Differing Views of The Covenant

[eqdj]

I'm listening to WSC's Office Hours podcast about the book "The Law is Not of Faith" (see http://www.puritanboard.com/f31/law-not-faith-55594/).

It's my understanding that this (Republication View) book is in reponse to the (John Murray's) Mono-Covenantal view.

Are there more than these two views?
Is there a book that compares and contrasts the views with pros and cons?

(While writing this I found this thread http://www.puritanboard.com/f31/mono-vs-bi-covenantal-view-38084/ which I'll have to read later)

 

[Christusregnat]

I tried this on another thread, and thought it was relevant:

Proposition 1: The Covenant of Grace cannot be of works, and the Covenant of Works cannot be of grace (Romans 11:6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.)

Proposition 2: The Old Covenant is the Covenant of Grace (WCF VII: V. This covenant [of Grace] was differently administered in the time of the law, and in the time of the Gospel: under the law it was administered by promises, prophecies, sacrifices, circumcision, the paschal lamb, and other types and ordinances delivered to the people of the Jews, all foresignifying Christ to come; which were, for that time, sufficient and efficacious, through the operation of the Spirit, to instruct and build up the elect in faith in the promised Messiah, by whom they had full remission of sins, and eternal salvation; and is called the Old Testament.)

Therefore, the Old Covenant is not of works.

That might be another way to phrase the point.

Cheers,

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

I agree with premise 1. I do not agree with premise 2 nor the conclusion.

1.) If the Mosaic is purely of the Covenant of Grace than it would not be called a ministration of death in 2 Corinthians 3.

2.) If the Mosaic is purely of the Covenant of Works than there is no atonement that is pointed to and the pardon of sin was not real to those in the Old Covenant.

Conclusion.) Therefore the Mosaic Covenant administers both the Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Grace.

That is how the Mosaic Covenant should be understood.

(2Co 3:7) But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away:

(2Co 3:8) How shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious?

(2Co 3:9) For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory.

(2Co 3:10) For even that which was made glorious had no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that excelleth.

(2Co 3:11) For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious.

(Rom 10:1) Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved.

(Rom 10:2) For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.

(Rom 10:3) For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.

(Rom 10:4) For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.

(Rom 10:5) For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, That the man which doeth those things shall live by them.

 

[Prufrock]

I'm listening to WSC's Office Hours podcast about the book "The Law is Not of Faith" (see http://www.puritanboard.com/f31/law-not-faith-55594/).

It's my understanding that this (Republication View) book is in reponse to the (John Murray's) Mono-Covenantal view.

Are there more than these two views?
Is there a book that compares and contrasts the views with pros and cons?

(While writing this I found this thread http://www.puritanboard.com/f31/mono-vs-bi-covenantal-view-38084/ which I'll have to read later)

Junior,

While there is some carry-over between the two issues, you are addressing two separate items here. The so-called "mono-" and "bi-covenantal" views have to with the pre- and post-lapsarian covenants. The Reformed position is that there was a pre-fall covenant of works, and a separate post-fall Covenant of Grace. There are, unfortunately, those who have denied this most important distinction of late. There is, however, no room for disagreement on this one. There are two covenants.

The other issue (the one involving Republication) has to do with the nature of the Mosaic Covenant, and how it stands in relation to the Covenant of Grace. In general, those who hold to a Republication thesis (and I realize that, with the many forms which the Republication thesis assumes, this intentionally broad description will probably offend some) hold that Israel was under a national Covenant of Works -- not for their personal salvation, but rather with regards to possession and maintenance of the land of Israel. It is important to note that they still maintain that salvation has always been only through the Covenant of Grace, however. Those who deny the Republication thesis maintain that the land was possessed and held solely through promise, and that the legal form of the Mosaic administration was only accidental thereunto.

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

Especially since National Israel did nothing but keep breaking the Mosaic Covenant ad naseum yet still somehow always kept getting the land back and we can also be sure they did not get the land back nor did they receive the land in the first place because of any work of National Israel.

