Is Mosaic Covenant Obsolete?

[No Other Name]

Hebrews 8:13 (ESV):

13 In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

What is meant by obsolete?

Context: a pastor friend of mine is turning from 1689 Federalism to NCT and this Scripture is very key for him.

I always saw that the Sinaitic covenant will be obsolete at the Second Coming, and until then it is growing older in our conviction and newer in our hearts and natures as we grow in sanctification synergistically. (I also realize that I never ran my interpretation through the history of RB theology with deep roots shared by my Presbyterian brothers).

I have a meeting with him this afternoon and my theological library is at home while I am at work today.

Thank you all in advance for what I am sure will be sound exegesis and theological wisdom here.

 

[JP Wallace]

Regardless of what obselete means the grammar of the verses means that it is not fully obselete yet. The word in its first usage is perfect tense, yet the second use is a present participle - it is becoming obselete, it is being readied to vanish away - but and this is the important thing - it has not yet become obselete.

Also - remember the author is quoting from Jeremiah - a time when the Old Covenant was still fully in force.....even then the Old Covenant was on its way out, and he was prophesying of the time when it would be fully obselete which I think is in the eternal state.

The word is more normally translated old - its to do with age and being worn out.

 

[Polanus1561]

I view the destruction of the temple in 70ad as part of this. I don't think Jews today would say their practices now are the same as the Mosaic covenant.

i.e you cannot even do the rituals of the OC externally.

The Ezekiel temple restoration I think then plays a part of the 'future hope'

 

[Ben Zartman]

It's obsolete in that the types and shadows have been fulfilled: the sacrifice that all other sacrifices signified has been made; the holy nation--the Redeemed of God--that the old physical nation of Israel typified is here, and growing every day. The moral law, and the things that all those shadows and types signified, abide. The New Covenant is the pinnacle of all previous covenants: it fulfils what they could only point to.
Their administration is over: their meaning and their promises--what the promises really meant--abides. I say that last because I believe that the literal fulfilment of the land promises to Abraham were just an earnest of what the promise truly meant. Like a promise with a double meaning; a lesser and a greater fulfilment. Abraham wasn't hung up on expecting Palestinian real estate, he was seeking a city not made with men's hands, eternal in the heavens, because he understood what those promises ultimately were about.

 

[No Other Name]

I view the destruction of the temple in 70ad as part of this. I don't think Jews today would say their practices now are the same as the Mosaic covenant.

i.e you cannot even do the rituals of the OC externally.

The Ezekiel temple restoration I think then plays a part of the 'future hope'

Is the Ezekiel temple restoration current-day under the NC with respect to the giving of the Holy Spirit?

 

[Polanus1561]

Is the Ezekiel temple restoration current-day under the NC with respect to the giving of the Holy Spirit?

A portion of @iainduguid 's commentary...

"Christ as the fulfillment of Ezekiel’s temple. For Christ himself is the new temple. He is the dwelling of God among humankind, the glory of God made manifest (John 1:14). In one sense, with the incarnation of Jesus, the solid walls of the Old Testament temple have once again become flimsy material for the sake of portability, just as was the case with the tabernacle. Thus John states, “The Word became flesh and made his dwelling [eskenosen, lit., tabernacled] among us” (John 1:14). But the walls needed to be flimsy not just for the sake of mobility but also so that they could be torn down in a final cataclysmic temple-cleansing, achieved through the breaking of his body on the cross. That was the “temple” of whose destruction Jesus spoke in John 2:19, when he said: “Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days.” There on the cross the radical focus on sacrifice of Ezekiel’s temple found its full expression, as the new temple itself was made a complete sacrifice for sin, by which God’s people were cleansed once and for all."

 

[No Other Name]

It's obsolete in that the types and shadows have been fulfilled: the sacrifice that all other sacrifices signified has been made; the holy nation--the Redeemed of God--that the old physical nation of Israel typified is here, and growing every day. The moral law, and the things that all those shadows and types signified, abide. The New Covenant is the pinnacle of all previous covenants: it fulfils what they could only point to.
Their administration is over: their meaning and their promises--what the promises really meant--abides. I say that last because I believe that the literal fulfilment of the land promises to Abraham were just an earnest of what the promise truly meant. Like a promise with a double meaning; a lesser and a greater fulfilment. Abraham wasn't hung up on expecting Palestinian real estate, he was seeking a city not made with men's hands, eternal in the heavens, because he understood what those promises ultimately were about.

