Believers and their children?

[Canadian _Shawn]

So I'll continue reading those papers,

But in the meantime something else occured to me: did God really make the promise of salvation to Abraham and his descendants? On a certain reading of the OT, it looks possible, but as far as Galatians 3:16 is concerned, the answer may be no. In fact, could it be that the promise was not to Abraham and his descendants (and by extension believers and their children), but to Christ.

"Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, "And to offsprings," referring to many, but referring to one, "And to your offspring," who is Christ." (Galatians 3:16)

How are we united to Christ? "...for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ" (Gal 3:26,27).

So it seems that the promise is not to believers and their children, but to Christ, and only those who belong to him in faith are considered heirs. In essence, this verse is saying that the idea of inheriting God's promise through descent is a mistaken, or typological one. I think that may be evidence for the Baptistic view of a change in administration of the covenant signs.

Cheers,
Shawn


PS:
"The point is, you cannot fully understand the intricacies and background of the New Testament without a thorough comprehension of the Old Testament"

"And it is most interesting to me that as a Reformed Baptist, my starting point for understanding certain theological topics in accordance with the Old Testament was in the New Testament. This is just a bad hermeneutic from the start. No one reads a book from back to front, and God did not have it written that way, nor did He inspire it that way."

This, of course, is not a hard and fast rule. In many, if not most, circumstances, the OT is composed of signs, shadows, and types that are impossible for us to understand except in light of the NT. So to interpret the NT in light of the OT may actually be the wrong hermeneutic, especially if our hermeneutic is more covenantal than Christological "...these are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is Christ."

 

[Saiph]

But in the meantime something else occured to me: did God really make the promise of salvation to Abraham and his descendants?

Was Jesus a Jew ?

It is both aspects of being physical and spiritual. Not one or the other. Relying on the heritage only is a sin, but relying on pietistic solipsisms of you and the Bible alone, disconnected from Church history, denying godly family heritage, which goes all the way all the way back to Abraham, is also sin.

 

[pastorway]

ah yes, the inspired and infallible history and tradition of the church, which if followed would have us all unReformed and standing with Rome.

 

[Canadian _Shawn]

Hi Mark,

It may just be me, but I'm reading a little bit of a personal attack in your post. I hope that's not the case. I did find what you wrote a little puzzling, though.

First, you accused me of "pietistic solipsism." You do realize the Pietists were Lutherans, ie: paedobaptists, who were protesting against the deadness of their State churches. A deadness that is common, I must say, to the vast majority of churches that practice paedobaptism (but no wonder, considering that faith is not a condition of membership in their churches).

And as for the claim that I am disconnected from Church history... Well, I'm sure my Catholic and Orthodox friends would get a good chuckle at a Protestant accusing a Baptist of being disconnected from Church history! Mark, you do realize that covenant theology only appeared in the 17th century (with Cocceius and Witsius) and that the main arguments for infant baptism throughout history even to our own day have largely rested on baptismal regeneration and superstitious sacramentalism don't you? The kind of sacramentalism which is still practiced by members of your own Communion, I might add (as a good-natured barb, not as an insult). So yes, from that kind of Church history I will gladly disconnect myself, because it means staying true to Scripture. Sola scriptura, you know. So in a sense, yah, it does come down to me and my Bible. "Unless I can be convinced by

And for the record, I don't think differentiating between the administrations of different covenant to be a "sin." I see the difference between creedo and paedobaptists as being an exegetical and hermeneutical problem, though, of course, wrong practice is sinful, and usually results in widespread spiritual decline.


Cheers,
Shawn

"Unless I am convinced by Scripture or clear reasoning that I am in error "“ for popes and councils [and Protestant theologians, Ed.] have often erred and contradicted themselves "“ I cannot recant, for I am subject to the Scriptures I have quoted; my conscience is captive to the Word of God. It is unsafe and dangerous to do anything against one´s conscience. Here I stand. I cannot do otherwise. So help me God. Amen"

 

[Saiph]

Pastorway,

All men are indeed fallible. There is not one church father, reformer, puritan, or christian author that is pure and free from error. Yet, to stand alone, trustng in our abilities and the bible alone, never reading these historical contributers to hear what the Spirit taught through them, testing it all with scripture as the Bereans did, would be grave arrogance would it not ? ?

