Old Life Theological Society » Blog Archive » Hide the Women and Children!
Back on 1/19 our favorite R2K'er, Dr. D. G. Hart wrote the following introductory paragraph to a piece he categorized as “Rabbi Bret,”
“As I suspected, the review that Cornel Venema wrote of The Law is Not of Faith is not nearly as damning as various and sundry critics of Westminster California have let on. I figured that if Venema had written anything really juicy – like this is view that needs to be purged from our churches – Rabbi Bret would have quoted it by now, especially that – ahem – his Advent and Christmas duties are well behind.”
Well, if Darryl had let sleeping dogs lie I might have passed on posting the really damning quotes from Dr. Venema. However, now that our favorite R2K'er has suggested, by the piece linked above, that Dr. Venema doesn’t think R2K to be that damning I thought that I would go ahead and give the really damning quotes from Dr. Venema. Besides, I wouldn’t want to let Darryl down regarding my ability at bringing the “juicy quotes” to people’s attention.
Before I do that however, I wish our favorite R2K'er would give us a sense of how damning a analysis needs to be before Darryl considers a set analysis as having damned R2K to the point that it is officially “Damned.” I mean is R2K safe as long as it is only a little damned by some critic, or does it take a heap of damning before R2K is officially damned?
However … on to the really damning quotes of Dr. Venema’s review,
“Though Ferry cites Calvin as as example of formal republication view, I will argue in what follows that Calvin does not conceive of the Mosaic administration as a republication of the covenant of works. Calvin’s view is much closer to what Ferry terms a ‘material’ republication view, since Calvin only affirms that the Mosaic law reiterates the requirements of the natural (moral) law that was the rule of Adam’s obedience before the fall. The position Ferry terms a ‘material’ republication view, is, as I shall argue below, the most common view in the Reformed tradition and hardly warrants being termed a ‘republication’ of the covenant of works in any significant sense. Ferry’s taxonomy here and throughout is rather confusing and for that reason is unhelpful.”
Now the reason this is thoroughly damning, beyond the obvious, is that Dr. Venema here takes on the whole R2K insistence that their completely innovative reading of covenant is THE Historic Reformed reading of covenant. Dr. Venema tell us here that the model pursued is not only wrong but it is only tenuously Reformed, historically speaking, having perhaps more in common with the historic Lutheran or Dispensational reading of covenant.
“Does not the freedom from the law that believers enjoy through Christ include a freedom from the moral law as well? VanDrunen does not shy away from this question, but answers it with a provocative claim that believers are not subject to the moral law as believers, so far as their conduct in relation to fellow believers within the ’spiritual’ kingdom of Christ is concerned. Though believers, so far as their conduct in the ‘natural’ or ‘civil’ kingdom is concerned, may be subject to the natural law, they are not subject to the natural law as Christians.”
People really need to read that quote several times to let what VanDrunen and R2K is advocating sink in.
“In my estimation the failure of the authors of The Law is Not of Faith to affirm vigorously the positive function of the law as a rule of gratitude in the Mosaic economy is not accidental. Because the authors of The Law is Not of Faith view the moral law of God to express necessarily the “works principle” of the covenant of works, they do not have a stable theological basis for affirming the abiding validity of the moral law as a rule of gratitude.”
I don’t know how Darryl measures “Damning,” but that quote, has to be damning to the point of the deepest regions of damnation. Now, it is true that Dr. Venema says it in a way that is as non-polemical as possible but one doesn’t have to have polemics in order to write a damning quote.
“Contrary to Fesko’s reading of Calvin, there is no basis for interpreting Calvin to teach that the Mosaic administration included at some level a kind of legal covenant that republished the prelapsarian covenant of works.”
Being interpreted this means … “I don’t know which Calvin you guys are reading but the Calvin of the 16th century doesn’t recognize the Calvin you guys are sourcing.”
“It is interesting to observe that some of the representations of the Mosaic covenant by authors of The Law Is Not Of Faith, especially in the chapter of Gordon, resemble more the Lutheran view in this respect than the traditional Reformed view.”
My Damning-o-meter needle is buried with that one.
