Dear friends,

I have had an issue with this since getting into discussions regarding these topics on the PB. Every time I seek a serious answer, I get none, or else I get a response that isn't related to my question. I would just like some clear answers. The rest of this post is basically some of my older posts that weren't answered re-worked into a single thread.

This thread is about the Westminster Standards, not what the Three Forms of Unity say, and not what this or that Reformed theologian has said (if Calvin or any other number of Reformed theologians held to a particular view, that doesn't mean the Confession does). Please stick to the Westminster Standards and draw your arguments from them alone. Thanks.

I've not been impressed by the gymnastics done in WCF 19 to force a "republication" doctrine into the Confession. I've also not liked hearing about the law-gospel dualism that folks seem to have been imposing on the Confession and the Scriptures, as if this Lutheran touchstone is now the mark of truly Reformed theology. Nor have I been persuaded of the radical (also dualistic) two kingdom view. I don't believe these views are biblical, and I don't believe they're confessional. Perhaps they are simply extra-confessional, perhaps they are contra-confessional. I don't know. If you have an opinion, please share it.

I think there's a reason Klineans rarely quote from the Westminster Standards when it comes to supporting their view of the Mosaic Covenant, the "two kingdoms," and their law-gospel dualism. Quite simply, these teachings aren't there. (It would be interesting to see just exactly how many times Horton references the Westminster Standards in his book God of Promise.) I really can't understand how you can honestly read these Lutheran views out of the Westminster Standards, I don't see it. And if you don't think these are Lutheran doctrines, then please see the next paragraph.

Disagree? Please prove from the Westminster Standards: (1) the republication of the CoWs at Sinai (answering the copied post #1 below); (2) the law-gospel dualism (answering the copied post #2 below); and, (3) the radical two-kingdom view. Please do this only using the Westminster Standards, that is, if you want to determine which is the actual "confessional" view. And according to RSC, the confessional view is the Reformed view.

Thanks, and I'm definitely looking forward to the discussion.

Blessings,
Casey

------------------------------ Copied Post #1: (link to the original) ------------------------------

I don't believe this to be the case. The only place (if my memory serves me right) the Confession ties the CoWs with the law is in 19.1, the first covenant (see WCF 7.2). Anyway, here are some reasons why I believe your interpretation isn't probable:

(1) If the CoWs "republication" doctrine was taught in the Confession, they would have put it in Chapter 7, not the chapter on Law. Chapter 7 says nothing regarding any idea of "republication" but rather says that the Mosaic and the New covenants are "one and the same" covenant of grace, only under two different administrations.

(2) WCF 19.2 says "this law," not "this covenant of works." The law is distinct from the covenant of works. If the Confession intended to convey the idea of "republication," 19.2 would have read, "This law as a covenant of works, after his fall, continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness..."

(3) This is further proven by WCF 19.3 where we again read of "this law" when it says, "Beside this law, commonly called moral, God was pleased to give to the people of Israel..." WCF 19.3 here explicitly equates "this law" with the moral law.

(4) "This law" (of WCF 19.1, 19.2, and 19.3) is the moral law which "doth forever bind all, as well justified persons as others, to the obedience thereof" (WCF 19.5). Therefore, believers are "under the law" in the sense that all believers are required to obey it.

(5) But, true believers are "not under the law, as a covenant of works" (WCF 19.6, 2 times).

What is the problem with reading the "republication" doctrine into the WCF? Well, first, it's not there. You only get it if you presuppose that law = CoWs. But second, it places believers under the covenant of works (which the Confession explicitly denies). If "this law" of 19.2 is meant to be understood as the CoWs (and not the law per se), and if 19.3 equates "this law" with the moral law, and if the moral law forever binds all (even the justified), then the justified (even in the New Covenant) are still under the CoWs. Even if this logic is denied and you modify the meaning of "this law" to fit the republication view, it still places justified believers from the OT under the law as a covenant of works, which is explicitly denied by the Confession (19.6 again, unless OT saints weren't "true believers").

