the other’s shoes.
And that’s why I’m rejecting your answer. For though it gets close, it interpolates your own mental structure which is not one that Turretin puts forth.
He doesn’t say anywhere that “we must first ask relative to what.” He doesn’t say that “faith is concomitant relative to … but antecedent relative to …” Importantly, he doesn’t say that “faith is antecedent in one sense, but concomitant in another.” And he certainly does not say that there are more than two kinds of conditions.
—
DR: he does not just say generically, “antecedent condition, but rather he specifies “which has the force of a meritorious and impulsive cause” (or something akin to that).
I know that you’ve been reading it like that, but that, also, is not what he says.
The text is plain enough:
* Two kinds of conditions
* ‘Antecedent’ is used for this kind
* ‘Concomitant’ is used for that kind.
So yes, he does use ‘antecedent’ generically, in the literal sense of that word: It denotes a particular genus of condition.
—
But as I pointed out in the response, none of your response helps you. For even if you carry the day and prove without a doubt that Flavel *is* the best representative of Reformed thought on the obscure topic of “classification of conditions” — still and all, obedience to the ceremonial law by unbelievers to obtain external expiation falls under the category of “by natural strength” and therefore is the wrong kind of antecedent for your cause.
LikeLike
Jeff, maybe Wolfgang Musculus can help (kidding).
I do admire this discussion at some level, and stand in awe of your patience (and knowledge) but as you put it:
And so far, the majority of objections to repub have been historical (and most of the people objecting aren’t licensed to do history).
LikeLike
Just for fun, and also because one might get the impression from this interaction that Turretin makes only one distinction regarding conditions in the covenant of grace, following is an overview of his analysis. (Note: I was able to do this without recourse to the term “antecedent,” because that term is not essential to the analysis.)
Distinctions:
1. meritorious/concomitant. The term “condition” is used either:
1.1. for that which has the force of a meritorious cause to obtain the benefits of the covenant (the performance of which gives a man a right to the reward), or
1.2. for that which has the relation of means or disposition in the subject, required in the covenanted.
2. natural/gracious. A condition is either:
2.1. natural, flowing from the strength of nature, or
2.2. supernatural and divine, depending on grace.
3. concerning the end/concerning the means. The federal promise of the CoG (i.e., what is granted by divine grace) is twofold, either:
3.1. concerning the end, i.e., salvation, or
3.2. concerning the means, i.e., faith and repentance.
4. in relation to: institution/application/consummation. The covenant can be considered either:
4.1. in relation to its institution by God, or
4.2. in relation to its first application to the believer, or
4.3. in relation to its perfect consummation.
Given the above distinctions, Turretin explains in what senses the CoG is unconditional and conditional:
In what senses is the covenant of grace unconditional?
1. Wrt 1.1 (meritorious cause) and 2.1 (natural condition), the CoG is unconditional, because its sole meritorious cause is the righteousness of Christ, and it depends entirely on the grace of God.
2. Wrt 3.2 (the means), the CoG is unconditional, because otherwise there would be an infinite regress (i.e., condition depending on condition, etc.)
3. Wrt 4.1 (its institution), the CoG is unconditional (in keeping with distinction #1).
In what senses is the covenant of grace conditional?
1. Wrt 1.2 (concomitant condition) and 2.2 (supernatural condition), the CoG is conditional, in that it is conditioned on faith (as the instrumental cause) and repentance/obedience (the disposition of the subject), both of which are supernatural gifts of divine grace.
2. Wrt 3.1 (the end, i.e., salvation), the CoG is conditioned on faith/repentance.
3. Wrt 4.2 (its application), the CoG is conditioned on faith, and wrt 4.3 (its consummation), it is conditioned on repentance/new obedience.
LikeLike
And that’s why I’m rejecting your answer. For though it gets close, it interpolates your own mental structure which is not one that Turretin puts forth.
This is ironic, since your notions of merit in the Mosaic covenant are your own interpolations (as you admitted) into Turretin. If I were using your criteria, I would reject this entire conversation. But I do believe I’ve provided ample evidence that “antecedent” does not mean what you think it means.
He doesn’t say anywhere that “we must first ask relative to what.”
See distinction #4, above.
He doesn’t say that “faith is concomitant relative to … but antecedent relative to …” Importantly, he doesn’t say that “faith is antecedent in one sense, but concomitant in another.”
Not in those exact words, but I pretty clearly demonstrated that he does say those things.
LikeLike
David R., here’s prooftext for that: Gal 4:2.
LikeLike
David,
I did warn you that I was prepared to pound the table on this one. So with the understanding that this is *friendly* table-pounding:
DR:
Just stop right there. The words Turretin uses are ‘antecedent’ and ‘concomitant.’ Now you’re going to throw ‘antecedent’ out and replace with a different term?
That is an absurd method. He said what he said, and if you don’t think he should have said it that way, then man up and say so!
The terms as he distinguishes them are ‘antecedent’ and ‘concomitant.’ Antecedent conditions have the force of meritorious and impulsive causes. Those are his words. You cannot evade that fact by “re-analyzing” through “deleting” the “actual text.”
Your analysis through deletion continues…
DR: In what senses is the covenant of grace unconditional?
1. Wrt 1.1 (meritorious cause) and 2.1 (natural condition), the CoG is unconditional, because its sole meritorious cause is the righteousness of Christ, and it depends entirely on the grace of God.
BUT Turretin says,
Turretin:These things being laid down, we say first, if the condition is taken antecedently and a priori for the meritorious and impulsive cause and for a natural condition, the covenant of grace is rightly denied to be conditioned…But if it is taken consequently and a posteriori for the instrumental cause, receptive of the promises of the covenant … it cannot be denied that the covenant is conditional.
You need to be honest here. He does not say “the condition of the covenant is antecedent yet not meritorious.” He says quite clearly that it IS NOT antecedent, and that it IS consequent.
JRC: And that’s why I’m rejecting your answer. For though it gets close, it interpolates your own mental structure which is not one that Turretin puts forth.
DR: This is ironic, since your notions of merit in the Mosaic covenant are your own interpolations (as you admitted) into Turretin. If I were using your criteria, I would reject this entire conversation.
Mis-reading, again. The issue is not interpolation, but interpolating a structure that overrides the one already present in the text.
I’ll be transparent here. A few pages back, I admitted to you that Turretin does not use the specific word “merit” to describe the process by which Israelites, even non-believers, obtained external expiation through external obedience to the ceremonial law. He says all those latter things, but he doesn’t use the word “merit” to describe it.
Nevertheless, I reasoned that, given the categories he creates, that term is an appropriate way to connect the dots and explain the particular way in which the ceremonial law is legal.
When I admitted this to you, I was trying to model for you the process of being cognizant of text vs. interpretation of text. What the text says is one thing, what we think it means is another. In your posts, you often merge those two things together. They need to be separated, and I was trying to give a small example of how that is done by identifying the difference between what is actually said, and what I think he means.
You didn’t catch on. Instead, you took my admission and have used it several times now as a club against me. I thought you might, but I hoped that you wouldn’t. You did. OK, whatever.
But the point now needs to be made explicit: We all are stuck in a world in which interpolation, connecting the dots, interpreting, whatever you want to call it, is necessary. I don’t begrudge you the fact that you’re trying to understand FT, and not even through the lens of other authors like Flavel (though I think you’d do better to coordinate with 17.5 first). But there is a real difference between our interpretations and what is actually said. And my criterion for rejection was that your particular interpolation was in conflict with what he actually says.
David, I desire for you to become more cognizant of the difference between “what is on the page” and “what you think it means.”
Right now, those two things appear to be a confused mess in your head, which is why you put forward an analysis that removes the very term under discussion.
You seem determined that not all antecedent conditions should be considered meritorious, so you just deny that FT says it.
Until you can admit that what he says is that
then our conversation is stalled out. Maybe you think he’s unclear. Maybe you think he shouldn’t have said it. Maybe you think he’s just wrong. Any of those is a possible move for you. Denying the obvious — there’s no future in that.
Once we get past that point, then we can talk about what he says in 12.3.15-16, which is less than crystal clear, and at that point we will both have to do some interpreting.
</tablepoundmode=”off”>
LikeLike
If my method is “absurd,” at least I’m in good company.
Geerhardus Vos:
LikeLike
But there is a real difference between our interpretations and what is actually said. And my criterion for rejection was that your particular interpolation was in conflict with what he actually says.
More irony. My interpretation is an “interpolation,” but yours is “what he actually says.”
LikeLike
David R., so we interpret Turretin by using the infallible Vos infallibly interpreted by Batzig?
Wow. Jeff should also pound your head.
BTW, Jeff said both of you are interpolating.
LikeLike
Has it occurred to you guys that any theological point that takes this long to arrive it is probably not worth a damn?
LikeLike
It’s kind of like when folks go 1,000 comments with a Catholic to reach the conclusion that one guy looks to Scripture while the other guy looks to the Pope. Eureka!
LikeLike
Antecedent to what? To obtaining the benefits of the covenant. Consequent to what? To obtaining the benefits of the covenant. The terms “antecedent” and “consequent” are relative terms. That’s what Turretin says. Here’s how he outlines the various relations according to which various conditions are “antecedent”:
And now he explains how a non-meritorious condition (i.e., faith) is “antecedent” relative to the second of these phases of the covenant.
Antecedent to what? To the acceptance of the covenant. Subsequent to what? To the acceptance of the covenant. I’m not making this stuff up, folks….
LikeLike
I largely agree that we are a dumbed down, simpleton population ever heading more that direction as we are inundated with pictures, moving and otherwise, and attention spans rivaling a gnat but this parsing has reached the level of pedantic and irrelevant.
LikeLike
Sean and Erik, but you have to marvel at Jeff’s patience. It has to rival Flavel’s.
LikeLike
I didn’t need this exchange to be impressed with Jeff. I also don’t think David R is chopped liver but c’mon already.
LikeLike
Once more (sorry folks):
Antecedent to what?
What is its relation to obtaining them?
Are there any other kinds of antecedent conditions?
Antecedent to what?
What is its relation to the acceptance of the covenant?
LikeLike
David,
The point is that your argument is not nearly as tight as you seem to think it is. This is evidenced in your most recent, where you cut and paste from 12.3.2 and 12.3.15, skipping over everything in between.
I’m trying to help you tighten it up. Either you’re right, and you can show that more clearly (and we all benefit), or you’re not, and tightening will help find the error (and we all benefit).
You need to start by simply acknowledging what the text says in 12.3.2.
How many types of conditions are there? What are their names? Their characteristics?
LikeLike
Jeff is Mister Rogers on Crack.
LikeLike
Pedantic thread locker:
LikeLike
@ Erik:
Good morning, boys and girls! Today, we’re going to put Mr. Hamster in the microwave!
Shut the door … set the timer … in ten seconds … Pop goes the weasel!
LikeLike
Actually, Fred Rogers was quite an admirable guy.
LikeLike
Jeff,
A few things:
1. First, to answer your question,
How many types of conditions are there? What are their names? Their characteristics?
There are three types of conditions (actually three conditions). They are: (1) the righteousness of Christ, (2) faith, and (3) repentance/new obedience. Their characteristics (or rather, their relations) are, respectively: (1) the meritorious cause (of obtaining the benefits of the covenant), (2) the instrumental cause (of receiving the benefits of the covenant), and (3) the way we go forward (to the consummation of the covenant).
(It really amounts to the same thing whether we: (1) class the first condition only as antecedent and the other two as consequent, or (2) if we class the first two as antecedent [albeit in different relations] and the last one as consequent.)
2. But actually, our debate regarding antecedent conditions is academic because your major premise (of your argument supporting objection (O2)) is just as false as the minor. The fact of the matter is that offering sacrifices is not an antecedent condition at all, but rather a concomitant one. How so? Well, because offering sacrifices is an act of obedience, and obedience in the covenant of grace is a concomitant condition (condition #3 above).
