# Republication: still lost.



## Captain Picard (Jan 8, 2016)

I've read as many of the other threads on this board as I can on the subject of republication of the CoW at Sinai, and also read the Fesko work on the Theology of the Standards recently. I'm still pretty lost. Couple questions:

1) What would be the best work in defense of republication specifically to start with? (I read Horton's intro, but it was short of comparative analysis of views).

2) Is "Klinean republication", properly understood, holding to the idea that the Moral law/Ten Words are gracious/non-Mosaic, and the Deuteronomic code post-calf incident is a Republication, or that the Moral law itself is the republication? Or am I totally missing the point?


----------



## sojournercp (Jan 9, 2016)

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Jan 9, 2016)

sojournercp said:


> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


What is the point of the link as it points to much inappropriate content not having to do with theology.


----------



## Ed Walsh (Jan 9, 2016)

Captain Picard said:


> I've read as many of the other threads on this board as I can on the subject of republication of the CoW at Sinai,



The Marrow of Modern Divinity, by Edward Fisher
Has loads of insights on the “Republication” of the Covenant of Works at the giving of the Law. The Marrow is a delightful book to read, and an important historical document in the history of the Scottish Church. Everyone should read it at least once.

Read/Download for free: Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL)
http://goo.gl/Cll66b

Buy from Amazon:
http://goo.gl/GNRwLs


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Jan 9, 2016)

I can recommend this talk by Rev. Trevor Kirkland and the Free Church of Scotland (Continuing) on the subject. I found it helpful.


----------



## au5t1n (Jan 9, 2016)

Ed Walsh said:


> Captain Picard said:
> 
> 
> > I've read as many of the other threads on this board as I can on the subject of republication of the CoW at Sinai,
> ...



Make sure you read it with Thomas Boston's notes. His notes on republication are particularly insightful and introduce several critical distinctions which are often neglected.

In some places Boston helpfully clarifies the Marrow's meaning; in others I think he may stretch charitable reading to a breaking point. Regardless, his thoughts are helpful in their own right.


----------



## Ed Walsh (Jan 9, 2016)

*Fisher with Boston's Notes*



au5t1n said:


> Make sure you read it with Thomas Boston's notes. His notes on republication are particularly insightful and introduce several critical distinctions which are often neglected.



Agreed!!! With three exclamation points.


----------



## Romans922 (Jan 9, 2016)

The problem that you and others (even who have posted here) would be having problems with is that just saying 'republication' doesn't equate to some of the puritans who held the view. You have to look at the nuances etc. "Klinian republication" is completely different than the Westminster view, and different than the puritans who held a view somewhat similar to Kline's view. But we also have to look at those who have come after Kline, because those who have come after him holding his view have developed it further.

Here's one article that may be helpful: https://d3ecc98b-a-62cb3a1a-s-sites...lJXl5Q5ExAjQ9WETXNbpZQW9wni5o=&attredirects=1

Of course read "Moses and Merit" that would be another helpful book.


----------



## PaulMc (Jan 9, 2016)

I recently attended a study day at the John Owen Centre (London Theological Seminary) led by Dr Garry Williams, the topic of which was the covenant at Sinai.

One of the views addressed was that of Kline (of which I admittedly knew relatively little), and Garry's discussion of it seems like it would be helpful here.

He pointed out that for Kline, there were two 'spheres' or 'strata' in this one covenant: the Mosaic economy "while an administration of grace on its fundamental level of concern with the eternal salvation of the individual, was at the same time on its temporary, typological kingdom level informed by the principle of works" (Kline, _Kingdom Prologue_, p.118). 

"This means that Israel related to God _for the land_ and for _salvation_ in opposite ways: the law-works principle for the land," which for Kline would be strict works, "and the gospel-promise principle for salvation… For Kline, the Sinai covenant pictures the work of Christ: his obedience merits the inheritance of the new earth as Israel was commanded to keep the land by obedience." (Williams, _Sinai: What Was The Law For?_, p.5)


----------



## Ed Walsh (Jan 9, 2016)

Captain Picard said:


> on the subject of republication of the CoW at Sinai



As many of you know I love Fisher's Catechism. Following are some of Fisher's Ques. & Ans. on the CoW and CoG at Sinai:

From the Westminster Shorter Catechism with sub questions from Fisher’s Catechism:

I hope you do not see the following as trite, or simplistic. I post them because I think that they represent a common belief as found in The Marrow of Modern Divinity, Thomas Boston, and the “Marrow Men” in general. I am no expert so I will willingly accept criticism.

QUESTION 41. Where is the moral law summarily comprehended?
ANSWER: The moral law is summarily comprehended in the Ten Commandments.

Note: I skipped Ques. & Ans. 1-13

Q. 14. Where was the law of the Ten Commandments thus expressly revealed?
A. At Mount Sinai, which is also called Horeb, Deut. 5:2.

Q. 15. In what form was the law of the Ten Commandments given out at Mount Sinai?
A. In the form of a COVENANT, Deut. 5:2 — “The Lord our God made a covenant with us in Horeb.” Accordingly, the Ten Commandments are called the words of the covenant, Ex. 34:28; and the tables of stone are termed the tables of the covenant, Deut. 9:9.

Q. 16. Was the Sinai transaction in the form of the covenant of works, or in the form of the covenant of grace?
A. There was, on that solemn occasion, a repetition of BOTH those covenants.

Q. 17. In what order were these two covenants repeated on Mount Sinai?
A. The covenant of grace was first promulgated, and then the covenant of works was displayed, as subservient to it.

Q. 18. How does it appear that the covenant of GRACE was first promulgated?
A. From these words in the preface, prefixed to the commands, I am the Lord thy God, spoken to a select people, the natural seed of Abraham, as typical of his whole spiritual seed, Gal. 3:16, 17.

Q. 19. How are the Ten Commandments to be viewed, as they stand annexed to this promulgation of the covenant of grace on Mount Sinai?
A. They are to be viewed as the law of Christ, or as a rule of life, given by Christ the Mediator to his spiritual seed, in virtue of his having engaged to fulfil the law, as a covenant, in their room, Rom. 7:4.

Q. 20. How does it appear that the covenant of WORKS was likewise displayed on Mount Sinai?
A. From the thunderings and lightnings, and the voice of the living God, speaking (the words of the Ten Commandments) out of the midst of the fire, Ex. 20:18; Deut. 5:22, 26.

Q. 21. What was signified by the thunderings and lightnings, and the voice of God, speaking out of the midst of the fire?
A. These awful emblems represented that infinite avenging wrath, which was due to all of Adam’s family, for the breach of the covenant of works, by which the whole of God’s holy law was violated and infringed, Gal. 3:10.

Q. 22. Why did God make a display of the covenant of works in such an awful and tremendous manner?
A. That sinners of mankind might be deterred from the most remote thought of attempting obedience to the law as a condition of life; and be persuaded to fly to, and acquiesce in the undertaking of Christ, who engaged his heart to approach unto God, as Surety in the room of an elect world, Jer. 30:21.

Q. 23. If both covenants, of grace and works, were exhibited on Mount Sinai, were not the Israelites, in that case, under both these covenants at one and the same time?
A. They could not be under both covenants in the same respects, at the same time; and therefore they must be considered either as believers or unbelievers, both as to their outward church state and inward soul frame.

Q. 24. In what respects were the believing Israelites, in the Sinaitic transaction, under both covenants?
A. They were internally and really under the covenant of grace, as all believers are, Rom. 6:14, and only externally, under the above awful display of the covenant of works, as it was subordinate and subservient to that of grace, in pointing out the necessity of the Surety-righteousness, Gal. 3:24.

Q. 25. In what respects were unbelievers among them, under these two covenants of works and grace?
A. They were only externally, and by profession, in respect of their visible church state, under the covenant of grace, Rom. 9:4; but internally, and really, in respect of the state of their souls, before the Lord, they were under the covenant of works, chap. 4:14, 15.

Q. 26. Which of the two covenants was the principal part of the Sinai transaction?
A. The covenant of grace was both in itself, and in God’s intention, the principal part of it; nevertheless, the covenant of works was the more conspicuous part of it, and lay most obvious to the view of the people; for they SAW “the thunderings and the lightnings, and the noise of the trumpet, and the mountain smoking,” Ex. 20:18. “And so terrible was the sight, that Moses said, I exceedingly fear and quake,” Heb. 12:21.

