I am posting two questions here. One concerning Witsius and the other concerning the Westminster Confession on chapter 19.
Witsius First.....
I am trying to determine whether or not the Mosaic was an Administration of the Covenant of Grace or some mixture. This issue is very important to the Reformed Baptist way of thinking. ie. Owen and Nehemiah Coxe.
Maybe I am mistaken but Witsius seems to point out that the Mosaic is both the CofW and the CofG here. http://www.apuritansmind.com/covenant-theology/covenantal-ideas-by-dr-herman-witsius/
1.)Does Witsius hold that the Mosaic is a mixture of both Covenants and thus a partial republication of the Covenant of Works along side the Covenant of Grace?
2.)Now for my Question on the WCF. Does the Westminster Confession expressly deny that the law was given through Moses "as a covenant of works?"
Witsius First.....
Here is a bit more of Witsius.
Of the Decalouge
Thirdly, We are not, however, to imagine, that the doctrine of the covenant of works was repeated, in order to set up again such a covenant with the Israelites, in which they were to seek for righteousness and salvation. For, we have already proved (B. 1. chap. ix. section 20) that this could not possibly be renewed in that manner with a sinner, en account of the justice and truth of God, and the nature of the covenant of works, which admits of no pardon of sin. See also Hornbeck.Theol. Pract. tom. 2. p. 10. Besides, if the Israelites were taught to seek salvation by the works of the law, then the law had been contrary to the promise, made to the fathers many ages before. But now says the apostle, Gal. iii. 17. "the covenant that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect." The Israelites were, therefore, thus put in mind of the covenant of works, in order to convince them of their sin and misery, to drive them out of themselves, to show them the necessity of a satisfaction, and to compel them to Christ. And so their being thus brought to a remembrance of the covenant of works tended to promote the covenant of grace.
Witsius chapter 4 sec 44
The œconomy of the covenants ... - Google Books
I am trying to determine whether or not the Mosaic was an Administration of the Covenant of Grace or some mixture. This issue is very important to the Reformed Baptist way of thinking. ie. Owen and Nehemiah Coxe.
Maybe I am mistaken but Witsius seems to point out that the Mosaic is both the CofW and the CofG here. http://www.apuritansmind.com/covenant-theology/covenantal-ideas-by-dr-herman-witsius/
1.)Does Witsius hold that the Mosaic is a mixture of both Covenants and thus a partial republication of the Covenant of Works along side the Covenant of Grace?
2.)Now for my Question on the WCF. Does the Westminster Confession expressly deny that the law was given through Moses "as a covenant of works?"
Section I.–God gave to Adam a law, as a covenant of works, by which he bound him and all his posterity to personal, entire, exact, and perpetual obedience; promised life upon the fulfilling, and threatened death upon the breach of it; and endued him with power and ability to keep it.
Section II.–This law, after his fall, continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness; and, as such, was delivered by God upon mount Sinai in ten commandments, and written in two tables; the first four commandments containing our duty toward God, and the other six our duty to man.
Section III.–Besides this law, commonly called moral, God was pleased to give to the people of Israel, as a Church under age, ceremonial laws, containing several typical ordinances, partly of worship, prefiguring Christ, his graces, actions, sufferings, and benefits; and partly holding forth divers instructions of moral duties. All which ceremonial laws are now abrogated under the New Testament.
Section IV.–To them also, as a body politic, he gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the state of that people, not obliging any other, now, further than the general equity thereof may require.
Section V.–The moral law doth forever bind all, as well justified persons as others, to the obedience thereof; and that not only in regard of the matter contained in it, but also in respect of the authority of God the Creator who gave it. Neither doth Christ in the gospel any way dissolve, but much strengthen, this obligation.
Section VI.–Although true believers be not under the law as a covenant of works, to be thereby justified or condemned; yet is it of great use to them, as well as to others; in that, as a rule of life, informing them of the will of God and their duty, it directs and binds them to walk accordingly; discovering also the sinful pollutions of their nature, hearts, and lives; so as, examining themselves thereby, they may come to further conviction of, humiliation for, and hatred against sin; together with a clearer sight of the need they have of Christ, and the perfection of his obedience. It is likewise of use to the regenerate, to restrain their corruptions, in that it forbids sin, and the threatenings of it serve to show what even their sins deserve, and what afflictions in this life they may expect for them, although freed from the curse thereof threatened in the law. The promises of it, in like manner, show them God's approbation of obedience, and what blessings they may expect upon the performance thereof; although not as due to them by the law as a covenant of works: so as a man's doing good, and refraining from evil, because the law encourageth to the one, and deterreth from the other, is no evidence of his being under the law, and not under grace.
Section VII.–Neither are the aforementioned uses of the law contrary to the grace of the gospel, but do sweetly comply with it: the Spirit of Christ subduing and enabling the will of man to do that freely and cheerfully, which the will of God, revealed in the law, requireth to be done.
Last edited: