Category Archives: Covenant of Grace

by

Dr. Gamble on Two Kingdom Theology.

I am posting a link to the Puritanboard here so that instructions are included for listening to the Video Webinar.  It might have an echo and I already posted on that.  This is a very important subject now days in my estimation.  Please enjoy this discussion by Dr. Richard Gamble from Reformed Presbyterian Theological Seminary.  Also remember that this is a general synopsis. It will not hit everyone who holds to Two Kingdoms. The terminology of Two Kingdom is also used in different ways by others.  Calvin mentioned a Two fold Government. Calvin used those terms interchangeably if I am not mistaken. Anyways, enjoy this.

I http://www.puritanboard.com/f15/critique-two-kingdom-theology-dr-richard-gamble-lecture-76540/#post973728

I will still post the direct link.  But….

If you get an echo just click on the pause button in the middle of the video panel. Go to the bottom right of the page and mute the sound on the bottom sound icon. Then click play again. It will eliminate the double voicing. I was getting an Echo with my Google browser.

https://www.fuzemeeting.com/replay_meeting/bffa2e59/2761243

BTW, There are a few hiccups with the feed about 30 minutes in. They pass after a minute or two.

by

In the Covenant of Grace

Image

Why would anyone want to read my thoughts when they could read Herman Bavinck?  Enjoy this tidbit.  It is very, very, very good.

RMS.

The universal reality of misery evokes in all people a need for deliverance, a deliverance from above. Pagans who construe misery as basically physical know neither the essential character of sin nor the deliverance of grace. Scripture, however, sees our misery as sin, as an ethical violation of communion with God, who alone can restore it. This requires grace, which in biblical revelation assumes the form of a covenant.

This covenant begins immediately after the fall as evidenced by Adam and Eve’s shame in their nakedness, a sign of lost innocence. Guilt and shame reveal both God’s wrath and his grace, but the latter is shown especially when God seeks out Adam and Eve and interrogates them. In his punishment on the serpent and on humanity, God’s mercy triumphs over judgment as he annuls the covenant made with evil and puts enmity between the seed of the serpent and the seed of the woman. Now the path of glory must pass through suffering for man and woman. In the promise of Genesis 3, we find the gospel in a nutshell and, in principle, the entire history of the human race.

The word “covenant” is not found in Genesis 3, but the reality is. Modern critics judge that covenant ideas arose late in Israel’s history but need circular arguments for their case. A history of Israel is constructed by alleging that certain biblical sources are inauthentic, which history is then used to demonstrate the inauthenticity of documents that witness against it. It is better scholarship to see the latter prophets as standing on the foundation of a real covenant made with the patriarchs.

Covenant (ברית) is characterized by three factors: an oath or promise including stipulations, a curse for violation, and a cultic ceremony that represents the curse symbolically. Covenant making is a religious and social act. The covenant of grace is unilateral, indissolubly grounded in the merciful promises of the sovereign God. God cannot break his promise; he has sworn himself to uphold it. The unilateral divine origin and character attributed to the covenant in Hebrew is likely the reason why the Septuagint translates ברית by διαθηκη, or “testament,” rather than συνθηκη.

The doctrine of the covenant achieved dogmatic significance in the Christian church because the Christian religion had to understand its relation to and distinction from Judaism. Over against Gnosticism and Marcion, the church had to maintain the unity of and, over against Judaism, the distinction between the two covenants. Law and gospel, Old Testament and New Testament, are to be distinguished but never separated. During the Reformation this issue became crucial as Anabaptists and others (Arminians, Socinians) devalued the Old Testament. Key differences also arose between the Lutheran and Reformed traditions. It is in the latter, beginning with Zwingli and Calvin, that the doctrine of the covenant is most fully developed, notably in the German Reformed theology of Olevianus and Ursinus, English Puritanism, and the Westminster Confession.

Among the Dutch Reformed, Cloppenburg and Cocceius made the covenant the fundamental premise and controlling principle of dogmatics as a whole. Cocceius had an eccentric view of the covenant, notably the notion of successive covenantal abrogations, which in fact undermined the key element of grace, making it uncertain. After Cocceius, a more general disparagement of the Old Testament took place among modern thinkers such as Spinoza, Kant, Hegel, and Schleiermacher. Judaism was then seen as no better than paganism as preparation for Christianity.

In the Reformed church and theology, covenant became a very important practical encouragement for Christian living. Here the basis of all covenants was found in the eternal counsel of God, in a covenant between the very persons of the Trinity, the pactum salutis (counsel of peace). The work of salvation is an undertaking of the one God in three persons in which all cooperate and each one performs a special task. It is the triune God—Father, Son, and Spirit—who together conceive, determine, carry out, and complete the entire work of salvation. The benefit to the believer is in knowing that the covenant of grace executed and revealed in time and history nevertheless rests on an eternal, unchanging foundation, the counsel of the triune God. The Father is the eternal Father, the Son the eternal Mediator, the Holy Spirit the eternal Paraclete.

Care must be taken in considering the execution of the pact of salvation in time and history. Though God elects Abraham and Israel as his chosen people, his salvific purpose is universal, with all peoples. In the fullness of time, humanity as a whole, Jew and Gentile, is reconciled in the one man, Jesus Christ, at the cross. After the fall, grace and judgment alike are extended to the whole human race. In the beginnings of human history, we see great blessing in remarkable longevity and the great judgment of the flood. After the flood, God makes a covenant with nature not to destroy the world with water again, reduces human life span, and spreads humanity across the world, preventing humans from reaching heaven itself with their ambition. Despite letting the Gentiles walk in their own ways, God providentially grants them significant cultural and social development. He did not leave them without witnesses to himself through the works of his hands. In this way God is present to all people, and they are in some sense “prepared” for the message of salvation.

The universal scope of God’s intention for all peoples—Jew and Gentile—must never obscure the special favor of God to Israel. While Israel is drawn from the nations and there are analogies between Israel’s religious practices and those of the nations, the essential difference is that special grace is reserved for Israel and is not known among the pagans. Pagan religion is self-willed and legalistic. The covenant made with Abraham is new and comes from God alone. Through his covenant with Abraham and Israel, the Creator proves himself to also be the Re-creator and Savior. Elohim, Creator of heaven and earth, is Yahweh, the God of the covenant.

The old covenant with Israel is the necessary preparation for the new covenant in Christ. Though the covenant is one, there are two dispensations. In God’s own time, the promise of the old covenant was fulfilled in the new. The shadow and particularity of the letter became the substance, universality, and freedom of the Spirit. Nothing of the Old Testament is lost in the New, but everything is fulfilled, matured, has reached its full growth, and now, out of the temporary husk, produces the eternal core.

The covenant of grace, fulfilled in the New Testament, was and is surrounded and sustained by God’s covenant with nature, with all creatures. Unlike what Cocceius taught, the covenant of grace is not the successive abolition of the covenant of works but its fulfillment and restoration. “Grace repairs and perfects nature.” God’s demand of obedience remains as the only way to eternal life. The difference between the covenant of works and grace is that God now approaches us not in Adam but in Christ, who fulfilled all the obedience required of Adam. Christ is the second and last Adam who restores what the first Adam had corrupted; he is the head of a new humanity.

The covenant of grace is also integrally united with the counsel of peace, though it should be distinguished from it. In the counsel of peace, Christ is the guarantor and head; in the covenant of grace, he is the mediator. In this way the doctrine of the covenant maintains God’s sovereignty in the entire work of salvation. It is the Father who conceives, plans, and wills the work of salvation; it is the Son who guarantees it and effectively acquires it; it is the Spirit who implements and applies it.

At the same time, the covenant of grace also allows the rational and moral nature of human beings to come into their own. Here it differs from election, in which humans are strictly passive. The covenant of grace describes the road by which elect people attain their destiny; it is the channel by which the stream of election flows toward eternity. Christ sends his Spirit to instruct and enable his own so that they consciously and voluntarily consent to this covenant. The covenant of grace comes with the demand of faith and repentance, which may in some sense be said to be its “conditions.” Yet, this must not be misunderstood. God himself supplies what he demands; the covenant of grace is thus truly unilateral—it comes from God, who designed, defines, maintains, and implements it. It is, however, designed to become bilateral, to be consciously and voluntarily accepted by believers in the power of God. In the covenant of grace, God’s honor is not at the expense of but for the benefit of human persons by renewing the whole person and restoring personal freedom and dignity.

The covenant of grace, with Christ as the new head of humanity, reminds us of the organic unity of the church. The covenant of grace reminds us that election is about not only individual persons but also organic wholes, including families and generations. Therefore, some who remain inwardly unbelieving will for a time, in the earthly administration and dispensation of the covenant of grace, be part of the covenant people. The final judgment belongs to God alone, and in this life the church must regard such with the judgment of charity.*

*Bavinck, H., Bolt, J., & Vriend, J. (2006). Reformed Dogmatics, Volume 3: Sin and Salvation in Christ (193–196). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.

by

Covenant, Testament, Works, Grace, Love, and Communion.

This little portion is so good I just have to put it somewhere for others to read.  So please just bare with me and tolerate my love for things simply put down in a simple matter.  I am a bear of very little braiin as A. A. Milne’s Edward Bear.  (Winnie ther Pooh)   Please enjoy this little tidbit.

THE FAITHFUL COVENANTER

 Richard Sibbes

Works

Volume 6 pp. 3,4.

I will establish my covenant between me and thee, and thy seed after thee, in their generations, for an everlasting covenant, to be a God to thee, and to thy seed after thee. — Gen. XVII. 7.

