# Differing Views of The Covenant



## eqdj (Nov 19, 2009)

I'm listening to WSC's Office Hours podcast about the book "The Law is Not of Faith" (see http://www.puritanboard.com/f31/law-not-faith-55594/).

It's my understanding that this (Republication View) book is in reponse to the (John Murray's) Mono-Covenantal view. 

Are there more than these two views?
Is there a book that compares and contrasts the views with pros and cons?

(While writing this I found this thread http://www.puritanboard.com/f31/mono-vs-bi-covenantal-view-38084/ which I'll have to read later)


----------



## Christusregnat (Nov 19, 2009)

I tried this on another thread, and thought it was relevant:

Proposition 1: The Covenant of Grace cannot be of works, and the Covenant of Works cannot be of grace (Romans 11:6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.)

Proposition 2: The Old Covenant is the Covenant of Grace (WCF VII: V. This covenant [of Grace] was differently administered in the time of the law, and in the time of the Gospel: under the law it was administered by promises, prophecies, sacrifices, circumcision, the paschal lamb, and other types and ordinances delivered to the people of the Jews, all foresignifying Christ to come; which were, for that time, sufficient and efficacious, through the operation of the Spirit, to instruct and build up the elect in faith in the promised Messiah, by whom they had full remission of sins, and eternal salvation; and is called the Old Testament.)

Therefore, the Old Covenant is not of works.

That might be another way to phrase the point.

Cheers,


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Nov 19, 2009)

I agree with premise 1. I do not agree with premise 2 nor the conclusion. 

1.) If the Mosaic is purely of the Covenant of Grace than it would not be called a ministration of death in 2 Corinthians 3.

2.) If the Mosaic is purely of the Covenant of Works than there is no atonement that is pointed to and the pardon of sin was not real to those in the Old Covenant.

Conclusion.) Therefore the Mosaic Covenant administers both the Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Grace. 

That is how the Mosaic Covenant should be understood.



> (2Co 3:7) But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away:
> 
> (2Co 3:8) How shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious?
> 
> ...





> (Rom 10:1) Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved.
> 
> (Rom 10:2) For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.
> 
> ...


----------



## Prufrock (Nov 19, 2009)

eqdj said:


> I'm listening to WSC's Office Hours podcast about the book "The Law is Not of Faith" (see http://www.puritanboard.com/f31/law-not-faith-55594/).
> 
> It's my understanding that this (Republication View) book is in reponse to the (John Murray's) Mono-Covenantal view.
> 
> ...



Junior,

While there is some carry-over between the two issues, you are addressing two separate items here. The so-called "mono-" and "bi-covenantal" views have to with the pre- and post-lapsarian covenants. The Reformed position is that there was a pre-fall covenant of works, and a separate post-fall Covenant of Grace. There are, unfortunately, those who have denied this most important distinction of late. There is, however, no room for disagreement on this one. There are two covenants.

The other issue (the one involving Republication) has to do with the nature of the Mosaic Covenant, and how it stands in relation to the Covenant of Grace. In general, those who hold to a Republication thesis (and I realize that, with the many forms which the Republication thesis assumes, this intentionally broad description will probably offend some) hold that Israel was under a national Covenant of Works -- not for their personal salvation, but rather with regards to possession and maintenance of the land of Israel. It is important to note that they still maintain that salvation has always been only through the Covenant of Grace, however. Those who deny the Republication thesis maintain that the land was possessed and held solely through promise, and that the legal form of the Mosaic administration was only accidental thereunto.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Nov 19, 2009)

Especially since National Israel did nothing but keep breaking the Mosaic Covenant _ad naseum_ yet still somehow always kept getting the land back and we can also be sure they did not get the land back nor did they receive the land in the first place because of any work of National Israel.


----------



## Christusregnat (Nov 19, 2009)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> I agree with premise 1. I do not agree with premise 2 nor the conclusion.
> 
> 1.) If the Mosaic is purely of the Covenant of Grace than it would not be called a ministration of death in 2 Corinthians 3.
> 
> ...



I realize that this is a differing point between the WCF and the 1689, because if the WCF's understanding were admitted by Baptists, they would have to abandon their quarrel with infant baptism.

However, Moses preached the gospel to the people, they received baptism and the Holy Supper. Furthermore, Paul, in 2 Cor 3 argues against Jewish misunderstanding and blindness concerning Moses, not against Moses' covenant per se.



> 2 Corinthians 3:1 Do we begin again to commend ourselves? or need we, as some others, epistles of commendation to you, or letters of commendation from you?
> ....
> 13 And not as Moses, which put a veil over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished: 14 *But their minds were blinded*: for until this day remaineth *the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ*. 15 But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart. 16 Nevertheless when it shall turn to the Lord, *the vail shall be taken away*. 17 Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.



The Judaizers, like their forefathers, were stiff necked, and misunderstood the purpose of Moses. This is the same argument used by Paul in Romans 2: if you want to be justified by Moses, you are a fool, since Moses never taught this. The vail is the problem: not the text or covenant of Moses.

Adam


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Nov 19, 2009)

> However, Moses preached the gospel to the people, they received baptism and the Holy Supper. Furthermore, Paul, in 2 Cor 3 argues against Jewish misunderstanding and blindness concerning Moses, not against Moses' covenant per se....
> 
> The Judaizers, like their forefathers, were stiff necked, and misunderstood the purpose of Moses. This is the same argument used by Paul in Romans 2: if you want to be justified by Moses, you are a fool, since Moses never taught this. The vail is the problem: not the text or covenant of Moses.



The text is what condemns and is called the ministration of death. It is what is written on stones. You neglect the passage with your understanding. I agree about the vail and not understanding. But you neglect the passage about the written word of God part. 



> 2Co 3:7 But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones,



And as I showed you in the previous post concerning Romans, Moses did speak about being righteous and living the law to live. 



> (Rom 10:5) For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, That the man which doeth those things shall live by them.



Is there not a, Do this and Live mentality in Moses? I believe there is. Violate this and You shall die is also in it.


----------



## Christusregnat (Nov 19, 2009)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> The text is what condemns and is called the ministration of death. It is what is written on stones. You neglect the passage with your understanding. I agree about the vail and not understanding. But you neglect the passage about the written word of God part.



The text is a refutation of the Judaizers, just as Romans 2. Romans 2 holds out justification by works as the teaching of the law because this was the abused understanding of the Pharisees and Judaizers. He does the same thing here. Elsewhere, Scripture demonstrates that the Mosaic covenant is a covenant of grace. Therefore, the contextual qualifier of 2 Cor. 3 leads me to believe that Paul is addressing a specific set of people.




PuritanCovenanter said:


> And as I showed you in the previous post concerning Romans, Moses did speak about being righteous and living the law to live.



So did Jesus, and therefore, the New Covenant has a Republication of the Covenant of Works by this logic. Or were Jesus and Paul simply addressing specific wicked people and their perversion of Moses? I believe it is the latter.



PuritanCovenanter said:


> > (Rom 10:5) For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, That the man which doeth those things shall live by them.
> 
> 
> 
> Is there not a, Do this and Live mentality in Moses? I believe there is. Violate this and You shall die is also in it.



