It being explicitly evangelical is obvious, IMHO, on account of the Prologue. Also, consider what David VanDrunen said in his inaugural lecture, "The Two Kingdoms and the Ordo Salutis: Life beyond judgment and the question of a dual ethic" (WTJ Vol. 70, No. 2: Fall 2008), p. 220: "Clearly, love in some sense is a requirement of the natural law, known apart from justification." The footnote has: "If the moral law and natural law are summarized in the Decalogue and the Decalogue is summarized by the two great love commandments (as commonly taught in Reformed theology and in the Reformed confessional standards), then this statement must be true. The love prescribed in the covenant of works and in the natural law is a love apparently to be practiced without considerations of mercy and forgiveness. This is also strikingly true of the Decalogue, whose precepts make no mention of mercy or forgiveness either." (The bold sentence is what I want to highlight, I included the rest for some context.) I can't quite make out why he says this; does he mean the law doesn't suggest we should show mercy or forgive our neighbor? Anyway, how can he claim that "the Decalogue['s] ... precepts make no mention of mercy"? The Decalogue does explicitly make mention of mercy: "shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments." If the Decalogue is the covenant of works republished, how can there be a mention of grace to those who love God in the Decalogue itself? The mention of mercy in the Decalogue only makes sense if the Decalogue was given in the context of the covenant of grace.
Originally Posted by Richard Tallach
Casey, Chicagoland, OPC
1 member(s) found this post helpful.