God having framed man an understanding creature, hath made him fit to have communion and intercourse with himself; because he can by his understanding discern that there is a better good out of himself, in communion and fellowship with which, happiness consists. Other creatures wanting understanding to discern a better good out of than in themselves, their life being their good desire only the continuance of their own being, without society and fellowship with others. But man, having the knowledge of God, the Creator of heaven and earth, but especially of God the Redeemer, providing for him a second being better than his first, understandeth that his best and chiefest good dependeth more in him than in himself; and because his happiness standeth in acquaintance and fellowship with this God, which is the chief good, he desireth a communion with him, that he may partake of his good.

This communion and fellowship of man with God, was first founded on a covenant of works made with Adam in paradise. If he did obey, and did not eat of the forbidden fruit, he should have life both for himself and his posterity; the which covenant, because God would not have forgotten, he afterward renewed in the delivery of the ten commandments, requiring from man obedience to them in his own person, exactly, at all times, perpetually: promising life on the obedience, and threatening death and cursing if he continued not in everything the law required to do. But this fellowship being placed in man’s own freedom, and having so weak a foundation, he lost both himself and it, so that now by the first covenant of works, Adam and all his posterity are under a curse; for we cannot fulfil the law that requireth personal obedience, perfect obedience, and exact obedience. He that continueth not in all is cursed, Gal. iii. 10. The law then findeth us dead and killeth us. It findeth us dead before, and not only leaves us dead still, but makes us more dead.

Now after this fall, man’s happiness was to recover again his communion and fellowship with God; and therefore we must have a new covenant before we can have life and comfort. God must enter into new conditions with us before we can have any communion with him.

God therefore, loving man, doth after the breach of the first agreement and covenant, when Adam had lost himself by his sin, and was in a most miserable plight as ever creature was in the world, falling from so great a happiness into wondrous misery; he raised him up and comforted him by establishing a second, a new and better covenant, laying the foundation of it in the blessed seed of the woman, Christ the Messiah, who is the ground of this new covenant, and so of our communion and fellowship with God, without whom there can be no intercourse between God and us in love. And because this covenant was almost forgotten, therefore now in Abraham’s time God renewed it to Abraham in this place:  I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed after thee,’ &c.

There are four periods of time of renewing this covenant: first, from Adam to Abraham; and in those first times of the world, those that were under the covenant were called the ‘sons and daughters of God, ‘the children of the promise,’ and the covenant of grace was called a promise of the blessed seed.

Secondly, From Abraham to Moses; and then it was called a covenant, and they the children of the covenant. ‘I will establish my covenant. ‘A covenant is more than a promise, and a more solemn thing, because there be ceremonies.

The third period of renewing the covenant of grace was from Moses to Christ; and then it was more clear, whenas to the covenant made with Abraham, who was sealed with the sacrament of circumcision, the sacrament of the paschal lamb was added, and all the sacrifices Levitical; and then it was called a testament. That differeth a little from a covenant; for a testament is established by blood, it is established by death. So was that; but it was only with the blood and death of cattle sacrificed as a type.

But now, to Christ’s time to the end of the world, the covenant of grace is most clear of all; and it is now usually called the New Testament, being established by the death of Christ himself; and it differs from a covenant in these respects:

First, A testament indeed is a covenant, and something more. It is a covenant sealed by death. The testator must die before it can be of force. So all the good that is conveyed to us by the testament it is by the death of the testator, Christ. God’s covenant with us now, is such a covenant as is a testament, sealed with the death of the testator, Christ; for ‘without blood there is no redemption’ Heb. ix. 22; without the death of Christ there could be no satisfaction, and without satisfaction there could be no peace with God.

Secondly, A testament bequeatheth good things merely of love. It giveth gifts freely. A covenant requireth something to be done. In a testament, there is nothing but receiving the legacies given. In covenants, ofttimes it is for the mutual good one of another, but a testament is merely for their good for whom the testament is made, to whom the legacies are bequeathed; for when they are dead, what can they receive from them? God’s covenant now is such a testament, sealed with the death of Christ, made out of love merely for our good; for what can God receive of us? All is legacies from him; and though he requireth conditions, requireth faith and obedience, yet he himself fulfilleth what he asketh, giveth what he requireth, giveth it as a legacy, as we shall see afterward.

Thus you see that the communion and fellowship of man with God, must either be by a covenant of works or by a covenant of grace. And we must distinguish exactly between these two covenants and the periods of them.

 Image

Image

by

Lutheran / Reformed differences recognized during the time of the Westminster Divines

Image

Anthony Burgess on the difference between Lutheran and Reformed views of the covenant and law/gospel:

“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)

I so need to get a copy of this book.  I know Reformation Heritage books has it.  Thanks ole buddy Mark Van Der Molen for bringing this small tidbit to life.

Book can be downloaded here.

http://westminsterassembly.org/wp-content/uploads/Burgess-Vindiceae-text-complete.pdf

I am sorry but it has dawned on me that this might be hard to grasp and understand on one level because Aristotelian terminology is being used above.  I am speaking about the terms essential, substantial, and accidental in the quote above.  It is Aristotelian thought.  Accidental is non essential property of the substance.  It is a part of it but it is not essential.  That doesn’t mean it is randomly thrown in or unnecessary when we consider God’s providential working. It is unnecessary for the substantial to exist.  As an example most people have legs. It is not necessary for you to have a leg to exist and survive but God did put it there for a reason and purpose. The term accidental should not be read as a modern day American would read it and think of a mishap or car wreck.  I am not sure I am explaining it well but the language above has a context and I hope I have helped out a bit.  Historical context and understanding are very important here. I hope that helps out a little.

To help further explain the above situation, one of the differences between Lutheran and the Westminsterian understanding is that Lutherans believe that the substance of the Mosaic and New Covenant differ.  The position of the Westminster Confession of Faith is that the Substance of the New Covenant and Mosaic Covenant is the same.  Some Modern Day Reformed Thinkers do not believe that to be the case as Lutherans described back in Anthony Burgess’ day didn’t either.  Meredith Kline in his later years departed from the biblical and confessional understanding of the Westminster Confession of Faith.  Doctors Michael Horton, R. Scott Clark, and I believe Darryl G. Hart and David Van Drunnen depart from it also.  This has lead to the unbiblical way they dichotomize law and grace instead of proving the proper distinctions between them.    It is also leading to various views concerning Natural Law and Kingdom Theology that some theologians are having problems with today.

Just for reference let me link to a few blog posts to help us understand what I am communicating.

What is Republication of the Covenant of Works?

https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.com/2013/02/04/what-is-republication-of-the-covenant-of-works/

(What is the Gospel?) Depraved Christianity might be Antinomian Christianity pt. 3

(What is the Gospel?) Depraved Christianity might be Antinomian Christianity pt. 3

‘Modern Day Reformed Thought’ and Two Kingdoms

‘Modern Day Reformed Thought’ and Two Kingdoms

The Mosaic Covenant, same in substance as the New? 

The Mosaic Covenant, same in substance as the New?

Possible Misconceptions about Galatians. Law and Gospel are opposed?

Possible Misconceptions about Galatians. Law and Gospel are opposed?

Westminster Confession of Faith Chapter 19. The Law and the Covenant of Works.

Westminster Confession of Faith Chapter 19. The Law and the Covenant of Works.

The Mosaic Covenant and the Modern Day Justification and Sanctification Controversy

The Mosaic Covenant and the Modern Day Justification and Sanctification Controversy

That should be enough to help you get started in understanding this discussion now.

by

‘Modern Day Reformed Thought’ and Two Kingdoms

Image

This topic is being discussed and exposed a bit finally. Finally, it is being done with some balance and correct thinking. There are a few posts in this discussion “One Kingdom vs. Two Kingdom’s” on the Puritanboard which lead to some great comments and links.  One link is an interview with Dr. Jack Kinneer who is a Professor at Reformed Presbyterian Theological Seminary discussing this topic.

It is found here.

http://www.viewcrestchurch.org/ompodcast/om1002.mp3

 

Listening to the interview with Dr. Jack Kinneer I walked away with this…

Here are very brief Stereo-Typical ways of understanding these issues according to the Host of the show.

The Non Two Kingdom View is a Tranformationalist and or a Theonomic view saying, “If we can just make the culture Christian everything will Change and Christ’s Kingdom will come.”

The Two Kingdom view says that Culture Transformation is not the job of the Church. The Church receives the Kingdom.  It doesn’t create one.  The job of the Church is to take the sacraments, hear the word preached, be fathers and mothers and plumbers and just go on with our life.  If Jesus wants to do something through it and for us He can.

Those are the two extremes…

The Host then asks Dr. Kinneer if his definitions are correct.

Dr. Jack Kinneer of Reformed Presbyterian Theological Seminary
replies,
“What you have is the American A view and the American B view.”
What you don’t have is the Historical C view. 

Amen Dr. Kinneer! That is what I have been trying to tell some of the guys who are writing and discussing this issue now days. 

Also Dr. Kinneer notes, that as all aberrations and heresies in theology tend to distort the doctrine of Christ, some of the of Two Kingdoms teachers distort the doctrine of Christ (Christology) also.  A lot depends on how you define Two Kingdoms Theology.  I believe it should be called a two fold government, to be more precise. 

Both definitions the host defined were basically true but fall short of the Historical doctrine. And I would declare that the most vocal Modern Day Reformed Church Seminary Professors have no idea what the Historic view is.  I deduce this by what I am hearing come out of the mouths of today’s Seminary Students, Graduates, and their Professor’s writings and comments. I can also assess this by the personal discussions I have been having with these men and younger theologians who have been taught by these guys.

