tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3116489801410156625.comments2023-10-28T09:17:35.685-04:00Butterfly HouseJeff Caglehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06327772299274394046noreply@blogger.comBlogger1048125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3116489801410156625.post-22605849696997333042023-08-13T12:59:13.670-04:002023-08-13T12:59:13.670-04:00Update: genetic studies have recently split the Am...Update: genetic studies have recently split the American Copper from its European lookalike. American Copper is now <a href="https://www.butterfliesofamerica.com/L/t/Lycaena_hypophlaeas_a.htm" rel="nofollow">Lycaena hypohlaeas</a>.Jeff Caglehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06327772299274394046noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3116489801410156625.post-72521134571366675412023-08-13T12:55:29.732-04:002023-08-13T12:55:29.732-04:00Updates from genetic studies: Crossline has been m...Updates from genetic studies: Crossline has been moved to genus Limochores [<a href="https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/insectamundi/1409/" rel="nofollow">Zhang 2022</a>]Jeff Caglehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06327772299274394046noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3116489801410156625.post-35641442110541160662023-08-13T12:52:59.774-04:002023-08-13T12:52:59.774-04:00Excellent primer on "dark swallowtail" i...Excellent primer on "dark swallowtail" identification in the east:<br /><br />https://louisiananaturalist.blogspot.com/2009/06/four-dark-swallowtails.htmlJeff Caglehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06327772299274394046noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3116489801410156625.post-53994023236983397812017-03-23T09:03:52.338-04:002017-03-23T09:03:52.338-04:00David,
Thank you very much for those kind comment...David,<br /><br />Thank you very much for those kind comments. I have benefited decisively from our interaction, especially as you and Jeff have helped clarify the role of the surety in the Covenant of Grace and in the Mosaic Covenant. This is a point that I had not adequately grasped -- its implications had not adequately crystallized in my mind -- as Cal Beisner and I wrote that article 10 or more years ago. I mean that I see better how the grace of the Covenant of Grace and its various administrations is focused on the surety provision. This provision looks to be key to the debate over republication: its inclusion in the Mosaic covenant clarifies both the distinction between the Adamic covenant (aka Covenant of Works) and the Mosaic covenant and also the continuity of the Mosaic covenant and the Covenant of Grace. Turretin's exposition is really illuminating. All to say, thank you for engaging.rfwhitenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3116489801410156625.post-61949793513002258892017-03-23T02:41:16.286-04:002017-03-23T02:41:16.286-04:00RF,
I apologize for the delay. I've got nothi...RF,<br /><br />I apologize for the delay. I've got nothing to add right now but thanks for those thoughts, I will continue to chew on them. I also plan to reread your essay in By Faith Alone (cowritten with Dr. Calvin Beisner). When I first read it some years ago I thought it was the best thing I'd read on the subject. I've really appreciated the interaction and hope to pick it up again at some point! (If you have anything else to add, I'll keep an eye out.)David R.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3116489801410156625.post-76711893632419196222017-03-18T12:34:23.833-04:002017-03-18T12:34:23.833-04:00David,
I also like your observations from Hebrews...David,<br /><br />I also like your observations from Hebrews, which, as you inferred, was formative on my comments. With regard to the royal dimension, it occurs to me that the twofold function of the king might prove a fruitful framing device. I'm thinking of his roles as holy warrior and as wise artisan (dragon slayer and temple builder, if you wish). The Law bore witness to the appearance of the true David who is also the true Solomon, the Judahite King born under the Law yet without sin, who would conquer sin and death and would thereby make His nation, called from all peoples of the earth, secure and pure for fellowship with God in His holy dwelling place. As you might guess, I say "true David who is also true Solomon" because each failed in his own way, or was denied the privilege of being both holy warrior and temple builder (both of which roles hearken back to Gen 1.28).rfwhitenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3116489801410156625.post-55373919889763853422017-03-18T12:18:43.232-04:002017-03-18T12:18:43.232-04:00David,
