All right, folks, it is time. Oh, I don't know if the amps are on, the two amps. So even though I'm being recorded, it is coming, now it is. Yeah, I think the amps were off. So though it was recording. wasn't coming through the speakers, but now it is. All right, let's go ahead and get started. And of course, anybody who's visiting today, I kind of feel bad for them because we're already in the middle of this large series. And then even within this series, this little excursus that we're dealing with, we're in the middle of that. So, try to bring things up to speed. We're in this larger scheme of discussing what's known as covenant theology, and we've been spending a good deal of time talking about the Mosaic covenant, and now we've moved into this sort of excursus of this what I've called a modern doctrine of republication that has kind of come into our own reform circles in various places. And last week I pointed out a few books to kind of critique in some way this doctrine of republication. These first two are directly critiques of them. This one by Andrew Elam, Robert Van Kooten, and Randall Berquist. Robert, I probably know the best of the three. Randall, I knew of. But these were written, basically what this book came about was originally a paper. In the Presbyterian of the Northwest, what happened was there was some strife, we'll put it, over this question. And so the presbytery decided we're going to set up a committee on both sides. They present their paper to be helpful. Well, that wasn't quite enough. Unfortunately, there was some conflict of personality more than there was conflict of theology. So this ended up being a critique, originally being a critique of republication by these three guys, which they later published. And that's where this came from. I've got the original PDF, but it's really not much different. This one is called Merit and Moses. critique of Kleinian doctrine, the Kleinian doctrine of republication. So that is a direct critique of it. And then I also showed you this other one, New Directions in Biblical Theology by Dr. Leonard Koppus, retired OP minister up in the Presbyterian of the Colorado's. This one is self-published, so you're gonna have a tough time finding it out there. And of course, because it's self-published, you got plenty of typos and formatting quirks and things like that. So that's the thing you'd have to look out for. This one's not very thick at all. Related to those two, even though they're not direct critiques per se, is this book by Ernest Kavan, The Grace of Law, A Study in Puritan Theology. An important work, I think. And then this book by Mark Jones, which in my opinion really needs to be annually read by ministers and elders. Antinomianism, and the subtitle is Reformed Theology's Unwelcome Guest? So by Mark Jones. This is an outstanding critique. And I can remember particularly one section of this book when I got it, which wasn't that long after I got here. There's this little section of characteristics of antinomian preaching. And when I was reading it, I felt like I was listening to folks in this church. I can hear their voices in what Mark Jones was saying, because that's kind of where this church got off the ground, as a result of some of that. On the pro side of republication, I didn't have this book last week. I had forgot it. I didn't stick it in my bag for whatever reason. This one is The Law is Not a Faith. And this is the key one, or especially that expression, the law is not a faith, that I plan on pulling that out of scripture so that we see where they get it from and how we go about critiquing it. This is a collection of essays by a number of biblical scholars on the issue of republication and the law and so forth. A number of them are in the OPC, so part of our denomination. So yeah, there you have it. And I did read an excerpt from T. David Gordon a couple weeks ago. So just by way of rehashing this doctrine of republication as it is called today, the understanding of what it is today is the idea that in some sense, The covenant made at Sinai with Moses, the Mosaic covenant, was in some sense a republication, a reenactment of the covenant of works. And it was given in such a fashion to show the nation as a corporate entity, that you can't keep the law Somebody else is going to have to come and do that. And of course, that looks forward to the Lord Jesus Christ. Now, I think I said last week that on paper and sort of the academic ivory tower setting, it kind of sounds good. I mean, because we do get it. We understand that in and of ourselves, we can't keep the law. We can't, we're still dealing with remnants of sin within us and nothing we can do to save ourselves, nothing we can do to merit eternal life. But what ends up happening is you end up in Israel, particularly, and then some of the consequences for us on this side of the cross. You end up with a conflict of ideas, because they will admit that the Mosaic Covenant is still an administration of the covenant of grace, and that even in the Old Testament, you're saved by grace through faith in the Messiah to come from their perspective. but also as a corporate body, as