The passage goes on to demonstrate that Moses did not deliver a covenant of works, but a covenant of grace. Again, Paul is addressing the Pharisees and Judaizers, but when he wants to refute their misunderstanding of Moses, he used Moses:



> Romans 10:6 But the righteousness which is of faith *speaketh on this wise*, Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down from above 7 Or, Who shall descend into the deep? (that is, to bring up Christ again from the dead.) 8 But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: _*that is, the word of faith, which we preach*_;



Moses was a minister of the gospel, but to the Jews he had become a minister of death. 

Adam


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Nov 19, 2009)

Adam, I don't sense that you addressed what I stated. Especially my last sentence. JMO.



> Is there not a, Do this and Live mentality in Moses? I believe there is. Violate this and You shall die is also in it.



The text is not just against the Judiazers. It is a revelation of Historical redemption and is being explained to both the Romans and Corinthians. I agree this text also shows how the Isrealites are being blinded in trying to establish their own righteousness. And how are they trying to do it in Romans 2 and 2 Cor 3. It was in trying to fulfill the law. They were blind in the fact that they thought they could establish themselves by fulfilling the law given by Moses. 



> (Rom 10:3) For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.





Also Romans 10:5 and 6 are set in contrast one to another. I agree that Moses preached and pointed to the Christ. As I stated above. Both the Covenant of Works and Covenant of Grace are administered in the Mosaic. 

Remember..... The law condemns. That is not the Covenant of Grace. 



> (Rom 2:25) For circumcision verily profiteth, *if thou keep the law*: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision.
> 
> (Gal 5:3) For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that *he is a debtor to do the whole law.*



Adam, again I ask, Is there not a, *Do this and Live *mentality in Moses? I believe there is. *Violate this and You shall die* is also in it.


Thanks Adam.

Randy


----------



## Christusregnat (Nov 19, 2009)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Adam, again I ask, Is there not a, *Do this and Live *mentality in Moses? I believe there is. *Violate this and You shall die* is also in it.
> 
> 
> Thanks Adam.
> ...



Randy,

I apologize for not addressing your question; I took it as a rhetorical question.

I do not believe that there is no more of a *do this and live *mentality in Moses than in Christ:



> Luke 18:18 And a certain ruler asked him, saying, Good Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? 19 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God. 20 Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother. 21 And he said, All these have I kept from my youth up. 22 Now when Jesus heard these things, he said unto him, Yet lackest thou one thing: *sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me*. 23 And when he heard this, *he was very sorrowful*: for he was very rich.



Jesus used both the 10 Cmds, as well as the gospel commands (go and sell all and follow me) as a covenant of work. Do this, and live. In answer to a "how do I do this and live" question. Therefore, both Moses and Christ use the law in the same way.

Cheers,

Adam


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Nov 19, 2009)

I agree with the criticism of Kline (mentioned in the other thread, by armourbearer, I believe) that the extent to which his views push CoW republication, the practical effect is to create 2 covenants.

in my opinion, if a "republication" is granted a separate status other than as an external-glory "overlay" upon the Promise-covenant (Abraham, CoG)--as something akin to dressing up David in Saul's armor--then the two ideas are not rightly related.

Granting an ontologically separate status to the Law-covenant is to grant the Pharisees' basic grasp of the purpose of Moses. This, I believe, Paul (and Christ) rebuts. The legalist's basic understanding of Moses is _deficient_ precisely at this point.

Understanding a unity-of-purpose in the Mosaic administration of the CoG strengthens, rather than weakens, the cohesiveness of the covenant-idea across all the dispensations. While, on the other hand, conceptualizing republication distinct from the religious/ceremonial/*atonement-core* of the Law allows even for understanding Abraham's covenant arangement with God to be viewed under a "legal" aspect as well. Hence, a number of covenantal-Baptists who already divide the promises to Abraham along these lines find theological support in Kline (even if he would deny the connection).

I accept the notion of "republication" IF it is understood after the manner of the glory-overlay. After all, the promise to Adam of Life upon condition of perfect obedience was a glorious arrangement. Man was in his glory, and able to fulfill those conditions. The Law has *terrible glory*.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Nov 19, 2009)

Christusregnat said:


> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> > Adam, again I ask, Is there not a, *Do this and Live *mentality in Moses? I believe there is. *Violate this and You shall die* is also in it.
> ...



And here is where I believe you are missing the point. I do not believe those in the Covenant of Grace are seeking to justify themselves. They live in contrast to the law, that condemns, by faith in the one who fulfilled the Covenant of Works. Jesus did not preach the gospel to the Rich young ruler. He showed the Rich young ruler that he stood condemned because he claimed to be justified by the Covenant of Works. As Paul noted the law is useful if a man use it lawfully. We have discussed the different uses of the law and need not get into that now. 

So my point is that the Mosaic does have a *Do this and Live* mentality. Even this is pointed out by Jesus in the rich young ruler I believe. BTW, Go sell and follow me when disobeyed is a violation of idolatry and the First commandment.


----------



## Christusregnat (Nov 19, 2009)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> So my point is that the Mosaic does have a *Do this and Live* mentality. Even this is pointed out in the rich young ruler.



Yes, but so does Jesus, as you admit He did here in Luke 18. The command it "come and follow me", and "give all you have to the poor" are gospel commands, not Mosaic commands. Therefore, if we apply the same rule as you have to Moses, Jesus teaches a covenant of works along with the covenant of grace in the gospel. How can this be otherwise?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Nov 19, 2009)

Randy,
When Paul (or Christ) addresses a legalist in that way, "Do this and live," he is answering those persons on their own terms. That address does not go to the question of the nature of the Covenant at its root.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Nov 19, 2009)

Contra_Mundum said:


> Randy,
> When Paul (or Christ) addresses a legalist in that way, "Do this and live," he is answering those persons on their own terms. That address does not go to the question of the nature of the Covenant at its root.



I understand that is what you think. We just disagree. And I am not so sure this idea is bound up in Kline alone. I also mentioned an article in the Confessional Presbyterian Journal in the thread you mention that pointed to John Owen.



PuritanCovenanter said:


> There is also a good article in the Confessional Presbyterian Journal on this topic.
> http://www.cpjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/CPJ4-contents.pdf
> 
> The Confessional Presbyterian 4 (2008) Contents
> ...


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Nov 19, 2009)

Randy,
Don't mistake my criticism of Kline's presentation as if I were disapproving of the _language_ "republication." I think overmuch is made of it today, inasmuch as it is too often simply *abstracted* from the literal "core" of the Law: fellowship with God on the basis of his gracious forgiveness.

But to recognize that the moral legislation (especially), along with the separational (clean/unclean) regulations, had very much the quality of a setting forth of the Law "front and center" presents me with no difficulties. In this way it is a "republication".

Let me try an analogy: The Constitution of the USA is the foundational document of our country; nothing (not even the Dec.of.Ind. precedes it in importance). But there is a "sense" in which this Constitution changes very little. Why? because it is largely nothing but a "republication" of the State/Colonial charters (writ large), which themselves reflect the previous English-common-law heritage of the English people.

In other words,, the US.Const. is a "republication" of the previous law. But no one is so fooled by this language as to suppose that all we have in this country is a re-stenciled version of the Magna-Carta, or some other English paper.

So, I am not uncomfortable _at all _with the term "republication." I am disturbed by the idea that God ever intended to convey that he might grant, or hypothetically proposed to grant, in the post-fall estate any secular blessings strictly on the basis of a covenant arrangement. That the Mosaic covenant-conditions allowed for the_* blinded *_to make this kind of assumption was certainly intended by Jehovah. But that he meant such republication to be reckoned by the faithful as according to their WORK goes against the whole grain of biblical religion.

Israel's (especially Judah's) failure and subsequent judgment according to these stipulations was on account of their moral degradation, and not because they allowed their external observances to lapse.

Their were days when the Temple-service did lapse, but in Jeremiah's day, it was going strong. Hence, it was part-and-parcel of the legalism of those days that wrapped up national hope in deliverance in the formal keeping of the rites. Individual failures aside, the Law was being "kept" at the Temple. So the refrain, "the Temple of the Lord, the Temple of the Lord." But God was not placated, despite the "keeping" of the Covenant.

Since God was not, therefore we correctly conclude that the formal requirements of Covenant were inseparable from the internal requirements, exclusively moral in nature. Therefore, staying in the land was a matter of promise and forgiveness in the ultimate sense. But the formal requirements served as the paper-indictment of the people.


----------



## Irish Presbyterian (Nov 19, 2009)

eqdj said:


> I'm listening to WSC's Office Hours podcast about the book "The Law is Not of Faith" (see http://www.puritanboard.com/f31/law-not-faith-55594/).
> 
> It's my understanding that this (Republication View) book is in reponse to the (John Murray's) Mono-Covenantal view.
> 
> ...



You might want to pick this up:

Covenant Theology: John Murray's and Meredith G. Kline's Response to the Historical Development of Federal Theology in Reformed Thought - Dr. Jeong Koo Jeon

This is Dr. Jeong Koo Jeon's Phd dissertation that lays out the differences between Murray and Kline. His research leads him to favour Kline's formulation (i.e. Covenant of Works and Republication).


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Nov 19, 2009)

Contra_Mundum said:


> So, I am not uncomfortable _at all _with the term "republication." *I am disturbed by the idea that God ever intended to convey that he might grant, or hypothetically proposed to grant, in the post-fall estate any secular blessings strictly on the basis of a covenant arrangement. *That the Mosaic covenant-conditions allowed for the_* blinded *_to make this kind of assumption was certainly intended by Jehovah. But that he meant such republication to be reckoned by the faithful as according to their WORK goes against the whole grain of biblical religion.
> 
> Israel's (especially Judah's) failure and subsequent judgment according to these stipulations was on account of their moral degradation, and not because they allowed their external observances to lapse.



If I am understanding you correctly Bruce I still have some questions. Were there death penalties for violations of moral law in the OC? Was there any promise of blessedness in the OC for obedience? 

I do believe the law was republished to show the sinfulness of sin and our inability to keep it. Romans 7 is proof of that, is it not?

Either way I still believe the Covenant of Works is republished in the decalogue. Do this and live is implied in the 5th commandment. Disrespecting or Cursing them had a severe punishment of death. So at some level there is a Do This And Live mentality. Violate this and thou shalt die is also in the law. 

Anyways, I need to reread your post a few times to get the gist of it.



> (Exo 20:12) Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.





> (Eph 6:1) Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right.
> 
> (Eph 6:2) *Honour thy father and mother; (which is the first commandment with promise,)*
> 
> (Eph 6:3) *That it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth.*





> (Exo 21:15) *And he that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death*.
> 
> (Exo 21:16) And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death.
> 
> (Exo 21:17) *And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death*.




Do you see why I am having problems here with what I hear you saying? There is a promised blessing / cursing motif' here in this covenant. It is based upon some level of obedience.


----------



## eqdj (Nov 19, 2009)

Irish Presbyterian said:


> eqdj said:
> 
> 
> > I'm listening to WSC's Office Hours podcast about the book "The Law is Not of Faith" (see http://www.puritanboard.com/f31/law-not-faith-55594/).
> ...



Thank you!
This seems to be exactly what I was asking about!

Good night everybody!


----------



## MW (Nov 19, 2009)

eqdj said:


> Are there more than these two views?



The book itself provides numerous views in chapter 3. I disagree with the historical placement and analysis of some the theologians there presented, but it provides a basic indication of the kinds of differences so far as schematics is concerned.


----------



## Peairtach (Nov 19, 2009)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Contra_Mundum said:
> 
> 
> > So, I am not uncomfortable _at all _with the term "republication." *I am disturbed by the idea that God ever intended to convey that he might grant, or hypothetically proposed to grant, in the post-fall estate any secular blessings strictly on the basis of a covenant arrangement. *That the Mosaic covenant-conditions allowed for the_* blinded *_to make this kind of assumption was certainly intended by Jehovah. But that he meant such republication to be reckoned by the faithful as according to their WORK goes against the whole grain of biblical religion.
> ...



There are conditions of a sort in the New Covenant also

(a) E.g. If you are outwardly in the New Covenant by baptism and the Lord's Supper you will still end up in Hell, if you do not believe and repent. Also your exposure to God's Word and your privilege of growing up and/or being among God's New Covenant people will mean that Hell will be a greater punishment for you.

(b) E.g. Those in God's New Covenant can be chastised even to death. See e.g. I Corinthians 11. Presumably true believers can be chastised even unto death, because the Apostle says that some who despised the Lord's Supper "slept" in death. 

(c) The New Covenant has conditions about what is acceptable behaviour for the professing Christian before he/she is excommunicated from the Church and Covenant until he/she shows signs of repentance.

(d) God in Christ can remove the presence of His Spirit from a congregation that strays and then even permit that the congregation ceases to exist in His Providence see e.g. Revelation's Letters to the Churches.

(e) A congregation may not find success in evangelism if it is not following Christ closely (?)

The idea that the New Covenant is unconditional is not correct. It is unconditional in the sense that if you as an individual truly believe in Christ you will be saved and go to Heaven, but in other ways it is not.

Re the Old Covenant conditions, it may be an obvious point but it should also be said that if someone who truly believed, committed a flagrant, gross and presumptious breach of the 10C and lost his right to access to a sacrifice for that sin-crime (remember sacrifices were only offered for "sins done in ignorance" as defined by the Torah) and was duly convicted and executed by stoning or some other way, the soul of that believer who had been excommunicated by death and typologically suffered God's wrath for his/her sin, went straight into glory. 

So in that ultimate sense of the security of those who truly believe the Old Covenant was also unconditional, just like the New. In other lesser ways it was conditional.

_but into the second only the high priest goes, and he but once a year, and not without taking blood, which he offers for himself and for the unintentional sins of the people (Hebrews 9:7, ESV)_.

Both Old and New Covenants are unconditional in an ultimate sense regarding personal salvation, but both Old and New Covenants are conditional - in different ways to each other - as respects other matters.

There are plenty other ways in which both the Old and New Covenants are conditional which I haven't mentioned and maybe haven't thought of.

