SRR 93 Brandon Adams on Covenant Theology & Republication, Part II

I do a podcast.

I'm not interested in your podcast. The anathema of God was for those who denied justification by faith alone. When that is at stake, we need to be on the battlefield, exposing the error and combating the error.

We are unabashedly, unashamedly Clarkian. And so, the next few statements that I'm going to make, I'm probably going to step on all of the Vantillian toes at the same time. And this is what we do at Simple Riff around the radio, you know.

We are polemical and polarizing Jesus style.

I would first say that to characterize what we do as bashing is itself bashing. It's not hate. It's history. It's not bashing. It's the Bible. Jesus said, Woe to you when men speak well of you, for their fathers used to treat the false prophets in the same way, as opposed to blessed are you when you have been persecuted for the sake of righteousness.

It is on. We're taking the gloves off. It's time to battle.

Part Two on John Murray, the Covenant of Works, and Subscription

All right, ladies and gentlemen, welcome back to the podcast. My name is Tim Shaughnessy, and you are listening to Semper Reformanda Radio. So, this is going to be part two in our discussion with Brandon Adams.

And I just want to give a big thanks to Brandon. This should have been out a while ago, but I got pretty busy with the new baby at home and just haven't had time to edit it. So, if you remember in part one, we left off with Brandon talking about how John Murray denied the covenant of works.

And this was new to me, at least, and I think new to Carlos as well. And so that's where we're going to be picking up today. If you have any questions or comments, you can email us at semper .reformanda .radio at gmail .com.

Big thanks to Brandon, and hope you get something out of it. God bless. This is interesting because I thought, and I'm going to have to go back and listen to this, because I thought I heard Sam Waldron argue that Murray did not deny the covenant of works.

So, this is really interesting.

Yeah, and now I'm even more curious because when you read the report, I read through the introduction at least, and they give the impression that Murray is still sound, that he's still within the bounds of Westminster orthodoxy.

And, I mean, if he denies the covenant of works, then that's obviously not, you're not, you don't subscribe to the confession plainly. So that was, I guess I was kind of misled by what the report says.

Westminster Subscription, Murray, and the OPC Report

Yeah, well, it gets super, super complicated. So part of the issue is a matter of subscription. And I've got all this worked out in an article we can link to so people can read it in more detail. But it comes down to the matter of subscription.

You know, are you allowed to take exceptions to parts of the confession and still remain orthodox and part of the OPC? And so thus far, it has been the case. So ever since the original Westminster confession, theologians were allowed to take exception.

And that goes back to the historical context of it being a national model for churches. But even J .B. Fesco, right, who is completely opposed to Murray's theology, in an essay that he has about the nature of subscription says, Yeah, John Murray denied the covenant of works, but he still held the confession just fine because you can do that.

So that's part of it. The OPC report. So a lot of those guys follow Murray and they have tried to use Westminster 7 .1 to say, to really emphasize the gracious aspect and to try to say that's all Murray meant.

But they're leaving out Murray's argument regarding the works principle specifically. And they're neglecting the fact that even though it was a condescension on God's part, it was still a covenant of works.

It was still founded upon covenantal obedience, covenantal merit. And that's what Murray specifically denied.

Well, let me ask you this. I spoke to a reformed theologian, and I'm not going to name who it is because I didn't even ask him for permission to say this. But he basically said that his confidence in the OPC and its committee has really ceased when the OPC failed to deal with Shepard's false gospel, Gaffin's false gospel, Kinnard's false gospel, and failed to deal with Westminster Seminary in Philadelphia.

And so what confidence can we have in the OPC report in light of the fact that, and Carlos, you were even talking about this with me on the phone earlier, is that the OPC sort of made a debacle of the Clark Van Teel controversy and went after the wrong guy.

Yeah, in the same way, that's the impression I got from reading the report, that they went after the wrong guy again, which was Klein, and they defended the wrong guy. And now they're sort of like, it's almost like they were on the wrong side of the fence.

