“God repeated the same covenant (of works) with the people of Israel through Moses . . . it is called the covenant of Moses, the covenant of law, and commonly the old covenant.”
[“Idem fedus [sic] repetivit Deus cum populo Israelitico per Mosen…appellatur fedus Mosis, fedus legis, et communiter fedus vetus”]
Amandus Polanus (1561–1610), Syntagma (1609), Lib. 6, cap. 33, col. 321).]
RESOURCES
- Subscribe To The Heidelblog!
- The Heidelblog Resource Page
- Heidelmedia Resources
- The Ecumenical Creeds
- The Reformed Confessions
- The Heidelberg Catechism
- Recovering the Reformed Confession (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2008)
- Why I Am A Christian
- What Must A Christian Believe?
- Heidelblog Contributors
- Support Heidelmedia: use the donate button or send a check to
Heidelberg Reformation Association
1637 E. Valley Parkway #391
Escondido CA 92027
USA
The HRA is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization
Dr. Clark,
What does he mean by this? “God repeated the same covenant (of works) with the people of Israel through Moses? Is that the same as Making a covenant with them?
Dr. Clark,
I have been thinking recently about the parallels between the two covenants, the one with creation [of works] and the Mosaic covenant.
If we read Gen. 2 carefully, it seems that Eden is situated on a mountain top. Of course the Mosaic covenant is inaugurated on a mountain, Sinai. However, there is one astounding difference between the two covenant relationships highlighted by the mountain topos. Notice that in Ex. 19, Moses must ascend and descend the mountain three times. He goes up and down, up and down, and up and down. This feature of the narrative seems to highlight the mediate nature of the Mosaic covenant. God communicates through Moses and Moses must climb to meet with God.
The original covenant relationship is not like the Mosaic covenant. God’s covenant with Adam is immediate. Adam lives on the mountain top and walks with God. Although the righteousness of the two covenants is the same, I still think we have to hold that they are two different covenants. The latter does not simply republish the former, since the latter establishes a markedly different relationship.
John
John,
My point is that there has been a number of folk recently denying that the Reformed ever taught any kind of doctrine of republication. This is plainly false. The doctrines of the covenant of works and republication have been closely linked for centuries in Reformed thought and from virtually the beginning of Reformed covenant theology. It’s not some Klinean novelty.
Second. others have suggested similar scenarios as to the Edenic mountain/garden (Kline perhaps) and that may be but it’s a little speculative. The idea of republication has always been “mutatis mutandis” (with the changes having been changed) so that what I’m finding among the earlier writers is that republication mainly functioned pedagogically, to direct the Israelites to Christ. The old Reformed weren’t Pelagians.
As to the covenant of works with Adam being immediate, well, yes, there’s no Moses but I would say that it was mediated through the Son, as all revelation is. The Mosaic/old covenant was mediated by the Son to Moses.
I agree that, in the New Covenant, we have a better Mediator, Jesus! Amen.
The republication scheme has the advantage of explaining the legal nature of the Mosaic covenant while not falling into legalism in soteriology.
RT,
According to the older Reformed writers, the republication of the covenant of works was intended as a “tutor” to lash them, to teach them the greatness of their sin and misery and to drive them to Christ.
Some, in the classical period and since, have also connected the idea of republication with the land promises and their status as a national people.
According to the doctrine of republication, no one has ever been saved or justified except sola gratia et sola fide, solo Christo. Under Moses they were looking forward to Christ and we in the New Covenant live in the age of fulfillment of the types and shadows.
ps. Yes, the older writers use verbs such as “to strike” to describe the covenant making process with Adam and Moses.
Dr. Clark, I have been reading John Ball on the Covenant of Grace who is definitely against the idea of Sinai being a republication of the Cov of W. Kevan, in his paper on John Ball, in Puritan Papers Vol. 1, claims that the Westminster Confession follows Ball in this, but I see no evidence for it. Do you think Kevan is correct?
Hi Steven,
No, I don’t think Kevan is correct. See CJPM where I argue with him partly on the basis of Thomas Boston’s comments.
Dr Clark, do you believe Chapter 19 of the Confession is the only place in the Westminster Standards where the republication doctrine is supposedly taught?
Thanks, I’ll look it up.
Casey,
I don’t know. Why does it matter?
