The Covenant of Grace, The Sinaitic and the New Drs. J van Gunderen and W. H. Velema Concise Reformed Dogmatics pp. 548-550 P&R 2008
3. The Sinaitic Covenant. We can say with Bavinck that the covenant with the fathers is the foundation and core of the Sinaitic covenant (R. D., 3.220). God’s faithfulness toward the patriarchs is mentioned as the motive (Deut. 7:8). There is continuity so that also the covenant with Israel bears the character of a covenant of Grace. This is sufficiently clear from the words of Exodus 20:2, although in the phase of the history of the covenant there is a great emphasis on the observance of God’s commandments.
Sometimes the distinction between the covenant with Abraham and that with Israel at Sinai is almost turned into a contrast. Thus it is said that although the latter is indeed not a covenant of works, it is presented in a form that is strongly reminiscent of a covenant of works (Aalders, 1939. 179). We can object that the emphasis on what God demands from his people does not take us into the sphere of a covenant of works. In Deuteronomy the central idea is that the people will keep the covenant. Blessing and curse depend on this (Deut. 27-30), but it is the obligation to respond to God’s love that carries the covenant (see Deut. 6:4-5; 7:6-8; 30:19-20). The Law is the torah, which plays a role within the covenant. It provides the instruction that is required to make the people walk in the way of the covenant. Just as Abraham is called to walk before God’s face when the Lord allies himself with him (Gen17.1), so the law that is given to Israel serves the covenant as a further explanation of the statement, “Walk before me and be thou perfect” (cf. Bavinck, R. D. 3.222).
4. In connection with the prophesies concern a new covenant or an eternal covenant, which God is about to establish with his people (Jer. 31:31-34; 32:37-41; Ezek. 37:24-28), the question arises whether this is a covenant other than the covenant made with Israel or whether we must think in terms of a renewal of the covenant.
Some theologians contrast the Sinaitic covenant with the new covenant. The bond with the people of God in the covenant of Sinai is purely external and national, in the new covenant it is purely internal and spiritual. Today we deal with the new covenant. The members of the covenant are members of the invisible church , the living members of Christ (Aalders, 1939, 158f.). An important conclusion is that covenant and election are quantitatively identical. The number of covenant members is identical to the number of the elect. Incidentally, the covenant appears to include illegitimate members, to whom also God has said that he establishes his covenant with them to be their God, but who refuse to acknowledge him as their God. This can be interpreted as a breach of the covenant on their part (Aalders, 1939, 193,222).
According to Reiling, the prophecy of the new covenant implies that the old covenant no longer exists. It has been breached by the people and there is nothing left to be restored or renewed. The old covenant and the new covenant constitute the same covenant only to the extent that God remains himself. As far as the covenant people are concerned, however, we must speak of two fundamentally different covenants. (J. Reiling, Verbond, oud en nieuto, 1976.111)
While Aalders, Reiling, and others emphasisze the discontinuity of the covenant with Israel and the new covenant, others point to continuity. The distinction is not that the old covenant is only external and the new covenant internal. This would constitute an essential difference. It is disputed by L. H. Vander Meiden (1955.35). The difference lies entirely in the area of the history of redemption (Wiskerke, 1955.174).
Regarding the relationship between the old (Sinaitic) covenant and the new covenant (Jer.31), we must keep in mind both the similarities and the distinctions between them.
It is in essence one covenant of God with his people. When the covenant first established with Abraham was subsequently ratified with Israel at Sinai, it retained the character of a covenant of grace. Jeremiah 31 implies in a surprisingly new manner that God commits himself to extend his grace and faithfulness toward people who do not at all deserve it (cf. in this regard Jer. 31:32). He renews his covenant with his people.
The new covenant is none other than the old covenant. The Law that is to be written in the hearts is the same law that was given earlier. The all-encompassing promise (Jer. 31:33), “I…will be their God and they shall be my people,” is the same promise of Moses’ time (“I … will be your God, and ye shall be my people,” Lev. 26:12). One may not infer from Jeremiah 31:33-34 that in earlier days the law was not yet written in the hearts or that there was then no forgiveness of sin and knowledge of the Lord. This “internalization” (See F. Malaresta, Interiority and Covenant, 1978, 68-77) was already promised in the books of Moses (Deut. 30:6). The Law was indeed written in the hearts of the godly, and the saints of God stood in the right relationship to him.
The manner in which God deals with his people has not changed in the new covenant. He grants promises such as those expressed in Jeremiah 31:31-34 not just to those who have been chosen to eternal life. Just as those in Genesis 17 and Exodus 19, they are promises that require a believing response.
There is nevertheless a clear progression in the history of the covenant, which is at the same time redemptive history. “Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant” (Jer. 31:31). More blessings can be expected in the future. In essence, what was granted under the old covenant is given to a fuller and richer extent under the new covenant. Thus there is indeed a difference in degree (cf. Vander Meiden, 1955, 41).
As far as the fulfillment of this prophecy is concerned, some place it after the exile, because the context refers to people returning (Jer. 31:23-25) and because they would then naturally be preoccupied with the law (cf. Neh. 9.38-10.31). In our view the prophesies concerning the new covenant refer more to a new, enduring dispensation the covenant. This new dispensation came when Christ completed his work as Mediator and when his Spirit was poured out (see Heb. 8:6-13; 2 Cor. 3:6). Believers from among the Jewish people and from the nations of the world are proof that God fulfils his promise (cf. Rom. 9:24-26; 2 Cor. 6:16-18). Thus the church of Christ represents the people of the new covenant.
The Westminster Confession of Faith chapter XVI.6,7
VI. Although true believers be not under the law as a covenant of works, to be thereby justified or condemned; yet is it of great use to them, as well as to others; in that, as a rule of life, informing them of the will of God and their duty, it directs and binds them to walk accordingly; discovering also the sinful pollutions of their nature, hearts, and lives; so as, examining themselves thereby, they may come to further conviction of, humiliation for, and hatred against sin; together with a clearer sight of the need they have of Christ, and the perfection of his obedience. It is likewise of use to the regenerate, to restrain their corruptions, in that it forbids sin, and the threatenings of it serve to show what even their sins deserve, and what afflictions in this life they may expect for them, although freed from the curse thereof threatened in the law. The promises of it, in like manner, show them God’s approbation of obedience, and what blessings they may expect upon the performance thereof; although not as due to them by the law as a covenant of works: so as a man’s doing good, and refraining from evil, because the law encourageth to the one, and deterreth from the other, is no evidence of his being under the law, and not under grace.
VII. Neither are the forementioned uses of the law contrary to the grace of the gospel, but do sweetly comply with it: the Spirit of Christ subduing and enabling the will of man to do that freely and cheerfully, which the will of God, revealed in the law, requireth to be done.
“I once heard someone say (or write) that the Law was also “graceful” because at least in this God’s case, He was letting His subjects know what was expected and wanted from them.”
I appreciate the intent of the sentiment. There are two problems here. First is the semantic problem. The English language is a little limited here. We use gift, grace, and favor, as synonyms. If we could distinguish “gift” from “grace” and “favor,” then we might be able to speak that way. What we need is a word that connotes something freely given that is isn’t necessarily saving and, in some cases is beneficial but not all. The word “benefit” does this.
The second problem is the pervasive and persistent problem that some Reformed and would-be Reformed folk have, in reacting to antinomianism, of conflating grace and law. This is the more serious.
Rather than speaking of the grace of the law, it would be better to speak as the Westminster Confession does. The Westminster divines (theologians) did not confess that the covenant of works was “a covenant of grace,” or “a covenant of favor,” nor did they say that God “graciously” instituted the covenant of works. Rather they said (7:1) that God established the covenant of works by “voluntary condescension.” In other words, rather than appealing to the nature of the law they appealed to God’s exercise of his free will.
WCF ch. 16 summarizes the Reformed doctrine of good works and there we do not find the law called a grace or gracious. Chapter 19 is devoted the the Law of God. If the confession is going to speak of the grace of the law anywhere, it would be there. Yet, in WCF 19.3, it says that God “was pleased to give to the people of Israel, as a church under age….” As in chapter 7, they appealed to traditional Reformed language concerning the will of God.
