# Denying the Covenant of Works



## Goodcheer68 (Mar 27, 2020)

If one denies the COW and sees only a mono-covenant structure, what is/are the possible trajectories? I readily see that imputation(vital to the Gospel) is lost- Romans 5:19.That is pretty clear. But can it lead to either antinomianism or neonomianism? It seems that it would conflate the Works/Grace principle which could lead to either one (anti or neo) depending on one's reading of certain verses. In other words I hear the FV talking about 'covenantal faithfulness' securing their justification, and then I listen to Ligon Duncan and he mentions that denying the COW leads to cheap grace. Anyone willing to elaborate on the trajectory of the denial of the COW?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Mar 27, 2020)

Basically, I think that you have hit the nail on the head, Patrick. Denying that there is a covenant of works in distinction from the covenant of grace tends to lead either to Legalism or Antinomianism. The imputed righteousness of Christ, justification by faith alone, the law-gospel distinction, and orthodox notions of sanctification and good works are all contingent on accurately understanding the differences between the covenants of works and grace. The covenant of works is one of the key pillars of the Reformed faith. Overturn it and the whole superstructure will collapse. 

If anyone denies the covenant of works, no matter how orthodox they might otherwise appear, they are to be marked and avoided in the sense that they ought never to be admitted to church office. In fact, they ought not to be admitted to the sacraments until they confess and forsake their gross error. This issue is not a minor one. If you follow the logic of mono-covenantalism through to its logical conclusion, you will abandon the gospel. 

The fact that so many otherwise conservative Reformed denominations decided to give certain prominent theologians a pass on this issue is testimony to their unfaithfulness. It is an example to be lamented and avoided, not one to be imitated. The soul-killing effects of the Federal Vision, which, as you point out, are the (il)logical conclusion of denying the covenant of works are a warning from God that mono-covenantalism needs to be confined to the dustbin of theological history.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Post Tenebras (Mar 28, 2020)

I wrestle with this. I do not find the Covenant of Works perspicuous in scripture and every defense of the CoW I encounter is built upon the confessions more than upon the Bible. (Yes, I know the confessions simply summarize biblical doctrine.) 

Providentially, just yesterday, this message by a local Anglican priest caught my attention. He exposits Deuteronomy and Galatians, and cites Rushdoony, and I do not find fault in his thesis that the CoW is a myth.

https://youtu.be/SmEbS0Tz0rY


----------



## Chad Hutson (Mar 28, 2020)

Leaving the inter-Reformed CoW argument aside, I can speak to the issue of denying the CoW among the non-Reformed. Without an understanding of the covenant relationship between God and Adam in the garden, focus shifts to the Old/Mosaic covenant. Seeking to explain the difference between works and grace, they point exclusively to the Law rather than to Adam. The result is an unnecessary disparaging of the Law of God or outright antinomianism. They fail to see the grace of each covenant of God from Gen 3:15, through Noah, Abraham, David, etc. They see little connection between them at all. In my opinion, a proper explanation of CoW on one hand and all the manifestations of the CoG on the other, balanced on the fulcrum of Gen 3:15 is essential for understanding the privilege of the New Covenant.
To the point(s) made in the OP, I agree with your assessment.

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Mar 28, 2020)

Post Tenebras said:


> I wrestle with this. I do not find the Covenant of Works perspicuous in scripture and every defense of the CoW I encounter is built upon the confessions more than upon the Bible. (Yes, I know the confessions simply summarize biblical doctrine.)
> 
> Providentially, just yesterday, this message by a local Anglican priest caught my attention. He exposits Deuteronomy and Galatians, and cites Rushdoony, and I do not find fault in his thesis that the CoW is a myth.



So why do you have "WCF" in your signature when you dare to reject this precious biblical and confessional doctrine as a myth? Seriously, anyone who thinks that defences of the covenant of works are based more on the confession than on scripture needs to read more and talk less.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## greenbaggins (Mar 28, 2020)

The Covenant of Works is based on the following BIBLICAL considerations. 

1. Genesis 2:15-17. The purpose for God's placement of humanity in the Garden of Eden is to work the garden and to guard it (the word is associated with priestly guarding of the temple from unclean intruders). Adam and Eve were supposed to guard the Garden from, say, Satanic intruders. Secondly, the terms of verses 16-17 indicate both the negative terms (don't eat from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil), and the corresponding positive terms (eat from all the other trees). The consequences are clear as well: eat from the TKGE, and they will die. Implied in that statement is that obedience will result in life. 

The next step is 1 Corinthians 15, which implies, via vv. 44b-45 that Adam's body implied a future glorified state, a body better than the original. Paul changes the contrast between vs 44a and 44b. In the first part of the verse, the contrast is between the post-Fall buried body, on the one hand, with the glorified resurrected body on the other. In verse 44b, the contrast broadens to include the pre-Fall body of Adam in contrast to the glorified resurrected body. This is indicated by the quotation of the pre-Fall Genesis 2:7 immediately following, whereas 44a talking about the post-Fall body is evident from the fact that it dies and is buried. The implications for the CoW are these: the state of Adam in the Garden of Eden pointed forward to a glorified state that was obtainable for him. From this it follows that obedience would have resulted in the glorified state. Hence Vos's statement that eschatology logically precedes soteriology. The CoW held out to Adam the promise of the glorified state, _not just a continuance of what he already had_. 

The next passage that bears on the question is Hosea 6:7. Although there are a variety of translations possible of this verse, the ESV gets it right: "But like Adam they transgressed the covenant; there they dealt faithlessly with me." On the proper exposition of the passage, see the article on it in the Shorter Writings of Warfield. The text claims that there was a covenant with Adam before the Fall, and that all those who are not part of the covenant of grace are transgressors of the covenant of works. The reason why it is called the covenant of works is that obedience (obedience to Genesis 2:15's reason for humanity being in the Garden and to the negative prohibition of 2:16) would have resulted in the glorified state Paul says Adam was looking forward to. 

This proves the existence of the Covenant of Works without one reference to confessional material. I suggest, Scott, that you seriously revise your opinion, and do a LOT more studying. We do not tolerate rejection of the CoW on this discussion board.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 3 | Funny 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Mar 28, 2020)

greenbaggins said:


> The CoW held out to Adam the promise of the glorified state, _not just a continuance of what he already had_.



