Are we living fully in the New Covenant?

[Semper Fidelis]

This is a little bit off topic, but I think a good time to bring it up:

LC 31 says the covenant of grace was made with the "elect." But we believe in a mixed covenant in this world as well as a perfect covenant, right (Jer 31)? So if the covenant of grace was always made with the "elect" only, from Genesis 3 to Christ, are non-elect children still considered being in covenant with God? If so, how, if the covenant is truly only between God and the elect? Is the administration just different on this side of eternity? Thanks.

Not off topic. It's actually refreshing to deal with a genuine question.

Christ is set forth as the Mediator of the Covenant of Grace and, as Mediator, executes the offices of Prophet, Priest, and King.

The Church of Jesus Christ is the visible Kingdom of God and consists of those who have made profession of him as well as their Covenant children.

In this visible Kingdom, the Church, the Lord's Prophetic office is exhibited in the ministers of the Word who proclaim the Gospel as the Spirit, sent by the Father and the Son, works through the Word to convict and convert. The Lord's Kingly office is exhibited visibly by Church discipline and the binding and loosing.

Thus, the historical reality of the Covenant and the ingathering of the elect is accomplished through the Church's ministry of Word, Sacrament, and Discipline. The sacrament of baptism demarcks those who are in the visible Kingdom of God but the Spirit sovreignly confers the graces of the sign signfied to the elect through the Word. Thus, it can be said that all baptized members are visible members of the Kingdom of Christ but not all are united to Him by faith even though Word and Sacrament are means to that end.

 

[MW]

Hebrews 10:11-18-- 11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: 12 but this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; 13 from henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool. 14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. 15 Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before, 16 This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them; 17 and their sins and iniquities will I remember no more. 18 Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.

Well noted! The fact there is "no more offering for sin" is conclusive that we are fully under the new covenant. This is further confirmed by the warning of vv. 28-29, "He that despised Moses’ law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?"

If the context were permitted to inform us of the meaning of "teach his neighbour," it would be obvious that this refers to the mediatorial actions of prophets and priests, two offices that were repeatedly charged by the ministry of Jeremiah with leading the people astray.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

are non-elect children still considered being in covenant with God?

When were they ever in covenant with God, except through an administrative relation, as opposed to a substantive one?

Yes, as long as men (sinners) administer the covenant, as long as there is a church in the world with officers and ordinances, there will be imperfect administration of covenant blessings and identity.

 

[Ryan&Amber2013]

So Reverend Bruce, do you conclude that unregenerate people in the church including believers' children are not actually considered in covenant with God? My mind has recently been opened up to an understanding that there are Presbyterians who believe the new covenant is not mixed by any means, but only the visible administration of it is. Is this what you hold to? Thanks

 

[Contra_Mundum]

do you conclude that unregenerate people in the church including believers' children are not actually considered in covenant with God?...

there are Presbyterians who believe the new covenant is not mixed by any means, but only the visible administration of it is.

There can be lack of clarity or unity addressing the topic; but in the end, more agreement than not, more apparent difference than real.

What is the meaning of the phrase, "actually... in covenant?" If this language is meant to convey the notion: full possession of both substance and administration, the answer to your question would be "No, they can't actually be considered in covenant with God," because the term actually in that phrase means "real in every possible sense."

But that sort of read of covenant-participation prejudices, I think, the question of the "reality" of the administration. Are we doing "real" things, in the here and now; or are we only "acting out," and what we're doing is more along the lines of "theater." I'm not happy with that notion at all.

So, this difference between substance and administration is tremendously important, not only for explicating the difference between what man is capable of doing/signaling and what God does himself alone; but also for establishing the positive significance or reality/actuality of the administration.

Administration doesn't "do" everything, even the most important of things; but it really "does" something. Unregenerate people in the church are really in a covenant-relation with God via the administration--but to ONLY have this relation to God via the administration minus the substance is dreadful. At best, the description of the appearance of things is "incomplete" or "inchoate," if some person is in rebellion presently, but may (hopefully) return to faith.

That administration is "real" is demonstrable by the seriousness of the warnings given in Scripture to those who kick against the goads. The book of Hebrews takes apostasy seriously.


So, in short, if one means by "actually" the sense "having both aspects of covenant relation," then no, unregenerate people aren't actually in covenant. And they never were, for instance in the Abrahamic or Mosaic covenants either.

But if actually means "really" or "seriously," then sure, such persons are actually in covenant, in a purely administrative way--and thus dreadfully dangerous condition.

 

[pkananen]

If you're trying to do a hermeneutical reset here, you'll have to begin by acknowledging you're starting with a Jewish context when you start reading the NT scriptures.

I'm sorry but your command of Church history is really poor if you think that the Reformation and all of Church history can be summarized by Martin Luther. You'll have to do a lot better than that.

You're assuming a hermeneutical "reset" is necessary. You're imbibing the hermeneutic of the heretic. That doesn't make you a heretic but it implies that the Church has been without the witness of the Spirit for 2000 years and now you (and a handful of people) know what Jesus and the Apostles *really* meant.

Why should I be heeding you? Why not N.T. Wright? Why not E.P. Sander? Why not Karl Barth?

I never said Church history could be summarized by Martin Luther. I'm just saying that along the way there's been some poison added in the well. Do we throw it all out? Of course not. But we should always evaluate. Are you saying that Luther's views haven't affected anyone?

I do not claim to have a unique perspective and to be God's gift to theology. But I have been in the Reformed community for ~15-ish years, and I came into the community after growing up with a father who gave me a great appreciation for the Jewish context of the Bible. I see a big disconnect between the two and we can all learn from one another.

 

[pkananen]

Peter,

You wrote: I appreciate Martin Luther and what he did, but he also wrote the blueprint for Kristallnacht. Have you ensured you aren't bringing anti-Judaic presuppositions to the hermeneutical table?

Luther, as is well known, had some problematic thoughts in this area. However, to accuse him, after he's been in the grave for hundreds of years, of being a precursor and inspiration for Reinhard Heydrich, is inexcusable.

I'm sorry, but it's fairly accurate to say that. Luther's writings were cited and distributed by members of the Nazi party. I'm not saying Luther was a Nazi, or would have been one. But I am saying that what he said in "Of the Jews and Their Lies" was not far from Kristallnacht.

 

[pkananen]

If you're trying to do a hermeneutical reset here, you'll have to begin by acknowledging you're starting with a Jewish context when you start reading the NT scriptures.

Peter,

While we're doing a hermeneutical "reset",what has your "reset" taught you about the Trinity?

Please articulate the nature of the Godhead and the hypostatic union?

Thank you...

Really? Sorry, I'm not biting.

 

[pkananen]

Hebrews 10:11-18-- 11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: 12 but this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; 13 from henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool. 14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. 15 Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before, 16 This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them; 17 and their sins and iniquities will I remember no more. 18 Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.

I will thoroughly engage with Hebrews 8-10 soon. It is certainly applicable. As I noted here, understanding Hebrews is vital to reconciling the Torah observance (including sacrifices) of the apostles after Jesus had ascended.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

If you're trying to do a hermeneutical reset here, you'll have to begin by acknowledging you're starting with a Jewish context when you start reading the NT scriptures.

Peter,

While we're doing a hermeneutical "reset",what has your "reset" taught you about the Trinity?

Please articulate the nature of the Godhead and the hypostatic union?

Thank you...

Really? Sorry, I'm not biting.

Seriously. It's not a request.

I am not certain of your basic orthodoxy given how casually you cast off historical theology.

 

[pkananen]

If you're trying to do a hermeneutical reset here, you'll have to begin by acknowledging you're starting with a Jewish context when you start reading the NT scriptures.

Peter,

While we're doing a hermeneutical "reset",what has your "reset" taught you about the Trinity?

Please articulate the nature of the Godhead and the hypostatic union?

Thank you...

Really? Sorry, I'm not biting.

Seriously. It's not a request.

I am not certain of your basic orthodoxy given how casually you cast off historical theology.

I have not casted off historical theology. I am challenging aspects of it and am asking for opinions to reconcile those issues with the Bible.

In any case, the Godhead consists of 3 persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, equal in power, substance, and glory. These three are one God.

Jesus exists as one person, with his fully divine and fully human nature present in one person.

 

[Peairtach]

Hello Peter,

Is it a fair comment to say.
That Covenant Theology informs our understanding of Eschatology.
I think your Eschatology is informing your understanding of Covenant Theology.
I suggest that the ground is much firmer if you leave the "last things" to last.
And build on the rock and not in the sand.

I have no problem modifying my eschatology based on a proper understanding of the covenants, and vice versa. I hold the Bible to be infallible, and I'm committed to challenging any of my presuppositions based on proper Biblical understanding.

Let's go through the New Covenant promises to see what God said and how we should understand it. Let's look at verses 31-32 first.

31*“Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, 32*not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the LORD.

God says his covenant is with the house of Israel and the house of Judah. We who are grafted in as wild branches share in the covenant promise, just as Paul teaches, right? Paul confirms the covenant continues to belong to his kinsmen according to the flesh in Romans 9:4. Do we agree with this teaching? How do we reconcile this with Covenant Theology?

The fact that the Jewish nation hasn't been abandoned by God is evinced by the fact (a) that there still is a Jewish nation, and (b) that a small remnant of that Jewish nation is part of the Israel of God (Gal 6:16), the international New Testament Church. There is spiritual and ecclesiastical equality in the NT Israel of God, whereas under the OT if you were a believer but not a Jew, you were "second class".

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

But we don't say that people have to deny their nationality when they become Christians, or that they are men or women, or employer or employee.