Sola Scriptura means we do not hold tradition or the teachings of men against or above scripture, not that we don't honor great men that have elightened us with teaching illumined by the Holy Spirit along side scripture.


Sorry if I was confusing or unclear on that brother.

 

[Saiph]

Shawn,

It may just be me, but I'm reading a little bit of a personal attack in your post. I hope that's not the case. I did find what you wrote a little puzzling, though.

No way, and I sincerely apologize if I came across that way.

First, you accused me of "pietistic solipsism."

I did not brother. I did not mean you Shawn, but one in general.
Again I apologize for not stating that is was not an accusation.

You do realize the Pietists were Lutherans, ie: paedobaptists, who were protesting against the deadness of their State churches. A deadness that is common, I must say, to the vast majority of churches that practice paedobaptism (but no wonder, considering that faith is not a condition of membership in their churches).

I am using pietistic in the sense of being suspicious of everything related to Church History and hiding away from it.

And as for the claim that I am disconnected from Church history... Well, I'm sure my Catholic and Orthodox friends would get a good chuckle at a Protestant accusing a Baptist of being disconnected from Church history!

Read my post to Pastorway to see more of what I meant.

Mark, you do realize that covenant theology only appeared in the 17th century (with Cocceius and Witsius) and that the main arguments for infant baptism throughout history even to our own day have largely rested on baptismal regeneration and superstitious sacramentalism don't you? The kind of sacramentalism which is still practiced by members of your own Communion, I might add (as a good-natured barb, not as an insult). So yes, from that kind of Church history I will gladly disconnect myself, because it means staying true to Scripture. Sola scriptura, you know. So in a sense, yah, it does come down to me and my Bible.

I humbly disagree. I was coverted away from dispensationalism to covenant thelogy by reading Augustine, and Aquinas.

[Edited on 10-10-2005 by Saiph]

 

[Scott Bushey]

Mark, you do realize that covenant theology only appeared in the 17th century (with Cocceius and Witsius) and that the main arguments for infant baptism throughout history even to our own day have largely rested on baptismal regeneration and superstitious sacramentalism don't you?

Really,
I thought CT was a biblically based theory. The main argument for CT is BR???

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

Phillip, I don't think the question is that men are infallible or that tradition is infallible. I would, though, have all to consider that in the writings of the Reformation (of Luther, Calivn, Bucer, Bullinger, et. al.) they quote men like Augustine so many times that people spend thier whole lives trying to piece it all togther. In other words, though men are fallible, there is still a common concensus for essential church doctrine and understanding. That is why, as most reformers believe (both now and then) that sacraments are part of the esse of the church.

 

[R. Scott Clark]

...that covenant theology only appeared in the 17th century (with Cocceius and Witsius)"¦

Shawn,

This is a widely published though quite false account of the history of covenant theology. This view was promulgated particularly in the late 19th century and in the early part of the 20th century.

In fact, the major elements that were synthesized to become Reformed federal theology all existed to a significant degree in the patristic church.

Other scholars have come to the same conclusion. For a brief, popular survey see: http://public.csusm.edu/guests/rsclark/History_Covenant_Theology.htm

You should also see Vos' history of covenant theology:
http://www.biblicaltheology.org/dcrt.pdf

See also: J. L. Duncan, III, "˜The Covenant Idea in Ante-Nicene Theology´, PhD. Thesis (Edinburgh, 1995).

Other scholars such as Everett Ferguson calls Irenaeus a "covenant theologian." W. C. van Unnik argues that diatheke as Irenaeus used it, should be translated covenant.

The Protestant theologians began working with explicit "covenantal" categories quite early. Oecolampadius wrote about the covenant of redemption (pactum salutis) as early as 1523. Zwingli was using covenantal language about the same time. Luther used covenantal language throughout his ministry as did Calvin. Bullinger wrote a treatise on the covenant of grace in the 30's.

