1689 Fed and Republication

Status
Not open for further replies.

Captain Picard

Puritan Board Freshman
What distinguishes the view of "the 1689 position" of Barcellos et. all on the nature of the Mosaic covenant from that of republication? Is it merely that the Barcellos bunch teach that the Deuteronomic covenant was "a" covenant of works and republication folks teach that it was "the" covenant of works?
 

VictorBravo

Administrator
Staff member
I can't speak for Rich Barcellos, but I think I can give a little insight.

I think you'd find most 1689ers who have looked at the issue closely to say something like the Mosaic covenant "reaffirms" the covenant of works, but isn't the covenant of works. In other words, no person could be saved by it, but it does indeed reveal grace by, among other things, revealing the idea of a substitutionary atonement.

The Mosaic does a number of things: it sets out the rules for establishing the nation of Israel and ensuring the Abrahamic promise of a seed (also promised in Genesis 3:15); it defines proper and holy living, thereby demonstrating the impossibility of anyone to be righteous by their works; it reminds Israel, and everyone else, that God is holy and will not tolerate sin; and it provided an objective framework in which Jesus Christ could demonstrably fulfill all that was required.

One thing that is different between the Mosaic and the original covenant of works with Adam is the revelation of substitutionary atonement. The sacrifices demonstrated that blood had to be shed for sin, that the wages of sin is death. The scape goat bearing sins away from the camp also gave an object lesson of this. The function of the priest as mediator is clarified, and the laws pertaining to priests laid the foundation for understanding that (among other things) (1) a priest is taken from men (as opposed to angels or something else) and (2) that a priest must be made holy before his sacrifice can be pleasing to God. As we see in Hebrews, this is shown to be fulfilled by Lord Christ because he indeed was a man, his blood was sacrificed, and he was holy by his own obedience to the law.

True enough, the LBCF treats the covenant of works differently from the WCF. The LBCF only mentions the covenant of works in Chapter 20. In Chapter 19, speaking of the Law of God, it tracks the WCF exactly except that it describes "a law of universal obedience written in his heart, and a particular precept of not eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil;" instead of "a covenant of works." It describes this as the law given to Adam, and continuing as "a perfect rule of righteousness" after the fall, essentially as is stated in the WCF.

This law--called the "moral law" (and later called the covenant of works in chapter 20), is "forever binding" and is not abrogated. (WCF agrees here with identical language). But, as near as I can tell, the LBCF does not speak the language of republication and does not consider the Mosaic to be a covenant that could save directly (in other words, it was not established as an alternative method of salvation by works). Instead, it taught the seriousness of sin and the impossibility of being reconciled to God except on his own terms: payment of death by a holy and unspotted sacrifice of a true High Priest.

Maybe that makes things worse, I don't know, but the main point is that the difference is not just a semantic one, but rather one of the function of the Mosaic in connection to the covenant of works.
 

Captain Picard

Puritan Board Freshman
Thanks VB. I was sort of tracking that the distinctions were the ones you outlined, but that makes sense. However, when you say that the LCBF affirms that grace can be seen in the Mosaic administration, I wonder how that differs from the idea that the Mosaic period was merely an "adminstrative phase" of the covenant of grace.
 

MW

Puritanboard Amanuensis
and republication folks teach that it was "the" covenant of works?

Republicationists say "in some sense." What that sense is, nobody knows.

They differ from antipaedobaptists in that they recognise the Abrahamic covenant in its inclusion of infants was an actual administration of the covenant of grace.
 

VictorBravo

Administrator
Staff member
I wonder how that differs from the idea that the Mosaic period was merely an "adminstrative phase" of the covenant of grace.

Without going into great detail, I think the most prominent 1689 view is that "administrative phase" language comes into conflict with the clear contrast between the old and new covenants discussed in Hebrews 8. That leads most of the current 1689ers to want to make a distinction here where most WCF adherents would not. (E.g. one covenant, two administrations vs. two actually different covenants--leading to a question of what exactly is a covenant, etc.).

