“The Child continued to grow and become strong, increasing in wisdom; and the grace of God was upon Him” (Luke 2:40).
Federal Visionists love this verse because they think that the grace of God was upon Jesus. They are quick to point out that our English word “grace,” as well as the Greek charis, can simply mean “favor.” Thus, Jesus was under the favor, or grace, of God.
Believe it or not, this is an attack on the gospel. The Reformed faith has always insisted that grace is a technical term that can only refer to favor shown to sinners. Thus, in no sense could Jesus be under the grace of God because Jesus was not a sinner.
This also has profound implications for understanding the time before the fall. Adam was not yet a sinner, and so, in no sense was Adam under the grace of God. Being created and given the privilege of living in the garden may seem grace-like, grace-tastic, and generally, grace-y. However, we must never say this was gracious because Adam was not yet a sinner. God was being nice, but not gracious.
Furthermore, this means that the pre-fall covenant could not have been a covenant of grace. There can be no grace unless sin is present. Since sin did not exist until after the fall, this means that grace could not have existed until after the fall.
Of course, all of this depends upon defining grace as “favor shown to sinners.” Should someone prove that grace does not always carry this precise definition, then our whole system would come crashing down like a house of cards.
This is why we must insist that grace always means “favor shown to sinners,” regardless of any Biblical evidence to the contrary. Being Reformed means stubbornly insisting upon using Biblical words in a far narrower sense than God actually used them in the Bible. Otherwise, you are attacking the gospel.
While Luke allegedly might have said that the grace of God was upon Jesus, no one who is truly Reformed would make such a gaffe. Thus, as a child, Jesus continued to grow and become strong, increasing in wisdom; and the grace of God was not upon him.
Showing posts with label Covenant Theology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Covenant Theology. Show all posts
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Friday, April 25, 2008
Exodus 12:3
“Speak to all the congregation of Israel, saying, ‘On the tenth of this month they are each one to take a lamb for themselves, according to their fathers’ households, a lamb for each household’” (Exodus 12:3).
Federal Visionists love this verse because they think that all children within Israel were included in the Passover celebration. They point out that the Lord told Moses to address “all the congregation of Israel,” and they assert that children were considered part of the congregation of Israel.
Furthermore, Federal Visionists point out that Israel was to take “a lamb for each household,” and they assert that children are part of these so-called “households.”
Federal Visionists then state that because all the children within Israel were included in the Passover celebration, so we should also include all of our children in the Lord’s Supper. In other words, Federal Visionists advocate Paedocommunion. However, this position is fraught with problems – historical, theological, and exegetical.
The Reformed faith has unanimously rejected Paedocommunion as beyond the pale of reformodoxy. All the Reformers and Puritans vehemently denounced it. Even Roman Catholics forbid it. When ecumenical blogs like the PuritanBoard do not allow members who are Paedocommunists, then one ought to think twice about adopting such a bizarre position. Yet, Federal Visionists are undeterred.
Frankly, the historical evidence carries all the weight for us. There is really no need to re-examine the exegetical or theological arguments for Paedocommunion. If Calvin rejected it, that’s good enough for us. Nevertheless, it could be helpful to have a few responses prepared.
Theologically, Paedocommunion arguments are all smoke and mirrors. Federal Visionists get a big kick out of linking Passover and the Lord’s Supper, but this is mixing Law and Gospel. Passover was part of the Old Covenant, which is the Covenant of Works. Communion is part of the New Covenant, which is the Covenant of Grace. Thus, under the Covenant of Works, God may have included children, but under the Covenant of Grace, God excludes our children.
Exegetically, Paedocommunion has no Scriptural support. First, the word “Paedocommunion” does not appear in the Bible. Second, no verse in the Bible ever shows the practice of Paedocommunion (admittedly, this is the same argument that Baptists use against us regarding Paedobaptism, but still). Third, Jesus instituted Communion with adults. He did not invite their children. Thus, we bar them from the table.
