# Dr. Clark's 7 point summary of Republication



## Shawn Mathis

Here it is.


----------



## Peairtach

There are places in the NT where if you missed the point you could think that salvation was by works e.g. the Parable of the Talents. The reality is that works done through faith in Christ will be rewarded in Heaven."Works" done without grace will not.

Likewise, the only way the Israelites were going to be able to do the good works which would see them enjoy secure and blessed tenure in the Land was by grace through faith. 

It was their neglect of grace and embrace of idolatry that led to their first exile. It was their neglect of grace and embrace of works religion that led to their second exile.

Under the CoW broken by Adam the positive sanction of reward is out of reach for sinners, without someone else fulfllling the CoW for them - a graciously provided Saviour and Mediator in whom they must exercise faith, and without which they could not produce works pleasing to God in the NT or the OT.

The negative sanction of the Curse hangs over the sinner who has not embraced Christ, and that applies to unconverted sinners within the OT and NT CoG administrations.

True believers are not subject to the Curse but things such as illness and death are made unto them means of chastisement and sanctification.

E.g. the first exile carried out by the Babylonians was part of the Curse of the already broken CoW for those Israelite sinners who had not truly embraced grace. For people like Ezekiel or Daniel, who had, it was a means of chastisement and sanctification.

There is no need for an impossible Republication of the CoW at Sinai. Under the Mosaic Covenant God was graciously teaching the people about the already broken CoW as part of the CoG in a way suited for them.

In the New Testament He graciously teaches us about the already broken CoW in a way suited to us.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## mvdm

Shawn, do you have an opinion as to whether the 7 points clarify or resolve any of the concerns raised by the PNW of the OPC?


----------



## Shawn Mathis

Peairtach said:


> There is no need for an impossible Republication of the CoW at Sinai. Under the Mosaic Covenant God was graciously teaching the people about the already broken CoW as part of the CoG in a way suited for them.
> 
> In the New Testament He graciously teaches us about the already broken CoW in a way suited to us.



Why would this be different than the seven points offered beyond the language of "republished"? For the record, I do not believe "republished" is a helpful term but could be construed to mean what you wrote above, it seems to me.


----------



## Shawn Mathis

Mark, I do not. At this juncture in my investigation, I have a "gut reaction" to certain things but want to stick with "just the facts." The historical quotes offered by Dr. Clark are certainly something that should make people pause who wish to denounce any and all usage of the word "republication" or like language. 

To some extent there is a blending of issues here as I have noted before: republication and social/culture theories (theonomy, neo-kuyperianism, etc.) are logically separable in my mind. Further, similar to the question of the origin of the soul, traducianism or creationism, it may be people have strong inclinations one way or another but the specific "answer" to the origin of the soul was never formally settled in Reformed confession (I'm thinking of Berkhof's treatment here). The same may be here given, again, the historical evidence of this language. Of course, bringing out the limits of acceptability is a worthy goal right now. 

my two cents (with inflation),


----------



## Peairtach

Shawn Mathis said:


> Peairtach said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no need for an impossible Republication of the CoW at Sinai. Under the Mosaic Covenant God was graciously teaching the people about the already broken CoW as part of the CoG in a way suited for them.
> 
> In the New Testament He graciously teaches us about the already broken CoW in a way suited to us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would this be different than the seven points offered beyond the language of "republished"? For the record, I do not believe "republished" is a helpful term but could be construed to mean what you wrote above, it seems to me.
Click to expand...


Not really. What I mean is quite different to what Dr Clark is talking about. I'm talking about God teaching the Israelites as part of His revelation to them, about their relationship to the CoW which as sinners they had already broken in Adam. The Republicationist thesis is that the CoW was in some sense renewed, so that God encouraged and commanded the Israelites to seek temporary good in the Land by means of merit through works, while they were to seek their personal salvation by grace.

After being broken, the CoW wasn't abrogated, but it was made completely hypothetical to sinners as a way of salvation. The moral law of the CoW still stands over sinners, binding them to perfect obedience. The Curse of the broken law is being outworked in their lives and ultimately will lead to eternal death. I found what Robert Dabney said in his "Systematic Theology" on the present status of the broken CoW very helpful.

Dr Clark is proposing a renewed CoW "in some sense" at Sinai, by which the Israelites would merit some temporal rewards. He's not talking about the Lord teaching the Israelites about an already broken CoW including the important teaching that any rewards would have to be by grace not by works. 

Secure tenure in the Land and the blessings in the Land were types of Heavenly rewards for good works done by grace through faith ultimately in Christ - although we agree that the Israelites were taught about Christ in a shadowy way. It would be a completely wrong and misleading teaching about the already broken CoW for the Lord to teach the Israelites to seek secure tenure in the land by means of a new CoW.

The sanction of reward is utterly out of reach by means of the CoW, or a republished/renewed/new CoW at Sinai, for sinners.

How were they going to refrain from idolatry and produce the obedience God desired, by works or by grace?

In the Second Temple period, how were they to escape from self-righteous works religion and produce the fruits God desired, by works or by grace?

Also, how can secure tenure and blessing in the Land be sought by works, and yet personal salvation, including sanctification, be sought by grace. It was the obedience and true good works that are produced by personal salvation by grace through faith upon which secure tenure in the Land depended.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## R. Scott Clark

Richard,

When you say, 



> Dr Clark is proposing a renewed CoW "in some sense" at Sinai, by which the Israelites would merit some temporal rewards. He's not talking about the Lord teaching the Israelites about an already broken CoW including the important teaching that any rewards would have to be by grace not by works.



Briefly, you've quite misunderstood me. You've quite reversed what I said.

You've assumed that I _must _think that that "the Israelites would merit some temporal rewards" but I neither said nor implied that.

Please re-read what I actually wrote.


----------



## Peairtach

R. Scott Clark said:


> Richard,
> 
> When you say,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Clark is proposing a renewed CoW "in some sense" at Sinai, by which the Israelites would merit some temporal rewards. He's not talking about the Lord teaching the Israelites about an already broken CoW including the important teaching that any rewards would have to be by grace not by works.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Briefly, you've quite misunderstood me. You've quite reversed what I said.
> 
> You've assumed that I _must _think that that "the Israelites would merit some temporal rewards" but I neither said nor implied that.
> 
> Please re-read what I actually wrote.
Click to expand...


I'm sorry for that, Dr Clark, but as TLNF showed, the Republication Thesis takes a number of differing forms. 

I must have presumed, without carefully reading your points, that you took a more "strict" view that Israel needed to do something by works, rather than by grace leading to true good works, to enjoy the continued types of Heavenly rewards in the Land.

My apologies.


----------



## MW

Some of these points are inimical to reformed theology. One of them explicitly contradicts the Confession on the perpetually binding nature of the moral law. Others are overtly Antinomian. This is a very poor reading of Witsius and a bad representation of the reformed faith.

There is quite a deal of difference between saying that the law was a republication of the covenant of works and that there was a republication of the covenant of works when the law was given.


----------



## timmopussycat

I am not sure that Dr. Clark explicitly contradicts the Confession on the perpetually binding nature of the moral law for Point 3 which states that: 




RSC said:


> The moral law reflects the divine nature and was first given in creation and later re-stated in temporary, typological, theocratic, Israelite, terms at Sinai.


is followed by point 4c in which the moral law serves,


RSC said:


> insofar as it is a summary of the moral law, as the moral norm for the Israelites and new covenant Christians (normative use)



and point 7 which, speaking of the moral law says that: 




RSC said:


> In the new covenant that law, in both tables, stripped of its Israelite, typological features (e.g., land tenure, saturday sabbath), remains as a perpetual, universal norm for all humans.


----------



## MW

The Confession distinguishes the moral law from the temporary and typical. What is perpetual for the Confession is temporal for Dr. Clark. Moreover, whereas the Confession identifies both tables as being perpetually binding, Dr Clark divides the two tables and poses a different function for them under the new covenant.

David Dickson: "*all the precepts of the moral law* belong to the law of nature, naturally engraven upon the hearts of men, *which cannot be abrogated*, but oblige all men perpetually, and necessarily, from natural reason itself, Rom. 2.15."


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Shawn Mathis said:


> Mark, I do not. At this juncture in my investigation, I have a "gut reaction" to certain things but want to stick with "just the facts." The historical quotes offered by Dr. Clark are certainly something that should make people pause who wish to denounce any and all usage of the word "republication" or like language.
> 
> To some extent there is a blending of issues here as I have noted before: republication and social/culture theories (theonomy, neo-kuyperianism, etc.) are logically separable in my mind. Further, similar to the question of the origin of the soul, traducianism or creationism, it may be people have strong inclinations one way or another but the specific "answer" to the origin of the soul was never formally settled in Reformed confession (I'm thinking of Berkhof's treatment here). The same may be here given, again, the historical evidence of this language. Of course, bringing out the limits of acceptability is a worthy goal right now.
> 
> my two cents (with inflation),



Shawn,

Have you had a chance to read the interchanges on the Confessional Presbyterian Journal over the past couple of years? I think Venema's interchange with Fesko is very helpful.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Robert Strimple's article on WCF 19 is also helpful on this.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Shawn Mathis

Rich, I have read the first round. I have not gotten around to the second round. Frankly, I find Dr. Clark's description here and in another blog posting more helpful. 

For all readers here: please read Dr. Clark's response to my question (question and response). What do you all think of his response?

thanks,


----------



## Shawn Mathis

Tim, What do you think of this part of the points: "4.B “Serve, in both tables, as the norm for Israelite civil life and to serve, in the second table, a [sic] the norm civil life after the expiration of the Israelite theocracy (civil use).” 

I can only read this as stating only the second table as norming civil life and not the first table as well.


----------



## Peairtach

Shawn Mathis said:


> Tim, What do you think of this part of the points: "4.B “Serve, in both tables, as the norm for Israelite civil life and to serve, in the second table, a [sic] the norm civil life after the expiration of the Israelite theocracy (civil use).”
> 
> I can only read this as stating only the second table as norming civil life and not the first table as well.



That point isn't really about Republication itself but about an R2K view of our era.

To be honest I still don't understand Dr Clark's view."Works" produced carnally as in Second Temple Judaism are not what God was looking for from the Israelites, yet the sanction of Heavenly reward typologically prefigured in the Land and its benefits was held out to them on CoW terms. I think it more likely that the demands from God for obedience in order to enjoy the type of Heaven refer to what we would call in the NT "evangelical" obedience. This corresponds the type with the reality.

We as under the NT administration will lose any title to the inheritance of Heaven if we don't enter into the life of the CoG and produce evangelical obedience. We will die under the CoW broken by Adam because, although we were maybe even born and lived under the administration of the CoG we have despised the proferred grace as many of the Israelites did, and they suffered the consequences, either personally through aspects of the judicial law or nationally by exile, which was a means of teaching people about the Curse and its ultimate consequences.

Now, under the NT, the whole of the NT Church can't go into exile, nor is that held out as a possibility. The candlestick can indeed be removed from particular locations, so e.g. the whole of the Church in Asia Minor can "go into exile".

But the OT was different from the NT, in that it was provisional, and the peculiar spiritual privileges of the Israelites were provisional, so this maybe explains the peculiar tutelary function of the possible loss of the Land when the proferred grace was despised and the already broken CoW clung to by those under this administration of the CoG.

God was warning the Israelites by the exile and return, that they could yet reject Him disastrously - but not totally nor finally (Rom 9-11) - even in the glorious antitypical Messiah, if they didn't embrace the proferred grace in the OT administration of the CoG, and instead clung to the broken CoW.


Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## timmopussycat

Shawn Mathis said:


> Tim, What do you think of this part of the points: "4.B “Serve, in both tables, as the norm for Israelite civil life and to serve, in the second table, a [sic] the norm civil life after the expiration of the Israelite theocracy (civil use).”
> 
> I can only read this as stating only the second table as norming civil life and not the first table as well.



I missed that point on first reading.


----------



## One Little Nail

armourbearer said:


> There is quite a deal of difference between saying that the law was a republication of the covenant of works and that there was a republication of the covenant of works when the law was given.



So which of these two is it?

as I see a need for a CoW's of sorts to have been fulfilled by the Lord Jesus Christ to merit us our Righteousness. 
Was there not just new terms added to it like the Mosaic statutes that if a man do he shall live,also with the threatenings 
of death if it is not kept entire & perfect.

Just to digress that man was already fallen & could not hope to fulfil these conditions, nor was intended to, but 
the Law has its work in pointing us to Christ, and it was He who came to fulfil its righteous demands to purchase 
everlasting righteousness for us, Psalm 40:7 Then said I, Lo, I come: in the volume of the book it is written of me,

.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

If it was a republication of the Covenant of Works no one would have survived the first offense. Even Adam ceased to exist in his first natural state as soon as he violated the Covenant. The Law was republished as is noted by Dr. Strimple. http://tinyurl.com/kw8l7b7 The Covenant of Works was not reinstituted in any shape or form.


----------



## Shawn Mathis

PuritanCovenanter said:


> The Law was republished



Yes, that is how I see it. And it was used to teach them their need of Christ. So, why claim a "republication" of an entire covenant that was already broken? Even typologically?


----------



## mvdm

Shawn Mathis said:


> Yes, that is how I see it. And it was used to teach them their need of Christ.



Which in standard Reformed orthodoxy is called the "first use" of the law. Clark's 7 points appear to conflate the "first use of the law" with the covenant of works, and I think other Klinean "repubs" are doing likewise.


----------



## Peairtach

Shawn Mathis said:


> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Law was republished
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, that is how I see it. And it was used to teach them their need of Christ. So, why claim a "republication" of an entire covenant that was already broken? Even typologically?
Click to expand...


I think it's partly to do with Kline's view of Israel being a type of Christ. Now Israel was a type of Christ and type of the NT Church over whom Christ is Head.

More particularly and properly, the Prophets, Priests and Kings, were types of Christ, as the coming Anointed One who would render them obsolete.

I think there are ways in which Christ's fulfilling all righteousness for His people is typified in the OT, without all this "Republication of the CoW" or "Republication of the CoW, in some sense" theory.

For instance, not only was the animal slain in sacrifice - pointing to Christ's passive obedience in the CoW - but also it had to meet a certain standard of fitness - pointing to Christ's active obedience in the CoW.

Dabney comes out against Republication, in his _Systematic Theology_, but what does he mean here:



> The French divines, Camero and Amgraut [Cameron and Amyraut?] proposed an ingenious modification of the legal theory of Moses’ covenant: That in it a certain kind of life was proposed (as in the Covenant of Works,) as a reward for an exact obedience. But that the life was temporal, in a prosperous Canaan, and the obedience was ritual. This is true, so far as a visible church standing turned on a ritual obedience. But to the Hebrew, that temporal life in happy Canaan was a type of heaven, which was not promised to an exact moral obedience, but to faith. *Were this theory modified, so as to represent this dependence of the Hebrew’s church standing on his ritual obedience, as a mere type and emblem of the law’s spiritual work as a "schoolmaster to lead us to Christ," it might stand. (p453)
> *


----------



## Shawn Mathis

mvdm said:


> Clark's 7 points appear to conflate the "first use of the law" with the covenant of works, and I think other Klinean "repubs" are doing likewise.



That is what it appears to me as well. That is why I pointed out that law is not the same as covenant. And as someone else pointed out, there was an alien element in the seven points, 4B, that does not appear to be necessary and reflects their version of Two Kingdoms. The two issues are logically separable but practically joined at the hip in this American context.


----------



## MW

One Little Nail said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is quite a deal of difference between saying that the law was a republication of the covenant of works and that there was a republication of the covenant of works when the law was given.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So which of these two is it?
Click to expand...


It is the second. There was a republication of the covenant of works in the law that it might serve as a schoolmaster to lead to Christ, but the law itself was a republication of the covenant of grace that Christ Himself might be trusted for salvation.

If it were the first, and the law itself was a republication of the covenant of works, the law would be abolished in its entirety when believers are delivered from the covenant of works. In opposition to this the Confession states the moral law for ever binds all, regenerate and unregenerate. Believers are delivered from the law as a covenant of works, but they are not delivered from the morality of the law. They receive its precepts from the hand of Christ and serve Him in obeying its precepts.


----------



## MW

Peairtach said:


> Dabney comes out against Republication, in his _Systematic Theology_, but what does he mean here:



I interpret Dabney as saying that the scheme might be acceptable were its "subordinate" nature recognised. In its present form it is made to "co-ordinate" and even to conflict with the covenant of grace at certain points, which is unacceptable.


----------



## mvdm

Shawn Mathis said:


> , 4B, that does not appear to be necessary and reflects their version of Two Kingdoms. The two issues are logically separable but practically joined at the hip in this American context.



I agree they *should* be logically separable, but I've long said that the Klinean repub view of the Mosaic covenant is the root from which R2k weed grows. They must defend the root to keep the whole plant alive.


----------



## Shawn Mathis

Mark, I suspect as much that the Klinen viewpoint is the root of R2K. I am not sure exactly how. That is why asked if 4.B had to be part of republication.


----------



## mvdm

Shawn Mathis said:


> Mark, I suspect as much that the Klinen viewpoint is the root of R2K. I am not sure exactly how. That is why asked if 4.B had to be part of republication.



Quick boil down (which of course does not adequately flesh it out): Klinean repubs insists on a very negative view of Mosaic law as always condemning as a COW, tied to theocracy --e.g., see T. David Gordon's borderline blasphemous essay trashing the Mosaic economy in TLINF. Since the Old Covenant has passed and theocracy is gone, in the New Covenant, we are under now under the "law of Christ" and appeals to the Mosaic law are portrayed as attempts to re-establish theocracy, eg. Lee Irons, Matt Tuininga, David Van Drunen. This drives the first table, second table division, where acknowledgment or involvement with first table duties in the common realm puts us back under that old, temporary, typological, theocratic, theonomic Covenant of Works. R2k depends on this negative portrayal in order to create the dichotomous "redemptive realm=grace realm" and "common realm=law realm".


----------



## Shawn Mathis

So, the assumption is that all the OT (or vast portions?) is typology and thus not useful beyond pointing to Christ? But this does not explain why attempts to use the Mosaic law are inherently wrong when Dr. Scott states that the typological overlays the moral: 

"6. In the old covenant two things were happening simultaneously: a typological, pedagogical, formally legal (but not strictly legal) administration of the covenant of works (see #4 above) and an administration of the covenant of grace in which sinners were justified and saved by grace alone, through faith alone in Christ alone."

"7. In the new covenant that law, in both tables, stripped of its Israelite, typological features (e.g., land tenure, saturday sabbath), remains as a perpetual, universal norm for all humans."

Thus, as for a skeletal outline to be sure, it is missing important elements that must link 4.B (denial of use of First Table for civil matters) with republication beyond using an ad hominem ("negative portrayal"). If one were to drop the word "republication" in the 7-point description then one can see the artificiality of 4.B (or, rather, arbitrariness). 

But given points 6 & 7 the simple existence of typology does not negate the usefulness (application) of OT laws. If it is "simultaneously" then it overlays and does not tell us exactly what is only typological (and thus not applicable today [again, an assumption contrary to, say, Calvin who finds much moral non-Christological use out of ceremonial laws]). 

There is a moral system driving the answer to the question of what is merely typological (land tenure, saturday sabbath, etc.) and that appear to be R2K. But if the Living in Two Kingdoms book is a summary of that moral system, it, too, is deficient, seemingly bringing in both the Klinean model (without explicitly stating as such) and, again, a moral assumption along the lines of NT-only ethics and/or libertarian-like culture and/or First Table is only binding in the church (pick-one) (which was not explicitly stated as such in the book). 

This all leads me back to my previous comments: there are some unspoken assumptions in both discussions (republication and R2K); that they both assume each other. But this should be made explicit and defended accordingly (maybe the second series of essays in Confessional Presbyterian does that? Rich? Anyone?). Otherwise, summaries like the one discussed here just become an exercise in begging the question, or rather, unwittingly inserting hidden premises. 

At least with Lee Irons all the theological cards were on the table. I read his defense before GA and it was crystal clear. [No, I am not accusing anyone of hiding things. There is just more clarity needed or, likely, I need to read even more than I have]. 

thanks, I'll have to review what I've read and listen to some Heidelcasts.


----------



## One Little Nail

Shawn Mathis said:


> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Law was republished
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, that is how I see it. And it was used to teach them their need of Christ. So, why claim a "republication" of an entire covenant that was already broken? Even typologically?
Click to expand...



Yes the CofW's was broken by Adam as the Federal Head of Mankind, we are all fallen & have no ability to keep the Law,
even to the Letter, let alone the Spirit. We are all in Adam stand condemned, notwithstanding our own sin.

Christ came to become the New or 2nd Adam or Federal Head of His people, to do so He needed to fulfil the Covenant of Works on our behalf to merit Righteousness for us, His people, in a Covenant form. 

It was not sufficient for The Lord Jesus Christ to do so by keeping the Moral Law perfectly as body to gain salvation for His people, the keeping of the Law with all the other prescribed ordinances, ceremonies, Johanine Baptism etc, would have only earned the Lord Jesus his own salvation, though when tied in with Him fulfilling the terms of the Covenant of Works he was perfectly fitted to be the Federal head &, Mediator of the Fulfilled Covenant of Grace, the New Covenant.

Thats why I believe a republication of the CofW's was necessary, not that fallen,helpless mankind could earn his own salvation, that is ruled out & impossible, it was, if I can coin a term a _*Christological Republication*_ of the *Covenant* of *Works*.


----------



## AndyS

PuritanCovenanter said:


> If it was a republication of the Covenant of Works no one would have survived the first offense. Even Adam ceased to exist in his first natural state as soon as he violated the Covenant. The Law was republished as is noted by Dr. Strimple. http://tinyurl.com/kw8l7b7 The Covenant of Works was not reinstituted in any shape or form.



Thanks for the link. Strimple is always helpful. (He was my systematic theology prof at WSCA.)


----------



## AndyS

mvdm said:


> Shawn Mathis said:
> 
> 
> 
> , 4B, that does not appear to be necessary and reflects their version of Two Kingdoms. The two issues are logically separable but practically joined at the hip in this American context.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree they *should* be logically separable, but I've long said that the Klinean repub view of the Mosaic covenant is the root from which R2k weed grows. They must defend the root to keep the whole plant alive.
Click to expand...


That seems to be Dr. Frame's view - that there is a causal connection between the two.

Curious to know if those who hold to 2K would agree with that notion (even if disagreeing with his negative evaluation of 2K, of course).