That there was a capital penalty for disobedience doesn’t alter the foundational reality that obedience was non-meritorious (i.e., concomitant). Nor does the fact that someone offering hypocritical (and therefore unacceptable) obedience could get off scot-free (but only temporally). Nor does the fact that a disobedient believer would also be subject to the (temporal) penalty. (And since essentially the same principle was operative in the retention of the land, our debate should be ended….)
I expect a chorus of accusations of “flattening” and “muddying” and other horrible hermeneutical no-nos, but the din of the out-of-tune singing won’t be able to drown out Colquhoun’s (and yes, FT’s) affirmation of agreement with (not about) me….
3. You accuse me of contradicting FT’s explicit statements with my interpolations. But I can accuse you of the same, since you continue to insist that the legal condition is imperfect obedience even though FT says time and time again that the legal condition is perfect obedience (and even though you agreed with me that the only time he apparently says “imperfect” is in a mistranslation).
So, on to objection (O3) (assuming you still object)?
LikeLike
“Today, we’re going to put Mr. Hamster in the microwave! Shut the door … set the timer … in ten seconds … Pop goes the weasel!”
Thus Hulk Cagle body slams Flavel and eye gouges Mr. Rogers.
LikeLike
I do still object, and I am really puzzled by your approach. I’ve asked you to acknowledge what the text says, and you consistently refuse to do so. First, you bring in Flavel (interesting, but not directly relevant — and far less relevant than 17.5). Then you start using 12.3.16 (which is difficult) as a hermeneutical key to understanding 12.3.2 (which is not). Then finally, you go completely overboard and throw out the terms of 12.3.2 altogether and start talking about “the righteousness of Christ” as a condition.
What’s going on?!
In my world, failing to admit to brute facts is a sign of either bad faith or else irrationality. I really don’t want to believe either of those things of you, and yet you keep pushing me in that direction.
The reason that I ask this is that there is only one way to make forward progress, and that is for us to start at a point of agreement. What the text says is, or should be, the basis for that point of agreement. If you want to actually satisfy the objection, which is that the text falsifies your view, then you have to start with the text and show how it does not falsify your view.
So far, your method has been, “The text doesn’t falsify my view because Flavel!” That’s mostly irrelevant.
If you want to persuade me of your view, then the burden of proof is on you. So far, you haven’t met that burden, not in the slightest. To do so, you need to start with what the text says. Then argue from there.
So the only thing I know to do is to ask again, and hope that you come to understand how this process works.
According to 12.3.2, how many types of conditions are there, and what are their names and characteristics?
There is only one correct answer to this question. Don’t dance around it. No O3 until you can demonstrate the basics.
LikeLike
DR: But I can accuse you of the same [contradicting FT], since you continue to insist that the legal condition is imperfect obedience even though FT says time and time again that the legal condition is perfect obedience
You could raise that objection, and I would be happy to answer it. One thing at a time.
DR: (and even though you agreed with me that the only time he apparently says “imperfect” is in a mistranslation).
Right, that passage was just mangled somewhere between the translation and the copy-editing.
DR: The fact of the matter is that offering sacrifices is not an antecedent condition at all, but rather a concomitant one. How so? Well, because offering sacrifices is an act of obedience, and obedience in the covenant of grace is a concomitant condition
Earlier, I thought you had agreed that offering a sacrifice was antecedent to receiving the external benefits. Is this a change in view, or was I too optimistic?
In any event, this will open up a whole new front of law-gospel confusion. You had best save this for O3, assuming we ever get there.
LikeLike
Jeff,
You are going to have to accept the fact that we disagree about what the text says. I’ve given you my take. You tried to marshal support from Colquhoun, but his definition doesn’t help you. The fact of the matter is that an antecedent condition in general is broader than an antecedent condition constituting a meritorious cause, simply because the term “antecedent” implies a cause in general and there is more than one kind of cause (i.e., there are also instrumental causes).
But it really doesn’t matter because, as I said, obedience is a concomitant condition in the CoG (as you acknowledge) and offering sacrifices is an act of obedience. This falsifies your objection (O2) (which you say falsifies my view). So we can leave our disagreement about antecedent conditions behind and deal now with two of your objections at once. This is the heart of our disagreement anyway.
LikeLike
DR: You are going to have to accept the fact that we disagree about what the text says.
I certainly accept the fact that we disagree about what it means. But I am still amazed that you were unwilling to admit that the words on the page say what they say. It would have been very easy for you to repeat the text and then admit, “but I don’t think he means that there are exactly two kinds of conditions.”
DR: …The fact of the matter is that an antecedent condition in general is broader than an antecedent condition constituting a meritorious cause
That’s a fact not in evidence. What is “broad merit”?
DR: But it really doesn’t matter because, as I said, obedience is a concomitant condition in the CoG (as you acknowledge) …
That would be evangelical obedience, as Turretin makes clear
DR: …and offering sacrifices is an act of obedience.
And with respect to the legal economy, that would be legal obedience, as Turretin also makes clear. Your position would have non-believers offering sacrifices as evangelical obedience under the covenant of grace — and they aren’t under the covenant of grace.
I don’t see much benefit in moving forward. As Turretin says, getting “conditions” straight is necessary for preserving the law-gospel distinction. So I can’t foresee any good outcome to discussing O3. We will simply discover that we disagree about conditions, which we already know.
Can you see any point?
LikeLike
David R., maybe you agree with Jeff to disagree. But I’ve seen the way you read Kline. Why don’t have I have confidence in your reading of FT or JF?
LikeLike
But I am still amazed that you were unwilling to admit that the words on the page say what they say. It would have been very easy for you to repeat the text and then admit, “but I don’t think he means that there are exactly two kinds of conditions.”
This is what he says (once again), in his first of four distinctions regarding conditions:
I admit this is what he says. We disagree about what it means. You think he’s saying that all antecedent conditions are meritorious. I, otoh, think he first generalizes regarding antecedence, which I argue roughly means “causal,” and then adds the specific kind of cause in view, which in this case is a meritorious one.
So in my view, we can paraphrase the first distinction FT makes as one between a condition that is (1) a meritorious cause (to obtain the benefits of the covenant), and (2) a means and disposition, required in the covenanted. (As you’ll recall, this is much the way Vos paraphrased it in the citation I linked to.)
In keeping with this, I think you are mistaken to paraphrase this distinction as one between antecedent and consequent conditions because that would be a more general distinction between ALL causal conditions (e.g., instrumental causes too), not just meritorious ones, otoh, and all consequent conditions, not just ones that are the consequence of specifically meritorious causes, oto.
Make sense?
LikeLike
And with respect to the legal economy, that would be legal obedience, as Turretin also makes clear. Your position would have non-believers offering sacrifices as evangelical obedience under the covenant of grace — and they aren’t under the covenant of grace.
I don’t know what framework you’re operating with here. The only acceptable obedience, post-fall, is evangelical obedience, which is a concomitant condition, and by definition non-meritorious. Of course not all those externally in covenant (all Israel) were truly in covenant, but that doesn’t make the hypocritical obedience of nonbelievers acceptable. So my position is, that since evangelical obedience (by definition) didn’t merit anything, then hypocritical obedience certainly didn’t merit anything (except further condemnation).
LikeLike
David,
So my position is, that since evangelical obedience (by definition) didn’t merit anything, then hypocritical obedience certainly didn’t merit anything (except further condemnation).
Ok, I’m just an inexact laymen when it comes to the long and winding road of FT, but agreed…
Obedience certainly doesn’t merit for things pertaining to salvation. But as to public forgiveness under the Israeli judicial law on a national/earthly level, doesn’t any Israelite (elect or non-elect) merit, upon prescribed sacrifices, that public/national prescribed recognition of forgiveness? It allows them to stay a citizen in good standing according to the Book of the Law. Isn’t that a legal obedience that merits a legal forgiveness on a non-heavenly level? And isn’t this legal economy applied to all citizens of Israel, elect and non-elect, meant for an outward obedience keeping one in “good standing” and to aid the preservation of the national identity from which the Seed/Messiah will come? Hebrews tells us that those sacrifices couldn’t really cleanse from sin, so what were they for?. And if not applying to the non-elect then the forgiveness given to them upon the required sacrifices would not have been given at all as they were not strictly in the covenant of grace. Only elect receive forgiveness in Christ. Seems like two things are going on here, two levels, a type and the redemptive reality for the elect.
And by the way, a question. Which covenant did Israel break as prosecuted by the various prophets? Anyone?
Thank you….
LikeLike
DR: Make sense?
It’s progress, thanks.
So agree or disagree: According to FT,
* Conditions are either antecedent or concomitant
* ‘antecedent’ is used for conditions that are meritorious causes,
* ‘concomitant’ is used for conditions that are means or dispositions in the subject
LikeLike
Jeff,
If we’re still talking about 12.3.2, then I disagree for the reasons I just gave. I think “antecedent” means generically causal (not specifically meritorious). For example, it could refer to the instrumental cause of receiving the benefits of the covenant of grace (which IS a condition of it) as well as the meritorious cause for obtaining those benefits (which ISN’T a condition in it). In my view, the distinction FT makes is not between generically antecedent conditions and concomitant ones, but rather between specifically antecedent meritorious conditions and concomitant ones.
LikeLike
Jack,
And by the way, a question. Which covenant did Israel break as prosecuted by the various prophets? Anyone?
You watched the Tipton video, right? I agree with his answer.
LikeLike
JRC: * ‘antecedent’ is used for conditions that are meritorious causes,
DR: If we’re still talking about 12.3.2, then I disagree for the reasons I just gave. I think “antecedent” means generically causal (not specifically meritorious)
Take my statement more literally. I didn’t say ‘only for’, and my omission deliberately left a grey area open.
Do you still disagree?
LikeLike
David,
I don’t recall Tipton addressing mt specific question (maybe he did). It would be helpful if you could just give me your answer. Leaving aside the interpretation of the word translated as Adam, what covenant did Israel break, as in Hosea 6:7 –
But they like Adam have transgressed the covenant: there have they dealt treacherously against me.
And as foretold in Deut. 31:16 –
And Jehovah said unto Moses, Behold, thou shalt sleep with thy fathers; and this people will rise up, and play the harlot after the strange gods of the land, whither they go to be among them, and will forsake me, and break my covenant which I have made with them.
Thanks…
LikeLike
Jeff, in that case, I don’t disagree.
LikeLike
Jack, I’ve given my answer numerous times. I thought the question was rhetorical.
LikeLike
Good.
So I would describe the current state of the question like this:
We agree to the above.
In addition, you believe that FT’s antecedent/concomitant classification in 12.3.2 is non-exhaustive in that he omits antecedent conditions that are non-meritorious.
Your evidence is primarily 12.3.15-16, which you believe puts forward faith as a non-meritorious antecedent conditon. You confirm your reading with Flavel, who explicitly makes faith to be a non-meritorious antecedent condition, and who has clearly read Turretin and uses much of his language.
(Please correct anything that is incorrect or incomplete in the above, especially as regards your evidence)
Meanwhile, I see FT’s antecedent/concomitant classification as exhaustive in that I understand him to be saying that conditions are either antecedent or concomitant, with antecedent conditions having the force of meritorious causes and concomitant having the force of a means or disposition.
If this summary of the state of the question is agreeable to you, I can now give the argument for my position.
LikeLike
David R., answer the question. You’ve said a lot of things numerous times. Believe it or not, not all of us are hanging on every word of you, Turretin, or Flavel (though we do hold Paul in high regard).
If you don’t answer Jack’s question my patience may expire.
LikeLike
I am also confused about which covenant you think has been broken. I would guess “the covenant of grace, by apostasy”, but that applies only to unbelievers, not the nation. So … ?
LikeLike
Jeff,
Yes, that’s basically it, though I might add that, in addition to 12.3.15-16 (and wherever else FT may speak of faith as instrumental cause), it may be (I’m not sure) that FT speaks of repentance/new obedience as an antecedent condition relative to the consummation. If he does, then that would broaden the concept of antecedent conditions to extend beyond specifically causal conditions, properly speaking. (I think Flavel’s definition may allow for this broader usage, though I am not sure if he applies it in that way.) But again, I am far from certain that FT does this.
