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 
David R., if you can find the date and the time of comments, why not cut and paste the comment?
LikeLike
For cryin’ out loud, David, relax… that was a rhetorical question. In no way am I implying I don’t understand your position. Rather, that it’s perplexing that you would hold it to the degree that you put Kline beyond the pale. So, I understand the view but disagree as to its sufficiently dealing with the biblical data. And interestingly, I’m not aware of any move to disallow the “Dennison view” in the OPC, unlike what is going on re: the Kline/TLNF view. That’s the point of my last comment.
See Jeff Cagle comment posted October 22, 2014 at 10:51 pm
LikeLike
Jack, rhetorical or not, the effect your question has, at this point in the conversation (on this blog), is to annoy. You keep asking questions and I try to answer, and then you ask why it’s controversial after all this time (as if we haven’t already been discussing it for well nigh twelve weeks), and it shows me I’m wasting my time answering.
LikeLike
D.G., I don’t like quoting myself.
LikeLike
David R., but you do like taking notes on when and where you’ve spoken.
LikeLike
David, if the effect is to annoy, then you might want to consider what personal goal you may have that is getting blocked rather than automatically finding fault with a rhetorical observation which is at the heart of this whole matter. I didn’t know you had rules as to when and when not something could be said in the course of these many hundreds of comments. This is more than an academic exercise. Churches in some presbyteries are in turmoil over this issue. I would think you might expect an occasional reflection such as the one I made due to how this is impacting a number of church sessions/presbyteries. I can assure you there was no intention to ruffle your feathers.
LikeLike
Jack, no problem. But from now on, before I take the time to answer your questions I will know to be sure to ask you first whether the question is merely rhetorical (or whether you already know how I’ll answer), so if it is (or you do) I can just save myself the time and energy.
LikeLike
D.G., no notes, I have to search for it, but that’s still more convenient than repeating myself.
LikeLike
So where are we? Do you have any additional thoughts about conditions?
LikeLike
Jeff, I’ll post some initial responses shortly (hopefully tomorrow at the latest).
LikeLike
David, one tell might be whether the comment is directly addressed to you or not, as the one in question wasn’t. But wouldn’t you expect at least a little imprecision is this form or communication? And it was only two days ago you assumed that a question I directed to you was only rhetorical and therefore you didn’t initially answer it… imperfect communication fits in well with imperfect obedience…
LikeLike
Jack, I may need better discernment, but just above, you said, “In no way am I implying I don’t understand your position,” which suggests that even when you address a question directly to me, you’re not really looking for an answer.
LikeLike
David, actually, no my original doesn’t suggest that. My comment that I do understand your position was in response to your amazement at my supposed lack of understanding and that’s all. Is it so hard to just let it be rather than search for some flaw to justify your reaction? It was no big deal…
LikeLike
Jeff,
We must hold this line. I wouldn’t spend 800 comments on anything less.
Those of us who have been simply content to follow this 6 week discussion are thankful for your efforts, and even to David R for his willingness to hang in the debate and flush so many of the facets of the broader issue out.
All this leads me to wonder if we shouldn’t prop you up as a poster-child convert like the CtC guys do, and open up a new site along the lines of: Called to Republication, or Take a Walk on the Kline Side, or GraceBoyzUnite. Just thinking out loud here.
LikeLike
NO!
LikeLike
Nothing Jeff has said over the past 6 weeks refutes anything that David R has said, believed, supposed, or conjectured or will ever say, believe, hope, or conjecture at any point in the future.
This message has been paid for by the Bryan Cross Society for Stubbornness, Obstinacy, Pigheadedness, and General Cluelessness.
Now back to your regularly scheduled programming.
LikeLike
Nothing Darryl has said to Bryan over 27 months has put even a chink in Bryan’s armor.
Not only does his armor remain chink-free, it is scratch-free, dent-free, and rust-free. It is even dust and grime free as he has been polishing it regularly with Armor-All. It is as new-looking as the day he took it out of the shrinkwrap after bringing it home from the armor store.
If only his flat cap looked this good.
LikeLike
Jack, no, I think you know the answers (or believe you do), you’re not looking for answers, and yet you ask questions.
LikeLike
Gee thanks, Erik.
LikeLike
Is it so hard to just let it be rather than search for some flaw to justify your reaction? It was no big deal…
apparently it is…
David, it’s called an engaging/polemical discussion, a debate. A requirement of asking a question of another is not that one thinks he is ignorant of the other’s position. In fact, just the opposite! You have claimed emphatically that you understand the Klinean / Repub position having once held it, and yet you ask questions of Jeff and, on an earlier thread, of me. Is that disingenuous? (btw, that’s a rhetorical question)…
LikeLike
Jeff,
I think you’ve done some good work, and I’ll get to it, but first, some preliminary thoughts:
1. No offense, but I find your pastoral appeal at the end of your long and highly technical posts to be a bit humorous—if someone read just your final installment, they could get the misimpression that we had been debating “the article of a standing or falling church,” and that I had taken a semi-Pelagian or neonomian position. But no…. we’ve actually spent the better part of the last few weeks bickering over the definitions of obscure concepts such as “antecedent conditions” and “broad and improper merit” (much to the chagrin of the OL regulars). And not only that, but wrt the present sub-question of antecedent conditions, it’s been amply demonstrated that a number of highly regarded Reformed theologians explicitly took the view that I have been arguing is FT’s. Add to that the fact that post-eighteenth century Reformed theologians appear to have abandoned this terminology altogether, and it becomes patently obvious that, whether I happen to be right or wrong on this particular issue (and I may well be wrong), this is at most a terminological dispute (and not even a dispute); it is clearly not a question of substance. So your appeal at the end of your defense of the doctrine of antecedent conditions (that grand pillar of the Reformed faith) seems to me a bit misplaced, and perhaps even smacks a little of grandstanding (and obviously some here enjoy your rhetoric). (Note: By this I don’t mean to suggest that some of the issues you raise in your “pastoral plea” are not important and worth raising.)
