Bryan Cross’ response to Nick Batzig on the Reformed view of imputation has kicked up a little dust over at Green Baggins and for good reason, though I plan to go in a direction different from many of the Protestant complaints. Cross contends that Roman Catholics understand justification through the lens of agape while Reformed Protestants use a list paradigm:
From a Catholic point of view, as I explained in “Why John Calvin did not Recognize the Distinction Between Mortal and Venial Sin,” there are two different paradigms here regarding what it means to keep the law. Call one the list paradigm, and call the other the agape paradigm. In the list paradigm, perfect law-keeping is conceived as keeping a list of God given precepts. According to this paradigm, perfect law-keeping requires perfectly and perpetually keeping (and not in any way violating) every single precept in the list. In the New Covenant, we are given more gifts for growing progressively in our ability to keep the law, but nevertheless, nobody in this life keeps the list perfectly. All fall short of God’s perfect standard of righteousness. That’s the paradigm through which Batzig views God’s requirement of righteousness for salvation.
In the agape paradigm, by contrast, agape is the fulfillment of the law. Agape is not merely some power or force or energy by which one is enabled better to keep the list of rules, either perfectly or imperfectly. Rather, agape is what the law has pointed to all along. To have agape in one’s soul is to have the perfect righteousness to which the list of precepts point. Righteousness conceived as keeping a list of externally written precepts is conceptually a shadow of the true righteousness which consists of agape infused into the soul. This infusion of agape is the law written on the heart. But the writing of the law on the heart should not be conceived as merely memorizing the list of precepts, or being more highly motivated to keep the list of precepts. To conceive of agape as merely a force or good motivation that helps us better (but imperfectly, in this life) keep the list of rules, is still to be in the list paradigm. The writing of the law on the heart provides in itself the very fulfillment of the law — that perfection to which the external law always pointed. To have agape is already to have fulfilled the telos of the law, a telos that is expressed in our words, deeds, and actions because they are all ordered to a supernatural end unless we commit a mortal sin. The typical Protestant objection to the Catholic understanding of justification by the infusion of agape is “Who perfectly loves God? No one.” But this objection presupposes the list paradigm.
This is rich given the recent news out of the Vatican that Rome has added to the Church’s list of deadly sins. (Look for the words list and agape.)
After 1,500 years the Vatican has brought the seven deadly sins up to date by adding seven new ones for the age of globalization. The list, published yesterday in L’Osservatore Romano, the Vatican newspaper, came as the Pope deplored the “decreasing sense of sin” in today’s “secularized world” and the falling numbers of Roman Catholics going to confession.
The new deadly sins include polluting, genetic engineering, being obscenely rich, drug dealing, abortion, pedophilia and causing social injustice.
So the communion that originally gave us a list of sins is adding to the list. Agape indeed.
And to underscore the point — which is that Bryan Cross has remarkable intellectual gifts that have little purchase in reality — consider that the little, old (not ancient, of course) Orthodox Presbyterian Church, with all of its alleged list mentality, resisted mightily producing lists of sins. One occasion came in 1950 when the church, through a study committee of the General Assembly, concluded that belonging to the Free Masons was a sin. But contrary to some in the church who wanted a constitutional amendment to list Masonry as a sin, the committee opposed the composition of lists of sin:
Although it is unwarranted to condemn all cataloguing of sins by the church, history shows that it ma easily be carried so far as to become fraught with undesirable consequences. This danger becomes especially great when the church in its official book of discipline seeks to enumerate the precise sins which render their doers subject to ecclesiastical censures. . . .