Furthermore, God did not intend children participate in the Passover. Although God specifies that the Passover was for “all the congregation of Israel” and for each “household,” children are not specifically mentioned. Thus, according to the Regulative Principle of Worship, children would have been excluded from Passover.
Therefore, on all fronts, Paedocommunion is an absolute train wreck. The whole point of Communion is to give the church a visible sign of the grace of God. Thus, Communion is the infrequent reminder that our children are outside of the grace of God, being only legally and not organically connected to Christ and his covenant.
Federal Visionists love this verse because they think that all children within Israel were included in the Passover celebration. They point out that the Lord told Moses to address “all the congregation of Israel,” and they assert that children were considered part of the congregation of Israel.
Furthermore, Federal Visionists point out that Israel was to take “a lamb for each household,” and they assert that children are part of these so-called “households.”
Federal Visionists then state that because all the children within Israel were included in the Passover celebration, so we should also include all of our children in the Lord’s Supper. In other words, Federal Visionists advocate Paedocommunion. However, this position is fraught with problems – historical, theological, and exegetical.
The Reformed faith has unanimously rejected Paedocommunion as beyond the pale of reformodoxy. All the Reformers and Puritans vehemently denounced it. Even Roman Catholics forbid it. When ecumenical blogs like the PuritanBoard do not allow members who are Paedocommunists, then one ought to think twice about adopting such a bizarre position. Yet, Federal Visionists are undeterred.
Frankly, the historical evidence carries all the weight for us. There is really no need to re-examine the exegetical or theological arguments for Paedocommunion. If Calvin rejected it, that’s good enough for us. Nevertheless, it could be helpful to have a few responses prepared.
Theologically, Paedocommunion arguments are all smoke and mirrors. Federal Visionists get a big kick out of linking Passover and the Lord’s Supper, but this is mixing Law and Gospel. Passover was part of the Old Covenant, which is the Covenant of Works. Communion is part of the New Covenant, which is the Covenant of Grace. Thus, under the Covenant of Works, God may have included children, but under the Covenant of Grace, God excludes our children.
Exegetically, Paedocommunion has no Scriptural support. First, the word “Paedocommunion” does not appear in the Bible. Second, no verse in the Bible ever shows the practice of Paedocommunion (admittedly, this is the same argument that Baptists use against us regarding Paedobaptism, but still). Third, Jesus instituted Communion with adults. He did not invite their children. Thus, we bar them from the table.
Furthermore, God did not intend children participate in the Passover. Although God specifies that the Passover was for “all the congregation of Israel” and for each “household,” children are not specifically mentioned. Thus, according to the Regulative Principle of Worship, children would have been excluded from Passover.
Therefore, on all fronts, Paedocommunion is an absolute train wreck. The whole point of Communion is to give the church a visible sign of the grace of God. Thus, Communion is the infrequent reminder that our children are outside of the grace of God, being only legally and not organically connected to Christ and his covenant.
Friday, April 18, 2008
Hebrews 10:29
“How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace?” (Hebrews 10:29).
Federal Visionists love this verse because they think that this is a warning to covenant breakers. They note that the author of Hebrews threatens that some who were “sanctified” will receive “punishment.” Thus, it is argued that the New Covenant is conditional.
You see, Federal Visionists believe that the New Covenant is not unconditional. That is, the New Covenant can be either kept of broken. Thus, FVers do not believe that membership in the New Covenant is necessarily permanent. Some are temporary members. Such temporary members are those who break the covenant. They will not be eternally saved.
Federal Visionists point out that this verse speaks of those who were in the covenant. They were “sanctified” “by the blood of the covenant.” Thus, they were members of the New Covenant. They were given all the privileges of the covenant.
However, their covenant status is now in doubt due to their unfaithfulness. Three proofs are offered: 1) they have “trampled under foot the Son of God;” 2) they have “regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant;” 3) they have “insulted the Spirit of grace.” These are certainly three damnable actions.
Admittedly, at face value, it does seem as if the author of Hebrews is saying that some who were “sanctified” will receive “punishment.” However, there is no reason to fall for such bumbling exegesis.