Additionally, I can provide a citation from Thomas Shepherd in which, parallel to Flavel (and I believe, FT), he speaks of the senses in which faith is, and is not, an antecedent condition.
But yes, I think your summary is basically correct.
LikeLike
Jeff, your guess is correct.
LikeLike
Go ahead and read Thomas “not Norm” Shepherd into the record.
LikeLike
Go ahead and read Thomas “not Norm” Shepherd into the record.
Sure.
LikeLike
David,
And Jeff also asks:
Inquiring minds want to know…
LikeLike
Jack, scroll up three comments from yours.
LikeLike
David,
Jack, scroll up three comments from yours.
Jeff, your guess is correct.
per Jeff: ” but that applies only to unbelievers, not the nation. So … ?”
Could you address Jeff’s “but”…?
LikeLike
David,
Thanks.
So I claim that the classification of conditions into “antecedent” or “concomitant” is almost certainly intended to be exhaustive. For FT, those conditions that are antecedent are meritorious; those that are concomitant are not. Here’s the case. First, I’ll argue positively for my view; then I’ll address the key piece of counter-evidence, 12.3.15-16 as well the discussion of good works.
Textual
(1) The language reads most naturally, both in English and in Latin, as an exhaustive division.
The “either/or” structure (Latin: “vel/vel”) is usually used to mark an exhaustive division:
For dinner, you may have either pork or beef
This implies, in normal discourse, that there are two options.
I found it striking that in our interchange Oct 21 7:39pm, that even when I left out the “either/or” structural marker, you interpreted my language by default to mean an exhaustive classification.
That says something about the way that words are normally used.
(2) In this classification, the accent is on the contrast between “antecedent” and “concomitant.”
The Latin text uses italics to make the structure clear:
Condition sumitur, vel ansecedenter & a priori, pro ea quae habet vim causae meritoriae & impusivae ad obtineda beneficia foederis, quae praestita homini, jus dat ad praemium, vel concomitanser & consequenter a posteriori, pro ea quae habet rationem medii & dispositionis in subject, quae requiritur in foederatis
The other classifications (natural/supernatural, ends/means, institution/application/consummation) are similarly marked.
This looks for all the world like a straight-up definition: antecedent is synonymous with a priori, used to mean meritorious and impulsive cause. Concomitant is synonymous with a posteriori, used to mean disposition and means
(3) It would uncharacteristically unclear of FT to say that antecedent conditions are used for meritorious causes, but concomitant for means and dispositions, only to further on reveal that “antecedent” is also used for other types of conditions.
(4) There are four different classifications given here:
antecedent/concomitant
natural/supernatural
ends/means
institution/application/consummation
The other three are exhaustive classifications: A condition may be either natural or supernatural (no other possibilities). The federal promise concerns either the ends or the means (no other possibilities). The covenant may be regarded in relation to institution, application, or consummation (past/present/future — no other possibilities).
This is a strong structural clue that the first classification is exhaustive also.
Coherence with the larger text
(5) Coherence with 17.5.
As soon as we read “meritorious cause” in 12.3.2, we ask, “is he speaking of broad merit or strict merit or both?”
Clearly, broad. For strict merit is not defined in terms of antecedent conditions, but in terms of intrinsic value and the five conditions of 17.5.6.
But broad merit is defined in terms of antecedence and consequence: It is the consecution of any thing.
So we have from 17.5 that any antecedent condition and its consequence would be considered “broad merit”; we have from 12.3.2 that meritorious causes are called “antecedent.”
The simplest coherence is to read logical equality between the two: antecedent conditions are broadly meritorious, and vice-versa.
(6) Coherence with 12.3.3
These things being laid down, we say first, if the condition is taken antecedently and a priori for the meritorious and impulsive cause and for a natural condition, the covenant of grace is rightly denied to be conditioned. It is wholly gratuitous, depending upon the sole good will of God and upon no merit of man. Nor can the right to life be founded upon any action of ours, but on the righteousness of Christ alone.
But if it is taken consequently and a posteriori for the instrumental cause, receptive of the promises of the covenant and for the disposition of the subject, admitted into the fellowship of the covenant (which flows from grace itself), it cannot be denied that the covenant is conditional. — FT, 12.3.3
We note here that the condition of the covenant (laid down as faith and repentance, 12.2.29) is described as an instrumental cause consequently and a posteriori, and is denied to be antecedent. This is in contrast to Flavel, who posits faith as a non-meritorious, antecedent condition.
Here, FT seems anxious to exclude any antecedence to the condition of the covenant. This makes sense only if allowing antecedence would be a problem — that is, if it would imply merit.
We’ll touch on this more when we consider 12.3.15-16.
For these six reasons, I think it is highly likely that the classification here is exhaustive.
LikeLike
The argument being made, let us turn now to the question of 12.3.15-16 and whether it is correct to say that for FT, faith is a non-meritorious antecedent condition.
I readily grant that this is so for Flavel. But I think for FT it is best to say that faith is concomitant in that it is an instrumental and not a material cause. Hence, it is non-meritorious. But considered as an instrumental cause, it is antecedent to obedience, primarily in a temporal way.
In other words, it does display some antecedence, but only in a subordinate and primarily temporal way. Fundamentally, faith is concomitant; hence, fundamentally, it is non-meritorious.
I think the same structure works well for our understanding of good works. For it is clear that obedience is a concomitant condition of the covenant. Yet our good works are mentioned as “antecedent and ordinate”, and here, the antecedence is one of time and not of logical cause.
Argument
First, we are going to operate on the principle that the clear should interpret the unclear. In the first fourteen sections, FT makes clear at least five different times that faith is a concomitant condition of the covenant in that it is receptive of the promises of the covenant and is an instrumental and not material cause of reception into the covenant:
But if [condition] is taken consequent and a posteriori for the instrumental cause, receptive of the promises of the covenant and for the disposition of the subject, … it cannot be denied that the covenant is conditional — 12.3.3
In the end, the legal condition has the relation of a meritorious cause (at least congruously and improperly) of the promised thing (namely, of life) – “Do this and live.” Thus life is granted to him because he has done and on account of his own obedience; but the evangelical condition cannot properly be called the cause of salvation, much less merit, because it is the pure gift of God. It may only be called an instrument by which the thing promised is apprehended and without which it cannot be obtained. — 12.3.6
As to the former [relation which it holds] when we say that faith is a condition of the covenant, we do not mean it absolutely and according to its nature and essence. It is contained under obedience as being commanded by the law (just as the other virtues) and so it cannot be contradistinguished from it. Hence it cannot be accepted for righteousness or the obedience of the law because such a judgment would not be in accordance with the truth (since faith is the only the smallest part of that righteousness). Rather it must be considered relatively and instrumentally, inasmuch as it embraces Christ … faith (taken instrumentally) can consist only with the grace of God (for which nothing but a reception is required, which is the proper action of faith…) — 12.3.11
Now in this covenant faith is opposed to righteousness or obedience, not on this account that they cannot consist together (since it alone is true faith which is efficacious through love or obedience), but that they cannot stand together causally (since the causality of each is distinguished in its total species — the one meritorious and principal, the other only organic and instrumental). Righteousness gives, faith receives; … Hence what is taken away from the one is ascribed to the other, not be reason of the same causality, but by reason of the effect because faith in the covenant of grace is to us in the place of works, ie, obtains for us (although in a different genus of cause) what works ought to have done in the covenant of nature — 12.3.12
That it may be known further how faith has the relation of a condition in this covenant, we must know that faith does not bear this relation except in reference to Christ (inasmuch as it is the means and instrument of our union with Christ which reconciles him to us… — 12.3.13.
So we have here a very, very clear and emphatic declaration: Faith is not antecedent, as a meritorious cause; but is concomitant, as an instrumental cause.
Now, Turretin turns to a new question in 12.3.15:
Thus we have demonstrated how faith is a condition in this covenant [i.e., concomitantly, as an instrument] Now we must see whether it performs this office alone or whether other virtues are with it, particularly repentance.
So this is the context for what follows. We have established that faith is concomitant; now, is it alone?
Here is his take:
We think the matter may be readily settled by a distinction, if we bear in mind the different senses of a condition. It may be taken either broadly and improperly (for all that man is bound to afford in the covenant of grace) or strictly and properly (for that which has some causality in reference to life and on which not only antecedently, but also causally, eternal life in its own manner depends). If in the latter sense, faith is the sole condition of the covenant because under this condition alone pardon of sins and salvation as well as eternal life are promised. There is no other which could perform that office because there is no other which is receptive of Christ and capable of applying his righteousness. But in the former, there is nothing to hinder repentance and the obedience of the new life from being called a condition because they are reckoned among the duties of the covenant. — 12.3.15
Second, the condition is either antecedent to the acceptance of the covenant (which holds the relation of the cause why we are received into it) or subsequent (holding relations of the means and the way by which we go forward to its consummation). In the former sense, faith is the sole condition of the covenant because it alone embraces Christ with his benefits. But in the latter sense, holiness and obedience can have the relation of a condition because they are the means and the way by which we arrive at the full possession of the blessings of the covenant. — 12.3.16
These are the only two places in which FT associates “antecedent” with faith as a condition.
Some observations:
* In both places, faith is still being described as an instrumental cause, receptive of the promises.
* Hence, it follows that faith is still primarily acting as a concomitant condition in the sense clearly laid down in 12.3.3.
* In both places, faith’s antecedence is in comparison to the subsequence of repentance and obedience.
* In both places, faith’s antecedence is spoken of in the very same relation that its concomitance was spoken of in the earlier sections: It is the instrumental cause by which we enter the covenant.
From all of this, I conclude that faith is not “concomitant relative to X, but antecedent relative to Y.” Such a structure would make the concomitance and antecedence of the same level of importance.
Rather, faith is always instrumental (hence concomitant). Subordinate to this, it is antecedent, primarily in a temporal sense, to repentance and obedience. Its antecedence is subordinate.
Put another way, faith is not “non-meritorious while yet antecedent.” Rather, it is “non-meritorious because concomitant and instrumental.”
When we turn in topic 17 to our good works and sanctification, similar language and reasoning applies.
Works can be considered in three ways: either with reference to justification or sanctification or glorification. They are related to justification not antecedent, efficiently, and meritoriously, but consequently and declaratively. They are related to sanctification contitutively because the constitute and promote it. They are related to glorification antecedently and ordinatively because they are related to it as the means to the end; yea as the beginning to the complement because grace is glory begun, as glory is grace consummated … Good works are required not for living according to the law, but because we live by the gospel; not as the causes on account of which life is given to us, but as effects which testify that life has been given to us. — 17.5.14.
Here we see our good works said to be “antecedent”, but the antecedence is described in concomitant terms: means, beginning to complement, not as causes but as effects. The antecedence, meanwhile, is not one of logical antecedence, but temporal.
So our good works are antecedent to our glorification, but in a way that is subordinate to their fundamental nature as a concomitant condition.
Now we consider our various outside witnesses.
Flavel (1690?)
He clearly thinks of faith as a non-meritorious antecedent condition. In this regard, he simply takes a position different from Turretin, though he is also obviously influenced by Turretin.
Colquhoun (1835)
He takes Turretin’s position on conditions. There are two kinds: antecedent are meritorious, consequent are not.
Vos (1948)
Vos gives the substance of Turretin’s classification, but he omits the antecedent/concomitant terminology. I don’t have a reason at hand for that.
Shepherd (1640?)
This is an interesting case, since he takes antecedent in two senses. The first is “in the usual sense of some divines” of a meritorious cause. I am essentially arguing that Turretin (1680) is in that camp.
The second is “as a means”, and is antecedent only in the sense of “going before in the order of nature”, which is roughly how I’ve rendered 12.3.15-16.