As for my personal view, it is more nuanced and, for me, too technical to lay out on a Lord's Day evening. I'm still working through things like this.
 

Robert Truelove

Puritan Board Sophomore
1689 Federalism rejects the idea of the covenants prior to the New Covenant being "administrations" of the Covenant of Grace. Rather we point out the organic unity of the covenants is not "one covenant, different administrations" as do the paedobaptists, but the Covenant of Grace is promised in the "covenants of promise", and fulfilled in the New Covenant (it's substance).

For this reason, the notion of the republication of the Covenant of Works in the Mosaic Covenant isn't a problem for our system one way or the other (as it is for paedobaptistic covenant theology).

A good resource for this is http://www.1689federalism.com/
 

psycheives

Puritan Board Freshman
Hoping to provide clarification, I believe Chapter 3 of "The Law is Not of Faith" is helpful to understanding that what some are calling "Republication" is not properly a summary of "Republication." I encourage you to read Brent Ferry's chapter or dissertation, which reveals that the debates aren't over "republication" AT ALL.

Everyone holds to "republication" - which is the view that the moral law (Decalogue) was republished through the entire Bible, including the 10 commandments. This is what Ferry and others called "Material Republication." All sides in the debates hold this view. So everyone holds to "Republication in some sense."

These debates also aren't even over "the Covenant of Works being republished" because what many old Reformers mean by this phrase was simply "the moral law given to Adam was republished through the entire Bible" which simply describes Material Republication again.

If one uses the phrase "the Covenant of Works being republished" to mean something very different than the moral law, then we probably still won't have a debate. Because most of these Material Republicationists also hold to various forms of "Formal Republication" - such as Hypothetical Salvation view; Pedagogical view that the law points to Christ (Turretin); Typological view (Mosaic has shadows that point to Christ) etc. (Read Chapter 3 of "The Law is Not of Faith.")

If Ferry's taxonomy is to be followed, the debate has nothing to do with Material Republication (which everyone holds) or types of Formal Republication (which most hold). As I understand his taxonomy, the debate is primarily over various versions of Dr. Meredith Kline's personal view of Typological Formal Republication that holds 1) Israel merited their stay in the land by outward works; 2) the covenant of works was republished in the Mosaic Covenant "as a works principle" by which earthly blessings were merited before the New Covenant; 3) Noah, Abraham, Israel all "merited" blessings from God by their outward works; 4) "grace" is restricted to a narrow definition (ignoring Biblical and historical definitions) as "unmerited favor toward one who deserves demerit"; 5) some say the gospel depends on this view and so advocates may suggest that opponents reject or do damage to the gospel or hold to the Federal Vision heresy. It should be noted that Dr. Kline himself does not say that the Mosaic covenant is a "republication" of the covenant of works (as his followers do). He prefers to say that the Mosaic covenant contained or was informed by "the works principle" at the typological level pertaining to the land.

We can't hope in understanding a debate if we don't know the views and proper terminology. I hope this is helpful to your understanding the differences between Dr Kline's view and the 1689 position. If I have make any errors in summarizing the views, please provide correction as needed.
 
Last edited:

psycheives

Puritan Board Freshman
From Richard Barcellos' article "What is a divine covenant and what is the New Covenant in contrast to the Old Covenant?":

When divine covenants demand conditions of obedience on man’s part, they can be viewed as covenants of obedience or works. When a divine covenant provides all it requires, it is a covenant of grace. In the discussion below, you will notice that I view the Old Covenant as a conditional covenant, a covenant of works, and the New Covenant as the covenant of grace.

Dr. Kline's followers' view differs with Mr. Barcellos' view in that Klineans consider the Mosaic Covenant to be "a Covenant of Grace with a Covenant of Works 'works principle,'" while Mr. Barcellos' view considers it a full "Covenant of Works." Dr. Kline's view and its variations consider the Mosaic Covenant to be "a republication of the Covenant of Works or works principle" and it is this works principle that must be met for Israel to receive blessings and long life in the land. So while this view holds to this "works principle," this view still considers the Mosaic Covenant to be a Covenant of Grace.

