# Implications of Republicationism (Kline/Westminster West Views)



## Romans922 (Jul 29, 2015)

I'm looking for the implications of one who would hold to the Mosaic Covenant being a republication of the Covenant of Works (CoW) after the Kline school or Westminster West, specifically on issues of imputation of Christ's righteousness and any other major doctrines. 

Any help would be appreciated.


----------



## MW (Jul 29, 2015)

It mostly boils down to issues of continuity and discontinuity between the testaments, and this will ultimately impact the force of the moral law as a rule of life for the individual, the church, and society. I think there is agreement in the main on the imputation of Christ's righteousness, but the issue of Adamic "merit" is raised by republicationism together with the function of "active obedience" in the imputation of Christ's righteousness.


----------



## Rev. Todd Ruddell (Jul 29, 2015)

Have you seen this site, Elder Barnes?

https://sites.google.com/site/themosaiccovenant/Home


----------



## Romans922 (Jul 30, 2015)

MW said:


> It mostly boils down to issues of continuity and discontinuity between the testaments, and this will ultimately impact the force of the moral law as a rule of life for the individual, the church, and society. I think there is agreement in the main on the imputation of Christ's righteousness, but the issue of Adamic "merit" is raised by republicationism together with the function of "active obedience" in the imputation of Christ's righteousness.



Matthew I was noticing some NCT tendencies while reading.

Would you flush out more about the following: "but the issue of Adamic "merit" is raised by republicationism together with the function of "active obedience" in the imputation of Christ's righteousness."?


----------



## psycheives (Jul 30, 2015)

Romans922 said:


> Matthew I was noticing some NCT tendencies while reading.
> 
> Would you flush out more about the following: "but the issue of Adamic "merit" is raised by republicationism together with the function of "active obedience" in the imputation of Christ's righteousness."?



I believe Mr. Lee Irons' website will be helpful to your studies. He attempts to follow and study Dr. Kline's work very carefully and is considered by most as 'the ultimate Klinean scholar' in most Klinean circles. He is an expert on quoting Dr. Kline as can be seen on Facebook at the Meredith Kline Group. While WSCAL professors appreciate Dr. Kline's work as well, I believe they emphasize some important differences or can be said to interpret Dr. Kline differently in some areas. So to be accurate, one might need to differentiate Mr. Irons from WSCAL in some areas (and of course, the professors may have slightly different views as well) and figure out who Dr. Kline aligns more closely with. So Mr. Irons and WSCAL might be similar in many ways but not the same in key ways (notably with regard to Third Use of the Law). Who does Dr. Kline align more with? Mr. Irons or WSCAL? Probably Mr. Irons in general. But for individual questions, ask Mr. Irons in the Facebook group. He seems to have a Kline quote for everything! 

The basic answers to your questions will probably be discovered by reading Mr. Irons. Mr. Irons understands and writes about Dr. Kline's view of Covenant Theology with regard to a Subservient Covenant. He also speaks quite clearly to his unique views of the Law and Third Use of the Law. 

*Lee Irons and New Covenant Theology:*
As far as I understand his view, Mr. Irons' view could be considered to share some close similarities with NCT but his view also has some important differences with NCT. Having read some Luther, Mr. Irons' view actually sounds similar to Martin Luther's "How Christians Should Regard Moses (1525)" to me, at least. Go HERE: Meredith Kline Facebook Group to read Mr. Irons explaining his agreement and disagreements with NCT and where Dr. Kline fits in the picture.



> "I don't have any major objections to the description of the third use of the law under the NCT view, but that does not mean I agree with NCT as a whole. I don't think NCT would embrace me, since I hold to covenant theology and covenantal baptism. The NCT authors that I have read are critical of the pre-fall Adamic covenant of works, as well as the one covenant of grace from Gen 3:15 on into the new covenant. Of course, NCT-ers are also baptists and argue against the covenant of grace mainly because it entails continuity with regard to the inclusion of children in the covenant of grace."



*Mr. Irons' differences from the Reformed view of theThird Use of the Law:*


> "In my opinion, the traditional three-fold division of the Mosaic Law, as a method of determining what is still binding and what is not, is fundamentally flawed and needs major revision. The covenantal unity of the Law is such that it is simply impossible to go through the Mosaic Law, commandment by commandment, and then decide which of the three "bins" each commandment belongs in."


