Keep sharing good news without ads.
No description available
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 air and combating the air.
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.
All right. I want to welcome everybody back to the podcast. This is Tim Shaughnessy, not to be confused with Timothy F. Kaufman, who is doing his own series on Simple Riff around the radio. Just a real quick plug for that is the Diving Board, and that's going to be an ongoing series.
So I definitely want to recommend all of our listeners to check that out, especially if you're a Roman Catholic or if you know somebody who is a Roman Catholic. It is an outstanding series diving deep into history and theology.
So be sure to check that out. So for today's episode, I almost want to say he's a guest because he hasn't been on in a long time. But Carlos Montijo is here with me. He's not a guest, but it feels like he's a guest.
So, Carlos, welcome back to co-hosting the podcast with me. So, Carlos, you recently had a baby, and congratulations to you and Shay. A little baby girl.
Yeah, it's a baby, Angela Rosa. She was a healthy baby girl, and we've been—. I think that's—no, that's actually my other daughter crying. Yeah, it's good to be back on the show. It's been very eventful, but obviously we've been very busy here.
I know we've all been pretty busy, but I'm very excited about today's interview.
Well, I am too, and we are bringing Brandon Adams back on as a guest. And, Brandon, let me just say it's a pleasure to have you on, and let me welcome you to the show.
Hey, thanks for having me. Glad to be back.
So, let me just go ahead and let our listeners know that I might be taking a step back from the podcast for a little bit. My wife and I are about to have our fourth child, but that's what's going on, and I'll be busy for a few weeks, so I may not get to a podcast right away.
Just hang in there, though, because Carlos and I are going to come back and do a couple of episodes. One of them is we are going to tackle the John Piper issue again. And the reason for this is because Carlos is about to publish Part 2 of his article on John Piper.
Part 1 was divided into two articles on the Trinity Foundation, so you can check that out. And this is in addition to all of the other stuff that we've published on Piper. We're not letting this go because it's a gospel issue, because it is the gospel that's at stake.
And I find it interesting when everybody wants to label something as a gospel issue and it's not really a gospel issue. Well, rest assured, this is a gospel issue. So we're going to come back and we're going to tackle that.
And then, Carlos, you wanted to also tackle the critical race theory stuff that's going on. And hopefully we can get to that, but Carlos and I are both very busy right now, so hopefully we can get those episodes out to you soon.
But today we brought Brandon Adams back on to have a little bit of a post-debate interview. Now, this was actually a very popular episode on Thorn Crown Ministries. It got a lot of hits. I think it was the most popular episode that we've put out recently, actually.
It's at the top of the chart, yeah.
OK, it's at the top of the chart. And it was a debate between Brandon Adams and Pastor Patrick Hines. And, well, first of all, Brandon, I wanted to bring you on to give you an opportunity to respond to and acknowledge Pastor Hines' apology.
Some of you may have heard in the Protestant Witness podcast, the one that Pastor Hines does, recently he spoke a little bit on the debate, and he issued an apology to Brandon for being harsh. And, Brandon, I know that you guys talked over the phone as well, so I just wanted to give you an opportunity to publicly acknowledge that.
Give us your thoughts, and I'll let you comment on that.
Yeah, I was very encouraged by Pastor Hines' video response there. He and I actually had a chance to chat on the phone for quite a while before that, and I'm just very thankful for his apology and just for his willingness to continue discussing the issue.
It's just a great encouragement, a reminder of God's mercy towards us, that he can overcome differences that we have, and I'm susceptible to the same frustration and anger at times as well, so I certainly understand and gladly accept his apology there, and hoping we can continue the dialogue as we move forward.
He was very interested in—once he realized that I was saying something a bit unique, and there was something to this, he was very interested in learning more about it, and so he asked me for some book recommendations.
So he bought a few of the books, and he's going to read through them when he gets time, and hopefully we can chat some more when he does. So, yeah, very thankful for that.
Well, and that's really why we've brought you back on, because Hines, in the video, he admitted that he really doesn't understand your position, and you did recommend some articles and you did recommend some books for him to look at, and you've also given those to us, and we'd be happy to put up whatever you give us in the show notes so that our listeners can read up on some of this stuff at their own time, but we thought it would be good to bring you back to sort of help alleviate that and maybe give you the opportunity to explain your position.
I think that this would be helpful for our listeners, and I found that this was interesting, because both you and Pastor Hines talked primarily about covenant theology when the discussion that was up for debate was over the issue of baptism, and I know that you both focused centrally on the covenant theology, and I felt like you really didn't, maybe, and this was maybe my fault, and I think I owe you an apology, because during the debate, and nobody really knows this, because I edited this part out, but during the debate, you had stepped away from your computer for a little bit, and Pastor Hines and I just started chit-chatting and just talking about different things as we were waiting for you to come back, and Pastor Hines had actually let me know that he needed to leave about 30 minutes past the hour, and I know that we had tried several times to set up the discussion, and we just weren't able to make our times line up, and so I wanted to be sensitive to everybody's schedule, and when you came back, I failed to inform you of the time constraint, and it was pretty apparent that later on in the discussion, you were caught off guard, and I think that you thought that you had more time to sort of walk these things out, and so let me first apologize to you, and let me just say that that's really why we want to bring you on today to walk out your views on covenant theology, which relate to baptism.
Is that correct?
Yeah, absolutely, and no sweat. That happens, and it's a huge topic, so even if we had another 30 minutes, we couldn't address the whole thing. It winds up baptism for Reformed theology, whether paedobaptist or credobaptist, is directly related to covenant theology, and covenant theology deals with the entirety of Scripture, so it's very difficult to have a concise dialogue about that, but yeah, I focused on the issue of covenant theology in that debate because the Reformed paedobaptist position starts from the covenants.
That's the argument for infant baptism from the Reformed perspective is rooted in the continuity of the covenants, and so if that foundational aspect is shown to be unbiblical, then the whole practice of infant baptism falls along with it, so that's why I was focusing on the covenant theology there.
Well, and maybe this is where you want to go, maybe it's not, so I'm going to basically hand it over to you in a little bit to continue to make your case, just so that our listeners are aware of where you're coming from, but during the end of the debate, you attempted to reference an article which addresses the republication issue, and I wanted to ask you a little bit about that, if you could talk about the republication issue, but Hines emphatically stated during the debate that he does not hold to the republication position, and towards the end of the debate, he had made the statement that he does not believe that the Mosaic covenant is part of the covenant of grace, and that's not a direct quote, I'm just paraphrasing what he said, and he said it twice, and so in my mind, that left no other option but republication, because it was, I mean, in the Presbyterian view, you have the covenant of works and the covenant of grace, so if the Mosaic covenant is not part of the covenant of grace, then it would necessarily mean that it was a republication of the covenant of works, and there may be something to that, I'm not really sure, but he has, from what I understand, he's corrected himself on that in his episode, and so we want to give him credit for that, I think it was towards the end of the debate, and I know that it was late in the day for him, we want to acknowledge that he says he misspoke, and I think that's fine, we all do that, but this left sort of a lingering question with Pastor Hines, he asked me on the phone, and I wasn't able to give him a satisfactory reply, and I know that he asked you and he asked Carlos, and he said that he wasn't able to really get a satisfactory reply from either of you, but it left a question as to what is the issue of republication, or what does the Mosaic covenant really have to do with the issue of baptism, and I think that you were focusing on covenant theology, so I'm sure that this is linked in somehow, but I really wasn't sure where you were going with this discussion, or where you were trying to lead, and so I'm wondering if the republication thing was just something maybe that you capitalized on, that you maybe saw a mistake or something, and you just pointed it out indirectly of your argument, or was this the argument that you were trying to make, and if you could just lead us into what your view on covenant theology is, and maybe how the Mosaic covenant connects to baptism, or if it does connect to baptism, but I'm just going to let you respond, and feel free to take as much time as you need.
Great, thanks for the lead in there, the intro. Yeah, like I said a minute ago here, the Reformed argument for infant baptism stems from the continuity of the covenants, and a lot of that started with Bollinger, was influential in starting that.
There's one, you can point to many different articles, I just pulled up one here from Reverend Angus Stewart, articles titled Heinrich Bollinger, the first covenant theologian. He says, Heinrich Bollinger's, A Brief Exposition of the One and Eternal Testament or Covenant of God, was the first book devoted to the subject of the covenant, in 1500 years of the Christian Church.
He goes on to say, Bollinger, like Ulrich Zwingli, whom he succeeded in Zurich, was drawn to the study of the covenant, in part in order to refute the Anabaptists, who advocated the baptism of believers only, and rejected the baptism of the seed of believers.
From that day to this, covenant theology has been inseparably intertwined with family baptism. And then, Bollinger's basic argument was, that there is one eternal covenant of God, and he was specifically comparing the old and the new covenants, and arguing that they are the same covenant, made with the same people, upon the same conditions, for the same reward, and therefore, we should baptize our infants.
That wasn't his only point, but that was a main point. So the argument stems from the continuity, not simply of the Abrahamic and the New Covenant, but from the Old Covenant and the New Covenant. He says that, well, hang on here, Peter Lilbeck has an essay, I can't remember the exact title, something like, Calvin's Covenantal Argument for Baptism, or something along those lines, and he notes, Calvin both presents his case for paedo-baptism, as well as defends it against various attacks, by employment of the covenant idea.
His positive arguments, build initially upon his already established point, of the continuity of the old and new covenants. It is due to the continuity of the covenant, with the Jews and with Christians, that enables Christians to baptize their infants.
Right, so that was the argument, that was developed in the Reformation, against the practice of paedo-baptism. And they argued that, the Old and the New Covenant, were in fact the same covenant, in substance.
So they differed in certain ways, but their essence was one. So Bollinger says, it is certain that the nomenclature, of the Old and New Covenant, spirit and people, did not arise from the very essence of the covenant, but from certain foreign and unessential things.
Right, so basically they would point to, external aspects of the covenant, that were temporary and that could change. So the sacrificial system, in the Old Covenant for example, that was unessential, that could be aggregated, yet the covenant itself would remain.
And so they would point to, the essence of the covenant, as the conditions and the people and the reward. That's what makes a covenant, what it is. And they would say that, all of those things remain the same, between the Old and the New Covenants.
Same condition, same people, and same reward.
So it's,.
The reward is eternal life, the condition is, faith in Christ, and the people are believers. Right, so that's true in the Old Testament, and in the New Testament, it's one way of salvation, one people of God, one church, one covenant.
So that has been the historic argument, for infant baptism. The question then becomes, well then what do you do with, the difference between the, the apparent difference between the Old, and the New Covenants.
And like I said here, Bollinger and Calvin, and those following them said that, that refers to the accidents, the unessential things, it does not refer to the condition. Let me read just a couple paragraphs here, from a new book from Samuel Renahan.
So he did his PhD dissertation, on Covenant Theology, specifically Particular Baptist, Covenant Theology in the 17th century. But the first, I can't remember 60 or 80 pages, provides a really helpful, summary overview of, the first hundred years of the Reformation, and the development of Covenant Theology.
