I think OPC Pastor Patrick Ramsey nails it here.
The topic of antinomianism (a term Luther coined) has many difficulties when trying to define it. Dr. Mark Jones does a magnificent job laying the foundation for understanding the subject in historical context. Approaching the subject he starts with the historical reasons why the term was coined and who it was that contended with the subject. He gives a fair balanced reading exposing the differences between various Lutheran, Reformed, and Independent theologians who tried to discover the impact of grace in the Christian life. He addresses concerns about legalism and shows that the Pharisees of Jesus time were antinomian (against the Law) by paying particular attention to obeying certain doctrines but neglecting the weightier issues of the law such as justice and mercy.
Dr. Jones works his way through the history of the Reformation and its writers as they struggle with the issue of antinomianism. A major factor that was helpful for me was how Dr. Jones proved that this doctrine should be driven by a proper understanding of Christology. A few years ago I heard Dr. Jack Kinneer from Reformed Presbyterian Theological Seminary say, “All aberrations and heresies in theology tend to distort the doctrine of Christ.” Dr. Jones sees this to be the case in this situation and directs us to look at the teachings of Christ as well as the teachings about Christ.
What do good works, reward, merit, the love of God and sin have to do with this topic? What are acceptable motivations for obedience to God? There is a lot of confusion concerning these issues now days. The Divine’s (ordained men) from the period of the Reformation were greatly concerned about getting these issues correct as they had eternal ramifications. Dr. Jones does a splendid job shining the light of truth on these matters by helping us unclutter these issues by examining the Love relationship between the Father and the Son of God. Mark also discusses how our good works are required and pleasing to God. When we do sin does God love us any less? Does He love us any more when we obey in Christ? Drawing from the writings of the Reformers and scriptures like John 14:21,23 Mark reveals the teaching of God’s benevolent love which never changes and God’s complacent love which is based upon how we respond in obedience or disobedience.
Agree with Dr. Jones or not you will walk a way from the book understanding the historical components of the topic at hand. I personally got a lot of encouragement from the book to look more completely at Christ and to consider him as the book of Hebrews tells us to.
Hebrews 12:1-6 Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us, Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God. For consider him that endured such contradiction of sinners against himself, lest ye be wearied and faint in your minds. Ye have not yet resisted unto blood, striving against sin. 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: For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth
typo on page 17
“pre-1925” surely means “pre-1525”
Last July, I wrote a blog “Confusion in the Camp / Merit and Reformed Theology” to bring attention to a then upcoming meeting of the Presbytery of the Northwest, Orthodox Presbyterian Church (PNWOPC). An Overture written in 2011 had been considered for the 79th General Assembly of the OPC. The motion to approve that Overture was replaced in the Spring of 2012 by a motion to establish a Special Committee of the PNW to study and process the matters related to a particular view of teaching about the Republication of the Law as a covenant of works in the Mosaic Covenant. It had come to the attention of some ministers of the OPC that doctrinal confusion had arisen through the years over the doctrine of Republication. This confusion is coming to the forefront in the OPC Presbyteries when licensure and ordination exams are being conducted. The heart of the issue lies in a particular formulation of the Mosaic Covenant originating in the writings of Meredith G. Kline. More recently, a book edited by OPC ministers and professors of Westminster Seminary California, The Law Is Not of Faith (2009), was written to defend Kline’s formulation. The ministers who have raised questions about the legitimacy of this particular form of the republication doctrine have indicated that the heart of their concern lies in the redefinition of merit and the mixing of grace and works in the Mosaic Covenant, as articulated by Meredith Kline and the authors of The Law is Not of Faith.
What is unique and troubling about this “Klinean” formulation of the republication of the covenant of works in the Mosaic covenant? The critics of the Klinean view happily acknowledge that the Reformed tradition often speaks in terms of a republication of the covenant of works in the Mosaic covenant. The majority of writers in the Reformed tradition teach that the same moral law given to Adam was “republished” or “re-proclaimed” by Moses at Mt. Sinai. The moral law of God is unchanging and always demands perfect obedience. Since the fall, no man is able to perfectly obey God’s moral law and, as the Augustinian-Reformed tradition has made clear, therefore no man is able to merit any blessing from God. However, Meredith Kline has introduced a new, retooled version of the republication doctrine by teaching three unique elements: 1) Israel serves as a corporate Adam (a third “Adam,” if you will), who 2) is under a meritorious works arrangement at Sinai, by which 3) he is able to meritoriously earn temporal-typological blessings from God on the basis of works, apart from grace. These distinctive points of teaching concerning the Mosaic covenant are not found in any of the Reformed creeds and confessions of the 16th and 17th centuries or in later theologians such as Charles Hodge or Louis Berkhof.
This Klinean version of the “republication of the covenant of works” at Sinai is causing no small amount of concern within OPC and Reformed circles. It appears to deviate from the traditional, historical Reformed version of the “republication of the moral law” and redefine the historical conception of merit. The demand for perfect obedience to earn God’s blessing is no longer required, as it was for Adam before the fall, and for Christ as the second and last Adam. Imperfect, sincere obedience performed by Israel is said to be enough to earn temporal blessings from God (contrary to Westminster Larger Catechism Q&A 193). Also, an arrangement of meritorious works is said to operate within the Mosaic administration of the covenant of grace—wherein God would be obligated to reward the works of fallen sinners apart from grace (contrary to Chapter 16 of the Westminster Confession of Faith). These issues are having far reaching consequences as the Church pursues its peace, purity, doctrinal integrity, and practice. I highly recommend viewing this video (presentation to PNW) to understand what the concerns are and what the ramifications might be.
In light of these things, a special committee was established by the PNW to study the doctrine of republication. In the Spring of 2013, this special committee submitted a report, a proposed Overture, and recommended that Presbytery set up a time for theological discussion on these matters on September 26, 2013, at a pre-presbytery conference. The report the committee submitted can be found here. The paper / booklet can be read here. The pre-presbytery conference audio and papers can be found here. The result of the Presbytery meeting was to Overture the 81st General Assembly of the OPC. Overtures are proposed requests for consideration of doctrinal matters or how things should function in the Church. The approved Overture can be found here
“Protestantism has had a good run. It remade Europe and made America. It inspired global missions, soup kitchens, church plants, and colleges in the four corners of the earth. But the world and the Church have changed, and Protestantism isn’t what the Church, including Protestants themselves, needs today. It’s time to turn the protest against Protestantism and to envision a new way of being heirs of the Reformation, a new way that happens to conform to the original Catholic vision of the Reformers.” Peter Leithart
The End of Protestantism by Peter Leithart
Is Peter Leithart drinking water from the Tiber. The refusal of the Presbyterian Church of America to deal with this scholar’s aberrations seems to have emboldened him even more. I might be wrong about that but his recent rant on First Things seems to imply he is attacking the heritage of our Presbyterian distinctions. Our theology was forged in the fire of what the scriptures say about Justification before God. We protested that the Church needed to be Reformed and landed squarely where the “Five Solas” took us in opposition to Roman Catholic Dogma. Maybe Dr. Leithart is forgetting what it was all about.
The “five solas” is a term used to designate five great foundational rallying cries of the Protestant reformers. They are as follows: “Sola Scriptura” (Scripture Alone); “Sola Gratia” (Grace Alone); “Sola Fide” (Faith Alone); “Solus Christus” (Christ Alone); and “Soli Deo Gloria” (To God Alone Be Glory).