Some might argue this leads to antinomianism??? Now, when trying to understand whether someone holds to "Third Use of the Law" one must remember there is a huge difference between the doctrine of the Third Use of the Law and general Christian living/Christian sanctification/Law of Christ. New Covenant Theologians do affirm Christians should be holy and follow the Law of Christ. But this is different than affirming the Old Testament's law being distinguished into 3 categories where 1 or 2 are applicable or semi-applicable today. These distinctions must be remembered when determining whether one believes Martin Luther and other Lutherans taught the doctrine of the Three Uses of the Law, or was it mainly just Philip Melanchthon? Not did they affirm Christian obedience but did they treat the Mosaic laws the same as Reformed theologians do?

To be clear, WSCAL affirms the doctrinal teaching of the Reformed third use of the law. WSCAL also affirms "active obedience of Christ" according to John Murray's Redemption Accomplished and Applied - required reading. And like Mr. Irons, WSCAL rejects NCT.

With regard to the "merit" question, the general concern is that Dr. Kline is believed to teach 1) Adam could "merit" in some real way 2) that Noah's righteousness is said to "merit" in some REAL way, 3) Abraham too, etc. The definition of "merit" is said by critics to have been redefined by Dr. Kline in a way that contradicted what Classical Reformed theologians generally formulated. Again, read Mr. Irons on this on his website.


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Jul 30, 2015)

psycheives said:


> > "In my opinion, the traditional three-fold division of the Mosaic Law, as a method of determining what is still binding and what is not, is fundamentally flawed and needs major revision. The covenantal unity of the Law is such that it is simply impossible to go through the Mosaic Law, commandment by commandment, and then decide which of the three "bins" each commandment belongs in."
> 
> 
> Some might argue this leads to antinomianism???



As a Side note, this is one aspect of the charges that were brought against Lee during his trial. The three charges against him had to deal with his view of the Law. All three charges are dealing with this issue from different angles but the second charge was the main point (in my opinion).



> The Presbytery of Southern California of The Orthodox Presbyterian Church charges
> you, the Rev. C. Lee Irons, with violating your ordination vows by teaching, contrary to
> the Scriptures and the Westminster Standards, that the Decalogue is no longer binding on
> believers as the standard of holy living.



Citation from:

http://www.upper-register.com/irons_trial/charges.pdf


----------



## Rev. Todd Ruddell (Jul 30, 2015)

Simply offered as a point of clarification, I'm not sure that the Westminster Divines understood that one would be able to go commandment by commandment through the OT and place each command in one of three bins. I believe this is a simplification, caricature of what the Divines actually taught. Franciscus Junius, in his work on the Mosaic Polity, (which is cited by more than a few Divines in their writings) speaks of most of the commandments having a mixed character, and therefore it is necessary to distinguish in each what is moral, and of perpetual obligation, what is judicial or civil, and therefore historical and not necessarily binding and dead concerning ourselves in the NT, and what is ceremonial, and therefore abrogated and deadly to us.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jul 30, 2015)

Rev. Todd Ruddell said:


> most of the commandments having a mixed character, and therefore it is necessary to distinguish in each what is moral, and of perpetual obligation, what is judicial or civil, and therefore historical and not necessarily binding and dead concerning ourselves in the NT, and what is ceremonial, and therefore abrogated and deadly to us.



This is most true, and the responsibility of every careful exegete and preacher of righteousness.


----------



## psycheives (Jul 30, 2015)

Andrew P.C. said:


> psycheives said:
> 
> 
> > > "In my opinion, the traditional three-fold division of the Mosaic Law, as a method of determining what is still binding and what is not, is fundamentally flawed and needs major revision. The covenantal unity of the Law is such that it is simply impossible to go through the Mosaic Law, commandment by commandment, and then decide which of the three "bins" each commandment belongs in."
> ...



Excellent post, Andrew. Yes, Mr. Irons clearly does not hold to the Confessional Reformed view of "Three Uses of the Law." This is why I say, to Reformed believers there is a difference between teaching the Decalogue as Reformed do and advocating Christian holiness the way Dispensationalists and NCT and perhaps Lutherans do. For more reading, see the TWO different "5 Views of Sanctification" books or the "5 Views of Law and Gospel" and you can see these differences even more. Some have remarked the Lutheran view in the sanctification book isn't completely accurate to Confessional Lutherans, so we should keep this in mind. But if it does accurately represent many Confessional Lutherans, my understanding of their view seriously does damage to advocating "striving" in the Christian life. Similar to what I understood Tullian to teach, rather than emphasize 1st use of the law in some contexts and 3rd use in others, some Lutherans tend advocate 1st use again and again in place of 3rd use. This is why I understand some to call them 'antinomians.' 