These Authors and Professors are arguing against a view that is easily knocked down by their arguments. When they finally start to deal with the Historical view that Dr. Kinneer is declaring then their arguments will start to hit a brick wall.  For one thing the historical view is not liberal and that is one of the main associations attributed to One Kingdom Theology.

This issue has a root problem in my estimation.  It is the Law / Gospel issue that is being discussed in the Reformed Church.  Some people are separating the Law so far from life and the gospel that the very Gospel of Christ is being truncated.  They have gone from one extreme of refuting self-justification (works righteousness) to something that is turning into antinomianism.  They view Sanctification and Glorification as separate from the Gospel.  Dr. Michael Horton and many others around him teach that the  Gospel is only an outward declarative statement about what God has done to pay a penalty for sin.   According to past interaction with these guys, those of us who hold to the view the Reformed Divine’s held to, that the Law turns into Gospel, are in “Serious Error.”  They are divorcing the Law of Christ from the Gospel.  They are also divorcing the work of Christ in us, the hope of Glory and a life of being conformed in the image of Christ, from the Gospel.

Newer Blog posts…..  https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.com/2014/05/14/the-law-turned-into-gospel-gospel-obedience/

The Charge of Lutheranism is not about distinction, it is about dichotomy

The root problem in a lot of this is a poor Christology (understanding His Mediatorial Kingship) and a poor understanding of the Covenant of Grace.  The Covenant of Grace administers both the Old and New Covenant.   Some say the Old Covenant is not the same in substance as the New Covenant.  According to them the Mosaic Covenant differs in substance from the Abrahamic Covenant also.  They say that only the Abrahamic Covenant is renewed in the New Covenant.  This is in direct contradiction to the Westminster Confession of faith Chapter 7 sections 5 and 6 which states that they are of the same substance as they are administrations of the Covenant of Grace.  The Old Covenant is the same in substance as the New and Abrahamic Covenant because they are Administrations of the Covenant of Grace.  The same people that are saying this are the same people voicing this Newer Natural Law / Two Kingdom model that is being criticized here.  At the root they all have Meredith Kline as a Mentor and hold to his thought concerning the Old  (Mosaic) Covenant.  Dr. R. Scott Clark voices it in his Covenant Theses point 13 of Biblical / Exegetical section.  In so doing all this they are becoming Lutheran in their view of the Mosaic Covenant and saying that the Law is opposed to the Gospel.  This is having a terrible affect upon the Church and Society in my estimation.  They are dichotomizing the law and the gospel in a way that the scriptures don’t.  Even Anthony Burgess a Divine  and Scottish Commissioner of the Westminster Confession of Faith recognized this problem of the Lutherans back then.   https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.com/2012/09/18/lutheran-reformed-differences-back-during-the-time-of-the-westminster-divines/

Oh yeah, they may claim to have a majority of the old guys as their teachers but they are propagating them through the eyes of a few who held to minority views or Klinean eye wear.  The below is where you can find Dr. Clark’s thoughts.

http://clark.wscal.edu/covtheses.php
Biblical / Exegetical section….
13.The Mosaic covenant was not renewed under Christ, but the Abrahamic covenant was.

Some have titled this theology Klhortian I call it Modern Reformed Thought because a lot of Western California Guys have adopted it and are promoting it with their media machine.  It is a shame this is being propagated so loudly.  It kind of reminds me of how dispensationalism got such a strong hold by media presentation through the Scoffield Reference Bible.  I think I have made my point.

Klhorotonian Theology

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.737.5521&rep=rep1&type=pdf&fbclid=IwAR3Djotk6sWLDlEjIiyRBcm895iEGrpYFZ5RYppsXxF7DG6A7pKKK8Oa9NE

I hope I am understanding things aright.  Orthodoxy and Orthopraxy are so closely linked.  I believe this is being proven in this situation.  May we all be graced by the King and have eyes to see and ears to hear what the Spirit is saying.  I hope I am seeing and hearing correctly.  Weigh what I say heavily.  Don’t just accept it as truth.  I am a man.  I can be just as deceived as I believe others to be.

Be Encouraged,

As a side note and recommendation this will be a topic in the upcoming Confessional Presbyterian Journal.  It won’t be Polemic as I have been because it will be done by Scholars from various sides of the issue if I am not mistaken.  I am not a Scholar.  Please Remember That!  But that doesn’t make anything I have said any less true.  Just weigh it more heavily.  LOL

The Confessional Presbyterian Journal should be out sometime this Winter.  Here is the link to it.

http://www.cpjournal.com/

by

The Mosaic Covenant, same in substance as the New?

Image

Westminister Confession of Faith

Chapter VII

Of God’s Covenant with Man

4. This covenant of grace is frequently set forth in Scripture by the name of a testament, in reference to the death of Jesus Christ the Testator, and to the everlasting inheritance, with all things belonging to it, therein bequeathed.

5. This covenant 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.

6. Under the gospel, when Christ, the substance, was exhibited, the ordinances in which this covenant is dispensed are the preaching of the Word, and the administration of the sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s Supper: which, though fewer in number, and administered with more simplicity, and less outward glory, yet, in them, it is held forth in more fullness, evidence and spiritual efficacy, to all nations, both Jews and Gentiles; and is called the new testament. There are not therefore two covenants of grace, differing in substance, but one and the same, under various dispensations.

I started to discover some troubling trends in the Reformed Faith concerning views of Law and Gospel that made me start to dig deeper into why men were saying the Law and Gospel totally opposed each other.  These men were saying that the Law only condemns and that the Gospel no where commands anything.  These kind of comments were leading other men to become and teach Antinomianism (antinomian basically teaches that the Law of God (even the moral Law) is irrelevant to life) and deny certain aspects of the Gospel.  My search led me to the place where many of these men were divorcing Grace and Law.  I found the source for this teaching to be worked out from doctrines formulated during the time of the Reformation.  It had its root in a hermeneutic that was trying to relate how the Mosaic Covenant and New Covenant related to each other.  This led me to other places and to different questions.  Ultimately it led me to the Westminister Confession of Faith since one of the main propagators of this teaching was an Orthodox Presbyterian Minister named Meredith G. Kline.   I started to question even if his teaching even lined up with the confessional standard he claimed to adhere to.   You can read that discussion at this link.

http://www.puritanboard.com/f30/kline-karlburg-not-confessional-concerning-mosaic-69258/

At that link I was trying to get some feedback concerning an article which was published in the Westminster Theological Journal. VL. 66.2 Fall which you can download in pdf form.

PDF download.

http://tinyurl.com/9xbtega

I use to hold to a theological position somewhat similar to the Orthodox Presbyterian Professor named Meredith Kline and somewhat that of John Owen concerning the Mosaic Covenant.

5). This covenant thus made, with these ends and promises, did never save nor condemn any man eternally. All that lived under the administration if it did attain eternal life, or perished for ever, but not by virtue of this covenant as formally such. It did, indeed, revive the commanding power and sanction of the first covenant of works; and therein, as the apostle speaks, was “the ministry of condemnation,” 2 Corinthians 3:9; for “by the deeds of the law can no flesh be justified.” And on the other hand, it directed also unto the promise, which was the instrument of life and salvation unto all that did believe. But as unto what it had of its own, it was confined unto things temporal. Believers were saved under it, but not by virtue of it. Sinners perished eternally under it, but by the curse of the original law of works.
John Owen
Commentary on Hebrews Chapter 8
pp. 85.86 Goold

I have recently been helped in understanding this situation a bit more clearly by Pastor Patrick Ramsey’s Journal article and I have found that I disagree with Meredith Kline and others that hold to similar postions of a works paradigm that is found being taught in the Mosaic Covenant. While Owen’s view and Kline’s differ a bit I believe they have some similarities when it comes to the idea of Republication of the Covenant of Works.  I believe Kline and his modern day disciples hold to something called a “co-ordinate” covenant view (which sees two covenants working side by side, law and grace in antithesis) concerning the Mosaic Covenant.  This view  was rejected by the Majority of Divines who wrote the Westminster Confession of Faith. These modern day reformers do not believe the Mosaic Covenant is purely an administration of the Covenant of Grace although it is partially administered through it.  These men believe the  Mosaic Covenant is an administration of the Covenant of Grace as it relates only to justification.  You can learn about this by reading the article that was published in the Westminster Journal (http://tinyurl.com/9xbtega) and by reading chapters 16-18 in ‘A Puritan Theology Doctrine for Life’  by Mark Jones and Joel Beeke.

Trying to understand this works paradigm is not easy.  I think Patrick Ramsey does a good job in revealing the misconceptions that surround the issues from the most noted passages Romans 10:5 and Leviticus 18:5.  In fact when we look at Paul’s references Pastor Ramsey notes how we might perceive that St. Paul is pitting Moses against Moses and the Old Testament against the Old Testament by his New Testament writings. Especially if we just lift passages out of texts without considering other passages Paul also referenced. Paul isn’t pitting the OT against the OT or Moses against Moses when we look at the fuller context for understanding.

I believe I will let Pastor Ramsey’s words explain at this point.

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.

A statement was also made how the Mosaic should be viewed as an administration of death. I actually believe the above helps us answer this problem but I also saw this. We as fallen people tend to want to turn the Covenant of Grace into a Covenant of Works. Many people even do this concerning the New Covenant today when they add works to the equation of justification by faith.

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 what context St. Paul is referring to the Mosaic Covenant in.

(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 they do what 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.