These “five solas” were developed in response to specific perversions of the truth that were taught by the corrupt Roman Catholic Church. The Roman Church taught that the foundation for faith and practice was a combination of the scriptures, sacred tradition, and the teachings of the magisterium and the pope; but the Reformers said, “No, our foundation is sola scriptura”. The Catholic Church taught that we are saved through a combination of God’s grace, the merits that we accumulate through penance and good works, and the superfluity of merits that the saints before us accumulated; the reformers responded, “sola gratia”. The Catholic Church taught that we are justified by faith and the works that we produce, which the righteousness that God infuses in us through faith brings about. The reformers responded, “No, we are justified by faith alone, which lays hold of the alien righteousness of Christ that God freely credits to the account of those who believe”. The Catholic Church taught that we are saved by the merits of Christ and the saints, and that we approach God through Christ, the saints, and Mary, who all pray and intercede for us. The Reformers responded, “No, we are saved by the merits of Christ Alone, and we come to God through Christ Alone”. The Catholic Church adhered to what Martin Luther called the “theology of glory” (in opposition to the “theology of the cross”), in which the glory for a sinner’s salvation could be attributed partly to Christ, partly to Mary and the saints, and partly to the sinner himself. The reformers responded, “No, the only true gospel is that which gives all glory to God alone, as is taught in the scriptures.”
Today, the Catholic Church teaches the same essential perversions of truth; and much of Protestantism has seen a regress to many of the same corruptions, in many circles and denominations. It is a pressing need for Christians everywhere to reaffirm and champion anew the “five solas” which underlay and gave impetus to the Protestant Reformation.
Some of what he notes might be true about the state of the Church today.
Mainline churches are nearly bereft of “Protestants.” If you want to spot one these days, your best bet is to visit the local Baptist or Bible church, though you can find plenty of Protestants among conservative Presbyterians too.
But it seems he has changed the focus and forgotten the focus of the Protestant Reformation.
He also makes some sweeping accusations that I find to be out of touch from the Protestants I know.
A Protestant exaggerates his distance from Roman Catholicism on every point of theology and practice, and is skeptical of Roman Catholics who say that they believe in salvation by grace.
This is just simply not true. Maybe this is Peter Leithart being hyperbolic but it certainly does not represent the Protestants I know and it may even be that he is violating the 9th commandment here by making this such an absolute statement.
Maybe he has been drinking water from the Tibris and is thinking of swimming partially to the other side. Either way, something seems very amiss here and I believe things have been for along time. The Presbyterian Church of America needs to deal with the aberrations this man has been putting forth. They have consistently been covering this guys tracks. The time is past for discipline. The pursuit of peace and purity has been overly compromised. Now they are going to have bigger problems since they refused to act properly in the first place. Peter Leithart seems to be emboldened to trash the heritage he claims to have roots with.
I wonder how Gary Demar and Joel McDurmon are going to try to spin this one.
Reading Bavinck on the Covenant of Grace and the Mosaic Covenant is well worth anyone’s time. Put the modern books down and read the good stuff. The difference between Modern Reformed Thought and reading Reformed thought is like going to eat at McDonald’s or Ruth’s Chris Steak House. Read Bavinck!
The universal reality of misery evokes in all people a need for deliverance, a deliverance from above. Pagans who construe misery as basically physical know neither the essential character of sin nor the deliverance of grace. Scripture, however, sees our misery as sin, as an ethical violation of communion with God, who alone can restore it. This requires grace, which in biblical revelation assumes the form of a covenant.
This covenant begins immediately after the fall as evidenced by Adam and Eve’s shame in their nakedness, a sign of lost innocence. Guilt and shame reveal both God’s wrath and his grace, but the latter is shown especially when God seeks out Adam and Eve and interrogates them. In his punishment on the serpent and on humanity, God’s mercy triumphs over judgment as he annuls the covenant made with evil and puts enmity between the seed of the serpent and the seed of the woman. Now the path of glory must pass through suffering for man and woman. In the promise of Genesis 3, we find the gospel in a nutshell and, in principle, the entire history of the human race.
The word “covenant” is not found in Genesis 3, but the reality is. Modern critics judge that covenant ideas arose late in Israel’s history but need circular arguments for their case. A history of Israel is constructed by alleging that certain biblical sources are inauthentic, which history is then used to demonstrate the inauthenticity of documents that witness against it. It is better scholarship to see the latter prophets as standing on the foundation of a real covenant made with the patriarchs.
Covenant (ברית) is characterized by three factors: an oath or promise including stipulations, a curse for violation, and a cultic ceremony that represents the curse symbolically. Covenant making is a religious and social act. The covenant of grace is unilateral, indissolubly grounded in the merciful promises of the sovereign God. God cannot break his promise; he has sworn himself to uphold it. The unilateral divine origin and character attributed to the covenant in Hebrew is likely the reason why the Septuagint translates ברית by διαθηκη, or “testament,” rather than συνθηκη.
The doctrine of the covenant achieved dogmatic significance in the Christian church because the Christian religion had to understand its relation to and distinction from Judaism. Over against Gnosticism and Marcion, the church had to maintain the unity of and, over against Judaism, the distinction between the two covenants. Law and gospel, Old Testament and New Testament, are to be distinguished but never separated. During the Reformation this issue became crucial as Anabaptists and others (Arminians, Socinians) devalued the Old Testament. Key differences also arose between the Lutheran and Reformed traditions. It is in the latter, beginning with Zwingli and Calvin, that the doctrine of the covenant is most fully developed, notably in the German Reformed theology of Olevianus and Ursinus, English Puritanism, and the Westminster Confession.
Among the Dutch Reformed, Cloppenburg and Cocceius made the covenant the fundamental premise and controlling principle of dogmatics as a whole. Cocceius had an eccentric view of the covenant, notably the notion of successive covenantal abrogations, which in fact undermined the key element of grace, making it uncertain. After Cocceius, a more general disparagement of the Old Testament took place among modern thinkers such as Spinoza, Kant, Hegel, and Schleiermacher. Judaism was then seen as no better than paganism as preparation for Christianity.
In the Reformed church and theology, covenant became a very important practical encouragement for Christian living. Here the basis of all covenants was found in the eternal counsel of God, in a covenant between the very persons of the Trinity, the pactum salutis (counsel of peace). The work of salvation is an undertaking of the one God in three persons in which all cooperate and each one performs a special task. It is the triune God—Father, Son, and Spirit—who together conceive, determine, carry out, and complete the entire work of salvation. The benefit to the believer is in knowing that the covenant of grace executed and revealed in time and history nevertheless rests on an eternal, unchanging foundation, the counsel of the triune God. The Father is the eternal Father, the Son the eternal Mediator, the Holy Spirit the eternal Paraclete.
Care must be taken in considering the execution of the pact of salvation in time and history. Though God elects Abraham and Israel as his chosen people, his salvific purpose is universal, with all peoples. In the fullness of time, humanity as a whole, Jew and Gentile, is reconciled in the one man, Jesus Christ, at the cross. After the fall, grace and judgment alike are extended to the whole human race. In the beginnings of human history, we see great blessing in remarkable longevity and the great judgment of the flood. After the flood, God makes a covenant with nature not to destroy the world with water again, reduces human life span, and spreads humanity across the world, preventing humans from reaching heaven itself with their ambition. Despite letting the Gentiles walk in their own ways, God providentially grants them significant cultural and social development. He did not leave them without witnesses to himself through the works of his hands. In this way God is present to all people, and they are in some sense “prepared” for the message of salvation.
The universal scope of God’s intention for all peoples—Jew and Gentile—must never obscure the special favor of God to Israel. While Israel is drawn from the nations and there are analogies between Israel’s religious practices and those of the nations, the essential difference is that special grace is reserved for Israel and is not known among the pagans. Pagan religion is self-willed and legalistic. The covenant made with Abraham is new and comes from God alone. Through his covenant with Abraham and Israel, the Creator proves himself to also be the Re-creator and Savior. Elohim, Creator of heaven and earth, is Yahweh, the God of the covenant.
