The main problem with Republicationism

Discussion in 'Controversial Topics' started by Peairtach, Dec 24, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. mvdm

    mvdm Puritan Board Junior

    "Is there any other crtique out there that is not full of rhetoric and straw man arguments like the KERUX review?"

    Not sure what "straw man" arguments you are referring to, since the Kerux review copiously and carefully quoted the original sources under review.

    If you would like to compare it with another careful critique of the republicationists' position, you will find similar arguments here:
  2. MW

    MW Puritan Board Doctor

    The threat of condemnation is annexed to the gospel as equally (and perhaps more forcibly, if we consider Hebrews' argument from the lesser to the greater) than it is to the law.
  3. Peairtach

    Peairtach Puritan Board Doctor

    This is it. The emphasis on the type of temporal death that there was in the Old Covenant falls away in the New Covenant to reveal an emphasis on the antitype, spiritual and eternal death.

    Can anyone in the New Covenant be liable to spiritual and eternal death? Yes, if they don't believe i.e. they are just outwardly and legally in the New Covenant without the life of the Covenant.

    Why the (added) emphasis on temporal death in the Old Covenant? Does this mean the Old Covenant was a RoCoW? No. It was necessary along with other typological elements, such as the death of animals, for the Church "under age" i.e. for the underage and immature Church.

    Is Republicationism necessary in order to counter the FV and/or Theonomy?

    Not at all. Republicationism is an erroneous and unecessary complication of Covenant Theology. The features of the Mosaic system that Republicationists highlight - e.g. physical death being imposed as excommunication from the Land for certain sins, exile from the Land for national apostasy, etc - can all be accounted for as graciously given and necessary typological teaching aids under non-Republicationist Covenant Theology.

    The conditions of avoiding being excommunicated by stoning to death or another form of death penalty could only be achieved by the sinful individual by grace, saving grace by a believing individual and common grace by an unbelieving individual.

    The condition of the sinful nation of Israel avoiding expulsion from Eretz Israel could only be achieved by grace too.

    What on earth does this have to do with a Covenant of Works!?!

    Expulsion from the Land by death or exile may be a vague echo of expulsion from Eden, but it was on a basis that has nothing to do with what has been defined as a Covenant of Works in Covenant Theology. If Adam had remained in the Garden it would have been by his works without saving grace and saving faith. If sinful Israel had remained in the Land it would have been by God's grace through saving faith in a large enough proportion of the people of Israel producing the requisite fruit/works !!!

    In the New Covenant the typological blessing of the Land of Israel falls away to be replaced by the anti-type of the whole Earth. The typological curse of physical death or exile falls away to be replaced by the anti-type of spiritual and eternal death.
    Last edited: Jan 13, 2010
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page