----------



## AndyS

mvdm said:


> Shawn Mathis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mark, I suspect as much that the Klinen viewpoint is the root of R2K. I am not sure exactly how. That is why asked if 4.B had to be part of republication.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quick boil down (which of course does not adequately flesh it out): Klinean repubs insists on a very negative view of Mosaic law as always condemning as a COW, tied to theocracy --e.g., see T. David Gordon's borderline blasphemous essay trashing the Mosaic economy in TLINF. Since the Old Covenant has passed and theocracy is gone, in the New Covenant, we are under now under the "law of Christ" and appeals to the Mosaic law are portrayed as attempts to re-establish theocracy, eg. Lee Irons, Matt Tuininga, David Van Drunen. This drives the first table, second table division, where acknowledgment or involvement with first table duties in the common realm puts us back under that old, temporary, typological, theocratic, theonomic Covenant of Works. R2k depends on this negative portrayal in order to create the dichotomous "redemptive realm=grace realm" and "common realm=law realm".
Click to expand...


Apparently I am going to have to read _The Law Is Not of Faith_.


----------



## Peairtach

> The Law Is Not of Faith.



It's not an easy read. Somewhat indigestible In my humble opinion. To have a thesis "Republication of the CoW in some sense" is just not good enough, and doesn't make for an easy or enjoyable read.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Shawn Mathis said:


> This all leads me back to my previous comments: there are some unspoken assumptions in both discussions (republication and R2K); that they both assume each other. But this should be made explicit and defended accordingly (maybe the second series of essays in Confessional Presbyterian does that? Rich? Anyone?). Otherwise, summaries like the one discussed here just become an exercise in begging the question, or rather, unwittingly inserting hidden premises.


I'm going to cautiously add my thoughts on this. I think there are some connections here that haven't quite been fully worked out. How, precisely, does the view of the Covenants as being understood along the lines of the ANE treaty documents affect other aspects of theology? My own sense is that it was pretty much accepted that the Covenants needed to be re-understood as either Royal Grants or Suzerein treaties and, once one agrees that Hittite treaties formed the "architecture" for Covenants then all of the Biblical covenants had to be understood as one or the other.

Yet, once the Covenants are recast there are systematic "ripples" that work their way through the Confessions themselves. I think the project started as an area of Biblical theology. Where BT was grounded by Vos in Reformed Systematic theology, it seems that many Biblical Theologians were not as grounded in letting Reformed dogmatics control their conclusions. There has been a project, from what I can see, to update systematic theology according to the new Covenantal schema but it doesn't always seem like the differences between the new system and the system of the Confession are being properly underlined. To his credit (even though I thoroughly disagree with his approach), Irons was willing to come out and completely reject whole swaths of the WCF. What seems more common to me as one who examines men and listens to debates is that many men do not always think through the implications of the entire system and many Churchmen are not thoroughly investigating the consequences of some re-definitions.

For example, in the paedocommunion case, I heard men at GA say: "Well, as long as he doesn't practice it, I don't see what the issue is." I know they are two separate issues but it is not terribly difficult to see how paedocommunion ripples through the system of doctine in several areas throughout the Westminster standards. In one case, a Presbytery refused to include the list of exceptions where the term "worthy recipient" was used (since that excluded young children). They were only interested in the exceptions that the candidate for ministry stated for himself and were not interested in the exceptions that actually existed if one probed more deeply.

What's happening, then, is that the system of doctrine is not really being recast by the courts of the Church but in the writings of seminary professors. They're teaching certain views of the Covenant and, in some cases, new systems of doctrine for how the law then relates Covenantally to the Gospel, and these men are then going to Churches to be ordained. If the Church is willing to accept that the man has no exceptions then some of the ministers may actually be in conflict with the system of doctrine but the Church is not really ruling one way or another but letting ministers teach very different things within the same Church. Take the "controversies" over sanctification and one can see the divergence that results. I think many are content to permit certain things and probably even assume that the system of doctrine permits both views or (worse) some really do not care whether the system is fully coherent.

Now, if a Seminary actually came out and boldly underlined where all the Confessions need to change in order to comply with the new systematic understanding then I think there would be more problems. I hate to sound so negative but the current general ambivalence about systematic coherency within the Confessions makes it much easier to just allow all sorts of divergent issues and there is really very little "forcing function" that causes the full impact of certain views to be fully examined. My opinion here but I've had some conversations with some professors that lead me to believe that they think the Puritans were pretty much legalists and it's reflected in the Westminster standards but they'd never come out and say that because it would upset too many issues. There's nothing forcing the issue of anyone actually making those things come to light. Look at how long it took what Peter Enns was teaching to come to light and, when you read about it, you realize it wasn't just him but it was taught for at least two decades and some were wondering: "Why is everyone making such a big deal about this now?"

Circling back to what you were asking, I think the CPJ exchange was intended to try to help clarify if there is a connection between the things you are identifying as organically connected. Structurally, the Confessions move from Covenant to Christ as the mediator of the Covenant and then all the aspects of Christ as mediator are connected to justification, sanctification, etc. If one redefines what the shape of the Covenants are into Royal Grant or Suzerein treaties then it seems it cannot but have a ripple affect on how one views the Law as Christ mediates it or other theological headers.

 I guess after all that spilled out, it's probably not as cautious as some would prefer but I do wish the connections were more easily understood and because I think we often come into conflict on certain clauses within the Confessions and don't always trace them back to the root cause and ask how one change rippled all the way through a system to create dozens of differences.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian




----------



## R. Scott Clark

Shawn Mathis said:


> So, the assumption is that all the OT (or vast portions?) is typology and thus not useful beyond pointing to Christ? But this does not explain why attempts to use the Mosaic law are inherently wrong when Dr. Scott states that the typological overlays the moral:
> 
> "6. In the old covenant two things were happening simultaneously: a typological, pedagogical, formally legal (but not strictly legal) administration of the covenant of works (see #4 above) and an administration of the covenant of grace in which sinners were justified and saved by grace alone, through faith alone in Christ alone."
> 
> "7. In the new covenant that law, in both tables, stripped of its Israelite, typological features (e.g., land tenure, saturday sabbath), remains as a perpetual, universal norm for all humans."
> 
> Thus, as for a skeletal outline to be sure, it is missing important elements that must link 4.B (denial of use of First Table for civil matters) with republication beyond using an ad hominem ("negative portrayal"). If one were to drop the word "republication" in the 7-point description then one can see the artificiality of 4.B (or, rather, arbitrariness).
> 
> But given points 6 & 7 the simple existence of typology does not negate the usefulness (application) of OT laws. If it is "simultaneously" then it overlays and does not tell us exactly what is only typological (and thus not applicable today [again, an assumption contrary to, say, Calvin who finds much moral non-Christological use out of ceremonial laws]).
> 
> There is a moral system driving the answer to the question of what is merely typological (land tenure, saturday sabbath, etc.) and that appear to be R2K. But if the Living in Two Kingdoms book is a summary of that moral system, it, too, is deficient, seemingly bringing in both the Klinean model (without explicitly stating as such) and, again, a moral assumption along the lines of NT-only ethics and/or libertarian-like culture and/or First Table is only binding in the church (pick-one) (which was not explicitly stated as such in the book).
> 
> This all leads me back to my previous comments: there are some unspoken assumptions in both discussions (republication and R2K); that they both assume each other. But this should be made explicit and defended accordingly (maybe the second series of essays in Confessional Presbyterian does that? Rich? Anyone?). Otherwise, summaries like the one discussed here just become an exercise in begging the question, or rather, unwittingly inserting hidden premises.
> 
> At least with Lee Irons all the theological cards were on the table. I read his defense before GA and it was crystal clear. [No, I am not accusing anyone of hiding things. There is just more clarity needed or, likely, I need to read even more than I have].
> 
> thanks, I'll have to review what I've read and listen to some Heidelcasts.



Shawn,

I would prefer to discuss this on the Heidelblog rather than here. I just can't keep up with both simultaneously.

Let me say that your post _seems_ to assume things I do not and you _seem_ imputing to me views I've not assumed, held, or taught. 

First, As a minister in the United Reformed Churches I subscribe, without exception and unequivocally, the Three Forms of Unity. As a seminary prof I subscribe _ex animo_ the system of doctrine contained in the Westminster Standards but I believe that I hold them without exception. 

Second, though I appreciated Meredith Kline my first loyalty is to God's Word. My second loyalty is to the Reformed confessions as the ecclesiastically sanctioned summary of the most important teaching in God's Word for Christian faith and life. Where Meredith's teaching contradicts the standards I reject it. E.g., in the current edition of _Kingdom Prologue_ he denies that we baptize covenant children on the basis of the Abrahamic covenant. That's an error. We confess rightly that we baptize covenant children on the basis of the promise given to Abraham. I think I also disagree with the way Meredith, in his later years, sometimes spoke about the Decalogue. I was not entirely comfortable with his late essay on science. I've never read _God, Heaven_, etc. I read some of the material when it was first published but did not understand it. I still don't. I have doubt about the utility of speaking of Israel's "merit" relative to the land. I think Meredith's intent was to say that Israel was in the land by what the medieval's call "congruent merit" (as distinct from condign merit) so it may be defensible on that ground and it doesn't strike me as heretical. Nevertheless, inasmuch as many are no longer aware of the distinction between condign and congruent merit and may tend to be confused by the use of the word, it's probably better not to speak that way. Thus, I may not be quite the thoroughgoing "Klinean" you assume. From what I can tell, I am not regarded as a completely "orthodox" Klinean by some Klineans. I doubt that Meredith would think much of anyone calling himself a Klinean and I keep wondering why did folk (especially in the OPC) wait until after he was dead to raise these questions with this intensity? It's not like his views were a secret and yet he was never charged by any court in the OPC during more than 50 years. That seems like a reasonable period of time in which to charge a man and put his views to the ecclesiastical test.

Third, the major influences on my understanding of covenant theology and its history have been the primary sources from the periods of Reformed orthodoxy (c. 1565-1700). 

Fourth, to reply to the concern regarding the phrase "in some sense." In the classical period there were multiple views on the ways in which the Decalogue (or the Mosaic law more broadly) was a "republication" of the covenant of works. This is why people use the expression "in some sense." The only alternative is to list the many different ways in which was held in the classical period.

Fifth, I have no idea what I have said that might give any reasonable reader the idea that the _only_ function of the Mosaic law in the new covenant is to serve as a typology. I've written online and in print _extensively_ about the abiding validity of the moral law of God in exhaustive detail. I affirm heartily the teaching of the standards on the moral law. I've defended the historic Reformed views of the 2nd and 4th commandments at length online and in print. I've taken more than a little flack for defending the historic Reformed practice of worship&mdash;including the singing of God's Word alone _a cappella_. 

Sixth, it's true that I'm not a theonomist but neither was the Reformed tradition. After all the WCF 19 does say that the civil laws have "expired." Amen! The general equity continues to apply. Amen! I'm not a Constantinian. I'm an American. i think the 18th-century American revisions of the Standards were correct. I agree with Abraham Kuyper's argument for the revision of Belgic Confession art. 36. I see no warrant in God's Word, in the NT, for the magistrate punishing religious error. That's hardly a radical view. 

Finally, I've argued on the HB for God's "twofold kingdom." That's Calvin's language and he wrote just a few years before Meredith. There's plenty of support in our tradition for making that distinction, including Abraham Kuyper. I'm trying to apply the distinction, as Kuyper was, in a post-Constantinian setting. That's hardly radical.


----------



## AndyS

Thanks Scott.

Do you see a direct connection between Kline's view (or what seems to be WSCA's view in general if you prefer) of republication and the version of 2K taught there?

