Originally Posted by SemperFideles

Good summary Rev. Buchanan.

Bruce (Breunig) - this is a Confessional board. There's good reason for that. I used to wonder why folks were stodgy about that - thinking that "...why I believe the Scriptures but they trust in their Confession...."

I now view it as: "I confess the Scriptures along with the Church...."

That is, while I should understand the Scriptures and study them - my study is not done on a desert island but in the context of the Church who has been gifted with Pastors and Teachers whose job it is to teach and bring us all to the unity of the faith (i.e. a common Confession).

NCT is un-Confessional and hence, in my view, novel and un-Scriptural. Those who trust their own interpretations of the Word above the centuries-old testimony of the Church will never understand that the two statements are complementary.

I'm saying this to be clear: we do not promote un-Confessional theology here. Not only is NCT un-Confessional but the men that teach it ought to repent and learn that it's not "me and the Bible" but the "Church confessing the authority of the Bible".

Originally Posted by Catechist

Dear Prof. Clark,

I appreciate your patience with me.

I think the point I am making, is that Israel was not included under the curse in the same way which was peculiar in the covenant of works, if they sinned but in the least instance.

Samuel Rutherford, said it this way, in his book, The Covenant of Life Opened, "But the truth is, the Law as pressed upon Israel was not a Covenant of Works. The law as the Law or as a Covenant of Works is made with perfect men who need no mercy; But this covenant is made with sinners, with an express preface of mercy, I am the Lord thy God that brought thee out of the land of Egypt, &c. It is made with stiff-necked Israel Deut. 29 Deut 30.c. 31. c. 32. and that is called a covenant from the end and object, as motions are denominate from their end: for the end of the Lords pressing the law upon them was to bring them under a blessed necessity to seek salvation in their true city of Refuge Christ Jesus, who redeemed them out of spiritual bondage of sin."

Originally Posted by A5pointer

Sir, I appreciate this site for learning and discussion and thank you for welcoming me. I do not want to be out of bounds of the guidelines here. If you are telling me that it is a problem to discuss or defend non-confessional views I will abide. Please make it clear to me if this is forbidden.

Having said that you say "NCT is un-Confessional and hence, in my view, novel and un-Scriptural." Do you and others here really feel this way about the relationship of truth/confessions/scripture? Kind of shocking.

Respectfully, Bruce

Originally Posted by R. Scott Clark

Now, is my relation to the city legal or gracious? Well, it's gracious right up to the point it isn't any more...

Originally Posted by Contra_Mundum

Hi Bruce,
Please allow me to try and nuance what Rich has said. We use the (several) Confessions here as parameters for our discussion. None of us want to be guilty of placing man-made documents on par with the Scripture.

Having made that point clear, by relying on the Confessions (which do contain certain differences, noticably on baptism) we are "in conversation" with the church's interpretation of Scripture in history. So the basis for our discussions NOW are a frame of generally agreed-upon theology. So when Rich (or anyone else here) says that some non-Confessional view is, in his opinion, unScriptural he's really saying no more than "the Confessions are RIGHT in their interpretation/expression of the correct meaning of the Scripture in this area."

In other words: there are more-vital and less-vital areas of every Confession. These days, a man can often hold non- or anti-Confessional views on eschatology, and yet those views may not appear to challenge the fundamental integrity of the Confessional interpretation of Scripture as a whole. So what about NCT? Well, all the Reformed Confessions rely to one degree or another on the Covenant Theology/History of Redemption hermeneutical stance, growing out of the Reformation. A fundamental agreement of all these Confessions--even the Baptist--is that there is ONE Covenant of Grace, though it is administered differently at different times.

NCT certainly bears similarities to Confessional Baptist covenant theology, but it also draws from disparate sources/wells as it presents its "picture" to the world. I'm not as familar with the whole movement as are some of the Confessional Baptists, who are much closer to its sphere. But clearly some of NCT's influences come up from non- and anti-Confessional roots, and so deviate from the basis-for-unity that we've tried to establish here.

I hope this clarifies some.

Originally Posted by A5pointer

Bruce thank you, I suppose more vital/less vital can be very subjective. I don't see discussion on covenant view doing final violence to essentials. As I have said I am compelled by the biblical arguement of NCT. It seems to be a new lable and has a few faces. I believe you will find Carson and Moo amoung subscibers to forms of it. If I am reading Mr. R.Scott right he seems to lean that way. I hope he comments. As far as discussion of covenant the ones who seem to go wild are the sabatarians as NCT throws the yoke of the decalouge off in favor of the law of Christ alone, love the lord your God and your neighbor. I desire to be teachable in pursuing the truth, I just am not persuaded that covenentalism fits biblical theology ot he texts. R. Scott any thought on this?