2. I think it’s perhaps telling that all of your objections (at least so far) seem to lead us in this direction (i.e., arguing over relatively obscure peripheral concepts); your arguments all seem to hinge on how to interpret a sentence or two dealing with some rather obscure issue, from which you then deduce something unstated (and I would say, contradicted) in Turretin.
And this leads me to an observation about your overall method in this debate: Thus far, it appears to me that your modus operandi is to (1) ignore the big plain teachings in Turretin that falsify your position (or appear to me to do so), (2) latch onto a relatively obscure passage that may, prima facie, isolated from his big plain statements, appear to support your view, (3) build your argument on your own debatable interpretation of that particular passage, and then (4) suggest (at least by implication) in a concluding pastoral appeal that those who disagree with you are betraying the Reformation.
That you can look reasonably good following this strategy is a tribute to your rhetorical ability, but it seems highly doubtful to me that it could yield accurate conclusions regarding the big question of merit in the MC. If indeed repub were so basic to the integrity of the Reformed faith, then it seems to me it would be writ large (i.e., in the big plain teachings) in the work of one of the most thorough, clear and precise Reformed polemicists ever to take up a quill (just as the doctrine of repub is writ large in the work of the pro-repub folks).
3. Hopefully you realize that I have nothing staked on this sub-question concerning antecedent conditions. Whether I am right or wrong is largely irrelevant because (as I’ve said) I am arguing that, in keeping with the nature of the CoG, obedience (to the law, including the ceremonial law) was a concomitant condition, and therefore by definition non-meritorious. (I agree with Colquhoun on this, and I would say, FT too.) That we’re hung up on this sub-question is partly my fault because I initially sought to defeat your argument undergirding objection (O2) by denying the major premise (i.e., All antecedent conditions are meritorious causes). However, the ground I am now maintaining is that your minor premise is false (i.e., The act of offering sacrifices fulfills an antecedent condition) because obedience, under all administrations of the CoG, falls into the category of a consequent concomitant condition. Hence, as far as I can tell, your objection (O2) is met, and we can move on to your objection (O3). (Though you will no doubt want to prove me wrong.)
4. For you of course, the question of antecedent conditions is a central plank for building your case for meritorious expiation and land retention. (Though you concede in your first sentence that your case rests on an argument that can never be more than “almost certain.”)
I do realize that it will be important for you to prove your argument about antecedent conditions, so I will give your good work a closer look and response.
LikeLike
David, thanks.
I find the importance of clarity on conditions to be what FT says about it: “that the law may not be confounded with the gospel”
That said, I agree that we’ve gotten highly technical. That’s OK with me, inasmuch as we seem to communicate more efficiently (fewer rounds of futile rebuttals) when being precise.
Further, we live in a time when the “anti-antionomians” make a big deal out of the conditionality of the covenant – yet without always being precise on what kind of condition. So I consider precision helpful as we think about our situation in the CoG.
Anyways, I think the minor premise, which is really a question of proper classification, goes well with O3. So we could take that up there.
LikeLike
I find the importance of clarity on conditions to be what FT says about it: “that the law may not be confounded with the gospel”
But the importance of clarity on conditions in the CoG is not in question. The question is whether your particular definition of antecedent conditions is as crucial as you make it out to be. That’s what I deny, and my evidence is that (1) well-respected Reformed theologians contradicted it, and (2) later Reformed theologians (i.e., Old Princeton) passed over the issue completely, obviously considering it non-essential.
Which is why I think your appeal, to the effect that your position on antecedent conditions is the bulwark against neonomism, seems excessive.
LikeLike
Anyways, I think the minor premise, which is really a question of proper classification, goes well with O3. So we could take that up there.
But how will we ever get to O3 unless you deal with my response to O2 (which doesn’t hinge on this question of antecedent conditions)?
LikeLike
Jack, you said that your “Why is this controversial?” was not aimed at me specifically, and I believe you, but hopefully you see why I initially thought otherwise, since it came in the context of our Interaction. But if this is polemics (as you say), then ball’s in your court; I answered you.
