809 thoughts on “Why Republication Matters”

1. David R., no the Paul who anathematizes anyone who says obedience is required for salvation.

   LikeLike

2. David R: Okay, I think maybe I see what the problem is. I am viewing the covenant in terms of its essence, i.e., parties, promise and condition. What you are calling an accidental works principle, I view not as something that is truly part of the covenant (substantially), but rather something that is simply the mode of dispensing the covenant. It has actual “existence” only within its own covenant, that is, the covenant of works … I don’t know, does that help?

   Dear David, this is what I’ve been arguing all along.

   LikeLike

3. David R: But the law functions pedagogically in all administrations of the CoG, not just the Mosaic.

   This sentence I didn’t understand. Wait, maybe I do. So in the OT, all three parts of the law function pedagogically; in the NT, the moral law?

   If so, I agree.

   LikeLike

4. JRC: As we unpack this, it appears that you hold to the notion that Israel was under a typological, pedagogical legal principle demanding relative corporate obedience for land retention. Yes?

   DR: Rather, I would say that the pedagogical legal principle promised eternal life on the grounds of perfect and personal obedience. There was nothing typological about it (except that the promised reward was typified by land). The same pedagogical legal principle is operative under the NT (as explained in WLC 95 and 96).

   Certainly we would be in agreement with respect to the moral law here.

   However, the principle by which the nation retained the typological inheritance via relative corporate obedience was gracious. As witnessed by Calvin, “Consequently, ‘to walk in the commandments of God,’ is not precisely equivalent to performing whatever the Law demands; but in this expression is included the indulgence with which God regards His children and pardons their faults.”

   I’m choking on “was gracious, full stop.”

   For one thing, you’ve already said several times that Deut 28-30 was a part of the legal cloak and not the gracious substance.

   For another, it’s a strange kind of grace that destroys its object. And we must not lose sight of the fact that the theocracy is ultimately destroyed.

   For a third, the text of Deut 28-30 is clearly (a) full of demand and sanction, and (b) speaking with reference to land and not eternal life.

   So how is this?

   LikeLike

5. Well, David, I should’ve just listened to RJ and let others deal with the MC. I just see you repeatedly bulldoze distinctions with your precommitments to what you see as positions we all must hold (or else!). One should read each particular historical covenant, concretely determine its agreements, conditions & consequences and only then proceed look to categories like law & grace to see how the particular covenant is best characterized. But you bring the allegedly mandatory categories in so early you don’t see the particulars, hence get tripped up when you have to account for the particulars.

   LikeLike

6. One should read each particular historical covenant, concretely determine its agreements, conditions & consequences and only then proceed look to categories like law & grace to see how the particular covenant is best characterized.

   If you’d care to demonstrate, I’m all ears.

   LikeLike

7. This sentence I didn’t understand. Wait, maybe I do. So in the OT, all three parts of the law function pedagogically; in the NT, the moral law?

   Right.

   LikeLike

8. “If you’d care to demonstrate, I’m all ears.”

   I’ve seen this conversation. It’s like when you go to bed with your head spinning, then you wake up expecting something different but it’s still spinning. I can only deal with the head spinning thing for so long. Although longer than most probably. The point is, you can’t even read Deut 28 without bulldozing it as you read it. In this case, the initial assessment of a 12 year old reading that chapter will probably be closer to the mark than yours because you’ve committed to the meaning before you’ve read the text.

   LikeLike

9. Jeff, another crown just came off the glory assembly line.

   LikeLike

10. For one thing, you’ve already said several times that Deut 28-30 was a part of the legal cloak and not the gracious substance.

    Right, but I also pointed out that the legal cloak is pedagogical (thus, not a CoW). And that for those who partake of the (gracious) substance of the covenant, the law is a rule of life.

    LikeLike

11. David,

    The a priori commitment Muddy speaks is your assumption that God cannot enter into a covenant of works with post-fall sinners. This makes you unable to read Deut. 28 and accept what it clearly says. What you have not yet demonstrated is the why. If God can bind post fall man, as you noted “to personal, perfect, and perpetual conformity and obedience thereunto…,promising life upon the fulfilling, and threatening death upon the breach of it,” to show them their inability to obey and show their need for Christ, then why can’t he also do this on the typological level for the same reason?