E.g. the Covenant promises to children of adults in the covenant must be in some sense conditional, otherwise every child of a professing Christian or, at least, professing Christian believer would believe.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Nov 19, 2009)

In all due respect Richard this thread is not about who is a member of the New Covenant. We have discussed that quite often in the past. There is also a difference between those who profane and are not true New Covenant members and stand condemned and those who are being chastised. It seems you might be confusing the two from my perspective as a Particular Baptist because of your understanding of Covenant Theology from a Paedo perspective. 

This thread is particularly about republication and the Mosaic.


----------



## Casey (Nov 19, 2009)

eqdj said:


> Is there a book that compares and contrasts the views with pros and cons?


This book might be helpful. Has been a year or two since I've read it, but I remember it covering the topic of republication by quoting from various Reformed theologians:
_God & Adam: Reformed Theology and The Creation Covenant_, by Rowland S. Ward.​


----------



## Peairtach (Nov 20, 2009)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> In all due respect Richard this thread is not about who is a member of the New Covenant. We have discussed that quite often in the past. There is also a difference between those who profane and are not true New Covenant members and stand condemned and those who are being chastised. It seems you might be confusing the two from my perspective as a Particular Baptist because of your understanding of Covenant Theology from a Paedo perspective.
> 
> This thread is particularly about republication and the Mosaic.



Yes, Randy. 

But I wasn't raising the subject of who is a member of the New Covenant or the other matters you mention.

But do you see what I'm saying. The point I'm making is that both the Old and New Covenants have unconditional and conditional aspects to them, and both are administrations of the Covenant of Grace. It is not incompatible with an administration of the Covenant of Grace to have conditions attached to it respecting certain matters, while being conditional respecting individual salvation only as respects saving faith, which of course is by grace.

Why do the republicationists posit a complicated and unlikely scheme, which they have no agreement on, to account for the conditional aspect(s) of the Old Covenant, when no such scheme is posited by them for the conditional aspect(s) of the New Covenant? 

Why are they making an issue of the conditional aspect of the Old Covenant, while not pointing out that both the Old and New Covenants have a conditional aspect.

Such conditions in both Old and New covenant admins are teaching aids to the saved and unsaved in both covenants, which can be used by the Spirit for the spiritual benefit of those in the Covenant.

Under the Old Covenant, they are different from those under the New because the Church under the Old Covenant was in a childhood state.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Nov 20, 2009)

Randy,
The difference I'm contending for is simply the difference between

1) a formal or surface correlation between the CoW and the 10C (summarizing the Moral Law which is the same, pre- or post-fall); to note that there are blessings associated with obedience and curses associated with disobedience only shows the degree of correlation is deliberately high; the intertextual carry-over of motif is intentional, and meant to put us is mind of the first estate.

and 2) a restatement of the CoW *in principle*, the giving of the Law with the idea that with sufficient moral effort, with sufficient attention to the cleanness regulations, and with the maintenance of the sacrificial system, the Covenant *in principle* would be kept.

Reading Moses after the second manner was a FAILURE to get at the substance of the Covenant. It summarizes Judah's hope in Jeremiah's day. All the Pharisees of Jesus' day had done was raise the bar for the individual commitments. So, they said, if the nation as a whole would just keep the law properly for one day, then Messiah would come and finish the task.

The Pharisees were content to let the Sadducees retain Temple control, because the formal rites were carried on. In other words,, they reckoned that Israel's failure in Jeremiah's day was that the failures in the other areas had overwhelmed even the central-pillar of Israelite confidence. Those earlier Jews had thought a general failure of the other areas were pardonable, so long as the KEY area (the Temple-rite) was maintained, which view was discredited by the Exile.

So the Pharisees simply relocated the prime area of concern to national and individual cleanness, while they continued to insist that the Temple-rite be formally and carefully observed. Their "holding operation" was not enough to strengthen the Jews nationally to throw off foreign domination, but it might preserve them as a people long enough to attain sufficient cleanness that Messiah would come, and renovate his people in all areas, ideally restoring their fortunes, making them the head and not the tail.

But all this treats the Law as though it is indeed a CoW in principle, which it is not. The Pharisees were "semi-Pelagian", "Arminian", in their understanding of Grace as it was granted to "help" keep the law to attain salvation. There was a degree of difficulty to Law-keeping, but the Temple-rite and ceremonial-observance (and traditions of the elders) were channels of God's assisting grace; and that would help "make up" for man's natural weakness.

So, in the end the Pharisees were no less in error than the pre-Exilic Jews concerning the nature of their Covenant with God--that his maintenance of them was legal in character, instead of wholly and entirely gracious. The formal aspects of the Law had blinded them.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Nov 20, 2009)

Richard Tallach said:


> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> > In all due respect Richard this thread is not about who is a member of the New Covenant. We have discussed that quite often in the past. There is also a difference between those who profane and are not true New Covenant members and stand condemned and those who are being chastised. It seems you might be confusing the two from my perspective as a Particular Baptist because of your understanding of Covenant Theology from a Paedo perspective.
> ...



I believe you did introduce the subject. 



Richard Tallach said:


> There are conditions of a sort in the New Covenant also
> 
> (a) E.g. *If you are outwardly in the New Covenant *by baptism and the Lord's Supper you will still end up in Hell, if you do not believe and repent. Also your exposure to God's Word and your privilege of growing up and/or being among God's New Covenant people will mean that Hell will be a greater punishment for you.
> 
> ...




I believe your argument is based upon your understanding of Covenant membership. That is where your argument stems from concerning conditional and unconditional. That takes us off the topic and sets up a set of different arguments concerning the topic we are discussing in my opinion. Maybe you should start a thread on the conditionality of the New Covenant and Covenant membership. This thread originally is about republication of the CofW and a podcast on a book that discusses this topic, "The Law is not of faith." 

I listened to the Podcast and I liked it. I recommend it.

You can listen to it here. http://netfilehost.com/wscal/OfficeHours/11.15.09TLNOF.mp3


----------



## Hebrew Student (Nov 20, 2009)

Interesting discussion, Bruce and PuritanCovenanter.



I did want to ask, from each of you, what would you consider to be the sine quo non of a covenant of works? Maybe better, what would PuritanCovenanter say the Old Covenant had that the New Covenant does not that would make the Old Covenant [at least partially anyway] a covenant of works.

God Bless,
Adam


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Nov 20, 2009)

What is sine quo non? I am not familiar with the phrase.


----------



## fredtgreco (Nov 20, 2009)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> What is sine quo non? I am not familiar with the phrase.



_Sine qua non _is "the thing without which [something would not exist] " For example, the _sine qua non _of a meal is food.

The best book to read on this issue is The Marrow of Modern Divinity.

The Mosaic Covenant is an administration of the Covenant of Grace. The difficulty comes in the fact that the Covenant of Works is still in existence, albeit it is no longer a way to have communion with God. No one can keep the Covenant of Works, but every unbeliever is still under the Covenant of Works.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Nov 20, 2009)

I am reading that book right now. I read about a 3rd of it and put it down to read some historical books. I just picked it up again. 

