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 
DGH,
My concern is that republication aims to do justice to Paul and instead does injustice to both Paul and Moses. With God as the author of both Exodus and Galatians, there is a compliance between the two that Republication seems to me to be missing. I will not argue difference in tones and difference in administrations in OC and NC. I agree with this. My argument is that the Covenant made by God at Sinai with a focus on the response to redemption is an unfolding of the Covenant of Grace as outlined and begun with Exodus 20:1 and concluded in Exodus 24 with the sprinkling of the blood of the covenant on the people.
Perhaps we can have more dialogue in person in the future and thank you for your time via blog.
B
LikeLike
In other news, I read in yesterday’s WSJ that the American missionary doctor who was sent to Liberia to replace the American missionary doctor who was evacuated now has Ebola. No evacuation this time — yet another American missionary doctor was sent to treat the stricken American missionary doctor.
I see a pattern developing.
Does anyone stop to ask why Liberia still needs doctors and Christian missionaries in the 21st century?
African disfunction, Western guilt, and American evangelical do-gooderism make for an interesting cauldron of soup.
LikeLike
How about just viewing Sinai as a vivid picture that God painted to show us how incapable we are of keeping the law and saving ourselves? Period.
The poster boy for spinning the law to think you are keeping it is Bill Clinton and his “I did not have sex with that woman, Miss Lewinski.”
If you define “sex” as “sexual intercourse”, that’s true. If you define “sex” as oral sex, genital stimulation, or even looking at a woman lustfully (as Jesus does when he explains what adultery is), his assertion of lawkeeping becomes laughable.
This is the slippery slope of self-deception that viewing law as gracious leads to.
LikeLike
B, but because Paul is writing after Moses and after the fulfillment of Moses in Christ, doesn’t doing justice to both Paul and Moses miss what Paul is trying to do, and what he sees in relation to the epoch-making significance of the work of Christ?
LikeLike
I’m afraid to look Erik, so I’ll have to trust you on this.
Did one of the naysayers pull out John 3:16 and scream WHOSOEVER 15 times while reading it, trying to shake my unwise Calvinistic Republican ways?
LikeLike
– And isn’t Paul, in Galatians, authoritatively interpreting Moses, not simply giving his side of an Old/New equation?
LikeLike
It seems to me that what is gracious about the OC is that God made a covenant with Israel at all, when it was known they would fail, and that Jesus was born under and fulfilled it. What the Israelites failed to do typologically Jesus did really.
I’ve seen it said that the imperfect obedience of Israel staying in the land could not in any sense be acceptable to God who demands perfect obedience. But since when is type a perfect representation of the antitype? David was a man after God’s heart and messianic type, but he was also an adulterer and murderer. If imperfect typological obedience cannot be grounds for remaining in the land, how can David be a type of Christ, a man after God’s own heart, a murderer and adulterer?
I haven’t followed the entire thread so If I’m wacked that may explain it.
LikeLike
Mark G, it wasn’t a perfect representation of anything because Israel failed. It was a further reminder of the impossibility of keeping the covenant of works and the need for someone who could (even though the land was a type of Eden and “a better country”).
LikeLike
Mark,
You were actually better than some people who have followed entire threads for months on end.
LikeLike
This would appear to explain the logic of the obedience boys:
LikeLike
What do they (whomever “they” are) mean when they say Adam could not have merited salvation?
Before God entered into the CoW with Adam, Adam’s obedience would not have earned him salvation because it was what he owed to God: there was no arrangement for a quid pro quo. After God had entered into Covenant with Adam, Adam’s obedience would have earned him eternal life as that was the arrangement.
What am I missing?
LikeLike
Is it the anti-Republicationists who deny Adam’s merit-reward situation or the Republicationists? Why would the so-called Obedience Boys deny Adam could have merited eternal life?
LikeLike
Jeff,
Back to Deuteronomy 28-30. In a nutshell, my (revised) answer to your question is that what Deuteronomy 28-30 requires of Israel is repentance and faith and the diligent use of the ordinary means of grace.
It is true of course that the moral law requires perfect obedience, but that condition of the covenant was to be met by Christ the Mediator, not by the people.
It is also true that Israel was required to maintain a relative level of corporate obedience in order to retain possession of the land, but that was due to the OT mode of revealing the promised reward (and threatened punishment) typologically. That is, it was an accident of the OT administration and not the substantial promise of the covenant.
I’m happy to try to clarify as necessary….
LikeLike
Alexander, so Adam, created in the image of God, is no different from my cat Cordelia, until God enters into the covenant.