Both views hold a strong contrast between the Abrahamic Covenant and the Mosaic Covenant with regard to a works-principle with conditions of obedience demanded on man's part. So you will probably notice similarities here. This is why some will call the Klineans' Mosaic Covenant a 'half-Covenant of Grace/half-Covenant of Works.' Dr. Kline himself would chose this language: "At the level of the secondary, typological stratum of the Mosaic order, continuance in the election to kingdom blessings was not guaranteed by sovereign grace on the basis of Christ’s meritorious accomplishments. It was rather something to be merited by the Israelites’ works of obedience to the law. (Kingdom Prologue, Pg 322).

God will not turn away from those in this covenant, like he did when Old Covenant Israel broke the covenant,
In this sense, the New Covenant is not like the Old Covenant. The blessings of the Old Covenant were conditioned upon Israel’s obedience to the law of Moses (cf. Exod. 19:5-6 and Lev. 26:3ff.).

Anyone saved prior to the formal or historical inauguration of the New Covenant were saved by its saving virtue.

The difference between the Old and New Covenant is not one of an administration of the same covenant (e.g., from stage one to stage two or from a legal administration to a gracious administration of the same covenant). The difference between the two is one of kind or essence. The Old Covenant demands obedience to secure its temporal blessings or promises; the New Covenant confers its blessings or promises, which are eternal. The promised blessings of the Old Covenant depended on the obedience of its citizens; the promised blessings of the New Covenant depend upon the obedience of Christ. The Old Covenant is conditional for its citizens; the New Covenant is unconditional for its citizens. The Old Covenant is temporal; the New Covenant is eternal.

Here Mr. Barcellos is distinguishing his view from the WCF's view that understands the Mosaic Covenant to be a legal administration of the Covenant of Grace and the New Covenant to be a gracious administration of the Covenant of Grace. Reformed theologians understand the essence of the Mosaic and New Covenants to be the same - of grace. And although some adherents of Dr. Kline's view might use strong language indicating the Mosaic Covenant's essence/substance is legal/'a covenant of works'/'works principle,' they still believe it is a Covenant of Grace underneath all that emphasis on the law.

Dr Kline's followers could agree with Mr. Barcellos here: "The Old Covenant demands obedience to secure its temporal blessings or promises; the promised blessings of the New Covenant depend upon the obedience of Christ." And also here: "The Old Covenant is temporal; the New Covenant is eternal."
 
Last edited:

MW

Puritanboard Amanuensis
If I have make any errors in summarizing the views, please provide correction as needed.

Regrettably Ferry's taxonomy is misleading in the way that it supposes categories of thought which some of the authors never imagined.

The exegetical essays in "The Law is not of Faith" will make it apparent that there are at least some "republication" advocates who maintain that the law was intended by God as a works principle for Israel in opposition to the grace principle of the new covenant. This is not reformed. It supposes there are two co-ordinate covenants functioning side by side. The reformed view as taught in the Westminster Standards is that the law was an administration of the covenant of grace. The legal element is subordinate to the aims of the covenant of grace during a specific stage of redemptive history. Even under the gospel, the moral law continues as a rule of righteousness and has various uses for all men in common, as well as for the unbeliever and believer distinctly. The reformed view seeks to interpret the overall features of continuity and discontinuity of the law as taught by the New Testament. The revised view focuses on specific elements of discontinuity and magnifies them over against the elements of continuity.
 

psycheives

Puritan Board Freshman
If I have make any errors in summarizing the views, please provide correction as needed.

Regrettably Ferry's taxonomy is misleading in the way that it supposes categories of thought which some of the authors never imagined.

