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

Re: [Covenanted Reformation] Was the Mosiac Covenant a NEW Covenant of Works?

Expand Messages
  • Ben Rochester
    I have heard a great deal over the years at Westminster concerning their view. I have been essentially shooting in the dark on my own exploration of Covenant
    Message 1 of 9 , Jan 14, 2010
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      I have heard a great deal over the years at Westminster concerning their view. I have been essentially shooting in the dark on my own exploration of Covenant theology outside the Westminster hermeneutic. The problem at Westminster is that there is a blackballing of Murrayan Covenant theology.
       
      Can you direct me where to look on rescources that are more up to date than, yet following the vein of, Murray?
      -Ben

      --- On Wed, 1/13/10, PuritanoPresbiteriano <puritanpresbyterian@...> wrote:

      From: PuritanoPresbiteriano <puritanpresbyterian@...>
      Subject: Re: [Covenanted Reformation] Was the Mosiac Covenant a NEW Covenant of Works?
      To: covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com
      Date: Wednesday, January 13, 2010, 6:39 PM

       
      Hi Ben,
      Well, the link I provided is a review of Rev. Fesko's book he edited titled _The Law is not of Faith_ and the reviewers are very critical of the essays that appear in that book, to the point that they call the position espoused therein as heterodoxy.  They also view their review as a warning to the Reformed Church. 
      In fairness to both parties my take is this: If the reviewers are very serious and alarmed, then those that are in the same denomination as those they are critical of should resolve this in their respective  Church Courts.  Seems the OPC did something similiar in the case of Lee Irons. So take it there. If nothing is really done, then to me it is just some academic excercise that does not warrant people using the words "heterodox" and such.  No Church discipline equals No Church.
      Ben, I refer you, again in fairness to this point, to one of your professors Dr. Clark, who has given a reply to the reviewers. I think with this info, you will have your question/concern addressed.
      Hope this helps?
      Edgar Ibarra
      a John Murray fan!

      --- In covenantedreformati onclub@yahoogrou ps.com, Ben Rochester <benrochester@ ...> wrote:
      >
      > I am a John Murray sympathetic student at Westminster West. I would like more information on this if you could point it out to me.
      >
      > Benjamin Rochester
      > --- On Tue, 1/12/10, PuritanoPresbiteria no puritanpresbyterian @... wrote:
      >
      >
      > From: PuritanoPresbiteria no puritanpresbyterian @...
      > Subject: [Covenanted Reformation] Was the Mosiac Covenant a NEW Covenant of Works?
      > To: covenantedreformati onclub@yahoogrou ps.com
      > Date: Tuesday, January 12, 2010, 1:43 PM
      >
      >
      >  
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > This is being taught in at least one conservative Reformed Seminary. Read:
      > http://www.kerux. com/pdf/Kerux% 2024.3%20( Dec%202009) .pdf
      > .
      >

    • bob_suden
      ... 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?
      Message 2 of 9 , Jan 17, 2010
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com,
        "PuritanoPresbiteriano" <puritanpresbyterian@...> wrote:
        >
        >
        > This is being taught in at least one conservative Reformed Seminary.
        > 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 for
        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 really
        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 on
        biblical theology and JVos itself could be said to be extreme.
        4. Federal Vision, preceded by Norm Shepherd is generally taken as the
        distant successor to JMurray's doctrinal infelicities. After all, both
        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
      • PuritanoPresbiteriano
        Ben, To be honest I am ignorant of modern resources that follow the vein of Murray. This is not to say there isn t any, I am just not very familiar with
        Message 3 of 9 , Jan 17, 2010
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          Ben,

          To be honest I am ignorant of modern resources that follow the vein of Murray.  This is not to say there isn't any, I am just not very familiar with modern works as I am of the works of the past.

          Not knowing what you have already read, please indulge me as I offer some suggestions for reading that may help you out here.