While I agree with this statement, to be absolutely fair and honest, we must recognise that this point was disputed among confessional divines. Some held that the reward of the covenant of works was eternal earthly life, while others (correctly, in my view) held that it was eternal heavenly life. Either way, they affirmed that life was the reward for perfect obedience.


----------



## Goodcheer68 (Mar 28, 2020)

Post Tenebras said:


> wrestle with this. I do not find the Covenant of Works perspicuous in scripture and every defense of the CoW I encounter is built upon the confessions more than upon the Bible. (Yes, I know the confessions simply summarize biblical doctrine.)
> 
> Providentially, just yesterday, this message by a local Anglican priest caught my attention. He exposits Deuteronomy and Galatians, and cites Rushdoony, and I do not find fault in his thesis that the CoW is a myth.


 I’m not looking for a debate on the COW in this post but asking what we lose if we deny it. Thanks


----------



## greenbaggins (Mar 28, 2020)

Patrick, I think Wilhelmus a'Brakel says it as well as anyone:

Acquaintance with this covenant is of the greatest importance, for whoever errs here or denies the existence of the covenant of works, will not understand the covenant of grace, and will readily err concerning the mediatorship of the Lord Jesus. Such a person will very readily deny that Christ by His active obedience has merited a right to eternal life for the elect. This is to be observed with several parties who, because they err concerning the covenant of grace, also deny the covenant of works. Conversely, whoever denies the covenant of works, must rightly be suspected to be in error concerning the covenant of grace as well (_The Christian's Reasonable Service_, volume 1, p. 355).​

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 1 | Amen 1


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Mar 28, 2020)

When you reject the covenant of works, your covenant of grace becomes a covenant of works.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 2


----------



## Regi Addictissimus (Mar 28, 2020)

greenbaggins said:


> Patrick, I think Wilhelmus a'Brakel says it as well as anyone:
> 
> Acquaintance with this covenant is of the greatest importance, for whoever errs here or denies the existence of the covenant of works, will not understand the covenant of grace, and will readily err concerning the mediatorship of the Lord Jesus. Such a person will very readily deny that Christ by His active obedience has merited a right to eternal life for the elect. This is to be observed with several parties who, because they err concerning the covenant of grace, also deny the covenant of works. Conversely, whoever denies the covenant of works, must rightly be suspected to be in error concerning the covenant of grace as well (_The Christian's Reasonable Service_, volume 1, p. 355).​



I was going to post the same quote! Well done, sir.


----------



## Romans922 (Mar 28, 2020)

If you underemphasize or overemphasize the CoW, you get a lot of things wrong. 

See the errors of FV or Klineanism (for Presbyterians).

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Post Tenebras (Mar 28, 2020)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> So why do you have "WCF" in your signature when you dare to reject this precious biblical and confessional doctrine as a myth? Seriously, anyone who thinks that defences of the covenant of works are based more on the confession than on scripture needs to read more and talk less.



Thank you for this. I forgot the biblical command that only people with 100% perfect theology, fully aligned with the confessions, are allowed to speak and that all believers with any doubts must remain silent.


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Mar 28, 2020)

greenbaggins said:


> Conversely, whoever denies the covenant of works, must rightly be suspected to be in error concerning the covenant of grace as well





Puritan Sailor said:


> When you reject the covenant of works, your covenant of grace becomes a covenant of works.


I have been thinking of this issue with regard to the FV. I understand in the FV the covenant of grace becomes a covenant of works. Is that correct? Can someone expand?


----------



## greenbaggins (Mar 28, 2020)

The FV results in golawspel, a mixing of law and gospel. They usually say that there is only one covenant ever, both before and after the Fall. Folk like James Jordan will claim that Adam would only have matured in the position he already had, and that Adam and Eve would not have obtained any further state by the instrumentation of obedience, but by faith, which is redefined as faithfulness. Consequently, when it comes to the work of Christ, there is a denial of the imputation of the active obedience of Christ, but not for the same reasons as Gataker, Twisse, and Vines did at the Westminster Assembly (following Piscator), but for the purpose of claiming that Christ was justified by faith-faithfulness just like we are.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Goodcheer68 (Mar 28, 2020)

Post Tenebras said:


> Thank you for this. I forgot the biblical command that only people with 100% perfect theology, fully aligned with the confessions, are allowed to speak and that all believers with any doubts must remain silent.


 This is a confessional board so it should come as no surprise, especially when you state you subscribe to the WCF, that when you out right deny and mock a position that is held you are going to get pushback and rightly so. I ask unless you can add to the OP, which I will be all ears, please refrain from posting in this thread. It’s not helpful

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 28, 2020)

Another way to look at denying the CoW. It functions as a sort of "grammar" for doing theology. Change that grammar and you change a lot.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Goodcheer68 (Mar 28, 2020)

greenbaggins said:


> Patrick, I think Wilhelmus a'Brakel says it as well as anyone:
> 
> Acquaintance with this covenant is of the greatest importance, for whoever errs here or denies the existence of the covenant of works, will not understand the covenant of grace, and will readily err concerning the mediatorship of the Lord Jesus. Such a person will very readily deny that Christ by His active obedience has merited a right to eternal life for the elect. This is to be observed with several parties who, because they err concerning the covenant of grace, also deny the covenant of works. Conversely, whoever denies the covenant of works, must rightly be suspected to be in error concerning the covenant of grace as well (_The Christian's Reasonable Service_, volume 1, p. 355).



I should have known you would post that quote. I think in another thread I was reading on the COW you posted that. Its a good quote. I actually have a' Brakel and enjoy his treatment on this subject.


----------



## greenbaggins (Mar 28, 2020)

Post Tenebras said:


> Thank you for this. I forgot the biblical command that only people with 100% perfect theology, fully aligned with the confessions, are allowed to speak and that all believers with any doubts must remain silent.