    LikeLike

12. Dr. Hart-

    That was precisely my point that those things were true of Adam at Creation. But only when God entered into the CoW was Adam promised reward for his obedience. At Creation Adam was capable of obeying the law perfectly, but he wasn’t promised reward because his obedience was only what was due to God as his creator. Then God entered into covenant and said: if you obey perfectly you will inherit/earn eternal life. The difference is not in what Adam was able to do but in what he would receive for doing what he was able to do.

    The need of Christ is in relation to the covenant of works. Because Adam is our federal head we are all under the covenant of works and therefore, because we cannot meet those conditions, we (Man) are all under God’s wrath. Christ, however, can and did meet the demands of the law and so those who are in the covenant of grace have his perfect righteousness and obedience imputed to them. If Adam had passed his probation then there woulddn’t have been the need for another to redeem Adam’s fallen seed: because there wouldn’t have been a fallen seed.

    So Christ merited the salvation of His people, the elect, those in the covenant of grace by meeting the demands of the CoW: which all men are under but only to the elect will Christ’s atonement be credited. I’m not sure what I said that would imply otherwise. Why did you capitalise “of Haddington”?

    LikeLike

13. Ephesians 1: 3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with EVERY spiritual blessing in the heavenly places,

    “The hireling flees, because he is an hireling, and cares not for the sheep (John 10.13).” The hireling does not become a hireling by fleeing; he flees because he is a hireling.”But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you (John 10.26).” The individual was a hireling, and consequently acted as a hireling. Sheep believe because they are sheep. They bring forth the fruit of believing after their kind.

    Those not His sheep will be rewarded, not for what they did, but for what they are (and were born being). Their deeds were but a manifestation of their nature. Their works are all fruits from a corrupt tree. “Every good tree brings forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree brings forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit (Matthew 7.16-18).”

    Revelation 22 11 Let the evildoer still do evil, and the filthy still be filthy, and the righteous still do right, and the holy still be holy.” 12 “Behold, I am coming soon, bringing my recompense with me, to repay each one for what he has done.

    Jesus Christ dos not say, “Your recompense is with me,” but “My recompense is with me.” Matthew 20:15— “Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with MINE OWN? “…Behold, his reward is with him, and his work before him (Isaiah 62.11).”

    God the Father had given all authority to Jesus to reward both sheep and goats according to their judicial standing. The works of the non-elect did not cause their condemnation; if so, we would all be condemned. Good works by God’s children do not cause their election; their election caused their good works. Humans are rewarded by God on the basis of their calling.

    Of what sort are our works? We do not work to gain assurance of our justification. We gain assurance of our justification in order to work with the proper motives of thankfulness to God, at the same time fearing God so that we know that no work of ours gives us anything extra before God because every blessing is given us by Christ’s work.

    LikeLike

14. For another, it’s a strange kind of grace that destroys its object. And we must not lose sight of the fact that the theocracy is ultimately destroyed.

    You asked me about the principle whereby they retained the land. If you asked me about the principle whereby they lost it I would give a different answer.

    LikeLike

15. Alexander, so in entering the CofW with Adam, God was gracious?

    LikeLike

16. David R., what? They lost the land by ontological merit?

    LikeLike

17. For a third, the text of Deut 28-30 is clearly (a) full of demand and sanction …

    Well, that’s the nature of law, isn’t it? But believers are delivered from it as a covenant of works.

    … and (b) speaking with reference to land and not eternal life.

    Sure, but again, that’s how the promise of eternal life was revealed in the OT.

    LikeLike

18. Alexander: “but he wasn’t promised reward because his obedience was only what was due to God as his creator. ”

    Me: This is an abstraction based on the philosophical considerations of the freedom of God and a creature’s dependency but makes a-covenantal and a-biblical presumptions as to the way/nature of the biblical God’s dealings(necessarily covenantal) and further bypasses the idea of an imago dei creation inherently crowned with sabbatical enthronement in distinction from all other creatures. The fall is likewise particular to the inherent nature of an Imago Dei creation. IOW, you’re trading on extra-biblical considerations of a transcendent deity.

    LikeLike

19. The a priori commitment Muddy speaks is your assumption that God cannot enter into a covenant of works with post-fall sinners.