LikeLike
Jeff,
I find the importance of clarity on conditions to be what FT says about it: “that the law may not be confounded with the gospel”
If that’s the case, then it seems to me we should actually be discussing what FT explicitly says concerning the difference between the CoW and CoG as to their respective conditions:
I find the above to be an excellent statement and I have no doubt you would concur. And one nice thing is that we don’t even need your “almost certain” conclusion wrt the significance of the term, “antecedent condition,” since the one time FT uses it in the above statement, he explicitly specifies the precise sense he intends (“by way of a cause for acquiring life”), which, btw, he also does in every other case of his usage of that terminology.
LikeLike
DR: But how will we ever get to O3 unless you deal with my response to O2 (which doesn’t hinge on this question of antecedent conditions)?
OK, I’m happy to deal with the minor premise here, then. Do you have any more comments about antecedent/concomitant conditions per se?
LikeLike
Jeff, no, I have no additional comments offhand relative to my response to your O2–my argument is simply that in the CoG, obedience is a consequent condition.
LikeLike
OK then. So I claim a complex proposition:
(1) In Turretin, the sacrifice and the specific benefit of external expiation granted through the act of sacrificing was a function of the legal economy and not the covenant of grace.
(2) As such, the legal condition of sacrifice was of works, hence antecedent, hence meritorious.
(3) But the merit in view IS NOT the merit of the CoW, in which man merits eternal life by perfect and perpetual obedience. Rather, it is simply broad merit: the dispensing of a benefit under an antecedent condition.
We need to lay some groundwork, because the structure of the CoG and legal economy have been obscured in this conversation.
As we know, Turretin holds that the Mosaic Covenant consisted of the Covenant of Grace for its substance, cloaked in a legal economy — that is, a legal mode of dispensing benefits according to conditions. We agree that this legal economy subserved the CoG, and that it was not a subservient covenant in that there are only two covenants, corresponding to two modes of relating to God (12.12.8), and it is impossible in any event to be under two covenants at once (12.12.12). Rather, the legal economy subserved the CoG by placing under bondage and under tutelage.
In this post, I will show that Turretin viewed the sacrificial function of external expiation to be a function of the legal economy and not of the substance of the covenant of grace.
First, we observe that the legal relation and the gospel relation are non-overlapping:
— 12.7.31.
There are several things to be observed here, but the major point is the two-fold relation. On the one hand, there is a legal relation that is
* External
* Severe
* Puts forth what God demands.
On the other, there is an evangelical relation that is
* Sweeter
* Shadowy
* Puts forth the gospel promise.
It is clear from the matter, from the relation, and from the agreed-upon contrast between law and gospel that these two ways of viewing the administration (i.e., the MC) are non-overlapping. The functions of one are not contained in the other. Rather, the functions of the legal relation subserve the evangelical.
The legal and evangelical functions of the moral law differed. As a legal economy, it had the form of a covenant of works; but in its evangelical function, it served as a rule of life. In its legal function, the moral law demanded perfect and perpetual obedience and promised upon that condition eternal life (hypothetically). In its evangelical function, the believer already possessing eternal life obeys willingly and out of a sense of holiness suitable for one who has been given the promises of God. (12.7.30)
Likewise, the ceremonial in its legal function *did not provide* forgiveness of sins:
— 12.7.40.
This is contrasted by FT with the evangelical function of the ceremonial law:
– 12.7.43, 45.
So it is clear already that external cleansing was a function of the legal economy and not of the substance of the CoG.
This is confirmed by the term used to describe the legal functions of the ceremonial law: The “Intolerable Yoke” (sounds like a death metal band name).
Second, we observe in 12.7.31 above that the legal economy consisted of two distinct parts: the moral law, together with the intolerable yoke. Or put another way, the moral law was fundamental, with the ceremonial and forensic added as appendages.
So, the legal function of the ceremonial law was different from that of the moral law. It had different stipulations and offered different benefits, although it subserved the moral law.
— 12.7.39.
For the moral law required perfect obedience and gave (hypothetically) eternal life. But the ceremonial required a sacrifice, and gave external expiation.
So we can see here the differences between the ceremonial and the moral law, as well between the ceremonial in its legal function and the ceremonial in its evangelical.
Turretin confirms both of these differences (ceremonial v moral, ceremonial-legal v ceremonial-evangelical):
— 12.7.33.
So we have made the following observations:
(1) The legal economy was distinct from, non-overlapping with, and subservient to the CoG.
(2) The legal economy consisted of the moral law + appendeges of ceremonial and forensic. The functions of each were different.
(3) The functions of the moral law were different in the legal economy over against the CoG, i.e. a restatement of the CoW over against a rule of life.
(4) The functions of the ceremonial law were different in the legal economy over against the CoG, i.e. a provision for external purity with the end of inculcating misery over against sacramental remission of sin.
Finally, the forgoing observations are confirmed in FTs discussion of the ceremonial law:
— 11.24.2.
Here again we see the difference in function between moral and ceremonial.
And again Turretin distinguishes between the functions of the ceremonial law with respect to the moral law (in its legal relation) and the gospel:
— 11.2.9
And lest we think that this distinction is an unintended pattern, FT makes it very explicit:
— 11. 24.11
So it is clear from the forgoing that
(1) The sacrifices in their function of external expiation were legal,
(2) Which is different from and not overlapping with the evangelical sacrament.