Scott, you are walking on very thin ice here. First of all, no one on this board believes they have a perfect theology. Second, as has been mentioned, this is a confessional board. If a person has a genuine question about something in the confessions as a sort of newbie, we have a forum for it called the Wading Pool. Of course, that is for people genuinely wanting to learn, not mock the confessional standards and try to divorce them from their Scriptural underpinnings. When you applied for membership to this board, you agreed not to advocate unconfessional views. That is a box you have to click to join this board. We take that commitment seriously. A confessional board means that we believe here that the 3FU and the WS, as well as the LBC offer Scriptural summaries of biblical teaching. Your level of snark at the teachings of the church is unbecoming as well. If a person wanted to say, "You know, I hold to the confessions, but I have this particular question about this teaching," and they phrase it in a way that showed they were genuinely wanting to learn, they wouldn't get any pushback on that. It happens all the time. That is quite different from what you're doing.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 1


----------



## Regi Addictissimus (Mar 28, 2020)

Post Tenebras said:


> I wrestle with this. I do not find the Covenant of Works perspicuous in scripture and every defense of the CoW I encounter is built upon the confessions more than upon the Bible. (Yes, I know the confessions simply summarize biblical doctrine.)
> 
> Providentially, just yesterday, this message by a local Anglican priest caught my attention. He exposits Deuteronomy and Galatians, and cites Rushdoony, and I do not find fault in his thesis that the CoW is a myth.



I would suggest you do some serious reading and praying on this doctrine. It is no small matter to deny the CoW and call it a "myth." You will find linked some resources on this most foundational doctrine

Berkhof _The *Scriptural *foundation of the Covenant of Works_
https://www.monergism.com/scriptural-foundation-covenant-works

John Brown of Haddington on the Covenant of Works
https://www.monergism.com/covenant-works-0

John Colquhoun - _The Covenant of Works_
https://books.google.com/books?id=Z...ce=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

Ligon Duncan's RTS Covenant Theology lecture on the Covenant of Works
https://subsplash.com/reformtheosem/lb/mi/+1489306

Thomas Watson on the Covenant of Works
https://www.monergism.com/covenant-works-0

I trust if prayerfully read, you will forgo such erroneous notions that the CoW is a "myth." I say that with due respect for you and for the integrity of the historic Reformed confessions. 



Goodcheer68 said:


> I’m not looking for a debate on the COW in this post but asking what we lose if we deny it. Thanks



Please forgive me, OP. I know you do not want this thread to debate whether the CoW exists, as that should be a given for members of the Puritan Board.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## A.Joseph (Mar 28, 2020)

Romans922 said:


> If you underemphasize or overemphasize the CoW, you get a lot of things wrong.
> 
> See the errors of FV or Klineanism (for Presbyterians).


Can you expand on the later part of your last statement, specific to Kline. I'm sincerely not really familiar and would like to know, thanks!


----------



## Romans922 (Mar 28, 2020)

A.Joseph said:


> Can you expand on the later part of your last statement, specific to Kline. I'm sincerely not really familiar and would like to know, thanks!



Sure. 

FV underemphasizes the CoW by removing it completely. Klineanism is an overreaction to FV in which Kline, et. al., overemphasize the CoW which leads to all sorts of craziness with application towards the Mosaic Covenant. This leads to aspects of antinominism in Kline's followers (though it differs depending on who you talk to). Kline & Co. would generally deny WCF 7.1 as well. Namely, "The distance between God and the creature is so great that although reasonable creatures do owe obedience unto him as their Creator, yet they could never have any fruition of him as their blessedness and reward but by some voluntary condescension on God’s part, which he hath been pleased to express by way of covenant."

They believe that man was under the CoW by virtue of their being created. This is wrong. 

Those logically consistent with Kline's views will be antinomians though. A perfect example of one who is logically consistent is Lee Irons.


----------



## A.Joseph (Mar 28, 2020)

Romans922 said:


> Sure.
> 
> FV underemphasizes the CoW by removing it completely. Klineanism is an overreaction to FV in which Kline, et. al., overemphasize the CoW which leads to all sorts of craziness with application towards the Mosaic Covenant. This leads to aspects of antinominism in Kline's followers (though it differs depending on who you talk to). Kline & Co. would generally deny WCF 7.1 as well. Namely, "The distance between God and the creature is so great that although reasonable creatures do owe obedience unto him as their Creator, yet they could never have any fruition of him as their blessedness and reward but by some voluntary condescension on God’s part, which he hath been pleased to express by way of covenant."
> 
> ...


 May what you are explaining be seen as a type of easy believism in which fruit inspection is lacking in the life of the confessing Christian. I don’t mean to over simplify or stereotype, I’m just trying to get a handle on what this could look like, thanks! I’m wondering if this could be a greater problem then we even realize in our circles, short of falling into a mystical - legalistic understanding of these things.


----------



## Goodcheer68 (Mar 28, 2020)

Romans922 said:


> overemphasize the CoW which leads to all sorts of craziness with application towards the Mosaic Covenant


 Trying to work through this. How does overemphasizing the CoW lead to antinomianism? Could you connect the dots for me?


----------



## Romans922 (Mar 28, 2020)

Goodcheer68 said:


> Trying to work through this. How does overemphasizing the CoW lead to antinomianism? Could you connect the dots for me?



Somewhat difficult to explain actually and that's mostly to do with Kline himself and his inventive mind. 

I guess I'd encourage you to learn more what he teaches like republicationism (which is key to understanding his different view on ethics) and his 'intrusion ethics'. Randy's website on this is pretty thorough: https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.com/

Where is Randy @PuritanCovenanter at anyway?



A.Joseph said:


> May what you are explaining be seen as a type of easy believism in which fruit inspection is lacking in the life of the confessing Christian. I don’t mean to over simplify or stereotype, I’m just trying to get a handle on what this could look like, thanks! I’m wondering if this could be a greater problem then we even realize in our circles, short of falling into a mystical - legalistic understanding of these things.



No, not easy believism. That's more just an error of evangelicalism. To summarize, for me, Kline et al (speaking in generalities), I'd say it is New Covenant Theology in reformed language.