The exegetical essays in "The Law is not of Faith" will make it apparent that there are at least some "republication" advocates who maintain that the law was intended by God as a works principle for Israel in opposition to the grace principle of the new covenant. This is not reformed. It supposes there are two co-ordinate covenants functioning side by side. The reformed view as taught in the Westminster Standards is that the law was an administration of the covenant of grace. The legal element is subordinate to the aims of the covenant of grace during a specific stage of redemptive history. Even under the gospel, the moral law continues as a rule of righteousness and has various uses for all men in common, as well as for the unbeliever and believer distinctly. The reformed view seeks to interpret the overall features of continuity and discontinuity of the law as taught by the New Testament. The revised view focuses on specific elements of discontinuity and magnifies them over against the elements of continuity.

Thanks for this addition and summary of Dr. Kline's followers' view, Rev. Winzer. My post was not an attempt to promote or advocate for the exegetical essays in "The Law is Not of Faith" (which I have not yet read) but to help clarify the categories being discussed. Many will not agree with which categories Ferry placed individual theologians, but I believe his "labels/terminology" are helpful to understanding the views.

Since all Reformed Theologians and the WCF holds to "Material Republication" (of the moral law) and most to "Formal Republication" (Pedagogical, Typological, Hypothetical etc), it seems unhelpful and inaccurate to call Dr. Kline's Typological Formal Republication view simply "Republication" because it is not representative of "Republication" - which is the view that the moral law was republished.

Example: Your criticisms of his view are not that he taught Material Republication or that the moral law was republished, correct? Calvin, Murray, Turretin and you all agree with him on that. Or even that he taught Typological Formal Republication. Geerhardus Vos taught this too and no one is criticizing him much. Your criticism with Dr. Kline is not that he taught "Republication." It's that he taught a specific view of Typological Formal Republication, correct?

Perhaps a summary of Ferry's categories might be helpful:
1) Material Republication (of the moral law) according to the WCF
2) Formal Republication (of an aspect of "the covenant of works")
2.1) Pedagogical Formal Republication - The law in the Mosaic Covenant pointed to the need for Christ
2.2) Hypothetical Formal Republication - hypothetically with the law promised life under perfect obedience
2.3) Typological Formal Republication - Sacrifices foreshadowed Jesus' passive obedience etc
2.3.1) Geerhardus Vos' version of Typological Formal Republication
2.3.2) Meredith Kline's version of Typological Formal Republication
 
Last edited:

MW

Puritanboard Amanuensis
Perhaps a summary of Ferry's categories might be helpful:

They are worth pondering, but there are too many theologians who fall into multiple categories. Vos, a systematiser of reformed biblical theology, has basically included all the positions except Kline's.

Vos can be read here: http://feedingonchrist.com/geerhardus-vos-mosaic-covenant-covenant-grace/

Vos wrote,

"47. What objections must be made against all these proposals?

a) That they are against the presentation of Scripture in multiplying the covenants. Never and nowhere is it presented as if more than one covenant was established at Sinai."
 

psycheives

Puritan Board Freshman
Perhaps a summary of Ferry's categories might be helpful:

They are worth pondering, but there are too many theologians who fall into multiple categories. Vos, a systematiser of reformed biblical theology, has basically included all the positions except Kline's.

I believe the fact that theologians fall into multiple categories is actually part of the beauty of the categories and demonstrate their effectiveness. We aren't trying to peg theologians into broad categories like "Republicationists" vs "Non-Republicationsts" (who don't actually exist). Everyone is a "Republicationist." The question isn't "Are you or aren't you?" It is "What kind? In what sense?" The use of such broad categories/labels skew the entire debate and misrepresent all sides. We want to be precise with out terminology so that we don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. We must affirm "Republication" because our historic Reformed theologians did and it's Biblical and Confessional.