So he notes, reformed theologians were united, in the doctrine of salvation, or the dogmatic contrast, between the law and the gospel, and their accompanying conditions, of works and faith. But their covenantal models, did not develop uniformly, they branched out in diversity, when discussing the law, and the gospel covenantally, by relating the law, and the gospel to the covenants, of redemptive history.
The diversity of these strands, should not be thought of, as competing federal theologies, or even separate federal theologies, but rather varying trends, or shades within the context, of reformed orthodoxy.
The most common area of divergence, and diversity, was the relationship of the old covenant, the covenant made with Israel, through Moses, to the covenant of grace. As the substance logic, of the law and the gospel, was applied to the Mosaic covenant, reformed theologians wrestled, with whether the Mosaic covenant, simply contained the law, or whether it was a covenant, founded on the law.
For some therefore, the old covenant, was a part of the first administration, of the covenant of grace. For others, it was a covenant, substantially distinct from, and dogmatically opposed to, the covenant of grace.
And the, let's see, there's a quote here from, John Ball,.
One of the,.
I think he was, possibly right before the assembly, Westminster Assembly, but he was very influential, on the Westminster Assembly, with regards to covenant theology, Gerhardus Voss talks about that,.
And a few others.
Ball notes, most divines hold the old, and new covenant, to be one in substance, and kind, to differ only in degrees. They hold the Old Testament, even the law, as it was given upon Mount Sinai, to be the covenant of grace, for substance, though propounded in a manner, fitting to the state of the people.
It was so delivered, as it might serve to discover sin, drive the Jews, to fly to the mercy of God, revealed in Jesus, but it was given to be a rule of life, to the people in covenant. This I take to be the truth.
So, that's the view, that the Westminster Confession, ended up with. The Mosaic Covenant, is the covenant of grace, although more legally, administered. And what that refers to, is that the law, is more prominently, vocalized, and revealed, compared to the gospel, where the gospel, is more clearly, and prominently revealed.
But the law, was not the condition, of the Mosaic Covenant. Faith in Christ, was the condition. If the law, was not just contained, somewhere in the covenant, but was actually the basis, of the covenant, was the condition of the covenant, then it could not be, the covenant of grace.
It would be, a separate and distinct covenant.
So,.
The 17th century, was really when, a lot of this, got worked out, in a lot of different, polemic writings, back and forth. And the Westminster Assembly,.
Gathered,.
Had to decide, what was the most consistent, with their position. And they landed on the view, that the Mosaic Covenant, is the covenant of grace. It's not a separate, and distinct covenant. So the old and the new, really are the same covenant.
So again, that's the argument, for infant baptism.
And so,.
When it comes to the issue, of republication, and I don't necessarily, like that term, it can be confusing, you have to carefully, define your terms. But really, what republication, is talking about, is the idea that, the condition, of the Mosaic Covenant,.
Was obedience,.
To Mosaic Law. If that is the case, if the condition, of the Mosaic Covenant, was obedience, to Mosaic Law, then the Mosaic Covenant, was not the covenant of grace. If the Mosaic Covenant, was not the covenant of grace, then you cannot argue, for infant baptism, based on the continuity, of the covenants, and the continuity, of the one people of God.
Yeah, so this is, really good stuff. Thank you for that.
And,.
I wanted to, kind of back up a little bit, and give my thoughts, on the debate. I thought it was, a really good debate. I thought it was excellent.
You both,.
Argued very well, for your positions. And I know Tim, kind of introduced you, as your view,.
Sort of like,.
Your view, but not necessarily ours. But from what I understand, we pretty much agree on, just about, everything I've heard you,.
Talk about.
We're in substantial agreement,.
With you,.
On most of these things, I think. We're fellow Reformed Baptists,.
Speaking of that, I wanted to actually ask you, if you were also, a scripturalist?
Hey, that's a good question.
Yes,.
I would consider myself one.
Cool.
You know, I'm not,.
I'm not as much of a philosopher,.
As others,.
But to the degree, that I understand the issues,.
Yeah, and that's what I suspected.
We have a lot in common. We have a lot, more in common,.
Than not.
It's pretty exciting, to run across somebody, you know,.
Like us,.
Because there's not that many of us,.
Out there. So,.
It's exciting when you bump into somebody,.
Like that.
But,.
Yeah,.
I was going to ask.
Carlos has been, egging me on, to get you on the podcast, for a long time.
Yeah, yeah,.
Definitely.
You can tell, how excited he is.
You're still with, are you still, writing at the Reformed Libertarian, and Scripturalism .com, and all those places?
When I have time. I haven't written at, Scripturalism .com, in a long time. Reformed Libertarian, kind of comes in spurts, when I've got something on my mind.
Okay.
I've just been busy with work, the last four or five months.
But, yep,.
Still writing there, when something comes to mind.
Awesome. Yeah,.
And by Scripturalism, for those of you who don't know, that's people who basically, espouse the theology, and philosophy, of Gordon Clark.
That's,.
As we,.
You know,.
The introductory song says, we are unabashed,.
Unashamed, you know,.
Clarkians here.
The,.
That's really neat.
Obviously,.
We're not Presbyterian, which some people think it's funny, because Clark was a Presbyterian.
There's a lot of,.
The, so,.
Here's the thing. Regarding the debate, I thought it was really good, but there was some interesting stuff.
I thought you argued for your position,.
Very well.
I agreed with what you were saying, by and large. I don't think there were, I think. I have a few questions, about certain things.
