Manata continues his argument around the relationship
between Deuteronomy 17 and 1 Corinthians 5 with this argument:
“At this time there
are only two covenants men are said to be in. The (granting certain reformed
assumptions) (i) Covenant of Works and (ii) the New Covenant (this could get
more detailed depending on how one understand the Covenant of Grace and its
relationship to the New Covenant, but for my purposes this discussion does not
affect my argument). Since Paul is not talking about removing the Corinthian
from the Covenant of Works(!), he must therefore be referring to a removal from
the New Covenant. Since I Corinthians 5:1-13 presents the Church with general
instructions for excommunication, then anyone excommunicated can be said to
have been removed from the New Covenant. Since Paul (and the rest of Scripture)
would not allow that someone who has Jesus Christ as their high priest could be
removed from the New Covenant, we must view this removal to be removal from a
visible or external aspect of the New Covenant. If the one excommunicated is
regenerate (this is rare, but it can happen for myriad reasons), he is only
removed from the external aspect of the New Covenant. If the one excommunicated
is removed (while, for sake of simplicity, he doesn’t ever return), he is only
removed from the external aspect of the New Covenant; but he was never in the
internal aspect of the New Covenant (where the benefits of Christ’s death are
given). Since excommunication is an undeniable fact, then one cannot argue that
this is merely a “hypothetical warning, intended to keep the elect in the
covenant.”
I agree that all men are either under one of two covenants.
They are either under Adam or under Christ, what reformed Baptists call the
Covenant of Works or the Covenant of Grace, the New Covenant. I also agree that
Paul is not ordering the Corinthian community to remove the man from the
Covenant of Works. But Manata commits the fallacy of bifurcation. He assumes
that removal is limited to only two choices: CoW or CoG. Paul orders the
community to remove the man arthe ek messou
humon, from the midst of you. We have already said that the New Covenant is
not like the Old Covenant. The New Covenant’s main distinction is its
unbreakable nature due to it being written by God Himself on the heart of the
members. Where one could be removed from the Old Covenant because it was
different from the standpoint that it was breakable, such is not the case with
the New Covenant. Additionally, Paul had already complained to the Corinthian
Church that they must not associate with immoral people that claimed to have
fellowship with Christ. Even after that imperative, Paul discovers the
Corinthian Church has completely ignored his instructions. 1 Corinthians 5:1-13
is Paul’s reaction to the blatant contempt and disregard the community displayed
by refusing to follow apostolic doctrine. There is no indication here, or
anyplace else in the NT that any apostle considered any man like the one at
Corinth to be a legitimate member of the New Covenant.
Manata’s argument borders on running contrary to the
perseverance of the saints. If taken the wrong way, one may conclude that
Christians can indeed, after conversion, lose their salvation. But we know
Manata does not want to go anywhere near that ground. Nevertheless, Manata
insists not only that there are two components of the covenant and that there
is somehow official entrance into both. This concept is nowhere inferred in the
New Testament documents. It is the product of paedobaptism covenant theology.
Excommunication is nothing more than a community shunning an individual. A
formal covenant was not necessary for excommunication to exist. This seems to
be another unproven assumption that Manata makes. Excommunication existed in
this culture apart from religious covenants. The removal of the Corinthian man
was not removal from a covenant, but rather, the practice of social shunning,
something common in that time. The focus of ancient people on honor and
dishonor or shame means that they were particularly oriented toward the
approval and disapproval of others.[1] The
practice of public shame was something that the Gentiles in the Corinthian
church would have clearly understood without additional instruction. Honor
within the Christian community was sought by adhering to the values of the
Christian group. Pleasing God would be the central focus of such a value
system. To behave dishonorable brought shame not only on the individual but
also on the group. But this group is supposed to be the light of the world,
something the Apostle Paul took very seriously. For this reason, we can reject
the idea that Paul was actually ordering the Corinthian man to be removed from
the New Covenant and embrace the idea that he was following a practice
well-known in the culture, albeit, one that had become reshaped by Christian
values. With this in mind, we can reject Manata’s claim that Paul was removing
someone from the New Covenant.
[1]
David Arthur deSilva, Honor, Patronage,
Kinship & Purity: Unlocking New Testament Culture (Downers Grove, IL:
InterVarsity Press, 2000), 35.
No comments:
Post a Comment