I believe the CofW was republished in the Mosaic to reveal the sinfulness of sin as Romans 7 states. I also believe the promise of the Covenant of Grace is republished and more defined in the Mosaic. I do not believe the CofW's is a method or offer as a way of eternal salvation. I don't know anyone who would contend for such a position. I may be mistaken, but I don't think that anyone who believes the CofW was republished in the Mosaic would say that God is offering eternal salvation by it. Am I mistaken? I do believe there are promises attached to it as in the 5th commandment. I do not believe that anyone could possibly be fully obedient to the 5th commandment. The heart is too corrupt.


----------



## Christusregnat (Nov 20, 2009)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> I do believe there are promises attached to it as in the 5th commandment. I do not believe that anyone could possibly be fully obedient to the 5th commandment. The heart is too corrupt.



This promise is repeated in the gospel and epistles, as are the threats and curses of breaking it (see Ephesians 6, Mark 7 and Matthew 15). Again, the gospel would then "republish" the covenant of works in this view.

Cheers,

Adam


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Nov 20, 2009)

Christusregnat said:


> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> > I do believe there are promises attached to it as in the 5th commandment. I do not believe that anyone could possibly be fully obedient to the 5th commandment. The heart is too corrupt.
> ...




I don't understand your point Adam.


----------



## Christusregnat (Nov 20, 2009)

Promise of blessing:



> Ephesians 6:1 Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right. 2 Honour thy father and mother; *which is the first commandment with promise; 3 That it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth*.



Threated curse:



> Matthew 15:1 Then came to Jesus scribes and Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem, saying, 2 Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread. 3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition? 4 For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, *He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death*. 5 But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; 6 And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.



The promises and threats of Moses are repeated in the New Covenant, therefore, if the Old Covenant was a CoW because of such promises and threats, then the NC is as well.

Does that make sense?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Nov 20, 2009)

Christusregnat said:


> Promise of blessing:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yes, I understand that they are repeated in the New Testament. I have no problem understanding that. They (the curses) don't apply to us who are New Covenant members though as Paul states in Romans chapter 7.

So, no you are not making sense to me.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Nov 20, 2009)

Maybe something that would help this discussion would be to define what is meant by republication as Pastor Bruce tried to help me understand above. What does it mean to have the Covenant of Works republished in the Mosaic?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Nov 20, 2009)

Hebrew Student said:


> Maybe better, what would PuritanCovenanter say the Old Covenant had that the New Covenant does not that would make the Old Covenant [at least partially anyway] a covenant of works.
> 
> God Bless,
> Adam



Maybe the better question would be, what does the New Covenant have for its members that the Old Covenant does not have for all of its covenant members? But as I noted earlier that that should be another discussion in another thread. The topic for this thread pertains to the republication of the CofW in the Mosaic. I would also like to add the question of why does the New Testament call the Old Covenant an administration of death if it didn't contain elements of the CofW?


----------



## Christusregnat (Nov 20, 2009)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Yes, I understand that they are repeated in the New Testament. I have no problem understanding that. They (the curses) don't apply to us who are New Covenant members though as Paul states in Romans chapter 7.
> 
> So, no you are not making sense to me.



It does not surprise me that I'm not making sense 

If a covenant of works means that someone is rewarded for keeping the law: do this and live, then the promise attached to keeping the 5th Cmd is by covenant of works. I understood this to be what you were affirming above by citing the promise to those that obey the 5th Cmd. Is this what you intended to affirm?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Nov 20, 2009)

Christusregnat said:


> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, I understand that they are repeated in the New Testament. I have no problem understanding that. They (the curses) don't apply to us who are New Covenant members though as Paul states in Romans chapter 7.
> ...



It would be in the setting of the Covenant of Works. In the Mosaic there is a promise and curse attached to how one responds to their Father and Mother as I noted above siting Exodus 20 and 21. 



> (Exo 20:12) Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.





> (Exo 21:15) And he that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death.
> 
> (Exo 21:17) And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death.



Concerning the New Covenant member there would not be the curse of the law. Remember I hold to the 3 uses of the law distinction.


----------



## Christusregnat (Nov 20, 2009)

Is the promise of blessing to those that keep the 5th Cmd a covenant of works? Do this, and be blessed (a modified version of "do this and live").


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Nov 20, 2009)

Christusregnat said:


> Is the promise of blessing to those that keep the 5th Cmd a covenant of works? Do this, and be blessed (a modified version of "do this and live").



I think I have already answered this concerning the Mosaic in previous posts Adam.


----------



## Christusregnat (Nov 20, 2009)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Christusregnat said:
> 
> 
> > Is the promise of blessing to those that keep the 5th Cmd a covenant of works? Do this, and be blessed (a modified version of "do this and live").
> ...



I'm dense; do you mind answering this question again?

Is the promise of blessing to those that keep the 5th Cmd a covenant of works?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Nov 20, 2009)

Randy,
I don't think I can add anything further for clarity at this time. Since I'm not speaking along the same lines as Adam, I'm going to avoid interfering with your discussion.

I think clear penetration to the heart of 2Cor3, esp vv7-18, along with Paul's subsequent conclusions of 4:1-7 is key to understanding the main issue. The difference between Moses' covenant and Christ's is the kind of "glory" each one exhibits, and not what is "beneath Moses' veil," that is to say identical.


----------



## Peairtach (Nov 20, 2009)

I think that since Adam and his posterity would have been saved by Adam's keeping of the law, if the Covenant of Works is reflected in the Mosaic Covenant in any way, "Republication of the Covenant of Works" is too strong a terminology. 

God knew that no-one in Israel could save themselves by their works, nor that Israel collectively could save herself. They had to be saved by grace. Both the individual Israelites and the Israelite nation could only be saved by God's grace, and not by works.

If there is an administrative teaching aspect to the Mosaic Covenant that harks back to the Garden, for the ordinary Israelite it wasn't and couldn't have been a true Republication of the Covenant of Works or God would just have been mocking them.

There may have been a pale reflection of the Covenant with Adam in the Garden, respecting Israel collectively, in order, as well as to teach the Israelites to behave, and to look to the grace of God in the sacrifices for salvation, also to adumbrate that the true salvation that God would send would not only come in the form of a New Moses, Joshua and David, but also in the form of a New Adam. 

If this idea has any traction it may be better calling it "An Analogy of the Covenant of Works in Anticipation of the Last Adam"; "A Harking Back to the Covenant of Works in Administration in Anticipation of the Last Adam"; "A Pedagogical Works Principle" (?) 

The Covenant of Works was "Republished" for Christ, He was in and under the law and in and under the Covenant of Works, and He kept it perfectly for believers who lived under the Old Covenant admin, and believers who live under the New Covenant admin. 

The Covenant of Works couldn't have been republished for any individual Israelite, because no individual Israelite could keep it, and thankfully God doesn't mock His people. The Covenant of Works couldn't be republished for the whole Israelite nation, because the whole Israelite nation could not render perfect obedience either.

Only Christ could render perfect obedience to the Covenant of Works for Himself and for every true Israelite who ever lived or will live.

It is standard Covenant Theology that the Covenant of Works remains in place for the unbeliever, and that if they are to be saved by it they have to render perfect obedience. The unbeliever is effectively in the Covenant of Works, and that is why if any thought is given to salvation by the unbeliever it is in terms of the Covenant of Works. 