It is obviously impossible for the church to draw up a complete catalogue of sins. Any list is certain to be a partial one. The almost unavoidable result will be that the members of the church will receive an unbalanced view of the Christian life. For example, let us suppose that a church catalogues as offenses certain types of worldliness, as gambling, the performance or viewing of immoral or sacrilegious theatricals, and many forms of
modern dancing. The danger is far from imaginary that the psychological effect of such partial cataloguing will be that other forms of worldliness, which in the sight of God are no less reprehensible, such as the love of money, the telling of salacious jokes by toastmasters and other speakers at banquets, the display of wealth in a palatial dwelling, and the stressing of the numerical rather than the spiritual growth of a church, to name no more, will be condoned and even overlooked. In another respect too the cataloguing of sins is liable to result in an unbalanced conception of the Christian life. It may easily impart the impression that Christian living is essentially negative rather than positive. Church members will be led to stress the separated life at the expense of the consecrated life. Very plainly put, they will conclude that merely not to do this and that and a third thing is the essence of Christian living and is proof of the Christianity of him who abstains from these things. (1950 GA Minutes, 26)
In case you didn’t notice, the church allegedly characterized by the agape paradigm makes lists of sins. And one of the churches that you might expect to draw up a list of sins, given its supposed reliance on the list paradigm, has tried not to make lists.
In which case, I am not sure what Bryan Cross’ point is other than to show the inadequacies of Protestants always in the peace of Christ.
Postscript:
The Baltimore Catechism on sin:
52. Q. What is actual sin? A. Actual sin is any willful thought, word, deed or omission contrary to the law of God.
The Shorter Catechism on sin:
14. Q. What is sin? A. Sin is any want of conformity unto or transgression of the law of God.
We print, realists decide.
365 Comments
David R: True, I didn’t argue the point so much as call it the way I see it.
mark: Thanks. The way I see it is that you want to talk about the Mosaic covenant and the new covenant, but you don’t want to talk about the Abrahamic covenant. Fair enough that Romans 11 doesn’t use the “covenant” word. (It’s interesting to me that there are only ten references to the word “covenant” in all of Paul’s letter. But then again, he didn’t have the advantages of covenant theology.)
You will point to the discontinuity between the Mosaic and the new, and I assume (with David Gordon) you would also point to the discontinuity between the Abrahamic and the Mosaic, but the one thing you don’t want to talk about is the discontinuity between the Abrahamic and the new. Even if you don’t simply equate the Abrahamic and the new, you equate “the one promise of the Abrahamic covenant” with the new covenant, ignoring the other promises of the AC. So when you talk discontinuity, you talk Moses, not Abraham. At least that’s the way it seems as I see it.
Now one question we could think about (together) is in what sense are those who are in the Abrahamic covenant (before Christ came and finished the work) and who DO believe the gospel are also at the same time, as soon as they are justified, “in the new covenant”. Theologically, I don’t think I have a problem with that “before the time” of yours.
For example, I think it’s not only possible but necessary to say that Abraham was justified (not only in his conscience) by God’s imputation of Christ’s righteousness “before the time” that Christ had brought in that righteousness. I reject “eternal justification” (not the decree to justify) and also the idea that all the elect were justified at one time at the cross, so that the reconciliation accomplished is received by imputation at that time. I reject those ideas as being unbiblical. So in principle it seems I should have no objection to thinking that the elect remnant in the Abrahamic covenant are also in the new covenant “before the time”. But I really can’t make much sense of that given the future emphasis of texts like Jeremiah 31 (in those days I will).
Order of salvation “before the time”, yes. Paul was “in Christ” after some other folks were “in Christ”, Romans 16. But redemptive history, two covenants at once, or one ahistorical “covenant” transcending all the other covenants, no. (But again, I don’t object to a historical, before the ages decree, the “covenant of redemption” idea, but I don’t understand just now how to conflate that (biblically or even systematically) with “the new covenant”. Maybe you can help me with that!
David R: If you’re talking about discontinuity between the MC and the NC, I’m not sure how this argues for discontinuity, since there are circumcised believers under both of those covenants (and unbelievers too in my view, though not in yours I suppose) so you would have to acknowledge at least that much continuity.
mark: 1. Again, I want you to also to be talking about the AC, there are circumcised believers in the Abrahamic covenant (Gen 17, not all of them for sure, but some of the circumcised believe the gospel)
2. Of course I think there are unbelievers in the Mosaic and in the Abrahamic covenants! That’s a big part of my point. The final point is that the new covenant is NOT LIKE the Mosaic and Abrahamic covenants. But the first point is for us not to forget that there are unbelievers in both the Mosaic and Abrahamic covenants, and not simply because of our lack of infallible discernment. There are unbelievers in those two old covenants by design, because of the temporary genealogical principle of those two covenants. But of course you don’t think that principle is temporary because you think it carries over to the new covenant.
