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 
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