The Reformed Answer
The Reformed faith has always insisted that the New Covenant is unconditional. Once you are justified by faith alone, then you are eternally secure. No amount of “trampling,” “disregarding,” or “insulting” can ever threaten your covenant status. Heck, you could even deny Christ, and he will not deny you. Remember, no branches are ever removed from the vine. Once you exercise faith alone, then you are eternally secure.
This verse has long been a favorite of Arminians, and now, their bastard children, the Federal Visionists, have latched on to this verse with a vengeance. However, there is a cornucopia of ways to escape the plain language of the text and remain Reformed.
Some in Calvindom argue that this verse is speaking of those who were never in the covenant to begin with. They looked like they were in the covenant, but they were not. These are like the Frisbee that gets stuck in the tree and mistaken for a branch but is eventually removed. In order to circumvent the text, they do not take “sanctified” to refer to Sanctification, but to sanctification, which in this case means something like benefiting from the general holiness of the church.
Others prefer to speak of those who were “sanctified” as those who were in the outer sphere of the covenant, but were never in the inner core of the covenant, whatever that means.
While these are all legitimate Reformed ways of dispensing with the text, we think a better answer lies in the text itself. “Sanctified” is an aorist verb, meaning that it is referring to a one-time action. Everyone knows that Sanctification is an ongoing action, not a one-time action. Thus, while the author of Hebrews used the word “sanctified,” he was really referring to Justification.
Now, this does not get us off the hook just yet. If anything, this tightens the noose a bit because we take the author to be saying that those who have been Justified are deserving of a severer punishment. We’re not quite safe in Calvin yet.
If you look more closely at the text, you will notice that there is a question mark at the end of the sentence, indicating that this is a question. Thus, this is not an indicative statement, but a question.
The question is essentially, “How much severer punishment will those deserve who have been sanctified (Justified)?” Obviously trampling, disregarding, and insulting do deserve a much severer punishment.
However, remember that the author of Hebrews is speaking of the Justified man. He has already been forgiven of all of his sins, including trampling, disregarding, and insulting God. He cannot sin his way out of Justification. That’s impossible!
Thus, the author of Hebrews is in no way saying that such a person will receive any actual punishment. He is more deserving of punishment, but he will never receive it because this was all transferred to Christ on the cross.
Thus, only a purely-Reformed understanding of sola fide can ensure that we handle such texts with integrity. Otherwise, this passage does sound FVish.
As this letter was read to the Hebrews, some newbies may have been confused by the hypothetical question, but undoubtedly, they were quickly straightened out by ANEPARC (Ancient Near Eastern Presbyterian and Reformed Council).
Federal Visionists love this verse because they think that this is a warning to covenant breakers. They note that the author of Hebrews threatens that some who were “sanctified” will receive “punishment.” Thus, it is argued that the New Covenant is conditional.
You see, Federal Visionists believe that the New Covenant is not unconditional. That is, the New Covenant can be either kept of broken. Thus, FVers do not believe that membership in the New Covenant is necessarily permanent. Some are temporary members. Such temporary members are those who break the covenant. They will not be eternally saved.
Federal Visionists point out that this verse speaks of those who were in the covenant. They were “sanctified” “by the blood of the covenant.” Thus, they were members of the New Covenant. They were given all the privileges of the covenant.
However, their covenant status is now in doubt due to their unfaithfulness. Three proofs are offered: 1) they have “trampled under foot the Son of God;” 2) they have “regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant;” 3) they have “insulted the Spirit of grace.” These are certainly three damnable actions.
Admittedly, at face value, it does seem as if the author of Hebrews is saying that some who were “sanctified” will receive “punishment.” However, there is no reason to fall for such bumbling exegesis.
The Reformed Answer
The Reformed faith has always insisted that the New Covenant is unconditional. Once you are justified by faith alone, then you are eternally secure. No amount of “trampling,” “disregarding,” or “insulting” can ever threaten your covenant status. Heck, you could even deny Christ, and he will not deny you. Remember, no branches are ever removed from the vine. Once you exercise faith alone, then you are eternally secure.
