A Humble Covenant Theology

I was brought to a saving knowledge of Christ our Lord at the age of 14. Up until that time, I had been to two church services my entire life. I was not raised in the church. When the Lord opened my heart to the gospel, it was outside the church through an uncle that had been saved out of the drug culture. He was a former hippy and now, a traditional Pentecostal Christian. I began my journey in the Church of God, headquarters, Cleveland, TN. I quickly became a non-traditional Pentecostal, denying the miracle workers on TV, the abuses, and that tongues were for everyone. Then I moved away from the Pentecostal ranks. But the dispensational, rapture fascination was deeply imbedded in my thinking. Eventually I would come to the doctrines of grace and loosen my grip on the rapture until I reached the leaky dispensation views of my favorite minister, John McArthur. John is still, by far, my favorite preacher.

Don't say a word to anyone

Today, my theological views continue to slowly morph over time. I suspect that is how it is supposed to be. While we ought not to be like ships tossed about at sea with every wind of doctrine that comes along, we must remain open to growing in our understanding of the truth God has given us. I have learned that just as I once had an aversion to Calvinism, like many non-Calvinists, and now I am one, that my aversion to covenant theology has also improved, as I have remained open and teachable. This is not to say that I do not acknowledge the difficulties and challenges in the system to which I now find myself subscribing. But I have always be blessed to see the problems and difficulties in whatever system I have found myself in, be it the Pentecostal movement, Arminian dispensationalism, and now, a humble proponent of reformed Baptist covenantal, historic premillennialism.  

Really? That can't be true.

My first difficulty was with the question of hermeneutics. I have always been a strong advocate of a grammatico-historical approach to the biblical text. And I really don’t think that has changed with one exception: the OT must be interpreted by the New. The principle that the OT is in the New revealed and the New is in the Old concealed must be a guiding principle in our hermeneutical method.

My second question concerned the existence of a Covenant of Works with Adam. I have often wondered if there was an actual covenant with Adam in the garden prior to the fall. After adopting a more humble approach to the possibility that such a covenant was present, I have adopted the view that the biblical evidence supports the view that Adam was indeed in a covenant relationship with the LORD prior to his fall. Hosea 6:7 tells us that “like Adam, they have transgressed the covenant.” The easiest reading of this text is that Adam is literally Adam our father from the garden. Alternative interpretations seem to display an aversion to the covenantal idea the text clearly espouses. The bottom line is that I found no good exegetical reason not to take the text at face value.

Paul claims we are all one body now. Can this be true?

The third question concerned the relationship of the Old and the New, national Israel and the Church. What then is the relationship between Israel and the Church? Is the Church Israel and is Israel the Church? Is there a future state in which Israel will return to the land and even set up the sacrifices once removed by the efficacy of Christ’s sacrifice? To be perfectly frank, I am still working out these complexities in my personal studies. I admit that I am hesitant and very cautious concerning the view that physical Israel will be converted. The emphasis of those texts seems to be on the unfailing Word of God as opposed to loyalty to national Israel. If it is true that national Israel in the OT was a type of NT Church, we have reason to scrutinize any view that seems to run contrary to this basic theme. The fact is that national Israel was predominantly in a state of apostasy during most of the OT period even though we are reminded that God had always had His elect throughout the ages. But as I have done in my journey into a confessional reformed covenant Baptist position, I will remain open as I continue to study the future of Israel. That being said, I will also confess that I continue to hold pretty firmly to a historic premillennial position at the present time. It seems that an earthly reign of Christ over the nations for 1,000 years at the end is one that will not be so easy to dismiss due to the exegetical evidence in favor of that position. And we are, in the end, in hot pursuit of an understanding of God’s revealed truth as opposed to a certain theological scheme.