When advocates of these 3 groups often contend that the OT law is completely abrogated and that we only follow 'the Law of Christ' or 'Natural Law' the 2nd and 4th commandments often do NOT get carried over. Again, my understanding of Martin Luther's "How Christians Should Regard Moses (1525)" is this very view - "Moses is abrogated. We live by the 'Law of Christ' and 'natural law.'" And so the Sabbath is abrogated. (Lutherans hold Sunday but not because it was given to Moses). The second commandment against images is also abrogated. And so, this may be why some call them 'antinomians'

So one could probably make a case that importing the COW into the MC too strongly to emphasize discontinuity may lead to a distortion of the Decalogue and Third Use of the Law and thus lead to 'antinomianism.'


----------



## DMcFadden (Jul 30, 2015)

Tullian quoted extensively from the late Gerhard Forde, a rostered ELCA clergyman and representative of "radical Lutheranism." This is NOT typical of confessional Lutheranism, but of mainline ELCA Lutheranism. It has more in common with "Gospel reductionism," a view popular among non-confessional Lutherans that practically eliminates the 3rd use of the law entirely. 



> The major difference between law-gospel reductionism and a traditional law-gospel distinction is that there is a confusion between the opera dei (works of God) and the verba dei (words of God). For the law-gospel reductionist, the law and the gospel are no longer defined by what they are, but by what they do. The gospel then is identified with life, and the law with death. Now, certainly, the law does bring death in a coram deo (before God) context. Before God’s holy throne, the law can only accuse the believer. However, traditional Lutheran theology has always confessed that there are three uses of the law. In its third use, the law functions in a positive role. It serves as a guide for the believer, so that one might learn what works please God, and what sins one must avoid. This is the description of the law in Psalm 119, where the law becomes a delight to the person of faith. In a law-gospel reductionist schema, since the law is identified with death, there is no place for a traditional third function of God’s law. The third use is either denied, or redefined so that it too becomes a “killing use,” just as the second is. http://www.patheos.com/blogs/justandsinner/the-danger-of-law-gospel-reductionism/



The practical outgrowth of "Gospel reductionism" can be seen in the ELCA positions on egalitarianism and homosexuality. In both cases, the explicit teaching of the Word of God gets set aside in favor of the "loving" or "gracious" thing. Confessional Lutherans, by contrast oppose same-sex marriage and the ordination of women. And, in the U.S. alone they number nearly 3 million, certainly not to be pigeon holed into small denominational bodies.

Legitimate differences exist between the Reformed and the Lutheran views. However, Lutheran bodies are no more monolithic than "Reformed" ones. Imagine having someone critique a confessionally Reformed person in light of "Refomred" scholars Karl Barth or Jack Rogers (PCUSA theologian supporting same-sex unions).


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Jul 30, 2015)

DMcFadden said:


> The practical outgrowth of "Gospel reductionism" can be seen in the ELCA positions on egalitarianism and homosexuality. In both cases, the explicit teaching of the Word of God gets set aside in favor of the "loving" or "gracious" thing.



You can also see the outgrowth in ELCA's Transgender "minister". 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/07/05/transgender-ministers-nicole-garcia_n_7696088.html


----------



## MW (Jul 30, 2015)

Romans922 said:


> Matthew I was noticing some NCT tendencies while reading.



"Tendencies" may be the appropriate word. They still teach an instituted covenant of grace through the Abrahamic promise in the Old Testament; so it would not fall into the category of new covenant theology.



Romans922 said:


> Would you flush out more about the following: "but the issue of Adamic "merit" is raised by republicationism together with the function of "active obedience" in the imputation of Christ's righteousness."?



The idea of "merit" attaching to Adam's works in the covenant of "creation" serves to establish a natural dualism between works and grace. "Works" are then seen as antithetical to "grace" because they always carry a condition of "merit" in them. When "works" are required by Scripture they are interpreted as implying a covenant of works -- "do this and live." In traditional reformed theology the dualism between grace and works arose because of the fall, not because of creation. When grace restores human nature it has a place for works as the fruits of faith. Passages which require works were understood to be part of the outworking of the covenant of grace -- "live and do this."


----------

