What is New in the New Covenant?

As usual, I keep looking for nuggets of fine precise statement. This is one of them by Reverend Winzer concerning what is New in the New Covenant. I love God's gift of teachers so that I might grow in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.

Let's look at what is said to be new. Is forgiveness of sin a new concept? No. But the text says "I will remember their sins no more." What is meant? Hebrews 8-10 tells us that it refers to sacrifice for sin. God will not require a yearly remembrance of sin by means of an annual sacrifice. So clearly the substance of the covenant has not changed. Forgiveness of sin was as much a reality of the old covenant as it is for the new. But the administration of the covenant has changed. Now we do not require a yearly sacrifice.

Let's look at another aspect of the description -- teaching. What is the point of reference? Is it all teaching? That cannot be the case, because the NT specifically speaks of teachers as one of the ascension gifts Christ has poured out upon His church. So when the text says that a man will no longer teach his neighbour, the point of reference cannot be to teaching per se, but must refer to a specific aspect of teaching, namely, the mediatorial function of the priesthood. Men could not come directly into the presence of God under the old covenant, but were dependent upon the ministry of priests to offer sacrifices and prayers on their behalf, and to teach them the significance of the sacrifices. As Hebrews 10 explains, all may now come boldly into the Holiest of all by means of the one sacrifice of our great High Priest, without the use of priestly intermediaries. All believers are priests unto God. So we note that coming into the presence of God was as much a reality for old covenant believers as for new covenant believers. The substance has not changed. What has changed is the administration of the covenant.

Is the Mosaic Covenant the same in Substance as the New?

I have discussed this before on the Puritanboard but the discussion died out.
http://www.puritanboard.com/f30/kline-karlburg-not-confessional-concerning-mosaic-69258/

I was trying to get some feedback and response and learn a few things. It was based upon this article.
http://patrickspensees.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/in-defense-of-moses.pdf

I use to hold to a position somewhat similar to that of John Owen concerning the Mosaic Covenant.

5). This covenant thus made, with these ends and promises, did never save nor condemn any man eternally.  All that lived under the administration if it did attain eternal life, or perished for ever, but not by virtue of this covenant as formally such.  It did, indeed, revive the commanding power and sanction of the first covenant of works; and therein, as the apostle speaks, was “the ministry of condemnation,” 2 Corinthians 3:9; for “by the deeds of the law can no flesh be justified.”  And on the other hand, it directed also unto the promise, which was the instrument of life and salvation unto all that did believe.  But as unto what it had of its own, it was confined unto things temporal.  Believers were saved under it, but not by virtue of it.  Sinners perished eternally under it, but by the curse of the original law of works. John Owen Commentary on Hebrews Chapter 8 pp. 85.86 Goold

I have recently been helped in understanding the Mosaic Covenant in light of Scripture I believe.  This was a post on the Puritanboard where I discussed the works paradigm in relation to how it should be understood.

I have found that I disagree with Meredith Kline and others that hold to similar postions of a works paradigm in the Mosaic Covenant. I think Patrick Ramsey does a good job in revealing what Romans 10:4 and Leviticus 18:5 say when considering the whole Counsel of God. In fact when we looks at Paul's references we would think that Paul is pitting Moses against Moses and the Old Testament against the Old Testament in his New Testament writings if we just lift passages out of texts without considering other passages Paul also references. Paul isn't pitting the OT against the OT or Moses against Moses when we look at the fuller context for understanding.

http://patrickspensees.wordpress.com/2011/08/09/pauls-use-of-lev-185-in-rom-105/

Paul’s Use of Lev. 18:5 in Rom. 10:5

The following is (I trust) a simple but not simplistic explanation of Paul’s use of Leviticus 18:5 in Romans 10:5.

In 9:30-10:5 Paul explained the reason the Jews did not attain righteousness even though they pursued it. They mistakenly pursued it by works (9:32). Hence, they stumbled over the stumbling stone (9:33). They sought to establish their own righteousness (10:3). Ignorant of the right way to righteousness, although they should have known better, they zealously pursued life on the basis of their own obedience to the law.

In Rom. 10:5 Paul describes this wrong way of pursuing life (righteousness) from the OT, namely Leviticus 18:5 (see also Neh. 9:29; Eze. 20:11, 13, 21): “For Moses writes about the righteousness that is based on law, that the person who does the commandments shall live by them.” Now the fact that Paul appeals to Moses to describe the wrong way, or if you will, the Pharisaical way of pursuing righteousness, is somewhat perplexing. As a result, this verse, along with its counterpart in Gal. 3, is quite controversial among commentators and theologians.

Here is the difficulty from three different perspectives. First, in 9:32, Paul had said that the law itself did not teach that righteousness was based on works or obedience to the law. The Jews pursued the law as if it led to righteousness. The Jews, as the NT says elsewhere, misread the OT. And yet Paul seems to be saying in vs. 5 that the OT did in fact teach and exhort the people to pursue life/righteousness by keeping the law. How then can Paul (or the rest of the NT) condemn the Pharisees for seeking righteousness by works if that is what Moses told them to do?

Second, in vs. 8 Paul will quote Deut. 30 and later on he will cite Isaiah and Joel in direct contrast to Lev. 18:5 to describe the right way to find life and righteousness. So then it would seem that Paul pits Moses against Moses and the OT against the OT.

Third, the context of Lev. 18:5 doesn’t seem to support the way Paul uses it in Rom. 10:5. Moses exhorts Israel to keep God’s commandments in the context of redemption and covenant. Verses 1-3 highlight the point that Israel already belongs to God as his redeemed people. These verses are very similar to the prologue to the Ten Commandments, which teaches that salvation precedes obedience. God didn’t give Israel the law so that they might be saved. He saves them so that they might keep the law. In short, the context of Lev. 18:5 speaks against the idea that it teaches legalism or a work-based righteousness. Yet, that is how Paul is using this verse!

Now some have sought to solve this difficulty by saying that there is no actual contrast between verses 5 and 6. The “but” of vs. 6 should be translated “and.” The problem with this, however, is that it doesn’t fit the context of Paul’s argument. The apostle, beginning in 9:30 is contrasting two ways of seeking righteousness—works and faith—and this contrast clearly continues in vs. 5. This is confirmed by the fact that Paul speaks of works righteousness or righteousness based on law elsewhere (Gal. 3; Phil. 3:9) in a negative way.

So then how are we to understand what Paul is saying in vs. 5 (and in Gal. 3)? Well, Paul is citing Lev. 18:5 according to how it was understood by the Jews of his day; and no doubt how he understood it before his conversion. The Jews of Paul’s day saw obedience to the law (which included laws pertaining to the atonement of sins) as the source of life and as the basis of salvation. Keeping the law was the stairway to heaven.  The way to have your sins forgiven and to be accepted by God was to observe the law. Lev. 18:5 provided biblical support for this Pharisaical position. And it is not hard to see why they would appeal to tis verse since it says that the person who does the commandments shall live by them.

In Rom. 10:6ff Paul refutes this works-based righteousness position including the Jewish appeal to Lev. 18:5. Now he doesn’t do it in the way you or I might think of doing it. We might tend to respond to the Pharisee and say: “Look, you have completely misunderstood what Moses is saying in Lev. 18:5. The specific and general context of that verse indicates that your interpretation is incorrect…” Instead, Paul uses a technique that was quite common in his day. He counters their interpretation of Lev. 18:5 by citing another passage: Deut. 30:12-14. In other words, Paul is saying that Deut. 30 demonstrates that the Jewish understanding of Lev. 18:5 is incorrect. We of course sometimes use this type of argument today. For example, some people today appeal to James 2 to prove that we need to obey the law in order to be justified. One way to disprove that interpretation would be to cite Paul in Romans or Galatians. So Paul is not pitting Moses against Moses in vv. 5-6 or saying that Moses taught salvation by works. Rather the apostle is using one Mosaic passage to prove that the legalistic interpretation of another Mosaic passage is wrong.

By Pastor Patrick Ramsey OPC Teaching Elder

A statement was also made how the Mosaic should be viewed as an administration of death.  I actually believe the above helps us answer this problem but I also saw this.  We turn the Covenant of Grace into a Covenant of Works.  Many people even do this concerning the New Covenant today when they add works to the equation of justification by faith.  In light of the passage mentioned in 2 Corinthians 3, which calls the Old an administration of Death, one must also read the prior passages to understand what context St. Paul is referring to the Mosaic Covenant in.

(2Co 2:14-17) Now thanks be unto God, which always causeth us to triumph in Christ, and maketh manifest the savour of his knowledge by us in every place. For we are unto God a sweet savour of Christ, in them that are saved, and in them that perish: To the one we are the savour of death unto death; and to the other the savour of life unto life. And who is sufficient for these things? For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.

Christ and the Gospel was Preached in Moses and the Old Testament. In fact Jesus said as much as did the author of Hebrews.

(Luk 24:27) And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

(Joh 5:46,47) For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?

(Heb. 4:2,3) For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of the world.

The Mosaic was an administration of death the same way the New Covenant is to those who seek to turn the New Covenant into a Covenant of Works. We are so inclined to stumble because we will not believe Moses or Christ. We naturally tend to corrupt the Word of God and the Covenant of Grace by wanting to add our works into our justification before God. In doing so we are refusing the Cornerstone and Saviour. We become like those that Paul is speaking about, "to one they [Paul and the Apostles] are a savour of death unto death." And how do they who consider Paul and the Church to be a savour unto death? They do it by what Paul says he doesn't do in the proceeding verse, "For we are not as those who corrupt the Word of God."

On another note I would mention that some say that the Mosaic was a Covenant that administered the Covenant of Grace as well as the Covenant of Works. Some differentiate that works was required in order for the Israelite's to stay in and be blessed in the Land. They stayed in the Land based upon their works. Some say that this is different from the New Covenant. I am not seeing this difference. For one thing Jesus himself said in Revelation 2 that he would remove a local Church's candlestick if they didn't repent. In 1 Corinthians 5 a man who was found to be exceedingly sinful was to be delivered to Satan and excommunicated from the Church. In Galatians 6:7 we are told that we reap what we sow. 