 

[Christusregnat]

I agree with premise 1. I do not agree with premise 2 nor the conclusion.

1.) If the Mosaic is purely of the Covenant of Grace than it would not be called a ministration of death in 2 Corinthians 3.

2.) If the Mosaic is purely of the Covenant of Works than there is no atonement that is pointed to and the pardon of sin was not real to those in the Old Covenant.

Conclusion.) Therefore the Mosaic Covenant administers both the Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Grace.

That is how the Mosaic Covenant should be understood.

(2Co 3:7) But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away:

(2Co 3:8) How shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious?

(2Co 3:9) For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory.

(2Co 3:10) For even that which was made glorious had no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that excelleth.

(2Co 3:11) For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious.

I realize that this is a differing point between the WCF and the 1689, because if the WCF's understanding were admitted by Baptists, they would have to abandon their quarrel with infant baptism.

However, Moses preached the gospel to the people, they received baptism and the Holy Supper. Furthermore, Paul, in 2 Cor 3 argues against Jewish misunderstanding and blindness concerning Moses, not against Moses' covenant per se.

2 Corinthians 3:1 Do we begin again to commend ourselves? or need we, as some others, epistles of commendation to you, or letters of commendation from you?
....
13 And not as Moses, which put a veil over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished: 14 But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ. 15 But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart. 16 Nevertheless when it shall turn to the Lord, the vail shall be taken away. 17 Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.

The Judaizers, like their forefathers, were stiff necked, and misunderstood the purpose of Moses. This is the same argument used by Paul in Romans 2: if you want to be justified by Moses, you are a fool, since Moses never taught this. The vail is the problem: not the text or covenant of Moses.

Adam

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

However, Moses preached the gospel to the people, they received baptism and the Holy Supper. Furthermore, Paul, in 2 Cor 3 argues against Jewish misunderstanding and blindness concerning Moses, not against Moses' covenant per se....

The Judaizers, like their forefathers, were stiff necked, and misunderstood the purpose of Moses. This is the same argument used by Paul in Romans 2: if you want to be justified by Moses, you are a fool, since Moses never taught this. The vail is the problem: not the text or covenant of Moses.

The text is what condemns and is called the ministration of death. It is what is written on stones. You neglect the passage with your understanding. I agree about the vail and not understanding. But you neglect the passage about the written word of God part.

2Co 3:7 But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones,

And as I showed you in the previous post concerning Romans, Moses did speak about being righteous and living the law to live.

(Rom 10:5) For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, That the man which doeth those things shall live by them.

Is there not a, Do this and Live mentality in Moses? I believe there is. Violate this and You shall die is also in it.

 

[Christusregnat]

The text is what condemns and is called the ministration of death. It is what is written on stones. You neglect the passage with your understanding. I agree about the vail and not understanding. But you neglect the passage about the written word of God part.

The text is a refutation of the Judaizers, just as Romans 2. Romans 2 holds out justification by works as the teaching of the law because this was the abused understanding of the Pharisees and Judaizers. He does the same thing here. Elsewhere, Scripture demonstrates that the Mosaic covenant is a covenant of grace. Therefore, the contextual qualifier of 2 Cor. 3 leads me to believe that Paul is addressing a specific set of people.

And as I showed you in the previous post concerning Romans, Moses did speak about being righteous and living the law to live.

So did Jesus, and therefore, the New Covenant has a Republication of the Covenant of Works by this logic. Or were Jesus and Paul simply addressing specific wicked people and their perversion of Moses? I believe it is the latter.

(Rom 10:5) For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, That the man which doeth those things shall live by them.

Is there not a, Do this and Live mentality in Moses? I believe there is. Violate this and You shall die is also in it.

