Jumpin’ Jehoshaphat.
But that is a plausible reading of the Bible according to Calvin who was reading Paul (not Turretin):
. . . as evangelic promises are only found scattered in the writings of Moses, and these also somewhat obscure, and as the precepts and rewards, allotted to the observers of the law, frequently occur, it rightly appertained to Moses as his own and peculiar office, to teach what is the real righteousness of works, and then to show what remuneration awaits the observance of it, and what punishment awaits those who come short of it. For this reason Moses is by John compared with Christ, when it is said, “That the law was given by Moses, but that grace and truth came by Christ.” (John 1:17.)
And whenever the word law is thus strictly taken, Moses is by implication opposed to Christ: and then we must consider what the law contains, as separate from the gospel. Hence what is said here of the righteousness of the law, must be applied, not to the whole office of Moses, but to that part which was in a manner peculiarly committed to him.
Old Life 
“The law has a twofold meaning; it sometimes includes the whole of what has been taught by Moses, and sometimes that part only which was peculiar to his ministration, which consisted of precepts, rewards, and punishments. But Moses had this common office — to teach the people the true rule of religion….
“In order to instruct the people in the doctrine of repentance, it was necessary for him to teach what manner of life was acceptable to God; and this he included in the precepts of the law. That he might also instill into the minds of the people the love of righteousness, and implant in them the hatred of iniquity, promises and threatening were added; which proposed rewards to the just, and denounced dreadful punishments on sinners. It was now the duty of the people to consider in how many ways they drew curses on themselves, and how far they were from deserving anything at God’s hands by their works, that being thus led to despair as to their own righteousness, they might flee to the haven of divine goodness, and so to Christ himself. This was the end or design of the Mosaic dispensation….
“This knot may be thus untied: — Moses shows, that the way to life was made plain: for the will of God was not now hid from the Jews, nor set far off from them, but placed before their eyes. If he had spoken of the law only, his reasoning would have been frivolous, since the law of God being set before their eyes, it was not easier to do it, than if it was afar off. He then means not the law only, but generally the whole of God’s truth, which includes in it the gospel…
“ And Moses throughout that chapter, as also in the fourth, endeavors to commend to the people the remarkable kindness of God, because he had taken them under his own tuition and government, which commendation could not have belonged to the law only. It is no objection that Moses there speaks of forming the life according to the rule of the law; for the spirit of regeneration is connected with the gratuitous righteousness of faith. Nor is there a doubt but that this verse depends on that main truth, “the Lord shall circumcise thine heart,” which he had recorded shortly before in the same chapter. They may therefore be easily disproved, who say that Moses speaks only in that passage of good works. That he speaks of works I indeed allow; but I deny it to be unreasonable, that the keeping of the law should be traced from its own fountain, even from the righteousness of faith…. “
LikeLike
Louis, you’ve put your finger on the main point:
“The law has a twofold meaning; it sometimes includes the whole of what has been taught by Moses, and sometimes that part only which was peculiar to his ministration, which consisted of precepts, rewards, and punishments.
The republication point is that the rewards and punishments were peculiar to Moses’ ministration, and a part of the legal economy.
As near as I can tell, the anti-republication point is “yeah, but covenant of grace!” Which is true, but misses the point of two-fold meaning.
If we are serious about “two-fold meaning”, then republication should be entirely unobjectionable.
LikeLike
– John Owen, Discourse Concerning the Holy Spirit.
LikeLike
Romans 10: 5 For Moses writes about the righteousness that is based on the law, that the person who does the commandments shall live by them
That would be in Leviticus 18, if you can’t find it in Turretin.
LikeLike
Yes, when the law is strictly taken, that is, abstracted from the Mosaic Covenant, it is opposed to Christ. That’s all Calvin was saying.
LikeLike
that’s all?
and also, the law is not the gospel
the law of circumcision given to Abraham is not the gospel
the law given to Moses is not the gospel
the “law of Christ” (but I say to you) is not the gospel
Click to access abraham_and_sinai_contraste.pdf
LikeLike
McM:
the law of circumcision given to Abraham is not the gospel
You snuck that one in the middle there, but the law wasn’t given to Abraham. Paul is pretty clear about that in Galatians.
LikeLike
Brandon Adams: Yes, when the law is strictly taken, that is, abstracted from the Mosaic Covenant, it is opposed to Christ. That’s all Calvin was saying.
He doesn’t say “abstracted from” but “what was peculiarly committed unto him.” I’m not sure if there’s a difference between those two in your mind, but I would comsider those to be very different.
LikeLike
Jeff, I wasn’t trying to be sneak it in. I have been trying to tell you for a long time now that the Abrahamic covenant is also not the same as the new covenant. Charles Hodge also knew that, and even went so far as to say that there were two covenants with Abraham. Even when David Gordon and Scott Clark and you have corrected noticed the contrast between the Abrahamic and the Mosaic, not all has been said, certainly not about what’s in Genesis 17 and what’s in the new covenant. If you want to talk about specifics in Galatia, we could do that.
