Randy's profilePuritan CovenanterPhotosBlogListsMore  |  Tools Help |
|
June 14 The Second Commandment and Pictures of Christ(Exo 20:4) Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:
(Exo 20:5) Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
(Exo 20:6) Are pictures of Christ sinful in light of the Second Commandment?
Here is the London Baptist Confession of Faith Chapter 22.1
Chapter 22 22.1 The light of nature shows that there is a God who has lordship and sovereignty over all. He is just and good and does good to all. Therefore he is to be feared, loved, praised, called upon, trusted in, and served with all the heart and soul and strength.1
But the acceptable way of worshipping the true God has been instituted by himself and delimited by his own revealed will. He may not be worshipped according to human imagination or methods, nor according to the suggestions of Satan, nor by way of any visible representation, nor by any other way not prescribed in the Holy Scriptures.2
(1) Jer_10:7; Mar_12:33 I use to question this often. But recently a friend named Andrew Meyers posted this comment. It seemed to illuminate an answer to my confusion. Here was his insight. Historically, Muslims have interpreted the Second Commandment to forbid all images of any kind whatsoever, but Jews and Christians have not. It is clear from the context that the Second Commandment has to do specifically with worship. It prohibits any representation of the Godhead or any worship of graven images. God himself expounded the Second Commandment thusly: "Take ye therefore good heed unto yourselves; for ye saw no manner of similitude on the day that the LORD spake unto you in Horeb out of the midst of the fire: lest ye corrupt yourselves, and make you a graven image, the similitude of any figure, the likeness of male or female, the likeness of any beast that is on the earth, the likeness of any winged fowl that flieth in the air, the likeness of any thing that creepeth on the ground, the likeness of any fish that is in the waters beneath the earth: and lest thou lift up thine eyes unto heaven, and when thou seest the sun, and the moon, and the stars, even all the host of heaven, shouldest be driven to worship them, and serve them, which the LORD thy God hath divided unto all nations under the whole heaven." Deut. 4.15-19 That is what historic Reformed Confessions and Catechisms teach in their exposition of this Commandment. God himself required the making of certain images in the temple/tabernacle, such as cherubim. The Lord Jesus himself had occasion to observe the image of Caesar on a coin and did not condemn the use of money thereby. Pictures and photographs are lawful as long as they don't violate the Second or the Seventh Commandments. The whole focus of the Second Commandment is worship and any representation of God the Father, God the Son or God the Holy Spirit must inherently violate that commandment because if it does not engender worship it is vain and if it does engender worship it is vain. "Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device." Acts 17.29
Thanks Andrew....
Along with this I would recommend J. I. Packers book Knowing God chapter 4 which deals with this issue.
Andrew also posted this illuminating Catachism which might be helpful.
Fisher's Catechism on the Second Commandment asks and answers many relevant questions. Chapter 21: 21:1 May we see Christ as he sees fit. May we see him as he truly is. Be Encouraged,
Pastor Andrew Webb has posted on this also. http://www.providencepca.com/essays/seccomroundup.html April 03 John Tombes's Exegetical Argument of Genesis 17:7I have been discussing Genesis 17 and the Abrahamic Covenant on the Puritanboard.com. In light of this Dr. Mike Renihan recommended to me a portion of his book ‘Antipaedobaptism in the Thought of John Tombes’. I just thought I would take the time to type out the section on Genesis 17 and the introduction to the Exegetical Arguments (With Dr. Renihan’s permission) and post it in a blog so I could reference it more quickly and make it accessible to others. I leave you with only a portion of his exegetical arguments. I think he does bring to light some good points concerning the biblical covenants, continuity, and discontinuity.Be Encouraged,RMS
Exegetical Arguments
The eleven exegetical arguments are primarily negative polemics against infant baptism. Tombes usually presented a paedobaptist position in syllogistic form, then proceeded to show how the argument was flawed. At the outset, a word must be said as regards such a methodology. First, Tombes is setting out arguments for infant baptism as an Antipaedobaptist in order to refute them. This approach seems therefore tainted with question-begging. However, it was the typical scholastic methodology of the day – to set out an argument in a plain and straightforward manner proceeding immediately to deal with objections. Tombes was laying these objections before his peers for their consideration. It was a consistent method that Tombes had used since his early days in considering the matter. The arguments presented to the committee of the Assembly of Divines as the Exercitation were honest attempts to know the truth of this issue. This inquiry to the Assembly came out of an earlier meeting, as Tombes recalled: Whereupon when in a meeting of Ministers in the City of London, the question was propounded what Scripture there was for infant-baptisme, I told my brethren plainly, that I doubted there was none. This occasioned the Dispute Doctor Homes speakes of which happened about January 1643…. Not long after that Conference, my most loving and reverend Father in law Master Henry Scudder fearing the event of this matter, after some writing betweene us, advised me to draw up the reasons of my doubts, and he undertook to present them to the Committee chosen (as I conceived it) to give satisfaction about the point, which I conceived might well be the leave of the Parliament, as the appointing the Assembly to give satisfaction about some doubts in taking the Covenant.(7)
It was not Tombes’s purpose to make controversy for its own sake, but to discover the truth in an important matter as regarded the reformation of his Church. Tombes was guilty, however, of naïveté. He expected that an honest attempt to discover truth would be met with the same. He sought either refutation or affirmation on a point of doctrine and nothing else. By publishing his views, he had everything to lose and the Church’s reformation to gain. His submission was a quest for open and honest debate upon a theological point. Secondly, the form of the argument was very rigid. Tombes, at times, oversimplified the position he was refuting. However, he always continued to give mounds of evidence for his case, positively and negatively presented. The syllogism was an accepted part of the seventeenth century academic debate. At Oxford, it was a remnant of late medieval Scholasticism that survived the Renaissance. This methodology used philosophical categories and logic to serve theological reflection. The main thrust of the argument presented is not always readily apparent. In Tombes’s analysis of the issues he refers continually to these syllogistic building blocks borrowed from the scholastical methodology. Tombes, with very little introduction, started: The present Tenet, according to which Infant-Baptisme is preached, is, that the Infants born of a Believer, are universally to be baptized. This Doctrine and Practise conformable, is made doubtfull to me, by these arguments.”(8)
Tombes’s Starting Point and the Argument from Genesis 17:7
The first argument is one that examines the case for infant baptism from the interest of believer’s children in the promise given to Abraham in Genesis 17:7. It also serves as the all-important starting point for Tombes’s theological reflection: Major Premise: That which hath not testimony in Scripture for it, is doubtful Minor Premise: But this Doctrine of Infant-Baptisme, hath no testimony of Scripture for it; Conclusion: Ergo, it is doubtful. (9)
Tombes’s first exegetical argument is a comprehensive, yet properly basic argument designed to examine any and all of the biblical evidence for infant baptism. The remaining arguments are applications of the first to specific Scriptures, theological constructions or historical precedents. He then used his conclusions to support the doctrine or practice of paedobaptism: The Minor is proved by examining the places that are brought for it, which are these: Genesis 17.7. etc. Acts 2.38,39. 1 Cor. 7.14. Mark 10.14, 16. Acts 16.15,32. 1 Cor. 1.16. The Argument from Genesis 17.7, etc. is almost the first and the last in this business; and therefore is the more accurately to be examined….(10)
Tombes often added colour to the debate with maxims and Latin phrases. The fist argument did not escape his cutting wit. Speaking of the argument for infant baptism from Genesis 17:7, etc., he added: …[B]ut it hath so many shapes, that I may here take up that Speech, With what knot shall I hold shape-shifting Proteus?”(11) But in the issue, it falls into one or other of these forms…(12).
Tombes went on to build his foundation against the interest of believer’s children in the promises of the Abrahamic Covenant. He did not give multiple forms of the opposing argument; rather, one form from which he drew four sub-arguments. He thus supported his refutation of the one argument from Genesis 17:7. This was an application of his overriding principle expressed in Argument One - that there is no Scripture to warrant the baptizing of infants. He continued with another syllogism as if arguing for paedobaptism: Major premise: To whom the Gospel-covenant agrees, to them the sign of the Gospel-covenant agrees also. Minor premise: But to Infants of Believers the Gospel-covenant agrees. Conclusion: [A]nd consequently Baptisme. (13)
Tombes added, “The Minor is proved from Genesis 17:7. where God promiseth to Abraham, I will be a God to thee and to thy seed after thee”. (14)
Tombes proceeded to four sub-arguments that he believed exposed the basic assumptions of the greater argument presented. By way of introduction to his main point, they were: (1) The Covenant with Abraham is not identical to the Gospel (New) Covenant; (2) Abraham’s seed has more than one meaning; (3) the promise of the Gospel has always been the same irrespective of the age; and (4) Some were circumcised who had no part in the promise made to Abraham. These four parts were intended to undermine the credibility of infant baptism by way of analogy from the Abrahamic Covenant to the New, or in Tombes’s phraseology, the “Euangelicall” or “Gospel Covenant”.(15) These also form the foundation of all of Tombes’s arguments. They were points that were nonnegotiable for him. It is important to see the detail in these sub-arguments in order to understand his inferences within other constructions. Tombes kept coming back to two foundational points, (1) the lack of positive instruction in special revelation for the practice of infant baptism, and (2) to an alternative ( and creative) explanation of the biblical texts which became the foundation of his emerging covenantal and credobaptistic theology. On the first of the sub-arguments, Tombes declared; 1. The Covenant made with Abraham, is not a pure Gospel-covenant, but mixt, which I prove; The Covenant takes its denomination from the promises but the promises are mixt, some Euangelicall, belonging to those to whom the Gospel belongeth, some are Domestique, or Civill promises, specially respecting the House of Abraham, and of Israel; Ergo. (16)
Explaining his distinction between the evangelical (Evangelicall) and domestic (Domestique) or civil (Civill) promises in the Abrahamic Covenant, Tombes implied there were some spiritual promises and some physical or material promises that had to be distinguished. Tombes explained what he means by “Euangelicall promises”: That was Euangelicall which we read, Genesis 17.5. I have made thee a father of many nations; and that which we find, Gen 15.5 so shall they seed be; in which it is promised, that there shall be of all Nations innumerable that shall be Abrahams children by believing, Rom. 4.17,18. It was Euangelicall, which we find in Gen 12.3 & Gen. 18.18. and in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed; for in these is promised blessing to Believers, of whom Abraham is father, Gal. 3.16. Acts 3.25 (17)
Tombes immediately proceeded to the “Domestique” or “Civill” promises: Domestique and Civill promises were many; of the multiplying the seed of Abraham, the birth of Isaac; of the coming of Christ our of Isaac; the bondage of the Israelites in Egypt, and deliverance thence; of possessing the Land of Canaan, Gen 15.13,18. Gen. 17.7, 8.15,16. Act. 7.4,5,6,7,8. and many other places. (18)
The distinction is between the spiritual blessings which accrue to believers as believers which are called evangelical, and physical (or natural) consequences pertaining to Abraham’s descendants as domestic (or civl); between a spiritual seed brought about by heavenly activity and a natural seed brought about by the earthly procreative act. Tombes continued to legitimize this distinction as he involved a rigorous trinitarianism in his defence to clarify and balance the issues of continuity and discontinuity within the two aspects of the Abrahamic covenant and the same issues as regards other covenants. Yea, it is to be noted, that those promises which were Euangelicall, according to the more inward sense of the Holy ghost, do point at the priviledges of Abrahams House, in the outward face [sense} of the words; whence it may be well doubted, whether this Covenant made with Abraham, may be called simply Euangelicall, and so pertain to Believers, as Believers. There were annexed to the Covenant on Mount Siani, sacrifices pointing at the sacrifice of Christ, and yet we call not that Covenant simply Euangelicall, but in some respect.(19)
Therefore, because of the distinction asserted and shown, that the Abrahamic Covenant is not one and the same with the new or Gospel Covenant, Tombes went on to answer the remaining three of this original four questions that paralleled the concerns already stated, “(2) Who is the seed? (3) What is the promise? (4) What of those who were circumcised who had no part in Abraham’s covenant”? Tombes moved to his second sub-point: Secondly, The seed of Abraham is many wayes so called: First, Christ is called the seed of Abraham, by excellency, Gal 3.16. Secondly, all the Elect, Rom. 9.7 all believers, Rom. 4.11,12. 16.17,18, are called the seed of Abraham, that is spiritual seed. Thirdly, there was a natural seed of Abraham, to whom the inheritance did accrue; this was Isaac. Gen. 21.12. Fourthly, a natural seed, whether lawfull, as the sons of Keturah, or base, as Ishmael, to who the inheritance belonged not, Gen. 15.5. But no where do I find, that the Infants of Believers of the Gentiles are called Abrahams seed, of the three former kinds of Abrahams seed, the promise recited, is meant, but in a different manner thus; that God promiseth, he will be a God to Christ, imparting in him blessing to all nations of the earth, to the spiritual seed of Abraham in Euangelicall benefits, to the natural seed inheriting, in domestick and politicall benefits.(20)
Tombes extended the blessings of the New Covenant back upon the Abrahamic covenant in both aspects of the covenant - spiritual and civil. He saw this as part of the fulfillment of the New Covenant expressed in the time before Christ. He attempted to explain himself as he answered the question as regards the nature of the promise in his third sub-point; 3. That the promise of the Gospel, or Gospel-covenant, was the same in all ages, in respect of the thing promised, and condition of the covenant, which we may call the substantiall and essentiall part of that covenant, to wit, Christ, Faith, Sanctification, Remission of sins, Eternall life; yet this Euangelicall covenant had divers forms in which these things were signified, and various sanctions, by which it was confirmed: To Adam, the promise was made under the name of the seed of the Woman, bruising the head of the Serpent; to Enoch, Noah, in other forms; otherwise to Abraham, under the name of his seed, in whom all nations should be blessed; otherwise to Moses, under the obscure shadows of the Law; otherwise to David, under the name of a successor in the kingdome; otherwise in the New Testament, in plain words, 2 Cor. 3.6. Heb. 8.10. It had likewise divers sanctions. The Promise of the Gospel was confirmed to Abraham by the sign of circumcision, and by the birth of Isaac; to Moses by the Paschall Lamb, and the sprinkling of Blood on the [door], the rain of Mannah, and other signs; to David by an oath; in the New Testament, by Christ’s blood, 1 Cor. 11.25. Therefore circumcision signified and confirmed the promise of the Gospel, according to the form and sanction of the covenant with Abraham, Baptisme signifies and confirms the same promise according to the form, sanction and accomplishments of the new Tesmament…. (21)
Tombes admitted that each of these covenants has a sign to confirm the promise made. However, he maintains a distinction between the specific sign of circumcision given in the Genesis 17 covenant given to Abraham as part of that specific covenant and the specific sign of baptism given in the New Covenant. He went on to contrast other aspects of these covenants to demonstrate there was not a quid pro quo relationship between them. There was some continuity; there was also discontinuity. If they were identical in all things, they would be the same in essence, character and name. Since there was at least one difference, the sign, it was, for Tombes’s theological opponents, fallacious to impose a view of radical continuity between the covenant made with Abraham and the covenant brought about by Christ, the New Covenant. Tombes continued by looking at the elements involved: …[N]ow these forms and sanctions differ many wayes, as much as concerns our present purpose in these: First, circumcision confirmed not Evangelicall promises, but also Politicall; and if we may believe Mr. Cameron, in his Thesis, of the threefold Covenant of God. Thesi. 78. Circumcision did primarily separate the seed of Abraham from other nations, sealed unto them the earthly promise; Secondarily, it did signifie sanctification. But Baptisme signifies only Evangelicall benefits. Secondly, circumcision did confirm the promise concerning Christ to Come out of Isaac’ Baptisme assures Christ to be already come, to have been dead, and to have risen again. Thirdly, circumcision belonged to the Church, constituted in the House of Abraham, Baptisme to the Church gathered out of all nations; whence I gather, that there is not the same reason of circumcision and baptisme, in signing the Euangelicall covenant; nor may there be an argument drawn from the administration of the one to the like manner of the other.(22)
For Tombes, circumcision sealed an earthly promise and identified Abraham’s seed as set apart to God for God’s purpose. A great part of that purpose was in the Incarnation of Christ from the line of Isaac. Tombes was not denying Isreal’s prized position as God’s special ancient people, he was affirming it. However, for Tomes, it was important to understand the pre-incarnational Covenants in the brighter light of the fulfillment in the New Covenant. Salvific aspects of the New Covenant were found in types and shadows within the older covenants (especially the Abrahamic), but their primary purpose was to anticipate the day when God would bring redemption. The New Covenant, however, looked back to the reality of redemption accomplished and applied. I was through these New Covenant glasses that Tombes saw the salvific aspects of all antecedent covenants. In Tombes’s theological scheme, circumcision was the sign of the former, pointing to among other things, the spiritual realities that will be certain possession of Abraham’s spiritual seed. Baptism looks back at what has been done by the mediator of the New Covenant for his people and is the sign of the latter. Tombes demonstrated even more discontinuity between the Abrahamic and new Covenants while anticipating the question as regards the subjects of circumcision: 4. That some there were circumcised, to whom no promise in the covenant made with Abraham did belong; of Ismael, God had said, that his covnenant was not to be established with him, but with Isaac; and yet he was circumcised, Gen. 17.29, 21.25 Rom. 9.7,8,9. Gal. 4.29,30. the same may be said of Esau; All that were in Abrahams house, whether strangers, or born in his house, were circumcised, Gen. 17.12,13. of whom nevertheless, it may be doubted, whether any promises of the covenant made with Abraham, did belong to them; there were other persons, to whom all, or most of the promises of the covenant pertained, that were not circumcised; this may be affirmed of the females coming from Abraham, the Infants dying before the eighth day, of just men, living out of Abrahams house, as Melchisedech, Lot, Job. If any say that the females were circumcised in the circumcision of the Males, he saith it without proof; and by like, perhaps greater, reason it may said, that the children of Believers are baptized in the persons of their own parents, and therefore are not to be baptized in their own persons. But it is manifest that the Jewes comprehended in the covenant made with Abraham, and circumcised, were nevertheless not admitted to Baptisme by John Baptist, and Christs Disciples, till they professed repentance, and faith in Christ. Hence I gather, first, that the right to Euangelicall promises, was not the adequate reason of circumcising these or those, but Gods’ precept, as is expressed, Gen. 17.25. Gen. 21.4. Secondly, that those terms are not convertible, [federate and to be signed].(23)
Tombes’s conclusions were drawn from the positive, declarative use of circumcision and baptism in Scripture. His rigid adherence to the meaning of texts as God’s words for his people, and his governing principles for all matters of faith and practice, compelled him to demand positive evidence for paedobaptism beyond mere theological constructions. Tombes demanded some evidence from “God’s precept[s]” for the practice. He also saw more discontinuity between the Abrahamic and the New Covenant through the assertion “those terms were not convertible”. By “convertible”, Tombes meant, synonymous. There may be some similarities; yet great differences remained. In review, Tombes’s original, foundational argument was stated thus: Major Premise: That which hath not testimony in Scripture for it, is doubtful Minor Premise: But this Doctrine of Infant-Baptisme, hath no testimony of Scripture for it; Conclusion: Ergo, it is doubtful. (9)
Applying this argument to Baptism, he suggested a second:
Major premise: To whom the Gospel-covenant agrees, to them the sign of the Gospel-covenant agrees also. Minor premise: But to Infants of Believers the Gospel-covenant agrees. Conclusion: [A]nd consequently Baptisme. (25)
After giving the four reasons above why this is not exegetically or theologically accurate, he concluded his first and most fundamental argument. Whereupon I answer to the Argument: First, either by denying the Major, if it be universally taken, otherwise it concludes nothing: or by granting it with this limitation; it is true of that sign of the covenant which agrees universally in respect of form and sanction, to them that receive the Gospel, but it is not true of that sign of the covenant, which is of a particular form or sanction, of which sort is circumcision. Secondly, I answer by denying the Minor, universally taken, the reason is, because those children only of believing Gentiles, are Abrahams children, who are his spiritual seed, according to the election of grace by faith, which are not known to us, but by profession, or speciall Revelation.(26)
Here, Tombes, in a summary, has given his refutation of the argument from Genesis 17:7. He denied the Major premise to be universal. Circumcision was a particular part of a particular covenant made with Abraham. Circumcision fits within the structure of that narrow convenantal application to Abraham’s descendants physically. It was a sanction or stipulation from God to Abraham for his house through procreation. Baptism, for Tombes, was a covenantal stipulation through the New Covenant because of, and not antecedent to, regeneration. However, with Tombes’s conclusion there is this explanatory comment, “[T]he reason is, because those children only of believing Gentiles, are Abrahams Children, who are his spiritual seed, according to the election of grace by faith….”(27) The true children of Abraham are those who are brought into his family through an act of God.