This is pretty basic, David. I hope you at least understand what I am saying here (not looking for agreement). OF COURSE I am saying that there are unbelievers in the two old covenants, that they were supposed to be. And now I remember that you didn’t have time to look at all the posts in this thread, because I raised the question about “cut off”—were they in first then out or never “really in”?
And of course I got several different answers from paedobaptists, with some more like Kline (two edged sword) and others using an “external/internal” distinction and others saying “well there’s one gospel and thus one covenant”, etc
But to get back to your point above, which is about me acknowledging the presence of circumcised believers in the new covenant, after Jesus has risen, finished the work, and you are not talking about the old believers in “before the time”, but about that first generation of circumcised believers “not cut off from the root” because indeed they do believe the gospel and are now alive to see the Seed and the new covenant enacted.
Sure, there is the one generation. But
1. Even they were commanded ( I think) to be water baptized. The old sign of the old covenant is not good enough. They have the old sign. Yes, it signifies the gospel (plus some other promises to Abraham). But the new sign is commanded also. The old sign didn’t point to the new sign.
2. It’s only one generation. And I disagree with Doug Wilson’s account (have you read Unto a Thousand Generations?) about the continuing significance of circumcision for anybody, even the believers who are also the physical seed of Abraham.
Circumcision? Doesn’t matter. Uncircumcision? It doesn’t matter either.
And then Paul warns the Galatians—if you let yourself be circumcised, Christ will be of no profit to you….
Surely he meant— if you let yourself be circumcised for that reason, Christ will be of no….
1 Corinthians 7:18 Was anyone at the time of his call already circumcised? Let him not seek to remove the marks of circumcision. Was anyone at the time of his call uncircumcised? Let him not seek circumcision.
1 Corinthians 7:19 For neither circumcision counts for anything nor uncircumcision, but keeping the commandments of God.
Galatians 2:12 For before certain men came from James, he was eating with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party.
Galatians 5:2 Look: I, Paul, say to you that if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you.
Galatians 5:3 I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law.
Galatians 5:6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love.
Galatians 5:11 But if I, brothers, still preach circumcision, why am I still being persecuted? In that case the offense of the cross has been removed.
Galatians 6:15
For neither circumcision counts for anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation.
Mark,
You will point to the discontinuity between the Mosaic and the new, and I assume (with David Gordon) you would also point to the discontinuity between the Abrahamic and the Mosaic, but the one thing you don’t want to talk about is the discontinuity between the Abrahamic and the new. Even if you don’t simply equate the Abrahamic and the new, you equate “the one promise of the Abrahamic covenant” with the new covenant, ignoring the other promises of the AC. So when you talk discontinuity, you talk Moses, not Abraham. At least that’s the way it seems as I see it.
Wish I had more time for this, but I’m trying to keep up…. I’m not sure what you mean by “other promises” of the AC. The AC is essentially a promise that Abe and his descendants would be heirs of the (eschatological) world, no? Abraham is the root by virtue of whom natural branches spring forth, some of whom will eventually be broken off for their unbelief (e.g., Ishmael, Esau, and eventually the entire Israelite nation with the exception of the faith-professing remnant) and others of whom will remain by faith. When wild branches are grafted in, each graft becomes a new “root,” as it were, bringing forth more new branches, some of which will be broken off while others remain by faith.
The AC is essentially the gospel covenant “before the time,” which Abe (as well as his believing progeny) entered into by faith and was justified. Would you agree? Perhaps you want to say that Abe’s reprobate descendants, since they enjoyed temporal blessings, were also included. But Ishmael and Esau were among those who enjoyed that privilege, yet ultimately they were excluded. And in fact the entire nation of Israel, for all of its privileges, was also ultimately excluded (except for the remnant).
But the issue of covenant inclusion isn’t really determined by whether or not one acknowledges a covenant of grace (i.e., inclusion in the NT “before the time”), is it? Since even the London Baptist Confession acknowledges that.
