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

Status
Not open for further replies.
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. :)
 
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. :)

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?
 
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).

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.
 
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.

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?

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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)
 
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.


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.
 
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.


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?

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.



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.
 
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.



 
Last edited:
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
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?
 
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.

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.

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.
 
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]
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.

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
 
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.

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

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.
 
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]

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.
 
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.

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?
 
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]

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.

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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.


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

Absolutely!


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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top