I actually see what happened to the Church in the Old Covenant to be very gracious and just a form of discipline. It was grace that chastisement happened. It was grace that brought Israel back into the Land. They were the Church that grew from dwelling in the wilderness. If it was by works then they would have never been brought back as they were. It looks quite the same to me as the man in 1 Corinthians 5. A casting out was performed. Excommunication was evident. Restoration by God's grace was confirmed. The substance of both the Old pedagogical Covenant and the New are essentially the same. Salvation, regeneration, faith, repentance, justification, and sanctification for the Church is the same between both the old and new. It is all by God's Covenant of Grace. The substance seems to be the same to me. 

Well, this is some of the stuff I am seeing now days. I do believe that works are important and a big part of our salvation. But I speak of salvation as a whole. Not in the respect of purely justification. There are no works considered in our justification. I do believe that our Union in Christ brings a twofold Grace of justification and sanctification. You can not separate them from our salvation. They are not dichotomized but are distinct in the process of salvation. It is all by Grace as St. Paul said. It is all by Grace as St. Paul said. This tension seems hard to process but it is summed up in Ephesians 2:8-10 and Philippians 2:12,13.

(Eph 2:8-10)  For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.


Php 2:12,13) Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.

Joined at the Hip: Good Works and Salvation in the Reformed Faith

Good Works in the Reformed Tradition | Patrick’s Pensees

http://patrickspensees.wordpress.com/2011/05/02/good-works-in-the-reformed-tradition/

I found this paper that Pastor Patrick Ramsey did to be very informative from a Confessional and Reformed standpoint concerning good works as the way to salvation. It has plenty of good references and is well documented. Please enjoy the whole paper by copying and pasting the link above.


All Protestants, except the most extreme Antinomians, advocate the importance and even the necessity of good works. They readily admit that justified believers must engage in good works in order to glorify God, edify one’s neighbor, express gratitude, attest true faith and submit to God’s command. Contention arises, however, when the necessity of good works is related to salvation. For instance, the Majoristic controversy swirled around George Major’s assertion that good works are necessary to salvation (bona opera necessaria esse ad salutem).[1] Similarly, English Dissenters in the Neonomian/Antinomian controversy argued whether or not good works are the way to heaven and the necessary means to obtaining salvation.[2]

The Lutheran branch of the Protestant Reformation settled this debate confessionally with the publication of The Book of Concord. It condemned Major’s teaching[3] while affirming “that good works were obligatory, in that they are commanded, as well as being an appropriate expression of faith and gratitude to God.”[4] By contrast, the Reformed, in the main, affirmed the necessity of good works to salvation. To be sure, differences existed, both verbal and real.[5] Nevertheless, numerous Reformed theologians did not hesitate to draw a necessary link between works and salvation.[6] Indeed, such teaching was given confessional status. The Waldensian Confession states that “good works are so necessary to the faithful that they cannot attain the kingdom of heaven without the same.”[7] It also avers that eternal life is the reward of good works.[8] According to the Westminster Standards, Spirit wrought obedience is “the way which he hath appointed them to salvation,” and good works are to be done “that, having their fruit unto holiness, they may have the end, eternal life.”[9]

This paper will attempt to unpack the Reformed understanding of the relationship between good works and salvation by examining the writings of numerous prominent Reformed theologians. In so doing we will discuss the salvific necessity of good works under three headings: the requirement of the covenant, the road to heaven, and the rewardof eternal life.

The Requirement of the Covenant


Since the growth and development of covenant theology occurred primarily within Reformed circles[10] it is not surprising that the discussion of good works is often addressed in covenantal terms. Geerhardus Vos correctly observes that the Reformed, unlike the Lutherans, are not reluctant to include new obedience as a condition or requirement of the covenant of grace since they understand the covenant and salvation to be broader than justification.[11] As Turretin writes: “There is not the same relation of justification and of the covenant through all things. To the former, faith alone concurs, but to the observance of the latter other virtues also are required besides faith.”[12]

John Ball (1585-1640) in his influential work A Treatise on the Covenant of Grace demonstrates from the Scriptures that though there are many postlapsarian redemptive covenants, there is, in substance, one overarching covenant of grace.[13] In this one covenant of Grace, God promises forgiveness of sins, spiritual adoption and eternal life, requiring on the part of man repentance, faith and obedience. With respect to the condition Ball writes:

“The stipulation required is, that we take God to be our God, that is, that we repent of our iniquities, believe the promises of mercy and embrace them with the whole heart, and yield love, feare, reverence, worship, and obedience unto him, according to the prescript rule of his word.”[14]

Ball, as well as the many other Reformed covenantal theologians, carefully distinguishes between types of conditions.[15] Generally speaking, conditions refer to whatever is required on man’s part in the covenant; they may either be antecedent, concomitant or subsequent to the thing promised; and they may or may not be causal....

[url]http://patrickspensees.wordpress.com/2011/05/02/good-works-in-the-reformed-tradition/[/url]

By Affliction.... J. C. Ryle

Expository Thoughts on Mark - Mark 4:35-41

THESE verses describe a storm on the sea of Galilee, when our Lord and His disciples were crossing it, and a miracle performed by our Lord in calming the storm in moment. Few miracles recorded in the Gospel were so likely to strike the minds of the disciples as this. Four of them at least were fishermen. Peter, Andrew, James, and John, had probably known the sea of Galilee, and its storms, from their youth. Few events in our Lord’s journeyings to and fro upon earth, contain more rich instruction than the one related in this passage.

Let us learn, in the first place, that Christ’s service does not exempt His servants from storms. Here were the twelve disciples in the path of duty. They were obediently following Jesus, wherever He went. They were daily attending on His ministry, and hearkening to His word. They were daily testifying to the world, that, whatever Scribes and Pharisees might think, they believed on Jesus, loved Jesus, and were not ashamed to give up all for His sake. Yet here we see these men in trouble, tossed up and down by a tempest, and in danger of being drowned.

Let us mark well this lesson. If we are true Christians, we must not expect everything smooth in our journey to heaven. We must count it no strange thing, if we have to endure sicknesses, losses, bereavements, and disappointments, just like other men. Free pardon and full forgiveness, grace by the way and glory at the end,—all this our Savior has promised to give. But He has never promised that we shall have no afflictions. He loves us too well to promise that. By affliction He teaches us many precious lessons, which without it we should never learn. By affliction He shows us our emptiness and weakness, draws us to the throne of grace, purifies our affections, weans us from the world, makes us long for heaven. In the resurrection morning we shall all say, "it is good for me that I was afflicted." We shall thank God for every storm.

Let us learn, in the second place, that our Lord Jesus Christ was really and truly man. We are told in these verses, that when the storm began, and the waves beat over the ship, he was in the hinder part "asleep." He had a body exactly like our own,—a body that could hunger, and thirst, and feel pain, and be weary, and need rest. No wonder that His body needed repose at this time. He had been diligent in His Father’s business all the day. He had been preaching to a great multitude in the open air. No wonder that "When the even was come," and His work finished, he fell "asleep."

Let us mark this lesson also attentively. The Saviour in whom we are bid to trust, is as really man as He is God. He knows the trials of a man, for He has experienced them. He knows the bodily infirmities of a man, for He has felt them. He can well understand what we mean, when we cry to Him for help in this world of need. He is just the very Saviour that men and women, with weary frames and aching heads, in a weary world, require for their comfort every morning and night. "We have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities." (Heb. 4:15.)

Let us learn, in the third place, that our Lord Jesus Christ, as God, has almighty power. We see Him in these verses doing that which is proverbially impossible. He speaks to the winds, and they obey Him. He speaks to the waves, and they submit to His command. He turns the raging storm into a calm with a few words,—"Peace, be still." Those words were the words of Him who first created all things. The elements knew the voice of their Master, and, like obedient servants, were quiet at once.

Let us mark this lesson also, and lay it up in our minds. With the Lord Jesus Christ nothing is impossible. No stormy passions are so strong but He can tame them. No temper is so rough and violent but He can change it. No conscience is so disquieted, but He can speak peace to it, and make it calm. No man ever need despair, if He will only bow down his pride, and come as a humbled sinner to Christ. Christ can do miracles upon his heart.—No man ever need despair of reaching his journey’s end, if he has once committed his soul to Christ’s keeping. Christ will carry him through every danger. Christ will make him conqueror over every foe.—What though our relations oppose us? What though our neighbours laugh us to scorn? What though our place be hard? What though our temptations be great? It is all nothing, if Christ is on our side, and we are in the ship with Him. Greater is He that is for us, than all they that are against us.

Finally, we learn from this passage, that our Lord Jesus Christ is exceedingly patient and pitiful in dealing with His own people. We see the disciples on this occasion showing great want of faith, and giving way to most unseemly fears. They forgot their Master’s miracles and care for them in days gone by. They thought of nothing but their present peril. They awoke our Lord hastily, and cried, "carest thou not that we perish?" We see our Lord dealing most gently and tenderly with them. He gives them no sharp reproof. He makes no threat of casting them off, because of their unbelief. He simply asks the touching question, "Why are ye so fearful? How is it that ye have no faith?"

Let us mark well this lesson. The Lord Jesus is very pitiful and of tender mercy. "As a father pitieth his children, even so the Lord pitieth them that fear Him." (Psalm 103:13.) He does not deal with believers according to their sins, nor reward them according to the iniquities. He sees their weakness. He is aware of their short-comings. He knows all the defects of their faith, and hope, and love, and courage. And yet He will not cast them off. He bears with them continually. He loves them even to the end. He raises them when they fall. He restores them when they err. His patience, like His love, is a patience that passeth knowledge. When He sees a heart right, it is His glory to pass over many a short-coming.