Very similar to the Clark Van Teel controversy, but yeah.

Yeah, well, I would say a few things. I would say, first of all, yeah, for those reasons, you should not have confidence. You should not assume necessarily that the report is correct. You should study the issue on your own thoroughly before coming to any conclusion one way or another.

Personally, I've been studying the issue for 10 years, and I found the OPC report to be one of the best documents explaining the historical theology and the view of the Westminster Confession on this issue.

I don't agree with the OPC on a number of issues, but with regards to this republication debate, that report is one of the most helpful in understanding the historical context and the historical theology.

Conversely, the republication guys, by and large, their historical theology is very poor. And when I've taken the time to go and look up the original sources and read them in their own context, I have found that they have misunderstood and misused them time and time and time again.

So, you know, you can't take my word for it. You shouldn't take the OPC words for it. You should study the issue yourself. And you shouldn't simply dismiss it just because of the history of Sheppard and Murray.

You should study it on its own terms and conditions there. But I think that there is a natural progression from Murray to Sheppard. I don't think that Sheppard agreed with Murray on every point. I think he took it a step further.

Murray denied, and I have another article on the background of the OPC report going into more detail on this, but if there is no Adamic covenant of works, Murray denied that, then there is no law gospel distinction.

And that's what Sheppard denied. The law gospel distinction is specifically the distinction between the covenant of works and the covenant of grace. If there is no covenant of works, then there is no law gospel distinction.

And that's where Sheppard took Murray a step further. And there's one other quick note here. In the 40s, Murray was actually the head of a committee in the OPC to review and revise and adapt and add new proof text to the Westminster Standards as used by the OPC.

So I mentioned that the Leviticus 18 .5 was not used in the original Westminster Confession as a proof text for the covenant of works. It was actually not cited anywhere in the standards for anything.

However, under Murray's direction, the OPC added it, Leviticus 18 .5, as a proof text to Westminster 19 .6. So 19 .6 says, Although true believers be not under the law as a covenant of works to be thereby justified or condemned, yet it is of great use to them as well as to others.

And that as a rule of life and forming them of the will of God and their duty, it directs and binds them to walk accordingly, discovering also the sinful pollutions of their nature, hearts and lives. So as examining themselves thereby, they may come to further conviction of humiliation for and hatred against sin, together with a clearer sight of the need they have of Christ and the perfection of his obedience.

It is likewise of use to the regenerate to restrain their corruptions in that it forbids sin and the threatenings of it serve to show what even their sins deserve and what afflictions in this life they may expect for them.

Although freed from the curse thereof threatening the law, the promises of it in like manner show them God's approbation of obedience and what blessings they may expect upon the performance thereof. That last section right there regarding the threatenings and the promises of the law in the life of the believer is what Murray added Leviticus 18 .5 as a proof text for.

That's pretty substantial and it shows a logical conclusion of where this all leads. Leviticus 18 .5 is stating the principle of the life in the life of the believer.

Yeah, there's a lot to learn here.

It's a huge topic, yeah.

Covenant Theology, Clarkianism, and Leviticus 18:5

Well, is this the area of theology that you have studied the most? I mean, it's not something that I've studied as in depth as you, and so I really can't comment on too much of what you've said. I can just listen and then maybe go back and read the stuff that you've tried to point to.

But is this an area of expertise for you?

Yeah, if I have any expertise at all, I guess this would be it. Not claiming that I do, but yes, this has taken up my focus for the last 10 years or so, covenant theology and just unraveling the implications of these things.

And, you know, my Clarkianism shows through in a lot of this in that I demand logical precision and drawing out ideas to their necessary conclusions and showing where they lead. And I think that's what this discussion here of the Westminster view and its understanding of Leviticus 18 .5 shows.

You know, I think Leviticus 18 .5 really is a crux here in the covenantal debate and in baptism and all of that.