The Heidelberg Theologians developed these threads by 1561 into what we would recognize as a reasonably well-developed federal theology.

Thus, Reformed federal theology antedated Cocceius by rather a number of years.

As to superstition and "sacramentalism," where exactly do you see that in the orthodox Reformed from the last 4 centuries?

rsc

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by Canadian _Shawn
Mark, you do realize that covenant theology only appeared in the 17th century (with Cocceius and Witsius) and that the main arguments for infant baptism throughout history even to our own day have largely rested on baptismal regeneration and superstitious sacramentalism don't you? The kind of sacramentalism which is still practiced by members of your own Communion, I might add (as a good-natured barb, not as an insult). So yes, from that kind of Church history I will gladly disconnect myself, because it means staying true to Scripture. Sola scriptura, you know. So in a sense, yah, it does come down to me and my Bible.

Shawn,

You would do very well to read Dr. Clark's post, and especially to read Dr. Ligon Duncan's writings on Covenant Theology in the Church Fathers.

But I would also ask you if you realize that wat you have just stated is standard propoganda that has little relation to the truth, even among Baptist theologians.

I would encourage you, for instance, to make such a comment about Witsius and the origin of Covenant theology in the presence of Sam Waldron, Walt Chantry, Rich Barcellos or any good 1689er, and see if they take them seriously. (They won't.)

 

[Philip A]

Originally posted by fredtgreco
I would encourage you, for instance, to make such a comment about Witsius and the origin of Covenant theology in the presence of Sam Waldron, Walt Chantry, Rich Barcellos or any good 1689er, and see if they take them seriously. (They won't.)

Fred is quite right. Though we would all get a good laugh out of it.

To say that CT did not exist before Witsius or Cocceius is like saying that there were no Calvinists before the Synod of Dort, or no Trinitarians before the Council of Nicea.

You are a Trinitarian Calvinist, aren't you?

(note: smiley indicates joke)

[Edited on 10-10-2005 by Philip A]

 

[Canadian _Shawn]

Sorry guys,

I obviously didn't state my point clearly. I thought that what was being said was that if I embraced Church history, I would also embrace infant baptism. My rejoinder was to say that (1) the main argument for infant baptism from church history revolves around baptismal regeneration - something we all reject as being false, and (2) Protestantism is largely a 'modern' occurance, and yet its relative age does not affect the truth of Protestantism which is grounded in the Bible and not history.

I suspect that even though some scholars may find elements of covenant theology in the Church Fathers, its is a highly debatable topic. My former systematics professor, Douglas Farrow, is a foremost authority on Irenaeus, and he's not Reformed. I'll have to ask him his opinion about the link between Irenaeus and the Reformers. In any case, whether covenant theology was developed in the 17th or 16th centuries, we can hardly appeal to Church history for holding to it. We can, however, appeal to the Bible, which is the point of the exegetical arguments we've been making.

I hope that clears things up. Sorry to confuse. I'll just continue with my studies now!

Cheers,
Shawn

 

[R. Scott Clark]

Originally posted by Canadian _Shawn
...I suspect that even though some scholars may find elements of covenant theology in the Church Fathers, its is a highly debatable topic. My former systematics professor, Douglas Farrow, is a foremost authority on Irenaeus, and he's not Reformed. I'll have to ask him his opinion about the link between Irenaeus and the Reformers.

Shawn,

A mild correction: That versions of covenant theology existed well before the Reformation is not some novel speculation, It is a conclusion to which a number of scholars from a variety of backgrounds have arrived.

In the spirit of ad fontes let me encourage you to read for yourself Irenaeus and other of the orthodox fathers. You may be surprised how often and thoroughly they appealed to the notion of the covenant of grace to unify the history of redemption. They had two external threats to which they had to respond: Jewish criticism of Christianity (we worship a criminal) and the Gnostic dualism.

The other elements (e.g., Adamic probation before the fall; Adam's federal headship) of what became Reformed federal theology (RFT) were also present in many of the other fathers and medieval theologians (e.g., Anselm, Lombard, Thomas) who did not write as explicitly in covenantal terms.