I know we can’t talk about everything all at once. David Gordon has not even claimed to discuss the continuity and discontinuity between Abraham and the new covenant. But David Gordon has pointed out “the covenant of grace” is not lexically a Bible idea. Talking only about Moses contrasted with Abraham does not deal with all the problems of “mono-covenantalism” but it does guard us against the evils of the non-federal “federal vision”.
if I remember correctly, Brandon does agree to “the covenant of grace”. But by all means check out the good stuff on his blog. http://contrast2.wordpress.com/2014/10/16/john-erskines-the-nature-the-sinai-covenant/ According to Scott Clark’s soundbite, baptists like Brandon haven’t even noticed that there’s a difference between Moses and Abraham.
Erskine…When God promised the land of Canaan to Abraham and his seed, circumcision was instituted for this among other purposes, to shew that descent from Abraham was the foundation of his posterities right to these blessings.
LikeLike
Yes, the “sneak it in” was good-natured teasing
LikeLike
Yes, I think Calvin got that right.
LikeLike
Jeff,
Calvin is not saying that the Mosaic Covenant is opposed to Christ. Calvin is quite clear that, in his view, the Mosaic Covenant taught the gospel. Only when we look at the law narrowly considered, apart from it’s covenantal context, is it opposed to Christ.
Personally, I don’t agree with Calvin’s view of the Mosaic Covenant. I believe it’s substance was a works principle for life in the land. But it’s quite clear that Calvin was not teaching that the Mosaic Covenant was “of works”
http://contrast2.wordpress.com/2010/07/26/kerux-vs-tlnf/
LikeLike
BA: Calvin is not saying that the Mosaic Covenant is opposed to Christ.
Sure. But he is saying that the *Law* was opposed to Christ, at least narrowly considered.
So there’s a big distinction that needs some care here: The Law was a subset of the MC, and not its entirety.
LikeLike
Jeff, don’t forget this part:
“That he might also instill into the minds of the people the love of righteousness, and implant in them the hatred of iniquity, promises and threatening were added; which proposed rewards to the just, and denounced dreadful punishments on sinners.
“It is no objection that Moses there speaks of forming the life according to the rule of the law; for the spirit of regeneration is connected with the gratuitous righteousness of faith. Nor is there a doubt but that this verse depends on that main truth, “the Lord shall circumcise thine heart,” which he had recorded shortly before in the same chapter. They may therefore be easily disproved, who say that Moses speaks only in that passage of good works. That he speaks of works I indeed allow; but I deny it to be unreasonable, that the keeping of the law should be traced from its own fountain, even from the righteousness of faith…. “
Calvin’s comments here are in line, I believe, with WCF 19:
“VI. Although true believers be not under the law, as a covenant of works, to be thereby justified, or condemned; yet is it of great use to them, as well as to others; in that, as a rule of life informing them of the will of God, and their duty, it directs and binds them to walk accordingly; discovering also the sinful pollutions of their nature, hearts and lives; so as, examining themselves thereby, they may come to further conviction of, humiliation for, and hatred against sin, together with a clearer sight of the need they have of Christ, and the perfection of His obedience. It is likewise of use to the regenerate, to restrain their corruptions, in that it forbids sin: and the threatenings of it serve to show what even their sins deserve; and what afflictions, in this life, they may expect for them, although freed from the curse thereof threatened in the law. The promises of it, in like manner, show them God’s approbation of obedience,and what blessings they may expect upon the performance thereof: although not as due to them by the law as a covenant of works. So as, a man’s doing good, and refraining from evil, because the law encourages to the one and deters from the other, is no evidence of his being under the law: and not under grace.
VII. Neither are the forementioned uses of the law contrary to the grace of the Gospel, but do sweetly comply with it; the Spirit of Christ subduing and enabling the will of man to do that freely, and cheerfully, which the will of God, revealed in the law, requires to be done.
LikeLike
So there is a way in which the law is “separate from the gospel” and “opposed to Christ;” and a way in which the law “sweetly complies with” the gospel and is “traced from its own fountain, even from the righteousness of faith.”
LikeLike
@ Louis: Yes, exactly.
LikeLike
If you guys can just add a bit more nuance to the nuance of your nuance you should have this stuff pretty much nailed down.
LikeLike
Erik, I have no idea what perspective you’re coming from, but I sympathize with you.
Personally I believe http://www.1689federalism.com avoids the endless circles of qualifications inherent in this discussion
LikeLike
Turretin on the distinction between the Old Testament taken broadly versus strictly:
LikeLike
That should be Institutes 12.8.3-4)
LikeLike
@ David: Yes, please. Keep going.
@ all: I wonder where the conversation can profitably go from here?
LikeLike
@ Mark: I have been trying to tell you for a long time now that the Abrahamic covenant is also not the same as the new covenant.
Yes, you have. I haven’t been able to follow the contour of your thought. It seems to me that we start with Romans 4 and Galatians 3 and pretty quickly end up seeing that believers are brought into Christ by faith, which makes them children of Abraham.
So my default position — the one that took me out of being a Baptist and into being a Presbyterian — is that the New Covenant *is* (at least in substance) the one made with Abraham.
Are you disputing that basic idea, or are you trying to shape that basic idea in some way?
LikeLike
Romans 9: 7 and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.” 8 This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring.
I would attempt to speak as a paedobaptist but not all paedobaptists sound like Mark Jones. But maybe it doesn’t matter just so long as you have a way to continue the practice of “the church”. Some paedobaptists endeavor to associate circumcision only with Moses and disassociate it from Genesis 17 and Abraham.