Again, here, he gives a description that fundamentally fits ‘concomitant’ conditions and only subordinately is ‘antecedent.’
LikeLike
Again with the pastoral plea. Turretin follows up the discussion of our good works with this:
Believers are a willing people who ought not to be impelled to good works by necessity (viz., by a necessity of compulsion), but spontaneously and voluntarily. But still, works do not cease to be necessary by the necessity of means [means to the end] and of debt. [i.e., natural/moral law]
This is the pastoral vision of the Reformation. It sees obedience as a concomitant condition and blessing for obedience as something that happens in God’s providence as means along the way to the end. God purposes to bless us, and He moves in our hearts to bring about that blessing through faith leading to obedience.
Seeking to supplant that today is a pastoral vision in which works bring about life, in which accountability is a means of grace, in which our effort is in the driver’s seat to accomplish our sanctification. God offers blessings, but it is our obedience that secures them. These do not believe that believers are a willing people, but see them as needing to be motivated by fear of God’s discipline.
One plank of that vision is to appeal to the Old Testament as a source of example material so as to say, “God blessed the Israelites for their obedience; in the same way, He will bless us for ours. God punished the Israelites for their disobedience; in the same way, He will punish us for ours. They were under the covenant of grace; we are under the covenant of grace.”
In other words, anti-repub in our time is subservient to the larger agenda of neo-nomianism.
Over against this, republication in some form or another is theologically necessary in order to hold the line. The Israelites, even the believing ones, were under a rigor and terror of the law that we are not under (says Turretin).
We must hold this line. I wouldn’t spend 800 comments on anything less.
LikeLike
dgh—republication deniers wind up affirming republication. For them the Covenant of Works is gracious, and so is the Mosaic covenant. So at Sinai there was a republication of grace. (In fact, the way some Federal Visionaries cannot distinguish grace from works, I wonder if they actually think the Covenant of Grace was a republication of the Covenant of Works.)
https://oldlife.org/2010/01/more-this-and-that/
LikeLike
Mark, your post took me back to re-reading some Where’s Waldo posts. I appreciated your (and David’s and Zrim’s and DGHs) efforts there.
LikeLike
Jeff,
U da man.
LikeLike
mcmark, ding ding.
LikeLike
Jack,
Could you address Jeff’s “but”…?
I beg your pardon….
But seriously, I again commend to you the lecture by Dr. Tipton which imho provides an excellent framework for answering that sort of question.
In a nutshell, the connection between Canaan and Eden was that both were typological holy lands, as it were, that prefigured the heavenly inheritance. One thing this meant is that both required obedience from their inhabitants in order to retain possession of the land (in the former case, perfect obedience from the strength of nature, which, if rendered, would of course also bring eschatological advance; in the latter case, imperfect obedience gifted by grace). If that obedience was not rendered, then exile would ensue, as of course it did in both cases.
So by virtue of inhabiting a typological holy land, the Israelite theocracy was placed in a position to recapitulate Adam’s sin, fall and exile by their apostasy from the covenant of grace. The lecture’s worth a second viewing!
LikeLike
I didn’t gt the pun until I read it out loud. Ba-dump.
Your answer to Jack (and my “but”) raises a whole host of questions. I’ll pre-load them now so thqt you can be chewing on them, but I don’t want to discuss them yet until we get to O3, if that’s OK.
(1) What is “new” about the New Covenant?
(2) If Israel recapitulates Adam’s fall, then shouldn’t the principles be parallel?
(3) A major point of the covenant of grace is that the conditions are also given by promise (which is why the conditions are concomitant, not antecedent). How can a condition given by promise of God fail?
(4) By what mechanism do non-believers obtain external benefits in the Mosaic Covenant?
Again, I don’t want answers just yet, but I wanted to give you fair warning of the issues I will be concerned with in O3 and beyond.
LikeLike
Thank you David. I knew I could go back and listen, but I wanted you to put it in your own words here so that it could be addressed. Jeff raises important questions, ones that I also have and will wait for you guys to address them (and no buts).
By the way, your ongoing discussion at OL is the “War and Peace” of blog comments…
LikeLike
Mark, your post took me back to re-reading some Where’s Waldo posts. I appreciated your (and David’s and Zrim’s and DGHs) efforts there.
Ah, the good ol’ days … before I was an OL leper.
LikeLike
David R., boo hoo.
You post here the most of anyone the last 6 weeks but everyone’s out to get you.
LikeLike
Jeff and Jack, some quick responses, just so you’ll have some idea in which direction I’ll go:
(1) What is “new” about the New Covenant?
There are a number of administrative (i.e., non-substantial differences), Calvin enumerates five; FT seven or eight. Distinctions such as: pre/post advent, type/substance, letter/Spirit, bondage/freedom, obscurity/clarity, particular/universal, etc.
(2) If Israel recapitulates Adam’s fall, then shouldn’t the principles be parallel?
Nope, given the pre-/post-lapsum divide. Rather, the recapitulation is in the symbolico-typical sphere of appropriateness of expression, not in the legal sphere of merit (since the latter would only hold if Israel were under a covenant of works).
(3) A major point of the covenant of grace is that the conditions are also given by promise (which is why the conditions are concomitant, not antecedent). How can a condition given by promise of God fail?
The conditions ARE given by promise, and they don’t fail. But in the event of apostasy, the deal is off, and those who were once ami (“My people”) become lo ami (“not My people”). I am not saying the elect can fail to persevere, just that natural branches can be broken off, and the visible church can become a synagogue of Satan.
(4) By what mechanism do non-believers obtain external benefits in the Mosaic Covenant?
Corporate solidarity. The promise is to Abraham and his seed (as it is still to believers and their children), though not all are children of promise, and therefore not all attain to anything more than temporal blessings, e.g., Ishmael, Esau, and the broken-off natural branches.
LikeLike
Imagine D.G. devoting an entire post to my citations of Reformed theologians….
LikeLike
David R., those were the days.
You were sensible.
LikeLike
David,
Corporate solidarity. The promise is to Abraham and his seed (as it is still to believers and their children), though not all are children of promise, and therefore not all attain to anything more than temporal blessings, e.g., Ishmael, Esau, and the broken-off natural branches.
Corporate solidarity (I take you mean as a nation) as under the Covenant of Grace? How are unbelievers under the Covenant of Grace? Of course Esau et al were not part of Israel. What about the non-elect Israelites, how are they under the Covenant of Grace? And how are conditional blessings and curses given to both elect and non-elect under a C of G? It seems more biblically consistent (imho) and logical that they had a corporate solidarity as under a national covenant of works that was not on a heavenly level, but an earthly shadow of the original one that replayed typologically the conditional requirement for obedience (not an obedience pertaining to eternal life) in order to avoid the curse of exile from Canaan/Eden and retain the blessing of their typological “garden” residence. They failed like Adam (Hos. 6:7) as the giving of the Law brought an increase in sin (Rom. 5:20). Thus Israel’s national experience points back to the first federal head’s failure (plunging man into death) and forward to the need for a second Federal Head who would be faithful under the original/conditional Covenant of Works as the basis for God’s unconditional promise of life given to the elect in the Covenant of Grace. Law is upheld as demanding perfect righteousness in order to merit life which Christ alone fully and completely obeyed for believers (Rom. 10:3-5). Grace is upheld as the entire basis of life for the elect in Christ who as their Surety fulfilled all of the law, both as to satisfaction for disobedience and required obedience…
LikeLike
DR: Ah, the good ol’ days … before I was an OL leper.
The overall tone (on all hands) was very different in those days. I wonder what changed.
I find it interesting that at that time, I was trying to stake out a more “not exactly Murray or Kline” position. In some ways I ended up in some ways recapitulating FT. In some other ways I was making one of the arguments that you are making now: That sinners cannot merit.
What changed for me was three-fold: First, I came to understand what Kline meant by “typological works principle.” That removed my major objection.
Second, I thought through more carefully the difference between *what the Law requires* and *how believers fulfill the Law*. The latter is by grace; the former is not.
Third, I saw the sanctification wars up close and personal. That made me determined.
That said, I still wouldn’t endorse everything in TNLF. I don’t understand where Gordon is trying to go with five different covenants.
LikeLike
It’s also interesting, David, how your stance towards Tipton has shifted.
LikeLike
Jeff, my stance toward Tipton has not really shifted. I have greatly respected him all along, and my changes of position on various issues are to a degree attributable to his influence.
LikeLike
Corporate solidarity (I take you mean as a nation) as under the Covenant of Grace? How are unbelievers under the Covenant of Grace? Of course Esau et al were not part of Israel. What about the non-elect Israelites, how are they under the Covenant of Grace?
The same way non-elect non-Israelites are under the covenant of grace, i.e., by external admission.
LikeLike
David,
My question should have been more exact. I understand what Vos is teaching in terms of the distinctions of being “in” the C of G for elect and non-elect. What I’m aiming at is that the outward blessings and curses were given to Israel as a nation regardless of inward faith or no inward faith. The question is how are conditional outward blessings and curses given to both elect and non-elect under a C of G? This is especially perplexing as pertains to national obedience that is more or less linked to their kings regarding national purity of worship. In the C of G those who are elect in Christ do believe and don’t go into apostasy. The elect receive no covenant curse (eternal death) resulting from unbelief. Those non-elect under the C of G don’t receive heavenly blessings (life) in that they reject faith in Christ.
Yet with Israel both are recipients of the same national outward blessings and curses based on national obedience/disobedience. The C of G also doesn’t explain how outward sacrifices are required to be brought and offered by individuals as a condition of outward forgiveness of sins for both elect and non-elect, yet as the writer to Hebrews states it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins. which points to the need for an inward cleansing of the heart by grace that applies only to true believers. Their system, at least in part, seemed to be an outward legal arrangement, one that I think Peter had in mind (along with much more) when he said, “Now therefore why do you put God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?” [Acts 15:10]. I don’t see how solely a C of G view in the M.C. in which all law obedience is grateful obedience fully explains the way in which God dealt with Israel as a nation in the M.C. IMHO there is a law/legal principle that the anti-repub view doesn’t account for: the law was given through Moses, grace and truth came through Jesus Christ – not to mention Rom. 10:3-5; Galatians; 2 Cor. 3; and Heb. 8-10…
LikeLike
Why this is controversial?… One has to buy it as the only view of the M.C., but to say this is beyond the pale?… Kline:
LikeLike
The question is how are conditional outward blessings and curses given to both elect and non-elect under a C of G?
I gave my view in brief under Jeff’s (2) above (October 24, 2014 at 11:13 am).
The C of G also doesn’t explain how outward sacrifices are required to be brought and offered by individuals as a condition of outward forgiveness of sins for both elect and non-elect …
I gave my short answer to this one above too (October 20, 2014 at 1:15 pm).
LikeLike
For cryin’ out loud, Jack, even if you don’t think it should be controversial; by now you should at least understand why others disagree.
LikeLike
David R., if you can find the date and the time of comments, why not cut and paste the comment?
LikeLike
For cryin’ out loud, David, relax… that was a rhetorical question. In no way am I implying I don’t understand your position. Rather, that it’s perplexing that you would hold it to the degree that you put Kline beyond the pale. So, I understand the view but disagree as to its sufficiently dealing with the biblical data. And interestingly, I’m not aware of any move to disallow the “Dennison view” in the OPC, unlike what is going on re: the Kline/TLNF view. That’s the point of my last comment.
See Jeff Cagle comment posted October 22, 2014 at 10:51 pm
LikeLike
Jack, rhetorical or not, the effect your question has, at this point in the conversation (on this blog), is to annoy. You keep asking questions and I try to answer, and then you ask why it’s controversial after all this time (as if we haven’t already been discussing it for well nigh twelve weeks), and it shows me I’m wasting my time answering.
LikeLike
D.G., I don’t like quoting myself.
LikeLike
David R., but you do like taking notes on when and where you’ve spoken.