          John Murray has a small booklet out called "The Covenant of Grace", my edition was published by P&R publishing. It is always good to start reading the source themselves and then go after those that "follow" him in his view of the Covenant of Grace & see how they compare besides reading those that are critical of Murray, you can then see if they are right in their criticism or not.

          However I did read the first half of a modern work, now that I think of it. It is by Rev. O. Palmer Robertson, titled "The Christ of the Covenants".  Not sure exactly where he sides in respect to Meredith Kline and John Murray as it has been a long time since I read this book.  But I do find the following footnote of his to be very telling.  Now the edition I have was published in 1980, & he saw an issue with Kline's view of the Mosiac Covenant.  The footnote is found in the section titled "Moses: The Covenant of Law". The footnote in my edition (P&R Publishing, 1980) is on pages 174-175 & Rev. Robertson writes the following statement that he then footnotes. I will quote the statement then the footnote, in case you or the other readers do not have this book:

                 "Throughout the Mosaic period of law-covenant, God considered as righteous everyone who believed in him. <sup>7</sup>"
          Footnote:
                 "The language of Meredith Kline is misleading on this point.  His desire to maintain the distinctive emphasis of the law-covenant may be appreciated.  But his statements too easily could be understood in a legalistic fashion.  He interprets Paul as saying that the Sinaitic covenant "made inheritance to be by law, not by promise - not by faith, but by works" (By Oath Consigned, p. 23 authored by Meredith Kline).
                "The distinctiveness of the Mosaic covenant resides in its externalized form of law-administration.  But the law under Moses cannot be understood as opening a new way of attaining salvation for God's people.  Israel must maintain the law, not in order to enter the favored condition of the covenant of redemption, but in order to continue in the blessings of the covenantal relationship after having been empowered to do so through their covenantal onesness-with-God experienced by grace alone through faith alone.  Under both the Mosaic and Abrahamic covenants man experienced redemption by grace through faith in the work of the Christ who was to live and die in the place of sinners."

          His following paragraph starts out as such:
          "For this reason, the covenant of law as revealed at Sinai would best be divorced from "covenant of works" terminology."

          I find this very telling and an indication that Kline was taking the Mosaic covenant to a place the Bible never does and inventing a new "Covenant Theology".  To be honest there are a few things I do not like about Kline's theology in general, this is one glaring one.  The other is his Framework Hypothesis (which Westminster Sem. in CA champions). But that is another story...

          Regarding writings of the past I offer these in respect to the Covenants:

          Francis Turrentin's "Institutes of Elenctic Theology" vol. 2 pp. 169-270

          Wilhelmus a Brakel's "The Christian's Reasonable Service" vol. 4 the Appendix.

          Herman Witsius' "The Economy of the Covenants between God & Man" vol. 1 pp. 41-164 & vol. 2 pp. 108-187

          James H. Thornwell's "Collected Writings" vol. 2 section I Outline of the Covenant of Grace

          Not sure how much help this is, but I hope it is some help.

          Let me know what you think.

          Yours in Christ our Kinsman-Redeemer,

          Edgar Ibarra
          P.S.
          I offer this article to you as well:
          http://www.westminsterconfession.org/the-doctrines-of-grace/the-covenant-of-grace.php