Rom 7:13    Did that which is good, then, bring death to me? By no means! It was sin, producing death in me through what is good, in order that sin might be shown to be sin, and through the commandment might become sinful beyond measure.

On another note I would mention that some say that the Mosaic was a Covenant that administered the Covenant of Grace as well as the Covenant of Works. Some differentiate that works was required in order for the Israelite’s to stay in and be blessed in the Land. They stayed in the Land based upon their works. Some say that this is different from the New Covenant. I am not seeing this difference. There are conditions set for us to remain in the Church even. For one thing Jesus himself said in Revelation 2 that he would remove a local Church’s candlestick if they didn’t repent. In 1 Corinthians 5 a man who was found to be exceedingly sinful was to be delivered to Satan and excommunicated from the Church. In Galatians 6:7 we are told that we reap what we sow.

I actually see what happened to the Church in the Old Covenant to be very gracious and just a form of discipline and general equity which we should experience now. It was grace that chastisement happened. It was grace that brought Israel back into the Land. They were the Church that was redeemed from bondage. God called them His people. They grew from dwelling in the wilderness to possessing the land. If it was by works then they would have never been brought back as they were. It looks quite the same to me as the man in 1 Corinthians 5. A casting out was performed. Excommunication was evident. Restoration by God’s grace was confirmed. The substance of both the Old pedagogical Covenant and the New are essentially the same. Salvation, regeneration, faith, repentance, justification, and sanctification for the Church is the same between both the old and new. It is all by God’s Covenant of Grace. The substance seems to be the same to me.

Well, this is some of the stuff I am seeing now days. I do believe that works are important and a big part of our salvation. But I speak of salvation as a whole. Not in the respect of purely justification. There are no works considered in our justification. I do believe that our Union in Christ brings a twofold Grace of justification and sanctification. You can not separate them from our salvation. They are not dichotomized but are distinct in the process of salvation. It is all by Grace as St. Paul said. It is all by Grace as St. Paul said. This tension seems hard to process but it is summed up in Ephesians 2:8-10 and Philippians 2:12,13.

(Eph 2:8-10) For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

(Php 2:12,13)Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.

Now a word from our Covenant Theologian John Ball…..

Under this Covenant, the natural seed of Abraham bore the face of the Church and state, and God had promised abundance of temporals, and of spiritual a scantling; But all under the outward administration of the Covenant, were not in like manner partakers of the blessings promised in Covenant.  For some had their part in temporal blessings only, and the outward ordinances; others were partakers of the spiritual blessings promised.  But whatever good thing any of them enjoyed either temporal or spiritual, it was conferred upon them freely according to the Covenant of Grace, and not for the dignity of their works.  It is true, the promise is conditional, if they obey, they shall reap the good things of the Land: but obedience was not a causal condition, why they should inherit the Land…So that herein there appears no intexture of the Covenant of works with the Covenant of Grace, nor any moderation of the Law to the strength and power of nature for the obtaining of outward blessings.  But rather that God out of his abundant goodness is pleased freely to confer outward blessings promised in the Covenant upon some that did not cleave to him unfainedly, that he might make good his promise unto the spiritual seed, which by word and oath he had confirmed unto the Fathers.

(John Ball, A Treatise of the Covenant of Grace [1645], 142).

I also hope you take some time to look at my blog on Galatians, the WCF and Chapter 19, and my posts on the Mosaic and the Covenant of Works in reference to republication.

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

“These things no doubt sufficiently shew that God has never made any other covenant than that which he made formerly with Abraham, and at length confirmed by the hand of Moses. This subject might be more fully handled; but it is enough briefly to shew, that the covenant which God made at first is perpetual.
Let us now see why he promises to the people a new covenant. It being new, no doubt refers to what they call the form; and the form, or manner, regards not words only, but first Christ, then the grace of the Holy Spirit, and the whole external way of teaching. But the substance remains the same. By substance I understand the doctrine; for God in the Gospel brings forward nothing but what the Law contains. We hence see that God has so spoken from the beginning, that he has not changed, no not a syllable, with regard to the substance of the doctrine. For he has included in the Law the rule of a perfect life, and has also shewn what is the way of salvation, and by types and figures led the people to Christ, so that the remission of sin is there clearly made manifest, and whatever is necessary to be known.” ~ John Calvin on Jeremiah 31:31

Galatians 3 and 4

https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.com/2012/08/30/possible-misconceptions-about-galatians-law-and-gospel-are-opposed/

https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.com/2012/09/02/westminster-confession-of-faith-chapter-19-the-law-and-the-covenant-of-works/

https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.com/2012/09/18/lutheran-reformed-differences-back-during-the-time-of-the-westminster-divines/

https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.com/2013/02/04/what-is-republication-of-the-covenant-of-works/

The other blogs are listed in the one above for reference.

Be Encouraged,

RMS

by

Westminster Confession of Faith Chapter 19. The Law and the Covenant of Works.

Following the book ‘The Law Is Not of Faith’ (see pp. 10-11, 43), DR. R. Scott Clark, believes that chapter 19 of the Westminster Confession of Faith “clearly suggests”that the covenant of works was republished at Mt. Sinai. The argument goes something like this: Westminster Confession of Faith 19.1 states, God gave to Adam a law, as a covenant of works. Paragraph 2 begins with “This law,” obviously referring to the law described in paragraph 1. Since the law in paragraph 1 was described as a covenant of works, the law of paragraph 2 must be as well.

This argument is nothing new as it is one that I (Pastor Patrick Ramsey) addressed in a journal article back in 2004, which you can find here. Its appearance in the book TLNF, however, may well be the first time it has appeared in print. And quite frankly I am surprised to see the editors using it because it is such a poor argument and one that is easily answered. Chapter 19 does not say that the covenant of works was delivered or republished at Mt. Sinai. It says the law was delivered at Mt. Sinai. What law? “This law” of paragraph 2 does refer to the law in paragraph 1, i.e. the one given to Adam as a covenant of works. But what the editors of the book TLNF and Clark fail to see is that “This law” is further defined in paragraphs 3, 5, and 6. In these sections we learn that “this law” is the moral law (paragraph 3), which is the perfect rule of righteousness (paragraph 2) binding on all persons in all ages (paragraph 5) and is given to true believers not as a covenant of works (paragraph 6). Therefore, WCF 19 clearly does not suggest or indicate that the covenant of works was republished at Mt. Sinai.

Now since the law that was delivered at Mt. Sinai was the moral law, it is the same law that was given to Adam in the garden. Indeed it is the same law that binds all men in every age as the Confession rightly says. Consequently, it is correct to say that part of the content of the covenant of works was republished at Mt. Sinai and for that matter in the new covenant since the moral law is restated there as well. This is what Brent Ferry calls material republication (see TLNF, 91-92). It is important to note, however, that this is republication of the law and not the covenant of works. This is why it is misleading to refer to material republication as a sense of the republication of the covenant of works. There is a difference between law and covenant or at least the Puritans thought there is. In other words, to say that the law (or content of the covenant of works) was republished is different from saying that the covenant of works was republished at Mt. Sinai.

Notice in 19.1 of the Confession that the law given to Adam is qualified by the phrase “as a covenant of works.” This qualifier is missing in paragraph 2 and it is replaced with “a perfect rule of righteousness.” In the garden the law was a perfect rule of righteousness and the condition of the covenant of works. But at Mt. Sinai the law no longer serves as the condition of a covenant of works though it does continue to be a perfect rule of righteousness. It is this Puritan and Confessional distinction that Clark and the editors of TLNF fail to incorporate in their reading of chapter 19. As a result they completely misread the Confession.

If we would follow the Confession’s teaching on the law as explained in chapter 19 it is imperative that we distinguish between the law as given to Adam from the law as given to Israel. James Durham explains:

James Durham

Then you would distinguish between this law, as given to Adam, and as given to Israel. For as given to him, it was a covenant of works; but, as given to them, it was a covenant of grace; and so from us now it calls for gospel duties, as faith in Christ (1 Tim. 1:5), repentance, hope in God, etc. And although it call for legal duties, yet in a gospel-manner; therefore we are in the first commandment commanded to have God for our God, which cannot be obeyed by sinners but in Christ Jesus; the covenant of works being broken, and the tie of friendship thereby between God and man made void. So that now men, as to that covenant, are without God in the world, and without Christ and the promises (Eph. 2:21-13). And so our having God for our God (which is pointed at in the preface to the commandments) and Christ for our Savior, and closing with his righteousness, and the promises of the covenant (which are all yea and amen in him) must go together.[1]

I might also add that I find it quite ironic that Klineans appeal to Fisher and Boston for support of the republication of the covenant of works. The position advocated by Fisher and Boston is one that is repudiated by Kline. Furthermore, their (mis)reading of chapter 19 would support the position of Fisher and Boston but there is no way it could support Kline’s republication view. Perhaps this is why they tend to argue for republication in general (“in some sense”) and not for specific views of republication. But of course it is fallacious to argue that since republication in some sense is found in the Reformed tradition that therefore a particular view of republication is Reformed. I have previously argued that the particular view espoused by Kline and Karlberg, like its closest predecessor, namely the view held by Samuel Bolton, is incompatible with the Westminster Standards.
Rev. Patrick Ramsey OPC

[1] James Durham, Practical Exposition of the Ten Commandments, 62. See Francis R. Beattie, The Presbyterian Standards (repr., Greenville, S.C.: Southern Presbyterian Press, n.d.), 249; Ball, A Treatise of the Covenant of Grace, 15, 113.