LikeLike
David, if the effect is to annoy, then you might want to consider what personal goal you may have that is getting blocked rather than automatically finding fault with a rhetorical observation which is at the heart of this whole matter. I didn’t know you had rules as to when and when not something could be said in the course of these many hundreds of comments. This is more than an academic exercise. Churches in some presbyteries are in turmoil over this issue. I would think you might expect an occasional reflection such as the one I made due to how this is impacting a number of church sessions/presbyteries. I can assure you there was no intention to ruffle your feathers.
LikeLike
Jack, no problem. But from now on, before I take the time to answer your questions I will know to be sure to ask you first whether the question is merely rhetorical (or whether you already know how I’ll answer), so if it is (or you do) I can just save myself the time and energy.
LikeLike
D.G., no notes, I have to search for it, but that’s still more convenient than repeating myself.
LikeLike
So where are we? Do you have any additional thoughts about conditions?
LikeLike
Jeff, I’ll post some initial responses shortly (hopefully tomorrow at the latest).
LikeLike
David, one tell might be whether the comment is directly addressed to you or not, as the one in question wasn’t. But wouldn’t you expect at least a little imprecision is this form or communication? And it was only two days ago you assumed that a question I directed to you was only rhetorical and therefore you didn’t initially answer it… imperfect communication fits in well with imperfect obedience…
LikeLike
Jack, I may need better discernment, but just above, you said, “In no way am I implying I don’t understand your position,” which suggests that even when you address a question directly to me, you’re not really looking for an answer.
LikeLike
David, actually, no my original doesn’t suggest that. My comment that I do understand your position was in response to your amazement at my supposed lack of understanding and that’s all. Is it so hard to just let it be rather than search for some flaw to justify your reaction? It was no big deal…
LikeLike
Jeff,
We must hold this line. I wouldn’t spend 800 comments on anything less.
Those of us who have been simply content to follow this 6 week discussion are thankful for your efforts, and even to David R for his willingness to hang in the debate and flush so many of the facets of the broader issue out.
All this leads me to wonder if we shouldn’t prop you up as a poster-child convert like the CtC guys do, and open up a new site along the lines of: Called to Republication, or Take a Walk on the Kline Side, or GraceBoyzUnite. Just thinking out loud here.
LikeLike
NO!
LikeLike
Nothing Jeff has said over the past 6 weeks refutes anything that David R has said, believed, supposed, or conjectured or will ever say, believe, hope, or conjecture at any point in the future.
This message has been paid for by the Bryan Cross Society for Stubbornness, Obstinacy, Pigheadedness, and General Cluelessness.
Now back to your regularly scheduled programming.
LikeLike
Nothing Darryl has said to Bryan over 27 months has put even a chink in Bryan’s armor.
Not only does his armor remain chink-free, it is scratch-free, dent-free, and rust-free. It is even dust and grime free as he has been polishing it regularly with Armor-All. It is as new-looking as the day he took it out of the shrinkwrap after bringing it home from the armor store.
If only his flat cap looked this good.
LikeLike
Jack, no, I think you know the answers (or believe you do), you’re not looking for answers, and yet you ask questions.
LikeLike
Gee thanks, Erik.
LikeLike
Is it so hard to just let it be rather than search for some flaw to justify your reaction? It was no big deal…
apparently it is…
David, it’s called an engaging/polemical discussion, a debate. A requirement of asking a question of another is not that one thinks he is ignorant of the other’s position. In fact, just the opposite! You have claimed emphatically that you understand the Klinean / Repub position having once held it, and yet you ask questions of Jeff and, on an earlier thread, of me. Is that disingenuous? (btw, that’s a rhetorical question)…
LikeLike
Jeff,
I think you’ve done some good work, and I’ll get to it, but first, some preliminary thoughts:
1. No offense, but I find your pastoral appeal at the end of your long and highly technical posts to be a bit humorous—if someone read just your final installment, they could get the misimpression that we had been debating “the article of a standing or falling church,” and that I had taken a semi-Pelagian or neonomian position. But no…. we’ve actually spent the better part of the last few weeks bickering over the definitions of obscure concepts such as “antecedent conditions” and “broad and improper merit” (much to the chagrin of the OL regulars). And not only that, but wrt the present sub-question of antecedent conditions, it’s been amply demonstrated that a number of highly regarded Reformed theologians explicitly took the view that I have been arguing is FT’s. Add to that the fact that post-eighteenth century Reformed theologians appear to have abandoned this terminology altogether, and it becomes patently obvious that, whether I happen to be right or wrong on this particular issue (and I may well be wrong), this is at most a terminological dispute (and not even a dispute); it is clearly not a question of substance. So your appeal at the end of your defense of the doctrine of antecedent conditions (that grand pillar of the Reformed faith) seems to me a bit misplaced, and perhaps even smacks a little of grandstanding (and obviously some here enjoy your rhetoric). (Note: By this I don’t mean to suggest that some of the issues you raise in your “pastoral plea” are not important and worth raising.)
2. I think it’s perhaps telling that all of your objections (at least so far) seem to lead us in this direction (i.e., arguing over relatively obscure peripheral concepts); your arguments all seem to hinge on how to interpret a sentence or two dealing with some rather obscure issue, from which you then deduce something unstated (and I would say, contradicted) in Turretin.
And this leads me to an observation about your overall method in this debate: Thus far, it appears to me that your modus operandi is to (1) ignore the big plain teachings in Turretin that falsify your position (or appear to me to do so), (2) latch onto a relatively obscure passage that may, prima facie, isolated from his big plain statements, appear to support your view, (3) build your argument on your own debatable interpretation of that particular passage, and then (4) suggest (at least by implication) in a concluding pastoral appeal that those who disagree with you are betraying the Reformation.
That you can look reasonably good following this strategy is a tribute to your rhetorical ability, but it seems highly doubtful to me that it could yield accurate conclusions regarding the big question of merit in the MC. If indeed repub were so basic to the integrity of the Reformed faith, then it seems to me it would be writ large (i.e., in the big plain teachings) in the work of one of the most thorough, clear and precise Reformed polemicists ever to take up a quill (just as the doctrine of repub is writ large in the work of the pro-repub folks).
3. Hopefully you realize that I have nothing staked on this sub-question concerning antecedent conditions. Whether I am right or wrong is largely irrelevant because (as I’ve said) I am arguing that, in keeping with the nature of the CoG, obedience (to the law, including the ceremonial law) was a concomitant condition, and therefore by definition non-meritorious. (I agree with Colquhoun on this, and I would say, FT too.) That we’re hung up on this sub-question is partly my fault because I initially sought to defeat your argument undergirding objection (O2) by denying the major premise (i.e., All antecedent conditions are meritorious causes). However, the ground I am now maintaining is that your minor premise is false (i.e., The act of offering sacrifices fulfills an antecedent condition) because obedience, under all administrations of the CoG, falls into the category of a consequent concomitant condition. Hence, as far as I can tell, your objection (O2) is met, and we can move on to your objection (O3). (Though you will no doubt want to prove me wrong.)
4. For you of course, the question of antecedent conditions is a central plank for building your case for meritorious expiation and land retention. (Though you concede in your first sentence that your case rests on an argument that can never be more than “almost certain.”)
I do realize that it will be important for you to prove your argument about antecedent conditions, so I will give your good work a closer look and response.
LikeLike
David, thanks.
I find the importance of clarity on conditions to be what FT says about it: “that the law may not be confounded with the gospel”
That said, I agree that we’ve gotten highly technical. That’s OK with me, inasmuch as we seem to communicate more efficiently (fewer rounds of futile rebuttals) when being precise.
Further, we live in a time when the “anti-antionomians” make a big deal out of the conditionality of the covenant – yet without always being precise on what kind of condition. So I consider precision helpful as we think about our situation in the CoG.
Anyways, I think the minor premise, which is really a question of proper classification, goes well with O3. So we could take that up there.
LikeLike
I find the importance of clarity on conditions to be what FT says about it: “that the law may not be confounded with the gospel”
But the importance of clarity on conditions in the CoG is not in question. The question is whether your particular definition of antecedent conditions is as crucial as you make it out to be. That’s what I deny, and my evidence is that (1) well-respected Reformed theologians contradicted it, and (2) later Reformed theologians (i.e., Old Princeton) passed over the issue completely, obviously considering it non-essential.
Which is why I think your appeal, to the effect that your position on antecedent conditions is the bulwark against neonomism, seems excessive.
LikeLike
Anyways, I think the minor premise, which is really a question of proper classification, goes well with O3. So we could take that up there.
But how will we ever get to O3 unless you deal with my response to O2 (which doesn’t hinge on this question of antecedent conditions)?
LikeLike
Jack, you said that your “Why is this controversial?” was not aimed at me specifically, and I believe you, but hopefully you see why I initially thought otherwise, since it came in the context of our Interaction. But if this is polemics (as you say), then ball’s in your court; I answered you.
LikeLike
Jeff,
I find the importance of clarity on conditions to be what FT says about it: “that the law may not be confounded with the gospel”
If that’s the case, then it seems to me we should actually be discussing what FT explicitly says concerning the difference between the CoW and CoG as to their respective conditions:
I find the above to be an excellent statement and I have no doubt you would concur. And one nice thing is that we don’t even need your “almost certain” conclusion wrt the significance of the term, “antecedent condition,” since the one time FT uses it in the above statement, he explicitly specifies the precise sense he intends (“by way of a cause for acquiring life”), which, btw, he also does in every other case of his usage of that terminology.
LikeLike
DR: But how will we ever get to O3 unless you deal with my response to O2 (which doesn’t hinge on this question of antecedent conditions)?
OK, I’m happy to deal with the minor premise here, then. Do you have any more comments about antecedent/concomitant conditions per se?
LikeLike
Jeff, no, I have no additional comments offhand relative to my response to your O2–my argument is simply that in the CoG, obedience is a consequent condition.
LikeLike
OK then. So I claim a complex proposition:
(1) In Turretin, the sacrifice and the specific benefit of external expiation granted through the act of sacrificing was a function of the legal economy and not the covenant of grace.
(2) As such, the legal condition of sacrifice was of works, hence antecedent, hence meritorious.
(3) But the merit in view IS NOT the merit of the CoW, in which man merits eternal life by perfect and perpetual obedience. Rather, it is simply broad merit: the dispensing of a benefit under an antecedent condition.
We need to lay some groundwork, because the structure of the CoG and legal economy have been obscured in this conversation.
As we know, Turretin holds that the Mosaic Covenant consisted of the Covenant of Grace for its substance, cloaked in a legal economy — that is, a legal mode of dispensing benefits according to conditions. We agree that this legal economy subserved the CoG, and that it was not a subservient covenant in that there are only two covenants, corresponding to two modes of relating to God (12.12.8), and it is impossible in any event to be under two covenants at once (12.12.12). Rather, the legal economy subserved the CoG by placing under bondage and under tutelage.
In this post, I will show that Turretin viewed the sacrificial function of external expiation to be a function of the legal economy and not of the substance of the covenant of grace.
First, we observe that the legal relation and the gospel relation are non-overlapping:
— 12.7.31.
There are several things to be observed here, but the major point is the two-fold relation. On the one hand, there is a legal relation that is
* External
* Severe
* Puts forth what God demands.
On the other, there is an evangelical relation that is
* Sweeter
* Shadowy
* Puts forth the gospel promise.
It is clear from the matter, from the relation, and from the agreed-upon contrast between law and gospel that these two ways of viewing the administration (i.e., the MC) are non-overlapping. The functions of one are not contained in the other. Rather, the functions of the legal relation subserve the evangelical.
The legal and evangelical functions of the moral law differed. As a legal economy, it had the form of a covenant of works; but in its evangelical function, it served as a rule of life. In its legal function, the moral law demanded perfect and perpetual obedience and promised upon that condition eternal life (hypothetically). In its evangelical function, the believer already possessing eternal life obeys willingly and out of a sense of holiness suitable for one who has been given the promises of God. (12.7.30)
Likewise, the ceremonial in its legal function *did not provide* forgiveness of sins:
— 12.7.40.