The "this law" throughout this chapter of the Confession must mean the same thing at every place (i.e., the moral law, not the law as a covenant of works). But if this is the case, then the logic in my previous paragraph beings to work itself out. I know that you and Dr Horton don't believe that NT saints are "under the law, as a covenant of works." But if you consistently follow your interpretation of WCF 19.2 consistently through the rest of the chapter, then this would be the result.

------------------------------ Copied Post #2: (link to the original) ------------------------------

Thank you for your posts -- I appreciate the discussion, brother.

The thread asks which view is the Reformed view. Do you believe the law/gospel distinction that you are trying to uphold is clearly and consistently made in the Westminster Standards? Do you believe the they teach the law/gospel distinction (as you understand it)? As imperative/indicative? As "do"/"done"? I take it for granted that the Reformed view on the law/gospel distinction could be demonstrated from the Standards.

Let me quote a Lutheran on this issue:
Obviously the Lutheran view is that orthodoxy depends on this distinction, that Scripture fundamentally contains two different messages ("doctrines"), and that maintaining this distinction is the highest goal of Christian theologians. (I'd be interested to know how much you agree with these points.)

Interestingly, the Westminster Standards do make a distinction regarding the Old and New Testaments, not that it is law/gospel, but that contained in Scripture are things to be believed and things to be done:
I think at this point the Lutheran would be quick to say, "one is gospel and one is law!" But the Standards don't jump to clarify this. I don't recall the Standards ever equating "things to be believed" as gospel and "things to be done" as law (WCF 3.8 speaks of those who "obey the gospel"), as though the Christian life was inherently dualistic on account of a do/done paradigm.

The gospel includes the call to repentance (we could also compare the call to faith), but according to the indicative/imperative distinction this cannot be so, because "Repent!" is an imperative. Compare the Lutheran view (which is clear and consistent at maintaining the law/gospel distinction) with that of the Reformed view (which has neglected the distinction):
Lutherans believe the law/gospel distinction is fundamental to the faith (and they uphold it rather consistently!). Some have suggested on this (or the other) thread that if the distinction is neglected, then that's going in the direction of the FV. Okay, if it's such a fundamental distinction (and to be understood in the way WSC understands it), then where do the Westminster Standards teach it? That would be quite the omission if it's so fundamental to the Christian faith.

I'm not denying there is such a thing as a law/gospel distinction, I just don't believe it is to be defined as imperative/indicative. I think the more important distinction for the Reformed is that of the two covenants (CoWs, "do this and live"; CoG, "live and do this"), and included in both of these covenants is the law (the difference is the individual's relationship to the law). These covenants are weaved throughout the Standards in a clear and consistent way, while it seems to me the Standards fail at upholding your view of the law/gospel distinction. Jesus didn't seem to clearly and consistently uphold the law/gospel distinction either, as he told the woman caught in adultery, "Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more" (John 8:11).

__________________
Casey Bessette
Westminster OPC • West Suburbs of Chicago • My Blog: Paradise Regained

"It is part of the calling of the ekklesia to learn to know the love of Christ that surpasses all knowledge and also to make known within the world of science 'the manifold wisdom of God' in order that the final end of theology, as of all things, may be that the name of the Lord is glorified. Theology and dogmatics, too, exist for the Lord's sake." — Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, vol. 1, p. 46

__________________
Rick Taron
Bellingham URC.
Everson, WA.

Casey,

I think I get it! Your post is so long and imposing that it resembles the CoW, showing us the impossibility of fulfilling the terms?

Sarcastically Yours,

__________________
Adam Brink, Grace Church of Pleasanton, PCA, Pleasanton, California

"Mark you this, Bassanio, The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose.
An evil soul producing holy witness Is like a villain with a smiling cheek,
A goodly apple rotten at the heart: O, what a goodly outside falsehood hath!"

Antonio - The Merchant of Venice (Act 1, Scene 3)

Dr. R. Scott Clark wrote on his blog (link) in the first of a 3-part series on the republication of the covenant of works at Sinai:
Why does this logic not equally apply to WCF 19.3 which also speaks of "this law"? Is the moral law (see 19.3) synonymous with the covenant of works? Isn't (for sake of argument, applying this logic consistently) the antecedent of "this law" in 19.3 pointing to 19.1 just as 19.2 points back to 19.1?

