Dr. Clark's 7 point summary of Republication

Status
Not open for further replies.

MW

Puritanboard Amanuensis
But I'm open to being persuaded.

Consider Pss. 105-106. The covenant with Abraham is the covenant confirmed with Israel pertaining to the land. It was on the basis of this covenant that Israel was brought out of Egypt, preserved in the wilderness, and given the lands of the heathen, Ps. 105. By the same covenant kindness, loyalty, and mercy, Israel was repeatedly delivered notwithstanding her continual covenant-breaking and rebellion, Ps. 106.
 

TheOldCourse

Puritan Board Sophomore
For those that see the national curses/blessings of the Mosaic Covenant as analogous to the acts of Fatherly pleasure and displeasure the believer is subject to within the administration of the covenant of grace (over against seeing them as republication), what do you make of the typology associated with the nation of Israel in that context?

It seems, to me, that many of the curses that are pronounced against Israel (e.g. Jer 25, Jer 44) depict more than a fatherly chastisement, but rather suggest an eschatological judgment and being cut off from the promises and means of grace. Now of course this was never final and usually somewhere in the context is a restatement of God's covenant faithfulness and mercies which does suggest that any covenant of works typology is still subordinate, but still in the judgments (especially the exile) there seems to be a depiction of the penalty due to those under the law as a covenant of works. I find this particularly to be the case inasmuch as Christ serves as the antitype to Israel and is faithful where Israel was not. If his active obedience was a fulfillment of the covenant of works on our behalf and his passive obedience was his taking on the curses of the covenant of works on our behalf, then what did Israel's failures represent insofar as they were demonstrating the need for a True Israel and Faithful Son? Just as the land promises point towards the eternal inheritance of the New Jerusalem and the benefits of the covenant of grace, so being cut off from that land seems to point towards subjection to the penalties of the covenant of works.

Perhaps I'm mistaken or confused in the matter, but, it seems to me that to the extent that the repeated failures and apostasies of Israel are depicting the unfaithfulness of man and the necessity for One to be faithful on their behalf, they are doing so through a typological overlay of the covenant of works. Of course even that is in service to the covenant of grace, but I struggle to see how it could itself belong properly to that covenant. Do others see it differently? I am certain that there is much in this area, particularly as relates to the "in some sense" republicationism of the Puritans, in which I am woefully ignorant.
 

Peairtach

Puritan Board Doctor
You can go straight from the New Testament administration of the Covenant of Grace to Hell because you have never truly put your faith in Christ. You are still a breaker of the original Covenant of Works. There is no value or purpose or need of a new CoW under either the OT or NT. It is important that those under the OT and NT were educated about their relationship to the already broken but still binding CoW under both administrations. Under the OT administration that took a particular form consonant with the position of the childhood church in redemptive history.

The Israelites were by nature already all covenant breakers of the CoW. What was the point of putting them under a new/renewed/republished CoW?

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2
 

mvdm

Puritan Board Junior
The Israelites were by nature already all covenant breakers of the CoW. What was the point of putting them under a new/renewed/republished CoW?

Precisely.

As one can see from Clark's 7 points, the repubs answer to this question will sound identical to the historical "first use of the law", which is why I say they stubbornly conflate the COW with the first use. The "first use" however did not require the confusing two register, typological overlay of a republished COW.
w
 

MW

Puritanboard Amanuensis
For those that see the national curses/blessings of the Mosaic Covenant as analogous to the acts of Fatherly pleasure and displeasure the believer is subject to within the administration of the covenant of grace (over against seeing them as republication), what do you make of the typology associated with the nation of Israel in that context?

This is explained by the apostle in Galatians. Israel was a child in its minority. For this reason it was placed under tutors and governors. By the same reason we can also explain the hard yoke and the severity of the discipline to bind Israel into the faith of Christ until He came. Externally, as far as the service of the law is concerned, Israel appeared to differ little from a servant. But there was a difference. Israel was a son, though under age. As with David's seed, however God chastened His son, He would not take His steadfast love from him nor break His covenant. This is evident in the fact that the Israel of God was preserved to manhood and enjoys the divine benediction and peace.
 