----------



## A.Joseph (Mar 28, 2020)

> Kline & Co. would generally deny WCF 7.1 as well. Namely, "The distance between God and the creature is so great that although reasonable creatures do owe obedience unto him as their Creator, yet they could never have any fruition of him as their blessedness and reward but by some voluntary condescension on God’s part, which he hath been pleased to express by way of covenant."
> 
> They believe that man was under the CoW by virtue of their being created. This is wrong.
> 
> Those logically consistent with Kline's views will be antinomians though.



Are you saying this is almost as if we are not owning our own inherent sin, our utter total depravity before God... that we are not so estranged on a personal (spiritual) level? I guess I’m maybe not following.


----------



## A.Joseph (Mar 28, 2020)

Romans922 said:


> Somewhat difficult to explain actually and that's mostly to do with Kline himself and his inventive mind.
> 
> I guess I'd encourage you to learn more what he teaches like republicationism (which is key to understanding his different view on ethics) and his 'intrusion ethics'. Randy's website on this is pretty thorough: https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.com/
> 
> ...



ok, I understand. Thanks!


----------



## Regi Addictissimus (Mar 28, 2020)

Romans922 said:


> Where is Randy @PuritanCovenanter at anyway?



https://puritanboard.com/threads/missing-in-action.101916/#post-1240063


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Mar 28, 2020)

greenbaggins said:


> Genesis 2:15-17. The purpose for God's placement of humanity in the Garden of Eden is to work the garden and to guard it (the word is associated with priestly guarding of the temple from unclean intruders). Adam and Eve were supposed to guard the Garden from, say, Satanic intruders.


Great Vosian theme here 


greenbaggins said:


> Consequently, when it comes to the work of Christ, there is a denial of the imputation of the active obedience of Christ, but not for the same reasons as Gataker, Twisse, and Vines did at the Westminster Assembly (following Piscator), but for the purpose of claiming that Christ was justified by faith-faithfulness just like we are.


.
Just clarifying my earlier thought - thus in the FV this denial of the imputation of the active obedience of Christ basically has created a system whereby the covenant of works has become the covenant of grace. Thus it is a form of Richard Baxter's neonomianism?


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Mar 28, 2020)

Romans922 said:


> Klineanism is an overreaction to FV in which Kline, et. al., overemphasize the CoW which leads to all sorts of craziness with application towards the Mosaic Covenant. This leads to aspects of antinominism in Kline's followers (though it differs depending on who you talk to).


I think you make a good point here. I have read some 1689 Federalists who are rightly critical of the FV, but tend to show an imbalance re the Mosaic Covenant.


Romans922 said:


> Kline & Co. would generally deny WCF 7.1


I should add that though I have my concerns with 1689 Federalism, I have not come across any of its advocates who deny WCF 7:1 (also 1689 Confession 7:1).


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Mar 28, 2020)

Goodcheer68 said:


> Trying to work through this. How does overemphasizing the CoW lead to antinomianism? Could you connect the dots for me?



In addition to Andrew’s comments, I’ll add my own two cents. The problem in the Klinean formulation is not necessarily overemphasizing the covenant of works but redefining the covenant of works. It redefines the moral law as THE covenant of works. The moral law is fundamentally part of the creation covenant, and actually woven into the fabric of man's nature in creation, so that his natural drive even before the Fall is not just to be righteous (historic Reformed position) but also to earn salvation by merit (Klinean position). It's a very subtle twist but has important implications. So, when Christ fulfills this covenant of works, he also fulfills the moral law in creation. This moral law/covenant of works was also "republished" in the Mosaic law, and so with Adam/Moses fulfilled by Christ, the moral law/creation covenant is fulfilled completely. In Christ, the Christian is under a new law as a new creation. That is where the potential for antinomianism can creep in. Under this conception, those in Christ live under a different moral standard than Adam/Moses, usually called by proponents "the law of Christ" or "love" (usually defined as New Testament or new covenant laws or imperatives) in contrast to the inferior moral law/mosaic law/covenant of works which focused on "merit".

This is a different conception from the historic Confessional position, which maintained that the moral law remains the same standard of righteousness for both covenants. The moral law was the standard man was created to live by, and only became a means for earning eternal life AFTER God condescended to make the covenant of works with him. In the covenant of grace, you obey the same moral law (not a new one) out of love and gratitude to the Father as his redeemed child. Same moral law and standard of righteousness but different covenant relationship to God. And it's also the same standard to which man is renewed and restored in Christ. So, there's no difference between "love" and "law" in the Confessional position. Both are defined by the same moral law.

Back to mono-covenantalismm, it's possible to fall into antinomianism too. You could argue that Christ fulfilled the conditions of the covenant, therefore we have no obligations to fulfill it ourselves. But it's very hard to be a consistent antinomian if you are going to take the whole Bible seriously. Even those who would advocate a formal antinomianism (moral law is no longer binding) usually advocate some sort of obedience to a new covenant law. And as Sinclair Ferguson has pointed out so well in "The Whole Christ" (highly recommended!) antinomianism is fundamentally controlled by a legalistic conception of God in it's overreaction to legalism. And usually antinomianism is unstable, and will inadvertently create some practical form of legalism (i.e. conformity to it’s scheme of antinomian faith or pursuit of confirmatory experiences from God) in order to know they are true Christians. Another helpful study on the various forms of antinomianism is “Antinomianism, Reformed Theology’s Unwelcome Guest?” by Mark Jones.

Again, my two cents...

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 1 | Edifying 1 | Amen 1


----------



## Romans922 (Mar 28, 2020)

Puritan Sailor said:


> In addition to Andrew’s comments, I’ll add my own two cents. The problem in the Klinean formulation is not necessarily overemphasizing the covenant of works but redefining the covenant of works. It redefines the moral law as THE covenant of works. The moral law is fundamentally part of the creation covenant, and actually woven into the fabric of man's nature in creation, so that his natural drive even before the Fall is not just to be righteous (historic Reformed position) but also to earn salvation by merit (Klinean position). It's a very subtle twist but has important implications. So, when Christ fulfills this covenant of works, he also fulfills the moral law in creation. This moral law/covenant of works was also "republished" in the Mosaic law, and so with Adam/Moses fulfilled by Christ, the moral law/creation covenant is fulfilled completely. In Christ, the Christian is under a new law as a new creation. That is where the potential for antinomianism can creep in. Under this conception, those in Christ live under a different moral standard than Adam/Moses, usually called by proponents "the law of Christ" or "love" (usually defined as New Testament or new covenant laws or imperatives) in contrast to the inferior moral law/mosaic law/covenant of works which focused on "merit".
> 
> This is a different conception from the historic Confessional position, which maintained that the moral law remains the same standard of righteousness for both covenants. The moral law was the standard man was created to live by, and only became a means for earning eternal life AFTER God condescended to make the covenant of works with him. In the covenant of grace, you obey the same moral law (not a new one) out of love and gratitude to the Father as his redeemed child. Same moral law and standard of righteousness but different covenant relationship to God. And it's also the same standard to which man is renewed and restored in Christ. So, there's no difference between "love" and "law" in the Confessional position. Both are defined by the same moral law.
> 
> ...



i emojied. But Amen!