Originally Posted by A5pointer

Sir, I appreciate this site for learning and discussion and thank you for welcoming me. I do not want to be out of bounds of the guidelines here. If you are telling me that it is a problem to discuss or defend non-confessional views I will abide. Please make it clear to me if this is forbidden.

Having said that you say "NCT is un-Confessional and hence, in my view, novel and un-Scriptural." Do you and others here really feel this way about the relationship of truth/confessions/scripture? Kind of shocking.

Respectfully, Bruce

Originally Posted by R. Scott Clark

Hi Kevin,

It depends upon which use of the covenant of works is in view. It was widely held that the covenant of works was abrogated as an actual way of justification.

Originally Posted by Catechist

Dear Prof. Clark,

Thank you for your respectful dialogue.



Agreed. Rom 3:20,21 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin. But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets



Agreed in part, if by Israel you mean elect Israel, then we are agreed (WCF 7:5). The pedagogical use of the law was made specifically for the elect.

Rutherford markedly singled out this argument in the Covenant of Life Opened (I Cor. 10:1-4, Heb 11:13), distinguishing them from the reprobate, “Who persecute the Godly the sons of promise, so is the Law as it was in Adams dayes, and now is to all the Reprobate; so the Godly are not under the Law and the Covenant of Works. The Covenant urged upon Believers is to prove them, when they stand afar off and tremble, Ex.20:20, Fear not (saith Moses) God is come to prove you (not to damne you) and therefore Calvin solidely observeth that Paul, (2 Cor. 3), speaks with less respect of the Law and the Prophets do, for their cause, who out of a vain affection of the Law ceremonies, gave too much to the Law and darkened the Gospel….but as it was used by the Lord to prove them, Exod. 29:20, and chase them to Christ.”



From what I understand from various writers, the fall created a major change in the way elect Israel related to the law. Reprobate Israel related to the law in the same way Adam did, as Rutherford noted above. And (WCF 7:3) “Man by his fall having made himself incapable of life by that covenant, the Lord was pleased to make a second.” Nor were the accidents of the law peculiar to the Mosaic economy only, for circumcision was first commanded to Abraham and his house, for the sake of the elect. The elect obtained the promises by approaching the law from afar-off (Heb.11:13). Israel at large had a relationship to the covenant of works that had prescribed law as law, bondage and death, as seen also in Adam.

As to the terms and nature of the covenant of works, it was not republished as to obtain life through works of sincere obedience nor ever changed its terms and nature as to require anything less but perfect obedience. Rutherford writes, “this covenant was made with Israel only, Exod. 20, Deut 5.c.6. Deut6:5, 6:7.12. The Covenant of Works is made with all mankind.” A clear distinction that agrees with the law as prescribed to elect Abraham and Israel in WCF 7:5, along with the pedagogical use and intent of the law.



But I propose that these changes were made for the elect’s sake. For Christ is the second Adam, not the second Moses. The nature of the covenant of works is peculiar to Adam and all of mankind, not just Israel republished. Moses was a mediator, a type of Christ. Neither does the covenant of works command any ceremonies, sacrifices, or any type of a mediator at all. If the covenant of works were republished, it no longer retained anything due to its nature with such changes.

Rutherford asserts, For the Lord expressly tells them, when he took them by the hand as his married people, to bring them out of the land of Egypt, and out of the house of bondage, Exod. 20. He meant no other covenant then he made with Abraham, of believing, Gen. 15, and of walking before him and being perfect, Gen 17:1,2., which is somewhat more legall, as Moses and the lord expones it, Exod 2:24, Exod. 3:6, Exod. 20. 1,2. And he shows them, Lev 26, if in their enemies land they repent and shall come out and meet the rod, and their uncircumcised heartsshall willingly accept of the punishment of their inquity Lev 26:42: then (saith the Lord) I will remember my covenant with Jacob, and also my covenant with Isaac, and also my covenant with Abraham will I remember, there is no word of the subservient Covenant with Israel in Sinai. Except that when he mentions the one he excludes the other. For to walk before the Lord required in Abrahams covenant Gen 17:1 is to walk in the ways of the Lord, to fear and love him. Deut 10:12-13 and Samuel, I Sam. 12:22, Joshua, Josh 24:22,23, 24, 25. And Mary, Luke 1:55, And Zacharias, ver. 70,72,73 refer to the covenant made with Abraham, and Deut 6. the Covenant at Horeb, the Lord made with Abraham to give Canaan to his seed.”



I understand Rutherford to apply the typological relation of the law relative to the people of the Jews, all of which signified Christ to come, for the elect. As WCF 7:5 states, “under the law it was administered by promises, prophecies, sacrifices, circumcision, the paschal lamb, and other types and ordinances delivered to the people of the Jews, all foresignfying Christ to come, which were for that time sufficient and efficacious, through the operation of the spirit, to instruct and build up the elct in faith in the promised Messiah, by whom they had full remission of sins, and eternal salvation; and is called the Old Testament.”