The issue of, republication.
What happened with, Pastor Hines,.
The first,.
Two times, that he talked about, the Mosaic Covenant, I think he said, he had acknowledged, the view that you just described, that the traditional, Presbyterian view, that the Mosaic Covenant, is a part of the Covenant of Grace.
But then,.
Towards the end of the debate, I think it was like, the last 15 minutes, when you started,.
I guess,.
Cross-examining him,.
He,.
He sort of, when you started kind of, asking him stuff, he ended up saying, that the, Mosaic Covenant, was not, part of the Covenant of Grace.
He kind of, got himself there, when he was arguing from Galatians, and noticing, the stark differences between,.
The law,.
And the promise.
Right?
He kind of,.
Starting,.
When he was sort of, expounding those differences, I guess it kind of led him to, to say that, the Mosaic Covenant, is substantially law,.
And not,.
Not grace.
At that point, I was like, I can't believe,.
Whoa,.
I was like, because that's obviously not, Presbyterian,.
Traditional Presbyterian theology,.
Is,.
That's the one, that's one of the major differences, between Baptists, and Reformed Baptists,.
And Presbyterians,.
Is that, they believe that, all of the covenants, outside of the Covenant of Works, are essentially,.
The same,.
Part of the same Covenant of Grace, including the New Covenant.
Like what was your train of thought,.
At that point,.
Or what,.
What were you thinking there?
So Brandon, before you answer that, I know, we already talked to Pastor Hines,.
About it,.
He already clarified, I think on his podcast, that he doesn't hold to that view,.
That,.
The Mosaic Covenant, is not part of the Covenant of Grace. He does affirm, Westminster Federalism, that the Mosaic Covenant, is a part of the Covenant of Grace.
But it was funny, because I was kind of joking around with him. I still thought, that there was some, some hope there, that he actually, had more in common, with us Reformed Baptists, than he might have initially thought.
But yeah,.
If you could just get your thoughts on, on that,.
When,.
When he made that concession, what were you thinking there?
So I was,.
I didn't quite capitalize on it, on it in the podcast.
I,.
Give it more time,.
I would have. I was,.
I wanted to make sure, I fully understood his view, before I tried to, to capitalize, capitalize on it, so that there wasn't, any misunderstanding.
That's why I kept asking him, more and more questions, to really get a clear answer.
And I don't want to say too much, about his, view right now, without him here to defend himself. And he's, said he's going to continue studying this. So I don't want to, necessarily comment too much on his, but if I can speak in general terms, a lot of, a lot of Presbyterians today, have, not fully understood the Westminster position.
What happened is,.
Presbyterianism, came to America, it underwent significant changes.
They had to modify, the confession itself, to remove some of the, establishmentarian, language regarding the civil magistrate.
Simply to, and they became advocates of religious liberty, by and large. And to do so, they had to understand the Mosaic covenant differently. And there is, see if I can pull it up here, on the reform libertarian website, I've got a long article, explaining, it took a while to find, but there is an American Presbyterian, who was arguing against, a covenanter,.
So somebody who held to the original Westminster position, regarding the establishment of the church.
He had come over to America, and these two factions, had been kind of battling against each other. The covenanters were arguing that,.
We can't be part of the United States, and the federal government of the United States, because it promotes religious liberty, and we're opposed to that, based on the covenants, and the understanding of the Westminster confession.
William Finley, was the American Presbyterian,.
Who,.
Was a statesman. He was involved in Congress for a number of years,.
He said, it is presumed, that no Christian believes, that eternal salvation was promised, in the Sinai covenant, or in other words, that it was the covenant of grace. The Sinai covenant, as has been shown before, was symbolical, or typical, of the kingdom of Christ.
Through which, as a glass darkly, true believers saw Christ's day, and rejoiced. The author, the covenanter,.
However,.
Takes no notice of the divine anti-type, who fulfilled every law, that man had broken, and made atonement for transgressions.
Anyways,.
It's very interesting, that in arguing against, the original Westminster position, he saw, that the Mosaic covenant, was central to the question, of religious liberty, and the whole system.
He said,.
No,.
The Mosaic covenant, is not the covenant of grace.
When Presbyterianism, came to America, it really started undergoing, a transformation.
As the years progressed, it became more, and more actually, congregational, and conceded a lot of ground, to Baptists.
That just kind of continued, until you get to the point today, where most Presbyterians, don't quite understand, the language of the Westminster confession, what it means.
A lot of them will say, you know, you get people like R. Scott Clark, and others following Klein, and they'll say,.
Well yeah,.
The Mosaic covenant, was a covenant of works, and it was an administration, of the covenant of grace. Not really, not realizing, that that statement, is self-contradictory. To say, that the Mosaic covenant, is an administration, of the covenant of grace, is to say, that it is the covenant of grace.
That was, that was Westminster's point. That's what the substance, accidents language,.
Means. If,.
If it is,.
According to the Westminster confession, they differ only in administration.
If the Mosaic covenant, is an administration, of the covenant of grace, that means it is the covenant of grace.
It's,.
Self-contradictory, to say, that the Mosaic covenant, is a covenant of works, and it is an administration, of the covenant of grace. And so we've, we've become, well Presbyterians, have become so far removed, from the original context, that they don't even realize, the contradiction, in what they're saying.
There are, confessionally, acceptable ways, of talking about, the aspect of the law, with regards to the Mosaic covenant, and there are confessionally, unacceptable ways.
There's a way, that you can talk about it,.
Necessarily implies,.
It was not the covenant of grace, and there's a way, that you can talk about it,.