The passage goes on to demonstrate that Moses did not deliver a covenant of works, but a covenant of grace. Again, Paul is addressing the Pharisees and Judaizers, but when he wants to refute their misunderstanding of Moses, he used Moses:

Romans 10:6 But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down from above 7 Or, Who shall descend into the deep? (that is, to bring up Christ again from the dead.) 8 But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;

Moses was a minister of the gospel, but to the Jews he had become a minister of death.

Adam

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Adam, I don't sense that you addressed what I stated. Especially my last sentence. JMO.

Is there not a, Do this and Live mentality in Moses? I believe there is. Violate this and You shall die is also in it.

The text is not just against the Judiazers. It is a revelation of Historical redemption and is being explained to both the Romans and Corinthians. I agree this text also shows how the Isrealites are being blinded in trying to establish their own righteousness. And how are they trying to do it in Romans 2 and 2 Cor 3. It was in trying to fulfill the law. They were blind in the fact that they thought they could establish themselves by fulfilling the law given by Moses.

(Rom 10:3) For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.

Also Romans 10:5 and 6 are set in contrast one to another. I agree that Moses preached and pointed to the Christ. As I stated above. Both the Covenant of Works and Covenant of Grace are administered in the Mosaic.

Remember..... The law condemns. That is not the Covenant of Grace.

(Rom 2:25) For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision.

(Gal 5:3) For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.

Adam, again I ask, Is there not a, Do this and Live mentality in Moses? I believe there is. Violate this and You shall die is also in it.


Thanks Adam.

Randy

 

[Christusregnat]

Adam, again I ask, Is there not a, Do this and Live mentality in Moses? I believe there is. Violate this and You shall die is also in it.


Thanks Adam.

Randy

Randy,

I apologize for not addressing your question; I took it as a rhetorical question.

I do not believe that there is no more of a do this and live mentality in Moses than in Christ:

Luke 18:18 And a certain ruler asked him, saying, Good Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? 19 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God. 20 Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother. 21 And he said, All these have I kept from my youth up. 22 Now when Jesus heard these things, he said unto him, Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me. 23 And when he heard this, he was very sorrowful: for he was very rich.

Jesus used both the 10 Cmds, as well as the gospel commands (go and sell all and follow me) as a covenant of work. Do this, and live. In answer to a "how do I do this and live" question. Therefore, both Moses and Christ use the law in the same way.

Cheers,

Adam

 

[Contra_Mundum]

I agree with the criticism of Kline (mentioned in the other thread, by armourbearer, I believe) that the extent to which his views push CoW republication, the practical effect is to create 2 covenants.

in my opinion, if a "republication" is granted a separate status other than as an external-glory "overlay" upon the Promise-covenant (Abraham, CoG)--as something akin to dressing up David in Saul's armor--then the two ideas are not rightly related.

Granting an ontologically separate status to the Law-covenant is to grant the Pharisees' basic grasp of the purpose of Moses. This, I believe, Paul (and Christ) rebuts. The legalist's basic understanding of Moses is deficient precisely at this point.

Understanding a unity-of-purpose in the Mosaic administration of the CoG strengthens, rather than weakens, the cohesiveness of the covenant-idea across all the dispensations. While, on the other hand, conceptualizing republication distinct from the religious/ceremonial/atonement-core of the Law allows even for understanding Abraham's covenant arangement with God to be viewed under a "legal" aspect as well. Hence, a number of covenantal-Baptists who already divide the promises to Abraham along these lines find theological support in Kline (even if he would deny the connection).

I accept the notion of "republication" IF it is understood after the manner of the glory-overlay. After all, the promise to Adam of Life upon condition of perfect obedience was a glorious arrangement. Man was in his glory, and able to fulfill those conditions. The Law has terrible glory.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Adam, again I ask, Is there not a, Do this and Live mentality in Moses? I believe there is. Violate this and You shall die is also in it.


Thanks Adam.

Randy

Randy,

I apologize for not addressing your question; I took it as a rhetorical question.

