Thread: CoWs at Sinai/Two Kingdoms/Law-Gospel Dualism & the Westminster Standards

That whereas our nature was so corrupted and depraved as that, continuing in that state, it was not capable of a participation of the righteousness of Christ, or any benefit of it, unto the glory of God and our own good, it was in like manner necessary that it should be renewed and changed. And unless it were so, the design of God in the mediation of Christ, — which was the entire recovery of us unto himself, — could not be attained. And therefore, as faith, under the formal consideration of it, was necessary unto the first end, — namely, that of giving glory unto God, — so unto this latter end it was necessary that this faith should be accompanied with, yea, and contain in itself, the seeds of all those other graces wherein the divine nature does consist, whereof we are to be made partners. Not only, therefore, the thing itself, or the communication of the righteousness of Christ unto us, but the way, and manner, and means of it, do depend on God’s sovereign order and disposal. Wherefore, although Christ did make satisfaction to the justice of God for all the sins of the church, and that as a common person (for no man in his wits can deny but that he who is a mediator and a surety is, in some sense, a common person); and although he did pay all our debts; yet does the particular interest of this or that man in what he did and suffered depend on the way, means, and order designed of God unto that end. This, and this alone, gives the true necessity of all the duties which are required of us, with their order and their ends. Owen: The Doctrine of Justification by Faith pp 215

Originally Posted by mybigGod

The Gal. verse was used to show that pre fall man had the moral ability to keep the entire law. I dont think the Gen. account prior to the fall explained it this way. This is why we know the extent of mans moral ability. They were the only ones who lived by the law and died by the law.
But in contrast we do not have that moral ability to keep the law in ourselves.

The only reason i say that this is not a hypothetical statement is that it would throw this whole contrast into a metaphorical argument.

There is a tendency to want to make this not a contrast so that in the confusion we fall into equilibrium theology. Man after the fall was not determined to be put into a world of chance where every thing was revolving around him as if would still have an ability to cause his own righteousness. A world where there is no cause of a righteousness outside of himself.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Originally Posted by JDKetterman

My question is if the republication view is not in fact confessional, why would the Divines use Gal 3:10-12 to support a covenant of works?

Verse 12 establishes the antithesis between the works principle and faith. Verse 10 describes the curse that comes on all who fail to live by the works principle. It is undoubted that if a man does not have faith he is still bound by the covenant of works and under the curse thereof. It is also the case that divine revelation is explicit in teaching the curse of the covenant of works in every economy, the gospel included, Mark 16:16. The mere existence of the works principle and the pronouncement of the curse under the Mosaic economy does not therefore constitute the whole economy a covenant of works.

Do you believe Galations 3 and 4 has in mind the pre-fall covenant of works in view when Paul is talking about Moses and Sinai?

Since they had the moral ability before the fall, then they were able to pass the test. If they lack the moral ability then there was not a free will. And there is only one other option and that is the power of the object was too much in the temptation. But if the beauty of the object was the reason, then we could conclude that it was worse for them by the beauty in the garden than the for us who face the cursed objects. So in order for them to be fully responsible in the free choice they had to be fully able to keep the law.
But after the fall man lost the ability to do spiritual good. "There is no one who does good no not one. " It became impossible for man to please God by the law. Man lost the desire to choose spiritual good. The only moral ability man had was to choose good for himself. But since mans will is in bondage to sin, his goodness never rises to the level of being spiritually good. Man still has a free will , that is to choose exactly what he wants but the good he chooses is according to his sinful nature.
The function of the law in mans natural state is condemnation. Legal conviction only. In his natural state man thinks that he is able to do good by the law. But when he is confronted by the law of God , that process works death in him. Unless he is regenerated by the Spirit , then he is only living with the desires to please himself by living as if he is able to keep the law.

What i am saying is, that the unregenerate do not have the desires to please God, therefore the law only makes the problem worse. The problem is not that they can change by willing to obey. The problem is they cannot obey because there is no cause to will to obey. They are dead in their spiritual desires.

God has appointed that there shall be an immediate foundation of the imputation of the satisfaction and righteousness of Christ unto us; whereon we may be said to have done and suffered in him what he did and suffered in our stead, by that grant, donation, and imputation of it unto us; or that we may be interested in it, that it may be made ours: which is all we contend for. And this is our actual coalescency into one mystical person with him by faith. Hereon does the necessity of faith originally depend. And if we shall add hereunto the necessity of it likewise unto that especial glory of God which he designs to exalt in our justification by Christ, as also unto all the ends of our obedience unto God, and the renovation of our natures into his image, its station is sufficiently secured against all objections. Our actual interest in the satisfaction of Christ depends on our actual insertion into his mystical body by faith, according to the appointment of God. Owen Justification by Faith pp 218

Originally Posted by JDKetterman

Do you believe Galations 3 and 4 has in mind the pre-fall covenant of works in view when Paul is talking about Moses and Sinai?

No; Gal. 3 deals with those who effectively make the law a covenant of works because they seek to be justified thereby. Gal. 4 specifically teaches that Israel was an heir under age, hence adopted under the covenant of grace. The latter section speaks of the two sons in an allegory, where the legalists who desired to adhere to Sinai and rejected the fulfilment of the promise in Christ demonstrated that they were in bondage under the covenant of works.