MW

Puritanboard Amanuensis
It might be added, that from the visible perspective, severe warnings are also issued under the New Testament administration of the covenant of grace, as is seen in 1 Cor. 10, 11; Hebrews 2-4, 6, 10, 12; 2 Peter 2; Jude; and Revelation 2-3.
 

One Little Nail

Puritan Board Sophomore
Christological Republication of the C of W.

You can go straight from the New Testament administration of the Covenant of Grace to Hell because you have never truly put your faith in Christ. You are still a breaker of the original Covenant of Works. There is no value or purpose or need of a new CoW under either the OT or NT. It is important that those under the OT and NT were educated about their relationship to the already broken but still binding CoW under both administrations. Under the OT administration that took a particular form consonant with the position of the childhood church in redemptive history.

The Israelites were by nature already all covenant breakers of the CoW. What was the point of putting them under a new/renewed/republished CoW?


That all men are fallen, are also all born with a sinful nature & under the curse of Adam,s broken Cov of Works there is no doubt, on account that he was their Federal Head & we as his progeny were in his loins so to speak, to borrow a Paulism, when he sinned in the garden of Eden & broke the Covenant of Works.

though for Christ to redeem a fallen world he had to fulfill the Terms & Conditions of the Covenant of Works to become the Federal Head of His people, nor could He redo the trial in the garden of Eden, it wasn't just the keeping of the Whole Law which permitted this but the Fulfilling of the Covenant of Works.

The Lord Jesus had to fulfill the Law & not to mention also all other ordinances that were required for Him to attain
Perfect Righteousness like Circumcision which came before the giving of the Law & John's Baptism which came after, though all these things were needed to be done to complete & fulfil the Covenant of Works , & not to forget to mention
His Last & Greatest Work of Obedience & Righteousness which was his Voluntary Death by Crucifixion, this was a Special Act which was witnessed by the Law & Prophets that was required of Christ to Seal & Fulfill the Covenant of Works for the Redemption of His people, what Adam could not do by abstaining to eat from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good & Evil, The Lord Jesus Christ did by offering His body on the Tree.


Hence a Christological Republication & Fulfilment of the Covenant of Works.
 
Last edited:

Semper Fidelis

2 Timothy 2:24-25
Staff member
It might be added, that from the visible perspective, severe warnings are also issued under the New Testament administration of the covenant of grace, as is seen in 1 Cor. 10, 11; Hebrews 2-4, 6, 10, 12; 2 Peter 2; Jude; and Revelation 2-3.

It's funny you should mention that because, in Seminary class last night we were discussing the warnings and I quipped "...sounds like a republication of the Covenant of Works."
 

Shawn Mathis

Puritan Board Sophomore
Greetings Professor Clark,

I apologize for missing your response these past weeks. And I thank you for responding here. I did attempt to honor your original request and sent my question on your blog but assumed you were busy or missed it. But these things happen.

I do want to make clear my question and assumptions were never presented as set in stone. I also know not all Klinians are the same so my questions may not be relevant to any particular reader. I admit my tenuous hold on these issues and connections and thank you for your patience.

I keep wondering why did folk (especially in the OPC) wait until after he was dead to raise these questions with this intensity? It's not like his views were a secret and yet he was never charged by any court in the OPC during more than 50 years. That seems like a reasonable period of time in which to charge a man and put his views to the ecclesiastical test.

I agree.

Fourth, to reply to the concern regarding the phrase "in some sense." In the classical period there were multiple views on the ways in which the Decalogue (or the Mosaic law more broadly) was a "republication" of the covenant of works. This is why people use the expression "in some sense." The only alternative is to list the many different ways in which was held in the classical period.

I have found your quotes in this area of history helpful. It has protected me from throwing out all republication views. I also recently ran into some quotes along this line in Kevan's The Grace of Law. I will say again: persevere in these explanations and historical quotes.

I also know you stand for the confessional view of the law and rejoice therein.

