Thread: "Inside Baseball" Question for Presby Scholars RE: The Law

I was listening to a critique of the WSC book, "The Law is Not of Faith." The review was by a Gary DeMar associate who took umbrage at the criticism of John Murray's position about "republication" of the law. He saw this as a crypto-Lutheran view flying under Reformed auspices.

Can someone give me a succinct summary of the various views of the law by mainstream Reformed thinkers?

Thanks!

Dennis:

Perhaps you could clarify: do you mean the view of the law in the sense of the Mosaic covenant or do you mean the view of the law in the sense of moral & ethical guidelines?

If I understood the nuances of the discussion, Murray was being criticized by Gordon for misreading Paul (along with the Westminster Confession divines making the same "error") over the so-called "republication of the law" at Sinai. The complaint is that Murray found too large a positive role for the law today against the more Lutheran understanding of a radical discontinuity. The speaker was contrasting the Philadelphia Westminster tradition with that of Westminster California. I have been around the PB long enough to know that this bears Klinean overtones. However, it would be nice to see a simple (easy to understand) set of options with the names of mainstream Reformed luminaries who hold to each of the views.

Evidently in the opinion of the guy from DeMar's organization, Horton and Clark are being contrasted with Murray with respect to the covenant of grace vis a vis the Mosaic economy. I guess I'm looking for a bit of a roadmap legend or key to understanding the various approaches taken within Reformed circles on the subject.

Sorry Dennis: my question, it seems, was entirely unnecessary. I should have grasped your intent from the OP. The reason that I asked the question though is because I didn't quite understand the term "republication of the law." I am by no means well read on the subject but I thought the term would be "republication of the covenant of works" in the Mosaic economy.

In any case since no one is else is engaging you I thought I would attempt to answer your question:

You wrote

Murray was being criticized by Gordon for misreading Paul (along with the Westminster Confession divines making the same "error") over the so-called "republication of the law" at Sinai.

I am not scolding you but I do ask: is this (the bolded section) not sufficient? There are many streams of thought(s) among Reformed writers about many different things but I believe our confessions point us to what may be defined as Reformed. So personally I don't think you will find any 'road map' or guideline to the different Reformed views on the subject.

Specifically I believe the Reformed have always taught that the Mosaic economy was part and parcel of the covenant of grace. That the law condemns us only shows us our sins and misery to be sure but it ultimately functions as a means to draw us to Christ, who is the essence of the covenant.

I was also taught (at WSCAL no less!) that Kline's view was the novel (minority?) one in the history of Reformed thought. In Kline's view the covenant of grace is subservient to the covenant of works in the Mosaic covenant whereas in the Reformed view the covenant of works primarily functions in the Mosaic covenant as explained in the previous paragraph. So his view may not be heterodoxical but it isn't really mainstream either.

Originally Posted by Poimen

I was also taught (at WSCAL no less!) that Kline's view was the novel (minority?) one in the history of Reformed thought. In Kline's view the covenant of grace is subservient to the covenant of works in the Mosaic covenant whereas in the Reformed view the covenant of works primarily functions in the Mosaic covenant as explained in the previous paragraph. So his view may not be heterodoxical but it isn't really mainstream either.

That's *very* interesting, because in The Marrow of Modern Divinity , which I've been blogging about (specifically on the doctrine of republication here and here), it is very clear that what Fisher (and Boston) are arguing for is the republished covenant of works being subservient to the covenant of grace. If Kline argues vice versa, that's very strange, and clearly in contradiction to what was taught by Fisher/Boston in their work, which contains one of the more direct statements on republication.

My bad! The correct expression would be the "republication of the covenant of works" in the Mosaic Law.

Your answer was helpful and I thank you for it.

My original question, still stands, albeit awkwardly and somewhat ignorantly it appears.
Murray was, I always thought, a stalwart of Westminster Seminary Calvinism. Now a book comes out with a chapter by a fellow who says (according to the guy in DeMar's organization) that Murray has an erroneous view of the relationship between law and grace. Hearing Gordon (through the critique of a third party) makes it sound as if he accuses Murray of beeing "squeamish" about the Law vs. Gospel relationship so much so that he claims that Murray NEVER discussed Galatians in any of his voluminous writings (citing both a direct reference in Gordon's chapter and a rather condemnatory footnote). The critic counters that Gordon never mentions (or even shows awareness of) Murray's Principles of Conduct and the chapter on Law and Grace where Murray purportedly addresses the very concerns that Gordon accuses him of being squeamish regarding.