Would understand it, to be the covenant of grace.
In the OPC report on republication, they talk about this as, administrative republication, versus substantial republication.
Administrative republication, just means, that the law, is a part of, the Mosaic covenant, but it's not the, the essence, the condition, the substance, of the Mosaic covenant, and there's different ways, that you can, you can explain that.
Declarative, republication, the covenant of works, broken with Adam, is declared, on Mount Sinai.
Material republication, refers to,.
The Ten Commandments, were part of the Mosaic covenant,.
Commenting on,.
You get to Galatians 3 and 4, and you see this strong contrast, what this necessarily entails, is what the report refers to, as the misinterpretation principle. They define that, as the notion that Paul, in texts such as Galatians 3, and Romans 10, 4 through 5, is refuting a Jewish, misinterpretation of the law.
Namely,.
That the law, Mosaic law, contained a substantial republication, of the covenant of works.
This goes on to say that, the idea that the covenant of works is, this means,.
Sorry,.
The misinterpretative, republication, refers to the idea, that the covenant of works, is not actually republished, in a substantial sense, in the Mosaic covenant, but is present, only in the misunderstanding, of those who opposed Paul's teaching, of a substantially gracious covenant, Mosaic covenant.
Hence,.
The language of contrast, between the Abrahamic, and Mosaic covenants, rest in the minds of Paul's opponents, but not in Paul's actual theology.
Alright,.
So that's directly from the OPC report there.
So that is how, historically, Presbyterians would explain, Paul's language of the difference, between the law, and the promise, the Mosaic covenant, and the Abrahamic covenant. Paul was not saying, that they are two different covenants, two different types of covenants, in essence.
He was responding to, the Judaizers, misunderstanding of the Mosaic covenant. They thought it was a covenant of works. They thought that they could obey the law, to earn eternal life. And so he, he makes an ad hominem argument.
He adopts their premises, and then leads it to their conclusion.
That's not really what the Mosaic covenant was. It was not founded on law.
So I wanted to, ask you a few things here now. We're obviously talking about the substance, of the topic, no pun intended,.
Republication, right?
So, now,.
With respect to, the reason I brought up,.
The point,.
With Pastor Hines, when he conceded that point, which he already, I know he says he doesn't agree with it. Now,.
The reason I brought that up, was because, and Tim touched on this earlier,.
When you, when you say that, if you're a Presbyterian, and you say that the Mosaic covenant, is not a part of the covenant of grace, then the only option, the only other option you really have, is that it's part of the covenant of works.
With that being the issue, the issue with that,.
I suppose,.
Is that, you sort of, you get stuck in a weird situation,.
In which,.
Grace can't really operate, in the way that it's intended to.
And so, but now,.
That's sort of like an extreme form, and it doesn't seem to be,.
I have,.
I don't even know if I know, of anybody who, who really takes that view.
But I wanted to, ask you about, so the OPC report on republication,.
Going back to, to this whole issue, I listened to R. Scott Clark, his episodes on, on republication, and so he makes a pretty compelling case, that Presbyterians historically, did believe, that the, the Mosaic Covenant, has sort of a mixed bag.
It's like,.
There is an element of law, but it's also,.
Part of the covenant of grace.
He quoted a bunch of people. He quoted Robert Shaw,.
He quoted Charles Hodge,.
Transcontinental theologians,.
Hermann Wittzius, they basically all say,.
That, the,.
The Mosaic Law, was some, republic, was republished in some form,.
Of the,.
Of the law, the moral law, tied to the covenant of works.
And so, you know,.
There was like quotes from, Thomas Boston, as well.
There's,.
I know there's a, there's an interesting dynamic there, because, it gets a little confusing, because I remember,.
In his blog, he has one post where, he quotes a theologian, I forget what the theologian's name was,.
He says that, there is a substantial, identity, with the law, in the Mosaic Covenant, the moral law, that there's substantial identity.
How can it be substantially law, and substantially grace?
Like,.
That doesn't really,.
That almost seems, that does seem like a contradiction,.
You know?
And so, what are you,.
What's your take on that?
My take is that, it's a very complicated issue.
If somebody is interested, in what the historic views were, I would recommend that, they don't just read quotes, on R. Scott Clark's blog,.
They go back to, they take that quote, and then go back to the original source, and read the entire, context, the entire essay.
With the quotes there, you're talking about,.
Well,.
They said it's in substance, the law.
That's one example where they can say, that's known as material republication.
The Westminster Confession,.
The Savoy,.
Declaration, the Lenten Baptist Confession, in 19 .1, and 19 .1, 19 .2, all agree,.
The law, the moral law, was given to Adam, in the Covenant of Works, and the moral law, was also given to Israel.
There is substantial identity, between the two,.
What's known as natural law, the law written on the heart, is substantially identical, to the Ten Commandments.
In and of itself, does not mean, the Mosaic Covenant,.
Was,.
A covenant of works,.
We would argue, the same moral law, is written on the hearts of believers, in the New Covenant,.
There is substantial identity, in that law. The moral law, continues throughout.
That was Westminster's position, the same commandments, the same law was given. The question then,.
Or the issue then, is the distinction, between the law, and the law, as a covenant of works,.
Westminster 7 .1, Lenten Baptist Confession 7 .1, refer to, God's condescension, in the Covenant of Works.
That refers to the fact, that obedience, to the law itself, could never merit, eternal life.
I think you guys talked about this, in your episode on,.
On,.
Potentially on your,.
Episode of the, excuse me,.
The Adamic Covenant of Works.
God gave to Adam, the Covenant,.