    I have yet to see anyone else in this thread share your assumption that He has. Not to mention your insistence on the idea that this “covenant of works” He has entered into with sinners is the covenant of grace.

    LikeLike

20. Dr. Hart-

    Yes. Because any movement of God towards Man in Man’s favour is gracious. Otherwise, from the moment God created Man, He was in debt to Man. How can that be? How can God be in debt to anything unless He first, sovereignly, makes Himself a debtor? The two covenants are not the same; there is far more grace in the covenant of grace than in works. But remember these terms are extra-biblical. There have been numerous terms used by the Reformed for both covenants. But the substantive difference is that in the CoW Man had to justify himself; in the CoG the spiritually dead, Hell-deserving sinner- unable to justify himself- is justified by the work of another freely and graciously imputed to him.

    Sean- I recognised most of the words but have no idea what they were saying.

    LikeLike

21. D.G., you’re Santa’s little celestial helper?

    LikeLike

22. Alexander, I’m saying that you’re letting philosophical abstractions as to the nature of a transcendent god, drive too much of your formulation. The encouragement is to let the scriptures dictate our understandings.

    LikeLike

23. Sean- I recognised most of the words but have no idea what they were saying.

    It’s Kline-speak. Just nod and smile.

    LikeLike

24. I’ve seen this conversation.

    Me too. And my guess is you wouldn’t be satisfied that I’ve been “faithful to the text of Scripture” unless my conclusions involved Gordon’s “difference in kind” and Kline’s “works principle in the typological upper stratum.”

    LikeLike

25. David, at least is succinct and biblical. Some Heb 4 for the uninitiated:

    ……although his works were finished from the foundation of the world. 4 For he has somewhere spoken of the seventh day in this way: “And God rested on the seventh day from all his works.” 5 And again in this passage he said,

    “They shall not enter my rest.”
    6 Since therefore it remains for some to enter it, and those who formerly received the good news failed to enter because of disobedience, 7 again he appoints a certain day, “Today,” saying through David so long afterward, in the words already quoted,

    “Today, if you hear his voice,
    do not harden your hearts.”
    8 For if Joshua had given them rest, God[b] would not have spoken of another day later on. 9 So then, there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God, 10 for whoever has entered God’s rest has also rested from his works as God did from his.

    LikeLike

26. “I have yet to see anyone else in this thread share your assumption that He has.”

    God established a typological cov. of works with Israel as a nation for Israel to remain in the land and receive his blessings listed in Deut. 28. No one has said that? What am I missing here?

    “Not to mention your insistence on the idea that this “covenant of works” He has entered into with sinners is the covenant of grace.”

    That has never been my insistence. I said the typological cov. of works furthers the purposes of the covenant of grace.

    LikeLike

27. God established a typological cov. of works with Israel as a nation for Israel to remain in the land and receive his blessings listed in Deut. 28. No one has said that? What am I missing here?

    Well, I for one would be interested in a show of hands from those who are happy with that formulation. I wouldn’t be surprised if there were a few others. But what continues to boggle my mind is how you can affirm that while also denying that what you’re describing is substantially different from both the CoW and the CoG.

    LikeLike

28. “Well, I for one would be interested in a show of hands from those who are happy with that formulation.”

    I’d be interested in hearing why you think this is unusual? I am simply summarizing Kline – shorthand of course.

    “But what continues to boggle my mind is how you can affirm that while also denying that what you’re describing is substantially different from both the CoW and the CoG.”

    It is not substantially different from the CoW with Adam. It is the CoW utilizing typology. I thought we covered this already.

    LikeLike

29. Jeff,

    Dear David, this is what I’ve been arguing all along.

    But you had said: “You clearly believe that the grace principle and merit principle cannot coexist without two covenants.” I then responded that the works principle “has actual ‘existence’ only within its own covenant, that is, the covenant of works.”

    So are you saying that you agree with me that a grace principle and works principle can’t coexist in the same covenant? (I’m not quite clear on what you’re saying you’ve been arguing all along….)

    LikeLike

30. Some Heb 4 for the uninitiated:

    Right, the typological intrusion of heavenly realities shared by both Eden and Canaan involves holy time as well as holy space. And yes, they also both feature a works principle of inheritance, but only for the two federal heads (imo).

    LikeLike

31. Alexander, so because God hasn’t entered into a covenant with our cat, Cordelia, God is obligated to her?

    That explains much.

