Regarding Dr. Clark, I should have toned-down what I said. I can’t determine if his view is positively rejected by the Confession because he doesn’t really respond to me when I ask him questions.

I’ll go ahead and give Turretin a re-read before replying to the rest of your comment. Have a pleasant evening, brother. Would be nice to be able to take a walk to talk about some of this. ;)

First, you seemed to be saying, to me and others, that Dr. Clark’s view was positively rejected by the Confession.

You have to ask, where do we get the idea of a Mosaic covenant. The Confession does not even speak of a Mosaic covenant. It simply says that the covenant of grace, which was made long before Moses, was administered in the Old Testament.

If someone claimed that the covenant of grace was not present at some period in the Old Testament or that someone could be saved in a way different than the covenant of grace, then they would not be out of accord of the Confession. However, if someone says that in addition to that covenant of grace, there was another covenant made or presented for another purpose other than gaining eternal life, then they would not be outside of the Confession. For example, God made a covenant promise with Rechab in Jeremiah 35. It was not the covenant of grace per se, but it existed alongside of it.

I could see, affirming that the covenant of grace was present throughout the Mosaic period, that Moses also presented the covenant of works in substance (i.e., “Do this and live”); or, second, that God made a national covenant with Israel, as Witsius does;, or, that the covenant mentioned in Deuteronomy is simply the Ten Commandments (which it is called in Dt. 4:11-14).

However, in my view, the covenant made with Israel was the covenant of grace under the form of the covenant of works (or presentation of the law), which was given to drive them to Christ and to convince them of their inability to obtain salvation in any other way but the Mediator. Thus, the Mosaic economy has a twofold character. It is a presentation of the covenant of grace and of the covenant of works. The covenant of grace is fundamental and basic to Israel’s existence. The covenant of works is presented merely to drive them to the covenant of grace and hope in the coming Messiah.

My view is basically in line with that of Turretin’s chapter on the covenant of grace. I would recommend a careful reading of that chapter. I think he sets forth very carefully and accurately the way that the covenant of works was present in the Mosaic period.

My aim in this blog post was to demonstrate that Dr. Clark was misusing the Confession and that the Standards do not positively teach republication as he claims. I don’t know if Dr. Clark’s view is positively rejected by the Confession.

I agree that Chapter 7 of the Confession doesn’t say that the Mosaic covenant “is” the covenant of grace. I also agree that “under the law” refers to the entire Old Testament (and not, as some seem to think, to the law given at Sinai). But what was presented to Adam post-fall, to Abraham, and via Moses “to the people of the Jews” is, as I read the Confession, a substantive administration of the covenant of grace.

I see where you’re going when you say that the Mosaic covenant per se is, in a sense, “left untouched.” But I’m not yet willing to admit that it’s really “untouched” — how could the Mosaic covenant be a part of this OT “substantial” administration of the covenant of grace if the Mosaic covenant is not itself essentially a gracious covenant? That sounds to me like saying that my entire body is human except for my leg!

Maybe you could clarify? Thanks, my friend. :)

It did not seem clear to me that you were arguing simply against the Standards explicitly teaching republication. It also seems that you are arguing that Dr. Clark’s view is positively rejected by the Confession.

I’m not sure I agree with your reading of chapter 7. Chapter 7 does not say that the Mosaic covenant is the covenant of grace. Instead, it says that the covenant of grace was administered under the law. I do not see why someone could not say that Moses republished the substance of the covenant of works and that he also presented the covenant of grace at the same time.

Moreover, the phrase “under the law” can refer to the entire Old Testament, since the covenant of grace was administered during that whole time. If this is the case, then the identity of the “Mosaic covenant” is left untouched.

That was essentially what I was arguing, that the Standards don’t positively/explicitly teach republication. As you can see, I was arguing contrary to the quote at the top.

And as it seems to me that there is more than one “republication doctrine,” it is possible that the Standards might exclude a certain form of republication. For example, any doctrine of republication that would deny that the Mosaic covenant is substantially an administration of the covenant of grace seems to me contrary to the Confession. But perhaps there are other forms of a republication doctrine that would be compatible with the Confession, and with those I wouldn’t have a problem.

I’m not convinced that 19.2. teaches that there is a republication of the covenant of works. It quite simply does not address it. All it says is that this law was delivered as a perfect rule of righteousness. It does not answer the question of whether or not the covenant of works was republished or taught at Mt. Sinai.

If your claim is that the WCF does not explicitly teach the republication doctrine, then you may be correct. However, based on what you cited, you cannot make the claim that the WCF excludes the republication doctrine.