The first was an intolerable yoke. The second was sweetness itself.
LikeLike
(2) As such, the legal condition [of sacrifice] was of works, hence antecedent, hence meritorious.
The short proof is to show that the legal condition was not concomitant. This should be obvious from the very name: The legal economy was legal. From all that Turretin says about legal conditions, it should be entirely obvious that the legal economy operated by works.
But even aside from that linguistic point, we can see that the condition of sacrifice for external expiation was antecedent and not concomitant from the following considerations:
(1) The only concomitant conditions possibly in view are those of the CoG (indeed, you have identified the granting of external expiation as a function of the CoG). However, FT identifies external expiation as a function of the legal economy and not of the CoG as shown above.
(2) The concomitant conditions of the CoG are faith and repentance. However, Turretin is explicit that external cleansing was given without regard to either repentance or faith (12.7.39). This rules out the external expiation being given under a function of the CoG.
(3) Concomitant conditions are those that are a posteriori and have the relation of means and disposition in the subject. The outcome is guaranteed by an efficient cause further back; the concomitant condition is simply “that which goes along with” (literally). It is an instrumental cause whose true and efficient cause lies further back. In the case of the CoG, that efficient cause is the pactum salutis out of which flow the promises that supply the concomitant conditions.
But the sacrifices have no such relation of means or disposition. They were supplied by the sacrificer out of his own flock or at his own cost. There is no efficient cause further back. There is no guarantee that the sacrifice will be offered. Hence, the condition is by definition not concomitant.
The longer proof takes us through what it means for the legal economy to place all of Israel, both justified and unjustified, under an “intolerable yoke” of “rigor” and “servile fear.” If you desire, I can do that, but the above seems sufficient to me to establish the point.
But I recognize that there will be an objection: You will object that the legal economy had as its requirement perfect and perpetual obedience, and clearly offering sacrifices is nothing of the sort. Hence, you object that it is impossible for the external expiation to be given under the legal economy; or else, that it is impossible for it to be given under condition of imperfect obedience. It must be given instead under the covenant of grace.
But the first possibility is disposed of already. It is crystal clear that for FT, the external expiation was a function of the legal economy.
The second possibility, that the required obedience must be perfect and perpetual, brings us to the third point…
LikeLike
(3) But the merit in view IS NOT the merit of the CoW, in which man merits eternal life by perfect and perpetual obedience. Rather, it is simply broad merit: the dispensing of a benefit under an antecedent condition.
So far, we have established that external expiation was a function of the legal economy and not of the covenant of grace. The required sacrifices were antecedent conditions, not concomitant, and were works that were required under the intolerable yoke of ceremonies.
But now, if they were antecedent and broadly meritorious, then what merit exactly are we talking about?
We are NOT talking about the merit of the CoW, the merit of perfect and perpetual obedience.
(1) The ceremonial law was not identical to the moral in either stipulations nor benefits.
You have mentioned in multiple places that for Turretin, the Law always required perfect and perpetual obedience as its condition.
But this in fact not strictly true. It *is* true that the moral law always requires perfect and perpetual obedience (in its legal relation). It also grants (hypothetically) eternal life upon the fulfillment, and eternal death upon disobedience.
The ceremonial law did none of those three. And I feel pretty confident at this point that you will not be able to find a passage in Turretin that shows that the ceremonial law either required perfect obedience, or promised eternal life, or sanctioned with eternal death.
Further, I have already shown that Turretin distinguished the functions of the ceremonial and moral law, so that the former subserved the latter.
In other words, the requirement of perfect and perpetual obedience under the moral, does not automatically transfer over to the ceremonial.
What the ceremonial law required was sacrifices. What it gave was not eternal life, nor justification (nor could it, in its legal relation — 12.7.33), but external expiation.
(2) It is logically impossible that the ceremonial law could require perfect and perpetual obedience.
The sacrifices presupposed that sin had occurred. By the time a sacrifice was made, perfect and perpetual obedience was out of the question.
If therefore perfect obedience was the requirement, then the ceremonial would never have dispensed benefits to anyone under its legal relation. There would not have been any ceremonial cleansing. Yet there was indeed ceremonial cleansing, pretty much all the time … ergo, perfect obedience was not the requirement for the sacrifices.
Nor, just to repeat, was faith and repentance.
In other words, there were the two covenants but also a legal dispensation under Moses:
CoW: Condition of perfect and perpetual obedience, with benefit of eternal life.
CoG: Condition of faith and repentance, given by promise, with benefit of eternal life.
Legal economy: A restatement of the CoW in the moral, with other legal conditions and benefits (and punishments) in the ceremonial and civil that subserved the moral law.
LikeLike
Thanks, Jeff. Something I wonder about: according to your view of merit, did Namaan the Syrian merit his cleansing from leprosy by washing in the Jordan seven times (2 Kings 5)?
LikeLike
Somehow I missed all of these posts as if they were the sound of one hand clapping. Very Zen.
LikeLike
Did anything remotely get resolved?
I have a big wager on this… or am I selling a financial instrument short on it?
