Drunk with Powder
My question has to do with this statement: "The divines believed this was legitimate exegetically because they held, as did the majority of Reformed theologians of their day, that the Mosaic covenant included a republication of the pre-fall covenant of works."
The emboldened word demonstrates the equivocation which is made by those who teach the republication theory today. They say the Mosaic covenant was a republication of the covenant of works. When it comes to providing historical precedent for this theory, they point to divines who said that the Mosaic covenant included a republication of the covenant of works. As noted on previous threads, the modern theory teaches a co-ordination of the covenant of works with the covenant of grace whereas traditional covenant theology taught a subordination of the covenant of works to the covenant of grace. The modern theory makes the covenant of works an act of creation; the traditional theology taught that it was an act of providence. The modern theory equates the law of works with the law of nature and calls this the covenant of works; the traditional theology taught the moral law is written on man's heart by nature but the covenant of works was a positive enactment super-added to it. The modern theory equates works and merit; the traditional theology denied all merely human merit. There are numerous points of diversity which suffice to show that the modern theory is in fact a novelty which finds no precedent in traditional reformed theology.
Thank you, Rev. Wizner. An excellent summary.
And thanks, Mark and Louis, for answering my question about Irons.