Why Republication Matters

Published on by D. G. Hart

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.

809 thoughts on “Why Republication Matters”

  1. Semper, I guess I’ve been fortunate in that the Church I grew up in and the Church I joined in college and still belong to at least tried not to beat the sheep with a heavy dose of legalism. I have always been suspicious of Reformed Covenant theology because I think many of its adherents are sneaking law in as somehow part of salvation. Trying to read the two Testaments together can be tricky business, though it is necessary. What helps me is maybe too simple, but it works for me: Scripture has one author, God, and its subject is truth, Jesus.

    Like

  2. Isn’t David R. really David M.? My Reformed pastor asked me about two years to listen to D. Murray’s audios he gave in South Africa about biblical covenants. I must tell you – even as someone who was fairly clueless about covenants back then – it was the biggest load of rubbish I have ever listen to (ok, ok… since leaving the evangelical mess).

    He kept on inserting ‘grace’ into the definition of the covenant of works, which basically turns it into a covenant of grace… what?

    Like

  3. Todd,

    Darryl is exactly right in suggesting that Kline is opposing merit in the cov. of grace by affirming it in Moses. The very statement that the merit Israel was required in the MC was typological IS affirming that it is typological of something genuine, real, saving, (unlike the type), and that is the merit of Christ.

    Again, I don’t think Kline said that Israel’s obedience typified Christ’s (though I understand you disagree). He (like Vos) said that Israel’s obedience typified the godliness of the saints in heaven.

    You may not grant this because you do not see the law-gospel contrast between Abraham and Moses like we do, or dare I say Paul does, but why do you think Klineans have been the most vocal opponents of Shepherd?

    I keep hearing this but I don’t know if I buy it. True, Kline was a vocal opponent of Shepherd, but I can easily think of non-Klineans who have also been vocal defenders of the doctrine of justification, and some of them are critics of republication. And on the six member OPC justification committee, I believe only two of them were Klineans. But even granting your claim, opposing Shepherd doesn’t prove that one isn’t heterodox in some other way (though apparently many want to think otherwise). And what I’ve been seeing here amounts to opposition to standard Reformed theology.

    As for Calvin, Berkhof, etc., no one is suggesting Kline follows them in every way on their understanding of the MC, and on their interpretation of Deut 28 and Gal 3:12 we believe many of the older writers were wrong, …

    Thank you for forthrightly admitting that you think the older writers were wrong.

    … but when they end up explaining how the MC points to Christ and justification, we are all on the same page against legalists, neo-nomians, antinomians, etc.

    True, but let’s face it: You think their position ultimately opens the door to Shepherdism. And in trying to defend their position on the MC here, I’ve gotten nothing but push-back.

    Like

  4. Dan,

    I’m glad for you having that background. What a mercy and a comfort. I knew other believers (especially in college) who had a similar background as yours.

    The suspicion you mentioned about Reformed Theology is a healthy one, because there are plenty of adherents out there who are sneaking Law back into the Good News, making it the ‘Bad News’. I think understanding covenants is critical to being able to rest in what God has done for us in and through Christ, so this topic-post by Dr. Hart is excellent for learning and understanding what it’s all about. What is amazing to me is how some theologians can refer to themselves as Reformed (I’m tracking with your suspicions here) and quote correctly from the Scriptures and the Confessions (like they are singing along on the same page) but eventually they ‘tell on themselves’.

    Like

  5. …for y’all grammar nazigators… I meant to say “…it was the biggest load of rubbish I have ever listened to…”.

    I still mean to say that.

    Like

  6. Perhaps my questions from my last post are not relevant to the topic at hand. Would someone be able to direct me somewhere they might be more appropriate because I am very interested in learning more about this issue.
    Thank you

    Like

  7. David R., let’s be clear about a big dose of the push-back: ” I don’t think Kline said that Israel’s obedience typified Christ’s (though I understand you disagree). He (like Vos) said that Israel’s obedience typified the godliness of the saints in heaven.”

    Obedience? In the words of Allen Iverson, we’re talking about OBEDIENCE. Of friggin’ Israel? What obedience? When did Israel obey anything?

    And this may be a common problem among the anti-repubs — the capacity to overestimate obedience, like when David argues for partial obedience as the way of inheriting the land (when the Israelites and God said it was going to be “everything commanded” or like when the confession talks about personal, perfect, and perpetual obedience. And what goes with this is an underselling of sin — as in good works become good works minus the filthy rags of human sinfulness, or the sense that Christians really can be good.

    Like

  8. David R: Would you say that the believer’s good works are a non-meritorious ground for inheriting eternal life?

    Like

  11. David R.,

    Thank you for forthrightly admitting that you think the older writers were wrong.

    Was Calvin wrong as to the role of the magistrate in the church? Were the Divines wrong on the same subject? Again, the issue gets back to exegesis of Scripture not the older guys… And that again is what I appreciate about TLNF guys. They interact very much with the older guys AND Scripture. David Murray even admits that is the weak point of the critics of TLNF. They don’t do much by way of interacting with the relevant passages of Scripture.