          --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, Ben Rochester <benrochester@...> wrote:
          >
          > I have heard a great deal over the years at Westminster concerning their view. I have been essentially shooting in the dark on my own exploration of Covenant theology outside the Westminster hermeneutic. The problem at Westminster is that there is a blackballing of Murrayan Covenant theology.
          >  
          > Can you direct me where to look on rescources that are more up to date than, yet following the vein of, Murray?
          >
          > -Ben
          >
          > --- On Wed, 1/13/10, PuritanoPresbiteriano puritanpresbyterian@... wrote:
          >
          >
          > From: PuritanoPresbiteriano puritanpresbyterian@...
          > Subject: Re: [Covenanted Reformation] Was the Mosiac Covenant a NEW Covenant of Works?
          > To: covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com
          > Date: Wednesday, January 13, 2010, 6:39 PM
          >
          >
          >  
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > Hi Ben,
          > Well, the link I provided is a review of Rev. Fesko's book he edited titled _The Law is not of Faith_ and the reviewers are very critical of the essays that appear in that book, to the point that they call the position espoused therein as heterodoxy.  They also view their review as a warning to the Reformed Church. 
          > In fairness to both parties my take is this: If the reviewers are very serious and alarmed, then those that are in the same denomination as those they are critical of should resolve this in their respective  Church Courts.  Seems the OPC did something similiar in the case of Lee Irons. So take it there. If nothing is really done, then to me it is just some academic excercise that does not warrant people using the words "heterodox" and such.  No Church discipline equals No Church.
          > Ben, I refer you, again in fairness to this point, to one of your professors Dr. Clark, who has given a reply to the reviewers. I think with this info, you will have your question/concern addressed.
          > http://heidelblog. wordpress. com/?s=KERUX
          > Hope this helps?
          > Edgar Ibarra
          > a John Murray fan!
          >
          > --- In covenantedreformati onclub@yahoogrou ps.com, Ben Rochester <benrochester@ ...> wrote:
          > >
          > > I am a John Murray sympathetic student at Westminster West. I would like more information on this if you could point it out to me.
          > >
          > > Benjamin Rochester
          > > --- On Tue, 1/12/10, PuritanoPresbiteria no puritanpresbyterian @... wrote:
          > >
          > >
          > > From: PuritanoPresbiteria no puritanpresbyterian @...
          > > Subject: [Covenanted Reformation] Was the Mosiac Covenant a NEW Covenant of Works?
          > > To: covenantedreformati onclub@yahoogrou ps.com
          > > Date: Tuesday, January 12, 2010, 1:43 PM
          > >
          > >
          > >  
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > > This is being taught in at least one conservative Reformed Seminary. Read:
          > > http://www.kerux. com/pdf/Kerux% 2024.3%20( Dec%202009) .pdf
          > > .
          > >
          >
        • PuritanoPresbiteriano
          Hey Bob! It appears that WW is teaching/propagating Kline s view that the Mosaic covenant was meritorious, i.e. the way to earn God s favor and that is what
          Message 4 of 9 , Jan 17, 2010
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            Hey Bob!

            It appears that WW is teaching/propagating Kline's view that the Mosaic 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 CoW to be able to honestly answer your questions/criticism of Murray in this 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 reformers and the standards. No disagreement from me.  But would you propose that they taught that by keeping the Mosaic covenant, man could be justified 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 living; "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.  Remember 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 Christian 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. He directly refutes the idea that the Mosaic Covenant is a republication of 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 few 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 way 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 to be able to with others in the past. I have other pressing issues at the moment. I just wanted to bring that KREUX issue to everyone's attention really.

            I hope all is well with you besides. Drop me a line privately via email 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 Seminary.
            > > 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 for
            > 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 really
            > 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 on
            > biblical theology and JVos itself could be said to be extreme.
            > 4. Federal Vision, preceded by Norm Shepherd is generally taken as the
            > distant successor to JMurray's doctrinal infelicities. After all, both
            > 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
            >
          • Ben Rochester
            Yes, Murray did not agree with the typical formulation of the CoW. However, his view is not a denial of a works principle in the Garden (See his Romans
            Message 5 of 9 , Jan 19, 2010
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment
              Yes, Murray did not agree with the typical formulation of the CoW. However, his view is not a denial of a works principle in the Garden (See his Romans Commentary, on ch 5.). Kline and various followers saw the CoW as republicated in the Mosaic Administration. Therefore the land, given to Abraham's descendants as a gracious promise has to be kept by obedience to the Covenant of Works (See his Duet Commentary in Wycliffe). This second issue is usually the one in sight of the discussion. Murray held that the Law was indeed types and shadows, but the moral equity remains, the Ten Comandments. Kline sees the Ten Commandments as tied inexorably to the Mosaic administration, therefore the life norms have changed in the NT (See Structure of Biblical Athority).

