Mark Jones wonders what is so controversial about the view that the covenant with Adam was gracious:
. . . for the sake of argument, let’s say the Mosaic covenant has a meritorious element. Does that make it a republication of the covenant of works? Not necessarily. After all, you would have to re-define the covenant of works to make it a meritorious covenant. But what if you hold to the uncontroversial view that Adam, in dependence upon the Holy Spirit, lived by faith in the Garden of Eden as he perfectly obeyed God’s law (for a time)? How is Sinai similar to that covenantal context and how is it different?
In other words, Adam was dependent on the work of grace to keep the law in a way comparable to what the Israelites experienced after the Mosaic Covenant. And as I gather from his interview (haven’t read his book yet), Jones also draws comparisons between Christ’s pursuit of holiness and the Christian’s similar endeavor. Lots of flattening in Jones’ reading of the Bible and history, though not much attention to Paul who may have provided a few reasons for not exalting every valley in redemptive history.
But surely Jones knows that his “uncontroversial” hypothesis is precisely has been contentious among confessional Reformed Protestants for as long as Norman Shepherd proposed the notion of obedient faith. In particular, Shepherd, if Cornel Venema’s review of The Call of Grace is a fair reading, had a similar habit of making the rough places of redemptive history plain:
. . . though this flattening of the covenant relationship throughout the course of history, before and after the fall, may have a superficial appeal, it has huge implications for the way we interpret the respective “work” of Adam and Christ, the second Adam. Shepherd makes clear that he rejects the traditional Reformed doctrine of a pre-lapsarian “covenant of works” that promised Adam life “upon condition of perfect obedience” (Westminster Confession of Faith, Chap. VII.ii). To say that Adam’s acceptance before God justly demanded his performance of an obligation of obedience, is, Shepherd argues, tantamount to treating the covenant relationship as though it were a contractual one, on analogy of an employer to an employee, rather than a familial one, on analogy of a father to a son (p. 39). We should recognize that God always treats human beings on the basis of his sovereign grace and promise. Just as children never “merit” their father’s favor by their good works, so human beings never “merit” God’s favor by their obedience to the covenant’s obligations. However, life in covenant with God, though not “merited,” is nonetheless obtained only by way of the obedience of faith. This means that what God required of Adam, he requires of Abraham and all believers, including Christ.
Lest this interpretation of Shepherd’s view be regarded as a misreading of his position, it should be noted that Shepherd explicitly draws a parallel between what God obliges Abraham, Christ, and all believers to do as a necessary condition for their salvation. In his description of Christ’s saving work, Shepherd uses the same language that he earlier used to describe Abraham’s faith: “His [Christ’s] was a living, active, and obedient faith that took him all the way to the cross. This faith was credited to him as righteousness” (p. 19, emphasis mine). By this language Shepherd treats Christ as though he were little more than a model believer whose obedient faith constituted the ground for his acceptance with God in the same way that Abraham’s (and any believer’s) obedient faith constituted the basis for his acceptance with God. In his zeal to identify the covenant relationship between God and man in its pre- and post-fall administrations, Shepherd leaves little room to describe Christ’s work as Mediator of the covenant in a way that honors the uniqueness, perfection and sufficiency of Christ’s accomplishment for the salvation of his people.
So we offer a warning to Jones about his flattening lest he reduce the uniqueness of Christ’s epoch-making work in contrast to Adam’s epic failure. He may want to chalk Meredith Kline’s views of Moses up to the latter’s study of the Ancient Near East. But Jones should also pay attention to the other much more significant context for his views on republication — namely, the errors of Shepherd.
Old Life 
Does any Republicationist even use the term “strict merit” for defining either Israel or Adam? If so, do they actually mean that Adam or Israel are ontologically on par with God? I can’t help but wonder if what is meant is something else entirely (if it is used), like strict obedience to every command.
LikeLike
Also, even assuming Jones is right in arguing against formal republication, does he deny that at least some of the Divines held to that position? If he realizes that some held to formal republication, then why not insist that this is clearly an intramural debate?
Finally, did Daniel have an existential crisis when he was exiled along with Israel?
LikeLike
Q.E.D.
Also – please copy
Harry Reeder
Jim Barnes
Rick Phillips
C.J. Mahaney
and the rest of the Gospel Reformation Network
on this memo……..
LikeLike
Lee Irons has an important paper called “Redefining Merit” which was one of the essays in the festschrift for Meredith Kline. In it Lee addresses the assumptions that underlie the definition of merit in Jones’ recent post that Darryl links to.
Lee’s essay: http://www.upper-register.com/papers/redefining_merit.pdf
LikeLike
But the Abrahamic covenant does have to be “flattened” with the new covenant in order to get to what the Confessions teach are the subjects of water—you can’t simply say “fulfilled in the new covenant”, you need to say “different administrations but only one covenant” . Also, you have to ignore the fact that that parents (with or without faith, before even the parents had faith) were commanded to preemptive circumcise their children in Genesis 17. A contrast between the Abrahamic covenant and the Mosaic covenant is allowed (at least in the sect of Kline which resists John Murray), but the discontinuity between the promises to Abraham and the promise of the new covenant still gets “flattened”
David Gordon—John Murray’s followers confuse: -works and faith (Norman Shepherd), since the Mosaic covenant was not primarily characterized by faith, but by works (Gal. 3:12), and, presumptively, the Sinai covenant was not different in kind from the New Covenant; and confuse the imputation of the obedience of Christ with our own personal obedience
David Gordon– The “Federal Vision” theologians like Norman Shepherd… don’t appear to have a biblical understanding of what a covenant is or whether the Bible contains more than one. Simply as a matter of intellectual integrity, theirs should be called “The Non-Federal Vision.” When they suggest that we need to do theology from a covenantal perspective, we should demand that they do the same, and candidly acknowledge that the Bible not only records a multiplicity of covenants, but also speaks of them in the plural.
Reflections on the Auburn Theology – T. David’s Page
http://www.tdgordon.net/theology/auburntheology.doc
LikeLike
Lee Irons–The covenant of works is not an ahistorical “do this and live” principle but a concrete historical administration of God’s holy kingdom in time. The covenant breach of the federal head, Adam, changes the nature of the unbeliever’s relationship to the covenant in significant ways
David Gordon—I am perfectly happy with retaining the covenant of works, by any label, because it was a historic covenant; what I am less happy with is the language of the covenant of grace, because this is a genuinely unbiblical use of biblical language; biblically, covenant is always a historic arrangement, inaugurated in space and time. Once covenant refers to an over-arching divine decree or purpose to redeem the elect in Christ, confusion Is sure to follow.
David Gordon—John Murray jettisoned the notion of distinctions of kind between the covenants. He wrote that was not “any reason for construing the Mosaic covenant in terms different from those of the Abrahamic.” Murray believed that the only relation God sustains to people is that of Redeemer. I would argue, by contrast, that God was just as surely Israel’s God when He cursed the nation as when He blessed it. The first generation of the magisterial Reformers would have emphasized discontinuity; they believed that Rome retained too much continuity with the levitical aspects of the Sinai administration
David Gordon–When Paul and the other NT writers use the word covenant, there is almost always an immediate contextual clue to which biblical covenant is being referred to, such as “the covenant of circumcision” (Acts 7:8) The New Testament writers were not mono-covenantal regarding the Old Testament (see Rom 9:4, Eph 2:12; Gal 4:24).