Exactly. Under NCT, the moral law is replaced by something they call "law of Christ". And I cannot pin down why they even feel the need for the OT at all, but my friend insists the OT is needed yet stops far short of saying any of the law is required today as Christ is writing it on our hearts.

I asked him if sanctification was monergistic and he claims that he believes it is not - that faith without works is dead - yet he has never once mentioned any item of the "law of Christ" which does not reduce to Christ writing it on our hearts. It seems he thinks Jer. 31 was fulfilled at Pentecost.

 

[No Other Name]

A portion of @iainduguid 's commentary...

"Christ as the fulfillment of Ezekiel’s temple. For Christ himself is the new temple. He is the dwelling of God among humankind, the glory of God made manifest (John 1:14). In one sense, with the incarnation of Jesus, the solid walls of the Old Testament temple have once again become flimsy material for the sake of portability, just as was the case with the tabernacle. Thus John states, “The Word became flesh and made his dwelling [eskenosen, lit., tabernacled] among us” (John 1:14). But the walls needed to be flimsy not just for the sake of mobility but also so that they could be torn down in a final cataclysmic temple-cleansing, achieved through the breaking of his body on the cross. That was the “temple” of whose destruction Jesus spoke in John 2:19, when he said: “Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days.” There on the cross the radical focus on sacrifice of Ezekiel’s temple found its full expression, as the new temple itself was made a complete sacrifice for sin, by which God’s people were cleansed once and for all."

Thank you, yes.

And as God's people are being cleansed, the Mosaic covenant is proving less necessary (becoming obsolete) but will only vanish away at the Second Coming as that will be the only time in which any of us can obey in every corner of the heart at every moment due to the Spirit's sanctification.

Am I getting a hold of Heb. 8:13?

 

[Polanus1561]

Thank you, yes.

And as God's people are being cleansed, the Mosaic covenant is proving less necessary (becoming obsolete) but will only vanish away at the Second Coming as that will be the only time in which any of us can obey in every corner of the heart at every moment due to the Spirit's sanctification.

Am I getting a hold of Heb. 8:13?

I do not think it was a progressive obsoleteness till the end of the world. There was a period between Christ's death and 70AD where there was tension over the role of the Old C. See Galatians and Hebrews. 70AD was a historical milestone which permanently separated Christianity and Judaism. Heb 8.13 speaks of this coming permanent separation. It is not simply

the Mosaic covenant is proving less necessary

To cut through all arguments, it is clear no one can partake of the Mosaic economy now, there is no way to partake of those regulations today.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Hebrews 8:13 (ESV):

What is meant by obsolete?

Context: a pastor friend of mine is turning from 1689 Federalism to NCT and this Scripture is very key for him.

I always saw that the Sinaitic covenant will be obsolete at the Second Coming, and until then it is growing older in our conviction and newer in our hearts and natures as we grow in sanctification synergistically. (I also realize that I never ran my interpretation through the history of RB theology with deep roots shared by my Presbyterian brothers).

I have a meeting with him this afternoon and my theological library is at home while I am at work today.

Thank you all in advance for what I am sure will be sound exegesis and theological wisdom here.

I'll let the RB/1689 brothers answer for themselves; I'm only speaking from a Presbyterian perspective.

I'm glad the Old Covenant is obsolete and passing away. It was a yoke neither we nor our fathers could bear, though it was useful, beneficial, and performed its pedagogical and administrative work for the good of the saints for centuries while it was in effect. Now it's done, and set aside, and all for the best.

Why, then, do we covenant theologians make of the Old Testament what we do? We don't treat Sinai like our covenant-arrangement. We don't return to the pages of the OT for the ground of our doctrines and practices. However, we don't regard the OT as simply a relic, nor do we understand God's covenant-dealings with his people in the several eras of OT history as disconnected from the New Covenant era.

The OT is replete with informative redemptive history, designed so that NC people gain fuller, deeper insight into NT redemptive history and the realities of life in the present NC age. The OT is theologically rich, and not essentially different in any doctrine of our faith--creation, man, sin, redemption, justification, sanctification, eschatology, etc.; the NT doesn't have to be any longer or denser than it is, because it is the capstone of the deposit of divine revelation. The OT teaches one, universal moral standard of human behavior: thought, word, and deed; from which the NT does not deviate an inch, if anything emphasizing the absolute demand of God for moral perfection.