LikeLike
DR: Something I wonder about: according to your view of merit, did Namaan the Syrian merit his cleansing from leprosy by washing in the Jordan seven times (2 Kings 5)?
Interesting question. So this is an issue that falls outside the realm of forensic and ceremonial law (since he was not an Israelite), and outside of the moral law in its legal relation (since no eternal life is attached to it). We aren’t talking about the legal economy at all, here.
So now from the text:
— 2 Kings 5.8-19 NIV
As I read it, this encounter with Elisha was the man’s effectual calling. He obeyed out of faith, which was given to him by the Spirit.
The Spirit is not directly mentioned in the text, but the systematics are so clear here that there can be no doubt.
Seems like that would make it a concomitant, non-meritorious kind of obedience. Agree?
LikeLike
Jeff, yes, I would agree. Though it’s a little complicated, since, if we assume Naaman wasn’t converted yet when he was first told to wash, I am not sure it could have been a concomitant condition then.
LikeLike
Jeff,
In my view, the problem with your argument is that you appear to fail to take into account that the legal economy (law) bore a different relationship to individual Israelites, depending upon whether they were regenerate (and thus under the CoG) or unregenerate (and thus bound under the terms of the broken CoW). I consider it axiomatic that any and every administration of the CoG, these are the two overarching realities that determine one’s relationship to the law (and therefore, to the MC legal economy). But you appear to be abstracting your discussion of the law from these categories.
The following is all pretty basic (sorry if it is too much so), but I’ll unpack a little and discuss this wrt the regenerate first and then the unregenerate:
1. Those truly under grace (partaking of the substance of the CoG and not just its outward administration) were no longer bound by the terms of the law, that is, to either merit life by their perfect obedience, or suffer death by falling short. For them (according to FT and Reformed theology in general), all required obedience was simply the (non-meritorious) prerequisite means and disposition, supernaturally granted by divine grace (in keeping with 12.3). There were no benefits of the CoG to be procured conditionally (i.e., meritoriously) since everything was to be obtained by the merits of Christ to come. IOW, for believers, no matter the administration of the CoG, there are no legal conditions, only evangelical ones.
But your view appears to subject believers to meritorious conditions, when you say, “As such, the legal condition of sacrifice was of works, hence antecedent, hence meritorious.” But this is contrary to FT’s plain statements, e.g. (the recently oft cited), “[I]f the condition is taken antecedently and a priori for the meritorious and impulsive cause and for a natural condition, the covenant of grace is rightly denied to be conditioned. It is wholly gratuitous, depending upon the sole good will of God and upon no merit of man (12.3.3).”
So what you are arguing cannot be true for believers in any administration of the CoG, since they are never subject to legal conditions. Yes, it is true that “the legal economy is legal” (as you are fond of reminding us); but it is just as true that believers are freed from the law as a covenant of works (containing meritorious conditions).
Thus, my primary objection to your position is that for you, there were meritorious (i.e., legal) conditions to be met by believers in the OT administration of the CoG; whereas FT explicitly disclaims such conditions for any administration of the CoG.
2. Those not under grace (i.e., who had merely external admission into the CoG) were of course still bound by the terms of the broken CoW (the demands of which were republished in the legal economy), whereby life could be merited by perfect obedience. But this published demand was pedagogical, and any attempted “obedience” in their own strength could only further multiply their debt of sin and consequent liability to divine wrath. Their acts of sacrificing, so far from meriting anything, were an abomination in God’s sight, and grounds for further demerit.
So, building on my previous objection: If the regenerate could merit nothing by their acceptable obedience, then it is absurd to think that the unregenerate could merit anything by their hypocritical unacceptable “obedience.”
To anticipate an objection from you: I am not saying that the OT administration of the CoG during the Mosaic period was not characteristically legal (objectively) in a way that the NT administration is not. Of course it was, but the differences were a matter of accidents, not substance (e.g., in the former case: typological inheritance, relative prominence given to law’s demands, gospel hidden under a veil, yoke of ceremonies, etc.). In a nutshell, there are various differences but none of them reaches to the level of a different principle of inheritance (and we can take a closer look at what FT means by “bondage” and “rigor”).
Also, if would like, we can go on to talk about the principles governing the fact that (under the OT economy), ceremonial cleansing, along with subsequent freedom from temporal penalties, was granted to all without distinction. (I’ve previously given you my short answers but we can of course discuss further.) But as we do that, I am hoping we can agree that such principles cannot trump what I’ve observed above.
This is broad outline, so if you think I’ve missed something important, let me know, but I’ll be interested in your response to my above objections.
LikeLike
Jeff,
A few comments on your pastoral plea:
This is the pastoral vision of the Reformation. It sees obedience as a concomitant condition and blessing for obedience as something that happens in God’s providence as means along the way to the end. God purposes to bless us, and He moves in our hearts to bring about that blessing through faith leading to obedience.
Amen, I completely agree. But in the repub debate, this is not in question. Obedience is a concomitant condition; sanctification is a work of God’s free grace.