LikeLike
Also, even assuming Jones is right in arguing against formal republication, does he deny that at least some of the Divines held to that position? If he realizes that some held to formal republication, then why not insist that this is clearly an intramural debate?
That’s actually a different debate. Formal repub has in view the original CoW, not temporal blessings on the condition of relative corporate obedience.
LikeLike
Charles Hodge: “It is to be remembered that there were two covenants made with Abraham. By the one, his natural descendants through Isaac were constituted a commonwealth, an external, visible community. By the other, his spiritual descendants were constituted a church. The parties to the former covenant were God and the nation; to the other, God and His true people. The promises of the national covenant were national blessings; the promises of the spiritual covenant (i.e., the covenant of grace), were spiritual blessings, reconciliation, holiness, and eternal life.”
from David Gordon’s chapter in The Law Is Not Of Faith— It was necessary for there to be a covenant that, at a minimum, preserved two things: memory of the gracious promises made to Abraham and his “seed,” and the biological integrity of the “seed” itself. Sinai’s dietary laws and prohibitions against inter-marrying with the Gentiles, along with Sinai’s calendar and its circumcision, set Abraham’s descendants apart from the Gentiles, “saving” them (in some degree) from their desire to inter-marry with the Am ha-Aretz until the time came to do away with such a designation forever. Such a covenant would need, by the harshest threats of curse-sanctions, to prevent inter-marriage and idolatry among a people particularly attracted to both. Sinai’s thunders did not prevent this perfectly, but they did so sufficiently that a people still existed on earth who recalled the promises to Abraham when Christ appeared, and the genealogy of Matthew’s gospel could be written.
Click to access abraham_and_sinai_contraste.pdf
LikeLike
David R.,
He isn’t addressing formal republication?
“Thus, material republication of the moral law should not raise any eyebrows. And critics of republication are not (as far as I am aware) taking issue with “material republication.” It has a strong historical precedent. I have certainly never denied that in my own published writings on the topic.
Formal republication is quite another thing, however. But if someone is prepared to affirm “formal” or “material” republication, they also need to explain in what sense the New Covenant may also be or not be a “formal” or “material” republication of the covenant of works.”
LikeLike
Lee Irons (from his merit essay) —We must begin by questioning the doctrine of the the absolute power of God as it was formulated by the nominalists. God’s freedom must be maintained, but not at the expense of the divine perfections (i.e., wisdom, goodness, justice, holiness, truth, and rationality). God does not act arbitrarily, for all his actions are expressive of and delimited by his attributes
Lee Irons–A covenant is the revelation of God’s justice. It follows, therefore, that Kline must reject the distinction between condign and congruous merit. The problem with this distinction is that congruous ex pacto merit becomes gracious when it is placed by way of contrast beneath condign merit as something less than full and real merit. Thus, grace inevitably enters the definition of congruous merit.
OPC Report on Justification– Federal Vision proponents have argued that Phillippians 2:9 rules out the notion of merit in regard to Christ’s obedience, because Paul uses the word echarisato, which etymologically derives from the word for “grace,” charis, to describe God’s giving the name above every name to Christ. This indicates, they claim, that the Father exalted the Son not meritoriously but graciously.
OPC report—This argument as it stands fails,. The context of Phil 2:5- 11 shows that MERIT CANNOT BE ELIMINATED from Paul’s teaching here. The context is one of “work rendered and value received.” The Father exalted the Son because the Son perfectly fulfilled his course of obedience. The Son obeyed, therefore the Father exalted Him.
LikeLike
Joel,
He isn’t addressing formal republication?
He does address it, but I had thought that in your first comment you were characterizing the contemporary debate as one between material vs. formal republication of the CoW. I was pointing out that this would be a mischaracterization, as the contemporary debate is a different one. If you read a little further you’ll get to this:
“Retaining temporal promises in Canaan based on imperfect, meritorious obedience is not republication. The conditions and promises are fundamentally different. What Kline does is something altogether different than what even John Owen and others did. Readers should note that Klinean covenant theology is not really classical Reformed ‘republicationism.’ Talk of historical precedent is not all that relevant, as surprising as that may sound.”
LikeLike
….and who says ‘I didn’t know whether to laugh or cry.’ when referring to an opponent’s arguments?
Strikes me as arrogant jerkery… but it might also be related to having pietistic feelings about everything (including opinions about yourself).
LikeLike
Or it could just mean he didn’t know whether to laugh or cry.
LikeLike
Can’t get the interview to play. Wah. It knows I’ll hurt it.
LikeLike
David R., I think you make my point for me. He is using this disagreement about merit to attack all views of formal republication. I don’t think that a concern for a correct view of merit is driving this debate, but a desire to drive out any formal republication at all. That was the original premise of the anti-republicationists, iirc. It makes the world safe for Shepherd.
LikeLike
Markmc, Gordon claimed that Murray would not comment on Galatians 3-4, positing that this Scripture could not fit in Murray’s decided views.
Is it true that nothing exists on these vital chapters from Murray?
LikeLike
Joel,
David R., I think you make my point for me. He is using this disagreement about merit to attack all views of formal republication.
But the point is that the Klinean view is not formal republication.
LikeLike
@ Kent: I don’t think that’s correct. Murray did lectures on Galatians, and they are available. here, in fact.
LikeLike
Thanks Jeff, and I mean Gal 3-4, that stumbling block to those who deny Republication
LikeLike
David R.,
Kline’s view has some open questions, and I still am looking for some answers for those as well. However, doesn’t it seem that Jones and most others are throwing out formal republication and some are throwing out material republication along with Kline’s view? I get that you think most views are okay with the exception of Kline, but are you going where Jones is?
In fact, I heard a guest sermon by a seminary prof last week making a broad accusation against republicationists. Why didn’t he get the memo that material republication is required by Westminster, and that many views of formal republication are consistent with Westminster? Really, we aren’t talking about republication at all anymore (the anti-republicationists have lost that battle, because it has been demonstrated that they have to affirm at least a material republication), the only point up for debate is Kline’s understanding of merit. He probably didn’t get the memo because there really are a bunch of folks who are upset with any republication in Moses.
LikeLike
David R., I frankly have no interest in your (pietistic) opinions… Just sayin’.
LikeLike
Joel, as far as material republication goes, everyone affirms it so far as I know.
LikeLike
DGH: consistency between faith and politics or church and the public square lands you in one of two places. The first makes society Christian and leaves no room for the un-Christian . Here society must conform to God’s law, a demand that is seriously at odds with the United States’ founding as well as the experience of Jesus and the apostles. The second makes Christianity conform to society (as in liberal Christianity) and regards non-Christians as Christian as long as they conform to Christian behavior. Both places feature the Christian moral code as essential to Christianity.
https://oldlife.org/2013/06/consistency-is-the-hobgoblin-of-christianity/
LikeLike
Venema—In his description of Christ’s saving work, Norman Shepherd uses the same language that he earlier used to describe Abraham’s faith: “Christ’s was a living, active, and obedient faith that took him all the way to the cross. This faith was credited to him as righteousness”. By this language Shepherd treats Christ as though he were little more than a model believer whose obedient faith constituted the ground for his acceptance with God in the same way that any believer’s obedient faith constituted the basis for his acceptance with God.
Mark Jones also writes as if Jesus Christ is the “first Christian” — My confidence arises from the fact that I know and trust the greatest believer who ever lived….Because he kept his Father’s commandments, he remained in his Father’s love ….Because his Father loved him, Christ received assurances of his messianic calling throughout his ministry, particularly at his Baptism and the Transfiguration
http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2014/07/north-texas-conference-on-assu.php#sthash.TWTYdoM5.dpuf
LikeLike
Mark Jones—Adam’s unbelief – the first sin he committed – was rectified by Christ’s belief! Christ’s assurance provides the ground for our own assurance.
Mark McCulley–Why look to Christ’s death (with resurrection) as the righteousness which satisfies God’s law when you could be looking at Christ’s faith? Should we be looking to Christ’s past faith or Christ’s future faith?
Matt Perman: “God’s law defines what is righteous and what is sinful. That which conforms to the law is righteous, that which violates the law is sinful. Since faith in Christ is not a “work of the law,” it must follow that faith in Christ as Savior is not commanded in that moral standard. Faith is not a requirement of the law but of the gospel. This means that faith in Christ is not a morally virtuous thing (as loving our neighbor, telling the truth, etc. are), for virtue is that which accords with God’s law. But gospel faith is not commanded by the law, and so is not a virtuous entity.”
Matt Perman–“What do we make of Romans 14:23 that “whatever is not of faith is sin”? …It seems best to understand Paul as using faith in a broader sense than he does in Romans 3 and 4. By faith in 14:23 Paul means the belief that a certain behavior is right. Paul is not using faith in the sense of believing in Christ for salvation. But even if Paul were speaking of saving faith in Romans 14, it would not follow that faith and obedience are the same thing. Paul is simply saying that what is not from faith is sin; Paul is not saying that anything which is not faith is sin.”
Douglas J. Moo, “Law, Works of the Law, and Legalism in Paul,” Westminster Theological Journal, Vol 45, 1983, p. 95)—The use of erga in Romans 4 instead of ta erga tou nomou is undoubtedly to be explained by recalling that Paul generally confines nomos to the Mosaic law; a law which could not therefore have had relevance to Abraham. But what is especially relevant to the present argument is that erga in the two chapters must, if Paul’s argument is to possess any logical force, mean the same thing. Thus, the general usage of the two expressions, when considered in light of Romans 3-4, suggests that ta erga tou nomou should be viewed as a particular subset of erga, the difference being, of course, that the former spells out the source of the demand for the works in question.
Does flattening faith with obedience (as Mark Jones does) make for a better soundbite?
http://www.oocities.org/mattperman/romans45.html
LikeLike
In his introduction to the second edition of Gaffin’s By Faith, not by Sight, Mark Jones suggests that anybody who has a different order of salvation than Gaffin is antinomian.
Mark Jones– “The position that faith followed (imputation) was not typical of Reformed thought in his day but rather was associated with antinomianism.”.
Mark Jones—“Any view that posits faith as a consequence of imputation (John Cotton) is not the typical Reformed position.”
Mark Jones—“The Lutheran view that justification precedes sanctification..ends up attributing to justification a renovative transformative element.”
McMark—yes, that’s the same accusation which Tipton made. Mark Jones is dogmatic that “union” precedes imputation, and that “faith” precedes “union”. Does that not end up attributing to “union” a renovative transformative element? Does that not end up attributing to “faith” a renovative transformative element? Is the atonement imputed to us on the basis of the Spirit’s work of giving us faith?
Scott Clark on faith as a “power”—-The English noun “virtue” is derived from the Latin noun ” the root sense of which is “power.” To speak of faith “as a virtue” tends to cause folk to locate the power of faith in faith itself.
WCF 8.6: Although the work of redemption was not actually wrought by Christ till after his incarnation, yet the virtue, efficacy, and benefits thereof were communicated unto the elect….
WCF 13.1 .–They who are effectually called and regenerated, having a new heart and a new spirit created in them…through the virtue of Christ’s death and resurrection
2 Peter 1:5 is to the point here: For this very reason, make every effort to supplement your faith with virtue (αρετη), and virtue with knowledge….
Scott Clark: Neither the Three Forms nor the Westminster Standards speak of faith as a “virtue.”
WCF 14.1 The grace of faith, whereby the elect are enabled to believe…. is the work of the Spirit of Christ in their hearts,
Scott Clark—There is nothing intrinsic to faith that makes it powerful. The mystery of faith is that it is, in itself, empty. It is a sign of our perversity that we continually try to fill faith with something other than “Christ for us.” We want to make the power of faith to be faith itself or Spirit-wrought sanctity or something else beside Christ.
:
Those whom God effectually calls, he also freely justifies: not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous; not for anything wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ’s sake alone; nor by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness; but by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto them, they receiving and resting on him and his righteousness, by faith; which faith they have not of themselves, it is the gift of God.
Scott Clark–Faith does not justify because it is “formed by love,” i.e. made powerful by Spirit-wrought sanctity.
http://heidelblog.net/2014/06/is-faith-a-virtue-
LikeLike
Lee Irons is correct to warn about the dangers of the confessional suggestion of grace in “the covenant of works”. If we say that there was grace for Adam to keep the law (though he didn’t), we will end up saying that there was grace for Christ to keep the law. And that could well end up teaching us that the gospel is about us having (enough) grace to have (enough faith) to keep the law (enough). Mark Jones draws some very provocativve comparisons between Christ’s pursuit of holiness and the Christian’s similar endeavor.
Matt Perman—Since works of the law are not faith (Romans 3:28) and whatever is not faith is sin, many theologians (like Dan Fuller) generally conclude that works of the law are therefore sin. They argue that “works of the law” refers not just to sin in general, but rather to a specific kind of sin–the sin of trying to earn from God. They often point to Romans 4:6: “to the one who works his wage is not reckoned as a favor but as what is due.” From this passage they infer that “works of the law”–are things that are done in our own strength with a view to earning merit from God in the sense of doing God a favor such that God is obligated to return the favor.
Faith can be referred to as obedience in the sense that when we believe in Christ we are doing what God tells us to. Thus is why the Scriptures sometimes speak of “obeying the gospel.” But “doing what God tells us to do” is not the definition of obedience to the law. Moral obedience does not simply mean “doing what God says” but doing what is virtuous. Faith in the gospel is not love for our neighbor.
Romans 9:11-12 …for though the twins were not yet born, and had not done anything GOOD OR BAD, in order that God’s purpose according to His choice might stand, not because of works, but because of Him who calls, it was said to her, ‘the older will serve the younger.’”
“Anything good or bad” explains the term “works.” Consequently, “works” are “anything we do, whether good or bad.” Works are not simply acts one does without faith or to put God in one’s debt. Rather, “works” is a term used to refer to human behavior in general. This behavior can then be classified as either obedience or disobedience.
Since faith in Christ is not a “work of the law,” it must follow that faith in Christ as Savior is not commanded in that moral standard. Faith is not a requirement of the law but of the gospel. This means that faith in Christ is not a morally virtuous thing (like telling the truth, etc), for virtue is that which accords with God’s moral law. Gospel faith is not commanded by the law, and so faith is not a virtue.”
http://www.oocities.org/mattperman/romans45.html
LikeLike
this discussion, and the Reformed positions on Republication recall to mind our Savior’s promise …..”and you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.”