Circumcision was not a sign of Ishmael’s faith. For Ishmael, circumcision was a sign of God’s covenant righteousness. Circumcision was a sign that Ishmael was commanded to believe the gospel. if Ishmael had not been circumcised, Ishmael would not have had any obligation to obey the law by faith. If Ishmael had not been circumised, how could God have commanded to believe the gospel by doing the works commanded by the law of circumcision.
In circumcision, God takes the initiative with Ishmael. God speaks favor to Ishmael in circumcision and Ishmael “could and should have” responded in faith to God’s proposals and provisions. If Ishmael had not been a covenant child , if Ishmael had not been circumcised, then Ishmael would have had to be banished from the household as one cut off from the covenant. But because Ishmael was circumcised, Abraham was able to be a faithful parent to Ishmael, and not narrow his household down to something less than it was before.
Did Ishmael, possess any advantages by receiving the sign of circumcision? Was God’s goodness to Abraham heightened because of God’s grace also to Abraham’s son Ishmael? Does our “so great a salvation” terminate only upon isolated individuals, or does our salvation include a promise of eternal life (or alternatively greater covenant curse than common condemnation) to our infants? .
Is God less good to our children in this new administration than God was to Ishmael in the Abrahamic covenant? If Ishmael was better off for receiving circumcision even if Ishmael ultimately perished, are our children (even if non-elect in the decree) better off for being watered? Was the sign given to help covenant children or hinder them? Denying our children water denies them a blessing from God.
If you disagree that water is a blessing, then your problem is with God commanding Abraham to circumcise infants like Ishmael because you must agree that circumcision was grace to Ishmael, even if circumcision did not result in Ishmael’s justification before God. That was not God’s fault but Ishmael’s fault, because circumcision was God’s grace and we know that. Because that was not Moses but Abraham….
LikeLike
Renihan— A positive credobaptist argument asserts that the relevant covenant involved is the new covenant, and that this covenant is distinct from the biblical covenants that preceded it in history, particularly the Abrahamic covenant. Simply put, the Abrahamic covenant promised (not only Christ the seed to come but also) earthly blessings to Abraham and his offspring. This covenantal relationship was expanded and developed in the Mosaic covenant and the Davidic covenant (the Mosaic covenant added laws for life in Canaan, and the Davidic covenant provided kings over the people). These three covenants established and governed the kingdom of Israel, comprised of Abraham’s people. The … new covenant is established on better promises, different promises. The new covenant alone is the covenant of grace, distinct from the Israelite covenants.
Throughout Israel’s history, many understood the messianic promises and looked to Jesus in faith prior to his advent (Hebrews 4:2-3; 11:13-16). The people of God, considered according to the federal headship and benefits of Christ… did not begin with the incarnation. The Israelite kingdom and its covenants were typological. Typology sustains two truths: on the one hand a type had significance in its own context while on the other hand a type pointed away from itself to a greater meaning in Christ. The author to the Hebrews states quite plainly that the blood of the Israelite sacrifices could not forgive sins. Why? Because although those sacrifices had meaning in the Israelite context, i.e., purification of the flesh, they were not Christ’s sacrifice and could not purify the conscience (Hebrews 10:1-4, 12-14).
Paul treats God’s dealings with Abraham the same way by calling believers the children of Abraham and finding a greater meaning in the word “offspring” as relating to Christ rather than simply Abraham’s posterity (Galatians 3:7, 9, 16, 27-29). It is not ONE OR THE OTHER, as though promises were made only to Abraham and his natural children or to Christ and his offspring (Abraham included). It is both, each with its particular but related meaning in a typical or antitypical context. And thus the kingdom and covenants of Israel were not the kingdom and covenant of Christ though they were driving towards his birth and revealing truths about him all along the way. Old Testament saints were saved by the promise of one who was to come, and the covenant that he would establish. Consequently baptists do not use the kingdom of Israel and its covenants as the pattern for churches….
Looking to the parent-child relationship is a misdirected attempt to understand covenantal membership. Redirecting our attention to federal headship brings clarity …. We blame Adam, not our parents, for the curse. The Israelites looked to Abraham, not their parents, for a claim to Canaan and its blessings, and to the conduct of the king, not their parents, for tenure in the land. So also, children must look to Christ, not their parents, for a claim to his covenant….We are born under Adam’s federal headship, and no one escapes the domain of darkness until God transfers them “to the kingdom of the beloved Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins” (Colossians 1:12-14).
http://www.placefortruth.org/placefortruth/article/the-case-for-credobaptism
LikeLike
“The covenant” theology argues as if the Mosaic covenant is the older and that the Abrahamic covenant the newer (second, later). Even though the Abrahamic covenant is older than the Mosaic covenant, it would not pay off for “the covenant of grace” theology to pay much attention to that fact. They want the members of the new covenant to be the same as the members of the Abrahamic covenant.
Hebrews 8: 6 But as it is, Christ[ has obtained a ministry that is as much more excellent than the old as the covenant he mediates is better, since it is enacted on better promises. 7 For if that FIRST covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a SECOND
Galatians 4 ( which is all about the circumcision of gentile INFANTS, not only about gentile believers) —-For these are the TWO covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar— 25 for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children— 26 but the JERUSALEM ABOVE is free, which is the mother of us all. 27 For it is written:
“Rejoice, O barren,
You who do not bear!
