“The Christian View of Man” 22 July, 2009
Posted by Benjamin P. Glaser in 5-Point Calvinism, Adam, Book Reviews, Books, Covenant of Grace, Covenant of Works, Covenant Theology, Human Nature, J. Gresham Machen.Tags: J. Gresham Machen, Law of God, Sin, WTS Books
3 comments
A quick word before I hit the hay tonight. I just finished Machen’s The Christian View of Man and outside of his waffling on 6/24 Creation he provides many great words defending and confirming the place of the Law of God in the lives of believers and unbelievers . In his chapter on the “Majesty of the Law of God” (#16) he lays out a number of arguments supporting the Law as being the only rule for all mankind, Christians and non-Christians alike. For example he says this on page 192:
What then is the remedy for the threatened disruption of society and for the rapidly progressing decay of liberty? There is only one remedy. It is the rediscovery of the Law of God.
I highly recommend picking this book up and reading it. It is a printing of several radio addresses Machen gave for laymen over local Philadelphia radio back in the mid-1930′s. There are many eerie predictions that Machen makes about the future of mankind (especially concerning the Atomic Bomb) that will really keep you fascinated. It is 245 pages and is a quick read.
The Law of the Ten Commandments: Not a Covenant of Works 23 January, 2009
Posted by Benjamin P. Glaser in Covenant of Grace, Covenant of Works, Covenant Theology, Wilhelmus A Brakel.Tags: Covenant of Grace, Covenant of Works, Covenant Theology, Wilhelmus A Brakel
1 comment so far
Wilhelmus A Brakel, The Christian’s Reasonable Service, Vol. 3 pg. 43-44
The Law of the Ten Commandments: Not a Covenant of Works
Question: Is the law of the Ten Commandments a covenant of works?Answer: No, we shall demonstrate this to be so for the following reasons:
First, God’s righteousness cannot permit a sinner to enter into a covenant of friendship without a Surety who bears the punishment of the broken covenant on behalf of the sinner. However, the Israelites were sinners and the Covenant of works is without surety. Thus, the law cannot be a covenant of works.
Secondly, the person with whom God would establish a covenant of works, ought to be able to satisfy the demands of the covenant of works, and to obtain life in consequence thereof, for God’s holiness, righteousness, and truth will not permit the establishment of a true covenant upon the basis of a dishonest promise of man…
Thirdly, if the law were a covenant of works, then Israel, and all believers of the New Testament (for they are all under obligation of the law), would simultaneously be in two opposite covenants. They were under the covenant of grace, or else no one could have been saved. “Therefore by the deeds of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight.” (Rom 3:20). And if the the law were a covenant of works, they would be simultaneously under the covenant of grace and the covenant of works. This is Impossible…
Fourthly, if the law were a covenant of works,man would have had to seek salvation by works, for it is thus declared, “For Moses writes that the man who practices the righteousness which is based on law shall live by that righteousness.” (Rom 10:5)…
Fifthly, there can be no manifestation of mercy in the covenant of works; however, there is room for mercy in the law of the ten commandments. “but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.” (Ex.20:6). Thus, the law is not the covenant of works.
Another Word on Republication 30 November, 2008
Posted by Benjamin P. Glaser in Covenant of Grace, Covenant of Works, Covenant Theology.Tags: Mosaic Covenant, Republication
5 comments
In one of the posts below we have been discussing the Covenant of Grace and the Mosaic Administration and its place in Covenant Theology. One of the arguments against this view is an understanding that the Covenant of Works is republished in the Mosaic Covenant.
Here linked is a great article refuting Republication.
Covenant of Grace and the Mosaic Law 24 November, 2008
Posted by Benjamin P. Glaser in Adam, Confessions, Covenant of Grace, Covenant of Works, Covenant Theology, Genesis, Leviticus, Moses, Romans, Westminster Confession.Tags: Adam, Covenant of Grace, Covenant of Works, Covenant Theology, Moses, Republication
8 comments
You will here some say in the Reformed world that the Mosaic Administration is a republication of the Covenant of Works, citing most effectively Leviticus 18:5 (“So you shall keep My statutes and My judgments, by which a man may live if he does them; I am the LORD.”) and other places where it seems that obedience to the Law as given by Moses is the requirement for the Lord’s blessing and therefore life. However I believe that one can cite the same verses and make the opposite notation, that the Law being an administration of the Second Covenant, the Covenant of Grace, is not a Covenant of Works because most strikingly that which a Covenant of Works is cannot be fulfilled by the Mosaic Covenant. So there is I think a definitional mistake by categorizing the Mosaic administration in any part of a Covenant of Works because in doing so it presupposes that one can follow the Law to receive salvation like Adam (even if such a thing were possible, which it is not), who was first under the Covenant of Works for salvation and failed. Since Adam failed the probationary test we cannot now fulfill the requirements of this covenant and since according to Romans 5 the curse of this failure continues in us since Adam was our covenantal head it would therefore not make sense that God would put is again under a covenant which had been broken by Adam’s disobedience (and our disobedience in Adam). Especially since we continue under its curse. The Covenant of Works had already been abrogated, why would/should it be instituted again by the Mosaic administration since we who are descendants of Adam were already condemned? It seems to be unnecessary to put us again under condemnation a s
econd time.
The Westminster Confession of Faith Chapter 7, sections III, IV, & V makes clear that the Law (or Mosaic covenant) is an administration of the Covenant of Grace.
Chapter 7 -
Of God’s Covenant with Man.
III. Man by [Adam's] fall having made himself incapable of life by that covenant, the Lord was pleased to make a second, commonly called the covenant of grace: wherein he freely offered unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of them faith in him, that they may be saved, and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto life, his Holy Spirit, to make them willing and able to believe.
IV. This covenant of grace is frequently set forth in the Scripture by the name of a testament, in reference to the death of Jesus Christ, the testator, and to the everlasting inheritance, with all things belonging to it, therein bequeathed.
V. This covenant was differently administered in the time of the law, and in the time of the gospel: under the law it was administered by promises, prophecies, sacrifices, circumcision, the paschal lamb, and other types and ordinances delivered to the people of the Jews, all fore-signifying Christ to come, which were for that time sufficient and efficacious, through the operation of the Spirit, to instruct and build up the elect in faith in the promised Messiah, by whom they had full remission of sins, and eternal salvation, and is called the Old Testament.
You see in section V that the Divines at least believed the Law (thereby meaning the Mosaic Covenant) is just a special administration of the Covenant of Grace. While administered differently than “in the time of the gospel” it still is part of the Second Covenant, or the Covenant of Grace.
Partial-Preterist Post-Millenialist 29 September, 2008
Posted by Benjamin P. Glaser in 1st Thessalonians, Advent, Biblical Hermenuetics, Controversy, Covenant Theology, Discernment, Eschatology, Gospel of Matthew, New Books, Prophesy, R.C. Sproul, Reformed Presbyterian Theological Seminary, Revelation, RPTS, Statement of Faith.Tags: Eschatology, Fall Term '08, Revelation, RPTS
13 comments
One of the courses I am engaged in this term has been a look at the Doctrine of the Last Things or better labeled “Eschatology”. In this class we have barely yet to scratch the surface as far as ripping apart the pertinent texts like Matthew 25, Revelation 20, 1 Thess 4 & 5, and 2 Thess 2. Before taking this course I had not thought through this stuff very much as where I was before put little to no emphasis on these type of subjects and never had a reason to “stake out a territory” so to speak. So after reading other books prior to this class and in reading an excellent book by Cornelis Venema (an optimistic A-Mill) and beginning a work by Marcellus Kik (a Post-Mill) I have come to the following conclusions (for now)…
1) I believe in Partial Preterism.
What does that mean? Basically it means that I hold that the majority of the events prophesied in Scripture dealing with the “end times” refer to and were fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple cult by the Romans in A.D. 70.
2) I believe the Millennium is symbolic.
The literal 1,000 years that Dispensational Pre-Millennialists push is not Scriptural or in keeping with the Biblical text. In other words the reference to 1,000 years in Revelation 20 is not meant to be taken as a literal 1,000 years.
3) I believe that Christ will come back at the end of the Millennium
Which makes me a post-millennialist (also one thing that A-Mills and Post-Mills share).
4) I believe that Revelation was written before the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.
I would highly recommend Ken Gentry’s work here. Basically that the Book of Revelation was written during the reign of Nero. Also that Nero Caesar is the sixth king who is the one who is in Revelation 17:10.
Suggested Reading List
An Eschatology of Victory by Marcellus Kik
The Last Days According to Jesus by R.C. Sproul, Sr.
Before Jerusalem Fell by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.
He Shall Have Dominion by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.
Post-Millenialism: An Eschatology of Hope by Keith Mathison
Days of Vengeance by David Chilton
The Promise of the Future by Cornelis Venema
This will be the first of several posts on Eschatological issues that will help flesh out my beliefs and illustrate how and why the Scriptures teach what I have professed above.
The Authority of God’s Law Today 25 August, 2008
Posted by Benjamin P. Glaser in Anti-Nomianism, Apostasy, Biblical Hermenuetics, Covenant of Grace, Covenant of Works, Covenant Theology, Federal Vision, New Perspectives, The Holiness of God, Union With Christ.Tags: Antinomianism, FV/NPP, Law
4 comments
Antinomianism – 1. lawlessness, 2. in theology, it is the idea that members of a particular religious group are under no obligation to obey the laws of ethics or morality as presented by religious authorities or by the religion’s holy book.
The manner in which the Old Testament speaks to New Testament ethics is a object of great dispute in the Reformed world. It would frankly be a waste of time for this post to honestly become involved in unpacking how the Law is handled in different contexts within Christendom. That is why I would like to focus on the charge, made by both some in the Reformed camp themselves and by those outside who condemn Justification by Faith Alone as being anathema to the vision of James, ergo “Faith Without Works is Dead”. Those who do make this charge within the Reformed world often are members of the heterodox New Perspectives and/or the Federal Vision theologies which make the charge that those of us who hold to the Biblical understanding of Justification allow for a faith that denies the necessary nature of our own works in justification. As opposed to the traditional and orthodox belief that Christ’s Active Obedience to the Law (both its positive and negative declarations) during his earthly life is/was imputed to us in order that we might be saved from God’s wrath. Jesus thereby fulfilled the Covenant of Works and received the covenant blessings that result from this Active Obedience. Through the Covenant of Grace we partake in this (both active and passive sense) Christ is our substitutional covenant head, we are subsumed under Christ’s reign as his sheep and are saved by His righteousness alone and his advocation for us at the throne of judgment.
But what does this all have to do with the authority of God’s Law today?
We as members of the “New” Covenant of Grace are now no longer held under condemnation by the Law but are free to follow its precepts. Simply put Paul in Romans 6 begins by saying, “May be continue in sin that Grace may abound? May it never be!” continuing his discussion in chapter 5 on the benefits of this union with Christ, in other words the results of our justification which closes with:
The Law came in so that the transgression would increase; but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, so that, as (sin reigned in death, even so grace would reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.” — Romans 5:20-21
So what is the Law then? Paul in Romans 3:20b & 7:7 says:
…for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin.”… “What shall we say then? Is the Law sin? May it never be! On the contrary, I would not have come to know sin except through the Law; for I would not have known about coveting if the Law had not said, “YOU SHALL NOT COVET.”
So the Law not only acts as a convicting agent but also as a moral guide for how the born Christian is to live under the New Covenant. The curse of the Law has been removed so we could now follow the Law as an act of obedience. However we must be clear to say it i not our obedience that saves but as Martin Luther is reported as remarking Good Works does not a righteous man make but a righteous man will not fail to do Good Works. Westminster Larger Catechism question # 24 defines sin as “…any want or conformity unto, transgression of any Law of God, given as a rule to the reasonable creature.” and Question # 91 defines the duty of man to the Law as “…obedience to the revealed will [of God].”
Now what is this “revealed will” to which if we transgress it is seen as a disobedient act towards the Holy person of God?
Well that will be the purpose of tomorrow’s post. See you then.
Covenant Theology, RPW, and Musical Instruments 26 July, 2008
Posted by Benjamin P. Glaser in Covenant Theology, General, Worship.Tags: Covenant Theology, John Price, Musical Instuments, Reformed Worship, RPW
6 comments
As part of this discussion with the Covenants I’d like to work in (no pun intended) a discussion of the changing economy as regards to worship goes with the disestablishment of the Temple and all that goes with it. I have not yet figured out where exactly I want to begin that discussion so if you have any suggestions and or things you would like to see discussed then please let me know I’ll try and accommodate you. Monday will be a continuation of the Post on the Mosaic Covenant.
As an aside buy this book.
by John Price
The Mosaic Covenant; Works, Grace, or Both? 25 July, 2008
Posted by Benjamin P. Glaser in Adam, Biblical Hermenuetics, Covenant of Grace, Covenant of Works, Covenant Theology, Deuteronomy, Exodus, Genesis, Gospel of John, Moses, Plenary Inspiration.Tags: Covenant of Grace, Covenant of Works, Covenant Theology, Moses
5 comments
In this third post on the Covenant of Works I want to begin looking at the different “administrations” of the
Covenant. We have already looked at the Adamic Covenant and I want to for right now skip Noah and go on to Moses (we’ll come back to Noah later). There has been some debate as to how we should look at the Covenant given to Moses at Sinai within Reformed circles so this post is more a of an intramural debate then a proof text either way for how we should look at the Mosaic Covenant since Covenant Theology imparticular is a Reformed thing nearly explicitly. So with this in mind I want to post a few Scripture texts that will be our main focus in this post. Firstly God has already made a little “c” covenant with Moses way back in chapters 3 and 4 in the Book of Exodus. God through the burning bush told Moses that he would free his people from bondage in Egypt and bring them first to Sinai to worship Him then on to the Promised Land they will go. So here in the beginning of Exodus we have God promising to Moses deliverance from Egypt for the people of God from bondage to freedom. Now we ask at this point what has Israel done to deserve deliverance? Some say we must be careful how we read into the text the “glory story” but here in Chapter 3 we see the type of the salvation that we are to receive. In other words those of us in the Covenant of Grace have been saved from bondage to sin (cf: Rom 8:15, 21) just as the Israelites were saved from bondage in Egypt, through no work of their own but by being the chosen people of God (Ezek 36:28, John 6:65). Back to Exodus 24 we go for now.