----------



## Goodcheer68 (Mar 28, 2020)

Puritan Sailor said:


> Again, my two cents...


That was very helpful!! Thanks for your , in my economy that was worth a million dollars!


----------



## Tidwex (Mar 28, 2020)

Goodcheer68 said:


> If one denies the COW and sees only a mono-covenant structure, what is/are the possible trajectories? I readily see that imputation(vital to the Gospel) is lost- Romans 5:19.That is pretty clear. But can it lead to either antinomianism or neonomianism? It seems that it would conflate the Works/Grace principle which could lead to either one (anti or neo) depending on one's reading of certain verses. In other words I hear the FV talking about 'covenantal faithfulness' securing their justification, and then I listen to Ligon Duncan and he mentions that denying the COW leads to cheap grace. Anyone willing to elaborate on the trajectory of the denial of the COW?


A book I am reading at the moment is called "The Marrow of Modern Divinity", which addresses these issues. If you deny the covenant of works between Adam and God, you misunderstand the Gospel: We have our sin debt paid by Christ, but we also *gain* eternal life through Christ keeping the CoW. It's not merely enough to be forgiven in my opinion, that just makes you innocent, back to where Adam stood before the fall (correct me if I'm wrong about that, I'm not a theologian but I dabble a bit here and there and would like guidance). We need a representative who can accomplish what Adam failed to do. He "restores" us to innocence and earns eternal life through his sinless life.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Goodcheer68 (Mar 28, 2020)

Tidwex said:


> If you deny the covenant of works between Adam and God, you misunderstand the Gospel:


 Right, one of the things you lose is imputation which is vital for the Gospel. If no first Adam as a federal head we lose our grounding for a second Adam (Romans 5). I’m also trying to learn where else it takes you and it seems to also lead to either anti or neonomianism. Which I suspected but wanted clarification.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Mar 28, 2020)

I am not going to make myself popular by writing this statement, nonetheless, I think that it needs to be said. The wholesale rejection of a pedagogical republication of the covenant of works during the Mosaic economy (which is emphatically *not* the view that the Mosaic administration was a covenant of works _simpliciter_) - probably adopted in reaction to Klinean excesses - has pulled down one of the main bulwarks against mono-covenantalism. Pulling down this stronghold against mono-covenantalism was also likely a major factor in facilitating the rise of the Federal Vision and other forms of neonomianism. It is not enough just to condemn the FV or mono-covenantalism themselves, but we need to get to the root of the problem. To paraphrase Tony Blair (!!!), we must be "tough on the Federal Vision; tough on the causes of the Federal Vision."

In order to completely deny republication, you have to do a lot of exegetical dancing to get around the obvious meaning of many biblical texts. You also have to studiously ignore the vast array of Reformed divines who adhered to some form of republication. If you can engage in that much exegetical and historical evasion to deny the plain teaching of both scripture and historical Reformed theology, it is not much of a stretch to proceed to an outright denial of the covenant of works, as many of the major proof-texts for the covenant of works are explained away (such as Leviticus 18, Romans 10, Galatians 3 and 4). 

R. Scott Clark has a growing number of posts on the subject of both the covenant of works and republication; likewise, I am gathering up quotes on the covenant of works, though I have tons more in the pipeline.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Mar 28, 2020)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> I am not going to make myself popular by writing this statement, nonetheless, I think that it needs to be said. The wholesale rejection of a pedagogical republication of the covenant of works during the Mosaic economy (which is emphatically *not* the view that the Mosaic administration was a covenant of works _simpliciter_) - probably adopted in reaction to Klinean excesses - has pulled down one of the main bulwarks against mono-covenantalism. Pulling down this stronghold against mono-covenantalism was also likely a major factor in facilitating the rise of the Federal Vision and other forms of neonomianism. It is not enough just to condemn the FV or mono-covenantalism themselves, but we need to get to the root of the problem. To paraphrase Tony Blair (!!!), we must be "tough on the Federal Vision; tough on the causes of the Federal Vision."
> 
> In order to completely deny republication, you have to do a lot of exegetical dancing to get around the obvious meaning of many biblical texts. You also have to studiously ignore the vast array of Reformed divines who adhered to some form of republication. If you can engage in that much exegetical and historical evasion to deny the plain teaching of both scripture and historical Reformed theology, it is not much of a stretch to proceed to an outright denial of the covenant of works, as many of the major proof-texts for the covenant of works are explained away (such as Leviticus 18, Romans 10, Galatians 3 and 4).
> 
> R. Scott Clark has a growing number of posts on the subject of both the covenant of works and republication; likewise, I am gathering up quotes on the covenant of works, though I have tons more in the pipeline.



Perhaps to simplify what I am trying to say here: If you deny a republication of the covenant of works, it becomes much easier to argue that it was never published in the first place.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Mar 28, 2020)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> Perhaps to simplify what I am trying to say here: If you deny a republication of the covenant of works, it becomes much easier to argue that it was never published in the first place.


I would agree with that too. Confession 19.2 for example says that the same moral law as a rule of righteousness was given again at Sinai. And we could even say that the legal obligations and penalties of the covenant of works were restated or "republished" for instructional purposes only (i.e. the first use of the law, to teach them their inability to keep the law and drive them to Christ, Gal 3:24). This is basically the position of Thomas Boston in his notes on the Marrow. He advocates a "subservient" covenant view but stays within the correct definitions of the moral law, gospel, covenant of works, and covenant of grace. It's the Klinean redefinitions of these terms and that version of republication that won't work (in my opinion).