Break forth and shout,
You who are not in labor!
For the desolate has many more children
Than she who has a husband.”
28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are children of promise. 29 But, as he who was born according to the flesh then persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, even so it is now. 30 Nevertheless what does the Scripture say? “CAST OUT the bondwoman and her son, for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.” 31 So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman but of the free.
Genesis 21: 10 So she said to Abraham, “Cast out this slave woman with her son, for the son of this slave woman shall not be heir with my son Isaac.” 11 And the thing was very displeasing to Abraham on account of his son. 12 But God said to Abraham, “Be not displeased because of the boy and because of your slave woman. Whatever Sarah says to you, do as she tells you, for through Isaac shall your offspring be named. 13 And I will make a nation of the son of the slave woman also, because he is your offspring.”
Genesis 17: 13 both he who is born in your house and he who is bought with your money, shall surely be circumcised. So shall my covenant be in your flesh an EVERLASTING covenant. 14 Any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin shall be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.”
Genesis 17: 23 Then Abraham took Ishmael his son and all those born in his house or bought with his money, every male among the men of Abraham’s house, and he circumcised the flesh of their foreskins that very day, as God had said to him. 24 Abraham was ninety-nine years old when he was circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin. 25 And Ishmael his son was thirteen years old when he was circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin. 26 That very day Abraham and his son Ishmael were circumcised. 27 And all the men of his house, those born in the house and those bought with money from a foreigner, were circumcised with him.
LikeLike
Mark,
If I understand correctly, the first post of your pair above is speaking as a paedobaptist, then showing a problem that arises, that circumcision would have to be both grace and law to Ishmael. The second then switches to the credobaptist point of view and shows how this view solves the problem: circumcision was only law, whereas baptism is only grace. Yes?
If so, then I would reply in this way.
McM: Some paedobaptists endeavor to associate circumcision only with Moses and disassociate it from Genesis 17 and Abraham.
Count me out on that one. I understand circumcision as given to Abraham, with an additional legal function attached under Moses.
And for Abraham and his seed, it functioned primarily as a sign from God to His people: I am your God who makes you clean. The cutting away of uncleanness symbolized the work of the Spirit; the cleansing of the organ pointed to the one clean offspring who was to come.
So with respect to Ishmael, it was given as a sign — a sacrament, speaking the word in symbol form. When Ishmael rejected what the sign meant (out of unbelief), it was neither more nor less than those who reject the word of the Lord spoken to them.
This gives us a perspective through which to understand the grace/law question. When the Gospel is preached today, is that grace or law?
The content of the Gospel is grace, purely. It offers salvation through faith alone as instrument and not salvation on the ground of faith as meritorious act. Rejecting the Gospel, however, adds one more nail to the coffin of the sons of Adam. As Jesus said, “He who does not believe is already condemned, for he has not believed in the Son of God.”
Likewise with circumcision. Ishmael carried around with him a promise from God; by rejecting that promise, he was rejecting God’s word.
So if I were to adopt the position that circumcision was not grace because its rejection brings condemnation, I would also have to adopt the position that the Gospel is not grace because its rejection brings condemnation.
I think we agree that such a conclusion would be absurd.
In response to Reinhan, I would say that
* The new covenant is never contrasted with the Abrahamic as far as I can remember. Certainly not in Jer 31, in which it is contrasted specifically with the Mosaic.
* The new covenant is positively identified with the Abrahamic in Rom 4 and Gal 3-4.
* Reinhan appears to get himself wrapped around an axle here:
If it is both (and I agree), then it follows that believers are children of Abraham and heirs according to the promise (Gal 3). What was that promise to Abraham? There was certainly a typical element, the promise to inherit Canaan. But according to Paul, that promise was really the promise to inherit the world (Rom 4), and included actual (not typical) justification by faith.
In other words, Abraham possessed the reality and not just the shadow.
And here, Calvin and Turretin are both helpful in opposing the Anabaptists. For they point out the absurdity of saying that the covenants in the OT were type only. Far more accurate to say that they contained the reality of the covenant of grace, but shadowed heavily under type.
LikeLike
McM: “The covenant” theology argues as if the Mosaic covenant is the older and that the Abrahamic covenant the newer (second, later).
Not sure where that’s coming from. The covenant of works with Adam is the older. The covenant of grace with Adam post-fall is the newer.
But Abraham is obviously before Moses, which is why circumcision is not just a matter of the law.
LikeLike
Brandon,
Not that perspective.
I think these discussions try too hard to put biblical texts and confessional statements into a “framework” that is being imposed from above. It’s the Reformed equivalent of dispensationalism.
The next step is launching witch hunts against people who disagree with their framework. Meanwhile 90% of people in P&R churches have no idea what either side is talking about.
It’s nerd religion.
LikeLike
Note how these discussions inevitably devolve into 2 or maybe 3 people going on for 500 posts with everyone else bowing out three weeks ago.
That’s not normal.
LikeLike
Jeff, sorry for the sarcasm above, ie, me attempting to speak as some paedobaptists speak. I know that you don’t agree with either Mark Jones (who confuses law with gospel, making grace the basis of obligation) or even with Scott Clark ( who puts the “grace parts” of circumcision with Abraham and the “law parts” with Moses). I don’t even know what you yourself say about the “efficacy” of the “grace of circumcision”.
Is circumcision law or grace? If circumcision is both law and grace, is the “covenant grace” of circumcision necessary for the demands of law? ( Were the nations outside the Abrahamic covenant not under law?) If the “covenant grace” of circumcision results in increased sanctions for Ishmael, is God’s grace ineffectual, and ultimately conditioned on the sinner? I don’t presume that we can answer all these questions now (my time is more limited now than it has been) but I do want to assure my concerns are not ultimately about the subjects of water.
I think we probably disagree about ‘common grace’ and “the offer”. I take sides with the minority report of the OPC about the “grace” of “provisional proposals”. In short, I think we are all born condemned in Adam, and that it’s not rejection of the gospel which condemns us. According to John 3:17-21, those who do not believe the gospel remain in the condemnation in which they were born, for there is no other “offering” for sins but that one and only sacrificial death of Christ for sinners.
Simply put, Christ did not die in order to make it just for God to condemn sinners. Many sinners never hear the gospel, and all of these sinners are under the wrath of God. We must not turn the gospel into the law. And this is one reason you need to acknowledge that the Abrahamic covenant has “law parts”. I certainly acknowledge that circumcision is not only a matter of law, but is also (even mainly) about the “cutting off of the flesh”. (the death of Christ– I think –but we can save that for another day)
Does the gospel “bring condemnation”? or is condemnation already here, so that we need to be saved from condemnation? I suppose the related (and perhaps “Lutheran”) question is—is it the gospel which kills and makes alive? Or is the law which kills? Or is the “killing which results in making alive” something different than the killing condemnation of the law?
I agree with Machen that the death which saves (Galatians 2) is not our experience of condemnation by the law but Christ’s satisfaction of law by death and God’s legal placing of us into that. To know and believe the gospel is to finally fear God and to know what God’s law demands.
The man who does the law, shall live by the law.
That is not the gospel.
Jeff, I notice that you did not object to my distinction between “the law of Christ” and the gospel in my first post. Why did that not bother you, when you re concerned that I pointed out the “law parts” of the Abrahamic covenant?
LikeLike
Jeff asks— what was the promise to Abraham?
mark–there is more than one promise to Abraham. That’s what you don’t seem to ever say, even though you know it as well as I know it. Putting Galatians 3-4 in parenthesis does not get to the detail that not all the children of Abraham are children of Abraham. Abraham had two sons. One of the sons was cast out. There was no grace for the one son.
So you need the plural . You need to say “covenants” and “promises” and “different seeds” of Abraham. You need to say (openly in detail) the ways in which the Abrahamic covenant is not the same as the new covenant. Instead of reading the two sons in Galatians as being the Adamic “covenant of works” and the Abrahamic covenant, you need to confess up to the redemptive historical reality that the difference in the text (and the two covenants in Hebrews, and in 2 Corinthians 3) is between the Mosaic and the new covenant. You need to stop assimilating the Abrahamic covenant to the new covenant, when the NT so clearly contrasts the two children of Abraham.
Abraham was promised that he would be the father of many nations. That’s one promise, but it’s not the same as the promise of the one seed who is Christ. I don’t know who is saying that the Abrahamic (or even the Mosaic) is “type only”. There’s Calvin’s characterization of “the anabaptists” and then there is the reality of what the “come-outers” actually thought but it’s difficult to sort that out because the Reformers killed a lot of “the anabaptists”. But we have some writing left from Marpeck and Sattler and others Zwingli did not kill, and the caricature in Calvin is mostly his way of not repenting of all his Roman Catholic inheritance.
Nobody I know says “type only”. But plenty of Reformed people formally say “of course there is type” but then go on from that to talk only about the reality of the one gospel Abraham (and some of his children) believed. Well, sure, Moses also believed the one gospel. Nobody I know is denying that. All the covenants point to gospel. But also in every covenant, there are also justified elect folks who had the reality.
Abraham was promised a people as a genetic incubator for the coming birth of Christ, the son of Abraham. That was a promise. So when you say “the promise”, you need to say which promise you are talking about. If you confuse one promise with another then you will not only have “covenant confusion” but law and gospel confusion.
Erik, if you are not interested in it, then it must not be important. You already know what the confessions say–no need to re-invent the wheel which works for you…
LikeLike
@ Erik: Note how these discussions inevitably devolve into 2 or maybe 3 people going on for 500 posts with everyone else bowing out three weeks ago.
That’s not normal.
I think you mean, it’s not your personal preference. For some people (me), giving sustained attention to a single topic is normal, and ADHD video links and snide comments are not normal, or at least not productive.
Still and all, I don’t begrudge you the fact that you have your own style, and that you might well be pursuing your own aims. Who knows? Maybe your method works better. So carry on — but recognize that I’ve already received your message about your personal preferences loud and clear, and I will continue to ignore it, at least on the topic of republication.
Meanwhile, have a video that is not exactly a perfect metaphor:
LikeLike
MCM: or even with Scott Clark ( who puts the “grace parts” of circumcision with Abraham and the “law parts” with Moses). I don’t even know what you yourself say about the “efficacy” of the “grace of circumcision”.
I haven’t specifically read Clark on this, but what you describe sounds harmonious with my understanding.