This verse has long been a favorite of Arminians, and now, their bastard children, the Federal Visionists, have latched on to this verse with a vengeance. However, there is a cornucopia of ways to escape the plain language of the text and remain Reformed.
Some in Calvindom argue that this verse is speaking of those who were never in the covenant to begin with. They looked like they were in the covenant, but they were not. These are like the Frisbee that gets stuck in the tree and mistaken for a branch but is eventually removed. In order to circumvent the text, they do not take “sanctified” to refer to Sanctification, but to sanctification, which in this case means something like benefiting from the general holiness of the church.
Others prefer to speak of those who were “sanctified” as those who were in the outer sphere of the covenant, but were never in the inner core of the covenant, whatever that means.
While these are all legitimate Reformed ways of dispensing with the text, we think a better answer lies in the text itself. “Sanctified” is an aorist verb, meaning that it is referring to a one-time action. Everyone knows that Sanctification is an ongoing action, not a one-time action. Thus, while the author of Hebrews used the word “sanctified,” he was really referring to Justification.
Now, this does not get us off the hook just yet. If anything, this tightens the noose a bit because we take the author to be saying that those who have been Justified are deserving of a severer punishment. We’re not quite safe in Calvin yet.
If you look more closely at the text, you will notice that there is a question mark at the end of the sentence, indicating that this is a question. Thus, this is not an indicative statement, but a question.
The question is essentially, “How much severer punishment will those deserve who have been sanctified (Justified)?” Obviously trampling, disregarding, and insulting do deserve a much severer punishment.
However, remember that the author of Hebrews is speaking of the Justified man. He has already been forgiven of all of his sins, including trampling, disregarding, and insulting God. He cannot sin his way out of Justification. That’s impossible!
Thus, the author of Hebrews is in no way saying that such a person will receive any actual punishment. He is more deserving of punishment, but he will never receive it because this was all transferred to Christ on the cross.
Thus, only a purely-Reformed understanding of sola fide can ensure that we handle such texts with integrity. Otherwise, this passage does sound FVish.
As this letter was read to the Hebrews, some newbies may have been confused by the hypothetical question, but undoubtedly, they were quickly straightened out by ANEPARC (Ancient Near Eastern Presbyterian and Reformed Council).
Friday, April 11, 2008
Genesis 3:22-24
“Then the Lord God said, ‘Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might stretch out his hand, and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever’ – therefore the Lord God sent him out from the garden of Eden, to cultivate the ground from which he was taken. So He drove the man out; and at the east of the garden of Eden He stationed the cherubim and the flaming sword which turned every direction to guard the way to the tree of life” (Genesis 3:22-24).
Federal Visionists love this passage because they think that this is the first time that God prevented Adam and Eve from eating of the ToL (Tree of Life). They assert that God gave Adam and Eve access to the ToL from the beginning. Rather than requiring them to merit covenant blessings, God gave the blessings of the covenant upfront, apart from their merit. Thus, the pre-fall covenant was supposedly based upon “grace.”
Dude.
The Reformed faith has always insisted that the pre-fall covenant was a COW (Covenant of Works). Adam was sinless, but not righteous. He could have merited covenant blessings through his works of perfect obedience. Thus, if Adam had obeyed perfectly, he would have earned access to the ToL, but not before.
Now, the Bible never indicates that God had previously barred Adam from the ToL. In fact, the text explicitly states the opposite, as the TKGE (Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil) was the only tree that was forbidden (Genesis 2:16-17). However, we have never let the word of God stand in the way of our modern Reformed imagination.
Notwithstanding the Scriptures, the Reformed faith has always insisted that both trees were out of bounds. This is precisely where the theological train track splits, and unfortunately, Federal Visionists take a right (heading home to Rome), when they should take a left (easing towards Escondido).
The two trees of the garden represent the Law and the Gospel. The TKGE represents the Law, and the ToL represents the Gospel. If Adam had kept the Law (TKGE), then he would have earned access to the Gospel (ToL). Those who deny this are SoL.