NCT occupies a curious space somewhere between dispensationalism and covenant theology. I think it's likely that Baptist perspectives on covenant theology (1LBC, 2LBC, 20th Cent. RB, 1689Fed, et al.) stand closest to NCT. From what I can tell, the hallmark of NCT is its assessment of the place of the moral law in connection to the NT. Sin is something intuitively recognized by Christians (or those under conviction by the Spirit); not that the NT doesn't mention specific sinful behavior, but that the NC doesn't contain law other than "the law of Christ"--somewhat nebulous and undefined.

Especially, for the NCT there is no "4th Commandment" duty of any kind in the NC, the Sabbath requirement being completely fulfilled in the Person of Christ. This appears to me as something ironic, if we juxtapose the text from Hebrews 8:13 from the OP (a "key text") with Hebrews 4:9, "There remains therefore a sabbath-resting for the people of God." If the question of NCT rests on the definition of "obsolete," I suggest the question of the abiding validity of the 4C rests on the definition of "remains."

I believe the Sinai covenant is done, obsolete, no longer in effect. The theology of Sinai remains, as does its redemptive historical significance and its moral cornerstone, the Ten Commandments. The essence of the 10C was already in the world from creation, even without the verbal containment provided in the Law given to Moses. The moral law hasn't changed, nor will it world without end. It is very useful to have so succinct and convenient a reminder for it as we have in the 10C, even for us living in the NC era. Making use of that summary does not return us under Sinai for a covenant.

The moral law was incorporate into Sinai, but was not Sinai, and is not obsolete. Believers under the NC do not swear to do all that the Lord commands as predicate to a right relationship with God. But the Lord has yet this reasonable inquiry to make of his disciples, "And why do you call me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?" Lk.6:46. "If you continue in my word, then are you truly my disciples," Jn.8:31. Genuine faith produces the fruit of obedience. When we inquire to know his moral will, the whole of Scripture explains it.

And to be clear: sanctification is by faith alone, too. It is the monergistic work (as opposed to act) of the Spirit. Man's engagement in his spiritual life doesn't make him the Spirit's "partner" for accomplishment.

 

[SeanPatrickCornell]

The Old Covenant was formally and materially abolished and fully terminated with the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in 70 AD.

This was the culmination of God's judgment against apostate Israel.

 

[JTB.SDG]

In short, what's obsolete is the ADMINISTRATION of the old covenant. Not the essence/substance. The same author of Hebrews tells us "we have had good news preached to us, just as they also." (4:2). This is even more emphatic than if he had said: "they had good news preached to them, just as we also." And Jesus said "Moses. . .wrote about Me." (John 5:46). Good news was preached under Moses; this was the gospel. Thus the essence of the Mosaic Covenant is the gospel. What's different is what Paul talks about with the "administration" suitable to the fullness of times (Ephesians 1:10; Greek oikonomia, from where we get English "economy"; hence Witsius' "Economy of the covenants"). Essence/substance is the same. Economy is different; and it's different in the ways I and others mentioned under the "What's better/new about the new covenant" thread:

Hebrews 8:6 says, “He is also the mediator of a better covenant, which has been enacted on better promises.” This has to do with what the divines called "the administration" of the covenant. The essence is the same; the administration is different in the new and in this sense it's better. So thinking through the differences in administration between the Old and the New you could think about it this way: The new covenant is better than the old as the light of noonday is better than that of a candle. It's better than the old as a lavish feast is better for a hungry man than a painting of one; or as a gushing river is better for a thirsty man than it's shadow. The new covenant is better than the old as having my wife face to face is better than looking at a picture of her; and as being married to her is better than the promise of having her hand in marriage. The new covenant is better than the old as being a free man is better than having to live in custody; and as growing into maturity is better than remaining a child. The new is better than the old as having a torrential downpour of God's Spirit is better than having drops. And indeed, the new covenant is better than the old as having a church made up of all nations is better than a church that's limited to just one. Again, it's not that the new covenant is something different from the old in its true essence or substance. Just as the new moon is the same as the old in its essence, and just as the older wine came from the same grapes as the new, both old and new covenants belong to the Covenant of Grace. But if compare these two distinct administrations, we have to acknowledge the new is better.