I do not believe that there is no more of a do this and live mentality in Moses than in Christ:

Luke 18:18 And a certain ruler asked him, saying, Good Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? 19 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God. 20 Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother. 21 And he said, All these have I kept from my youth up. 22 Now when Jesus heard these things, he said unto him, Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me. 23 And when he heard this, he was very sorrowful: for he was very rich.

Jesus used both the 10 Cmds, as well as the gospel commands (go and sell all and follow me) as a covenant of work. Do this, and live. In answer to a "how do I do this and live" question. Therefore, both Moses and Christ use the law in the same way.

Cheers,

Adam

And here is where I believe you are missing the point. I do not believe those in the Covenant of Grace are seeking to justify themselves. They live in contrast to the law, that condemns, by faith in the one who fulfilled the Covenant of Works. Jesus did not preach the gospel to the Rich young ruler. He showed the Rich young ruler that he stood condemned because he claimed to be justified by the Covenant of Works. As Paul noted the law is useful if a man use it lawfully. We have discussed the different uses of the law and need not get into that now.

So my point is that the Mosaic does have a Do this and Live mentality. Even this is pointed out by Jesus in the rich young ruler I believe. BTW, Go sell and follow me when disobeyed is a violation of idolatry and the First commandment.

 

[Christusregnat]

So my point is that the Mosaic does have a Do this and Live mentality. Even this is pointed out in the rich young ruler.

Yes, but so does Jesus, as you admit He did here in Luke 18. The command it "come and follow me", and "give all you have to the poor" are gospel commands, not Mosaic commands. Therefore, if we apply the same rule as you have to Moses, Jesus teaches a covenant of works along with the covenant of grace in the gospel. How can this be otherwise?

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Randy,
When Paul (or Christ) addresses a legalist in that way, "Do this and live," he is answering those persons on their own terms. That address does not go to the question of the nature of the Covenant at its root.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Randy,
When Paul (or Christ) addresses a legalist in that way, "Do this and live," he is answering those persons on their own terms. That address does not go to the question of the nature of the Covenant at its root.

I understand that is what you think. We just disagree. And I am not so sure this idea is bound up in Kline alone. I also mentioned an article in the Confessional Presbyterian Journal in the thread you mention that pointed to John Owen.

There is also a good article in the Confessional Presbyterian Journal on this topic.
http://www.cpjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/CPJ4-contents.pdf

The Confessional Presbyterian 4 (2008) Contents

151 The Covenant Of Works Revived: John Owen on Republication in the Mosaic Covenant
By Michael Brown, M.Div.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Randy,
Don't mistake my criticism of Kline's presentation as if I were disapproving of the language "republication." I think overmuch is made of it today, inasmuch as it is too often simply abstracted from the literal "core" of the Law: fellowship with God on the basis of his gracious forgiveness.

But to recognize that the moral legislation (especially), along with the separational (clean/unclean) regulations, had very much the quality of a setting forth of the Law "front and center" presents me with no difficulties. In this way it is a "republication".

Let me try an analogy: The Constitution of the USA is the foundational document of our country; nothing (not even the Dec.of.Ind. precedes it in importance). But there is a "sense" in which this Constitution changes very little. Why? because it is largely nothing but a "republication" of the State/Colonial charters (writ large), which themselves reflect the previous English-common-law heritage of the English people.

In other words,, the US.Const. is a "republication" of the previous law. But no one is so fooled by this language as to suppose that all we have in this country is a re-stenciled version of the Magna-Carta, or some other English paper.

So, I am not uncomfortable at all with the term "republication." I am disturbed by the idea that God ever intended to convey that he might grant, or hypothetically proposed to grant, in the post-fall estate any secular blessings strictly on the basis of a covenant arrangement. That the Mosaic covenant-conditions allowed for the blinded to make this kind of assumption was certainly intended by Jehovah. But that he meant such republication to be reckoned by the faithful as according to their WORK goes against the whole grain of biblical religion.

Israel's (especially Judah's) failure and subsequent judgment according to these stipulations was on account of their moral degradation, and not because they allowed their external observances to lapse.