    Like

  12. Sidenote:

    Dee Murray was Elton John’s bass player – and the best bass player ever. Just listen to ‘Funeral for a Friend/Love Lies Bleeding in My Hand’ from the Goodbye Yellow Brick Road album.

    Not the same D. Murray referenced in this post, but worth mentioning for the benefit of those who like strident riffs……

    Like

  13. I’m looking forward to T. David’s (another David! – oh my…) yet-to-be published book on covenant-historical reasoning in Galatians: Promise, Law, and Faith.

    Like

  14. @ SR: I’ll take your Dee Murray and raise you a Chris Squire. But point taken.

    You know what album has aged really gracefully, though? CSNY’s Deja Vu.

    Like

  15. “I keep hearing this but I don’t know if I buy it. True, Kline was a vocal opponent of Shepherd, but I can easily think of non-Klineans who have also been vocal defenders of the doctrine of justification, and some of them are critics of republication. ”

    Well, Kline pointed out Shepherd’s dangers before anyone else did, but your point actually makes my point. Why did Klineans and non-Klineans together see the error of Shepherd? Because they agreed on justification and the nature of the CG. They ended up at the same place.

    “But even granting your claim, opposing Shepherd doesn’t prove that one isn’t heterodox in some other way (though apparently many want to think otherwise). ”

    Of course not. My point is more limited than that. The irony is the people you accuse of positing merit are usually the most vocal against anyone positing merit in the Cov of Grace. This alone should cause you to temper your accusations.

    “And what I’ve been seeing here amounts to opposition to standard Reformed theology.”

    I don’t think your particular view is “the” standard view, but apparently you do, so I’ll leave it there.

    Thank you for forthrightly admitting that you think the older writers were wrong.”

    You’re welcome

    “… but when they end up explaining how the MC points to Christ and justification, we are all on the same page against legalists, neo-nomians, antinomians, etc.

    “True,”

    Thanks for admitting this. If this is not about an errant view of the cov. of grace, why are your knickers in such a twist?

    “but let’s face it: You think their position ultimately opens the door to Shepherdism.”

    Not true. Remember I said we all have happy inconsistencies. Calvin, Bolton, Berkhof, Hodge, Kline, etc. did not all agree on how to describe the MC, and some obviously did better than others, but they all agreed on the CG. To go the Shepherd route you have to purposely want to distort the doctrine of justification.

    “And in trying to defend their position on the MC here, I’ve gotten nothing but push-back.”

    First, I still do not believe most of us understand your view yet. However, you came on this blog with accusations against Kline, certain seminary professors within our reformed denominations, and pastors in good standing in our reformed churches. You really didn’t expect pushback?

    Like

  19. @ David: Good. Very Good.

    Ok, so you would say, though (following Vos), that the nation’s obedience was a non-meritorious ground for land retention?

    Like

  21. D.G.,

    David R., let’s be clear about a big dose of the push-back …

    That’s what you call clear? I simply state Kline’s position on what Israel’s obedience typified and you respond with a rant about how thats “a common problem among the anti-repubs.” How you get from explaining Kline to underselling sin I can’t imagine but as long as it’s “clear” to you….

    Like

  22. Darryl: ” …..And what goes with this is an underselling of sin — as in good works become good works minus the filthy rags of human sinfulness, or the sense that Christians really can be good.”

    Me: thought about that strain the other day when reading this: WCF Chapt 9 “4. When God converts a sinner, and translates him into the state of grace, he freeth him from his natural bondage under sin; and, by his grace alone, enables him freely to will and to do that which is spiritually good; yet so, as that by reason of his remaining corruption, he doth not perfectly, nor only, will that which is good, but doth also WILL that which is evil.

    5. The will of man is made perfectly and immutably free to good alone, in the state of glory only.

    Simul justus et peccator

    Like

  23. Jeff, as I recall, Vos doesn’t explicitly say “ground.” I believe he says “connection.” What I think I’ve been saying is that their obedience was “necessary” for them to remain in the land.

    Like

  24. David R.,
    Are you saying that Kline is underselling sin?

    Would you please summarized in a couple sentences or so what you mean by Kline is “underselling sin?”

    Like

  25. David R., obedience is required? You affirm this, right? So obedience has to be imperfect given our remaining corruption. But that’s no biggie. The law doesn’t require personal, perpetual, perfect obedience. That’s something Kline made up.

    Like

  27. Jack, please just go back and read the comment I’m responding to and then read mine again and try to understand. No, I’m not saying that.

    Like

  29. David R: What I think I’ve been saying is that their obedience was “necessary” for them to remain in the land.

    OK, I’ll go with that. Vos does use the term “ground”, but it’s not clear whether he is disputing that term or simply restating it when he speaks of an “indispensable (but not meritorious) condition for receiving the inheritance.”

    So to restate using Vos’s exact language, would you say that “obedience is an indispensable (but not meritorious) condition for inheriting eternal life”?

