Retaining temporal promises in Canaan based on imperfect, meritorious obedience is not republication. The conditions and promises are fundamentally different. What Kline does is something altogether different than what even John Owen and others did. Readers should note that Klinean covenant theology is not really classical Reformed “republicationism.” Talk of historical precedent is not all that relevant, as surprising as that may sound.  

 
A regrettable piece was published on the Aquila Report concerning the Reformed doctrine of republication. I honestly didn’t know whether to laugh or cry. In it the author claims that the views of Meredith G. Kline represent “historic, mainstream Reformed federalism, espoused from the time of the Reformation to the present,” as opposed to the heterodoxy of many others, including Richard Gaffin.

The author even manages to excoriate almost every Reformed Seminary, but lauds Westminster West “as the sole seminary promoting the biblical view (as we understand the issues)” on republication and justification.

But is Kline’s covenant theology the historic, mainstream Reformed federalism that emerged from the time of the Reformation? That’s an important historical and theological question.

What is the doctrine of “republication”?

Very simply, some people speak about the “covenant of works” (see WCF 7.2) being “republished” at Sinai – hence, the doctrine of republication. But after that, many of us are all groping around in the dark as to what some modern proponents mean by “republication.”

One of the problems concerns the way we define the covenant of works, including all of its basic elements. Even among Reformed theologians in the seventeenth century, there were disagreements on the precise nature of the covenant of works.

What was the “life” promised? Temporal life in the Garden or eternal life in Heaven? The Westminster documents leave this question undecided.

Was the covenant of works gracious?

In my view, the presence of divine grace before the Fall was a basic assumption of almost all Reformed theologians in the seventeenth century. It was not a meritorious covenant, as in proper merit (i.e. condign merit).

According to Johannes Maccovius, for something to be meritorious, four things are necessary: 1. It must be something that is not owed. 2. It should proceed from the powers of those who deserve it. 3. It must be of use to him of whom someone thinks that he deserves something. 4. The reward must not be greater than the merit. Thus, Adam clearly could not merit (eternal) life, and neither could Israel merit typological blessings (e.g., land).

Did Adam live by faith in the Garden? Yes, just as Christ lived by faith in the wilderness. The just, including the just one (Jesus) during his life on earth, live by faith.

Was Adam’s faith natural or supernatural? Again, Reformed theologians wrestled with this question.

Was Adam’s fundamental problem a failure to depend on the Holy Spirit for his obedience, as John Owen argued?

Was the Holy Spirit or the Son the Mediator in the covenant of works? Or was there no Mediator?

These and other questions need to be addressed before we can begin to tackle in what sense the covenant of works was “republished” at Sinai.

Read More