WCF and Republication

A Pastoral acquaintance of mine wrote the above. He is most correct in my estimation. I have communicated with Dr. Clark on this topic. He does believe that the law in Chapter 19 is equivalent to a Covenant of Works (in some sense). I believe he is incorrect.  As Robert Shaw states,  Adam was created under this Law in a natural form but then was  brought under it in the form of a Covenant.

Section I.–God gave to Adam a law, as a covenant of works, by which he bound him and all his posterity to personal, entire, exact, and perpetual obedience; promised life upon the fulfilling, and threatened death upon the breach of it; and endued him with power and ability to keep it.
Exposition

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. That this covenant was made with the first man, not as a single person, but as the federal representative of all his natural posterity, has been formerly shown. The law, as invested with a covenant form, is called, by the Apostle Paul, “The law of works” (Rom. iii. 27); that is, the law as a covenant of works. In this form, the law is to be viewed as not only prescribing duty, but as promising life as the reward of obedience, and denouncing death as the punishment of transgression. ….

Section II.–This law, after his fall, continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness; and, as such, was delivered by God upon mount Sinai in ten commandments, and written in two tables; the first four commandments containing our duty toward God, and the other six our duty to man.

Exposition

Upon the fall of man, the law, considered as a covenant of works, was annulled and set aside; 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. Some faint impressions of it still remain on the minds of all reasonable creatures. Its general principles, such as, that God is to be worshipped, that parents ought to be honoured, that we should do to others what we would reasonably wish that they should do to us–such general principles as these are still, in some degree, engraved on the minds of all men. – Rom. ii. 14,15. But the original edition of the law being greatly obliterated, God was graciously pleased to give a new and complete copy of it. He delivered it to the Israelites from Mount Sinai, with awful solemnity. In this promulgation of the law, he summed it up in ten commandments; and, therefore, it is commonly styled the Law of the Ten Commandments.

Notice what Shaw states.  He notes the Original Natural form of the Law that Adam was under.  Then he notes that Adam was brought under a Covenant of Works when an express threatening of death, and a gracious promise of life, was annexed to the Law.  This might seem strange to some of you because you have been taught and drank the Klinean (Westminster Seminary California) Kool Aid. It is kind of like the Scoffield Bible. The media has so influenced us that we just accept a certain view as biblical and as historical. But I don’t believe it is the understanding that the majority of the Divines held at the Westminster Assembly. And I think I can show this to be true.

The reason I am starting this topic on the different views of Law concerning the Covenant of Works and the Mosaic is because so much of this teaching is where Klineans (followers of Meredith Kline’s teaching) start to go off the rails when they get to the Mosaic Covenant and the Republication issue. They want to import a Covenant of Works scheme into the Mosaic Covenant that dicotomizes Law and Gospel. They make the Law and Gospel opposed to each other in a way that is unbiblical. The Law and Gospel are not opposed to each other as I note in a previous blog on the book of Galatians.


Since I wrote that blog I have been led to many Reformers of the past who share the same view I have learned. The Mosaic Law is a schoolmaster and not opposed to the Gospel. (Galatians 3:21) Samuel Rutherford, Anthony Burgess, James Durham, and Herman Bavinck all do a good job explaining this. I believe Klineanism leads to a denial that the Mosaic Covenant and the New Covenant are the same in Substance as our Confession states they are in Chapter 7.5,6. This view does lead to what I have termed Modern Reformed Thought and it appears it is leading to what some call Escondido Two Kingdom / Natural Law Theology and a poor definition of the Gospel in my estimation. It also denies some of the authority that Christ has as King. No, I am not a Theonomist. I am a Covenanter. I do believe in the Mediatorial Kingship of Christ. But that is a side issue.

The following words about this movement aren’t mine but I agree with them….

The basic problem with the new scheme is the way it makes the covenant of works co-ordinate with the covenant of grace in the Mosaic economy. They refer to the Abrahamic promise and the so-called “works principle” of the Sinaitic covenant functioning side by side. The older divines would speak of the covenant of works as subordinate to the covenant of grace. It was serving in the way we see it in action in Romans 7, for example, bringing conviction of sin and driving the people to the promised Christ. (Incidentally, the same is true with respect to the law-gospel relationship now.) Besides this ordo salutis aspect, there was also the historia salutis aspect. The outward service of weak and beggarly elements bound the people to the faith of Christ until Christ came. This was a temporary “addition” which had respect to their minority as sons and had all the appearance of making Israel look like they were servants in bondage. This has been abrogated in Christ and the son has come to maturity in the Spirit. But as to the essential nature of the Sinaitic covenant, it was always looked upon as an administration of the covenant of grace. The catechetical teaching on the preface to the ten commandments drove this point home in an experiential way which could not be easily forsaken.

Further problems arise once this basic departure is discerned. One begins to see a metaphysical reworking of the categories of grace and justice in relation to the “covenant of nature.” Instead of a providential dispensation (see Shorter Catechism question 12), the covenant of works is turned into a creational entity which characterises the natural relationship between God and man. Human morality is, in its very essence, made a covenant of works. Grace is only operative where sin abounds.

Anyways, I don’t hate anyone and I recognize that I have brothers in all walks and theological persuasions so don’t think I am out to be at anyone’s throat. I am just trying to work this out and put this in a historical setting also. I have been accused of federal vision and historical revision lately. Something about a red dog or a dog not barking…. I have been trying to work with Drs. and Professors of the faith. I am not swinging my bat from my shoulder alone. I am a man under authority. Pray for me.

May we all grow in our understanding…..

R. Martin Snyder

also reference these blogs.

Dr. Robert Strimple writes specifically on this topic also.

Dr. Robert B. Strimple on the Mosaic Covenant and Republication of the Covenant of Works



The Covenant of Life chapter XI by Samuel Rutherford

Samuel Rutherford 
was a very prominent Scottish member of the Westminster Assembly, which sat in the 1640s. He published an extensive treatise on the covenant. It appeared in 1655, as was entitled The covenant of life opened, or, A treatise of the covenant of grace. In the eleventh chapter, Rutherford deals with several abberant views on the Mosaic covenant. First he deals with the Amyraldian view (espoused first by John Cameron, and later by Bolton), which argues that the Mosaic covenant is not a covenant of works or a covenant of grace, but rather a third “subservient” covenant. This view is rejected by the Standards, as well as the Formula Consensus Helvetica. Second, he deals with those who make the Mosaic covenant a covenant of works, completely different from the covenant of grace. This is the view of all Lutherans, as well as a very small minority of Reformed theologians. It is also rejected by the Standards (WCF 19:1-2, LC 101, etc, but we will deal with that issue elsewhere). Finally, he deals with the Arminian view. It is similar to the Amyraldian view, in that it also argues for three covenants entirely distinct in substance.

https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.com/2012/09/01/the-covenant-of/
https://sites.google.com/site/themosaiccovenant/samuel-rutherford/the-covenant-of-life-opened

Anthony Burgess

 Anthony Burgess’s Vindication of the Law and the Covenants (1647). Burgess was a prominent member of the Westminster Assembly. These lectures were internationally hailed as a solid defense of consensus Calvinism over against the more extreme views of the Calvinistic antinomians of the period, as well as those of the Papists, Socinians, and Arminians.

Burgess argues for the consensus position articulated in the Westminster Standards, that the Mosaic Law is a covenant of grace (cf. WCF 7:5-6; 19:1-2; LC #101). Over against this, he refutes three other aberrant minority views, who maintain that the Mosaic covenant was a covenant of works, a mixed covenant, or a subservient covenant. Note especially his insightful exegesis of the Ten Commandments towards the end: even the very form of the commandments presupposes that they are given in the context of a covenant of grace.

https://sites.google.com/site/themosaiccovenant/anthony-burgess
http://heritagebooktalk.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/burgess-vindiceae-text-complete.pdf

The Covenant of ‘Works and the Mosaic Law /  James Durham

https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.com/2012/09/01/taken-frompract/

WCF 19:1-2 – Law as Covenant vs. Law as Rule

https://sites.google.com/site/themosaiccovenant/Home/wcf-19-1-2—law-as-covenant-vs-law-as-rule

The Mosaic Covenant in Reformed Theology‎

Also check out the Substance of the Covenants….

The Mosaic Covenant, same in substance as the New?

and my other findings.

Old Posts on the Mosaic Covenant / the New Reformed Paradigm

by

Westminster Confession of Faith Chapter 19. The Law and the Covenant of Works.

Following the book ‘The Law Is Not of Faith’ (see pp. 10-11, 43), DR. R. Scott Clark, believes that chapter 19 of the Westminster Confession of Faith “clearly suggests”that the covenant of works was republished at Mt. Sinai. The argument goes something like this: Westminster Confession of Faith 19.1 states, God gave to Adam a law, as a covenant of works. Paragraph 2 begins with “This law,” obviously referring to the law described in paragraph 1. Since the law in paragraph 1 was described as a covenant of works, the law of paragraph 2 must be as well.

This argument is nothing new as it is one that I (Pastor Patrick Ramsey) addressed in a journal article back in 2004, which you can find here. Its appearance in the book TLNF, however, may well be the first time it has appeared in print. And quite frankly I am surprised to see the editors using it because it is such a poor argument and one that is easily answered. Chapter 19 does not say that the covenant of works was delivered or republished at Mt. Sinai. It says the law was delivered at Mt. Sinai. What law? “This law” of paragraph 2 does refer to the law in paragraph 1, i.e. the one given to Adam as a covenant of works. But what the editors of the book TLNF and Clark fail to see is that “This law” is further defined in paragraphs 3, 5, and 6. In these sections we learn that “this law” is the moral law (paragraph 3), which is the perfect rule of righteousness (paragraph 2) binding on all persons in all ages (paragraph 5) and is given to true believers not as a covenant of works (paragraph 6). Therefore, WCF 19 clearly does not suggest or indicate that the covenant of works was republished at Mt. Sinai.