You asked,As I was thinking about this, it...David,<br /><br />You asked,<i>As I was thinking about this, it occurred to me that the contrast being drawn is not one between a covenant of works on the one hand and a covenant of grace otoh (which would constitute a denial of WCF 7.5), but nor is it a contrast based on a mere Pharisaical misunderstanding. Rather it is a redemptive-historical contrast between covenant institutions (e.g., a redemption, sureties, and inheritance) that are designed to fail on account of sin, and those (antitypical) that are guaranteed success because founded on the obedience and suffering of the greater Surety. Would you agree?</i><br /><br />I like the track you're on. The contrast I had in mind -- which you picked up on -- is between the Old Covenant (OC) and the New Covenant (NC), two administrations of the Covenant of Grace (CoG). The way I might summarize the contrast is that, whereas the OC was enacted on the violable oath of sinful and mortal Israel to the LORD (Exod 20:18-21; Deut 5:2-5), the NC is a covenant enacted on an inviolable oath of the LORD to sinless and immortal Jesus, the Surety who kept what the many violated (Heb 7:20-22, 28; 8:6). Predicated on Israel's oath to the Lord, it could only fail; predicated on the Father's oath to His Son, it could only succeed. rfwhitenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3116489801410156625.post-32238191100655007532017-03-18T09:30:14.645-04:002017-03-18T09:30:14.645-04:00I was playing a bit with the idea of framing our d...I was playing a bit with the idea of framing our discussion in terms of an outline of Hebrews, and I came up with the following series of contrasts on the first pass through. Hebrews doesn't cover everything (focusing as it does more on the priestly office than the royal), but maybe this is helps (you covered much of this ground I think in your comment)?<br /><br />Reveled by angels / revealed by incarnate Son (1:1-2:18)<br /><br />Mediated by Moses the servant / mediated by Christ the Son (3:1-6)<br /><br />Earthly inheritance / heavenly inheritance (3:7-4:13)<br /><br />Sinful, and thus dying Aaronic priests / holy, and thus everliving Melchizedekian priest (4:14-8:6)<br /><br />Breakable old covenant/law written on stone / unbreakable new covenant/law written on hearts (8:7-13)<br /><br />Token sacrifices offered at earthly man-made tabernacle / efficacious sacrifice offered at heavenly divinely-made tabernacle (9:1-14)<br /><br />Old testament sealed with bulls/goats blood / new testament sealed with Christ's blood (9:15-28)<br /><br />Carnal shadowy worship / spiritual substantial worship (10:1-12:17)<br /><br />Revealed from earth/Mount Sinai / revealed from heaven/Mount Zion (12:18-29)David R.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3116489801410156625.post-45786413616499858912017-03-18T09:17:40.247-04:002017-03-18T09:17:40.247-04:00RF,
Thanks again! I couldn't have stated it h...RF,<br /><br />Thanks again! I couldn't have stated it half as nicely prior to our conversation.<br /><br />And yes, I find your thoughts in your prior comment to be helpful! I'll reflect on them further, but one thing they got me thinking about is how we can speak of the contrast between the old and new covenants in such stark terms, as you did in your comments (and as Paul, sometimes, and the writer to the Hebrews also do) when we hold that they are substantially identical. <br /><br />As I was thinking about this, it occurred to me that the contrast being drawn is not one between a covenant of works on the one hand and a covenant of grace otoh (which would constitute a denial of WCF 7.5), but nor is it a contrast based on a mere Pharisaical misunderstanding. Rather it is a redemptive-historical contrast between covenant <i>institutions</i> (e.g., a redemption, sureties, and inheritance) that are designed to fail on account of sin, and those (antitypical) that are guaranteed success because founded on the obedience and suffering of the greater Surety. Would you agree?David R.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3116489801410156625.post-71891390752576061322017-03-17T09:25:57.737-04:002017-03-17T09:25:57.737-04:00David R.
Regarding your post over there at Green ...David R.<br /><br />Regarding your post over there at Green Baggins about Part 11 of the OPC Report ... very nicely stated!rfwhitenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3116489801410156625.post-73192957563629839902017-03-16T17:43:08.873-04:002017-03-16T17:43:08.873-04:00David,
I'm not sure if the following comments...David,<br /><br />I'm not sure if the following comments will advance the discussion of the point you're pursuing, but it looks to me that the terms "covenant" and "redemption" apply comprehensively to the theocracy and its institutions. Or am I wrong? <br /><br />As you suggested, the Mosaic redemption and covenant were not efficacious to deal fully and finally with the sin and death of sinners. That is, the redemption mediated through Moses (i.e., Levi) delivered the nation from physical bondage to physical freedom, but had left them in spiritual bondage. They were no longer slaves to Pharaoh, but they remained slaves to sin.<br /><br />In addition, the covenant mediated through Moses after the nation's redemption required them, as a people still in bondage to sin, to obey God’s Law from the heart (Deut 6:6) – something they could not do in their natural condition. Moreover, that covenant was powerless to deliver those slaves from their slavery (death) and provided them no enablement (life) to satisfy its requirements (Deut 5:28-29; 29:4; Gal 3:21). These observations relate directly to your point about the design of the Mosaic covenant. <br /><br /><br />Hence, as Paul put it, Mount Sinai bore children who were to be slaves in bondage to sin (Gal 4:24-25; cf. 4:1-3). Born beset with original sin as a result of the imputation of Adam’s sin, Israel was not morally competent (i.e., they were not free) to serve the LORD God and to keep His commandments. In addition, these sons of Sinai boasted in the sons of Levi, their priesthood, their sanctuary, and their sacrifices, even though the Levites, weakened by sin and death, could offer only a ceaseless cycle of sacrifices that could never take away sins (i.e., could never deal with sins fully and finally). <br /><br />Accordingly, Israel was disqualified from being that righteous seed who would render to God the perfect, personal, and perpetual obedience -- active and passive -- as required by the Law, and the Law proved to be a covenant of condemnation, bondage, and death (2 Cor 3:6-14; Rom 7:10-11) that shut the nation up under sin (Gal 3:22) and its curse (Gal 3:10).<br /><br />In the face of Israel’s sin, then, the Mosaic covenant functioned as God’s pedagogue to reveal the people’s spiritual inability, though it could not relieve it (Gal 3:21-24). The Law, however, also did something else as God’s pedagogue: it shut the people up to faith (Gal 3:22-24) in the redemptive work (Gal 3:13) of the one true Seed of Abraham (Gal 3:19) from the tribe of Judah and the order of Melchizedek (Gen 14:18-20; 49:10; Psa 110:4; Heb 7:4-14). It was He who would qualify as the righteous Seed. The Mosaic covenant bore its pedagogical witness to that Heir through the offices of prophet, priest, and king and through the promises, prophecies, ordinances, and types (“shadows”) related thereto. Together these testified to the person and work of the true Seed who would be a prophet greater than Moses, a priest greater than Levi, a king greater than David.<br /><br />Though the Mosaic covenant was instituted as an administration of the Promise in shadow and type, it was not intended to produce the true Heir of the Promise, the true Seed qualified to fulfill the law's demands. It was the Abrahamic covenant, and later the Davidic covenant, that was instituted to anticipate the true Melchizedekal (Gen 14) and Judahite (Gen 49) administration of the Promise. With the arrival of the true Heir, the administration of Moses and the Levitical order must pass into obsolescence.<br /><br />Are we making progress?rfwhitenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3116489801410156625.post-61800741523189007212017-03-16T14:01:21.562-04:002017-03-16T14:01:21.562-04:00RF,
Thanks! Good to know I'm not crazy.... I&...RF,<br /><br />Thanks! Good to know I'm not crazy.... I'm not sure how to frame this either, will continue to ponder....David R.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3116489801410156625.post-853166975573744662017-03-15T18:20:38.370-04:002017-03-15T18:20:38.370-04:00David,
This makes "more than a modicum"...David,<br /><br />This makes "more than a modicum" of sense! I do acknowledge that my last comment was a bit of a sidetrack from your focus on the Mosaic theocracy. I'll join you in mulling it over. <br /><br />I suppose it goes without saying that we could begin by thinking incrementally through Israel's history. What I mean is from the establishment of the priestly order, through the emergence of the judges, through the establishment of the kings. But is that the best way to frame the discussion? Not sure. rfwhitenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3116489801410156625.post-65752483212515408312017-03-15T16:42:29.653-04:002017-03-15T16:42:29.653-04:00
RF,
While I agree with your comment and find it...<br />RF,<br /><br />While I agree with your comment and find it a helpful perspective on the question of continuity/discontinuity; you are apparently understanding the term, "relation" in a different sense than I had intended (which is certainly my own fault for being unclear).<br /><br />So if you'll forgive me for not responding (for now) directly to your recent comment, and instead trying to clarify my own last comment: I was not so much interested in the question of continuity/discontinuity, but rather, in that of how the MC relates to the COW <i>specifically by throwing light on the sinner's plight under the broken COW</i> (which I believe it did in the two ways I tried to delineate in my previous comment).<br /><br />Thus, my definition should have specified that the term "legal relation" (i.e., according to Turretin's usage) refers to the relationship that the Mosaic covenant sustains to the covenant of works <i>by drawing attention to sinful Israel's obligation to the terms of the broken COW and their consequent liability to God's wrath</i>. (Whereas "evangelical relation" refers to how the MC relates to the covenant of grace by administering it via types and ordinances foresignifying Christ to come.)<br /><br />And that brings me back to the notion I tried to briefly explain in my previous comment, namely that <i>the Mosaic theocracy and its institutions, though functioning as a typological model of the heavenly kingdom (their evangelical relation), were nevertheless designed to fail (their legal relation)</i>. This basic idea constitutes an attempt on my part to integrate Kline's teachings with those of Turretin (as I understand them both) concerning the Mosaic covenant and economy.<br /><br />To elaborate just a little (and risking redundancy): Turretin teaches that the ceremonies ordained in the law of Moses bore a legal relation (insofar as they were law) as well as an evangelical relation (insofar as they functioned typologically and sacramentally). (He finds the idea of a legal relation taught explicitly in Colossians 2:14, among other places, where Paul speaks of the ceremonies as "the handwriting of ordinances that was against us.")<br /><br />But then Kline comes along and observes (following Vos) that not just the ceremonies but in fact the entire theocracy and its institutions were designed to typify the heavenly kingdom (which is to say they bore an evangelical relation).<br /><br />So, what I'm now trying to figure out (this idea has come to me as the three of us have been discussing) is how to draw out what seems to me to be the implications of the above (i.e., Kline apparently advancing beyond Turretin). That is to say: if the ceremonies bore a legal relation because they were ordained in the law (as per Turretin), then the theocracy and its institutions (as per Kline's focus) must also have borne a legal relation since they too were (obviously) ordained in the law. (Perhaps you can help me think this through or sharpen it?)<br /><br />Assuming I'm correct, the next question is, How precisely do we spell out the nature of the legal relation borne by the Mosaic theocracy?<br /><br />I took a brief stab at this in my previous comment where I noted several examples of the failure of the theocracy and its institutions, namely that its official representatives (sureties) couldn't secure the inheritance (a principal focus of our conversation thus far), its sacrifices couldn't take away sins, its temple was merely a man-made building (God didn't dwell there), its real estate was merely an earthly country, etc.<br /><br />I hope this all makes at least a modicum of sense. If there's any merit to the basic idea, then I'm sure there's much more to be said (hopefully by those with more theological acumen than I). But then again, it could be I'm too far out in left field....<br /><br />Any thoughts? :) (And Jeff, I'm more than happy to hear from you too of course.)David R.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3116489801410156625.post-73995731898822076852017-03-14T12:50:23.714-04:002017-03-14T12:50:23.714-04:00Jeff and David,
