# Kline, Moral Law, Covenant of Works, Eternal Life?????



## Romans922

Context: Studying Kline (&Followers) and Republication.

Kline et al:
1) Cov. of Works (CoW) conflated into God's work of Creation
2) There's no voluntary condescension on the part of God (WCF 7.1)
3) The Moral Law and Covenant of Works are equivalent
4) So the works principle is not a covenant imposed but a necessary covenant wired into man simply by creating him. 
5) At Sinai, the CoW and moral law have to stay together as it was imposed at creation. 
5) So in the end, obedience to the moral law requires eternal life. Eternal life being simple justice.


Correct?


----------



## Douglas P.

Romans922 said:


> Context: Studying Kline (&Followers) and Republication.
> 
> Kline et al:
> 1) Cov. of Works (CoW) conflated into God's work of Creation
> 2) There's no voluntary condescension on the part of God (WCF 7.1)
> 3) The Moral Law and Covenant of Works are equivalent
> 4) So the works principle is not a covenant imposed but a necessary covenant wired into man simply by creating him.
> 5) At Sinai, the CoW and moral law have to stay together as it was imposed at creation.
> 5) So in the end, obedience to the moral law requires eternal life. Eternal life being simple justice.
> 
> 
> Correct?



1) No. For Kline, the covenant of works is separate from creation.
2) No. I think Kline explicitly states otherwise in the lecture series below.
3) No. For Kline, all law is covenantal law, but they are not equivalent.
4) No. I dont think Kline has ever spoken of a hard-wired covenant within man.
5) No. The Law given at Sinai was a republication of the covenant of works insofar as it is not a covenant of grace but a covenant of works. The works portion being mainly the ability to remain in the land.
6) No. Only for Adam. Since that covenant has been broken and its curses enacted the covenant no longer holds out the possibility of its reward.

I'm not sure what version of Kline you are interactive with, but I'd highly recommend going directly to the primary source. There are a few lecture series online where Kline covers his material in a very thorough manner. Here is a link: http://www.meredithkline.com/mp3-files/


----------



## Romans922

Douglas Padgett said:


> 1) No. For Kline, the covenant of works is separate from creation.



VanDrunen says,


> Meredith G. Kline (1922-2007) follows his Reformed predecessors closely in affirming the works principle operative in the covenant with Adam and in associating this works principle with the reality of the image of God. He resolves the ambiguity patent in many of his predecessors, however, by refusing to separate the act of creation in the image of God from the establishment of the covenant with Adam.




2. If Kline mixes the two (creation and Cov. of Works), then by necessity he has to deny WCF 7.1. Which as I am finding many people show even Lee Irons and VanDrunnen.

3. Follows from 2.

4. Those were my words in attempting to intepret Kline. 

5. I agree with your assessment of Kline here. But what I was saying flows naturally from 1 and 2 above.

6. Lee Irons on Kline:


> When WCF VII.1 is read in this broader context, it begins to appear more and more like a vestigial organ whose surgical removal would not jeopardize the continued vitality of the larger organism… No longer is it possible to argue that the reward offered was out of all proportion to the work rendered, and that therefore Adam’s work would have been accepted according to grace rather than the strict merit of works… he was not condescending in the freedom of his grace but covenanting in the revelation of his justice.


----------



## MW

Romans922 said:


> Correct?



I would say so, and I think your quotations are helpful. One point I would keep in mind is that Kline went back to the quarry to cut his stones, as it were, and was looking at the subject from an exegetical point of view. He did not construct his stones in systematic fashion, so we cannot say he would recognise points 1-6 as points 1-6, or whether he would have had other exegetical considerations which affected these points overall.


----------



## TheOldCourse

Romans922 said:


> Douglas Padgett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1) No. For Kline, the covenant of works is separate from creation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> VanDrunen says,
> 
> 
> 
> Meredith G. Kline (1922-2007) follows his Reformed predecessors closely in affirming the works principle operative in the covenant with Adam and in associating this works principle with the reality of the image of God. He resolves the ambiguity patent in many of his predecessors, however, by refusing to separate the act of creation in the image of God from the establishment of the covenant with Adam.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 2. If Kline mixes the two (creation and Cov. of Works), then by necessity he has to deny WCF 7.1. Which as I am finding many people show even Lee Irons and VanDrunnen.
> 
> 3. Follows from 2.
> 
> 4. Those were my words in attempting to intepret Kline.
> 
> 5. I agree with your assessment of Kline here. But what I was saying flows naturally from 1 and 2 above.
> 
> 6. Lee Irons on Kline:
> 
> 
> 
> When WCF VII.1 is read in this broader context, it begins to appear more and more like a vestigial organ whose surgical removal would not jeopardize the continued vitality of the larger organism… No longer is it possible to argue that the reward offered was out of all proportion to the work rendered, and that therefore Adam’s work would have been accepted according to grace rather than the strict merit of works… he was not condescending in the freedom of his grace but covenanting in the revelation of his justice.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


I'm far from a Kline expert, but my understanding is he's not speaking of mixing the CoW with creation _per se_ (which would be problematic w/r/t WCF 7.1), but with creation _in the image of God_. In other words, God's creation of man in his own image (as opposed to brute creation) is itself a condescension with covenantal implications. I'm not sure Irons is a great guide to Kline on many matters, while he's a "Klinean", he often uses Kline to his own ends rather than merely trying to faithfully propound what Kline himself taught.


----------



## Douglas P.

I will do my best to engage with your responses, unfortunately we just moved and my Kingdom Prologue is buried somewhere in one of many boxes in the basement. It has also been quite a while since I've studied Kline in any depth. However, I will try and listen to the pertinent lectures tomorrow at the gym and try and refresh my memory. In the meantime



Romans922 said:


> Originally Posted by Douglas Padgett
> 1) No. For Kline, the covenant of works is separate from creation.
> VanDrunen says,
> Meredith G. Kline (1922-2007) follows his Reformed predecessors closely in affirming the works principle operative in the covenant with Adam and in associating this works principle with the reality of the image of God. He resolves the ambiguity patent in many of his predecessors, however, by refusing to separate the act of creation in the image of God from the establishment of the covenant with Adam.



I'm not sure what DVD is trying to imply in his broader context of what he is writing (i think this quote is from The Law is Not of Faith), however, I think all Kline would agree with is that anyone made in the Image of God is necessarily in covenant with God. I guess I dont see this as a conflation of the CoW and creation but you might.




Romans922 said:


> 2. If Kline mixes the two (creation and Cov. of Works), then by necessity he has to deny WCF 7.1. Which as I am finding many people show even Lee Irons and VanDrunnen.


 I'll try and look into this more.




Romans922 said:


> 3. Follows from 2.


I'm sure Kline puts this far more precisely, but law is only ever part of a covenant and never the covenant itself (therefor they cannot be equivalent. I really dont see how anyone could read Kline and come away with any other conclusion. But maybe I'm wrong.




Romans922 said:


> 4. Those were my words in attempting to intepret Kline.


I would just reverse the logic, any man created is necessarily in covenant with God. 



Romans922 said:


> 5. I agree with your assessment of Kline here. But what I was saying flows naturally from 1 and 2 above.


I'm still a little confused with your statement about the CoW & the moral law having to stay together. The Covenant with Adam (covenant of works) is done and over. It's curse enacted, Adam was thrown into exile. The moral law continues into Sinai but the CoW does not. 

For number 6, I just want to reiterate that even if someone today perfectly kept the moral law, they would not be able to earn eternal life. That covenant was broken with Adam's disobedience and its curses enacted. However, you are right, the for Kline, had Adam kept the CoW he would have merited eternal life on a strict justice basis only.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

_“Man’s creation as image of God meant, as we have seen, that the creating of the world was a covenant-making process.* There was no original non-covenantal order of mere nature on which the covenant was superimposed*. Covenantal commitments were given by the Creator in the very act of endowing the mancreature with the mantle of the divine likeness. …The situation never existed in which man’s future was contemplated or presented in terms of a static continuation of the original state of blessedness (Kingdom Prologue [2000], p. 92).”

Reverend Winzer also sees the problem with this thought. When I first started to study Kline he noted....
_


> “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.”
> http://www.puritanboard.com/showthr...nal-concerning-the-Mosaic?p=887863#post887863


_

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

I have quite a few posts on the topics mentioned above. 
https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.c...mosaic-covenant-vs-the-new-reformed-paradigm/

__*There was no original non-covenantal order of mere nature on which the covenant was superimposed*. Kline
__It appears he flies in the face of our Standards. Note what Robert Shaw says.

_


> Adam was created under this Law in a natural form but then was brought under it in the form of a Covenant.Section I.–God gave to Adam a law, as a covenant of works, by which he bound him and all his posterity to personal, entire, exact, and perpetual obedience; promised life upon the fulfilling, and threatened death upon the breach of it; and endued him with power and ability to keep it.
> 
> Exposition
> 
> The law, as thus inscribed on the heart of the first man, is often styled the law of creation, because it was the will of the sovereign Creator, revealed to the reasonable creature, by impressing it upon his mind and heart at his creation. It is also called the moral law, because it was a revelation of the will of God, as his moral governor, and was the standard and rule of man’s moral actions. *Adam was originally placed under this law in its natural form, as merely directing and obliging him to perfect obedience. He was brought under it in a covenant form, when an express threatening of death, and a gracious promise of life, was annexed to it;* and then a positive precept was added, enjoining him not to eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge, as the test of his obedience to the whole law.–Gen. ii. 16, 17. That this covenant was made with the first man, not as a single person, but as the federal representative of all his natural posterity, has been formerly shown. The law, as invested with a covenant form, is called, by the Apostle Paul, “The law of works” (Rom. iii. 27); that is, the law as a covenant of works. In this form, the law is to be viewed as not only prescribing duty, but as promising life as the reward of obedience, and denouncing death as the punishment of transgression. ….
> 
> Section II.–This law, after his fall, continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness; and, as such, was delivered by God upon mount Sinai in ten commandments, and written in two tables; the first four commandments containing our duty toward God, and the other six our duty to man.
> 
> Exposition
> 
> ​*Upon the fall of man, the law, considered as a covenant of works, was annulled and set aside; but, considered as moral, it continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness. That fair copy of the law which had been inscribed on the heart of the first man in his creation, was, by the fall, greatly defaced, although not totally obliterated.* Some faint impressions of it still remain on the minds of all reasonable creatures. Its general principles, such as, that God is to be worshipped, that parents ought to be honoured, that we should do to others what we would reasonably wish that they should do to us–such general principles as these are still, in some degree, engraved on the minds of all men. – Rom. ii. 14,15. But the *original edition of the law* being greatly obliterated, God was graciously pleased to give a new and complete copy of it. He delivered it to the Israelites from Mount Sinai, with awful solemnity. In this promulgation of the law, he summed it up in ten commandments; and, therefore, it is commonly styled the Law of the Ten Commandments.


_


https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.c...apter-19-the-law-and-the-covenant-of-works-2/
_


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Getting to your question on Simple Justice I would refer you to these...... The fingers from one aspect of this theology just proceeds into many others. 