Seeking to supplant that today is a pastoral vision in which works bring about life, in which accountability is a means of grace, in which our effort is in the driver’s seat to accomplish our sanctification. God offers blessings, but it is our obedience that secures them. These do not believe that believers are a willing people, but see them as needing to be motivated by fear of God’s discipline.
Perhaps you are right, and to the extent that you are, I believe I am as vehemently opposed to such a “pastoral vision” as you. The question is not whether believers are a willing people, motivated by gratitude. I agree that they are, and I would stand with you against anyone who says otherwise.
One plank of that vision is to appeal to the Old Testament as a source of example material so as to say, “God blessed the Israelites for their obedience; in the same way, He will bless us for ours. God punished the Israelites for their disobedience; in the same way, He will punish us for ours. They were under the covenant of grace; we are under the covenant of grace.”
In this comment, I think you possibly betray some of the dissatisfaction that repub has with standard Reformed theology. What you say here makes sense in a world in which the principle of inheritance is different under the MC than it is under the NC. But that is not (generally speaking) the Reformed view, and by way of additional evidence, take a look at Calvin’s comments on Leviticus 26:14, where it is rather clear that he does not see the discontinuity that you do. I would be interested in knowing whether or not you would judge his comments here to be guilty of the allegedly wrongful “appeal to the Old Testament” of which you speak, and if not, why not:
Does repub consider these thoughts of Calvin’s to be nomistic? I wouldn’t be surprised if some repubs do, and I’m fairly sure I’ve never heard repubs speak like this. But in view of this perspective, I wonder if you might choose to nuance your pastoral plea a bit more carefully (realizing of course that blog comments don’t always lend themselves to clarity)?
LikeLike
I’m very comfortable with Calvin’s comments here, which are consistent with his discussion in the institutes in which he likens the law to a “whip for the flesh.”
Put simply, one function of the law is to restrain the sin nature.
But in saying that, we understand that restraining the sin nature does not give life, does not sanctify (meaning change the heart). It is the new man who is strengthened by grace (and informed by the law as a gracious rule of life). Here, the function of the law is to say no to the old man – who never improves, is never sanctified.
More on your objection later.
LikeLike
Your objection is well-stated and gets to the heart of the issue. Here is that heart, which I dub the Anti-Repub Axiom
A-RA: I consider it axiomatic that any and every administration of the CoG, these [regeneration and unregeneration] are the two overarching realities that determine one’s relationship to the law (and therefore, to the MC legal economy).
This axiom has been the consistent ground of your argument throughout our discussion over two posts (as well the consistent ground of the arguments of Dennison, Ramsey, et al).
Here’s where things stand. I have presented a fairly detailed argument above, showing from direct quotation that Turretin sees the function of external expiation as being part of the legal relation of the ceremonial law — a function of the legal economy. I have also shown that Turretin viewed that expiation to be given “without regard to repentance or faith”, which clearly excludes the concomitant conditions of the CoG. I concluded therefore that the function of external expiation operated under a legal principle, hence a principle of works — not to obtain eternal life, but simply to obtain external expiation.
Your response here is that Turretin cannot possibly be saying that because of the Anti-Repub Axiom. From that axiom, you conclude a principle, which we might call the Anti-Repub Theorem (which does most of the heavy lifting in the arguments):
A-RT: For believers, no matter the administration of the CoG, there are no legal conditions, only evangelical ones.
To complete the set, we should state the Anti-Repub Criterion:
A-RC: Any required obedience that is not perfect and perpetual belongs to the Covenant of Grace
And I think we agree that
(a) Either the A-RA is correct, or
(b) Turretin does in fact hold that believers are subject to legal conditions in the legal economy.
but not both.
One of (a) or (b) has to give. I have tried to present overwhelming textual evidence that (b) is certain, so (a) is falsified.
So far, your response is that the A-RA is self-evidently true, so (b) must be false. And yet the textual evidence for (b) (I think you would agree) seems really pretty solid as an argument on its own.
Further, the textual evidence for the A-RT in particular is very slim. We do not see Turretin saying anywhere that believers in the MC are under no legal conditions whatsoever — but only that they are under no legal obligations to obtain eternal life.
So I would like to ask you to consider the possibility that (relative to Turretin’s account)
(1) The A-RA is imprecise, so that
(2) The A-RT is wrong, and
(3) The A-RC is also.
Proof:
(1) The A-RA is imprecise because it does not specifically distinguish between moral, ceremonial, and civil.
It is true that being regenerate changes one’s relationship to the law. The question is, what is the nature of that change for those under the Mosaic covenant and with respect to each of the components (moral, forensic and, ceremonial) of the law?
You have stated that
Those truly under grace (partaking of the substance of the CoG and not just its outward administration) were no longer bound by the terms of the law, that is, to either merit life by their perfect obedience, or suffer death by falling short.
However, the terms of the law as a covenant of works and to merit life by perfect obedience, were specifically a function of the moral law (viz 11.6.10-11 and all of 11.22). Nowhere are either the ceremonial law nor the judicial given the power to grant life — in fact, as cited above, the FT specifically denies that power to the ceremonial law. And I as I argued above, it is logically impossible that the ceremonial law in its legal relation required perfect obedience, since the existence of a sacrifice presupposes a failure of perpetual obedience.
