"Abraham is not Moses"

[Doulos McKenzie]

Dr. R. Scott Clark at WSC says this line very regularly on his articles and his podcast. He uses it to say that the Abrahamic Covenant is fundamentally different that the Covenant made at Sinai. He also seems to believe that the Mosaic Covenant was a subservient Covenant and not the Cov of Grace. I lean toward this view, but I want to know if any of my paedobaptist brethren have any issues with it. And if so what and why?

 

[JTB.SDG]

Yes, I have major issues with this view, but it's not tied to convictions about baptism. There are 4 major views on Sinai: 1) Republication: It was a Covenant of Works; 2) Majority: It was a Covenant of Grace; 3) Mixed: It was a combination of both of them; and 4) Subservient (which you are referencing): It was neither/nor; but rather a separate and distinct covenant.

Hence, to adhere to the 4th view is to deny that Sinai was part of the Covenant of Grace, which is to disagree with the Westminster Standards (there is another post about this), which is fine, but just know that's what you're doing.

Along with most others, I take Moses to be part of the Covenant of Grace. To be extremely brief, the biggest reason is that Jesus said that Moses wrote about Him. IE: what was Sinai about? Jesus: It was about Me. Then in Hebrews 4, the author twice refers to the generation under Moses as having the good news preached to them. There are many, many other Scriptures, but you could start with these.

Then why the strict requirement of perfect obedience? Please see this post:

See my post on this thread: https://www.puritanboard.com/thread...y-a-ministration-of-death.93199/#post-1136627

 

[Contra_Mundum]

I know RSC would affirm that the Mosaic Cov. was an administration of the cov. of grace. There is an intrinsic challenge to describing and explaining the Mosaic cov. Because, in certain respects it executes definite and non-repeatable typological functions peculiar to it. Language is needed by which these can be described that show off its uniqueness, vis-à-vis the cov. with Abraham.

So be sure you understand what RSC means when he says, "subservient covenant." I'm not saying Jon is wrong about a standard definition, which his may well be. But be careful when you label or even use terms that someone is using for himself, which could have an idiosyncratic application.

 

[Nate]

He also seems to believe that the Mosaic Covenant was a subservient Covenant and not the Cov of Grace.

Dr. Clark summarizes his views on this topic here: https://heidelblog.net/2014/08/seven-short-points-about-republication/ (circa 2014).

His first statement is that "The Mosaic (old) covenant was an administration of the covenant of grace."

Dr. Clark very helpfully tags all of his posts on the Heidelblog. Check out the "Republication" tag and you'll find many similar quotes and more detailed explanations of his views.

 

[Romans922]

If it be a subservient covenant, it is that view that was rejected by the Westminster Divines. The subservient covenant view is the closest view to that of the Klinean Republication view of modern day.

Here's an article that may help understand what I'm saying: https://d3ecc98b-a-62cb3a1a-s-sites...SBwvKpftMjv8RXe1Pz9LS4lkNMkrQ=&attredirects=1

 

[JTB.SDG]

To follow up, I'm not familiar with Clark at all, I was just speaking in general of the terms and what they mean historically. Bruce is right. Many today say they subscribe to republication but really what they mean is something more like the subservient covenant. Also, many of the Puritans used the word subservient to describe their view of Sinai but we're not in any way advocates of the subservient covenant view.