But do remember that the anti-repubs love Van Til and Van Til said that creation was fundamentally covenantal. So it’s a little difficult to turn God’s relationship with man into a higher life scheme, you know, justified, and then obedience and holiness makes sanctification complete.
LikeLike
Alexander, do you hear yourself?
You’re anti-repub and you don’t even know it.
LikeLike
Holy @#$@#$%(%%&!
Talk about flattening revelation. There goes kosher food, circumcision and no real need for Paul to work out how Gentiles come into relationship with God. It’s all there in the Pentateuch.
David R., read sensitively much?
LikeLike
Alexander is a one trick pony. All he can do is repeat the last few words of his “opponent” and mock or play the fake piety card.
When he has to give a new angle it is totally trash.
He makes a good Evangelifish
LikeLike
Jeff,
A couple of additional thoughts: Did Israel ever actually attain to the obedience required for them to retain possession of the land? Yes, I think so. Recall Vos:
“This did not mean that every individual Israelite, in every detail of his life, had to be perfect, and that on this was suspended the continuance of God’s favour. Jehovah dealt primarily with the nation and through the nation with the individual, as even now in the covenant of grace He deals with believers and their children in the continuity of generations. There is solidarity among the members of the people of God, but this same principle also works for the neutralizing of the effect of individual sin, so long as the nation remains faithful. The attitude observed by the nation and its representative leaders was the decisive factor. Although the demands of the law were at various times imperfectly complied with, nevertheless for a long time Israel remained in possession of the favour of God.”
You brought up Joshua 24, but there was also Joshua 23:1-11 (for example). Yes, it is true that apostasy was the general rule, and increasingly so, but there were also bright spots.
Was Israel’s obedience (when they obeyed) meritorious? No. It was evangelical obedience, which by definition isn’t meritorious. But wasn’t it merit by pactum? No. The only pactum merit in any administration of the covenant of grace is that accrued by Christ’s obedience.
But what of the fact that God’s dealings with the nation as a unit (i.e., by way of temporal sanctions) was different from His dealings with individual Israelites (i.e., by way of eternal sanctions)? I would say this is somewhat of an artificial distinction in that throughout, God was dealing with individuals by way of temporal sanctions typifying eternal sanctions. This was simply the OT mode of revealing eternal sanctions by means of types, but I don’t see that it necessarily entails a works principle.
LikeLike
Jeff,
Following is some corroboration from Calvin for my opinion that the requirement for retaining possession of the land was not an impossible one for sinners to meet. From his comments on Leviticus 26:3:
LikeLike
Talk about flattening revelation.
Talk about a dispensationalist response.
LikeLike
That’s the trouble with Dave and his ilk.
They don’t like the answer given and attack but they have nothing to improve on the 2k position.
And with this fake zealous attitude they are backed into a corner because their hostility has ruined any hope of a decent discussion.
And they love seeing their words on the internet, nobody else does
LikeLike
Dr. Hart- Well, Adam had an eternal soul and your cat doesn’t; Adam was given the moral law, your cat wasn’t; Adam was created a rational, reasoning, righteous, holy and wise being; your cat wasn’t. Basically what you’re saying is there is no inherent superiority of humans to animals or even difference, so far as I can see.
i’m not anti-Repub, if you mean what the Westminster Confession says. Boston says Sinai was both covenant of works and grace, that’s fine with me. I don’t know what more you and the likes of Clark are wanting to add to that doctrine, but clearly it’s something or else there wouldn’t be all this debate. I’m genuinely irterested in knowing what you’re saying which is beyond what WCF 19:2 says.
But Fisher’s Catechism and John Brown of Haddington say that from between Adam’s Creation and the formation of the Covenant of Works Adam was under obligation to obey but was not promised eternal life upon that obedience. Are they anti-Repubs?
and i’m afraid I really don’t know what you mean by higher life &c. Please can you keep the rhetoric at a minimum and then there might actually be some fruitful discussion. I don’t see why you react so aggressively when I’m only asking you questions.
Kent- you do realise that you do exactly what you accuse others of doing. The only posts I ever see from you are posts attacking and ridiculing other people. Where did I mock Dr. Hart? I asked him a question. Is he above being asked questions?
LikeLike
A relevant comment posted on another thread on this very same question/topic:
Take a passage like Deut. 28 with the blessings and curses. What are your options? Well, if you are Kline, you explain it as part of the typological-works principle that was unique to Israel. But if you don’t go that route, then you almost have to take this as part of an ‘evangelical obedience’ principle that would be true in any covenant of grace arrangement. And when you try to make something ‘all of grace’ that actually propounds a legitimate ‘works’ principle, the ground is ripe for Shepherd’s error. Or as Kline quipped, “He who finds grace everywhere will ultimately find it nowhere!” Shepherd, of course, would be his Exhibit A on that point.