Very much in the train of David’s...Jeff and David,<br /><br />Very much in the train of David’s remarks, let me try to articulate something. I’m finding that our interaction is clarifying a crucial point for my own understanding of how the MC is similar to and different from the CoW. <br /><br />To try to articulate my point, I’ll take as a point of departure David’s statement: <i>The term "legal relation" refers to the relationship that the Mosaic covenant sustains to the covenant of works.</i> What follows is my attempt to summarize the relationship that the MC sustains to the CoW. <br /><br />The MC is similar to the CoW in that the MC republishes the demands and sanctions of the CoW. The MC is different from the CoW in that the MC republishes the promise of the Surety who satisfies the CoW, <i>and it is telling that that promise was not part of the CoW.</i> Before the fall, in the CoW God did not promise Adam a surety to satisfy its terms; He did not require of Adam faith in that surety. Rather God required of Adam personal, perfect, and perpetual obedience to satisfy the CoW. The promise of a surety was introduced <i>only after the fall</i>, in the CoG and its several administrations. <br /><br />After Adam’s fall, in the CoG the demands and sanctions of the CoW continued as a perfect rule of righteousness alongside the promise of the Surety. (In fact, that moral law continued to bind all people to obedience, both those who were justified according to the CoG [e.g., Adam, Eve, Abel, Seth, Noah] and those who were not [e.g., Cain, Lamech].) Since Adam, then, that law – as a perfect rule of life – has evidently continued at least in the form of the Two Great Commandments (cf. 1 John 3.11-12; Gen 6.9, 22; 18.19), even as it was later republished on Mount Sinai in the form of the Ten Commandments and has now been republished from Mount Zion in those same Ten Commandments. <br /><br />Hereafter, you’ll read more wording that echoes the WCF. … After Adam’s fall through Christ’s appearance, true believers have never been under the law as a covenant of works by which they are justified or condemned. Nevertheless, the law has been of great use to them as well as to others. By informing them – as a rule of life – both of the will of God and of their duty, the law has directed and bound believers to walk accordingly. It has also revealed to them the sinful pollutions of their nature, hearts, and lives. Therefore, through the ages since the fall, whenever believers have examined themselves in the light of the law, they have come to further conviction of, humiliation for, and hatred of their sin, together with a clearer view of their need of their Surety and the perfection of His obedience. <br /><br />So, to recap, the inclusion of the demands and sanctions of the CoW in the MC is a summary similarity (continuity) between the MC and the CoW. The inclusion of the Surety promise in the MC is the summary difference (discontinuity) between the MC and the CoW. The inclusion of that promise in the MC is also the summary similarity between the MC and all previous and subsequent administrations of the CoG. In fact, I’d maintain that the inclusion of the Surety promise in the MC is what makes the MC an administration of the CoG; in other words, the inclusion of the Surety promise in the MC is what makes the MC not a substantial republication of the CoW.<br />rfwhitenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3116489801410156625.post-17615052962153108662017-03-13T19:20:32.642-04:002017-03-13T19:20:32.642-04:00One little thing to clarify in my above comment. C...One little thing to clarify in my above comment. Concerning legal relation #2, I forgot to specify how it relates to the COW. It does this in that the purpose of the "built-in failure mechanism" is to underscore Israel's sin and misery in Adam, thus awakening them to it and driving them to the greater Surety offered in the COG. (I know you didn't need me to spell this out but just wanted to clarify....)<br /><br />Also, slight formatting error: The sentence that begins, "Regarding Lane's 'conundrum' that you mention ..." should start a new paragraph.David R.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3116489801410156625.post-30810299110797688042017-03-13T18:47:29.223-04:002017-03-13T18:47:29.223-04:00
Jeff,
Here's my take in brief (and I see th...<br />Jeff,<br /><br />Here's my take in brief (and I see that RF has also responded here and on GB, but I am commenting here before reading his comments, which I'll be sure to do after):<br /><br />The term "legal relation" refers to the relationship that the Mosaic covenant sustains to the covenant of works. As far as the question <i>how</i> the MC relates to the COW, it does so in basically two ways:<br /><br />1. It republishes the demands and sanctions of the covenant of works (obedience to the threefold law, moral, ceremonial and judicial as the condition for life).<br /><br />2. It provides the blueprint (via the same threefold law) for a theocratic kingdom with a built-in failure mechanism; that is to say, its official representatives (sureties) can't secure the inheritance, its sacrifices can't take away sin, its temple is an empty man-made building (God doesn't dwell there), its real estate is merely an earthly country, etc.<br />Regarding Lane's "conundrum" that you mention, it seems to me that the solution to it is what we've worked out via our trialogue in the above thread. Let me try to sum it up (at the risk of some redundancy):<br /><br />1. Perfect obedience was required in order to inherit or retain the land (or merit any blessings from God). (This speaks to legal relation #1, above.)<br /><br />2. However, for the sake of Christ to come, God graciously accepted and rewarded the imperfect Spirit-wrought obedience of a surety (Abe, Dave, etc.) by granting the land inheritance to those whom the surety represented (this answers Lane's question, "why weren’t they kicked out of the land far sooner than they were?").<br /><br />3. The Mosaic theocracy and its institutions (i.e., official representatives, ordinances, inheritance, etc.) were fashioned by God as types of Christ's suretyship and the heavenly kingdom He would secure on behalf of the elect by His meritorious obedience. (Evangelical relation.)<br /><br />4. But the theocracy was designed to fail (as explained above, legal relation #2). Because the sureties' obedience was not sufficient to secure a stable or lasting inheritance (IOW, because it wasn't Christ's obedience); eventually Israel was expelled for their sins, and especially for the sins of their official representatives (this answers Lane's question, "why would they ever be kicked out?").<br /><br />What do you think?David R.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3116489801410156625.post-50862247221622457752017-03-13T13:30:08.730-04:002017-03-13T13:30:08.730-04:00Jeff,
Correction: Above I wrote The grace that le...Jeff,<br /><br />Correction: Above I wrote <i>The grace that leads to acquisition and retention is not antinomian: the grace that imputes Christ’s obedience also conforms Israel to Christ’s image, conforming them finally to Christ's image.</i> <br /><br />What I meant to write was this: <i>The grace that leads to acquisition and retention is not antinomian: the grace that imputes Christ’s obedience also conforms Israel to Christ’s image,</i> <b>imparting Christ's obedience to them.</b>rfwhitenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3116489801410156625.post-50688820826242704422017-03-13T13:20:52.282-04:002017-03-13T13:20:52.282-04:00Jeff,
It looks to me that we’re circling back aro...Jeff,<br /><br />It looks to me that we’re circling back around to where, or close to where, we took up this discussion. This is a good thing! I’ll take Lane’s comments as a jumping off point.<br /><br />He asks, <i>On the one hand, if Israel was either to acquire or retain the land on the basis of their own perfect and personal obedience, then why weren’t they kicked out of the land far sooner than they were?”</i> <br /><br />My response: I’d break up the question into its components. On Israel’s acquisition of the land, I’d deny that Israel acquired the land based on their obedience; according to the terms of the Abrahamic covenant, they acquired the land based on their surety Abraham’s obedience. On Israel’s retention of the land, I’d affirm that, according to the terms of the Mosaic covenant, Israel was to retain the land based on their obedience, including their obedience to their divinely appointed surety, whether the surety be Moses, Aaron, the Levites, Phinehas, Joshua, the judges, David, or David’s sons. Key to the nation’s probation, then, was their walking in the footsteps of the faith of the divinely appointed surety. Yet, even then, until the true Surety came, the nation would find that the surety’s obedience was not fully and finally efficacious: his efficacy was limited by his own sin and death. Judges 2.6–3.6 recounts the point I’m trying to make, particularly about the correlation of the nation’s obedience and the sureties whom God raised up. <br /><br />Arguably, the reason God did not kick Israel out of the land far sooner than He did is because their pedagogical probation involved God’s compassionate, longsuffering determination to raise up, again and again, sureties for them to follow (cf. 2 Chron 36:15). So long as the people followed in the surety’s footsteps of faith, they retained the land. Yet, because of Israel's persistent unbelief and apostasy, God’s longsuffering does not last forever; He does not allow His grace to be mocked by persistent unbelief and apostasy. The day of wrath had to come; the day of exile had to arrive (2 Chron 3.16-21). Still the day of exile is not hopeless: a day of a new exodus can arise, according to the terms of God’s covenant with Abraham. Ultimately, as we’d all agree, that day is coordinated with the arrival of the true Surety. <br /><br />Lane also asks: <i>If Israel was either to acquire or retain the land on the basis of Christ’s perfect and personal obedience, then why would they ever be kicked out, unless faith was made a necessary instrument?