a nation, they're under this typological, this reenactment of a covenant of works. So you see, you're kind of almost a schizophrenic Israelite. That's really what it amounts to. Now, where do they place their emphasis in the Bible for this? I first want you to turn to Leviticus 18. This is where they get, this is part of where they get it, but this is where their stress comes. Leviticus 18, and you might think, wow, just one verse. It's really not one verse. It's the rest of scripture's use of this verse. particularly how Paul uses this verse that becomes the issue of debate and discussion in all of this. So Leviticus 18.5, it reads this way. I'll actually start at verse four, but it's really verse five that's key. You shall follow my rules and keep my statutes and walk in them. I am the Lord your God. You shall therefore keep my statutes and my rules. If a person does them, he shall live by them. I am the Lord. That expression in there, if a person does them, he shall live by them. That's their key verse. And what they do is they go to the New Testament in particular and Paul's citation of this verse as proof of their doctrine of republication. Now, even that's a bit simplistic, but there is going to be a strong emphasis on that. Even in This book, this collection of essays that promotes the doctrine of republication, you have in here one particular essay, and here's the title. Leviticus 18.5 and Deuteronomy 30.1-14, In Biblical Theological Development, Entitlement to Heaven Foreclosed and Proffered. That's almost a Puritan title. It was written by a professor at a seminary. I won't say which one, but we'll just say, for anonymity's sake, it's an Escondido. So you can see that there is going to be a key aspect. Now, how does Paul use this verse? Well, we're going to turn to Galatians 3, but you can start turning there if you want. Let me just briefly say that there are allusions, at the very least allusions, to Leviticus 18.5 in the Old Testament as well, particularly in Ezekiel. But there are other possible places as well. But I really want to focus here on Galatians 3. Because this is their nub. This is really where they've got it. And you think about this expression, if you do them, you will live by them. Well, that sounds like you're going to merit blessing by doing the statutes and commands of the Lord. And so there, they would say, is your evidence that there is, in some sense, a republication of the covenant of works given there at Sinai. Because, you know, you can't earn them. And we know that in the New Testament. So now let's turn to Galatians 3. Romans, first and second Corinthians, Galatians, chapter three. I want you to notice in particular verse 12, that's the heart of it right there. Notice what it says. But the law is not a faith, rather the one who does them shall live by them. Now, do you see that first expression, but the law is not of faith? Where do we see that? That was the title of the book I showed you. So that's the whole point. They love this verse, Galatians 3, 12. The law is not of faith. And that's where the title comes from. And the second part of that verse, the one who does them shall live by them. Where did we just see that? That's Paul's citation of Leviticus 18.5. Now, just as a quick aside, the other place that Paul hits upon this verse is in Romans chapter 10. And the argument comes at it a bit differently, but I think the conclusion really in critiquing this is gonna be the same, yeah. I think even as it's used in Leviticus, it does have to do with our lifestyle, how we live. We are living in accordance to the laws, statutes, commands of God. I think that aspect is undeniable. And so because of that, and what you see here in Galatians, remember, the overarching purpose of Galatians is to uphold this doctrine of justification by faith alone. And so you have these Judaizers. What do the Judaizers keep saying needed to be done in order for you to be saved? Circumcision, which was the specific thing, and what Jim said also is correct, they had to keep the whole law. Now we know that not just from Galatians, because Galatians really focuses on circumcision, because that's kind of the thing. But you go back to Acts chapter 15, and you don't need to turn there, but the whole purpose of the Jerusalem Council, circumcision is mentioned, but the Judaizers also mentioned one other thing. They had to be circumcised and keep the whole law of Moses, of which circumcision became the spotlight example of what it means to keep the whole law of Moses. And see, this is what Paul is dealing with, the doctrine of justification by faith alone. And you think about this, the law is not a faith. You can't be saved by keeping the law. That's Paul's point. And it's like, well, okay. Maybe then there's something to this. Maybe that's what's being described. But I think the common problem, particularly here in Galatians 3, It is not law as opposed to faith. It's not law as opposed to grace. It might look like that here in this verse, and even just the verse before, you mentioned verse 11. Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for the righteous shall live by faith. And that's a citation from Habakkuk chapter two. This is the key thing. And I think, in my opinion, this is where they miss the boat. And it really is a lot simpler than they need to make it. It is not law as opposed to grace. What Paul is actually arguing here, and I hope to demonstrate this with the previous verses and the subsequent verses. that Paul is arguing justification by law as opposed to justification by grace. That's what he's arguing. And you might think, well, Pastor Jim, you're splitting hairs. No, I don't think so. It's a question of how one is right before God. That's what justification is all about. Justification is that declaration by God that we are righteous in his sight because of the imputed righteousness of Christ. And see, that's kind of the point of contention. That's really the issue. And this is a bit of an aside, but it is related to what Conrad is asking. Why isn't also the New Covenant, the New Testament, because of its commands, somehow a republication of the covenant of works? Interestingly enough, I think, I haven't read it, but I just distinctly remember this on the floor of General Assembly when the committee presented its report on republication, that one of the ministers got up and said, I think you're misusing Charles Hodge here. Because those that are promoting republication were trying to quote Charles Hodge, the great Princeton theologian and professor there. Well, the thing is, Hodge said something similar to that a few pages in his commentary on 1 Corinthians after he talked about republication at Sinai. The thing is, Hodge didn't mean the exact same thing that these guys are. So that's part of it. And see, this also gets to another aspect of it. When these guys who hold to this doctrine of republication, that the covenant of works was somehow republished at Sinai, what they are saying here with Leviticus 18.5 is that that demonstrates that there is some kind of works principle that is in play at Sinai. If you do them, you will live. In some sense, there's this works principle, and that works principle applies to the nation that if you want to get into the promised land and stay in the promised land, you need to do this so that you can live. That's their understanding. And when Christ comes, he perfectly fulfills the law. That righteousness we receive by faith and therefore the works principle is now gone. So in the New Testament, there is no works principle in that sense. Good works are not a condition of anything. All good works is, is just mere evidence. And so for you to preach imperatives kind of brings us back to Sinai. that this is the argument that's made. Now, I realize this is kind of like language and theology that's kind of up here, which is why I talked about before, you know, the ivory tower, the study and things like that. In a certain sense, it kind of sounds attractive. And you may remember in the past two weeks, I've been trying to give these guys credit for defending the Reformation, the biblical doctrine of justification by faith alone, but they go off the rails here. And so any speaking of the law, moral law, any speaking of good works as being some sort of a condition, is bringing us back to Sinai under the covenant of works. Yeah. Well, that's the difference between the individual and the corporate nation. And so that's kind of how they get around it. Yeah, that's my thinking. See, that's my thinking. So let me just look at Galatians because I tried to stress to you my critique in particular is that what Paul is doing here is not law versus grace. That's not the case because elsewhere at the end of Romans chapter three, Paul says, what about the law? We uphold the law. What does Paul say in Romans chapter seven about the law? The law is spiritual and good. Paul here is dealing with how we're justified. He's not setting the law against the gospel per se. It's the misuse of the law. That's the issue for the Judaizers. That was the issue, the misuse of the law. Now, let's look at this text. Let's go back to verse 7. Here's Paul's argument. Know then that it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham. And the scripture foreseeing what? That God would justify the Gentiles by faith. That's his overarching argument. He's not opposed to the moral law per se. It's the misuse of that law, saying that you need to obey the law in order to be justified. That's what he's arguing against. And notice he continues that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham saying, in you all the nations will be blessed. So then those who are of faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith. Now verse 10, to better understand Paul's point in verse 12, you gotta look at verse 10. For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse. Rely on the works of the law for what? For the very justification he's just spelling out that comes by faith. So, am I being clear? I know it seems like I'm splitting hairs here, but there are implications if we don't. Do we understand that Paul is not contrasting law against grace? He's contrasting the means by which one stands before God and is declared righteous in his sight. And