John 8:32
LikeLike
I have been reading Mark Jones’s stuff and the various responses to it, and what I find is a great deal of unhelpful circular reasoning. Without reference to who said what in the history of the debate, I’m of the view that both Adam and Israel were placed into a relationship with God on the basis of grace – ‘God placed the man in the garden’, Israel was redeemed from the house of bondage. They were both, however, given covenants that required obedience to remain in the grace they had been given. That, in my humble opinion, is where Republication comes in. The covenant/s are not a means of attaining life, for that was already bestowed by virtue of the relationship. The covenants could only introduce one thing, death. Adam and Israel could not ‘earn’ eternal life, but they could lose it. So the Law could not grant life to Christ, He already had that, but had He failed to keep the Law (in theory only), He would have been condemned along with all other Israelites. His resurrection is evidence that the Law could not condemn Him, because He kept it perfectly. Jones is on dangerous ground when he suggests that Jesus lived by faith, Jesus is the object of faith that gives life. He cannot believe in Himself for life, it was His works that were rewarded.
I think, though, for Jones and other republication deniers, the Law was gracious because Israel was given many ‘2nd chances’ whereas Adam only had one bite of the fruit. This is poor reading of the narrative. After the Law was given Israel’s apostasy was met with God’s wrath, and when Moses attempted to atone, God’s response was plain – ‘whoever has sinned against me I will remove from my book’. So Israel was also on a ‘one strike and you’re out’ basis. The fact that God was ‘long-suffering’ simply meant that there was delayed judgment – just like Adam who lived hundreds of years after his death sentence.
In short, works were a requirement for staying in, not getting in. Abraham was unconditionally in, particularly after the oath (Heb 6:17). We, who have faith in Christ, as Abraham did, are saved permanently, we do not stay in by our works, and this is what this burgeoning community of neonomians must learn before the whole Reformation project hits the rocks.
LikeLike
The focus of Mark Jones in arguing for a “gracious works covenant” with Adam is not that mistakes could be made but that Adam needed “grace” to keep it. Thus Jones equates faith with doing the law. This bleeds over into the question of the Christ’s merits. Did Christ need “grace to keep the law? Is us having faith the same as Christ keeping the law?
But grace is for sinners.
Mike Horton—In the federalism of the Westminster Standards on this point, the divines speak of God’s relationship to Adam in terms of “voluntary condescension.” However, this is not the same as grace; a term that would have been used if that is what was intended. The divines knew exactly what they were doing (and Ursinus defended every one of their points before the Assembly ever met). “Voluntary condescension” is hardly grace. Why is that so? In the first place, the former simply means that God was not compelled by any necessity to create: it was a free act. Second, by pronouncing his benediction (“It is very good,” not just “good”), God was approving Adam’s standing. But upon what basis was Adam currently acceptable before God? On precisely that basis indicated by the benediction: his intrinsic worthiness as a loyal son and servant.
Third, to conflate “voluntary condescension” and “grace” is to empty grace of its most precious scriptural meaning. Scripture nowhere speaks of this relationship as gracious, and with good reason: grace happens to sinners. Friendship, condescension, familiarity, goodness: these in no way entail graciousness on God’s part, since the relationship was not yet marred by sin. Grace is not treated in scripture as merely unmerited favor, but as demerited favor, God’s favor toward sinners despite their having deserved the very opposite. In that sense, grace and mercy are interchangeable terms, just as the “covenant of grace” has sometimes been called the “covenant of mercy.” God cannot be regarded as gracious or merciful to creatures who as yet do not deserve otherwise,. “Goodness” and “condescension” are not equivalent to grace and mercy. http://spindleworks.com/library/CR/horton.htm
LikeLike
Well said Mark. If Adam had God’s grace it wasn’t very effective. Same could be said for Israel. Certainly God acted kindly to both Adam and Israel, but their respective destinies would not rely on God’s grace, but upon their obedience. Your right when you mention the confusion between grace and mercy, everyone gets grace, but only the elect get mercy. And what a scandal it becomes if Jones is prepared to say that Jesus kept the Law by grace!
Blessings,
Martin
LikeLike
Brothers, Fathers, and especially David R, it is now time for a QUIZ. Here are the rules. There will be three panels of quotations from Reformed notables on three different topics.
* Identify the source. You may use the Interweb thingy.
* What similarities and differences can be seen in each panel?
* What do we learn about the Reformed faith from the quotations?
Your quizzes will be graded according to whim, except for David’s, which will be graded according to strict merit.
Panel 1: The Structure of the Mosaic Covenant
First quote:
Second quote:
Third quote:
Fourth quote:
LikeLike
Panel 2: The Necessity of Good Works
First quote:
Second quote:
Third quote:
LikeLike
Panel 3: Merit
First quote:
Second quote:
Third quote:
Fourth quote:
LikeLike
This sounds fun Jeff, I’ll bite:
Panel 1, Quote 1: Charles Hodge Systematic Theology, II.7
Panel 1, Quote 2: D. Patrick Ramsey, concluding remarks of his essay “In Defense of Moses: A Confessional Critique of Kline and Karlberg”
Panel 1, Quote 3: Francis Turretin Institutes of Elentic Theology,II.202
Panel 1, Quote 4: Meredith G. Kline, “Gospel until the Law: Rom 5:13-14 and the Old Covenant” JETS 34 (1991): 433-446.
Panel 2, Quote 1: John Ball A Treatise of the Covenant of Grace Ch. III “Of the Covenant of Grace in General”
Panel 2, Quote 2: A.A. Hodge Outlines of Theology XXXII.16
Panel 2, Quote 3: Zacharius Ursinus Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism Q. 91 V.III.3
Panel 3, Quote 1: Francis Turretin Institutes of Elentic Theology XII.3.6
Panel 3, Quote 2: A.A. Hodge XXXII.18
Panel 3, Quote 3 James T. Dennison, Jr., Scott F. Sanborn, Benjamin W. Swinburnson Kerux [K:NWTS 24/3 (Dec 2009) 3-152] “Merit or ‘Entitlement’ in Reformed Covenant Theology: A Review”
Panel 3, Quote 4: Zacharius Ursinus Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism Q. 91 VI.11
I have stayed out of these discussions on republication for the most part, but I have followed them very closely. I greatly appreciate your comments, it has really helped to solidify the issue for me.
BTW Do I get extra credit for typing this on my iPad? My Bluetooth keyboard ran out of batteries.
LikeLike
Jeff,
I’ll get to the other questions after a good night sleep. I’d be interested what David R. thinks about these quotes.
LikeLike
20/20 so far, +1 for iPad submission.
LikeLike
Bill Evans— covenantalism has led to extrinsic views of solidarity in sin and salvation in which the unity and concreteness of salvation in Christ has been obscured. Instead, salvation has often been understood more abstractly as on the basis of what Christ has done.
Bill Evans—Notions of “federal” or “covenantal” or “legal” unions with Christ and Adam provided a conceptual apparatus for articulating nominal or extrinsic relationships between Adam and humanity and between Christ and the Christian. By the 19th century this extrinsicism was so ingrained in the tradition that later federalists such as Charles Hodge, William Cunningham, and Louis Berkhof were taking Calvin to task for his view of union with Christ,..
http://theecclesialcalvinist.wordpress.com/2013/08/09/lets-rethink-this-covenant-issue-shall-we/
Evans and Jones teach that faith is a condition of what they they call “union”. What they call “union” is a condition for what they call “justification”, a view in which justification continues to have “not-yet” aspects, so that final justification is conditioned on continuing works of faith.
Evans and Jones insist on faith before “union”, and “union” before “imputation”. But if their logic holds, “union” also has “not-yet aspects”, which are conditioned on the “not yet” aspects of faith. (continuing faith, faith after faith) Thus they end up with an incomplete union and an incomplete justification. First, they say that all of God’s saving acts depend on “union”, and then they contradict that by saying that “union” depends on faith.