A few links for more/helpful content for you:

1. Why Sinai belongs to the covenant of grace/is the same in essence/substance:

www.ruinandredemption.com/single-post/why-sinai-belongs-to-the-covenant-of-grace

2. What's new/better about/in the new covenant:

www.ruinandredemption.com/single-post/what-are-the-differences-between-the-ot-and-the-nt

www.ruinandredemption.com/single-post/what-is-new-and-not-new-about-the-new-covenant

3. The puritans on the Mosaic Covenant and how it belongs to the Covenant of Grace:

www.ruinandredemption.com/_files/ugd/be37d2_b779a7e4020f4abe8b1d881424b05e9b.pdf

 

[brandonadams]

Context: a pastor friend of mine is turning from 1689 Federalism to NCT and this Scripture is very key for him.

If that is the case, I'm afraid your friend may not properly understand 1689 Federalism, as it agrees with NCT that the Old Covenant as a whole is obsolete (in contrast to Jon's view above, that it is only the administration that is obsolete).

I always saw that the Sinaitic covenant will be obsolete at the Second Coming, and until then it is growing older in our conviction and newer in our hearts and natures as we grow in sanctification synergistically.

It sounds like you may be conflating the Sinai covenant with the Adamic Covenant of Works? 1689 Federalism views the Old Sinai covenant as a typological covenant of works limited to Israel and their temporal life and blessing in the land of Canaan.

Regardless of what obselete means the grammar of the verses means that it is not fully obselete yet. The word in its first usage is perfect tense, yet the second use is a present participle - it is becoming obselete, it is being readied to vanish away - but and this is the important thing - it has not yet become obselete.

1689 Federalism would point to 70AD as the final end of the Old Covenant.

Here are some resources specifically from a 1689 Federalism perspective:

Hearty agreement must be given when New Covenant theologians argue for the abolition of the Old Covenant. This is clearly the teaching of the Old and New Testaments (see Jeremiah 31:31-32; Second Corinthians 3; Galatians 3, 4; Ephesians 2:14-15; Hebrews 8-10). The whole law of Moses, as it functioned under the Old Covenant, has been abolished, including the Ten Commandments. Not one jot or tittle of the law of Moses functions as Old Covenant law anymore and to act as if it does constitutes redemptive-historical retreat and neo- Judaizing. However, to acknowledge that the law of Moses no longer functions as Old Covenant law is not to accept that it no longer functions; it simply no longer functions as Old Covenant law. This can be seen by the fact that the New Testament teaches both the abrogation of the law of the Old Covenant and its abiding moral validity under the New Covenant.
Barcellos, In Defense of the Decalogue, 61.

JOHN OWEN AND NEW COVENANT THEOLOGY: Owen on the Old and New Covenants and the Functions of the Decalogue in Redemptive History in Historical and Contemporary Perspective

1689 Federalism Response to Wellum’s “Progressive Covenantalism and the Doing of Ethics”

How Christians Should Regard Moses (Luther)

1689 Federalism Response to New Covenant Guy

 

[SeanPatrickCornell]

You misunderstood me. I think the whole of the OC is obsolete. I was just making the argument from the rhetorical viewpoint that even if someone wanted to partake in the OC, they cannot. In view of Heb. 8:13 as speaking of a historical epoch about to come.

Jon (aka JTB.SDG), not John (aka Polanus1561).

 

[Phil D.]

Maybe this is addressed in one of the resources that have been provided here, but to cut to the chase.... What are some thoughts on the idea that the "fading away" in Heb. 8:13 is immediately referring to a relatively short, overlapping period of transition from the observance of the OT's ceremonial laws (pre-type) into the full formation of church life in the NT (post-fulfillment). This is said to account for things like Paul's actions in places like Acts 16:3 (seemingly borne from the attitude seen in 1 Cor. 9:20), which would not necessarily be advocated as a good course of action today.

 

[No Other Name]

In short, what's obsolete is the ADMINISTRATION of the old covenant. Not the essence/substance.

^ This quote and this following:

"However, to acknowledge that the law of Moses no longer functions as Old Covenant law is not to accept that it no longer functions; it simply no longer functions as Old Covenant law. This can be seen by the fact that the New Testament teaches both the abrogation of the law of the Old Covenant and its abiding moral validity under the New Covenant.
Barcellos, In Defense of the Decalogue, 61."

I have always thought of these two above quotes as basically interchangeable.

@brandonadams I will go through your sources (and your whole site) with a fine-tooth comb after tonight. Thank you so much!