Two Different Definitions of Merit
https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.com/2015/04/04/two-different-definitions-of-merit/

Creation, Condescension, and Redefinition of Covenant Merit
https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.c...escension-and-redefinition-of-covenant-merit/

Creation and Covenant Recast and Collapsed Together
https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.c...n-and-covenant-recast-and-collapsed-together/


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Also as I have contended with Dr. Tipton.... The Kline of By Oath Consigned is not the Kline of Kingdom Prologue. He had a few theological shifts in between concerning Covenant Theology. Even Karlberg notes there is change in Kline in one of his reviews for the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society. (JETS 52/2 (June 2009): 410)



> The Reformed tradition as a whole has been unclear how best to explain the operation of the antithetical principles of law and grace within the Mosaic administration of the covenant of grace. Ferry’s readiness to ﬁnd continuity and agree- ment among expositors of federal theology fails to reckon with the untidy side of doctrinal development, prior to theological maturation. Hence, his readings and conclusions are subject to debate. And with respect to the Westminster controversy in particular, failure to acknowledge change and development in Kline’s thinking on the covenants only dis- torts an accurate reading of the history of Reformed interpretation, past and present.



But then again I am not so sure that a man who can say the following can be all that reliable. 


> For the record, it appears that the following Reformed seminaries oppose the republication view: Covenant, Greenville Presbyterian, Mid-America Reformed, Reformed (largely as a result of John Frame’s tenure), Reformed Presbyterian (Covenanter), Puritan-Reformed, Northwest, and Westminster East (read in light of the Shepherd-Gaffin proponents). This leaves Westminster West as the sole seminary promoting the biblical view (as we understand the issues).



And who is the We he is referring to in his last sentence. 
http://theaquilareport.com/republication-a-doctrinal-controversy-four-decades-in-the-making/


----------



## Romans922

So if Kline and Co, conflate creation and the Covenant of Works, how does that work with/effect their view of creation (literary view - Framework Hypothesis; Length view - typically Old Earth)?


----------



## Andrew P.C.

Romans922 said:


> So if Kline and Co, conflate creation and the Covenant of Works, how does that work with/effect their view of creation (literary view - Framework Hypothesis; Length view - typically Old Earth)?



From being at their church in Esco and hearing people like Horton, Godfrey, and DVD it would be my conclusion they hold to a Framework view. As a matter of fact, I believe Godfrey has written this elsewhere. Also, it should be noted that a professor at Westminster West preached on Gensis in which he contended that Adam and Eve, while in the garden alone, were not the only people in the world at the time. He went as far to say bloodshed and war were nothing new.

Reactions: Wow 1


----------



## Peairtach

*Douglas*


> any man created is necessarily in covenant with God.



Are they? And even if they are, would it need to take the form it did? See Dabney's _Systematic Theology_ on the various covenantal ways in which God could have confirmed Man in sinless perfection.



> The moral law continues into Sinai but the CoW does not.



See Dabney's _Systematic Theology_ on the senses in which the CoW abides after the Fall. 

As regards the sanction of reward it is completely hypothetical to sinful Man, but not to Christ.

As regards the moral law it abides.

As regards the sanction of the curse and death it abides.

*Romans22*


> 2. If Kline mixes the two (creation and Cov. of Works), then by necessity he has to deny WCF 7.1. Which as I am finding many people show even Lee Irons and VanDrunnen.



From what I've gathered, David van Drunnen, even conflates the Probation with the Creation Mandate in his book _Natural Law and the Two Kingdoms._


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Horton


> A. VIOLATION OF THE COVENANT OF CREATION
> 
> Even in Genesis 1–3 we recognize the features of a covenant that we have delineated: a historical prologue setting the stage (Ge 1–2), stipulations (2:16–17) and the sanctions (2:17b) over which Eve and the serpent argue (3:1–5) and which are finally carried out in the form of judgment (3:8–19). It is only after this fateful decision that an entirely new and unexpected basis is set forth for human destiny (3:21–24). These elements are present, albeit implicitly, in the creation narrative, with the Tree of Life as the prize awaiting the successful outcome of a trial. Just as Yahweh the Great King endured the “trial” of creation and came out at the other end pronouncing victory and entering his Sabbath enthronement, *his earthly ectype-vassal was to follow the same course*. Genesis 1–3, and their canonical Christian interpretation, have an eschatological rather than simply existential orientation.
> As further confirmation, the presence of the Sabbath at the end of the “six-day” work-week-trial holds out the promise of everlasting confirmation in blessedness. *This pattern is not the imposition of an arbitrary law, but the image-bearer’s reflection of God’s own journey from creation to consummation.* If Adam should default in this covenantal relationship, he would “surely die,” and we learn from the subsequent failure of Adam that this curse brought in its wake not only spiritual but physical, interrelational, and indeed environmental disaster.
> Interpreted in the light of the rest of Scripture, Adam’s covenantal role entailed that he was the representative for his whole posterity. In fact, every person is judged guilty in Adam, and the effects of this curse extend even to the rest of creation (Ge 3:17–18; Ro 8:20). It is with this simultaneously legal and relational background in mind that Paul makes his well-known statements on the imputation of Adam’s guilt and corruption as the corollary of the imputation and impartation of the Second Adam’s righteousness (esp. Ro 5) in justification and sanctification.11
> The theme of covenant solidarity, otherwise regarded as congenial to relational and communal views of the self, is nevertheless put to the test when it involves collective human guilt: the tragic aspect of human solidarity and relationality. “The intersubjective matrix which forms individual, related persons,” notes Francis Watson, “also simultaneously deforms them.”12 Together we stand or fall. The legal and relational basis for this solidarity is the covenant of creation. As John Zizioulas observes,
> 
> The drive of the human being towards otherness is rooted in the divine call to Adam. The call simultaneously implies three things: relationship, freedom, and otherness, all of them being interdependent.… Through the call, Adam is constituted, therefore, as being other than God and the rest of creation. This otherness is not the result of self-affirmation; it is an otherness granted and is not self-existent, but a particularity which is a gift of the Other.13
> 
> Human identity therefore originates in being addressed: “the human being is singled out, not merely as a species, but as a particular partner in a relationship, as a respondent to a call.”14 It is precisely this call that humanity, in Adam, refuses, because we wish to be the speaker, not the addressee, in the covenant.
> Contrary to the assumptions of Rudolf Bultmann, Ernst Käsemann, and others, Paul’s polemic against the law and works of the law is not an abstract opposition. Humanity was created for love, which means for law, since law simply stipulates loving actions. Because of the fall, there is no longer any possibility of being justified by “works of the law.” All of humanity, including Israel, is now “in Adam,” condemned as a transgressor of the law. Thus, the covenant of creation (also called the covenant of works, law, or nature) is the legal context for God’s judgment. This original covenant of creation may be defended by appealing to non-Christian as well as Christian sources.
> 
> 
> Horton, M. (2011). The Christian Faith: A Systematic Theology for Pilgrims on the Way (pp. 415–416). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.



This is definitely a re-working of things.

Taking your formulation Andrew:

1) Cov. of Works (CoW) conflated into God's work of Creation

Man is ectypal (creaturely) analogue of God created to act out God's Covenant progression in Creation.
2) There's no voluntary condescension on the part of God (WCF 7.1)

The "voluntary condescension" is recast (at least for the Creation Covenant) that Man is an analogue of God an as His ectypal vassal is intended to repeat this Covenantal fulfillment that God portrays in Creation.
3) The Moral Law and Covenant of Works are equivalent

As Mike notes, "Humanity is created for love..." which means the moral law. He's supposed to have lived out God's Covenantal "trial" in like manner.

4) So the works principle is not a covenant imposed but a necessary covenant wired into man simply by creating him. 
Not "wired", per se, but because man is God's ectype-vassal he's supposed to have done what God did.

5) At Sinai, the CoW and moral law have to stay together as it was imposed at creation. 
Not merely at Sinai. It appears to me that any "works" are, by definition, of the nature of man's condition being federally united to Adam as vassal.

5) So in the end, obedience to the moral law requires eternal life. Eternal life being simple justice.
It seems that the idea is that built into the Creation act, God goes through a Covenant process and man is expected to go through the same trial God endured and come out the other end in Sabbath rest.


----------



## Romans922

Andrew P.C. said:


> Romans922 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if Kline and Co, conflate creation and the Covenant of Works, how does that work with/effect their view of creation (literary view - Framework Hypothesis; Length view - typically Old Earth)?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From being at their church in Esco and hearing people like Horton, Godfrey, and DVD it would be my conclusion they hold to a Framework view. As a matter of fact, I believe Godfrey has written this elsewhere. Also, it should be noted that a professor at Westminster West preached on Gensis in which he contended that Adam and Eve, while in the garden alone, were not the only people in the world at the time. He went as far to say bloodshed and war were nothing new.
Click to expand...


Yes I know all of that, I was asking how does republication view of Kline and followers, and how they conflate creation and CoW--> does the framework view or long days (old earth) of creation link to that or is something completely separate? 

If it links to it, does it logically follow from their Republication view or effect in any way, and how?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Andrew,

Methodologically, it seems the two have in common what I think is an unhealthy approach to the grammatico-historical method with respect to Ancient Near East (ANE) literature. What I suppose startles me about this approach (that Matthew calls going back to the quarry to cut new stones) is largely based on the finding of ANE treaties and pretty much assuming that to properly understand the historical setting these ANE forms need to be "templates" for us to understand Covenant Theology. Perhaps Kline didn't work out the dogmatic implications but there's an exegetical insistence to see Creation as another example of an ANE form. Thus, the CoW and the moral law is moved from God's Providential dealings with men to, it seems, man's very created constituency. Thus, those that follow Kline pretty much have moved from the "this looks like the ANE treaties" to "this looks so much like the ANE treaties that we need to understand Covenant in a whole new way and everything that we understand about Creation needs to 'shift' to account for the fact that *this* is the normative exegetical way to understand this passage."

Consequently, it seems to me, that because the account of Creation is not so much a historical narrative as it is ANE treaty literature so that we might understand that God's actions are to exhibit the features of a Covenant ordeal and that Adam is the ectype-vassal expected to likewise come out the other side into rest. All the "pieces and parts" of that account aren't important historically or chronologically as they are to be understood to fit into a treaty. To focus on the days of creation as days is to miss what's *really* important.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Incidentally, this might not make those that hold to this view happy but I really don't see much of a methodological difference between these two statements:

1. "Hey! Look at these Hittite treaties - THAT's the way the Covenants operate. We need to re-build our understanding of the Covenants based on this discovery from the 1950's!"

and

2. "Hey! Look at this literature from 2nd Temple Judaism and the way the Jews thought that justification was covenant participation. We need to get a new perspective on Paul concerning Justification."


----------



## Peairtach

Re these - indeed interesting - discoveries about Hittite treaties, etc, we need to remember that the Holy Spirit was perfectly free to ignore or rework the literary form as He so wished for His purposes. 

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Peairtach said:


> Re these - indeed interesting - discoveries about Hittite treaties, etc, we need to remember that the Holy Spirit was perfectly free to ignore or rework the literary form as He so wished for His purposes.



I completely agree. We rightly respond to N.T. Wright and others that we don't have to "read between the lines" to understand what Paul is teaching about Justification but the commitment to an "exegetical discovery" can often be so powerful as to overthrow what is in the text. Did the Holy Spirit leave us without these modern discoveries for centuries essentially waiting until this generation until we *really* understand Paul (or the original Covenants).


----------



## Peairtach

Romans922 said:


> So if Kline and Co, conflate creation and the Covenant of Works, how does that work with/effect their view of creation (literary view - Framework Hypothesis; Length view - typically Old Earth)?



I presume they have to wait until the creation of Man to have a CoW/ Covenant of Creation with Man. Thus on a Framework/ Old Earth view there would be quite some time elapsed before this covenant was introduced I.e. the moment Adam was created. In the Westminster/orthodox view the CoW was additional to Adam's creation to provide a way by which he would be confirmed in his love to God and original righteousness. Then again the Escondido theologians may have very different ideas about this, but I don't see how they could.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Captain Picard

Is Horton a "Klinean" on the issue of republication?


----------



## Shawn Mathis

Semper Fidelis said:


> Andrew,
> 
> Methodologically, it seems the two have in common what I think is an unhealthy approach to the grammatico-historical method with respect to Ancient Near East (ANE) literature. What I suppose startles me about this approach (that Matthew calls going back to the quarry to cut new stones) is largely based on the finding of ANE treaties and pretty much assuming that to properly understand the historical setting these ANE forms need to be "templates" for us to understand Covenant Theology...



That is the way to think about it. My mentor, Dr. Coppes, was a Klinian until he re-evaluated the whole approach in the late 80s. While getting his Th.D. under EJ Young, Young mentioned a need for a thesis on form criticism. It appears Young was seeing the problem (see his Studies in Genesis 1 which eviscerates the framework view). Dr. Coppes is convinced of the view you presented but the older language, as I recall, is form criticism: finding forms everywhere in the bible. That is the connection to the framework. Kline sought out forms and then tried to fit them all together. So, his view of CoW, etc. does not directly impinge upon the days of creation per se. 

Of importance today for those wishing to use ANE treatises is that there are many forms of them, Kline's being only one type (see the works of Kitchen). Hanging everything on an archeological discovery can be risky.


----------



## mvdm

Captain Picard said:


> Is Horton a "Klinean" on the issue of republication?



Essentially, yes.


----------



## Captain Picard

Thanks. Was not aware.


----------



## AndyS

Semper Fidelis said:


> Incidentally, this might not make those that hold to this view happy but I really don't see much of a methodological difference between these two statements:
> 
> 1. "Hey! Look at these Hittite treaties - THAT's the way the Covenants operate. We need to re-build our understanding of the Covenants based on this discovery from the 1950's!"
> 
> and
> 
> 2. "Hey! Look at this literature from 2nd Temple Judaism and the way the Jews thought that justification was covenant participation. We need to get a new perspective on Paul concerning Justification."



Both insightful & ironic.


----------



## timmopussycat

MW said:


> Romans922 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Correct?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would say so, and I think your quotations are helpful. One point I would keep in mind is that Kline went back to the quarry to cut his stones, as it were, and was looking at the subject from an exegetical point of view. He did not construct his stones in systematic fashion, so we cannot say he would recognise points 1-6 as points 1-6, or whether he would have had other exegetical considerations which affected these points overall.
Click to expand...


I don't know Kline's work well enough to weigh in on either side, but your last clause is an invaluable reminder of a point too often forgotten. Whenever we disagree with someone because of logical consequences that arise from his position, we need to make sure that the person criticized would accept the consequences as valid.


----------



## Romans922

timmopussycat said:


> Whenever we disagree with someone because of logical consequences that arise from his position, we need to make sure that the person criticized would accept the consequences as valid.



That doesn't necessarily follow. Is a false teacher going to accept as valid someone showing him how his teachings are false? Probably not. Does that make his teachings not false because he (false teacher) doesn't see validity in the "corrector's" argument against him? No.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

I was going to clarify as well, Andrew. I don't think there is anything wrong with demonstrating that the logical consequences of a particular teaching are erroneous. I think Matthew's point (and what Tim stated imprecisely) is that we cannot necessarily assume that the person recognizes the logical consequences. In other words, he/she may not realize the full import of a particular teaching and so they can't be fully faulted for the full import of their error as if the error is "premeditated".

That said, I think there are far too many who believe that they are essentially free to come to exegetical conclusions without doing an "error check" against a system of doctrine. I don't believe there's any such thing as either exegesis or systematic theology and that they are symbiotic. I suppose what I find surprising is not that Kline may have missed the import but that those who now understand it believe that there is sufficient reason to re-think so many dogmatic categories on the basis of what amounts to an archeological study and form criticism. I could see that happening with liberal Protestants but it's particularly surprising when it arises out of the conservative Reformed wing.


----------



## mvdm

Semper Fidelis said:


> but that those who now understand it believe that there is sufficient reason to re-think so many dogmatic categories on the basis of what amounts to an archeological study and form criticism. I could see that happening with liberal Protestants but it's particularly surprising when it arises out of the conservative Reformed wing.



Exactly.


----------



## timmopussycat

Romans922 said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whenever we disagree with someone because of logical consequences that arise from his position, we need to make sure that the person criticized would accept the consequences as valid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't necessarily follow. Is a false teacher going to accept as valid someone showing him how his teachings are false? Probably not. Does that make his teachings not false because he (false teacher) doesn't see validity in the "corrector's" argument against him? No.
Click to expand...


While the false teacher may or may not accept the validity of someone showing him the consequences of his teaching, the point I wanted to stress was something else, namely that before we attribute an apparent consequence of a given teaching to the basic teaching's propound-er, we must know, if possible, whether the teacher accepts the validity of that consequence or rejects it for other reasons. A non-biblical consequence of a teaching might be a logically valid deduction from that teaching, but if the teacher rejects the consequence for other reasons, no one should charge him with holding the consequence since such a charge will not be true.


----------



## MW

Coming to the conclusion of "true" or "false" on some one's teaching is right. But I think Tim is noting there are "inferences" which could be drawn from one's teaching when we impose our own system on what is being taught; it is not fair to hold a teacher guilty of such inferences, especially when it is known that they weren't making systematic or dogmatic conclusions. It may be that they come to the same dogmatic conclusions but take a slightly different exegetical route.

With regard to Kline, let's not forget that he was doing his work at a time when the covenant of works was in sad neglect, and he was looking to show the exegetical importance of the doctrine. I can't agree with a number of his conclusions, but I would agree more with him than with those who reject the covenant of works or the law/gospel distinction. It is good to remember this is an intramural discussion so as not to hinder the good influence of those who have done helpful work in other areas on which we are in major agreement.


----------



## Romans922

MW said:


> With regard to Kline, let's not forget that he was doing his work at a time when the covenant of works was in sad neglect



Matthew, let's remember that my OP wasn't only about Kline, but also those who followed him and developed his views further.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Romans922 said:


> MW said:
> 
> 
> 
> With regard to Kline, let's not forget that he was doing his work at a time when the covenant of works was in sad neglect
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew, let's remember that my OP wasn't only about Kline, but also those who followed him and developed his views further.
Click to expand...


And the consequences are becoming quite apparent. Kline may not have intended the outcome but his theology has morphed into aberrations that impact Christology, Hermeneutics, and Christian Living. Even the definition of the Gospel has been impacted. Time has given us a look at the consequences of a Theology that has matured into something. I am not so sure Kline would recognize the result of what his theology has matured into. But the tree has produced some fruit. And some of that has been found damaging. Do I need to prove that? Lee Irons is a product of Kline. Karlberg is a result. Remember he just accused all other Seminaries of departing from Biblical views, except for Westminster California. I also believe some of the recent Antinomian spirit is a result. The Natural Law / Two Kingdom issue has major ramifications. I also believe the lack of Reformed Understanding which was replaced by Klinean descendants resulted in the bungled Federal Vision Trials.



> *Republication: A Doctrinal Controversy Four Decades in the Making*
> 
> 
> For the record, it appears that the following Reformed seminaries oppose the republication view: Covenant, Greenville Presbyterian, Mid-America Reformed, Reformed (largely as a result of John Frame’s tenure), Reformed Presbyterian (Covenanter), Puritan-Reformed, Northwest, and Westminster East (read in light of the Shepherd-Gaffin proponents). This leaves Westminster West as the sole seminary promoting the biblical view (as we understand the issues).
> http://theaquilareport.com/republication-a-doctrinal-controversy-four-decades-in-the-making/
> Mark Karlberg



Four decades worth?


----------



## Andrew P.C.

PuritanCovenanter said:


> And the consequences are becoming quite apparent.



Yes, and as a result we have statements from Horton, Lee Irons, and others in support of same-sex "marriage" (whatever that means).


----------



## mvdm

Andrew P.C. said:


> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the consequences are becoming quite apparent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and as a result we have statements from Horton, Lee Irons, and others in support of same-sex "marriage" (whatever that means).
Click to expand...


For clarification, Horton drew the line in saying he could not support same sex "marriage", but did say he could affirm gay domestic partnerships for the protection of legal and economic interests.


----------



## timmopussycat

Semper Fidelis said:


> That said, I think there are far too many who believe that they are essentially free to come to exegetical conclusions without doing an "error check" against a system of doctrine.



Agreed. If we build a doctrine around a conclusion drawn from one Scripture thought without checking it against the full range of biblical teaching we miss the fact that one Scriptural statement or deduction therefrom may be qualified by another Scriptural thought elsewhere.



Semper Fidelis said:


> I don't believe there's any such thing as either exegesis or systematic theology and that they are symbiotic.



If exegesis and systematic theology are not separate but symbiotic disciplines, what would you set up in their place? And how would your new discipline mitigate against the development of doctrinal positions that are not good and necessary consequences of Scriptural teaching when taken as a whole? 



Semper Fidelis said:


> I suppose what I find surprising is not that Kline may have missed the import but that those who now understand it believe that there is sufficient reason to re-think so many dogmatic categories on the basis of what amounts to an archeological study and form criticism. I could see that happening with liberal Protestants but it's particularly surprising when it arises out of the conservative Reformed wing.



The history of Princeton and the founding of the OPC should be enough to alert us to the possibility that theological error can arise in Reformed seminaries.


----------



## Romans922

So for the sake of argument, the followers of Kline (without any doubt), conflate creation and covenant of works. When they get to republication of Cov. of Works in the Mosaic Covenant they've already skewed definitions of merit, the nature of the condition, reward, and man's nature (the Westminster view).

So when in 'their' view God once again 're-enacts' the CoW as a meritorious arrangement with Israel (a group of sinners), this denies the reality of the penalty God pronounced and conferred upon man when the original CoW was broken. It's as if God could arbitrarily change His mind, go against His previous judgment, and enter into a covenant of works with sinners whom He had previously deemed disqualified from such a covenant.