Paul's point is, in order to be justified by the law, what do you have to do? You have to keep it perfectly. And Paul's point is, that's true, you can't. But that's not because there's something wrong with the law, it's because there's something wrong with all of us. That's the issue. Jake? Because the law is good and gracious, once we justify that, holy lifestyles of where the Jews were practicing Yes, that's it. That's the evidence side of it, that's correct. Yeah, yeah, that's right. So what are the implications? See, this is where it goes off the rails, because those who hold to this doctrine of republication, those that are consistent, thankfully, within our own denomination, people are really not that consistent in implying it in the everyday. But what ends up happening is they say that now in the New Covenant, there's no works principle at all. It's all faith. And justification becomes the end-all, be-all of what the New Testament is about. Everything is justification. And don't get me wrong. It's a great doctrine. It's part of the Protestant Reformation. I uphold it. Hallelujah. Amen. But what ends up happening is that these guys then take a, and I'm gonna be blunt and say it, a Lutheran perspective on reading scripture, that everything they read is through the lens of law versus gospel. And so they even say you need to have the law gospel hermeneutic. How many of you have heard of that? I know some of you have. You've got to read the scripture through a law gospel hermeneutic. Well, it does. That's how I see it, yeah. And so since there's no works principle, what ends up happening is when people start talking about doing good works, they will then ask the court, well, how much good works are necessary? That's what they'll ask me. Somebody in our own denomination, when I spoke of good works on Twitter one time, he just said, well, how much good works are necessary? The problem is that's a category error. Because in terms of justification, we understand that we require perfect obedience. Well, we can't do it. Where does it come from? It comes from Christ. And so before God is judged, you who have faith in Christ, are viewed as perfectly righteous in his sight. Because what does God as judge say? He sees the perfect record of Jesus Christ imputed to you, reckoned to you, credited to your account. But when you get to doing good works as a Christian, now you're no longer dealing with God as judge, you're dealing with God as your father. It's a category error, that's the problem. And so with God as your father, look, all of us were kids at one times. There are a few in here that still are. You mess up from time to time, right? But it doesn't change your judicial status as being viewed as perfectly righteous. So to ask the question of a Christian, how many good works are enough? That's the wrong question. Just live in obedience. And the fact that even my good attempts at obedience are tainted by sin, I've got hope. You know why? Because my good works, even though they're tainted in sin, are accepted in Christ. They're accepted in Christ. Roy? Yeah, or any atheist unbeliever. Or put another way, every person who is not a Christian in some way says, my standing before God depends upon me and what I do. And I can get right with God. That's correct. The unbeliever. And that's why I said it's a category error. You've got two different classes of individuals that you're talking about. Unbelievers and those who have been redeemed. And so there's a different perspective as one who's been redeemed. Now, what I want to do is just kind of show you what this does, and it's not exclusive to those who hold to republication. There are other movements, if you will, out there that kind of lead to the same antinomianism, that anti-law type thing. Some of you may have heard of Sonship, Sonship theology. The idea there in trying to counsel people through their struggles and their doubts, hey, you're a son of God, you can't lose that. On the surface, that sounds right. But both of these end up at the same place, even though they come at it from different angles and theological perspective. But what is common is you have this view of law bad, you can't keep it, stop trying because if you're trying, you're trying to earn your way to heaven. Jesus did it, you can't do it, thanks be to God that Jesus did it for you. Now you notice how some of that has some truth. There's a lot of truth. But the whole point is, we've been redeemed therefore. Look, even from a theological perspective. And I always go to this. Westminster Shorter Catechism. You could do the larger if you want, but just want to save a little time. And then I wanna talk about some of the implications of what they do with certain texts of Scripture because of this mentality of law bad, Jesus did it, you can't do it. Westminster Shorter Catechism, it's question 40, I believe. Nope, my mistake, it's 44. I was in the right vicinity. And please understand, when it's talking here about the Ten Commandments, what it said back in 41, the moral law is summarily comprehended in the Ten Commandments. So that's what we're talking about, the moral law. So question 