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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 9 , Jan 17, 2010
    • 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 2 of 9 , Jan 19, 2010
      • 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 3 of 9 , Jan 19, 2010
        • 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.