Right. So this is a good springboard now to talk about a little bit about the Baptist side of things. So Leviticus 18 .5, do this and live. The way Reformed Baptists reconcile that is that they just basically say that the Mosaic covenant is not part of the covenant of grace and that it's temporal.

It's tied to temporal blessings. Right. But now, could you explain for us what are the different, or I guess the major different, Reformed Baptist views? Because I've heard that there's basically two, and I was actually surprised to hear that.

Because my understanding was that, by and large, Reformed Baptists were Federalists, 1689 Federalists. But I've heard you make some comments on other podcasts about there being other views, I think it's primarily another view.

And I also heard another podcast from the Confessing Baptists where they interviewed, I forget what his name was, but he's one of the leaders in ARCA. And he doesn't hold to 1689 Federalism. So that really surprised me.

So could you just kind of take the time and sort of explain the different Reformed Baptist views for us?

Sure, yeah, I appreciate the question. So, some of the history here, confessionalism, Baptist confessionalism, kind of died out in the beginning of the 20th century. James Ranahan talks a little bit about this, explains it in his chapter in the volume, Recovering a Covenantal Heritage.

So he talks about certain various influences, just kind of a depreciation of theology as a whole led to the downfall of confessionalism amongst Baptists. And just kind of fell out of favor, and by God's sovereign grace, some of it was through A .W. Pink's writings, put into the hands of certain men.

Anyways, in the 1950s or so, there was this spontaneous resurgence of Baptists holding to Calvinism. And they grew steadily from that time on and kind of had to relearn a lot of these things as there wasn't a continuous heritage there teaching them.

So a lot of them had to relearn a lot of it. A lot of it was geographically in the Westminster, Philadelphia region. And they wound up learning a lot from Westminster Seminary, from John Murray specifically and the other theologians there.

And so they more or less cut their teeth on Murray's theology. But they maintained their Baptist convictions. They saw that there were a lot of contradictions and lack of biblical support. But in developing their covenant theology, they more or less adopted the Westminster conviction that all the post-fall covenants were administrations of the covenant of grace.

And so they would argue that, yeah, in the Abrahamic administration, the covenant of grace, children were included. They received the sign. But in the new covenant administration, things have progressed.

We now understand the gospel more fully and that was types and shadows. And so children are now no longer included in the administration of the covenant of grace. So they would kind of make this progressive argument.

But they would argue that the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants were the covenant of grace. And they would tend to view the Mosaic law as a gracious giving of the law, not as the law as a covenant of works.

Although it's very interesting. You mentioned somebody on the Confessing Baptist there. If it's the same one I'm thinking of, he stated he doesn't hold to 1689 federalism and has some concerns with it.

But he also specifically quoted Samuel Bolton as articulating his own view.

I think it might be the same guy. Yeah, that sounds familiar.

Yeah, and as warning against what he saw as certain problems with 1689 federalism. The really interesting point there is Samuel Bolton held to this subservient covenant position, which is basically the same as 1689 federalism's view of the Mosaic covenant.

So in that particular instance, the disagreement stems from just a misunderstanding or lack of understanding of the position more than anything else. But by and large, sorry, I'm getting ahead of myself here.

But as time progressed and people had a little more opportunity to go back to some older sources. And maybe just to look at Scripture in a different manner, not necessarily influenced by Murray and some of the other theologians.

They saw that that's not necessarily the case. I mean, that was my path here. I started studying it when I was teaching Bible study through Genesis. And I started studying covenant theology. And what I was reading didn't line up with what I thought Scripture was saying.

And then through the course of talking with people, I started to get led towards John Owen and some of the Nehemiah Cox and some of these historical guys. But it was a very small voice that was saying these things.

So I thought that voice needed to be heard more prominently. And so now we have that view. People understand that view. And it seems to be a lot of people hold it today. But a lot of the guys who have been in the ministry for a very long time, who dedicated their lives there, who spent their lives studying and developing this older view, just haven't necessarily had the time in their busy schedules to try to understand and examine this new view.