Thank you for your frankness and help. I will continue to study the issues and pray for the peace of Jerusalem.

your in Christ,

shawn
 

mvdm

Puritan Board Junior
Indeed, reviewing historical quotes can be useful. Yet, keep in mind how they are being useful. They can be useful to cloud the fact that 1. prior versions of republication were a decided minority position, and 2. none of them provide precedent for the modern Klinean adaptation which introduces a scheme of congruent merit into the covenant of grace.
 

mvdm

Puritan Board Junior
Speaking of historical quotes, we see here the beautiful essential unity in substance between Old/New Covenant and law/gospel:

"These things no doubt sufficiently shew that God has never made any other covenant than that which he made formerly with Abraham, and at length confirmed by the hand of Moses. This subject might be more fully handled; but it is enough briefly to shew, that the covenant which God made at first is perpetual.

Let us now see why he promises to the people a new covenant. It being new, no doubt refers to what they call the form; and the form, or manner, regards not words only, but first Christ, then the grace of the Holy Spirit, and the whole external way of teaching. But the substance remains the same. By substance I understand the doctrine; for God in the Gospel brings forward nothing but what the Law contains. We hence see that God has so spoken from the beginning, that he has not changed, no not a syllable, with regard to the substance of the doctrine. For he has included in the Law the rule of a perfect life, and has also shewn what is the way of salvation, and by types and figures led the people to Christ, so that the remission of sin is there clearly made manifest, and whatever is necessary to be known." ~ John Calvin on Jeremiah 31:31
 

mvdm

Puritan Board Junior
Dr. Clark provides yet another quote which [presumably unwittingly] works contrary to his repub position:

The Covenant Of Works: Perfect Personal Obedience | The Heidelblog

Note that the covenant of works was a pact with Adam who had the ability to keep the law. The covenant required personal, perfect obedience, the transgression of which brought the immediate penalty of death. None of these conditions applied to the Mosaic covenant qua covenant.
 

TheOldCourse

Puritan Board Sophomore
It might be added, that from the visible perspective, severe warnings are also issued under the New Testament administration of the covenant of grace, as is seen in 1 Cor. 10, 11; Hebrews 2-4, 6, 10, 12; 2 Peter 2; Jude; and Revelation 2-3.

Thanks for your responses Rev. Winzer, I really do appreciate them. I still have some questions even regarding those passages, however. Certainly they generally are addressed to the church as constituted under the covenant of grace, but the warnings and punishments described seemed to be that of exception from the covenant of grace and according punishment under the curses of the covenant of works. It's little difficulty when some within the covenant community are spoken of in that manner since we recognize "for they are not all Israel, which are of Israel". My difficulty is when Israel as a nation, i.e. the whole covenant community, is spoken of in that way.

It seems to me that the New Testament fairly clearly presents two types of judgments by God upon sinners. A curse, which is for those judged under the covenant of works, and discipline, which is for those who are subject to the Lord's fatherly displeasure within the covenant of grace (and who cannot be subject to the curse which was laid upon Christ). When we look back at the OT covenant community, those distinctions become a bit messy. God visits his curse of judgment upon the Gentiles and oftentimes Israel itself is the agent of that judgment over things the Lord has devoted to destruction. There are also many times, particularly in the prophets, where God visits judgment upon Israel but it is often with the express purpose of bringing them to repentance and is a judgment that is partial and mingled with mercy--something that is consistent with discipline. There are more difficult situations, however, where Israel is subjected to judgments, or at least described in terms, normally reserved for those who are not God's covenant people. Times in which all of Israel is functionally treated as excommunicated. I think of the sin of Achan, for instance. Ultimately he was subjected to the very judgment of the Canaanites who defiled the holy land, but prior to his own judgment, the Lord treated all of Israel as accursed, as Caananites. God was no longer Immanuel to them, and it was God's presence that defined them as distinct from the nations to begin with. This kind of language not uncommon in the prophets: the removal of God's presence, the removal from the land and it's depiction of eternal blessedness, and even devotion to destruction and desolation.