This logic obviously (at least to me!) leads to an absurdity as I argued above (see copied post #1 up top) and, if consistently followed through, places all justified believers in the covenant of works. Throughout Dr. Clark's three posts on the republication of the covenant of works at Sinai he appeals to WCF 19 in the support of his republication view which seems to me purely illegitimate.

I don't think Dr. Clark has been frequenting the PB as much as he has in the past, but I would appreciate it if someone who holds to his interpretation of WCF 19 would offer an answer. I'd be happy to set straight on this if I'm misreading Dr. Clark or the Confession.

I feel like I'm beating a dead horse here but I haven't yet heard an answer.

Thanks, and I pray all my brothers and sister of the PB have a blessed Sabbath.

Casey,

I do not think you are beating a dead horse. These are the sorts of questions that need to be asked and answered. One can easily draw the sorts of conclusions you are drawing from statements such as this. Keep asking!

Of course, as has been asserted many times on the PB in these discussions in the past, the key is that the law was given to Adam as a covenant of works. These are distinct ideas. It is possible for the law to be given to a people without being a covenant of works. This same law was delivered to Israel at Sinai, but that does not mean it was delivered in the same way.

As to the Westminster Standards, I do recall quite vividly several years ago during a certain well-known judicial case in a denominaton you are familiar with that many of the followers of the accused, some of whom I knew personally, were actually making statements to the effect of the desireablity of altering the Confession to suit their Klinean viewpoints. Hmm...

A blessed Sabbath to you as well.

__________________
Rev. Adam King
Minister without a call (WPCUS)
Stated Supply: Reformed Presbyterian Church
Sterling, KS

I am waiting for you to give us the answers, Casey!

I think that your desire to limit discussion to the confession alone is problematic. I understand what you are trying to do, but phrases like, "this law" may need to be fully fleshed out (not proven necessarily) by looking at the intent of the Divines themselves. This is no easy task and can be difficult to argue on a discussion board because everyone can pull their favorite quote out of their hat when they need it.

I agree with your frustration.

__________________

*waiting*

__________________
Davidius
Husband of Emilia
Member: First Reformed Presbyterian Church of Durham (RPCNA) - Durham, NC
Currently in the process of transferring membership to an as-yet-undecided church in Chapel Hill
Student: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, German Literature and Classics

I'm going to try not to take sides in this debate.

I do think that the term "republication" is being used in different senses by different speakers on the topic.

I think that some people are using it simply to speak of the fact that in Moses, it is as if he takes an old book (entitled The Covenant of Works) and "republishes" it. In other words, nothing changes with respect to pagination, the author's name, date of original publication still on the flyleaf.

It's actually more like a "reprinting" of the original standard: except there was never anything that looked exactly like this in the Garden. Because the moral law was internal.

This view is, as far as I can tell, largely unobjectionable, especially if one understands that there is no divine intent to (as Casey put it) to put any who are in the Covenant of Grace "back" under the Law as a Works-covenant.

What demands care in handling is: the moral standard never varies, whether one is pre-Grace or post-Grace. I agree with Casey's pointing to the Covenant of Grace as the foundational context for the Mosaic administration. "I... brought you out" is a statement of gracious salvation. If one really believes in this God, he will be saved, he will live, and he will "do this," imperfectly but honestly. He won't be doing it to earn (or keep!) his salvation.

Now if the "form" of the covenant is outwardly that which resembles the old Covenant of Works, what are they doing who enter into it, having no part in the Covenant of Grace? That is the main question, it seems to me, respecting this question of "republication."

I have objected to too much speech regarding this "form" of Works-covenant in the abstract, such that we end up speaking about the "visible administration" AS IF it is IN FACT a Covenant of Works; that is, I object to giving the "accidents" of this Covenant of Grace administration so much reality that the typological ends up with "its own substance."

So what, indeed, were the unbelievers (those outside the Covenant of Grace) judged for with respect to the Sinai covenant wherein they were outwardly received? Well, I would say they were judged in much the same way as reprobate members of the church today will be judged. They were judged for unbelief in the substance of the covenant they swore to, however ignorantly they swore; they were judged with respect to their vows of obedience and submission they failed to live up to, not having the Mediator for their cause; and they were judged on the basis of the original Covenant of Works, by which they were already condemned in Adam. But it is unnecessary to bring this last point up, since the context of the discussion is this later covenant, which they also broke.