</i> <br /><br />My response: I’d affirm that, by faith, Israel would acquire and retain “the land” based on the obedience of Christ, the true Surety to whom they would look in faith. Key here, however, is how Christ’s obedience relates to Israel’s obedience. The grace that leads to acquisition and retention is not antinomian: the grace that imputes Christ’s obedience also conforms Israel to Christ’s image, conforming them finally to Christ's image. The conformation of believers to Christ’s image includes their obedience to God’s commandments, and that imparted obedience is inseparable from Christ’s imputed obedience as the fruit and evidence of justifying faith. <br /><br />What do you think?<br />rfwhitenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3116489801410156625.post-25519366253491779212017-03-10T17:46:34.676-05:002017-03-10T17:46:34.676-05:00So I think one mode of expression that we need to ...So I think one mode of expression that we need to nail down (like Jello to the wall?) is what it means to "act legally" or what it means to be a "legal relation."<br /><br />I have understood these terms, along with a "cloak of works", to indicate that the manner that these relations functioned was in accordance with the law, or by works.<br /><br />NOT, as indicated above, exacting strict adherence to the law nor delivering benefits for merit proper; but in a manner that recalls the CoW over against the CoG. <br /><br />What is that manner? <br /><br />It seems to me that it cannot be the exact same manner as in the CoG; else, there is no "cloak of works" or "legal relation."<br /><br />I seem to be at a place similar to the one Lane describes in <a href="https://greenbaggins.wordpress.com/2017/03/10/the-opc-republication-report-part-11/" rel="nofollow">OPC 11</a><br /><br /><i>Again, the larger questions have to do with how God treated Israel in the land, so I will take another stab at this question. On the one hand, if Israel was either to acquire or retain the land on the basis of their own perfect and personal obedience, then why weren’t they kicked out of the land far sooner than they were? If Israel was either to acquire or retain the land on the basis of Christ’s perfect and personal obedience, then why would they ever be kicked out, unless faith was made a necessary instrument? It seems dubious to me, however, to make acquisition or retention of the land dependent on the instrument of faith. Obedience and disobedience seem clearly to be a factor in Israel’s retention of the land, but if it is not perfect and personal obedience, then how do we understand this conundrum?</i><br /><br />Jeff Caglehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06327772299274394046noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3116489801410156625.post-31577999167971612402017-03-09T11:37:22.844-05:002017-03-09T11:37:22.844-05:00David R.,
Thanks much for addressing that earlier...David R.,<br /><br />Thanks much for addressing that earlier post. In reading my comments, you may realize, as I have, that, for expressing my views, I have found a lot of utility in the words and concepts of WCF 16.5-7 and 19.5-7. As I review the development of my reflections on those paragraphs from the WCF, it struck me that presumably they would have to have application to believers under the law as well as to believers under the gospel. That observation opened up ways of expression that I hadn't quite grasped before, at least as I have attempted to describe the relation of believers under the law to the law (works) and to the gospel (grace). Such is what I was trying to do in that post.rfwhitenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3116489801410156625.post-20716044496241118412017-03-08T19:12:41.575-05:002017-03-08T19:12:41.575-05:00RF,
I still owe you a response. You had said, &qu...RF,<br /><br />I still owe you a response. You had said, "As far as the appearance that I’m placing Abe and Dave are under a works principle, I fear we’re talking past each other. The challenge is to figure out why we’re missing each other. As I'm trying to articulate and apply an administrative reading of the works principle, I’m thinking that we’re stumbling over how being under the grace principle relates to the works principle and to the believer’s works of faith. Let me take a shot at it."<br /><br />I think we've been talking past each other because we've been using terms differently. In the paragraph that followed, you said, "Yet – and this is a key point, as I see it – the grace principle still used the works principle to instruct Abe and Dave in Christ-likeness. In other words, in that Christ fulfills the works principle, He redefines Abe’s and Dave’s relationship to the works principle. United to Christ they’re under the yoke of grace. United to Christ, the works principle is obsolete for their justification, but it remains in effect for their sanctification."<br /><br />I can see from your explanation here that you are using "works principle" as a synonym for "law"; whereas I had been using that term to signify the operative principle under the covenant of works (which obviously would not apply to either Abe or Dave). But now that your terms are clear to me, I would certainly agree with you. <br /><br />In general, I think my preference, would be to retain "works principle" for the covenant of works specifically, but the OPC committee definition I pasted above includes Abe's and Dave's works as falling under that rubric, so who am I to argue? (That wouldn't stop me from arguing of course if I had strong objection. ;) )David R.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3116489801410156625.post-5936305452881124212017-03-06T19:29:23.630-05:002017-03-06T19:29:23.630-05:00Jeff and RF,
Jeff, good case study. RF, it seems ...Jeff and RF,<br /><br />Jeff, good case study. RF, it seems to me you've got it right.<br /><br />In terms of my proposed model above, perhaps we can say that in the narrative account of God's deliverance of His people via the righteous acts of various representatives, there is a twofold lesson given to us, to be expressed in legal and evangelical terms, something like the following (forgive the long sentences):<br /><br />Legal relation: Although the representative obedience of the sureties whom God raised up (e.g., Moses, the judges, Phinehas) obtained temporal deliverances for those represented (Israel); the trying of God's patience through an endlessly repeated cycle of sin, judgment and cry for deliverance demonstrated that these sureties' obedience was insufficient to deliver from the shackles of sin, and thus futile for staving off the temporal and eternal curse threatened against sinners, and thus ultimately left God's people yet in need of a greater deliverance.<br /><br />Evangelical relation: It taught that deliverance is secured by the obedience of another (a surety), and it typified the meritorious obedience of the true Surety and Deliverer to come, all-sufficient to accomplish the ultimate and greater deliverance of God's elect from the shackles of sin and Satan, and thus to secure their true and everlasting blessedness in this world and that which is to come.David R.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3116489801410156625.post-85740877197138420102017-03-06T11:26:55.465-05:002017-03-06T11:26:55.465-05:00Jeff, and David R.,
First take on Ps 106: As I c...Jeff, and David R., <br /><br />First take on Ps 106: As I come to the passage, I would take note that these verses review events that take place during the administration of the CoG in the time of (under) the old covenant. Psalm 106 shows us that, in accord with the old covenant, the nation’s sins exposed its moral inability and brought God’s punishments on them: adversity, defeat, and dispossession. While suffering His punishments for their sins, God heard the people’s cries, and in their cries they looked beyond themselves for a surety. On one such occasion, the Lord made Phinehas a surety for them. Phinehas had personal hope of heaven only through God’s grace in the Son of Abraham to come, only as a gift received by faith alone. But the Lord treated the specific work of faith that Phinehas performed with a typological significance so that he pointed to the Son to come.<br />rfwhitenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3116489801410156625.post-4386721423940204462017-03-06T06:07:01.612-05:002017-03-06T06:07:01.612-05:00Hi guys,
I would like to open up a new front here...Hi guys,<br /><br />I would like to open up a new front here, if OK.<br /><br />How does Ps 106 fit in with our discussion?<br /><br />Here is the excerpt: <br /><br /><i>...They defiled themselves by what they did;<br /> by their deeds they prostituted themselves.<br />40 Therefore the Lord was angry with his people<br /> and abhorred his inheritance.<br />41 He gave them into the hands of the nations,<br /> and their foes ruled over them.<br />42 Their enemies oppressed them<br /> and subjected them to their power.<br />43 Many times he delivered them,<br /> but they were bent on rebellion<br /> and they wasted away in their sin.<br />44 Yet he took note of their distress<br /> when he heard their cry;<br />45 for their sake he remembered his covenant<br /> and out of his great love he relented.<br />46 He caused all who held them captive<br /> to show them mercy.</i><br /><br />And then separately,<br /><br /><i>they aroused the Lord’s anger by their wicked deeds,<br /> and a plague broke out among them.<br />30 But Phinehas stood up and intervened,<br /> and the plague was checked.<br />31 This was credited to him as righteousness<br /> for endless generations to come.</i><br />Jeff Caglehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06327772299274394046noreply@blogger.com