My final question centered on the question of law and gospel and the nature of the New Covenant as it relates to the way NT writers seem to think about the Mosaic Covenant. I think due care must be exercised in order to ensure we make sound distinctions between the Mosaic Law and the New Covenant. I do believe that dividing the Mosaic Covenant into three sections seems reasonable from a literary standpoint. It seems clear that some components of that law are moral, some judicial, and some ceremonial. What I do not think is sound is transference of any part of those laws into the New Covenant. While it may be true that certain components of the Mosaic Covenant are more directly related to the divine moral law written on the conscience, it does not follow that we must conclude that some of Moses is still applicable today. We know this because we can see the divine moral law in play prior to Moses. Therefore, I understand that in the New Covenant we see a different administration of the divine moral law than what we see in the Mosaic Covenant. This does not mean it was a different law. It was not. What it means is that just as there were components of the universal moral law of God expressed and administered in the Mosaic Covenant, there are components of that same moral law expressed and administered in the New Covenant. The New Covenant is not the same as the Old Covenant. It is a different Covenant. We must seek to avoid the legalism that comes with the failure to recognize the discontinuity of the Old and the New Covenants while at the same time guarding against an antinomian attitude that lends itself to an ungodly casual disposition in our relationship with the LORD our redeemer, and soon coming King.

Shepherd's Conference on Biblical Inerrancy

Shepherd's Conference on Biblical Inerrancy

Here is Fred Butler's colorful comments as always:

Hip and Thigh

The Theonomy Debate

Paul wrote to Titus nearly 2,000 years ago, saying, “But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and strife and disputes about the Law, for they are unprofitable and worthless.” I cannot help but think about the theonomy debate when I read Paul’s imperative to Titus. Surely, it is a controversy and dispute about the Law. The Greek word translated controversy is zeteseis, and it means to express forceful differences of opinion without necessarily having a presumed goal of seeking a solution—‘to dispute, dispute.’ Someone recently said that theonomy was not necessarily something anyone wanted to implement, but was more or less just a way to argue. Of course I think the person was joking a bit, but at the same time, there is probably some truth in what he said. Already a lot of digital images have been organized and sent on their respective missions over the recent theonomy debate between JD Hall and Joel McDermon. I am not really interested in providing my thoughts about how the debate went, who won, nor do I desire to get into the finer points of theonomic theology. What I do want to discuss is the reaction and attitudes I have read since the debate ended.

Theonomists believe that the Mosaic Law, except for the ceremonial portion (depending on who you talk to) applies to Christians and cultures and governments today. In other words, when we read Exodus 21:15, He who strikes his father or his mother shall surely be put to death, or, He who curses his father or mother shall surely be put to death (21:17). Theonomy would have us turn such a person over to a Christian-ruled theocratic system, so that they can be stoned. In other words, Christians and modern governments are bound to keep the Law of Moses. Well, they should keep the Law of Moses except for the ceremonial section (depending on which theonomist you read). I am not going to get into the details of the differences between a dual or tripartite understanding of the Law in this post. What I am going to do is examine the basic comments found in the New Testament regarding the relationship of the Law to the New Covenant and what a subsequent Christian response should be to those who would mingle Moses with Christ. Additionally, I am going to point out that much of the language used to describe the Law of Moses in the NT must be understood to be talking about the judicial or civil requirements of the Law more than they are the ceremonial aspects. You will see what I mean when we get to those texts.

Paul informs us in Eph. 2:14-16 that the Law of Moses has been abolished now that Christ has come:                 

For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall, by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace, and might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, by it having put to death the enmity.

In this text, Paul is saying that the Law, which was a dividing wall between Jews and Gentiles, has been abolished in the flesh of Christ. Paul also refers to the Law here as enmity. The Law is viewed is placing us in a hostile position. It is set over against us. I understand that commentators interpret the echthra. Hoehner believes Paul refers to the hostility between the two groups, Jews and Gentiles. O’Brien seems to consider that it could mean both, the hostility between the Law and man and the additional hostility it created between the Jew and Gentile. The problem with this view is that Chris is said to have put to death the enmity in v. 16. Additionally, the reconciliation of v. 16 is not between Jews and Gentiles but between both groups and God. Colossians 2:14 provides additional support to my interpretation of Eph. 2:14-16 since Paul says,

“having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.”