David R and McMark,
This may be far too simple and already hashed out in this discussion, I’ve tried to follow it fairly unsuccessfully, but has it already been argued that the AC was still in effect during the mosaic admin(remnant are saved truly) as a substratum, if you will, running underneath the typological mosaic administration? So, we have an overarching COG, since the fall, but then a typological administration whose ‘working principle’ is works(not of faith)-the Mosaic, that has the AC as a substratum of it(mosaic) so that the AC though eclipsed by the mosaic as an visible administration until the NC was nonetheless operative and now realized in the NC? It’s entirely possible that I’ve missed the ‘boat’ on this discussion but there it is.
Thanks again, David R. I don’t have a lot of time now either, so I will try not to stretch this out.
David: The AC is essentially the gospel covenant “before the time,” which Abe (as well as his believing progeny) entered into by faith and was justified.
mark: Not to repeat what I have written, or even to refer you back to specific posts, but no. I agree with David Gordon (and many others) that once you say “the gospel covenant” and you want to include in that concept all the biblical covenants, thus “flattening them out” and ignoring the differences for the sake of what you have already decided is “essential”, then you are going to miss the significance of redemptive-history. The children of Abraham had two mothers, and thus there were many who entered that covenant by birth only and not by faith.
To be specific, if the Abrahamic covenant is an objective promise to anybody that –if and when they believe the gospel— they will be saved by the righteousness of Christ, then what shall we say about the “genealogical principle”? Is that principle temporary and no more in force now that the promise to Abraham that he (Abraham, not us) would have many children and that one of those children would be the Redeemer, now that this promise has been fulfilled, and Christ has been circumcised on day eight, died for our sins and raised for our justification?
If that genealogical principle is not temporary but continues until there is no more marriage and family, then how is that promise/ principle different from the promise to Abraham about the possession of the land? Is it still also “unconditional” for the physical (even if unbelieving) seed of Abraham? Why do you keep the genealogical principle in the “essentially one” promise, on the other hand, if you think the land aspect is temporary?
I guess I should do more here than simply ask more questions, but I am trying to get you to think about what I call the “other promises” involved in the Abrahamic covenant. These “non-essential” promises are temporary, having to do with historical discontinuities as for example the case of one ceremonial sign (circumcision) being replaced by another ceremonial sign (water baptism).
So you allow that one sign can be REPLACED by another sign, but not that anything else can come to its end in the fulfillment by Christ. Of course you don’t deny that the “circumcision of Christ” is the fulfillment of the circumcision sign, but you still insist that the genealogical principle will remain in place.
David: Perhaps you want to say that Abe’s reprobate descendants, since they enjoyed temporal blessings, were also included.
mark: Well, I have the advantage of saying that Abe’s non-elect seed were in the covenant with Abe, but not in the new covenant, and certainly not in some ahistorical “the covenant of grace”. So credobaptists don’t have much trouble with saying that election is not the same as the Abrahamic covenant, because the non-elect are in THAT COVENANT.
Paedobaptists have more trouble, because they either equate the AC with the new covenant or put it into their “the covenant of grace”. Some like Hodge wrote about two covenants with Abraham, one in which only the elect were included. And there’s Doug Wilson on the other end saying that election becomes non-election because of the conditionality of “the” covenant. And then there’s David Engelsma saying that election and “the” covenant ARE the same, but of course the Protestant Reformed are not only talking about “the” new covenant but about “the covenant of grace”.
One question I hinted at a few posts back is the idea of “the new covenant” being back there for Abraham “before the time”. That would be–to me of course-quite different from saying that the Abrahamic covenant simply is the new covenant and that both (along with other covenants) are “the covenant of grace”. But, if you remember, I had trouble also with the concept even of a NC before the time.
David: But Ishmael and Esau were among those who enjoyed that privilege, yet ultimately they were excluded. And in fact the entire nation of Israel, for all of its privileges, was also ultimately excluded (except for the remnant)
mark: As I have pointed out, there is diversity here as well among covenant theologians. To some “excluded” means “never really in the first place”. For others, it means something like “externally in but not internally in”. And for many others, it seems obvious that you had to be in first to get the sanctions, negative or positive.