If you really want to get biblical, grace truly does more than what Dr. Clark neglects to understand. Grace teaches us to deny ungodliness according to Titus 2:11,12 Dr. Clarks understanding of the Westminster is skewed in a few places because of his Law / Gospel hermeneutic. Many have confronted his interpretation of Westminster Confession chapter 19 as he relates the Law to always be interpreted as synonomous with the Covenant of Works in this context.
What spurred me on to think of doing this blog was a recent Facebook post by a friend directing everyone to a Heidelblog encouraging us to think Pastorally when considering Law and Gospel. In light of how he and others have used the term Pastoral, I have grown concerned about what it means to be Pastoral when considering the Law / Gospel distinctions. In the blog post Law and Gospel in a Pastoral Context and by comments made in other places about preaching in light of understanding the distinctions between Law and Grace it seems to me that preaching and counseling pastorally means to magnify the doctrine of justification by faith alone in most situations.
The Post referenced above is not a bad post but I have some concerns about the context of being “Pastoral concerning Law and Grace” and some of the shortsightedness of the comments. I might be incorrect but it seems that the implication to preach Pastorally and to counsel Pastorally means you magnify the doctrine of justification by faith alone at the expense of neglecting the full truth of what it means to be Pastoral according to the situation. We have seen this problem recently in the antinomian debates. After all, the Law can not be connected to grace in anyway if they are to keep their dichotomous distinction. Only the Law can command. The Gospel is only a victory proclamation. It never commands in their thinking.
Here is the first quote of the blog that I found rather strange to my ears.
“DATHENUS: Just as this is very comforting, so it also is certain and true. For this is what Paul is teaching us with these similar words, namely, that “by the deeds of the law no flesh shall justified in his sight: for by the law is knowledge of sin” (Rom. 3:20). Also, “Nay, I had not know sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet” (Rom. 7:7; Exod. 20:17).
As summation, Paul points out that the law is our disciplinarian, or what which leads us to Christ, to be justified by faith. However, once we have come to faith, we are no longer under the disciplinarian guide.”
The quote, “However, once we have come to faith, we are no longer under the disciplinarian guide,” seems to be really off base and antinomian. Sure we are not under the Law as a Covenant of Works but we are under it in a Gospel sense as the Law and Gospel do sweetly comply and we are still under the demand to obey it. Note WCF 16.6,7 and 19.5,6. Does not what I have shown above prove the Law influences us to live Godly? Does not the Grace of God teach us to deny ungodliness? Titus 2:11,12 Thus the terminology “Grace of the Law” is not an unbiblical teaching. The Law is a guide and influence upon the regenerate which God uses to discipline us by as we are to discipline our lives to be conformed in the image of Christ.
I have recently been noticing how some Profs. and Pastors are encouraged on how they should think about being Pastoral in their proclamation and distinctions (or dichotomy) concerning the doctrines of Law and Grace. In my estimation an over emphasis is given to the doctrine of justification by faith alone in this type of Pastoral Counseling sometimes. The problem with this type of thinking is that it can become unbalanced when an over emphasis on justification by faith alone is emphasized as being the Pastoral application. I agree that it is an important part of being Pastoral. But so is the confrontation that is needed when a person needs to repent or he will be cut off from the body of Christ. One dear old Mentor of mine challenged me in my very early days as a new Convert to memorize 1Corinthians 10:13.
1Co 10:13 There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.
1Co 10:14 Wherefore, my dearly beloved, flee from idolatry.
Now tell me, was he not being Pastoral by telling me to live righteously in light of Galatians 6:7-9?
Gal 6:7 Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.
Gal 6:8 For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting.
Gal 6:9 And let us not be weary in well doing: for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not.
So when you hear someone mention to you that the Pastoral way of thinking as it concerns Law and Gospel has to do with justification by faith alone don’t neglect the fact that Pastoral preaching and counseling also warns and calls us to repentance. It also counsels us to think in terms of Paul’s words in Romans 6.
Pray and think pastorally. Pray for wisdom about the situation. Not everyone needs to be comforted about their salvation. Some need to be concerned that they may not be found in the faith as Paul notes in 2 Corinthians 13:5. Some of us need to be pastorally challenged to repent for our own good and for the good of the Church. And that is gracious.
WCF 19.5,6
V. The moral law doth forever bind all, as well justified persons as others, to the obedience thereof; and that not only in regard of the matter contained in it, but also in respect of the authority of God the Creator who gave it. Neither doth Christ in the gospel any way dissolve, but much strengthen, this obligation.
VI. Although true believers be not under the law as a covenant of works, to be thereby justified or condemned; yet is it of great use to them, as well as to others; in that, as a rule of life, informing them of the will of God and their duty, it directs and binds them to walk accordingly; discovering also the sinful pollutions of their nature, hearts, and lives; so as, examining themselves thereby, they may come to further conviction of, humiliation for, and hatred against sin; together with a clearer sight of the need they have of Christ, and the perfection of his obedience. It is likewise of use to the regenerate, to restrain their corruptions, in that it forbids sin, and the threatenings of it serve to show what even their sins deserve, and what afflictions in this life they may expect for them, although freed from the curse thereof threatened in the law. The promises of it, in like manner, show them God’s approbation of obedience, and what blessings they may expect upon the performance thereof; although not as due to them by the law as a covenant of works: so as a man’s doing good, and refraining from evil, because the law encourageth to the one, and deterreth from the other, is no evidence of his being under the law, and not under grace.
Herman Bavinck on this topic.
The Gospel is temporary, but the law is eternal and is restored precisely through the Gospel. Freedom from the law consists, then, not in the fact that the Christian has nothing more to do with the law, but lies in the fact that the law demands nothing more from the Christian as a condition of salvation. The law can no longer judge and condemn him. Instead he delights in the law of God according to the inner man and yearns for it day and night.
Therefore, that law must always be preached to the congregation in connection with the Gospel. Law and Gospel, the whole Word, the full counsel of God, is the content of preaching. Among Reformed people, therefore, the law occupies a much larger place than in the teaching of sin, since it is also part of the teaching of gratitude.
[Here Bavinck has a footnote providing bibliographical references relating to the views of Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, Zanchius, Witsius, De Moor, Vitringa, Schneckenburger, Frank, and Gottschick.]
Here is the Vos quote that puzzles me a bit because of how I have come to understand the passages referenced in the quote.
“it also contains expressions that had reference specifically to Israel, and thus are not totally applicable to us (e.g., “that it may be well with you in the land that the Lord your God gives you”). But also, beyond the Decalogue, there is reference to the law as a demand of the covenant of works (e.g., Lev 18:5; Deut 27:26; 2 Cor 3:7, 9). It is for this reason that in the last cited passage, Paul calls the ministry of Moses a ministry of condemnation. This simply shows how the demand of the law comes more to the fore in this dispensation of the covenant of grace.” GV
For one thing Paul references the application of “be well with you in the land” and specifically brings this passage into the New Testament.
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. (in the land)
Paul’s Use of Lev. 18:5 in Rom. 10:5
Pastor Patrick Ramsey
The following is (I trust) a simple but not simplistic explanation of Paul’s use of Leviticus 18:5 in Romans 10:5.
In 9:30-10:5 Paul explained the reason the Jews did not attain righteousness even though they pursued it. They mistakenly pursued it by works (9:32). Hence, they stumbled over the stumbling stone (9:33). They sought to establish their own righteousness (10:3). Ignorant of the right way to righteousness, although they should have known better, they zealously pursued life on the basis of their own obedience to the law.
In Rom. 10:5 Paul describes this wrong way of pursuing life (righteousness) from the OT, namely Leviticus 18:5 (see also Neh. 9:29; Eze. 20:11, 13, 21): “For Moses writes about the righteousness that is based on law, that the person who does the commandments shall live by them.” Now the fact that Paul appeals to Moses to describe the wrong way, or if you will, the Pharisaical way of pursuing righteousness, is somewhat perplexing. As a result, this verse, along with its counterpart in Gal. 3, is quite controversial among commentators and theologians.