The law written on his heart. And then he promised, in addition to that, if you obey the law, perfectly, you will earn eternal life. That reward, was something added, by way of covenant.
It's possible, to say, that same law, was given to Israel, but not, as a covenant of works. It was simply given to them, as a rule, of obedience, for image bearers, to know, how to obey the law. In the same way, that the law is, written on the hearts of, of new covenant believers, as a rule, to guide our obedience.
That would be how,.
The Westminster, position understands,.
That the,.
Law was given to Israel, as a rule of life.
Interest,.
Very,.
Very interesting point there, trying to pull it up here. If you compare, the Westminster Confession,.
With,.
The London Baptist Confession, on 19 .2, there's a very, interesting difference there, in Westminster, it says that the, after the fall, the law, the moral law, continued to be, a rule of obedience, I forget the exact language there,.
But a,.
A rule of obedience,.
Right,.
Guiding to what is right,.
And wrong. And,.
As,.
Such,.
It was given, to Israel, on Mount Sinai, in the Ten Commandments.
The Westminster position is, it was given to them, not as a covenant of works, but as a rule of obedience. If you look at, the London Baptist Confession, in 19 .2,.
The words,.
As such, are removed.
It's not necessarily, the case that the law, was given to Israel, as a guide, for obedience. Westminster, closes, the option for, the law given to Israel, as a covenant of works.
They say,.
It was not given, as a covenant of works. It was given, only as a rule of obedience. The London Baptist Confession, opens up that possibility, to say, it was given to Israel, as a covenant of works.
The distinction between law, and law as a covenant, is important here.
If you,.
If you hear, that quote, for example, saying there's substantial identity, in the law, they're likely, only referring to, the content of the commandments. You mentioned some other people, like Charles Hodge, and Thomas Boston.
You can point to many people,.
Would say things, that sound like, republication. The question is, are those statements, consistent with the, Westminster Confession? Thomas Boston, departed from the, Westminster Confession, on this point.
Charles Hodge, departed from the, Westminster Confession, on many of these points. And people will say,.
Well no,.
They were still Presbyterians, they held to it.
That gets into, the question of,.
Subscription,.
And how you hold, and what exceptions you can take,.
And blah, blah, blah. But,.
Right, right,.
I see what you're saying, but I think,.
So, I,.
Honestly,.
I think I agree with, with Scott Clark on this,.
Because, he,.
And it's not just Scott Clark, so we need, I guess we need to set up, the context a little bit. This appears to be,.
A, a,.
An issue between, Westminster East and West.
Have you read Carl Burke's, critique of the, republication report?
I have.
Okay. Yeah.
Go ahead.
So yeah, what I was going to mention, is that,.
And I know, republication is a slippery word, like you said,.
It can mean different things, and you have to be careful, with what you mean by it.
There,.
It seems like in,.
Generally,.
In Reformed history, the theologians generally agree, that there is some legal aspect,.
A works principle,.
Built into, the Mosaic covenant, but it's not necessarily, the identical to, the covenant of works in the garden.
A lot of them say, that it's temporal,.
Blessing,.
It's actually similar, to the Reformed Baptist view,.
From what I can,.
From what I can, gather,.
And some of them argue,.
R. Scott Clark,.
For example,.
He does argue, and I think Thomas Boston, did as well, on chapter 19, of the confession, section 2, where it says, at first it describes, God gave to Adam a law, as a covenant of works, and then in section 2, it says, this law, this law, after his fall, continued to be a perfect,.
Rule of righteousness,.
And as such, was delivered by God, upon Mount Sinai, and 10 commandments, and written in two tables, so that, they argue, is kind of a form, of republication, that the confession, affirms.
And so, now,.
Before, before, yeah,.
Before I get your, comments on this, I wanted to kind of,.
Get,.
So here's my,.
Here's my take on this, when I read Carl Berg's, I haven't read the full, LPC report on republication yet,.
But when,.
When I read Carl Berg's, critique of it, I can kind of,.
See something,.
About the OPC, that seems very, characteristic of the OPC, and it reminded me, a lot of the Clark, the Clark Van Teel, and here's why, so based on, what Carl Berg was saying, that the issue became, tied to, sort of an issue, a dispute between, Westminster East, which is in Philadelphia,.
And West,.
Which is in California, and you know, West was, would obviously be like,.
Klein,.
R. Scott Clark, J .B. Fesco,.
Those guys,.
They all basically agree, that the Mosaic Covenant, is a part of the, Covenant of Grace, but there is a, legal aspect to it, there's a form of, republication tied to it, and so they even, published a book called, The Law is Not a Faith, I think,.
And you know,.
Basically from, mostly from, professors from, Westminster West, and so,.
Carl Berg,.
Describes the issue, stemming, with John Murray, that John Murray, and incidentally, this is really funny, because, when we were talking to, New Covenant Theology guys, about this issue, they claimed, I've heard several of them claim, that John Murray denied, the Covenant of Works, and that's actually not true, that what he denied, was that the Mosaic Covenant, was a Covenant of Works, in any sense, and so, Klein describes this, as originating from the Puritans, post Westminster, Puritans,.
That I guess,.
This view started to develop, or become more popular, where they were, basically saying, that the Mosaic Covenant, has no legal, there's no works principle, at all tied to, the Mosaic Covenant, so it's basically, just a Covenant of Grace, it's a part of the Covenant of Grace, and so that created the problems, that kind of set up the stage,.
For the problems with, that you have with Shepard, and Gaffin, at least according to Carl Berg, that the, the issue is now that, if you don't believe, that there's any legal aspect,.