The old covenant with Israel is the necessary preparation for the new covenant in Christ. Though the covenant is one, there are two dispensations. In God’s own time, the promise of the old covenant was fulfilled in the new. The shadow and particularity of the letter became the substance, universality, and freedom of the Spirit. Nothing of the Old Testament is lost in the New, but everything is fulfilled, matured, has reached its full growth, and now, out of the temporary husk, produces the eternal core.
The covenant of grace, fulfilled in the New Testament, was and is surrounded and sustained by God’s covenant with nature, with all creatures. Unlike what Cocceius taught, the covenant of grace is not the successive abolition of the covenant of works but its fulfillment and restoration. “Grace repairs and perfects nature.” God’s demand of obedience remains as the only way to eternal life. The difference between the covenant of works and grace is that God now approaches us not in Adam but in Christ, who fulfilled all the obedience required of Adam. Christ is the second and last Adam who restores what the first Adam had corrupted; he is the head of a new humanity.
The covenant of grace is also integrally united with the counsel of peace, though it should be distinguished from it. In the counsel of peace, Christ is the guarantor and head; in the covenant of grace, he is the mediator. In this way the doctrine of the covenant maintains God’s sovereignty in the entire work of salvation. It is the Father who conceives, plans, and wills the work of salvation; it is the Son who guarantees it and effectively acquires it; it is the Spirit who implements and applies it.
At the same time, the covenant of grace also allows the rational and moral nature of human beings to come into their own. Here it differs from election, in which humans are strictly passive. The covenant of grace describes the road by which elect people attain their destiny; it is the channel by which the stream of election flows toward eternity. Christ sends his Spirit to instruct and enable his own so that they consciously and voluntarily consent to this covenant. The covenant of grace comes with the demand of faith and repentance, which may in some sense be said to be its “conditions.” Yet, this must not be misunderstood. God himself supplies what he demands; the covenant of grace is thus truly unilateral—it comes from God, who designed, defines, maintains, and implements it. It is, however, designed to become bilateral, to be consciously and voluntarily accepted by believers in the power of God. In the covenant of grace, God’s honor is not at the expense of but for the benefit of human persons by renewing the whole person and restoring personal freedom and dignity.
The covenant of grace, with Christ as the new head of humanity, reminds us of the organic unity of the church. The covenant of grace reminds us that election is about not only individual persons but also organic wholes, including families and generations. Therefore, some who remain inwardly unbelieving will for a time, in the earthly administration and dispensation of the covenant of grace, be part of the covenant people. The final judgment belongs to God alone, and in this life the church must regard such with the judgment of charity.(a)
This (Abrahamic) covenant with the ancestors continues, even when later at Sinai it assumes another form. It is the foundation and core also of the Sinaitic covenant (Exod. 2:24; Deut. 7:8). The promise was not nullified by the law that came later (Gal. 3:17). The covenant with Israel was essentially no other than that with Abraham. Just as God first freely and graciously gave himself as shield and reward to Abraham, apart from merits of his, to be a God to him and his descendants after him, and on that basis called Abraham to a blameless walk before his face, so also it is God who chose the people of Israel, saved it out of Egypt, united himself with that people, and obligated it to be holy and his own people. The covenant on Mount sinai is and remains a covenant of grace. “I am The Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the ouse of slavery” (Exod. 20:2) is the opening statement and foundation of the law, the essence of the covenant of grace. Yahweh is and perpetually remains Israel’s God before and aside from any dignity or worth that Israel may have. It is an everlasting covenant that cannot be broken even by any sins and iniquities on the part of Israel (Deut. 4:31; 32:26f; Judg. 2:1; Pss. 89:1-5; 105:8; 111:5; Isa. 54:10; Rom. 11:1-2; 2 Cor. 1:20).