44, the preface to the Ten Commandments teaches us that because God is the Lord and our God and Redeemer, therefore we are bound to keep all his commandments. Do you hear that language from the Westminster Divines? They are bound. And why? There's two reasons given. You've heard me talk about this. There are two reasons the Westminster Divines, following the word of God, say we are bound to keep the moral law. What are those two reasons? He's God and he's our Redeemer. It's a two-fold reason. One of which applies to all the pagans, that's correct. But Christians, I can remember people had conniption fits online one time when I put as a tweet, these are reformed, our own people, as it were. I said, Christians are bound to keep all God's commandments. That's works righteousness, blah, blah, blah. And I said, this is a reformed and confessional statement. It is not, you have no idea what you're talking about. Then I posted the question and answer from the Westminster Shorter Catechism. Nothing came after that, not a thing. Christian, right. And that's why the divines here, it speaks of God and as our Redeemer. We're redeemed to obey and enabled to obey. By the way, that's the other side of this. That's the other side of this, and this makes me cringe. We all understand, as good reform Calvinists, what the doctrine of total depravity is. What it's not is that we're as bad as we can possibly be. That's not what it means. What it means is historically, what that doctrine means is every aspect of ourselves has been affected by sin such that we in and of ourselves are unable to flee to Christ because it's not in our nature. You see, that's the heart of the doctrine of total depravity. It's that inability in and of ourselves because it's not in our nature. Any more than it's my nature to climb the highest building of Tulsa and jump off and fly. But I'm exercising my free will, right? It's not in my nature to fly. Our nature needs to be changed. What some of these people are saying is that even as Christians redeemed and set free from the bondage of sin and the law, the curse of the law, that Christians are totally depraved. It is. If all they meant was that every aspect of ourselves is still affected by sin, well, yeah, I agree with that. But the heart of the doctrine of total depravity is that question of inability. That's really the heart of it. When Christians are regenerated, they're enabled. So the heart of what makes total depravity total depravity is taken away, right? Yes, unwilling. Right. Right. He's answering a different question. That's correct. Now, just by way of example, I want to take a step back because this is not unique to those who hold to this doctrine of republication. It's also, it can be a result of those who hold to sonship. It can be a result of those that are really clinging to a Lutheran view of things. Like you may remember the name Tullian Chevigian, the grandson of Billy Graham. He was antinomian par excellence, and he was in the PCA until, of course, he wasn't. We'll just leave it at that. But here's what they do, and I'm not gonna turn to them because these are texts you're probably familiar with. The parable of the Good Samaritan. This is what they do to a text like this. Those who are consistent, and again, they don't all do this. The parable of the Good Samaritan was given because somebody asked a question after Jesus said, love your neighbor as yourself. Somebody said, well, who's my neighbor? And so Jesus told the parable of the Good Samaritan. What they say, they put this strong emphasis on Jesus was the Good Samaritan. He did it for you. That's the emphasis. But you don't have to, because Jesus did it. That's really what Jesus is trying to say there. Except you know what the problem with that is? Jesus, at the end, he told them, go and do likewise. That's what he told them, go and do likewise. So yeah, the parable of Good Samaritan is about you two. Go and do likewise. In 1 John, where John talks about how the commands of God are not burdensome. That's supposed to be motivation for you and for me to obey the commands of God. But you know what they say that that text means? You know why God's commands are not burdensome? Because Jesus took it all away. And you don't have to do it. That's their response. That's what they do to texts like this. Hebrews chapter 12, where we're told to strive for two things, strive for peace and strive for holiness. You know what they say the striving for holiness is? Coming to faith in Jesus Christ so you're justified with the imputed righteousness of Christ. That's what that means. You can't do it. And I'm sitting there, strive for holiness. The verb, the command is strive. Yes, it does. And plus the fact that if you're striving for holiness, it assumes you've already been enabled to do it. And that's for somebody who's been saved. It is. Jim? Yeah. Here's what they do, and Mark Jones hits on this in this book about halfway through or so. He says, and if I remember correctly, he's quoting Tully and Chevigian before his improprieties, that justification, or excuse me, sanctification is nothing more than remembering your