And some of them who have still don't agree with every point of it. So that's kind of where we are today in a nutshell. A lot of the younger people are starting with 1689 federalism and understanding that and coming to agree with it.

Some other people haven't had time to study it yet.

Yeah. OK.

So essentially there's two views.

Yeah. Yeah.

More or less. So sorry, I forgot. Your question was also about Leviticus 18 .5. So the way that 1689 federalism would understand it is that the law was given to Israel, like you said, as a covenant of works, not for eternal life, but for temporal life and blessing in the land of Canaan.

So Mosaic curses and blessings for Israel in the land, famine and war and exile and things like that were upon the condition of obedience to Mosaic law. And again, just to clarify, 1689 federalism, it was just a label that was adopted.

It doesn't imply that the other view is contrary to the confession. It's not. The confession is the language is written broadly enough to embrace both views.

Yeah.

So does the other view have a name?

Not really. You know, I've referred to it as the 20th century Reformed Baptist view. I don't do that disparagingly. I just, you know, that's what's become prominent in the 20th century and what was developed by those men, you know, Sam Waldron, Earl Blackburn, Walt Chantry, James White, you know, guys like that held that view.

It was Earl Blackburn.

That's who it was.

Yeah.

I remember now. So, OK, so this is what really struck me, though, because it sounds like from what I've been from what I saw or from what I've been from what I've studied, that this view is almost an accident.

It's almost like an accident because I guess the original Reformed Baptist authors kind of got lost. And there was a you know, you kind of explained it already. But when when when Baptists started coming back, I guess, to to confessionalism and to Reformed theology, they they came back under Presbyterians.

And so, I mean, it's kind of it's a little odd to to see how things kind of manifested, because so James White, those guys you listed, James White, Earl Blackburn, Walt. And I didn't know Waldron. I thought Waldron was a Federalist, a 1689 Federalist.

There's, you know, since, you know, in the last whatever, five, 10 years or whatever, as we've been able to explain 1689 Federalism more and more, you know, Waldron specifically hasn't said a ton about it.

But he has studied it in some interaction that I've seen. He's very, very close to it, actually. He does. He does have a few points of disagreement. And the discussion, I think, has helped maybe clarify a few things.

So but he would he would disagree that only the New Covenant is the covenant of grace. He would say that the covenant of grace is an overarching covenant not identified with any covenant in Scripture.

But, you know, there are a lot of a lot of points where where he would agree.

So. Right.

But that's a pretty significant point there, because that's almost that's basically the difference between Presbyterians and Baptists. I mean, so and I remember that's really funny because I remember reading Walter Chantry.

He he has a you know, there's a there's a booklet on Chapel Library from Walter Chantry about the covenant of grace or something about the covenants. And I was kind of I wasn't sure what to make of it because I thought, OK, this guy is Reformed Baptist.

So why does he kind of sound a little bit Presbyterian? So is it kind of so he's one of those guys that is not.

He yeah, he graduated from Westminster, Philadelphia.

Yeah. Yeah.

And he's I mean, that's where his ministry was, was in that that geographic area. So he was very closely related with him and with Banner of Trust and things like that.

Right. But but he's not. So then he wouldn't be a Federalist 1689 Federalist that, you know. Correct. Yeah. OK. Yeah, that's that's really interesting.

Yeah. And, you know, part of it is that you actually can't point to a systematic. Fred Malone's is maybe the closest baptism of disciples alone. And he's actually, you know, leans pretty close to 1689 Federalism these days, from what I understand.

But but it's it's hard to point to, you know, they just they had a lot on their plate. They were dealing with a lot of things in their ministry. So writing out a full treatment of all the covenants and scripture wasn't wasn't a top priority.

So. Right. You know, it's an it's an ongoing conversation.

Right. And obviously you're the guy that runs the 1689 Federalism website, which is a really I've learned a ton from that website. I'm really grateful that you've been putting that stuff out there because it's helped me a lot.