Your post above was helpful.

Thanks, Andy


----------



## Douglas P.

AndyS said:


> mvdm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shawn Mathis said:
> 
> 
> 
> , 4B, that does not appear to be necessary and reflects their version of Two Kingdoms. The two issues are logically separable but practically joined at the hip in this American context.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree they *should* be logically separable, but I've long said that the Klinean repub view of the Mosaic covenant is the root from which R2k weed grows. They must defend the root to keep the whole plant alive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That seems to be Dr. Frame's view - that there is a causal connection between the two.
> 
> Curious to know if those who hold to 2K would agree with that notion (even if disagreeing with his negative evaluation of 2K, of course).
Click to expand...


I would say the connection (between 2K and Klinean covenant theology) has less to do with republication _per se_, and more to do with the distinctive view of the biblical covenants.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Semper Fidelis said:


> Shawn Mathis said:
> 
> 
> 
> This all leads me back to my previous comments: there are some unspoken assumptions in both discussions (republication and R2K); that they both assume each other. But this should be made explicit and defended accordingly (maybe the second series of essays in Confessional Presbyterian does that? Rich? Anyone?). Otherwise, summaries like the one discussed here just become an exercise in begging the question, or rather, unwittingly inserting hidden premises.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm going to cautiously add my thoughts on this. I think there are some connections here that haven't quite been fully worked out. How, precisely, does the view of the Covenants as being understood along the lines of the ANE treaty documents affect other aspects of theology? My own sense is that it was pretty much accepted that the Covenants needed to be re-understood as either Royal Grants or Suzerein treaties and, once one agrees that Hittite treaties formed the "architecture" for Covenants then all of the Biblical covenants had to be understood as one or the other.
> 
> Yet, once the Covenants are recast there are systematic "ripples" that work their way through the Confessions themselves. I think the project started as an area of Biblical theology. Where BT was grounded by Vos in Reformed Systematic theology, it seems that many Biblical Theologians were not as grounded in letting Reformed dogmatics control their conclusions. There has been a project, from what I can see, to update systematic theology according to the new Covenantal schema but it doesn't always seem like the differences between the new system and the system of the Confession are being properly underlined. To his credit (even though I thoroughly disagree with his approach), Irons was willing to come out and completely reject whole swaths of the WCF. What seems more common to me as one who examines men and listens to debates is that many men do not always think through the implications of the entire system and many Churchmen are not thoroughly investigating the consequences of some re-definitions.
> 
> For example, in the paedocommunion case, I heard men at GA say: "Well, as long as he doesn't practice it, I don't see what the issue is." I know they are two separate issues but it is not terribly difficult to see how paedocommunion ripples through the system of doctine in several areas throughout the Westminster standards. In one case, a Presbytery refused to include the list of exceptions where the term "worthy recipient" was used (since that excluded young children). They were only interested in the exceptions that the candidate for ministry stated for himself and were not interested in the exceptions that actually existed if one probed more deeply.
> 
> What's happening, then, is that the system of doctrine is not really being recast by the courts of the Church but in the writings of seminary professors. They're teaching certain views of the Covenant and, in some cases, new systems of doctrine for how the law then relates Covenantally to the Gospel, and these men are then going to Churches to be ordained. If the Church is willing to accept that the man has no exceptions then some of the ministers may actually be in conflict with the system of doctrine but the Church is not really ruling one way or another but letting ministers teach very different things within the same Church. Take the "controversies" over sanctification and one can see the divergence that results. I think many are content to permit certain things and probably even assume that the system of doctrine permits both views or (worse) some really do not care whether the system is fully coherent.
> 
> Now, if a Seminary actually came out and boldly underlined where all the Confessions need to change in order to comply with the new systematic understanding then I think there would be more problems. I hate to sound so negative but the current general ambivalence about systematic coherency within the Confessions makes it much easier to just allow all sorts of divergent issues and there is really very little "forcing function" that causes the full impact of certain views to be fully examined. My opinion here but I've had some conversations with some professors that lead me to believe that they think the Puritans were pretty much legalists and it's reflected in the Westminster standards but they'd never come out and say that because it would upset too many issues. There's nothing forcing the issue of anyone actually making those things come to light. Look at how long it took what Peter Enns was teaching to come to light and, when you read about it, you realize it wasn't just him but it was taught for at least two decades and some were wondering: "Why is everyone making such a big deal about this now?"
> 
> Circling back to what you were asking, I think the CPJ exchange was intended to try to help clarify if there is a connection between the things you are identifying as organically connected. Structurally, the Confessions move from Covenant to Christ as the mediator of the Covenant and then all the aspects of Christ as mediator are connected to justification, sanctification, etc. If one redefines what the shape of the Covenants are into Royal Grant or Suzerein treaties then it seems it cannot but have a ripple affect on how one views the Law as Christ mediates it or other theological headers.
> 
> I guess after all that spilled out, it's probably not as cautious as some would prefer but I do wish the connections were more easily understood and because I think we often come into conflict on certain clauses within the Confessions and don't always trace them back to the root cause and ask how one change rippled all the way through a system to create dozens of differences.
Click to expand...


After I wrote this, I realized I had posted it in a thread that is attached to Scott Clark's name. Let me be clear that not everything I wrote could possibly be attributed to one man and that was not my intention to somehow make this all about him. My concern is a broader movement and I don't even think it can be laid at any one Seminary's feet. I actually think it is the respective Churches that are not really taking seriously their own Confessional standards. I could wish that Seminaries would toe the line but, even there, we don't merely restrict ordination to those who come from Reformed seminaries.

As I was running today, it struck me that it was a Seminary and not a Presbytery that took action against Enns. Perhaps a Presbytery has taken action now but where was the oversight and accountability for all those years? One thing it points out is that saying that a man is a "minister in good standing" will ultimately mean nothing if Church government fails to maintain accountability.


----------



## R. Scott Clark

Hi Andy,

1. I don't speak for the seminary. The president and the board of trustees speak for the seminary. That said, I don't think the sem has _a_ view covenant theology beyond what is confessed in the Westminster Standards and the Three Forms of Unity. There is no extra-confessional test of orthodoxy as far as I know.

2. No, I don't think there is a necessary connection between 2K (whatever that is; in my view it is a question and a way of analyzing Christ and culture more than a set of conclusions) and republication. Grounds: There were doctrines of republication taught during the period in which Reformed writers held Constantinian views and there have been those who distinguished between two kingdoms (or two spheres in the twofold kingdom, to combine Kuyper's language with Calvin's phrase) in the post-Constantinian period. 

3. Here's a better way to lump and split. It is likely that one might group those who are clearer and consistent about the uniqueness of the Israelite theocracy and those who are less consistent. E.g., Beza was clear theologically that Israel was temporary and typological but in _De iure magistratuum_ (On the Right of Magistrates) on the French Wars of Religion and the magistrate's role to promote true religion he also talked as if the French Monarch were a new king David and France a new Israel. That, in my view and in the view of all Americans who accept the 18th-century revisions of the Westminster Standards and the 20th-century revisions of Belgic 36, was an inconsistency. One cannot say that Israel was a once-for-all, temporary, typological arrangement (as we all confess) _and_ a post-canonical magistrate is the equivalent of an Israelite King _for the purpose of __exterminating heresy and enforcing true religion_. Among those who want to blur the line between the Israelite theocratic kings and post-canonical kings are modern-day theonomists (who want post-canonical magistrates to enforce the Mosaic civil laws "in exhaustive detail," who effectively deny WCF 19.4 when it says:



> To them also, as a body politic, he gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the State of that people



and who re-interpret "general equity thereof" to mean "whatever a certain theonomist says it is" and more traditional Constantinians, who don't seek explicitly to enforce the civil laws _per se_ or to reconstruct the Israelite system explicitly but who did (and seek to do) so implicitly with some recognition of the movement of redemptive history from old covenant to new. The late patristic church, the medieval church, the Reformation and post-Reformation church was Constantinian. 

As I said. I can't keep up here and at the Heidelblog. You're welcome to discuss there. Thanks.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

While I have some appreciation for Dr. Clark I believe his language can be confused and he can obfuscate issues. I posted something where he recently commented about how he couldn't understand a charge of Lutheranism. So I replied with a blog post. The Charge of Lutheranism is not about distinction, it is about dichotomy | RPCNA Covenanter

Maybe he won't be so confused now.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

R. Scott Clark said:


> First, As a minister in the United Reformed Churches I subscribe, without exception and unequivocally, the Three Forms of Unity. As a seminary prof I subscribe _ex animo_ the system of doctrine contained in the Westminster Standards but I believe that I hold them without exception.



On another point I also believe that Dr. Clark holds to a position concerning the Mosaic Covenant that is not in accordance with the WCF concerning the Mosaic Covenant. He seems to hold to a position that is at odds with the Mosaic Covenant being a full administration of the Covenant of Grace. It seems to be a modified approach that makes it both an administration of both the Covenant of Grace and a Covenant of Works (in a varied sense). 



> “That God might have arranged a temporary, national covenant with Israel such that she may be said to have “merited” temporal blessings in the land is a view that has been held in the history of Reformed theology. It is probably a minority view but it has been held.
> 
> 
> I would not put it that way myself. As I’ve said many times, there’s too much evidence in the history of Israel for me to think that even the temporal blessings were merited. Nevertheless, it is also the case that Scripture does speak to Israel in legal terms and that, is, in my view, the material question in republication. *I agree with the broad mainstream of classic Reformed writers in the 16th and 17th centuries and with the Marrow of Modern Divinity, that the old covenant (Moses-David-Prophets) was both an administration of the covenant of grace and an administration of the covenant of works*.” R. Scott Clark



I do not believe this is the broad mainstream of the Westminster Divines. I am not so sure it is that of the Marrow Men either as I have noted here. 

The Marrow of Modern Divinity and the Recent Republication Issue. | RPCNA Covenanter


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

And btw, the Establishmentarianism of the WCF is not Theonomy and is also opposed to Erastianism. I have seen many buck against Establismentariansism who claim to be Reformed.


----------



## AndyS

Semper Fidelis said:


> Shawn Mathis said:
> 
> 
> 
> This all leads me back to my previous comments: there are some unspoken assumptions in both discussions (republication and R2K); that they both assume each other. But this should be made explicit and defended accordingly (maybe the second series of essays in Confessional Presbyterian does that? Rich? Anyone?). Otherwise, summaries like the one discussed here just become an exercise in begging the question, or rather, unwittingly inserting hidden premises.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm going to cautiously add my thoughts on this. I think there are some connections here that haven't quite been fully worked out. How, precisely, does the view of the Covenants as being understood along the lines of the ANE treaty documents affect other aspects of theology? My own sense is that it was pretty much accepted that the Covenants needed to be re-understood as either Royal Grants or Suzerein treaties and, once one agrees that Hittite treaties formed the "architecture" for Covenants then all of the Biblical covenants had to be understood as one or the other.
> 
> Yet, once the Covenants are recast there are systematic "ripples" that work their way through the Confessions themselves. I think the project started as an area of Biblical theology. Where BT was grounded by Vos in Reformed Systematic theology, it seems that many Biblical Theologians were not as grounded in letting Reformed dogmatics control their conclusions. There has been a project, from what I can see, to update systematic theology according to the new Covenantal schema but it doesn't always seem like the differences between the new system and the system of the Confession are being properly underlined. To his credit (even though I thoroughly disagree with his approach), Irons was willing to come out and completely reject whole swaths of the WCF. What seems more common to me as one who examines men and listens to debates is that many men do not always think through the implications of the entire system and many Churchmen are not thoroughly investigating the consequences of some re-definitions.
> 
> For example, in the paedocommunion case, I heard men at GA say: "Well, as long as he doesn't practice it, I don't see what the issue is." I know they are two separate issues but it is not terribly difficult to see how paedocommunion ripples through the system of doctine in several areas throughout the Westminster standards. In one case, a Presbytery refused to include the list of exceptions where the term "worthy recipient" was used (since that excluded young children). They were only interested in the exceptions that the candidate for ministry stated for himself and were not interested in the exceptions that actually existed if one probed more deeply.
> 
> What's happening, then, is that the system of doctrine is not really being recast by the courts of the Church but in the writings of seminary professors. They're teaching certain views of the Covenant and, in some cases, new systems of doctrine for how the law then relates Covenantally to the Gospel, and these men are then going to Churches to be ordained. If the Church is willing to accept that the man has no exceptions then some of the ministers may actually be in conflict with the system of doctrine but the Church is not really ruling one way or another but letting ministers teach very different things within the same Church. Take the "controversies" over sanctification and one can see the divergence that results. I think many are content to permit certain things and probably even assume that the system of doctrine permits both views or (worse) some really do not care whether the system is fully coherent.
> 
> Now, if a Seminary actually came out and boldly underlined where all the Confessions need to change in order to comply with the new systematic understanding then I think there would be more problems. I hate to sound so negative but the current general ambivalence about systematic coherency within the Confessions makes it much easier to just allow all sorts of divergent issues and there is really very little "forcing function" that causes the full impact of certain views to be fully examined. My opinion here but I've had some conversations with some professors that lead me to believe that they think the Puritans were pretty much legalists and it's reflected in the Westminster standards but they'd never come out and say that because it would upset too many issues. There's nothing forcing the issue of anyone actually making those things come to light. Look at how long it took what Peter Enns was teaching to come to light and, when you read about it, you realize it wasn't just him but it was taught for at least two decades and some were wondering: "Why is everyone making such a big deal about this now?"
> 
> Circling back to what you were asking, I think the CPJ exchange was intended to try to help clarify if there is a connection between the things you are identifying as organically connected. Structurally, the Confessions move from Covenant to Christ as the mediator of the Covenant and then all the aspects of Christ as mediator are connected to justification, sanctification, etc. If one redefines what the shape of the Covenants are into Royal Grant or Suzerein treaties then it seems it cannot but have a ripple affect on how one views the Law as Christ mediates it or other theological headers.
> 
> I guess after all that spilled out, it's probably not as cautious as some would prefer but I do wish the connections were more easily understood and because I think we often come into conflict on certain clauses within the Confessions and don't always trace them back to the root cause and ask how one change rippled all the way through a system to create dozens of differences.
Click to expand...


Thank you very much. I found that to be quite helpful.

Please (someone!) write a book (or at least a booklet) to flesh this out more thoroughly.


----------



## Douglas P.

PuritanCovenanter said:


> On another point I also believe that Dr. Clark holds to a position concerning the Mosaic Covenant that is not in accordance with the WCF concerning the Mosaic Covenant. He seems to hold to a position that is at odds with the *Mosaic Covenant being a full administration of the Covenant of Grace*. It seems to be a modified approach that makes it both an administration of both the Covenant of Grace and a Covenant of Works (in a varied sense).



Could you elaborate on what you mean by *full* administration? I searched through the Standards and couldn't find that exact language.

Also, are there comments on your blog? There are a few posts which I'd love to interact with you on but I can't seem to find a way to.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

I mean the Mosaic Covenant is an administration of the Covenant of Grace alone. It is not an administration of both the Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Grace. It is not a mixed Covenant. The substance of the Mosaic Covenant is that of the Covenant of Grace and not the Covenant of Works. That is the position of chapter 7 in the Westminster Confession of Faith.


----------



## Douglas P.

PuritanCovenanter said:


> I mean the Mosaic Covenant is an administration of the Covenant of Grace alone. It is not an administration of both the Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Grace. It is not a mixed Covenant. The substance of the Mosaic Covenant is that of the Covenant of Grace and not the Covenant of Works. That is the position of chapter 7 in the Westminster Confession of Faith.



Maybe I'm wrong here or I have missed something (I've worked through a lot of Kline's material) but I was never under the impression that Kline was saying that the Mosaic Covenant was a mixed administration of the Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Grace. The Mosaic Covenant was fully an administration of the Covenant of Grace, but the Mosaic covenant itself contained blessing and curses based on obedience, which made it typologicaly similar to the covenant made with Adam, but not the same in substance.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

There are conditions laid out in the New Covenant also. Obedience is very important or one might find himself delivered over to Satan also as the man in 1 Corinthians 5 or the Church that may have its candlestick removed as in Revelation 2. There are conditions in both the old and new. 

Just to lead you back to where I started thinking about this and Kline's perspective I will refer you to one of the first posts I started to inquire about this stuff. 

http://www.puritanboard.com/f30/kline-karlburg-not-confessional-concerning-mosaic-69258/

Here is a comment Reverend Winzer made concerning what I call the new paradigm (Modern Reformed Thought) and shift in theology.



> http://www.puritanboard.com/f30/kline-karlburg-not-confessional-concerning-mosaic-69258/#post887863
> 
> The basic problem with the new scheme is the way it makes the covenant of works co-ordinate with the covenant of grace in the Mosaic economy. They refer to the Abrahamic promise and the so-called "works principle" of the Sinaitic covenant functioning side by side. The older divines would speak of the covenant of works as subordinate to the covenant of grace. It was serving in the way we see it in action in Romans 7, for example, bringing conviction of sin and driving the people to the promised Christ. (Incidentally, the same is true with respect to the law-gospel relationship now.) Besides this ordo salutis aspect, there was also the historia salutis aspect. The outward service of weak and beggarly elements bound the people to the faith of Christ until Christ came. This was a temporary "addition" which had respect to their minority as sons and had all the appearance of making Israel look like they were servants in bondage. This has been abrogated in Christ and the son has come to maturity in the Spirit. But as to the essential nature of the Sinaitic covenant, it was always looked upon as an administration of the covenant of grace. The catechetical teaching on the preface to the ten commandments drove this point home in an experiential way which could not be easily forsaken.
> 
> 
> Further problems arise once this basic departure is discerned. One begins to see a metaphysical reworking of the categories of grace and justice in relation to the "covenant of nature." Instead of a providential dispensation (see Shorter Catechism question 12), the covenant of works is turned into a creational entity which characterises the natural relationship between God and man. Human morality is, in its very essence, made a covenant of works. Grace is only operative where sin abounds.
> 
> 
> Other problems might be mentioned but I believe these suffice to alert us to the fact that this is a new scheme and that it introduces harmful deviations into the reformed system of theology.



Here is where Karlburg and Lee Irons are noted as understanding that the Kline of 'By Oath Consigned' is not the Kline of 'Kingdom Prologue'. He had a shift in his theology which led him away from his earlier stance. 



> http://www.puritanboard.com/f30/kline-karlburg-not-confessional-concerning-mosaic-69258/#post887978
> 
> Karlberg points to an important principle in reading Kline’s works: the later works correct and revise the earlier works. Kline’s student, Lee Irons, has also noted this important principle, arguing that Kline’s position on the relationship between the Mosaic Covenant and the new covenant in By Oath Consigned is revised in his later work, Kingdom Prologue. Irons argues:
> 
> In other words, in KP [Kingdom Prologue] he no longer defines the New Covenant as a renewal of the Old/Mosaic Covenant (i.e., as a law covenant) and instead stresses the contrast between the Old and the New Covenants. The Mosaic Covenant was a covenant of works and was breakable. The New Covenant is a covenant of grace and is fundamentally unbreakable (although the sense in which it is unbreakable must be carefully defined).24 In other words, in Kingdom Prologue, Kline revises the position he articulated in By Oath Consigned, by arguing that “The New Covenant is not a renewal of the Mosaic Covenant but the fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant.”25


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Just an FYI, I posted a blog this summer on why I was drawn into looking into this subject if anyone is interested. 

Why I Was Drawn Into The Nuanced Republication and Mosaic Covenant Study | RPCNA Covenanter

Also I believe that Dr. Robert Strimple's stance on this topic has grown stronger these past years since he wrote this. You might check it out. I posted it earlier. 
https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.c...t-and-republication-of-the-covenant-of-works/


----------



## Douglas P.

PuritanCovenanter said:


> There are conditions laid out in the New Covenant also. Obedience is very important or one might find himself delivered over to Satan also as the man in 1 Corinthians 5 or the Church that may have its candlestick removed as in Revelation 2. There are conditions in both the old and new.



So are you seeing the stipulations, with their blessings and curses, under the Old Covenant to be the same as the conditions of the New Testament?


----------



## mvdm

Douglas, consider:

"..the demand of obedience in the Mosaic covenant is principally identical with the same demand in the new covenant of the gospel economy." John Murray, "Principles of Conduct", p.199.


----------



## Peairtach

The demand for obedience under the OT presumes grace and faith, because it is impossible to truly observe the law without grace and faith, as the Israelites who resorted to idolatry found out, and as the Second Temple works righteousness legalists found out.


----------



## Douglas P.

mvdm said:


> Douglas, consider:
> 
> "..the demand of obedience in the Mosaic covenant is principally identical with the same demand in the new covenant of the gospel economy." John Murray, "Principles of Conduct", p.199.



I guess I'm not exactly following, maybe I'd have to see the whole quote in its context. When Prof. Murray says the "demand of obedience" does he just mean that God demands obedience in both Covenants, or is he saying the covenant stipulations, with their blessings and curses, are the same in the Old as they are in the New. In other words, Israel lost God's blessing in the land on the basis of their disobedience to Torah, so Christians under the New covenant can lose their blessing based on their disobedience? I can't imagine he means the latter.


----------



## mvdm

Douglas Padgett said:


> Israel lost God's blessing in the land on the basis of their disobedience to Torah,



How did Israel last more than 2 minutes in the land then?


----------



## Douglas P.

mvdm said:


> Douglas Padgett said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel lost God's blessing in the land on the basis of their disobedience to Torah,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How did Israel last more than 2 minutes in the land then?
Click to expand...


According to Deut. 28 Israel would received the blessings of the land through obedience to the stipulations of the covenant.


----------



## mvdm

Douglas Padgett said:


> According to Deut. 28 Israel would received the blessings of the land through obedience to the stipulations of the covenant.



So you seriously believe Israel achieved the obedience stipulations of the covenant during their retention of the land?


----------



## Peairtach

Douglas Padgett said:


> mvdm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Douglas Padgett said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel lost God's blessing in the land on the basis of their disobedience to Torah,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How did Israel last more than 2 minutes in the land then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> According to Deut. 28 Israel would received the blessings of the land through obedience to the stipulations of the covenant.
Click to expand...


Since the CoW was broken in Adam those in Adam can experience the Curse both in this life and the next. Those in Christ experience the troubles of this life as chastisements. Both of these groups were under the OT administration of the CoG and so were liable to temporary troubles that taught them about the Curse of the already broken CoW.

The Curse was taught to the Israelites as part of the Covenant of Grace in a peculiar manner because they were the "Church under age".

Since the CoW was broken in Adam it is impossible for sinners to attain to the sanction of reward without grace. The way for the Israelites to enjoy long and happy tenure in the Land was to avail themselves of the grace proferred them in the OT administration of the CoG.

This corresponds to the situation under the NT administration, without the temporal tutelary aids that the OT Church had.

Those under the NT administration that don't produce the fruits of faith are still under the Curse and can go straight to Hell from being under that administration but not in the life of it. God's true people are subject to the various troubles of this life which are the result of the Curse, but they are made chastisement and blessing to them in Christ.

In order to obtain the Heavenly reward which the Land was a type of, those under the NT administration of the CoG must avail themselves of the proferred grace by faith in Christ and produce the fruits of obedience that evidence it. 

It cannot be attained by sinful or self-righteous works. The Israelites discovered this to their cost.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Douglas P.

mvdm said:


> Douglas Padgett said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to Deut. 28 Israel would received the blessings of the land through obedience to the stipulations of the covenant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you seriously believe Israel achieved the obedience stipulations of the covenant during their retention of the land?
Click to expand...


Personally? I've yet to take a stand. I'm still young, still learning, still looking to be taught and discipled. However, I do think the Klinean side of the argument seems more logical and complete, so I do lean that way. But I'm open to being persuaded.

However, to try and get at your specific question, a verse like 2 Kings 10:30 seems to imply that God's blessing came upon Jehu on the basis of his obedience.


----------



## AndyS

mvdm said:


> Douglas, consider:
> 
> "..the demand of obedience in the Mosaic covenant is principally identical with the same demand in the new covenant of the gospel economy." John Murray, "Principles of Conduct", p.199.



^^^ This!


----------



## MW

Douglas Padgett said:


> But I'm open to being persuaded.



Consider Pss. 105-106. The covenant with Abraham is the covenant confirmed with Israel pertaining to the land. It was on the basis of this covenant that Israel was brought out of Egypt, preserved in the wilderness, and given the lands of the heathen, Ps. 105. By the same covenant kindness, loyalty, and mercy, Israel was repeatedly delivered notwithstanding her continual covenant-breaking and rebellion, Ps. 106.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## TheOldCourse

For those that see the national curses/blessings of the Mosaic Covenant as analogous to the acts of Fatherly pleasure and displeasure the believer is subject to within the administration of the covenant of grace (over against seeing them as republication), what do you make of the typology associated with the nation of Israel in that context? 

It seems, to me, that many of the curses that are pronounced against Israel (e.g. Jer 25, Jer 44) depict more than a fatherly chastisement, but rather suggest an eschatological judgment and being cut off from the promises and means of grace. Now of course this was never final and usually somewhere in the context is a restatement of God's covenant faithfulness and mercies which does suggest that any covenant of works typology is still subordinate, but still in the judgments (especially the exile) there seems to be a depiction of the penalty due to those under the law as a covenant of works. I find this particularly to be the case inasmuch as Christ serves as the antitype to Israel and is faithful where Israel was not. If his active obedience was a fulfillment of the covenant of works on our behalf and his passive obedience was his taking on the curses of the covenant of works on our behalf, then what did Israel's failures represent insofar as they were demonstrating the need for a True Israel and Faithful Son? Just as the land promises point towards the eternal inheritance of the New Jerusalem and the benefits of the covenant of grace, so being cut off from that land seems to point towards subjection to the penalties of the covenant of works.

Perhaps I'm mistaken or confused in the matter, but, it seems to me that to the extent that the repeated failures and apostasies of Israel are depicting the unfaithfulness of man and the necessity for One to be faithful on their behalf, they are doing so through a typological overlay of the covenant of works. Of course even that is in service to the covenant of grace, but I struggle to see how it could itself belong properly to that covenant. Do others see it differently? I am certain that there is much in this area, particularly as relates to the "in some sense" republicationism of the Puritans, in which I am woefully ignorant.


----------



## Peairtach

You can go straight from the New Testament administration of the Covenant of Grace to Hell because you have never truly put your faith in Christ. You are still a breaker of the original Covenant of Works. There is no value or purpose or need of a new CoW under either the OT or NT. It is important that those under the OT and NT were educated about their relationship to the already broken but still binding CoW under both administrations. Under the OT administration that took a particular form consonant with the position of the childhood church in redemptive history.

The Israelites were by nature already all covenant breakers of the CoW. What was the point of putting them under a new/renewed/republished CoW?

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## mvdm

Peairtach said:


> The Israelites were by nature already all covenant breakers of the CoW. What was the point of putting them under a new/renewed/republished CoW?



Precisely. 

As one can see from Clark's 7 points, the repubs answer to this question will sound identical to the historical "first use of the law", which is why I say they stubbornly conflate the COW with the first use. The "first use" however did not require the confusing two register, typological overlay of a republished COW.
w


----------



## mvdm

Richard, you might note that today Clark posted a quote from Robert Rollock:

Rollock: Of Works Done By Strength And Nature | The Heidelblog

Not sure why he posted it, but it show what you were getting at. i.e., that one is translated from being under the covenant of works to being under the covenant of grace. An individual is under one covenant or the other, not both.


----------



## MW

TheOldCourse said:


> For those that see the national curses/blessings of the Mosaic Covenant as analogous to the acts of Fatherly pleasure and displeasure the believer is subject to within the administration of the covenant of grace (over against seeing them as republication), what do you make of the typology associated with the nation of Israel in that context?



This is explained by the apostle in Galatians. Israel was a child in its minority. For this reason it was placed under tutors and governors. By the same reason we can also explain the hard yoke and the severity of the discipline to bind Israel into the faith of Christ until He came. Externally, as far as the service of the law is concerned, Israel appeared to differ little from a servant. But there was a difference. Israel was a son, though under age. As with David's seed, however God chastened His son, He would not take His steadfast love from him nor break His covenant. This is evident in the fact that the Israel of God was preserved to manhood and enjoys the divine benediction and peace.


----------



## MW

It might be added, that from the visible perspective, severe warnings are also issued under the New Testament administration of the covenant of grace, as is seen in 1 Cor. 10, 11; Hebrews 2-4, 6, 10, 12; 2 Peter 2; Jude; and Revelation 2-3.


----------



## One Little Nail

*Christological Republication of the C of W.*



Peairtach said:


> You can go straight from the New Testament administration of the Covenant of Grace to Hell because you have never truly put your faith in Christ. You are still a breaker of the original Covenant of Works. There is no value or purpose or need of a new CoW under either the OT or NT. It is important that those under the OT and NT were educated about their relationship to the already broken but still binding CoW under both administrations. Under the OT administration that took a particular form consonant with the position of the childhood church in redemptive history.
> 
> The Israelites were by nature already all covenant breakers of the CoW. What was the point of putting them under a new/renewed/republished CoW?




That all men are fallen, are also all born with a sinful nature & under the curse of Adam,s broken Cov of Works there is no doubt, on account that he was their Federal Head & we as his progeny were in his loins so to speak, to borrow a Paulism, when he sinned in the garden of Eden & broke the Covenant of Works.

though for Christ to redeem a fallen world he had to fulfill the Terms & Conditions of the Covenant of Works to become the Federal Head of His people, nor could He redo the trial in the garden of Eden, it wasn't just the keeping of the Whole Law which permitted this but the Fulfilling of the Covenant of Works.

The Lord Jesus had to fulfill the Law & not to mention also all other ordinances that were required for Him to attain 
Perfect Righteousness like Circumcision which came before the giving of the Law & John's Baptism which came after, though all these things were needed to be done to complete & fulfil the Covenant of Works , & not to forget to mention 
His Last & Greatest Work of Obedience & Righteousness which was his Voluntary Death by Crucifixion, this was a Special Act which was witnessed by the Law & Prophets that was required of Christ to Seal & Fulfill the Covenant of Works for the Redemption of His people, what Adam could not do by abstaining to eat from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good & Evil, The Lord Jesus Christ did by offering His body on the Tree.


*Hence a Christological Republication & Fulfilment of the Covenant of Works.*


----------



## Semper Fidelis

armourbearer said:


> It might be added, that from the visible perspective, severe warnings are also issued under the New Testament administration of the covenant of grace, as is seen in 1 Cor. 10, 11; Hebrews 2-4, 6, 10, 12; 2 Peter 2; Jude; and Revelation 2-3.



It's funny you should mention that because, in Seminary class last night we were discussing the warnings and I quipped "...sounds like a republication of the Covenant of Works."


----------



## Shawn Mathis

Greetings Professor Clark,

I apologize for missing your response these past weeks. And I thank you for responding here. I did attempt to honor your original request and sent my question on your blog but assumed you were busy or missed it. But these things happen.

I do want to make clear my question and assumptions were never presented as set in stone. I also know not all Klinians are the same so my questions may not be relevant to any particular reader. I admit my tenuous hold on these issues and connections and thank you for your patience. 



R. Scott Clark said:


> I keep wondering why did folk (especially in the OPC) wait until after he was dead to raise these questions with this intensity? It's not like his views were a secret and yet he was never charged by any court in the OPC during more than 50 years. That seems like a reasonable period of time in which to charge a man and put his views to the ecclesiastical test.



I agree. 



R. Scott Clark said:


> Fourth, to reply to the concern regarding the phrase "in some sense." In the classical period there were multiple views on the ways in which the Decalogue (or the Mosaic law more broadly) was a "republication" of the covenant of works. This is why people use the expression "in some sense." The only alternative is to list the many different ways in which was held in the classical period.



I have found your quotes in this area of history helpful. It has protected me from throwing out all republication views. I also recently ran into some quotes along this line in Kevan's The Grace of Law. I will say again: persevere in these explanations and historical quotes. 

I also know you stand for the confessional view of the law and rejoice therein.

Thank you for your frankness and help. I will continue to study the issues and pray for the peace of Jerusalem. 

your in Christ,

shawn


----------



## mvdm

Indeed, reviewing historical quotes can be useful. Yet, keep in mind how they are being useful. They can be useful to cloud the fact that 1. prior versions of republication were a decided minority position, and 2. none of them provide precedent for the modern Klinean adaptation which introduces a scheme of congruent merit into the covenant of grace.


----------



## mvdm

Speaking of historical quotes, we see here the beautiful essential unity in substance between Old/New Covenant and law/gospel:

"These things no doubt sufficiently shew that God has never made any other covenant than that which he made formerly with Abraham, and at length confirmed by the hand of Moses. This subject might be more fully handled; but it is enough briefly to shew, that the covenant which God made at first is perpetual.

Let us now see why he promises to the people a new covenant. It being new, no doubt refers to what they call the form; and the form, or manner, regards not words only, but first Christ, then the grace of the Holy Spirit, and the whole external way of teaching. But the substance remains the same. By substance I understand the doctrine; for God in the Gospel brings forward nothing but what the Law contains. We hence see that God has so spoken from the beginning, that he has not changed, no not a syllable, with regard to the substance of the doctrine. For he has included in the Law the rule of a perfect life, and has also shewn what is the way of salvation, and by types and figures led the people to Christ, so that the remission of sin is there clearly made manifest, and whatever is necessary to be known." ~ John Calvin on Jeremiah 31:31


----------



## mvdm

Dr. Clark provides yet another quote which [presumably unwittingly] works contrary to his repub position:

The Covenant Of Works: Perfect Personal Obedience | The Heidelblog

Note that the covenant of works was a pact with Adam who had the ability to keep the law. The covenant required personal, perfect obedience, the transgression of which brought the immediate penalty of death. None of these conditions applied to the Mosaic covenant _qua_ covenant.