    LikeLike

32. David R., only ontologically.

    LikeLike

33. David R., “I’ve been faithful to Scripture.” Funny, unless I missed the Obedience Boys Authorized Version with sections of Turretin and Calvin and notes supplied by Mark Jones.

    LikeLike

34. David, which exactly makes the point, vis a vis the discussion with Alexander. And your pre-commitment to limiting even the hypothetical consideration in repub. leaves you explaining away Paul’s authoritative interpretation. At least as best as I’ve followed. I haven’t tried to keep up with every curve in the road you and Jeff have traveled.

    LikeLike

35. David R., there goes my hand.

    And there goes another indication that you haven’t had the slightest comprehension of republication. And you were a great adherent of it before your Hagar Road conversion to Kerux. Pssshaww.

    LikeLike

36. Sean, I can’t affirm or deny, as I don’t know what you mean by “the hypothetical consideration in repub.”

    LikeLike

37. David, hypothetical as in no sinner could keep it.

    LikeLike

38. Sean, I’m still not clear on what you think I’m limiting but given that I was mislabeled as a Murrayite from my first comment, I’m not surprised at what anyone here imagines my precommitments to be.

    LikeLike

39. David, fair enough. I haven’t stayed engaged the entire way through, so I don’t know every clarification you’ve made. I was primarily trading off the misinterpretation view, which you espoused to explain Paul which, last I read, was Murrayite.

    LikeLike

40. Sean, no problem. Perhaps it depends on the nature of the misinterpretation or “misconception.” I’m not familiar enough with Murray to know precisely what he was arguing against, but it’s clear enough that Reformed theologians in general have argued that Paul’s opponents mistook a gracious covenant for a legal one (as we’ve seen from Berkhof, etc.). But that doesn’t mean those same theologians didn’t understand Leviticus 18:5 to teach the righteousness of the law.

    LikeLike

41. D.G.,

    David R., there goes my hand.

    I can’t tell whether they allow poker up there on the glory crown assembly line or if you’re merely indicating assent to Todd’s view of the MC as a CoW.

    And there goes another indication that you haven’t had the slightest comprehension of republication. And you were a great adherent of it before your Hagar Road conversion to Kerux. Pssshaww.

    Since I’m unclear on the above, I’m also unclear on the cause of your additional insight into my profound ignorance; hence I can’t respond.

    LikeLike

42. David R: So are you saying that you agree with me that a grace principle and works principle can’t coexist in the same covenant? (I’m not quite clear on what you’re saying you’ve been arguing all along….)

    I’ve been arguing along that the works principle seen in the law (hence the MC) is administrative, non-substantial, typological, reflective of the CoW, pedagogical …

    How many ways need it be said?

    But no, I don’t agree with your principle as stated … Nor do you agree with yourself. On your view (and mine) the MC is one covenant, within which are a grace principle that is substantial and a works principle that is accidental (that, is the mode of administration only).

    So the principle needs tweaking before your own view can be consistent with it.

    LikeLike

43. Jeff, a few gems for the latest crown.

    LikeLike

44. JRC: … and (b) speaking with reference to land and not eternal life.

    DR: Sure, but again, that’s how the promise of eternal life was revealed in the OT.

    Along with this, you have mentioned previously that possession of Canaan was “sacramental.”

    Could you spell out carefully what your view is of land possession (and land non-possession, since that works on a different principle in your view). Would you say that land possession conveyed eternal life in a sacramental manner when partaken by faith? Are there Reformed authors that take a sacramental view?

    Thanks. For better or worse, this particular construction is new to me.

    LikeLike

45. @ DGH: OK, I’m laughing already. Is this a gentle way of saying “give it up”?

    LikeLike

46. In reaction to the Zionists and to the premills (and to Harold Camping), not many of us seem to talk much anymore about Christ’s second coming. I agree with John Fesko that there will be no more extra judgment on that resurrection day for those who are already justified. Since every blessing for those who are justified is given by Christ’s finished work, none of Christ’s sheep will get extra crowns that other of Christ’s sheep don’t get. I am not saying that glorification means that we won’t envy the difference. I am saying there will be no difference, because Christ Himself is our great reward.

