That is a good summary of my initial concern.To regard Sinai and the holy law given there as strictly a works-covenant, essentially and fundamentally a merit-system accord, would (I suspect) tend to reduce the utility of its moral element, particularly after the introduction of a new-and-replacement covenant regarded as a radical departure. Just as we presently do not mine the Edenic covenant for its trove of vital moral directives, under exclusively-NT-relevant conditions it is doubtful we should have any high regard for the 10C as such. We would confine us to the NT for ALL authoritative moral, ethical, and positive guidance.
The reason I wondered was because Beeke says "Traditions deprived of these covenantal sensibilities have had much greater difficulty asserting the abiding validity of the Decalogue as the moral law." I would have thought NCT would not assert the abiding validity of the Decalogue as the moral law. Then Beeke finalises his argument making reference to the moral law as "part and parcel of the covenant of grace".I would be extremely surprised if Beeke specifically has 1689 Federalism in mind. I have not come across modern published works that have studied 1689 Federalism and are intentionally engaging with or critiquing it. I think Beeke clearly has other traditions in mind.
Our garden has an ever growing battle of weeds because of the covenant of works. Maybe I need to read this book before I tidy up our gardenGetting the Garden Right
Thank you. I will look this up.See also his appendix in the Coxe/Owen volume regarding the functions of the decalogue, available online here http://www.1689federalism.com/john-owen-and-new-covenant-theology/
Are you saying that Kline etc denies an important WCF statement such as 7:1? I thought WCF/LBCF 7.1 was vital truth for all Reormed Christians.We differ from VanDrunen, Irons, Kline, etc on this point. We affirm WCF/LBCF 7.1 whereas they do not.
Brandon, I meant my comments as questions not a debate. I'll reflect on the issue further.