Federal Visionists claim that this is speculative eisegesis, but isn’t this just the kettle calling the pot black? Federal Visionists are the ones who employ a typological hermeneutic that would make Origen squirm.
Typology is absolutely necessary, but only when proper hermeneutics are employed. The Reformed hermeneutic is Law/Gospel. Until you read the Bible through Law/Gospel glasses, then you are misreading the Scriptures. Once you understand the Law/Gospel grid, then you will have the inklination to see every pair in the Bible as symbolic of the Law and the Gospel. For instance, consider these obvious examples:
The sun and the moon = the Law and the Gospel
The two wives of Lamech = the Law and the Gospel
The two angels that rescued Lot = the Law and the Gospel
The two tablets of stone = the Law and the Gospel
The two cherubim on the ark = the Law and the Gospel
Nadab and Abihu = the Law and the Gospel
The twin gazelles in Song of Songs = the Law and the Gospel
The two female bears that devoured the youths who insulted Elisha = the Law and the Gospel
The two fish in the feeding of the 5,000 = the Law and the Gospel
The sons of Zebedee = the Law and the Gospel
The two greatest commandments = the Law and the Gospel
The two denarii in the Good Samaritan = the Law and the Gospel
The two mites of the widow = the Law and the Gospel
The two angels in Jesus’ tomb = the Law and the Gospel
The two soldiers who guarded Peter = the Law and the Gospel
The two years Paul spent in Rome = the Law and the Gospel
The two-edged sword of the word of God = the Law and the Gospel
The two witnesses in Revelation = the Law and the Gospel
This is just a sample of how understanding Law and Gospel opens up the Scriptures in breathtaking ways. For all their self-vaunted “Biblicism,” you won’t see Federal Visionists engage in this quality of interpretation. So much for exegesis. So much for the Bible.
Dude.
Federal Visionists love this passage because they think that this is the first time that God prevented Adam and Eve from eating of the ToL (Tree of Life). They assert that God gave Adam and Eve access to the ToL from the beginning. Rather than requiring them to merit covenant blessings, God gave the blessings of the covenant upfront, apart from their merit. Thus, the pre-fall covenant was supposedly based upon “grace.”
Dude.
The Reformed faith has always insisted that the pre-fall covenant was a COW (Covenant of Works). Adam was sinless, but not righteous. He could have merited covenant blessings through his works of perfect obedience. Thus, if Adam had obeyed perfectly, he would have earned access to the ToL, but not before.
Now, the Bible never indicates that God had previously barred Adam from the ToL. In fact, the text explicitly states the opposite, as the TKGE (Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil) was the only tree that was forbidden (Genesis 2:16-17). However, we have never let the word of God stand in the way of our modern Reformed imagination.
Notwithstanding the Scriptures, the Reformed faith has always insisted that both trees were out of bounds. This is precisely where the theological train track splits, and unfortunately, Federal Visionists take a right (heading home to Rome), when they should take a left (easing towards Escondido).
The two trees of the garden represent the Law and the Gospel. The TKGE represents the Law, and the ToL represents the Gospel. If Adam had kept the Law (TKGE), then he would have earned access to the Gospel (ToL). Those who deny this are SoL.
Federal Visionists claim that this is speculative eisegesis, but isn’t this just the kettle calling the pot black? Federal Visionists are the ones who employ a typological hermeneutic that would make Origen squirm.