Let us leave these verses with the comfortable recollection that Jesus is not changed. His heart is still the same that it was when He crossed the sea of Galilee and stilled the storm. High in heaven at the right hand of God, Jesus is still sympathizing,—still almighty,—still pitiful and patient towards His people.—Let us be more charitable and patient towards our brethren in the faith. They may err in may things, but if Jesus has received them and can bear with them, surely we may bear with them too.—Let us be more hopeful about ourselves. We may be very weak, and frail, and unstable; but if we can truly say that we do come to Christ and believe on Him, we may take comfort. The question for conscience to answer is not, "Are we like the angels? are we perfect as we shall be in heaven?" The question is, "Are we real and true in our approaches to Christ? Do we truly repent and believe?"

Bishop J. C. Ryle

Truth Mattered to Paul More than Another's Motive

Certainly with regard to Paul himself there should be no debate;

Paul certainly was not indifferent to doctrine; on the contrary, doctrine

was the very basis of his life. His devotion to doctrine did not, it is true,

make him incapable of a magnificent tolerance. One notable example of

such tolerance is to be found during his imprisonment at Rome, as attested

by the Epistle to the Philippians. Apparently certain Christian

teachers at Rome had been jealous of Paul’s greatness. As long as he

had been at liberty they had been obliged to take a secondary place;

but now that he was in prison, they seized the supremacy. They sought

to raise up affliction for Paul in his bonds; they preached Christ even of

envy and strife. In short, the rival preachers made of the preaching of

the gospel a means to the gratification of low personal ambition; it

seems to have been about as mean a piece of business as could well be

conceived. But Paul was not disturbed. “Whether in presence, or in

truth,” he said, “Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and

will rejoice” (Phil. i. 18). The way in which the preaching was being

carried on was wrong, but the message itself was true; and Paul was

far more interested in the content of the message than in the manner of

its presentation. It is impossible to conceive a finer piece of broadminded

tolerance.

But the tolerance of Paul was not indiscriminate. He displayed no

tolerance, for example, in Galatia. There, too, there were rival preachers.

But Paul had no tolerance for them. “But though we,” he said, “or

an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that

which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed” (Gal. i. 8).

What is the reason for the difference in the apostle’s attitude in the two

cases? What is the reason for the broad tolerance in Rome, and the

fierce anathemas in Galatia? The answer is perfectly plain. In Rome,

Paul was tolerant, because there the content of the message that was

being proclaimed by the rival teachers was true; in Galatia he was intolerant,

because there the content of the rival message was false. In

neither case did personalities have anything to do with Paul’s attitude.

No doubt the motives of the Judaizers in Galatia were far from pure,

and in an incidental way Paul does point out their impurity. But that

was not the ground of his opposition. The Judaizers no doubt were

morally far from perfect, but Paul’s opposition to them would have

been exactly the same if they had all been angels from heaven. His opposition

was based altogether upon the falsity of their teaching; they

were substituting for the one true gospel a false gospel which was no

gospel at all. It never occurred to Paul that a gospel might be true for

one man and not for another; the blight of pragmatism had never fallen

upon his soul. Paul was convinced of the objective truth of the gospel

message, and devotion to that truth was the great passion of his life.

17 Christianity for Paul was not only a life, but also a doctrine, and logically

the doctrine came first.1

But what was the difference between the teaching of Paul and the

teaching of the Judaizers? What was it that gave rise to the stupendous

polemic of the Epistle to the Galatians? To the modern Church the difference

would have seemed to be a mere theological subtlety. About

many things the Judaizers were in perfect agreement with Paul. The

Judaizers believed that Jesus was the Messiah; there is not a shadow of

evidence that they objected to Paul’s lofty view of the person of Christ.

Without the slightest doubt, they believed that Jesus had really risen

from the dead. They believed, moreover, that faith in Christ was necessary

to salvation. But the trouble was, they believed that something

else was also necessary; they believed that what Christ had done

needed to be pieced out by the believer’s own effort to keep the Law.

From the modern point of view the difference would have seemed to

be very slight. Paul as well as the Judaizers believed that the keeping of

the law of God, in its deepest import, is inseparably connected with

faith. The difference concerned only the logical—not even, perhaps, the

temporal—order of three steps. Paul said that a man (1) first believes

on Christ, (2) then is justified before God, (3) then immediately proceeds

to keep God’s law. The Judaizers said that a man (1) believes on

Christ and (2) keeps the law of God the best he can, and then (3) is justified.

The difference would seem to modern “practical” Christians to

be a highly subtle and intangible matter, hardly worthy of consideration

at all in view of the large measure of agreement in the practical

realm. What a splendid cleaning up of the Gentile cities it would have

been if the Judaizers had succeeded in extending to those cities the observance

of the Mosaic law, even including the unfortunate ceremonial

observances! Surely Paul ought to have made common cause with

teachers who were so nearly in agreement with him; surely he ought to

have applied to them the great principle of Christian unity.

As a matter of fact, however, Paul did nothing of the kind; and only

because he (and others) did nothing of the kind does the Christian

Church exist today. Paul saw very clearly that the differences between

the Judaizers and himself was the differences between two entirely distinct

types of religion; it was the differences between a religion of merit

and a religion of grace. If Christ provides only a part of our salvation,

leaving us to provide the rest, then we are still hopeless under the load

of sin. For no matter how small the gap which must be bridged before

salvation can be attained, the awakened conscience sees clearly that

our wretched attempt at goodness is insufficient even to bridge that

gap. The guilty soul enters again into the hopeless reckoning with God,

to determine whether we have really done our part. And thus we

groan again under the old bondage of the law. Such an attempt to piece

out the work of Christ by our own merit, Paul saw clearly, is the very

essence of unbelief; Christ will do everything or nothing, and the only

hope is to throw ourselves unreservedly on His mercy and trust Him

for all.

Paul certainly was right. The differences which divided him from the

Judaizers was no mere theological subtlety, but concerned the very

heart and core of the religion of Christ.

“Just as I am without one plea,

But that Thy blood was shed for me”

—that was what Paul was contending for in Galatia; that hymn would

never have been written if the Judaizers had won. And without the

thing which that hymn expresses there is no Christianity at all.

J. Gresham Machen.

Christianaity and Liberalsim.

pp. 16-18

Herman Bavinck on Law and Gospel: Lutheran / Reformed differences

“Viewed concretely, law and Gospel differ not so much in that the law always meets us in the form of command and the Gospel in the form of promise, for the law too has promises and the Gospel too has warnings and obligations. But they differ especially in content: the law demands that man work out his own righteousness, while the Gospel invites him to renounce all self-righteousness and to receive the righteousness of Christ, to which end it even bestows the gift of faith.

Law and Gospel stand in that relationship not just before and at the point of conversion; but they continue standing in that relationship throughout the whole of the Christian life, all the way to the grave. The Lutherans have an eye almost exclusively for the accusing, condemning work of the law and therefore know of no greater salvation than liberation from the law. The law is necessary only on account of sin. According to Lutheran theology, in the state of perfection there is no law. God is free from the law; Christ was not subject to the law for Himself at all; the believer no longer stands under the law. Naturally, the Lutherans speak of a threefold use of the law, not only of a usus politicus (civilis), to restrain sin, and a usus paedagogicus, to arouse the knowledge of sin, but also of a usus didacticus, to function for the believer as a rule of living. But this last usus is nonetheless necessary simply and only because and insofar as believers are still sinners, and must still be tamed by the law, and must still be led to a continuing knowledge of sin. In itself the law ceases with the coming of faith and grace, and loses all its significance.

The Reformed, however, have thought about this in an entirely different way. The usus politicus and the usus paedagogicus of the law became necessary only accidentally because of sin; even with these uses aside, the most important usus remains, the usus didacticus or normativus. After all, the law is an expression of God’s being. As a human being Christ was subject to the law for Himself. Before the fall Adam had the law written upon his heart. With the believer it is again written upon the tablets of his heart by the Holy Spirit. And all those in heaven will walk according to the law of the Lord.

The Gospel is temporary, but the law is eternal and is restored precisely through the Gospel. Freedom from the law consists, then, not in the fact that the Christian has nothing more to do with the law, but lies in the fact that the law demands nothing more from the Christian as a condition of salvation. The law can no longer judge and condemn him. Instead he delights in the law of God according to the inner man and yearns for it day and night.

Therefore, that law must always be preached to the congregation in connection with the Gospel. Law and Gospel, the whole Word, the full counsel of God, is the content of preaching. Among Reformed people, therefore, the law occupies a much larger place than in the teaching of sin, since it is also part of the teaching of gratitude.” [Here Bavinck has a footnote providing bibliographical references relating to the views of Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, Zanchius, Witsius, De Moor, Vitringa, Schneckenburger, Frank, and Gottschick.]

(from paragraph 521 of Herman Bavinck’s Gereformeerde Dogmatiek, 3rd unaltered edition, vol. 4 (Kampen, J. H. Kok, 1918), emphases in bold added, and taken from this translation from the Dutch)

link source...

Edmund Clowney on Norman Shepherd’s Controversial Distinctive Theology by Wes Whilte

I am sticking this in my blog for future reference as well as posting a thread. It is most a most excellent short teaching tool as well as an Expose. I love the Pastoral attitude it was done with also.

Thanks to Pastor Wes White for this blog. I received permission from him to post it here on the Puritanboard.

Here is Pastor Whites blog also.

Pastor Wes White posted this on his blog and I found it most excellent. It defines the good theology in the first part and then exposes Dr. Norm Shepherd's departure from solid biblical doctrine concerning the Covenants.

Wes did a good thing in posting this. I didn't even know it existed.