Both Greek words describe a similar relationship. Hence, the ordinances, which is dogma, describes the Law of Moses. Now, we are told by theonomists that any language in the NT that talks about the Law becoming obsolete only refers to the ceremonial laws under the Mosaic Covenant. Not only is such a move exegetically suspect, it makes very little sense. Of all the Laws contained in the Mosaic Covenant, the ceremonial laws are the least indicting, and the least difficult to uphold. After all, they are ceremonial in nature. How difficult is it to offer up a sacrifice? But there are other laws, such as the one about committing adultery that as Jesus explained it, is not at all so easy to abide by. The language in Acts 15 explicitly describes the requirements of the Law as “a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear.” (Acts 15:10) Obviously the ceremonial aspects of the Old Covenant were least of the difficulties as it relates to the Law. Moreover, how many times are we told in the NT that the Law cannot be broken up, but that if you are attempting to live according to the Law, you must live according to the whole Law? Galatians clearly places everyone who desires to live by the Law under obligation to keep the whole law. (Ga. 5:3) Romans 2:25 does the same.

Those with the Law Argument 1 Corinthians 9

In 1 Cor. 9:21 Paul says,

“to those who are without law, as without law, though not being without the law of God but under the law of Christ, so that I might win those who are without law.”

If Paul thought like a theonomist, he would have argued this way. Paul says that he become “as without law” to those who were “without law” but he did not become with the “law of God” but was always under the law of Christ. The point here is that there are people groups who are not without law, the Jew, and those who are without law, the Gentiles. Paul would adopt the customs of each insofar as they did not violate the law of God and of Christ.

The Law Courts

In 1 Corinthians 6, Paul equates the law with the unrighteous. It is here that we see the Mosaic Code clearly replaced with a new and different process. The language used in this text is really quite interesting. Paul points that that the saints will judge the world and even angels in the end. How much more are we fit to judge matters in the church? Paul says

So if you have law courts dealing with matters of this life, do you appoint them as judges who are of no account in the church? I say this to your shame. Is it so, that there is not among you one wise man who will be able to decide between his brethren, but brother goes to law with brother, and that before unbelievers?

In other words, the apostle Paul casts shame upon the Corinthian community because they are relying on law courts to settle matters that ought to be settled with the community. The point is that Paul’s statement make little sense in a theonomic arrangement. His attitude toward law courts, his ipso facto classification of them as unrighteous, and his point that the judgment of the church is much wiser than any law court could ever hope to be. The presumption is that unregenerate, unrighteous men are not qualified to interfere in such matters in the church. Now, that being said, this does nothing to detract from Paul’s perspective that Christians are still to submit to civil governments. The point here is that Paul did not view the practices of the NT Church in a similar vein, as do theonomists. Moreover, it seems clear that he had no interest in teaching the Corinthians that they must do all they can to establish a theocracy in Corinth.

The persecution predicted by Jesus seems to preclude the view that the Church must subdue the governments of the world in order to pave the way for the glorious return of Christ. Beginning with Christ and all throughout the NT we see that Christians are persecuted and slaughtered for the name of Christ. Yet, nowhere do we see the Church instructed to take up arms against the government authorities and put an end to this unjust practice. Christians are commanded not to resist the evil and so they obey all the way to their death in many cases.

Paul says in Romans 7:4-6 that we have been released from the Law who are in Christ:

Therefore, my brethren, you also were made to die to the Law through the body of Christ, so that you might be joined to another, to Him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God.

For while we were in the flesh, the sinful passions, which were aroused by the Law, were at work in the members of our body to bear fruit for death.

But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter.

The writer to the Hebrew (8:6-7) says

But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, by as much as He is also the mediator of a better covenant, which has been enacted on better promises.