The unbelieving Jews, like unbelieving Gentiles, need to come into the Israel of God by faith in Jesus Christ.

God is working in His providence with the Jews, as He is with the Scots and Americans.

There shall be an handful of corn in the earth upon the top of the mountains;
the fruit thereof shall shake like Lebanon:
and they of the city shall flourish like grass of the earth. (Psalm 72:16)

There's no need to be sympathetic to Dispensational Theology to believe these things, Peter. See e.g. John Murray's commentary on Romans.

 

[Clark-Tillian]

Firstly, Luther is a bit of a red herring in this discussion. Was he off on some things? Certainly. Was he co-opted by the Nazi party? Absolutely.

Secondly, you didn't say "some of his theories influenced...", you wrote, "he also wrote the blueprint for Kristallnacht" which, as it reads, is historically unfounded; yes, linguistic precision is important.

Thirdly, you asked, "Have you ensured you aren't bringing anti-Judaic presuppositions to the hermenuetical table?"; this is a a rather casual, borderline ad hominem.

Peter,

You wrote: I appreciate Martin Luther and what he did, but he also wrote the blueprint for Kristallnacht. Have you ensured you aren't bringing anti-Judaic presuppositions to the hermeneutical table?

Luther, as is well known, had some problematic thoughts in this area. However, to accuse him, after he's been in the grave for hundreds of years, of being a precursor and inspiration for Reinhard Heydrich, is inexcusable.

I'm sorry, but it's fairly accurate to say that. Luther's writings were cited and distributed by members of the Nazi party. I'm not saying Luther was a Nazi, or would have been one. But I am saying that what he said in "Of the Jews and Their Lies" was not far from Kristallnacht.

 

[pkananen]

Hello Peter,

Is it a fair comment to say.
That Covenant Theology informs our understanding of Eschatology.
I think your Eschatology is informing your understanding of Covenant Theology.
I suggest that the ground is much firmer if you leave the "last things" to last.
And build on the rock and not in the sand.

I have no problem modifying my eschatology based on a proper understanding of the covenants, and vice versa. I hold the Bible to be infallible, and I'm committed to challenging any of my presuppositions based on proper Biblical understanding.

Let's go through the New Covenant promises to see what God said and how we should understand it. Let's look at verses 31-32 first.

31*“Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, 32*not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the LORD.

God says his covenant is with the house of Israel and the house of Judah. We who are grafted in as wild branches share in the covenant promise, just as Paul teaches, right? Paul confirms the covenant continues to belong to his kinsmen according to the flesh in Romans 9:4. Do we agree with this teaching? How do we reconcile this with Covenant Theology?

The fact that the Jewish nation hasn't been abandoned by God is evinced by the fact (a) that there still is a Jewish nation, and (b) that a small remnant of that Jewish nation is part of the Israel of God (Gal 6:16), the international New Testament Church. There is spiritual and ecclesiastical equality in the NT Israel of God, whereas under the OT if you were a believer but not a Jew, you were "second class".

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

But we don't say that people have to deny their nationality when they become Christians, or that they are men or women, or employer or employee.

The unbelieving Jews, like unbelieving Gentiles, need to come into the Israel of God by faith in Jesus Christ.

God is working in His providence with the Jews, as He is with the Scots and Americans.

There shall be an handful of corn in the earth upon the top of the mountains;
the fruit thereof shall shake like Lebanon:
and they of the city shall flourish like grass of the earth. (Psalm 72:16)

There's no need to be sympathetic to Dispensational Theology to believe these things, Peter. See e.g. John Murray's commentary on Romans.

I'm not sympathetic with Dispensational Theology. I reject it. I believe that Dispensational Theology and Covenant Theology are two sides of the same coin, attempting to reconcile continuity with God's covenants through radically different means. I believe they both have significant flaws.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I have not casted off historical theology. I am challenging aspects of it and am asking for opinions to reconcile those issues with the Bible.

My son asks me questions the way you're asking questions.

He says to me: "Dad, who is the director of Transformers?"

He doesn't want to know the answer. He wants me to tell him I do not know so he can tell me what he knows about the answer.

This is the way you are "asking questions". You are asking questions to set up a discussion so you can tell us all the insights you have gleaned about what the Bible "really teaches". You're not interested in having your former understanding reformed by a comprehensive systematic, historical, and exegetical theology but you want to throw out tidbits here and there.

The problem, Peter, is that your approach is ad hoc and exhausting to interact with. I demand of you that you interact with Church history and you throw out Martin Luther and the Nazis as examples of how the Church, for the last 2000 years doesn't like the Jews and, consequently can't understand the Apostles because of their antipathy toward all things Jewish. I could try to respond but it's like trying to interact with a Jack Chick tract. Where does one begin?

You are foundationally ignorant of the things you're asking questions about but you are not acting as a questioner but as the teacher. If the latter continues then it's just going to end because you're propagating error with the scholarly level of a Chick tract and we don't allow error to be propagated here. If you're actually interested in learning from us Reformed folk then ask questions and try to understand it but you will have to be willing to be re-formed and, yes, that probably means casting off family affinities if your own father taught you error. I hate to be so blunt but the fact that I grew up Roman Catholic in a loving home doesn't give me interesting "insight" into Mary that I hoped to regale the Reformed community with. I recognize it for the garbage it is no matter how loving my family was.

 

[Clark-Tillian]

The entire book, but especially the middle sections dealing with the glories of Christ's superior priesthood to the Aaronic order, are not merely "applicable"; they are essential to answering your direct question in this thread. Some decent commentaries--which are easily had can be helpful, but a careful reading of a good translation (I'd advise 2-3 via comparison), is a prerequisite. I personally think that neglect of the Epistle to the Hebrews is the source of a great deal of aberrant covenantal thinking in the last 175 or so years.

Hebrews 10:11-18-- 11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: 12 but this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; 13 from henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool. 14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. 15 Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before, 16 This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them; 17 and their sins and iniquities will I remember no more. 18 Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.

I will thoroughly engage with Hebrews 8-10 soon. It is certainly applicable. As I noted here, understanding Hebrews is vital to reconciling the Torah observance (including sacrifices) of the apostles after Jesus had ascended.

 

[Peairtach]

Hello Peter,

Is it a fair comment to say.
That Covenant Theology informs our understanding of Eschatology.
I think your Eschatology is informing your understanding of Covenant Theology.
I suggest that the ground is much firmer if you leave the "last things" to last.
And build on the rock and not in the sand.

I have no problem modifying my eschatology based on a proper understanding of the covenants, and vice versa. I hold the Bible to be infallible, and I'm committed to challenging any of my presuppositions based on proper Biblical understanding.

Let's go through the New Covenant promises to see what God said and how we should understand it. Let's look at verses 31-32 first.

31*“Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, 32*not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the LORD.

God says his covenant is with the house of Israel and the house of Judah. We who are grafted in as wild branches share in the covenant promise, just as Paul teaches, right? Paul confirms the covenant continues to belong to his kinsmen according to the flesh in Romans 9:4. Do we agree with this teaching? How do we reconcile this with Covenant Theology?

The fact that the Jewish nation hasn't been abandoned by God is evinced by the fact (a) that there still is a Jewish nation, and (b) that a small remnant of that Jewish nation is part of the Israel of God (Gal 6:16), the international New Testament Church. There is spiritual and ecclesiastical equality in the NT Israel of God, whereas under the OT if you were a believer but not a Jew, you were "second class".

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

But we don't say that people have to deny their nationality when they become Christians, or that they are men or women, or employer or employee.

The unbelieving Jews, like unbelieving Gentiles, need to come into the Israel of God by faith in Jesus Christ.

God is working in His providence with the Jews, as He is with the Scots and Americans.

There shall be an handful of corn in the earth upon the top of the mountains;
the fruit thereof shall shake like Lebanon:
and they of the city shall flourish like grass of the earth. (Psalm 72:16)

See e.g. John Murray's commentary on Romans; Errol Hulse "The Restoration of Israel", for a list of Covenant Theologians who believe in the conversion of the Jews, and all nations - although Hulse, himself, sometimes goes a bit far In my humble opinion; "The Puritan Hope" by Iain Murray. See Lloyd-Jones on Romans 11.

Everything necessary for the New Covenant has been made ready since the first century AD. All that has to happen is that the leaven has to continue to expand through the three measures of meal i.e. the Gospel has to penetrate the hearts and minds of the nations. They have to be incorporated not into Israel after the flesh (I Corinthians 10:18) i.e. the nation of the Jews, but into the Israel of God (Gal 6:16) i.e. the NT Church. Indeed Israel after the flesh is one of the nations that needs to be incorporated into the Israel of God.

Dispensational Theology - particularly eschatology - is the closest thing to science fiction the evangelical church has, and should be eschewed.

On the errors of "Messianic Judaism" see the book on the subject by the late Christian Jew, Stan Telchin.

 

[pkananen]

I have not casted off historical theology. I am challenging aspects of it and am asking for opinions to reconcile those issues with the Bible.

My son asks me questions the way you're asking questions.

He says to me: "Dad, who is the director of Transformers?"

He doesn't want to know the answer. He wants me to tell him I do not know so he can tell me what he knows about the answer.

This is the way you are "asking questions". You are asking questions to set up a discussion so you can tell us all the insights you have gleaned about what the Bible "really teaches". You're not interested in having your former understanding reformed by a comprehensive systematic, historical, and exegetical theology but you want to throw out tidbits here and there.

The problem, Peter, is that your approach is ad hoc and exhausting to interact with. I demand of you that you interact with Church history and you throw out Martin Luther and the Nazis as examples of how the Church, for the last 2000 years doesn't like the Jews and, consequently can't understand the Apostles because of their antipathy toward all things Jewish. I could try to respond but it's like trying to interact with a Jack Chick tract. Where does one begin?