Now since the law that was delivered at Mt. Sinai was the moral law, it is the same law that was given to Adam in the garden. Indeed it is the same law that binds all men in every age as the Confession rightly says. Consequently, it is correct to say that part of the content of the covenant of works was republished at Mt. Sinai and for that matter in the new covenant since the moral law is restated there as well. This is what Brent Ferry calls material republication (see TLNF, 91-92). It is important to note, however, that this is republication of the law and not the covenant of works. This is why it is misleading to refer to material republication as a sense of the republication of the covenant of works. There is a difference between law and covenant or at least the Puritans thought there is. In other words, to say that the law (or content of the covenant of works) was republished is different from saying that the covenant of works was republished at Mt. Sinai.

Notice in 19.1 of the Confession that the law given to Adam is qualified by the phrase “as a covenant of works.” This qualifier is missing in paragraph 2 and it is replaced with “a perfect rule of righteousness.” In the garden the law was a perfect rule of righteousness and the condition of the covenant of works. But at Mt. Sinai the law no longer serves as the condition of a covenant of works though it does continue to be a perfect rule of righteousness. It is this Puritan and Confessional distinction that Clark and the editors of TLNF fail to incorporate in their reading of chapter 19. As a result they completely misread the Confession.

If we would follow the Confession’s teaching on the law as explained in chapter 19 it is imperative that we distinguish between the law as given to Adam from the law as given to Israel. James Durham explains:

James Durham

Then you would distinguish between this law, as given to Adam, and as given to Israel. For as given to him, it was a covenant of works; but, as given to them, it was a covenant of grace; and so from us now it calls for gospel duties, as faith in Christ (1 Tim. 1:5), repentance, hope in God, etc. And although it call for legal duties, yet in a gospel-manner; therefore we are in the first commandment commanded to have God for our God, which cannot be obeyed by sinners but in Christ Jesus; the covenant of works being broken, and the tie of friendship thereby between God and man made void. So that now men, as to that covenant, are without God in the world, and without Christ and the promises (Eph. 2:21-13). And so our having God for our God (which is pointed at in the preface to the commandments) and Christ for our Savior, and closing with his righteousness, and the promises of the covenant (which are all yea and amen in him) must go together.[1]

I might also add that I find it quite ironic that Klineans appeal to Fisher and Boston for support of the republication of the covenant of works. The position advocated by Fisher and Boston is one that is repudiated by Kline. Furthermore, their (mis)reading of chapter 19 would support the position of Fisher and Boston but there is no way it could support Kline’s republication view. Perhaps this is why they tend to argue for republication in general (“in some sense”) and not for specific views of republication. But of course it is fallacious to argue that since republication in some sense is found in the Reformed tradition that therefore a particular view of republication is Reformed. I have previously argued that the particular view espoused by Kline and Karlberg, like its closest predecessor, namely the view held by Samuel Bolton, is incompatible with the Westminster Standards.
Rev. Patrick Ramsey OPC

[1] James Durham, Practical Exposition of the Ten Commandments, 62. See Francis R. Beattie, The Presbyterian Standards (repr., Greenville, S.C.: Southern Presbyterian Press, n.d.), 249; Ball, A Treatise of the Covenant of Grace, 15, 113.

WCF and Republication

A Pastoral acquaintance of mine wrote the above. He is most correct in my estimation. I have communicated with Dr. Clark on this topic. He does believe that the law in Chapter 19 is equivalent to a Covenant of Works (in some sense). I believe he is incorrect.  As Robert Shaw states,  Adam was created under this Law in a natural form but then was  brought under it in the form of a Covenant.

Section I.–God gave to Adam a law, as a covenant of works, by which he bound him and all his posterity to personal, entire, exact, and perpetual obedience; promised life upon the fulfilling, and threatened death upon the breach of it; and endued him with power and ability to keep it.
Exposition

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. That this covenant was made with the first man, not as a single person, but as the federal representative of all his natural posterity, has been formerly shown. The law, as invested with a covenant form, is called, by the Apostle Paul, “The law of works” (Rom. iii. 27); that is, the law as a covenant of works. In this form, the law is to be viewed as not only prescribing duty, but as promising life as the reward of obedience, and denouncing death as the punishment of transgression. ….

Section II.–This law, after his fall, continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness; and, as such, was delivered by God upon mount Sinai in ten commandments, and written in two tables; the first four commandments containing our duty toward God, and the other six our duty to man.

Exposition

Upon the fall of man, the law, considered as a covenant of works, was annulled and set aside; 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. Some faint impressions of it still remain on the minds of all reasonable creatures. Its general principles, such as, that God is to be worshipped, that parents ought to be honoured, that we should do to others what we would reasonably wish that they should do to us–such general principles as these are still, in some degree, engraved on the minds of all men. – Rom. ii. 14,15. But the original edition of the law being greatly obliterated, God was graciously pleased to give a new and complete copy of it. He delivered it to the Israelites from Mount Sinai, with awful solemnity. In this promulgation of the law, he summed it up in ten commandments; and, therefore, it is commonly styled the Law of the Ten Commandments.

Notice what Shaw states.  He notes the Original Natural form of the Law that Adam was under.  Then he notes that Adam was brought under a Covenant of Works when an express threatening of death, and a gracious promise of life, was annexed to the Law.  This might seem strange to some of you because you have been taught and drank the Klinean (Westminster Seminary California) Kool Aid. It is kind of like the Scoffield Bible. The media has so influenced us that we just accept a certain view as biblical and as historical. But I don’t believe it is the understanding that the majority of the Divines held at the Westminster Assembly. And I think I can show this to be true.

The reason I am starting this topic on the different views of Law concerning the Covenant of Works and the Mosaic is because so much of this teaching is where Klineans (followers of Meredith Kline’s teaching) start to go off the rails when they get to the Mosaic Covenant and the Republication issue. They want to import a Covenant of Works scheme into the Mosaic Covenant that dicotomizes Law and Gospel. They make the Law and Gospel opposed to each other in a way that is unbiblical. The Law and Gospel are not opposed to each other as I note in a previous blog on the book of Galatians.


Since I wrote that blog I have been lead to many Reformers of the past who share the same view I have learned. The Mosaic Law is a schoolmaster and not opposed to the Gospel. (Galatians 3:21) Samuel Rutherford, Anthony Burgess, James Durham, and Herman Bavinck all do a good job explaining this. I believe Klineanism leads to a denial that the Mosaic Covenant and the New Covenant are the same in Substance as our Confession states they are in Chapter 7.5,6. This view does lead to what I have termed Modern Reformed Thought and it appears it is leading to what some call Escondido Two Kingdom / Natural Law Theology and a poor definition of the Gospel in my estimation. It also denies some of the authority that Christ has as King. No, I am not a Theonomist. I am a Covenanter. I do believe in the Mediatorial Kingship of Christ. But that is a side issue.

The following words about this movement aren’t mine but I agree with them….

The basic problem with the new scheme is the way it makes the covenant of works co-ordinate with the covenant of grace in the Mosaic economy. They refer to the Abrahamic promise and the so-called “works principle” of the Sinaitic covenant functioning side by side. The older divines would speak of the covenant of works as subordinate to the covenant of grace. It was serving in the way we see it in action in Romans 7, for example, bringing conviction of sin and driving the people to the promised Christ. (Incidentally, the same is true with respect to the law-gospel relationship now.) Besides this ordo salutis aspect, there was also the historia salutis aspect. The outward service of weak and beggarly elements bound the people to the faith of Christ until Christ came. This was a temporary “addition” which had respect to their minority as sons and had all the appearance of making Israel look like they were servants in bondage. This has been abrogated in Christ and the son has come to maturity in the Spirit. But as to the essential nature of the Sinaitic covenant, it was always looked upon as an administration of the covenant of grace. The catechetical teaching on the preface to the ten commandments drove this point home in an experiential way which could not be easily forsaken.

Further problems arise once this basic departure is discerned. One begins to see a metaphysical reworking of the categories of grace and justice in relation to the “covenant of nature.” Instead of a providential dispensation (see Shorter Catechism question 12), the covenant of works is turned into a creational entity which characterises the natural relationship between God and man. Human morality is, in its very essence, made a covenant of works. Grace is only operative where sin abounds.

Anyways, I don’t hate anyone and I recognize that I have brothers in all walks and theological persuasions so don’t think I am out to be at anyone’s throat. I am just trying to work this out and put this in a historical setting also. I have been accused of federal vision and historical revision lately. Something about a red dog or a dog not barking…. I have been trying to work with Drs. and Professors of the faith. I am not swinging my bat from my shoulder alone. I am a man under authority. Pray for me.

May we all grow in our understanding…..

R. Martin Snyder

also reference these blogs.