And one of the things I appreciate about it is as I've studied this stuff in more detail, I've kind of had these sort of these these kind of like nudges or senses that something I want to verbalize it, but I haven't quite worked it out.

And when I start reading these guys, the 1689 Federalists, it's exactly what I kind of wanted to say all along, what I kind of thought all along. So I find it very it's I find it to be a very compelling, logically consistent view.

And I could see where you're going. I can see where you're coming from, because I guess you're saying, and I've heard some of your criticisms of Presbyterian covenant theology, that there's inherent contradictions.

Right. There's inherent instabilities in the system. And so that that is what can lead to some of these extremes like John Murray or what you explained in those situations. And so that's part of the reason why I'm not a Presbyterian myself, because I read Calvin discussing the differences between the old and the new covenants.

And he said it was basically just one of just administrative. And I was that really threw me off. It didn't really make sense with how how do you reconcile that with Ezekiel, where it talks about it's a new covenant, not like the or I'm sorry, Jeremiah 31.

Right. You know, it's not like the old covenant. It's going to be a new covenant. And so that sounds like a substantially different covenant.

But yeah. And it's you know, it's very interesting because Kleinians agree with our interpretation there.

They say, yeah, absolutely. Exactly. That's what's so funny about this.

Yeah. They just try to lean on Abraham and kind of leapfrog the Mosaic covenant.

Well, it's funny that it's yeah, it's really funny that you mentioned that, because that's what I was that's what I was joking with Pastor Hines about. That if you see if you see the Abrahamic covenant as a substantially grace, then and in having more in common with the new covenant than with the old covenant, then that's almost like by way of transitive property, you know, kind of like, well, that kind of puts you more in our camp because Moses doesn't really have that element to it.

You know, it's obviously very law oriented. There's a there's a major legal component tied to Moses that that's, you know, but.

The Mosaic Covenant, 1689 Federalism, and Reformed Baptist History

Yeah, I would just on that note, I would really encourage people to read Samuel Renahan's book. It really does a good job of showing how the 17th century particular Baptist came out of the congregationalist view.

And the congregationalists were the ones that understand understood this subservient covenant view. They rejected the Westminster view. And and he just does a really good job of showing step by step how recognizing the Mosaic covenant is a separate covenant, a covenant of works for life and land, how that acknowledgement necessarily leads to credo baptism.

And he he draws it out very well.

Yeah. So and he's one of the major guys. Right. I know he is. I think Richard Barcelos, Pascal, Pascal and all those are like the 1689ers that are kind of promoting or restoring, I guess you could say, you know, traditional reform Baptist theology.

So that this is where I'm really glad we're getting a chance to address this because I've had this on my mind for a long time. So you're saying to kind of recap a little bit, the the Presbyterian discussion on republication, it sounds like what you're saying is that these guys are Scott Clark, what basically Westminster West for the most part, J .B. Fesco, Scott Clark.

These guys, they attempted Klein, including Klein. They're attempting to reconcile some of these these these really strong tensions between Westminster federalism that sort of results in them sounding like reformed Baptist in some sense by acknowledging a works principle tied to the Abrahamic covenant.

But now but but what you're saying is that this is not what the original Westminster federalism. Right. Yeah. And that the the ones and on the other hand, like Westminster East, they are basically taking this to a more logical conclusion to as to what the position entails.

Westminster federalism entails, which can lead to some obviously very serious errors, including like a complete blurring of the law gospel distinction.

Right. Yeah. Yeah. And OK. Yeah. It all has to do with the covenant of works. And that's that's what it gets back to. And Murray showed that if Leviticus 18 to 5 is stating the condition of the covenant of grace, then there is no biblical support for a covenant operating on the works principle without him.