Now no one (or at least as far as I know no one, certainly not myself) is advocating that Israel was actually subject to the curses of the covenant of works since neither was their obedience perfect nor were the judgments permanent or ultimately without mercy and grace. But they were often spoken of as if they were under those curses, and not just as threatenings but as if those curses were actually laid upon Israel. Accordingly, it seems to me that there still was a covenant of works principle in action uniquely in the history of Israel. Not in a de facto sense, but in a pedagogical and typological sense, both demonstrating the fearfulness of being excepted from the Covenant of Grace but also typifying the curses of the Covenant of Works as laid upon the true Israel, Jesus Christ. That seems to me to be much in accord with the Galatians passages you mentioned. When Paul quotes Lev 18:5, obviously he's not saying that the Mosaic covenant was, in fact, a covenant of works. It does, on the other hand, seem to suggest that the covenant of works principle was depicted in some sense within the Mosaic administration, a depiction that was of course ultimately in service to and subordinate to the covenant of grace.

Am I wrongheaded in all of this?
 
Last edited:

TheOldCourse

Puritan Board Sophomore
Indeed, reviewing historical quotes can be useful. Yet, keep in mind how they are being useful. They can be useful to cloud the fact that 1. prior versions of republication were a decided minority position, and 2. none of them provide precedent for the modern Klinean adaptation which introduces a scheme of congruent merit into the covenant of grace.

I find it interesting that many, including those who are not friendly to republication (like Mark Jones) have said otherwise--that republicationism (the "some sense" sort) held a substantial majority amongst Westminster-era Presbyterians. I can't say I know enough myself to venture an opinion one way or the other, but I've heard some who I would think would be disinclined to admit it if it wasn't obvious say as much. Point #2 is well taken, however. Kline did appear to introduce some novelty there.
 

Dearly Bought

Puritan Board Junior
I find it interesting that many, including those who are not friendly to republication (like Mark Jones) have said otherwise--that republicationism (the "some sense" sort) held a substantial majority amongst Westminster-era Presbyterians.
This is, in the least, confusing. On this subject, Mark Jones has written,
"The vast majority of Reformed theologians from the Reformation onward understood the Mosaic covenant to be an administration of the covenant of grace."
(Puritan Theology, p. 283)
"The law first given to Adam was certainly "revived" or "republished" at Sinai (and even in the New Covenant), but most Reformed divines did not make the moral law coextensive with the covenant of works."
(In What Sense? A Review Article)

Yes, every Reformed theologian could be said to hold to a "republication" of the content of the Covenant of Works at Sinai as the moral Law is given there. However, "most Reformed divines did not make the moral law coextensive with the covenant of works."
 

MW

Puritanboard Amanuensis
Certainly they generally are addressed to the church as constituted under the covenant of grace, but the warnings and punishments described seemed to be that of exception from the covenant of grace and according punishment under the curses of the covenant of works. It's little difficulty when some within the covenant community are spoken of in that manner since we recognize "for they are not all Israel, which are of Israel". My difficulty is when Israel as a nation, i.e. the whole covenant community, is spoken of in that way.

It seems to me that your response highlights only one function of the warnings, namely, manifesting those who are false believers. But they also have the effect of making true believers more careful, and thus serve as a means to encourage perseverance. In 1 Cor. 10, the privileges of the New Testament are directly parallel with the privileges of the Old Testament in order to emphasise the imperative of taking heed lest we fall. In 1 Cor. 11:32, the chastening of the Lord is specifically related to freedom from condemnation with the world. These are distinctive New Testament warnings related to believers under the covenant of grace. Again, in Hebrews, after receiving warning, there are exhortations to continue in the things professed. We find similar exhortations in 2 Peter 3 and the latter end of Jude; and obviously the promises are given to those who overcome in the letters to the seven churches of Asia. In each instance the warning sets forth a real danger, and taking heed to the warning is necessary in order to avoid falling into the danger.
 

TheOldCourse

Puritan Board Sophomore
I find it interesting that many, including those who are not friendly to republication (like Mark Jones) have said otherwise--that republicationism (the "some sense" sort) held a substantial majority amongst Westminster-era Presbyterians.
This is, in the least, confusing. On this subject, Mark Jones has written,
"The vast majority of Reformed theologians from the Reformation onward understood the Mosaic covenant to be an administration of the covenant of grace."
(Puritan Theology, p. 283)
"The law first given to Adam was certainly "revived" or "republished" at Sinai (and even in the New Covenant), but most Reformed divines did not make the moral law coextensive with the covenant of works."
(In What Sense? A Review Article)

Yes, every Reformed theologian could be said to hold to a "republication" of the content of the Covenant of Works at Sinai as the moral Law is given there. However, "most Reformed divines did not make the moral law coextensive with the covenant of works."