The Covenant of Life chapter XI by Samuel Rutherford

Samuel Rutherford 
was a very prominent Scottish member of the Westminster Assembly, which sat in the 1640s. He published an extensive treatise on the covenant. It appeared in 1655, as was entitled The covenant of life opened, or, A treatise of the covenant of grace. In the eleventh chapter, Rutherford deals with several abberant views on the Mosaic covenant. First he deals with the Amyraldian view (espoused first by John Cameron, and later by Bolton), which argues that the Mosaic covenant is not a covenant of works or a covenant of grace, but rather a third “subservient” covenant. This view is rejected by the Standards, as well as the Formula Consensus Helvetica. Second, he deals with those who make the Mosaic covenant a covenant of works, completely different from the covenant of grace. This is the view of all Lutherans, as well as a very small minority of Reformed theologians. It is also rejected by the Standards (WCF 19:1-2, LC 101, etc, but we will deal with that issue elsewhere). Finally, he deals with the Arminian view. It is similar to the Amyraldian view, in that it also argues for three covenants entirely distinct in substance.

https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.com/2012/09/01/the-covenant-of/
https://sites.google.com/site/themosaiccovenant/samuel-rutherford/the-covenant-of-life-opened

Anthony Burgess

 Anthony Burgess’s Vindication of the Law and the Covenants (1647). Burgess was a prominent member of the Westminster Assembly. These lectures were internationally hailed as a solid defense of consensus Calvinism over against the more extreme views of the Calvinistic antinomians of the period, as well as those of the Papists, Socinians, and Arminians.

Burgess argues for the consensus position articulated in the Westminster Standards, that the Mosaic Law is a covenant of grace (cf. WCF 7:5-6; 19:1-2; LC #101). Over against this, he refutes three other aberrant minority views, who maintain that the Mosaic covenant was a covenant of works, a mixed covenant, or a subservient covenant. Note especially his insightful exegesis of the Ten Commandments towards the end: even the very form of the commandments presupposes that they are given in the context of a covenant of grace.

https://sites.google.com/site/themosaiccovenant/anthony-burgess
http://heritagebooktalk.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/burgess-vindiceae-text-complete.pdf

The Covenant of ‘Works and the Mosaic Law /  James Durham

https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.com/2012/09/01/taken-frompract/

WCF 19:1-2 – Law as Covenant vs. Law as Rule

https://sites.google.com/site/themosaiccovenant/Home/wcf-19-1-2—law-as-covenant-vs-law-as-rule

The Mosaic Covenant in Reformed Theology‎

Dr. Robert Strimple discusses Dr. Clark and WCF chapter 19

https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.com/2014/02/19/dr-robert-b-strimple-on-the-mosaic-covenant-and-republication-of-the-covenant-of-works/

Also check out the Substance of the Covenants….
https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.com/2012/09/14/the-mosaic-covenant-same-in-substance-as-the-new/

and my other findings.

Old Posts on the Mosaic Covenant / the New Reformed Paradigm

by

The Covenant of Life Opened chapter XI

The Covenant of Life Opened
Chapter XI
The Three-fold Covenant Considered.
The Law Pressed upon Israel was not a Covenant of Works, but a darker dispensation of Grace.
The three-fold Covenant of Arminians refuted.
Diverse considerations of the Law and the Gospel

by
Image
Samuel Rutherford
edited by Randy Martin Snyder

CHAP. XI. 1. The three-fold Covenant considered. 2. The Law pressed upon Israel was not a Covenant of Works, but a darker dispensation of Grace. 3. The three-fold Covenant of Arminians refuted. 4. Diverse considerations of the Law and the Gospel.

 

 There are those who hold that there are three Covenants.

  1. A Covenant of Nature, whereby God as Creator required [pg 58] perfect obedience from Adam inParadise, with promise of life, and threat of death.
  2. The Covenant of Grace, whereby he promises life and forgiveness in Christ’s Blood to believers.
  3. A subservient Covenant, made
    1. With Israel, not with Adam, and all mankind.
    2. For a time with Israel, not forever, as the natural Covenant.
    3. In Mount Sinai, not in Paradise.
    4. To terrify and keep in bondage (the other from an inward principle required, obedience.)
    5. To restrain Israel from outward sins, to prove the people, “that the fear of God might be before their eyes, that they should not sin.” So they expound Ex. 20:20.  The other Covenant was to restrain from all sin. Yea and so was that on Mount Sinai, to do all that are written in the Book of the Law, Deut.27:26. Deut. 28:1-4. etc. to that same end, “to love God with all the heart, and with all the soul,”Deut. 10:12. Deut. 5:1-3. Deut. 6.1-3. Deut. 5:29. Deut. 6:5. “With all the heart, with all the soul, with all the might,” which is expounded by Christ, Matt. 22:37, Luke 10:27. in as full a height of perfection as ever was required of Adam.
    6. It was written to Israel in Tables of stone: The natural Covenant was written in the heart; so was there a circumcised heart promised to Israel, (Deut. 30:6) though sparingly.
    7. It was (say they) given by the Mediator Moses, as that of nature was without a Mediator. Yea,Moses was the Typical Mediator of the young Covenant of Grace.

 

The differences between the subservient Covenant, and that of Grace.

  1. In the subservient [covenant], God only approves righteousness and condemns sin in [the covenant] of Grace he pardons and renews. We answer: Acts 15.11: “We believe through the Grace of the Lord Jesus, we shall be saved even as they under that Covenant.” Acts 10.43: “To him gave all the Prophets witness, that through his Name, whosoever believeth in him, shall receive remission of sins.” Abraham and Davidwere justified, in that “sin was not imputed to them, not by works” (Rom. 4:1-3, 6-9, etc.; Gen. 15:6).Psalm 32:1-2, 5: “I said I will confess my transgression, and you forgave the iniquity of my sin.” Isa. 43:25.I, euen I am he that blots out [pg. 59] thy transgressions for my own sake, and I will not remember your sins.” So David was a man according to the heart of God, So Asa, Josiah, Jehosaphat, Samuel, Barack, Gideon, Daniel, the Prophets, under that subservient Covenant (except they be under a fourth Covenant) were renewed, justified, and saved by faith (Heb. 11) as under a Covenant of Grace.  
  2. The former [subservient covenant] was, “do this and live,” this [covenant of grace] was, “believe and live.” We answer” Doing and living was but a shutting them up under the Law, that they might flee to Christ in whom they believed; otherwise the fathers must be saved and justified by works contrary to Rom. 2, Rom.4, and Heb. 11.
  3. In antiquity, the former came in as added 430 years after the promise of grace (Gal. 3.17).  We answer:True, but he speaks of the Covenant in Sinai, according to the strict Law part, which could not save, and so it is different. But that does not prove two Covenants.
  4. In the former [subservient covenant] there is compulsion and the Spirit of bondage, in this [the covenant of grace] heart inclining freedom and the Spirit of Adoption. We answer: Yet the differences are accidental, there was a legal awing of the hearts, as if they had been Servants, yet Heirs and Sons they were (Gal. 4:1-2.  The whole Book of the Proverbs spoke to the Godly as to Adopted Sons. They were believers (Heb.11; Rom. 4; Acts 10:43) and so Sons as touching a spiritual state (John 1.11-12). In regard to the Economy, it was somewhat more rigid and legal, they were restrained as servants. Yet it was the Covenant of Grace, by which believing Jews were justified and saved (Acts 15:11; Acts 10:43).
  5. In the former [the subservient covenant] man is dead, in this [the covenant of grace] man is humbled for sin.We answer. Legally dead, except they would flee to Christ, and legally condemned, but there was true humiliation for sins under that Covenant: As David, Josiah, Hezekiah, and all beleivers then, as now, were pardoned and justified.
  6. In the former [subservient covenant] there are commands, not strength, but here [the covenant of grace] there be promises and grace given? We answer: the full abundance of grace and of a new heart, was reserved until now. And the Law could not make perfect nor give pardon, in the blood of beasts; as touching that legal dispensation: But both grace, the Spirit, [pg. 60] pardon, righteousness and life were received and believed; by looking upon Christ to come.
  7. In the former [subservient covenant], Canaan was promised, in this [the covenant of grace], Heaven. Weanswer: Canaan is promised only but sacramentally, and that was a pedagogical promise for the infancy of that Church, but a type which was then in that Covenant, and is not now, make not two Covenants, one then, and another now?  Except you say, there was then a Lamb in the Passover, which was a Type of Christ to come, and there is now no such Type, because the body is come, and Christ the true High Priest offered himself. Therefore there are two Christ’s, one then to come, another now who hath come already. The Lord’s dispensation with Israel is often called a Covenant, now it must either be a Covenant of Works, or of Grace, or a third Covenant.

But the truth is, the Law as pressed upon Israel was not a Covenant of Works.