I would say that the efficacy of the sacraments is faith, so that baptism has its primary effect when faith occurs — whether before or after the event of baptism. I occasionally get grief for this position (“time-traveling sacraments” was one trenchant but confused rebuttal), but I think it’s what Calvin was angling for.
McM; In short, I think we are all born condemned in Adam, and that it’s not rejection of the gospel which condemns us.
Both-and. We are all born condemned, enough to be damnable. Rejecting Christ aggravates our condition — which He teaches in multiple places.
McM: I suppose the related (and perhaps “Lutheran”) question is—is it the gospel which kills and makes alive? Or is the law which kills? Or is the “killing which results in making alive” something different than the killing condemnation of the law?
The command to believe is a legitimate command, so refusing it is disobedience, hence sin.
Put another way, unbelief is sin.
But belief is not merit, inasmuch as it does not function as the ground for our justification, but as instrument through which we are justified.
So there is an asymmetry here that reflects our inability to keep the law: If we don’t believe, we are breaking the Law and failing to receive the remedy. If we do believe, we receive the remedy — but we are not rewarded as lawkeepers, but as those for whom righteousness is imputed.
McM: Jeff, I notice that you did not object to my distinction between “the law of Christ” and the gospel in my first post. Why did that not bother you, when you re concerned that I pointed out the “law parts” of the Abrahamic covenant?
Target-lock. I’ll come back to that later?
LikeLike
“Erik, if you are not interested in it, then it must not be important. You already know what the confessions say–no need to re-invent the wheel which works for you…”
Absolutely. Now carry on.
LikeLike
Realize however, that hair-splitting on speculative issues of theological interpretation and framework is what leads to micro-denominations, Reformed perfectionism, and people being unable or unwilling to settle on any church that does not meet their rigorous specifications (i.e. private interpretations). Maybe if it’s not spelled out clearly in Scripture and the Confessions it’s not something that is all that important.
Don’t turn Old Life into Puritan Board, in other words.
LikeLike
Jeff,
Better to err on the side of ADHD than turning every potential reader into Rip Van Winkle. This is a blog, not an dusty set of Encyclopedia Britannicas.
At least my stuff gets read. If the only way people can follow your arguments is to take a week’s vacation, what’s the point? Submit your work to a theological journal for peer review if it’s that good. This is the internet.
Called to Communion is a museum piece for the ages. Old Life is a conversation in a bar.
LikeLike
Erik, were Calvin & Turretin splitting hairs? I feel your concerns on theological perfectionism / church expectations, but McMark, Jeff, David R. etc. carry on an interesting conversation, that I’ve learned from and have clarified some of these issues in my mind.
Maybe the greater part of us bow out because we haven’t read the breadth that Jeff et. al. have and so are treading in waters above our head.
LikeLike
Hats off to anyone who read all 800+ comments whose name isn’t David, Jeff, or Darryl.
I’ll probably download the OP report on repub. when it’s published, and try to grasp the relevant highlights. In tge meantime, my OP pastor (a wonderful recent Wscal grad) gives me the skinny over lunch, so I get to cheat a little.
Bar or not? Who knows, I thought these were kilobytes in a server farm somewhere in the midwest. Carry on indeed.
LikeLike
I have appreciated the discussion between Jeff and David R. also; some initial thoughts FWIW.
1. I still wonder if the inability for either men to agree on Turretin’s view is largely due to questions we are asking that he was not thinking about. Biblical Theology is a rather recent discipline and the older writers were not always dealing in the same categories that we are.
2. I end up agreeing with David R. on Calvin. I do not see Kline’s (or my) view of republication reflected in Calvin
3. The length of the Turretin discussion was a bit disconcerting, only that there is an unfortunate tendency in reformed circles to substitute exegesis for historical theology. The Lord has actually addressed the question of the relationship between the Mosaic Covenant and New Covenant in Galatians 3 and 4, so it seems the majority of time should be spent there. Hopefully the discussion would have moved there eventually.
4. There is no smoking gun. I have seen nothing that demonstrates that good reformed theologians cannot hold to either side in the debate.
LikeLike
Here’s my beef (if I haven’t made it plain already):
First a caveat – It’s not my blog so I can’t stop anything, nor do I expect Darryl to stop anything.
A good online conversation is a conversation not just between two people, but several people, all of whom can follow the conversation since it doesn’t involve them quitting their day jobs. In real life do we just stop everything to watch two people talking for weeks?
I’m not against a lengthy debate — especially on an “interscholastic” issue (i.e. with a Bryan Cross). These “intramural” debates that devolve to two people are frankly just a bore, though. My opinion – I admit.
Add to this the guys like Mark that write posts basically debating with someone, anyone who will respond, and it gets a bit tedious. Mark has written thousands of words over the past three years which pretty much boil down to the fact that he likes that we embrace election but is really bugged that we baptize our children. I get it. Now say something new or move on to a Reformed Baptist site.
If the goal is to just have a conversation and its only two people conversing, take it offline. That’s what e-mail is for. If the goal is to write a theological position paper, do it on your own blog or find a theological journal that will accept it. If you want to have a conversation that other people can get involved in, do it in a way that is inviting and not tone deaf that most everyone has tuned you out a week ago.
The debate with CD-Host that involved higher math was the one that put me over the edge. That was the closest thing to a theological circle jerk I have ever witnessed.