Does faith also depend on “union”? Or does “union” depend on faith” While Evans and Jones never clearly define “union”, it seems like they think that we receive the “personal presence” of Christ inside us BEFORE we receive by imputation the benefit of Christ’s finished work outside of us. In other words, their claim is that we must obtain possession of Christ as a person before God will impute Christ’s righteousness to us. Despite their focus on the priority of redemptive history, Evans and Jones are not clear about if or how “union” changed between the old covenant economies and the incarnation of Christ.
First they float the “flat” idea that an order of application is not important, because we need instead to focus on redemptive historical change . But it turns out that their idea of covenantal change means that everybody must agree to an order in which faith is before “union” and “union” is before imputation.
LikeLike
@ Mark: You are suggesting, with cause, that the union emphasis is a part of the neonomian package, perhaps through the Osiandrian mechanism: God justifies us because He has first changed us in union with Himself. But I don’t sense that Evans is at that place.
It is interesting to me, however, that it is not merely Hodge (A.A.) who places imputation as the ground of union, but Ursinus also, as (of all things!) David R once pointed out to me. So Evans is not fully correct here to suggest that “Instead, salvation has often been understood more abstractly as on the basis of what Christ has done” as a phenomenon that accelerates towards the 19th century. Ursinus harps on (in a pleasant way) about the “merits of Christ” being imputed to us.
But on the larger point of “solidarity in sin and solidarity in salvation”, I could get on board with that … with the proper forensic qualifications.
LikeLike
Click to access officer-training-manual.pdf
Dear Friends – Is this (above) an example of ‘flattening’ – as it relates to leadership training? – J. Gresham Machen is not listed in the history of the PCA – let me know what you think. As for me, I couldn’t do this severe type of leadership. Look over it at your leisure and share your thoughts as you so desire.
LikeLike
Semper,
That church history outline was interesting to browse through. Whoever wrote the outline was selective in choosing the important events. That can be revealing. The recommended reading list near the end of the post was revealing to. It has obedience boys written all over it.
LikeLike
John,
Amazing, isn’t it? The tone of the document was written much like an office memo – stern dictum – very militaristic………top-down authority giving the orders. I didn’t see much love, compassion, and grace in it, and the history was, as you said, selective, and at times actually seemed to be giving a nod to some not-so-good influences (as confessionals see it). This seems to where all the ‘flattening’ and ‘anti-repub’ influences play out. Hopefully, in time, people will raise questions, interpret all of the extraneous and superfluous material with scripture/compare it to the early Reformers, and change will come to the PCA.
LikeLike
Certainly it would not be wise to suggest that those who take sides with Gaffin on “union” are identical in what they teach about imputation-priority. And of course even most of those with justification priority continue to put faith before God’s imputation. Bruce McCormack shows us how this worked out in the case of John Calvin in his essay in What’s At Stake in Justification. The focus of Evans on “sacramental union” is there in Calvin, and I think McCormack is correct in his arguments that this results in inconsistency. Calvin denied the Osiander equation of personal indwelling with the righteousness, but what Calvin continued to teach about sacramental indwelling gave priority to the work of the Spirit.
Greg Beale, Westminster Seminary Philadelphia, New Testament Biblical Theology, p 516—(My) view is compatible with Snodgrass–”Justification by Grace–to the Doers:An Analysis of the Place of Romans 2 in the Theology of Paul…Snodgrass holds that justification excludes ‘legalistic works’ done to earn justification but includes an evaluation of IMPERFECT works done by us through the Spirit…
mark: Does being “united” to Christ mean that the distinction between promise and demand is removed in such a way that those justified still need to be justified by the instrumentality of works done after one is justified? Now that we are “united” to Christ, Is the promise of the gospel still different from the demand of the law that we do what God says to do in order to stay “united” to Christ or to be “more united” to Christ?
LikeLike
Does faith also depend on “union”? Or does “union” depend on faith”? Has “union” changed between the old covenant economies and the incarnation of Christ?
1, Is faith the righteousness, or is the obedience of Christ even to death (outside us) the righteousness?
2, Are we the imputers, or is God the imputer?
Two non-confessional views of justification are held by many “Reformed” people. The first (compatible with Osiander) view is that faith really pleases God so that God forgets the believer’ sins. The curse for sin is not a judge passing a death sentence or an offended king showing his wrath, but a father letting his wayward son learn the hard lesson, so that the son will finally give up on himself, remember the father’s goodness, and come home. The acts of salvation in history are therefore God’s means of reminding men his mercy, of which the death of Christ is the supreme revelation. In this view, the one and only sin becomes unbelief of the “offer” of the gospel.
The second non-confessional view is that faith “appropriates” the presence of Christ and that results in the death of Christ covering believers from God’s judgment. In the Passover: the elect themselves applied the blood of the lamb to their houses and escaped the plague of death. In this view, “Christ is dead for you”, and the death of Christ is sufficient enough to make an offer but not enough to cover any sin, unless one first appropriates by faith “union with Christ” to themselves.
I am not saying that either of these views deny the fact that God’s election decided for whom Christ would die. I am saying that the atonement does not have decisive priority in these two false narratives. In both views, faith becomes the condition of “union” and “union” the condition of imputation. Since we are the ones who believe ( I agree with human agency in faith), these views make us the one who impute the righteousness to ourselves. And for all practical purposes, this makes faith our saving righteousness. .In the case of Gaffin and Jones, this makes future works of faith our saving righteousness—I am united to the risen Christ and the same gracious power which enabled him to obey will also enable me to obey.
What’s the difference, Jeff, between “nomist” and “neonomian”? What’s new (not flat) and changed about now? Is it that we have a new ability to obey? is it that we in the new covenant are “united to Christ” and they were not back before the resurrection? I am still looking for an answer to that question from the “unionists”
LikeLike
Semper,
That list of deacons and elders under consideration and invited to the seminar brought back visions of being sucked into the Borg. Of course, they think the same of the grace boys. The question to answer is who’s dogma is more faithful to the Gospel? How do we clarify what the Gospel is?
LikeLike
Jeff,
Thanks for those quote selections (and to Jed for the ID work). Here are some thoughts on your first panel….
The Structure of the MC:
Similarities: They are all dealing with the obvious complexity of the MC in terms of its revelation of law and gospel, as well as the various ways it is viewed in the NT.
Differences: Turretin uses scholastic distinctions, Hodge abandons them, Kline misreads them, Dennison calls for a return to them.
The selection of quotes is interesting because it displays a sort of line of descent. In my opinion, Hodge follows Turretin, but abandons his scholastic distinctions. One consequence of this is that this passage in Hodge is somewhat ambiguous. What Kline appears to mean by “classic covenant theology” is his own rather idiosyncratic (mis)reading of this particular passage from Hodge (he cites it in footnotes on several occasions). (Okay, just my opinion, folks….) Dennison calls out Kline’s mistake and pleads for a return to Turretin’s helpful and dare-I-say necessary distinctions (e.g., substance/administration).
LikeLike
David R., have you heard of Paul? (His last name is not Kline?)
LikeLike
This going-nowhere stuff is on TWO threads now?
There’s hope this can reach a top ten performance from the “other team”
LikeLike
D.G., I’m not sure what you want. Paul teaches that the law was a pedagogue to Christ, exposing sin, revealing the law’s demand, man’s debt and consequent liability to God’s wrath and curse. This explains his so called “negative assessment.” Likewise he teaches that the gospel was hidden under a veil and that the Jews were hardened and devised a false covenant of works for their salvation.
