I really need to find my horse whip

Now, if you would like to revise Kline's method of argumentation, and revert to a national probation that is different in nature to Adam's probation, then you are free to do so, but then you would not be holding to the modern republication theory. A different kind of probation would lead to a different kind of covenantal arrangement, and that would only serve to undermine the idea that "the covenant of works" was republished.

This is asinine in many ways. 'Modern republication theory' is non-existent. Anytime you see someone referencing Kline regarding the republication of the Covenant of Works on Sinai (as if that is a controversial doctrine to begin with) you are dealing with a person who is hiding his motives in the dark and is ashamed of putting them on the table. Whether they be theonomists, or Federal Vision, or, in Winzer's case, a Federal Vision useful idiot because he has a taste for things Romish.

This is what happens when Christian environments ban anybody with a doctrinal I.Q. above two digits. You get the blind leading the blind.

By the way, the answer to Winzer's confusion in his last sentence is Jesus doesn't need a different covenantal arrangement. He is the second Adam. He came to fulfill what the first Adam failed to fulfill. This is a doctrine all useful idiots of Rome calling themselves Reformed hate. Just as you hate the fact that God is sovereign in regeneration, you hate the fact that Jesus fulfilled the Covenant of Works.

If I was in your church I'd toss you out by the back of your pants. And probably horse whip you for good measure.