This is contrasted by FT with the evangelical function of the ceremonial law:
– 12.7.43, 45.
So it is clear already that external cleansing was a function of the legal economy and not of the substance of the CoG.
This is confirmed by the term used to describe the legal functions of the ceremonial law: The “Intolerable Yoke” (sounds like a death metal band name).
Second, we observe in 12.7.31 above that the legal economy consisted of two distinct parts: the moral law, together with the intolerable yoke. Or put another way, the moral law was fundamental, with the ceremonial and forensic added as appendages.
So, the legal function of the ceremonial law was different from that of the moral law. It had different stipulations and offered different benefits, although it subserved the moral law.
— 12.7.39.
For the moral law required perfect obedience and gave (hypothetically) eternal life. But the ceremonial required a sacrifice, and gave external expiation.
So we can see here the differences between the ceremonial and the moral law, as well between the ceremonial in its legal function and the ceremonial in its evangelical.
Turretin confirms both of these differences (ceremonial v moral, ceremonial-legal v ceremonial-evangelical):
— 12.7.33.
So we have made the following observations:
(1) The legal economy was distinct from, non-overlapping with, and subservient to the CoG.
(2) The legal economy consisted of the moral law + appendeges of ceremonial and forensic. The functions of each were different.
(3) The functions of the moral law were different in the legal economy over against the CoG, i.e. a restatement of the CoW over against a rule of life.
(4) The functions of the ceremonial law were different in the legal economy over against the CoG, i.e. a provision for external purity with the end of inculcating misery over against sacramental remission of sin.
Finally, the forgoing observations are confirmed in FTs discussion of the ceremonial law:
— 11.24.2.
Here again we see the difference in function between moral and ceremonial.
And again Turretin distinguishes between the functions of the ceremonial law with respect to the moral law (in its legal relation) and the gospel:
— 11.2.9
And lest we think that this distinction is an unintended pattern, FT makes it very explicit:
— 11. 24.11
So it is clear from the forgoing that
(1) The sacrifices in their function of external expiation were legal,
(2) Which is different from and not overlapping with the evangelical sacrament.
The first was an intolerable yoke. The second was sweetness itself.
LikeLike
(2) As such, the legal condition [of sacrifice] was of works, hence antecedent, hence meritorious.
The short proof is to show that the legal condition was not concomitant. This should be obvious from the very name: The legal economy was legal. From all that Turretin says about legal conditions, it should be entirely obvious that the legal economy operated by works.
But even aside from that linguistic point, we can see that the condition of sacrifice for external expiation was antecedent and not concomitant from the following considerations:
(1) The only concomitant conditions possibly in view are those of the CoG (indeed, you have identified the granting of external expiation as a function of the CoG). However, FT identifies external expiation as a function of the legal economy and not of the CoG as shown above.
(2) The concomitant conditions of the CoG are faith and repentance. However, Turretin is explicit that external cleansing was given without regard to either repentance or faith (12.7.39). This rules out the external expiation being given under a function of the CoG.
(3) Concomitant conditions are those that are a posteriori and have the relation of means and disposition in the subject. The outcome is guaranteed by an efficient cause further back; the concomitant condition is simply “that which goes along with” (literally). It is an instrumental cause whose true and efficient cause lies further back. In the case of the CoG, that efficient cause is the pactum salutis out of which flow the promises that supply the concomitant conditions.
But the sacrifices have no such relation of means or disposition. They were supplied by the sacrificer out of his own flock or at his own cost. There is no efficient cause further back. There is no guarantee that the sacrifice will be offered. Hence, the condition is by definition not concomitant.
The longer proof takes us through what it means for the legal economy to place all of Israel, both justified and unjustified, under an “intolerable yoke” of “rigor” and “servile fear.” If you desire, I can do that, but the above seems sufficient to me to establish the point.
But I recognize that there will be an objection: You will object that the legal economy had as its requirement perfect and perpetual obedience, and clearly offering sacrifices is nothing of the sort. Hence, you object that it is impossible for the external expiation to be given under the legal economy; or else, that it is impossible for it to be given under condition of imperfect obedience. It must be given instead under the covenant of grace.
But the first possibility is disposed of already. It is crystal clear that for FT, the external expiation was a function of the legal economy.
The second possibility, that the required obedience must be perfect and perpetual, brings us to the third point…
LikeLike
(3) But the merit in view IS NOT the merit of the CoW, in which man merits eternal life by perfect and perpetual obedience. Rather, it is simply broad merit: the dispensing of a benefit under an antecedent condition.
So far, we have established that external expiation was a function of the legal economy and not of the covenant of grace. The required sacrifices were antecedent conditions, not concomitant, and were works that were required under the intolerable yoke of ceremonies.
But now, if they were antecedent and broadly meritorious, then what merit exactly are we talking about?
We are NOT talking about the merit of the CoW, the merit of perfect and perpetual obedience.
(1) The ceremonial law was not identical to the moral in either stipulations nor benefits.
You have mentioned in multiple places that for Turretin, the Law always required perfect and perpetual obedience as its condition.
But this in fact not strictly true. It *is* true that the moral law always requires perfect and perpetual obedience (in its legal relation). It also grants (hypothetically) eternal life upon the fulfillment, and eternal death upon disobedience.
The ceremonial law did none of those three. And I feel pretty confident at this point that you will not be able to find a passage in Turretin that shows that the ceremonial law either required perfect obedience, or promised eternal life, or sanctioned with eternal death.
Further, I have already shown that Turretin distinguished the functions of the ceremonial and moral law, so that the former subserved the latter.
In other words, the requirement of perfect and perpetual obedience under the moral, does not automatically transfer over to the ceremonial.
What the ceremonial law required was sacrifices. What it gave was not eternal life, nor justification (nor could it, in its legal relation — 12.7.33), but external expiation.
(2) It is logically impossible that the ceremonial law could require perfect and perpetual obedience.
The sacrifices presupposed that sin had occurred. By the time a sacrifice was made, perfect and perpetual obedience was out of the question.
If therefore perfect obedience was the requirement, then the ceremonial would never have dispensed benefits to anyone under its legal relation. There would not have been any ceremonial cleansing. Yet there was indeed ceremonial cleansing, pretty much all the time … ergo, perfect obedience was not the requirement for the sacrifices.
Nor, just to repeat, was faith and repentance.
In other words, there were the two covenants but also a legal dispensation under Moses:
CoW: Condition of perfect and perpetual obedience, with benefit of eternal life.
CoG: Condition of faith and repentance, given by promise, with benefit of eternal life.
Legal economy: A restatement of the CoW in the moral, with other legal conditions and benefits (and punishments) in the ceremonial and civil that subserved the moral law.
LikeLike
Thanks, Jeff. Something I wonder about: according to your view of merit, did Namaan the Syrian merit his cleansing from leprosy by washing in the Jordan seven times (2 Kings 5)?
LikeLike
Somehow I missed all of these posts as if they were the sound of one hand clapping. Very Zen.
LikeLike
Did anything remotely get resolved?
I have a big wager on this… or am I selling a financial instrument short on it?
LikeLike
DR: Something I wonder about: according to your view of merit, did Namaan the Syrian merit his cleansing from leprosy by washing in the Jordan seven times (2 Kings 5)?
Interesting question. So this is an issue that falls outside the realm of forensic and ceremonial law (since he was not an Israelite), and outside of the moral law in its legal relation (since no eternal life is attached to it). We aren’t talking about the legal economy at all, here.
So now from the text:
— 2 Kings 5.8-19 NIV
As I read it, this encounter with Elisha was the man’s effectual calling. He obeyed out of faith, which was given to him by the Spirit.
The Spirit is not directly mentioned in the text, but the systematics are so clear here that there can be no doubt.
Seems like that would make it a concomitant, non-meritorious kind of obedience. Agree?
LikeLike
Jeff, yes, I would agree. Though it’s a little complicated, since, if we assume Naaman wasn’t converted yet when he was first told to wash, I am not sure it could have been a concomitant condition then.
LikeLike
Jeff,
In my view, the problem with your argument is that you appear to fail to take into account that the legal economy (law) bore a different relationship to individual Israelites, depending upon whether they were regenerate (and thus under the CoG) or unregenerate (and thus bound under the terms of the broken CoW). I consider it axiomatic that any and every administration of the CoG, these are the two overarching realities that determine one’s relationship to the law (and therefore, to the MC legal economy). But you appear to be abstracting your discussion of the law from these categories.
The following is all pretty basic (sorry if it is too much so), but I’ll unpack a little and discuss this wrt the regenerate first and then the unregenerate:
1. Those truly under grace (partaking of the substance of the CoG and not just its outward administration) were no longer bound by the terms of the law, that is, to either merit life by their perfect obedience, or suffer death by falling short. For them (according to FT and Reformed theology in general), all required obedience was simply the (non-meritorious) prerequisite means and disposition, supernaturally granted by divine grace (in keeping with 12.3). There were no benefits of the CoG to be procured conditionally (i.e., meritoriously) since everything was to be obtained by the merits of Christ to come. IOW, for believers, no matter the administration of the CoG, there are no legal conditions, only evangelical ones.
But your view appears to subject believers to meritorious conditions, when you say, “As such, the legal condition of sacrifice was of works, hence antecedent, hence meritorious.” But this is contrary to FT’s plain statements, e.g. (the recently oft cited), “[I]f the condition is taken antecedently and a priori for the meritorious and impulsive cause and for a natural condition, the covenant of grace is rightly denied to be conditioned. It is wholly gratuitous, depending upon the sole good will of God and upon no merit of man (12.3.3).”
So what you are arguing cannot be true for believers in any administration of the CoG, since they are never subject to legal conditions. Yes, it is true that “the legal economy is legal” (as you are fond of reminding us); but it is just as true that believers are freed from the law as a covenant of works (containing meritorious conditions).
Thus, my primary objection to your position is that for you, there were meritorious (i.e., legal) conditions to be met by believers in the OT administration of the CoG; whereas FT explicitly disclaims such conditions for any administration of the CoG.
2. Those not under grace (i.e., who had merely external admission into the CoG) were of course still bound by the terms of the broken CoW (the demands of which were republished in the legal economy), whereby life could be merited by perfect obedience. But this published demand was pedagogical, and any attempted “obedience” in their own strength could only further multiply their debt of sin and consequent liability to divine wrath. Their acts of sacrificing, so far from meriting anything, were an abomination in God’s sight, and grounds for further demerit.
So, building on my previous objection: If the regenerate could merit nothing by their acceptable obedience, then it is absurd to think that the unregenerate could merit anything by their hypocritical unacceptable “obedience.”
To anticipate an objection from you: I am not saying that the OT administration of the CoG during the Mosaic period was not characteristically legal (objectively) in a way that the NT administration is not. Of course it was, but the differences were a matter of accidents, not substance (e.g., in the former case: typological inheritance, relative prominence given to law’s demands, gospel hidden under a veil, yoke of ceremonies, etc.). In a nutshell, there are various differences but none of them reaches to the level of a different principle of inheritance (and we can take a closer look at what FT means by “bondage” and “rigor”).
Also, if would like, we can go on to talk about the principles governing the fact that (under the OT economy), ceremonial cleansing, along with subsequent freedom from temporal penalties, was granted to all without distinction. (I’ve previously given you my short answers but we can of course discuss further.) But as we do that, I am hoping we can agree that such principles cannot trump what I’ve observed above.
This is broad outline, so if you think I’ve missed something important, let me know, but I’ll be interested in your response to my above objections.
LikeLike
Jeff,
A few comments on your pastoral plea:
This is the pastoral vision of the Reformation. It sees obedience as a concomitant condition and blessing for obedience as something that happens in God’s providence as means along the way to the end. God purposes to bless us, and He moves in our hearts to bring about that blessing through faith leading to obedience.