Since WSC and WTS are both confessionally orthodox schools with a more than an incidental shared DNA, I'm a little confused. So my question about the republication of the covenant of works and the issue of the Mosaic economy as part of the Covenant of Grace. That was the reason for my question.

Evidently the book begins with a fictionalized ordinand reacting to a challenge at his ordination exam when an elder deals with the young man's belief in "republication," suggesting that it is contra-confessional (to the Westminster standards). Supposedly the book supplies the academic background to answer that charge.

As it was analyzed by the fellow from DeMar's group (Joel McDurmon???), the book (especially the chapter by Gordon?) uses arguments that sound decidedly more Lutheran than Reformed in their conceptualization of the relationship of Law vs. Gospel. Hence, my appeal to the erudite Presbyterians among us to explain to this poor Baptist what is going on in confessional Reformed thought on this topic.

Thomas Goodwin reviews the book, talks about John Murray on covenant theology, takes up T. David Gordon, who then replies and TG discusses the Sinai question.

In the archives there are additional posts about Owen and other of the Reformed Orthodox on this matter (Owen was idiosyncratic).

Originally Posted by py3ak

Thomas Goodwin reviews the book, talks about John Murray on covenant theology, takes up T. David Gordon, who then replies and TG discusses the Sinai question.

In the archives there are additional posts about Owen and other of the Reformed Orthodox on this matter (Owen was idiosyncratic).

Wow! Ruben, that was a goldmine! Thank you. The review was very informative. The additional blog pieces are superior. It was great to read a strong crituque (almost a rebuke) of Dr. Gordon followed by Gordon's reply and then the reference to exactly the issue about which I was asking.

Thanks! Now, does anyone have a taxonomy of Reformed thinking on this subject other than the one in The Law is Not of Faith which I do not own yet?

I do believe there is much confusion about the relationship between 'law and gospel' in Reformed communities even to the extent that the distinction is categorically denied by some even though every major Reformer I have read adhered to this principle in name and conviction.

Strangely I read an article once which claimed that Ursinus' view of law-gospel was too Lutheran, which a rather weighty 'charge' considering the Heidelberg Catechism which he authored is considered to be one of the most 'universal' catechisms of Reformed Christianity!

Personally I am not convinced that Luther and Calvin's conception of law-gospel were diametrically opposed but rather complimentary. It had to do with justification by faith alone and was largely restricted to that. If we made the concept into an absolute antithesis we would probably be, and rightly so, charged with antinomianism. On the other hand what further generations have done with it, however, may have led us astray from their original intent. More discussion in light of our confessional adherence and unity is needed.

In addition the best way, it seems to me, to clear up this controversy is to have each side define their terms very clearly. Throwing out accusations of being Lutheran or Reformed will never clear the air. What, don't Lutherans believe in the third use of the law? Nonsense. What, don't the Reformed believe that the law points us away from our self-righteousness, and not to Christ's righteousness for us? Ridiculous.

There are obviously some differences in how Reformed people perceive these points of discussion but I believe we have far more in common than we have against each other. Let's build on that.

There's a critique of the idea of republication of the covenant of works here and a defence of belief that the WCF is not republicationist.
In Defense of Moses: A Confessional Critique of Kline and Karlberg

There's another thread on this here:-
Re-publication: Covenant of Works Question

I think the republication thesis may be an unecessary and unbiblical complication. The way to overcome some problems is to recognise that although the Old and New Covenants are both part of the one Covenant of Grace, the Old Covenant administration is in some ways less gracious. I'm not fully sure how that unpacks, so I may start another thread on it.

Some criticise Johnnie Murray for flattening out the differences between the administrations of the Covenant of Grace so much, that he couldn't call the Covenant of Works a covenant because it didn't fit his scheme. Then others have tried to go further and argue that the CoW is purely a CoG!