If a view is going to be called “Reformed,” don’t you believe it should be contained in the Reformed confessions and catechisms?
The confessions define Reformed but they aren’t exhaustive and they don’t contain everything held and taught by Reformed folk.
Dr Clark,
Of course the confessions aren’t exhaustive. But are you saying that something can be “Reformed” if the confessions/catechisms don’t positively teach it? Let me explain.
Sure, there are reputable Reformed theologians of the past who believed the Sinai Covenant was a republication of the covenant of works (in one way or another). I’ll grant you that. But there were also reputable Reformed theologians who didn’t think it was a republication of the covenant of works. So which is *the* Reformed view on the matter?
I don’t believe the Westminster Standards teach the doctrine of republication. It’s one thing to say that the doctrine of republication has some historic precedent with certain reputable Reformed theologians, but it’s quite another thing to claim it is *the* Reformed view of the Sinai Covenant.
If you can’t prove your view from the confessions, then I would venture to say it isn’t Reformed. Such a view may have been charitably tolerated among the Reformed, but that doesn’t mean it’s *the* Reformed view. Office-bearers subscribe to the standards of the church, not to what this or that Reformed theologian has said.
So, in your view, the confessions are exhaustive of Reformed theology?
Dr. Clark, did you even read my comment?
Casey,
I think that you are struggling with the problem of QIRC (ask Dr. Clark what that means, if you’re unfamiliar with the acronym), and allowing your desire to find a strictly uniform Reformed statement on every issue of Scripture to override this one point, namely, that the Reformed tradition, in areas of both doctrine and the practice of worship, has a certain pluriformity about it that defies the attempts of an individual to say regarding every matter that “this is THE Reformed position”.
So you don’t find a clear discussion regarding republication in the WCF? Big deal. There is a tremendous amount of material found in the writings of men such as Francis Turretin, John Owen, and others not discussed in the confines of the Westminster Standards. Does that make those doctrines not Reformed, or at best, merely tolerated by the Reformed consensus? I think you know the answer. And what do we do with writers such as Bavink, Frame, Horton, and others who address issues that only arose after the writing of the older Reformed confessions? Does that mean that opinions on those topics fall outside the definition of being Reformed by the woeful reality of their historical placement? I should hope not.
It is a fallacy to say that for something to be Truly Reformed it must find voice within the confessions and catechisms, and failing that test must be assigned to the nether realms of views merely tolerated. As mentioned above, the Confessions were never meant to be exhaustive in the material that they cover. There is a great deal within the bounds of Scripture and the Christian life that is not addressed by these documents. Does that mean that there can be no Reformed view on those issues because they have not been addressed in a confession or catechism somewhere?
I guess I just don’t see what the fixation is on ruling out a particular doctrine upon which the confessions are silent. I personally have found that the republication doctrine makes much greater sense of the big picture of Israel and her history in the OT, and do not see it as undermining any orthodox doctrine at any point (of course, theonomists would differ here, since it undermines their desire to see the Mosaic law become as binding upon modern nations as it was for the theocracy).
Why does republication bother you? What problem do you think it to cause?
Hi Dr. Clark.
thanks for your answer: you said above.
“According to the older Reformed writers, the republication of the covenant of works was intended as a “tutor” to lash them, to teach them the greatness of their sin and misery and to drive them to Christ. ”
Is that a yes or a no?
I asked was God making or establishing a covenant of works with the people and nation of Israel?
According to the confessions, the definition of the covenant of works, as you know, does not leave room for a longsuffering lash or whip and is no tutor. The moral law will do this by virtue of it’s being law and an expression of God’s holy nature. But when you speak of the covenant of works, death is the continual republication of that covenant. In Adam’s Fall we Sinned All.
I need a clear yes or no. I think you are saying no. ??
RT,
Sorry. The answer is yes and no. The older Reformed writers consistently taught that Sinai was a kind of covenant of works, for which reason they called it a foedus legal (a legal covenant). So, yes, God entered into a legal covenant, a republished covenant of works with Israel in the 613 mitzvoth, not for salvation or justification but as a giant sermon illustration (see Gal 3 and 4).
I don’t accept your dichotomy and I’m asking you to expand your categories.