You are foundationally ignorant of the things you're asking questions about but you are not acting as a questioner but as the teacher. If the latter continues then it's just going to end because you're propagating error with the scholarly level of a Chick tract and we don't allow error to be propagated here. If you're actually interested in learning from us Reformed folk then ask questions and try to understand it but you will have to be willing to be re-formed and, yes, that probably means casting off family affinities if your own father taught you error. I hate to be so blunt but the fact that I grew up Roman Catholic in a loving home doesn't give me interesting "insight" into Mary that I hoped to regale the Reformed community with. I recognize it for the garbage it is no matter how loving my family was.

You are right in part. I do think these issues are critical, and I think they are a blindspot for the Reformed tradition. I'm sorry my approach has been abrasive. I will try to be as inquisitive as possible. Ultimately, we all agree that the Bible alone should speak.

I protest that I am foundationally ignorant of the things I'm asking questions about. I do think I have a different perspective that deserves answers. The fact is that there is a lot activity in scholarly circles on these issues, but the Reformed tradition generally doesn't interact with them. I have interacted with them, and as a part of the Reformed community, I need to understand how people reconcile these issues. Perhaps my problem is that I've done my study before I came to this board, rather than as part of it.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I protest that I am foundationally ignorant of the things I'm asking questions about. I do think I have a different perspective that deserves answers. The fact is that there is a lot activity in scholarly circles on these issues, but the Reformed tradition generally doesn't interact with them. I have interacted with them, and as a part of the Reformed community, I need to understand how people reconcile these issues. Perhaps my problem is that I've done my study before I came to this board, rather than as part of it.

Peter,

I've been at this for quite some time. I know you consider yourself well studied but your studying the wrong things. You throw out information about Church history in a manner that makes plain you haven't really studied it. You try to blend bits and pieces you've learned from Messianic Judaism and Covenant theology.

The manner in which you do so demonstrates that you don't have a very solid apprehension of the theology you say you've studied. It's like you're looking at a car that we'll call Reformed theology. You've looked at all the parts of the car but you don't really know how they fit together or work and so you'll take a part from Messianic Judaism and just throw out the fuel pump from the car because it doesn't look the way that Messianic Judaism told you a fuel pump works.

Forgive the crude analogy but Covenant theology is understandable for the average person to apprehend certain concepts but the entire system of doctrine is interconnected exegetically, historically, and theologically in such a way that it makes not only specific sense in places but comprehensive sense. Thus, as you're interacting with Bruce (for example) you'll say: "Yes, I like the windshield. Yes! The hood looks good! No! That's the wrong engine!"

And then you'll say: "See we pretty much agree on Covenant Theology!"

From an exegetical standpoint, you don't seem to understand the relationship between theology and interpretationa nd the interaction that they have with one another. Even a basic study of language reveals how sound theology affects translation itself. So you repeatedly claim for yourself an avoidance of presuppositions, etc while you deal with the text in a brutish fashion.

You're simply basically untrained in many areas and I think the fact that you're convinced that your Messianic Jewish "insights" are going to "repair" Reformed theology are preventing you from really learning from it. It's rather like the person who only goes to John 3 in order to quote John 3:16. He'll never learn what Jesus is really saying because he keeps anticipating that single verse. Sadly, you're so intent to get to the parts that prove what you're trying to say that the rest of the text or the theology is really just a prelude to what's really important to you.

 

[pkananen]

I protest that I am foundationally ignorant of the things I'm asking questions about. I do think I have a different perspective that deserves answers. The fact is that there is a lot activity in scholarly circles on these issues, but the Reformed tradition generally doesn't interact with them. I have interacted with them, and as a part of the Reformed community, I need to understand how people reconcile these issues. Perhaps my problem is that I've done my study before I came to this board, rather than as part of it.

Peter,

I've been at this for quite some time. I know you consider yourself well studied but your studying the wrong things. You throw out information about Church history in a manner that makes plain you haven't really studied it. You try to blend bits and pieces you've learned from Messianic Judaism and Covenant theology.

The manner in which you do so demonstrates that you don't have a very solid apprehension of the theology you say you've studied. It's like you're looking at a car that we'll call Reformed theology. You've looked at all the parts of the car but you don't really know how they fit together or work and so you'll take a part from Messianic Judaism and just throw out the fuel pump from the car because it doesn't look the way that Messianic Judaism told you a fuel pump works.

Forgive the crude analogy but Covenant theology is understandable for the average person to apprehend certain concepts but the entire system of doctrine is interconnected exegetically, historically, and theologically in such a way that it makes not only specific sense in places but comprehensive sense. Thus, as you're interacting with Bruce (for example) you'll say: "Yes, I like the windshield. Yes! The hood looks good! No! That's the wrong engine!"

And then you'll say: "See we pretty much agree on Covenant Theology!"