David: But the issue of covenant inclusion isn’t really determined by whether or not one acknowledges a covenant of grace (i.e., inclusion in the NT “before the time”), is it? Since even the London Baptist Confession acknowledges that.
mark: Well, David, if you really mean “a” covenant, we all agree that the new covenant is “a covenant of grace”, no matter what it said about other covenants. And your language above says “inclusion in the NT”, but I don’t want to make too much of that, because I don’t think you were agreeing with me that the new covenant is not “the one covenant”.
I think you mean the second London Confession (1689, the Sabbatarian version which imitates WCF), but if you look at the specifics, you will discover some cognitive dissonance even there for what “the covenant of grace” means. And of course there are many of us who prefer the first London Baptist confession (1642).
Many paedobaptists assume that they agree with each other when they say “the covenant of grace” when in fact they don’t. All the more reason not to assume that credobaptists using that particular phrase mean that “the covenant” includes as essential the genealogical principle.
But again, thanks, David R, with my respects. Some of us have more “enthusiasm for opposition” than others.
Now some evangelicals will only baptize people that have made what they consider to be a valid profession of faith. But Abraham was commanded to circumcise every one of his children, no matter who their mother was. And we think that’s important and essential duty in “the covenant of grace” but of course we ourselves will only baptize children if their parents have made what we consider a valid profession of faith.
Of course you might experiment and go to a liberal church where they will pretty much baptize any child no matter if their parents go to church at all. And certainly the real significance of every one of Abraham’s children receiving the sign of circumcision was to point to the coming of Christ, and certainly we also now agree that Christ has come.
So some liberals might tell you that the righteousness sealed in the sacrament is not about any one individual, and therefore they think the sign can be given to just anyone. But we ourselves know that the sacrament signifies that one of the parents has a valid profession of faith, not that we infallibly know that, and also we take comfort that the water baptism is not only an objective sign but reminds us that our own children will have God as their God, and are ingrafted and regenerated, not that we know that for sure in every case, but it’s way more likely to be the case with those in “the covenant”, so we get comfort from God from that because when we do the sacrament we know we are not the ones doing it
For us it is more about what God does for the children of believing parents than it is what a new believer does for God. And when we say what God does for our children, we are not right now thinking about the curses of the Mosaic covenantal economy. Nor do we want to spend all that much time thinking either about God casting out the son of Abraham who had the slave mother.
Of course we can’t deny that covenant curse is one example of what God does for the children of believing parents. I mean, but if you want to be technical, when the ordained clergyman says “you” it does not mean “you all” does he? Because yes we know people who get married might get divorced, and we know that some who are in “the covenant” might exclude themselves from it.
So yes, if you want to be technical, we say our children but we don’t say ALL the children. Truth is, for some of our children there will be more sanctions than for children not born to believing parents, but let’s not get into that, we would rather talk about the covenant, especially if we can substitute the c word instead of talking about election.
Because election is God’s business. I mean, the Bible does not tell who the elect are. And yes I guess that the Bible does speak about an elect remnant of grace. But we don’t know who they are. So we don’t have to talk about election. We can talk about the atonement. So we don’t have to talk about election. Perry Miller was not all wrong you know. We can say “for his people”. We don’t have to talk about election. The TRs will know who we are talking about and the rest of the people don’t need to know exactly what their dear pastor means. You see it’s kinda like a code language. We don’t have to talk about election We can talk about “the covenant”. And if you use the c word on a regular basis, you gotta figure that people pretty well know what it means.
the second London Baptist— “that eternal covenant transaction that was between the Father and the Son about the redemption of the elect; and it is alone by the grace of this covenant that all the posterity of fallen Adam that ever were saved did obtain life and blessed immortality, man being now utterly incapable of acceptance with God upon those terms on which Adam stood in his state of innocency.”
mark: There is some confusion here, but it seems that “this covenant” is what is often named “the covenant of redemption”, that is, the purpose (before the ages) of the Father, Son and Spirit to save elect sinners in Christ. Two questions often come up: 1. should this purpose be called “covenant”, if covenant means a “cut in history”? 2. and related, to what extent should this “covenant” concept be conflated with the (also ahistorical) idea of one “the covenant of grace”?