It is also standard Covenant Theology that Christ has kept the Covenant of Works perfectly for His true people, and that when they enter the life of the Covenant of Grace by faith, they realise that He has done this for them. 

According to the book "The Law is not of Faith" there are, historically, fourteen views of what "Republication" means!


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Nov 21, 2009)

Richard. You made some very good points. My Thanks button is all used up. 



> The Covenant of Works couldn't have been republished for any individual Israelite, *because no individual Israelite could keep it*, and thankfully God doesn't mock His people. The Covenant of Works couldn't be republished for the whole Israelite nation, because the whole Israelite nation could not render perfect obedience either.



I disagree with some of it obviously but just thought I would quickly post on this one topic and on the highlighted portion above. God commands everyman everywhere to repent. Is that mocking men who are not elect? 



> (Act 17:29) Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.
> 
> (Act 17:30) *And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:*
> 
> (Act 17:31) Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.





> (Act 26:19) Whereupon, O king Agrippa, I was not disobedient unto the heavenly vision:
> 
> (Act 26:20) But shewed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judaea, and then to the Gentiles, *that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance.*
> 
> (Act 26:21) For these causes the Jews caught me in the temple, and went about to kill me.


----------



## Knight (Nov 21, 2009)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> God commands everyman everywhere to repent. Is that mocking men who are not elect?



You might find the following points made by Augustine to be helpful:



Augustine said:


> “Again,” he says, “we have to inquire whether man is commanded to be without sin; for either he is not able, and then he is not commanded; or else because he is commanded, he is able. For why should that be commanded which cannot at all be done?” The answer is, that man is most wisely commanded to walk with right steps, on purpose that, when he has discovered his own inability to do even this, he may seek the remedy which is provided for the inward man to cure the lameness of sin, even the grace of God, through our Lord Jesus Christ.
> 
> ...
> 
> “It is certain that we keep the commandments if we will; but because the will is prepared by the Lord, we must ask of Him for such a force of will as suffices to make us act by the willing. It is certain that it is we that will when we will, but it is He who makes us will what is good, of whom it is said (as he has just now expressed it), “The will is prepared by the Lord.” Of the same Lord it is said, “The steps of a man are ordered by the Lord, and his way doth He will.” Of the same Lord again it is said, “It is God who worketh in you, even to will!” It is certain that it is we that act when we act; but it is He who makes us act, by applying efficacious powers to our will, who has said, “I will make you to walk in my statutes, and to observe my judgments, and to do them.” When he says, “I will make you . . . to do them,” what else does He say in fact than, “I will take away from you your heart of stone,” from which used to arise your inability to act, “and I will give you a heart of flesh,” in order that you may act? And what does this promise amount to but this: I will remove your hard heart, out of which you did not act, and I will give you an obedient heart, out of which you shall act? It is He who causes us to act, to whom the human suppliant says, “Set a watch, O Lord, before my mouth.” That is to say: Make or enable me, O Lord, to set a watch before my mouth – a benefit which he had already obtained from God who thus described its influence: “I set a watch upon my mouth.””


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Nov 21, 2009)

Todd had this on his blog..... 

In Principio ... Deus: Marrow Theology: Republication of the Covenant of Works, part I



> "Nomista: But, sir, were the children of Israel at this time better able to perform the condition of the covenant of works, than either Adam or any of the old patriarchs were, that God renewed it now with them, rather than before?
> 
> Evangelista: No, indeed; God did not renew it with them now, and not before, because they were better able to keep it, but because they had more need to be made acquainted what the covenant of works is, than those before... So that you see the Lord's intention therein was, that they, by looking upon this covenant might be put in mind what was their duty of old, when they were in Adam's loins; yea, and what was their duty still, if they would stand to that covenant, and so go the old and natural way to work; yea, and hereby they were also to see what was their present infirmity in not doing their duty: that so they seeing an impossibility of obtaining life by that way of works, first appointed in paradise, they might be humbled, and more heedfully mind the promise made to their father Abraham, and hasten to lay hold on the Messiah, or promised seed.
> 
> ...



And here is Pastor Michael Brown's blog on John Owen. I referenced him earlier in the thread because he wrote an article on John Owen and the Republication of the Covenant of Works in Moses. 

pilgrim people-Christ urc-reformed - the latest post - Owen on the MosaicCovenant

I still hold to a position that the Covenant of Works stands alone along side the Covenant of Grace due to the fact that the non Elect of Isreal were still under the Covenant of Works as much as the Elect of National Isreal were set apart in the Covenant of Grace which is also administered in Moses. Both of these covenants existed way before Abraham and Moses. They are administered and progressively revealed in the following Covenants that administer them.


----------



## WAWICRUZ (Nov 21, 2009)

I've been reading Michael Horton's "Introduction to Covenant Theology" and am now almost at the end of the section on 'The Covenant of Creation (Works)'.

It seems that the prelapsarian covenant that God made with Adam was predicated upon a "Do This and You Shall Live" paradigm that takes into account Adam's ability to carry out the stipulations of the covenant. If Adam did not fall, God would have kept His end of the bargain by allowing Adam to continually partake of the Tree of Life and live in His Sabbath rest perpetually. The nature of this covenant was not _gracious_ because, as stated, Adam had the ability to not default (_grace is operative only in the presence of sin_). Of course, God decreed the subsequent eventualities, and any postlapsarian covenant that God makes with man must now necessarily entail _grace_ as radical depravity has seeped into human genetics. 

The republication of the covenant of works in Sinai carries with it the same paradigm as the prior Adamic covenant, but the benefit to be derived from stipulation-fulfillment would be a theocratic geopolitical identity, which is a type of the eternal Sabbath rest stipulated in the prior covenant, with the substance realized in Christ in the new. The Sinaitic covenant was republished in order to pave the way for national Israel to bring forth the seed that was to crush the serpent's head and does not promise salvation from sin and the wrath of God. Those under the Sinaitic covenant entered the eternal Sabbath rest (_salvation_) the same way everyone does—by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone—hence the covenant of grace was already operative then, and even in Eden through the _protoevangelium_, though the Adamic and Sinaitic covenants were themselves not gracious in nature.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Nov 21, 2009)

Warren,
It seems to me that your view (or properly, Horton's view as you have presented it?) comes down to that final statement, "the Adamic *and Sinaitic covenants *were themselves *not gracious in nature*."

Somehow, this view has to be reconciled with the WCF's statement (ch7) regarding the Covenant of Grace, 5. This covenant was differently administered in the time of the law, and in the time of the gospel: under the law, *it was administered by promises, prophecies, sacrifices, circumcision, the paschal lamb, and other types and ordinances delivered to the people of the Jews, all foresignifying Christ to come*; which were, for that time, sufficient and efficacious, through the operation of the Spirit, *to instruct and build up the elect in faith *in the promised Messiah, by whom they had full remission of sins, and eternal salvation; *and is called the old testament*.​So, the NATURE of the Siniatic Covenant (called the Old Testament/Old Covenant) must be understood as gracious, when it is correctly perceived, that is to say according to it's nature.