----------



## Douglas P.

Romans922 said:


> So when in 'their' view God once again 're-enacts' the CoW as a meritorious arrangement with Israel (a group of sinners), this denies the reality of the penalty God pronounced and conferred upon man when the original CoW was broken. It's as if God could arbitrarily change His mind, go against His previous judgment, and enter into a covenant of works with sinners whom He had previously deemed disqualified from such a covenant.



The covenant at Sinai is a separate covenant than the covenant God made with Adam, just like it is a separate covenant than the covenant God made with Abraham. It is not CoW 2.0. It is, however, a typological republication of the covenant of works made with Adam. The main typological similarities are the blessings and curses based on obedience to the covenant. Paul makes this (the works principle of the covenant at Sinai) extraordinarily clear in Gal. 3.

The blessings of the CoW with Adam were that of eternal life through the tree of life, the curse was spiritual death and removal from the garden-temple. The blessing of the Covenant at Sinai was the keeping of the land and communion with God and the curse was exile (a form of spiritual death). It is important to realize (which I think you're missing) that Kline was not saying that eternal life was obtainable through the Covenant at Sinai. That was a fully gracious promise that was only obtainable through faith in the one to come, which was a blessing of the Abrahamic covenant.


----------



## Peairtach

> The main typological similarities are the blessings and curses based on obedience to the covenant.



These things, along with others more individual than collective, taught typologically about the CoG, and the already broken CoW. 

Under the broken CoW the law remains binding on man, and he is subject to the negative sanction of the curse and death and Hell. This was taught e,g, in the sacrificial system and its connection to the penal law. But the positive sanction of blessing in Heaven - with rewards - is out of his reach by means of the CoW but only by means of grace through faith. This was taught through blessing on the Israelites individually and collectively when they exercised faith in God, produced good works and had secure tenure and material blessing and long life in the Land. The Mosaic administration with its particular curses and blessings taught the children of Israel in a special way about these things that are still true of the NT admin of the CoG.

The "collective sanctions" of being expelled from the Land or collectively enjoying secure tenure in the Land would remind them the provisional nature of the OT. It could be broken and dispensed with in a way in which the NT can't.



> Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, 32not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the Lord (Jer 31:31-32)


----------



## Romans922

Douglas Padgett said:


> Romans922 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So when in 'their' view God once again 're-enacts' the CoW as a meritorious arrangement with Israel (a group of sinners), this denies the reality of the penalty God pronounced and conferred upon man when the original CoW was broken. It's as if God could arbitrarily change His mind, go against His previous judgment, and enter into a covenant of works with sinners whom He had previously deemed disqualified from such a covenant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The covenant at Sinai is a separate covenant than the covenant God made with Adam, just like it is a separate covenant than the covenant God made with Abraham. It is not CoW 2.0. It is, however, a typological republication of the covenant of works made with Adam. The main typological similarities are the blessings and curses based on obedience to the covenant. Paul makes this (the works principle of the covenant at Sinai) extraordinarily clear in Gal. 3.
> 
> The blessings of the CoW with Adam were that of eternal life through the tree of life, the curse was spiritual death and removal from the garden-temple. The blessing of the Covenant at Sinai was the keeping of the land and communion with God and the curse was exile (a form of spiritual death). It is important to realize (which I think you're missing) that Kline was not saying that eternal life was obtainable through the Covenant at Sinai. That was a fully gracious promise that was only obtainable through faith in the one to come, which was a blessing of the Abrahamic covenant.
Click to expand...



You are misreading what I am saying. I understand the view of those who have followed Kline. I'm talking about the Mosaic Covenant of what 'they' call the 'upper-typological level' aspect of the covenant (not the lower level). That being, God requiring Israel to merit keeping the land that was given to them. And what I'm saying is that it is a contradiction for God to reward an inherently demeritorious work as if it were meritorious. According to the nature and character of God, it would be unjust to accept and reward such works.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Peairtach said:


> The "collective sanctions" of being expelled from the Land or collectively enjoying secure tenure in the Land would remind them the provisional nature of the OT. It could be broken and dispensed with in a way in which the NT can't.



I tend to disagree with you on this a bit Richard. We have 1 Corinthians 5 and Revelation 2 to say different. Apostasy is a reality. And the Lord can allow you to be delivered over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh so that the soul may be saved. He also warns those who refuse to repent that he will snuff their candle out. It is a wonderful thing to be disciplined by the Lord. 




Douglas Padgett said:


> The covenant at Sinai is a separate covenant than the covenant God made with Adam,


 Okay, we can agree with that on one level. What about the Covenant of Grace which is promised to Adam after he failed to fulfill the Covenant of Works? 



Douglas Padgett said:


> just like it is a separate covenant than the covenant God made with Abraham.


Okay, now we are starting to stand a bit more on shaky ground. Do you not believe that the Everlasting Covenant promised to Adam, Abraham, Moses, David, is the Covenant of Grace and that the Covenant of Grace administers the Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic, and New Covenant? 

Your Church affiliation is now PCA if I am correct and what you are advocating is definitely not in line with the Westminster Standards. 

Here is Richard Sibbes...https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.com/2012/09/25/covenant-testament-works-grace-love-and-communion/



> There are four periods of time of renewing this covenant: first, from Adam to Abraham;… Secondly, From Abraham to Moses;… The third period of renewing the covenant of grace was from Moses to Christ; and then it was more clear, whenas to the covenant made with Abraham, who was sealed with the sacrament of circumcision, the sacrament of the paschal lamb was added, and all the sacrifices Levitical; and then it was called a testament. That differeth a little from a covenant; for a testament is established by blood, it is established by death. So was that; but it was only with the blood and death of cattle sacrificed as a type.
> 
> 
> But now, to Christ’s time to the end of the world, the covenant of grace is most clear of all; and it is now usually called the New Testament, being established by the death of Christ himself; …​





> Westminster Confession of Faith
> Chapter 7
> 
> I. The distance between God and the creature is so great, that although reasonable creatures do owe obedience unto him as their Creator, yet they could never have any fruition of him, as their blessedness and reward, but by some voluntary condescension on God's part, which he hath been pleased to express by way of covenant.
> 
> 
> II. The *first covenant* made with man *was a covenant of works*, wherein life was promised to Adam, and in him to his posterity, upon condition of perfect and personal obedience.
> 
> III. *Man by his fall having made himself incapable of life by that covenant*, the Lord was pleased to make *a second, commonly called the covenant of grace*: wherein he freely offered unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of them faith in him, that they may be saved, and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto life, his Holy Spirit, to make them willing and able to believe.
> 
> IV. *This covenant of grace is frequently set forth in the Scripture by the name of a testament, in reference to the death of Jesus Christ, the testator, and to the everlasting inheritance, with all things belonging to it, therein bequeathed*.
> 
> V. This covenant was differently administered in the time of the law, and in the time of the gospel: under the law it was administered by promises, prophecies, sacrifices, circumcision, the paschal lamb, and other types and ordinances delivered to the people of the Jews, all fore-signifying Christ to come, which were for that time sufficient and efficacious, through the operation of the Spirit, to instruct and build up the elect in faith in the promised Messiah, by whom they had full remission of sins, and eternal salvation, and is called the Old Testament.
> 
> VI. Under the gospel, when Christ the substance was exhibited, the ordinances in which this covenant is dispensed, are the preaching of the Word, and the administration of the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper; which, though fewer in number, and administered with more simplicity and less outward glory, yet in them it is held forth in more fullness, evidence, and spiritual efficacy, to all nations, both Jews and Gentiles; and is called the New Testament. *There are not, therefore, two covenants of grace differing in substance, but one and the same under various dispensations.*







Douglas Padgett said:


> It is not CoW 2.0. It is, however, a typological republication of the covenant of works made with Adam.



How can this be? The typology actually lowers the level of obedience required. It shows that met conditions are much lesser and peppered with Grace for obedience. If it is read in a typologically way it would be more typological of life in the Church. Well, that isn't even typology. That is what it is. Our life in the Church looks very much like the Mosaic Covenant as far as conditions and disciplines are held out for blessing and cursing. It in no way represents a typology of the Covenant of Works. The Law shows we are dead and brings us to life and obedience when met with the gospel. If it is teaching a Covenant of Works it surely is at best Neonomism it is teaching. There is a much lower acceptability and one can meet that level to stay in the land.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Also you might need to read Galatians a bit differently. 

Here is Patrick Ramsey on Leviticus and Romans which the Galatian problem is focused on. 



> *Paul’s Use of Lev. 18:5 in Rom. 10:5
> *
> Pastor Patrick Ramsey
> 
> 
> The following is (I trust) a simple but not simplistic explanation of Paul’s use of Leviticus 18:5 in Romans 10:5.
> 
> 
> In 9:30-10:5 Paul explained the reason the Jews did not attain righteousness even though they pursued it. They mistakenly pursued it by works (9:32). Hence, they stumbled over the stumbling stone (9:33). They sought to establish their own righteousness (10:3). Ignorant of the right way to righteousness, although they should have known better, they zealously pursued life on the basis of their own obedience to the law.
> 
> 
> In Rom. 10:5 Paul describes this wrong way of pursuing life (righteousness) from the OT, namely Leviticus 18:5 (see also Neh. 9:29; Eze. 20:11, 13, 21): “For Moses writes about the righteousness that is based on law, that the person who does the commandments shall live by them.” Now the fact that Paul appeals to Moses to describe the wrong way, or if you will, the Pharisaical way of pursuing righteousness, is somewhat perplexing. As a result, this verse, along with its counterpart in Gal. 3, is quite controversial among commentators and theologians.
> 
> 
> Here is the difficulty from three different perspectives. First, in 9:32, Paul had said that the law itself did not teach that righteousness was based on works or obedience to the law. The Jews pursued the law as _if_ it led to righteousness. The Jews, as the NT says elsewhere, misread the OT. And yet Paul seems to be saying in vs. 5 that the OT did in fact teach and exhort the people to pursue life/righteousness by keeping the law. How then can Paul (or the rest of the NT) condemn the Pharisees for seeking righteousness by works if that is what Moses told them to do?
> 
> 
> Second, in vs. 8 Paul will quote Deut. 30 and later on he will cite Isaiah and Joel in direct contrast to Lev. 18:5 to describe the right way to find life and righteousness. So then it would seem that Paul pits Moses against Moses and the OT against the OT.
> 
> 
> Third, the context of Lev. 18:5 doesn’t seem to support the way Paul uses it in Rom. 10:5. Moses exhorts Israel to keep God’s commandments in the context of redemption and covenant. Verses 1-3 highlight the point that Israel already belongs to God as his redeemed people. These verses are very similar to the prologue to the Ten Commandments, which teaches that salvation precedes obedience. God didn’t give Israel the law so that they might be saved. He saves them so that they might keep the law. In short, the context of Lev. 18:5 speaks against the idea that it teaches legalism or a work-based righteousness. Yet, that is how Paul is using this verse!
> 
> 
> Now some have sought to solve this difficulty by saying that there is no actual contrast between verses 5 and 6. The “but” of vs. 6 should be translated “and.” The problem with this, however, is that it doesn’t fit the context of Paul’s argument. The apostle, beginning in 9:30 is contrasting two ways of seeking righteousness—works and faith—and this contrast clearly continues in vs. 5. This is confirmed by the fact that Paul speaks of works righteousness or righteousness based on law elsewhere (Gal. 3; Phil. 3:9) in a negative way.
> 
> 
> So then how are we to understand what Paul is saying in vs. 5 (and in Gal. 3)? Well, Paul is citing Lev. 18:5 according to how it was understood by the Jews of his day; and no doubt how he understood it before his conversion. The Jews of Paul’s day saw obedience to the law (which included laws pertaining to the atonement of sins) as the source of life and as the basis of salvation. Keeping the law was the stairway to heaven. The way to have your sins forgiven and to be accepted by God was to observe the law. Lev. 18:5 provided biblical support for this Pharisaical position. And it is not hard to see why they would appeal to this verse since it says that the person who does the commandments shall live by them.
> 
> 
> In Rom. 10:6ff Paul refutes this works-based righteousness position including the Jewish appeal to Lev. 18:5. Now he doesn’t do it in the way you or I might think of doing it. We might tend to respond to the Pharisee and say: “Look, you have completely misunderstood what Moses is saying in Lev. 18:5. The specific and general context of that verse indicates that your interpretation is incorrect…” Instead, Paul uses a technique that was quite common in his day. He counters their interpretation of Lev. 18:5 by citing another passage: Deut. 30:12-14. In other words, Paul is saying that Deut. 30 demonstrates that the Jewish understanding of Lev. 18:5 is incorrect. We of course sometimes use this type of argument today. For example, some people today appeal to James 2 to prove that we need to obey the law in order to be justified. One way to disprove that interpretation would be to cite Paul in Romans or Galatians. So Paul is not pitting Moses against Moses in vv. 5-6 or saying that Moses taught salvation by works. Rather the apostle is using one Mosaic passage to prove that the legalistic interpretation of another Mosaic passage is wrong.
> 
> ​