Right. Jones has repeatedly stated in many venues that "some sense" republication is extensively witnessed to in the Reformed tradition but that "some sense" is not Klinean, nor did it make the Mosaic administration an administration of the covenant of works. Now he, personally, has seemed to be uncomfortable with "any sense" republicationism and so in some of his comments tends to try take back what was given in statements such as:

The suggestion that the Mosaic covenant given at Sinai is "in some sense" a covenant of works originally made with Adam (6) is not really disputed in the history of Reformed covenant theology, if by that we mean that the moral law first given in Eden is revived and declared at Sinai on tablets of stone
(from his TLNF review)

He has, however, spoken rather forthrightly (I believe his interview on Christ the Center was one example) that the vast majority of Westminster divines were comfortable with using the language of republication of the covenant of works in the Mosaic economy even if their sense was neither uniform nor equivalent to that given by the Klineans. The point is that they did not make the moral law coextensive with the covenant of works and yet still spoke of some aspect of the covenant of works being in play in the Mosaic administration.
 

Ryan J. Ross

Puritan Board Freshman
Concerning (re)publication:

I like to start my interchanges on the subject by recognizing two fundamental premises from which all other points are to be made: (1) it is difficult to find two contemporaries who mean the same thing when they use "republication" and (2) anything approaching consensus on historical support is unlikely due to the differing "senses" in which the term has been used.

As to Mark Jones (see Merit and Moses), I think it is extremely important to identify the "sense" (e.g., covenant, merit, works-principle, blessing, etc.) question when he is describing the late seventeenth-century acceptance/rejection of republication. My guess is that Mark Jones, et al., is nuancing the subject in a manner not always conducive to clarity.

As a general rule, I don't even bother engaging the question until the aspect, degree, and consequences of the republication issue have been defined. Suffice to say, this is rarely done well. As I work through comments, posts, articles, and books, I personally think the "answer" is often a both-and, how much, and in what way. Hopefully, this response is cryptically ambiguous enough as to be helpful to no one and agreeable to everyone. *drops mic*
 

TheOldCourse

Puritan Board Sophomore
Certainly they generally are addressed to the church as constituted under the covenant of grace, but the warnings and punishments described seemed to be that of exception from the covenant of grace and according punishment under the curses of the covenant of works. It's little difficulty when some within the covenant community are spoken of in that manner since we recognize "for they are not all Israel, which are of Israel". My difficulty is when Israel as a nation, i.e. the whole covenant community, is spoken of in that way.

It seems to me that your response highlights only one function of the warnings, namely, manifesting those who are false believers. But they also have the effect of making true believers more careful, and thus serve as a means to encourage perseverance. In 1 Cor. 10, the privileges of the New Testament are directly parallel with the privileges of the Old Testament in order to emphasise the imperative of taking heed lest we fall. In 1 Cor. 11:32, the chastening of the Lord is specifically related to freedom from condemnation with the world. These are distinctive New Testament warnings related to believers under the covenant of grace. Again, in Hebrews, after receiving warning, there are exhortations to continue in the things professed. We find similar exhortations in 2 Peter 3 and the latter end of Jude; and obviously the promises are given to those who overcome in the letters to the seven churches of Asia. In each instance the warning sets forth a real danger, and taking heed to the warning is necessary in order to avoid falling into the danger.

Thanks Rev. Winzer, I really appreciate your interactions. I certainly recognize that there are threatenings and warnings directed towards believers as such, but I still wonder if each and every warning is properly considered under the administration of the covenant of grace. I wonder whether some, particularly those that seem to suggest a final judgment (like many of those in Hebrews), are more appropriately considered as warnings of exemption from the covenant of grace (and concomitant subjection to the judgment of works) for those who by their lack of perseverance demonstrate themselves as having been members of the covenant community only outwardly and therefore not heirs to the promises.