“There is a confusing inconsistency in Fesko’s account of the typology of Israel’s subjection to the requirement of obedience to the law.”
Confusing inconsistencies is not a good thing for Theologians to have in either their writings or in their Theology. One might say that confusing inconsistencies are "damning."
Along a similar line,
“As noted earlier (fn 41), Estelle’s position on the nature and significance of the ‘works principle’ in the Mosaic economy is difficult to interpret, since he seems to contradict himself.”
“Difficult to interpret,” and “seems to contradict himself,” are not a good things for Theologians to have in either their writings or in their Theology.
“The WCF 11:6 affirms, for this reason, that believers under the old covenant administration of the covenant of grace enjoyed the blessings of free justification: ‘The justification of believers under the OT was, in all these respects, one and the same with the justification of believers under the NT.’ Though the authors of The Law is Not of Faith do not deny this affirmation, it is noteworthy that it hardly receives much emphasis in their characterization of the Mosaic administration.”
This quote cracks the door open for questions on whether or not R2K has two different ways of salvation for the old covenant believers vs. the new covenant believers. That was always damning when Reformed suggested that about Dispensationalists.
“When Estelle, and Gordon, maintain that Leviticus 18:5 republished the covenant of works, they offer little or no explanation of how this comports with these fundamental features of the covenant as an administration of the covenant of grace.”
It is pretty damning when theologians advance a new paradigm that doesn’t take into consideration previous explanations that have long ago eviscerated their new paradigm.
“Silva rejects Meredith Kline’s interpretation of Paul’s view of the law in the argument of Galatians, noting its similarity with the views of historic Lutheranism and Dispensationalism.”
This is the second time now that Venema has made reference to R2K’s Lutheran like understanding of the covenant. This is highly damning if one purports to be doing Reformed theology.
“From the vantage point of this (Law is Not of Faith) understanding of the nature of biblical typology, it is difficult to make sense of the claim that the Mosaic administration functioned typologically as a kind of covenant of works, at least at the stratum of Israel’s inheritance of temporal blessings.”
It is quite damning when your new paradigm has a significant piece that is, ‘difficult to make sense’ out of.
Back on 1/19 our favorite R2K'er, Dr. D. G. Hart wrote the following introductory paragraph to a piece he categorized as “Rabbi Bret,”
“As I suspected, the review that Cornel Venema wrote of The Law is Not of Faith is not nearly as damning as various and sundry critics of Westminster California have let on. I figured that if Venema had written anything really juicy – like this is view that needs to be purged from our churches – Rabbi Bret would have quoted it by now, especially that – ahem – his Advent and Christmas duties are well behind.”
Well, if Darryl had let sleeping dogs lie I might have passed on posting the really damning quotes from Dr. Venema. However, now that our favorite R2K'er has suggested, by the piece linked above, that Dr. Venema doesn’t think R2K to be that damning I thought that I would go ahead and give the really damning quotes from Dr. Venema. Besides, I wouldn’t want to let Darryl down regarding my ability at bringing the “juicy quotes” to people’s attention.
Before I do that however, I wish our favorite R2K'er would give us a sense of how damning a analysis needs to be before Darryl considers a set analysis as having damned R2K to the point that it is officially “Damned.” I mean is R2K safe as long as it is only a little damned by some critic, or does it take a heap of damning before R2K is officially damned?
However … on to the really damning quotes of Dr. Venema’s review,
“Though Ferry cites Calvin as as example of formal republication view, I will argue in what follows that Calvin does not conceive of the Mosaic administration as a republication of the covenant of works. Calvin’s view is much closer to what Ferry terms a ‘material’ republication view, since Calvin only affirms that the Mosaic law reiterates the requirements of the natural (moral) law that was the rule of Adam’s obedience before the fall. The position Ferry terms a ‘material’ republication view, is, as I shall argue below, the most common view in the Reformed tradition and hardly warrants being termed a ‘republication’ of the covenant of works in any significant sense. Ferry’s taxonomy here and throughout is rather confusing and for that reason is unhelpful.”