AJM,
The problem is not that I’m “struggling with QIRC.” As I already stated, I don’t believe the confessions are exhaustive — now this is the second time that I’ve been accused of thinking that they are. Where have I even suggested that I “desire to find a strictly uniform Reformed statement on every issue of Scripture”? We’re talking about one issue here: the doctrine of the republished covenant of works at Sinai.
The fact is that the confessions *aren’t* silent on the matter. The Westminster Standards clearly define what the covenant of works is (Adam is the head), and clearly define a certain understanding of the Mosaic Covenant (a substantive administration of the covenant of grace, and Christ is the head of that covenant). It seems to me that RSC’s understanding of the Mosaic covenant is contrary to the Standards, and his interpretation of WCF 19 twists the meaning of the Confession to suit his view. This may be why he rarely refers to the Reformed confessions and, instead, appeals to this or that Reformed theologian in support of his view on Sinai. I don’t know because he doesn’t seem to want to answer my questions very clearly.
Of course there are contemporary issues that aren’t very clearly dealt with in the Reformed confessions, to which the Reformed community must have an answer. But as RSC has toilsomely labored to prove, the doctrine of republication is not new. This doctrine does not originate *after* Westminster. But then, why don’t we find it anywhere in the Reformed confessions? Apparently the Reformed consensus was either (1) that this teaching was implicitly rejected or (2) that it isn’t a doctrine that needs to be included in the summary of the Reformed faith and covenant theology. I don’t see how Horton’s God of Promise can be harmonized with WCF 7 — the book seems to me to militate against the Confession. To be honest, I hope this is just a big misunderstanding and that I haven’t grasped what RSC and Horton are arguing for. Perhaps you can help me here.
Am I to understand, though, that RSC wants to “recover the Reformed confession” by bypassing the Reformed confessions? Last I checked, no Reformed denomination subscribes to the writings of Turretin or Owen as their secondary standards, as valuable as the writings of these theologians are. And I don’t want to suggest a disparaging attitude toward them by any means. My question is: “Is this view confessional?” Not: “Has this view ever been held by a theologian in the history of Reformed thought?”
What purpose does the law serve as given from Mt. Sinai? Apparently, there are some who would have us believe that it’s intended as a republication of the covenant of works. The Westminster Standards would have us believe that the law as given at Sinai is a rule of life, a way to live as God’s redeemed people in this world who desire out of gratitude to glorify and please our Lord (just witness manner in which the Standards expound the Ten Commandments in the catechisms). Look at the Scripture proofs in the Confession — they are clear that the blessings for obedience (rain, good harvest, safety in the land) are NOT due to obedience to any sort of (national) covenant of works. Of course the law drives us to Christ. But a Christian’s relationship to the law has changed after he is in Christ. As written in the Psalms, we may rightly delight in the law.
The system espoused by RSC seems more in line with Kline than Westminster, and I wouldn’t equate the two. There is not a single place that I disagree with in the Westminster Standards. I believe them to be an accurate summary of scriptural teaching. Is there a place in the Standards that you believe should be modified to fit your theology? It’s disconcerting to me that RSC would quip “I don’t know. Why does it matter?” when I ask about the republication doctrine’s compatibility with the Westminster Standards.
All this said, I’ll probably kick myself later for posting this comment! I’m just looking for some answers so I hope you’ll read me in that light.
Yes, but Thomas Boston disagrees and he lived a good long time before Kline. For that fact so was Olevianus and Rollock and they CLEARLY taught versions of republication.
Casey, that’s why I’ve been posting these snippets on republication. It isn’t a “Klinean” doctrine. It’s in our theologians leading up to Westminster. It’s at least implied in Westminster, as I’ve argued in CJPM. You might not like, but it’s part of the tradition.
Dr. Clark, with all due respect, please actually *read* my comments before responding to them. You again seem to have missed the central issue of my concern, or perhaps you are ignoring it, as you have in my other comments.
Casey, have you *read* your own comments?
“If a view is going to be called “Reformed,” don’t you believe it should be contained in the Reformed confessions and catechisms?”
And…
“If you can’t prove your view from the confessions, then I would venture to say it isn’t Reformed.”
In light of such a direct statements, I don’t think it is unreasonable for someone to at least wonder if you are trying on some level to set up the Westminster Standards as an exhaustive source against republication in the Reformed tradition.