Amen, I completely agree. But in the repub debate, this is not in question. Obedience is a concomitant condition; sanctification is a work of God’s free grace.
Seeking to supplant that today is a pastoral vision in which works bring about life, in which accountability is a means of grace, in which our effort is in the driver’s seat to accomplish our sanctification. God offers blessings, but it is our obedience that secures them. These do not believe that believers are a willing people, but see them as needing to be motivated by fear of God’s discipline.
Perhaps you are right, and to the extent that you are, I believe I am as vehemently opposed to such a “pastoral vision” as you. The question is not whether believers are a willing people, motivated by gratitude. I agree that they are, and I would stand with you against anyone who says otherwise.
One plank of that vision is to appeal to the Old Testament as a source of example material so as to say, “God blessed the Israelites for their obedience; in the same way, He will bless us for ours. God punished the Israelites for their disobedience; in the same way, He will punish us for ours. They were under the covenant of grace; we are under the covenant of grace.”
In this comment, I think you possibly betray some of the dissatisfaction that repub has with standard Reformed theology. What you say here makes sense in a world in which the principle of inheritance is different under the MC than it is under the NC. But that is not (generally speaking) the Reformed view, and by way of additional evidence, take a look at Calvin’s comments on Leviticus 26:14, where it is rather clear that he does not see the discontinuity that you do. I would be interested in knowing whether or not you would judge his comments here to be guilty of the allegedly wrongful “appeal to the Old Testament” of which you speak, and if not, why not:
Does repub consider these thoughts of Calvin’s to be nomistic? I wouldn’t be surprised if some repubs do, and I’m fairly sure I’ve never heard repubs speak like this. But in view of this perspective, I wonder if you might choose to nuance your pastoral plea a bit more carefully (realizing of course that blog comments don’t always lend themselves to clarity)?
LikeLike
I’m very comfortable with Calvin’s comments here, which are consistent with his discussion in the institutes in which he likens the law to a “whip for the flesh.”
Put simply, one function of the law is to restrain the sin nature.
But in saying that, we understand that restraining the sin nature does not give life, does not sanctify (meaning change the heart). It is the new man who is strengthened by grace (and informed by the law as a gracious rule of life). Here, the function of the law is to say no to the old man – who never improves, is never sanctified.
More on your objection later.
LikeLike
Your objection is well-stated and gets to the heart of the issue. Here is that heart, which I dub the Anti-Repub Axiom
A-RA: I consider it axiomatic that any and every administration of the CoG, these [regeneration and unregeneration] are the two overarching realities that determine one’s relationship to the law (and therefore, to the MC legal economy).
This axiom has been the consistent ground of your argument throughout our discussion over two posts (as well the consistent ground of the arguments of Dennison, Ramsey, et al).
Here’s where things stand. I have presented a fairly detailed argument above, showing from direct quotation that Turretin sees the function of external expiation as being part of the legal relation of the ceremonial law — a function of the legal economy. I have also shown that Turretin viewed that expiation to be given “without regard to repentance or faith”, which clearly excludes the concomitant conditions of the CoG. I concluded therefore that the function of external expiation operated under a legal principle, hence a principle of works — not to obtain eternal life, but simply to obtain external expiation.
Your response here is that Turretin cannot possibly be saying that because of the Anti-Repub Axiom. From that axiom, you conclude a principle, which we might call the Anti-Repub Theorem (which does most of the heavy lifting in the arguments):
A-RT: For believers, no matter the administration of the CoG, there are no legal conditions, only evangelical ones.
To complete the set, we should state the Anti-Repub Criterion:
A-RC: Any required obedience that is not perfect and perpetual belongs to the Covenant of Grace
And I think we agree that
(a) Either the A-RA is correct, or
(b) Turretin does in fact hold that believers are subject to legal conditions in the legal economy.
but not both.
One of (a) or (b) has to give. I have tried to present overwhelming textual evidence that (b) is certain, so (a) is falsified.
So far, your response is that the A-RA is self-evidently true, so (b) must be false. And yet the textual evidence for (b) (I think you would agree) seems really pretty solid as an argument on its own.
Further, the textual evidence for the A-RT in particular is very slim. We do not see Turretin saying anywhere that believers in the MC are under no legal conditions whatsoever — but only that they are under no legal obligations to obtain eternal life.
So I would like to ask you to consider the possibility that (relative to Turretin’s account)
(1) The A-RA is imprecise, so that
(2) The A-RT is wrong, and
(3) The A-RC is also.
Proof:
(1) The A-RA is imprecise because it does not specifically distinguish between moral, ceremonial, and civil.
It is true that being regenerate changes one’s relationship to the law. The question is, what is the nature of that change for those under the Mosaic covenant and with respect to each of the components (moral, forensic and, ceremonial) of the law?
You have stated that
Those truly under grace (partaking of the substance of the CoG and not just its outward administration) were no longer bound by the terms of the law, that is, to either merit life by their perfect obedience, or suffer death by falling short.
However, the terms of the law as a covenant of works and to merit life by perfect obedience, were specifically a function of the moral law (viz 11.6.10-11 and all of 11.22). Nowhere are either the ceremonial law nor the judicial given the power to grant life — in fact, as cited above, the FT specifically denies that power to the ceremonial law. And I as I argued above, it is logically impossible that the ceremonial law in its legal relation required perfect obedience, since the existence of a sacrifice presupposes a failure of perpetual obedience.
So the first way in which the A-RA is imprecise is that it wrongly attributes the terms of the moral law over to the ceremonial and civil. But Turretin is clear to separate those terms. Everything in topic 11 from 11.1 – 11.23 concerns the moral law, as FT says:
Hence arises a manifold difference between the moral law and others both in origin … and in duration … Thus far we have spoken of the moral; now we must discuss the ceremonial. — 11.24.3.
And as those functions of the ceremonial law are discussed, not one of them is to provide eternal life on condition of perfect obedience. Rather, they are
* With regard to the moral law, to subserve the 1st table with regulation of external worship, and to aid the moral law in convincing men of impurity, weakness, and guilt.
Those functions are not functions of the covenant of grace, depending on faith and repentance. Nor yet are they functions of the covenant of works, depending on perfect obedience.
Nor do those functions offer eternal life.
* With regard to the people, the ceremonial separated them from the nations.
* With regard to the covenant of grace, there was a use of the law to show sin and misery, but also to show forth Christ and his benefits. (11.24.8)
Here, finally, we have a function that depends upon faith and repentance and offers life. But this function is only one of many.
Likewise with the forensic, there was neither a demand of perfect and perpetual obedience (since the outward forensic law could not regulate the heart), nor was there eternal life offered for obedience nor eternal death threatened for a single sin.
So now that we understand that the demands and proffer of the moral law are not identical to that of the ceremonial and civil, we are in a position to hear Turretin more clearly as to how regeneration changes the relationship of the person to the law.
With regard to the moral:
It is one thing to be under the law inasmuch as it is opposed to the gospel as to rigid and perfect exaction of obedience … another to be under the law inasmuch as it is subordinated to the gospel, as to sweet direction. — 11.23.7
But with regard to the rigors of the legal economy:
— 12.7.36.
Here, it is clear that regeneration does change the relationship of the Mosaic believer to the ceremonial and civil law: it changes the bondage from “absolute” to “relative”, inasmuch as they are under it in body but not in spirit.
What it does not do is to remove the legal conditions altogether.
So we can see that more precision would be needed to accept the A-RA as correctly reflecting Turretin. Regeneration does indeed change the believer’s relationship to the law, but the relationship change to the moral is different from the relationship change to the intolerable yoke. The former is absolutely abolished as a covenant of works, remaining only as a rule for life. The latter remains, but its bondage is only external.
And for this reason,
The A-RT is simply wrong
The A-RT says, for believers, no matter the administration of the CoG, there are no legal conditions, only evangelical ones.
I think you agree with me that this needs qualification, for later you say
I am not saying that the OT administration of the CoG during the Mosaic period was not characteristically legal (objectively) in a way that the NT administration is not. Of course it was, but the differences were a matter of accidents, not substance (e.g., in the former case: typological inheritance, relative prominence given to law’s demands, gospel hidden under a veil, yoke of ceremonies, etc.).
But of course, we have only been talking about accidents all this time, so if you are actually arguing against my position (that external expiation was obtained by antecedent condition), then you would have to be arguing that even the accidents were not legal.
So the theorem ends up very messy: who, exactly, was under the legal economy? Your theorem would say, Not believers. Your qualification would say, Only with respect to accidents. And I would reply, We’ve only been talking about accidents and not substance.
Let’s scrap the theorem. Here’s why:
— 12.7.36.
Understand that believers were only under bondage relatively (i.e., physically and not in soul), what is this saying?
* The legal economy exacted fulfillment but did not supply the strength for it. That is the precise definition of a non-concomitant condition.
* The legal economy threatened with punishment and curse. Again understanding that this is relative, it nevertheless means that believers were subject to God’s punishment and curse (outwardly) under the legal economy.
This is why they were subject to servile fear (12.7.37) and rigor and severity (12.7.38).
So the Anti-Repub Theorem is simply mistaken. For FT, it is clear that believers were subject to legal conditions. NOT to be justified, NOT to gain eternal life, but ONLY with regard to external matters and ONLY with respect to the ceremonial and civil law.
Third,
The A-RC is mistaken also
The anti-repub criterion is a kind of filter that derives from the theorem: Any required obedience that is not literally the hypothetical covenant of works must (since believers are not under legal conditions) necessarily be of the covenant of grace.
From the discussion above, this is seen to be incorrect. The conditions of the covenant of grace are faith and repentance, but external expiation was granted without regard to faith or repentance.
The conditions of the covenant of grace are gracious because they are given as a promise (hence concomitant). But the legal economy required without supplying.
I’ll say it again: The legal economy was legal.
Finally, a little bit of big picture. When FT interacts with the “subservient covenant” crowd in 12.12, he grants that there were legal conditions in the legal economy. He does not argue that “believers are never under legal conditions.” Instead, he argues that because believers cannot be under a legal covenant and a gracious one at the same time, the legal relation was simply one of dispensation and economy (12.12.12). He grants that there are legal conditions and evangelical ones lying side by side (12.12.13). He states clearly that there was a diversity of stipulation as well as a diversity of promise.
If he believed as you do, that believers cannot be under legal conditions, then 12.12 would have been really short.
I hope this helps. I imagine that you’ve been wondering why I’m so resistant to the A-RA, since it seems self-evident to you. A couple of times, you’ve attributed my position to a “presupposition.”
But given the structure of our arguments, could it be the other way round?
LikeLike
The Anti-Repub Axiom, because it is imprecise, is the source of much of the mischief in the larger debate. Here is an example of the confusion it engenders:
DR: But your view appears to subject believers to meritorious conditions, when you say, “As such, the legal condition of sacrifice was of works, hence antecedent, hence meritorious.” But this is contrary to FT’s plain statements, e.g. (the recently oft cited), “[I]f the condition is taken antecedently and a priori for the meritorious and impulsive cause and for a natural condition, the covenant of grace is rightly denied to be conditioned. It is wholly gratuitous, depending upon the sole good will of God and upon no merit of man (12.3.3).”
We have already seen that for FT, the ceremonial law had distinct, non-overlapping legal and evangelical relations. He takes pains to declare that these must be kept distinct, yet both kept in view.
But here, you attribute the evangelical condition (faith and repentance, which obtain eternal life) to a specifically legal function of the ceremonial law — namely, external expiation.
In other words, you merge (or “flatten”) the legal economy into the covenant of grace, ignoring the distinct legal and evangelical relations of the legal economy.
That is a clear instance of law-gospel confusion, and the A-RA and A-RT are its source.
LikeLike
“But here, you attribute the evangelical condition (faith and repentance, which obtain eternal life) to a specifically legal function of the ceremonial law — namely, external expiation.”