Rev. Winzer and I have have made this point already in other threads (some old, some recent) but the interpretation of Horton/Kline presented only bears it out further: that if the Sinai covenant _proper_ is assigned a single Nature according to Work, then this amounts to the creation of TWO covenants, side by side, rather than a single covenant having two aspects, or two layers.

Frankly, this view seems problematic for any commitment to mainstream, historic covenant-theology, although (paradoxically, in my opinion) it contribues to the distinctly _baptistic_ covenant-theology, which starting in the 17th century (with English separatist Baptists) has posited this very bi-furcation of covenant going back to Abraham.

We can compare this contention regarding the Nature of the Siniatic covenant to the contentions over the Natures of the one Christ, human and divine. Saying that the Siniatic covenant is of the Nature (singular) of Work, is to say that there is a side-by-side Covenant having the Nature of Grace operating alongside the Siniatic. Perhaps Horton would call this the Abrahamic Covenant. But like Christ's essence is one but with two natures, some category must be the essence of human relation to God (higher or deeper than covenant), within which is found covenants having different natures. But again the WCF.7 is precise:1. 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*.​No overarching category is proposed in which to contain "covenant". Covenant is it, and we are either in one kind (Work) or the other (Grace).

But should an Abrahamic-[gap]-Siniatic apprehension of the Old Testament be reckoned the true manner of expressing the Covenant of Grace? How can we then say (if this dual-model is adopted) that the CoG was _administered_ via the Siniatic construction? I contend that it must therefore be erroneous to place Moses _alongside_ Abraham, or "offset" to Abraham (subordinate in rank, but separate).

Better by far to say that the Nature of the Siniatic Covenant is according to all such divine-human arrangements since the fall, namely according to Grace. But that the "external-administration" of the Covenant is (in the glory, and in its basic presentation) according to Work.

This view falls right in line with historic covenant-theology, which has repeatedly affirmed a single covenant having a two-fold administration: one inward according to the Spirit, and one outward according to the appearance. The latter will always have some measure (greater or less) of Law in its conduct, because men must judge mainly by the visible obedience of other men, since they are not heart-lookers.

The external adminstration of the Siniatic Covenant emphasized Work over Grace as abstracted from the Sacrificial system. Now the Sacrificial/Ceremonial aspects of the Law were themselves encrusted with "glory" (Work), which gave the whole cast of Israelite life-under-the-Law a laborious hue. But the gracious purpose of it was to drive men to the atoning/forgiving grace found in heart-religion, in the internal adminstration.


----------



## Peairtach (Nov 21, 2009)

In a real sense the Covenant of Works could only be really issued to Christ because God knew that only He could keep it. 

_If _God presented the Covenant of Works/ the law as a means to life, either to individual Israelites at Sinai, or to Israel collectively, it couldn't have been with the intention that they would try to save themselves that way, because for them to attempt to do that would be sinful. _If_ God did this at Sinai - as the Republicationists say - then it must have only been in the sense that Jesus did it with the Rich Young Ruler; to impress on their hearts that they must be saved by grace.

Christ was the Covenant Head, Guarantor/Surety of the Covenant. As such He had to come from among the Covenant people. Christ was _the_ Israelite _ par excellence_ and _the_ Christian _par excellence_ that fulfilled the Covenant of Works on the behalf of all true Israelites/Christians, thus meaning that all true Israelites/Christians under the Old and New Covenant Administrations (and under the Patriarchal Administration, the Fall to Moses) could enjoy salvations on condition of faith by unconditional grace.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Nov 21, 2009)

Christ is the mediator. Messiah the Prince.


----------



## Peairtach (Nov 21, 2009)

*Quote from Randy*


PuritanCovenanter said:


> Richard. You made some very good points. My Thanks button is all used up.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No because it's their own fault if they don't believe after hearing the Gospel even if they're not elect. The problem's in their will and is moral. Therefore they are fully responsible. 

But if God was asking the Israelites to get to Heaven by perfect obedience, which the Covenant of Works with Adam really was, then He would have been mocking them. He would also be asking them to try something sinful.

I know that the Republicationists say that this is not what they're saying. Well if that's the case they should find another name for the doctrine, because "the Republication of the Covenant of Works" (to Israel at Sinai) sounds like what it says and is therefore utterly confusing, even for people who have some understanding of CT and believe that Adam was in the Covenant of Works. 

I think they may be getting at something, because the Land of Israel was a bit like another Eden, and the Tabernacle guarded by it's cherubim, reflected aspects of Eden. Christ - the Last Adam - was the only Israelite that could fulfill the Covenant of Works on behalf of all true Israelites.

Now the whole Earth is Eden and those unbelievers who are outwardly in Covenant with God, may be cast out of the Covenant of Grace, into Hell if they don't meet the condition of the Covenant of Grace, which is faith.

But I doubt that "Republication" may have the import, of recasting e.g. Murray's Covenant Theology, many are ascribing to it. Anyway there are fourteen different views, some much less radical than others.

I'll get back to the book.


----------



## Oecolampadius (Nov 22, 2009)

I find it quite interesting that Herman Witsius in his _The Decalogue: Covenant of Works or Covenant of Grace_, states that it was "formally neither the one nor the other."



> What was it then? It was a national covenant between God and Israel, whereby Israel promised to God a sincere obedience to all his precepts, especially to the ten words; God, on the other hand, promised to Israel, that such an observance would be acceptable to him, nor want its reward, both in this life, and in that which is to come, both as to soul and body. This reciprocal promise supposed a covenant of grace. For, without the assistance of the covenant Of grace, man cannot sincerely promise that observance; and yet that an imperfect observance should be acceptable to God is wholly owing to the covenant of grace, It also supposed the doctrine of the covenant of works, the terror or which being increased by those tremendous signs that attended it, they ought to have been excited to embrace that covenant of God. This agreement therefore is a consequent both of the covenant of grace and of works; but was formally neither the one nor the other. A like agreement and renewal of the covenant between God and the pious is frequent; both national and individual. Of the former see Josh. xxiv. 22. 2 Chron. xv. 12. 2 Kings xxiii. 3. Neh. x. 29. Of the latter, Psal. cxix. 106. It is certain, that in the passages we have named, mention is made of some covenant between God and his people. If any should ask me, of what kind, whether of works or of grace? I shall answer, it is formally neither: but a covenant of sincere piety, which supposes both.


----------



## Peairtach (Nov 22, 2009)

WAWICRUZ said:


> I've been reading Michael Horton's "Introduction to Covenant Theology" and am now almost at the end of the section on 'The Covenant of Creation (Works)'.
> 
> It seems that the prelapsarian covenant that God made with Adam was predicated upon a "Do This and You Shall Live" paradigm that takes into account Adam's ability to carry out the stipulations of the covenant. If Adam did not fall, God would have kept His end of the bargain by allowing Adam to continually partake of the Tree of Life and live in His Sabbath rest perpetually. The nature of this covenant was not _gracious_ because, as stated, Adam had the ability to not default (_grace is operative only in the presence of sin_). Of course, God decreed the subsequent eventualities, and any postlapsarian covenant that God makes with man must now necessarily entail _grace_ as radical depravity has seeped into human genetics.
> 
> The republication of the covenant of works in Sinai carries with it the same paradigm as the prior Adamic covenant, but the benefit to be derived from stipulation-fulfillment would be a theocratic geopolitical identity, which is a type of the eternal Sabbath rest stipulated in the prior covenant, with the substance realized in Christ in the new. The Sinaitic covenant was republished in order to pave the way for national Israel to bring forth the seed that was to crush the serpent's head and does not promise salvation from sin and the wrath of God. Those under the Sinaitic covenant entered the eternal Sabbath rest (_salvation_) the same way everyone does—by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone—hence the covenant of grace was already operative then, and even in Eden through the _protoevangelium_, though the Adamic and Sinaitic covenants were themselves not gracious in nature.