The point is that the early Reformed theologians harvested what were by then quite traditional themes in Patristic and Medieval theology to express their protestant convictions.

Let me be clear: I am not arguing that one can find a fully developed version of RFT before the 16th c. That would be a silly argument. I am arguing that there are genuine, organic, connections between the RFT of the 1560's and earlier epochs of the church.

I am also arguing that there have been a variety of covenant theologies in the history of the church. It is not the case that if someone adopts a covenantal motif that they are necessarily orthodox or come to correct conclusions. That's why the qualifier "Reformed" or "Protestant" is so important. There was a highly developed Franciscan covenant theology in the late middle ages, exemplified by Gabriel Biel who taught that God had made a covenant: (facientibus quod in se est, Deus non denegat gratiam - Rev Kok surely remembers this from CH602!) "to those who do what lies within them, God does not deny grace." In a sense the entire Reformation was a rebellion against a perverse covenant theology. Luther referred to the "facere" repeatedly in his writings. Indeed, some Lutherans have argued (not convincingly in my view) that "covenant" theology is incompatible with Protestantism altogether. It was the Reformed concern to rehabilitate this very biblical category (Berith occurs hundreds of times in the Hebrew scriptures)

This at least shows that "covenant" was an active category centuries years before the Reformation and an active consideration in the formation of the Reformation.

I agree that the nature of the biblical covenant theology can only be determined by exegesis and systematic theology, not history. Historical theology should not be prescriptive (except in the case it accurately describes a given tradition with which one identifies). Scripture is the ultimate norm.

My intent here, however, is to stamp out, as much as possible, the notion that RFT developed in the mid-17th century and is therefore just some idiosyncratic Dutch way of handling Scripture. Rather, covenant theology is a catholic and very traditional way of handling Scripture especially as juxtaposed with e.g., Dispensationalism, the roots of which really are quite modern and which really is a novelty.

rsc

[Edited on 10-11-2005 by R. Scott Clark]

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

Dr. Clark's posts in this thread make me want to attend WSC.

 

[Poimen]

Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
Dr. Clark's posts in this thread make me want to attend WSC.

As an alma mater I highly recommend it.

Packed with Reformed theological goodness, WSC includes all your essential daily tools to exegete scripture. Um, um good!

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

Originally posted by poimen

Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
Dr. Clark's posts in this thread make me want to attend WSC.

As an alma mater I highly recommend it.

Packed with Reformed theological goodness, WSC includes all your essential daily tools to exegete scripture. Um, um good!

... And I likely would attend there. But I cannot afford it and going into debt is not something I'd consider doing.

 

[Canadian _Shawn]

Hi Dr. Clark,

I would definetely be interested in reading Irenaeus on the covenants - would that be in the Apostolic Preaching or Against the Heresies or both? And what will I find there? As you pointed out there are many covenant theologies, and I've never read anyone say there aren't any covenants in the Bible... so what about Irenaeus in particular would link him to Reformed Covenant Theology? Does he have the three-fold notion of a covenant of redemption, works, and grace? Or just the covenant of grace?

Cheers,
Shawn

 

[Steve Owen]

Dr Clark,
Would you kindly point me to the portions of Irenaeus that you have in mind as being distinctly covenantal? It has been some time since I read much of the Church Fathers, but I can't recall seeing anything in Irenaeus specifically about the covenant(s). No doubt my memory is playing me false.

Many thanks,

Martin

 

[R. Scott Clark]

Originally posted by Martin Marprelate
Dr Clark,
Would you kindly point me to the portions of Irenaeus that you have in mind as being distinctly covenantal? It has been some time since I read much of the Church Fathers, but I can't recall seeing anything in Irenaeus specifically about the covenant(s). No doubt my memory is playing me false.

Many thanks,

Martin

Dear Martin and Shawn,

No, one ought not read back later developments into Irenaneus or into any of the Fathers, but he (and they) did make an argument from the unity of the covenant of grace.