Their were days when the Temple-service did lapse, but in Jeremiah's day, it was going strong. Hence, it was part-and-parcel of the legalism of those days that wrapped up national hope in deliverance in the formal keeping of the rites. Individual failures aside, the Law was being "kept" at the Temple. So the refrain, "the Temple of the Lord, the Temple of the Lord." But God was not placated, despite the "keeping" of the Covenant.

Since God was not, therefore we correctly conclude that the formal requirements of Covenant were inseparable from the internal requirements, exclusively moral in nature. Therefore, staying in the land was a matter of promise and forgiveness in the ultimate sense. But the formal requirements served as the paper-indictment of the people.

 

[Irish Presbyterian]

I'm listening to WSC's Office Hours podcast about the book "The Law is Not of Faith" (see http://www.puritanboard.com/f31/law-not-faith-55594/).

It's my understanding that this (Republication View) book is in reponse to the (John Murray's) Mono-Covenantal view.

Are there more than these two views?
Is there a book that compares and contrasts the views with pros and cons?

(While writing this I found this thread http://www.puritanboard.com/f31/mono-vs-bi-covenantal-view-38084/ which I'll have to read later)

You might want to pick this up:

Covenant Theology: John Murray's and Meredith G. Kline's Response to the Historical Development of Federal Theology in Reformed Thought - Dr. Jeong Koo Jeon

This is Dr. Jeong Koo Jeon's Phd dissertation that lays out the differences between Murray and Kline. His research leads him to favour Kline's formulation (i.e. Covenant of Works and Republication).

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

So, I am not uncomfortable at all with the term "republication." I am disturbed by the idea that God ever intended to convey that he might grant, or hypothetically proposed to grant, in the post-fall estate any secular blessings strictly on the basis of a covenant arrangement. That the Mosaic covenant-conditions allowed for the blinded to make this kind of assumption was certainly intended by Jehovah. But that he meant such republication to be reckoned by the faithful as according to their WORK goes against the whole grain of biblical religion.

Israel's (especially Judah's) failure and subsequent judgment according to these stipulations was on account of their moral degradation, and not because they allowed their external observances to lapse.

If I am understanding you correctly Bruce I still have some questions. Were there death penalties for violations of moral law in the OC? Was there any promise of blessedness in the OC for obedience?

I do believe the law was republished to show the sinfulness of sin and our inability to keep it. Romans 7 is proof of that, is it not?

Either way I still believe the Covenant of Works is republished in the decalogue. Do this and live is implied in the 5th commandment. Disrespecting or Cursing them had a severe punishment of death. So at some level there is a Do This And Live mentality. Violate this and thou shalt die is also in the law.

Anyways, I need to reread your post a few times to get the gist of it.

(Exo 20:12) Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.

(Eph 6:1) Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right.

(Eph 6:2) Honour thy father and mother; (which is the first commandment with promise,)

(Eph 6:3) That it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth.

(Exo 21:15) And he that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death.

(Exo 21:16) And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death.

(Exo 21:17) And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death.

Do you see why I am having problems here with what I hear you saying? There is a promised blessing / cursing motif' here in this covenant. It is based upon some level of obedience.

 

[eqdj]

I'm listening to WSC's Office Hours podcast about the book "The Law is Not of Faith" (see http://www.puritanboard.com/f31/law-not-faith-55594/).

It's my understanding that this (Republication View) book is in reponse to the (John Murray's) Mono-Covenantal view.

Are there more than these two views?
Is there a book that compares and contrasts the views with pros and cons?

(While writing this I found this thread http://www.puritanboard.com/f31/mono-vs-bi-covenantal-view-38084/ which I'll have to read later)

You might want to pick this up:

Covenant Theology: John Murray's and Meredith G. Kline's Response to the Historical Development of Federal Theology in Reformed Thought - Dr. Jeong Koo Jeon

This is Dr. Jeong Koo Jeon's Phd dissertation that lays out the differences between Murray and Kline. His research leads him to favour Kline's formulation (i.e. Covenant of Works and Republication).