LikeLike
Erik, the only rule around here I know of is the Sowers rule, and it’s genius. If we start clamping down on what is or is not acceptable, CTC land here we come.
For me, the about section sums it all up nicely. The About, and the Sowers rule, if anyone has a question on the happnenings in this quandrant of cyberspace. Me and my small opinions only.
But between you and me, I LOL quite a few times when I read your posts. This may be where I agree with Susan, you might just be the OL star, so who knows. Maybe Darryl will make your rules part of the OL constitution. I wouldn’t bet on it tho, brutha..
As stated: carry on, yo.
LikeLike
On this topic, as always, The Dude is the master. Never has he written a post that I could not understand or read in one sitting. His comments are concise, often humorous, and on point. Never tedious, never boring.
Follow The Dude.
LikeLike
Thanks AB, but I just am who I am. There is no “star” here except for Darryl.
LikeLike
Fair enough. He’s the one who pays the bills to
keep the bandwidth open keep the lights on at the OL bar.Fore.
LikeLike
EC, I guess I defer to the fact that it’s open. I’m with you on devoting oodles of time to commenting – a wife and two kids has a convenient way of putting the kibosh on 10 paragraph posts. If I posted something 10 paragraphs long, it would probably be unintelligible after the 2nd paragraph anyway – I lose steam quickly
LikeLike
Jeff–The command to believe is a legitimate command, so refusing it is disobedience, hence sin. Put another way, unbelief is sin. But belief is not merit, inasmuch as it does not function as the ground for our justification…. So there is an asymmetry here that reflects our inability to keep the law: If we don’t believe, we are breaking the Law and failing to receive the remedy. If we do believe, we receive the remedy — but we are not rewarded as lawkeepers, but as those for whom righteousness is imputed.
mark: amen to all the above ( I left out the confessional “instrument” language and someday we will talk Bavinck and “instrumentality”). But I certainly agree that belief in the gospel is not merit. The law is not of faith but about our merited demerits. The gospel is not about Christ’s faith but about the merit of Christ’s death.
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 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 moral law. 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.”
btw, I still like my question-—is it the gospel which kills and makes alive? Or is the law which kills? Or is the “killing which results in making alive” something different than the killing condemnation of the law?
Erik, I like your doctrine of election if 1. it’s God decision about who Christ would die for and 2. if that election comes along with a doctrine of justification in which faith is not equated with the righteousness imputed, and in which faith does not include works. An election to do enough of the law to find assurance is not biblical election nor is it the gospel. Any election to believe in the doctrine of hypothetical universalism is also not the gospel.
That’s my way of saying that justification and atonement are always of more concern to me than simply affirmations of divine sovereignty in election. And more important to me than covenants and water…..
LikeLike
Here’s something I really like from 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 of (that work of redemption) 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….
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,
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.
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-
mark: The law is not of faith, but in the gospel there is revealed a “righteousness of faith” but does not mean at all that God impute faith itseelf as our righteousness.
LikeLike
Nate: …we haven’t read the breadth that Jeff et. al. have and so are treading in waters above our head.
You’re overly kind. Everyone has their specialties, and I benefit from hearing you and Todd and many others.
Erik: So what exactly is your role here in the bar?
LikeLike
Arminians and Lutherans claim that the sin of unbelief is different from other sins
David Allan, “Atonement: Limited to Universal’, Whosoever Will, 2010, p 88—”Unbelief is not an offense like any other, because it must be dealt with not only by forgiveness but by regeneration and regeneration only has an indirect relation to the gospel.”
Calvinistic or Reformed folks whose entire gospel is about God’s sovereignty in regeneration have no answer for this. These folks don’t talk much about justification or the atonement, and what they do say is not different from what is taught by Arminians in the Southern Baptisst Convention . Even if they say that regeneration is purchased by Christ’s death. most Reformed folks today are not likely to talk about the judicial significance of the fact that “Jesus Did Not Pay It All” for the non-elect. They are talking way more about regeneration than they are about the death of Christ as God’s means for the forgiveness of the sins of the elect people of God.
Jacobus Andreae, Acta Colloquij Montisbellogartensis, 1613, p 447
“Those assigned to eternal destruction are not damned because because they sinned. They are damned for this reason, because they refused to embrace Jesus Christ with true faith, who died no less for their sins than for the sins of Peter, Paul and all the saints.
Beza, p 448–”To me what you say is plainly new and previously unheard–that men are not damned because they have sinned….
Garry J Williams, From Heaven He Came and Sought Her, ed Gibson, Crossway, 2013, p 513—”The notion that the lost will be punished for the sin of unbelief and not for sin in general allows Lutherans and Arminians to hold that Jesus died for every general sin of every individual, and yet not all must be saved, because unbelievers may still be justly condemned for their unbelief since Christ did not die for it. This reply limits the sins for which Christ died. Lutherans and Arminians have created a difficulty with biblical texts referring to the sins for which Christ died. Every affirmation that sins have been borne by Christ must now be understood to contain a tacit restriction—except the sin of unbelief…..
LikeLike
McM: Calvinistic or Reformed folks whose entire gospel is about God’s sovereignty in regeneration have no answer for this.
Really? I would say that the answer is above: people are already condemned, and lack of faith, while breaking the law, is most significant because faith is the only instrument. Seems like an answer to me.