For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion sought for a second.

Clearly, the Old Covenant was given to a particular people at a particular place for a particular time and for a very particular reason. And it had a very particular and unique purpose. That purpose was to govern a people that as a nation were a type of the NT Church that was to come. Secondly, the Old Covenant was not only the reconstituted covenant with Adam, but it was a further revelation of the New Covenant promise given in Gen. 3:15 and again to Abraham.

Christianity and The American Way

The state of affairs that has developed between Christianity and American culture is more than a little interesting. Two extremes are emerging in terms of versions of Christianity within American culture. One version of Christianity is the version that subjects itself to American philosophies of life top to bottom. In this version of Christianity, the individual is the captain and pilot of his own ship. The Bible is useful in a few scenarios and only in a few scenarios but it must be kept in check, in subjugation to the modern minds of enlightened men and women that know better than the ancient, out dated, backwards thinking, misogynists, narrow minded bigots, often blood-thirsty, and hyper-patriarchal men that wrote it. Modern American minds are thought (only by American culture) to be superior, not only to the minds of the men God used to write Scripture but also to the rest of the world in many cases. The superior attitude of the typical individual in American culture is both fascinating from a psychological standpoint, and incredibly appalling from a moral perspective.

This modern, enlightened, sensible, but perverse understanding of Christianity is the product of unregenerate scholars, pastors, teachers, Christians, and Churches. This perversion begins with a rejection of the ancient tradition of Christian doctrine as it is expressed in Scripture. Moreover, this version of Christianity begins with a rejection of the traditional view within Christianity on the subject of Scripture. The two most distinguished statements of faith in modern Christian thought are the Westminster Confession and the London Baptist Confession. The former was adopted by the Presbyterians and in modified form by the Congregationalists while the latter served as the Baptist expression of Christian belief. With only a few nuances, the documents are virtually identical and it is understand that the Baptist Confession used the Westminster Confession for much of its work. I should add that the Congregationalists modified version of the Westminster Confession is known as the Savoy Declaration. First, most Christians in modern American Churches are completely oblivious to these historical documents. This fact tells you a great deal about the mindset of the typical American Christian and their leaders. The reason I mention these confessions is first and foremost to point out that all three of them begin with what creators believed was the single most important factor within Christianity: a proper understanding and perspective regarding the Christian documents we now call the Bible. Each confession holds to virtually identically language concerning the high position of Scripture within the Christian community. For these men, Scripture was over the Church, something to be appreciated, understood, believed and obeyed. This was the only acceptable disposition of the Christian and his attitude toward sacred Scripture.

In the mind of the modern American, it is the individual that is elevated and placed over Scripture. In the minds of the overwhelming majority of modern “Christians” Scripture is no longer viewed as something that holds us captive and frees us from ourselves and the sin which we so dearly cherish, but rather, it is precisely the other way around. Modern Christians, American ones especially, think it is their duty to rescue Christianity from the embarrassing claims and teachings of the Bible. Hence, anything in the sacred writings that runs the risk of offense to the modern sensibilities of the autonomous and enlightened mind is either cut away from the text overtly or reinterpreted covertly so that the Bible can co-exist with the tastes and preferences and sensibilities of the modern American mind.

If there is no one standard by which Christians ought to live their lives, eventually we end up in a radical free-for-all where anything goes. And it is this exact place that I believe best defines the pop Christianity of American culture. The numbers of negotiable beliefs that are on the table seem to extend of every Christian belief that has come to shape Christianity from the beginning. This pop Christianity over time has called into question and deemed acceptable just about every modification Christian doctrine imaginable.

The very first movement of this pop Christianity of course is the challenge to Scripture as our final authority for faith and practice and long held Christian belief that Scripture is of divine origin and must be believed and obeyed. The London Baptist Confession of 1689 opens with this line, “The Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain, and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith, and obedience.” Once Scripture is depreciated to the place where human minds can either dismiss it or subject it to radical reinterpretation, the Christian worldview is no more. The distinctive of Christianity as a religion evaporates upon a non-Christian perspective of the nature of sacred Scripture. Once this move is made, Christianity becomes a religion based upon the autonomy and authority of the human mind. And there will be as many versions of that religion as there are human minds tinkering with it. When the sole standard for what must be believed and obeyed is discarded either by way of overtly relegating it to the ash heap or covertly by perversion of what it expresses, then every other competing standard has an equal opportunity to sit at the table. And whatever that religion is, at the end of the day, I can tell you what it is not. It is not Christianity in any true sense of the word, Christian.

When pseudo pop Christians become the face of Christianity in a culture, mass confusion and chaos follows. This is exactly what has happened in American culture. Pop Christianity has come to the place where it rejects the Bible as the inspired and inerrant word of God. PC rejects the view that one must believe that Jesus is divine in order to be a Christian. PC rejects the sexual ethic of biblical Christianity, not only permitting sexual promiscuity within its community but also rejecting the biblical teachings concerning marriage as between a man and a woman. PC has accepted the view that you can engage in the perversion known as gay sex and still be a Christian. PC has rejected much of the OT teachings about God and His activities and believes one does not have to accept these stories as historical realities in order to be genuinely Christian. Things like abortion on demand, female leadership, divorce on demand, and a host of other ungodly practices have been deemed morally acceptable with pop Christianity. There is essentially no difference between pop Christianity and the general values principles of American culture. Pop Christianity is a religion that uses the language of historic Christianity but then it empties that language of all its historic content and replaces it with modern philosophies based on the sensibilities of modern enlightened minds that know better than the ancient documents of sacred Scripture.

There is a way which seems right to a man, But its end is the way of death. (Prov. 14:12)

I thought you might enjoy a reblog on the subject of the nature of God's knowledge by James Anderson over at Analogical Thoughts. Dr. Anderson is dealing specifically with whether or not God knows propositionally.

Francis Turretin

God and Propositions

By

James N. Anderson

God and Evil: The Final Countdown

By now it should be obvious that the problem of evil poses a legitimate logical challenge to the Christian. The modal claims about the kind of God that necessarily exists along with the existence of evil in the world is indeed a more complex intellectual challenge than many considered it to be at first glance. In this post, I will close out with a summary of how I approach this subject with the unbeliever when the opportunity presents itself. Remember, when we are interacting with an unbeliever, we are in fact interacting with someone that hates God and that is a naturally born sworn enemy of God. Rick Warren’s seeker idea is a myth that should be viewed with disdain and as sheer poppycock. In order to appreciate the interaction you are in, you must appreciate the situation for what it actually is. And it is exactly what the Bible says it is. Romans 1, 3, 8, and 1 Cor. 1-2 all provide more than enough revelation to help us assess the actual state of affairs that has obtained.

Existential Claims Fail

Non-Christian views of evil encounter a plethora of philosophical problems. The denial of objective evil in the world by some philosophers is indeed difficult to take seriously. But if the non-Christian is going to indict the Christian belief that a very particular kind of God exists on the ground of the existence of objective evil in the world, he is going to have to defend his claim first. Once the non-Christian establishes his claim that objective evil exists, then and only then is he in a position to offer his refutation of the Christian God.

My approach is to place the unbeliever in this position first, putting him on the defensive. I prefer to keep the unbeliever on the defensive in these kinds of conversations until I am ready to give them the gospel. I challenge the unbeliever to provide rational ground for why I should accept both, his claim that we evolved from slime millions of years ago and how objective evil could exist under such circumstances.