LikeLike
David R: 2/5 for you according to strict merit.
Similarities: They are all dealing with the obvious complexity of the MC in terms of its revelation of law and gospel, as well as the various ways it is viewed in the NT.
Close enough. Ramsey here exhibits no complexity, but he does *somewhat* address the complexity in the article, before flattening that complexity out.
Differences: Turretin uses scholastic distinctions, Hodge abandons them, Kline misreads them, Dennison calls for a return to them.
Turretin: Yes.
Hodge: No. This is possibly true but is an unsupported answer — on what ground do we see that Hodge is abandoning the scholastic distinctions? Why would Hodge, a scholars’ scholar, do so, and in what way? You must account for the obvious similarity to Turretin before flatly asserting difference.
Kline: No. The question called for analysis, not evaluation. What does Kline *say*, not “What do you think about what Kline said”?
Ramsey: No. He makes no mention of a return to scholastic distinctions, either in the quote or the article from which it comes.
LikeLike
Oops, somehow I didn’t see Ramsey in there. I’ll have to take another look….
LikeLike
Ah, okay, I was thinking the Ramsey quote was from Dennison.
LikeLike
Where does Paul teach that the Israelites devised a false covenant of works?
Some Paul perspective from David VanDrunen, ISRAEL’S RECAPITULATION OF ADAM’S PROBATION UNDER THE LAW OF MOSES, WTJ 73 (2011): 303-24
In Gal 3:10 Paul says that those who are of the “works of the law”32 are under a
curse, and proves it by quoting Deut 27:26: “Cursed be everyone who does not
abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.” Paul follows the
LXX in adding the word “all” to the Hebrew text of Deuteronomy, hence
emphasizing the entirety of the obedience that the Mosaic law demands. For this
verse to prove his point (that all people who are under the law are also under a
curse), Paul must be working with an implied premise: no one actually keeps the
law perfectly.33 In light of Paul’s view of human depravity outside of Christ, presented
explicitly in later epistles (e.g., Rom 3:9-21; 8:7-8), this implied premise is
eminently Pauline. The apostle expands his point in the following verses. In 3:11
he quotes Hab 2:4 (“the righteous shall live by faith”) to show that no one can be
justified by the law. The law, he adds in 3:12, “is not of faith.” He proves this claim
by quoting again from the law, this time Lev 18:5: “The one who does them shall
live by them.” While faith promises life by believing, the law promises life by
doing.34 Paul’s larger point in Gal 3:10-12, therefore, is that the Mosaic law
demands perfect obedience, promising life, but that it inevitably brings a curse
because sinful human beings disobey it. Paul echoes these sentiments in Gal
5:2-4, where he says that those seeking to be justified by the law are “obligated to
keep the whole law”—a strong demand for perfect obedience35—and find no
benefit from Christ. In context, Paul obviously does not consider this a viable
option, but one that ends inevitably in failure.
Footnote 32 – I take “works of the law” as a reference to the Mosaic law as a whole. For defense of this position, see… [lists many reference sources]
In the previous paragraph I have used footnotes to acknowledge interpreters
(many of them commonly associated with the so-called New Perspective on
Paul) who take a different view of Gal 3:10-12 and 5:3 and deny that Paul is really
setting up a contrast between faith and obedience to the law and teaching that
the law requires perfect obedience. At this point I note briefly that a number of
recent Reformed commentators acknowledge that Paul is sharply contrasting
faith and works of the law in these and parallel passages, yet deny that the Mosaic
law itself can be contrasted with faith (in this sense adopting a similar conclusion
to many New Perspective advocates). Instead, these Reformed commentators
believe that when Paul quotes Lev 18:5 or refers otherwise to the law so as to
contrast it with faith he thinks not of the Mosaic law itself but of the law as misinterpreted
in a legalistic way by his Jewish contemporaries.36 In my judgment this
line of interpretation should also be rejected.37 That Paul dealt with people
whom he judged to have misinterpreted the purposes of the Mosaic law is
unquestionable, but that the law itself stood in contrast to faith, at least in certain
respects, was Paul’s own view. That Paul would concede the interpretation of Lev
18:5 to legalistic Judaizers both in Gal 3:12 and Rom 10:5 (where he introduces
his quote by saying, “Moses writes” about the righteousness of the law) is farfetched.
Furthermore, in Gal 3:19 Paul asks a rhetorical question, understandable
in light of the contrast of law and faith in previous verses: “Why then the
law?” His explanation in 3:19-4:7 is that God’s own purpose in giving the Mosaic
law was to keep his people imprisoned under sin for a time, a condition from
which Christ released those who believe in him. In this same section of Galatians
Paul speaks of Christ himself being “born under the law, to redeem those who
were under the law” (4:4-5), which must be speaking of the Mosaic law in the
light of preceding verses. As Israel was under the Mosaic law so Christ came
under the Mosaic law. Yet Paul could hardly have been asserting that Christ,
whom he says elsewhere “knew no sin” (2 Cor 5:21), lived under a subjective
misinterpretation of the law. Both Christ and the Israelites came “under the law”
in an objective sense that reflected God’s own purposes in giving it—but where
the Israelites failed Christ prevailed.
(pp 316-18)
LikeLike
@ David: Despite my high-handed tone, I really am trying to continue conversation here. This is an attempt to get us out of imputing desired meaning to the texts that come our way. So bear with my “grading.”
LikeLike
Thanks, Jack—the DVD essay is important because it shows us how we can avoid saying “the covenant” when we should say “the Mosaic covenant”, or “the law” when we should say “the Mosaic law”, and yet at the same time make the point that failure under the Mosaic covenant is but an example of all our sins, no matter where and when we sin in history. We don’t have to flatten redemptive history to insist on one need and one gospel solution. The Mosaic law was a temporary “schoolmaster” leading to the new age in which Christ the object of faith has become incarnate, died and rose again.
David Van Drunnen: “Justification is indeed ultimately NOT about whether a person is under the Mosaic law as a member of corporate Israel, but about whether a person is under the federal headship of the first Adam or the last Adam. But insofar as one of the chief divine purposes for the Mosaic law was to cause OT Israel to recapitulate Adam’s probation and fall, being under the Mosaic law was a profound illustration of the plight of humanity under the first Adam.” “Israel’s Recapitulation of Adam’s Probation”
Donaldson—“Israel serves as a representative sample for the whole of humankind. within Israel’s experience, the nature of the universal human plight–bondage to sin and to the powers of this age– is thrown into sharp relief through the functioning of the law. The law, therefore, cannot accomplish the promise, but by creating a representative sample in which the human plight is clarified and concentrated, it sets the stage for redemption. Christ identifies not only with the human situation in general, but also with Israel in particular….”
“The Curse of the Law and the Inclusion of the Gentiles”, NT Studies 1986, p 105, cited in S.M. Baugh in Galatians 5:1-6 and Personal Obligation, p 268, in The Law Is Not Of Faith, P and R, 2009
LikeLike
If you don’t agree with how Mark Jones parses “faith in Christ” with “Christ’s faith”, you must be a Lutheran. Nothing that there’s anything wrong with that of course, except that you need to stop calling yourself Reformed and leave that field to Mark Jones.
http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2014/09/did-jesus-live-by-faith-in-his.php
LikeLike
David, I want you to once interact with Paul. You provide a lot of quotes from non-inspired authors who aren’t exactly interacting with Paul — the guy who had to figure out the relations of Gentiles to Jews in the New Covenant.