Thankfully, you were clear in at least one comment by writing…”Of course the confessions aren’t exhaustive.” But then the very next sentence seems to suggest that you are arguing for an exhaustive view of the confessions with regard to republication…”But are you saying that something can be “Reformed” if the confessions/catechisms don’t positively teach it?”
So, which is it, Casey? Are the confessions exhaustive or not in your view? If you believe that they are not exhaustive then why do you raise the question of whether or not a doctrine can truly be considered Reformed if it is not directly referred to in a Reformed confession?
You seem to want to say that republication isn’t truly Reformed if it isn’t directly mentioned in the Westminster Standards. But yet you also admit that republication has been taught by reputable Reformed theologians…(“Sure, there are reputable Reformed theologians of the past who believed the Sinai Covenant was a republication of the covenant of works [in one way or another]. I’ll grant you that.”
You also mentioned that those reputable Reformed theologians were helpful (“And I don’t want to suggest a disparaging attitude toward them by any means.”). Yet your earlier comments which I quoted above are saying that something really shouldn’t be considered Reformed if they aren’t in the confessions. In effect, therefore, you seem to be indicating that those reputable Reformed theologians were not teaching Reformed theology…even teaching against Reformed theology according to your view of the Westminster Standards. How is that not disparaging them? How can you still call them reputable if you believe they taught against Reformed theology since, according to your view, the Westminster Standards don’t directly teach republication?
Again, upon reading your equivocating comments, I don’t think it is unreasonable or unfair for someone to at least wonder if you are trying on some level to set up the Westminster Standards as an exhaustive source against republication in the Reformed tradition.
I think, along with AJM, that it would be helpful if you clearly explain why you argue so strenuously against republication. What problems do you think it causes?
Is it because you have a serious theological problem with it? If so, what exactly is the problem with it from your perspective?
Why won’t you answer *that* question?
Dr. Clark,
I am with Casey B. here in that, this doctrine seams to militate against a clear understanding of Covenant of Works. Your answer, yes and no leads right into a redefining of what Covenant of Works is. It is a “kind” of Covenant of Works. You may as well make up a new term because you are pushing a boat load of confusion into the church. Call it covenant of semi works and grace but don’t call it a republication of the covenant of works. I hope you see how confusing that is.
My children memorized the alphabet saying “A”– In Adams Fall we sinned all.” From there they began to learn that they participated in Adam’s sin and are guilty in him and fell with him in his first transgression.
The resulting condemnation from God in the breaking of this covenant is death and separation. That is being “published” as it were, every hour of every day throughout the world.
So, I with Casey, would like to see how this “kind of covenant of works”, this redefinition of the Covenant of Works, is defined for us in the Westminster standards.
By the mercy of God, our means of unity chiefly stands in a sound declaration of our most holy faith. We have that declaration, in the Westminster Standards. If this doctrine cannot be supported there you are, as you know, on dangerous ground and will stumble many little children. Like me.
Casey,
I did read your post. I don’t think you understand the issues very well. I think I’m asking a reasonable question.
RT,
The Reformed have been teaching this for a long time. Historically it’s been the strongest advocates of the covenant of works who’ve taught republication and it’s been the strongest critics of the prelapsarian covenant of works who’ve rejected it.
The old Reformed theologians well understood the effects of the fall. It’s the modern moralists who’ve become semi-Pelagians again.
Before you conclude against a few hundred years of Reformed theology you should postpone your decision long enough to do some research.
The sort of republication doctrine I’m finding is really just the first use of the law in historical terms. It’s one of the chief ways the Reformed proved the existence of the prelapsarian covenant of works and pointed to the necessity of the Savior, who must come as the 2nd Adam to fulfill the covenant of works broken by Adam and again, typologically, by national Israel.
Brad,
I can see how you could read my comment as containing self-contradictory statements regarding how we define the word “Reformed.” Perhaps it would help if you re-read my comments in the light of this: It’s not just that the Standards are silent regarding republication, I believe Dr. Clark’s teaching is *contrary* to the Standards.
In the above comment I was trying to distinguish between what was legitimately a historically Reformed view (seen in the various Reformed theologians) with what today is actually the confessional view (as embodied in the Reformed confessions and catechisms). I’m sorry if I wasn’t very clear in the first place.
