Okay...

I have tried to read and follow this very tedious and overworked paper on republication and I find that while it is arguing for "two covenants," it does so by taking a lot of stuff out of context, by claiming that the Westminster divines didn't properly understand the covenant of works with Adam (and "proving" the point by citing that the WCF's proof-texts are taken from later works than Genesis - that's like saying the Apostle John didn't properly interpret the creation account in the first chapter of his gospel), and by mixing the two Testaments into a particular eschatological scheme that doesn't quite fit, and it contrasts "Law and Gospel" (like Lutheranism) rather than "shadow and substance" or "type and antitype." To be honest I couldn't even finish reading 157 pages of this protracted tedium. So, question:

Does the Renihan presentation represent "republication?" It never uses that word, and I don't think Renihan has suggested anything like it. The fact of two "kingdoms" (one earthly /geographical / racial / political, and the other eternal, universal, spiritual) is obvious even to a casual reader of the bible. As is the fact that there are the two Testaments (covenants), one prefiguring the other.

I think Renihan and Republication are "apples and oranges." Am I correct or is there a connection between them that I'm not aware of?

Thanks,
Robin