The categories allow us to acknowledge different theologians taught different ways in which the law worked and that multiple ways may be true. That Vos taught all 3 forms of Formal Republication is an excellent point - it adds validity to multiple views of Formal Republication. Murray at the very least taught Material Republication and probably Pedagogical Formal Republication (like Turretin). This clear precise terminology allows us to dispel all those who accuse Professor Murray of rejecting the moral law being republished (which makes him sound absurd and is simply not true). And thus the point - attacking "Republication" makes one look absurd because it pits one against all who have held and taught Formal and Material Republication views - which means it pits one against the entire Reformed Tradition and Confessions. This is certainly not where one would want to appear, but this is where sloppy terminology will get one pegged. Thus, let us loudly affirm "Republication" - Material and perhaps even some or all of the 3 Formal Republication views as Reformed and possibly Confessional. Our theologians certainly have done this. So, I believe we must affirm "Republication" or else we will divorce ourselves from our history and our own theologians.

If you were to use these categories, it would be clear to all your readers that you aren't criticizing the Republication views of Vos or the Republication views of Turretin, Witsius, Calvin, Murray etc or the Republication views of the Westminster Confession and 2nd Helvetic. The use of these categories would make it clear that your criticism is not with Republication (Material or Formal) but with one specific version of Typological Formal Republication - Dr Klines.
 
Last edited:

MW

Puritanboard Amanuensis
If you were to use these categories, it would be clear to all your readers that you aren't criticizing the Republication views of Vos or the Republication views of Turretin, Witsius, Calvin, Murray etc or the Republication views of the Westminster Confession and 2nd Helvetic. The use of these categories would make it clear that your criticism is not with Republication (Material or Formal) but with one specific version of Typological Formal Republication - Dr Klines.

Again, the categories are inadequate, therefore I wouldn't use them. They tell us very little as to the point in dispute. Neither Turretin, Witsius, Calvin, nor Murray fit into any of these categories. Vos fairly represents the reformed view in adopting all these categories whilst excluding the view of Kline. Moreover he does so without using the idea of "republication." As far as I can see, the word "republication" has been used in the past but not with the kind of systematic overtones being imposed on it by a specific school of thought. I think it is fair to call the Klinean school "republicationist" in distinction from what the reformed have traditionally taught. At the same time, I don't see any point quibbling about words.
 

psycheives

Puritan Board Freshman
If you were to use these categories, it would be clear to all your readers that you aren't criticizing the Republication views of Vos or the Republication views of Turretin, Witsius, Calvin, Murray etc or the Republication views of the Westminster Confession and 2nd Helvetic. The use of these categories would make it clear that your criticism is not with Republication (Material or Formal) but with one specific version of Typological Formal Republication - Dr Klines.

Again, the categories are inadequate, therefore I wouldn't use them. They tell us very little as to the point in dispute. Neither Turretin, Witsius, Calvin, nor Murray fit into any of these categories. Vos fairly represents the reformed view in adopting all these categories whilst excluding the view of Kline. Moreover he does so without using the idea of "republication." As far as I can see, the word "republication" has been used in the past but not with the kind of systematic overtones being imposed on it by a specific school of thought. I think it is fair to call the Klinean school "republicationist" in distinction from what the reformed have traditionally taught. At the same time, I don't see any point quibbling about words.

Rev. Winzer, thank you for your wisdom and engaging in this conversation. I've still got a lot to learn, so I will pray about this and continue reading and studying and seeking to learn. May our Lord continue to bless us with your guidance and sharpening - we are much the better for it. :)
 
Last edited:

MW

Puritanboard Amanuensis
If you were to use these categories, it would be clear to all your readers that you aren't criticizing the Republication views of Vos or the Republication views of Turretin, Witsius, Calvin, Murray etc or the Republication views of the Westminster Confession and 2nd Helvetic. The use of these categories would make it clear that your criticism is not with Republication (Material or Formal) but with one specific version of Typological Formal Republication - Dr Klines.

Again, the categories are inadequate, therefore I wouldn't use them. They tell us very little as to the point in dispute. Neither Turretin, Witsius, Calvin, nor Murray fit into any of these categories. Vos fairly represents the reformed view in adopting all these categories whilst excluding the view of Kline. Moreover he does so without using the idea of "republication." As far as I can see, the word "republication" has been used in the past but not with the kind of systematic overtones being imposed on it by a specific school of thought. I think it is fair to call the Klinean school "republicationist" in distinction from what the reformed have traditionally taught. At the same time, I don't see any point quibbling about words.