 

  1. The Law as the Law or as a Covenant of Works is made with perfect men who need no mercy; But this Covenant is made with sinners, with an express preface of mercy: “I am the Lord your God that brought you out of the land of Egypt, etc.” It is made with stiff-necked Israel, (Deut. 29; Deut. 30, 31, 32).  And that is called a Covenant from the end and object, as motions are denominate from their end: for the end of the Lord’s pressing the Law upon them was to bring them under a blessed necessity to seek salvation in their true City of Refuge, Christ Jesus, who redeemed them out of the spiritual bondage of sin.
  2. It was the Covenant made with Abraham, which was a Covenant of Grace: and though it be called, (Deut.29:1) a Covenant beside that which was made in Horeb, because [it was]
    1. Renewed again after their breach.
    2. Repeated a little before the death of Moses, Deut. 31.28.29.30.
    3. Because there were some additions of special blessings, cursings, Ceremonial Commands, that were not in the formerly proposed Covenant, (Exod. 20).  Yet the same it was in substance, to love the Lord with all the heart (Deut. 2:10, 12-14).  The same with that of Abraham, Deut. 8:18: “That he may establish his Covenant, which he swore unto your fathers, as it is this day,” when he is to deliver them out of Egypt (Exod. 2:24). And God [pg. 61] “heard their groaning, and remembered his Covenant with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob.” So the Lord expones [expounds?] it in his appearing to Moses, Exod. 3:6. Jer. 31:32: “Not according to the Covenant which I made with their fathers, in the day that I took them by the hand, to bring them out of the Land of Egypt.”  Now that was the Covenant which God made with Abraham, of which Circumcision was a seal (Gen. 17), not of a temporary Canaan only, but of heart Circumcision, (Col. 2.11). For the Lord expressly tells them, when he “took them by the hand” as his married people, “to bring them out of the Land of Aegypt, and out of the house of bondage” (Exod. 20). He meant no other Covenant then he made withAbraham, of believing, (Gen. 15) and of walking before him and being perfect, (Gen. 17:1-2) which is somewhat more legal, as Moses and the Lord himself expones [expounds?] it (Exod. 2:24, 3:6.Exod. 20:1-2). And he shows them, (Lev. 26:42) if in their enemies’ land they repent and shall come out and meet the rod, and their “uncircumcised hearts shall willingly accept of the punishment of their iniquity.” “Then (saith the Lord) I will remember my Covenant with Jacob, and also my Covenant with Isaac, and also my Covenant with Abraham will I remember.”  Besides there are not here three Covenants, but one, there is no word of the subservient Covenant with Israel in Sinai. Except that when he mentions the one, he excludes not the other. For to walk before the Lord required inAbraham’s Covenant (Gen. 17”1) is to walk in all the ways of the Lord, to fear and love him (Deut.10:12-13) and Samuel (1 Sam. 12:22) and Joshua (Josh. 24:22-25). And Mary (Luke 1.55) andZachariah (Luke 1:70-73) refer to the Covenant made with Abraham, and Deut. 6:10, the Covenant at Horeb, the Lord made with Abraham to give Canaan to his seed. Deut. 7:12: “If you hearken to these judgments to do them, it shall come to pass that the Lord your God will keep unto you the Covenant of mercy that he swore unto your fathers, etc.”
  3. This Covenant hath the promise of a circumcised heart (Deut. 30:6). and “of the word of faith that is near in the mouth,” and of the righteousness of faith clearly differenced from the righteousness of the Law by doing. For so Paul (Rom. 10:5-7, etc.) expones [expounds?] Moses (Deut. 30:11-14. [pg. 62]
  4. The Covenant of Works taught nothing of the way of expiation of sin by blood typifying the Ransom of blood that Christ was to pay for our sins, as this Covenant, all along had sacrifices and blood to confirm it.Exod. 24:8: “And Moses took the blood and sprinkled it on the people, and said, behold this is the Blood of the Covenant which the Lord has made with you, concerning all these words.” Now the words were the Ten Commandments. See: Heb. 9:18-24.
  5. This Covenant is made with Israel only (Exod. 20; Deut. 5:6; Deut. 6:5-7, 12). The Covenant of Works is made with all mankind.
  6. No people under the Law can be justified and saved thereby, nor have their sins pardoned (Rom. 3:9-11, 19-20; Rom. 4:1-4; Rom. 9; Rom. 10; Psalm 130:3; Psalm 143:2; Gal. 3.1-3, 10-13).  But in this Covenant, Abraham, David (Gen. 15; Psalm 32; Rom. 4.1-9). And the Jews by faith, have remission of sins and salvation, as also the Gentiles have (Acts 10:43. Acts 15:11).
  7. The Lord minds to lay aside the Law as inconsistent with the Covenant of Grace. Gal. 3:18: “If the inheritance be by the Law, then it is not by promise, but God gave it to Abraham by promise.”  For to live by this Covenant, is a life of promises, all being here promised, both faith the condition, and perseverance therein, and a new heart, righteousness, pardon, and life. A man that has his estate in papers and in good words that are transient things, may seem a poor man, but to live by promises here is the rich life of the heirs of hope, this is strong consolation under deadness, absence, faith working underground in the dark. Gal.3:21: “If there had been a Law which could have given life, verily righteousnesse should have been by the Law.”

Though he commanded them to do the Law, it was not that they should live thereby, and though he commanded us the same, it is another command, as it were, it is not so much now that we obey from the Authority of God the Law-giver under pain of damnation (though that be not laid aside, but urged in a Gospel intention upon heirs) as from the love of God, a Grace-giver; as also there is an intrinsic amenity in Christ drawing, and obedience now becomes connatural, free, delightful. Let these consider, to whom the yoke of obedience is a torment and a man-mill. [pg. 63]

  1. The Passover and Circumcision (Gen. 17:7) all along were seals of the Covenant, as Baptism one with Circumcision in substance (Col. 2.11) is the seal of the same Covenant, (Acts 2.39, 40, 41). Now the Law required no Circumcision, no shedding of blood, no Repentance, no new heart, but eternal condemnation followed the least breach thereof. Paul says indeed, Gal. 5:3: “If you be Circumcised (as the false Apostles would have, that thereby you may be justified & saved) you are debtors to keep the whole Law” perfectly, as the only way to life, and by no other Covenant can you be justified and saved, now Abraham was not circumcised that way, circumcision did bind Abraham to keep the Law, as a Ceremony and Seal of the Covenant of Grace commanded of God. But the Law as a Covenant of Works commands no Ceremony, no Sacrifice, no Type of Christ Mediator at all.

 

 It is true that first Covenant had Moses for its mediator, but as he was a Type of Christ, so Christ yesterday and today was the real Mediator, but veiled. The New Covenant has better promises, (Heb. 8:6; Heb. 7:22) it is a better Covenant (Heb. 7:22) has a better real, not a Typical surety, a better Priest who offered himself through the eternal Spirit (Heb. 9:14), a better Sacrifice, because of the plainness (John 16:29; 2 Cor. 3:18), because the real promises are made out to us, because of a larger measure of Grace (2 Cor. 3:1-4). And the first “Covenant isfaulty,” (Heb. 8:7) not because there was no Salvation by it, the contrary is Heb. 11, but that is comparatively spoken: because the blood of beasts therein could not take away sins (Heb. 10.1-4), because forgiveness of sins is promised darkly in the first Covenant, but plainly in the other, because Grace is promised sparingly in the former, but here abundantly, the Law being written in the heart, (John 7:39. Is. 54.13).

 

And it is true (Gal. 4.22-24, etc.) they seem to be made contrary Covenants: 1. But Paul speaks, Gal. 3. of the Law as relative to that people, and so it pressed them to Christ, and keeps them as young Heirs under nonage. 2. He speaks of the Law absolutely, as contradistinguished from the Gospel (Gal. 4:21) so it is a Covenant of Works begetting children to bondage: 2. Who come short of righteousness and the inheritance, and shall not be [pg. 64] saved. 3. Who are cast out of the Kingdome of Grace. 4. Who persecute the Godly the Sons of promise, so is the Law as it was in Adam’s days, and is now to all the Reprobate; so the Godly are not under the Law and the Covenant of Works. The Covenant urged upon Believers is to prove them, when they stand afar off and tremble,Exod. 20:20. “Fear not (says Moses) God has come to prove you (not to damn you) and therefore Calvin solidly observes that Paul, 2 Cor. 3. speaks with less respect of the Law then the Prophets do, for their cause, who out of a vain affectation of the Law-Ceremonies, gave too much to the Law and darkened the Gospel, and says the one was 1. Literal. 2. Written in stone. 3. A Sermon of death and wrath. 4. To be done away and less glorious, whereas the Gospel is Spiritual. 2. Written on the heart. 3. The Ministry of life. 4. And glorious: and praises put upon the Law, agree not to it of its own nature, but as it was used by the Lord to prove them, (Exod. 29:20) and chase them to Christ.

 

The Arminians also (especially Episcopius) make three Covenants.

  1. One with Abraham, in which he requires sincere worship and putting away strange gods: Beside 2. Faith and Universal obedience, and promised Canaan to his seed and Spiritual blessings darkly.
  2. One in Mount Sinai in these three Laws Moral, Ceremonial and Judicial, with a promise of Temporal good things, but to no sinners promise of life Eternal.
  3. A Covenant of Grace, with a promise of pardon and life to all that believe and repent, to all mankind, but he denies 1. All infused habits, contrary to Isa. 44:1-3, Isa. 59:20-21, Zech. 12:10, John 4:14, John 7:37. John16:7-8. 1 John 3:9.  He says that 2. all commands are easy by Grace. 3. That the promise of earthly things in their abundance is abolished, in that we are called to patient suffering. 4. That there is no threatening in this Covenant, but that of Hell fire. But the Covenant made with Abraham is that of Grace made with all the Seed (Deut. 30:6. Deut. 7.5-7, 12. Lev. 26.40-41) and made with all Believers, who are Abraham’schildren (Gal. 3.13-14, 18-19; Rom. 4.1-4; Luke 19:9) yea with the whole race of man without exception. (2.) The second Covenant which promises only blessings is made rather with beasts, that [pg. 65] well fed, then with men, contrary to Psalm 73:25, Isa. 57:1-3. Psalm 37:37, and it must build some Chalmer in hell, where the fathers were before Christ, a dream unknown to Scripture. The third Covenant makes the Covenant of Grace a Covenant of Works, and holds out life and pardon, upon condition that freewill repent and believe and stand on its own feet, for there is neither faith, nor a new heart nor repentance promised contrary to Deut. 30:6, Ezek. 11:19-20, Ezek. 36:26-27, Isa. 59:19-21, Isa. 44:1-5. Zech. 12:10.

Borrowed with permission from

https://sites.google.com/site/themosaiccovenant/samuel-rutherford/the-covenant-of-life-opened