LikeLike
Jeff, some would say he’s the star, but I’ll let him answer. He cracks me up on occasion when I’m lurking around these interwebs. Whether people have roles in an internet chatroom, who knows.
Thanks for your contributions, I would try to keep up if I could, but since my church is preparing a report on the matter, I’m gonna wait patiently for that. Take care.
LikeLike
Jeff,
To not bore others and to entertain myself, of course.
LikeLike
AB, bad news. Much to Erik’s chagrin, The OPC is just going to publish the comment section on Why Republication Matters as their report.
Better start reading
LikeLike
………………………………………________
………………………………,.-‘”……………….“~.,
………………………..,.”……………………………..”.,
…………………….,/………………………………………..”:,
…………………,?………………………………………………,
………………./…………………………………………………..,}
……………../………………………………………………,:`^`..}
……………/……………………………………………,:”………/
…………..?…..__…………………………………..:`………../
…………./__.(…..”~-,_…………………………,:`………./
………../(….”~,……..”~,………………..,:`……../
……….{..$;……”=,…….”-,…….,.~,},.~”;/….}
………..((…..*~_…….”=-._……”;,,./`…./”…………../
…,,,___.`~,……”~.,………………..`…..}…………../
…………(….`=,,…….`……………………(……;_,,”
…………/.`~,……`-………………………….……/
………….`~.*-,……………………………….|,./…..,__
,,……….}.>-.……………………………..|…………..`=~-,
…..`=~-,……`,……………………………
……………….`=~-,,.,………………………….
…………………………..`:,,………………………`…………..__
……………………………….`=,……………….,%`>-==“
………………………………….………..,-%…….`
……………………………..,<`..|,-&“…………….`
LikeLike
I see Moby Dick breaching.
LikeLike
That awesome pastor I mentioned earlier in this thread and his sermons are available every Sunday in our neck of the woods. I asked him some months ago, “so you need a website?” He says, “Make it so.” (not really)
See? Wasting time on the internet CAN produce results (I keep telling myself)..
Apologies (insert expressionless emoticon)
LikeLike
2. I end up agreeing with David R. on Calvin. I do not see Kline’s (or my) view of republication reflected in Calvin
Thank you for that; it’s much appreciated.
LikeLike
-Galatians 4: 25 —For these are the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar— 25 for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children— 26 but the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all
LikeLike
@ Todd: would you say your view is inconsistent with or goes beyond Calvin’s?
@ David: Are we done on the other thread?
LikeLike
Jeff, no I’m not done. Hope to have my response up soon. Sorry for the lengthy interlude….
LikeLike
Jeff,
I would say I agree with Calvin as to what he writes about the law, but it would be the case of the right doctrine from the wrong text. I don’t think it is correct to use the Lev. blessings and curses passage the way he did in applying them to NC believers, but nothing he actually wrote I disagree with in general, but again, I don’t see him ever developing the concept of national typology to the point laters writers did.
LikeLike
The OPC report per Nate is more than 800 OLTS comboxxes? Well power to you both, but I’m still gonna just wait for my church to publish their findings. Todd’s earlier no smoking gun is my current opinion, just don’t tell my pastor.
Adios.
LikeLike
I don’t think it is correct to use the Lev. blessings and curses passage the way he did in applying them to NC believers …
Again, thank you. My only point in discussing that passage from Calvin’s comments was to show that he held that Israel’s retention of Canaan was according to the same (gracious) principle of inheritance as is eternal life under the NC.
There are also passages in Turretin in which he is rather clear that he too held to identical principles of inheritance under MC and NC. For example, the following from his polemic against the merit of works:
LikeLike
@ David: no hurry. I just wanted to make sure you weren’t waiting for me.
LikeLike
Jeff, I’m the one holding up the “show.”
LikeLike
T.L 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
I suppose it could be worse, the OPC report on Justification could well have been1200+ comments on why imputation is not legal fiction. Thankfully that’s not the case. If I’m quiet, it’s ‘cuz I’m busy reading the 800 here at OL.
LikeLike
David,
I’m getting back to this finally. It’s taken me over a year. But I think I’m making progress..
you may want to check out Dr. Lee Irons, he’s got great stuff to add:
http://upper-register.typepad.com/
Bye David.
LikeLike
jeff, I notice that you did not object to my distinction between “the law of Christ” and the gospel in my first post. Why did that not bother you, when it did bother you that I pointed out the Genesis “law parts” of the Abrahamic covenant?
Abraham had two sons. One son is associated with the “old” Mosaic covenant. You don’t deny that, but you don’t want to talk about that, because you only one to talk about one son, one promise, and one covenant.
Renihan– “It is not ONE OR THE OTHER, as though promises were made only to Abraham and his natural children or to Christ and his offspring (Abraham included). It is both, each with its particular but related meaning in a typical or antitypical context. And thus the kingdom and covenants of Israel were not the kingdom and covenant of Christ though they were driving towards his birth and revealing truths about him all along the way.”
Genesis 17: 13 both he who is born in your house and he who is bought with your money, shall surely be circumcised. So shall my covenant be in your flesh a lasting covenant. 14 Any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin shall be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.
Galatians 4: 28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are children of promise. 29 But, as Ishmael who was born according to the flesh then persecuted Isaac who was born according to the Spirit, even so it is now.
LikeLike