My review of T. David Gordon’s Promise, Law, Faith and subsequent interpretation of Galatians from a 1689 Federalism perspective is now available online for free. PDF is now available for free at 1689Federalism.com
My review of T. David Gordon’s Promise, Law, Faith and subsequent interpretation of Galatians from a 1689 Federalism perspective is now available online for free. PDF is now available for free at 1689Federalism.com
Contrast 
Thank you, Brandon, for making this freely available. I’m currently teaching through Galatians, and this should be helpful.
LikeLike
Very well done, especially the footnotes. The section that sticks out to me is the following:
“If “law” may only refer to the sub-eschatological Sinai covenant and its temporal life in the land of Canaan, then what becomes of the eschatological law and gospel distinction? I’m afraid there will be no place to speak of the law and the gospel as two distinct ways of obtaining eternal life. What then becomes of justification by faith alone apart from works of the law? Given the way that Gordon has reinterpreted texts in Galatians that are normally understood as teaching the doctrine of penal substitutionary atonement (3:13) and justification by the law (5:4), it seems he is on a slippery slope.”
It does seem like a slippery slope. In light of Gordon’s argument here, I wonder if he holds to the Reformed view of the law. If the entire Sinai covenant was temporal and sub-eschatological, then would he believe that the 10 commandments are binding for the Christian?
LikeLike
This was a very helpful article, and I thank you for making this publicly available. The section that grabs my attention is as follows:
“If “law” may only refer to the sub-eschatological Sinai covenant and its temporal life in the land of Canaan, then what becomes of the eschatological law and gospel distinction? I’m afraid there will be no place to speak of the law and the gospel as two distinct ways of obtaining eternal life. What then becomes of justification by faith alone apart from works of the law? Given the way that Gordon has reinterpreted texts in Galatians that are normally understood as teaching the doctrine of penal substitutionary atonement (3:13) and justification by the law (5:4), it seems he is on a slippery slope.”
In light of your summary of Gordon’s position, I’m not sure how Gordon can affirm WCF Ch. 19.
LikeLike