LikeLike
David R.: Differences: Turretin uses scholastic distinctions, Hodge abandons them, Kline misreads them, Dennison calls for a return to them.
Jeff C.: Turretin: Yes.
Hodge: No. This is possibly true but is an unsupported answer — on what ground do we see that Hodge is abandoning the scholastic distinctions? Why would Hodge, a scholars’ scholar, do so, and in what way? You must account for the obvious similarity to Turretin before flatly asserting difference.
I’m actually following D.G.’s lead here, he’s the Princeton scholar, and he made this explicit claim. But you’ll have to admit, Turretin’s careful distinctions mostly disappear in Hodge’s treatment, or at least, they’re further below the surface. One gets the sense that Hodge is a bit more of an impressionist painter by comparison with Turretin’s Raphael or da Vinci. (For example, Hodge likes the term “aspect,” by which I think he possibly means vantage point. He seems to speak in this passage in terms of impressions as much as form and substance.)
Kline: No. The question called for analysis, not evaluation. What does Kline *say*, not “What do you think about what Kline said”?
I thought this was a given by now, but Kline argues for a works principle in the MC; whereas, the others reject a works principle and instead give a different analysis (Hodge too, in my opinion, though I don’t know if I could prove it).
Ramsey: No. He makes no mention of a return to scholastic distinctions, either in the quote or the article from which it comes.
The quote is pretty short, but are you saying Ramsey doesn’t argue in terms of older distinctions? Just peruse his blog and you’ll see those are foundational.
LikeLike
D.G., I don’t know if you’re up to speed, but we’re taking a quiz here and Paul ain’t on it. Also, I did just answer your question, though I guess you missed it.
LikeLike
John,
The analogy of the ‘Borg’ is very apt; so far, in my experience with the PCA, there are some very golden leaders and saints that have meant so much to me – and then there is this. It seems to be more about ‘cult of personality’ to me, or power-brokering within the church. That (organizational structure at Briarwood) is a very controlling matrix for monitoring people and the ‘gotcha’ phenomenon. Scripture does not mandate a structure for church organization like this – this is a man-made invention. What concerns me is that usually the Exalted Ruler usually enjoys ‘The Good Life’ while all the people in the matrix are working themselves to death, and being under a watchful eye at all times, reporting in and out. This is aside from all of the bad theology of the Obedience boys club – which actually is responsible for it. The other problem is that the people in the system are trapped, and must ‘perform’ obeisance to keep on the Exalted Ruler’s good side and favor, and to get a high recommendation or estimation for promotion, appointments, or even business. Housewives and families really suffer under this system, but like those in Islam, they have to keep quiet and not upset the Imam. The best pastors and elders are always thoughtful of the burdens that we carry, and don’t want to impose more – but the Obedience boys don’t care. You can tell from their writings and blogs.
I think that what we have learned here at Old Life, Westminster West, and others is the Gospel as it should be preached, and taught, in how we should live in the light of it. I wonder sometimes if the Lord doesn’t just take us through the deserts of the bad theologies so that when we come to that Place of Drink, we just know it is the True Pool that one never Thirsts from after drinking from it.
LikeLike
Mark Jones asks questions he does not answer—So, did Adam earn or merit the indwelling of the Holy Spirit? Or was it a superadded gift? Was God gracious to Adam by giving him the Holy Spirit to assist him in his obedience?
The “flattening” question will not away. What’s the difference in justification by the imputation of Christ’s righteousness before and after Christ’s resurrection?
Garcia, “Christ and the Spirit”, in Resurrection and Eschatology, editors Tipton and Waddington
p 426–For Lutherans, both believer and unbeliever partake of the substance of Christ but with differing outcomes, one to life but the other to judgment…..The matter disputed between us, is whether unbelievers receive the substance of Christ without his Spirit… Lutherans say that, if Christ is truly present Christ is present independent of the communicant’s faith or unbelief.
Garcia, p 429 Calvin says that one cannot truly partake of Christ without partaking of His life-giving Spirit…..p 438 Since Christ was baptized with (or by?) the Holy Spirit, Christ NOW (mcmark asks–since when, since His water, since His resurrection?) is never where the Spirit is not.
mcmark asks—not to advocate a flat redemptive history, but I must ask—Was Christ ever anywhere present that the Spirit was not, before or after Christ’s resurrection? Please explain…
LikeLike
David R: I’m actually following D.G.’s lead here, he’s the Princeton scholar, and he made this explicit claim.
Yes, I’m aware that DGH talks about Hodge and scholasticism. But are you using his claim in the manner that he means?
More to the point, what is *your* ground for accepting his claim? “Just because DGH said so” is thin gruel when you reject his say-so on Kline and republication in general.
Especially when Hodge himself cites Turretin in talking about the unity of the covenant.
DR: The quote is pretty short, but are you saying Ramsey doesn’t argue in terms of older distinctions? Just peruse his blog and you’ll see those are foundational.
The quote is short, and I want to be very clear that I’m not trying to represent what Ramsey thinks here, but only what he says, understanding that that is in the context of his article.
And here’s the point: When it comes to people on “your team” — anti-repubs — you fill in the dots and assume exculpatory things that aren’t actually in the text. And that’s charitable reading, and that’s fine. It’s appropriate to go to Ramsey’s blog and see whether he really means that there’s no CoW in the MC, period.
But when it comes to Kline and even Hodge, you refuse to fill in the dots with charitable reading, and instead fill in the dots with uncharitable reading. You assume condemnatory things that aren’t actually in the text.
Does Hodge abandon the scholastic distinctions? I don’t think so. He abandons the scholastic method (which is, IIRC, the argument made by DGH). But he retains the notion of a unified covenant of grace (check), of covenant spoken in two ways (check), and the distinction between the unified covenant and its dispensations (check):
Although the covenant of grace has always been the same, the dispensations of that covenant
have changed.
He even gives substantially the very same distinctions that Turretin gives for viewing the Mosaic Covenant.
These different aspects under which the Mosaic economy is presented account for the apparently
inconsistent way in which it in spoken of in the New Testament. (1.) When viewed in relation to
the people of God before the advent, it is represented as divine and obligatory. (2.) When viewed
in relation to the state of the Church after the advent, it is declared to be obsolete. It is represented
as the lifeless husk from which the living kernel and germ have been extracted, a body from which
the soul has departed. (3.) When viewed according to its true import and design as a preparatory
dispensation of the covenant of grace, it is spoken of as teaching the same gospel, the same method of salvation as that which the Apostles themselves preached. (4.) When viewed, in the light in which it was regarded by those who rejected the gospel, as a mere legal system, it was declared to be a ministration of death and condemnation. (2 Cor. iii. 6-18.) (5.) And when contrasted with the
new or Christian economy, as a different mode of revealing the same covenant, it is spoken of as
a state of tutelage
So no — he doesn’t abandon those distinctions. Does he put them in the background? Not even really that. What he does is to speak of “aspects” instead of “cloak”, but is that a significant change?
Then there’s Kline. You say, I thought this was a given by now, but Kline argues for a works principle in the MC; whereas, the others reject a works principle and instead give a different analysis (Hodge too, in my opinion, though I don’t know if I could prove it).
I say, Turretin puts a works principle in the MC (in its proper place as accidental). Hodge puts a works principle in the MC (in its proper place as national and pedagogical). Kline puts a works principle in the MC (in its proper place as pedagogical and typological).