LikeLike
And when you try to make something ‘all of grace’ that actually propounds a legitimate ‘works’ principle, the ground is ripe for Shepherd’s error.
First of all, “actually propounds a legitimate ‘works’ principle” begs the question. Secondly, I would explain Deuteronomy 28-30 (as I have) as part of the typological-intrusion principle that was unique to Israel, which is something other than a works principle (again, see Vos). Thirdly, no one denies that the moral law itself articulates a works principle.
LikeLike
David,
Thanks. So in your revised answer, is Deut 28 a part of the gracious substance or the legal cloak?
LikeLike
DR –
First of all, “actually propounds a legitimate ‘works’ principle” begs the question.
I don’t think so in this context. The commentor is simply saying where there is a legitimate ‘works principle’ and yet make it about grace, then you get a problem, i.e collapsing law and grace…
My view: to exclude any works principle on a national/typological level in Deut. 28-30 just doesn’t do justice to the obedience/conditionality of the text, in my humble plough-boy theologian opinion…
LikeLike
David R., only for the reading challenged. Flatten holy writ, lots of misreads follow.
On your reading of Deut. 26ff, why don’t we have the reception of new church members include a vow to “do everything you have commanded”?
I can’t imagine any reading, doctrine, or practice in the Reformed world — other than a neonomian penchant — that would get WSC 88ff out of the Pentateuch.
LikeLike
Alexander, all of that stuff you say about Adam was true at creation, not with stage two of the CofW.
So if you follow Fisher and Brown OF HADDINGTON (well, then), then did Christ merit anything? Be careful. If you disentangle the first and second Adams (why call them the same name?) then you may turn out like Nathaniel Taylor.
LikeLike
Jeff,
Thanks. So in your revised answer, is Deut 28 a part of the gracious substance or the legal cloak?
It’s part of the legal cloak, which is pedagogical. But for those who partake of the substance of the covenant, the law is a rule of life. Obviously Calvin, for one, understands the passage in terms of evangelical obedience (third use).
LikeLike
On your reading of Deut. 26ff, why don’t we have the reception of new church members include a vow to “do everything you have commanded”?
I’m not sure of your point, but I assume your Bible has the Great Commission?
I can’t imagine any reading, doctrine, or practice in the Reformed world — other than a neonomian penchant — that would get WSC 88ff out of the Pentateuch.
But only a (quasi?) dispensationalist would deny that God required those things of Israel. Btw, the prooftexts for WLC 153 include Proverbs 2:1-5 and 8:33-36.
LikeLike
DR –
But don’t the Proverbs passages point to Christ and the free favor that comes upon those who seek him and find him? Nothing about law-keeping obligations…
LikeLike
Jack, I have to disagree with “Nothing about law-keeping obligations.”
LikeLike
Jack, I have to disagree with “Nothing about law-keeping obligations.”
Therein might be part of what I would term “problematic.” It seems that if you are reading ‘law-keeping obligations’ into those two passages, then you are also doing the same with Q. 153. I’ll paraphrase Kline, He who imports law into grace will ultimately find grace nowhere…
LikeLike
That’s an ironic “paraphrase” in view of the fact that Kline imported law (works principle) into grace.
LikeLike
Please… in view of the fact that Kline imported law (works principle) into grace?
Not.
The Mosaic Covenant is not the Covenant of Grace. So to have a works principle in the MC (it’s an administration of) doesn’t undermine the Covenant of Grace nor import law into grace. By that reasoning Owen would have to be neonomian…
LikeLike
Jack, I disagree with everything you said there.
LikeLike
David R: “Jack, I disagree with everything you said there.”
Well, at least there’s progress on one front. Boundaries are good.
LikeLike
Baby steps….
LikeLike
Questions:
If the MC is the Covenant of Grace, then the C of G is a ministration of death with a fading glory? Are the promises of the New Covenant better than those of the C of G? Is the C of G found with fault like the Old Covenant? The Old Covenat (Mosaic) sacrifices couldn’t cleanse away sin – same for the sacrifice promised in the C of G?
No works principle in the MC? So you disagree with Boston, Hodge, Owen, Berkhof, Buchanan, Olivianus, Shaw, Polanus, Perkins…………………….
LikeLike
Your first paragraph argument doesn’t follow unless the contrast involves substantial rather than administrative differences (which it doesn’t). Your last sentence is just plain incorrect (imo).
LikeLike
DR, I think you’re equivocating. I wrote that the MC is Not the C of G. You wrote that you disagree with that. Now you want to qualify? As to my last sentence – all those I listed hold that there was a covenant of works principle (in various senses) in the Mosaic covenant.