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## A.Joseph (Mar 29, 2020)

Puritan Sailor said:


> I would agree with that too. Confession 19.2 for example says that the same moral law as a rule of righteousness was given again at Sinai. And we could even say that the legal obligations and penalties of the covenant of works were restated or "republished" for instructional purposes only (i.e. the first use of the law, to teach them their inability to keep the law and drive them to Christ, Gal 3:24). This is basically the position of Thomas Boston in his notes on the Marrow. He advocates a "subservient" covenant view but stays within the correct definitions of the moral law, gospel, covenant of works, and covenant of grace. It's the Klinean redefinitions of these terms and that version of republication that won't work (in my opinion).


Fascinating stuff, so what exactly is so offensive about the concept of republication? What was the purpose and intent at Sinai? If the republication was for the light to be shined on the 1st use of the law what is the problem in that? I believe the event at Sinai was a show of God’s holiness and righteousness. Not that there was not an element of mercy as well. Any restraint, even partially, of judgment and punishment, is an act of mercy obviously.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Mar 29, 2020)

A.Joseph said:


> Fascinating stuff, so what exactly is so offensive about the concept of republication? What was the purpose and intent at Sinai? If the republication was for the light to be shined on the 1st use of the law what is the problem in that? I believe the event at Sinai was a show of God’s holiness and righteousness. Not that there was not an element of mercy as well. Any restraint, even partially, of judgment and punishment, is an act of mercy obviously.


I really want to stay away from this subject and the thread; I've said my piece elsewhere, been highly critical of MGK, and later sympathetic to his historical position and the fight he was called to even while still unsympathetic to certain positions he taught; and I am pleased with the OPC report on republication that clarifies (in my mind) what is and is not properly confessional. I think MGK is a writer many people would benefit from reading and seriously engaging, very influential and had many keen insights, just not always reliable.

If a republication-position leads to the conclusion that Israel took possession of Canaan in a state whereby the equivalent of "congruent merit" (a Romanist term) kept them (or could keep them) landed and free instead of kicked out and re-enslaved--this clearly is sacrificing crucial insights of our theology to salvage a "real" works-covenant scheme.

A pedagogical republication does not require that there be at least a notional keeping of the law that is _sufficiently good, _to qualify Israel so that she might stay put. That standard was perfection, and it was never lowered, and there was no grading on a curve. Israel failed in the shadow of Sinai, they failed in the wilderness, they failed as soon as they entered the land and began to conquer it. They failed further in establishing control of the territory by the first chapter of Judges. They failed all the way until exile. And still failed that, and their return.

So... either there was some "passing standard" God accepted less than perfection, or else grace was the true operating principle. But there's still a place for the CoW to be set forth, including promises extracted from the nation to obey on which statements God suspends the blessing of settlement. It's just that immediately it becomes apparent that if grace is not "deeper" than the legal arrangement, this failure will be worse than in Eden.

So, the required obedience is still required; the promissory oath is still exacting; but performance perfection is hypothetical. "If Israel could keep this law, then on that basis she would remain in the land indefinitely." She cannot, and she does not keep it, and yet she remains in the land: hence grace, hence Abraham before Moses and not supplanted by Moses. She cannot, she does not, and so she is removed from the land _when God's patience is exhausted, _and not because she ever stayed a day/week/month/year, on the basis of sufficient merit of her own.

The nation is brought back to the land, not because she is repentant (as in the law's statements about restoration)--Daniel is clear in his prayer, ch9, that Judah has not done what is necessary in exile to warrant a return after 70yrs--but because of grace yet again. The republication effects what it is supposed to, namely it drives the remnant to throw themselves time and again, in every generation starting with the first, on the mercy and grace of God. The Law is never the actual basis of effecting anything in Israel's history directly, as if unmediated through grace's prism.

Reactions: Like 5 | Edifying 1


----------



## A.Joseph (Mar 29, 2020)

I have a somewhat limited understanding but I definitely see Gods people in non-conditional (obviously) covenant of grace and when they offended God or went astray it was cause they didn’t recognize and worship Him as they should, a response to His grace, mercy and dominion over all things.


----------



## greenbaggins (Mar 29, 2020)

Stephen, yes, I would say that merging the CoW and the CoG results in neonomianism, if not outright legalism. There are various positions, and I think Richard Baxter falls in that continuum. 

On the issue of republication, I agree with Fred Greco. He told me something a long time ago, and which has resonated with me more and more over time: the CoW is always republished all the way through Scripture. So also is the CoW always still in place for those who are not members of the CoG. _It is not obsolete_. I think that is a point often missing in the discussion. We tend to fall into the trap of thinking that because Christians are no longer subject to the CoW that therefore no one is. Everyone not under the federal headship of the Last Adam is still under the federal headship of the first Adam, and therefore still under the sanctions of that covenant. 

I think a limitation of the republication to the Mosaic economy is barking up the wrong tree. There are certainly things in the Mosaic covenant that are meant to remind us of the CoW, not least "Do this and live," as Paul understands that phrase. But to make this point is simply to reaffirm the law-gospel distinction. And I agree with Bruce's points about how Israel got the land and retained the land. Furthermore, statements that echo the CoW occur throughout Scripture, and in various covenantal situations.

Reactions: Like 4 | Informative 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Mar 29, 2020)

greenbaggins said:


> On the issue of republication, I agree with Fred Greco. He told me something a long time ago, and which has resonated with me more and more over time: the CoW is always republished all the way through Scripture. So also is the CoW always still in place for those who are not members of the CoG.



I agree with this statement of the question, but the argument that those who hold to a pedagogical republication under Moses (not Klinean republication) would make is the prominence that the republication of the covenant of works was given in the Mosaic administration of the covenant of grace was much greater than in previous administrations or at present. In other words, there was a superadded republication under Moses in order to serve as a schoolmaster to drive the Israelites to Christ and show the futility of seeking salvation on account of legal observance. 

