Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

16895Re: Was the Mosiac Covenant a NEW Covenant of Works?

Expand Messages
  • bob_suden
    Jan 19, 2010

      "It appears"? We have to do better than that. I can't speak for Kline,
      or Escondido for that matter, but I can't say Kerux has got a handle on
      it either. At least I am not convinced so far.

      IOW IMO somebody wants to make somebody an offender for a word (K of E).
      The moral law was given in Genesis as a CoW was it not? Yes.
      The moral law was then given again at Sinai. Was it a CoW? No.
      Was it a republication as it were of the CoW. Yes, in content, but not
      in purpose or to the same end. IOW "Distinguish", as Turretin says.

      Did obedience to the Sinaitic law secure eternal salvation? No.
      Did it secure Israel's presence in the promised land? Read the prophets.
      Did they not repeatedly declaim Israel's disobedience - to the Mosaic
      covenant - moreover her again uncovenantal unbelief, as the reason for
      going into captivity? Yes. IOW arguably, you could say the Mosaic
      covenant was a temporal CoW of sorts, which is all I understand Kline or
      E to be saying.
      Mind you, I am not going to, because of all the hooraw, but it seems
      Kerux doesn't get all these distinctions reading their intro. FTM
      Bolton is orthodox, but hardly representative or the last word. Like the
      lapsarian debate there is a accepted range of belief present in reformed

      But maybe I'm wrong. I just don't know if I am up to steeling myself to
      wade through 176 pages on the web and I am too cheap to print it out.
      Much more again, I don't know that Kerux has earned the right to be
      taken seriously - and no, I haven't really started the Escondido book in
      question. So I'll shut up for now here - and catch up with you later


      --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com,
      "PuritanoPresbiteriano" <puritanpresbyterian@...> wrote:
      > Hey Bob!
      > It appears that WW is teaching/propagating Kline's view that the
      > covenant was meritorious, i.e. the way to earn God's favor and that is
      > what KERUX is raising the alarm about.
      > I am not as familiar with John Murray in respects to his view of the
      > to be able to honestly answer your questions/criticism of Murray in
      > respect, so until I have read Murray on this, I will have to postpone
      > answering those points you raise.
      > I agree that the CoW is a Reformed doctrine and taught by the
      > and the standards. No disagreement from me. But would you propose
      > they taught that by keeping the Mosaic covenant, man could be
      > before God or merit favor before God? If so, please cite the original
      > sources, not a modern writer stating that they did.
      > I disagree with your assessment of Lc 101. It may be that I do not
      > understand your point but I do not see where the keeping of the
      > Commandments merits favor with God. If anything, the Law is God's will
      > for man and what man was supposed to do as his basic reason for
      > "man's chief end & etc." Man violated this Law and fell. If Adam could
      > not keep it, much less sinful Israel at Sinai and afterwards.
      > my friend there are 3 uses of the Law. Your point is more along the
      > lines of what Zacharias Ursinus stated in his Commentary on the
      > Heidelberg Catechism when he states, that the keeping of the Mosaic
      > Covenant brought about temporal blessings, but at all time God always
      > required faith in Christ (even under Moses) for salvation, not the
      > keeping of the Mosaic covenant -- i.e. not a republication of the CoW.
      > See pages 98-99.
      > Further the Puritan divine Samuel Bolton in The True Bounds of
      > Freedom (Puritan Paperback edition) seems to refute your point,
      > especially Kline's intrepretation of the "republication of the CoW at
      > Sinai" and ergo the professors at West. West Seminary that are Kline's
      > disciples.
      > Read Bolton's chapter titled "Law and Grace". Especially pages 88 ff.
      > directly refutes the idea that the Mosaic Covenant is a republication
      > the Covenant of Works. His language is a clear and straighforward
      > refutation of this idea of republication.
      > As to your point 3. I am not familiar enough with Vos' view of
      > Biblical/Covenant Theology to address your criticism of Vos. But the
      > controversy over Biblical Theology did not start with Vos. Go back a
      > hundred years to the "tensions" between the Cocceians and the Voetians
      > in the Dutch Church. Witsius' Economy of the Covenants seeks to
      > reconcile the tension in Biblical Theology by stating that the best
      > to read the Scriptures is via the doctrine of the Covenants.
      > I am sure that those more familiar with both Vos and Murray will hotly
      > dispute that they are the forerunners of FV and those heresies.
      > I know this will not be very satisfactory to you Bob, but it is all I
      > can offer at this time. I cannot get into a long discussion as I used
      > be able to with others in the past. I have other pressing issues at
      > moment. I just wanted to bring that KREUX issue to everyone's
      > really.
      > I hope all is well with you besides. Drop me a line privately via
      > and let me know how things have been since our mutual exodus from
      > imperialistic presbyterianism...
      > ;-)
      > Your brother in Christ,
      > Edgar
      > --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "bob_suden"
      > bsuden@ wrote:
      > >
      > >
      > > --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com,
      > > "PuritanoPresbiteriano" puritanpresbyterian@ wrote:
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > This is being taught in at least one conservative Reformed
      > > > Read:
      > > >
      > > > http://www.kerux.com/pdf/Kerux%2024.3%20(Dec%202009).pdf
      > > > <http://www.kerux.com/pdf/Kerux%2024.3%20(Dec%202009).pdf>
      > > >
      > > Edgar,
      > >
      > > What is being taught?
      > > By Kerux/NW or by WW?
      > > John Murray questioned, if not disagreed with the WCF regarding the
      > > covenant of works (CoW), did he not?
      > >
      > > But
      > > 1. The CoW is hardly unreformed, being found in the Dutch reformed
      > > Staten Vertaling Bible called for by the Synod of Dordt and further
      > > developed by the Westminster Assembly and Turretin etc. See Rowland
      > > Ward's God and Adam (2003) for a brief survey of the CoW in reformed
      > > theology
      > > 2. Neither is republication of the CoW considered novel in reformed
      > > theology. Sinai is generally admitted to be a cov. of grace
      > administered
      > > in a legal fashion, the preface (L.Cat. 101) declaring the reason
      > > obedient gratitude and grateful obedience being the Israelites'
      > > deliverance from Eygpt, the house of bondage and typical of sin.
      > > Further, that obedience to the 10 commandments is to be rewarded by
      > > remaining in the Promised Land in this life is hardly unusual either
      > or
      > > a contradiction of the covenant of grace.
      > > 3. Kerux seems to confuse Kline's view with the above, if Kline
      > > is that different or adds to it. But that said, Kerux seems to be
      > > confused enough in general that they are hardly the last word, if WW
      > is
      > > really generating theological novelties. FTM Kerux/ NWSem. emphasis
      > > biblical theology and JVos itself could be said to be extreme.
      > > 4. Federal Vision, preceded by Norm Shepherd is generally taken as
      > > distant successor to JMurray's doctrinal infelicities. After all,
      > > claim JM in their denial of the CoW. But see Westminster East's
      > > Justified in Christ (2007) which reprints Murray's Imputation of
      > Adam's
      > > Sin and which accompanies West. West's Covenant, Justification and
      > > Pastoral Ministry (2007) in critiquing Fed. Vision.
      > >
      > > No?
      > >
      > > cordially
      > > Bob S
      > >
    • Show all 9 messages in this topic