Or works principle,.
Tied to the Mosaic Covenant, then that means that, the law is grace, that you're confusing law, and gospel, and so you're, you're sort of stepping, out of bounds there, and so that he was saying, Carl Berg was saying, that because of that, so this is why, it seems so characteristic,.
Of the OPC,.
Because they went after,.
The wrong guy,.
They went after Klein, they criticized Klein, who seemed to take, the more conservative, reformed view, that the, the Mosaic Covenant, has a legal component, tied to it, but it's still a part, of the covenant of grace, whereas John Murray, basically, outright denied, any works principle, tied to the Mosaic Covenant, and apparently, this may have been, setting the stage, for the Shepard controversy, the justification controversy, and confusing law, and gospel, et cetera, et cetera,.
So what are your,.
I really appreciate the question, because it's, it's extremely important, you've touched on, kind of the heart of, of the modern dispute here, so a few things, you mentioned Thomas Boston, and identifying,.
This law, was given to Israel,.
Again,.
That goes back, to the distinction, between the law, and the law, as a covenant of works,. Boston did not,.
Understand,.
Or articulate,.
Or agree with,.
The distinction there, and neither does R. Scott Clark, it's foundational, to Klein's theology, where he does not distinguish, between law, and law, as a covenant of works, and again, I would encourage people, to go and read Strimple's, memo to the faculty, he says, he's specifically, addressing R. Scott Clark,.
Here,.
And he says, the meaning of 19, one to two, is so clear, that I do not understand, why any question, concerning that meaning, should ever have arisen, to state that meaning, I can use no clearer words, than the words, the divines used,.
God gave to Adam a law, as a covenant of works, this law, after his fall, continued to be a perfect, rule of righteousness, and as such, was delivered by God, upon Mount Sinai,. That law does not continue, as a covenant of works, for us, and was not delivered, upon Mount Sinai, as a covenant of works, for the children of Israel,.
This is what,.
The confession teaches, it may not be, what some of our faculty, like it to teach, but it is what, the confession teaches, so Boston's view, and those who are,.
Leaning on it,.
Do not understand, or do not agree, with the Westminster, confessions view, first of all, with regards to Carlberg, and Klein there, Klein's view, is definitely contrary, to the Westminster confession, there is an accept, there is a, Westminster confession, acceptable way, to understand, the legal aspect, of Mosaic law, and a confessionally, unacceptable way, Klein's view, was to argue, that the Mosaic covenant, was substantially, a covenant of works, the principle, the governing principle, the condition, of the Mosaic covenant, was obedience to law,.
It was works,.
That is, confessionally, unacceptable, because the Westminster, confession says, that the Mosaic covenant, is the covenant of grace, so if you want to be in line, with the Westminster confession, and you want to talk, about the unique legal aspect, of the Mosaic covenant, you have to talk about it, in terms of the accidents, of the covenant.
Right, the way in which the law, was promulgated right, it was in the midst,.
Of a cloud,.
And storm,.
And lightning, and thunder, you know very, very scary, it doesn't mean, that the law was the condition, of the Mosaic covenant, but it was given, in a very, frightening manner, the sacrifices, those were emphasized, the law, the legal character, and so those are ways, that you can talk about it, Klein departed from that, and said Leviticus 18 5, the one who does the law, shall live by them, was actually the condition, of the covenant, and so yes, he rightly recognizes, a works principle, from my perspective, but he's contrary, to the Westminster confession there, and so with regards, to Carlberg and Klein, I would really highly recommend, people read an essay, written by D Patrick Ramsey, titled In Defense of Moses, in a lot of ways, that's what started, the modern debate, over republication, it's what really turned up, the heat on it, it's a very well written essay, I disagree with, Ramsey's views, with his interpretation, of scripture, but his grasp, of the historical theology, and his ability to articulate it, is very, very helpful, it's much better, much more reliable, than our Scott Clark, or Carlberg, so I'd encourage people, to read that, it's a very important essay, and it really does help, explain the issue here, so the question then, is with John Murray, where does that fit in, so it's not, you mentioned Carlberg, trying to argue, that it was, after sometime, after the Westminster Confession, they started emphasizing, the gracious character, of the Mosaic Covenant, no that was, Westminster's position, that's not a development, that happened later, that was Westminster's position, the question then, is as we've kind of, addressed here, how can you understand, in Paul's quotation, of Leviticus 18 .5, if the Mosaic Covenant, was the covenant of grace, and Paul is quoting, Leviticus 18 .5, and the Westminster Confession, points to Galatians 3 .12, and Romans 10 .5, as proofs for, the Adamic covenant of works,.
So how do we, how do we reconcile all that, how can Leviticus 18 .5, as quoted by Paul, prove, the Adamic covenant of works, if the Mosaic Covenant, was a covenant of grace, and the condition, of the Mosaic Covenant, was not law,.
So which,.
So you're saying,.
That Klein, went against the Confession, because he said, that the, do this and live, was a covenant of work, like a temporal covenant of works,.
Correct,.
Tied to the Mosaic Covenant,.
Well specifically, he said, do this and live, was a principle, contrary to faith,.
So he says, they're contrary principles, and then he said, this works principle, 18 .5, was the basis, of the Mosaic Covenant, that specifically, is contrary to, the Westminster Confession, so in, in their proof text, for the, Adamic covenant of works, it's very worth noting, that the Westminster Confession, cites Galatians 3 .12, and Romans 10 .5, but it does not cite, Leviticus 18 .5,.
So okay,.
This is,.
Man,.