Rev. Winzer, thank you for your wisdom and engaging in this conversation. I've still got a lot to learn, so I will pray about this and continue reading and studying and seeking to learn. May our Lord continue to bless us with your guidance and sharpening - we are much the better for it. :)

Sorry for my matter-of-fact way of speaking. I am only trying to clarify the issues as I see them. May our Lord bless your study and guide you for His glory. Blessings!
 

brandonadams

Puritan Board Freshman
To the OP, please see this link for clarification http://www.1689federalism.com/republication-the-mosaic-covenant-and-eternal-life/

Psyche did a good job of clarifying some of the differences between 1689 Federalism and Klinean Republication. Another difference would be that Kline rejects WCF/LBCF 7.1, while 1689 Federalism affirms it.
https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2015/04/22/nehemiah-coxe-on-merit-in-lbcf-7-1/
https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2015/05/26/klines-covenant-creation-wcf-7-1/

For more on the differences on the question of "administration of the covenant of grace" see here:
https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2015/03/30/kline-on-administration-of-the-covenant-of-grace/

I do have to make one correction though:
Both views hold a strong contrast between the Abrahamic Covenant and the Mosaic Covenant

1689 Federalism does not hold a strong contrast between the Abrahamic Covenant and the Mosaic Covenant. We agree with Murray when he says
The obedience of Abraham is represented as the condition upon which the fulfilment of the promise given to him was contingent and the obedience of Abraham’s seed is represented as the means through which the promise given to Abraham would be accomplished. There is undoubtedly the fulfilment of certain conditions... At the outset we must remember that the idea of conditional fulfilment is not something peculiar to the Mosaic covenant. We have been faced quite poignantly with this very question in connection with the Abrahamic covenant. And since this feature is there patent, it does not of itself provide us with any reason for construing the Mosaic covenant in terms different from those of the Abrahamic

But we disagree with him when he continues
In all this the demand of obedience in the Mosaic covenant is principally identical with the same demand in the new covenant of the gospel economy.

We hold a strong contrast between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant, however:
The Old Covenant is coextensive with and collectively representative of theocratic Israel, defined by the Abrahamic, conditioned by the Mosaic, and focused by the Davidic Covenants. The Old Covenant, and thus each of these three covenants, differs from the New Covenant not merely in administration, but also in substance.

-Sam & Micah Renihan's chapter in Recovering a Covenantal Heritage

We would consider Kline and followers' attempt to "leap-frog" over the Mosaic Covenant and divorce it from the Abrahamic to be unbiblical.
 

brandonadams

Puritan Board Freshman
With regards to Ferry's taxonomy, I'd like to offer a few comments.

I think that it may provide some helpful categories for discussion. That was its purpose, and I think in that respect it is helpful. However, keep in mind he specifically says (if you read the full thesis) that he wrote it in reaction to Lee Irons' trial. His goal is to provide a historical defense of and category for Klinean Republication as within the bounds of orthodoxy. So he definitely has a goal/purpose in how he presents the data. This comes out very obviously when he deals with Kline, or rather, when he doesn't deal with Kline. That's obviously the biggest problem with his taxonomy. He simply says everyone is familiar with Kline's view, so he doesn't have to evaluate it in light of his taxonomy. Instead, he just briefly mentions that Kline's view fits into the typological formal republication view, which is entirely inappropriate.

Ferry's taxonomy is actually missing the most obvious category for the purposes of his taxonomy: Formal Republication for Life in Canaan. It is entirely absent from his options for republication, which is strange, because it is the view held by Kline.