From an exegetical standpoint, you don't seem to understand the relationship between theology and interpretationa nd the interaction that they have with one another. Even a basic study of language reveals how sound theology affects translation itself. So you repeatedly claim for yourself an avoidance of presuppositions, etc while you deal with the text in a brutish fashion.

You're simply basically untrained in many areas and I think the fact that you're convinced that your Messianic Jewish "insights" are going to "repair" Reformed theology are preventing you from really learning from it. It's rather like the person who only goes to John 3 in order to quote John 3:16. He'll never learn what Jesus is really saying because he keeps anticipating that single verse. Sadly, you're so intent to get to the parts that prove what you're trying to say that the rest of the text or the theology is really just a prelude to what's really important to you.

I'm ok if you reject any of my claims that I have made. It will not hurt my feelings. You are right - I have no formal credentials and you do not need to listen to my rhetoric. But when I present a Biblical argument, I believe it deserves an answer. You closed down a thread I responded to without engaging with the Biblical evidence I provided. Just telling me my exegesis and hermeneutics are wrong does not prove anything. You need to show where my premises are wrong based on my argumentation. I'm truly not trying to be adversarial, but you should be able to refute it if I'm wrong.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I'm ok if you reject any of my claims that I have made. It will not hurt my feelings. You are right - I have no formal credentials and you do not need to listen to my rhetoric. But when I present a Biblical argument, I believe it deserves an answer. You closed down a thread I responded to without engaging with the Biblical evidence I provided. Just telling me my exegesis and hermeneutics are wrong does not prove anything. You need to show where my premises are wrong based on my argumentation. I'm truly not trying to be adversarial, but you should be able to refute it if I'm wrong.

I didn't shut down that thread. Another Admin did because you were propagating error.

It's not about feelings or credentials.

You don't necessarily "deserve" an answer to every Biblical argument. The man who claims, over and over and over again. that John 3:16 teaches that Christ died for everyone can be shown to be in error but then he keeps repeating the error.

You're not presenting sound Biblical arguments that are exegetically based. You're quoting texts and telling us what it must mean and that Covenant theology has missed this important feature of the text. Yet, the history of Biblical theology has interacted with those verses.

You can read any common refutation of dispensationalism to see how we'll interact with them. You may think it's "new" because Messianic Jews are saying it but do you think just repeating the same argument and then telling us that the reason we *really* don't believe it is because we are being prideful toward the Jews is going to convince us?

If you want to demonstrate that you understand Covenant Theology then anticipate what the objection would be from a mature perspective. Anticipate how someone who understands the Covenants from our perspective would interpret what you're saying and then demonstrate what the alternative is. You see there is much more that has to be done than to cast doubt about a couple of verses. It would literally mean a new *foundation* to the building. Everything about that nature of the Covenants and salvation would have to be recast to change what we believe the Scriptures believe are fulfilled shadows to state that "No, really, they have continued relevance right now - for Jews that is." What would this comprehensive Covenant Theology look like that would affect the nature of Christ's Mediatorial offices, the Church, the Sacraments, Justification, Sanctification, etc? We're not told - we just have to give an answer to the "biblical argument" in the form you expect it.

 

[pkananen]

I'm ok if you reject any of my claims that I have made. It will not hurt my feelings. You are right - I have no formal credentials and you do not need to listen to my rhetoric. But when I present a Biblical argument, I believe it deserves an answer. You closed down a thread I responded to without engaging with the Biblical evidence I provided. Just telling me my exegesis and hermeneutics are wrong does not prove anything. You need to show where my premises are wrong based on my argumentation. I'm truly not trying to be adversarial, but you should be able to refute it if I'm wrong.

I didn't shut down that thread. Another Admin did because you were propagating error.

It's not about feelings or credentials.

You don't necessarily "deserve" an answer to every Biblical argument. The man who claims, over and over and over again. that John 3:16 teaches that Christ died for everyone can be shown to be in error but then he keeps repeating the error.

You're not presenting sound Biblical arguments that are exegetically based. You're quoting texts and telling us what it must mean and that Covenant theology has missed this important feature of the text. Yet, the history of Biblical theology has interacted with those verses.

You can read any common refutation of dispensationalism to see how we'll interact with them. You may think it's "new" because Messianic Jews are saying it but do you think just repeating the same argument and then telling us that the reason we *really* don't believe it is because we are being prideful toward the Jews is going to convince us?

If you want to demonstrate that you understand Covenant Theology then anticipate what the objection would be from a mature perspective. Anticipate how someone who understands the Covenants from our perspective would interpret what you're saying and then demonstrate what the alternative is. You see there is much more that has to be done than to cast doubt about a couple of verses. It would literally mean a new *foundation* to the building. Everything about that nature of the Covenants and salvation would have to be recast to change what we believe the Scriptures believe are fulfilled shadows to state that "No, really, they have continued relevance right now - for Jews that is." What would this comprehensive Covenant Theology look like that would affect the nature of Christ's Mediatorial offices, the Church, the Sacraments, Justification, Sanctification, etc? We're not told - we just have to give an answer to the "biblical argument" in the form you expect it.