Sean,
This may be far too simple and already hashed out in this discussion, I’ve tried to follow it fairly unsuccessfully, but has it already been argued that the AC was still in effect during the mosaic admin(remnant are saved truly) as a substratum, if you will, running underneath the typological mosaic administration? So, we have an overarching COG, since the fall, but then a typological administration whose ‘working principle’ is works(not of faith)-the Mosaic, that has the AC as a substratum of it(mosaic) so that the AC though eclipsed by the mosaic as an visible administration until the NC was nonetheless operative and now realized in the NC? It’s entirely possible that I’ve missed the ‘boat’ on this discussion but there it is.
That’s pretty much how see it, since I agree with Kline on most things (insofar as I understand him). Mark too seems to appreciate the acknowledgement of discontinuity (contra monocovenantalism), but the notion of a covenant of grace (even with lots of caveats) gives him hives. Obviously he’s correct that some paedobaptists abuse the CoG concept to erase the law-gospel distinction between the MC and the NC, but that doesn’t mean we should throw the (ahem) baby out with the baptismal water. But Mark is convinced that the genealogical principle is one of the types that disappears.
A related thought: I’m starting to believe there are questions about the MC (and Kline’s view of it) that can’t really be answered definitively, like: Is it an “administration” of the CoG, or is it a “subservient covenant” differing in “substance” from the CoG? Gordon and Irons said that Kline’s view is the latter, but Ferry says Kline’s view is the former. But since the MC functions to typify the NC, I’m wondering if the answer isn’t both/and. IOW, OT saints who made right use of the MC recognized that it pointed to something beyond itself and were, by means of the MC types (works principle included), connected with the gospel. FWIW.
Mark,
David: The AC is essentially the gospel covenant “before the time,” which Abe (as well as his believing progeny) entered into by faith and was justified.
mark: Not to repeat what I have written, or even to refer you back to specific posts, but no. I agree with David Gordon (and many others) that once you say “the gospel covenant” and you want to include in that concept all the biblical covenants, thus “flattening them out” and ignoring the differences for the sake of what you have already decided is “essential”, then you are going to miss the significance of redemptive-history. The children of Abraham had two mothers, and thus there were many who entered that covenant by birth only and not by faith.
I am trying my utmost not to flatten out any covenants or ignore any distinctions. It is true of course that Abraham’s kids had two mothers, but only one of those mothers gave birth to children of promise and most of even her children were not such. But the Abrahamic covenant doesn’t promise temporal blessings for their own sakes, but as a pledge of heaven to those with eyes to see. As in the New Covenant, it is partaking in the thing signified, not the sign that is crucial.
By faith Abraham, when he was called, obeyed by going out to a place which he was to receive for an inheritance; and he went out, not knowing where he was going. By faith he lived as an alien in the land of promise, as in a foreign land, dwelling in tents with Isaac and Jacob, fellow heirs of the same promise; for he was looking for the city which has foundations, whose architect and builder is God. By faith even Sarah herself received ability to conceive, even beyond the proper time of life, since she considered Him faithful who had promised. Therefore there was born even of one man, and him as good as dead at that, as many descendants as the stars of heaven in number, and innumerable as the sand which is by the seashore.
All these died in faith, without receiving the promises, but having seen them and having welcomed them from a distance, and having confessed that they were strangers and exiles on the earth. For those who say such things make it clear that they are seeking a country of their own. And indeed if they had been thinking of that country from which they went out, they would have had opportunity to return. But as it is, they desire a better country, that is, a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God; for He has prepared a city for them (Hebrews 11:8-16)
Mark,
To be specific, if the Abrahamic covenant is an objective promise to anybody that –if and when they believe the gospel— they will be saved by the righteousness of Christ, then what shall we say about the “genealogical principle”? Is that principle temporary and no more in force now that the promise to Abraham that he (Abraham, not us) would have many children and that one of those children would be the Redeemer, now that this promise has been fulfilled, and Christ has been circumcised on day eight, died for our sins and raised for our justification?
I don’t see any biblical evidence that the genealogical principle is (merely) a type that ends with the coming of the promised Seed. (Child bearing of course far transcends the Mosaic Covenant.)
If that genealogical principle is not temporary but continues until there is no more marriage and family, then how is that promise/ principle different from the promise to Abraham about the possession of the land? Is it still also “unconditional” for the physical (even if unbelieving) seed of Abraham? Why do you keep the genealogical principle in the “essentially one” promise, on the other hand, if you think the land aspect is temporary?