Jeff,
Not that I could say it better than you have, but this was the point I made at the beginning of all his. The ant-repubs are conflating the historia salutis (which for the MC was a works principle to attain earthly, thus typological, blessings), with the ordo-salutis, a grace principle.
LikeLike
Jeff & David, thank you both for sticking it out and engaging in this. I definitely want to go back through and re-read your comments.
LikeLike
A good article on repub (of the Klinean type) among some of the Puritans
Click to access brown20.pdf
LikeLike
Jeff,
Regarding your pastoral appeal again. You had inveighed against a wrongful use of the OT: One plank of that vision is to appeal to the Old Testament as a source of example material so as to say, “God blessed the Israelites for their obedience; in the same way, He will bless us for ours. God punished the Israelites for their disobedience; in the same way, He will punish us for ours. They were under the covenant of grace; we are under the covenant of grace.”
I produced a quote from Calvin, which included the following,
My point was that it sure looks like Calvin was quite happy to say precisely what you had warned against, quite happy to say: “God blessed the Israelites for their obedience; in the same way, He will bless us for ours. God punished the Israelites for their disobedience; in the same way, He will punish us for ours. They were under the covenant of grace; we are under the covenant of grace.”
But when I asked how Calvin’s comments are different from what you had labeled a wrongful appeal to the OT, you merely assured me that you’re comfortable with his comments, and you explained that the law doesn’t give life or sanctity.
I’m not clear. Can you explain how Calvin comments are different from what you warned against (or, better, how you might clarify the language of your warning)? Thanks.
LikeLike
Jeff, also, thanks for your latest responses. It seems to me that we’re at the heart of the debate (and possibly at an impasse). I plan to respond, but it may take a few days.
LikeLike
DR: I’m not clear. Can you explain how Calvin comments are different from what you warned against (or, better, how you might clarify the language of your warning)?
Sure. Calvin elsewhere (Inst 2.7.12) addresses the same use of the Law, and can be compared here as well.
We’re talking here about the use of the Law to subdue the sluggishness of the flesh. God does not annex to this use (or to any) the kind typological promises (such as blessings on crops) that he does to Israel. Nor does God now annex civil penalties to disobedience as He did under the legal economy.
Because of type, their situation is simply not comparable to ours. Because of the legal economy, their situation is not comparable to ours.
Think on this: under the theocracy, the penalty for gathering firewood on the Sabbath was death, administered by men on behalf of God.
Does God kill people today for violating the Sabbath?
LikeLike
Jeff, ah, okay, so you were warning against those who argue for specifically temporal (typological) blessings and punishments in the NT on the basis of such in the OT. Is that the proper clarification?
LikeLike
Yes. This is *not* to say that God does not visit discipline on His children, nor that He does not even reward obedience. He does.
However, unlike for Israel the rewards are often later rather than now; and the discipline is always for the purpose of restoration, never destruction.
Both reward and discipline are concomitant and not antecedent.
The position that you’ve taken — all concomitant in both administrations — I would take to be benign but logically inconsistent, in that we actually agree (it seems) on the pastoral stance for today.
What I’ve tried to communicate is that many of your fellow travelers do not have the same pastoral stance, and the reason for it is the merging of legal and evangelical conditions.
LikeLike
Jeff,
Again regarding Calvin on Deuteronomy 28:14: If he really held that Israel was under a works principle in contradistinction to NT believers, don’t you find it a bit odd that he does not make this belief explicit here (it seems like the ideal place) and on the contrary, shows every evidence of thinking that the inheritance principles are the same?
LikeLike
Oops, I meant Leviticus 26:14.
LikeLike
I can’t really comment as to its oddness. Calvin was not dealing at that time with the same questions we are. But if you’re suggesting that silence here indicates that Calvin did not think that believers in the MC were under any legal principle whatsoever, then I would point you to Inst 2.11.9.
It is one thing to be under the Law as a covenant of works to inherit eternal life, another to be under a legal economy whose goods and services are external, literal, physical, typological.
LikeLike
I can’t really comment as to its oddness. Calvin was not dealing at that time with the same questions we are.
No, I don’t buy that. A works principle for temporal blessings seems like a rather universally important doctrine, not merely a context-specific one, and I can’t imagine that Calvin, as thorough and pastoral as he was, wouldn’t make mention of it, if he in fact held to it.
But if you’re suggesting that silence here indicates that Calvin did not think that believers in the MC were under any legal principle whatsoever, then I would point you to Inst 2.11.9.
What I’m suggesting is that the silence indicates that Calvin did not think that believers under the MC were under a works principle for temporal blessings. And Institutes 2.11.9 doesn’t help your case, because it is quite clear that Calvin is speaking there of the moral law strictly considered, not of a works principle for temporal blessings, as we can see from his explanation in 2.11.7:
That he is speaking specifically of the moral law is also obvious in what follows (in 2.11.8), as he elaborates on its pedagogy:
And it is also clear in the section you specifically reference (2.11.9):
This is clearly Calvin’s way of saying that Israelite believers were freed from the law as a covenant of works (WCF 19.6, 20:1). The contrast is between the liberty of the regenerate versus the bondage of the unregenerate.
Immediately following this comes the passage you claim for support:
So yes, according to Calvin, OT believers did indeed experience “some measure of fear and bondage.” But what was the nature of this fear and bondage? Was it that they were under a works principle for temporal blessings? No. It was that they were (along with unregenerate Israelites) obligated to observe the ceremonial law—the “handwriting” against them, testifying of their guilt.
Calvin is really saying very much the same thing in 2.11.9 that the Westminster Confession says in 20.1:
As Calvin also explained, the advantage of NT believers is that their liberty “is further enlarged, in their freedom from the yoke of the ceremonial law, to which the Jewish Church was subjected.” In addition, we are told that the liberty of NT believers also consists in “greater boldness of access to the throne of grace, and in fuller communications of the free Spirit of God, than believers under the law did ordinarily partake of.” But (as with Calvin), there is no mention of OT believers being subject to a works principle for temporal blessings, or NT believers being freed from such.
It is one thing to be under the Law as a covenant of works to inherit eternal life, another to be under a legal economy whose goods and services are external, literal, physical, typological.
But we have seen that Calvin (in 2.11.9) is not speaking of “a legal economy whose goods and services are external, literal, physical, typological” (assuming that you mean a works principle for temporal blessings). On that topic, he apparently was indeed utterly silent.
LikeLike
David,
Where is this discussion of Calvin going? I can respond to the above, but I fear we are heading down a side-trail.
LikeLike
Jeff, I pointed to one place where Calvin would have mentioned repub if he held to it–in his comments on the covenant sanctions. You pointed to another–his enumeration of the differences between the MC and the NC. But in both places he is silent concerning repub. It may be a bit of an excursion, but I think it winds up at the same destination. However, if you’d rather wait for my responses to your FT posts, no problem.
LikeLike
OK, I’ll give it one round, but then let’s focus back on FT.
DR: What I’m suggesting is that the silence indicates that Calvin did not think that believers under the MC were under a works principle for temporal blessings.
So you begin with an argument from silence. What other possibilities for the silence have you considered and eliminated, other than the one you put forward?
For the rest, Calvin screams “repub” to me. You cite,
When we talk about republication, we are talking about considering the Law according to its own nature. We are talking about its functions of holding forth rewards to the cultivators of righteousness and punishments to transgressors, variously according to the moral, civil, and ceremonial law.
According to its own nature:
* The moral held forth (hypothetically) eternal life on condition of perfect obedience and eternal death for the first disobedience.
* The civil held forth physical, outward penalties for transgressors. These were applied without regard to faith or repentance.
* The ceremonial held forth external cleansing on condition of sacrifice. This was equally true for the justified and the unjustified, without regard to faith or repentance.
If you want to talk about the things signified under the veil, sure. Those were apprehended by faith and not works. That would be viewing the law according to its evangelical relation. But the law according to its own nature, viewed according to the legal relation, operated by a works principle.
Now, I’m really confused as to why you say that Calvin is speaking solely of the moral law here. For he says,
Calv Inst 2.11.8
So Calvin is speaking in 2.11 of the entire OT law in general, and is speaking specifically of the moral only when he uses that qualifier.
And what he says about the entire OT law in general, and as contrasted to the gospel, is that it involves the whole human race in a curse. That includes the ceremonial law, he explicitly says.
For what reason are you reading that differently?
Finally, I hear this from you:
DR: So yes, according to Calvin, OT believers did indeed experience “some measure of fear and bondage.” But what was the nature of this fear and bondage? Was it that they were under a works principle for temporal blessings? No. It was that they were (along with unregenerate Israelites) obligated to observe the ceremonial law—the “handwriting” against them, testifying of their guilt.
And I’m completely baffled. To say that the OT believers were obligated to observe the ceremonial law is to say that they were under a works principle to obtain external expiation.
Why?
Because the obligation to the ceremonial law worked like this:
* You are unclean (sin or circumstance, such as touching an unclean thing).
* You are now obligated to perform the necessary rite.
* Having performed the rite and because you have performed the rite, you now are declared clean. (without regard to faith or repentance).
THAT’S A WORKS PRINCIPLE. BY PERFORMING THE WORK, YOU OBTAIN THE EXTERNAL EXPIATION.
To say that OT believers were under the yoke of the ceremonial law is to say that they were under a legal principle.
That’s my one round on Calvin.
LikeLike
DR: What I’m suggesting is that the silence indicates that Calvin did not think that believers under the MC were under a works principle for temporal blessings.
JC: So you begin with an argument from silence. What other possibilities for the silence have you considered and eliminated, other than the one you put forward?
I’m glad you admit to the silence (which in this case is rather deafening).
For the rest, Calvin screams “repub” to me. You cite,
When we talk about republication, we are talking about considering the Law according to its own nature. We are talking about its functions of holding forth rewards to the cultivators of righteousness and punishments to transgressors, variously according to the moral, civil, and ceremonial law.
Sorry, that is not at all what repub is about. None of those things are in question. Let’s please stick to the question (i.e., temporal blessings on the meritorious ground of imperfect obedience).
Now, I’m really confused as to why you say that Calvin is speaking solely of the moral law here. For he says,
So Calvin is speaking in 2.11 of the entire OT law in general, and is speaking specifically of the moral only when he uses that qualifier.
No. He is actually speaking of the moral law, until he actually specifies that “[t]he last antithesis must be referred to the Ceremonial Law.” The ceremonial law is not “formed on tables of stone.” That should solve your confusion.
And what he says about the entire OT law in general, and as contrasted to the gospel, is that it involves the whole human race in a curse. That includes the ceremonial law, he explicitly says.
For what reason are you reading that differently?
See just above.
Finally, I hear this from you:
DR: So yes, according to Calvin, OT believers did indeed experience “some measure of fear and bondage.” But what was the nature of this fear and bondage? Was it that they were under a works principle for temporal blessings? No. It was that they were (along with unregenerate Israelites) obligated to observe the ceremonial law—the “handwriting” against them, testifying of their guilt.
And I’m completely baffled. To say that the OT believers were obligated to observe the ceremonial law is to say that they were under a works principle to obtain external expiation.
We know what Jeff Cagle thinks, but John Calvin thinks otherwise. For him, the yoke of the ceremonial law is simply the obligation to observe the ceremonial law, and the reason it engendered fear was that it testified of guilt, and therefore of liability to a penalty. Compare with his comments on Colossians 2:14:
Also compare with Institutes 2.7.17:
* Having performed the rite and because you have performed the rite, you now are declared clean. (without regard to faith or repentance).
THAT’S A WORKS PRINCIPLE. BY PERFORMING THE WORK, YOU OBTAIN THE EXTERNAL EXPIATION.
That’s your interpolation, but shouting doesn’t make it any truer….
(I’m happy to resume with FT now if you’d like.)
LikeLike
That would be best.
LikeLike
Jeff, sorry for the delay. Thanks for hanging in there . . . I’ll be posting my response soon (perhaps not today, but very likely in the next few days. . . .).
LikeLike