Typology is absolutely necessary, but only when proper hermeneutics are employed. The Reformed hermeneutic is Law/Gospel. Until you read the Bible through Law/Gospel glasses, then you are misreading the Scriptures. Once you understand the Law/Gospel grid, then you will have the inklination to see every pair in the Bible as symbolic of the Law and the Gospel. For instance, consider these obvious examples:
The sun and the moon = the Law and the Gospel
The two wives of Lamech = the Law and the Gospel
The two angels that rescued Lot = the Law and the Gospel
The two tablets of stone = the Law and the Gospel
The two cherubim on the ark = the Law and the Gospel
Nadab and Abihu = the Law and the Gospel
The twin gazelles in Song of Songs = the Law and the Gospel
The two female bears that devoured the youths who insulted Elisha = the Law and the Gospel
The two fish in the feeding of the 5,000 = the Law and the Gospel
The sons of Zebedee = the Law and the Gospel
The two greatest commandments = the Law and the Gospel
The two denarii in the Good Samaritan = the Law and the Gospel
The two mites of the widow = the Law and the Gospel
The two angels in Jesus’ tomb = the Law and the Gospel
The two soldiers who guarded Peter = the Law and the Gospel
The two years Paul spent in Rome = the Law and the Gospel
The two-edged sword of the word of God = the Law and the Gospel
The two witnesses in Revelation = the Law and the Gospel
This is just a sample of how understanding Law and Gospel opens up the Scriptures in breathtaking ways. For all their self-vaunted “Biblicism,” you won’t see Federal Visionists engage in this quality of interpretation. So much for exegesis. So much for the Bible.
Dude.
Thursday, March 27, 2008
Malachi 2:14
“Yet you say, ‘For what reason? Because the Lord has been a witness between you and the wife of your youth, against whom you have dealt treacherously, though she is your companion and your wife by covenant” (Malachi 2:14).
Federal Visionists love this verse because they think that marriage is a covenant. They point out that marriages are kept by faithfulness and broken by unfaithfulness. They further assert that the paradigm of marriage corresponds to the paradigm of the covenant between God and his people. They even attempt to draw parallels between Christ and the church and marriage via Ephesians 5. Obviously, such grasping at straws reveals the eisegetical impulse of the Federal Vision.
The Reformed faith has always insisted that there are but two paradigms for covenants: works and grace. All covenants are based upon either strict works or sheer grace. Here’s the exegetical details:
The Covenant of Works is a breakable covenant, but it can only be kept by absolute perfection (WCF, 7.2). Obviously, marriage is not like the Covenant of Works because marriages are not dissolved due to a single imperfection.
The Covenant of Grace is an unbreakable covenant because it is based solely upon grace (WCF, 7.3). Obviously, marriage is not like the Covenant of Grace because marriages can break up due to unfaithfulness.
Thus, marriage is not like either the Covenant of Works nor the Covenant of Grace. For this reason, truly Reformed theologians do not consider marriage to be a covenant, exegetically speaking.
Malachi and other Federal Visionists get into trouble because they expect the Bible to inform them about the nature of covenants. However, the Ancient Near East is actually a much better source of information about covenants.
Thus, in order to stay Reformed, we must carefully study the ANE treaties. Remember, we do not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of Hittite suzerains.
Federal Visionists love this verse because they think that marriage is a covenant. They point out that marriages are kept by faithfulness and broken by unfaithfulness. They further assert that the paradigm of marriage corresponds to the paradigm of the covenant between God and his people. They even attempt to draw parallels between Christ and the church and marriage via Ephesians 5. Obviously, such grasping at straws reveals the eisegetical impulse of the Federal Vision.
The Reformed faith has always insisted that there are but two paradigms for covenants: works and grace. All covenants are based upon either strict works or sheer grace. Here’s the exegetical details:
The Covenant of Works is a breakable covenant, but it can only be kept by absolute perfection (WCF, 7.2). Obviously, marriage is not like the Covenant of Works because marriages are not dissolved due to a single imperfection.
The Covenant of Grace is an unbreakable covenant because it is based solely upon grace (WCF, 7.3). Obviously, marriage is not like the Covenant of Grace because marriages can break up due to unfaithfulness.
Thus, marriage is not like either the Covenant of Works nor the Covenant of Grace. For this reason, truly Reformed theologians do not consider marriage to be a covenant, exegetically speaking.
Malachi and other Federal Visionists get into trouble because they expect the Bible to inform them about the nature of covenants. However, the Ancient Near East is actually a much better source of information about covenants.
Thus, in order to stay Reformed, we must carefully study the ANE treaties. Remember, we do not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of Hittite suzerains.