Simply because the land promise is confined to the MC system of types and shadows that ended, but child-bearing isn’t. The AC promise is unconditional only for the elect. Those who inherited the earthly land (only) did not inherit the promise (according to the NT).
Mark, IOW, while the promise of land (the sign that is, not what it signifies) is limited to the MC, that the promise extends to “you and your children” transcends the MC, transcends even the AC, and even transcends the economy of redemption, since the same principle was operative prior to the fall.
david : I’m starting to believe there are questions about the MC (and Kline’s view of it) that can’t really be answered definitively, like: Is it an “administration” of the CoG, or is it a “subservient covenant” differing in “substance” from the CoG? Gordon and Irons said that Kline’s view is the latter, but Ferry says Kline’s view is the former. But since the MC functions to typify the NC, I’m wondering if the answer isn’t both/and.
mark: In other words, it doesn’t matter to you as long as you can keep some a-historical “the CoG” because if you lose that, maybe there is still only one gospel, but we are going to lose the genealogical principle and you need to keep that or there will be a narrowing and restriction so that we arrive at a NEW covenant in which there are no non-elect people, because if that happens, then even your definition of church will have to change….
But I notice that even in your sentence above don’t stick with “the CoG” language. You say the MC typifies the NC. Correct. You don’t say it typifies “the CoG”. Perhaps because you think the MC is part of “the CoG”
david:OT saints who made right use of the MC recognized that it pointed to something beyond itself and were, by means of the MC types (works principle included), connected with the gospel.
mark: now, who wouldn’t agree with that? Hey, even dispies would agree with “connection”. But it’s one thing to say that an old covenant points to the gospel, and another thing to say that an old covenant is the same as the new covenant, and even another different thing to say (what the Bible does not say) that all these covenants are all part of one “the CoG”..
david: But the Abrahamic covenant doesn’t promise temporal blessings for their own sakes, but as a pledge of heaven to those with eyes to see. As in the New Covenant, it is partaking in the thing signified, not the sign that is crucial.
mark: Of course that begs the question, which is–what are those things (plural) signified by the A sign of circumcision? Probably the phrase “temporal blessings” could be discussed, but it’s a convenient short-hand for something we should be able to agree about. I certainly agree that God’s promise to Abraham that Abraham will have children and that one of these children will be
the one seed who brings in the righteousness is for the sake of promising eternal life and forgiveness to all who believe the gospel.
But for how long a time were these “temporal blessings” promised? Did God promise anybody else besides Abraham what God promised to Abraham? To cut to the chase, did God even promise us we will have children? Certainly God does not promise any of us that one of our children will
be the one seed who brings in the righteousness. So when we say “temporary” or “temporal”, we are thinking either about what God promised uniquely to Abraham or what God promised one covenanted people until such time as the Christ would come. And now Christ has come.
Mark review:To be specific, if the Abrahamic covenant is an objective promise to anybody that –if and when they believe the gospel— they will be saved by the righteousness of Christ, then what shall we say about the “genealogical principle”? Is that principle temporary and no longer in force now that the promise to Abraham that he (Abraham, not us) would have many children and that one of those children would be the Redeemer, now that this promise has been fulfilled in Christ?
david: I don’t see any biblical evidence that the genealogical principle is (merely) a type that ends with the coming of the promised Seed. (Child bearing of course far transcends the Mosaic Covenant.)
mark: We are getting to it, I think. One, child bearing is something that happened since Eve, before the Abrahamic covenant and which continues until all the elect are brought into the new covenant. So there’s nothing specifically “Abrahamic” about child-bearing. Yes, God’s seed-promise to Eve certainly points to the gospel. Two, when we are talking about the A covenant, we are not talking about just any child bearing, because Abraham is commanded to circumcise all his children and this ritual is a sign also about God’s specific promise to Abraham, which is about the time between that promise and its fulfillment in Christ.