----------



## TheOldCourse

armourbearer said:


> It might be added, that from the visible perspective, severe warnings are also issued under the New Testament administration of the covenant of grace, as is seen in 1 Cor. 10, 11; Hebrews 2-4, 6, 10, 12; 2 Peter 2; Jude; and Revelation 2-3.



Thanks for your responses Rev. Winzer, I really do appreciate them. I still have some questions even regarding those passages, however. Certainly they generally are addressed to the church as constituted under the covenant of grace, but the warnings and punishments described seemed to be that of exception from the covenant of grace and according punishment under the curses of the covenant of works. It's little difficulty when some within the covenant community are spoken of in that manner since we recognize "for they are not all Israel, which are of Israel". My difficulty is when Israel as a nation, i.e. the whole covenant community, is spoken of in that way.

It seems to me that the New Testament fairly clearly presents two types of judgments by God upon sinners. A curse, which is for those judged under the covenant of works, and discipline, which is for those who are subject to the Lord's fatherly displeasure within the covenant of grace (and who cannot be subject to the curse which was laid upon Christ). When we look back at the OT covenant community, those distinctions become a bit messy. God visits his curse of judgment upon the Gentiles and oftentimes Israel itself is the agent of that judgment over things the Lord has devoted to destruction. There are also many times, particularly in the prophets, where God visits judgment upon Israel but it is often with the express purpose of bringing them to repentance and is a judgment that is partial and mingled with mercy--something that is consistent with discipline. There are more difficult situations, however, where Israel is subjected to judgments, or at least described in terms, normally reserved for those who are not God's covenant people. Times in which all of Israel is functionally treated as excommunicated. I think of the sin of Achan, for instance. Ultimately he was subjected to the very judgment of the Canaanites who defiled the holy land, but prior to his own judgment, the Lord treated all of Israel as accursed, as Caananites. God was no longer Immanuel to them, and it was God's presence that defined them as distinct from the nations to begin with. This kind of language not uncommon in the prophets: the removal of God's presence, the removal from the land and it's depiction of eternal blessedness, and even devotion to destruction and desolation. 

Now no one (or at least as far as I know no one, certainly not myself) is advocating that Israel was actually subject to the curses of the covenant of works since neither was their obedience perfect nor were the judgments permanent or ultimately without mercy and grace. But they were often spoken of _as if_ they were under those curses, and not just as threatenings but as if those curses were actually laid upon Israel. Accordingly, it seems to me that there still was a covenant of works principle in action uniquely in the history of Israel. Not in a de facto sense, but in a pedagogical and typological sense, both demonstrating the fearfulness of being excepted from the Covenant of Grace but also typifying the curses of the Covenant of Works as laid upon the true Israel, Jesus Christ. That seems to me to be much in accord with the Galatians passages you mentioned. When Paul quotes Lev 18:5, obviously he's not saying that the Mosaic covenant was, in fact, a covenant of works. It does, on the other hand, seem to suggest that the covenant of works principle was depicted in some sense within the Mosaic administration, a depiction that was of course ultimately in service to and subordinate to the covenant of grace. 

Am I wrongheaded in all of this?


----------



## TheOldCourse

mvdm said:


> Indeed, reviewing historical quotes can be useful. Yet, keep in mind how they are being useful. They can be useful to cloud the fact that 1. prior versions of republication were a decided minority position, and 2. none of them provide precedent for the modern Klinean adaptation which introduces a scheme of congruent merit into the covenant of grace.



I find it interesting that many, including those who are not friendly to republication (like Mark Jones) have said otherwise--that republicationism (the "some sense" sort) held a substantial majority amongst Westminster-era Presbyterians. I can't say I know enough myself to venture an opinion one way or the other, but I've heard some who I would think would be disinclined to admit it if it wasn't obvious say as much. Point #2 is well taken, however. Kline did appear to introduce some novelty there.


----------



## Dearly Bought

TheOldCourse said:


> I find it interesting that many, including those who are not friendly to republication (like Mark Jones) have said otherwise--that republicationism (the "some sense" sort) held a substantial majority amongst Westminster-era Presbyterians.


This is, in the least, confusing. On this subject, Mark Jones has written,


> "The vast majority of Reformed theologians from the Reformation onward understood the Mosaic covenant to be an administration of the covenant of grace."
> (Puritan Theology, p. 283)





> "The law first given to Adam was certainly "revived" or "republished" at Sinai (and even in the New Covenant), but most Reformed divines did not make the moral law coextensive with the covenant of works."
> (In What Sense? A Review Article)



Yes, every Reformed theologian could be said to hold to a "republication" of the content of the Covenant of Works at Sinai as the moral Law is given there. However, "most Reformed divines did not make the moral law coextensive with the covenant of works."


----------



## MW

TheOldCourse said:


> Certainly they generally are addressed to the church as constituted under the covenant of grace, but the warnings and punishments described seemed to be that of exception from the covenant of grace and according punishment under the curses of the covenant of works. It's little difficulty when some within the covenant community are spoken of in that manner since we recognize "for they are not all Israel, which are of Israel". My difficulty is when Israel as a nation, i.e. the whole covenant community, is spoken of in that way.



It seems to me that your response highlights only one function of the warnings, namely, manifesting those who are false believers. But they also have the effect of making true believers more careful, and thus serve as a means to encourage perseverance. In 1 Cor. 10, the privileges of the New Testament are directly parallel with the privileges of the Old Testament in order to emphasise the imperative of taking heed lest we fall. In 1 Cor. 11:32, the chastening of the Lord is specifically related to freedom from condemnation with the world. These are distinctive New Testament warnings related to believers under the covenant of grace. Again, in Hebrews, after receiving warning, there are exhortations to continue in the things professed. We find similar exhortations in 2 Peter 3 and the latter end of Jude; and obviously the promises are given to those who overcome in the letters to the seven churches of Asia. In each instance the warning sets forth a real danger, and taking heed to the warning is necessary in order to avoid falling into the danger.


----------



## TheOldCourse

Dearly Bought said:


> TheOldCourse said:
> 
> 
> 
> I find it interesting that many, including those who are not friendly to republication (like Mark Jones) have said otherwise--that republicationism (the "some sense" sort) held a substantial majority amongst Westminster-era Presbyterians.
> 
> 
> 
> This is, in the least, confusing. On this subject, Mark Jones has written,
> 
> 
> 
> "The vast majority of Reformed theologians from the Reformation onward understood the Mosaic covenant to be an administration of the covenant of grace."
> (Puritan Theology, p. 283)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The law first given to Adam was certainly "revived" or "republished" at Sinai (and even in the New Covenant), but most Reformed divines did not make the moral law coextensive with the covenant of works."
> (In What Sense? A Review Article)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, every Reformed theologian could be said to hold to a "republication" of the content of the Covenant of Works at Sinai as the moral Law is given there. However, "most Reformed divines did not make the moral law coextensive with the covenant of works."
Click to expand...


Right. Jones has repeatedly stated in many venues that "some sense" republication is extensively witnessed to in the Reformed tradition but that "some sense" is not Klinean, nor did it make the Mosaic administration an administration of the covenant of works. Now he, personally, has seemed to be uncomfortable with "any sense" republicationism and so in some of his comments tends to try take back what was given in statements such as:



> The suggestion that the Mosaic covenant given at Sinai is "in some sense" a covenant of works originally made with Adam (6) is not really disputed in the history of Reformed covenant theology, if by that we mean that the moral law first given in Eden is revived and declared at Sinai on tablets of stone


 (from his TLNF review) 

He has, however, spoken rather forthrightly (I believe his interview on Christ the Center was one example) that the vast majority of Westminster divines were comfortable with using the language of republication of the covenant of works in the Mosaic economy even if their sense was neither uniform nor equivalent to that given by the Klineans. The point is that they did not make the moral law coextensive with the covenant of works and yet _still_ spoke of some aspect of the covenant of works being in play in the Mosaic administration.


----------



## Ryan J. Ross

Concerning (re)publication:

I like to start my interchanges on the subject by recognizing two fundamental premises from which all other points are to be made: (1) it is difficult to find two contemporaries who mean the same thing when they use "republication" and (2) anything approaching consensus on historical support is unlikely due to the differing "senses" in which the term has been used.

As to Mark Jones (see _Merit and Moses_), I think it is extremely important to identify the "sense" (e.g., covenant, merit, works-principle, blessing, etc.) question when he is describing the late seventeenth-century acceptance/rejection of republication. My guess is that Mark Jones, et al., is nuancing the subject in a manner not always conducive to clarity. 

As a general rule, I don't even bother engaging the question until the aspect, degree, and consequences of the republication issue have been defined. Suffice to say, this is rarely done well. As I work through comments, posts, articles, and books, I personally think the "answer" is often a both-and, how much, and in what way. Hopefully, this response is cryptically ambiguous enough as to be helpful to no one and agreeable to everyone. *drops mic*


----------



## TheOldCourse

armourbearer said:


> TheOldCourse said:
> 
> 
> 
> Certainly they generally are addressed to the church as constituted under the covenant of grace, but the warnings and punishments described seemed to be that of exception from the covenant of grace and according punishment under the curses of the covenant of works. It's little difficulty when some within the covenant community are spoken of in that manner since we recognize "for they are not all Israel, which are of Israel". My difficulty is when Israel as a nation, i.e. the whole covenant community, is spoken of in that way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It seems to me that your response highlights only one function of the warnings, namely, manifesting those who are false believers. But they also have the effect of making true believers more careful, and thus serve as a means to encourage perseverance. In 1 Cor. 10, the privileges of the New Testament are directly parallel with the privileges of the Old Testament in order to emphasise the imperative of taking heed lest we fall. In 1 Cor. 11:32, the chastening of the Lord is specifically related to freedom from condemnation with the world. These are distinctive New Testament warnings related to believers under the covenant of grace. Again, in Hebrews, after receiving warning, there are exhortations to continue in the things professed. We find similar exhortations in 2 Peter 3 and the latter end of Jude; and obviously the promises are given to those who overcome in the letters to the seven churches of Asia. In each instance the warning sets forth a real danger, and taking heed to the warning is necessary in order to avoid falling into the danger.
Click to expand...


Thanks Rev. Winzer, I really appreciate your interactions. I certainly recognize that there are threatenings and warnings directed towards believers as such, but I still wonder if each and every warning is properly considered under the administration of the covenant of grace. I wonder whether some, particularly those that seem to suggest a final judgment (like many of those in Hebrews), are more appropriately considered as warnings of exemption from the covenant of grace (and concomitant subjection to the judgment of works) for those who by their lack of perseverance demonstrate themselves as having been members of the covenant community only outwardly and therefore not heirs to the promises.

I guess my concern boils down to the specific language of some (not all, certainly) judgments and curses. That is, I have difficulty seeing how language suggesting final or complete judgment (even if that judgment is not fully carried out in the end) could properly belong to the administration of the covenant of grace. I suppose this concern is in some way parallel to that of anti-republicationists who cannot see anything to be considered under the rubric of the covenant of works whose judgment is not actually ultimate and permanent. Perhaps the key question is this: are those who reveal themselves to be members of the covenant of grace only externally and so subject to eternal judgment, condemned ultimately under the auspices of the covenant of works or the covenant of grace? I have assumed the former, which leads me suppose that language suggesting such judgment, even if oriented towards the covenant community, to be covenant of works language, but perhaps this is where I am mistaken. 