So the first way in which the A-RA is imprecise is that it wrongly attributes the terms of the moral law over to the ceremonial and civil. But Turretin is clear to separate those terms. Everything in topic 11 from 11.1 – 11.23 concerns the moral law, as FT says:
Hence arises a manifold difference between the moral law and others both in origin … and in duration … Thus far we have spoken of the moral; now we must discuss the ceremonial. — 11.24.3.
And as those functions of the ceremonial law are discussed, not one of them is to provide eternal life on condition of perfect obedience. Rather, they are
* With regard to the moral law, to subserve the 1st table with regulation of external worship, and to aid the moral law in convincing men of impurity, weakness, and guilt.
Those functions are not functions of the covenant of grace, depending on faith and repentance. Nor yet are they functions of the covenant of works, depending on perfect obedience.
Nor do those functions offer eternal life.
* With regard to the people, the ceremonial separated them from the nations.
* With regard to the covenant of grace, there was a use of the law to show sin and misery, but also to show forth Christ and his benefits. (11.24.8)
Here, finally, we have a function that depends upon faith and repentance and offers life. But this function is only one of many.
Likewise with the forensic, there was neither a demand of perfect and perpetual obedience (since the outward forensic law could not regulate the heart), nor was there eternal life offered for obedience nor eternal death threatened for a single sin.
So now that we understand that the demands and proffer of the moral law are not identical to that of the ceremonial and civil, we are in a position to hear Turretin more clearly as to how regeneration changes the relationship of the person to the law.
With regard to the moral:
It is one thing to be under the law inasmuch as it is opposed to the gospel as to rigid and perfect exaction of obedience … another to be under the law inasmuch as it is subordinated to the gospel, as to sweet direction. — 11.23.7
But with regard to the rigors of the legal economy:
— 12.7.36.
Here, it is clear that regeneration does change the relationship of the Mosaic believer to the ceremonial and civil law: it changes the bondage from “absolute” to “relative”, inasmuch as they are under it in body but not in spirit.
What it does not do is to remove the legal conditions altogether.
So we can see that more precision would be needed to accept the A-RA as correctly reflecting Turretin. Regeneration does indeed change the believer’s relationship to the law, but the relationship change to the moral is different from the relationship change to the intolerable yoke. The former is absolutely abolished as a covenant of works, remaining only as a rule for life. The latter remains, but its bondage is only external.
And for this reason,
The A-RT is simply wrong
The A-RT says, for believers, no matter the administration of the CoG, there are no legal conditions, only evangelical ones.
I think you agree with me that this needs qualification, for later you say
I am not saying that the OT administration of the CoG during the Mosaic period was not characteristically legal (objectively) in a way that the NT administration is not. Of course it was, but the differences were a matter of accidents, not substance (e.g., in the former case: typological inheritance, relative prominence given to law’s demands, gospel hidden under a veil, yoke of ceremonies, etc.).
But of course, we have only been talking about accidents all this time, so if you are actually arguing against my position (that external expiation was obtained by antecedent condition), then you would have to be arguing that even the accidents were not legal.
So the theorem ends up very messy: who, exactly, was under the legal economy? Your theorem would say, Not believers. Your qualification would say, Only with respect to accidents. And I would reply, We’ve only been talking about accidents and not substance.
Let’s scrap the theorem. Here’s why:
— 12.7.36.
Understand that believers were only under bondage relatively (i.e., physically and not in soul), what is this saying?
* The legal economy exacted fulfillment but did not supply the strength for it. That is the precise definition of a non-concomitant condition.
* The legal economy threatened with punishment and curse. Again understanding that this is relative, it nevertheless means that believers were subject to God’s punishment and curse (outwardly) under the legal economy.
This is why they were subject to servile fear (12.7.37) and rigor and severity (12.7.38).
So the Anti-Repub Theorem is simply mistaken. For FT, it is clear that believers were subject to legal conditions. NOT to be justified, NOT to gain eternal life, but ONLY with regard to external matters and ONLY with respect to the ceremonial and civil law.
Third,
The A-RC is mistaken also
The anti-repub criterion is a kind of filter that derives from the theorem: Any required obedience that is not literally the hypothetical covenant of works must (since believers are not under legal conditions) necessarily be of the covenant of grace.
From the discussion above, this is seen to be incorrect. The conditions of the covenant of grace are faith and repentance, but external expiation was granted without regard to faith or repentance.
The conditions of the covenant of grace are gracious because they are given as a promise (hence concomitant). But the legal economy required without supplying.
I’ll say it again: The legal economy was legal.
Finally, a little bit of big picture. When FT interacts with the “subservient covenant” crowd in 12.12, he grants that there were legal conditions in the legal economy. He does not argue that “believers are never under legal conditions.” Instead, he argues that because believers cannot be under a legal covenant and a gracious one at the same time, the legal relation was simply one of dispensation and economy (12.12.12). He grants that there are legal conditions and evangelical ones lying side by side (12.12.13). He states clearly that there was a diversity of stipulation as well as a diversity of promise.
If he believed as you do, that believers cannot be under legal conditions, then 12.12 would have been really short.
