The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Merit and Moses: A Critique of the Klinean Doctrine of Republication

All 4 Parts are now online.

The links to the 4 articles in the series can be accessed from the links below:

Part 1: http://headhearthand.org/blog/2014/08/11/moses-and-merit-part-1/

Part 2: http://headhearthand.org/blog/2014/08/11/merit-and-moses-part-2/

Part 3: http://headhearthand.org/blog/2014/08/13/merit-and-moses-part-3/

Part 4 http://headhearthand.org/blog/2014/08/14/merit-and-moses-part-4/

I'll get the ball rolling. Would it possible for it to be a republication of the Covenant of Works, and still be use as pointing us to Christ? What would be the purpose of the need of a republication except to codify it in more detail? The Covenant of Works ship has sailed long before that with the introduction of Covenant of Grace in Genesis 3.

Please correct me if I am not understanding your question(s).

1. The covenant of works cannot be "republished" since it was never abrogated. To clarify, God set forth the stipulation that man; Adam as the federal head of the entire human race, had to live a perfect life and to obey the specific command to abstain from eating of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. When Adam ate of the fruit he transgressed the command of God and broke covenant with God. Thus, he and all his posterity would be under the curse of God, i.e., eternal, physical and spiritual death, consisting of the inheritance of a corrupt nature and the imputation of the guilt of that transgression (cf. Rom 5:12-18, et al).

2. That covenant was broken but its effects are still in force, but there is no place in Scripture where it is written that God "republished" that covenant so that obedience would be rewarded, i.e., conformity to the covenant would be deemed meritorious. It is incontrovertibly impossible for anyone to render perfect obedience in even one thing which could be deemed as merit and God rendering some reward.

3. IF man was capable of 'earning' rewards from God for less than perfect duty, which is owed God by virtue of the fact that God owes man nothing due to the fact that man, being created by God is obligated to obey Him by nature, then what the eternal Son of God did by taking upon human flesh, living a perfect life and suffering the punishment due for all those whom He came to atone for would be grossly diminished and God's standard of righteousness lowered infinitely.

I believe that all your questions were also answered in the 4-Part series linked above. Historically, and confessionally, the Reformed faith has been perspicuous in stating that there is but one Covenant of Works and one Covenant of Grace. The law given to Moses on Sinai was simply the law which God wrote in the very conscience of Adam and all men and put then on tablets of stone, demonstrating their perpetuity. Further, the principle of the Three-fold Use of the Law, has been firmly established both biblically and confessionally, which the proposed "Republication" doctrine contradicts.

Yes, the Mosaic law serves to drive sinners to Christ as it functions in the first two uses of the law and then serves as the standard of life in sanctification to those whom God has given grace.

Does any of the above answer your question(s)?

I came across this and it is really confusing. Throwing out names such as Gaffin and Shepherd with Murray appears strange.

http://theaquilareport.com/republication-a-doctrinal-controversy-four-decades-in-the-making/

It's confusing because the proponents of the "Republication/Two-Kingdom" view are confused. A basic axiom I hold and follow is: If a new view is difficult and confusing to grasp and stands contrary to historic confessional doctrine, then more than likely it is error. Such is the case with this Republication view and those who are advocating that the Reformed community accept it. One of the tactics used by purveyors of error is to try and make themselves appear to stand on equal ground with highly respected 'notables'; in this case John Murray. However, there is little in common between what John Murray taught and what the protagonists of Republication are teaching.

The 4-Part Series by David Murray posted here elsewhere is perhaps the clearest statement concerning what both sides believe. I have posted links to several other good articles elsewhere on this board too.

Lastly, even Walberg admits that the vast majority of Reformed seminaries oppose this view as he wrote here:


And, if Richard Gaffin and Norman Shepherd support Republication, then you can be quite sure that it is heresy.