Now that the Mosaic economy of the evangelical covenant has been superseded, all that is left of it is the republished covenant of works. Hence, those who wish to return to the bondage of Moses are reverting to the covenant of works and rejecting the covenant of grace. I do not really see how we can do justice to Galatians 4 and other passages without holding to this position.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## A.Joseph (Mar 29, 2020)

sorry, I meant at Sinai, specifically, and OT in a general sense, to add proper context to my statement... obviously I affirm individual salvation via the covenant of grace occurs no differently in the NT up to our time.


A.Joseph said:


> I have a somewhat limited understanding but I definitely see Gods people in non-conditional (obviously) covenant of grace and when they offended God or went astray it was cause they didn’t recognize and worship Him as they should, a response to His grace, mercy and dominion over all things.


----------



## A.Joseph (Mar 29, 2020)

greenbaggins said:


> Stephen, yes, I would say that merging the CoW and the CoG results in neonomianism, if not outright legalism. There are various positions, and I think Richard Baxter falls in that continuum.
> 
> On the issue of republication, I agree with Fred Greco. He told me something a long time ago, and which has resonated with me more and more over time: the CoW is always republished all the way through Scripture. So also is the CoW always still in place for those who are not members of the CoG. _It is not obsolete_. I think that is a point often missing in the discussion. We tend to fall into the trap of thinking that because Christians are no longer subject to the CoW that therefore no one is. Everyone not under the federal headship of the Last Adam is still under the federal headship of the first Adam, and therefore still under the sanctions of that covenant.
> 
> I think a limitation of the republication to the Mosaic economy is barking up the wrong tree. There are certainly things in the Mosaic covenant that are meant to remind us of the CoW, not least "Do this and live," as Paul understands that phrase. But to make this point is simply to reaffirm the law-gospel distinction. And I agree with Bruce's points about how Israel got the land and retained the land. Furthermore, statements that echo the CoW occur throughout Scripture, and in various covenantal situations.


I’ve also heard the point that 2K theology reflects a CoG v GoW dichotomy/distinction in which Gods law remains supreme but it’s a delight/affirmation for those under the one and condemnation/burden for those under the other. I actually heard this in the context of a Timothy Brindle track.


----------



## TooManySystematics (Mar 29, 2020)

I think that it also needs to be asked what a person is actually doing when they deny the CoW. 

- What are the nature of their objections, is it from a misunderstanding of what the doctrine actually asserts? 
- Do they still believe in a prelapsarian covenant? If so, what is the relationship between the prelapsarian covenant and the post-lapsarian covenant? 
- Do they just not like the name "works"? Would they be satisfied with the substance of the doctrine if they merely called it something else such as "the covenant of life?"

Just my . I'm wary of making the term "covenant of works", as a term, a shibboleth when they might not actually reject the substance of the doctrine.


----------



## Goodcheer68 (Mar 29, 2020)

TooManySystematics said:


> What are the nature of their objections, is it from a misunderstanding of what the doctrine actually asserts?
> - Do they still believe in a prelapsarian covenant? If so, what is the relationship between the prelapsarian covenant and the post-lapsarian covenant?
> - Do they just not like the name "works"? Would they be satisfied with the substance of the doctrine if they merely called it something else such as "the covenant of life?"
> 
> Just my . I'm wary of making the term "covenant of works", as a term, a shibboleth when they might not actually reject the substance of the doctrine.



If someone wants to call the CoW by another name Cov of Creation, life, nature, etc. that is perfectly legitimate. But the question assumed that those that reject the CoW understand what the CoW entails. So I’m asking particularly about mono-covenantalist and not thinking about people like O Palmer Robertson who prefers the term Cov of Creation over CoW. Hope that clears things up.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## mvdm (Mar 30, 2020)

Romans922 said:


> Those logically consistent with Kline's views will be antinomians though. A perfect example of one who is logically consistent is Lee Irons.



Another example would be Tullian Tchividjian, who credited his understanding of covenant/ law/gospel from Klinean Mike Horton, and whose theology was vigorously defended by Klinean Scott Clark.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Mar 30, 2020)

A.Joseph said:


> Fascinating stuff, so what exactly is so offensive about the concept of republication? What was the purpose and intent at Sinai? If the republication was for the light to be shined on the 1st use of the law what is the problem in that? I believe the event at Sinai was a show of God’s holiness and righteousness. Not that there was not an element of mercy as well. Any restraint, even partially, of judgment and punishment, is an act of mercy obviously.



My short answer: I agree with everything Bruce and Lane said above.

My own take: The Klinean republication scheme is more than a scheme using the first use of the law (where that IS the main point under historic Reformed schemes of republication). For Kline, Israel in the Promise Land is a reenactment of Adam in the Garden, with Israel’s land inheritance really dependent upon their “sincere” obedience.

Though, there certainly are thematic overlaps with Eden, it’s very clear from Sinai onward that Israel only received, kept, lost, and returned to the land by grace, not by obedience. The Promise Land under Moses was more appropriately a type of the new creation received by grace, not a new covenant of works with the real possibility of keeping the land by obedience (like Eden).

Moses told them up front in Deuteronomy 30 that they would fail and go into exile, and that God would graciously restore them. The history, theology, and purpose of the Mosaic administration needs to be read in light of that prophecy of Moses himself promising that something new was coming. There’s no real possibility of obtaining the land by works when God tells you up front it was all of grace. It was all an elaborate tutor to teach Israel they could not obey the law on their own and needed the grace of God in the promised Savior.

I also agree with Bruce, that Kline has many helpful insights on other issues. I just disagree with him these issues. The OPC report is very helpful in sifting through what is helpful or not.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 1


----------



## BRK (Mar 30, 2020)

I do not wish to derail the thread, but having seen a number of references to Meredith Kline both in this thread and elsewhere and being new to Reformed theology, I wanted to ask a question. I was recently gifted a book by Kline, _The Structure of Biblical Authority_, which I have yet to read. Am I at risk of assuming a non-confessional view by reading this? I fear I lack the requisite knowledge to know when I may be being led astray.