Yeah. Right. And all of this sounds awfully familiar to Piper. It's actually. Oh, absolutely. Yeah. I've got a post about that. He. Yeah. He and Doug Wilson. Doug Wilson says he agrees with Piper's interpretation or rejection of the covenant of works.

Right. And these guys lean on Shepherd. And yes, it all gets back to the covenant of works. And and, you know, Doug Wilson and those guys like that who try to, you know, try to claim some kind of confessional fidelity.

They'll they'll try to emphasize this gracious nature of the Adamic covenant of works and how God condescended and they'll try to somehow twist that into saying, well, you know, therefore it wasn't a covenant of works and it was all grace and yada yada yada.

Right. Right. So I really want to touch on this a little bit with respect to the law, because the law here. So I had some questions up here for you. Sure. There's there's a lot of verses in the New Testament that, you know, as we've kind of interacted with others and especially New Covenant guys on on issues tied to certain passages of like first and first Corinthians, you know, where Paul makes a distinction between those who are not under the law and those who are under the law.

And and being under the law of Christ and then the passage of Colossians 2, where it says that Christ's death blots out the handwriting of ordinances that were written against us. And and then we get to Galatians where Paul is talking about the law there.

So I wanted to ask you, how do you reconcile, you know, a lot of these passages that in some some of them seem to suggest that Gentiles in some way were under or guilty of the Mosaic law as a whole. And the other passages that seem to say that, well, those who are, you know, they're not under that law, but they are still under the moral law.

Right. Yeah, I think the fact goes, the issue goes back to the fact that there is overlap between the law written on the heart and the law that was given to Israel. So if we go to, you know, Romans 2, 14 to 15, Paul in that context is talking about Jews living up to and obeying the law that they have been given.

And then he says Gentiles have the law written on their hearts. Right. There's identity between the law in that context. He's saying the same law that you had revealed to you, the Gentiles have written on their heart.

So there is overlap in that sense. So that would just point to identity of commandments. But the question is, then, how does that relate to works and the law as a covenant of works? And in that sense, I believe that God gave in his providence.

He set up Israel as a type and a shadow. He set up the Mosaic covenant as a type and a shadow as a huge example for us to better understand not only the work of Christ, but also what was going on with Adam.

Because we don't have the written record of all the details of the Adamic covenant the way that we do with the Mosaic covenant. And so, for example, with Leviticus 18 .5, that's stating the condition of a covenant of works.

In its original context, it referred to temporal life in the land of Canaan. When Christ came, the type and shadow had become obsolete. And so Paul's argument is not about life in the land of Canaan. Paul's argument is about eternal life.

And he uses the written revelation of the Mosaic covenant as a springboard to discuss the Adamic covenant of works that binds all image bearers outside of Christ.

Right.

Right. So he can't appeal to the written record of the Adamic covenant, but he can appeal to the written record of the Mosaic covenant and say, see, this is the term here. If you do this, you will live.

But he's talking about the Adamic covenant that binds all people, if that makes sense.

Yes, it does. So now, how do you—I don't know if you read Clark's commentary on—oh, go ahead, Tim. Sorry.

That's fine. This is all very, very complex. I mean, this is deep theology. But let me see how I can put this. So in the covenant of works, God gave Adam certain conditions that he had to meet in order to earn a better status and eternal life.

So would it then—I mean, is this correct to say that the conditions for the covenant that God made with Jesus in the new covenant were to, in part, to fulfill basically everything that came in the law, in the Mosaic law.

And when Paul is basically saying that the Gentiles are under the law, what he's basically saying is that if they were to attempt to gain salvation through that law, that they would have to keep everything that Christ kept.

And so usually when we see that a person is—when it speaks of being under the law, it's with respect to regeneration or conversion, that you're either under the law, you're under the curse that the law brings, or you're under grace.

And so, I mean, is that—that's the way that I understood it.

Yeah, absolutely, yeah. So the moral law overlaps all of those things, right? Christ had to perfectly obey the moral law, which was part of the Mosaic covenant, part of the Adamic covenant. Christ also had various other positive laws.