Also note Calvin's quote in the blog. I write specifically on Galatians in this blog.
* Possible misconceptions about Galatians, Law and Gospel are opposed?
https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.c...s-about-galatians-law-and-gospel-are-opposed/
*


> I believe Calvin has the same understanding as I read his commentary on Galatians 4:24…“But all this may, at first sight, appear absurd; for there are none of God’s children who are not born to freedom, and therefore the comparison does not apply. I answer, what Paul says is true in two respects;* for the law formerly brought forth its disciples, (among whom were included the holy prophets, and other believers,) to slavery, though not to permanent slavery, but because God placed them for a time under the law as “a schoolmaster.” (Galatians 3:25.) Under the vail of ceremonies, and of the whole economy by which they were governed, their freedom was concealed: to the outward eye nothing but slavery appeared.* “Ye have not,” says Paul to the Romans, “received the spirit of bondage again to fear.” (Romans 8:15.) Those holy fathers, though inwardly they were free in the sight of God, yet in outward appearance differed nothing from slaves, and thus resembled their mother’s condition. But the doctrine of the gospel bestows upon its children perfect freedom as soon as they are born, and brings them up in a liberal manner.
> 
> 
> …*What, then, is the gendering to bondage, which forms the subject of the present dispute? It denotes those who make a wicked abuse of the law, by finding in it nothing but what tends to slavery. Not so the pious fathers, who lived under the Old Testament; for their slavish birth by the law did not hinder them from having Jerusalem for their mother in spirit. But those who adhere to the bare law, and do not acknowledge it to be “a schoolmaster to bring them to Christ,” (Galatians 3:24,) but rather make it a hinderance to prevent their coming to him, are the Ishmaelites born to slavery.
> 
> *
> 
> …But why does Paul compare the present Jerusalem with Mount Sinai? Though I was once of a different opinion, yet I agree with Chrysostom and Ambrose, who explain it as referring to the earthly Jerusalem, and who interpret the words, which now is, τη νυν ιερουσαλημ ,* as marking the slavish doctrine and worship into which it had degenerated. It ought to have been a lively image of the new Jerusalem, and a representation of its character. But such as it now is, it is rather related to Mount Sinai.* Though the two places may be widely distant from each other, they are perfectly alike in all their most important features. This is a heavy reproach against the Jews, whose real mother was not Sarah but the spurious Jerusalem, twin sister of Hagar; who were therefore slaves born of a slave, though they haughtily boasted that they were the sons of Abraham.​



Also note my take on Moses being an administration of Death. 

Concerning the 2 Corinthians 3 passage I wrote this somewhere else.


In light of the passage mentioned in 2 Corinthians 3, which calls the Old an administration of Death, *one must also read the prior passages to understand in what context St. Paul is referring to the Mosaic Covenant.

*

(2Co 2:14) Now thanks be unto God, which always causeth us to triumph in Christ, and maketh manifest the savour of his knowledge by us in every place.
(2Co 2:15) For we are unto God a sweet savour of Christ, in them that are saved, and in them that perish:
(2Co 2:16) To the one *we are the savour of death unto death; and to the other the savour of life unto life*. And who is sufficient for these things?
(2Co 2:17) *For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God*: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.


Christ and the Gospel were Preached in Moses and the Old Testament. In fact Jesus said as much as did the author of Hebrews.


(Luk 24:27) And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.


(Joh 5:46) For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.
(Joh 5:47) But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?


(Heb 4:2) For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it.
(Heb 4:3) For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of the world.


The Mosaic was an administration of death the same way the New Covenant is to those who seek to turn the New Covenant into a Covenant of Works. We are so inclined to stumble because we will not believe Moses or Christ. We naturally tend to corrupt the Word of God and the Covenant of Grace by wanting to add our works into our justification before God. In doing so we are refusing the Cornerstone and Saviour. We become like those that Paul is speaking about, “to one they [Paul and the Apostles] are a savour of death unto death.” *And how is to be considered that Paul and the Church is a savour unto death? They are because the corrupters of the word of God do what St. Paul says he doesn’t do in the proceeding verse, “For we are not as those who corrupt the Word of God.” Those who corrupt the word are rejecting the Chief Cornerstone and depending upon their works or acts that contribute to their justification.* The book of Galatians, Romans, and Hebrews have warnings and correctives for those who corrupt the word. But when they reject the truth they fall deeper into death. Even St. Paul acknowledged that the Law didn’t kill him. He was already dead and discovered it. That is one of the purposes of the Law. That purpose is to reveal sin and death. .As Paul noted earlier in the letter to the Romans death came upon all men by sin and Adam.Rom 7:13 Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.
Rom 7:14 For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.


​


----------



## Douglas P.

Romans922 said:


> You are misreading what I am saying. I understand the view of those who have followed Kline. I'm talking about the Mosaic Covenant of what 'they' call the 'upper-typological level' aspect of the covenant (not the lower level). That being, God requiring Israel to merit keeping the land that was given to them. And what I'm saying is that it is a contradiction for God to reward an inherently demeritorious work as if it were meritorious. According to the nature and character of God, it would be unjust to accept and reward such works.



Then on what basis did Israel lose their election?


----------



## Douglas P.

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Okay, we can agree with that on one level. What about the Covenant of Grace which is promised to Adam after he failed to fulfill the Covenant of Works?



If you're talking about the historic promise made to Adam and the historic covenant made with Israel, I would say these are two separate "covenants". However, systemically I have little problem saying they are both part of a larger Covenant of Grace. However, I would want to qualify by saying that the covenant at Sinai was a covenant subservient to the larger Covenant of Grace.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

timmopussycat said:


> If exegesis and systematic theology are not separate but symbiotic disciplines, what would you set up in their place? And how would your new discipline mitigate against the development of doctrinal positions that are not good and necessary consequences of Scriptural teaching when taken as a whole?


I specifically chose the word "separate" and not "distinct". The body and the soul my be distinguished but, when separated, a body loses its life.

Exegesis relies on Systematics and vice versa. Systematic theology emerges out of exegesis and, in turn, informs it. For example, the choice of an objective vs a subjective genitive within a particular pericope may be informed by dogmatics.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

timmopussycat said:


> The history of Princeton and the founding of the OPC should be enough to alert us to the possibility that theological error can arise in Reformed seminaries.


Certainly. Perhaps "surprising" is not the right word.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Douglas Padgett said:


> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, we can agree with that on one level. What about the Covenant of Grace which is promised to Adam after he failed to fulfill the Covenant of Works?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you're talking about the historic promise made to Adam and the historic covenant made with Israel, I would say these are two separate "covenants". However, systemically I have little problem saying they are both part of a larger Covenant of Grace. However, I would want to qualify by saying that the covenant at Sinai was a covenant subservient to the larger Covenant of Grace.
Click to expand...

Well, here we have representation from a person who claims to adhere to Klinean interpretation. Doug, Are you sure you want to phrase your subservient comment the way you phrased it?


----------



## timmopussycat

Semper Fidelis said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> If exegesis and systematic theology are not separate but symbiotic disciplines, what would you set up in their place? And how would your new discipline mitigate against the development of doctrinal positions that are not good and necessary consequences of Scriptural teaching when taken as a whole?
> 
> 
> 
> I specifically chose the word "separate" and not "distinct". The body and the soul my be distinguished but, when separated, a body loses its life.
Click to expand...


I think it was I who introduced the word "separate" into the discussion. The absence of separate or distinct, coupled with symbiotic, in your original post is what prompted my question because my understanding of the matter is essentially what you state below.



Semper Fidelis said:


> Exegesis relies on Systematics and vice versa. Systematic theology emerges out of exegesis and, in turn, informs it. For example, the choice of an objective vs a subjective genitive within a particular pericope may be informed by dogmatics.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Let me clarify what I am asking in my last post Doug. Are you saying that the Mosaic Covenant is a stand alone Covenant as a Baptist does? And do you believe the Mosaic to be both an administration of the Covenant of Grace and the Covenant of Works as others have recently said? 

Here are some of Kline's comments taken from Kingdom Prologue. I believe they give evidence to what is being taught now days. 



> [FONT=&quot]Kline on the substance of the Mosaic Covenant
> 
> Later in biblical history we come upon another administration of God’s kingdom featuring the principle of works. In the covenant mediated through Moses at Sinai it was arranged that Israel’s enjoyment of the external typological kingdom awaiting them in Canaan should be governed by the principle of law, that is, works, the opposite of the gospel principle of promise.[/FONT]
> [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
> [FONT=&quot]When we turn to the historical outcome of the covenant established at creation we find much the same story as we do in the case of the Sinaitic Covenant.[/FONT]
> [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
> [FONT=&quot]Kingdom Prologue p. 118[/FONT]
> [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
> The condition of the “upper level” is “work” or “obedience to the law.” In this sphere the Israelites, both individually and corporately,14 lived under a works/law/merit inheritance principle. Israel would prosper in the Promised Land if they obeyed the law but would be removed if they transgressed.
> 
> [FONT=&quot]At the level of the secondary, typological stratum of the Mosaic order, continuance in the election to kingdom blessings was not guaranteed by sovereign grace on the basis of Christ’s meritorious accomplishments. It was rather something to be merited by the Israelites’ works of obedience to the law.[/FONT]
> [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
> Kingdom Prologue p. 322
> [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
> [FONT=&quot]At the same time, Paul affirmed that the Mosaic Covenant did not annul the promise arrangement given earlier to Abraham (Gal 3:17). The explanation for this is that the old covenant order was composed of two strata and the works principle enunciated in Leviticus 18:5, and elsewhere in the law, applied only to one of these, a secondary stratum.[/FONT]
> [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
> [FONT=&quot]Kingdom Prologue p. 323[/FONT]


----------



## Semper Fidelis

timmopussycat said:


> I think it was I who introduced the word "separate" into the discussion. The absence of separate or distinct, coupled with symbiotic, in your original post is what prompted my question because my understanding of the matter is essentially what you state below.