Unfortunately, you ignored a number of the more weighty arguments in my comment. How we define the word “Reformed” is not the main issue here. My question is more specific: How does Dr. Clark plan to harmonize his contra-confessional teaching with the Westminster Standards? Clark may point to historically Reformed theologians who held to a similar view, but that doesn’t prove his view is confessional.
It would be like digging up Amyraldianism. True, some historic Reformed theologians held to Amyraldianism (as some have held to republication). But is Amyraldianism confessional? Of course not. And so I’ll repeat what I said in my previous comment: It’s disconcerting to me that RSC would quip “I don’t know. Why does it matter?” when I ask about the republication doctrine’s compatibility with the Westminster Standards.
Dr. Clark’s previous comment is illustrative of my concern; he writes: “The sort of republication doctrine I’m finding is really just the first use of the law in historical terms. It’s one of the chief ways the Reformed proved the existence of the prelapsarian covenant of works and pointed to the necessity of the Savior, who must come as the 2nd Adam to fulfill the covenant of works broken by Adam and again, typologically, by national Israel.”
Where do the Westminster Standards speak of a “typological covenant of works made with national Israel”? Nowhere — and to the contrary, we read that, “under the law, it [the covenant of grace] 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” (WCF 7.5).
Dr. Clark, can you give us a short bibliography of Reformed writers and their works on this subject?
Did any Amyraldians sign the WCF or any of the other Reformed confessions? I get your point, but maybe you should avoid this kind of example.
As a matter of linguistics, language is not as precise as your trying to make it. There are different ways of saying the same thing. Is the typological republication implicit in any of the Reformed confessions? The confessional authors need not regurgitate various Reformed theologians’ comments verbatim to get at the essence of what they were wishing to articulate. There were at least a few, who held to republication, and they had no problem subscribing to the Reformed confessions. Amyraldians, on the other hand, probably would be hesitant to underwrite them.
Casey,
Who has decided that republication is contra confessional? Olevianus, Wollebius, Polanus, Rollock, Boston, and a host of others are all “contra-confessional”?
Yikes!
Richard,
I’m writing a longish essay on this right now. If you want an older, shorter version it’s here.
Casey,
I’m surprised that you’re using the same sort of argument that the Barthians and Calvin v Calvinists folk use, namely, that if the ipsissima verba are not present then the substance of the doctrine isn’t present. Do you really want to make that argument?
Can you say why you are so mortally opposed to any sort of doctrine of republication no matter what its pedigree?
Joshua,
I used the Amyraldians as an analogy to demonstrate that a view can have a Reformed pedigree and nevertheless not be confessional. No need to read more into it than that. And explain to me how I’m trying to make language more precise than it actually is?
Dr. Clark,
Let’s back up a bit, if we may. Two short notes first: (1) Please refrain from the “guilt by association” fallacies and (2) I’m not “mortally opposed to any sort of doctrine of republication.”
Now let’s suppose I don’t have a clear understanding of your view, which you believe to be the case and I confess is a possibility. I will ask you (1) to please tell me where you think I am misunderstanding your view and (2) to please answer these simple questions:
1. Do you believe the Mosaic covenant was substantially an administration of the covenant of grace?
2. If you believe the Mosaic covenant was substantially the covenant of grace, is this merely because of the continuing Abrahamic covenant?
3. When we speak of the Mosaic covenant, are we to understand it as one covenant or as two distinct (although perhaps intermingled) covenants?
4. Who do you believe to be the head of the Mosaic covenant?
5. Were the Ten Commandments given at Sinai as stipulations of a covenant of works made with Israel? Or were they given as a rule of life/gratitude for a redeemed people under the covenant of grace? Or both? I am not asking about the law in itself, I am asking about the Ten Commandments as given in the context of the Mosaic covenant.
6. Concerning the blessings promised for obedience under the Mosaic covenant (rain, plentiful crops, safety in the land), were they given on account of it being the covenant of grace or a (national) covenant of works?
7. Was Israel exiled for breaking the covenant of grace (through unbelief) or for breaking a covenant of works (through disobedience to the law)?
Since you’re a professor at *Westminster* Seminary California, you’ll get special points (at least in my book!) for supplementing your answers with references or quotes from (or comments on) the Westminster Standards. Thanks.
Dr. Clark,
Thanks for your response.