Finally, I agree with armourbearer when he says that the relationship (CoG to CoW in the Sinai covenant) should be spoken of as primary and subordinate. And then one can talk about "republication" all day.

What do you think?

__________________
Rev. Bruce G. Buchanan
ChainOLakes Presbyterian Church, CentralLake, MI


When posting friends, kindly bear those words of earthly wisdom in mind:
Oh, that God the gift would give us
To see ourselves as others see us.
--Robert Burns, 1786 (modernized) ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions? --

I don't have any difficulty in expositing the "heir under age" illustration of the apostle Paul by saying that the covenant made with Israel was wrapped up in legalities and had the appearance of being a covenant of works. But I am certain that the child was an heir of the covenant of grace because the heir has come of age and received all the entitlements of adopted sons as privileges of the covenant of grace. So I adhere to Westminster's formulation: two covenants, works and grace, and two testaments of the covenant of grace, old and new.

__________________
Yours sincerely,


"Illum oportet crescere me autem minui."

I'm not saying that looking at the historic milieu in which the Confession was drafted is wrong. It is helpful, no doubt, in bringing out the meaning of the Confession. But what this or that Westminster divine said doesn't define what the Confession says (as you seem to admit). The Standards were written as a summary of what the church believes and, thus, they can be interpreted in their right.

The big question of this thread is: Do the Westminster Standards teach the (Klinean) republication of the CoWs at Sinai, the (Lutheran/Klinean) two-kingdom doctrine, and the (Lutheran/Klinean) law-gospel dualism?

Now to answer that question, I take it for granted that you don't start opening books by the various Westminster divines. Rather, the Standards themselves need to be looked at. Will any Klineans who believe the above doctrines please demonstrate that these are taught in the Westminster Standards? That's really all I'm asking. I keep hearing that these are Reformed doctrines; please prove that these are confessional doctrines.

Something like the quote from Dr. Clark above is what I'm looking for. It's at least an attempt to show the Confession teaches this (even if I don't believe the reasoning is valid).

Casey,
I agree with AKing. Keep asking. This is why we have confessions. My own children can read WCF 19:2 and see that "and, as such," is modifying "a perfect rule of righeousness".

And like you have said, simply reading on in the confession we find that for the church, the ten commandments are not to be used as a covenant of works. 19:6“The promises of it, in like manner, show them God's approbation of obedience, and what blessings they may expect upon the performance thereof;(s) although not as due to them by the law, as a covenant of works

Keep up the good work. I don't know where this error is going but the consequences could be huge. Next they will be redefining what a covenant of works is, or maybe they already have.

Very prescient of you. They have in fact. Now Kline et.al. can speak of a "typological" covenant of works. In which relative obedience (that is still mingled with sin as is all obedience pot-fall) can merit typoligical blessings. This blatantly contradicts the reformation understanding of merit (which they only hesitatingly and qualifiedly affirmed possible for Adam) and makes it possible for God to accept less than perfect obedience as the basis for rewards that supposedly typify heavnly rewards!

Private poll added.

Please vote according to your personal opinion.

I'm interested in seeing the results . . .

FWIW, I find the OP a loaded question. Also FWIW, I don't consider myself a Klinean ( actually I haven't read much of Kline's work) or a Lutheran (or as some may say a "Crypto-Lutheran").

Regarding the idea of "republication" I would point to Shaw's commentary on the subject:

As I have said, I have not read much of Kline so I don't know what his position is. But I do think Shaw hits the nail on the head.

Regarding the "radical ( dualistic) two kingdom" view, I would point to WSC Q&A 102:

Q. 102. What do we pray for in the second petition?
A. In the second petition, which is, Thy kingdom come, we pray that Satan’s kingdom may be destroyed;and that the kingdom of grace may be advanced,[215] ourselves and others brought into it, and kept in it; and that the kingdom of glory may be hastened.

In explaining the "radical" view, I would point to Fishers Commentary: