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. The Reformed one-hit wonder is indeed one of the more endearing features of our movement. Shares many similarities to athlete’s foot, the guy driving in the fast lane at 35 mph, and the neighbor having their dumpster emptied at 4 a.m. outside your bedroom window. You know, the things in life that make you look forward to assuming room temperature and going to heaven.

    Like

  3. Yowza. I’m pretty sure, maybe, somewhere, somehow, in some way, there is a benefit to parsing the exact nature of the MC and pulling it apart and stacking it into it’s allotted piles but I’m pretty sure I understand why Paul drew the lines from Abrahamic to NC and used the MC as a foil to put in bold relief the NATURE of the NC as contrasted to the OC. Yeah for Paul.

    Like

  4. While we’re on annoying topics – I DVR’ed CNN’s program on “The Sixties”. Will we still hear about the glories of the 60s (Mostly 1967-69) after the Boomers are gone? What must your life consist of when you look back at THAT as the pinnacle of your lives? Yeah, we took drugs and danced naked at Woodstock. Then we sold out, took corporate jobs, and are now looking forward to retirement and bankrupting Social Security, Medicare, and our kids.

    What a legacy.

    Like

  5. Erik, that great big sucking sound you hear every morning? That’s the boomers refusing to die and surrender the positions by which they continue to torment what’s left of their parent’s generation and all the generations that came after their own. They’re all overdue for a drive by. Except the ones I happen to make use of, of, of, of.

    Like

  6. If you’ve got 4 hours some weekend watch D.A. Pennebaker’s “Monterey Pop” followed by The Maysles’ “Gimme Shelter” to see exactly how long it took sixties idealism to turn into a steaming pile of dung. Hint: Not long.

    Like

  7. We got Boomer President Clinton, followed by Boomer President George W. Bush, followed by young Boomer President Barack Obama, followed by … Boomer President Hillary Clinton. After that we’ll probably have 25 trillion of debt and Boomer President Al Gore.

    They’re not going away peacefully…

    Like

  10. Old-Age Boomer Trait: Get dogs to keep you company during your golden years and then spoil the dogs so badly that your children want to punt them whenever they come to visit.

    Like

  13. Jeff, DR, and Jack,

    How exactly is this a promise:

    “And if you faithfully obey the voice of the LORD your God, being careful to do all his commandments that I command you today, the LORD your God will set you high above all the nations of the earth.” (Deuteronomy 28:1 ESV)

    compared to this:

    “I will make you exceedingly fruitful, and I will make you into nations, and kings shall come from you. And I will establish my covenant between me and you and your offspring after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your offspring after you. And I will give to you and to your offspring after you the land of your sojournings, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession, and I will be their God.” (Genesis 17:6-8 ESV)

    When I promised fidelity to my wife, I didn’t say “if you stay healthy and make money.”

    Like

  16. Does national retention or exile say something sacramentally about the salvation of individual Israelites? Or does it rather point to the meaning of salvation in the manner that baptism does?

    I think that the typological aspect is first and foremost, that is, the communication via a system of types and shadows–an intrusion of heavenly realities, in Klinean terms–of the covenantal promise of heavenly blessedness, the possibility of exclusion from it, and the prerequisite of righteousness and holiness. But in terms of the sacramental aspect, and making the analogy with NT sacraments, perhaps we could say that there were unworthy partakers (e.g., Manassah), and there were worthy partakers who were providentially hindered (Daniel) and yet grace and salvation wasn’t inseparably tied to the sign. I’m kind of out on a limb here but maybe that helps….

    Like

  17. Eric, I get it. But flattery’ll get you nowhere…. Btw, apple cider vinegar may help the athlete’s foot problem.

    Like

  18. And I guarantee that a congregation that hears “works are necessary for our salvation” will take it in directions you do not intend…

    Jeff, it depends. If the point has to do with what is the ground of salvation then it could be a way to emphasize the active obedience of Christ–which is ours through faith alone. I for one think there is much need for this emphasis in a time that tends to over-emphasize the passive obedience of Christ. If the point has to do with the consequence of salvation then perhaps (as Darryl once helpfully put it around here at one time) it would be better to say that works are inevitable to salvation.

    Like

  19. Darryl, that was the line I fed Clark when he said we(Xers) and Y’s and Millenials(dolts) were a bunch of egalitarians. I tolla him to go look in a mirror.

