Source: https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2016/05/17/calvin-vs-1689-federalism-on-old-vs-new/
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 14:58:02+00:00

Document:
Wonderful article. Do you have more resources on Lutheran views of covenant theology? I have a friend who has recently become Lutheran so I’m quite interested. It seems like in our covenant theology discussions, the 1689 Federalism position seems to be closer to the Lutheranism view of the covenants, whereas the modern 20th century Reformed Baptist view seems to be closer to Calvin’s views. From your article, what would be the differences or advances (if any) between the Augustinian, Lutheran, and 1689 position?
I don’t have many resources on the Lutherans. I think part of that is because they tend to neglect systematics and covenant theology is very systematic, so I don’t think it was ever developed very much. I was told to read Chemnitz Loci Theologici part III Locus XV where he writes against the “Calvinist” substance/administration view, but it’s not available online and I haven’t obtained it yet.
The question is not, whether of old and at the present time there is one way of salvation, one promise of grace, one God of the covenant, so much as the work unto justification and salvation (quantam ad justificationis & salutis negotium), and finally one faith and eternal life. This is in all respects, as it were, certain, and greatly conforms to Sacred Scripture, which is admitted by all. But between us and the Calvinists the controversy comes to these two : (1) Whether the Old Testament anywhere in sacred Literature (Literis) is taken for the that covenant of grace, which God made with the Fathers, Adam, Abraham, etc. (2) Whether that covenant of grace which God made with the Fathers, is the same in substance with the New Testament. The Calvinists affirm this, and we deny it.
“The State of the Controversy”.
One big difference is that Lutherans, as far as I understand, do not affirm a covenant of works with Adam wherein he could have earned immutability by his works, whereas Augustine and 1689 Fed do. I also don’t know if the Lutherans offered any detailed explanation of the Abrahamic Covenant. I’m not certain what Augustine’s view of the Noahic covenant was, so that may be a point of agreement or disagreement with 1689 Fed. Augustine also, because of his mistranslation of justified and therefore his misunderstanding of justification, had a wrong interpretation of “do this and live” – arguing that it refers to the Christian’s doing and living by the Spirit. Luther follows Augustine in this if you read his commentary on Galatians 3. However, Augustine also manages to transcend the poor translation of justified he was working with and recognizes that Lev 18:5 is opposed to the gospel, and that it had a double meaning: eternal and earthly (can’t find the quote at the moment, but he’s commenting on Gal 3:12 and it’s almost exactly what I would say about the passage).
Important sub-point, too, that you make, Brandon, about the political dimension. As the church is separate from or breaks from the state, she is healthier.
The early Reformers (in England & the continent) saw this, but the institutionalization of the church, her getting in bed with the state, always hurts her theologically and spiritually.
I’d just insert your work on Kline and the covenants after the bit about Owen, and get it published!
As for me, I’m still working through your stuff on the differences between the 1646 WCF & the 1689 2nd LBCF. Not yet seeing enough difference, I still prefer the 1644 1st LBCF, though I know few others do!
I’m sorry Brandon, I thought you had a post specifically on Deuteronomy 30, but I couldn’t find it. I thought this Reformed Forum podcast was pretty interesting in comparison with the exposition you’ve outlined in several places here: https://reformedforum.org/ctc586/.
Sorry, again, I should have summarized. Moses is not making a generic exhortation, but addressing the nature of God’s restored covenantal fellowship with man. This passage has deep redemptive-historical structual import for the Bible. The passage has a chiastic structure. Crux is, “How will God relate to his people in the midst of cursing them?” Movement is from humiliation to eschatalogical restoration & consumation. Anti-typological escalation of relationship and blessings is promised already in Deut. 30. This is developed in prophets & NT. Important: Philippians sets Christ our pattern (cruciformity: humiliation to exaltation). Camden applies this to Deut. 30 via Israel’s typological relationship to Christ.
V. 11 “Certainly” not “For.” V. 10 is tied to V. 11. V. 1-10 will not occur until V. 11-14 do (not sure I understood?). V. 11-14 are not referring to man’s ability, but to God’s (see Jer. 31-32 as reading of Deut. 30). Possible explanations: “you” is “God,” or “you” is “Messiah,” but RF reading is “you” is the Israelites. “The way of obedience for you is by means of the work of the Lord himself,” in the NC.
Refusing shallow readings of v. 12-13. These verses have redemptive-historical references. Point is, God’s means of redemption are humiliation to exaltation, but pagans refuse this (Gen. 10-11). God condescends, we don’t ascend. This has a Adamic/CoW curse frame. Red Sea crossing as paradigmatic for crossing through the sea, where God’s judgement is passed through. Baptism as paradigm. Israel undergoes baptism in Sea, death & resurrection, a new birth. So the verses are saying Israel is to believe in God who will condescend and bring his people through judgement (via Christ), and not the Israelites who are to ascend or to undergo judgement. This connection of the exodus with Christ is made in Isaiah as preface to servant song.
Paul reads Moses faithfully, not reading something new into Moses. Word of God is near to us by gospel proclamation which we believe, not a matter of personal law-keeping ability. Paul is reading Deut. 30 in light of Isaiah’s servant songs. Sadly, Rom. 10:4-5 is not explicitly dealt with. But Deut. 30:11-14 is a call not to obedience, but a call to faith in Christ.
At the very end, Camden brings up OPC committee on republication. Argues for administrative view briefly and Mosaic as actual repub of CoW.
Anyways, he doesn’t necessarily address subservient covenant, and the reading here is not really a threat to NC in my mind. However, I do think his reading of the humiliation > exaltation cruciform pattern in OT as teaching about how we are to have faith & see Christ runs a little away from what I would expect subservient covenant to say. Thanks!

References: V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 v.