He didn't have the law not to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, but he had the positive law to go to the cross and bear the sins of his people. He had these other positive laws to obey, and those were given to him in the covenant of redemption between the Father and the Son.

But yes, those—we're not under the law, but under grace, yeah, refers to life under Adam, life under Christ. The curse of the law refers to the curse of the covenant of works, and you escape from that only by being in Christ.

So yeah, I think what you said there is certainly in line.

Well, Carlos, I know that you were super excited to continue.

Yeah, sure. Okay, so Brandon, now—.

Sorry, let me throw one other note in real quick, because you had asked about Leviticus 18 .5 and how Paul quotes it and the law and all that. I would just say one other reference is I would really encourage people to read Brian Estelle's chapter about Leviticus 18 .5 in the book called The Law is Not a Faith.

You mentioned that earlier, put out by the Westminster West guys. I don't think that their historical theology chapters in that section are reliable, but his chapter is excellent and really explains things.

I agree with it quite a bit.

Colossians 2:14 and the Abrogation of the Mosaic Law

Yeah, yeah, I'm going to have to get my hands on that. Okay, so now Colossians 2 .14. I don't know if you've read Clark's commentary on Colossians, but—and if you're not prepared to answer this, it's fine.

I was just curious to see what you thought about this, because Clark, he argues that—I think it's in 2 .14. Yeah, having erased the bond with its stipulations that was against us, which was contrary to our interests and has lifted it out of our way, nailing it to the cross.

So he argues that this is talking about the entire Mosaic Law. And that would also basically put it that—so here, let me read this. And he's saying this because I think Calvin said that this was only referring to the ceremonial law.

But he's saying that it's—obviously that it's everything applied to both Jew and Gentile. So what do you make of that passage there?

Yeah, I mean, that certainly makes sense. I would have to study the passage more directly to comment too much. But yeah, I think that certainly makes sense. And yeah, it highlights an issue with the Westminster view.

They would tend to like to make the references to the law refer to the ceremonial law, primarily, in a lot of instances like that. Because they believe that, for example—and this is where a 1689 federalism argument against New Covenant theology is much different from a Westminster argument against New Covenant theology.

So Westminster would argue that the law was given on Mount Sinai to the church and it was never abrogated. So it comes to us believers through Mount Sinai and continues today. It was never abrogated, never made obsolete.

It continues into the New Covenant. The other judicial and ceremonial laws are abrogated, but not the moral law. So the moral law comes to Christians through Mount Sinai. And 1689 federalism would say, similar to how you just quoted Clark, no, the law was given to Israel as a covenant of works.

And that entire law—moral, ceremonial, and civil—that whole unit was abrogated together with the Old Covenant. We are not under that. We are under the moral law that binds all image bearers through the mediation of Christ who has forgiven us our sins for violating that law.

Right. So, okay, I'm really glad you touched on that point because I wanted to ask you this as well. My understanding of the Presbyterian and the Reformed Baptist view of the law specifically is that I thought that there was a fair amount of overlap.

I didn't think there was that much of a difference outside of maybe what you touched on with respect to the Mosaic Covenant. Because I thought that they basically held the same—outside of Theonomist, they have a little bit more going on there.

But I thought that Presbyterians and Baptists kind of held the same view with respect to the—because it's the moral law, right?

Yeah, it's very similar. It's just some important nuances. So, we both agree that the Ten Commandments—the moral law is summarily comprehended in the Ten Commandments. And that's the law that was written on the heart of all image bearers.

It's reflective of God's nature. It binds all people at all times. So, that's where we agree. Where we disagree is how we see the relationship between Mount Sinai and the Decalogue and Christians today.

So, a lot of New Covenant theologians will rightly disagree with Westminster when they hear these. That's part of why they reject the threefold division of the law, is because the way that Westminster tends to argue is they'll say, yeah, the ceremonial and the civil, that was abrogated.