Exodus 24 is chock full of all kinds of scrumptious morsels for us to chew on but we must limit ourselves to the question at hand. However I exhort you to take a look at verses 4 and 16 especially in depth at another time. This chapter begins with Moses, along with Aaron and his sons Nadab and Abihu (who are to feature prominently in the book of Leviticus) being called to go up to the LORD and then Moses is to worship and then go back and recount these things to the people. This he does. In verse 3 Moses goes to the people and in verses 3 and 7, “Then Moses came and recounted to the people all the words of the LORD and all the ordinances; and all the people answered with one voice and said, ‘All the words which the LORD has spoken we will do!’”, “Then he took the book of the covenant and read it in the hearing of the people; and they said, ‘All that the LORD has spoken we will do, and we will be obedient!’.” This sounds like the Covenant of Works we all know and love. God presents to Moses the Law and the “ordinances” and the people say with one voice “I Will”. The people have promised to obey and live by God’s Law. Now what is their motivation for doing so? What shall they gain by following the words of God? Well here in Exodus 24 the people, moving off Moses promise that they shall receive the promised land, believe that by following the Law to its completeness they will be given entrance to Canaan, the land of their ancestors. We know from the rest of the story that Israel fails and are punished by not being allowed to enter the promised land, they are punished for their failure to live up to the Covenant. So as we can see in this short and somewhat stilted look at the Mosaic Covenant there are elements of both the Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Grace in this particular Covenant.
I could go on for days just in this chapter but this being a blog it does not lend itself to long drawn out explanations so we will stop here for right now and pick this up later.
The Covenant of Works vs. The Older Testament 24 July, 2008
Posted by Benjamin P. Glaser in Biblical Hermenuetics, Covenant of Grace, Covenant of Works, Covenant Theology, Romans.Tags: Abraham, Active Obedience, Covenant Theology, Imputation, Moses
4 comments
Many have a false understanding of the Covenant of Works that tries to say that we can neatly divide up the
Covenants with their “respective” Testaments. The Covenant of Works is analogous to the Older Testament and the Covenant of Grace with the New. This is a false way of looking at the Covenants in many ways including the fact that it sets the Older and New Testament against one another as if the are different expressions of God’s Will and have no real relation. This belies a Marcian understanding of the God of the Older Testament and the God of the New Testament, whether purposefully or by unclear language. We cannot place a gulf of responsibility between the people who lived during the times of the Testaments as if they have different ways of salvation. The Covenant of Works is just as much “alive” today as it was for Moses. Paul makes it clear that the people in the Old Testament were saved the same way that you and I have received the gift of eternal life, through the imputation of Christ’s Active Obedience, his righteousness, by his death on the Cross, resurrection, and ascension. Look at Romans 4:14-16. Paul says:
For the promise to Abraham or to his descendants that he would be heir of the world was not through the Law, but through the righteousness of faith. For if those who are of the Law are heirs, faith is made void and the promise is nullified; for the Law brings about wrath, but where there is no law, there also is no violation. For this reason it is by faith, in order that it may be in accordance with grace, so that the promise will be guaranteed to all the descendants, not only to those who are of the Law, but also those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all.
As we see here Abraham and all his descendants were saved by Faith, just as we are today. For Abraham was saved by Faith in that which was to come and by this faith Christ’s Righteousness was imputed to him just like it was to you. Therefore the Covenant of Grace “existed” prior to Christ’s coming in time. As well as those who are not under the Covenant of Grace are still going to be judged by the Covenant of Works (as we all will be, this will be explained more fuller in a later post).
Another misunderstood way of looking at this is that the Law has been destroyed or abdicated in favor of a Gospel that has no law, for in this administration of the Covenants their is no Gospel in the Law and no Law in the Gospel. This is a false way of understanding the place of Scriptural commands in the two Covenants for one because God is the “CEO” in both Covenants. He is the chief administrator so his law does not change substantially but what does happen in the Covenant of Grace is that we have now been freed to follow God’s Law as a sign of Love not as a sign of Duty. This is a thing we will look more closely at when get into discussing the Covenant of Grace imparticular but it is something that it is good for us to recognize now in speaking of the Covenant of Works.
Next we will look at how the different Covenants are “administered” throughout Scripture.
John Calvin on the Covenants 18 May, 2009
Posted by Benjamin P. Glaser in Commentaries, Covenant Theology, Jeremiah, John Calvin.add a comment
Quotation from John Calvin’s commentary on Jeremiah 31:31-32