Thanks for clarifying your purpose for posting the posts you have. I’m not a confessionalist per se, though I pay attention to the Reformed tradition as I interpret Scripture.
What do you mean by the legal nature of the Mosaic covenant? It has laws, but do you not see that the very covenant is based on God’s gracious redemption of Israel from Egypt [Ex. 19:4-6]? Kline would say the same, since suzerain-vassal treaties are based on the gracious intervention of the Suzerain which is accompanied by his demands of the vassal. Furthermore, I would encourage you to re-contemplate the words in John 1:16-17, “For from his fullness we have all received charin anti charitos [grace in place of/for grace], for the Law was given through Moses, grace and truth [chesed wemeth] came in Jesus Christ.”
Although great discontinuity exists in this statement, the continuity is one of grace!!! The NT affirms what is in the OT. The Law of Moses [a reference to the Mosaic covenant] is called grace and it is from the fullness of God. Of course the new covenant is superior to the old, but it is not because one is of works and the other of grace. All the covenants of Scripture have one goal: the establishing of the Kingdom of God. They all fail until the new because the new is based on better promises [the appearing of the better Adam, Moses, and Levi who accomplishes the final propitiation of God’s wrath and forgiveness of sins, secures justification, redemption, etc.] Once the new adam [the church according to Eph. 2:15] has been made right with God, by the preaching of the gospel and the right ordering of itself according to the Law of Christ it seeks to spread the Kingdom of God to the ends of the earth.
I find republication unhelpful because its theological capital is too small to encompass what the Sinai covenant is and how it is functioning in the biblical storyline. It could be because I find the covenant of works and covenant of grace schema unhelpful for the same reason. Thanks for allowing to me participate in the discussion, even though I have not contributed to the Reformed history discussion.
Casey,
I understood your point, but, again, it was a bad example. If Amyraldians failed to underwrite the confessions, then they were not confessional. Furthermore, the Amyraldians were never considered confessional. Francis Turretin and Johann Heidegger considered Amyraldianism contra-confessional in the Helvetic Consensus (1675).
You, yourself, have said that you wanted to be precise in language. Precision is a good thing, but it’s relative to time and place. Are you sure that you are not reading your precision back into the confessional documents? When you search a document only looking for keywords and not substance then you have a problematic view of how authors use(d) language. We are not talking about math here (Sure, it is rhetorical flourish and meant to sting your intellect, but it is designed to point out a linguistic fallacy). You need to eschew reading your own conception of what constitutes republication language back into a document. Is the substance there?
For example: WCF says “This covenant [of grace] was differently administered in the time of the law, and in the time of the Gospel:under the law it was administered by promises, prophecies, sacrifices, circumcision, the paschal lamb, and other types and ordinances delivered to the people of the Jews, all foresignifying Christ to come?”
Analysis: This covenant [of grace]was *differently* administered…under the law…What is the different administration in the overarching covenant of grace? The law, and thus there was a republication, which reflected the moral law that was embedded in creation (covenant of works). It was not (republished or rewritten) administered between Abraham and Moses. From Moses to Christ, the law was in effect. In the Gospel, the law is obsolete because–like other types and shadows–it was fulfilled (The question is then: what is fulfilled and what remains in this New Testament dispensation? Obviously, the moral law still remains, but what is obsolete? It is the land, a type of the heavenly city that Abraham was seeking and Christ is preparing for Jew and Gentile). How do I know that the law was republished. In the section “On Creation”, WCF says that the law of God was written on Adam and Eve’s hearts. Thus, the law was first published in creation. It was republished in the time of the Old Testament (read: Moses). Just because you do not see the exact words “republication” or “typology” as it relates to the law in the WCF does not mean that the *substance* is not there. Sure the exact language is not used but language–to reiterate a critical point–is not math, a timeless system that transcends time and place. Just for fun and to beat a dead horse, in language, two does not always mean two numerically. I am of two minds right now. Should I post this or not? Do I want to fight this battle or read Spinoza? Are you looking for twos or substance?