LikeLike
Jack, I’m not qualifying what I said. I’m saying you are incorrectly understanding those texts to speak of substantial differences.
LikeLike
As DGH would say, your opinion…
All I said was “The Mosaic Covenant is not the Covenant of Grace. So to have a works principle in the MC (it’s an administration of) doesn’t undermine the Covenant of Grace nor import law into grace.”
You disagree with that statement. And those theologians I listed disagree with you. My opinion… And by the way, the WCF does sort of say that the Law, i.e. the MC, was an administration of the C of G. Not that it was the same as the C of G. Distinctions…
LikeLike
David,
Still waiting for Turretin to arrive. Meanwhile, you seem to be arguing now that the standard required in the Law for land-keeping was a lesser standard than complete obedience, citing Calvin for support. But earlier you seemed to argue that the standard required in the Law was complete obedience. Can you clarify?
For my part, I find Calvin on Deut 30.11-14 to be helpful. He, as it turns out, does not argue for a lesser standard, but a standard that is met in the Gospel. That’s a profound difference.
LikeLike
Jack, how about we agree to disagree and leave it at that. We’ve both expressed our opinions.
LikeLike
Jeff,
Meanwhile, you seem to be arguing now that the standard required in the Law for land-keeping was a lesser standard than complete obedience, citing Calvin for support. But earlier you seemed to argue that the standard required in the Law was complete obedience. Can you clarify?
The standard required in the law in order to inherit eternal life is perfect (i.e., legal) obedience, to be fulfilled by Christ (“met in the gospel,” as you say below). But the standard of obedience (i.e., evangelical) accepted by God (and rewarded) from His children is obviously much less than that, right? And the latter standard is the one that Calvin (and I think Vos agrees) connects with Israel’s retention of the land.
For my part, I find Calvin on Deut 30.11-14 to be helpful. He, as it turns out, does not argue for a lesser standard, but a standard that is met in the Gospel. That’s a profound difference.
I wonder if there’s a good index somewhere for searching Calvin’s harmony of the law. It’s always a pain hunting for a particular text…. Anyway, I did find it and he’s speaking there of the standard for inheriting eternal life.
I’m gratified that this conversation moved you to order Turretin! You won’t regret it.
LikeLike
Jack,
All I said was “The Mosaic Covenant is not the Covenant of Grace….
You disagree with that statement. And those theologians I listed disagree with you.
I have a feeling this will be futile, but let’s just take Berkhof:
LikeLike
BTW, Jeff, the Pope is Catholic comment was an inside joke for those who read Karlberg’s writings during the Shepherd controversy years ago.
David, I’m still not understanding your position. How exactly do the Deut. 28 blessings and curses apply to us today?
LikeLike
Todd, if it’s okay, for the moment I’d rather stick with the question of how it applied then, as we seem to have our hands full with that one.
LikeLike
David, I though you wanted to “agree to disagree and leave it at that?”
I have no problem with the Berkhof quote, especially as he is writing in the context of a dispensationalist view vs a Reformed covenantal view. But even in this abbreviated quote he points to distinctions which he fleshes out elsewhere.
If you are saying that to disagree with you as to the nature of a works principle necessarily makes one dispensational, then you are correct, this is indeed futile. The Berkhof quote ought to be put into the context of other parts of his teaching:
At Sinai the covenant became a truly national covenant. The civil life of Israel was linked up with the covenant in such a say that the two could not be separated. In a large measure Church and Sate became one. To be in the Church was to be in the nation, and vice versa; and to leave the Chuch was to leave the nation. There was no spiritual excommunication; the ban meant cutting off by death.
The Sinaitic covenant included a service that contained a positive reminder of the strict demands of the covenant of works. The law was placed very much in the foreground, giving prominence once more to the earlier legal element. But the covenant of Sinai was not a renewal of the covenant of works; in it the law was made subservient to the covenant of grace. This is indicated already in the introduction to the ten commandments, Ex. 20:2; Deut. 5:6, and further in Rom. 3:20; Gal. 3:24. It is true that at Sinai a conditional element was added to the covenant, but it was not the salvation of the Israelite but his theocratic standing in the nation, and the enjoyment of external blessings that was made dependent on the keeping of the law, Deut. 28:1-14. The law served a twofold purpose in connection with the covenant of grace: (1) to increase the consciousness of sin, Rom. 3:20; 4:15; Gal. 3:19; and (2) to be a tutor unto Christ, Gal. 3:24.
I’m content to agree with your initial comment to agree to disagree…
LikeLike