    Like

  20. I am coming in to this a little late (Labor Day and all of that has kept me mostly offline) but I am wondering if someone from the Republication camp could define the original covenant of works?

    Like

  23. sean, I’m still a victim. You don’t know how hard it was living through the assassinations of the Kennedy’s, King, the suicides of Joplin and Morris, the Six Day War and the return of Jesus, the urban riots and mayoral responses from hyphenated Roman Catholic mayors (Dailey and Rizzo).

    And I’ll be glad for you to come push me around in the nursing home, thank you very much.

    Like

  24. Sean,

    Thank you.

    Would it be fair to summarize the Covenant of Works like this: God made the covenant of Works with Adam wherein God required perfect obedience of Adam and wherein God promised eternal life for perfect obedience and promised death for disobedience.

    Like

  25. Jeff, it depends. If the point has to do with what is the ground of salvation then it could be a way to emphasize the active obedience of Christ–which is ours through faith alone…. If the point has to do with the consequence of salvation then perhaps … it would be better to say that works are inevitable to salvation.

    And what if the point has to do with good works being necessary to salvation? (Rhetorical question, no need to respond.)

    Like

  26. Darryl, I’m good with it. I’m used to bailing you guys out, my two older siblings have learned me well. Course I’ve learnt a little too good, when I’m done tapping y’all for what you can do for me, that wheelchair, occupant and all, might mysteriously find itself in rush hour traffic. All depends how much money is in that medical savings account.

    Like

  28. “works are necessary for our salvation” (from Zrim’s post above)

    – Congregation that understands that it is Christ’s Works/Active Obedience/Finished Work, and it is His Work to produce the fruit/rewards in our lives is understanding Reformed Theology well

    – Congregation that hears/understands that our works are necessary for our salvation (overemphasis on how we are being saved, and our fruitfulness-rewards are the evidence and do matter – Book of James) has missed it and lapsed into works-righteousness, and does not understand Reformed Theology at all

    Like

  29. Jeff,

    Trying my best to put a stake in the heart of the topic. When I see you go into these 500 comment debates with people, complete with mathematical formulas, my fondest wish for you is that you go enjoy some butterflies.

    Like

  30. Back to David R. — I personally believe that each and every Reformed one hit wonder has one great 800 page book in them written in unreadable font. This is my fondest hope, at least.

    Like

  32. Following is evidence from the Westminster divine, Francis Roberts, that you don’t need repub to clearly distinguish law and gospel and preach Christ’s meriting of our salvation in His active and passive obedience. Isn’t this really all the repubs are after?

    3. I add therefore, for the unfolding of this mystery more clearly, and for answering of this objection more fully, these few considerations touching the law or Sinai covenant, and the condition of life and happiness therein revealed, viz.

    (1) That, the Sinai covenant was purposely so dispensed as to tender life and happiness upon two opposite and contrary conditions, viz., works, and faith, perfect doing, and believing. This is clear by Paul’s epistles beyond dispute. Upon perfect doing all in the law, Romans 10:5, Galatians 3:12 with Leviticus 18:5, the curse being denounced against the least failing, Galatians 3:10 with Deuteronomy 27:26. Upon believing in Jesus Christ the Messiah promised, Romans 3:21, 22; 10:6-12, compared with Deuteronomy 30:11-15. See also Romans 10:4, Galatians 3:22, 23, 24. To deny this, which is so clear, will but tend to weaken Paul’s authority, to darken many Scriptures both of Moses and Paul, and to strengthen the objection.

    (2) That, in this Sinai covenant these opposite conditions, of perfect doing under pain of curse and death, and of believing in Christ, are very differently required and revealed. Believing in Christ is revealed very sparingly and obscurely, perfect doing, very frequently and plainly if the series of the text be heedfully observed and considered. Whence (as Calvin notes), “Though the whole ministration of the Sinai covenant belongs to Moses his office, yet that function most properly and peculiarly seems to be ascribed to him, which consisted in teaching what the true righteousness of works was, and what rewards or punishments attend upon the observers or breakers of the law.” Upon which account Moses is compared with Christ, “The law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ” (John 1:17).

    (3) That, though these two conditions of perfect doing, and believing, be thus differently revealed and required in the Sinai covenant, yet believing in Christ unto life and righteousness was therein chiefly and ultimately intended, and perfect doing only urged upon Israel’s subordination and tendency to that believing.

