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 
“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