I find that the diatheke functioned in the Fathers in five ways:
1. to stress the moral obligations of Christianity;
2. to show God´s grace in including the Gentiles in the Abrahamic blessings;
3. to deny that Jews/Israel received the promises simply because they were physical descendents of Abraham;
4. to demonstrate the unity of the divine economy of salvation (i.e., the unity of the covenant of grace);
5 to explain the discontinuity between the old and new covenants in Scripture.

This is the sort of thing one finds in the Epistle of Barnabas (ante 150 AD). In ch. 4 of his Epistle, he warned his readers about "works of iniquity" and the "errors of the present." He made an argument about the effective transfer of the administration o f God´s favor from Jewish as a national people to Gentiles (quoting Daniel 7:7,8,24 as proof texts). He says that the Christian ought not to say that (Epistle, 4:6) the "covenant is theirs and ours" because they "thus finally lost it, after Moses had already received it" (at Sinai).

The covenant for Barnabas was personal and cosmic, interior and national. Diatheke has a twofold sense: a national, temporary administration and personal, permanent relations between God and the Christian. He also connected to God´s fulfilling of "the promise he made to the Fathers" which occurred in the incarnation.

Christ is the fulfillment of the promises. Israel = those who believe in "our beloved Jesus." The true circumcision is the spiritual circumcision (ch.9). The OT is composed of types (ch´s 7-12) of Christ (food, the red heifer, the brass serpent, types of baptism, types of the cross; the Christian sabbath vs. The Jewish sabbath [ch.15]). For Barnabas, Christ is God with us, having made us his temple (ch.16). These are all covenantal allusions and evidence of a covenantal hermeneutic.

1 Clement quotes Barnabas extensively and it is usually dated sub 100, hence Barnabas is considerably earlier than 150.

Justin Martyr (in his Dialogue with Trypho) appealed repeatedly to the notion of a continuing covenant. He calls (ch 11) the new covenant "the final law" (a move which helped to give rise to the medieval old law/new law hermeneutic; but that is another thread). Acc. to Justin The old covenant, promulgated at Horeb, was local and temporary (ch.11). In contrast Christ's diatheke is the new law and the new covenant and the universal covenant.The covenant and law of Christ was prior to Moses and is final and irreplaceable.

Irenaeus (c.130-200) wrote in an era when gnosticism was the greatest threat facing the W. church. His most important work was Adversus omnes haereses. His most important task was to demonstrate the unity of God and his salvation. In the 4th book of Adv. Haereses (which we have in Latin trans), Irenaeus turned to the theme of the covenant to defend Christianity.

Against the gnostics he defended the words of Moses as the words of Christ (Adv Haer, 4.1.3). The God of the Bible, the Christian, Triune God, is one. The faith therefore is one and the covenant, substantially one (Adv Haer. 4.9.1)

The same God who gave the Old covenant (the Decalogue), also gave us Christ to redeem us, and in whom we are justified by faith. Like Justin, Irenaeus capitalized on the promises in the Hebrew SS of a "New Covenant" and a "New Song" (Ps 96.1)

He argued the notion of progressive revelation (though he did not use the term). The OT prophets preached a "New Covenant" (Adv Haer., 4.9.3) and God´s grace was adminstered through "covenants."

For the new covenant having been known and preached by the prophets, He who was to carry it out according to the good pleasure of the Father was also preached; having been revealed to men as God pleased; that they might always make progress through believing in Him, and by means of the [successive] covenants, should gradually attain to perfect salvation. For there is one salvation and one God; but the precepts which form the man are numerous, and the steps which lead man to God are not a few. (Adv Haer. 4.9.3)

I hope this helps.

rsc

 

[Steve Owen]

Thank you, Dr Clark.

I find that the diatheke functioned in the Fathers in five ways:
1. to stress the moral obligations of Christianity;
2. to show God´s grace in including the Gentiles in the Abrahamic blessings;
3. to deny that Jews/Israel received the promises simply because they were physical descendents of Abraham;
4. to demonstrate the unity of the divine economy of salvation (i.e., the unity of the covenant of grace);
5 to explain the discontinuity between the old and new covenants in Scripture.

Martin