# "RoCoW" is actually a Republication of the Edenic Typology



## Peairtach (Aug 2, 2010)

What Republicationists see as a Republication of the Covenant of Works at Sinai is actually a Republication of - and a temporary addition to - the Edenic Typology, which graciously taught and teaches, Adam, Eve and their offspring (us) about the ultimate realities of the Heavenly Eschatalogical Kingdom and the possible exclusion from it in Hell.

The reason that there was a Republication of the Edenic Typology in different and additional form at the time of Moses, was because God in His grace knew that the Church at that stage in its development needed it, and that we in the New Covenant would need to study and learn from it, while not being bound by it.

At best there is a hypothetical and not real RoCoW within the Mosaic Scriptures, and also in the New Covenant Scriptures, but it has always been the case since the Fall that the CoW has stood hypothetically without being offered as a realistic way of salvation to sinners by God. 

That isn't a real RoCoW and it would be, and is, confused and confusing to call it a RoCoW. If a real RoCoW had been issued as a way of salvation at Sinai or any time since the Fall to sinners, the gracious God would have been cruelly mocking His sinful people.

Christ on the other hand, being sinless from birth, could realistically merit Heaven for Himself and us - and bless God He did - through coming under the CoW.


----------



## MW (Aug 2, 2010)

Richard Tallach said:


> At best there is a hypothetical and not real RoCoW within the Mosaic Scriptures, and also in the New Covenant Scriptures, but it has always been the case since the Fall that the CoW has stood hypothetically without being offered as a realistic way of salvation to sinners by God.


 
That would be a fair conclusion if the republication theory saw the original covenant of works as a "special act of providence" which was superadded to the natural law written on man's heart. As it stands the proponents of the modern theory have redefined the covenant to be an act of creation identified with the law of nature as an ontological reality of human existence. In this scheme, law, works, and merit is inticately tied to the covenant of works. Any call "to do" is subsequently construed as a real, historical republication of the covenant of works.


----------



## louis_jp (Aug 3, 2010)

"Christ.... coming under the CoW."

What CoW, if there was no republication?


----------



## Peairtach (Aug 3, 2010)

*Quote from Louis*


> "Christ.... coming under the CoW."
> 
> What CoW, if there was no republication?



Christ chose to come under it as the way of salvation for Himself and believers.

For us - being now sinners - it can never be a way of us getting right with God but is purely hypothetical.

It is so hypothetical that

(a) No-one who is born a sinner can be reconciled to God through works.

(b) To try to reconcile yourself to God through works is sinful.

(c) It would be morally wrong for God, God in Christ in the New testament, or any preacher, to encourage a sinner to try to reconcile himself to God through works.

(d) The only way that it could be right for God, God in Christ in the New Testament, or any preacher, to point out the Covenant of Works as a way of salvation, would be as a hypothetical teaching aid which would lead the sinner to realise he could only be saved by grace alone through faith alone.

I agree that we are born by nature within the broken Covenant of Works and have been since Adam and Eve had children. But it is morally wrong to encourage sinners to seek salvation by this route as a realistic way of salvation rather than as a hypothetical route that is now blocked to us in order to encourage the sinner to look elsewhere for salvation. This is part of the meaning of the expulsion from Eden, and the Cherubim and the Fiery Sword. 

We can never get back to the Garden, or progress to the greater Garden to which Eden pointed, via the Covenant of Works. God is so good and gracious that He doesn't immediately cast Adam and Eve into Hell, but gives them a very small taster of it to encourage their faith and repentance, and also _immediately_ teaches them about the new way of salvation in Christ. He even concerns Himself with details like clothing them - which also has a deeper meaning than _just_ clothes. How wonderful and gracious is our great God and Father!

*Quote from Matthew*


> That would be a fair conclusion if the republication theory saw the original covenant of works as a "special act of providence" which was superadded to the natural law written on man's heart. As it stands the proponents of the modern theory have redefined the covenant to be an act of creation identified with the law of nature as an ontological reality of human existence. In this scheme, law, works, and merit is inticately tied to the covenant of works. Any call "to do" is subsequently construed as a real, historical republication of the covenant of works.



Is there not a sense, Matthew, as I indicated above, that we are born as sinners under the broken Covenant of Works, but that at the same time it would be wrong to encourage anyone to seek salvation in this way? My thoughts on this are only in a partial state of development, to say the least.


----------



## alhembd (Aug 3, 2010)

louis_jp said:


> "Christ.... coming under the CoW."
> 
> What CoW, if there was no republication?


 
The Covenant of Works never ceased to exist. It is broken, and no man can keep it, but it is still binding. As a Covenant, the Covenant of Works must be kept: either by the sinner (which he cannot do), or by the Saviour (Who came under the Covenant of Works as all men do, and kept it perfectly for others.)


----------



## MW (Aug 3, 2010)

Richard Tallach said:


> Is there not a sense, Matthew, as I indicated above, that we are born as sinners under the broken Covenant of Works, but that at the same time it would be wrong to encourage anyone to seek salvation in this way? My thoughts on this are only in a partial state of development, to say the least.