This is really interesting,.
And I'm,.
It's really funny, I know. We're probably, going to offend, some people here, we're bound to offend somebody,.
Because there's,.
There's obviously, two pretty strong sides,.
To this story,.
But so,.
But it's really helpful,.
So what,.
What I want to know is, how is it, that Westminster Federalism, so you're saying, Westminster Federalism, does not hold to, any works principle, tied to the Mosaic Covenant,.
Well it depends on, how you define works principle, the OPC report, affirms that there is, a works principle, in the Mosaic Covenant, but they deny, that it is contrary, to the principle of faith,.
Okay,.
Right, they're,.
They're not antithetical, they would say, the obedience required, in the Mosaic Covenant, was the obedience required, of believers, regenerate believers, and they would say, it's the same obedience, the same works principle, required of believers, in the New Covenant,.
They would say that, they would say that, Israel's exile from the land, was a form of, corporate church discipline, for their failure, as redeemed people, to obey the law, and they would say, it's the exact same, as an unregenerate member, of the New Covenant, failing to obey the law, and being excommunicated, from the church, and broken off, from the New Covenant today,.
That's how they blend the two, so they affirm, there's a works principle, in the Mosaic Covenant, but that necessarily means, there's also a works principle, in the New Covenant,.
So then, so then for New Covenant believers, if they don't, abide by this works principle, they would be, they would lose status, within the New Covenant, in the same way that Israel, was kicked out of the land,.
And they would say that, because they believe, in a mixed New Covenant, it's not just made up, of regenerate believers, it's made up, of the unregenerate as well, they would say, that the regenerate, will obey the law, and therefore, will not be cut off, unbelievers will not have faith, and therefore, will not obey the law, and so they will be cut off, they will be excommunicated, it's the issue of apostasy, is how they would interpret it,.
And so, but going back to John Murray here,.
John Murray was,.
A very gifted systematic theologian,.
There is a lot of logical consistency, in his writings, in my study of the issue,.
First of all, I actually disagree with you, I believe that he did, reject the covenant of works, he did reject it, he said that it was not a covenant,.
He called it the Adamic administration, but more importantly, he specifically denied, that it operated upon, a principle of works, and it was a gracious reward,. If Adam had obeyed the law, eternal life would have been, a gracious gift, it would not have been due to him, as a matter of justice, it would have been given, as a gracious gift,.
There was no works principle involved,.
Murray did reject, the covenant of works, he also rejected, that the Mosaic covenant, operate upon a condition of works, the reason why he did that, is because he was trying to, reconcile this inherent contradiction, in the Westminster confession, how do we deal with Leviticus 18 5, how do we explain that, if the Mosaic covenant, is the covenant of grace, Leviticus 18 5, must be a condition of the covenant of grace, these are my laws and commandments, the one who does them shall live by them, so that right there, is a condition of the covenant of grace, it's referring to a redeemed people, obeying the law,.
Faith spirit wrought works of obedience, if that's the case, then we go to Galatians 3 12, and Romans 10 5, as we already said, the way that Westminster has, and those who hold that tradition, have explained those passages, is with the misinterpretation principle,.
Paul is not saying that, Leviticus 18 5, teaches a Mosaic covenant of works, he's saying that the Judaizers, misinterpreted it to teach that, and so he, so he adopts their premise, and then shows the logical conclusion, well if you think that, then you have to obey the law perfectly, you don't obey the law perfectly, therefore you're condemned,.
If Paul is only responding to, a Judaizer misunderstanding, of the law, then how can we use that misunderstanding, as proof, for an Adamic covenant of works,.
Paul is, you can't use that text, to teach an Adamic covenant of works, because Paul is only teaching, of responding to their misunderstanding, does that make sense,.
It can't be a positive proof, for the Adamic covenant of works, because he is adopting their, misunderstanding of the law,.
That's an ad hominem,.
So Murray, in my opinion, was trying to iron out this inconsistency, and he said,.
That doesn't prove an Adamic covenant of works, it doesn't prove a works principle, and if that doesn't prove a works principle, if Galatians 3 .12, does not prove a works principle, in any covenant in scripture, then there must not be a works principle, in any covenant in scripture, and so that's why he argued that, God's offering to Adam, eternal life in the garden, was not based upon a principle of works,.
This is interesting, because I, 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,.
And now,.
And now I'm even more curious, because, when you read the report,.
I'm reading,.
I read through the introduction at least,.
They give the impression that, Murray is still sound, that he's still within the bounds of Westminster, orthodoxy,.
If I mean, if he denies the covenant of works, and that's obviously not,.
You're, you're, you're,.
Not,.
You don't subscribe to the confession,.
Plainly,.
So that was,.
That kind of,.
I guess I was kind of misled by, by what the report says,.
Well, it's,.
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,.
It comes down to the matter of subscription,.
Are you allowed to take exceptions, to parts of the confession, and still remain orthodox, and part of the OPC,.
Thus far, it has been the case, so since, 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, national model for churches,.
Even J .B. Fesco,.
Who is completely opposed to Murray's theology, in an essay that he has, about the nature of subscription,.
Says,.
John Murray, denied the covenant of works,.
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, it's, they're,.
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.
This is Tom Giuditis, President of the Trinity Foundation. Thank you for listening, to Semper Reformanda Radio. For more information, on the Trinity Foundation, please visit our website, at www .trinityfoundation .org.
There you may read, download, or print, over 300 articles, or listen to our, over 200 MP3 audio lectures, and check out, our over 65 titles of books, and other media. Thank you, and remember, the Bible alone, is the Word of God.