New Website Concerning the So-Called Republication of the Covenant of Works

[ADKing]

Check out the following website. It contains numerous quotes (and is growing) dealing with the reformation understanding of the Mosaic covenant and covenant theology. Read them in their own words. It demonstrates that certain modern representations of the "republication of the covenant of works" theory need to be examined more closely.

The Mosaic Covenant in Reformed Theology ?(The Mosaic Covenant)?

 

[Prufrock]

Does anyone know who operates this website? Or is it intentionally anonymous?

 

[PresbyDane]

Thanks for this

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

Thanks Rev. King!!!

 

[greenbaggins]

And this in turn needs to be balanced by the superb new book on the subject from Fesko, Van Drunen, and Estelle, which has oodles of testimonies from the Reformation and post-Reformation period pointing the other way towards republication.

 

[charliejunfan]

Just to make sure I don't fall into some heresy, The only covenant of works was the covenant with Adam in the garden right? The rest were covenants of grace?

 

[Prufrock]

That's actually exactly the controverted question, Charles.

Some hold that there was a sort of national covenant of works whereby Israel maintained or lost their land and privileges; and some hold the opposite. This, indeed, will probably offend people by its oversimplification, but there it is in a nutshell.

 

[greenbaggins]

One of the reasons I recommend the book in question is because the second chapter there (or maybe third) is a taxonomy of views. Quite a few different views were held on the relationship of the CoW, the Mosaic covenant, and the CoG.

 

[louis_jp]

That's actually exactly the controverted question, Charles.

Some hold that there was a sort of national covenant of works whereby Israel maintained or lost their land and privileges; and some hold the opposite. This, indeed, will probably offend people by its oversimplification, but there it is in a nutshell.

In a nutshell, why does it matter? What's at stake here?

 

[ChristianTrader]

One of the reasons I recommend the book in question is because the second chapter there (or maybe third) is a taxonomy of views. Quite a few different views were held on the relationship of the CoW, the Mosaic covenant, and the CoG.

A brief comment/critique on that chapter can be found here: The Law is Not of Faith Thomas Goodwin

 

[Prufrock]

And this in turn needs to be balanced by the superb new book on the subject from Fesko, Van Drunen, and Estelle, which has oodles of testimonies from the Reformation and post-Reformation period pointing the other way towards republication.

I keep meaning to try to find time to look over this book, but so far I haven't had the time. Is this book mostly an historical analysis, or is it mostly positive exegetical/systematic argument? (Or I suppose a combination)

 

[TaylorOtwell]

So, would it be correct to say that the interpretation of the Law common to the Pharisees was incorrect in that it failed to recognize the gracious aspects of the Mosaic Law (e.g. the failed to recognized that it was a schoolmaster)? I'm relatively new to Covenant Theology.

 

[greenbaggins]

And this in turn needs to be balanced by the superb new book on the subject from Fesko, Van Drunen, and Estelle, which has oodles of testimonies from the Reformation and post-Reformation period pointing the other way towards republication.

I keep meaning to try to find time to look over this book, but so far I haven't had the time. Is this book mostly an historical analysis, or is it mostly positive exegetical/systematic argument? (Or I suppose a combination)

It is a combination of historical, biblical, and systematic-theological perspectives.

 

[MW]

And this in turn needs to be balanced by the superb new book on the subject from Fesko, Van Drunen, and Estelle, which has oodles of testimonies from the Reformation and post-Reformation period pointing the other way towards republication.

One of the problems I have found with historical testimonies on this particular subject is that very little attention has been given to individual statements within the contours of a selected author's way of thinking. One only needs to see the oft quoted Marrow of Modern Divinity or Herman Witsius to see that this is the case.

 

[TheocraticMonarchist]

That's actually exactly the controverted question, Charles.

Some hold that there was a sort of national covenant of works whereby Israel maintained or lost their land and privileges; and some hold the opposite. This, indeed, will probably offend people by its oversimplification, but there it is in a nutshell.

If the mosaic covenant was a covenant of grace, then how does this effect our eschatology? Will Israel receive those land grants?

 

[py3ak]

Mr. Winzer, are you saying that historical testimonies are being categorized or used for support verbally rather than substantially?

 

[MW]

Mr. Winzer, are you saying that historical testimonies are being categorized or used for support verbally rather than substantially?

Ruben, Yes. The fact is that certain reformed writers speak of a postlapsarian covenant of works, but it is clear they are using the phrase in a way that does not comport with the original intention of the prelapsarian covenant of works. They only mean that the conditions for obtaining life, based on an obedience of works, is republished, and that only as a means of driving the sinner out of himself and drawing him to the provision of a free salvation in the covenant of grace. There is no room for a co-ordinate covenant of works which exists side by side with the covenant of grace. At most, the Marrow allows for a covenant of works (by which it means the condition of works-obedience) subordinate to the covenant of grace, while the mediating school of Witsius would speak of a mixed covenant. There is no actual republication of the covenant of works except in certain dispensational schemes which were rejected by reformed theologians.