 
Certainly. I think your use of hypothetical republication is reasonable on the assumption that there is a moral order which determines the ultimate destiny of every human being, and that this moral order exerts its authority under both covenants -- works and grace. This is in accord with traditional reformed thought and with the clear teaching of Romans 2:1-16. But when "covenant" is seen as "creational" rather than "providential" it can lead to the exclusion of the moral order as an universal norm of human existence and destiny and makes it possible for the "covenant of grace" to replace the moral order of creation. This is what we see in the modern republication theory, where works is seen as standing in "co-ordination" with grace grace rather than in "subordination" to it; where the law is "do" and the gospel is "done;" where the fallen world order is left unchallenged by distinctively Christian principles and the Christian is urged to focus all his eschatological hope on an altogether different world.

I think it is good to explore the reformed heritage and to see what was meant by terms like "republication," but the thought structures underlying the use of such terms will also require careful analysis.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Aug 3, 2010)

What did Christ Fulfill? 

Even walking and plucking the grains of wheat?

What law did Christ fulfill? 

On whose behalf did he fulfill a law?

What law did He fulfill? 

He came to fulfill the law and the prophets? 

What law?

Which Prophet?

BTW, for those who are new to this controversy, I am not a New Covenant Theologian. That is something that is beyond this. The NCT doesn't believe the Old Covenant has any connection with the New Covenant and this is a lot of our respective understanding and is out of bounds with the Early Baptists.

This is a deep question.

BTW, I am still a Reformed Baptist.


----------



## Casey (Aug 3, 2010)

louis_jp said:


> "Christ.... coming under the CoW."
> 
> What CoW, if there was no republication?


The answer to your question is the covenant of grace, which was a covenant of works for our Lord. Just as the first covenant was made with Adam (and in him, all his posterity), so the second covenant was made with the second Adam (and in Him, all His elect).


> 1 Corinthians 15:22. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive.
> 
> WLC Q. 31. _With whom was the covenant of grace made?_
> A. The covenant of grace was made with Christ as the second Adam, and in him with all the elect as his seed.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Aug 3, 2010)

Particular Baptist believe in the Covenant of Grace which was instituted before the Creation. Read our Confession. Do you want to be a Universalist? 

I quote...


> (and in him, all his posterity


Yes, You can be misquoted. No one is saying this.


----------



## Peairtach (Aug 4, 2010)

It _is_ rather deep. 

It would maybe help if the Republicationists explained precisely what they mean by a RoCoW. Either they don't know themselves or have numerous ideas. 

I don't see how it can be a _true_ RoCoW unless the Lord was deliberately encouraging the Israelites to seek their salvation or part of their salvation by works. But was the Lord even encouraging the Israelites to seek earthly benefits - their typological salvation, which pointed to true spiritual and eternal benefits - by works, if they couldn't even do the works ultimately without true grace and faith?

Some individual Israelites may have been able to obey e.g. Leviticus 18, partially or for a time, by what we call common grace. But they wouldn't have been keeping e.g. Leviticus 18 _from the heart_. But without plentiful and regular supplies of what we call saving grace the long and even middle term prospects for the nation were bleak. And they had to go to God to seek saving grace. They were taught about saving grace in the ceremonial law, which - it goes without saying - was part of the Mosaic legislation.

Another point is that if all the typological teaching of the Jews respecting God's judgment and the Curse, e.g. "cutting-off" (straightforward temporary or permanent excommunication), cutting-off by God's providential judgment, cutting-off by execution of the congregation of Israel; national cutting-off by death, disease, famine, wild beasts and/or exile under the Assyrians and Babylonians; if all this cutting-off was graciously calculated to bring God's true Israel to seek grace, then how can it be a Republication of the CoW?

In the New Covenant too, although the types and shadows of Moses are stripped away, we are still by nature in the Adamic situation of being outside the Garden and experiencing the troubles that the Lord brought into the World, partly to give encouragement to Man to seek a better country, and in that sense even the Curse that was brought in after Adam sinned had a silver-lining.

Also if we are visibly (and invisibly) in the New Covenant and Israel of God, the Church, we have negatives additional to the Eartly Curse and exclusion from Eden, provided by grace in order to encourage us to seek salvation for the first time by grace, or in order to encourage us to seek renewed faith and repentance. But the New Covenant isn't a RoCoW, is it?

Maybe the RoCoW people are of the mindset that a negative sanction can never be gracious, if not for the individual concerned, then sometimes for his/her family or society? Or maybe they're forgetting that you sometimes have to be "cruel" to be kind, and that the Lord sometimes is "cruel" to be kind? 



---------- Post added at 11:45 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:42 PM ----------




armourbearer said:


> Richard Tallach said:
> 
> 
> > Is there not a sense, Matthew, as I indicated above, that we are born as sinners under the broken Covenant of Works, but that at the same time it would be wrong to encourage anyone to seek salvation in this way? My thoughts on this are only in a partial state of development, to say the least.
> ...



I think I see what you're saying Matthew, at least partly, after reading it four or five times!


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Aug 4, 2010)

Yeah, You have to read Rev. Winzer a few times. He is one of my heroes. Different Countries and Different times. I still disagree with him often. But I haven't met a more gracious man.


----------