    That believing in Christ unto righteousness is chiefly and ultimately intended in the Sinai covenant is plain, [1] from all the former arguments whereby I have demonstrated the Sinai covenant to be a covenant of faith, [2] from the many testimonies of the apostle Paul, declaring Christ, and faith, and justification by faith to be the very chief scope and intent of the law or Sinai covenant (Romans 10:4; Galatians 3:19, 22-24), [3] from Moses himself drawing the righteousness of faith from the Sinai covenant (Deuteronomy 30:11-15; Romans 10:6-11).

    That perfect doing upon pain of curse and death was urged upon Israel only in subordination and tendency to believing and the righteousness of faith, is also evident. For, [1] Hereby God brought Israel to see the need of a Mediator, and to desire him, which desire the Lord highly commended, giving them Moses as a typical, and promising Christ, as a true Mediator. [2] To the moral law, the impossible rule of perfect doing, God added the ceremonial law, revealing Christ, the object of believing, and the “end of the law for righteousness to every believer.” [3] The Scripture, peculiarly the law, “hath hereby concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ may be given to them that believe” (Galatians 3:22). [4] By the law requiring perfect doing under a curse, they were “shut up unto the faith that should afterwards be revealed” (Galatians 3:23). [5] The law moral and ceremonial in this respect was to the Jews, “a schoolmaster to bring them to Christ, that they might be justified by faith in Christ” (Galatians 3:24).

    (4) That, the condition of perfect doing under pain of curse and death, convincing the sinner of his sin and misery, leaves him hopeless in himself, not to trust in his own works for righteousness. But the condition of believing gives him hope, without himself, in Jesus Christ, to trust to him alone for justification.

    (5) That, the Sinai covenant tendered life and happiness upon these two opposite conditions of perfect doing under penalty of curse and death, and of believing in Christ, because both these conditions were necessarily required to the sinner’s happiness, in the sinner, or the sinner’s Surety. [1] Perfect doing of all God’s law upon pain of death was required to the sinner’s happiness, because God’s covenant of works at first made with Adam and with all his posterity in him, but broken by them, cannot be eluded or evaded. They must do it, or die. Otherwise God himself should not be just and true. Do it, in their own persons they could not, because the “flesh was weak” (Romans 8:3), therefore they lie under the curse and death. This covenant hereupon (such the contrivance of God’s infinite wisdom and grace) reveals the sinner’s Surety Jesus Christ, who alone could satisfactorily bear this curse upon himself, and perform the duty of the law to the uttermost, for the sinner’s redemption and righteousness. [2] Believing in Christ is also necessary to the sinner’s happiness, because without faith his Surety’s perfect doing and enduring cannot become his by imputation.

    (6) That, perfect doing on pain of death, and believing in Jesus Christ are so required and conditioned in this Sinai covenant, as to let all men see, that the penalty and duty of the covenant of works, have their plenary accomplishment in the covenant of faith through Jesus Christ alone. For, [1] Herein perfect obedience is exacted from sinners under a curse, which obedience is as impossible, as the curse intolerable, unto sinners. [2] Herein Jesus Christ the Mediator and sinner’s Surety, is set forth, as bearing the penalty of the curse, and fulfilling all obedience for them most exactly. [3] Herein they are directed unto Jesus Christ by faith, for life and righteousness. Thus according to the tenor of the Sinai covenant, the covenant of works hath its perfect accomplishment in Christ, by doing and enduring, all which becomes ours, by believing. Thus the covenant of works is digested into, incorporated with, and wholly swallowed up by the covenant of faith. Thus perfect doing is attained, by believing.

    Like

  36. David R., I’m not sure why the question is rhetorical, but that’s the active obedience point–yes, works are necessary to salvation, there is no hope without them. Of course, it all turns on whose.

    Like

  38. Jeff, DR, and Jack,

    How exactly is this a promise…

    DG, let me ask my wife…

    Zrim, works are necessary to salvation, there is no hope without them. Of course, it all turns on whose.
    Indeed! – just who is going to be leaning one whit on their own imperfect obedience on that Day? Yes, it is our duty to obey. Is our obedience necessary to securing our salvation? When it comes to salvation, obedience isn’t graded on a curve. We need the perfect obedience of Another, even as we in this life seek to walk, ever so feebly, in the direction of obedience to him.

