Quote:
Originally Posted by R. Scott Clark  I realize that what I'm offering here is a revision or expansion of the older doctrine, but what I'm saying here is certainly built on the foundation laid by a host of orthodox writers who advocated a version of the doctrine of re-publication. |
Prof. Clark, are you able to show one of the "republication" sources advocating the nation was under a republished covenant of works? I seriously doubt it.
Could the theory be any more contradictory? The Abrahamic covenant is supposed to be one of grace. What was Abraham promised? A seed and a land. All that is done by God in the Mosaic era is specifically said to be in faithfulness to the covenant made with the fathers. What has God done? Multiplied the seed into a nation, establishing the covenant privilege given to Abraham, and reaffirming the gift of the promised land. But then we are asked to believe that the fulfilment of the Abrahamic covenant of grace issues in the establishment of a Mosaic republication of the covenant of works.
I much prefer the version presented by older reformed teachers, that there is an external and internal aspect to the covenant. Hence they are not all Israel who are of Israel. They are not all in the covenant of grace, who are outwardly of the covenant of grace; those only externally of the covenant of grace are inwardly under the condemnation of the covenant of works. This is that which is specifically taught. They only meant that the law considered in and of itself is a covenant of works, that is, as a means of justification. There is no attempt to equate this with the Mosaic administration, the theocratic nation of Israel, the land as inheritance, or any other Klinean peculiarity.
Concerning national covenanting, you have to plow with reformed theology's heifer if you want to find out reformed theology's riddle.