    Like

  30. David R.,
    Obviously I wan’t sure. But I reread your comment several times before I asked. It’s still not clear to me what you’re saying. But at least I’m glad you’re not saying what I that Kline is…

    Like

  33. Jeff,

    So to restate using Vos’s exact language, would you say that “obedience is an indispensable (but not meritorious) condition for inheriting eternal life”?

    You tryin’ to trick me? Vos’s “exact language” was wrt to “holiness as the indispensable (though not meritorious) condition of receiving the inheritance.”

    Like

  35. @ David R:

    No, no tricks. I’m trying to understand what condition you think was necessary for Israel to retain the land. Clearly one has to state that condition very precisely …

    Like

  37. @ David C Noe: Very, very impressive. Not my style of music (I like Eric Johnson or Joe Satriani over Steve Vai, for example), but I am quite impressed.

    Interesting that the Wiki article on Billy Sheehan mentions his connections to King’s X.

    Like

  38. Jeff, I understand Vos to be saying much the same thing as Calvin was when he spoke of good works as “inferior causes,” and also in the same vein as WLC 32 which speaks of obedience as “the way he hath appointed them to salvation.”

    Like

  41. David R.,
    Jack, perhaps you should also read the comment I’m responding to several times.

    Wow, thanks for being so helpful. I never would have thought of that. How could I possibly misunderstand your crystal clear response to Darryl? – not.

    never mind…

    Like

  43. Sorry, David. I just never went through an awkward, uncool, overcompensate, couldn’t get a girl phase. What’s it like? Well, there was Calvary Chapel for two years, followed by therapy, but other than that! But really, who couldn’t figure out Rob Halford was gay and Roth probably experimented and was running from himself and everybody else had corresponding mommy and daddy issues? That or somebody went to the state institution and said; “give me all your savant borderlines and I’ll dress them in tights and put them on stage and let them self-medicate. What could go wrong!”

    Like

  44. No, no tricks. I’m trying to understand what condition you think was necessary for Israel to retain the land. Clearly one has to state that condition very precisely …

    As I’ve said, I think they had to maintain corporately a measure of obedience appropriate for typifying the state of consummate holiness.

    Like

  46. David R: As I’ve said, I think they had to maintain corporately a measure of obedience appropriate for typifying the state of consummate holiness.

    Yes, you have said that, and I recognize the Vos in it. One of the reasons I’m confused is that you have said these things:

    JRC: So in what sense do [Deut 28 et al] express the covenant of works?

    DR: In that they promise eternal life (typified by temporal blessings) on the condition of obedience to the law and threaten death in the event of transgression, they restate the demands of the CoW. (Same condition, same promise.)

    and

    DR: But otoh, if by “demand,” you simply mean the relative obedience that was required in order for Israel to remain in the land (as opposed to the perfection which the law actually requires), then yes, in that sense it was a type. So, there’s a distinction that needs to be made here….

    but

    DR: One difference is that the old view posits a material republication of the original covenant of works (i.e., the same condition of perfect obedience, and the same promise of eternal life); not a modified works covenant in which less-than-perfect (“typologically legible”) obedience constitutes the meritorious ground for inheriting merely temporal blessings.

    So I don’t understand yet what you view as the promise to the nation and the condition required of the nation for that promise. Was it eternal life on the condition of perfect obedience? Was it staying in the land on the condition of relative obedience? Was it staying in the land on the condition of perfect obedience? Was it staying in the land on the basis of faith?

    I understand this is just a blog, so I’m not trying to ding you here as if you have failed to meet standards of consistency. I am assuming you have a clear picture in mind.

    A second part of the confusion is that it is not obvious to me that Deut 28 is talking directly about eternal life. It looks like it’s talking about retaining the land (which we agree is a type of eternal life.) Can you explain why you think Deut 28 is talking about eternal life and not land?

    Like

  49. Still ‘Dee Murray’……….John Entwhistle as runner up (Won’t Get Fooled Again)

    You all are making me interested to look into your favorites ~

    Like

  50. David C. Noe
    Posted August 30, 2014 at 5:18 pm | Permalink
    Best bass player ever: Billy Sheehan.

    Dee Murray? Chris Squire? They couldn’t carry his amplifier.

    The joke among the rest of the band–who are actually trying to make music–is what’s the only thing worse than a bad bass player?

    –A great bass player.

    ____
    Amish Ambush
    Posted August 30, 2014 at 9:07 pm | Permalink
    Um. Paul McCartney. That baseline on Dear Prudence on the White Album? Sick.

    As they say around here, ding ding. Also the long instrumental in “She’s So Heavy.” Lennon came up with those cool chords and arpeggios, and then Paul topped it my turning them into the bass melody.

    And if you listen to the first 4 years of the Beatles, George and John are playing simple chords, and Paul’s bass is the only real music happening.

    And if melodic bass ain’t your thing, it was Entwhistle who pretty much invented playing your ass off. Squire and Sheehan are epigones.

    Like

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.