Taken from…….
Pp 69 -78
Antipaedobaptism in the Thought of John Tombes
An untold story from Puritan England
Michael T. Renihan, PhD
February 01 Does Baptism replace Circumcision?Nehemiah Coxe, Covenant Theology: From Adam to Christ (Palmdale: Reformed Baptist Academic Press, 2005, 140) A reprint of A Discourse of the Covenants that God Made with Men before the Law, 1681 Circumcision was an ordinance of the old covenant and pertained to the law and therefore directly bound its subjects to a legal obedience. But baptism is an ordinance of the gospel and (besides other excellent and most comfortable uses) directly obliges its subjects to gospel obedience. Therefore it is in this respect opposed to, rather than substituted in the place of, circumcision. Certainly it is safer to interpret one text according to the general current of Scripture and in full harmony with it, than to force such a sense on many texts (which they will in no way admit) to bring them into a compliance to a notion with which our minds are prepossessed. It is plain that the notion I have insisted on fully agrees with other places where circumcision is discussed according to its immediate and direct use in the old covenant. For there can be no contradiction in ascribing a different and seemingly opposite use and end to the same thing, if it be done in a different respect. What circumcision was directly and in its immediate use is one thing; what it was as subordinate to a better covenant and promise that had precedence to it, is another. It is easy to conceive that it might be that to the father of the faithful in its extraordinary institution, what it could not be to the children of the flesh or carnal seed in its ordinary use. To conclude: if circumcision and baptism have the same use and are seals of the same covenant, I can hardly imagine how the application of both to the same subjects should at any time be proper. Yet we find those that were circumcised in their infancy were also baptized on the profession of faith and repentance even before circumcision was abrogated. Yes, according to the opinion that has been argued against, the Jews that believed before Christ suffered were at the same time under a command both of circumcising and baptizing their infant seed. But if the principles that this discourse is built upon are well proved by Scripture, as I take them to be, there must be allowed a vast disparity between circumcision and baptism. The old covenant is not the new; nor that which is abolished, the same with that which remains. Until these become one, baptism and circumcision will never be found so far one that the law for applying the latter should be a sufficient warrant for the administration of the former to infants.
January 24 What the Bible is All About What the Bible is All About
Reading the Bible with Christ at the center is not reading anything into Scripture; it is refusing to read him out of it. The hit TV show Seinfeld has been called a show about nothing. One of the most pernicious falsehoods about the Bible is that it, too, is a book about nothing, that it is a random collection of ancient myths and moral aphorisms. Strangely, some Christians seem to regard Scripture this way. Others find unity in Scripture around God's plan for national Israel and/or a time of millennial glory. Still others treat the Bible as if it is about the reader, as if there is no such thing as a "text" or authorial intent but only the reader's experience of the text. Even more crassly, the Bible is read as if the reader (and his or her prosperity and happiness) is at the center of the story. Reading the Bible the New Testament WayThese errant approaches to the Scriptures are borne from the misapprehension that the biblical writers themselves did not understand themselves to be contributing to a larger unified story and that they did not have a way of reading the Scriptures. There are writers who admit that such a unity and way of reading Scripture exists, but they contend Scripture is inspired and therefore it is beyond our ability to imitate the biblical hermeneutic. This view is mistaken. Scripture is inspired, but the biblical hermeneutic is not-at least not so that we cannot observe and imitate it. That is precisely what we shall begin to do in this essay. The Scriptures are organized around God the Son who was "manifested in the flesh, vindicated by the Spirit, seen by angels, proclaimed among the nations, believed on in the world, taken up in glory" (1 Tim. 3:16; esv). Jesus' HermeneuticOur Lord himself claimed throughout his ministry to be not only God the Son incarnate but also to be at the center of God's saving purposes and revelation. Indeed, he attacked the hermeneutic of the Pharisees as wrongheaded. "You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life," but the Scribes and Pharisees missed the unifying message of the history of redemption and revelation: the Scriptures "bear witness about" Jesus (John 5:39). The Pharisees claimed to believe Moses, but they did not, because Moses, "on whom you have set your hope" (John 5:45) accuses them. The Pharisees missed the point of the Pentateuch: "If you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me" (John 5:46). One of the great and common misunderstandings of the Bible is that, before the incarnation, believers had direct, immediate access to God the Father and that the mediating work of the Son began only with his incarnation. Such a view is directly contradictory to the explicit teaching of Jesus. He said the Father's "voice you have never heard, his form you have never seen." He was even more explicit in John 6:46 that no one has "seen the Father except him who is from God ...." If anyone would see the Father he must look at Jesus, the image of God (2 Cor. 4:4; Col. 1:15). According to Jesus, his mediation does not mean less access to the Father, but more: "Whoever has seen me has seen the Father" (John 14:9). Jesus was conscious of his office as the "revelation" of God (John 1:1). He knew that "No one has ever seen God. The only begotten God ... has revealed him" (John 1:18). Jesus repeatedly challenged the myopic hermeneutic of the Jewish leaders. Just as they claimed to follow Moses, they also claimed to be Abraham's "children." Jesus rejected the premise of their claim. He said that he is the fulfillment of Abraham's deepest longing: "'Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day, he saw it and rejoiced.'" Not only did Abraham and Moses trust in God the Son and in the salvation he would bring to his people, but so did the prophet Isaiah when he said, "Lord, who has believed what he heard from us, and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?" (Isa. 53:1). He was anticipating Jesus' response to the blindness of the Jews (Isa. 6:9, 10) and predicting the reception Jesus received. The Apostle John says "Isaiah said these things because he saw his glory and spoke of him" (John 12:41). Jesus provoked the Pharisees by querying them about the identity of the Messiah: "'What do you think about the Christ? Whose son is he?'" Good scholars that they were, the Pharisees replied that the Messiah must be the "son of David" (Matt. 22:42). After evading so many of the Pharisees' traps, Jesus had set one of his own. If the Messiah must be David's son, how is it that, according to Psalm 110:1, David calls the Messiah "Lord?" whom God the Father has placed at the right hand in power (Matt. 22:42-46)? Totally baffled, they did not see that Jesus, whom they sought to murder, was both David's son and David's Lord. On the cross our Lord, by applying Psalm 22 to himself, appropriated to himself all the Psalms. He made it clear that it was not David who was utterly abandoned by God; David did not substitute for those whom the Father had given to him (John 6:39; 10:39), David did not drink the cup the Father had given to him (John 18:11). Jesus is the man who delights in the law of Yahweh. He announced God's name to the brothers (Ps. 21:23; Heb. 2:12). It is his royal signet ring (Ps. 2:12) that must be kissed in submission. He is the "shepherd" (Ps. 23) who went through the valley of the shadow of death, and he alone had "clean hands and a pure heart" (Ps. 24:4). We can see how the New Testament reads the Psalter by the way it uses Psalm 110. In more than twenty quotations and allusions, the New Testament makes clear that God the Son, who became incarnate, is the "Lord" to whom the Father said, "Sit at my right hand." It is to and about him that Yahweh has sworn, "You are priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek." After his resurrection and ascension Jesus gave the disciples a vital lesson in biblical interpretation. All the prophets, he said, testified that the Messiah must suffer before entering into glory. "And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself" (Luke 24:25-27). Jesus did not simply apply particular Messianic passages to himself. He interpreted the entirety of the Hebrew Scriptures as referring to himself. Thus, reading the Bible with Christ at the center is not reading anything into Scripture; it is refusing to read him out of it. The Apostolic HermeneuticThe first official, public proclamation of the apostolic message centered on the "foolishness" of Christ and him crucified (Acts 2; 1 Cor. 1:25; 2:2). Like Jesus, Peter interpreted the patriarchs and the prophets with Jesus at the center of their message. He preached not an earthly millennium, but "This Jesus whom you crucified, God has made him both Lord and Messiah" (Acts 2:36). This twofold title, "Lord and Messiah," is important because it gives us a clue as to how Peter understood the Hebrew Scriptures. Frequently in the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, the covenant name of God, Yahweh (Exod. 6:3) is translated with the Greek word Kyrios. For example, in Psalm 110:1, the Hebrew text says, YAHWEH says to Adon, sit at my right hand ...." The two characters in the dialogue are distinguished by two different titles. The Greek translation of Psalm 110:1, however, from which Peter quoted in Acts 2:34 reads: "the Lord says to my Lord...." Our English versions reflect the fact that the same noun is used for both persons. The distinction that was clear in the Hebrew text became ambiguous in the Greek text and the apostles capitalized on this ambiguity. They did so because what distinguishes the Father and the Son is not a difference in divine essence, but a difference in their persons and it belongs to the person of the Son to become incarnate, but the incarnate Son is and remains consubstantial with the Father. Thus, to call Jesus Lord and Messiah is to say, "When you see the LORD speaking or acting in Scripture, think of Jesus." All this means that God the Son did not first appear in the history of redemption in the incarnation, but has been mediating the knowledge of God and saving his people for thousands of years before. This is how the Apostle Paul read the history of salvation and why he declared, "There is one Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus" (1 Tim. 2:5). We see this way of thinking in his admonition to the Corinthians regarding their conduct at the Lord's Table, where he reminded them that they were not the first to be baptized (1 Cor. 10:1-2) and they were not the first to eat the Lord's Supper (1 Cor. 10:3). Indeed, they ate the same food and drank the same drink we do: "For they drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ." Paul did not see only occasional types of Christ in the Hebrew Scriptures. Rather, he saw God the Son actively operating throughout Scripture. In other words, the unity of the covenant of grace is not merely typological but substantial. We Christians today are partakers of the same justifying and saving grace by which God the Son justified and redeemed his people before the incarnation. Paul said this much when he told the Corinthians, "For the Son of God Jesus the Messiah whom we preached among you ... is not Yes and No, but in him the Yes has come. For however many are the promises of God, their Yes is in him. Wherefore also through him is our Amen to God for his glory" (2 Cor. 1:19-20). The writer to the Hebrews also saw Christ as the center of redemptive history. Much is made of the heroes of faith and of the quality of their faith in Hebrews 11, but not enough is made of the object of their faith. Moses turned his back on privilege in favor of identification with God's people, because "He considered the reproach of Christ greater wealth than the treasures of Egypt... " (Heb. 11:24-26). This means that there were Christians before the incarnation, believers who had, in the words of the Heidelberg Catechism Q. 21, "a certain knowledge and a hearty trust" in Christ fifteen hundred years before the incarnation. Moses' story is the story of a Christian pilgrim on the way to the heavenly city (Heb. 11:16), as we are, but who happened to live in the time of types and shadows (Rom. 5:14; Col. 2:17; Heb. 8:5). More than looking forward to the incarnation, Hebrews also places God the Son at the center of the action of the story of redemption. Arguably, no place was more basic to Israel's national identity than Sinai, and whom does Hebrews place thundering at the top of the mountain? Jesus, "the Mediator of a New Covenant" (Heb. 12:24). The one to whom we have come was there all along, with whom Jacob and Moses spoke "face to face" (Gen. 32:30; Exod. 33:11) and now, in the incarnation, with us. Read this way, we understand that with the incarnation we have not been cut off from God by the incarnation. Rather, we have more and greater access to God (Heb. 4:15-16; 9:15). Writing to the suffering Christians of Asia Minor (central Turkey), the Apostle Peter assumed a Christian interpretation of the Hebrew Scriptures. The salvation that had been preached to them was the same prophesied by the prophets, into which those prophets had "searched and enquired carefully," asking "what person or time the Spirit of Christ in them was indicating when he predicted the sufferings of Christ and the subsequent glories" (1 Pet. 1:10-11; ESV). According to Peter, God the Son unifies the history of redemption and revelation despite the variety of circumstances and human authors of Scripture because God's Word also has one divine, unifying author, the Holy Spirit. It was the Holy Spirit who moved all the writers to write as did they in Scripture (2 Pet. 1:21), and who intended all along that Scripture should reveal Christ throughout. The Son in the Hebrew ScripturesChrist is the subject of Scripture. The question is not whether the Bible is Christ-centered but how? Following the pattern established by Jesus and the apostles, we find that Christ is revealed by an extensive series of types (illustrations of the reality to come) in the history of redemption. Jesus and the Apostles, however, have clued us in to an even more profound way of reading Scripture whereby Jesus does not simply appear typologically, but as a pre-incarnate actor in the drama of creation, fall, and redemption. He was the agent of creation. John 1:3 says that "All things were made through him, and without him nothing was made that was made." Remembering that Jesus is the only Mediator, we must consider that when Genesis 2:15-16 says that YAHWEH Elohim put Adam in the garden and instituted the covenant of works (Westminster Confession of Faith 7.2), we must identify that divine person as the pre-incarnate Son of God. It was he who made the woman, conducted the wedding ceremony, whom Adam heard coming in judgment in the garden (Gen. 3:10), and who pronounced the curse. It was also the Son who preached the gospel for the first time: "he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel" (Gen. 3:15) and who covered his people (Gen. 3:21). Read this way, this narrative takes on new depth. This is neither saga nor idle promise, for with this oath the Son solemnly committed himself to incarnation, suffering, and death in order to conquer the enemy. He did so again in the covenant-making ceremony of Genesis 15:17. It was he who went "between the pieces," swearing a maledictory oath against his own life (Gen. 15:13). The mysterious figure with whom Jacob wrestled, and with whom he spoke "face to face," (Gen. 33:20) was none other than the Mediator. That same person revealed himself to Moses as the "I Am" (Exod. 3:14; John 4:26; 6:20, 35, 41, 48, 51, 8:12, 58). Not only was his incarnation illustrated by the blood on the doorposts (Exod. 12:7) but it was he who sent the plagues and led his people through the Red Sea. When we read the Bible this way, we are not only following Jesus, Peter, and Paul, but we are also following a confessional Protestant pattern. At the Heidelberg Disputation (1518). Luther argued that seeking unmediated access (trying to get around the Son) is a "theology of glory" and sub-Christian. A genuine theologian only approaches the Father through the Son and his cross.# Suggestively and brilliantly, Luther spoke of seeing God's "backside." He was alluding to Exodus 33:32 where God did not allow Moses to see his glory but only his "back, but my face shall not be seen." If we would find God, it will not be in glory, but in the mediator who became wretched for us carrying a cross up Golgotha. ConclusionScripture is not a random collection of ancient myths and aphorisms. It has a unifying message told in every genre, by every author, in every period of redemptive history. The unifying thread is not God's plan to establish a glorious national people on the earth nor is the Bible about the reader. The Bible is about God the Son who became incarnate for us. The Son has been revealing himself to his people since the garden. It is not that God is indifferent to us. After all, we are those "upon whom the end of the ages has come" (1 Cor. 10:11), but we always remain readers of and not actors in crafted drama of redemption supervised by the same Spirit who hovered over the face of the deep (Gen. 1:2) and who hovers over the living temple of God (1 Pet. 4;14). The gospel is that the Mediator "become flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth." 1 [ Back ] For more detail on Jesus' applications of Psalm 22 to himself, see Edmund P. Clowney, Preaching Christ from All of Scripture (Wheaton: Crossway, 2003), p. 41. See also Geerhardus Vos, "Eschatology of the Psalter," Princeton Theological Review 18 (1920): 1-43.For examples of how the New Testament reads the Psalter, refer to Matthew 22:44; 26:64; Mark 12:36; 14:62; 16:19; Luke 20:42; 22:69; Acts 2:34; Romans 2:5; 8:34; 11:29; 1 Corinthians 15:25; Ephesians 1:20; Colossians 3:1; Hebrews 1:3, 13; 5:6, 10; 6:20; 7:3; 8:1; 10:12; 11:15, 17:21.For information on Luther's participation in the Heidelberg Disputation, see Martin Luther, Luther's Works, Vol. 31: Career of the Reformer I, ed. Jaroslav Jan Pelikan, Hilton C. Oswald and Helmut T. Lehmann, (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1957), pp. 52-53. R. Scott Clark is associate professor of historical and systematic theology at Westminster Seminary California (Escondido, California). He is editor of Covenant, Justification, and Pastoral Ministry (P&R, 2007). Scott blogs at http://www.oceansideurc.org/the-heidelblog/. Issue: "Gods Unto Ourselves" March/April Vol. 16 No. 2 2007 Pages 20-24 Permissions: You are permitted and encouraged to reproduce and distribute this material in any format provided that you do not alter the wording in any way, you do not charge a fee beyond the cost of reproduction, and you do not make more than 500 physical copies. For web posting, a link to this document on our website is preferred. Any exceptions to the above must be explicitly approved by Modern Reformation. Copyright © 2007 Modern ReformationNovember 07 The 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith in its Historical and Theological ContextThe 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith in its Historical and Theological Context