Now the reason this is thoroughly damning, beyond the obvious, is that Dr. Venema here takes on the whole R2K insistence that their completely innovative reading of covenant is THE Historic Reformed reading of covenant. Dr. Venema tell us here that the model pursued is not only wrong but it is only tenuously Reformed, historically speaking, having perhaps more in common with the historic Lutheran or Dispensational reading of covenant.
“Does not the freedom from the law that believers enjoy through Christ include a freedom from the moral law as well? VanDrunen does not shy away from this question, but answers it with a provocative claim that believers are not subject to the moral law as believers, so far as their conduct in relation to fellow believers within the ’spiritual’ kingdom of Christ is concerned. Though believers, so far as their conduct in the ‘natural’ or ‘civil’ kingdom is concerned, may be subject to the natural law, they are not subject to the natural law as Christians.”
People really need to read that quote several times to let what VanDrunen and R2K is advocating sink in.
“In my estimation the failure of the authors of The Law is Not of Faith to affirm vigorously the positive function of the law as a rule of gratitude in the Mosaic economy is not accidental. Because the authors of The Law is Not of Faith view the moral law of God to express necessarily the “works principle” of the covenant of works, they do not have a stable theological basis for affirming the abiding validity of the moral law as a rule of gratitude.”
I don’t know how Darryl measures “Damning,” but that quote, has to be damning to the point of the deepest regions of damnation. Now, it is true that Dr. Venema says it in a way that is as non-polemical as possible but one doesn’t have to have polemics in order to write a damning quote.
“Contrary to Fesko’s reading of Calvin, there is no basis for interpreting Calvin to teach that the Mosaic administration included at some level a kind of legal covenant that republished the prelapsarian covenant of works.”
Being interpreted this means … “I don’t know which Calvin you guys are reading but the Calvin of the 16th century doesn’t recognize the Calvin you guys are sourcing.”
“It is interesting to observe that some of the representations of the Mosaic covenant by authors of The Law Is Not Of Faith, especially in the chapter of Gordon, resemble more the Lutheran view in this respect than the traditional Reformed view.”
My Damning-o-meter needle is buried with that one.
“There is a confusing inconsistency in Fesko’s account of the typology of Israel’s subjection to the requirement of obedience to the law.”
Confusing inconsistencies is not a good thing for Theologians to have in either their writings or in their Theology. One might say that confusing inconsistencies are "damning."
Along a similar line,
“As noted earlier (fn 41), Estelle’s position on the nature and significance of the ‘works principle’ in the Mosaic economy is difficult to interpret, since he seems to contradict himself.”
“Difficult to interpret,” and “seems to contradict himself,” are not a good things for Theologians to have in either their writings or in their Theology.
“The WCF 11:6 affirms, for this reason, that believers under the old covenant administration of the covenant of grace enjoyed the blessings of free justification: ‘The justification of believers under the OT was, in all these respects, one and the same with the justification of believers under the NT.’ Though the authors of The Law is Not of Faith do not deny this affirmation, it is noteworthy that it hardly receives much emphasis in their characterization of the Mosaic administration.”
This quote cracks the door open for questions on whether or not R2K has two different ways of salvation for the old covenant believers vs. the new covenant believers. That was always damning when Reformed suggested that about Dispensationalists.
“When Estelle, and Gordon, maintain that Leviticus 18:5 republished the covenant of works, they offer little or no explanation of how this comports with these fundamental features of the covenant as an administration of the covenant of grace.”
It is pretty damning when theologians advance a new paradigm that doesn’t take into consideration previous explanations that have long ago eviscerated their new paradigm.
“Silva rejects Meredith Kline’s interpretation of Paul’s view of the law in the argument of Galatians, noting its similarity with the views of historic Lutheranism and Dispensationalism.”
This is the second time now that Venema has made reference to R2K’s Lutheran like understanding of the covenant. This is highly damning if one purports to be doing Reformed theology.
“From the vantage point of this (Law is Not of Faith) understanding of the nature of biblical typology, it is difficult to make sense of the claim that the Mosaic administration functioned typologically as a kind of covenant of works, at least at the stratum of Israel’s inheritance of temporal blessings.”
It is quite damning when your new paradigm has a significant piece that is, ‘difficult to make sense’ out of.