Oh, I see. I intended to write that systematics and exegesis are not an either/or choice (as some would have it). Symbiotic implies that the two "live together" and mutually advantage one another.


----------



## MW

Douglas Padgett said:


> Then on what basis did Israel lose their election?



According to Romans 9-11 Israel has not lost election; the gifts and calling of God are without repentance. Besides clear didactic statements demonstrating God's promises to Israel are brought to pass in the elect, we have an excellent illustration in the olive tree as a single entity into which elect Gentiles are grafted.


----------



## Peairtach

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Peairtach said:
> 
> 
> 
> The "collective sanctions" of being expelled from the Land or collectively enjoying secure tenure in the Land would remind them the provisional nature of the OT. It could be broken and dispensed with in a way in which the NT can't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I tend to disagree with you on this a bit Richard. We have 1 Corinthians 5 and Revelation 2 to say different. Apostasy is a reality. And the Lord can allow you to be delivered over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh so that the soul may be saved. He also warns those who refuse to repent that he will snuff their candle out. It is a wonderful thing to be disciplined by the Lord.
Click to expand...


Yes, I agree with this, Randy. People can go straight to Hell from being in the visible administration of the New Covenant. They really were never translated from being in Adam and breakers of the CoW, to being in Christ and truly in the CoG. Also the "candlestick can be removed" from a whole congregation, or a whole church like the Church in Turkey (Asia Minor) or North Africa. But the OT Church had this special judgment that they could collectively break the covenant so that they would be judged by being expelled from the Land. This was a warning to them of the provisional nature of the Old Covenant. It didn't mean they were typologically or in any sense under a renewed CoW. The New Testament is permanent and not provisional, so however wicked the New Testament Church has been it does not have such a collective rejection/cutting off. God says that the New Covenant cannot be broken in the way the Church/Israel broke the Old Covenant.




Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Peairtach said:


> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Peairtach said:
> 
> 
> 
> The "collective sanctions" of being expelled from the Land or collectively enjoying secure tenure in the Land would remind them the provisional nature of the OT. It could be broken and dispensed with in a way in which the NT can't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I tend to disagree with you on this a bit Richard. We have 1 Corinthians 5 and Revelation 2 to say different. Apostasy is a reality. And the Lord can allow you to be delivered over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh so that the soul may be saved. He also warns those who refuse to repent that he will snuff their candle out. It is a wonderful thing to be disciplined by the Lord.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I agree with this, Randy. People can go straight to Hell from being in the visible administration of the New Covenant. They really were never translated from being in Adam and breakers of the CoW, to being in Christ and truly in the CoG. Also the "candlestick can be removed" from a whole congregation, or a whole church like the Church in Turkey (Asia Minor) or North Africa. But the OT Church had this special judgment that they could collectively break the covenant so that they would be judged by being expelled from the Land. This was a warning to them of the provisional nature of the Old Covenant. It didn't mean they were typologically or in any sense under a renewed CoW. The New Testament is permanent and not provisional, so however wicked the New Testament Church has been it does not have such a collective rejection/cutting off. God says that the New Covenant cannot be broken in the way the Church/Israel broke the Old Covenant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...


This is a bit off topic maybe, but we're does God say that the New Covenant is unbreakable? Not sure youcan make that assumption from Jeremiah 31. Are you saying that man can't deny his birth rite and denounce Christ? There are many children that I can point to who have profaned the sign and seal and died in with their denial of Christ. I can name many adults who were baptized and renounced their baptism.

Now back to Kline....

THANK YOU Rev. Winzer for reminding us that ...


> According to Romans 9-11 Israel has not lost election; the gifts and calling of God are without repentance. Besides clear didactic statements demonstrating God's promises to Israel are brought to pass in the elect, we have an excellent illustration in the olive tree as a single entity into which elect Gentiles are grafted.


----------



## Douglas P.

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Let me clarify what I am asking in my last post Doug. Are you saying that the Mosaic Covenant is a stand alone Covenant as a Baptist does? And do you believe the Mosaic to be both an administration of the Covenant of Grace and the Covenant of Works as others have recently said?
> 
> Here are some of Kline's comments taken from Kingdom Prologue. I believe they give evidence to what is being taught now days.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [FONT="]Kline on the substance of the Mosaic Covenant
> 
> Later in biblical history we come upon another administration of God’s kingdom featuring the principle of works. In the covenant mediated through Moses at Sinai it was arranged that Israel’s enjoyment of the external typological kingdom awaiting them in Canaan should be governed by the principle of law, that is, works, the opposite of the gospel principle of promise.[/FONT]
> [FONT="] [/FONT]
> [FONT="]When we turn to the historical outcome of the covenant established at creation we find much the same story as we do in the case of the Sinaitic Covenant.[/FONT]
> [FONT="] [/FONT]
> [FONT="]Kingdom Prologue p. 118[/FONT]
> [FONT="] [/FONT]
> The condition of the “upper level” is “work” or “obedience to the law.” In this sphere the Israelites, both individually and corporately,14 lived under a works/law/merit inheritance principle. Israel would prosper in the Promised Land if they obeyed the law but would be removed if they transgressed.
> 
> [FONT="]At the level of the secondary, typological stratum of the Mosaic order, continuance in the election to kingdom blessings was not guaranteed by sovereign grace on the basis of Christ’s meritorious accomplishments. It was rather something to be merited by the Israelites’ works of obedience to the law.[/FONT]
> [FONT="] [/FONT]
> Kingdom Prologue p. 322
> [FONT="] [/FONT]
> [FONT="]At the same time, Paul affirmed that the Mosaic Covenant did not annul the promise arrangement given earlier to Abraham (Gal 3:17). The explanation for this is that the old covenant order was composed of two strata and the works principle enunciated in Leviticus 18:5, and elsewhere in the law, applied only to one of these, a secondary stratum.[/FONT]
> [FONT="] [/FONT]
> [FONT="]Kingdom Prologue p. 323[/FONT]
Click to expand...


R. Martin Snyder,

I'm not sure what the Baptist believe, however I don't think the Covenant at Sinai was stand alone, I think (as Paul seems to make clear in Galatians3:19ff) that the law (read Covenant at Sinai) was a subservient (means to an end) covenant.

Now jumping out of biblical categories and into systematic, the Covenant at Sinai was certainly part of the overarching covenant of grace and not part of the Covenant of Works.

As for the Kline quotes I think they are great! Thanks for sharing.


----------



## Douglas P.

MW said:


> Douglas Padgett said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then on what basis did Israel lose their election?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> According to Romans 9-11 Israel has not lost election; the gifts and calling of God are without repentance. Besides clear didactic statements demonstrating God's promises to Israel are brought to pass in the elect, we have an excellent illustration in the olive tree as a single entity into which elect Gentiles are grafted.
Click to expand...


I probably should have worded my question differently: How did Israel end up in exile, or maybe more to the point, if not works, than on what basis did Israel receive the Covenant curses?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Douglas Padgett said:


> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me clarify what I am asking in my last post Doug. Are you saying that the Mosaic Covenant is a stand alone Covenant as a Baptist does? And do you believe the Mosaic to be both an administration of the Covenant of Grace and the Covenant of Works as others have recently said?
> 
> Here are some of Kline's comments taken from Kingdom Prologue. I believe they give evidence to what is being taught now days.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [FONT="]Kline on the substance of the Mosaic Covenant
> 
> Later in biblical history we come upon another administration of God’s kingdom featuring the principle of works. In the covenant mediated through Moses at Sinai it was arranged that Israel’s enjoyment of the external typological kingdom awaiting them in Canaan should be governed by the principle of law, that is, works, the opposite of the gospel principle of promise.[/FONT]
> [FONT="] [/FONT]
> [FONT="]When we turn to the historical outcome of the covenant established at creation we find much the same story as we do in the case of the Sinaitic Covenant.[/FONT]
> [FONT="] [/FONT]
> [FONT="]Kingdom Prologue p. 118[/FONT]
> [FONT="] [/FONT]
> The condition of the “upper level” is “work” or “obedience to the law.” In this sphere the Israelites, both individually and corporately,14 lived under a works/law/merit inheritance principle. Israel would prosper in the Promised Land if they obeyed the law but would be removed if they transgressed.
> 
> [FONT="]At the level of the secondary, typological stratum of the Mosaic order, continuance in the election to kingdom blessings was not guaranteed by sovereign grace on the basis of Christ’s meritorious accomplishments. It was rather something to be merited by the Israelites’ works of obedience to the law.[/FONT]
> [FONT="] [/FONT]
> Kingdom Prologue p. 322
> [FONT="] [/FONT]
> [FONT="]At the same time, Paul affirmed that the Mosaic Covenant did not annul the promise arrangement given earlier to Abraham (Gal 3:17). The explanation for this is that the old covenant order was composed of two strata and the works principle enunciated in Leviticus 18:5, and elsewhere in the law, applied only to one of these, a secondary stratum.[/FONT]
> [FONT="] [/FONT]
> [FONT=&quot]Kingdom Prologue p. 323[/FONT]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> R. Martin Snyder,
> 
> I'm not sure what the Baptist believe, however I don't think the Covenant at Sinai was stand alone, I think (as Paul seems to make clear in Galatians3:19ff) that the law (read Covenant at Sinai) was a subservient (means to an end) covenant.
> 
> Now jumping out of biblical categories and into systematic, the Covenant at Sinai was certainly part of the overarching covenant of grace and not part of the Covenant of Works.
> 
> As for the Kline quotes I think they are great! Thanks for sharing.
Click to expand...


What means was the Law given for in your understanding? Evidently you believe (or you seem to) that the Law was given as a Covenant of Works in some sense. I say that because you seemed to believe that Isreal was condemned. Ie. loss of Election. And I really believe you meant to write that initially.


----------



## Douglas P.

PuritanCovenanter said:


> What means was the Law given for in your understanding?



R. Martin Snyder,

I'm not entirely sure I understand your question, but i'll do my best to answer. As Paul says in Gal. 3:19 the law was given "because of transgressions, until the offspring should come to whom the promise had been made," so Christ was the end to which the law was given for. But feel free to elaborate on your question.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Do you believe that the Law (the Mosaic Covenant) was given as a Covenant of Works in some sense? Does typology play a role in your understanding of why the Law was given as a Covenant of Works in some sense? And do you believe that Adam_ was in covenant with God (the Covenant of Works) at the very moment of creation? _In other words is the Covenant of Works a creational entity?


