# The Law is Not of Faith



## R. Scott Clark (Nov 18, 2009)

Ever wondered about the doctrine of the republication of the covenant of works? There's new episode of _Office Hours_ online now. It's an interview with profs David VanDrunen, John Fesko, and Byran Estelle about their volume, _The Law is Not of Faith_ which discusses the covenant of works and the doctrine of republication. 

More info including links on the HB

Here's the _Office Hours_ site.

Here's the show: http://netfilehost.com/wscal/OfficeHours/11.15.09TLNOF.mp3


----------



## Christusregnat (Nov 18, 2009)

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

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

Therefore, the Old Covenant is not of works.

Is this what this book affirms?

Cheers,


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Nov 18, 2009)

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

The Confessional Presbyterian 4 (2008) Contents


> 151 The Covenant Of Works Revived: John Owen on Republication in the Mosaic Covenant
> By Michael Brown, M.Div.


----------



## Christusregnat (Nov 18, 2009)

Is Michael Brown saying that?


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Nov 18, 2009)

CR,

Why don't you read the book or at least listen to the interview?


----------



## Christusregnat (Nov 18, 2009)

R. Scott Clark said:


> CR,
> 
> Why don't you read the book or at least listen to the interview?



I might just do that!

Cheers,

Adam


----------



## MW (Nov 18, 2009)

I have read the book. It is vague and confusing. (1.) Vague. "In a sense" is no way to state or substantiate a thesis. (2.) Confusing. None of the authors seem to agree.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Nov 18, 2009)

armourbearer said:


> I have read the book. It is vague and confusing. (1.) Vague. "In a sense" is no way to state or substantiate a thesis. (2.) Confusing. None of the authors seem to agree.





(By the way I have read the book)


----------



## Christusregnat (Nov 18, 2009)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> > I have read the book. It is vague and confusing. (1.) Vague. "In a sense" is no way to state or substantiate a thesis. (2.) Confusing. None of the authors seem to agree.
> ...



Can either of _*you *_tell me if it affirms the proposition above?  I still read it either way...


----------



## MW (Nov 18, 2009)

Christusregnat said:


> Can either of _*you *_tell me if it affirms the proposition above?  I still read it either way...



Which proposition? Basically you have a range of views. Some are content with the traditional Marrow presentation that "Do this and live" was published in subordination to the covenant of grace. Others go so far as to affirm the Mosaic covenant was a covenant of works in co-ordination with the covenant of grace. This is not the book to read if one is seeking the substantiation of a single thesis.


----------



## Peairtach (Nov 18, 2009)

armourbearer said:


> I have read the book. It is vague and confusing. (1.) Vague. "In a sense" is no way to state or substantiate a thesis. (2.) Confusing. None of the authors seem to agree.



From what I've read of the book (about half) I would second that. 

(a)I don't know if this theory is necessary to account for the biblical data.

(b)I think to call it a Republication of the Covenant of Works, is confusing. Some other name should be sought; clearly the Covenant of Works can't be republished now Man has sinned.

(c) There seem to be lots of different ideas about what this is.

(d) If there were conditions placed on OT Israel, there are also conditions placed on the NT Church, yet we don't say that there is a Republication of the Covenant of Works in our case.
Even the individual professor of faith in Christ in the New Covenant has conditions such as chastisement in the case of sin, or church sanctions in the case of certain sin(s) placed on him. Slightly different but comparable rules applied to the Israelite in the Old Covenant. 

(e) If an aspect of the Republication is that Israel had to reach a certain moral standard collectively to remain in the Land, this would still be traced to grace if she achieved it. If she achieved the moral standard to remain in the Land, this would be because a large percentage of the people of Israel were living according to God's law. But a large percentage of Israel would only be living according to God's law by true faith in Him. But a large/larger percentage of Israel would have true faith in God, by God's grace. So the fact that Israel was eventually cast out of the Land was because of their despite for God's grace.

E.g. In the Seven Letters to the Churches we have comparable scenario. One difference in the NT is that the Church will never be wholly cast out of the New Land of Israel, the Whole Earth.

I'll get round to finishing the book and listening to the broadcast.


----------



## MW (Nov 18, 2009)

Richard Tallach said:


> (e) If an aspect of the Republication is that Israel had to reach a certain moral standard collectively to remain in the Land, this would still be traced to grace if she achieved it. If she achieved the moral standard to remain in the Land, this would be because a large percentage of the people of Israel were living according to God's law. But a large percentage of Israel would only be living according to God's law by true faith in Him. But a large/larger percentage of Israel would have true faith in God, by God's grace. So the fact that Israel was eventually cast out of the Land was because of their despite for God's grace.



Good point. This is one area which becomes quite blurry in the book. Some start to adopt Klinean typology to substantiate the thesis, perhaps not fully realising that Kline's view results in two covenants side by side rather than one covenant subordinated to the other.

Of course the whole "land argument" is proven false by the mere fact that Israel was not only ejected from the land but was later restored to it as a figure of restoration in Christ. There is no provision for restoration in the covenant of works.


----------



## Peairtach (Nov 20, 2009)

I've listened to the broadcast. Somewhat illuminating, but the whole subject is still cloaked in much obscurity.

(a) The book says that historically there are fourteen views of what Republication is by its advocates.

(b) If there is some kind of analogy of Adam in the Garden going on with Israel, which is ultimately satisfactorily fulfilled by Christ, how does this idea relate simply to the simplicity of the Mosaic Covenant being an administration of the Covenant of Grace, as taught by people like professor Murray.

(c) Why choose the most unhappy term, "Republication of the Covenant of Works" unless you want to confuse people or lose possible friends and adherents?

(d) If Christ is the One Israelite that fulfils the Covenant of Works for all true Israelites (i.e. including us) as Covenant Theology has always taught:-

(i) The "Republication of the Covenant of Works" was/should be different for Him than for Israel at Sinai, because God knew He could do it.

(ii) The "Republication of the Covenant of Works" for Israel at Sinai was/should be different than for Christ, because God would have known He was only mocking them.

At the same time there is further confusion. God wasn't demanding perfect obedience of Israel to stay in the Land, anyway, but only a certain level of obedience. That obedience could theoretically have been obtained by Israel if she'd looked to God's grace.

On the other hand God demanded perfect obedience of Adam and Christ. God didn't demand perfect obedience of Israel to stay in the Land, nor did He demand perfect obedience of individual Israelites to avoid temporary excommunication, excommunication with God's threat, or excommunication by death penalty.


----------