    Click to access JETS_35-2_159-172_Blomberg.pdf

    JT— “reward” (which is always in the singular in the NT) refers to entering eternal life. And the greatest joy of heaven will be seeing God face to face (Rev. 22:4). Every believer longs for the
    day when “we shall be like him, because we shall see him as he is” (1 John 3:2), when we shall “enter into the joy of [our] master” (Matthew 25:21, 23). Five proof-texts reference believers receiving a “crown” (1 Cor. 9:25; 1 Thess. 2:19; 2 Tim. 4:8; James 1:12; 1 Pet. 5:4). Though it is popular to see these as different types of reward (crown of righteousness, crown of gold, crown of life, etc.) a majority of commentators believe these are different ways of referring to the one reward of eternal life.

    Christ is eternal life. Knowing Christ is eternal life. Justification in Christ results in eternal life.

    LikeLike

47. For the most part, I’ve been an observer on this debate, and pulled out my copy of TLNF to continue reading it.

    I would say that next to holding to the Reformed view of Justification, this issue is paramount for the church to grasp and understand.

    I can clearly see from this conversation why I had so much trouble being assured of my salvation through the years – it was the mixture of theology that contributed to it that was so prevalent in evangelical and Reformed circles. Also, on a corporate level with respect to churches, you can see why SO MANY REFORMED CHURCHES have gotten it wrong. They are actually in the land of Canaan again binding themselves to a contract, thinking that their piety is going to bring about God’s blessing. I sincerely wonder if this is the reason for heavy-handed discipleship and an abuse of church discipline (sin in the camp, God’s hand of blessing withdrawn until it’s dealt with). No wonder the PCA is in trouble. This would explain the reason for much of what is known as ‘discipleship’ today – it’s fear & obedience-based instead of love-based – fear of God’s wrath and displeasure on the individual and the flock, so obedience is prioritized over resting in Christ. As we rest, we are active, because we are given His desires, for others to know the Good News, and to minister to others – our family, neighbors, and fellow believers.

    Just from watching and observing on this post, I see two dynamics at work:

    – those who argue for ‘obedience’ as essential for salvation seem to me to be like I was for so many years – anxious, uncertain, unable to rest, unable to trust in Christ’s total and finished work, and are very concerned about rewards – otherwise, there would not be such a push for trying to authenticate ‘obedience’ as a biblical requirement for salvation. Among those not able to rest in Christ’s complete work, Republication is but one issue of contention among many – because of the inability to rest and trust Christ alone for salvation.

    – those who argue for complete trust in Christ’s work are already resting in it, are desirous to always be changed by Christ, and seek to honor God’s Law in the 3rd use sense, but are not troubled about their imperfect obedience, because they know that they are unable to perfect themselves, and they are also not concerned about rewards – in the sense of seeking after them, earning them, etc. Christ is truly the author and finisher of their faith.

    LikeLike

48. David,

    Given Jeff’s struggle that you have not seemed to hear what he is saying all along, and given your surprise that I describe the MC as a covenant of works when I have been calling it a typological covenant of works all along, and given your not understanding what Sean meant by it being hypothetical when we have said all along it is hypothetical even on the typological level because the Lord announced from the beginning that they would not be able to keep the conditions of the covenant and would be exiled, is it possible DGH is correct that you may not understand the view you are criticizing? Have you actually read “The Law Is Not Of Faith,” or just the critiques?

    LikeLike

49. Dr. Hart-

    What on earth are you talking about? For a start, I said God is not obligated to do anything unless He makes Himself so. Ergo, before the CoW there was no requirement to reward Adam for his obedience because it was what he owed God; after the CoW was made there was the requirement to reward Adam because God said He would reward Adam. You’ve just switched it around in your comment about your cat.

    Second, these references to your cat are just plain stupid and totally inappropriate to the matter being discussed. You need to learn to discern the difference between someone being polemical and someone trying to have a conversation. You are always on the offensive and it just gets tiring after a while. You come across as the Bayly brothers: unwilling to engage people’s questions because you assume they are doing what you typically do: just out to attack.

    Sean-

    I get your concern, but these things have to be ironed out. God is logical; faith is logical: we need to logically explicate these doctrines.

    LikeLike

50. No, Jeff, it’s a way of saying you are way more sanctified (patient) than I (as if regulars didn’t know that).

    LikeLike

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