----------



## Douglas P.

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Do you believe that the Law (the Mosaic Covenant) was given as a Covenant of Works in some sense?


The Law was a works covenant (unlike the Abrahamic Covenant, which was a gracious or promissory covenant). However, I don't want that to be read as a the Law being some sort of continuation of the CoW with Adam. They are very much separate covenants. 




PuritanCovenanter said:


> Does typology play a role in your understanding of why the Law was given as a Covenant of Works in some sense?



Absolutely!




PuritanCovenanter said:


> And do you believe that Adam was in covenant with God (the Covenant of Works) at the very moment of creation? In other words is the Covenant of Works a creational entity?



Being that Adam didn't exist at the moment of creation I would say no. However, at the very least, I would want to say that Adam was never in a redemptively-gracious-covenantal state of existence with God prior to the fall.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Does the Mosaic as a separate Covenant of Works to reflect the original Covenant of Works seem plausible for you?

Is the Mosaic Covenant different in Nature in comparison to the Abrahamic Covenant?

When Adam was created was he created under the Covenant of Works as a creational entity? In other words was Adam created under the condition of that Covenant? 



> _“Man’s creation as image of God meant, as we have seen, that the creating of the world was a covenant-making process. There was no original non-covenantal order of mere nature on which the covenant was superimposed. Covenantal commitments were given by the Creator in the very act of endowing the mancreature with the mantle of the divine likeness. …The situation never existed in which man’s future was contemplated or presented in terms of a static continuation of the original state of blessedness (Kingdom Prologue [2000], p. 92).”_



Do you believe Kline is correct here?

I will look at your answers tomorrow. I am wanting to keep up with this to reveal our differences in a non hostile environment. Thanks for participating Douglas.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Douglas Padgett said:


> I'm not sure what the Baptist believe, however I don't think the Covenant at Sinai was stand alone, I think (as Paul seems to make clear in Galatians3:19ff) that the law (read Covenant at Sinai) was a subservient (means to an end) covenant.



The problem with asserting that Galatians 3:19ff demonstrates that the law being spoken of here is a typological republication of the CoW is that Paul doesn't dispense with it in that fashion. If, as asserted, the Sinai Covenant serves as a CoW for the nation (while individuals are to understand that they are in a gracious CoG) then the "we" of the pericope doesn't fit. If the "we" being under a guardian is a typological repubilicaiton of the CoW then the nation of Israel is the "we" in the pericope. This means that the nation is the "we" that is now (typologically?) no longer under a guardian.


----------



## MW

Douglas Padgett said:


> I probably should have worded my question differently: How did Israel end up in exile, or maybe more to the point, if not works, than on what basis did Israel receive the Covenant curses?



You have gone too far into the future from Sinai. According to Hebrews 3-4 Israel did not enter rest in the promised land to begin with. Why? Because of disobedience in the wilderness at Kadesh Barnea. Nevertheless the book of Numbers makes provisions for life in the land and Deuteronomy renews the covenant with the next generation. Moreover, whilst in the land they repeatedly suffered oppression for disobedience, and then their own kings were the means of oppressing them. Finally came the exile, but then there was a return from exile. The curses looked forward to restoration in grace. A republished covenant of works cannot deal with this element.

Concerning Galatians 3, a new covenant could not have been added to the covenant made with Abraham, for, as Hebrews 8-10 teaches, the establishing of a new covenant makes the previous covenant old. The argument that Galatians 3 is referring to the law as a covenant nullifies the apostle's argument that the covenant made with Abraham remained in force even under the law.

The apostle expressly states that the law was added to the covenant made with Abraham to bind Israel into the faith of Christ; chapter 4 elaborates that the legal administration was owing to the children being in their minority, but it emphasises the relation of Israel under the law was as children.

Galatians 4 sets up an allegory in which the law is viewed as a covenant of works, but this covenant was established by unbelieving Israel turning the law into a covenant of works. This is Jerusalem below, who is enslaved. True Israel was and always shall be under the covenant of grace of God's making. This is Jerusalem above, who is free.


----------



## Peairtach

> This is a bit off topic maybe, but we're does God say that the New Covenant is unbreakable? Not sure youcan make that assumption from Jeremiah 31. Are you saying that man can't deny his birth rite and denounce Christ? There are many children that I can point to who have profaned the sign and seal and died in with their denial of Christ. I can name many adults who were baptized and renounced their baptism.



I agree, Martin. I'm saying that the New Covenant, as a whole, can't be dispensed with as the Old was. The Old Testament was provisional.


----------



## timmopussycat

MW said:


> Galatians 4 sets up an allegory in which the law is viewed as a covenant of works, but this covenant was established by unbelieving Israel turning the law into a covenant of works. This is Jerusalem below, who is enslaved. True Israel was and always shall be under the covenant of grace of God's making. This is Jerusalem above, who is free.



I have been trying to frame something like this paragraph for a month for other reasons. Very well put and thank you.


----------



## Douglas P.

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Does the Mosaic as a separate Covenant of Works to reflect the original Covenant of Works seem plausible for you?



Regardless if I think it seems plausible or not, Paul makes it clear that it is. However, I think its very plausible and an obvious picture. God is constantly using typological imagery to "republish" themes throughout scripture. Adam is the Archetype (or prototype), Israel is the Type, and Christ is the Antitype, each of which is under a covenant which blessings can only be obtained through their own works.




PuritanCovenanter said:


> Is the Mosaic Covenant different in Nature in comparison to the Abrahamic Covenant?



Without knowing how you would define Nature, I dont want to say anything that is misleading. So I'll put it this way: The Abrahamic & Mosaic covenants are separate covenants, however, as I've stated before, the Covenant at Sinai is subservient (its purpose is to be a means to the end) to the Abrahamic Covenant. The end of the Abrahmic Covenant is Christ, and (this is very important for understanding Paul, especially in Galatians) the inclusion of the Gentiles into the people of God through Christ.

This leads me to what I'm sure will be the main dividing line between us. Which is that I am unconvinced, by both historical and biblical evidence, that the judaizers were teaching a graceless works based religion. To put it another way, I do not think Paul's argument in Galatians is: Watch out for the legalists, they are teaching you that you're are saved by your meritorious works, but I Paul the Apostle am teaching you that you are saved by faith alone.

I think that Galatians reads much more naturally along these lines: "Watch out for those who are teaching you to continue to keep the Law (this is the covenant made at Sinai), the Law was a temporary covenant added for a specific redemptive historical purpose, until Christ came. Now, you who want to keep the law (Mosaic Covenant), by doing so you reject the Gospel (the coming, death, and Resurrection of Christ) because the Gospel is the fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant. And the fulfillment of the Abrahmic Covenant means, by definition, the end of the subservient Covenant made at Sinai.

Now with this understanding, here is how I would paraphrase/understand a passage like Gal. 3:10-14

10 For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.” 

[There is a sub-eschatological judgment based on merit/works for those who are under the law covenant. This is what is different between the Abrahamic Covenant and Mosaic Covenant. One is by works, the other by faith.] 

11 Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for “The righteous shall live by faith.”

[I cant overstate the importance of this verse, notice what Paul is saying, he is essentially saying, "our common ground here is that we all know that we are eschatologically justified before God, not by the covenant made at Sinai, but through faith". The implications of this are hugely important, because if you want to read Paul in the more classical anti-legalist way then this verse makes no sense whatsoever. Paul couldn't say that the one thing that is manifestly evident and certain between him and his hearers is that they agree that they are not justified before God by the Law.]

12 But the law is not of faith, rather “The one who does them shall live by them.”

[Again, just to reiterate the obvious for a third time, the covenant at Sinai is not of faith, but of works]

13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree”—14 so that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirit through faith.

[Conclusion, Christ redeemed the true people of God from the curse of the Law effectively ending the covenant hold that the Law had on the people. If it wasnt for the coming of Christ, the cruse of the law, and the stranglehold of the law would still be in place, and most importantly for Paul's argument, the Gentiles would not yet be part of the Covenant people of God. So when those in Galatia wanted the Gentile believers to identify as Jews through circumcision, they were effectively saying that Christ had not come yet. Why? Because the Law was a temporary subservient covenant, a means to an end, and if the end hasnt come than that means that the means (Covenant at Sinai) was still in place, and if the means was still in place then the gentiles still need to be excluded from the covenant people of God and the promise of Abraham has not been fulfilled.] 




PuritanCovenanter said:


> When Adam was created was he created under the Covenant of Works as a creational entity? In other words was Adam created under the condition of that Covenant?
> 
> “Man’s creation as image of God meant, as we have seen, that the creating of the world was a covenant-making process. There was no original non-covenantal order of mere nature on which the covenant was superimposed. Covenantal commitments were given by the Creator in the very act of endowing the mancreature with the mantle of the divine likeness. …The situation never existed in which man’s future was contemplated or presented in terms of a static continuation of the original state of blessedness (Kingdom Prologue [2000], p. 92).”
> Do you believe Kline is correct here?



I've never really thought through the entire implications of what's being said in the quote. I do however, really like the last sentence, and will reiterate what I said earlier, that prior to the fall, Adam's relationship with God was never in any way a redemptively-gracious relationship.


----------



## Douglas P.

Semper Fidelis said:


> The problem with asserting that Galatians 3:19ff demonstrates that the law being spoken of here is a typological republication of the CoW is that Paul doesn't dispense with it in that fashion. If, as asserted, the Sinai Covenant serves as a CoW for the nation (while individuals are to understand that they are in a gracious CoG) then the "we" of the pericope doesn't fit. If the "we" being under a guardian is a typological repubilicaiton of the CoW then the nation of Israel is the "we" in the pericope. This means that the nation is the "we" that is now (typologically?) no longer under a guardian.



Rich, I'm not sure I'm following or understanding what the problem is? I think the "we" is more likely the people of God, however, even if it is just national Israel, it would still be true to say that Israel is no longer under the law. Right?


----------



## Douglas P.

MW said:


> You have gone too far into the future from Sinai. According to Hebrews 3-4 Israel did not enter rest in the promised land to begin with. Why? Because of disobedience in the wilderness at Kadesh Barnea. Nevertheless the book of Numbers makes provisions for life in the land and Deuteronomy renews the covenant with the next generation. Moreover, whilst in the land they repeatedly suffered oppression for disobedience, and then their own kings were the means of oppressing them. Finally came the exile, but then there was a return from exile. The curses looked forward to restoration in grace. A republished covenant of works cannot deal with this element.



My question wasnt what the curses looked forward to or if a republished covenant of works can make sense of the element. My question, which still stands, is on what basis (I say their works) was Israel judged?


----------



## alexandermsmith

Semper Fidelis said:


> Incidentally, this might not make those that hold to this view happy but I really don't see much of a methodological difference between these two statements:
> 
> 1. "Hey! Look at these Hittite treaties - THAT's the way the Covenants operate. We need to re-build our understanding of the Covenants based on this discovery from the 1950's!"
> 
> and
> 
> 2. "Hey! Look at this literature from 2nd Temple Judaism and the way the Jews thought that justification was covenant participation. We need to get a new perspective on Paul concerning Justification."



