Quote:
Originally Posted by fredtgreco  Lane,
Using the logic of republication, could we not say then that the New Covenant is a republication of the Covenant of Works also? If not, why?
(to be fair - there is a trap waiting in the wings...  ) |
I've used the same argument. If where ever there is law this is the covenant of works, then the covenant of grace is a covenant of works. The problem I see with those arguing for republication is that they equate the law with the covenant of works (hence their, as I see it,
misreading of WCF 19 to get their republication doctrine).
Say I have a $20 bill in my hand. That piece of paper is not a gift until I give it as a gift. I may use it at the store, and in that context, it's not a gift. When I give it as a gift then it's a gift. There's nothing inherent in the $20 that makes it a gift until I give it to someone else in that context and with that intention.
God's law exists. That law is not a covenant of works until he attaches a promise of eternal life for obedience to it. He may give the law in the context of the covenant of grace, and if he does this, then that doesn't make it a covenant of works. When he gives the law as a covenant of works, then that's what it is because that covenant establishes one's relationship to the law. There's nothing about the law that makes it a covenant of grace or a covenant of works unless God gives it with that intention.
God redeems Israel, then gives the law. Don't we see the very same general pattern in the NT epistles? God redeemed you, now live this way.
This has been discussed on here a lot in the past. I think I'll sit back and watch now.