Point taken with the last paragraph.

Regarding my quoting of texts and telling you what they mean:

I provided the textual summary of temple worship by the Apostles as described in the book of Acts. There was a clear thread of engagement with temple worship. I have read Reformed commentary on these verses and I find them to be insufficient. Paul clearly was sending a message that he was Torah observant. Do you agree with this or not?

 

[Clark-Tillian]

Peter,

Do you think this is valid reasoning?

Whatever proves that the Aaronic priesthood is non-operational also proves that the Old Covenant is obsolete.
Hebrews proves that the Aaronic priesthood is non-operational.
Therefore, Hebrews proves that the Old Covenant is obsolete.

 

[Clark-Tillian]

Peter,

To be Torah observant one must adhere to the dietary laws of the Old Covenant. Paul's rebuke of Peter recorded in Galatians 2 proves that Paul did not think the dietary restrictions were valid in the New Covenant. Your assertion that Paul was Torah observant is not valid.

 

[Clark-Tillian]

In order to be fully Torah observant one must insist that every Jewish male, 8 days or older, be circumcised--as well as male Gentile converts and their male children of 8 days of age--or older. Galatians 5 disproves your assertion on Paul's being Torah observant. Bear in mind that Galatians was written early in Paul's ministry.

"A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump. I have confidence in you through the Lord, that ye will be none otherwise minded: but he that troubleth you shall bear his judgment, whosoever he be. And I, brethren, if I yet preach circumcision, why do I yet suffer persecution? then is the offence of the cross ceased. I would they were even cut off which trouble you."

 

[pkananen]

Peter,

Do you think this is valid reasoning?

Whatever proves that the Aaronic priesthood is non-operational also proves that the Old Covenant is obsolete.
Hebrews proves that the Aaronic priesthood is non-operational.
Therefore, Hebrews proves that the Old Covenant is obsolete.

Your argument is well structured. I agree with your premise. If your argument is correct, then your conclusion is also valid.

In order to support my conclusion I will need to provide evidence that your arguments are incorrect, which I will do soon.

As a datapoint, we would expect that Paul either was consistent with Hebrews or erred in his actions in Acts.

 

[Clark-Tillian]

Thank you. Hebrews truly is the key, brother. Please recall that Acts is a transitional book. The Temple was still up and running, so the Jerusalem Apostles et al went there to pray and to witness/evangelize. There is zero evidence they partook of the sacrificial system. If Paul rebuked Peter for inconsistency with regard to a matter such as eating with Gentiles, which is a separation law, which, by comparison, is a small matter compared to sacrificial offerings, then how would he have reacted if Peter had partaken of Yom Kippur?

Also, Paul did not circumcise Titus, an obvious Gentile covenantal believer (convert). If the Old Covenant was still valid/operational during the period in which the events recorded in Acts occurred, then Paul is in covenant breach. I doubt you want to accuse him of such an egregious offense.

Peter,

Do you think this is valid reasoning?

Whatever proves that the Aaronic priesthood is non-operational also proves that the Old Covenant is obsolete.
Hebrews proves that the Aaronic priesthood is non-operational.
Therefore, Hebrews proves that the Old Covenant is obsolete.

Your argument is well structured. I agree with your premise. If your argument is correct, then your conclusion is also valid.

In order to support my conclusion I will need to provide evidence that your arguments are incorrect, which I will do soon.

As a datapoint, we would expect that Paul either was consistent with Hebrews or erred in his actions in Acts.

 

[pkananen]

Thank you. Hebrews truly is the key, brother. Please recall that Acts is a transitional book. The Temple was still up and running, so the Jerusalem Apostles et al went there to pray and to witness/evangelize. There is zero evidence they partook of the sacrificial system. If Paul rebuked Peter for inconsistency with regard to a matter such as eating with Gentiles, which is a separation law, which, by comparison, is a small matter compared to sacrificial offerings, then how would he have reacted if Peter had partaken of Yom Kippur?

Also, Paul did not circumcise Titus, an obvious Gentile covenantal believer (convert). If the Old Covenant was still valid/operational during the period in which the events recorded in Acts occurred, then Paul is in covenant breach. I doubt you want to accuse him of such an egregious offense.

Peter,

Do you think this is valid reasoning?

Whatever proves that the Aaronic priesthood is non-operational also proves that the Old Covenant is obsolete.
Hebrews proves that the Aaronic priesthood is non-operational.
Therefore, Hebrews proves that the Old Covenant is obsolete.

Your argument is well structured. I agree with your premise. If your argument is correct, then your conclusion is also valid.

In order to support my conclusion I will need to provide evidence that your arguments are incorrect, which I will do soon.