The Second London Baptist Confession of Faith of 1677/89, along with its predecessor of 1644/46, are perhaps the two most influential Baptist Confessions in existence. In many ways, the more recent Confession eclipses the earlier in importance, for by 1689 copies of the First London Confession had become scarce, so much so that one of the key subscribers to the Second Confession, Benjamin Keach, stated in 1692 that he knew nothing of the earlier document until someone informed him of it earlier that year. It was the Second Confession which quickly became the standard of Calvinistic Baptist orthodoxy in England, North America, and today, in many parts of the world. This Confession, influential as it is, may perhaps best be understood against its historical and theological backgrounds. It did not appear de novo, the product of a sudden burst of theological insight on the part of an author or authors, but in the tradition of good Confession making, it is largely dependent on the statements of earlier Reformed Confessions. A superficial reading will demonstrate that it is based, to a large degree, on that most Puritan of documents, the Westminster Confession of Faith of 1647. A closer inspection will reveal that it is even more intimately related to the revision of the Westminster Confession made by John Owen and others in 1658, popularly known as the Savoy Declaration and Platform of Polity. In almost every case the editors of the Baptist Confession follow the revisions of the Savoy editors when they differ from the Westminster document. In addition, the editors make occasional use of phraseology from the First London Confession. When all of this material is accounted for, there is very little left that is new and original to the 1677/89 Confession. This heavy dependence on previous sources was very much part of the purpose of the composition of the Confession. In the epistle "To the Judicious and Impartial Reader" attached to the first edition of the Confession, the editors state: "And forasmuch as our method, and manner of expressing our sentiments, in this, doth vary from the former [i.e. the First London Confession] (although the substance of the matter is the same) we shall freely impart to you the reason and occasion thereof. One thing that greatly prevailed with us to undertake this work, was (not only to give a full account of ourselves, to those Christians that differ from us about the subject of Baptism, but also) the profit that might from thence arise, unto those that have any account of our labors, in their instruction, and establishment in the great truths of the Gospel; in the clear understanding, and steady belief of which, our comfortable walking with God, and fruitfulness before him, in all our ways, is most neerly concerned; and therefore we did conclude it necessary to expresse our selves the more fully, and distinctly; and also to fix on such a method as might be most comprehensive of those things which we designed to explain our sense, and belief of; and finding no defect, in this regard, in that fixed on by the assembly [i.e. the Westminster Assembly], and after them by those of the Congregational way [i.e. the Savoy Synod], we did readily conclude it best to retain the same order in our present confession: and also, when we observed that those last mentioned, did in their confession (for reasons which seemed of weight both to themselves and others) choose not only to express their mind in words concurrent with the former in sense, concerning all those articles wherein they were agreed, but also for the most part without any variation of the terms we did in like manner conclude it best to follow their example in making use of the very same words with them both, in these articles (which are very many) wherein our faith and doctrine is the same with theirs, and this we did, the more abundantly, to manifest our consent with both, in all fundamental articles of the Christian Religion, as also with many others, whose orthodox confessions have been published to the world; on the behalf of the Protestants in divers Nations and Cities: and also to convince all, that we have no itch to clogge Religion with new words, but do readily acquiesce in that form of sound words, which hath been, in consent with the holy Scriptures, used by others before us, hereby declaring before God, Angels, & Men. our hearty agreement with them, in that wholesome Protestant Doctrine, which with so clear evidence of Scriptures they have asserted: some things indeed, are in some places added, some terms omitted, and some few changed, but these alterations are of that nature, as that we need not doubt, any charge or suspition of unsoundness in the faith, from any of our brethren upon account of them". These words are of real importance, and need to be considered very carefully. The Baptists were concerned to demonstrate to all that their doctrinal convictions had been, from the very start, orthodox and to a large degree identical with the convictions of the Puritans around them. This was true of the First London Confession, published prior to the Westminster Standards, which was heavily dependent on the 1596 True Confession, and on the writings of William Ames. In both of their general Confessions, the Baptists purposely used existing documents in order to demonstrate their concurrence with the theological convictions of their Puritan contemporaries. In the quote above, they argue that the doctrines expressed in both Baptist Confessions are the same, but they have chosen to base the newer Confession upon the more recent and widely available documents of Westminster and Savoy. By doing this, they were declaring with some vigor their own desire to be placed in the broad stream of English Reformed Confessional Christianity. This methodology provides us with some insight into understanding the Confession and its teaching. When it concurs with these other documents, it can be read as an endorsement of the views espoused by those Presbyterians and Independents who subscribed those documents, and of the theological works they published in defense of the Confessional statements. Thus, if one wonders how the Baptists understood the doctrine of the Decrees of God, or Justification, or the application of the Law to the conscience of man, or how they worked out the implications of the teaching on the Perseverance of the Saints, one may consult the writings of paedobaptist Puritans with much profit. Since both the Westminster Confession and the Savoy Declaration are readily available, it is relatively easy to compare the documents in order to determine agreement. Of course, not every word of every author is necessarily a fair representation of their views, but in general, their method implies substantial theological agreement with the writings of their orthodox contemporaries. When the Confession departs from either of these documents, we should take note. It is at these points that the Baptists express their distinctive contributions to Christian Theology. Sadly, few of their theological writings in defense of their views are available to us today, though it is hoped that this will soon change. Their methodology also explains the reason why certain subjects are addressed in the Confession. In the troubled times of the second half of the Seventeenth Century, topics such as the relationship between church and state, the role of the magistrate, and even the Christian doctrine of marriage were important issues. Long and heated debates over these questions fired the furnace of controversy. Recognizing many of the problems inherent in a state church, especially when that church was ruled by a foreign power such as Rome, the Independents and the Baptists were very much concerned for liberty of conscience. The Presbyterian party, with an ecclesiology more conducive to a national church, had some within its ranks who argued strongly against toleration for any dissenters. One is reminded of John Milton's famous phrase "New Presbyter is but old Priest writ large". The attitude of many Presbyterians was the same as that of their Episcopalian predecessors: those in power make the rules, and everyone else must submit. During the Commonwealth era, and Cromwell's Protectorate, a measure of liberty and toleration was given to many religious groups. The question at issue was: Should the civil ruler enforce the first table of God's Law? For the modern reader, the question seems simple and straightforward, but it was not so clear in the 17th Century. Each of these English Reformed Confessions, Westminster, Savoy and the Second London speak to the issue, and each provides a different approach. After the Restoration of 1660, and the enforcement of the Clarendon Code, non-conformists were subject to severe penal acts. It must also be remembered that the Protestants of England feared a return to Roman Catholicism throughout most of the century. Charles I and Charles II both married Roman Catholics, and James II was a professing Romanist. The old doctrines of the Reformation needed to be asserted in the face of this royal departure and its potential implications for church and society. From this mix came the pressing need to address these contemporary issues in a Confession, and accounts for the presence of topics which may seem less important at the beginning of the Twenty-first Century. Compiled by
October 08 The debate between Gene and Paul... An analysis.... Pt 3.In the second segment Paul starts off with his rebuttal with a cross-examination of Gene’s knowledge and doctrine of Jeremiah 31 and Hebrews 8. (Heb 8:11) And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest. (Jer 31:34) And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more. Paul asked Gene if this Passage indicates that a New Covenant Member will never need to be evangelized because he is a new Covenant Member. Gene indicates that is true. Paul then asks Gene a very hypothetical question based upon backsliding and whether or not Gene might be telling a backslider who is a New Covenant Member to Know the LORD. Paul seems to be accusing Gene of going against his own understanding of scripture by telling a backsliding New Covenant Member to Know the LORD. This line of questioning is very hypothetical and misleading from my standpoint. I would say Paul is reaching here into things that do not apply and he is fishing for a self-contradiction and violation of Gene’s biblical understanding. I wouldn’t have answered the questions the same way Gene did but I am not analyzing my response. Gene did give good appropriate answers and announced he could not know if anyone was regenerate other than himself. Then we move to discussing whether a person could draw prescriptions from descriptive statements. It is fallacious to do so. It was a statement Paul quotes of Gene who made it during a debate with an atheist. Paul says it is a move from what is the case to what ought to be the case. And Gene affirms this is true for the Atheist because he has no moral ground to base anything on. The Christian has this foundation so it is not fallacious for the Christian. It is because the Christian does not base his prescriptions on a material universe. Christians are for Biblical prescriptions. Paul seems to have been baiting Gene for another fallacy up to this point by taking a question out of one context and trying to apply it to a different context. These contexts are the worldviews between the Christian and the Atheist. I believe Paul is groping and fails at this point also. Paul has challenged me concerning this and I am wondering if Gene may be correct in a sense because Christ is considered the express image of God and he reveals the Father. Just food for thought. So now we are on to the next line of questioning. Paul then associates the phrase ‘they and their children’ to New Covenant Promises and other passages of the Old Testament. He then starts a line of questioning from this thinking. In my understanding Paul flattens out the promises to much assuming that the Children are automatically born new covenant members because of these general promises. Paul then asks Gene, “Do these passages refer to all of the physical children, half their children, or is there another option?” Gene then says the passages refer to children who are believing children based upon the information given in the New Testament. Paul then gets into a discussion of how we should interpret ‘all of their children’. I am not sure any of the texts he quotes use the term all. I think he is assuming it. Then Gene asks if Paul is a Calvinist. What does all men mean in this context. Paul then diverts to another question and doesn’t answer Gene. At this point Paul does something beyond understanding. He asks Gene how could his (Paul) position be stated that believers and all of their children are to come into the New Covenant and how can that be prophesied.” In my estimation Paul is asking Gene, if he were God, how would he have breathed out the scripture concerning this fallacy of Paul’s. He asks Gene what way could God have revealed it so Gene could understand and accept it. Gene says he is satisfied with how God revealed his truth already. And that it didn’t mean all of Isreal or all of the parents or all of the children. Then Paul pushes the point even further and asks how could the scripture have been said to mean all of them. Then Paul’s line of questioning turns to the invisible /visible church as lined out in the confessions. And time is called. I don’t think Paul made his points very well and that he failed at many different levels. Gene wins this part in my estimation. September 14 The debate between Gene and Paul... An analysis.... Pt. 2My summary of Paul Manata's Intro to the debate. Premise 1. Baptism is for those who enter the Church Premise 2. Infants of one or more Christian parents are Church members. Paul discusses the grammitical historical hermeneutic. We both agree on that. Then he makes the point that family plays a BIG role in discovering the truth of what we are looking at. Then Paul starts to discuss the ramifications of being covenantally cursed and how that relates to children by quoting Jeremiah 44:7 and Michael Horton. To be covenantally cursed in the Old Covenant is something we are just going to have problems with because we see the natures of the Covenants differently. Besides this covenantal cursing is based upon the Old Covenant of Moses and not the New Covenant. The New Covenant can not be broken according to Jeremiah 31. It is not a covenant like the one made with the fathers which they broke. Grant it Paul is making a point about a Covenant Family and the basis of the Church is the Covenant Family in his understanding. Again I think we need to make a distinction between the natures of the Covenants and Covenant families here based upon the different natures of the Covenants. We are going to differ here. Paul makes mention under his second premise that no Jewish apologist has made a mention of Christians being cursed for removing their Children from the Covenant. I find this rather odd. I am not a historian but if my mind understands the days of the early church Christians were considered outside and apostate from the Jewish covenant anyways. So I am not sure that that would have been an argument. Albeit it is still an argument made from silence. Which may be a good argument or not. Paul's point in mentioning this is that the early Christians must not have excluded their children from covenant inclusion or being members of the New Covenant because the apologist don't say they are cursed for covenant exclusion of the children. But I find this a rather moot argument because the Jews considered Christians cursed anyways because of covenant unfaithfulness. Therefore the Christian's children were cursed according them and they wouldn't have written about this anyways. After this Paul goes into describe the immutablity of the Covenants. I agree with him concerning this for the most part. Covenants are immutable but their natures are different. I know we are going to disagree on the nature of the covenants. And possibly even whether or not the Covenant of Grace had a sign before Abraham. And then we will disagree on the Nature of the Covenant of Circumcision probably. Then Paul discusses the Church and when it starts. Gene and I are definitely going to agree with him for the most part here. But whether or not we are going to agree on whether or not the ecclesia is fully matured or how the ecclesia is related to a specific covenant or not is another matter. Paul also shows that the children were included with this ecclesia in the Old Covenant and the whole assembly stood before the LORD. Again we are left without defining our distinctions and and consideration of the natures of the Covenants. I believe he is blurring the lines because he does not see the difference between the natures of the Covenants. Every man can stand before the face of the LORD. Even Balaam the Seer stood before the LORD and communicated with Him. Paul Manata is speaking of the Old Covenant Congregation and he is not making a distinction between natural Isreal and spiritual Isreal. Even St. Paul said not all of Isreal was Isreal. Paul is not even considering the Nature of the Covenants he is mentioning. As I mentioned before in the first Critique, Rich Leino and I had a discussion on the Abrahmic Covenant and the distinctions that are discovered in it even. There are differences to who is considered in covenant with God's everlasting Covenant and who is not but is included in the Covenant of circumcision. I don't think Paul is considering these distinctions either. A link to this discussion is in my first critique of Gene's intro. Paul then goes into a lot of Scripture quotes that emphatically say "the Children." And as a highlight verse he turns to Malachi's prophesy of John the Baptist. The turning of the Fathers hearts to their Children and the Children's hearts to the father. He is emphasizing the Covenant Family restoration as opposed to the