Excellent!

These guys are off their meds.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Douglas Padgett said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with asserting that Galatians 3:19ff demonstrates that the law being spoken of here is a typological republication of the CoW is that Paul doesn't dispense with it in that fashion. If, as asserted, the Sinai Covenant serves as a CoW for the nation (while individuals are to understand that they are in a gracious CoG) then the "we" of the pericope doesn't fit. If the "we" being under a guardian is a typological repubilicaiton of the CoW then the nation of Israel is the "we" in the pericope. This means that the nation is the "we" that is now (typologically?) no longer under a guardian.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rich, I'm not sure I'm following or understanding what the problem is? I think the "we" is more likely the people of God, however, even if it is just national Israel, it would still be true to say that Israel is no longer under the law. Right?
Click to expand...


Look at the way the pericope tracks with respect to whom the "we" is predicated:

Galatians 3:19ff (ESV)


> 19*Why then the law? It was added because of transgressions, until the offspring should come to whom the promise had been made, and it was put in place through angels by an intermediary. 20*Now an intermediary implies more than one, but God is one.
> 21*Is the law then contrary to the promises of God? Certainly not! For if a law had been given that could give life, then righteousness would indeed be by the law. 22*But the Scripture imprisoned everything under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.
> 23*Now before faith came, *we* were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. 24*So then, the law was *our* guardian until Christ came, in order that *we* might be justified by faith. 25*But now that faith has come, *we* are no longer under a guardian, 26**for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith.* 27*For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28*There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29*And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise.



The "we" under a guardian follows through the passage as being those who are sons of God through faith. Consequently, if the subject of these pronouns is the Nation typologically under the CoW (which is what you say is communicated by the "...we were held captive under the law...", then it is the case that the Nation of Israel is now justified by faith and are all sons of God. It just doesn't work to insert the entire Nation under a typological CoW in this passage.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

MW said:


> Concerning Galatians 3, a new covenant could not have been added to the covenant made with Abraham, for, as Hebrews 8-10 teaches, the establishing of a new covenant makes the previous covenant old. The argument that Galatians 3 is referring to the law as a covenant nullifies the apostle's argument that the covenant made with Abraham remained in force even under the law.
> 
> The apostle expressly states that the law was added to the covenant made with Abraham to bind Israel into the faith of Christ; chapter 4 elaborates that the legal administration was owing to the children being in their minority, but it emphasises the relation of Israel under the law was as children.
> 
> Galatians 4 sets up an allegory in which the law is viewed as a covenant of works, but this covenant was established by unbelieving Israel turning the law into a covenant of works. This is Jerusalem below, who is enslaved. True Israel was and always shall be under the covenant of grace of God's making. This is Jerusalem above, who is free.



This is extremely well put! It seems to me that the attempts to force a republication typology upon Galatians 3-4 blinds the reader from actually following Paul's point in the entire Epistle. It's a problem that many have as they fail to see that when Paul uses law and circumcision here (as elsewhere in his epistles) he'll often use them as shorthand for a defective way of understanding the economy of the Covenants or the place of the law. Paul is critical of those who fail to apprehend that all flesh in captive - it is enslaved. Isaiah even points out that the Jews have become as blind as the nations around them. Nicodemus is reproved because he doesn't understand the necessity of grace, by the Spirit, that a man might be able to see, that he might have life. Thus, the Judaizers are a form of semi-Pelagian (yes it's anachronistic) moralizers who fail to see that grace grants life and faith and all spiritual fruit. They start with the law as a moral obligation assuming that they have the capacity to obey it and achieve the righteousness demanded. They are depending upon the strength of the flesh so that every time Paul enjoins them to understand that it is faith that is the ground of righteousness the only thing they can hear is the idea that Paul is saying that we don't need to be righteous or that he is speaking against the Law. For all their desire to honor God's law (as they see it) they are not able to see Christ as the law-keeper, the true worshiper, the perfect Prophet, Priest, and King that fulfills the demands that the Law truly required. They don't understand that they only have access to the heavenly sanctuary only through the veil of Christ's flesh.

This is why Paul consistently contrasts between those who are born of flesh and those who are born of the Spirit. The whole point of bringing up Ishmael is that he was born of the flesh (natural conception) and he is a man of the flesh. He trusts in the flesh. Yet, he is a child of Abraham. He even had the sign of circumcision. He is prototypical of someone who blindly mistakes his natural relationship to the things of God and lives his life by the power of the flesh. What does trusting in the flesh produce: Galatians 5 points out that the fruits of this trust is exactly the opposite of righteousness. Even as the Pharisees claimed to be the paragons of the law, they were plotting to murder the Son of God when He stepped on their fleshly Sabbath rules. It is only when the Jews recognize that it is in Christ that they receive everything that the Old Covenant pre-figured that they will understand. They have everything in the Scriptures and in their flesh that ought to have pointed them to the necessity that faith is the hinge upon which the door of salvation opens. It is then that natural offspring might receive the seal of what was signified as the Spirit produces in them holiness as they are in Christ.

My problem with the Republication thesis is that it tends to vindicate a faulty view of the law. It is granted by its proponents that, individually, they were to trust in the Abrahamic promise and approach God only in faith. Yet, supposedly, God had superimposed what can only be described as something that would be also teaching them that, collectively, blessing was by works. Thus, God set up Israel as a parable of salvation by works (if the thesis is true) and the individual worshiper was supposed to overcome this typology and realize that he, individually, wasn't to view blessings in that fashion. As already noted by Mathis, it seems that this is based on form criticism that seeks to apply a pagan typology on the Scriptures and, since it detects this typology in the Sinaitic covenant, it is bound to treat Sinai as republication rather than an administration of the CoG.

The practical fruit of seeing the Law, then, as a type of the CoW is that it wrests it from understanding its place as a servant. Whereas understanding the slavery to freedom motif and that the Law is given to a people freed (alive) from slavery (death) to serve the living God they can only see Law in the context of slavery. If the Law is properly understood then it is first understood in the context of being heirs to the Promise and, thus, the proper understanding would be that obedience would not depend upon their (or the Nation's) perfect keeping of it for it to be fruitful. Rather, they ought to have understood the keeping of the Law as a fruit of their being "in Christ" (as much as they could have understood it). They ought to have understood that, as Abraham, they were declared righteous by their faith and not by law-keeping and so they could, in fact, trust the Lord to provide the obedience He required of them as they trusted in Him in a daily life of repentance and faith. The Republication thesis makes the striving to keep the Law as a CoW - by the flesh and not by faith because the Law has been taken away from being an administration of the CoG.

It thus has the same dangerous effect of making the believer in Christ think of the Law as inherently not "of grace". This thread was started on the idea that someone denies the whole idea of the moral law being binding upon the believer because of the dangerous conclusion that the nature of moral law is to impose a CoW. This is precisely what the Judaizers believed. The person who holds to this view is actually vindicating the Judaizing view that the Law is not of faith but of works and that the only sense in which it can be obligatory is as a CoW (which the believer is not under). It propagates the lie of those who misunderstood the Covenants in Paul's day. Its modern proponents may not be attempting to live by the Law as a CoW as the Judaizers did but they propagate the misunderstanding of the Law that the Judaizers held to. They deny that the Lord never intended for the dead to obey the Law but those alive in Christ. They propagate the lie that the Law belongs to slaves instead of seeing it as a blessing and fruit that flows out of union with Christ.


----------



## MW

Douglas Padgett said:


> My question wasnt what the curses looked forward to or if a republished covenant of works can make sense of the element. My question, which still stands, is on what basis (I say their works) was Israel judged?



Technically the covenant of works threatened death, not curse. Any "curse" on earth is a temporal delay of eternal punishment. The very fact fallen men continue to live in God's earth is owing to the gracious design of God to save His people from their sins. So the curses are in fact an element of the covenant of grace, instituted after the fall, to provide for the administration of mercy in a world under judgment. The same applies to the curses threatened on Israel. They were the means of ensuring the continued faithfulness of God to His promises whilst effectively dealing with the reality of disobedience and judgment.


----------



## TheOldCourse

MW said:


> Douglas Padgett said:
> 
> 
> 
> My question wasnt what the curses looked forward to or if a republished covenant of works can make sense of the element. My question, which still stands, is on what basis (I say their works) was Israel judged?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Technically the covenant of works threatened death, not curse. Any "curse" on earth is a temporal delay of eternal punishment. The very fact fallen men continue to live in God's earth is owing to the gracious design of God to save His people from their sins. So the curses are in fact an element of the covenant of grace, instituted after the fall, to provide for the administration of mercy in a world under judgment. The same applies to the curses threatened on Israel. They were the means of ensuring the continued faithfulness of God to His promises whilst effectively dealing with the reality of disobedience and judgment.
Click to expand...


How does this fit with Galatians 3? I'd understood the curse there as the curse of the covenant of works (death) which Christ underwent in our stead.


----------



## MW

TheOldCourse said:


> How does this fit with Galatians 3? I'd understood the curse there as the curse of the covenant of works (death) which Christ underwent in our stead.



Galatians 3 draws attention to the manner of death, not death itself, and it is the vicarious nature of the curse-bearing which effects the extension of the blessing to Gentiles and the inauguration of the age of the Spirit. This can be carefully applied to fill out our understanding of the penalty of the covenant of works in the purpose of God, but to impose the covenant of works in its entirety onto the text would smother the point of the text that curse-bearing was serving the economy of salvation in God's plan for Jews and Gentiles.


----------



## Andrew P.C.

mvdm said:


> Andrew P.C. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the consequences are becoming quite apparent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and as a result we have statements from Horton, Lee Irons, and others in support of same-sex "marriage" (whatever that means).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For clarification, Horton drew the line in saying he could not support same sex "marriage", but did say he could affirm gay domestic partnerships for the protection of legal and economic interests.
Click to expand...


Mark, agreed on the wording. However, support for whatever reason, is support.No matter how you want to word it, it's homosexuality protected by the civil magistrate. It would be the same as saying he supports abortion for economic reasons because it's a fetus, not a baby. Homosexuality is a violation of the Law, and so is murder. This is fundamentally different then what the divines taught in the Westminster Standards, and what has been historically taught in the Church. The Klinean position is not historical but a-historical. It is the Westminster West guys who are trying to pass Klinean doctrine as something historical in the Church.


----------



## MW

On the grace displayed in the curses, consider Geerhardus Vos, Biblical Theology, p. 44: "Finally, we note the revelation of justice in the curses upon the woman and the man. The woman is condemned to suffer in what constitutes her nature as woman... The element of grace interwoven with this consists in the implication that, notwithstanding the penalty of death, the human race will be enabled to propagate itself... Cursed is the ground for man’s sake; it brings forth thorns and thistles; here the element of grace mingling with the curse consists in that the bread will after all be bread; it will sustain life. As the woman is enabled to bring new life into the world, so the man will be enabled to support life by his toil."


----------