Here is the difficulty from three different perspectives. First, in 9:32, Paul had said that the law itself did not teach that righteousness was based on works or obedience to the law. The Jews pursued the law as if it led to righteousness. The Jews, as the NT says elsewhere, misread the OT. And yet Paul seems to be saying in vs. 5 that the OT did in fact teach and exhort the people to pursue life/righteousness by keeping the law. How then can Paul (or the rest of the NT) condemn the Pharisees for seeking righteousness by works if that is what Moses told them to do?
Second, in vs. 8 Paul will quote Deut. 30 and later on he will cite Isaiah and Joel in direct contrast to Lev. 18:5 to describe the right way to find life and righteousness. So then it would seem that Paul pits Moses against Moses and the OT against the OT.
Third, the context of Lev. 18:5 doesn’t seem to support the way Paul uses it in Rom. 10:5. Moses exhorts Israel to keep God’s commandments in the context of redemption and covenant. Verses 1-3 highlight the point that Israel already belongs to God as his redeemed people. These verses are very similar to the prologue to the Ten Commandments, which teaches that salvation precedes obedience. God didn’t give Israel the law so that they might be saved. He saves them so that they might keep the law. In short, the context of Lev. 18:5 speaks against the idea that it teaches legalism or a work-based righteousness. Yet, that is how Paul is using this verse!
Now some have sought to solve this difficulty by saying that there is no actual contrast between verses 5 and 6. The “but” of vs. 6 should be translated “and.” The problem with this, however, is that it doesn’t fit the context of Paul’s argument. The apostle, beginning in 9:30 is contrasting two ways of seeking righteousness—works and faith—and this contrast clearly continues in vs. 5. This is confirmed by the fact that Paul speaks of works righteousness or righteousness based on law elsewhere (Gal. 3; Phil. 3:9) in a negative way.
So then how are we to understand what Paul is saying in vs. 5 (and in Gal. 3)? Well, Paul is citing Lev. 18:5 according to how it was understood by the Jews of his day; and no doubt how he understood it before his conversion. The Jews of Paul’s day saw obedience to the law (which included laws pertaining to the atonement of sins) as the source of life and as the basis of salvation. Keeping the law was the stairway to heaven. The way to have your sins forgiven and to be accepted by God was to observe the law. Lev. 18:5 provided biblical support for this Pharisaical position. And it is not hard to see why they would appeal to this verse since it says that the person who does the commandments shall live by them.
In Rom. 10:6ff Paul refutes this works-based righteousness position including the Jewish appeal to Lev. 18:5. Now he doesn’t do it in the way you or I might think of doing it. We might tend to respond to the Pharisee and say: “Look, you have completely misunderstood what Moses is saying in Lev. 18:5. The specific and general context of that verse indicates that your interpretation is incorrect…” Instead, Paul uses a technique that was quite common in his day. He counters their interpretation of Lev. 18:5 by citing another passage: Deut. 30:12-14. In other words, Paul is saying that Deut. 30 demonstrates that the Jewish understanding of Lev. 18:5 is incorrect. We of course sometimes use this type of argument today. For example, some people today appeal to James 2 to prove that we need to obey the law in order to be justified. One way to disprove that interpretation would be to cite Paul in Romans or Galatians. So Paul is not pitting Moses against Moses in vv. 5-6 or saying that Moses taught salvation by works. Rather the apostle is using one Mosaic passage to prove that the legalistic interpretation of another Mosaic passage is wrong.
Patrick Ramsey
Concerning the 2 Corinthians 3 passage I wrote this.
In light of the passage mentioned in 2 Corinthians 3, which calls the Old an administration of Death, one must also read the prior passages to understand in what context St. Paul is referring to the Mosaic Covenant.
(2Co 2:14) Now thanks be unto God, which always causeth us to triumph in Christ, and maketh manifest the savour of his knowledge by us in every place.
(2Co 2:15) For we are unto God a sweet savour of Christ, in them that are saved, and in them that perish:
(2Co 2:16) To the one we are the savour of death unto death; and to the other the savour of life unto life. And who is sufficient for these things?
(2Co 2:17) For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.
Christ and the Gospel were Preached in Moses and the Old Testament. In fact Jesus said as much as did the author of Hebrews.
(Luk 24:27) And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.
(Joh 5:46) For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.
(Joh 5:47) But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?
(Heb 4:2) For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it.
(Heb 4:3) For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of the world.
The Mosaic was an administration of death the same way the New Covenant is to those who seek to turn the New Covenant into a Covenant of Works. We are so inclined to stumble because we will not believe Moses or Christ. We naturally tend to corrupt the Word of God and the Covenant of Grace by wanting to add our works into our justification before God. In doing so we are refusing the Cornerstone and Saviour. We become like those that Paul is speaking about, “to one they [Paul and the Apostles] are a savour of death unto death.” And how is to be considered that Paul and the Church is a savour unto death? They are because the corrupters of the word of God do what St. Paul says he doesn’t do in the proceeding verse, “For we are not as those who corrupt the Word of God.” Those who corrupt the word are rejecting the Chief Cornerstone and depending upon their works or acts that contribute to their justification. The book of Galatians, Romans, and Hebrews have warnings and correctives for those who corrupt the word. But when they reject the truth they fall deeper into death. Even St. Paul acknowledged that the Law didn’t kill him. He was already dead and discovered it. That is one of the purposes of the Law. That purpose is to reveal sin and death. .As Paul noted earlier in the letter to the Romans death came upon all men by sin and Adam.
Rom 7:13 Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.
Rom 7:14 For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.
“3. [We would] distinguish between God’s intention in givingand the believers in Israel, their making use of this law; and the carnal multitude among that people, their way of receiving it, and corrupt abusing it contrary to the Lord’s mind. In the first sense, it was a covenant of grace. In the second it turned to be a covenant of works to them. And therefore it is that the Lord rejects (as we may see, Isa. 1:13; 66:2-3; Jer. 7:22) their sacrifices and services as not commanded, because rested on by them, to the prejudice of grace, and contrary to the strain and scope of this law complexly considered.”
James Durham Practical Exposition of the Ten Commandments p. 55
As far as the Deuteronomy 27:26 passage I leave you with these examples. The man in 1 Cor 5 who was delivered to Satan and the removal of the Candlestick in Revelation 2. There are various New Testament passages also that contain strong warnings such as in 1 Cor. 10, 11; Hebrews 2-4, 6, 10, 12; 2 Peter 2; Jude; and Revelation 2-3.
Vos can’t be right about everything. I do appreciate a lot what I have seen of Vos as others have written about him. I loved Rich Barcellos’ book ‘The Family Tree of Reformed Biblical Theology‘ so much I read it two times in a row. I admit that I haven’t read much of Vos. I will be getting his Biblical Theology book as it is now being published in hardcover by Banner of Truth. Nick Batzig asked me if I had the Logos edition of Vos’ Reformed Dogmatics. I can’t afford much of anything from Logos. I am still using E-Sword. It is more fitting to my wallet. Nick told me through a message I need to read the fuller context. He admonished me to read Vos on the Mosaic Covenant in his section on the Covenant of Grace.
One thing that I wonder is why these guys who want to teach the new paradigm of Republication of the Covenant of Works in the Mosaic Covenant, why they don’t want to reference or deal with the Divines who spoke clearly on this subject and contended that the Mosaic Covenant was purely an Administration of the Covenant of Grace as is stated in the Westminster Confession of Faith and as is proven by a lot of the following site’s references. (https://sites.google.com/site/themosaiccovenant/). I believe Vos holds to the view of the majority of the old Divines but this section’s nuances seem a bit confusing to me. It won’t be the last time something written is confusing to me. I probably just don’t understand the nuances myself. But I am trying.
Just my humble opinion.
I actually found this blog by Michael Lynch (PhD student with Richard Muller) to be encouraging in light of what is going on in today’s atmosphere
…In summary, Vos’s understanding of the Mosaic covenant is in line with confessional Reformed theology when he argues that the Mosaic administration and the law in particular, is grounded in the covenant of grace. The Mosaic economy is not a republication of the covenant of works where Israel merited the blessings or merited the continuation of the blessings. Rather, Israel typifying the NT church and the promised land typifying the New Heavens-New Earth, demanded an “appropriateness of expression” that Israel should “trust and obey” and meet the condition of the covenant of grace. As soon as the nation as whole apostatized, Israel was sent into exile. Although the Mosaic covenant (and thus the covenant of grace) was broken by Israel, God did not break his ratified promise to be a God to his people. Because the Mosaic covenant, like all OT covenants, was grounded upon God’s immutable ratification, God could not forget his covenant. For Vos, this is why the Mosaic covenant, though broken by Israel, is not the end of redemptive history. The old covenant, the Mosaic administration, awaited the full-flowering of God’s dealing with his people, which finds its telos in the new covenant.