I hope this helps. I imagine that you’ve been wondering why I’m so resistant to the A-RA, since it seems self-evident to you. A couple of times, you’ve attributed my position to a “presupposition.”
But given the structure of our arguments, could it be the other way round?
LikeLike
The Anti-Repub Axiom, because it is imprecise, is the source of much of the mischief in the larger debate. Here is an example of the confusion it engenders:
DR: But your view appears to subject believers to meritorious conditions, when you say, “As such, the legal condition of sacrifice was of works, hence antecedent, hence meritorious.” But this is contrary to FT’s plain statements, e.g. (the recently oft cited), “[I]f the condition is taken antecedently and a priori for the meritorious and impulsive cause and for a natural condition, the covenant of grace is rightly denied to be conditioned. It is wholly gratuitous, depending upon the sole good will of God and upon no merit of man (12.3.3).”
We have already seen that for FT, the ceremonial law had distinct, non-overlapping legal and evangelical relations. He takes pains to declare that these must be kept distinct, yet both kept in view.
But here, you attribute the evangelical condition (faith and repentance, which obtain eternal life) to a specifically legal function of the ceremonial law — namely, external expiation.
In other words, you merge (or “flatten”) the legal economy into the covenant of grace, ignoring the distinct legal and evangelical relations of the legal economy.
That is a clear instance of law-gospel confusion, and the A-RA and A-RT are its source.
LikeLike
“But here, you attribute the evangelical condition (faith and repentance, which obtain eternal life) to a specifically legal function of the ceremonial law — namely, external expiation.”
Jeff,
Not that I could say it better than you have, but this was the point I made at the beginning of all his. The ant-repubs are conflating the historia salutis (which for the MC was a works principle to attain earthly, thus typological, blessings), with the ordo-salutis, a grace principle.
LikeLike
Jeff & David, thank you both for sticking it out and engaging in this. I definitely want to go back through and re-read your comments.
LikeLike
A good article on repub (of the Klinean type) among some of the Puritans
Click to access brown20.pdf
LikeLike
Jeff,
Regarding your pastoral appeal again. You had inveighed against a wrongful use of the OT: One plank of that vision is to appeal to the Old Testament as a source of example material so as to say, “God blessed the Israelites for their obedience; in the same way, He will bless us for ours. God punished the Israelites for their disobedience; in the same way, He will punish us for ours. They were under the covenant of grace; we are under the covenant of grace.”
I produced a quote from Calvin, which included the following,
My point was that it sure looks like Calvin was quite happy to say precisely what you had warned against, quite happy to say: “God blessed the Israelites for their obedience; in the same way, He will bless us for ours. God punished the Israelites for their disobedience; in the same way, He will punish us for ours. They were under the covenant of grace; we are under the covenant of grace.”
But when I asked how Calvin’s comments are different from what you had labeled a wrongful appeal to the OT, you merely assured me that you’re comfortable with his comments, and you explained that the law doesn’t give life or sanctity.
I’m not clear. Can you explain how Calvin comments are different from what you warned against (or, better, how you might clarify the language of your warning)? Thanks.
LikeLike
Jeff, also, thanks for your latest responses. It seems to me that we’re at the heart of the debate (and possibly at an impasse). I plan to respond, but it may take a few days.
LikeLike
DR: I’m not clear. Can you explain how Calvin comments are different from what you warned against (or, better, how you might clarify the language of your warning)?
Sure. Calvin elsewhere (Inst 2.7.12) addresses the same use of the Law, and can be compared here as well.
We’re talking here about the use of the Law to subdue the sluggishness of the flesh. God does not annex to this use (or to any) the kind typological promises (such as blessings on crops) that he does to Israel. Nor does God now annex civil penalties to disobedience as He did under the legal economy.
Because of type, their situation is simply not comparable to ours. Because of the legal economy, their situation is not comparable to ours.
Think on this: under the theocracy, the penalty for gathering firewood on the Sabbath was death, administered by men on behalf of God.
Does God kill people today for violating the Sabbath?
LikeLike
Jeff, ah, okay, so you were warning against those who argue for specifically temporal (typological) blessings and punishments in the NT on the basis of such in the OT. Is that the proper clarification?
LikeLike
Yes. This is *not* to say that God does not visit discipline on His children, nor that He does not even reward obedience. He does.
However, unlike for Israel the rewards are often later rather than now; and the discipline is always for the purpose of restoration, never destruction.
Both reward and discipline are concomitant and not antecedent.
The position that you’ve taken — all concomitant in both administrations — I would take to be benign but logically inconsistent, in that we actually agree (it seems) on the pastoral stance for today.
What I’ve tried to communicate is that many of your fellow travelers do not have the same pastoral stance, and the reason for it is the merging of legal and evangelical conditions.
LikeLike
Jeff,
Again regarding Calvin on Deuteronomy 28:14: If he really held that Israel was under a works principle in contradistinction to NT believers, don’t you find it a bit odd that he does not make this belief explicit here (it seems like the ideal place) and on the contrary, shows every evidence of thinking that the inheritance principles are the same?
LikeLike