What is required for morality or ethics of any kind is intrinsic value. The whole point of morality is to value human life. A being with intrinsic value will seek to live by the highest standards, to reach the summum bonum. But how can a highest good be established within an evolutionary framework? Based solely on naturalistic principles, how is it that moral behavior applies only to humans? After all, we are the equivalent of evolved upright walking roaches. When was the last time you thought of a roach as engaging in immoral behavior. Where do we derive moral principles from in a system that claims human existence is an accident of nature, the product of natural selection, without purpose, without meaning, and surely lacking any intrinsic value? Why should Hitler be a villain and Martin Luther King Jr. a hero? Within a naturalistic framework, the claim of objective evil simply cannot hold it’s ground when placed under the light of critical evaluation. To locate ethics in the brain is to remove its objective nature. My brain causes me to do things your brain finds immoral. Which brain is right? This example can be extrapolated to every other attempt to defend objective morality. The analogies all fail.

Based on the unbeliever’s presupposition that humans evolved and that God does not exist, objective morality becomes impossible in any meaningful way. Morality is reduced to arbitrary laws designed for the preservation of the species. But this is a species without intrinsic value. And a species without intrinsic value can survive or not survive without any moral consequence whatever. When was the last time you were genuinely emotionally moved because the bear snagged the salmon or the lion took down the gazelle? But you surely react differently when ISIS burns a man alive inside a cage or when an abusive father kills his own son or when a mother drowns her own children, don’t you. The unbeliever has no intelligible way of accounting for the existence of objective evil in the world and confrontations like this provide exactly the kind of bite he deserves for being the rebellious God-hater he is.

The Modal Critique Fails

The second argument involves the strictly logical problem of evil. This is the notion that the Christian claims of God and evil are outright contradictory. The believer's modal claim is that God is necessarily good and that God has created a world in which evil now exists. However, the objection to the modal claim imposes precisely the wrong presupposition and interprets good and evil by a non-Christian standard. This then is essentially a non-Christian view of evil and as such does not represent a plausible argument against Christian belief.

In this case, the unbeliever is appealing to some moral standard existing outside of the nature of God. This view is really employing a model we call the duty model for divine goodness. This model focuses on God’s actions and measures them against a standard. Used positively, theologians appeal to this model to argue that God’s actions are always right in accord with morality. The problem is that the standard for morality is implicitly held outside the nature and being of God. Since God is the source of all goodness according to Christian belief, this model would not be a good model to use against the Christian. This is obviously the case because the model is using a non-Christian belief in order to show that Christian belief is incoherent. Such an argument is simply not plausible. A model of divine goodness that is much more reflective of Christian belief is what we call the plentitude of being model. This model locates goodness within the divine nature and character of God. Ontologically speaking, God is the very perfection of perfection itself. He is the very perfection of goodness itself and is the source of all goodness. Hence, the Christian has strong epistemic justification for his belief in an absolute moral standard and hence, the existence of absolute evil. Moreover, since all things that exist must be interpreted through the existence of the ontological Triune God of Scripture, so too must the existence of objective evil.

The Christian then is biblically and rationally justified in claiming that an omnipotent, omniscient, morally perfect God created all that is and is the source of all that is and that objective evil exists in the world. The answer as to why is simply this: we know that God is what He is because Scripture declares it to be so. We also know that evil truly exists because Scripture declares it to be so. We know that God has a good reason for the existence of evil in the world because Scripture declares it to be so. These things we know with certainty because God’s word is true and trustworthy in all that it claims. These claims are clearly made by Scripture. But it does not follow that we have to know all the reasons why God did it this way in order for Christians to be rationally justified in their belief that evil truly exists along with the Christian God revealed in Scripture. This is both true biblically and logically. There is nothing in the argument form that is contradictory in any way. The argument is simply:
(1) A Perfect God exists
(2) God is the primary source of all that exists
(3) Evil exists
/ God has a good reason for the existence of evil

Rather than relying on human presuppositions about evil and possibilities and interpreting God from that ground, the Christian begins with God and Scripture and interprets the presence of evil in the world from that ground. Remember, we demonstrated above the groundlessness of objective evil within an evolutionary framework. The only thing that remains for the unbeliever is simply this:

Repent and believe the gospel of Christ.