Edmund Clowney was president of Westminster Seminary in Philadelphia from 1966–1984. He was the president when the Board removed Norman Shepherd from his position at Westminster Seminary. Clowney finally came down in opposition to Norman Shepherd. He wrote:
But after examining his position as carefully as I can, I am persuaded that his views are sufficiently distinctive in emphasis and form to be controversial. By controversial I do not mean simply views that stimulate discussion and debate, but views that differ from our Confessional standards and appear to threaten significant doctrinal positions.
Clowney concluded that there were five areas in which Norman Shepherd “threaten(ed)” our Confessional standards:
1. The contrast made in the Westminster Standards between the covenant of works and the covenant of grace is significantly reduced.
2. The implications of the fulfillment of the covenant command by the active obedience of Jesus Christ are lost from view in the covenantal dynamic.
3. The emphasis of the WCF on the sole instrumentality of faith is relativized by the covenantal dynamic.
4. The “covenant dynamic” also substantially qualifies the WCF statement on the “Perseverance of the Saints”.
5. Election in the context of the covenant does not describe a “state of affairs,” but presents a word of promise to be received in faith.

What follows is Clowney’s full and careful analysis of the issues.

Report to the Visitation Committee of the Board of Trustees

(Revised for submission, November 11, 1981)
Edmund P. Clowney

At the committee’s request I have sought to provide an analysis of the problem at the Seminary that the Committee seeks to remedy. At your invitation I have discussed the issues with you. I appreciate your invitation, and I appreciate, too, the many hours that members of the Committee have spent in discussion with most members of the faculty, with students, and with others concerned.

You had requested me to report in writing to your meeting at the Seminary on October 9. I was not able to provide a full written report at that time, but I did furnish you with a formulation of “Controversial Issues in the Teaching of Professor Shepherd.” I deeply regret that Professor Shepherd did not receive a copy of this formulation until the day of that meeting. I had promised to give him a copy as soon as it was complete, so that he could react to it before the committee received it. I expected to complete it well before the meeting. I did not formulate it finally, however, until the night of October 7. My secretary was unable to complete the typing in the working day on October 8, and stayed into the evening to finish. I actually added an explanatory paragraph on the morning of October 9. I now want to provide the complete report.

The reasons for my delay in completing my report were in part the size of the task and my access to the material, and in part my own struggles with the issues involved. I have been participating in the discussions since the questions arose in 1975, and have read carefully the writings of Professor Shepherd, his supporters and his critics. During the summer I reviewed his writings and took extensive notes on his popular lectures delivered at Sandy Cove on the doctrine of the covenant. Only in September did I learn that Westminster Media was distributing the tapes of his course on the Doctrine of the Holy Spirit, a set of 42 cassette tapes. I listened to most of these tapes, taking notes. I then tried to digest what I learned from both the published writings and the tapes. Working from this digest and my other notes I faced what I regard as the crucial question: has the controversy stemmed principally from misunderstanding of Professor Shepherd’s views together with misunderstanding of classical Reformed doctrine, or has it arisen because of distinctive and controversial formulations developed by Professor Shepherd?

It must be recognized that Professor Shepherd does present, in the areas of debate, much that must be described as classical Reformed doctrine. He was a diligent student of Professor Murray and is widely read in Reformed theology. Few theologians, in this country at least, have his knowledge of the Latin theological works of the Reformation and post-Reformation periods. His aim is to present a position that is true to the Scriptures as our primary standard as well as to the Confession and Catechisms, our secondary standards.

His statements have been challenged by some who are unaware of elements in classical Reformed doctrine. For example, Professor Shepherd has been dismayed by criticisms of his use of the phrase “the way of salvation” in application to our good works. The Larger Catechism, Q.32 speaks of “all holy obedience, as the evidence of the truth of their faith and thankfulness to God, and as the way which he hath appointed them to salvation” (See Calvin’sInstitutes III:18:1.)

Further, there are differences in tradition between the Reformed faith in Holland, in Scotland, and in the United States (to name but three countries!). Klaas Schilder’s views of the covenant and the controversies that led to the establishment of the “Liberated” churches in Holland are virtually unknown in U.S. Presbyterianism, but are well known to Professor Shepherd, who has spent many months in Holland, speaks Dutch fluently, and uses the literature regularly. From his own background, as well as from his studies with Professor Murray, Professor Shepherd also has extensive contacts with Presbyterian tradition in Scotland. At times Professor Shepherd may puzzle American hearers when he opposes tendencies of which they have little acquaintance–for example, the views of some Calvinistic churches in Holland that result in only a small minority of the congregation participating in the Lord’s Supper. He has been misunderstood at times by those who do not recognize what tendencies or errors he is opposing.

Yet there are distinctive elements in Professor Shepherd’s views and teaching. In the course of the controversy the discussion has centered first on his teaching regarding justification by faith and then on the most inclusive question of his view of the covenant.

The debate about justification arose from concern that Professor Shepherd was making obedience as well as faith instrumental to justification. This was occasioned originally by Professor Shepherd’s effort to deal with James 2:24. His argument was that since good works are not the ground of our justification, just as faith is not the ground of our justification, and since both are necessary for our justification, we may question the legitimacy of speaking of faith as the alone instrument of justification (WCF XI:2). Good works, too, may be said to be instrumental.

This challenge to the Confessional language led to the charge that Professor Shepherd was undermining what the Confession safeguarded: the exclusiveness of the role of faith in justification. Professor Shepherd then warned against an emphasis on faith that would make it the one thing we do, our contribution to salvation. For that reason he saw some difficulty with the use of the term “instrument” for either faith or good works. He cited John Murray’s comments about a certain liability attaching to the use of “instrument” as applied to faith.

He was ready, however, to present the distinct function or “office” of faith in justification. In faith there is an abandonment to Christ and to his righteousness as the only ground of our justification. Professor Shepherd withdrew the question-marks he had put first beside “alone,” then beside “instrument,” in the Confession’s statement. He was now willing to call faith the alone instrument so long as it was understood in the Confessional context, that “yet faith is not alone in the person justified, but is ever accompanied with all other saving graces, and is no dead faith, but worketh by love” (WCF XI:2).

The faith that justifies, Professor Shepherd argues, is not an empty “faith-only.” That would be a dead faith according to James and the Confession. Justifying faith is working faith, obedient faith. To establish his understanding of the Confession at this point, Professor Shepherd has appealed to the chapter on “Repentance unto Life” (XV). There we read that repentance is “of such necessity to all sinners, that none may expect pardon without it” (XV: 3). Further, the Confession says that by repentance a sinner “so grieves for and hates his sins, as to turn from them all unto God, purposing and endeavoring to walk with him in all the ways of his commandments.”

Professor Shepherd considers that he [was] merely expounding the Confession when he combined these statements: pardon is part of justification; repentance is necessary to pardon, and therefore to justification; new obedience is part of repentance; therefore obedience is necessary to justification.

This line of argumentation has convinced some of Professor Shepherd’s critics that he is holding that faith justifies because it is obedient. To this he has replied that he holds with Turretin that faith alone does not justify, but only faith justifies; the coexistence of love with faith is affirmed but its coefficiency or cooperation in justification is denied.

Professor Shepherd’s declaration that he is in agreement with this key formula used by Turretin proved reassuring. The formula does safeguard the exclusive role of faith in justification. How then does Professor Shepherd view the necessity of good works for justification? He has been willing to describe their necessity as a manifestation of faith. Those who continued to be disturbed by his views were those who found him hesitant or unwilling at times to limit the necessity of works to evidence or who felt that other statements that he made were inconsistent with the Turretin formula. His “Thirty-Four Theses,” for example, make no mention of the necessity of works as evidence (cf. 21-25). The tension that many found between Thesis 25 and its citation of Calvin illustrates the latter difficulty.

The committee is familiar with the history of the reviews of Professor Shepherd’s position on justification by the Faculty and the Board. You are aware of the approval he has given to the Westminster Statement on Justification. You are aware of the action of the Board to exonerate him of charges made regarding his views. To be sure, the motion to exonerate was first lost on a tie vote, then carried when cautionary language was added. But Professor Shepherd holds that definitive action has been taken and that further inquiry into his views by the Board is unjustified.

The situation has not remained static, however. Those who have been disturbed by his positions in the long debate, by his writings, and by the effects of his instruction on students have circulated appeals against his views. The faculty has condemned the manner in which this was done, and I have joined in that censure. Yet through this and other means a kind of fire-storm of criticism against Professor Shepherd and Westminster Seminary has swept across the churches and groups from which Westminster draws its students and support. We are being regarded as in error or confusion with regard to the central doctrines of the gospel. The one great asset of Westminster, humanly speaking, is our reputation for doctrinal orthodoxy, and it is this that is being rapidly eroded.

As I travel on behalf of the Seminary I meet this problem continually. Churches and individuals write to cut off support; students are warned by pastors against attending Westminster. The situation is grave, in my judgment. I feel responsible for seeking a remedy.

I did propose one possible remedy to you. I arranged, initially with Professor Shepherd’s consent, a colloquium of scholars for the last week of August, 1981. Those who consented to come included Dr. James I. Packer as moderator, scholars who had been critical of Professor Shepherd, and some who had supported him. My hope was to accomplish two things: to provide real understanding of his views on the part of these scholars, and to encourage discussion that could lead to resolution of the debate. I felt that this would have to involve modification of Professor Shepherd’s views but I genuinely felt that in the intensity of the dialogue both his views and the views of others could be brought to change and agreement. It was essential to this plan that some prominent scholars whose sharp criticisms of Professor Shepherd had been widely publicized should now be willing to speak publicly in his defense.

The plan failed when Professor Shepherd withdrew his consent on the ground that the colloquy had become another trial.

The situation has also continued to change as Professor Shepherd has continued to write and lecture in public and in the classroom. In my judgment, his views of the covenant as they are now being presented (the Sandy Cove lectures of last summer, his classroom lectures) raise other issues that put the justification discussion in a broader setting.

Westminster is in a most difficult position. Professor Shepherd has earned the profound respect and appreciation of his students. He is regarded as one of the best of our professors. In the faculty he is warmly regarded—and I share that regard as a colleague over many years. The faculty is also rightly concerned as to academic freedom, not simply in terms of job security, but in order to preserve the liberty to study the Scriptures freely and to examine new ways of developing theology that are in accord with our secondary standards.