This is a portion taken from a paper written by three OPC Ministers who were taught at Westminster Seminary California. This portion explains reasons why they believe Professor Meredith Kline adopted some of the doctrines he did concerning a Republication not only of the Law but of a Covenant of Works in the Mosaic Covenant. In this portion they explain as does the book ‘The Law is Not of Faith’ (a book written by multiple authors) in Kline’s thought that Israel is to be considered a Corporate Type of Adam. Is this the historical Reformed position? It is something we need to figure out and decide. Does this teaching protect the doctrine of Sola Fide as some desire? You can decide for yourself.
The original booklet can be purchased from a link posted here.
pp. 19-24
As noted above, Kline and the authors of TLNF are correct to point to dangerous imbalances in the theology of Norman Shepherd and FV. But is it possible that even as Shepherd and FV represented a pendulum swing away from the WCF in one direction, Kline’s reaction to it might constitute a swing in another? We may identify three components of Kline’s teaching and writings intended to counteract the teaching of Shepherd and FV. In our view, these components also swing wide of the plumb line of the Westminster Standards.
1. Disagreement with Voluntary Condescension
In light of these controversies, Kline spoke of redefining the concept of grace to preserve the meritorious character of the covenant of works. Instead of the traditional Augustinian definition of grace as “unmerited favor,” Kline proposed viewing grace more strictly as “demerited favor” (i. e., favor granted after man’s fall in spite of demerit). He also questioned the Westminster Confession of Faith 7:1, which speaks of God’s voluntary condescension to make a covenant with Adam. (He told faculty members, including Robert Strimple in a private conversation, that he took a personal exception to that particular wording of WCF 7:1 [See Strimple, “WCF,” p. 8].) Since Murray and Shepherd spoke of gracious elements in God’s relationship with man before the fall, Kline did not want to use vocabulary like God’s goodness, kindness, or even condescension in entering into the covenant of works with Adam. Kline finally settled on speaking about God’s benevolence, but not in the context of the doctrine of God’s voluntary condescension (as outlined in WCF 7:1). Instead of referring to the necessity of God’s condescension in establishing the covenant with its reward of eternal life, he sees the bestowal of the reward of the covenant as “an aspect of God’s creational love.” He sought to guard the attainment of the reward as “a matter of works” in distinction from grace (Kingdom Prologue [2000], p. 112). As we will explore later in Part 2, this is the result of the conflation of creation and covenant in Kline’s system, which leads to the squeezing out of God’s voluntary condescension, and a recasting of the covenantal formulation of the Westminster Standards.
2. Israel as a Corporate Typological Adam with a Merit-Based Probation
As Kline reacted to Shepherd’s theology, he sought to demonstrate that the works principle was foundational to all of the divine covenants, and therefore, shut the door once and for all “to the sweeping denial of the operation of the works principle anywhere in the divine government” (Kingdom Prologue [2000], p. 108). One of the ways to do this is by comparing the two Adams, which is typical and necessary in Reformed covenant theology. If Christ’s mission is to prevail where the first Adam failed, then “Adam, like Christ, must have been placed under a covenant of works” (Kingdom Prologue [2000], p. 110). In the standard Reformed view of Romans 5, we understand that Paul draws a comparison between the obedience of the two Adams as the respective covenant heads of the covenant of works and covenant of grace: “Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men” (Rom. 5:18).
But Kline does not stop with the comparison between the two Adams. He goes on to make Israel something of another “Adam figure” that he believes will fortify the two- Adam doctrine.
Likewise, the identification of God’s old covenant with Israel as one of works points to the works nature of the creational covenant. Here we can only state a conclusion that the study of biblical evidence would substantiate, but the significant point is that the old covenant with Israel, though it was something more, was also a re-enactment (with necessary adjustments) of mankind’s probation – and fall. It was as the true Israel, born under the law, that Christ was the second Adam. This means that the covenant with the first Adam, like the typological Israelite re-enactment of it, would have been a covenant of law in the sense of works, the antithesis of the grace-promise-faith principle (Kingdom Prologue [2000], p. 110).
Professor Kline taught that because the covenant with Israel provides the context for a historical re-enactment of the probation of the first Adam, it also republishes the covenant of works. The works principle in the Mosaic covenant would therefore provide additional evidence against Shepherd that Adam was in a covenant governed by the works principle. In other words, if it can be shown that Old Testament Israel was under a national works principle, then it is impossible to deny that Adam was under a works principle. The Mosaic covenant is designed to show that corporate Israel’s relationship to God is a re- enactment of Adam’s probation and fall. This retrospective reasoning going from Israel’s situation back to Adam’s would demonstrate that “there can be no a priori objection to the standard view of the original Edenic order as a covenant of works” (Kingdom Prologue [2000], p. 110). This also means, however, that the Mosaic covenant’s essential nature can no longer be characterized as a covenant of grace in Kline’s formulation (contrary to WCF 7:3). Instead, it corresponds to the nature of the Adamic covenant. In Kline’s words again, both the Adamic as well as the old covenant with Israel “would have been a covenant of law in the sense of works, the antithesis of the grace-promise-faith principle” (Kingdom Prologue [2000], p. 110). Thus, Kline taught that Israel was placed under a situation analogous to that of Adam, in which they were required to “maintain the necessary meritorious obedience” (Kingdom Prologue [2000], p. 109).
3. Israel’s Meritorious Works as Typological of Christ’s Obedience
Since Kline was seeking to show the importance of the republication view, in contrast to Shepherd’s covenant formulation, he continued to draw a line of continuity from the obedience of Adam through Israel, to Christ. In this way, Israel’s probation was not only a “re-enactment” of Adam’s, but also served as a type of the obedience of Christ. In Kline’s system, the works principle operating in Israel under Moses thus illustrates and anticipates the necessity of the imputation of Christ’s meritorious active obedience. For Kline, the works arrangement under which Christ is placed as Mediator only makes sense in connection with Israel’s works arrangement. This point is affirmed and explained in the following way.
It was therefore expedient, if not necessary, that Christ appear within a covenant order which, like the covenant with the first Adam, was governed by the works principle (cf. Gal. 4:4). The typal kingdom of the old covenant was precisely that. Within the limitations of the fallen world and with modifications peculiar to the redemptive process, the old theocratic kingdom was a reproduction of the original covenantal order. Israel as the theocratic nation was mankind stationed once again in a paradise-sanctuary, under probation in a covenant of works. In the context of that situation, the Incarnation event was legible; apart from it the meaning of the appearing and ministry of the Son of Man would hardly have been perspicuous (Kingdom Prologue [2000], p. 352).
… Thus, in addition to calling attention to the probationary aspect of Jesus’ mission, the works principle that governed the Israelite kingdom acted as a schoolmaster for Israel, convicting of sin and total inability to satisfy the Lord’s righteous demands and thereby driving the sinner to the grace of God offered in the underlying gospel promises of the Abrahamic Covenant (Kingdom Prologue [2000], p. 353).
In this way, by looking forward to Christ and backwards to Adam, Kline underscored the continuity of the works principle in redemptive history. It runs not only from Adam to Christ, but also through corporate Israel in between. We may thus modify the familiar slogan about federal headship in this way: “Where Adam and Israel failed, Christ prevailed.” In effect, there are now three Adams in redemptive history, with Israel’s meritorious works arrangement now functioning along with the first Adam’s, as precursors to the meritorious work of Christ. Kline thus taught that the works principle in Israel served to show the need for the active obedience of Christ to merit the reward of life. Whereas Israel once sought to merit its retention of the typological reward— temporal life in the land—now Christ has come to merit eschatological life.