Thank you!
This seems to be exactly what I was asking about!

Good night everybody!

 

[MW]

Are there more than these two views?

The book itself provides numerous views in chapter 3. I disagree with the historical placement and analysis of some the theologians there presented, but it provides a basic indication of the kinds of differences so far as schematics is concerned.

 

[Peairtach]

So, I am not uncomfortable at all with the term "republication." I am disturbed by the idea that God ever intended to convey that he might grant, or hypothetically proposed to grant, in the post-fall estate any secular blessings strictly on the basis of a covenant arrangement. That the Mosaic covenant-conditions allowed for the blinded to make this kind of assumption was certainly intended by Jehovah. But that he meant such republication to be reckoned by the faithful as according to their WORK goes against the whole grain of biblical religion.

Israel's (especially Judah's) failure and subsequent judgment according to these stipulations was on account of their moral degradation, and not because they allowed their external observances to lapse.

If I am understanding you correctly Bruce I still have some questions. Were there death penalties for violations of moral law in the OC? Was there any promise of blessedness in the OC for obedience?

I do believe the law was republished to show the sinfulness of sin and our inability to keep it. Romans 7 is proof of that, is it not?

Either way I still believe the Covenant of Works is republished in the decalogue. Do this and live is implied in the 5th commandment. Disrespecting or Cursing them had a severe punishment of death. So at some level there is a Do This And Live mentality. Violate this and thou shalt die is also in the law.

Anyways, I need to reread your post a few times to get the gist of it.

(Exo 20:12) Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.

(Eph 6:1) Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right.

(Eph 6:2) Honour thy father and mother; (which is the first commandment with promise,)

(Eph 6:3) That it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth.

(Exo 21:15) And he that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death.

(Exo 21:16) And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death.

(Exo 21:17) And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death.

Do you see why I am having problems here with what I hear you saying? There is a promised blessing / cursing motif' here in this covenant. It is based upon some level of obedience.

There are conditions of a sort in the New Covenant also

(a) E.g. If you are outwardly in the New Covenant by baptism and the Lord's Supper you will still end up in Hell, if you do not believe and repent. Also your exposure to God's Word and your privilege of growing up and/or being among God's New Covenant people will mean that Hell will be a greater punishment for you.

(b) E.g. Those in God's New Covenant can be chastised even to death. See e.g. I Corinthians 11. Presumably true believers can be chastised even unto death, because the Apostle says that some who despised the Lord's Supper "slept" in death.

(c) The New Covenant has conditions about what is acceptable behaviour for the professing Christian before he/she is excommunicated from the Church and Covenant until he/she shows signs of repentance.

(d) God in Christ can remove the presence of His Spirit from a congregation that strays and then even permit that the congregation ceases to exist in His Providence see e.g. Revelation's Letters to the Churches.

(e) A congregation may not find success in evangelism if it is not following Christ closely (?)

The idea that the New Covenant is unconditional is not correct. It is unconditional in the sense that if you as an individual truly believe in Christ you will be saved and go to Heaven, but in other ways it is not.

Re the Old Covenant conditions, it may be an obvious point but it should also be said that if someone who truly believed, committed a flagrant, gross and presumptious breach of the 10C and lost his right to access to a sacrifice for that sin-crime (remember sacrifices were only offered for "sins done in ignorance" as defined by the Torah) and was duly convicted and executed by stoning or some other way, the soul of that believer who had been excommunicated by death and typologically suffered God's wrath for his/her sin, went straight into glory.

So in that ultimate sense of the security of those who truly believe the Old Covenant was also unconditional, just like the New. In other lesser ways it was conditional.

but into the second only the high priest goes, and he but once a year, and not without taking blood, which he offers for himself and for the unintentional sins of the people (Hebrews 9:7, ESV).