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Deuteronomy 30:11
“For this commandment which I command you today is not too difficult for you, nor is it out of reach” (Deuteronomy 30:11).
Federal Visionists love this verse because they think that the covenant that God made with Israel was not too difficult for them, nor was it out of their reach. They argue that the covenant was to be kept by faith. Obviously, this is utterly Pelagian.
The Reformed faith has always insisted that covenants can only be based upon grace or works. A covenant based upon grace is entirely a gift, and thus, it is unbreakable. A covenant based upon works is kept by perfect obedience. These are the only two paradigms for covenants in the Bible.
Thus, the Reformed faith has always held that the Mosaic covenant was a re-publication of the Covenant of Works. As such, it required strict obedience. If Israel failed to perfectly obey, then they broke the covenant.
This is precisely what happened. As soon as the covenant was made, undoubtedly one of the Israelites sinned and broke the covenant. In fact, before Moses could finish reading the requirements of the covenant, Israel had probably already broken the covenant.
Thus, God could enjoy the farcical moment of Moses writing that the covenant was “not too difficult nor out of reach,” when in fact, the covenant was already broken. In reality, the covenant that God made with Israel was far too difficult from them. It was far, far out of their reach.
Federal Visionists love this verse because they think that the covenant that God made with Israel was not too difficult for them, nor was it out of their reach. They argue that the covenant was to be kept by faith. Obviously, this is utterly Pelagian.
The Reformed faith has always insisted that covenants can only be based upon grace or works. A covenant based upon grace is entirely a gift, and thus, it is unbreakable. A covenant based upon works is kept by perfect obedience. These are the only two paradigms for covenants in the Bible.
Thus, the Reformed faith has always held that the Mosaic covenant was a re-publication of the Covenant of Works. As such, it required strict obedience. If Israel failed to perfectly obey, then they broke the covenant.
This is precisely what happened. As soon as the covenant was made, undoubtedly one of the Israelites sinned and broke the covenant. In fact, before Moses could finish reading the requirements of the covenant, Israel had probably already broken the covenant.
Thus, God could enjoy the farcical moment of Moses writing that the covenant was “not too difficult nor out of reach,” when in fact, the covenant was already broken. In reality, the covenant that God made with Israel was far too difficult from them. It was far, far out of their reach.
Monday, March 24, 2008
Genesis 2:16-17
“The Lord God commanded the man, saying, "From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die” (Genesis 2:16-17).
Federal Visionists love these verses because they point out that God only forbade Adam from eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. They allege that the tree of life was not forbidden. Therefore, in the pre-fall covenant, access to the tree of life was given as a gift from God. It did not have to be earned, but it could be lost through sin.
Thus, Federal Visionists argue for a covenantal paradigm in which the blessings of the covenant were given immediately, rather than having to be earned, yet those blessings could be lost through sin. Obviously, this covenantal paradigm is sub-Reformed because it does not correspond with any paradigm from the Ancient Near Eastern treaties.
The Reformed faith has always insisted that the pre-fall covenant was a covenant of merit. Although unstated in the text, we assume that God forbade Adam from eating of the tree of life until he earned it by perfect obedience. Why else would all branches of the Reformation call this the Covenant of Works?
Furthermore, unless we restrict ourselves to the inspired covenantal paradigms of Hittite treaties, then we depart from the Reformed faith.
Federal Visionists love these verses because they point out that God only forbade Adam from eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. They allege that the tree of life was not forbidden. Therefore, in the pre-fall covenant, access to the tree of life was given as a gift from God. It did not have to be earned, but it could be lost through sin.
Thus, Federal Visionists argue for a covenantal paradigm in which the blessings of the covenant were given immediately, rather than having to be earned, yet those blessings could be lost through sin. Obviously, this covenantal paradigm is sub-Reformed because it does not correspond with any paradigm from the Ancient Near Eastern treaties.
The Reformed faith has always insisted that the pre-fall covenant was a covenant of merit. Although unstated in the text, we assume that God forbade Adam from eating of the tree of life until he earned it by perfect obedience. Why else would all branches of the Reformation call this the Covenant of Works?