In sum, this distinctive element of Kline’s Republication Paradigm is thus viewed as undergirding the doctrine of justification against the teaching of Shepherd and Federal Vision. It does this by showing that Israel serves as a type of Christ, as she both re-enacts Adam’s history and pre-enacts the merit-paradigm under which Christ is placed. Kline seeks to show unequivocally that the need for the imputation of the active obedience of Christ is anticipated in the Mosaic covenant in the “typological” and “pedagogical” works principle in the life of the nation of Israel (see following diagram).
Adam
Israel
Christ
Obedience
Typological Obedience
Active Obedience
According to Kline’s republication teaching, the failure to view the Mosaic covenant as a merit-based probation has serious consequences. For Kline, the works principle in Israel becomes a key plank for the doctrines of the covenant of works and Christ’s active obedience. Since Kline integrally links the Adamic and Mosaic covenants by way of a meritorious works principle, a modification of the latter would (in his system) lead to a necessary modification of the former. Kline is thus seeking to guard against Shepherd’s formulation of a gracious covenant with Adam. This explains (in part) the zeal with which Kline and other proponents have promulgated and defended the doctrine of republication. It is just as TLNF put it: “In short, the doctrine of republication is integrally connected to the doctrine of justification” (TLNF, p. 19).
Kline Is the Source of the Republication View in TLNF
In spite of the book’s claims to the contrary, we believe (with several reviewers of TLNF) that the Republication Paradigm was not the predominant view in the history of Reformed covenant theology. There are certainly those in the Reformed tradition who speak of the Mosaic covenant as reflecting aspects of the original covenant of works with Adam. But even these are quite different from the view proposed by Kline, which isolates the works element to the temporal arena and describes Israel’s obedience (and other Old Testament figures) as possessing a “meritorious” character. We also believe it is unfair that John Murray has been made the scapegoat who shoulders the blame for the errors of Norman Shepherd, as well as for any resistance with which the republication view is met. Although we acknowledge that certain points of similarity between the covenant of works and the Mosaic covenant can be found in previous writers, none of them argue a works-merit formula for Israel as a “corporate Adam”, as Kline and his disciples propose. Instead, in our view, the evidence shows that Meredith Kline is the architect of the contemporary Republication Paradigm described above. Kline was responding to a modern theological debate and discussion about the covenants, and his views are now being advocated by the authors of TLNF and other adherents of the republication doctrine. The present writers agree with the point Cornel Venema makes in his review.
First, the stimulus and source for this understanding of the typology of the Mosaic covenant is undoubtedly the biblical-theological formulations of Meredith Kline. In the writings of Reformed theologians in what I have termed the “formative” period of the formulation of covenant theology, the language of a “works principle” in the Mosaic economy is not found. However, this language is frequently employed by Meredith Kline in his biblical theology of the covenants of works and of grace, and it is evident that Kline’s formulations lie behind those of several of the authors of The Law is Not of Faith. The idea that the covenant of works was republished “in some sense” is a significant part of Kline’s understanding of the distinctive nature of the Mosaic economy (“The Mosaic Covenant: A ‘Republication’ of the Covenant of Works?” Mid-America Journal of Theology 21 [2010]: 89).
Thus, it is our belief that in the republication teaching presented in TLNF, we see the evidence of a pendulum swing in reaction to Norman Shepherd’s modern formulations of covenant theology.8
The Faithful Plumb Line of the Westminster Confession of Faith
On the one hand, Shepherd’s teaching led to a pendulum swing away from the Westminster Standards by rejecting the covenant of works. In its place, he recast the covenant of grace as a monocovenantal enshrinement of the gracious condition of covenant faithfulness from creation to consummation. This condition was imposed upon all alike, from Adam and his descendants, to Christ and all who are united to him by faith. This has led to serious doctrinal errors, especially regarding justification. We are grateful for how the authors of TLNF joined many others in the church in sorting out a number of these errors.
On the other hand, the Republication Paradigm of Kline and the authors of TLNF has led to a pendulum swing away from the Westminster Standards in the opposite direction. This has occurred by bringing meritorious human works into the covenant of grace after the fall (i.e., in the Mosaic covenant). It is laudable that the proponents of the doctrine of republication passionately reject the mixture of faith and works in the covenant with Adam against Shepherd. Nevertheless, it is of equal concern that a similar mixture of individual faith and national works are brought into the covenant with Moses after the fall (see following diagram).
Adam
Israel
Christ
Perfect Obedience
Imperfect National Obedience
Perfect Obedience
What is more, these (imperfect) works after the fall are said to be operating within a paradigm where a group of fallen sinners can merit or extract a blessing from God. In Kline’s writings, meritorious works become possible for other post-fall Old Testament figures prior to the Mosaic covenant (as we will see in Part 2). How can this be? We believe the concept of merit that lies behind the Klinean republication teaching raises serious doctrinal concerns. When evaluated against the measuring line of our Confession and other Reformed creeds, additional questions and concerns about the republication view emerge. We will address these concerns in the remainder of this booklet.
The result of the controversy surrounding the Shepherd-FV theology, was the establishment of an OPC study committee on justification. Their report has helped the church clarify these issues in light of Scripture and the system of doctrine contained in the Westminster Standards. We believe the republication doctrine similarly leads to imprecise theological formulations, as well as the redefinition of established Reformed concepts (as we will consider in Part 3). This, in turn, leads to confusion. Our hope and belief, therefore, is that our presbytery will overture the general assembly of the OPC to establish a study committee to examine and consider this contemporary controversy.
Conclusion of Part 1
We need not fall prey to the confusion caused by the formulations of Shepherd and FV on the one side, nor those of Kline and the Republication Paradigm on the other. The Westminster Standards (and other Reformed creeds) embody the consensus formulations of historic Reformed theology. This plumb line has served as a faithful standard for faith and life for hundreds of years. More importantly, our church embraces the Westminster Standards as containing the system of doctrine taught in the holy Scriptures. Indeed, we may be assured that our confidence in our Reformed creeds is well-placed. They are proven guides and reliable signposts in navigating a Biblically sound course among many potential deviations.
(8) Additionally, the recent work of James T. Dennison, Jr. (which has resulted in the publication of Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation, Vols. 1-3 [1523-1599]; Vol. 4 [1603-1609] forthcoming), demonstrates that the Republication Paradigm of a typological works-merit covenant with Israel as a “corporate Adam” in the Mosaic era, is not found in any of the more than 125 Reformed confessions of the 16th and 17th centuries.
Part 2 Intro
Redefining Merit: The Klinean Paradigm Shift
In Part 1, we spoke of a “Republication Paradigm” that differs in important respects from the Westminster Confession of Faith. We argued that these differences were the result of a pendulum swing against the paradigm of Norman Shepherd. In Part 2, we will seek to show how this pendulum swing resulted in a redefinition of the traditional concept of merit. This redefinition was first applied to the notion of Adamic merit in the original covenant of works. In the development of Kline’s teaching, it also came to undergird and shape Israel’s “typological merit” in the republication of the covenant of works under Moses.
Our purpose in this section is to demonstrate that the Republication Paradigm and the Westminster Confession of Faith represent two different conceptions of “merit.” One of the most significant differences between the two positions is the way in which the Republication Paradigm affirms merit for Old Testament figures after the fall. Clear examples of this can be found in the writings of Professor Kline and other contemporary authors. The difference between this view and the traditional position cannot be more striking. The traditional view rejects any possibility for merit on the part of sinful man, in any sense, after the fall. The Republication Paradigm affirms that a type of merit is possible on the part of fallen man.
What is at the root of these differences between historic Reformed theology (as expressed in the Confession) and the republication formulation? To answer this question, we must first speak about the different ways in which the term “merit” is being used (Ch.5). Then we will seek to explain how the Republication Paradigm is a system that defines merit in a particular way, in contrast to the Confession’s earlier definition of merit (Chs. 6-7). Finally, we will consider how the reformulation of merit is connected to the Mosaic covenant, as it was separated into two levels in Kline’s system. On the one hand, there was the grace level for the eternal salvation of the individual. On the other hand, there was a national, meritorious-works level for the retention of temporal earthly blessings (Ch. 8).0
Further, it is our belief that this redefinition of merit is not an isolated modification that leaves the broader Reformed system of doctrine unaffected. Instead, this new conception of merit has paradigmatic implications which significantly modify other key doctrines. This will be taken up in Part 3.