curses found under the old covenant. After that Paul brings to the attention the passage of Jeremiah 31 and the Law on the heart. He makes mention that the law was not upon old Covenant hearts. And they were cursed for it. At this point I am scratching my head because he is implying it seems to me that because a child is born to someone who has the law written on his heart that the child automatically should be assumed to have the same law written on the childs heart. I am probably butchering Paul's points but we just are going to have a major disagreement on the nature of the New Covenant vs. the Covenant of Circumcision and the Mosaic Covenant. One of my disagreements with Paul is that our Children are not cast off because we have not baptized them or consider them to be in covenant with God. I consider children to be born under the Covenant of Works, not the Abrahamic Covenant of Circumcision nor the mosaic. I am commanded to raise my children in the admonition of the LORD. I am also commanded to admonish others to be reconciled to God which would bring them into a New Covenant Relationship but all children are born outside of the Covenant until God brings them into the New Covenant. My children attend Church with me and I admonish them to call upon the Lord but they are not New Covenant Members whose sins are forgiven without Christ effectually calling them. Just my 2 cents at this point. BTW... Paul is a much better debator than Gene on this issue so far. And he is a much better writer than I am so he will probably rip me apart. And that is ok. He did not ask me to critique him either. Next... Paul makes a point to say he believes all the texts he quoted on children , and that I have not mentioned because of time, are verses that include children in the New Covenant. Well, Ok but I have many questions as to their generalities and specific points. We could almost make a case for all children of believers are going to be in heaven by the passages Paul quotes and I am not sure he wants to do that either. He later discusses the training of Children up in the admonition of the Lord. And seems to imply that this is only done in a covenantal inclusion that looks like the Old Covenant inclusion. But I totally disagree with this. He then makes mention of the 5th commandment and raising children. But I think the promise of the fifth commandment would be applicable even to someone who is not covenantally included with Abraham and after. For any child who honoured there parents biblically, God would bless. BTW there were families who were in the Covenant of Grace around the time of Abraham who were not of his family and who didn't receive the Covenant of Circumcision. They had no sign but they were in the Covenant of Grace. Nehemiah Coxe mentions this in his book Covenant Theology from Adam to Christ. Then Paul asserts the same argument that we have all heard before that the sign of baptism was placed upon all the family members and there must have been children there. Therefore the Covenant sign is placed upon children. Again we are just going to disagree about the Natures of the Covenants. Whether there is a cursing or non cursing in the New Covenant is a big point of contention that I believe is being missed so far. His understanding must be if one was cursed for not circumcising in the old then there is a curse for those not given baptism at birth by believing parents. His argument is that there is no removal of children from Covenantal inclusion of God's visible people. But I don't think Paul M. understands the Nature of the New Covenant clearly. The children in the New Covenant are those of faith. They are the spiritual children of Abraham who are justified by faith alone and their sins are forgiven. Another point I want to make is that every parent eveywhere is responsible for raising their children up in the LORD. It matters not if they are regenerate or not. We are all going to be held accountable for how we all discipled our children. It doesn't take some kind of doctrinal Covenant inclusion to do this. In fact I think it is rather deceptive to teach a child they are in a New Covenant relationship with God when they may be strangers to the covenant. It neglects the nature of what the new Covenant is. A Covenant made based upon the forgiveness of sin and knowing the Lord. Not like the one that the early church fathers could break. It is an unbreakable Covenant. Just from listening to his first part Paul has not proven his conclusion to me as you can see. Now I did this off the cuff and Paul may have something to say as to how I heard him and that is fine. I am not the infallible Pope. LOL That finished the first introduction section. I did this in a rather tired state so if you don't understand what I have written, your not crazy. The debate between Gene and Paul... An analysis.... Pt. 1I have decided to finish listening to the Paul and Gene debate and finish commenting on it. I will post my first two portions then start on the rest. I was commenting as I listened to the debate. so here is the first part. Well, I have listened to the first few things Gene said and He starts off on a bad foot in my estimation. He stated that Baptism is one of the doctrines that wasn't reformed. And that in itself is a major misunderstanding on the Baptist side I believe. I use to think this also. They reformed the doctrine and not the application of the practice in my estimation. IN fact many Reformed guys still accept RC baptism as authentic. CT paedo Baptism is not pagan Roman Baptism though. It is based upon a Covenant Family understanding and not as a sacrament that merits anything.. Another misgiving of Gene's is that Paedo baptism is just a Roman teaching. It was mentioned a few centuries after the Resurrection of Christ. And it was done because there was so close of a tie between it and the forgiveness of sin that one dare not leave earth or allow their children to die without it. So it started based upon the necessity of the individual who might die in infancy at first. This is discussed in a book called Baptism in the Early Church. And it is done by Paedo Baptists. The doctrine was not started based upon Covenant Theology if my understanding is correct. http://www.amazon.com/Baptism-Early-.../dp/0952791315 Infant Baptism is not the unreformed Doctrine of the Reformation. It is reformed from the Catholic understanding. Gene starts off with a few Bad Premises in my opinion. And I would have taken him to task just for that. I do agree with Gene that our differences are based upon the nature of the New Covenant. And he seems to do a pretty good job of explaning its nature. I wouldn't have used the nature of the covenants only to explain the differences between Baptism and circumcision.. I believe the new does explain the old as progressive revelation but the natures of circumcision and baptism are different in more than one way. It isn't just in types and shadows. Circumcision is a sign and seal unto the Messiah. But it also includes a sign and seal that is bound up in promises that are national and not spiritual also. Rich Lieno and I discuss this here. Case for Believers Baptism. believe that Baptism is a sign but that the Holy Spirit is the seal in the New Covenant. Baptism is a sign of forgiveness of sin which only applies to those who are New Covenant members. August 15 A Moral Checkup for Your MouthPE071 Irvine, CA: Covenant Community Church, November 1987, Covenant Media Foundation, 800/553-3938 A Moral Checkup for Your Mouth By Dr. Greg Bahnsen
It is every Christian’s heart-felt desire to live a more holy life, one that better glorifies God and displays His love. The process by which believers grow in holiness is called "sanctification." It is the result of God’s powerful, transforming grace within us. The outworking of the Holy Spirit’s sanctifying work is not as vague or mystical as many well-meaning Christians imagine. It can be seen in very definite ways in our conduct—particularly in the way we use our mouths. About our linguistic habits God tells us: "All of us stumble in many ways, but if anyone is never at fault in what he says, then he is mature, able to control his whole body" (James 3:2). Reforming the way we use our words, then, is a key to sanctification. The mouth is so troublesome and sinful that, if it can be made more holy, so can other areas of our conduct. For that reason, the following "oral check-up" has been devised, summarizing much of what the Bible teaches us about the way we should speak. If Christian morality were more evident here, God would surely receive greater glory—not only among us, but also through us before the world. Notice the Destructive Power of Words "Thy tongue devises very wickedness: like a sharp razor, working deceitfully.... Thou lovest all devouring words, O thou deceitful tongue" (Psalm 52:2, 4). "Who have whet their tongue like a sword, and have aimed their arrows, even bitter words. (Psalm 64:3) "There is rash speaking which is like the piercings of a sword, but the tongue of the wise brings health" (Proverbs 12:18). "A worthless man devises mischief, and in his lips there is as a scorching fire" (Proverbs 16:27). "Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit: the poison of asps is under their lips" (Romans 3:13). Do You Defame Fellow Believers with Harsh Language? "A soft answer turns away wrath, but a grievous word stirs up anger. The tongue of the wise utters knowledge aright, but the mouth of fools pours out folly... A gentle tongue is a tree of life, but perverseness therein is a breaking of the spirit" (Proverbs 15:1-4). "The tongue is a fire, the world of iniquity among our members which defiles the whole body...and is set on fire by hell.... It is a restless evil, full of deadly poison. Therewith we bless the Lord and Father, and therewith we curse men, who are made after the likeness of God: out of the same mouth comes forth blessing and cursing. My brethren, these things ought not to be so.... If you have bitter jealousy and faction in your heart, glory not and lie not against the truth. This wisdom is not a wisdom that comes down from above, but is earthly, sensual, devilish.... But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, easy to be entreated, full of mercy and good fruits..." (James 3:5-18). Do You Criticize Unnecessarily or Talk Too Much? "In the multitude of words there is no lack of transgression, but he who refrains his lips does wisely" (Proverbs 10:19). "He who goes about as a talebearer reveals secrets, but he who is of a faithful spirit conceals a matter" (Proverbs 11:13). "A perverse man scatters abroad strife, and a whisperer separates best friends" (Proverbs 16:28). "He who spares his words has knowledge, and he who has a cool spirit is a man of understanding. Even a fool, when he holds his peace, is counted wise. (Proverbs 17:27-28). "For lack of wood the fire goes out, and where there is no whisperer, contention ceases. As coals are to hot embers, and wood to fire, so is a contentious man to inflame strife. (Proverbs 26:20-21). Do You Judgmentally or Maliciously Speak Evil of Fellow Believers? "Speak not one against another, brethren. He who speaks against a brother or judges his brother speaks against the law and judges the law...[and so] is not a doer of the law" (James 4:11). "You sit and speak against your brother; you slander your own mother’s son" (Psalm 50:20). "Who are you to judge the servant of another? Before his own lord he stands or falls.... But you, why do you judge your brother? Or you again, why do you set at nought your brother? For we shall all stand before the judgment-seat of God.... Let us not therefore judge one another any more. (Romans 14:4, 8-13). "All the day long they wrest my words: all their thoughts are against me for evil" (Psalm 56:5). "I wrote unto you not to keep company, if any man that is named a brother be...a reviler.... Be not deceived: neither fornicators...nor revilers, nor extortioners shall inherit the kingdom of God. (1 Corinthians 5:11; 6:10). Do You Speak Uncharitably? "Love is longsuffering and is kind...does not behave itself unseemly, seeks not its own, is not provoked, takes not account of evil, rejoices not in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth; it bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things (1 Corinthians 13:4-7). Do You Interpret People In The Best Light? The man with unsound and ungodly attitudes] is puffed up...whereof comes envy, strife, railings, evil suspicion..." (1 Timothy 6:4). [By contrast, the inspired writer, after speaking of evil actions, said:] "But beloved we are persuaded better things of you and things that accompany salvation..." (Hebrews 6:9). [Examples of seeing others in the worst light: 1 Samuel 1:13-15; 17:28; 2 Samuel 10:3; 16:3; 19:25-27; Nehemiah 6:6-8; Acts 24:2,5. We can take one instance —] "And when the barbarians saw the venomous creature hanging from [Paul’s] hand, they said one to another, No doubt this man is a murderer, whom, though he has escaped from the sea, yet Justice has not allowed to live (Acts 28:4).} Is What You Say Kind? "Let not kindness and truth forsake you; bind them about your neck: write them upon the tablet of your heart" (Proverbs 3:3). "The wise in heart shall be called prudent; and the sweetness of the lips increases learning.... Pleasant words are as a honeycomb, sweet to the soul and health to the bones" (Proverbs 16:21, 24). "She opens her mouth in wisdom, and the law of kindness is on her tongue" (Proverbs 31:26). "The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control" (Galatians 5:22-23). "And be kind one to another, tenderhearted" (Ephesians 4:32). "Put on...a heart of compassion, kindness, lowliness, gentleness, longsuffering...and above all these things put on love, which is the bond of perfection" (Colossians 3:12,14). "Finally, be all of you like-minded, compassionate, loving as brethren, tenderhearted, humble-minded (1 Peter 3:8). Does Your Speaking Show Humility? "Do nothing through faction or vainglory, but in lowliness of mind, let each count the other as better than himself" (Philippians 2:3). "Do not think of yourself more highly than you ought to think....In love of the brethren be tenderly affectionate one to another; in honor preferring one another" (Romans 12:3, 10). "With all lowliness and gentleness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love" (Ephesians 4:2). Do You Speak Carelessly? "He who guards his mouth keeps his life, but he who opens wide his lips shall have destruction" (Proverbs 13:3). "The heart of the righteous studies how to answer, but the mouth of the wicked pours out evil things" (Proverbs 15:28). "Whosoever keeps his mouth and his tongue keeps his soul from troubles" (Proverbs 21:23). "See a man who is hasty in his words? There is more hope for a fool than for him" (Proverbs 29:20). "If any man thinks himself to be religious and does not bridle his tongue, he deceives himself and this man's religion is vain" (James 1:26). "He who would love life and see good days, let him refrain his tongue from evil and his lips that they speak no guile" (1 Peter 3:10). Do You Choose Your Words Cautiously and Fairly, or Do You Press into Service Provocative (Emotive) and Unqualified (Categorical) Expressions? " I say unto you that...whoever shall say to his brother "Raca" [a term of contempt] shall be in danger of the council, and whoever shall say "You fool" shall be in danger of hell fire" (Matthew 5:22). "I said in my haste, ‘All men are liars’" (Psalm 116:11). [When we oversimplify and lump together the righteous and unrighteous under one condemning rubric, note:] "He who justifies the wicked, and he who condemns the righteous, both of them alike are an abomination to the Lord" (Proverbs 17:15). "Let no corrupt speech proceed out of your mouth, but such as is good for edifying as the need may be, that it may give grace to them that hear" (Ephesians 4:29). "Let us follow after things which make for peace and things whereby we may edify one another" (Romans 14:19). "A word fitly spoken is like apples of gold in network of silver. As an earring of gold and an ornament of fine gold is a wise reprover upon an obedient ear" (Proverbs 25:11-12). "The tongue of the righteous is as choice silver.... The lips of the righteous know what is acceptable, but the mouth of the wicked speaks perverseness" (Proverbs 10:20,32). "A man has joy in the answer of his mouth, and a word in due season, how good it is!" (Proverbs 15:23) "The mouth of the righteous is a fountain of life, but violence covers the mouth of the wicked" (Proverbs 10:11). "A grievous word stirs up anger...the mouth of fools pours forth folly" (Proverbs 15:1,2). Do You Gossip or Publicly Discredit People? "You shall not go up and down as a talebearer among your people" (Leviticus 19:16). "Who shall dwell with Jehovah?... He who slanders not with his tongue...nor takes up a reproach against his neighbor" (Psalm 15:3). "And withal they learn also to be idle, going about from house to house; and not only idle, but tattlers also and busybodies, speaking things which they ought not" (1 Timothy 5:13). "He who utters a slander is a fool" (Proverbs 10:18). "The mouth of the wicked and the mouth of deceit have they opened against me.... They have compassed me about also with words of hatred and fought against me without a cause" (Psalm 109:2,3). "Keep your tongue from evil and your lips from speaking guile" (Psalm 34:13; 1 Peter 3:10). "Let all bitterness...clamor and railing be put away from you, with all malice" (Ephesians 4:31). "Put them in mind...to speak evil of no man, not to be contentious, to be gentle, showing all gentleness toward all men" (Titus 3:1-2). [Whisperers and backbiters are condemned: Psalm 101:5; Romans 1:29,30; 2 Corinthians 12:20] "The north wind drives away rain, so does an angry countenance a backbiting tongue" (Proverbs 25:23). Do You Publicly Criticize People Before First Speaking with Them and Seeking Their Restoration? "He who gives an answer before he hears, it is folly and shame to him.... He who pleads his cause first seems just, but his neighbor comes and searches him out" (Proverbs 18:13, 17). "Go not hastily to strive, lest you know not what to do in the end thereof, when your neighbor has put you to shame. Debate your cause with your neighbor himself, and disclose not the secret of another, lest he who hears it revile thee and your infamy turn not away" (Proverbs 25:8-10). "Brethren, even if a man be overtaken in any trespass, you who are spiritual restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness.... Bear one another’s burdens and so fulfill the law of Christ" (Galatians 6:1-2). "My brethren, if any among you err from the truth and one convert him, let him know that he who converts a sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death and shall cover a multitude of sins" (James 5:19-20). "Let no corrupt speech proceed out of your mouth, but such as is good for edifying as the need may be, that