In order to have any idea what’s linguistically happening in the confessions, one must be immersed in the *primary* sources leading up to and surrounding the confessional documents. You never said this much, but I think that you are reading your own twenty-first century assumptions, use of language, and understanding back into the seventeenth and sixteenth century documents. With respect to historical confessional documents, it’s inductive discipline, not deductive; it’s descriptive, not prescriptive. The fact that you use Amyraldianism as an analogy to defend your position elucidates your lack of historical consciousness and thus your lack of an appreciation of how theological language is fluidly used in different contexts. Are you sure that you can account for what republication language looks like in the seventeenth and sixteenth century? Again, is the substance there? I have read all the confessional documents and a considerable amount of the seventeenth and sixteenth century theological literature, both Lutheran and Reformed. Republication is implicitly–if not explicitly–in the WCF.
One last question: is the substance of republication in the WCF? If “Nein”, then I guess that your present precision is my historical imprecision. Yeah, I don’t get that either!
All the best,
Joshua
Joshua,
Thank you for your response. So far I understand what you’re saying. I believe the primary sources (of Reformed theologians) assist us in understanding the Confession, but they do not define what the Confession says. As an example of when external sources go beyond simply “assisting” our interpretation to “defining” our interpretation, witness the problem of some when they force biblical covenants into extra-biblical covenant categories.
You said: “This covenant [of grace]was *differently* administered…under the law…What is the different administration in the overarching covenant of grace? The law, and thus there was a republication, which reflected the moral law that was embedded in creation (covenant of works).”
Since we’re speaking in mathematical terms, let me admit in response that there are two equations presupposed in your analysis that I disagree with: (1) Law = Covenant of Works. (2) Creation = Covenant of Works.
The law was written on our hearts, but our hearts are not the law. The law is not a covenant. The law was written on our hearts at creation but creation is not a covenant. The law always exists as an expression of God’s righteousness and no promise is attached to it. Covenant, on the other hand, is a condescension on God’s part toward his creature. Until God spoke the word to Adam, there was no covenant. Until God spoke, there was no promise attached to the law.
The problem with your view is that when you see the word “law” you equate that with “covenant of works” automatically, and then read that into the Confession. I believe this is a mistake. If you want to talk about republication of the moral law, I have no problem with that — the Confession says that the moral law was republished at Sinai (Chapter 19). But it doesn’t say that the moral law, as a covenant of works, was republished at Sinai. The Confession goes out of its way to explain that believers (even OT believers) are never under the law as a covenant of works.
If you want to read more on this, I’ve offered some arguments on my blog (just click my name and see the post made on July 24, “Do the Westminster Standards Teach…”). I’d rather you read it there than me type it all out again.
I appreciate the interaction we’ve had so far. Thanks, brother.
The Lord be with you,
Casey
To all here (guests of Dr. Clark, I understand, and I’m not being negative towards anybody) again, to all here who apparently havn’t yet lassoed the basics of Federal Theology down in understanding (or who have and just don’t cotton to it but don’t want to come out and say that directly for whatever reasons):
What law do you think Jesus was born under?
Considering Jesus came to fulfill what the first Adam failed to fulfill don’t you see a little bit of a parallel between the Covenant of Works and the law given on Sinai?
Finally: is it that eternally confusing to see that the Mosaic Covenant was a covenant of works *for Jesus* and *in that* was part of the Covenant of Grace for us who believe?
As the Thomas Boston era Federal theologians would say: there is only one way to be saved: works. Either Jesus’ or your own. Good luck if you rely on your own.
Casey,
Are you aware of how Olevianus and Ursinus, to name two, related law and the covenant of works, of how Ursinus defined the law and how he defined the covenant of works?
Dr Clark,
It seems you’ve missed my questions above. I’m patiently waiting for a response. Thanks.
presumption |priˈzəmp sh ən|
noun
1 an act or instance of taking something to be true or adopting a particular attitude toward something, esp. at the start of a chain of argument or action : the presumption of guilt has changed to a presumption of innocence.
• an idea that is taken to be true, and often used as the basis for other ideas, although it is not known for certain : underlying presumptions about human nature.
• chiefly Law an attitude adopted in law or as a matter of policy toward an action or proposal in the absence of acceptable reasons to the contrary : the planning policy shows a general presumption in favor of development.
2 behavior perceived as arrogant, disrespectful, and transgressing the limits of what is permitted or appropriate: he lifted her off the ground and she was enraged at his presumption.
Casey,
Just because I engage the combox doesn’t mean that I’m obligated to submit to every demand on my time.
Strange you should think it arrogant and disrespectful for someone to put a few questions to you. Conversation is a two-way street, Dr. Clark.