Here are portions from a report concerning the 81st General Assembly Overture on the Mosaic Covenant and Republication put forth by the Presbytery of the Northwest OPC.
The 81st General Assembly by Daniel F. Patterson
Overture from the Presbytery of the Northwest
An overture was brought to the assembly by the Presbytery of the Northwest (PNW) asking the assembly to establish a study committee to examine and give its advice as to whether and in which particular sense the concept of the Mosaic Covenant as a republication of the Adamic Covenant is consistent with the doctrinal system taught in the confessional standards of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church.
One of the representatives for the PNW, the Rev. Randy Bergquist, was granted 30 minutes to present the reasons for the overture, in which he outlined the history and context that lead them to bring the overture.
After the presentation by the representatives of the PNW, the advisory committee recommended that the overture be denied. A substitute motion was then made, namely, that the General Assembly grant the overture from the PNW. The assembly took quite a bit of time debating whether to substitute before running up against the order of the day, the morning break, at 10:15 a.m.
Continuation of the Consideration of the Overture from the PNW
After the address by Dr. Duncan, there was discussion regarding parliamentary procedure and it was determined that the question on the floor was, “Shall we grant the overture from the PNW?”
A substitute motion was then made to request the assembly’s Committee on Ecumenicity and Interchurch Relations (CEIR) to recommend to the 40th (2014) meeting of the National Association of Presbyterian and Reformed Council (NAPARC) that NAPARC call a conference on the confessional implications of republication, to which member churches are invited to send speakers, and authorize the CEIR to accept, on behalf of the OPC, the designation as the member church responsible to convene such conference.
After lengthy debate, a motion was made to postpone definitely the consideration of the substitute until the question of a visitation committee to the PNW was decided. This motion was passed by the assembly.
The advisory committee then brought a recommendation to the assembly that the assembly erect a committee of three presbyters, to be appointed by the moderator, to meet as soon as possible with the PNW and concerned parties within it to assist the presbytery in dealing with matters that divide it and to promote reconciliation.
Before the recommendation by the advisory committee was considered, the assembly came to the order of the day, our morning devotion and lunch break.
Continued Consideration of the Overture from the PNW
The assembly reconvened at 1:30 p.m. with the singing of “Holy, Holy, Holy” and prayer by elder John Terpstra of Providence Presbyterian Church, Austin, Texas.
The assembly took up the recommendation of the advisory committee to form a visitation committee. A substitute motion was then made to better reflect the urgency of the request and also require that the visit from committee wait until the PNW has officially asked for help. This motion was amended to reflect a different composition of the committee (three ministers and/or ruling elders). It passed. The substitute motion was then passed by the assembly. It then became the main motion before the assembly. This motion was then amended to reflect that the visitation committee should be tasked to assist the already existing republication committee in the presbytery. This amendment was defeated.
Following these various substitutions and amendments, the assembly approved the formation of a visitation committee.
With this question decided the assembly took up the consideration of the referral of the substitute motion regarding a NAPARC committee to the Committee on Ecumenicity and Interchurch Relations. The motion to refer failed.
The assembly then took up the debate regarding the substitute motion, which was to request CEIR to recommend to the 40th (2014) meeting of NAPARC that NAPARC call a conference on the confessional implications of republication.
There was a motion to table this substitute. The motion to table the substitute passed.
Since the motion to table passed, the assembly took up the consideration of the overture of the PNW to form a study committee on republication.
A motion was then made that the overture be referred to the newly formed visitation committee and that this visitation committee report back to the 82nd General Assembly.
After considerable debate, the motion to refer the overture of the PNW to the visitation committee failed.
The overture was once again before the assembly. In review, the overture requests that the GA establish a study committee to examine and give its advice as to whether and in which particular senses the concept of the Mosaic Covenant as a republication of the Adamic Covenant is consistent with the doctrinal system taught in the confessional standards of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church.
At 3:15 p.m. the time for the afternoon break arrived and the assembly recessed.
Continued Consideration of PNW Overture
The assembly reconvened with the singing of “Let All Things Now Living” and prayer by the Rev. David Graves, pastor of Trinity OPC, Franklin, Pennsylvania.
The question of the overture from the PNW was once again before the assembly. After much debate, and a call for division, the overture was granted by a vote of 83–53.
Election of the Study Committee for the Issue of Republication
Have given the assembly time to consider nominees for the committee to study the doctrine of republication, elections were held.
The study committee will consist of five men. Sixteen men were nominated. The following men were elected: the Revs. Craig Troxel, Chad Van Dixhoorn, Bryan Estelle, Benjamin Swinburnson and Lane Tipton.
I just want to draw attention to an event that is scheduled to be held prior to this year’s 42nd General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America.
The 42nd General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America set to gather in a little over one month in Houston. It is difficult, amid all the duties we have as elders in Christ’s church, to have a clear, confessional understanding of all the issues and implications before us at GA. Hard as it may be, our responsibility to prepare remains. To help augment your personal preparation, we are putting together an Evening of Confessional Concern and Prayer prior to the start of the 42nd General Assembly. We have chosen four of, what seem to be, the significant issues we will be addressing at this GA. We have also assembled a panel of three men: Dr. Sean Lucas, Dr. Rick Phillips, and Dr. Guy Waters. These men will discuss these issues for the sake of helping us consider their significance prior to being asked to vote. Each man will be the lead presenter of a topic, and the other men will be given the chance to respond and add their own thoughts.
Our objectives are simple. First, we want to gather PCA elders who are concerned about trends that may threaten our confessional unity as a denomination. Second, we want to highlight and provide information about matters of significant concern to this year’s assembly in the form of overtures and study committee reports. Third, we want to pray to our sovereign, gracious God for the faithfulness, unity, and well-being of our denomination. By expressing concern, providing information, and praying to our Lord, we seek to promote the unity, soundness, and vitality of the PCA. Of these three actions, prayer is undoubtedly the most important and valuable, since, as Psalm 124:8 tells us, “Our help is in the name of the Lord, who made heaven and earth.” With these aims in mind, we will be discussing four issues of importance that will come before the 42nd General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America:
1. The Standing Judicial Commision. The function and oversight of the SJC is obviously a “hot button” issue, based on the number of overtures submitted to the GA this year. Dr. Sean Lucas will be offering his thoughts on how to best address concerns of accountability in the SJC.
2. The Role of Women in Church Offices. With the study committee proposal from Philadelphia presbytery in overture 22 on the issue of male only eldership, we want to consider the implications of this overture with regard to the consensus in the PCA on the role of women in the church offices. Dr. Guy Waters will help us wade through the sticky questions in this area.
3. Erroneous Views of Creation. Overture 32 deals with erroneous view of creation. Obviously there is still a concern surrounding the influence of Biologos within the PCA. We want to work our way through this overture. Dr. Rick Phillips will be summarizing his understanding of the implications of this topic.
4. The Insider Movement. The contents of this report are of great significance as was seen in last year’s floor debate. We will consider if this report adequately addresses the objectives of the Assembly.
Our Evening of Confessional Concern and Prayer will meet on Monday, June 16 in Grand Ballroom J at the Hilton Americas Conference Center starting promptly at 7:00 p.m. Following the presentations we will sing and pray together, asking God to bless our deliberations at the court.If you are interested in attending this meeting, please RSVP to cliffwoodpca@cliffwoodpca.com, or call (706) 798-2691. We hope to see you there as we desire to serve Christ’s church at the 42nd General Assembly. Anyone can attend this meeting, so feel free to pass the link to this page along to others you may think could be interested.
On behalf of my fellow organizers,
TE Geoff Gleason
Cliffwood Presbyterian Church
Augusta, GA
RE Melton Duncan, Sr.
Second Presbyterian Church
Greenville, SC
TE Richard D. Phillips
Second Presbyterian Church
Greenville, SC
TE Ken Pierce
Trinity Presbyterian Church
Jackson, MS
A few years ago the terms Depraved and Christian were being used together. It raised some eyebrows back then so I started to document some of the communication and reviews that were being done by men such as Richard Phillips, David Murray, Tullian Tchividjian, and a few others. The discussion provoked me into seeing that this topic also had to do with how the Gospel was being defined when I read this quote by Tullian Tchividjian .