I guess my concern boils down to the specific language of some (not all, certainly) judgments and curses. That is, I have difficulty seeing how language suggesting final or complete judgment (even if that judgment is not fully carried out in the end) could properly belong to the administration of the covenant of grace. I suppose this concern is in some way parallel to that of anti-republicationists who cannot see anything to be considered under the rubric of the covenant of works whose judgment is not actually ultimate and permanent. Perhaps the key question is this: are those who reveal themselves to be members of the covenant of grace only externally and so subject to eternal judgment, condemned ultimately under the auspices of the covenant of works or the covenant of grace? I have assumed the former, which leads me suppose that language suggesting such judgment, even if oriented towards the covenant community, to be covenant of works language, but perhaps this is where I am mistaken.

I believe you have previously said something in a past thread to the effect of that which distinguishes the Klineans from the orthodox republicationists of the past and their primary error is not republicationism per se, but that they make the republication of the covenant of works coordinate to the administration of the covenant of grace under Sinai instead of subordinate to it. If you don't mind me asking, would you subscribe to a "subordinate" view on the matter yourself?
 

Peairtach

Puritan Board Doctor
It might be added, that from the visible perspective, severe warnings are also issued under the New Testament administration of the covenant of grace, as is seen in 1 Cor. 10, 11; Hebrews 2-4, 6, 10, 12; 2 Peter 2; Jude; and Revelation 2-3.

Thanks for your responses Rev. Winzer, I really do appreciate them. I still have some questions even regarding those passages, however. Certainly they generally are addressed to the church as constituted under the covenant of grace, but the warnings and punishments described seemed to be that of exception from the covenant of grace and according punishment under the curses of the covenant of works. It's little difficulty when some within the covenant community are spoken of in that manner since we recognize "for they are not all Israel, which are of Israel". My difficulty is when Israel as a nation, i.e. the whole covenant community, is spoken of in that way.

It seems to me that the New Testament fairly clearly presents two types of judgments by God upon sinners. A curse, which is for those judged under the covenant of works, and discipline, which is for those who are subject to the Lord's fatherly displeasure within the covenant of grace (and who cannot be subject to the curse which was laid upon Christ). When we look back at the OT covenant community, those distinctions become a bit messy. God visits his curse of judgment upon the Gentiles and oftentimes Israel itself is the agent of that judgment over things the Lord has devoted to destruction. There are also many times, particularly in the prophets, where God visits judgment upon Israel but it is often with the express purpose of bringing them to repentance and is a judgment that is partial and mingled with mercy--something that is consistent with discipline. There are more difficult situations, however, where Israel is subjected to judgments, or at least described in terms, normally reserved for those who are not God's covenant people. Times in which all of Israel is functionally treated as excommunicated. I think of the sin of Achan, for instance. Ultimately he was subjected to the very judgment of the Canaanites who defiled the holy land, but prior to his own judgment, the Lord treated all of Israel as accursed, as Caananites. God was no longer Immanuel to them, and it was God's presence that defined them as distinct from the nations to begin with. This kind of language not uncommon in the prophets: the removal of God's presence, the removal from the land and it's depiction of eternal blessedness, and even devotion to destruction and desolation.

Now no one (or at least as far as I know no one, certainly not myself) is advocating that Israel was actually subject to the curses of the covenant of works since neither was their obedience perfect nor were the judgments permanent or ultimately without mercy and grace. But they were often spoken of as if they were under those curses, and not just as threatenings but as if those curses were actually laid upon Israel. Accordingly, it seems to me that there still was a covenant of works principle in action uniquely in the history of Israel. Not in a de facto sense, but in a pedagogical and typological sense, both demonstrating the fearfulness of being excepted from the Covenant of Grace but also typifying the curses of the Covenant of Works as laid upon the true Israel, Jesus Christ. That seems to me to be much in accord with the Galatians passages you mentioned. When Paul quotes Lev 18:5, obviously he's not saying that the Mosaic covenant was, in fact, a covenant of works. It does, on the other hand, seem to suggest that the covenant of works principle was depicted in some sense within the Mosaic administration, a depiction that was of course ultimately in service to and subordinate to the covenant of grace.

Am I wrongheaded in all of this?