 

[Ben Zartman]

If that is the case, I'm afraid your friend may not properly understand 1689 Federalism, as it agrees with NCT that the Old Covenant as a whole is obsolete (in contrast to Jon's view above, that it is only the administration that is obsolete).

It sounds like you may be conflating the Sinai covenant with the Adamic Covenant of Works? 1689 Federalism views the Old Sinai covenant as a typological covenant of works limited to Israel and their temporal life and blessing in the land of Canaan.


1689 Federalism would point to 70AD as the final end of the Old Covenant.

Here are some resources specifically from a 1689 Federalism perspective:



JOHN OWEN AND NEW COVENANT THEOLOGY: Owen on the Old and New Covenants and the Functions of the Decalogue in Redemptive History in Historical and Contemporary Perspective

1689 Federalism Response to Wellum’s “Progressive Covenantalism and the Doing of Ethics”

How Christians Should Regard Moses (Luther)

1689 Federalism Response to New Covenant Guy

Brandon, does Federalism believe that the Ten Commandments are morally binding on God's people today?

 

[No Other Name]

Brandon, does Federalism believe that the Ten Commandments are morally binding on God's people today?

I asked my pastor friend this about NCT. He said according to NCT, Jesus only mentioned 9 out of 10 so the 4th is non-existent. However, I suspect - as he is searching his memory of a couple books he read - he may not be representing even NCT very well at times.

 

[No Other Name]

And to be clear: sanctification is by faith alone, too. It is the monergistic work (as opposed to act) of the Spirit. Man's engagement in his spiritual life doesn't make him the Spirit's "partner" for accomplishment.

I am still at work but I could have swore RC Sproul taught sanctification was synergistic (faith without works of James, etc) But always with the caveat that even to begin a "plan" to stay away from temptation requires the monergistic work of the Spirit in justification by faith alone and the Spirit alone beginning and maintaining growth in desire for holiness.

 

[brandonadams]

Brandon, does Federalism believe that the Ten Commandments are morally binding on God's people today?

As a summary of the pre-Mosaic, transcendent moral law that has always obligated all image bearers, yes.

 

[Polanus1561]

I am still at work but I could have swore RC Sproul taught sanctification was synergistic (faith without works of James, etc) But always with the caveat that even to begin a "plan" to stay away from temptation requires the monergistic work of the Spirit in justification by faith alone and the Spirit alone beginning and maintaining growth in desire for holiness.

It is synergistic (I don't like the term) in terms of I do my 100% and God does His 100%. Not a 50-50 or 99-1 split. We and God do not have the same roles in sanctification.

Sproul says:
We say it is synergistic because both God and we are doing something. Yet, we aren’t equal partners. God wills and works in us according to His good pleasure so that we progress in holiness (Phil. 2:12–13). But as God works in us, we work as well, pursuing Him in prayer, relying on the means of grace—the preached Word and the sacraments—seeking to be reconciled to those we have offended. There’s no shortcut for sanctification. It’s a process, and one that all too often seems overly plodding, with progress taking years to discern.

No Shortcuts to Growth by R.C. Sproul - Ligonier Ministrieshttps://www.ligonier.org › Learn › Articles

 

[JP Wallace]

1689 Federalism would point to 70AD as the final end of the Old Covenant

I was mainly/ merely pointing out that NCT does not even do justice to the simple grammar of the text.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

I am still at work but I could have swore RC Sproul taught sanctification was synergistic (faith without works of James, etc) But always with the caveat that even to begin a "plan" to stay away from temptation requires the monergistic work of the Spirit in justification by faith alone and the Spirit alone beginning and maintaining growth in desire for holiness.

It is true that RCS put himself on tape teaching sanctification-synergy. Giving him the benefit of the doubt he most likely deserves, his intention was to highlight a contrast between the inactivity (deadness) of man's will and act to self regenerate, respond-in-faith, be united to Christ, be justified unto salvation; and man's activity of will and act in the business of sanctification, of growth in Christ expressing newness of life.

I suppose myself (once upon a time) to have been prompted, directly or indirectly, by RCS's term to describe sanctification using the term synergy; I'm sure I was not as careful in what I meant than an experienced theologian like RCS should have been. As a seminarian, I think I had to have my thinking reframed in closer conformity to our Protestant faith as we confess it.