it may give grace to them who hear" (Ephesians 4:29; cf. Romans 14:19). "And if your brother sins against you, go, show him his fault between you and him alone; if he hears you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not hear you, take with you one or two more, that at the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he refuses to hear them, tell it unto the church" (Matthew 18:15-17). Do You Speak with Sensitivity, the Way You Would Have Others Speak of You? [See preceding passages about kindness, humility, and gentleness: for instance, 1 Peter 3:8; Ephesians 4:32; Titus 3:2; Romans 12:10] "If there is therefore any exhortation in Christ, if any consolation of love, if any fellowship of the Spirit, if any tender mercies and compassions, make full my joy that you be of the same mind, having the same love, being of one accord" (Philippians 2:1-2). "You shall love your neighbor as yourself" (Leviticus 19:18; Matthew 19:19; Romans 13:9). "For the whole law is fulfilled in one word, even in this: You shall love your neighbor as yourself" (Galatians 5:14). "All things therefore whatsoever you would that men should do unto you, even so do also unto them, for this is the law and the prophets" (Matthew 7:12). Do You Exemplify the Very Things for Which You Criticize Others? " Judge not that you be not judged. For by the same standard you judge, you shall be judged; and with the measure you mete it out, it shall be meted out to you.... You hypocrite, first cast out the beam in your own eye, and then you shall see clearly to cast out the speck from your brother’s eye" (Matthew 7:1-5). "Therefore you are without excuse, O man, whosoever you are who judges. For in that very thing you judge another, you condemn yourself, for you who who judges practices the same things" (Romans 2:1). Do Your Words about Others Amount to Humiliation or Mockery? " With his mouth the godless man destroys his neighbor" (Proverbs 11:9). "A gentle tongue is a tree of life, but perverseness therein is a breaking of the spirit" (Proverbs 15:4). "But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you not be consumed of one another" (Galatians 5:15). [Examples of the sin of mockery: Genesis 21:9 with Galatians 4:29; Psalm 35:16, 21; Matthew 27:24] [The opposite of humiliating words is commended: Proverbs 16:21, 24; 27:9, and preceding passages about kindness, sensitivity, etc.] Do You Later Try to Evade Responsibility for Your Words"Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks.... And I say unto you that every idle word that men shall speak they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment; for by your words you shall be justified and by your words you shall be condemned" (Matthew 12:34b, 36-37). "As a madman who casts firebrands and deadly arrows, so is the man who deceives his neighbor and says, ‘I was only kidding’" (Proverbs 26:18-19). "He who covers his transgressions shall not prosper, but whoso confesses and forsakes them shall obtain mercy" (Proverbs 28:13). "Yet you say ‘I am innocent....’ Surely I will enter into judgment with you because you say ‘I have not sinned’" (Jeremiah 2:35). [Examples of attempting to evade responsibility and making excuses: Proverbs 30:20; Genesis 3:12-13; 4:9; Matthew 27:24; Luke 14:18] Are You Always Careful to Tell the Truth When You Speak? "A man who bears false witness against his neighbor is a maul, and a sword, and a sharp arrow" (Proverbs 25:18). "You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor" (Exodus 20:16; Deuteronomy 5:20; Matthew 19:18). "For out of the heart come forth evil thoughts...false witness, railings: these are the things which defile the man" (Matthew 15:19-20). "You shall not take up a false report; put not your hand with the wicked to be an unrighteous witness" (Exodus 23:1). "You shall not...lie one to another" (Leviticus 19:11). "Wherefore, putting away falsehood, speak the truth each one with his neighbor, for we are members one of another" (Ephesians 4:25). "Lie not one to another, seeing that you have put off the old man with his doings" (Colossians 3:9). "There are six things which Jehovah hates, yes seven which are an abomination to Him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue...a false witness who utters lies" (Proverbs 6:16-19). "He who utters truth shows forth righteousness, but a false witness deceit.... The lip of truth shall be established forever, but a lying tongue is but for a moment" (Proverbs 12:17, 19). "Be not a witness against your neighbor without cause, and deceive not with your lips" (Proverbs 24:28). "A false witness shall not go unpunished, and he who utters lies shall perish" (Proverbs 19:9; cf. 21:28). [The mouths of unruly men, vain talkers and deceivers, must be stopped by strong reproof (Titus 1:10-13). "But for...all liars, their part shall be in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death" (Revelation 21:8). Do You Keep the Promises that You Make? [Who shall dwell with the Lord?] "He who swears to his own hurt and changes not" (Psalm 15:4). [Among those who stand condemned by God are covenant-breakers (Romans 1:31; 2 Timothy 3:3). Does Your Mouth Use Coarse Humor or Foolish Jesting? "But fornication and all uncleanness or covetousness, let it not even be named among you as becomes saints: nor filthiness, nor foolish talking, or jesting, which are not befitting (Ephesians 5:3-4). "Let no corrupt speech proceed out of your mouth" (Ephesians 4:29). "Put them all away: anger, wrath, malice, railing, shameful speaking out of your mouth" (Colossians 3:8). "Whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honorable, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report: if there be any virtue, and if there be anything praiseworthy, think on these things" (Philippians 4:8). Do You Use Words to Boast or Flatter Yourself? "The Lord shall cut off all flattering lips and the tongue that speaks proud things" (Psalm 12:3). "For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters" (2 Timothy 3:2). "Be not wise in your own conceits" (Romans 12:16). "I hate pride and arrogance and the evil way and the perverted mouth" (Proverbs 8:13). "Do not think more highly of yourself than you ought to think" (Romans 12:3). "Let another praise you and not your own mouth—a stranger and not your own lips" (Proverbs 27:2). Does Your Conversation Use God’s Name Taken in Vain? You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain (Exodus 20:7; Deuteronomy 5:11). "After this manner are you to pray: Our Father who art in heaven, Hallowed be Thy name" (Matthew 6:9). [This requires that we reverence all of God's titles, attributes, works, etc.:] "Give unto the Lord the glory due unto His name; worship the Lord in the beauty of holiness" (Psalm 29:2). "O Lord our Lord, how excellent is your name in all the earth" (Psalm 7:1). "Swear not at all, neither by heaven, for it is the throne of God; nor by earth, for it is His footstool; nor by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King; neither by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black" (Matthew 5:34-36). [It also requires that we profess the name of Christ and praise Him:] "If you shall confess with your mouth Jesus as the Lord, and shall believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved.... Whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved" (Romans 10:9,13). "No man speaking in the Spirit of God says ‘Jesus is anathema,’ and no man can say ‘Jesus is Lord’ but by the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 12:3). "Through Him, then, let us offer up a sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of lips which make confession to His name" (Hebrews 13:15). [This entails that all of our speaking must be pleasing to God:] "And whatsoever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus" (Colossians 3:17). [We must not dishonor our profession of His name by our behavior:] "For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you" (Romans 2:24). "Let your lifestyle [conduct] be such as becomes the gospel of Christ" (Philippians 1:27). June 10 Everything In It's Right TimeThis is a blog I have been contemplating on writing for sometime. It is mainly written for the teens and kids who frequent my house and whom I care very deeply for. Of course most of them are boys because I have three sons. There is rumor that boys will be boys and sin is knocking on the doorstep at an unprecedented rate in most of our lives. Times are more sinful and our human nature is enticed at an alarming rate. Most of the ideas we have are sexually motivated or focused on how we can fill the time with fun and laughter. After all, friendship is mostly based upon what the guys and gals do together and how much they can enjoy it. Since pleasure is an all time adventure it pleads for us to look intently for it even if it is innappropriate. Our flesh just screams for us to fulfill our lusts. And to fulfill it the most simple and accessible way. It pleads for the easiest route without much notice. It matters not what anyone thinks about it. Because of this many adults and children start off ruining their lives at a very early age and continue to ruin them even into late adulthood. We become what the ancient Greeks called epicureans or hedonists. The epicurens were more moderate but just as sinful. Why am I bringing this up. It is because I have learned a few things in life and want to spare others from the harm I have caused and endured. In my teen years I was very wreckless. I ruined my Highschool years with drugs and alchohol. I also know kids who drank and did drugs who did good in school but became wash outs in life. I have quite a few Dead friends. The suicides and drug and alcohol overdoses are numerous. The Sexually transmitted diseases have also caused many problems like infertillity, life long diseases that can't be cured which cause sexual tensions with partners later on in life. Plus, lets not forget the deaths we can count due to other diseases. I have heard it said that one shouldn't complain when one gets splinters by going against the grain of God's will. In other words bad living and Sin has consequences. If we don't learn how to discipline our feelings and thought lives we are destined to ruin some aspect of our lives. I also want you guys to know that God is not a kill joy. He came to remind us of how much he loves us and how much He cares about us. He created us to be holy and enjoy most everything we desire. But he has an order for how we are to operate. And that order is called His perfect and good will. He created Sex. It is a very wonderful thing. It was meant to be shared in a covenant relationship between one man and one woman. It was made for the enjoyment and communion of the marriage as well as for pro creating other little bundles of joy. But I am getting ahead of myself here. Let me show you something about Jesus the King of Kings and Creator of everything according to the Holy Bible. In Matthew Chapter 4 the fallen angel named Lucifer came to tempt Jesus after He was baptized by John the Baptist. Jesus knowing his purpose on earth to save His people from their sins kept his focus, and this purpose was always on the forefront of His mind. He did not come here to get married and have children. He came to pay a price for our sin. But I do know when Jesus came He was tempted and He didn't give into the temptation and sin that was against the Law of God. When Satan came and tempted Jesus he tempted Jesus with things that were to be God's will for His life. Let's look at them. In Matthew 4:3 Jesus was tempted to make bread from stones so he could eat when he was starved. Jesus replied back to Satan that man shall not live by bread alone but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God. He didn't do a miracle just because he could to fulfill his desire. Then Satan took Jesus up to a high place in Matthew 4:5 & 6 and tempted Him to prove Himself to be the Son of God by saying "cast yourself down... God will send angels to save you." Jesus responded that No one should tempt the Lord God or put him to the test. In Matthew 4:8-10 the Devil took Jesus to a high Mountain and revealed all the Kingdoms of the world to Him and told Him if He would bow down to himself (the Devil) Jesus could rule them all right now. To which Jesus only reminded Lucifer that he should worship the Lord God and only Him should he worship. After that the Devil departed. I think Lucifer couldn't deceive Jesus as He did Adam and Eve and he gave up at this point. I bring this up to show you all something. Jesus did all these things He was tempted to do by the Devil. He made bread miraculously. He fed thousands with it. He was delivered from death and stonings from the Jews who sought to kill him before His time to die for the sin of the world. And He is the King of King and Lord of Lords, the Beginning and the End. The Creator of all of Creation. He has always been worshipped and will someday be worshipped completely in the New Heavens and New Earth after His return. And by his becoming human He purchased souls from sins penalty, which is God's wrath against sin and Eternal Punishment.
My point in this is to show you all that adult things are reserved for adulthood and made for our good when these things are properly done in accordance with God's will. Even the fruit of the vine (alcohol) has its boundaries. When anything is done outside of these boundaries it causes hurt and pain. Just ask my kids. I am not innocent in any of this. But that is why I have needed a great Saviour who would save me from God's perfect wrath. We all need this forgiveness. So in conclusion I am asking you guys to seek God's face and His wisdom so you guys can learn when it is God's time for doing the things He has created you for. If you don't you will inevitably do things the wrong way because there is a Tempter, The Worlds Ways, and the Lust of the Flesh. These are against you but God is for you. He wants you all to have a great life, even though there are many sacrifices to be lived out, and he wants you to have life abundantly. Sin will ultimately steal this from you and the Devil knows it. Be careful that your hearts are not pulled away from what is correct and good. Our actions and thoughts do have eternal consequences. Once done they can't be changed or taken back. We still bare the consequences of our sin. We can only repent from sinful choices. I really do care and love you kids. And hopefully I will always be here for you no matter what. In the good and the bad.
Mat 1:21 Mat 20:28 Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.
2Co 5:21 Joh 10:10
(Pro 4:20)
(Php 2:5) April 24 A Working Federal Vision Summary from a 1689erI am working on a very small summary of the Federal Vison from my perspective. So this is not the final summary but something I am working on. The main problem with the Federal Vision teaching for me is the distortion concerning the efficacy of the sacraments and soteriology. (ie. the covenants, baptism, and the Lord’s Table.) Not all FV people hold to the same view of sola fide. Some distort the view of sola fide but most problematic to me is that most of them deny some form or part of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness or they redefine it. To say it another way, the Federal Vision seems to redefine the view that Christ fulfilled the Covenant of Works which Adam failed to fulfill. They want to make the Covenant between Adam and God one of Grace and therefore a covenant that Adam became apostate from. In other words they make it easier to teach a Covenant member can fall from grace and become apostate. By doing this the Federal Vision proponents also make the Covenant of Grace a covenant that the New Covenant member can become apostate from. Thus the distorted teaching of efficacy in the sacraments and salvation. In the FV view, Baptism is salvific by bringing covenant children or any new Church member into the Covenant of Grace from which they can apostasize from. They make a running theme of Covenant cursing and blessing from Adam to the Apocalypse. The Federal Vision is more focused on Pastoral ministry through the means of grace in the sacraments and how the sacraments are effectual. The Theological implications are not discovered as easily as I have set them out here. I have read some things and had many discussions on this stuff to discover it. In my humble opinion the FV is not a Reformed Baptist Problem because we are not trying to justify any paedo doctrines concerning the sacraments. Hope I am making sense….
Here is what Douglas Wilson says about the Covenant of Works.
Furthermore, because the first covenant with Adam was a gracious covenant, coming from a gracious God, with the condition of the first covenant being the covenantal faithfulness of Adam, not merit, FV proponents suggest that believers should recognize the essential unity of the covenants from Adam through Christ. They are all basically the same with the same condition, covenant faithfulness. In addition, FV writers unanimously reject the concept of merit under the covenant of works: “God did not have an arrangement with Adam in the garden based on Adam’s possible merit. Everything good from God is grace. If Adam had passed the test, he would have done so by grace through faith". Douglas Wilson, “Beyond the Five Solas,” Credenda/Agenda 16/2:15
Here is what Dr. R. Scott Clark replied to me concernning my question about the Covenant of Works and the Federal Vision's (Steve Wilkin's) understanding of the prelapsarian view.
The classic Reformed folk tended to use the expressions "covenant of works" and "covenant of life" and "covenat of nature" (and the like) interchangeably.
Some links added 6/5/2007. Bible Presbyterian Church http://www.bpc.org/synod/2006/070_02.html Presbyterian Church of America http://pcaac.org/2007GeneralAssembly/Fed%20%20Vision%20Rept%20%205-11-07.pdf Mid America Reformed Seminary http://www.midamerica.edu/pubs/errors.pdf Orthodox Presbyerian Church Report http://opc.org/GA/justification.pdf Westminster Seminary California Statement http://69.59.173.95/faculty/wscwritings/testimonyjustification.php April 10 Leadership and HolinessJust a quote from J. I. Packer that will be relevant for generations.
More than a century and a half ago, the Scottish parish minsiter and revival preacher Robert Murray McCheyne declared: “My people’s greatest need is my personal holiness.” It seems clear that neither modern clergy nor their modern flocks would agree with McCheyne’s assessment. In the past when your church has appointed a calling committee to hunt for the next pastor, I am sure that a very adequate profile of required gifts has been drawn up, but how much emphasis has been laid on the crucial need to find a holy man? Shall I guess? Rediscovering Holiness pp. 33,34 March 21 The Four Temperments and HolinessHereis something J. I. Packer wrote that I tend to agree with. Hopefully it helps us see ourselves in light of how God wants us to be tempered.