If I felt that the sources of our present crisis of confidence were limited to misunderstandings of Professor Shepherd’s views or of our Confessional standards, I should feel compelled to oppose any suggestion of resignation or dismissal. But after examining his position as carefully as I can, I am persuaded that his views are sufficiently distinctive in emphasis and form to be controversial. By controversial I do not mean simply views that stimulate discussion and debate, but views that differ from our Confessional standards and appear to threaten significant doctrinal positions.

The many documents that have been produced in the history of this controversy attest this. I have sought not to summarize them, but to formulate the basic pattern of the controversial positions of Professor Shepherd as I see them.

Controversial Issues in the Teaching of Professor Shepherd

What are the controversial elements in the teaching of Norman Shepherd?

Although the controversy has focused on justification, the issues are all related to the deeper problem of Norman Shepherd’s formulation of the doctrine of the covenant. The confusion in the discussion stems from his distinctive formulation of the “covenantal dynamic” and of the “covenantal consciousness” that reflects it.

This theological construction is presented with deep conviction and enthusiasm as the Biblical master-pattern, perceived uniquely in the Reformed Faith, and now freshly clarified. It is contrasted with Roman Catholic, Lutheran, Arminian, and broadly evangelical theologies, but it is also offered as providing a resolution of long-standing controversies. Arminians and Hyper-Calvinists, for example, can stop shouting their favorite texts at each other. Instead, they can reflect on how it is that the Bible seems to offer support for both of their positions with no apparent awareness of tension. The secret is the dynamic of the covenant as Professor Shepherd perceives it.

The covenant dynamic includes divine sovereignty and human responsibility, and grounds the second in the first. That, of course, is standard Calvinistic doctrine. But the distinctiveness of Professor Shepherd’s formulation appears in the “dynamic” interrelation, in the covenant, of God’s free grace and the response of man made in God’s image. The covenantal relation is not speculative or abstract. It is a living relationship of union and communion between God and man. God’s initiative establishes his covenant in the grace of his promise. But God also accompanies his promise with command. The dynamic of the covenant arises from this two-sidedness.

On the one hand, the sovereignty of God’s grace in the covenant is consistently affirmed. God establishes his covenant; the promise and the command are his and both are given in grace; the command is not less gracious than the promise.

On the other hand, the graciously given commands must be obeyed; if they are not obeyed, destruction, the threat of the covenant, will be meted out. Prof. Shepherd would end the shouting-match between Arminians and Calvinists by saying with the Arminians that God does require obedience for salvation and that the threat of destruction for disobedience is real and applicable actually, not hypothetically, to the church of the New Covenant no less than to Israel of the Old. But on the other hand, Prof. Shepherd undertakes to show that his emphasis on the response of obedience that the covenant requires does not jeopardize the Calvinistic insistence on the grace of God, for that, too is included in the dynamic of the covenant.

How can the conditionality of salvation and of the covenant be so strongly insisted upon without Arminian modifications of the Reformed doctrines of election, justification, sanctification, perseverance, and assurance?

Prof. Shepherd holds that we must understand these doctrines in a covenantal context, that is, as qualified by both the promise and the conditionality of the covenant. They are so presented in Scripture, he holds, and to qualify them in this way is compatible with the Reformed secondary standards or even required by those standards.

The following factors are presented by Prof. Shepherd to show that the covenantal context does not undermine the doctrines that it qualifies:

1. The covenantal context structures the relation between God and his people from their perspective. It assumes the prior reality of God’s decrees, but since those decrees are part of God’s secret will rather than his revealed will, their contents are not given in the covenant promise or command. They ground the covenant dynamic but are not part of it. The attempt to gain access to the decrees, or to reason as though one could, is an attempt to escape the dynamic of the covenant, to replace promise with information or faith with presumption.

2. Reformed orthodoxy has affirmed the necessity of good works for salvation while denying that they are the meritorious ground of our acceptance with God. Good works are the way by which we reach the promised inheritance. In the covenantal perspective obedience is required as the necessary and qualifying response to the covenant promise. God’s covenant faithfulness requires the response of covenant faithfulness from his people. Yet this faithfulness is not meritorious, for two reasons: first, the covenant structure is not a bargaining relationship but a relationship of love established in grace; second, our covenant faithfulness is enabled by grace.

3. The Westminster Confession of Faith is structured in a covenantal pattern as it deals with the application of redemption. It first presents the saving acts of God, the content of the gospel promise. God’s saving grace is expounded under the headings of effectual calling, justification, adoption, and sanctification. Only then does it turn to the response of men to God’s grace: saving faith, repentance unto life, good works, the perseverance of the saints, the assurance of grace and salvation. Prof. Shepherd insists that this overall organization is of primary importance. God’s covenant grace is conveyed to us and we respond covenantally. Our response is fundamentally that of obedience. Faith, repentance, and good works are alike actions of obedience, responding to God’s gracious promise and command. This obedience can be rendered only as a result of God’s saving and sanctifying work in us as we are united to Jesus Christ. Only the regenerate can believe (and not all the regenerate at that, for infants and mentally handicapped persons may be regenerated). Those who are regenerate have already been sanctified by grace. It is therefore impossible to divorce sanctification from justification and adoption: God’s work is one. It is equally impossible to divorce faith from repentance and good works. They are intertwined. The Confession defines saving faith broadly, then specifies “the principal acts of saving faith.” The central element of saving faith, abandonment to Christ, is one focus within the complex of obedient faith. Similarly, repentance is necessary to forgiveness, and therefore to justification, but repentance includes the endeavor after obedience. The interweaving of God’s saving acts on the one hand, and of our acts of response on the other, is consonant with the covenantal dynamic. The crucial distinction is between God’s saving action, which must come first, and our response which must be whole-souled and total.

4. The covenantal structure, however, does not obliterate the distinctions that are stated or implied in the separate chapters of the Confession presenting the elements or aspects of God’s saving actions and our response. Prof. Shepherd affirms and uses formulations of these distinctions that do not separate what is distinguished. (Among the members of the body only the eye sees, but an eye alone cannot see. So faith alone justifies, but faith that is alone cannot justify. Faith and the other graces are coexistent but not coefficient as instruments of justification. The sun gives light and heat; faith and love are alike fruits of the Spirit, but faith and love are different graces.)

5. The Westminster Confession asserts the unity of the covenant of grace, and thereby makes the key affirmation for covenant theology. Prof. Shepherd insists that the basic covenant pattern of promise and command is as characteristic of New Testament theology as it is of Old Testament theology. Indeed, the well-known indicative/imperative of Pauline theology is cited by Prof. Shepherd as pointedly expressing the covenantal dynamic. The continuity of the Old and New Covenants is essential for the covenantal perspective. Without the example of Israel we might misconceive the doctrine of election. For Israel it was not like a new suit kept in the closet; it was the comfortable uniform of daily life. The piety of the Psalms, deeply imbued with the distinction between the righteous and the wicked reminds us that the major Scriptural classification is not believers/unbelievers but righteous/wicked. And not least, the prophets’ warnings to covenant-breakers are manifestly not hypothetical for Israel. The wrath of the covenant was poured out upon them.

6. The Confession recognizes the place of good works in the covenantal response. In some circles “good works” have become dirty words, but for the Apostle Paul good works are the culmination of the purpose of redemption (e.g. Titus 2:14). The works that Paul condemns are “works done in righteousness, which we did ourselves” (Titus 3:5), works of the flesh, works of the law. But these are not good works, a phrase that is always used by Paul for the fruits of the Spirit.

Prof. Shepherd appeals to Scripture and to the Reformed secondary standards to support his position. Can his “covenantal dynamic” approach be accepted as a more Scriptural formulation that is at least compatible with the Westminster Standards?

It will be well to note some of the modifications, expressed or implied, that the “covenantal dynamic” as presented by Prof. Shepherd requires in our understanding of the Standards.

1. The contrast made in the Westminster Standards between the covenant of works and the covenant of grace is significantly reduced.

The Westminster Standards (WCF VII:2, 3; LC 30-32) contrast the condition of the first covenant (the covenant of works) with the condition of the second covenant (the covenant of grace). The condition of the covenant of works is “perfect and personal obedience.” The condition of the covenant of grace is faith, a condition that is given by God and functions to “interest” sinners in Christ the Mediator.

The first covenant is made with Adam and in him with his posterity; the second is made with Christ as the second Adam, and in him with all the elect as his seed (WCF VII:2; LC 31). The “perfect and personal obedience” required of Adam was a condition that he did not meet and that his sinful posterity could not meet. That condition, however, was met perfectly by Jesus Christ as the second Adam. “The Lord Jesus, by his perfect obedience and sacrifice of himself, which he through the eternal Spirit once offered up unto God, hath fully satisfied the justice of his Father; and purchased not only reconciliation, but an everlasting inheritance in the kingdom of heaven, for all those whom the Father hath given unto him” (WCF VIII:5).

Since Christ has perfectly fulfilled the condition of the covenant of works and has borne the wrath of its curse for his people, the covenant of grace, according to the Standards, has a different condition for those who are its beneficiaries. The condition is not “perfect and personal obedience” but faith, faith that joins us to the obedience and sacrifice of another, the Mediator of the covenant of grace.

The use of the term for “covenant” (diatheke) in the sense of “testament” underscores the fullness and finality of the work of Christ as the covenant Head (WCF VII:4).

Our Standards, therefore, do not compare our new obedience in the covenant of grace to the obedience required of Adam and his posterity in the covenant of works. Rather, faith is the condition of the covenant of grace and the holy obedience that we are enabled by grace to render to God is described, not as the condition of the covenant, but as the evidence of the truth of our faith and thankfulness to God, and as the way which God has appointed us to salvation (LC 32).

Prof. Shepherd reduces the contrast of the Standards first by emphasizing the grace of the covenant of works. With John Murray and other Reformed theologians he rejects the term “covenant of works” (the Standards do not insist on the term, cf. LC 30). He stresses the statement in WCF VII:1 that affirms the “voluntary condescension” on God’s part, expressed in his promise of blessedness and reward by way of covenant. He further emphasizes the sonship of Adam and uses the family figure to describe the covenant.