----------



## Regi Addictissimus (Mar 30, 2020)

BRK said:


> I do not wish to derail the thread, but having seen a number of references to Meredith Kline both in this thread and elsewhere and being new to Reformed theology, I wanted to ask a question. I was recently gifted a book by Kline, _The Structure of Biblical Authority_, which I have yet to read. Am I at risk of assuming a non-confessional view by reading this? I fear I lack the requisite knowledge to know when I may be being led astray.



Nothing against Kline, but if you are new to Reformed Theology, there are much better ways to invest your time.
Invest your time in some historic Reformed Systematic Theologies that have withstood the test of time and scrutiny. Pour yourself into Berkhof, Brakel, or Calvin along with your Bible in hand. I would choose Brakel first. You get a Reformed Systematic and Ethics manual. He will lead you through each doctrine in a warm and pastoral tone.
Read something along the lines of Jonty Rhodes's _Covenants Made Simple_ to gain a necessary foundation of_ Reformed Covenant Theology_ with getting bogged down into some of the debates. 
Invest your time wisely and may the Lord bless your studies.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 30, 2020)

Read Muller's Dictionary cover to cover. You will learn more theology from that than from many courses.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Mar 30, 2020)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Read Muller's Dictionary cover to cover. You will learn more theology from that than from many courses.


Did you mean his "Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms"? I see it is now out in a revised edition. I have been debating within myself if I need it


----------



## Regi Addictissimus (Mar 30, 2020)

Stephen L Smith said:


> Did you mean his "Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms"? I see it is now out in a revised edition. I have been debating within myself if I need it



You need it. It's as simple as that.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Mar 30, 2020)

Stephen L Smith said:


> Did you mean his "Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms"? I see it is now out in a revised edition. I have been debating within myself if I need it



You need it (as does everyone).


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Mar 30, 2020)

Two things: the covenant of works is biblically taught and theologically crucial. My recent work on the _Imputation of the Active Obedience of Christ in the Westminster Standards _seeks to demonstrate how all this (the covenants, imputation of whole obedience, etc.) is of a piece, articulated in our doctrinal standards, which give expression to the system of doctrine taught in Scripture.

That was the first thing; here is the second: get Muller's work. Here's a review: https://www.opc.org/os.html?article_id=692.

Peace,
Alan


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Mar 31, 2020)

Regi Addictissimus said:


> You need it. It's as simple as that.





Reformed Covenanter said:


> You need it (as does everyone).





Alan D. Strange said:


> get Muller's work. Here's a review: https://www.opc.org/os.html?article_id=692.


I will have to get it based on 3 recommendations. I realise Eccles 4:12 tells us a threefold cord is not quickly broken.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 31, 2020)

Stephen L Smith said:


> Did you mean his "Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms"? I see it is now out in a revised edition. I have been debating within myself if I need it


yes


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Apr 1, 2020)

Puritan Sailor said:


> I’ll add my own two cents. The problem in the Klinean formulation is not necessarily overemphasizing the covenant of works but redefining the covenant of works. It redefines the moral law as THE covenant of works. The moral law is fundamentally part of the creation covenant, and actually woven into the fabric of man's nature in creation, so that his natural drive even before the Fall is not just to be righteous (historic Reformed position) but also to earn salvation by it (Klinean position).


https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.c...n-and-covenant-recast-and-collapsed-together/

https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.com/2014/06/14/klines-reactionary-theology/

https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.c...escension-and-redefinition-of-covenant-merit/

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## BRK (Apr 1, 2020)

Regi Addictissimus said:


> Nothing against Kline, but if you are new to Reformed Theology, there are much better ways to invest your time.
> Invest your time in some historic Reformed Systematic Theologies that have withstood the test of time and scrutiny. Pour yourself into Berkhof, Brakel, or Calvin along with your Bible in hand. I would choose Brakel first. You get a Reformed Systematic and Ethics manual. He will lead you through each doctrine in a warm and pastoral tone.
> Read something along the lines of Jonty Rhodes's _Covenants Made Simple_ to gain a necessary foundation of_ Reformed Covenant Theology_ with getting bogged down into some of the debates.
> Invest your time wisely and may the Lord bless your studies.



I purchased a Kindle version of Jonty Rhode's _Covenants Made Simple _the other day. Thank you for the recommendation!


----------



## A.Joseph (Apr 1, 2020)

Ok, I'm getting confused again but I think it's more the advanced language strung together than the concepts. I'm assuming many here have a level of seminary training, at least informally. So if I'm following your train of thought I agree that a created Adam as ushered right into a CoW seems forced. So what actually is this CoW in biblical history? How does our redemptive historical understanding rise or fall with such a doctrine? Why cant it all be of grace? Life, creation, salvation, etc.... How is a works dynamic not only applicable to non-covenant beings?


PuritanCovenanter said:


> https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.c...n-and-covenant-recast-and-collapsed-together/
> 
> https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.com/2014/06/14/klines-reactionary-theology/
> 
> https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.c...escension-and-redefinition-of-covenant-merit/


----------



## A.Joseph (Apr 1, 2020)

Just to add, a majority of my Protestant theology/history knowledge & understanding is pre-20th century. Not until I joined the OPC around 2015 did I ever hear of names like Vos, Klein and even VanTil or Machen. I was immersed in the Puritans/Early Reformers and lots of Augustine’s writings in becoming acquainted with the Reformed faith. I’m surprised that a guy born in the 20th. Century with the first name Meredith would have such an impact on central doctrinal matters.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Apr 2, 2020)

A.Joseph said:


> I’m surprised that a guy born in the 20th. Century with the first name Meredith would have such an impact on central doctrinal matters.


This is a joke, right? Ever hear of Loraine Boettner? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loraine_Boettner

Remember: "every idle word." You've just leveled a personal sniping attack on a dead man, touching his name, who was defending the whole idea in the mid 20th century: that there was even a covenant of works, _still at all,_ at the heart of Reformed Theology--so that today it may be taken for granted.

MGK taught a generation of pastors, and stood on the right side of many battles for preserving the vitals of true religion. He is not to be left uncriticized, no more than you or I. But treat his doctrine, and not the man, and especially not his name.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## A.Joseph (Apr 2, 2020)

Yes, it was a joke, of course. I look forward to learning more on the matter.


----------