    LC Q. 39. Why was it requisite that the mediator should be man?
    A. It was requisite that the mediator should be man, that he might advance our nature, perform obedience to the law, suffer and make intercession for us in our nature, have a fellow-feeling of our infirmities; that we might receive the adoption of sons, and have comfort and access with boldness unto the throne of grace.

    Q. 55. How doth Christ make intercession?
    A. Christ maketh intercession, by his appearing in our nature continually before the Father in heaven, in the merit of his obedience and sacrifice on earth, declaring his will to have it applied to all believers; answering all accusations against them, and procuring for them quiet of conscience, notwithstanding daily failings, access with boldness to the throne of grace, and acceptance of their persons and services.

    Like

  40. Erik, the next better step than the badly scanned 800 pager with “ff” instead of “s” is….

    the archive.org claim that it has scanned this book into “text” for your reading pleasure…

    hee hee hah hah…

    those Puritans loved to fluff up 800 pages with about 650 pages being needless rambles of pieties and acclamations that they love the Trinity. You do???

    Like

  41. The 800 page mystery came to light when I saw “the likely lads” of the Reformed world all giving 5 stars to the ENTIRE works of Goodwin, Flavel, that 700 page job on Colossians 3:11, Owen (and what Owen REALLY meant), and seven others.

    They wouldn’t be able to have read all that decently with 200 lifetimes at their fingertips.

    Like

  42. This topic started out so well. Now it’s gotten to the point where I’d rather hear sports guys talking about Micheal Sam.

    Like

  43. and once again i’m let down by those telling me there is absolutely Blutarskian zero-point-zero Law at all in Sinai?

    wish i could buy stock in an investment that none of them will come up with a decent argument until they incorporate WCF 19 and Galatians 3 and 4 in their answer….

    Like

  45. Sean, according to my inside sources they wanted him to wear those horse blinder things but then all the horse jokes got out of control.

    Like

  48. David R., then in that case one rhetorical question deserves another–who is clearly superior in upholding ye olde Protestant formulation of justification sola fide and article of faith on which the church is said to stand or fall, the repubs or the anti-repubs?

    Like

  50. Dr. T. David Gordon in his book “Why Johnny Can’t Preach: The Media Have Shaped the Messengers” (Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R Publishing, 2009)

    “Some of the neo-Puritans have apparently determined that the purpose of Christian preaching is to persuade people that they do not, in fact, believe. The subtitle of each of their sermons could accurately be: “I Know You Think You Are a Christian, but You Are Not.” This brand of preaching constantly suggests that if a person does not always love attending church, always look forward to reading the Bible, or family worship, or prayer, then the person is probably not a believer…”

    The hearer falls into one of two categories: one category of listener assumes that the preacher is talking about someone else, and he rejoices (as did the Pharisee over the tax collector) to hear “the other guy” getting straightened out. Another category of listener eventually capitulates and says: “Okay, I’m not a believer; have it your way.” But since the sermon mentions Christ only in passing (if at all), the sermon says nothing about the adequacy of Christ as Redeemer, and therefore does nothing to build faith in Christ.

    “It is painful to hear every passage of Scripture twisted to do what only several of them actually do (i.e., warn the complacent that not everyone who says, “Lord, Lord” will enter the kingdom of heaven). And it is absolutely debilitating to be told again and again that one does not have faith when one knows perfectly well that one does have faith, albeit weak and imperfect…”

    “So no one profits from this kind of preaching; indeed, both categories of hearer are harmed by it. But I don’t expect it will end anytime soon. The self-righteous like it too much; for them, religion makes them feel good about themselves, because it allows them to view themselves as the good guys and others as the bad guys – they love to hear the preacher scold the bad guys each week. And sadly, the temperament of some ministers is simply officious. Scolding others is their life calling; they have the genetic disposition to be a Jewish mother.” (pp. 83-84)

    and here’s a case in point, http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2014/09/preaching-piety-are-we-donatis.php—-T. David Gordon’s book, Why Johnny Can’t Preach provides some valuable insight into why so much preaching today is poor. But, if I am not mistaken, he did not make a big deal of the fact that “Johnny is not godly.” This was a serious omission, I believe.

    Like

Leave a comment

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