“The gospel, in fact, transforms us precisely because it’s not itself a message about our internal transformation but about Christ’s external substitution.”
That sounded foreign and a bit off kilter from what I had read in the Bible. Especially after I felt confirmed in my understanding by scripture and what Dr. David Murray said in response to this.
Dr. David Murray writes… I agree that the Gospel is certainly a message about Christ’s external substitution. But it does not stop there. The Gospel is also a message about internal transformation (a major part of sanctification). Christ saves us from our sins objectively and subjectively, from the penalty of sin and the presence of sin.
I found that a Modern definition of the Gospel had permeated the Church and it seemed very truncated and deficient. So I wrote a third blog post highlighting the Gospel. It was in response to what I had learned concerning what Dr. Michael Horton had to say about the Gospel.
Horton notes…
The term “gospel” is a very precise term, a particular kind of word, or kind of speech in the Bible. It refers to God’s promise of salvation in Christ. The gospel is a victory announcement. It never tells us something to do. That is the business of the law. Rather, the gospel tells us something that has been done.
Consequently, those who speak of living the gospel or doing the gospel commit a category mistake. More importantly, they make the most basic theological mistake a person could make, namely, confuse the law and the gospel. And if we confuse the law and the gospel, then we will make ourselves partly your own saviors, adding to the work of Christ.
Is Horton Correct? …. As a Pastor aquaintance has noted….
The most serious problem is that Horton’s indictment is based upon a shaky foundation. Horton’s critique is predicated upon his narrow and strict definition of the term “gospel.” But is that the only way the Bible uses or defines the term “gospel”? The answer is no! Romans 2:16 connects the future judgment with the gospel and 2 Thess. 1:8 and 1 Pet. 4:17 both speak of obeying the gospel. The gospel is to be obeyed. But how do you obey a victory announcement? How do you obey what God has done? So either the Bible itself confuses law and gospel or it uses the word “gospel” differently (at times) than Horton. Since the latter must be true, then Horton shouldn’t make the strict definition of the gospel, the one and only definition of the gospel. And he most certainly shouldn’t make any charges of legalism towards those who use a broader yet biblical definition of the gospel.
Of course, I threw some of my thinking into the fray because I had been dealing with these issues on a personal level for many years. So just for a rehash of some older posts I present the blogs that were done a few years ago.
I have been a moderator of a Confessional Theological Discussion Forum for many years now. Some may wonder if I ever get tired of having to wade through the issues as it always seems that there is some new pressing issue that the Church has to deal with. The answer is yes. I have had to pull back quite a few times and refocus on what is important. I have found myself in need of repentance for attitudes I have developed. I have grown weary of studying things I didn’t want to. But I have also been graced to grow in the knowledge and Grace of Our Saviour. He has been so good to us. Even though I have learned we all have differences many of those differences actually help us grow. So I don’t take it lightly that we have disagreements or might rub each other the wrong way. As Iron Sharpens Iron says the old Proverb. This one thing I have learned, If we are commanded to love our enemies as ourselves how much more should we love the Church and each other for whom Christ died. May that be a force no one can overcome.
I still believe Orthodoxy leads to Orthopraxy. Therefore I strive to know and grow.
May HIs Kingdom Come on Earth as it is in Heaven.
May 19, 2014
When I was a seminary student (1984-87) I only occasionally heard about a “law/gospel” distinction and then it as never explained to me. I learned about the substance of the distinction 10 years later doing my doctoral work. No one ever explained how it related to preaching until 1998. I had been preaching for a decade by the time I had any clear idea how important it was for preaching. I didn’t want to be a moralist in the pulpit but I was. I knew I was doing something wrong in my preaching but I couldn’t figure out what it was. I don’t think I was alone. When I first started writing about the distinction several years later I was roundly attacked as a “Lutheran.” A decade or more later it still happens. I still regularly read that the law/gospel distinction is “Lutheran.”
The law/gospel distinction is, it is argued, Lutheran.
RSC
The author of the above comment either doesn’t fully appreciate what he has been told by some people or he just doesn’t understand the situation still after many have tried to explain it to him. He keeps addressing this Law / Gospel issue but seems to refuse to deal with certain specifics when they are shown to him.
He is the commander of his ship (blog). So when he addresses a topic he is in control of the material and terminology he chooses to expose others to. For some reason, when others have tried to explain to him that it isn’t the distinctions that we are troubled by but the issue of dichotomizing Law and Gospel it seems to fall upon deaf ears. He seems to keep hearing an incorrect charge. Some are probably making other charges that he would rather answer. therefore he can deflect away from this one about distinction. He claims that it is about distinctions but that is too broad of an accusation. It seems he obfuscates the issue by constantly making reference that others are calling him Lutheran because he makes a Law / Gospel distinction. Dear Dr. Clark, It isn’t about the distinctions, it is that you seem to be dichotomizing Law and Gospel as the Lutherans do. That is what we are having a problem with. It isn’t about how they are distinct. We acknowledge that they are distinct subjects. We don’t believe the Law is set in the Form of a Covenant of Works in many situations where you see it is. We do not see that Law and Gospel necessarily oppose each other. The Law and Gospel sweetly comply.
How they are distinct does matter in a narrow sense and in a broader sense. In the narrow sense the Works of the Law are opposed to the Gospel as all die in Adam. In the broader sense the distinction of Law is yet different and not necessarily opposed to the Gospel. This is Reformed Thought as I understand the Confession and hear our heritage speak. In Lutheranism Law and Gospel are generally opposed because the Law is almost always equated with being in the Form of a Covenant of Works. And that is where the problem lies. The Moral Law is usually set in a context of a Covenant of Works in some sense which puts the Law in Opposition to the Gospel in all of those situations. That is why the charge of Lutheranism is leveled at some men who dichotomize Law and Gospel in both the narrow and broader sense.
We are not necessarily speaking about distinctions when we accuse anyone of Lutheranism. We are speaking about how men dichotomize Law and Gospel. It almost seems as if the author of the comment above is hiding some historical facts. It is as if he hasn’t been shown or confronted with some of the writings of the Divines of the Westminster Assembly. Here is the great Westminster Divine Anthony Burgess addressing the subject back in the 17th Century.
“We have confuted (proven to be incorrect) the false differences, and now come to lay down the truth, between the law and the Gospel taken in a larger sense.
And, first, you must know that the difference is not essential, or substantial, but accidental: so that the division of the Testament, or Covenant into the Old, and New, is not a division of the Genus (classification) into its opposite Species; but of the subject, according to its several accidental administrations, both on Gods part, and on mans.It is true, the Lutheran Divines, they do expressly oppose the Calvinists herein, maintaining the Covenant given by Moses, to be a Covenant of Works, and so directly contrary to the Covenant of Grace. Indeed, they acknowledge that the Fathers were justified by Christ, and had the same way of salvation with us; only they make that Covenant of Moses to be a superadded thing to the Promise, holding forth a condition of perfect righteousness unto the Jews, that they might be convinced of their own folly in their self-righteousness.” (Vindication of the Morall Law, Lecture 26 p.251)
The differences were recognized back then. Sure there are some added nuances in the way things have been laid out in today’s theological atmosphere but the Lutheran charge is not about distinctions as much as how the Lutheran hermeneutic makes Law and Gospel so opposed to each other in a large part of theological context.
Statements have been made in the past that the Law only commands and the Gospel only says believe. In a narrow context that is somewhat true. But when it is applied to the broader context we start having problems. We also have problems just because we know the Gospel does command and promise is applied to the command. When statements are made like this, “The Gospel never tells us what to do.” or “The Gospel never Commands, that is what the Law does.” we start to have problems. This is the dichotomizing I am speaking about. The hermeneutic that Gospel and Law are opposed to each other in almost all situations is a misnomer and one that is being propagated on a regular basis today by men in the Reformed Camp. They are equating the Law with the Covenant of Works in all things. It is troubling and dangerous in my estimation. When people lay the charge of Lutheranism at the feet of these Seminary Professors and people like them, this is what they are speaking about. These guys want to equate the Moral Law with the Covenant of Works. That is a Lutheran Hermeneutic.