So we should t agree that the sign of circumcision has ceased to have any covenantal significance, but instead since Zwingli (And of course Cyprian wrote some about this argument long before Zwingli) we still have people insisting that ritual circumcision continues to have covenantal significance because (presto) water baptism now signifies the exact same thing/ things that circumcision did. Different form, but exact same significance. (Of course this can get a little tricky, because paedobaptists don’t agree about what this significance is. And of course neither do
credobaptists agree on what ritual water signifies.)
david: Simply because the land promise is confined to the MC system of types and shadows that ended, but child-bearing isn’t.
mark: I understand the assertion, but I am looking for arguments which display the difference. If you assume there’s only two choices, either dispies or covenant theology, then you tend to say that either the land or the genealogica principle has ended. But there are at least two other logical possibilities. One is a paedobaptist dipy, who could say that both the land and the genealogical principle continue. The other is people like me who claim that both have ended.
I suppose one way for me to understand, David, why you think the genealogical principle continues is for you to explain why you think the land promise is “confined” and now ended. If we could see why you think that about the land, then perhaps we could begin to see why you don’t think that about children who being born after Christ was born.
Just generic “child-bearing” is not something specific or inherent to the A covenant. So I have to assume that what you mean by “child-bearing” is something more pregnant with meaning than simply that some humans will continue to be parents of other children. But unless that
meaning is “merely” some mystical and comfortable experience that you cannot explain but feel, I for one would like to know why it’s important for our children ought to grow up thinking that they are
Christians (but fenced from the table until they have a creditable profession of faith).
David: The AC promise is unconditional only for the elect. Those who inherited the earthly land (only) did not inherit the promise (according to the NT).
mark: and there you go again, back to “the promise”. So there were no conditional promises attached? If the promise of land inheritance is not “the promise” but is indeed something God did talk to Abraham about, doesn’t that mean that we should talk about promises (plural)
to Abraham?
Acts 2: 37 Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?” 38 And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized each one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, as many as whom the Lord our God calls to himself.” 40 And with many other words he bore witness and continued to exhort them, saying, “Save yourselves from this crooked generation.” 41 So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls.
Sounds a little individualistic— perhaps we need to use the analogy of Scripture to adjust the “each of you” and the person count of 3000, because it’s too American and modern to think that God ever deals directly with individuals. Isn’t it?
But let that go, let’s look at all of verse 39
“the” promise is for
1. you
2. your children
3. as many as the Lord our God calls to Himself
I suppose the credobaptist narrows this to saying
1. you if you are one of those whom God has elected and will effectually call
2. your children if any of them are those whom God has elected and will effectually call
3. “save yourselves”, meaning “save your self ” as many selves as hear and believe the gospel.
And I suppose some (not all) paedobaptist would say that, if this is the proper reading of the text, then there would be redundancy. If we were going to focus on that “as many as the Lord shall” call as the limit which qualifies 1 and 2, then Peter could have just skipped 1 and 2, and “merely” said: “to as many as the Lord shall call”.
But instead Peter added “and to your children”, which must mean “something” (maybe we can’t explain it, and yes maybe it’s only the external call and maybe it’s more negative sanctions), but still that phrase must mean something, so what could it be, since this was said before many times by the law and the prophets?
I need to stop trying to put words in people’s mouths. You can see me cringe when I hear some other credobaptists defend credobaptism, so I don’t want to impute to you (you all) what some other paedobaptist wrote somewhere.
But I do want to look at all that verse 39. What is this promise? Is it a conditional promise? Is it law? Is it an offer? Does “you” mean “you all”? Does “your children” mean “all your children”? Is the call in view in verse 39 the effectual call? What is the call in the OT texts this Acts 2 text is echoing?
Ok, I like to hand out homework. Good night.
Rich Lusk, “Future Justification”, in A Faith that is Never Alone, p352—”James is pointing out that the same faith that clung to God’s promise(s) in Genesis 15 concerning the seed grew into mature obedience in Genesis 22, so that it could offer the seed back to God.”
David R,
I know what you mean, but I’m not sure Galatians lets us view the MC in a ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ use as it regards ties to the AC and it’s fulfillment in the NC. The MC is ‘not of faith’ as a principle of essence. It does serve a pedagogical function as it regards the gospel but I’m not sure that that is better categorized as an admin of the COG and not a subservient covenant. IOW, I’m gonna lean towards Irons and Gordon.