justification. That's what sanctification is. It's just remembering that you're justified. And see, That's kind of a Lutheran view. I wouldn't even say Luther held that view. That's kind of the modern Lutheran view. Well, right, that's the flip side to it, right. Yeah. Right. It's gratitude, thankfulness, and simply because we're trying. That's correct. It's not burdensome because we no longer have the curse of the law to have to obey it perfectly to be saved because we already are. That's why they're not burdensome. But we still have to obey. In the short time I've got left, I want to go to 2 Peter chapter 1. And I want to try to illustrate that Obedience to God, living in accordance to his word, is still required of us, and what it means for us, and three minutes, yeah, okay. We're familiar, even though it's a different version here than the ESV, we're familiar with verse three. His divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness. What's on our bulletin? everything necessary for life and godliness. It really comes out of this verse, okay? And keep that in mind. I want you to jump down to verse 11. This is where I want to go and show you the importance of good works in the life of the believer. For in this way," key phrase, in this way, hold on to that, in this way, there will be richly provided for you an entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. So Peter here is discussing entrance into the kingdom, into eternal life, from this life into the next. And he's like, oh, okay, how are we getting there? Well, he says, in this way. Well, in what way? Well, go back one verse. Therefore, brothers, be all the more diligent to confirm your calling and election. For if you practice, the verb there is to do, these qualities, you will never fail. Well, wait a minute. That sounds like works-based righteousness. It's not. That's Peter's point. He's speaking to Christians. What he's saying is you're justified. Now live at one who bears the name of Christ, bearing the name of your elder brother as a citizen of the kingdom. And that's the path upon which you walk in this life so that one day you will attain that which Christ secured for you. Anybody remember my airplane ticket analogy? Remember that? Airplane ticket, you get your boarding pass. All right, I'm at home, print my flight out, print it, great. How come I'm not at my destination? I got my ticket. Oh, yeah, I gotta go to the airport. Okay, I've made it to the airport. How come I'm not at my destination? I gotta go through security. I gotta actually walk down the tarmac, have it scanned. The ticket, the boarding pass is what gives me the right to be on that flight. Okay? But I'm not getting on that flight unless I do the work to make my way there. Let's turn this around. Suppose I don't have a boarding pass, and I drive to the airport, I park my car, I take the shuttle, I go through security somehow, and I get to the plane, and they say, you can't get on the plane. Yeah, but I worked my way here, I got here. You don't have the thing that guarantees you the seat. Well, what? The wedding clothes. That ticket is like our justification. That's what gives us the right to be on the plane. Our justification is what gives us the right to heaven. It's nothing we earn. Christ did it for us. That's the point. But in order to get on that plane, I've actually got to go to the airport. It doesn't just magically transform me and put me at my destination. This is why you hear me say from time to time, Pilgrim's Progress, John Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress did not end when the burden came off of Christians back. The story continued. He had to press on. He had to persevere. He had to do good works, not to be saved, but because he has been saved, and he had to attain. That's what Peter's saying here in 2 Peter 1. If you do these things, and then you start in verse 4, all the way through that passage, you'll see those qualities that you need to do. So we're out of time. I really, I kind of want to put this to rest, be done with this doctrine of republication. It is heady stuff, and it gets confusing because they do use some orthodox language. It becomes confusing because they have the right motive in maintaining the doctrine of justification by faith alone, to which we say amen. the way they get there and what the results are, are problematic. And that's the issue as I see it and others do as well. So, all right, let's close in prayer. Our Father in God and heaven, we do thank you for your word and what it teaches us, reminding us of what Jesus Christ has accomplished for us, that we are indeed justified through faith in him. But Lord, may we also recognize that as those who have received Christ, we have been enabled to live in obedience to your commands. And it is in that sense that your commands are not burdensome. And so, Lord, we pray that your Spirit would continue to enable us more and more to conform to the image of Jesus, our Savior. And now, Lord, prepare our hearts as we're about to enter into your presence to worship and adore you. We pray all this in Christ's name, amen. Sorry for the fire hose. That was a lot.