In my humble opinion they were being taught in a way peculiar to the childhood Church about the CoW they had already broken in Adam, not about somekind of new CoW that they had been placed under at Sinai.

Under the broken CoW unconverted sinners are still under the law and subject to its Curse, while the sanction of reward is out of reach except by grace.

For those believing Israelites under the Mosaic administration e.g. Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, etc, in the Exile, those temporal judgements that spoke of the Curse became chastisements unto them.

A similar thing happens today when believers are caught up in troubles that may be a judgment to their neighbours but are Fatherly chastisements to them.

Since the time of Christ the peculiar way in which the Church was taught about the already broken CoW has ceased.

The Republicationists are proposing a new/renewed/republished CoW at Sinai by which the positive sanction of reward of the secure and blessed tenure in the Land, a type of Heaven and its rewards, could be obtained in a CoW way, which can only mean by works.

There is no need, nor evidence, that God made another CoW with the Israelites "on top of" the one we have all already broken in Adam.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2
 

MW

Puritanboard Amanuensis
Chris, I think all Bible readers are going to have the same concerns with the judgments and curses. They seem to be counter to what we know of grace. But there is a "revealed" perspective which is fitted to correct our natural feelings. I've noted Galatians 4, that they have the appearance of being treated no differently to servants, even though they were sons. Also, 1 Cor. 10 intimates that there was something exemplary in these judgments. We might also observe that the full extent of threatening was not performed, as God's purpose of grace triumphed over the judgment. This takes in the fact that the revelation was "progressive."

My own view is that there is a subordinate republication of the covenant of works, not only in the law, but also in the gospel. I am speaking of those two terms with respect to being two dispensations under the one covenant of grace. This is very different from saying that law and gospel are two contrasting covenants or that the law itself was a republished covenant of works.

If the desire is to preserve the stricter exegetical terminology of "law" and "gospel," I can appreciate the precision, but then the precision needs to be applied in every respect, which means removing the terms "covenant of works" and "covenant of grace" altogether. There is a confusion of exegetical and dogmatic theology when one insists on using biblical terms in their strict exegetical sense whilst applying them to a dogmatic category. If we are to speak in precise terms, "grace" is always saving, never common; and therefore there can be no "visible" administration of the covenant of grace to unbelievers or apostates. But then we would not be doing justice to the temporal aspects of the covenant which relate to real people in time and space. Dogmatic categories are used because they tie together numerous exegetical insights and provide some kind of order and relevance to them.
 

TheOldCourse

Puritan Board Sophomore
Chris, I think all Bible readers are going to have the same concerns with the judgments and curses. They seem to be counter to what we know of grace. But there is a "revealed" perspective which is fitted to correct our natural feelings. I've noted Galatians 4, that they have the appearance of being treated no differently to servants, even though they were sons. Also, 1 Cor. 10 intimates that there was something exemplary in these judgments. We might also observe that the full extent of threatening was not performed, as God's purpose of grace triumphed over the judgment. This takes in the fact that the revelation was "progressive."

My own view is that there is a subordinate republication of the covenant of works, not only in the law, but also in the gospel. I am speaking of those two terms with respect to being two dispensations under the one covenant of grace. This is very different from saying that law and gospel are two contrasting covenants or that the law itself was a republished covenant of works.

If the desire is to preserve the stricter exegetical terminology of "law" and "gospel," I can appreciate the precision, but then the precision needs to be applied in every respect, which means removing the terms "covenant of works" and "covenant of grace" altogether. There is a confusion of exegetical and dogmatic theology when one insists on using biblical terms in their strict exegetical sense whilst applying them to a dogmatic category. If we are to speak in precise terms, "grace" is always saving, never common; and therefore there can be no "visible" administration of the covenant of grace to unbelievers or apostates. But then we would not be doing justice to the temporal aspects of the covenant which relate to real people in time and space. Dogmatic categories are used because they tie together numerous exegetical insights and provide some kind of order and relevance to them.

Thank you once again for your thoughts, I especially appreciate your concern to avoid confusing exegetical and dogmatic theology in the law and gospel dialog, which I myself have often found in many of the participants. You've given me much to think upon!
 