Let me expound on why I think that hermeneutic is a bit out of kilter by referring to Robert Shaw in his commentary on the Law of God in Chapter 19 of the Westminster Confession of Faith.
The law, as thus inscribed on the heart of the first man, is often styled the law of creation, because it was the will of the sovereign Creator, revealed to the reasonable creature, by impressing it upon his mind and heart at his creation. It is also called the moral law, because it was a revelation of the will of God, as his moral governor, and was the standard and rule of man’s moral actions. Adam was originally placed under this law in its natural form, as merely directing and obliging him to perfect obedience. He was brought under it in a covenant form, when an express threatening of death, and a gracious promise of life, was annexed to it; and then a positive precept was added, enjoining him not to eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge, as the test of his obedience to the whole law.–Gen. ii. 16, 17.
Adam was created with the Law written upon his heart in its Natural Form before he was placed in the Garden of Eden under it in the form of a Covenant of Works. He was brought under the Law in Covenant Form when death and life promises were annexed (attached) to it based upon his compliance to the stipulations of that Covenant Form. He lived in creation and under the law in its natural form first. After Adam sinned that Law which was given to him also in Covenant Form was anulled according to Robert Shaw because Adam failed in complying with the stipulations of perfect adherence to that Covenant Form.
Upon the fall of man, the law, considered as a covenant of works, was annulled and set aside;
Now after the fall the Law that was written upon Adam’s heart in it’s Natural Form still directed and obliged him to obey it perfectly as it first did in its Natural Form. It was no longer a Covenant of Works that had the promise of life attached to it. I can only think by the phrase “annulled and set aside” that Shaw was emphasizing that the Covenant of Works was broken and that possibility for fulfillment by Adam’s children was removed. All died in Adam. The Law after the Fall was only considered the Moral Law (as in its Natural Form) as Robert Shaw signifies and as our Confession states.
but, considered as moral, it continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness. That fair copy of the law which had been inscribed on the heart of the first man in his creation, was, by the fall, greatly defaced, although not totally obliterated.
Now let me reiterate that the charge of Lutheranism isn’t necessarily about distinctions as much as it is about the dichotomizing of Law and Grace. Justification and Sanctification are distinct doctrines found in the Gospel. They are definitely to be considered in our Union with Christ. They are as Calvin referred to them a two-fold grace. They are distinct. But they do not oppose each other nor are they to be considered issues cut off from one another. As Calvin stated repeatedly, justification and sanctification are benefits that are to be distinguished but never separated (distinctio sed non separatio) any more than Christ himself can be separated 1 Cor 1:30. The Law as Christ’s law is never separated from the Gospel. The Gospel actually restores it in our lives. The trajectory that the Law is equated with the Covenant of Works and opposes the Gospel in a broad sense is just poor Lutheran Hermeneutics. In its Natural Form the Law still obliges perfect obedience but it is not annexed to the promises of life and death any longer as a Covenant of Works. Not even in some sense. If that were true then we could even make the Lord’s table a Covenant of Works. It isn’t about distinction. It is about dichotomy. So the charge of Lutheranism just might be true. Aye?
Dazed and Confused? Okay, maybe not dazed, but Confused?
“I had informed The Gospel Coalition of my plan to make this transition in August when the new Liberate site is launched, but was informed on Thursday that certain members of The Gospel Coalition wanted the transition to happen ASAP. I was disappointed and a bit confused. We would’ve loved to have had more time to get things ready on our end and I have always been open to having any conversations with any of the staff at The Gospel Coalition who had any questions whatsoever about the content I was posting. I would’ve been happy to answer any questions they may have had and provide robust clarification if needed. None of the powers that be, however, ever mentioned anything to me (either by email or phone) before Thursday when I was simply told that the transition needed to happen now.” TT http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tullian/2014/05/20/ive-come-to-set-the-captives-free/
Dazed and Confused? Okay, maybe not dazed, but Confused? For the past few years Tullian has been challenged and asked to clarify himself. He and Rick Phillips started to communicate a bit at one time. Now I can’t speak to the issue of who communicated (or who should have communicated) with Pastor Tullian Tchividjian at all. But evidently he understood there were some concerns as he states, “I know I have had some differences with some of the other contributors to this site but my goal has always been to do nothing but preach the Good News with every post, to bring relief to the burdened and broken, and rest to the weary and heavy laden by fixing the readers’ eyes on the finished work of Jesus.” I am grateful that Pastor Tchividjian desires to focus on the finished work of Jesus. I am grateful he desires to bring relief to the burdened and broken by fixing their eyes upon Jesus. But part of the problem is that he is only giving half a message. Once our eyes are focused on Christ we need to hear what the Spirit says to the Church. After we see him we need to hear Him.
At the end of his short fairwell address to the readers of his blog at the Gospel Coalition Tullian takes the high road of Luther in declaration form, “Here I Stand.” The famous quote was delivered by Luther as an act of confessing and doing. It was an act of desiring to obey God rather than man. His comment was followed up by another short phrase. “Here I Stand. I can do no other.” Tullian could have done something more. He was not placed in a situation as Luther was. He could have given full weight to his brothers who were imploring him to hear all of the scripture speak instead of his truncated view of the Gospel. Yes, the Work of Christ is Finished. But there is still a work for us to do. The Gospel message is more than just a proclamation of our justification (our being declared righteous) before God. The Gospel of our Salvation also includes our freedom to obey (Sanctification) in light of our future hope of deliverance (Glorification).
I find it ironical that his new ministry is called Liberate. The part of the message that others are trying to get Pastor Tchividjian to also focus on is found in Jesus words and the Words of St. Paul. Freedom from bondage to sin and Freedom to Obey.
Joh 8:34 Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin.
Joh 8:35 And the servant abideth not in the house for ever: but the Son abideth ever.
Joh 8:36 If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.
Rom 6:1 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?
Rom 6:2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?
Rom 6:3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
Rom 6:4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
Rom 6:5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:
Rom 6:6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.
Rom 6:7 For he that is dead is freed from sin.
Rom 6:8 Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him:
Rom 6:9 Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him.
Rom 6:10 For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God.
Rom 6:11 Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Rom 6:12 Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof.
Rom 6:13 Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God.
Rom 6:14 For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.
Rom 6:15 What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.
Rom 6:16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?
Rom 6:17 But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.
Rom 6:18 Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.
Rom 6:19 I speak after the manner of men because of the infirmity of your flesh: for as ye have yielded your members servants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity; even so now yield your members servants to righteousness unto holiness.
Rom 6:20 For when ye were the servants of sin, ye were free from righteousness.
Rom 6:21 What fruit had ye then in those things whereof ye are now ashamed? for the end of those things is death.
Rom 6:22 But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life.
Rom 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Now I am pretty sure that Pastor Tchividjian understands this point also. Unfortunately he has skewed things by turning every text of scripture that he can into a message of Justification by Faith Alone. And that is a wonderful message and a message that some declare is the article upon which the Church stands or falls. But there is much more than that in the account when we consider the doctrine of Salvation. I will just leave you all with this thought. Salvation is more than justification. It is about reconciliation. It is about Eternal Life. It is about knowing and being known by God. It is about relationship and freedom found in that relationship.
Hurry up and save the work. The program has a flaw. It is shutting down at its present location. I will pray and have prayed for this system flaw. May Pastor Tullian be given eyes to see and ears to hear so that Christ may be exalted and glorified. Blessings upon Him. I pray I see things more clearly also as I am prone to only see a partial message.
I was reading through one of the threads on the Puritanboard.com the other day and noticed something that I must have missed last year. I knew there was a Pre-Assembly Theological Conference before the PCA General Assembly last year on Grace but I didn’t realize that the sessions were posted for us to listen to. One of the sessions that peaked my interest was a critique of the Modern Grace Movement. So I downloaded it and listened to it a few times. I have to admit that I was quite taken back by the content and theological expose’ that was given. Now the session critiquing the Modern Grace Movement doesn’t mention any names nor does it openly go after anyone specifically. At the same time I found it quite unavoidable to see certain teachers and teachings being address. It is very relevant to the topics being discussed today. I would wholeheartedly encourage everyone who has any interest in the discussions going on in today’s climate concerning Sanctification to give this Session a solid listening to.
Puritan Covenanter 
You must be logged in to post a comment.