# Mark Jones responds to Karlberg



## Semper Fidelis (Sep 12, 2014)

Republication Debates - Reformation21 Blog


----------



## Douglas P. (Sep 12, 2014)

Thanks for sharing. I really appreciated his response, it felt very prudent and level headed.

However, I've never understood this critique of Kline's view, and I always seem to see it as the Pièce de résistance against republication:



> In sum, I am not concerned so much whether the doctrine of republication has historical precedent. Rather, I want to know what people actually mean when they talk about republication. I can heartily affirm certain forms of republication, but I cannot affirm that there is a works-principle at the typological level (that is devoid of assisting grace) and thus functions as the meritorious grounds for Israel's continuance in the land. The existential crisis this would have created for those who lived by grace through faith in Christ needs to be reckoned with.



Why would it be so hard to handle (mentally) two covenants at the same time? It seems to me some of the teachings in the New Testament, for example the already/not yet or the hypostatic union, seem far more difficult to wrap your mind around then having two separate covenants ongoing at the same time.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Sep 13, 2014)

Do you have children?

If you do, is the way to teach them grace to make their perfect obedience as a condition for remaining in the home? You believe they are sinners and incapable of keeping the moral law but everything in your house says: "On your own strength, keep this moral law in order to remain a child in my home." But on Sundays you tell them that being in the Kingdom of God is trusting in another's righteousness and you also tell them that it is only through the Spirit that we can trust.


----------



## Peairtach (Sep 13, 2014)

Douglas Padgett said:


> Thanks for sharing. I really appreciated his response, it felt very prudent and level headed.
> 
> However, I've never understood this critique of Kline's view, and I always seem to see it as the Pièce de résistance against republication:
> 
> ...



You have two conflicting covenants 1.Seek salvation by grace alone through faith alone.2. Seek to remain in the Land - a type of Heaven, which is obtained by grace through faith - by producing works without mediated grace.

How is the individual to fulfil one covenant in one way, and the other in another way.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Sep 13, 2014)

And if the case is as it is pronounced by the Klinean Republicationists then Israel should have/would have been kicked out of the land of Promise after Ai.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Sep 13, 2014)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> And if the case is as it is pronounced by the Klinean Republicationists then Israel should have/would have been kicked out of the land of Promise after Ai.



Indeed. Let's look at it another way. If Israel's continuation in the land is a true republication of the Covenant of Works principle then what does that say about the Covenant of Works? It says that the Covenant of Works really doesn't require perfect obedience. Every time God does not drive the people out of the land because of their imperfect obedience it means that the Covenant of Works doesn't really require perfect and perpetual obedience. If, typologically, the nation's continuation in the land is a CoW and we learn, typologically, that one can break a typological CoW and remain in the land then it teaches us that one can break the CoW and God may still forgive you and allow you to inherit heaven. Oh, and that's all without grace. Love wins?


----------



## Douglas P. (Sep 13, 2014)

Semper Fidelis said:


> Do you have children?
> 
> If you do, is the way to teach them grace to make their perfect obedience as a condition for remaining in the home? You believe they are sinners and incapable of keeping the moral law but everything in your house says: "On your own strength, keep this moral law in order to remain a child in my home." But on Sundays you tell them that being in the Kingdom of God is trusting in another's righteousness and you also tell them that it is only through the Spirit that we can trust.




Rich,

I do have children, so this analogy does ring true. However, there is one major flaw. Kline (nor the OT) never taught that Israel could or should keep the Torah by their own strength. They very much needed the grace of God to keep the commandments.

So to tweak your analogy to fit with the actually theology, it would go something like this: My oldest son gets the blessing of being able to play video games after school time is done, but only if he performs at a satisfactory level and obeys his mother. If he disobeys then the privilege is taken away. His obedience during school is the basis for him receiving the right to play video games. These are the stipulations of the covenant in our household. However, when he is struggling with his obedience and he is feeling the weight of sin and his inability to morally perform then I lovingly bring the gospel down to his level and teach him about the promises of God through Christ and his need for the Spirits work in his life.

Two separate covenant relationships running side by side. And from my conversations with my son (who is 6) I do not think that he thinks the blessings and curses (privileges) of our household are in anyway tied to his eternal salvation. He's fully able to keep the two covenant relationships separate in his mind.


----------



## Douglas P. (Sep 13, 2014)

Semper Fidelis said:


> Indeed. Let's look at it another way. If Israel's continuation in the land is a *true republication of the Covenant of Works* principle then what does that say about the Covenant of Works?



Rich, I have only studied, in any depth, the teachings of Meredith Kline and T. David Gordon, so I can't speak for everyone who has ever taught republication. However, it is my understanding that Kline never taught that the land was a "true republication", which if he did, I agree, would have been problematic.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Sep 13, 2014)

Douglas Padgett said:


> So to tweak your analogy to fit with the actually theology, it would go something like this: My oldest son gets the blessing of being able to play video games after school time is done, but only if he performs at a satisfactory level and obeys his mother. If he disobeys then the privilege is taken away. His obedience during school is the basis for him receiving the right to play video games. These are the stipulations of the covenant in our household. However, when he is struggling with his obedience and he is feeling the weight of sin and his inability to morally perform then I lovingly bring the gospel down to his level and teach him about the promises of God through Christ and his need for the Spirits work in his life.
> 
> Two separate covenant relationships running side by side. And from my conversations with my son (who is 6) I do not think that he thinks the blessings and curses (privileges) of our household are in anyway tied to his eternal salvation. He's fully able to keep the two covenant relationships separate in his mind.


But you're missing the point. The condition is made not within the context of a Works Covenant in your home but on the basis of Grace. He's your child. The condition is set to discipline him. For your video game analogy to be true then he would not only forever lose the video games but the very disobedience would be the cause of a rupture of the relationship. You are confusing moral law with a Covenant of Works. The CoW requires perfect and perpetual obedience. A structure within a family where laws are set up toward the goal of disciplining a child is within the context of grace not a CoW principle. See Hebrews 12 and the notion that we are disciplined as sons. If the Mosaic is a republication of the CoW on the analogy you have used and two Covenants are at work then what you're saying is that this is still the case on the basis of Hebrews 12 and your analogy. Not only has the CoW been republished typologically within the Mosaic but it is republished typologically within the New Covenant insofar as the Lord disciplines His sons.




Douglas Padgett said:


> Rich, I have only studied, in any depth, the teachings of Meredith Kline and T. David Gordon, so I can't speak for everyone who has ever taught republication. However, it is my understanding that Kline never taught that the land was a "true republication", which if he did, I agree, would have been problematic.


Doug,

The idea is that a CoW principle is overlaid for the people with respect to continuation in the land. It's said to be typological but types teach something of the reality. The point I'm making is that Israel repeatedly violated the type. You don't even need Ai. Read the Book of Numbers. It ought to have been Game Over not once but tons of times but the Lord does not revoke their inheritance in the land due to a lack of perfect and perpetual obedience or they would have never inherited it. If this is what a CoW "looks like" (even typologically) then what do we say about the CoW in general? That God states that it requires perfect and perpetual obedience when, in fact, He'll relent?


----------

