Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
There is no need for an impossible Republication of the CoW at Sinai. Under the Mosaic Covenant God was graciously teaching the people about the already broken CoW as part of the CoG in a way suited for them.
In the New Testament He graciously teaches us about the already broken CoW in a way suited to us.
There is no need for an impossible Republication of the CoW at Sinai. Under the Mosaic Covenant God was graciously teaching the people about the already broken CoW as part of the CoG in a way suited for them.
In the New Testament He graciously teaches us about the already broken CoW in a way suited to us.
Why would this be different than the seven points offered beyond the language of "republished"? For the record, I do not believe "republished" is a helpful term but could be construed to mean what you wrote above, it seems to me.
Dr Clark is proposing a renewed CoW "in some sense" at Sinai, by which the Israelites would merit some temporal rewards. He's not talking about the Lord teaching the Israelites about an already broken CoW including the important teaching that any rewards would have to be by grace not by works.
Richard,
When you say,
Dr Clark is proposing a renewed CoW "in some sense" at Sinai, by which the Israelites would merit some temporal rewards. He's not talking about the Lord teaching the Israelites about an already broken CoW including the important teaching that any rewards would have to be by grace not by works.
Briefly, you've quite misunderstood me. You've quite reversed what I said.
You've assumed that I must think that that "the Israelites would merit some temporal rewards" but I neither said nor implied that.
Please re-read what I actually wrote.
is followed by point 4c in which the moral law serves,RSC said:The moral law reflects the divine nature and was first given in creation and later re-stated in temporary, typological, theocratic, Israelite, terms at Sinai.
RSC said:insofar as it is a summary of the moral law, as the moral norm for the Israelites and new covenant Christians (normative use)
RSC said:In the new covenant that law, in both tables, stripped of its Israelite, typological features (e.g., land tenure, saturday sabbath), remains as a perpetual, universal norm for all humans.
Mark, I do not. At this juncture in my investigation, I have a "gut reaction" to certain things but want to stick with "just the facts." The historical quotes offered by Dr. Clark are certainly something that should make people pause who wish to denounce any and all usage of the word "republication" or like language.
To some extent there is a blending of issues here as I have noted before: republication and social/culture theories (theonomy, neo-kuyperianism, etc.) are logically separable in my mind. Further, similar to the question of the origin of the soul, traducianism or creationism, it may be people have strong inclinations one way or another but the specific "answer" to the origin of the soul was never formally settled in Reformed confession (I'm thinking of Berkhof's treatment here). The same may be here given, again, the historical evidence of this language. Of course, bringing out the limits of acceptability is a worthy goal right now.
my two cents (with inflation),
Tim, What do you think of this part of the points: "4.B “Serve, in both tables, as the norm for Israelite civil life and to serve, in the second table, a [sic] the norm civil life after the expiration of the Israelite theocracy (civil use).”
I can only read this as stating only the second table as norming civil life and not the first table as well.
Tim, What do you think of this part of the points: "4.B “Serve, in both tables, as the norm for Israelite civil life and to serve, in the second table, a [sic] the norm civil life after the expiration of the Israelite theocracy (civil use).”
I can only read this as stating only the second table as norming civil life and not the first table as well.
There is quite a deal of difference between saying that the law was a republication of the covenant of works and that there was a republication of the covenant of works when the law was given.
The Law was republished
Yes, that is how I see it. And it was used to teach them their need of Christ.
The Law was republished
Yes, that is how I see it. And it was used to teach them their need of Christ. So, why claim a "republication" of an entire covenant that was already broken? Even typologically?
The French divines, Camero and Amgraut [Cameron and Amyraut?] proposed an ingenious modification of the legal theory of Moses’ covenant: That in it a certain kind of life was proposed (as in the Covenant of Works,) as a reward for an exact obedience. But that the life was temporal, in a prosperous Canaan, and the obedience was ritual. This is true, so far as a visible church standing turned on a ritual obedience. But to the Hebrew, that temporal life in happy Canaan was a type of heaven, which was not promised to an exact moral obedience, but to faith. Were this theory modified, so as to represent this dependence of the Hebrew’s church standing on his ritual obedience, as a mere type and emblem of the law’s spiritual work as a "schoolmaster to lead us to Christ," it might stand. (p453)
Clark's 7 points appear to conflate the "first use of the law" with the covenant of works, and I think other Klinean "repubs" are doing likewise.
There is quite a deal of difference between saying that the law was a republication of the covenant of works and that there was a republication of the covenant of works when the law was given.
So which of these two is it?
Dabney comes out against Republication, in his Systematic Theology, but what does he mean here:
, 4B, that does not appear to be necessary and reflects their version of Two Kingdoms. The two issues are logically separable but practically joined at the hip in this American context.
Mark, I suspect as much that the Klinen viewpoint is the root of R2K. I am not sure exactly how. That is why asked if 4.B had to be part of republication.
The Law was republished
Yes, that is how I see it. And it was used to teach them their need of Christ. So, why claim a "republication" of an entire covenant that was already broken? Even typologically?