              There is a tendency in Kline/Murray debate to confuse the concepts of CoW and Mosaic Administration of the CoG. The Kerux article primarily seeks to defend Murray's view of the Mosaic Law (which is the mainstream Reformed Scholastic view, cf Bolton Bounds of Christian Freedom, Fairbairn, The Revelation of Law in Scripture). Murray's view of the Law is the Confession's view. Kline's view of the CoW is the Confession's view (these are general categories, both are nuanced).

              As a confessional Presbyterian, I hope that helps further discussion.

              Ben,



              --- On Sun, 1/17/10, PuritanoPresbiteriano <puritanpresbyterian@...> wrote:

              From: PuritanoPresbiteriano <puritanpresbyterian@...>
              Subject: [Covenanted Reformation] Re: Was the Mosiac Covenant a NEW Covenant of Works?
              To: covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com
              Date: Sunday, January 17, 2010, 9:39 PM

               

              Hey Bob!

              It appears that WW is teaching/propagatin g Kline's view that the Mosaic 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 CoW to be able to honestly answer your questions/criticism of Murray in this 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 reformers and the standards. No disagreement from me.  But would you propose that they taught that by keeping the Mosaic covenant, man could be justified 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 living; "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.  Remember 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 Christian 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. He directly refutes the idea that the Mosaic Covenant is a republication of 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 few 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 way 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 to be able to with others in the past. I have other pressing issues at the moment. I just wanted to bring that KREUX issue to everyone's attention really.

              I hope all is well with you besides. Drop me a line privately via email and let me know how things have been since our mutual exodus from imperialistic presbyterianism. ..

              ;-)

              Your brother in Christ,

              Edgar


              --- In covenantedreformati onclub@yahoogrou ps.com, "bob_suden" <bsuden@...> wrote:
              >
              >
              > --- In covenantedreformati onclub@yahoogrou ps.com,
              > "PuritanoPresbiteri ano" puritanpresbyterian @ wrote:
              > >
              > >
              > > This is being taught in at least one conservative Reformed Seminary.
              > > 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 for
              > 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 really
              > 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 on
              > biblical theology and JVos itself could be said to be extreme.
              > 4. Federal Vision, preceded by Norm Shepherd is generally taken as the
              > distant successor to JMurray's doctrinal infelicities. After all, both
              > 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
              >


            • bob_suden
              Edgar, 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
              Message 6 of 9 , Jan 19, 2010
              View Source
              • 0 Attachment
                Edgar,

                "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
                theology.

                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
                elsewhere.

                regards!
                BobS


                --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com,
                "PuritanoPresbiteriano" <puritanpresbyterian@...> wrote:
                >
                > Hey Bob!
                >
                > It appears that WW is teaching/propagating Kline's view that the
                Mosaic
                > 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
                CoW
                > to be able to honestly answer your questions/criticism of Murray in
                this
                > 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
                reformers
                > and the standards. No disagreement from me. But would you propose
                that
                > they taught that by keeping the Mosaic covenant, man could be
                justified
                > 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
                living;
                > "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.
                Remember
                > 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
                Christian
                > 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.
                He
                > directly refutes the idea that the Mosaic Covenant is a republication
                of
                > 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
                few
                > 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
                way
                > 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
                to
                > be able to with others in the past. I have other pressing issues at
                the
                > moment. I just wanted to bring that KREUX issue to everyone's
                attention
                > really.
                >
                > I hope all is well with you besides. Drop me a line privately via
                email
                > 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
                Seminary.
                > > > 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
                for
                > > 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
                really
                > > 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
                on
                > > biblical theology and JVos itself could be said to be extreme.
                > > 4. Federal Vision, preceded by Norm Shepherd is generally taken as
                the
                > > distant successor to JMurray's doctrinal infelicities. After all,
                both
                > > 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
                > >
                >
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.