Q. 27. What effect had this tremendous display of the covenant of works upon the Israelites?
A. It tended to beat them off, in some measure, from that self-confidence which they had expressed before the publication of the law, Ex. 19:8; and to discover the necessity of a Mediator, and of faith in him as the sole foundation of all acceptable obedience, Rom. 16:25, 26.

Q. 28. How does it appear that it had this effect?
A. From their own words to Moses, after the terrible sight which they saw, Deut. 5:27 — “Speak thou unto us all that the Lord our God shall speak unto thee; and we will HEAR [that is, believe] and DO.” On which account the Lord commends them, ver. 28, 29 — “They have well said all that they have spoken: O that there were such a heart in them, that they would fear me, and keep all my commandments always, that it might be well with them, and with their children for ever!”

Q. 29. In what respect had they said well in what they had spoken?
A. In as much as they had made faith, or believing, the source and spring of acceptable doing; for, “whatsoever is not of faith is sin,” Rom. 14:23.

Note: There are ten more questions after Q. 29 above.


----------



## greenbaggins (Jan 9, 2016)

The standard book today is "The Law Is Not of Faith", edited by Van Drunen, Fesko and one other WSCAL guy (Estelle, I think). In addition, there are some great exchanges between Fesko and Venema in the Confessional Presbyterian, volumes 8 and 9. It is true that modern Klinean republication can be distinguished in certain ways from how similar views (such as the Marrow) were formulated.


----------



## Captain Picard (Jan 9, 2016)

Thanks everyone, especially Mr. Walsh for the detailed citations. I will be checking out some of those sources for sure.

My understanding of Westminster's consensus was something akin to the statements of Fisher's, but I understand there are differences between Fisher and Kline. 

Really just trying to get a handle on this issue because it seems to me to touch on a lot of issues of OT theology.


----------



## Romans922 (Jan 10, 2016)

Going to Fisher's Catechism and looking at the Purtians or Westminster will not help you understand Kline's Republicationism. It is very different. The article I linked above is helpful to distinguish the two. http://www.puritanboard.com/showthread.php/88686-Republication-still-lost?p=1095785#post1095785


----------



## Captain Picard (Jan 11, 2016)

Romans922 said:


> Going to Fisher's Catechism and looking at the Purtians or Westminster will not help you understand Kline's Republicationism. It is very different. The article I linked above is helpful to distinguish the two. http://www.puritanboard.com/showthread.php/88686-Republication-still-lost?p=1095785#post1095785


 
Currently working through "Moses and Merit".
Danke schoen!


----------



## mvdm (Jan 11, 2016)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> I can recommend this talk by Rev. Trevor Kirkland and the Free Church of Scotland (Continuing) on the subject. I found it helpful.



Excellent address. Do you know if the paper he presented is available in written form?


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Jan 11, 2016)

mvdm said:


> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> > I can recommend this talk by Rev. Trevor Kirkland and the Free Church of Scotland (Continuing) on the subject. I found it helpful.
> ...


I do not. Rev. Kirkland's info should be on that page

Sent from my SM-G360V using Tapatalk


----------



## au5t1n (Jan 11, 2016)

Romans922 said:


> Going to Fisher's Catechism and looking at the Purtians or Westminster will not help you understand Kline's Republicationism.



It will help one understand the nuances of the historical doctrine(s) so that one can clearly perceive the simplistic errors made by modern proponents.


----------



## MW (Jan 11, 2016)

PaulMc said:


> (Williams, Sinai: What Was The Law For?, p.5)



Paul, is this available?


----------



## Romans922 (Jan 11, 2016)

au5t1n said:


> Romans922 said:
> 
> 
> > Going to Fisher's Catechism and looking at the Purtians or Westminster will not help you understand Kline's Republicationism.
> ...



I can definitely agree with that


----------



## AndyS (Jan 13, 2016)

mvdm said:


> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> > I can recommend this talk by Rev. Trevor Kirkland and the Free Church of Scotland (Continuing) on the subject. I found it helpful.
> ...



Listening to this now (and will probably need to listen to it more than once). 

It is very helpful.


----------



## sojournercp (Jan 20, 2016)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> What is the point of the link as it points to much inappropriate content not having to do with theology.



Sorry brother. I'm not sure what link you're referring to. I think it was removed. It was probably a hack that got through via the mobile app I use for this forum. My apologies. I'll look into it.


----------