The law as pressed upon Israel was not the covenant of works.



The covenant of works WCF 19:2, “This law after the fall, continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness; and as such, was delivered by God upon mount Sinai in ten commandments…” But such a covenant of works cannot be applied to the elect of Israel, as in 19:6, “Although true believers be not under the law as a covenant of works…” The administration of the covenant shadows are interpreted in (WCF 7:5) for the elect, inclusive of circumcision (Gen:17).



If the law be fulfilled by grace, we are justified by works. Nor are we in bondage to the dominion of the condemning law. But if we submit ourselves to every lawful ordinance of man for Christ’s sake, then we do well.

Rutherford, “For there can be none under the covenant of works, and also under the covenant of grace, for they are contrair dispensations, and contrair wayes of salvation.”



I understand that Israel gained temporal merciful benefits because of God’s promises to the elect which were in Israel. When contrasting the covenant of grace with the legal civil covenant of works, Rutherford states, “There is no more reason to say, it was a civil covenant made with Abraham, because it distinguished Abrahams seed from other nations, and an earthly Covenant, because Canaan was promised to them, not to us, then to say there be two covenants of works, one made to Adam, with promise of an earthly Paradise, and another covenant of works to the Jews, with an earthly Canaan; and a third to these who in the gospel time are under the covenant of works.”



But to Israel at large, the conditional language was but a stumblingblock, The righteousness of faith is clearly distinguished from the righteousness of Law-doing. For so Paul, Rom 10:5-7 and Moses, Deut 30:11-14.

Rutherford, “The covenant of works taught nothing of the way of expiation of sin by blood typifying the ransom of blood that Christ was to pay for our sins, as this covenant, all along had sacrifices and blood to confirm it. Exod. 24:8. And Moses took, the blood and sprinkled it on the people, and said, behold this is the blood of the covenant which the Lord hath made with you, concerning all these words. Now the words were the Ten Commandments. See Heb 9:18-24.”



I do not necessarily see how you’re good words, as written here above, speak to a republication of the covenant of works for Israel at large. Israel (like Adam) is under the original terms and nature of the covenant of works without any requirement to republish another (WCF 19:2). Christ fulfills the covenant of works as our kinsmen redeemer for his elect as promised under various accidents.

Rutherford, "And when God made the covenant with Abraham, Gen 17 and renewed the same, Deut. 29, he made it with these who were not yet standing, vs. 14,15, not with you only, &c, but virtually, radically with us Gentiles, who were not then born, as touching the substantials, for Priesthood, Law service, Types, Sacrifices, Circumcision, yea Baptism, the Lord's supper. Pastors, Teachers, Elders to rule, Deacons, were all accidents, to the substance of the Covenant, to wit, to believe in Christ and to obtain righteousness and Life by Christ."

Originally Posted by R. Scott Clark

Kevin,

Is it your understanding that the only category in which we can speak of the covenant of works is soteriological?

What was Israel's function as a national, corporate entity, in the history of salvation?

rsc

Originally Posted by Catechist

Prof. Clark,

I think it's a mistake to divorce the entity from the interwoven purpose of the entity, and how it applies to the covenanted parties of the entity, within the function of national, corporate Israel.

Originally Posted by R. Scott Clark

One of the more important conclusions from this doctrine is one that our 17th century forefathers did not recognize very clearly is that the idea of a national covenant is defunct. God doesn't enter into national covenants with any national entity since the crucifixion. Christ's kingdom, expressed in his visible, institutional church through the preaching of the gospel, the adminstration of the sacraments, and the exercise of discipline, knows no national boundaries (Gal 3:28; Col 3:11; Eph 2). The dividing wall (the civil and ceremonial laws, circumcision) has been broken down in the body of Jesus, the true Israel of God. After the expiration of the national covenant, the kingdom of God has no civil administration. Attempts to resurrect the Mosaic civil administration whether in theocracy or theonomy are fundamentally misguided. It is a puzzle how we can see so clearly that the Roman attempt to resurrect the ceremonial aspect of the Mosaic covenant is wrong but some cannot see how wrong it is to try to resurrect the Mosaic civil administration?

Originally Posted by R. Scott Clark

Kevin,

Could you elaborate?

I understand that the national covenant in Israel was added (Gal 3) to the Mosaic as a distinct, temporary entity.

Originally Posted by R. Scott Clark

Can we, for the purpose of discussion, divide the question?

Let's set aside whether there can be post-canonical national covenants and focus on whether God may be said to have made a national covenant with Israel and in what way it was conditional.

Could you elaborate on the ways in which the Israelite national covenant was conditional?

rsc