“The law was written on our hearts, but our hearts are not the law. The law is not a covenant. The law was written on our hearts at creation but creation is not a covenant. The law always exists as an expression of God’s righteousness and no promise is attached to it. Covenant, on the other hand, is a condescension on God’s part toward his creature. Until God spoke the word to Adam, there was no covenant. Until God spoke, there was no promise attached to the law.”
Casey,
The moral law was written on our hearts in the imago dei, and the Law was given as a covenant according to the standards. I do appreciate that you hold the standards in a high esteem, but we need to pay attention in the way in which the Law was given. It was not given in isolation from a covenant, but it was given as a covenant:
19.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.[1]
Even the Law that was given on Sinai was given as a covenant. Chapter 19:1 for example points to Sinai for proof of the covenant of works. Gal 3:10 says: “For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.”
Since you are a partaker of the Covenant of Grace, do you abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them? If not, it says in this verse that are you are cursed.
Also which book of the Law is this passage referring to?
When Paul speaks about the the curse of the Law, which covenant will one be cursed if they don’t abide by all things written in the Book of the Law?
What are the curses for disobedience and what are the blessings for obedience?
Could you explain to me how you also deal with Galations 4:21-28?
Easy Casey, don’t push it. Dr. Clark is the host and a very busy man. You are a visitor and his quest. I think it was your hidden tone of hurry up I’m standing here waiting and “it seems you missed my questions above” can sound a little haughty. There aren’t any smiles here to use to clarify your tone. So, I would take his words as a friendly and gracious warning to back off. He will get to the questions if he wants to and if he has time. There is no room for complaining here. I’m sure you understand.
Casey,
Hmm, I dunno… reading something like Jeremiah 33:20-26, doesn’t it seem a bit of an overstatement to say that creation is not a covenant?
I’m also not entirely clear what you think people mean by a republication of the covenant of works. I’m also a bit confused why you’d isolate unbelief as breaking a covenant of grace… isn’t unbelief fundamental in breaking a covenant of works? Isn’t a better way to contrast works and grace on the one hand by personal performance, on the other by free gift through the performance of another (in this case, the Triune God, cf. WCF VII.2-3)?
Darren blogged at 1:48am!
Dr. Clark, please forgive me if my comments sounded disrespectful towards you.
A great thread of comments. May I add:
WLC-
Question 20: What was the providence of God toward man in the estate in which he was created?
Answer: The providence of God toward man in the estate in which he was created, was the placing him in paradise, appointing him to dress it, giving him liberty to eat of the fruit of the earth; putting the creatures under his dominion, and ordaining marriage for his help; affording him communion with himself; instituting the sabbath; entering into a covenant of life with him, upon condition of personal, perfect, and perpetual obedience, of which the tree of life was a pledge; and forbidding to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, upon the pain of death.
Question 22: Did all mankind fall in that first transgression ?
Answer: The covenant being made with Adam as a public person, not for himself only, but for his posterity, all mankind descending from him by ordinary generation, sinned in him, and fell with him in that first transgression.
Question 30: Does God leave all mankind to perish in the estate of sin and misery ?
Answer: God does not leave all men to perish in the estate of sin and misery, into which they fell by the breach of the first covenant, commonly called the covenant of works; but of his mere love and mercy delivers his elect out of it, and brings them into an estate of salvation by the second covenant,commonly called the covenant of grace.
Question 92: What did God at first reveal unto man as the rule of his obedience?
Answer: The rule of obedience revealed to Adam in the estate of innocence, and to all mankind in him, besides a special command not to eat of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, was the moral law.
Question 93: What is the moral law?
Answer: The moral law is the declaration of the will of God to mankind, directing and binding everyone to personal, perfect, and perpetual conformity and obedience thereunto, in the frame and disposition of the whole man, soul and body, and in performance of all those duties of holiness and righteousness which he owes to God and man: promising life upon the fulfilling, and threatening death upon the breach of it.
Question 98: Where is the moral law summarily comprehended?
Answer: The moral law is summarily comprehended in the ten commandments, which were delivered by the voice of God upon Mount Sinai, and written by him in two tables of stone; and are recorded in the twentieth chapter of Exodus. The four first commandments containing our duty to God, and the other six our duty to man.