Both Old and New Covenants are unconditional in an ultimate sense regarding personal salvation, but both Old and New Covenants are conditional - in different ways to each other - as respects other matters.

There are plenty other ways in which both the Old and New Covenants are conditional which I haven't mentioned and maybe haven't thought of.

E.g. the Covenant promises to children of adults in the covenant must be in some sense conditional, otherwise every child of a professing Christian or, at least, professing Christian believer would believe.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

In all due respect Richard this thread is not about who is a member of the New Covenant. We have discussed that quite often in the past. There is also a difference between those who profane and are not true New Covenant members and stand condemned and those who are being chastised. It seems you might be confusing the two from my perspective as a Particular Baptist because of your understanding of Covenant Theology from a Paedo perspective.

This thread is particularly about republication and the Mosaic.

 

[Casey]

Is there a book that compares and contrasts the views with pros and cons?

This book might be helpful. Has been a year or two since I've read it, but I remember it covering the topic of republication by quoting from various Reformed theologians:

God & Adam: Reformed Theology and The Creation Covenant, by Rowland S. Ward.​

 

[Peairtach]

In all due respect Richard this thread is not about who is a member of the New Covenant. We have discussed that quite often in the past. There is also a difference between those who profane and are not true New Covenant members and stand condemned and those who are being chastised. It seems you might be confusing the two from my perspective as a Particular Baptist because of your understanding of Covenant Theology from a Paedo perspective.

This thread is particularly about republication and the Mosaic.

Yes, Randy.

But I wasn't raising the subject of who is a member of the New Covenant or the other matters you mention.

But do you see what I'm saying. The point I'm making is that both the Old and New Covenants have unconditional and conditional aspects to them, and both are administrations of the Covenant of Grace. It is not incompatible with an administration of the Covenant of Grace to have conditions attached to it respecting certain matters, while being conditional respecting individual salvation only as respects saving faith, which of course is by grace.

Why do the republicationists posit a complicated and unlikely scheme, which they have no agreement on, to account for the conditional aspect(s) of the Old Covenant, when no such scheme is posited by them for the conditional aspect(s) of the New Covenant?

Why are they making an issue of the conditional aspect of the Old Covenant, while not pointing out that both the Old and New Covenants have a conditional aspect.

Such conditions in both Old and New covenant admins are teaching aids to the saved and unsaved in both covenants, which can be used by the Spirit for the spiritual benefit of those in the Covenant.

Under the Old Covenant, they are different from those under the New because the Church under the Old Covenant was in a childhood state.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Randy,
The difference I'm contending for is simply the difference between

1) a formal or surface correlation between the CoW and the 10C (summarizing the Moral Law which is the same, pre- or post-fall); to note that there are blessings associated with obedience and curses associated with disobedience only shows the degree of correlation is deliberately high; the intertextual carry-over of motif is intentional, and meant to put us is mind of the first estate.

and 2) a restatement of the CoW in principle, the giving of the Law with the idea that with sufficient moral effort, with sufficient attention to the cleanness regulations, and with the maintenance of the sacrificial system, the Covenant in principle would be kept.

Reading Moses after the second manner was a FAILURE to get at the substance of the Covenant. It summarizes Judah's hope in Jeremiah's day. All the Pharisees of Jesus' day had done was raise the bar for the individual commitments. So, they said, if the nation as a whole would just keep the law properly for one day, then Messiah would come and finish the task.

The Pharisees were content to let the Sadducees retain Temple control, because the formal rites were carried on. In other words,, they reckoned that Israel's failure in Jeremiah's day was that the failures in the other areas had overwhelmed even the central-pillar of Israelite confidence. Those earlier Jews had thought a general failure of the other areas were pardonable, so long as the KEY area (the Temple-rite) was maintained, which view was discredited by the Exile.