What’s Ramsey doing then? And what are you doing? You deny there’s a works principle in the MC and then admit that for Turretin there’s an accidental works principle in the MC.
If you could step back and read Kline charitably, I think you would find that he’s not saying what his detractors are saying that he’s saying. He is speaking, though he beats around the bush, of an accidental works principle.
LikeLike
Jeff, thanks – my observation likewise:
And here’s the point: When it comes to people on “your team” — anti-repubs — you fill in the dots and assume exculpatory things that aren’t actually in the text. And that’s charitable reading, and that’s fine…
But when it comes to Kline and even Hodge, you refuse to fill in the dots with charitable reading, and instead fill in the dots with uncharitable reading. You assume condemnatory things that aren’t actually in the text.
LikeLike
Jeff, I don’t have much to interact with you on your last comment, though I think you’re being unfair with the “uncharitable” remark. I don’t need D.G. to tell me that Hodge is less clear in his one page on the Mosaic covenant than Turretin is in his, what, fifty pages? A hundred? And I didn’t say there’s total discontinuity between Turretin’s method and Hodge’s, only that the scholasticism is more in the background in the latter. It’s true that basic distinctions such as “dispensations of the CoG” remain in Hodge, but less basic ones, not as much so, but again, consider how many pages Turretin wrote on this subject by comparison with Hodge. That said, I think I can harmonize Hodge’s analysis with Turretin’s. I cannot harmonize Kline with the other two.
LikeLike
Jeff,
What he [Hodge] does is to speak of “aspects” instead of “cloak”, but is that a significant change?
In my opinion, yes, possibly. I’m not sure. The thing is, it’s hard to know because “aspects” can mean different things. Like I said, I don’t think Hodge was aiming for the precision of Turretin in his discussion there. That’s not intended as a slam, but an observation. Turretin creates three-dimensional objects; whereas Hodge doesn’t, at least not in that passage.
LikeLike
Jeff,
I had just said, “I think I can harmonize Hodge’s analysis with Turretin’s. I cannot harmonize Kline with the other two.” I take that back. Or rather, I amend it. What I said is true only assuming I am correct to think that Hodge was essentially following Turretin. But given that Hodge’s one-page analysis is not very clear (no, I don’t think it’s uncharitable to say so), it is also in fact possible to harmonize it with Kline. After all, Kline apparently thought his view was Hodge’s.
LikeLike
David R., excluding Paul. Is that a form of what Marcion and Jefferson did with the Bible?
LikeLike
David R., PAUL!
LikeLike
Semper says this: ” I wonder sometimes if the Lord doesn’t just take us through the deserts of the bad theologies so that when we come to that Place of Drink, we just know it is the True Pool that one never Thirsts from after drinking from it.
John Y: I know what you mean, Semper. And a refreshing drink it is when you labored many years “under the law.” And it is worst when you thought that Law was the Gospel. Now I think I know the voice of the good shepherd and reject the voice of the hirelings who have little regard for the sheep. Also, it reminds me of what Paul says in the 6th chapter of Romans: “But thanks be to God, that you who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed, 18 and, having been set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness. 19 I am speaking in human terms, because of your natural limitations. For just as you once presented your members as slaves to impurity and to lawlessness leading to more lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves to righteousness leading to sanctification.”
LikeLike
John,
What you expressed was tremendous.
LikeLike
DR: That said, I think I can harmonize Hodge’s analysis with Turretin’s. I cannot harmonize Kline with the other two.
OK, so this is a great opportunity to say why Kline’s formulation is unharmonizable. What specific features here in this quote or its surrounding context are unharmonizable? And you can get bonus points for explaining why Kline cannot be harmonized with Paul. 🙂
Here was the answer key I was working from:
* Turretin, Hodge, Ramsey (in surrounding context), Kline all clearly state that the MC was a covenant of grace.
* Turretin, Hodge, Kline agree in affirming that the MC also contained the covenant of works towards Israel …
* … in an “aspect” or “accidents” or “layer.”
* But Ramsey denies that there was any works principle towards believers in Israel.
* Hodge joins Kline in affirming that the works (or legal) principle was towards national Israel. Turretin meanwhile speaks here of the works principle acting pedagogically, in which he is joined by Hodge. Elsewhere, Turretin makes it clear that the works principle acts as a legal cloak towards all of Israel, producing a fear in all of Israel that is no longer operative in the new covenant.
* Hodge, Turretin, and Kline join in affirming that the works principle operated on the ground of obedience.
Now: I don’t think any of the four authors are completely represented here. But if you read Ramsey side-by-side with Turretin, he is at a further distance from Turretin than either Hodge or Kline.
LikeLike
Jeff, 2 more crowns. dingadydingding.
LikeLike
Jeff, I’ll try to get to this. In the meantime, I’d be interested in your response to my last post in the other thread (in response to your request to restate the thesis) as well as the one on Calvin on reconciling the promises of the law with those of the gospel.
LikeLike
Marks who flatten:
Who believes this stuff?
LikeLike
John Frame–“The historia salutis expresses a more obvious integration between law and gospel than we saw in the ordo salutis. The gospel, the good news, is “Your God reigns” (Isa. 52:7). It is “the time has come, the kingdom of God is near. Repent and believe the good news” (Mark 1:15). This is gospel, because it is good news. But it is also law, because it is the coming of a king, the imposition of his rule.”
http://frame-poythress.org/salvation-and-theological-pedagogy/
John Frame– “The historia salutis method is that it sees salvation less in individual terms, more in corporate terms. The covenants are made, not only with the covenant mediators like Noah and Abraham, but through them with their families. By the time of Moses, the family of God had become a nation; and with the institution of the New Covenant, it became a nation made of many nations. The corporate emphasis in the historia salutis leads to a focus on the public and visible aspects of salvation. The events described in the ordo are invisible, inward. They occur in the individual heart. The historia salutis occurs in public events. The covenants are publicly witnessed. God attests his covenant mediators by signs and wonders. The history includes deliverances from oppressors, victories in war, dramatic displays of divine power and grace. The crucifixion of Christ took place once for all, in a public setting; and his resurrection was visible to hundreds of witnesses.”
John Frame– The history of salvation focuses on the visible church rather than, as the ordo salutis, on the invisible. In the Old Testament, the history of salvation is largely the history of one nation, Israel….. The ordo salutis analyzes the heart condition of church members and declares that those who are truly regenerate cannot apostatize. The historia salutis analyzes the empirical reality of the church in history. In its view, people enter the church through baptism, and they either continue in their allegiance to Christ or they renounce him.”
John Frame–“So historia salutis focuses on non-recurrent historical events of a corporate, public, and visible nature. As such, Scripture often describes it in political terms. The history of salvation is the coming of the Kingdom, to allude to Herman Ridderbos’s important volume by that title. God calls Israel to defeat by his power all the ungodly nations of Canaan. These are holy wars, and God promises Victory to Israel when she is faithful to him. John the Baptist, and later Jesus, preached “Repent, for the Kingdom of God is at hand.” The apostolic church preached “Jesus is Lord,” Kyrios Iesous, a phrase with a deeply political meaning. The Roman emperors proclaimed their own Lordship; the Christians proclaim the Lordship of Jesus. The Romans crucified Jesus, and later persecuted the church, because they thought Jesus presented himself as a rival Caesar. The Romans, of course, misunderstood Jesus’ claims in some ways; but in other ways they were deeply insightful. The mission of the church was nothing less than to establish a new world order.”
LikeLike