As a datapoint, we would expect that Paul either was consistent with Hebrews or erred in his actions in Acts.

Read Acts 21:17-26. This is a clear picture of Paul purposefully participating in temple offerings to prove he is Torah observant. Is Paul being hypocritical or are we missing something in our reading of his teachings?

17 When we had come to Jerusalem, the brothers received us gladly.
18 On the following day Paul went in with us to James, and all the elders were present.
19 After greeting them, he related one by one the things that God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry.
20 And when they heard it, they glorified God. And they said to him, "You see, brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews of those who have believed. They are all zealous for the law,
21 and they have been told about you that you teach all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or walk according to our customs.
22 What then is to be done? They will certainly hear that you have come.
23 Do therefore what we tell you. We have four men who are under a vow;
24 take these men and purify yourself along with them and pay their expenses, so that they may shave their heads. Thus all will know that there is nothing in what they have been told about you, but that you yourself also live in observance of the law.
25 But as for the Gentiles who have believed, we have sent a letter with our judgment that they should abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality."
26 Then Paul took the men, and the next day he purified himself along with them and went into the temple, giving notice when the days of purification would be fulfilled and the offering presented for each one of them. - Acts 21:17-26

 

[Clark-Tillian]

Admittedly, this is a difficult text. First, we have to be willing to admit that the apostles made mistakes--even grievous errors. Peter is exhibit A on this score. I personally think it possible that Paul erred in circumcising Timothy. Paul and Barnabas' division seems sinful from the text in Acts 15--not the division itself but the mode of disagreement. From the fact that the Judaizers hailed from the Jerusalem church district allows the inference that the Jerusalem church leaders might have compromised in some ceremonial matters; if they had been utterly stalwart then the Judaizers would've had less political clout.

Second, v. 24 is the key verse in your argument. However, this is a vow/oath/personal covenant--the text says nothing of sacrificial offerings. I think the disciples--including Paul--erred in this decision. They sought to pacify the Jews by this action...and it backfired!

Third, compromise can be fatal to the church. A quick survey of Church History reveals this. We are officers in the PCA; if you do not see some compromise in our denomination then spectacles are in order.

Fourth, the disciple’s sinful acquiescence does not constitute strong support for your argument. In fact, it weakens it.

Thank you. Hebrews truly is the key, brother. Please recall that Acts is a transitional book. The Temple was still up and running, so the Jerusalem Apostles et al went there to pray and to witness/evangelize. There is zero evidence they partook of the sacrificial system. If Paul rebuked Peter for inconsistency with regard to a matter such as eating with Gentiles, which is a separation law, which, by comparison, is a small matter compared to sacrificial offerings, then how would he have reacted if Peter had partaken of Yom Kippur?

Also, Paul did not circumcise Titus, an obvious Gentile covenantal believer (convert). If the Old Covenant was still valid/operational during the period in which the events recorded in Acts occurred, then Paul is in covenant breach. I doubt you want to accuse him of such an egregious offense.

Peter,

Do you think this is valid reasoning?

Whatever proves that the Aaronic priesthood is non-operational also proves that the Old Covenant is obsolete.
Hebrews proves that the Aaronic priesthood is non-operational.
Therefore, Hebrews proves that the Old Covenant is obsolete.

Your argument is well structured. I agree with your premise. If your argument is correct, then your conclusion is also valid.

In order to support my conclusion I will need to provide evidence that your arguments are incorrect, which I will do soon.

As a datapoint, we would expect that Paul either was consistent with Hebrews or erred in his actions in Acts.

Read Acts 21:17-26. This is a clear picture of Paul purposefully participating in temple offerings to prove he is Torah observant. Is Paul being hypocritical or are we missing something in our reading of his teachings?

17 When we had come to Jerusalem, the brothers received us gladly.
18 On the following day Paul went in with us to James, and all the elders were present.
19 After greeting them, he related one by one the things that God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry.
20 And when they heard it, they glorified God. And they said to him, "You see, brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews of those who have believed. They are all zealous for the law,
21 and they have been told about you that you teach all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or walk according to our customs.
22 What then is to be done? They will certainly hear that you have come.
23 Do therefore what we tell you. We have four men who are under a vow;
24 take these men and purify yourself along with them and pay their expenses, so that they may shave their heads. Thus all will know that there is nothing in what they have been told about you, but that you yourself also live in observance of the law.
25 But as for the Gentiles who have believed, we have sent a letter with our judgment that they should abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality."
26 Then Paul took the men, and the next day he purified himself along with them and went into the temple, giving notice when the days of purification would be fulfilled and the offering presented for each one of them. - Acts 21:17-26

 

[SolaScriptura]

Question: does Acts 21 teach that Paul was "Torah observant," or does it show - like when he had Timothy circumcised in Acts 16:3 - that he was concerned about not causing unnecessary offense to those who would have expected certain things because he was a Jew?