So the Pharisees simply relocated the prime area of concern to national and individual cleanness, while they continued to insist that the Temple-rite be formally and carefully observed. Their "holding operation" was not enough to strengthen the Jews nationally to throw off foreign domination, but it might preserve them as a people long enough to attain sufficient cleanness that Messiah would come, and renovate his people in all areas, ideally restoring their fortunes, making them the head and not the tail.

But all this treats the Law as though it is indeed a CoW in principle, which it is not. The Pharisees were "semi-Pelagian", "Arminian", in their understanding of Grace as it was granted to "help" keep the law to attain salvation. There was a degree of difficulty to Law-keeping, but the Temple-rite and ceremonial-observance (and traditions of the elders) were channels of God's assisting grace; and that would help "make up" for man's natural weakness.

So, in the end the Pharisees were no less in error than the pre-Exilic Jews concerning the nature of their Covenant with God--that his maintenance of them was legal in character, instead of wholly and entirely gracious. The formal aspects of the Law had blinded them.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

In all due respect Richard this thread is not about who is a member of the New Covenant. We have discussed that quite often in the past. There is also a difference between those who profane and are not true New Covenant members and stand condemned and those who are being chastised. It seems you might be confusing the two from my perspective as a Particular Baptist because of your understanding of Covenant Theology from a Paedo perspective.

This thread is particularly about republication and the Mosaic.

Yes, Randy.

But I wasn't raising the subject of who is a member of the New Covenant or the other matters you mention.

I believe you did introduce the subject.

There are conditions of a sort in the New Covenant also

(a) E.g. If you are outwardly in the New Covenant by baptism and the Lord's Supper you will still end up in Hell, if you do not believe and repent. Also your exposure to God's Word and your privilege of growing up and/or being among God's New Covenant people will mean that Hell will be a greater punishment for you.


E.g. the Covenant promises to children of adults in the covenant must be in some sense conditional, otherwise every child of a professing Christian or, at least, professing Christian believer would believe.

I believe your argument is based upon your understanding of Covenant membership. That is where your argument stems from concerning conditional and unconditional. That takes us off the topic and sets up a set of different arguments concerning the topic we are discussing in my opinion. Maybe you should start a thread on the conditionality of the New Covenant and Covenant membership. This thread originally is about republication of the CofW and a podcast on a book that discusses this topic, "The Law is not of faith."

I listened to the Podcast and I liked it. I recommend it.

You can listen to it here. http://netfilehost.com/wscal/OfficeHours/11.15.09TLNOF.mp3

 

[Hebrew Student]

Interesting discussion, Bruce and PuritanCovenanter.



I did want to ask, from each of you, what would you consider to be the sine quo non of a covenant of works? Maybe better, what would PuritanCovenanter say the Old Covenant had that the New Covenant does not that would make the Old Covenant [at least partially anyway] a covenant of works.

God Bless,
Adam

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

What is sine quo non? I am not familiar with the phrase.

 

[fredtgreco]

What is sine quo non? I am not familiar with the phrase.

Sine qua non is "the thing without which [something would not exist] " For example, the sine qua non of a meal is food.

The best book to read on this issue is The Marrow of Modern Divinity.

The Mosaic Covenant is an administration of the Covenant of Grace. The difficulty comes in the fact that the Covenant of Works is still in existence, albeit it is no longer a way to have communion with God. No one can keep the Covenant of Works, but every unbeliever is still under the Covenant of Works.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

I am reading that book right now. I read about a 3rd of it and put it down to read some historical books. I just picked it up again.

I believe the CofW was republished in the Mosaic to reveal the sinfulness of sin as Romans 7 states. I also believe the promise of the Covenant of Grace is republished and more defined in the Mosaic. I do not believe the CofW's is a method or offer as a way of eternal salvation. I don't know anyone who would contend for such a position. I may be mistaken, but I don't think that anyone who believes the CofW was republished in the Mosaic would say that God is offering eternal salvation by it. Am I mistaken? I do believe there are promises attached to it as in the 5th commandment. I do not believe that anyone could possibly be fully obedient to the 5th commandment. The heart is too corrupt.