The benefits granted to Israel by God in this covenant are the same as those granted to Abraham, but more detailed and specialized. Genesis 3:15 already contains the entire covenant in a nutshell and all the benefits of grace. God breaks the covenant made by the first humans with Satan, puts enmity between them, brings the first humans over to his side, and promises them victory over the power of the enemy. The one great promise to Abraham is “I will be your God, and you and your descendants will be my people” (Genesis 17:1 paraphrase). And this is the principle content of God’s covenant with Israel as well. God is Israel’s God, and Israel is his people (Exod. 19:6; 29:46; etc.) Israel, accordingly, receives a wide assortment of blessings, not only temporal blessings, such as the land of Canaan, fruitfulness in marriage, a long life, prosperity, plus victory over its enemies, but also spiritual and eternal blessings, such as God’s dwelling among them (Exod. 29:45; Lev. 26:12), the forgiveness of sins (Exod. 20:6; 34:7; Num. 14:18; Deut. 4:31; Pss. 32; 103; etc.), sonship (Exod. 4:22; 19:5-6; 20:2; Deut. 14:1; Isa. 63:16; Amos 3:1-2; etc.), sanctification (Exod. 19:6; Lev. 11:44; 19:2), and so on… (b)
Just as Abraham, when God allied himself with him, was obligated to “Walk before his face,” so Israel as a people was similarly admonished by God’s covenant to a new obedience. The entire law, which the covenant of grace at Mount Sinai took into its service, is intended to prompt Israel as a people to “walk” in the way of the covenant. It is but an explication of the one statement to Abraham: “Walk before me, and be blameless” [Gen. 17:1], and therefore nor more a cancelation of the covenant of grace and the foundation of a covenant of works than this word spoken to Abraham. The law of Moses, accordingly, is not antithetical to grace but subservient to it and was also thus understood and praised in every age by Israel’s pious men and women. But detached from the covenant of grace, it indeed became a letter that kills, a ministry of condemnation. Another reason why in the time of the Old Testament the covenant of grace took the law into its service was that it might arouse the consciousness of sin, increase the felt need for salvation, and reinforce the expectation of an even richer revelation of God’s grace. He writes that Israel as a minor, placed under the care of the law, had to be led to Christ (Rom. 10:4; Gal. 3:23f. 4:1f.) and that in that connection sin would be increased and the uselessness of works for justification and the necessity of faith would be understood (Rom. 4:15; 5:20; 7:7f; 8:3; Gal. 3:19). On the one hand, therefore, the law was subservient to the covenant of grace; it was not a covenant of works in disguise and did not intend that humans would obtain justification by their own works. On the other hand, its purpose was to lay the ground work for a higher and better dispensation of that same covenant of grace to come in the fullness of time. The impossibility of keeping the Sinaitic covenant of the meeting of demands of the law made another and better dispensation of the covenant of grace necessary. The eternal covenant of grace was provoked to a higher revelation off itself by the imperfection of the temporary form it has assumed in Israel. Sin increased that grace might abound. Christ could not immediately become human after the fall, and grace could not immediately reveal itself in all its riches. There was a needed for preparation and nurture. “It was not fitting for God to become incarnate at the beginning of the human race before sin. For medicine is given only to the sick. Nor was it fitting that God should become incarnate immediately after sin that man, having been humbled by sin, might see his own need of a deliverer. But what has been decreed from eternity occurred in the fullness of time. (c)
Bavinck, H., Bolt, J., & Vriend, J. (2006). Reformed Dogmatics, Volume 3: Sin and Salvation in Christ ((a) 193–196, (b) 220-221, (c) 222). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.
I guess what I am trying to say is read Bavinck!
Soon and Very Soon we are going to have our eyes opened historically. Thanks to Mark Jones for going back and researching Antinomianism during the time of the Westminster Divines. I suspect some Modern Reformed Thought people will not like this book while many others will