Holiness Has to Do with My Temperment. By temperment I mean the factors that make specific ways of reacting and behaving natural to tme. To use psychologists' jargon, it is my temperment that inclines me to transact with my enviornment (situations, things, and people) in the way I usually do. Drawing on the full resources of this jargon, psychologist Gordon Allport defines temperament as "the characteristic phenomena of an individual's nature, including his susceptibility to emotional stimulation, his customary strength and speed of response, the quality of his prevailing mood, and all the peculiarities of fluctuation and intensity of mood, these being regarded as dependent on constituational make-up, and therefore largely hereditary in origin." Allport's statement is cumbersome but clear. Temperament, we might say, is marterial out of which character is formed. Character is what we do with our temperament. Personality is the final product, the distinct individuality that results. Temperaments are classified in various ways: positive and negative, easy and difficult, introverted and extroverted, outgoing and withdrawn, active and passive, giving and taking, sociable and forthcoming as distinct from manipulative and self-absorbed, shy and uninhibited, quick and slow to warm up, stiffly defiant as contrasted with flexibly acquiescent, and so on. While these classifications are useful in their place, perhaps the most useful of all, certainly to the pastoral leader, is the oldest one which Greek physicians had already worked out before the time of Christ. It distinguishes four human tempermants: The sanguine (warm, jolly, outgoing, relaxed, optimistic); The phlegmatic (cool, low-key, detached, unemotional, apathetic); The choleric (quick active, bustling, impatient, with a relatively short fuse); The melancholic (somber, pessimistic, inward-looking, inclined to cynicism and depression). It then acknowledges the reality of mixed types, such as the phlegmatic-melancholic and the sanguine-choleric, when features of two of the temperaments are found in the same person. In this way it covers everybody. The ancient beliefs about body fluids that supported this classification are nowadays dispelled, but the classification itself remains pastorally helpful. People do observably fall into these categories and recognizing them helps one to understand the temper and reactions of the person with whom one is dealing. The assertion that I now make, and must myself face, is that I am not to become (or remain) a victim of my tempearment. Each temperament has its own strengths and also its weaknesses. Sanguine people tend to live thoughtlessly and at random. Phlegmatic people tend to be remote and unfeeling, sluggish and unsympathetic. Choleric people tend to be quarrelsome, bad tempered, and poor team players. Melancholic people tend to see everything as bad and wrong and to deny that anything is ever really good and right. Yielding to my temperamental weaknesses is, of course, the most natural thing for me to do, and is therefore the hardest sort of sin for me to deal with and detect. But holy humanity, as I see it in Jesus Christ, combines in itself the strengths of all four temperaments without any of the weaknesses. Therefore, I must try to be like Him in this, and not indulge the particular behavioural flaws to which my temperament tempts me. Holiness for a person of sanguine temperament, then, will involve learning to look before one leaps, to think things through responsiibly, and to speak wisely rather than wildly. (These were among the lessons Peter liearned with the Spirit's help after Pentecost.) Holiness for a person of phlegmatic temperament will involve a willingness to be open with people, to feel with them and for them, to be forthcoming in relationships, and to become vulnerable, in the sense of risking being hurt. Holiness for a choleric person will involve practicing patience and self-control. It will mean redirecting one's anger and hostility toward Satan and sin, rather thatn toward fellow human beings who are obstructing what one regards as the way forward. (These were among the lessons Paul learned from the Lord after his conversion.) Finally, holiness for the melancholic person will involve learning to rejoice in God, to give up self-pity and proud pessimism, and to believe, with the medieval mystic Julian of Norwich, that through sovereign divine grace, "All shall be well and all shall be well, and all manner of things shall be well." /What are my temperamental weaknesses? If I am to be holy, as I am called to be, I must identify them (that is the hard part) and ask my Lord to enable me to form habits of rising above them. [Redicovering Holiness by J. I. Packer]pp24-26 March 06 Dr. James White on the Supposed Discovery of Jesus' TombMaking Lemonade Out of Lemons:
Using the Talpiot Tomb as a WitnessBy Dr. James White
Those with an interest in the subject of the resurrection have probably already seen the film, "The Lost Tomb of Jesus." It's been the topic of news articles, talk shows and water-cooler chats since it aired in early March. Christian apologists have been scrambling to correct the misinformation offered as fact in the film, but on a practical level, until the needed research and fact-checking is done, what is a Christian to do? Rather than hope no one will ask you what you think, I believe we should be on the offensive—without being offensive. Let's use this situation to God's glory and for the proclamation of the truth. Below I've offered some simple answers to questions your neighbors may be asking. Well, it sure looks like the experts have put a kink in your religion! Actually, just the opposite. Instead, we have yet another example of how those who oppose the resurrection of Christ are willing to manipulate facts just to get maximum impact. In reality, the main problem with the film and book is its sensationalistic bent that leads Jacobovici and Cameron, etc., to take otherwise interesting historical facts and twist them into an attempt to turn a regular Jewish tomb into the family tomb of Jesus. But they have DNA evidence! Yes, DNA evidence that conclusively proves that the tiny bone fragments recovered from ossuaries 80-500 and 80-503 came from people who were not related to one another maternally. Nothing more. They could have been related paternally, i.e., 80-503 could have been the father of 80-500 but the DNA evidence currently available cannot say much more than that. Finding people in a family tomb who are not maternally related is, of course, not unusual. In fact, it is normal. The assumption that Yeshua ben Yosef, if that inscription is being read correctly at all, was married to at least one of those whose bones were placed in ossuary 80-500 (there could have been more than one), is fanciful at best. Tell me, why do you think the authors of the book forgot to tell their readers about the paternal possibilities of relationship between these two ossuaries? But the name cluster stastitics prove this is the tomb of Jesus of Nazareth! Listen to what you just said! Jesus of Nazareth, not Jerusalem. At least 20 men would, using the same statistics, have lived in Jerusalem during that time period that had a father named Joseph and a brother named James. And guess what? All twenty or more of them died. And were buried. How many had ossuaries? Hard to say. We have found multiple attestations of the name Jesus in ossuaries from the time. The Talpiot tomb is nothing new. But Jesus wasn't from Jerusalem. He did not live there, nor would there be any reason to think that a multi-generational tomb would be owned there by someone from Nazareth, which is far to the north of Jerusalem. But beyond the fact that it is truly stretching it to assert that a poor man from Nazareth would have a rich tomb in Jerusalem . . . where he was crucified . . . and where his followers were persecuted by the Jewish leaders . . . who would have made the tomb the main-stay of their apologetic arguments against the growing Christian faith (nothing like showing off Jesus' tomb to end rumors of resurrection!), the fact is that the odds are high against any particular combination of names appearing in a single tomb in any one place. The chances that your father, with his first name, would choose to marry a woman with your mother's first name, are high; then, that two such named people would choose your name for a child, is likewise higher; now add in your siblings, and you are getting the number ever higher. Yet, families, with names, exist, in some of the oddest, and statistically improbable, combinations. But Christian scholars agree that the Mariamne in the tomb is Mary Magdalene! If "two or three" is the same as "Christian scholars," I guess so. But since the identification of "Mariamne" as Mary Magdalene is central to the entire theory, don't you find it rather odd that Jacobovici and his team overlooked the prevalence of the name and the source of it (Mariamne was the favorite wife of Herod—how many baby girls were named "Jackie" back in the 1960s?) in the contemporary records while running to a document written 1) at least three centuries later, probably four, 2) known in full only from a 14th century translation, 3) in a different language than that relevant to the ossuaries, 4) from a geographical location far removed from Jerusalem, 5) that itself never identifies Mariamne as Mary Magdalene (that is pure speculation on the part of Francois Bovon) and 6) that is utterly a-historical and mythical? Is this really how you do serious "investigation" and scholarship? Remember, this identification was the "insight" that "connected all the dots" for Jacobovici—and yet, it is the weakest link in the entire argument. But what about their argument that the Gospel of Thomas was written by Jesus' son Judah? That's one of the more humorous speculations of the book, actually. See, the Gospel of Thomas was written far, far from Jerusalem, in a different language, and it comes from a completely different worldview. Those who are not invested in selling books promoting the Gospel of Thomas recognize that it was written no earlier than about AD 165. So, if Judah was buried around AD 65, it was quite the trick for him to write a book a hundred years after he was buried, in a land far away, in a language he would have no reason to speak! This is just the beginning of how you might turn a skeptical inquiry into an opportunity to speak of the gospel. May God bless all of you who seek to be bold witnesses this day!
Copyright @ 2007 James R. White www.aomin.org Permission granted for not-for-profit reproduction in exact form. All other uses require written permission. February 21 Post Christian, Post Modern Era?I am still confused about what it means to be Post Modern and Post Christian. Post Modern sounds contradictory to me as does Neo Orthodoxy. And if the gates of Hell can't over come, then there will never be a Post Christian Era. Well at least that is wishful thinking. i.e. The Church at Ephesus is no longer present. (I don't think the gates of Hell will prevail. But the Church's light is quite dim in places it use to shine brightly) Some people claim there are no absolutes… even though everyone has absolutes. I think you know what I mean. They just are not the same from person to person. And that is why we all need the decalogue. The first command is the one broken most of all in my opinion. Especially since we all start off dead in sin and separated from God. (Exo 20:1) And God spake all these words, saying, (Exo 20:2) I am the LORD thy God…… (Exo 20:3) Thou shalt have no other gods before me. Just for added emphasis I will add this portion also……… It shows God was concerned about His people worshipping a false God. (Exo 34:12) Take heed to thyself, lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land whither thou goest, lest it be for a snare in the midst of thee: (Exo 34:13) But ye shall destroy their altars, break their images, and cut down their groves: (Exo 34:14) For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God: (Exo 34:15) Lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land, and they go a whoring after their gods, and do sacrifice unto their gods, and one call thee, and thou eat of his sacrifice; (Exo 34:16) And thou take of their daughters unto thy sons, and their daughters go a whoring after their gods, and make thy sons go a whoring after their gods.
I am concerned that the Church of Christ and myself are lagging in this area also. I struggle with it. It is hard to tell your neighbor that there is one God and if they worship a different god than Him they are going to Hell. That kind of conversation usually ends friendships. But I guess that is the problem. We want to be friends with the world. I know I struggle with this as well. It just may be the problem isn't that we are moving into a Post Christian era as much as we are turning away from doing and being what we ought to be….. Strangers and So-jouners in the world. One way to overcome this problem would be to honour God's decalogue and proclaim Truth and Grace as it is found in Christ our Saviour. Despite what era people think we are in there is something that hasn't changed. It is the charge we need to proclaim to the world. Sinners, Covenant Breakers, and all who fall short of the Glory of God, Flee from the Wrath to Come. Fall upon Christ for Mercy or He will fall upon you with His Wrath. Jehovah is a jeolous God.
(Isa 9:6) (Exo 3:13) (Joh 8:56) Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad. (Joh 8:57) Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? (Joh 8:58) Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. WHO IS YOUR GOD? February 20 Illegal Immigration and The Gospel Ministry.Illegal immigration is a very complicated problem, but one that many churches are having to start to address. I don't understand all the issues but defrauding illegal immigrants is not right. And this is something that is happening. Illegals defrauding the USA is not right but this is happening every time an illegal immigrant enters our country illegally. We also are having a very bad crime problem that is growing due to the illegal immigrants. Despiration and a depraved heart can cause a person to act as a violent animal acts. This situation is very bad.
But when a church finds an illegal immigrant on its door step how should we respond? I am not sure this applies to every situation but here is the example of St. Paul concerning one situation that might illuminate us.
Maybe we could glean from Paul concerning this situation.
Let's look at Onesimus. He was a fugitive of the law and his master. Paul knew Onesimus' Master. Onesimus was an unconverted runaway slave and thief when he ran into Paul. He was illegally at a destination that he was not suppose to be at. Philemon had every legal right to pursue Onesimus. Philemon and Paul where heirs of the Kingdom of Christ. Onesimus became one while with Paul. Did Paul send Onesimus right back to Philemon because he ran away from his master? I don't think so. Onesimus became useful to Paul. In fact Onesimus is probably responsible for the distribution of Paul's epistles all over Asia Minor. He also became a Bishop of the Church. So looking at Onesimus and Paul we can glean that there is room for mercy and growth. Onesimus was sent back to Philemon eventually and Paul pleaded for any damage Onesimus caused to be charged to himself. He said he would repay. But we also need to have in mind that Onesimus became profitable to Paul and the Church. Not all illegal immigrants are going to become profitable nor right recipients of mercy and grace.
This is not going to fit every situation. Illegal immigration is a very complicated problem. I imagine the church in its wisdom will be pleasing in some of its decisions and not so pleasing to the LORD in other decisions concerning this topic. Either way the Law is the law, mercy is mercy, but grace and truth are found in Christ. Christ's Kingdom is the Kingdom we all need to be citizens of. We don't want to be found illegal immigrants in that Kingdom when it is fully consumated in Him.
Read Pauls letter to Philemon in the New Testament. It is only 25 verses long.
(Phm 1:25) The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit. Amen. February 14 Adult Material because the word Pourn is not permissable on MSNHere is an article a friend of mine blogged. http://solascriptura76.spaces.live.com/ He is a chaplain in the Army. His words are very true and important for this generation I believe. His name is Ben Duncan. He is an ordained Presbyterian Chaplain for the Presbyterian Church of America in the United States Army. Here is his blog on Porn. I leave a few comments on the end of his blog. Something Wicked This Way Comes: The Perniciousness of "Adult Material"I probably should have said something about this subject earlier. However, I’ve been quite busy and the issue wasn’t on the forefront of my mind. But a recent counseling session served to remind me of the destructiveness of pornography. And it needs to be addressed.
The production and distribution of porn has gone through the roof in recent years. Those inside the walls of the church have not been able to escape its onslaught. Now, statistically speaking, approximately 20% of the women in Christian churches view porn on a regular basis. For men the percentage is horrifyingly high: approximately 50% of all men who call themselves "Christian" regularly view pornography. I don't want to bog this entry down with horrifying statistics, but if you're interested just do a Google search on the subject. The results may astonish you. This state of affairs is unacceptable. It is unacceptable that members of Christ’s visible body should present a veneer of holiness but in the quiet of their homes engage in behavior that fundamentally undermines the relationships between God and man, Christ and Church.
There are many reasons why porn is destructive, but ultimately one reason why it is wrong: God forbids it. We’ll come back to that… Unfortunately, in our day and age people are more concerned with the destructive aspect because that is where the consequences are acutely felt in the here and now. We don’t get all worked up about offending God, because we presume upon His forgiveness. We’re more worried about whether or not it’ll affect me temporally – as if violating God’s law has no long term consequences! We are fundamentally "person" centered, even in our understanding of sin. In fact, the Barna Research Group tells us that only 17% of "evangelical Christians" define sin as primarily an offense against God.
Why do people view porn? Because they love the darkness. To sinful beings, sin is fun. Fallen humanity’s one constant pursuit and passion is the suppression, rejection, and perversion of God’s will so as to attempt to live autonomously – “as gods”, as if we can ever escape our knowledge of, or dependence upon, God.
Pornography represents such an attempt for many reasons. Some are:
1. Pornography seeks to make perversion and deviancy appear normal. I do not here refer to the act of filming sex, per se, but to the specific type of sexual activities depicted by porn. Porn is a medium for altering perceptions about what constitutes legitimate sexual behavior. The axiom “A picture is worth a thousand words” is repeated because in an empirical age, “seeing is believing.” People come to accept as normal that which they see. This is why the local Afghani workers think that in America we’re all rich and drive fancy cars: that is what they see in movies. One expressed surprise when I told him that movies are not an accurate depiction of reality. So powerful is visual representation in altering our perceptions that Communist governments made sure that a television was in every house: if you control what people see, you control what they think. Porn conditions us to think that certain deviant practices are acceptable. This is unacceptable because our attitudes are only rightly formed by the Word of God.
2. Porn conditions us to be selfish lovers. This is one of the more immediately destructive tendencies of this genre of film. Everything about porn, from the camera angles, to the music, to the rhythm of the actors – EVERYTHING – is designed to lead towards self-gratification without any particular concern for the pleasure of the partner. It is all about getting and never about giving. I’ve seen these effects manifested as guys in the barracks would seek to “act like” their favorite porn star. Porn is a conduit for cheap thrills and quick release. If you let porn influence you then you will become a selfish, sorry lover. And I mean that: you will be a sorry lover. Your main concern in the bedroom will be the gratification of yourself. You may be willing to try the same freakish antics necessarily employed by porn producers in order to keep things from getting boring, and you may even confuse these antics with being exciting. But it is all a smoke screen: those things are done because the partners do not have the innate concern or desire to please each other. They just want to get, and if that involves some freakish act, so be it. 3. Porn leads us to believe that our sexuality belongs to ourselves, and that expressing it is a right. We think that the physical world exists for its own sake. But this is simply not true. The physical world is real and important, but there is a lot of typology and symbology at play in our world to point us to the things of God. Sex is one such thing. God gave us sex to depict the kind of closeness and compatibility that should exist between God and man, Christ and church, with both relationships existing in and by covenantal union. Thus, sex is only permissible within the covenantal relationship of marriage, which is itself a picture of God’s relationship with his people. Sex is like a living parable: when we engage in sex within a different context, we are creating a picture or image that stands in opposition to the one instituted by God. In short, when we engage in sex outside the covenantal relationship of marriage, we present a picture of a torn humanity seeking to replace closeness with God with the creativity of his own mind. This is why the language of Romans 1:24-26 is so shocking in the Greek: Paul is essentially saying that homosexuality is, itself, a judgment from God to depict in physical terms the spiritual counterfeit of mankind’s idolatry. But unnatural heterosexual relationships are just as vile in their depiction of man’s rebellion and defection from a right Creator/creature relationship with God. Contrary to the assumptions on which porn operates, sitting alone in one’s room attempting sexual self-gratification is not a legitimate venue for sexual expression because it does not convey the covenantal love and faithfulness of God towards his people. This is important because many of the folks who view porn would “never” (so they say) cheat on their spouse physically. But they think that indulging in self-gratification is permissible because, after all, they are not with another person… so (the argument goes) they are not being unfaithful. Hogwash! You are lusting after another woman which, according to Jesus is of the same essence as adultery. You who think that you’re being faithful even as you seek sexual arousal and gratification from thoughts or images of another woman: Jesus is saying that YOU are a faithless covenant breaker just as is the one who seeks such gratification with the woman herself. Your sexuality belongs to your wife. And only your wife. Your wife’s sexuality belongs to you. And only to you. You are not the legitimate master of your own sexuality... your spouse is! This informs the basis of Paul’s command that we not deny our spouse our bodies as well as the Old Testament injunction that a husband had a sexual obligation to his wife. Your body is not your own and you are not permitted to express sexuality in any context other than with your spouse because any other expression constitutes a depiction of idolatry, which is in fact an act of idolatry. 4. Porn encourages us to give in to our base passions. People like sex. I know I do! People like feeling the sensation of orgasm. I know I do! But the problem arises when they give in to these desires and seek to live them out like mindless beasts. Beasts follow their instincts, hormones, appetites, etc… without any rational thought or self restraint. This is why during the rut (mating season) deer are killed along the road with much greater frequency: they’re so worried about sowing their oats that they cast off the caution which normally governs their actions. Acting like animals is BAD because we are NOT animals. We were created in God’s image to govern this world. One of the chief tools God has given us by which we carry out our task is our MIND. It is our mind, not physical strength, agility, or prowess, which enables us to create things to survive and thrive. What porn does is make sexual gratification easy to attain. And mindless beasts are ensnared because they just want what comes easy. It conditions you to adopt a mindset of instant gratification and this spills over into other facets of life. You end up simply pursuing your own interests, your own good, because you’ve been conditioned to live like an animal. It happens all the time. People routinely lose their family because they get “addicted” to porn and this attitude of easy self-gratification spills over and they start using people for that end, stop serving others, etc… and pretty soon, they’ve pushed everyone away. Live like an animal and you’re good for little else than to be hunted and killed like one. You are not an animal, you’re a person. Be conformed to the will of God and bring your physical passions under control. 5. Porn entices us to seek to escape from reality. The world of porn is pretend. We are invited to enter this fantasy world, if only for just a few minutes, to have a little fun and feel the titillating excitement of sex… all within the comfort of our own home. “Never mind your spouse,” it says, “you aren’t hurting her… and besides, these ladies look so good!” “When things get rough, come enjoy yourself… don’t worry about working through your problems… here… let me offer you a little diversion.” “Come here, good sir… your wife is a dud. She isn’t meeting your needs and she won’t change… so don’t mind her… just come to me and I’ll show you what you need…” Such are the alluring words of porn to the undiscerning. And once we give in, once we begin to follow our base passions and begin to think that we are the masters of our own sexuality, our problems mount and we continue to seek the escape. We eventually become trapped as we allow the sexual gratification we get from porn to become our anesthesia to help us avoid the stress and pain of our miserable existence. But reality doesn’t stop just because we try to escape it. Your problems will mount, your relationships will not heal themselves… you will eventually plunge headlong into the destruction that has caught hundreds of thousands of surprised men off guard. And you will weep for a chance to redo your life, but another chance won’t come. The escape that porn offers is a deadly lie. Eventually her warm soft embrace will become a stranglehold. Flee it at all cost!