I believe you have previously said something in a past thread to the effect of that which distinguishes the Klineans from the orthodox republicationists of the past and their primary error is not republicationism _per se_, but that they make the republication of the covenant of works coordinate to the administration of the covenant of grace under Sinai instead of subordinate to it. If you don't mind me asking, would you subscribe to a "subordinate" view on the matter yourself?


----------



## Peairtach

TheOldCourse said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> It might be added, that from the visible perspective, severe warnings are also issued under the New Testament administration of the covenant of grace, as is seen in 1 Cor. 10, 11; Hebrews 2-4, 6, 10, 12; 2 Peter 2; Jude; and Revelation 2-3.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for your responses Rev. Winzer, I really do appreciate them. I still have some questions even regarding those passages, however. Certainly they generally are addressed to the church as constituted under the covenant of grace, but the warnings and punishments described seemed to be that of exception from the covenant of grace and according punishment under the curses of the covenant of works. It's little difficulty when some within the covenant community are spoken of in that manner since we recognize "for they are not all Israel, which are of Israel". My difficulty is when Israel as a nation, i.e. the whole covenant community, is spoken of in that way.
> 
> It seems to me that the New Testament fairly clearly presents two types of judgments by God upon sinners. A curse, which is for those judged under the covenant of works, and discipline, which is for those who are subject to the Lord's fatherly displeasure within the covenant of grace (and who cannot be subject to the curse which was laid upon Christ). When we look back at the OT covenant community, those distinctions become a bit messy. God visits his curse of judgment upon the Gentiles and oftentimes Israel itself is the agent of that judgment over things the Lord has devoted to destruction. There are also many times, particularly in the prophets, where God visits judgment upon Israel but it is often with the express purpose of bringing them to repentance and is a judgment that is partial and mingled with mercy--something that is consistent with discipline. There are more difficult situations, however, where Israel is subjected to judgments, or at least described in terms, normally reserved for those who are not God's covenant people. Times in which all of Israel is functionally treated as excommunicated. I think of the sin of Achan, for instance. Ultimately he was subjected to the very judgment of the Canaanites who defiled the holy land, but prior to his own judgment, the Lord treated all of Israel as accursed, as Caananites. God was no longer Immanuel to them, and it was God's presence that defined them as distinct from the nations to begin with. This kind of language not uncommon in the prophets: the removal of God's presence, the removal from the land and it's depiction of eternal blessedness, and even devotion to destruction and desolation.
> 
> Now no one (or at least as far as I know no one, certainly not myself) is advocating that Israel was actually subject to the curses of the covenant of works since neither was their obedience perfect nor were the judgments permanent or ultimately without mercy and grace. But they were often spoken of _as if_ they were under those curses, and not just as threatenings but as if those curses were actually laid upon Israel. Accordingly, it seems to me that there still was a covenant of works principle in action uniquely in the history of Israel. Not in a de facto sense, but in a pedagogical and typological sense, both demonstrating the fearfulness of being excepted from the Covenant of Grace but also typifying the curses of the Covenant of Works as laid upon the true Israel, Jesus Christ. That seems to me to be much in accord with the Galatians passages you mentioned. When Paul quotes Lev 18:5, obviously he's not saying that the Mosaic covenant was, in fact, a covenant of works. It does, on the other hand, seem to suggest that the covenant of works principle was depicted in some sense within the Mosaic administration, a depiction that was of course ultimately in service to and subordinate to the covenant of grace.
> 
> Am I wrongheaded in all of this?
Click to expand...


In my humble opinion they were being taught in a way peculiar to the childhood Church about the CoW they had already broken in Adam, not about somekind of new CoW that they had been placed under at Sinai.

Under the broken CoW unconverted sinners are still under the law and subject to its Curse, while the sanction of reward is out of reach except by grace.

For those believing Israelites under the Mosaic administration e.g. Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, etc, in the Exile, those temporal judgements that spoke of the Curse became chastisements unto them.

A similar thing happens today when believers are caught up in troubles that may be a judgment to their neighbours but are Fatherly chastisements to them.

Since the time of Christ the peculiar way in which the Church was taught about the already broken CoW has ceased.

The Republicationists are proposing a new/renewed/republished CoW at Sinai by which the positive sanction of reward of the secure and blessed tenure in the Land, a type of Heaven and its rewards, could be obtained in a CoW way, which can only mean by works.

There is no need, nor evidence, that God made another CoW with the Israelites "on top of" the one we have all already broken in Adam.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## MW

Chris, I think all Bible readers are going to have the same concerns with the judgments and curses. They seem to be counter to what we know of grace. But there is a "revealed" perspective which is fitted to correct our natural feelings. I've noted Galatians 4, that they have the appearance of being treated no differently to servants, even though they were sons. Also, 1 Cor. 10 intimates that there was something exemplary in these judgments. We might also observe that the full extent of threatening was not performed, as God's purpose of grace triumphed over the judgment. This takes in the fact that the revelation was "progressive."

My own view is that there is a subordinate republication of the covenant of works, not only in the law, but also in the gospel. I am speaking of those two terms with respect to being two dispensations under the one covenant of grace. This is very different from saying that law and gospel are two contrasting covenants or that the law itself was a republished covenant of works.

If the desire is to preserve the stricter exegetical terminology of "law" and "gospel," I can appreciate the precision, but then the precision needs to be applied in every respect, which means removing the terms "covenant of works" and "covenant of grace" altogether. There is a confusion of exegetical and dogmatic theology when one insists on using biblical terms in their strict exegetical sense whilst applying them to a dogmatic category. If we are to speak in precise terms, "grace" is always saving, never common; and therefore there can be no "visible" administration of the covenant of grace to unbelievers or apostates. But then we would not be doing justice to the temporal aspects of the covenant which relate to real people in time and space. Dogmatic categories are used because they tie together numerous exegetical insights and provide some kind of order and relevance to them.


----------



## TheOldCourse

armourbearer said:


> Chris, I think all Bible readers are going to have the same concerns with the judgments and curses. They seem to be counter to what we know of grace. But there is a "revealed" perspective which is fitted to correct our natural feelings. I've noted Galatians 4, that they have the appearance of being treated no differently to servants, even though they were sons. Also, 1 Cor. 10 intimates that there was something exemplary in these judgments. We might also observe that the full extent of threatening was not performed, as God's purpose of grace triumphed over the judgment. This takes in the fact that the revelation was "progressive."
> 
> My own view is that there is a subordinate republication of the covenant of works, not only in the law, but also in the gospel. I am speaking of those two terms with respect to being two dispensations under the one covenant of grace. This is very different from saying that law and gospel are two contrasting covenants or that the law itself was a republished covenant of works.
> 
> If the desire is to preserve the stricter exegetical terminology of "law" and "gospel," I can appreciate the precision, but then the precision needs to be applied in every respect, which means removing the terms "covenant of works" and "covenant of grace" altogether. There is a confusion of exegetical and dogmatic theology when one insists on using biblical terms in their strict exegetical sense whilst applying them to a dogmatic category. If we are to speak in precise terms, "grace" is always saving, never common; and therefore there can be no "visible" administration of the covenant of grace to unbelievers or apostates. But then we would not be doing justice to the temporal aspects of the covenant which relate to real people in time and space. Dogmatic categories are used because they tie together numerous exegetical insights and provide some kind of order and relevance to them.



Thank you once again for your thoughts, I especially appreciate your concern to avoid confusing exegetical and dogmatic theology in the law and gospel dialog, which I myself have often found in many of the participants. You've given me much to think upon!


----------



## Peairtach

Even under the New Testament, the Visible Church, and the members of the Covenant of Grace consist of believers and unbelievers. 

The deaths of Ananias and Saphira, and of the Corinthians who abused the Lord's Table are examples of the judgements/ chastisements that can be brought on God's people, whether they are truly God's people or only ostensibly so.

Under the Old Testament, Mosaic Economy - the Republicationists like to call it the Sinai Covenant for some reason - there were also added judgements/chastisements that taught the people about the Curse of the law, I.e. the Curse of the CoW that had been already broken by all mankind in Adam. This was manifested partly by excommunication or "cutting off" - which we still have in the NT - by exclusion from the Passover and personal exile or shunning for a time; "cutting off" by divine judgemental intervention through death, which we still have in the NT; "cutting off" by means of a peculiar use of the death penalty, which we don't have, etc. There was also the possibility of the nation as a whole being exiled for their collective sins as part of the provisional economy and experience of the OT Church. The NT Church as a whole can no longer be exiled for her collective sins, as we are no longer under a provisional economy, but the candlestick can certainly be removed from a particular locality or nation in this gracious NT era, sometimes violently.

No need for a pointless and impossible renewed CoW. 

We're all breakers of the CoW and are open to its Curse anyway. Those of us who are believers won't experience the fulness of the Curse in Hell, but in this life its outworking in our lives including physical death are made unto us God's fatherly chastisements.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## MW

TheOldCourse said:


> Thank you once again for your thoughts, I especially appreciate your concern to avoid confusing exegetical and dogmatic theology in the law and gospel dialog, which I myself have often found in many of the participants. You've given me much to think upon!



You are very welcome, Chris; thankyou for the edifying conversation. May our wise Lord continue to show us the way!


----------



## One Little Nail

Peairtach said:


> Under the Old Testament, Mosaic Economy - the Republicationists like to call it the Sinai Covenant for some reason




This is just needless quibbling brother, they do use the term Mosaic on the cover of The Law is not of Faith, 
in the sub title Essays on Works & Grace in the Mosaic Covenant.




Peairtach said:


> No need for a pointless and impossible renewed CoW.



There was a need of a republication in the Old so that Christ may fulfil it to become Federal Head of His people & 
Mediator of the Covenant, though I don't see a need for a republication in the New Testament as Christ has fulfilled 
the Covenant of Works.

I found this snippet recently when reading a review of Bavinck's Dogmatics by Steve Tipton he says of Bavinck


> He is neither confused nor confusing about the existence or place of the covenant of works and how it explains and enables the federal headship of both Adam and Christ. - See more at: Why Every Fourth Grader Should Read Bavinck - Reformation21


 though I haven't been able to find the quote in his Dogmatics.


----------



## Shawn Mathis

One Little Nail said:


> There was a need of a republication in the Old so that Christ may fulfil it to become Federal Head of His people &
> Mediator of the Covenant



This is an interesting perspective I have never heard before. Please allow me some questions as I try to wrap my head around it:

If it was "republished" (please define this word) so that Christ could fulfill it, presumably that means it was republished so that Christ could be born in that republished covenant, live in it and fulfill it and die for his people who were bound in it?

If this is so then:

1. What of those saints born before its "republication"? Abraham, etc. What covenant were they condemned under? How does Christ fulfillment of the "republished" CoW relate to them? 
2. What of those saints born after its "republication" and after its fulfillment in Christ? Post-New testament Christians. What covenant are they condemned under (outside of Christ, before salvation-in-time)?

Another related question would be:

Why cannot it not be that the broken Covenant of Works is still binding in its effects (condemnation and corruption) and its moral demands (perfect obedience) upon any human born? Christ is born human, is bound under the same CoW (not republished), and fulfilled the same CoW that all Christians are born under?

Inquiring minds want to know.

thanks,


----------



## mvdm

Shawn Mathis said:


> Why cannot it not be that the broken Covenant of Works is still binding in its effects (condemnation and corruption) and its moral demands (perfect obedience) upon any human born? Christ is born human, is bound under the same CoW (not republished), and fulfilled the same CoW that all Christians are born under?



This is THE well-stated, elementary, and unanswerable question for the Klinean repubs.


----------