Indeed, he develops all the characteristics of the covenant relation under the “Creation Covenant” made with our first parents. It is a sovereignly established relation of union and communion between God and his people with a command and a promise; it is established in grace with mutually binding ties of love and faithfulness. This same covenantal structure embraces all relation between God and man from Genesis to Revelation. It applies not only to God’ s dealing with Adam before the fall, but to the covenant with Abraham, with Israel, and with the New Covenant people of God.

Adam was created righteous and holy, given the promise and command of the covenant as a son of God. So, too, Israel was re-created by God as a holy nation and given the covenantal promise and command. The same is true in the New Covenant. We are a new creation in Christ Jesus, made to be sons and daughters of God and given the same covenantal promise and the same commandment of love and faithfulness.

To be sure, if Adam had been obedient he would have been justified on the ground of his own inherent righteousness, not on the ground of imputed righteousness. Yet that righteousness would have been but the proven form of God’s gift of righteousness in Adam’s creation. It would not have been meritorious; Adam was a son, not a laborer, the covenant in the garden was not a labor contract. The gift of eternal life could not be merited by obedience to one command so easily performed. Prof. Shepherd describes Adam’s covenantal obedience in terms of essential covenant demand applicable to us in the covenant of grace.

Prof. Shepherd does not minimize the consequences of the fall. Neither does he obscure the significance of the gift of the Spirit and the cleansing blood of Christ in the New Covenant. The law of Moses could not take away sin; the blood of Christ could and did. The law of Moses could not give life; the Spirit of Christ could and did. Yet even here Prof. Shepherd stresses the restorative aspect of the New Covenant. God’s purpose in establishing his Creation Covenant will be fulfilled. The New Covenant is described in language appropriate to the Creation Covenant: “God makes us alive in fellowship with him and holds before us the promise of life to come.” God does not by-pass the covenant requirement of obedience in redemption. He restores responsible covenant relationship.

Since the covenantal dynamic operates in common for Adam, for Israel, and for us, the New Covenant is made to be conditional in the same fundamental way that the covenant with Adam was.

Now the Westminster Confession identifies the law given to Adam and his posterity in the covenant of works (requiring “personal, entire, exact, and perpetual obedience”) with the moral law contained in the Ten Commandments (XIX:1,2). That law continues to bind all, including justified persons, but true believers are not under it ” as a covenant of works, to be thereby justified or condemned” (XIX:6). The threatenings of the law show what the sins of even the regenerate deserve, and what afflictions in this life they may expect for them “although freed from the curse thereof.” Similarly the promises of the law show God’s approval of obedience and his blessings that may be expected, “although not as due to them by the law as a covenant of works” (XIX:6).

When the Confession makes a connection between the covenant of works made with Adam and the promises and threats of the law in the Mosaic Covenant its structure is significantly different from the “covenantal dynamic” approach. Prof. Shepherd does speak of the law as written on our hearts in the New Covenant. The Spirit binds the union and communion of covenant fellowship. But “the New Covenant, like all God’s covenants, brings with it two sides, promise and command (Rom. 12:2). The command of the New Covenant has identity with the old.” It is the command to love God and neighbor. The warnings of destruction continue in the New Covenant, destruction of those who do not follow God’s commands.

Professor Shepherd’s insistence that the covenantal structure remains the same has the effect of making the New Covenant conditional in the same way that the covenant with Adam was. It further applies to the people of the New Covenant the threats of the law in the Mosaic Covenant not simply in showing what their sins deserve but as exposing them to the curse. The essential covenantal condition is the required covenantal response: obedience. Faith is part of that obedience and has a distinctive function, but only as part of the full covenantal response. The strong conditional element in the Mosaic Covenant, isolated by the Confession as the threat of the law and related to the covenant of works, is absorbed by Professor Shepherd into the normative and uniform covenant structure. The New Covenant is seen in terms of the Old rather than the Old being transformed by its fulfillment in the New.

2. The implications of the fulfillment of the covenant command by the active obedience of Jesus Christ are lost from view in the covenantal dynamic.

In the quotations above from WCF XIX it is apparent how careful the Confession is to distinguish the sense in which we are called upon to receive the promise and warnings of the covenant from the sense in which they were issued to Adam, or even to Israel in the Mosaic law. The covenantal dynamic approach faces difficulty here in two directions. First, if covenantal obedience is never meritorious, so that Adam would have been justified on the ground of inherent righteousness but not meritorious righteousness, the question is raised as to the meritoriousness of Christ’s righteousness. Calvin discusses this question (Institutes II:17:1): “For there are some men, more subtle than orthodox, who though they confess that Christ obtained salvation for us, yet cannot bear the word merit, by which they suppose the grace of God is obscured.” Calvin goes on to argue that merit in Christ is not opposed to grace: “For Christ could merit nothing except by the good pleasure of God, by which he had been predestinated to appease the Divine wrath by his sacrifice, and to abolish our transgressions by his obedience.” Christ’s merit and God’s predestinating grace are with equal propriety opposed to all the righteousness of men.

But if Christ’s active obedience merits for us eternal life, if the meritorious ground of our salvation is his covenant-keeping obedience, then a second question arises. Our relation to the covenant structure then differs from Adam’s in the garden not first because we have an advantage in the gift of the Spirit but because we have the perfected righteousness of Christ who kept the covenant for us. If the Mosaic covenant is considered, as Prof. Shepherd is willing to consider it, in its setting in the history of redemption before Christ, then the same distinction would apply. We do not differ from Israel under the law primarily in that we can keep the law by the Spirit although Israel could not. The great difference is that just as we died to the curse of the law in the death of Christ, so our justification is sealed by Christ’s resurrection, the evidence of his sinless and perfect fulfillment of the law (Vos, Redemptive History and Biblical Interpretation, p. 501).

Prof. Shepherd certainly believes in the imputation of Christ’s righteousness, including his active obedience, for our justification (Rom. 5:18, 19; I Cor. 1:30; II Cor. 5:21; Col. 2:10). Yet because his framing of the covenantal dynamic is keyed upon the uniform two-sidedness of the covenant relation, it does not take account adequately of the realization of the covenant structure in Christ.

Christ receives the promises, fulfills the commands, and bears the curse–all for us. He is the covenant-keeper. The cup of the New Covenant is the cup of Christ’s blood shed for many for the remission of sins. As the second Adam and the true Israel Jesus pays the price of sin. The cup is a cup of blessing for us, the pledge of his finished work. The covenant is kept. Indeed, it is not insignificant that the language of the covenant recedes in favor of the figures of sonship, marriage, the body of Christ and the dwelling of the Spirit, figures associated with the covenant in the Old Testament, but which gain a force of their own in the New.

3. The emphasis of the WCF on the sole instrumentality of faith is relativized by the covenantal dynamic.

This takes place in a number of ways. It is true that the ordo salutis is structured on the question of the application of salvation to the individual. The covenantal dynamic puts the emphasis on the corporate rather than on the individual. It is true that the New Testament does not forsake the corporate for the individual. Yet it is also true that there is a significant individualizing in the New Covenant as over against the Old. Indeed, Paul’s use of the “corporate” figure–the body–shows the balance of individual and community concerns. The issues considered in the ordo salutis are important for the WCF and for our understanding and preaching of the New Testament.

Further, the “covenantal dynamic” views obedience as the qualifying response to the gospel of grace. Prof. Shepherd is willing to set aside or refute arguments for any logical priority of faith. Faith (or faithfulness) is one among many gifts of the Spirit, and it is not named first (Gal. 5:22). The “holistic” response to the covenant is entirely a response of obedience; faith is one focus–the “obedience of faith,” Paul’s phrase in Romans, is understood to imply this.

Faith, repentance, and obedience are regularly linked in Prof. Shepherd’s teaching as the covenantal response. Although he no longer teaches that works, like faith, are an instrument of justification, and although he is willing to think of good works as the fruit of faith, nevertheless the effect of the covenantal obedience package is to keep this question alive. Since he regards the term “instrument” as at least partially misleading, he is not enthusiastic about its use for faith. On the other hand, after strongly suggesting the parallel role of repentance to faith, he simply states that the Confession does not have any word like “instrument” to use for repentance.

The problem that is raised by the redefinition of our response in the New Covenant as essentially obedience is obvious. Coupled with Prof. Shepherd’s emphasis on the non-hypothetical nature of N.T. warnings and the two-sided character of the covenant, the conditional emphasis of the covenant dynamic is loud and clear.

4. The “covenant dynamic” also substantially qualifies the WCF statement on the “Perseverance of the Saints”.

The conditional tension that Prof. Shepherd seeks to preserve in the covenantal dynamic leads to an elaborate qualification of the phrase “upon the immutability of the decree of election” in WCF XVII:2. Election in terms of the eternal decree is outside the covenantal context. We lay hold of election as promise, not as information. Prof. Shepherd vigorously opposes seeing perseverance as an implication of election. Perseverance and assurance must be understood as rising not from a peek into the Lamb’s Book of Life, but from the covenant and from holding fast in faith and life to the word and way of the covenant. The Confession and the Larger Catechism (Q. 79 cf. 30, 31) place the nature of the covenant of grace beside the decree of election as the unconditional ground of perseverance. Prof. Shepherd appeals to the parable in Matthew 18:25-35. His observation is that the wicked servant had been forgiven his debt before he refused to forgive his fellow-servant. He refused to forgive his debtor, and therefore his debt was not forgiven. Perseverance in the covenant faces the real possibility of falling, but it stands firm as the believer walks in the way, trusting in the promises of God.

5. Election in the context of the covenant does not describe a “state of affairs,” but presents a word of promise to be received in faith.

A strong statement of the relation of election and covenant is found in Geerhardus Vos, op. cit. pp. 257-258.

Vos argues that the covenant outlook cannot function apart from the doctrine of election. In the consciousness of believers, he says, the covenant expresses the certainty of the state of grace. “It was used as a formula for the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints, a doctrine undoubtedly rooted in election.”