These five reasons alone should compel us to denounce porn in every possible venue – especially in our churches. But the chief reason porn must be repudiated, and why Christians must be warned, is because pornography is a violation of God’s holy law. By viewing porn we violate the 7th Commandment, “Do not commit adultery” (because as we have seen, Jesus declares that the 7th Commandment rightly includes the internal acts of lusting as part and parcel of the physical act). Additionally, we violate the 10th Commandment in that we express dissatisfaction with our own life and circumstances while wishing to have another wife, life, or circumstance…
Please do not presume upon the mercy of God. Do you really think that the Judge of the world is fooled when you say with your lips “Lord, I love you” but then willfully and unrepentantly continue to live as a pagan? Do you really think that you can turn God’s grace into license with impunity? God knows the difference between us saying “Please forgive me” and us meaning “Please forgive me.” The New Testament is replete with warnings to Christians – to members of the New Testament Church – of the judgment that will await them if they fall away. We are to pursue the holiness without which no one will see God. We are reminded of the horrible judgment that befell the Israelites after experiencing salvation from Egypt… We are warned of the wrath to be endured by the one who has “trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace.” After declaring the words of God that “Vengeance is mine,” the writer to the Hebrews declares: “It is a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the living God.”
I beg you: for the good of your family… for the good of your life… for the good of your soul... repent of your desire for porn, flee it, turn to the cross and seek forgiveness. Trust in Christ alone for your standing before God, knowing that the Spirit we are given will change our desires and behavior to bring us into an ever increasing conformity with God’s will. God is good. He will do it.
Until later,
Ben
Ditto's Ben,
I would only add that Porn is a symptom of a poor thought life and heart attitude problem. I don't know of a single man who has not had this struggle. Women have the problem to btw. But a man should never counsel a woman in this situation. Let the older women teach the younger women, it says. If any man says he doesn't struggle with this problem, he is lying or has a physical limitation as old age and medicines can cause a lack of drive. But even those situations don't change the thought process that is an abomination to God.
Long before I was introduced to adult material I was battling with the desire to be loved by a girl in a sensual way. I was very young when this happened. I have seen this struggle in all of my three boys. I use the wisdom of Solomon to advise my kids against it now. DON'T AWAKEN LOVE BEFORE ITS TIME. This desire to be intimate before its time is the beginning of the process of bad thinking. The Pursuit of Relationships that are inordinate are part of our idolatry in life. It awakens other desires that just flow in a naturally fallen world.
When I was 18 I became a Christian while I was in the Navy. All of a sudden I sensed that this kind of material was degrading to humanity and defiling before God. I always have experienced shame and guilty feelings since my conversion if I saw nudity. At the same time I also struggled with the desire for them, whether they were in R movies or pin ups in a barracks. So Like Job I sensed that I needed to make a covenant with my eyes not to look upon a maiden. (Job 31:1) I also learned that I needed to guard my heart and mind as Proverbs 4:23 states. I also needed a daily realignment with God and his word. If we do not abide in His word we can not have a renewed mind.
I am grateful for 1 John 1:9. I have learned to speak and think about sin as God has. He has cleansed me from my sin because of the broken and contrite heart he gave me. I received this broken heart because of Him and His word. Psalm 19:7 says, "The Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul; the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple. I don't believe anyone can have any understanding about this sin unless they are renewed, converted, and revived daily by God and His word.
It is the same with any sin. We would all do well to do what 2 Corinthians 10:4,5 says. Bring every thought captive in Christ. Especially since every word and thought are going to be judged.
Be Encouraged,
Prayers are offered up on your behalf.
Happy VD.... February 07 Is there a Covenant of Works?This is a discussion concerning the Covenant of Works between Gene M. Bridges and someone who denies the Covenant of Works. I copied it and asked Gene if I could use it to discuss the Covenant of Works with others. I believe he does a splendid job of illuminating some interesting facts and backs up his belief with sufficient evidence in my opinion.
The NCOW identification is placed to identify the person’s comments who doesn’t believe in a Pre Fall Covenant.
The COW identification is Gene’s response who believes there is a pre-fall Covenant between Adam and God.
Gene Bridges on the Covenant of Works
NCOW
I'll expand this further, but this cannot be a covenant for the simple reason Adam had no choice. There is no acquiescing to a covenantal arrangement (e.g. Ex 24:7). This is God making a declaration of the natural order in the world. This is God saying “this is the ways things are.”
COWA. Covenants of Grant in particular require no concept of parties in mutual agreement with each side making more or less equal contributions, where one "acquiesces" to the other. God's covenants are sovereignly bestowed. A one-sided law can become a berith because of a religious sanction. It would seem to me that you're hiding behind stipulative definitions here. Why not mount an internal critique of the concept?
B. God's covenant with Noah in chapter 9 fits this same description you give, and here we have a named covenant. There are no stipulations and it too is imposed, and he has no choice. Do you deny that there is a covenant in chapter 9 of Genesis? What about Abraham? That was imposed too.
C. Then by your own yardstick, there is no New Covenant. To start with, the Covenant of Grace emanates from God's side, not ours anyway. Regeneration is monergistic and we repent and believe as a response but it is a response secured by grace; the covenant is imposed upon us and we do not, strictly speaking "have a choice." Predestination itself undercuts your objection. The covenant form between king and vassal allows for a covenant to be imposed this way, when one is the vice regent of the other. What's more, Adam certainly does "acquiesce", since he names animals and does not fall away immediately. What's more he calls the woman his wife, anticipating that he will obey the cultural mandate to be fruitful and multiply.
NCOW
There is nothing about “eternal life” and nothing about “probation” these are inferences you are reading into the text to obtain the desired result.
COW
False and here's why:
A. Audience: These statements are recorded in a book. The book operates at two levels. There’s the historical level of the original events and speeches. And there’s also the narrative level of the authorial viewpoint, after the fact. The author is writing with a target audience in mind. Genesis is addressed to a Hebrew audience and written by Moses. They would bring a cultural preunderstanding to the text. We must also assume the role of those hearers/readers. Even if we assign a later date, which I deny, but if we do, then this only amplifies that understanding.
B The Theme of Inheritance: "Who will inherit the earth God created and why?" is hovering in the background of the whole Bible (the answer is "the covenant people," / "the sons of God"). Moses is writing to a people poised to enter the promised land. Why is the land theirs? Because God has a covenant with them, going all the way back to Adam. Adam is not just the father of all people, but the father Seth, who fathered Enoch..Noah...Shem...Terah.. .Abraham...Isaac...Jacob...the sons of Jacob (and the 2 of Joseph)...the recipients of the book. This presumes a covenant relation going back to creation, because the geneaologies retell redemptive history, which presumes a covenant to underwrite it It isn't just redemptive history, this is their history, the history of God's covenant people. Likewise why do believers as a whole "inherit the earth?" Because Christ is the Second Adam, and we find that He succeeded where Adam failed. This presumes a covenant relation in eternity among the Godhead and the breaking of a covenant by the first Adam, and gets us to imputation issues in Romans 5, for example.
C. Tabernacle Imagery: Note once again the environment. The Garden of Eden itself is structured in a manner that reflects the 3 tiered structure of creation but this is also carried forward in the minds of the readers to the Ark of Noah and then Tabernacle. Cf. G. Beale, The Temple and the Church's Mission (IVP, 2004) (I would add that this too is reflective of the Trinity as well).
Now, let's widen this out a bit more. Let's start with the flood and move back and then move forward to the Tabernacle and Trinity. In the flood account we have a triple-decker ark with a window and a roof (6:16; 8:6,13). The animals occupy different decks. During the deluge the ark has water above (rain) and below (floodwaters). Now, let's compare this to the world. In the creation account, the world has windows (7:11) and a roof (1:6-8; 14-16). It has water above and below (1:2,7). The world has three decks: sky, earth, water (cf. Exod 20:4). Animals occupy different "decks." Now, let's compare this to the Garden. It is in the world, surrounded by the rivers (waters), in Eden there is a garden (earth) and in the center (sky) are the two trees, one to life or death. Now, let's compare this to the Tabernacle. We have the camp surrounding it. It is set at the center of the camp (earth/the world), there is a court (Eden) with a laver (water, the rivers), a Holy Place with bread and light (earth/the garden) and a most holy place where God dwells (sky/the center of the garden) with the mercy seat (the tree of life/God's mercy) over the Ark of the Covenant containing the Law, staff of Moses, and manna (the tree of knowledge/God's justice).
This is even more explicit by the time we get to the construction of the Temple and the way it was decorated as well as structured. The point here is that man and God are together in the Tabernacle and with the "mercy seat" (the tree of life) and the ark of the covenant (the contents, the Law, the staff, the manna) represented by the tree of knowledge of good and evil. (In fact, it is because the first couple break the Law that they are cast out and that the Law was given in Moses day to reveal sin). This assumes, from the standpoint of the original recipients of the book, that they are engaging in a covenant relationship. This is no mere inference. This is the structure of the images themselves. So the setting of Gen. 2 itself is the place, the tent of meeting, where God began His covenant relation with the covenant people and met with them. Indeed God is pictured as walking in the Garden looking for Adam suggesting that he and Adam met in the Garden, and they certainly fellowshipped there before the Fall.
Now let's add the Trinity. We have the Spirit (hovering over the waters/water/Eden/the Courtyard), the Son (the Word that created, the Word of Wisdom, the Incarnate Word/The Holy Place where both God and man can meet w/o man being destroyed, in addition Christ is the High Priest who can see God face to face, and finally at the center, we have the Father (sky/the center of the Garden/The Most Holy Place) and His justice and mercy (the two trees/the mercy seat & Ark/His throne...all of which in the New Covenant include Christ's intercession and/through the blood of Christ taking away our sins by satisfying God's justice and giving grounds for His mercy for His covenant people). The entire plan of salvation is about God including us in a relationship with Himself, thereby participating in life forever with the Trinity. Indeed the way to the tree of life is open again at the end of Revelation and the tree of life reappears and we are in the "New Eden, "where there is no curse, there is only life, we have rivers here too, and we have God's throne, fellowship with God, eternal bliss with Him! This is the culmination of the covenant.
If that wasn't enough, you have more than that. You also have the image of an altar and a house, which evokes the concept of covenant as well. The Bible pictures the earth as a house, cf. Job 38:4-6. Moreover, the Bible pictures the earth as an altar, with four corners, cf. Revelation 7:1; 9:13-21. All of this goes back to the Garden of Eden, which had four rivers flowing out of it to water the whole earth, headed for the "four corners." The word for ‘corner’ in Hebrew is kanaf, literally ‘wings.’ The cherubim have four wings (Ezekiel 1). The garment worn by each Hebrew male was to have four wings or corners, so that his garment was analogous to a house or tent that he carried with him at all times (Numbers 15:38; Deuteronomy 22:12; Haggai 2:12). This gives us is a series of analogous models: The Garden of Eden is like a house, and they are like an altar, and they are analogous to the human person (who is the temple of the Spirit), etc...all of which evoke the concept of covenant relation.
In addition to the "housing" metaphor there is the figuration of the cosmic "tent." This sets up an intentional parallel involving the tabernacle as a microcosm of the cosmos, which is patterned by Eden in the world before the Fall, and thus we're back to the Garden as the tent of meeting for mankind and God before the Fall. Noah in the curse of Genesis 9’s conclusion mentions the tent of Shem, and he had the ark itself as his tent of meeting with God. Moreover, David anticipated the building of the Temple, this prompts the Davidic covenant. Abraham’s dream in Gen. 15 becomes its own tent of meeting, and then God’s visit with Abraham in Gen. 18 is an event of meeting under the tree, telling us that, in fact, the entire land was the tent of meeting for God and the Patriarchs. Abraham will even be told sacrifice Isaac on what will be the Temple Mount. In the New Covenant the Spirit dwells in the church as God’s temple and we anticipate the New Jerusalem with a new Temple.
Thus, where there is a tent of meeting/temple, there is a covenant underwriting it. It would not make sense to divorce these tabernacle images from the concept of the covenant yet unite them to covenants elsewhere. All of this points toward God and His covenants in this text as well, because of the typology of the Garden as the tent of meeting. Thus there is every reason, based on this alone, to read this as a covenant in this part of Genesis. It would not make sense to place Adam in a "tent of meeting" (indeed being a living soul in a body is another type of "tent" in which we meet God through the Holy Spirit's work today), e.g. Eden, without a covenant underwriting their relationship, especially given the audience.
D. Structure: The covenant includes a stipulation and sanctions. A negative presupposes a positive. But that is not the ground for asserting that there is a promise of life here, because the only tree prohibited for eating is the tree of knowledge. The tree of life is not prohibited until after the fall. They are cut off from the "sacramental" source of life, but they had access to it beforehand. The sanction, death for eating the tree of knowledge presupposes a promise, bliss, the state in which they were already living, and in which, it would seem from 3:24, they could have continued had they eaten from that tree and not the other.
We also have in this text a preamble, parties, as well as stipulations, and sanctions. This is all in the context of a relationship between God and man. That's all we need. If we consider the wider scope inclusive of the "New Eden" there's the promise of life there, so why would this not reflect a promise of life in this text? We should not expect an explicit promise of eternal life here if probation is also here, because they fellowshipped with God and were already living. God is the God of the living. Such would fail to distinguish between that life they had naturally and that eternal life which would come if they passed their probation.
The absence can be accounted for on three bases (a) in the immediate situation, their walk was so close with God and their nature of innocence such that there need be no promise, because they enter the narrative already on that trajectory toward life by nature; and (b) the author's purpose is to contrast this trajectory with the actual trajectory, to their sin, so (c) the relation between this text in Gen. 2 is to the nature and purpose of the Law spoken at Sinai, to govern the nation and to reveal sin and administer grace after sin is revealed--here grace is in the background through the tree of life, and that Law does include ceremonial law to underwrite mercy and grace to men, but the need for that is not yet present. It is lurking in the background in that there is a second tree, which is analogous to the mercy seat in the Holy of Holies, where the blood would be poured out later in history with a promise of life for God’s people. The tree of knowledge is in the foreground here right now. Ergo the moniker "Covenant of Works."
As to "probation" the very term "knowledge of good and evil" suggests maturity and growth. God had them in the Garden and the tree of life and the tree of knowledge were the instruments that would lead them and would stand as a testimony either for or against them, just as the OT Law would lead Israel, and the Law, through being written on our hearts leads us. By being cut off from the tree of life after the Fall, we can see that not only was the contrast between good and evil impressed upon them as very stark indeed, but they are cut off from the tree of life itself. They cannot work their way back into God's presence and fellowship on their own (total inability). Thus we have a judgment based on their violation of a covenant.
E. Sacrifices and Signs: Other covenants between God and man have sacrifices and sacramental signs besides the tabernacle/tent of meeting/Temple. The New has the work of Christ and then the ordinances. The Davidic is an extension of the Old and the Abrahamic, but it has the seed culminating in Christ, who is the outward sacramental sign (He is the water and bread of life) and the ultimate once for all sacrifice for sin (Hebrews). The Old has circumcision (from Abrahamic) and the sacrifices and the Ark of the Covenant. The Abrahamic has circumcision and sacrifice. The Noahic has sacrifice and the rainbow. The Adamic has the clothing from animals killed by God, the naming of Eve, mother of all living, anticipating children and “the seed.”. This one pre-Fall has no sacrifices (they are unnecessary) but a sacramental sign, the tree of life and the tree of knowledge would be eaten so it becomes the reason we require sacrifices.
F. Lawsuit presumes covenant: We know a covenant was here because God comes looking for them after they eat the fruit. He comes and judges them. He also asks them questions prior to rendering a verdict and He gives them time to respond. He's bringing a lawsuit and this is the typical procedure in a covenant lawsuit under the Law. This presumes a law was broken, and this in turn presumes a covenant, because the Law supplies the supporting material for the covenant lawsuit (Isaiah-Malachi), returning an indictment against Israel while pointing towards the final redemption, and through Jesus, God the Son incarnated as man now comes Himself just as God came in the Garden.