Peairtach

Puritan Board Doctor
Even under the New Testament, the Visible Church, and the members of the Covenant of Grace consist of believers and unbelievers.

The deaths of Ananias and Saphira, and of the Corinthians who abused the Lord's Table are examples of the judgements/ chastisements that can be brought on God's people, whether they are truly God's people or only ostensibly so.

Under the Old Testament, Mosaic Economy - the Republicationists like to call it the Sinai Covenant for some reason - there were also added judgements/chastisements that taught the people about the Curse of the law, I.e. the Curse of the CoW that had been already broken by all mankind in Adam. This was manifested partly by excommunication or "cutting off" - which we still have in the NT - by exclusion from the Passover and personal exile or shunning for a time; "cutting off" by divine judgemental intervention through death, which we still have in the NT; "cutting off" by means of a peculiar use of the death penalty, which we don't have, etc. There was also the possibility of the nation as a whole being exiled for their collective sins as part of the provisional economy and experience of the OT Church. The NT Church as a whole can no longer be exiled for her collective sins, as we are no longer under a provisional economy, but the candlestick can certainly be removed from a particular locality or nation in this gracious NT era, sometimes violently.

No need for a pointless and impossible renewed CoW.

We're all breakers of the CoW and are open to its Curse anyway. Those of us who are believers won't experience the fulness of the Curse in Hell, but in this life its outworking in our lives including physical death are made unto us God's fatherly chastisements.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2
 
Last edited:

MW

Puritanboard Amanuensis
Thank you once again for your thoughts, I especially appreciate your concern to avoid confusing exegetical and dogmatic theology in the law and gospel dialog, which I myself have often found in many of the participants. You've given me much to think upon!

You are very welcome, Chris; thankyou for the edifying conversation. May our wise Lord continue to show us the way!
 

One Little Nail

Puritan Board Sophomore
Under the Old Testament, Mosaic Economy - the Republicationists like to call it the Sinai Covenant for some reason


This is just needless quibbling brother, they do use the term Mosaic on the cover of The Law is not of Faith,
in the sub title Essays on Works & Grace in the Mosaic Covenant.


No need for a pointless and impossible renewed CoW.

There was a need of a republication in the Old so that Christ may fulfil it to become Federal Head of His people &
Mediator of the Covenant, though I don't see a need for a republication in the New Testament as Christ has fulfilled
the Covenant of Works.

I found this snippet recently when reading a review of Bavinck's Dogmatics by Steve Tipton he says of Bavinck
He is neither confused nor confusing about the existence or place of the covenant of works and how it explains and enables the federal headship of both Adam and Christ. - See more at: Why Every Fourth Grader Should Read Bavinck - Reformation21
though I haven't been able to find the quote in his Dogmatics.
 

Shawn Mathis

Puritan Board Sophomore
There was a need of a republication in the Old so that Christ may fulfil it to become Federal Head of His people &
Mediator of the Covenant

This is an interesting perspective I have never heard before. Please allow me some questions as I try to wrap my head around it:

If it was "republished" (please define this word) so that Christ could fulfill it, presumably that means it was republished so that Christ could be born in that republished covenant, live in it and fulfill it and die for his people who were bound in it?

If this is so then:

1. What of those saints born before its "republication"? Abraham, etc. What covenant were they condemned under? How does Christ fulfillment of the "republished" CoW relate to them?
2. What of those saints born after its "republication" and after its fulfillment in Christ? Post-New testament Christians. What covenant are they condemned under (outside of Christ, before salvation-in-time)?

Another related question would be:

Why cannot it not be that the broken Covenant of Works is still binding in its effects (condemnation and corruption) and its moral demands (perfect obedience) upon any human born? Christ is born human, is bound under the same CoW (not republished), and fulfilled the same CoW that all Christians are born under?

Inquiring minds want to know.

thanks,
 
Last edited:

mvdm

Puritan Board Junior
Why cannot it not be that the broken Covenant of Works is still binding in its effects (condemnation and corruption) and its moral demands (perfect obedience) upon any human born? Christ is born human, is bound under the same CoW (not republished), and fulfilled the same CoW that all Christians are born under?

This is THE well-stated, elementary, and unanswerable question for the Klinean repubs.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top