Warren, you sound radically confused. 

There is one Covenant of Grace in various administrations from the protoevangelium to the end of time, by which people were and are saved on condition of faith which is produced in the individual by unconditional and irresistible grace.

I've never read Mike Horton. Try reading John Murray on the Covenant of Grace and O. Palmer Robertson "The Christ of the Covenants."


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Nov 22, 2009)

From a post I made somewhere else. 



PuritanCovenanter said:


> Herman Witsius
> 
> Rich Barcellos sent this to me when i asked about a reference for it.
> 
> ...



This is the whole paragraph that is quoted in Witsius. It is the eight paragraph in the artlcle listed below. 

The Decalogue:
Covenant of Works or Covenant of Grace
by Dr. Herman Witsius
Taken From "Economy of the Covenants", Pages 182ff 



> What was it then? It was a national covenant between God and Israel, whereby Israel promised to God a sincere obedience to all his precepts, especially to the ten words; God, on the other hand, promised to Israel, that such an observance would be acceptable to him, nor want its reward, both in this life, and in that which is to come, both as to soul and body. This reciprocal promise supposed a covenant of grace. For, without the assistance of the covenant Of grace, man cannot sincerely promise that observance; and yet that an imperfect observance should be acceptable to God is wholly owing to the covenant of grace, It also supposed the doctrine of the covenant of works, the terror or which being increased by those tremendous signs that attended it, they ought to have been excited to embrace that covenant of God. This agreement therefore is a consequent both of the covenant of grace and of works; but was formally neither the one nor the other. A like agreement and renewal of the covenant between God and the pious is frequent; both national and individual. Of the former see Josh. xxiv. 22. 2 Chron. xv. 12. 2 Kings xxiii. 3. Neh. x. 29. Of the latter, Psal. cxix. 106. It is certain, that in the passages we have named, mention is made of some covenant between God and his people. If any should ask me, of what kind, whether of works or of grace? I shall answer, it is formally neither: but a covenant of sincere piety, which supposes both.



The article is good...... I recommend giving it a read. 
http://www.apuritansmind.com/Baptism/WitsiusDecalogueCovenant.htm


----------



## WAWICRUZ (Nov 22, 2009)

Richard Tallach said:


> WAWICRUZ said:
> 
> 
> > I've been reading Michael Horton's "Introduction to Covenant Theology" and am now almost at the end of the section on 'The Covenant of Creation (Works)'.
> ...



Richard, can you objectively cite where in my post did I ever claim that there was a multiplicity of "Covenants of Grace"? In fact, cf. "_Those under the Sinaitic covenant entered the eternal Sabbath rest (salvation) the same way everyone does—by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone_".


----------



## Peairtach (Nov 23, 2009)

WAWICRUZ said:


> Richard Tallach said:
> 
> 
> > WAWICRUZ said:
> ...



Sorry Warren, I was a bit brusque in saying you were "radically confused" . Please forgive me brother. I've never read Horton on CT.

Re one of your first points, If Adam had passed the period of probation, he would have thus purchased salvation for himself, Eve and his posterity. The Creation Mandate would have continued until completed and then Adam, Eve and their posterity would have entered the eschatalogical realm of incorruptible life, a new order in which work, rest, play and worship will be arranged differently to the Seven Day Week and Weekly Sabbath, which typify and point forward to that new order.

Adam and Eve were already resting in God as their Creator, Sustainer and Providential Governor from day to day. On the Sabbath Day they were invited to enter and enjoy worship and rest in God's rest from the work of creation in a special way. 

Sin was transmitted to Adam's posterity by legal imputation because of the Covenant of Works, see e.g. John Murray, "The Imputation of Adam's Sin", thus resulting in radical depravity which no doubt affects our genetic propensity for certain sins. Sin/radical depravity wasn't transmitted genetically from Adam.

The Sinaitic Covenant must have been gracious as grace was portrayed in the ceremonial law that was instituted at Sinai. Maybe it had more and different conditions than the New Covenant, that we in our New Covenant liberty would find irksome (see the Apostle Peter's comment in Acts 15) but it was still gracious.

Maybe it also had a typological caste that harked back to Eden and also anticipated the New Covenant with its New Israel (the Church), New Land (the Earth) and New Adam (Christ). But it couldn't and shouldn't be called a RoCoW because the only way that Israel could have remained in the Land was by grace  leading them to true faith and obedience and to live godly lives collectively.

The Sinaitic Covenant can't be _the same paradigm _ as the CoW, but must be a gracious advance on the CoW which nevertheless reflects some elements of the pre-Fall situation. In turn, the New Covenant is a gracious advance on the Sinaitic Covenant which nevertheless reflects some elements of the pre-Fall situation.

I'm not sure what this means (?):-


> but the benefit to be derived from stipulation-fulfillment would be a theocratic geopolitical identity, which is a type of the eternal Sabbath rest stipulated in the prior covenant, with the substance realized in Christ in the new.



Are you talking _very hypothetically _ about what would have happened if Israel hadn't sinned and rejected Christ? It gets complicated!



> The Sinaitic covenant was republished in order to pave the way for national Israel to bring forth the seed that was to crush the serpent's head and does not promise salvation from sin and the wrath of God.



But the ceremonial law was an inherent part of the Sinaitic Covenant, and did it not eloquently teach the Gospel of God's grace by penal substitutionary imputation? Also all sin was covered by the sacrifices of the ceremonial law but the grossest, most flagrant and most presumptious of the 10C, which were punished by physical death in the penal law, but not leading to eternal death if you were a believer. 

Is that not a gracious advance on the CoW in which death was specified for the least infringement? I think that the Sinaitic Covenant is much more gracious for the Israelites, as it had to be to lead to the salvation of those who were already sinners, than the CoW, which did not involve salvation by grace.

For Christ Himself, of course, He had to "fulfill all righteousness" for Himself and us.

You can't mix salvation by works and grace. I believe that Sinai was a gracious covenant and not a RoCoW. Nevertheless, Sinai had elements and conditions that harked back to Eden and looked forward to the New Covenant and the Eschatalogical Realm while being tailored not for a sinless Adam who could save himself, but for a sinful people, that could only be saved by grace. 

God didn't mock the Israelites by giving them things to do, that sinners can't do, like save themselves by works?


----------



## WAWICRUZ (Nov 24, 2009)

> Sorry Warren, I was a bit brusque in saying you were "radically confused" . Please forgive me brother. I've never read Horton on CT.



It's no biggie, brother. 

By the way, I believe I've addressed the issues you raise here on my post at the other thread.


----------