Vos then traces the line of argumentation that derives assurance from covenant. He finds it precisely in the distinction between the covenant of works and the covenant of grace. The covenant of works depended on both God and man. It was therefore temporal and uncertain. “The covenant of grace has its fixity in God alone, who answers for both parties, and effects man’s willing and working by the Holy Spirit.” Its fixity does not lie at the end, but at the beginning, in the work of the Mediator already grounded in his eternal guaranty. It is therefore an unalterable covenant, extending into eternity.

Professor Shepherd’s emphasis on the two-sided dynamic of the covenant obscures the fact that God in the covenant of grace “answers for both parties” in the finished work of Christ. It is true that the promise of the covenant is appropriated in faith, but that which is appropriated is God’s sovereign, electing grace in Christ. The unconditional character of the covenant of grace in Christ requires us to recognize faith as the sole instrument. The conditionality of faith is unique not because it is a condition that God’s grace provides. The total response of those united to Christ is given by grace. Faith is unique because it presents nothing, but looks to Christ to meet all conditions.

The Gospel goes farther than Natural light and requires more.

The following comments are made by the divine Jeremiah Burroughs in light of the Decalogue as the light of nature and the Gospel as the fullness of his revelation for our Gospel obedience. It would do us all well to read the divines who participated in the great Westminster Assembly to find out what was truly being said.

The word conversation in the following quotes means conduct. It is the word the divines used to mean how one lived.
RMS

"For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven." We shall likewise speak further of this when we open that of the law, that our conversations must be higher than the conversations of those who lived under the law, or else it does not become the gospel of Christ.
p.52

Here Christ is a great preacher of the gospel, and shows that there is more strictness in the gospel than there is by the light of nature or by the law, or by that which they understand by the law. The light of nature dictates that men should not kill, nor commit adultery, but now, if your conversation is such as becomes the gospel, then you must make conscious of anger and tremble at that as a natural man would tremble at murder, for that becomes the gospel.
p.53


Our conversations must be such as is beyond such as live under the law. For the law of God goes higher than the light of nature, for there is more revealed there than the light of nature…
p.56

Now this gives you a little hint of the difference between the law and the gospel, between the conversations of men that were merely legal, and the conversation that is evangelical. But the opening of it is to show the difference between the law and the gospel in reference to this, and to show how low the conversation was that was merely legal, and how high raised the conversation of a Christian ought to be if he would make it evangelical, such as becomes the gospel of Christ,
p.57

Those who live under the gospel must live in a higher way of holiness than those who lived under the law.
p.59

portions of Gospel Conversations pp.52-59

I heartily recommend people buy and read Gospel Conversations by Jeremiah Burroughs. It is a life changing exposition by one of the Westminster Divines. This book is doing a work in this older mans heart and life.

Relearning some old stuff about prayer.

I am slowly meditating upon the book of 1 Peter again. Today I came across an old familiar passage that cross referenced some other passages in my mind. In that meditation I can still hear my Pa Pa in the faith (Pastor Joe Gwynn) declaring the truth that if our relationships are not correct with man and God our prayers and communion with God will be hindered. The two reflect one another. If we have harbored sin consciously or unconsciously we are stifled and have a disunity.

I have many blind spots even after 30 years of walking with Christ. That is why it is so important for me to keep praying, "Search me, O God, and know my heart: try me, and know my thoughts: And see if there be any wicked way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting."

(Mat 5:23) Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee;

(Mat 5:24) Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.

(1Pe 3:7) Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.

(1Pe 3:8) Finally, be ye all of one mind, having compassion one of another, love as brethren, be pitiful, be courteous:

(1Pe 3:9) Not rendering evil for evil, or railing for railing: but contrariwise blessing; knowing that ye are thereunto called, that ye should inherit a blessing.

(1Pe 3:10) For he that will love life, and see good days, let him refrain his tongue from evil, and his lips that they speak no guile:

(1Pe 3:11) Let him eschew evil, and do good; let him seek peace, and ensue it.

(1Pe 3:12) For the eyes of the Lord are over the righteous, and his ears are open unto their prayers: but the face of the Lord is against them that do evil.

(Psa 66:18) If I regard iniquity in my heart, the Lord will not hear me:

I just found this Encouraging. J. C. Ryle concerning the State of England in 1868

J. C. Ryle concerning the state of things in England in 1868.

I believe that our times are the best of times that England has ever seen. I do not say this boastfully. I know that we have many things to deplore; but I do say that we might be worse. I do say that we were much worse a hundred years ago. The general standard of religion and morality is undoubtedly far higher. At all events, in 1868, we are awake. We see and feel evils to which, a hundred years ago, men were insensible. We struggle to be free from these evils; we desire to amend. This is a vast improvement. With all our many faults we are not sound asleep. On every side there is a stir, activity, movement, progress, and not stagnation. Bad as we are, we confess our badness; weak as we are we acknowledge our failings; feeble as our efforts are, we strive to amend; little as we do for Christ, we do try to do something. Let us thank God for this! Things might be worse.

The Christian Leaders of the Last Century
p.10

This happened because men started to take the scriptures seriously.

(1Pe 1:13) Wherefore gird up the loins of your mind, be sober, and hope to the end for the grace that is to be brought unto you at the revelation of Jesus Christ;

(1Pe 1:14) As obedient children, not fashioning yourselves according to the former lusts in your ignorance:

(1Pe 1:15) But as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation;

(1Pe 1:16) Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy.

(1Pe 1:17) And if ye call on the Father, who without respect of persons judgeth according to every man's work, pass the time of your sojourning here in fear:

(1Pe 1:18) Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers;

(1Pe 1:19) But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:

Being Righteouss Before Christ, the Saints, and Your Conscience for the Benefit of

Jeremiah Borroughs
Gospel Conversation
pp. 17,18
Soli Deo Gloria

Being Righteouss...

By this means, you will have evidence to your souls of the truth of grace in your hearts which you cannot have if your conversations (conduct of life) are not right. 1 John 1:6, mark what the Apostle says, "If we say that we have fellowship with Him and walk in darkness, we lie and do not the truth." And again, you have a notable Scripture in 1 John 3:7, "Little children, let no man deceive you; he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as He is righteous." It is as if he should say, "There are a company of deceivers in the world, and they think it enough to talk of righteousness. They say they believe in Jesus Christ, and its faith only that is required of them; and as for the other, thats only a mere legal thing for men to make the conscience of duties and their lives. This is only legal! Let them trust in Jesus Christ; Christ has done all. What, can we be saved by our lives? Has not Christ done all? Is not righteousness not found in Him?"

"Let no man deceive you," said the Apostle. If there is not a "doing" righteousness, there is no righteousness in you. "He that doeth righteousness is righteous." You have nothing to do with the righteousness of Christ as your own applied yet unto you unless you do righteousness. Therefore, have a care of your conversation that you may have evidence to your souls of the truth that there is in your hearts.

Concerning Jonah and Grace

After I wrote to my blog here discussing Grace and Jonah, I was directed to and heard a podcast last evening with a Reformed Pastor being interviewed by a Prof. from a very popular Seminary. The topic of Jonah was brought up at around 7 minutes and 50 seconds. The program is about the Grace of God. The Pastor made a comment that Jonah couldn't understand why God would extend the same grace he would to Jonah toward Pagans (ie. Nineveh). Maybe that part is true. His conclusion was that Jonah didn't really understand the grace of God. I partially disagree with that. I believe he understood it but he might not have comprehended it. I will exhibit what I am saying below.

At 7:47 the host asks a good question, "When the Lord came to Jonah, what was it that Jonah really didn't understand?" To which the guest's conclusion was that Jonah operated with a real sense of entitlement and couldn't understand why God would extend the same grace to the Ninevite's that He would extend to Jonah and the Israelites. He believed Jonah's motivation was that if one lived a certain way God was obligated to bless him. So because of that Jonah didn't really understand grace. Maybe that is true. But I take a different approach in understanding Jonah.

First off it is revealed that Jonah truly understood that God was gracious and merciful even when he was still in his home land.

Jon 4:2) And he prayed unto the LORD, and said, I pray thee, O LORD, was not this my saying, when I was yet in my country? Therefore I fled before unto Tarshish: for I knew that thou art a gracious God, and merciful, slow to anger, and of great kindness, and repentest thee of the evil.

Jonah didn't want to go to Nineveh because he didn't want the Ninevites to have that opportunity at mercy and grace. His heart was hardened and bitter against Nineveh. They were a terrible persecuting people towards the Israelites. They caused much harm toward them. I actually possibly see this same attitude in St. Paul. Maybe I am incorrect.

(2Ti 4:14) Alexander the coppersmith did me much evil: the Lord reward him according to his works:

Did St. Paul not understand the grace of God?

Anyways, Jonah probably desired to see God's justice done unto Nineveh. He says that he understood God was a gracious God, merciful, slow to anger, and of great kindness, so that turned him to run away from the task. So I don't believe that Jonah didn't understand this about God.

I also don't think that Jonah didn't understand that he needed this same grace before he complained in anger towards God in Jonah chapter 4. For instance after he was spit up out of the fish he declared this.

(Jon 2:1) Then Jonah prayed unto the LORD his God out of the fish's belly,

(Jon 2:2) And said, I cried by reason of mine affliction unto the LORD, and he heard me; out of the belly of hell cried I, and thou heardest my voice.

(Jon 2:3) For thou hadst cast me into the deep, in the midst of the seas; and the floods compassed me about: all thy billows and thy waves passed over me.

(Jon 2:4) Then I said, I am cast out of thy sight; yet I will look again toward thy holy temple.

(Jon 2:5) The waters compassed me about, even to the soul: the depth closed me round about, the weeds were wrapped about my head.

(Jon 2:6) I went down to the bottoms of the mountains; the earth with her bars was about me for ever: yet hast thou brought up my life from corruption, O LORD my God.

(Jon 2:7) When my soul fainted within me I remembered the LORD: and my prayer came in unto thee, into thine holy temple.