Furthermore, unless we restrict ourselves to the inspired covenantal paradigms of Hittite treaties, then we depart from the Reformed faith.
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Romans 9:31-32
“But, Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness, did not arrive at that law. Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as though it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone” (Romans 9:31-32).
Federal Visionists love this passage because they think Paul is saying that Israel should have pursued the Mosaic Covenant by faith rather than by works. Paul allegedly argues that Israel could have “arrived” at the law through faith, but they did not “arrive” at the law because they pursued the law by works. If Israel could have “arrived” at the law through faith, then this would mean that the Mosaic Covenant was a Covenant of Grace rather than a Covenant of Works. Obviously, this is neo-Shepherdian-legalism.
The Reformed faith has unanimously insisted that the Mosaic Covenant was a republication of the Covenant of Works. The Mosaic Covenant did not require faith; it required absolute perfection. Thus, Israel was correct to pursue it by works rather than by faith. Israel failed because they were not perfect, not because they did or did not have faith. Faith has nothing to do with the Mosaic Covenant.
Federal Visionists love this passage because they think Paul is saying that Israel should have pursued the Mosaic Covenant by faith rather than by works. Paul allegedly argues that Israel could have “arrived” at the law through faith, but they did not “arrive” at the law because they pursued the law by works. If Israel could have “arrived” at the law through faith, then this would mean that the Mosaic Covenant was a Covenant of Grace rather than a Covenant of Works. Obviously, this is neo-Shepherdian-legalism.
The Reformed faith has unanimously insisted that the Mosaic Covenant was a republication of the Covenant of Works. The Mosaic Covenant did not require faith; it required absolute perfection. Thus, Israel was correct to pursue it by works rather than by faith. Israel failed because they were not perfect, not because they did or did not have faith. Faith has nothing to do with the Mosaic Covenant.
Sunday, January 20, 2008
John 15:6
"If anyone does not abide in Me, he is thrown away as a branch and dries up; and they gather them, and cast them into the fire and they are burned" (John 15:6).
Federal Visionists love this verse because they think that this refers to “covenant breakers.” However, this is thinly-disguised Arminianism.
The Reformed faith has always insisted that the Covenant of Grace is unbreakable because “it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy” (Romans 9:16).
Some have argued that “fire” and being “burned” refer to hell. Those who do not abide in Christ are those who never were “in Christ.” They never did abide in Christ. They might have looked like it, but they were never united to Christ, and thus could never abide in him.
While this interpretation has some support in Reformed churches, we prefer the view put forth by the renowned scholar Charles Ryrie. Ryrie has cogently argued that “fire” and being “burned” refer to the judgment of those who built their lives on wood, hay, and straw. Yet, notice that “if any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire” (1 Corinthians 3:15).
Ryrie deftly defends the gospel from conditions such as “abiding in Christ.” This is simply works-righteousness packaged as the gospel, which is a different gospel, which is no gospel at all. Praise God for men like Charles Ryrie, who help protect the solas.
Federal Visionists love this verse because they think that this refers to “covenant breakers.” However, this is thinly-disguised Arminianism.
The Reformed faith has always insisted that the Covenant of Grace is unbreakable because “it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy” (Romans 9:16).
Some have argued that “fire” and being “burned” refer to hell. Those who do not abide in Christ are those who never were “in Christ.” They never did abide in Christ. They might have looked like it, but they were never united to Christ, and thus could never abide in him.
While this interpretation has some support in Reformed churches, we prefer the view put forth by the renowned scholar Charles Ryrie. Ryrie has cogently argued that “fire” and being “burned” refer to the judgment of those who built their lives on wood, hay, and straw. Yet, notice that “if any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire” (1 Corinthians 3:15).
Ryrie deftly defends the gospel from conditions such as “abiding in Christ.” This is simply works-righteousness packaged as the gospel, which is a different gospel, which is no gospel at all. Praise God for men like Charles Ryrie, who help protect the solas.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)