When describing Formal Typological Republication he says
Bolton describes this view as held by some of the divines, writing,
There is another interpretation, and that is, that Doe this and live, though it was spoken to them immediately, yet not terminatively, but through them to Christ, who hath fulfilled all righteousnesse for us, and purchased life by his own obedience.218

This was not Kline's view. This view says that "do this and live" was not applied to Israel, even though it was spoken to them. It was only applied to Christ. That was not Kline's view. Kline's view was explicitly mentioned by Bolton immediately preceding this quote.

Yet the objector may say, It seems as if the law did require us to work, and promised us life for so doing; and if so, then certainly the law stands upon opposite terms to grace, and therefore can be neither a covenant of grace, nor subservient to it. And if they do not stand upon opposite terms, how shall we understand the Scripture, ‘Do this and live?’

In answer to this objection, I will lay down six or seven particular matters for consideration:

(1) ‘Do this and live’ has not reference to the moral law only, but to the ceremonial law also (as in Lev. 18. 4-5), which was their Gospel. This will especially appear if we look upon the ceremonial law not as an appendix to the moral law, but as it bears a typical relation to Christ, just as every lamb slain in sacrifice pointed to Christ, and said, ‘Behold the Iamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world’. The Gospel was darkly administered and shadowed forth in the ceremonial law.

(2) ‘Do this and live’ was not spoken of the law abstractly and separately considered, but of the law and the promise jointly; not of the law exclusively, but of the law inclusively, as including the promise, and as having the promise involved with it.

(3) God does not bid men. Do and live by doing, but Do and live in doing. We may live in obedience, though we do not, and cannot, live by obedience. We could not live by doing, till we had life; but life is not by doing, but by believing, as Christ says, ‘Ye will not come to me that ye might have life’; here, clearly, it was not by works, but by grace. ‘If there had been a law given that could have given life’ - either life, that we might obey, or life upon our obedience - ‘verily righteousness should have been by the law.’

(4) Some writers think that God, after He had given the promise of life, and tendered life upon believing, repeated the covenant of works in the law, to put men upon the choice of being saved by working or by believing. This, they say, God did, so as to empty them of themselves, and teach them the folly of thinking that they could obtain life by obedience. Therefore God puts them to the trial; and lest they should think that any wrong was done to them. He gives them a repetition of the former covenant, and as it were gives them the choice of being saved by working, or saved by believing. Then, convinced of their own impotency, they might better see, admire, adore, and glorify the mercy of God who has given a promise, and sent a Christ, to save those who were not able to do anything towards their own salvation.

(5) Others think that ‘Do this and live’ has reference merely to a temporal and prosperous life in the land of Canaan. If the people would be conformable to the law which God had given them, and would obey Him in His commands, then should they live, and live prosperously, in the land of Canaan which He had given them: He would bless their basket and store, and give them many other blessings, as listed in Deuteronomy chapter 28.

(6) Another interpretation is this: that ‘Do this and live’, though it was spoken to the people of Israel in person, did not terminate with them, but through them was spoken to Christ, who has fulfilled all righteousness for us, and purchased life by His own obedience.

Some of these six points I reject entirely, and I cannot heartily go with any of them, but I state them to show the variety of interpretations which have been propounded. I will give briefly my own thoughts of the matter.

Samuel Bolton (0101-01-01T00:00:00+00:00). The True Bounds of Christian Freedom (Kindle Locations 1276-1289). Kindle Edition.

Why would Ferry not even mention republication perspective #5, which perfectly fits Kline's view? Well, because, as Bolton explains later those who held this view said the Mosaic Covenant was not an administration of the covenant of grace, but was a separate covenant. It is called the subservient view, and Bolton himself held to it. Ferry does not mention this option because he is trying to avoid the conclusion that it was Kline's view. Lee Irons and T. David Gordon both believe it most accurately describes Kline's view (see The Subservient Covenant: A 17th Century Precursor of Kline's View of the Mosaic Covenant) but if that is the case, Kline's view is contrary to the Westminster Confession (though not the Savoy or LBCF), and Ferry is trying to categorize Kline in a way that would avoid that conclusion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top