(Jon 2:8) They that observe lying vanities forsake their own mercy.

(Jon 2:9) But I will sacrifice unto thee with the voice of thanksgiving; I will pay that that I have vowed. Salvation is of the LORD.

Jonah knew he needed mercy and Grace. God was merciful and gracious toward Jonah by taking him low with hard providence so he could repent. God was graciously tough on Jonah so that Jonah could receive mercy and grace. God also did this so He could perform his work of mercy and Grace towards Nineveh through the work of Jonah.

I find the reasoning in the podcast off but that is me. I truly don't believe any of us comprehend the fullness of the mercy and grace of God. We understand it in ways but we still see with deceitful hearts and eyes. May he open our eyes and ears so that we may understand better. May he give us spiritual ears to hear and spiritual eyes to see so that we may grow in His grace.

What is Grace? It has been dumbed down by the moderns in my estimation.

One of the ways in which the evangelicals are following the mainliners is in the redefinition of “grace.” There is no such thing as “tough grace.” There is tough love and there is tough law but in the nature of things grace cannot be “tough.” Grace is the unmerited favor, approval of God. It is free. It is undeserved. It is transformative. It is sovereign. It is unconditional. It is relentless. It is many things but it is not “tough.” Indeed, the ESV translates Charis (or some word related to it) as “grace” 124 times in the NT. In not a single usage is there an obvious case where Scripture refers to or wants us (the reader/hearer) to conceive of grace as “tough.”
....Yes, there are moral implications for those who are the recipients of grace but it does not help us to re-define grace.

For some reason this doesn't jive with me. Especially since I see God's grace being more than just unmerited favor. 'Unmerited Favor' is a recently overly narrowed definition of grace. Grace or Charis is defined differently by the scriptures in my estimation. It is unmerited but it is not just unmerited favor.

Grace is more than unmerited favor although it is always unmerited.

In the old strongs greek a partial definition is ....5485
"the divine influence upon the heart, and its reflection in the life."

Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language
Grace; (10) Theol. a) the unmerited love and favor of God toward man. b) Divine influence acting in man to make him pure and morally strong. c) the condition of a person thus influenced d) Special virtue given to a person by God.

Harpers Bible Dictionary
grace; The English translation of a Greek word meaning concretely, "that wihch brings delight, joy , happiness, or good fortune." Grace in classical Greek applied to art, persons, speech, or athletics, as well as to good fortune, kindness and power bestowed by the gods upon divine men, moving them to miraculous deeds.

Webste's 1828
grace 3) Favorable influence of God; divine influence or the influence of the spirit, in renewing the heart and restraining from sin 6) Virtuous or religious affection or disposition, as a liberal disposition, faith, meekness, humility, patience (proceeding from divine influence).

Examining a few scriptures will also tell you more about grace.

2 Corinthians 12:9 And He said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me.


As Paul said, "But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me."

Grace and power are synonomous here in the Corinthian passages.

(Tit 2:11-12) For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world;

In Titus Grace teaches.

In short Grace can be monergistic or synergistic. In regard to regeneration it is monergistic. In reguard to the supernatural gifts it is probably monergistic. In relation to the Spirit influencing us to work out our salvation, endure chastisement and discipline, and endure hardship it is probably synergistic.

Also, I think it is gracious and influencing when God influences us by discipline. Discipline is a grace and a means of grace by His Spirit. It is hard when we are disciplined. It isn't anything that we desire naturally. That is why the book of Hebrews states this....

(Heb 12:5) And ye have forgotten the exhortation which speaketh unto you as unto children, My son, despise not thou the chastening of the Lord, nor faint when thou art rebuked of him:

(Heb 12:6) For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth.

(Heb 12:7) If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not?

(Heb 12:8) But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons.

(Heb 12:9) Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?

(Heb 12:10) For they verily for a few days chastened us after their own pleasure; but he for our profit, that we might be partakers of his holiness.

(Heb 12:11) Now no chastening for the present seemeth to be joyous, but grievous: nevertheless afterward it yieldeth the peaceable fruit of righteousness unto them which are exercised thereby.

(Heb 12:12) Wherefore lift up the hands which hang down, and the feeble knees;

(Heb 12:13) And make straight paths for your feet, lest that which is lame be turned out of the way; but let it rather be healed.

(Heb 12:14) Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord:

(Heb 12:15) Looking diligently lest any man fail of the grace of God; lest any root of bitterness springing up trouble you, and thereby many be defiled;


Grace is much more than the watered down version of unmerited favor. In fact the reason I started studying grace was because we are saved by it through faith. The definition of unmerited favor alone was not what awakened this dead sinner from death. It is what I am kept by also. Yes, it is unmerited but it is also something much much more.

Just my humble opinion. And I aint always correct.

The grace (Charis) of God is prodding and influential. As our Lord said to St. Paul, "It is hard for thee to kick against the goads."

I didn't mention who wrote the quote because it jaundices the whole discussion. It becomes a personality issue. It gets sidetracked and the issues don't get discussed. I wasn't trying to be disrespectful or uncaring of the author's position nor his office. If he chose to chime in that would be his decision. I wanted to discuss the issue of grace and law. Not the personalities because the personality issue scews it so bad.

I have been thinking about this Law / Grace dichotomy thing a lot. Rich Leino was the one who actually helped me out a whole bunch concerning this topic. We had a discussion on the phone one night that jarred my whole understanding. I was thinking like a Modern Day Particular Baptist which is still a far cry from the 'Unmerited Favor' only guys, but still very close to what is being taught concerning the Law / Grace issue being taught today. In my understanding I was even misrepresenting Charles Hodge and his thought that a lot of guys in my camp are using to promote the idea of this Law / Grace dichotomy.

BTW, now I prefer to use a different terminology and understanding between Law and Grace. Instead of seeing them as a dichotomy I prefer to see distinctions between them and their connectedness in the Covenant of Grace.

I was seeing the Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Grace running through the Covenants side by side each other. I was so off base in my thinking I believe. Rev. Winzer tried to show me in a thread a long time ago that I was misrepresenting Hodge. Of course I couldn't see it because I was so jaundiced in my Law / Grace dichotomy.

I am not as well at expressing myself on an intellectual nor scholarly level as some so I make technical blunders grammatically and theologically. Some of that is because I don't have the training and the training and College instruction I have had has been mostly forgotten. So please bare with me.

I see something about the connection between the law and grace that I haven't seen in the past. I use to see that the law was totally a thing that condemned. It had no redeeming qualities. Without grace that is totally true. But with Grace the law is used from the beginning of post lapsarian time to convert the soul and reveal the nature of God to those who are graced by God. Rich Leino's discussion with me on the Mosaic Covenant and Ruben Zwartman's fine influence has completely changed my view of the Law of God when I take in the whole of scripture. Maybe I am not understanding them still but they have challenged my understanding. Even when a whole Nation like Nineveh only hears a strong proclamation of condemnation by God. God graced that King to seek mercy based just upon a pronouncement of condemnation. It was strong and tough for Nineveh to hear the pronouncement.

In the end Jonah was upset with God. Not because Jonah didn't understand Grace. But precisely because he did and sin had hardened his heart against it for a people that he wanted to see judged for their wickedness.

Let's play this out.....

(Jon 3:4) And Jonah began to enter into the city a day's journey, and he cried, and said, Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown.

(Jon 3:5) So the people of Nineveh believed God, and proclaimed a fast, and put on sackcloth, from the greatest of them even to the least of them.

(Jon 3:6) For word came unto the king of Nineveh, and he arose from his throne, and he laid his robe from him, and covered him with sackcloth, and sat in ashes.

(Jon 3:7) And he caused it to be proclaimed and published through Nineveh by the decree of the king and his nobles, saying, Let neither man nor beast, herd nor flock, taste any thing: let them not feed, nor drink water:

(Jon 3:8) But let man and beast be covered with sackcloth, and cry mightily unto God: yea, let them turn every one from his evil way, and from the violence that is in their hands.

(Jon 3:9) Who can tell if God will turn and repent, and turn away from his fierce anger, that we perish not?

(Jon 3:10) And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not.

(Jon 4:1) But it displeased Jonah exceedingly, and he was very angry.

(Jon 4:2) And he prayed unto the LORD, and said, I pray thee, O LORD, was not this my saying, when I was yet in my country? Therefore I fled before unto Tarshish: for I knew that thou art a gracious God, and merciful, slow to anger, and of great kindness, and repentest thee of the evil...

(Jon 4:4) Then said the LORD, Doest thou well to be angry?...

(Jon 4:9) And God said to Jonah, Doest thou well to be angry for the gourd? And he said, I do well to be angry, even unto death.

(Jon 4:10) Then said the LORD, Thou hast had pity on the gourd, for the which thou hast not laboured, neither madest it grow; which came up in a night, and perished in a night:

(Jon 4:11) And should not I spare Nineveh, that great city, wherein are more than sixscore thousand persons that cannot discern between their right hand and their left hand; and also much cattle?

In this instance God didn't even use a pronouncement of repent and I will spare you. God by His grace just used a pronouncement of condemnation to turn a whole Nation from their wicked ways by His Grace. The Law of the Lord Converted a whole Nation. It greatly reminds me of Psalm 19.

The Mosaic and Abrahamic Covenants are purely an administration of the Covenant of Grace in my eyes now. The Grace (Charis) of God is something active and working in the heart of man. The discussion of whether it is earned or not is mute. Unmerited or demerited is not the issue but what it is is the issue for us when we think Covenantally and from a Covenantal framework. The First Covenant with Adam already settles that matter.

The Covenants proceeding after the First one with the First Adam offer hope and direction back to God. They influence the heart of those who are dead in sin to and called of God to return and have a circumcised heart. There is a constant call for repentance in them. That is totally of grace. The law (or declaration of condemnation) is a part of that influencing factor by Grace illuminating it.

Anyways, I know that I am probably not saying it as clearly nor as thought out as I should. Please bare with me in this. I just wanted to discuss this and put aside the personality factors.