In fact, His ministry often puts Him in the position of examining Israel's leaders with questions. In the Passion Week, He recapitulates the role of God in the Garden, by entering the Temple and, though they believe they are examining Christ, He examines the religious leaders, brings the final phase of the lawsuit, and pronounces His judgment, and ultimately the Old Covenant terminates into the New. "The world" has already been judged according to John (John 3), He comes to examine the covenant people, since they are His representatives to the world, and in the end He goes to their representatives before God, the religious leaders, after walking among the people, ministering, and yet examining them and finding them unbelieving (John 6 for example). In the same way, we have Satan here as the serpent, already fallen and judged, then Eve is interviewed, then last Adam her head who represented her and us before God.
Lawsuits by God against man presuppose a covenant has been violated.
G. A Tempter: Then there's the snake. This can be related to the Balaam narrative, where Balaam comes tempting the covenant people. The name of the Tempter is a pun: the word for "snake" (Heb.=nahas) in Gen 3:1 is from the same root word used by Balaam to put a hex (Heb.=nahas) on Israel (Num 23:23; 24:1). The angel who opposes Balaam is named "Satan" (22:22). The same sword-drawn angel (22:23) recalls the cherubim who guard the Garden (Gen 3:24). The brazen snake (Num 21:9), as well as the "fiery serpents" (21:6,8) or "seraph-serpents" (another double entendre), recalls the Temper (Gen 3:1) and the fiery cherubim (3:24). The talking donkey recalls the talking snake (3:1ff.). And an imprecatory theme is common to both accounts. In terms of other intertextual relations, the fiery angelology connects Gen 3:24 with the Angel of the Lord [Exod 3:2; 14:19], while the angelic sentinel connects Gen 3:24 with the tabernacle [Exod 25:18-20; 26:1,31; 36:8,35; 37:6-7]. And Ezk 28 picks up on all these motifs, viz., Eden, apostasy, guardian angel, stones of fire. Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, etc. all share the same audience. The Tempter remains to threaten the seed many times culminating in the Temptation in the Garden, the crucifixion, and then his activity in the world up to the present day. He also comes to tempt the covenant people to apostatize.
All of this is done in this narrative and in the parallel narratives, in order to tempt those in the covenant to apostatize from the covenant. Why such similarities? To draw attention to the historical correspondence between the apostasy of Adam and Eve in the Garden, and the apostasy of Israel in the wilderness. Israel recapitulates the Fall, for, like the First Parents, they were on probation too. Such activity presupposes a covenant to tell the reader that the tempter designed to invoke apostasy by the First Parents that day. Apostasy presupposes a covenant relationship exists in order to have something from which to apostatize. This element remains until he is cast into the Lake of Fire once and for all.
None of this is an exegetical stretch, for, given the common authorship of the Pentateuch, it is not surprising that Moses has woven a number of literal and literary analogies into one theological tapestry. Underlying these interpretations is the principle of typology, in which one historical event foreshadows another, or even a number of events—like a row of dominoes—until the final domino falls flat. So the NT isn't reading anything into Gen 3 and neither am I or others here when we say that the preponderance of the evidence here favors this being a covenant. The question is not whether or not a covenant exists, but what the nature of that covenant is.
NCOW
Also, where is there “probation” in any other named covenant?
COW
This is not an administration of the covenant of grace . You're making a category error to assume that every covenant is like another in every way. The existence of probation in a covenant is not necessary to constitute a covenant but it certainly can indicate a covenant is present. However, we assert it is probationary in that it anticipates something greater. The named covenants, even Noah's, anticipate something greater to come (notice that the cycles of nature repeat as long as earth remains). The Abrahamic anticipates the Old, the Davidic, and the New, and the Davidic links the Old and the New, thus anticipating the New. What's more, the Old Covenant with Israel is multi-generational and it anticipates the New Covenant itself. As such it is "probationary" because it is anticipatory of the final covenant, the New Covenant. In addition to this, the Exodus generation recapitulates Adam's fall. They do it again at the time of the Exile. In fact, the entire nation recapitulates Adam, the days of Noah, and the Exodus generation again at the Exile. And then the generation of the first century does so yet again when they reject Christ, getting us to the New Covenant. You could even infer the New is probationary in that sense in that it anticipates completion in the eschaton.
What's more, they each underwrite the basis of a lawsuit (see above), so men are on "probation" while God watches and examines them whether it be here or in the covenant of grace. We persevere in the covenant of grace by grace, that's why we survive the probation.
NCOW
I’m also not sure what the idea of the “cultural mandate” has to do with anything.
COW
Genesis 1:18 - 30 and 2:16 - 17 go together the way 12: 1 - 3, 15, and 17: 1- 22 do. The command to be fruitful and multiply of our own kind is part of the narrative unit and thus inclusive of the command structure and iteration of the covenant here. The cultural mandate is also reiterated in Gen. 9. I would add that all of the administrations/covenants involve this element, including the New, and let's not forget the New is the exemplar for the Old in particular and by extension the Covenant of Grace itself.
Notice that the pre-Fall covenant or at least condition includes this mandate. This is repeated in the Adamic covenant of grace, when he names his wive "Ava," mother of all living, in response to the protoevangelion and it is even assumed in the curse regarding childbearing. It is repeated to Noah in Gen. 9. At the end of Gen. 9, in the curse on Ham, Noah applies this element of the Noahic covenant in prophesying that Yahve will have a people, Shem, with a tent that in which Japheth will dwell, and Ham will also serve. This anticipates the next administrations of the Covenant of Grace. Abraham was promised a seed and that God would make him into "many nations." This covenant anticipates the Davidic (17:6), and the Davidic (I Sam. 7, 2 Sam. 23) protects the seed of the protoevangelion (Gen. 3), terminating its fulfillment in the Lord Jesus (Mt. 1). The Old Covenant includes a command about parents and children in the Decalogue itself and stipulations involving children and not cutting off the a family line unless there was no other resort, and is generally directed toward the governing and growth of the nation of Israel (among many things), all of which presume the cultural mandate--most especially the command to enter the land and subdue it and live on it. Even the New Covenant, we are told to be fruitful and multiply in that we are commanded to go into all the world and make disciples, etc. (Mt.28, Acts 1), and even in church discipline, we are not to cut off a whole "family line" except as a last resort, and this continues until Christ returns for us. Even the Covenant of Redemption between the Members of the Godhead includes its own agreement to be fruitful and multiply, for this grounds the aim of election, the Incarnation, the atonement & intercession, and the application of redemption, and it results in the effectual calling and constitution of a people in the image of Christ, who Himself is the image of God, thus after God's own kind. So, in both creation and redemption, our God is carrying out His personal decision for Himself to be fruitful and multiply. Ergo, the very presence of the cultural mandate to be fruitful and multiply in each of these administrations (or, if you prefer, separate covenants on a dispensational view) is positive evidence for a pre-Fall covenant, as it appears as an element in them all. Where that mandate is iterated, we have a covenant.
NCOW
If the Hebrew word for “covenant” was present the case would be a lot stronger.
COW
And my point was that this objection clearly commits the word-concept fallacy That’s like saying that if the word for “Trinity” was present the case for it would be much stronger.
Again, the preponderance of evidence that there is a pre-Fall covenant, by looking at the elements in the named covenants and simply asking ourselves if they are here too. They most certainly are here. It has known many names in historical theology, but it nevertheless there. In denying there is a covenant here you are in effect saying:
There is no covenant, where there is a basic form in the others.
There is no covenant from which to apostatize, but a tempter to tempt them to apostasy, but one in the others.
There is no covenant here where there is an outward sign (one of which points to a coming sacrifice), but these are in the others.
There is no covenant here where there is an inheritance concept, but that concept is in the others.
There is no covenant here where there is a tabernacle/tent of meeting, though there is one is the others.
There is no covenant here where there is a cultural mandate though it is in the others.
There is no covenant here where there is a lawsuit, though covenants underwrite the others..
NCOWI want to know what Adam knew at the time, not what Moses readers could (if they actually did this) read back into the account 1,000 yrs later.
COWThe text about the fall was written 1000 years after the fact to a specific audience, so we MUST discern how it would have been understood by them. This is basic exegetical method. It does not self-select for CT, NCT, or Dispensationalism. You cannot separate "what Adam knew at that time" from the time at which it was revealed and written down and received as if the twain shall never meet. Appealing to the hortatory nature of the text only makes this more certain. It was written to be read to the people, so it was written with their understanding in mind. NCOW I also don’t find the “God bringing a lawsuit” motif to be persuasive at any level. COWExcept that what we find here is identical and paradigmatic for every covenant lawsuit brought under each covenant. God comes, observes, examines, interviews, and pronounces a verdict. He does this either Himself or through a prophet/mediator. All the lawsuits in the OT and Jesus' own in the NT follow this same form. This presupposes a covenant relation. To accept that formula elsewhere but not here is massively inconsistent. NCOW I agree with O. Palmer Robertson at this point on the pre-creation covenants that it “extends the bounds of scriptural evidence beyond propriety.” COWA. There is only one "pre-creation" covenant, and that would be within the Godhead with respect to the Covenant of Redemption. Here, in this thread, we're discussing the Covenant of Works, a pre-fall covenant. Robertson rejects this, but he nevertheless maintains the substance of it through his discussion of the execution of the decrees related to man's redemption. This rejection has to do with his definition of a covenant including blood, cursing and blessings, and sovereign administration and his belief that this does not delineate the fellowship of the Godhead sufficiently (it exceeds, obviously, the traditional application of the covenant of redemption). Ergo, like his view that the "covenant of works" nomenclature does not sufficiently capture the nature of the pre-fall covenant between God and man, he does not believe the nomenclature "covenant of redemption" is adequate to capture the nature of the inter-Trinitarian relations. This is not a denial of a pre-creation covenant between the Three In One, rather it is a denial that the traditional idea ascribed to the covenant of redemption in Reformed nomenclature sufficiently captures what we find in Scripture. As such, it is more than a covenant. The traditional idea here, because it is an expression of the decrees themselves would not be a framework for fellowship among the parties of the Trinity in and of itself.
As to Robertson's view here, I see a number of problems. "Blood" is involved because the covenant of redemption involves the securing of the atonement through Incarnation and then propitiatory sacrifice. There is cursing and blessing in that we have reprobation and election in this covenant, and what's more the covenant itself serves as a testimony against God should He fail. His has no ability to fail, because He can swear by nothing higher than Himself. God blesses the Son through the resurrection. The Son blesses the Father by placing all things under Him. We have sovereign administration where the Father sends the Son, the Son does the will of the Father, and the Sprit applies redemption. What's more, the Son acts as the Father's regent both in heaven and in the eschaton on earth, and the Spirit's work underwrites it all. Robertson says such a decree would not be a framework for fellowship among the parties of the Trinity, but rather it would be a plan in eternity for man's redemption. The problem here is that this overlooks the fellowship which underwrites the plan for redemption. This plan structures that fellowship once the decree to create is undertaken (sublapsarian) or that to elect and reprobate (supralapsarian) is undertaken. However, it is certain he would agree to a variation of "economy of salvation" or "pactum salutis." The decree of redemption is in effect a covenant, one God in three persons agreeing in the decree, that the second Person, God the Son, should be incarnate, and give obedience and satisfaction to divine justice for the elect: unto which piece of service the Son willingly submitting Himself, the decree becometh a real covenant indeed. (Dickenson)
B. Respectfully, Dennis you don't agree with Robertson, because Robertson does not argue that there is no pre-fall covenant. Rather, he is arguing the limitations of certain terms like "Covenant of Works." He favors "Covenant of Creation" like the Klinians, and his nomenclature for "Covenant of Grace" is "Covenant of Redemption." He argues effectively for the application of the term "covenant" to divine-human relationships not called covenants in the specific passages where they are instituted.Your objection has to do with the existence of a covenant, not simply its nature. As I pointed out, the question here is not whether or not one exists, but what the nature of it is, which is exactly what Robertson is addressing. . Chapter 5 of Christ of the Covenants is devoted to the discussion of the covenant of creation, the order of marriage, the Sabbath, the meaning of labor, etc. Robertson's view of the covenants here is broader than the concept of the Covenant of Works in its more traditional expressions. It is inclusive of the traditional application of the concept, but it extends into more, reminding us that the other covenants, which are depicted as re-creative acts of God, point us to the extension of God's program of redemption consequent to the break of the Covenant of Creation into every sphere of human existence NCOWAs I previously said, Dispensationalism and Covent Theology are systems of hermeneutics and they are antithetical to one another. COWI did not invoke a "covenantal hermeneutic." I merely lined up the named covenants, looked at the elements of each, and then asked if those elements were present in this text. What's more Beale only confirmed what I had studied on my own already apart from any classes in CT (I have only ever taken one anyway) or books on CT. This isn't a "CT" hermeneutic in that I came to these conclusions on my own long before I was exposed to covenant theology, and I had no predisposition to it, as I grew up, like many in a dispensational church, and in point of fact, was taught dispensational hermeneutics in the Christian school I attended. In fact, you don't have to hold to CT to see these elements. Clearly they are there. I could have discussed more including labor, Sabbath, et.al. That's not simply inference, that's standard exegetical method when you have parallel texts. We do in Kings and Chronicles, the Gospels, John and 1 John, and Ephesians and Colossians all the time. The standard way CT determines this is based on working back from Romans 5 and its relation to the New Covenant and from Hosea 6:7, which I intentionally avoided.
Your original objection to this had to do with the word not being present. That's the word-concept fallacy. Then you added another caveat, that there is no choice involved, but predestination itself undercuts that. When God condescends to enter into a covenant, the party with whom God enters into such a covenant cannot refuse the terms, or propose terms to God; for all God's terms are consistent with His holiness. You don't have to hold to CT to believe this much.
Final thoughts from Gene…..
You can test for the Covenant of Works by looking at the instructions given to man in each covenant. Clearly, they are repeated from the Covenant of Works. For example, "Be fruitful and multiply," is the gist of the Great Commission in the New Covenant.
Also, there's another way, by looking at the Law itself. There's a line in the SLC about the same law of Moses being in the Garden. When considering this, this line of argument can be very persuasive, for, if the Law was there, the Law presupposes a Covenant.
So, did Adam break the whole Decalogue? Yes.
God told Adam they would die if they did this. Adam "murdered" Eve and all of us. We are "dead" in sins because of him. We die physically because of him.
January 10 Are Distinctives in Biblical Doctrine Important For ChurchesHere is a statement a blogger made that I really had a struggle with. I really have no desire for ***** Baptist Church to be known as "Southern Baptist" or "Reformed." Rather, I would love for us to be known as "Christ-saturated." While I agree with the importance of keeping the main thing the main thing, I still believe it is important to reflect our distinctives. And let me say that I don't think this gentleman is seeking to blurr his distinctives either, He just wants God's true glory and Love to be preeminent in his Church and life. But let me explain why I struggled with what he is saying. 1 Timothy 4:16 December 25 The Way of Salvation
We all need a Saviour. Especially Me.
The Way of Salvation by A.W. Pink What must I do to be saved? Saved from what? What is it you wish to be saved from? Hell? That proves nothing. Nobody wants to go there. The issue between God and man is SIN. Do you wish to be saved from it? What is sin? Sin is a species of rebellion against God. It is self-pleasing: it is the utter ignoring of God’s claims: being completely indifferent whether my conduct pleases or displeases Him. Before God saves a man He convicts him of his sinnership. By this I do not mean that he says with everybody else, “O yes we are all sinners, I know that.” Rather do I mean that the Holy Spirit makes me feel in my heart that I have been a life-long rebel against God, and that my sins are so many, so great, so black, that I fear that I have transgressed beyond the reach of Divine mercy. Have you ever had that experience? Have you seen yourself to be totally unfit for heaven? For the presence of a Holy God? Do you now perceive that there is no good thing in you, nothing good credited to your account, that all the way through you have loved the things God hates and hated the things God loves? Has the realization of this broken your heart before God? Has it made you mourn that you have so despised His Sabbaths, neglected His Word, and given Him no real place at all in your thoughts, affections and life? If you have not yet seen and felt this personally, then at present there is no hope for you, for God says, “Except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish” — Luke 13:3. And if you die in your present condition you will be lost forever. But if you have been brought to the place where sin is your greatest plague, where offending God is your greatest grief, and where your deepest desire is now to please and honor Him; then there is hope for you. “The Son of man came to seek and to save that which was lost” — Luke 19:10. And He will save you providing you are ready and willing to throw down the weapons of your warfare against Him, bow to His Lordship, and surrender yourself to His control. His blood can wash the foulest clean. His grace can support and uphold the weakest. His power can deliver the tried and tempted. “Behold now is the accepted time; behold, now is the day of salvation” — II Corinthians 6:2. Yield yourself to Christ’s claims. Give Him the throne of your heart. Turn over to Him the regulation of your life. Trust in His atoning death. Love Him with all your soul. Obey Him with all your might and He will conduct you to heaven. “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved” — Acts 16:31. |
|
|