Synergy was an infelicitous term. Sanctification we confess is God's exclusive work, "a work of God's free grace," renewing and enabling matters pertaining to spiritual life and growth in us (WSC35). The word synergy implies working together, each participant making a substantial (if unbalanced) contribution to the end product. If we start our thinking about sanctification elsewhere but in the monergistic work of God, it will inevitably incline Christians to a performance-basis for their religious expression. We must then become obsessive about our effort to grow spiritually; kind of like a 5yr old convinced that by stretching up on tippy-toes 10X a day every day, he could achieve permanent height advantage (doing his part).

The 5yr old is going to grow, assuming a normal metabolism and appropriate nutrition with opportunity to exercise in countless unconscious ways day by day. However, he is simply engaged in the life provided for him. His increase in height is due to factors outside his willful control, mainly biological and environmental. Obsessing about it, constant measuring, standing on tippy-toes again and again--none of this will make a difference, none of this will cause such growth as is his due to come about faster, or with superior results than if he wasn't worried about how tall he was going to be eventually. But by coming to dinner when called, sleeping the right amount, and other use of appointed means, the life within him will execute its program bringing him to maturity in due season.

The 5yr old is not synergizing to make his development happen. He is engaged in a way qualitatively removed from his coming into being and to life, of which his will had nothing to do. His purpose of will (once activated) is limited to allowing or promoting or not-hindering the forces that are making change in him. That is not, strictly speaking, a synergy of powers, of design, and of will. This is not "cooperation," for the actual growth forces will pursue their programmed goal with or against him, either with ease or with difficulty.

The same is true of a person with spiritual life. We reject the Roman idea of grace, and cooperation with grace, whether the subject is justification (which they do not believe is a matter of historic priority anyway) or sanctification. We do not promote quietism, a nonchalant regard for spiritual life and growth; but also aren't interested in claiming credit for the fruit God is producing from his product. His fruit pleases us, his workmanship, as it attests to his attention and cultivation. "He shall be like a tree planted by the rivers of water, that brings forth its fruit in its season," Ps.1:3.

 

[No Other Name]

It is true that RCS put himself on tape teaching sanctification-synergy. Giving him the benefit of the doubt he most likely deserves, his intention was to highlight a contrast between the inactivity (deadness) of man's will and act to self regenerate, respond-in-faith, be united to Christ, be justified unto salvation; and man's activity of will and act in the business of sanctification, of growth in Christ expressing newness of life.

I suppose myself (once upon a time) to have been prompted, directly or indirectly, by RCS's term to describe sanctification using the term synergy; I'm sure I was not as careful in what I meant than an experienced theologian like RCS should have been. As a seminarian, I think I had to have my thinking reframed in closer conformity to our Protestant faith as we confess it.

Synergy was an infelicitous term. Sanctification we confess is God's exclusive work, "a work of God's free grace," renewing and enabling matters pertaining to spiritual life and growth in us (WSC35). The word synergy implies working together, each participant making a substantial (if unbalanced) contribution to the end product. If we start our thinking about sanctification elsewhere but in the monergistic work of God, it will inevitably incline Christians to a performance-basis for their religious expression. We must then become obsessive about our effort to grow spiritually; kind of like a 5yr old convinced that by stretching up on tippy-toes 10X a day every day, he could achieve permanent height advantage (doing his part).

The 5yr old is going to grow, assuming a normal metabolism and appropriate nutrition with opportunity to exercise in countless unconscious ways day by day. However, he is simply engaged in the life provided for him. His increase in height is due to factors outside his willful control, mainly biological and environmental. Obsessing about it, constant measuring, standing on tippy-toes again and again--none of this will make a difference, none of this will cause such growth as is his due to come about faster, or with superior results than if he wasn't worried about how tall he was going to be eventually. But by coming to dinner when called, sleeping the right amount, and other use of appointed means, the life within him will execute its program bringing him to maturity in due season.

The 5yr old is not synergizing to make his development happen. He is engaged in a way qualitatively removed from his coming into being and to life, of which his will had nothing to do. His purpose of will (once activated) is limited to allowing or promoting or not-hindering the forces that are making change in him. That is not, strictly speaking, a synergy of powers, of design, and of will. This is not "cooperation," for the actual growth forces will pursue their programmed goal with or against him, either with ease or with difficulty.

The same is true of a person with spiritual life. We reject the Roman idea of grace, and cooperation with grace, whether the subject is justification (which they do not believe is a matter of historic priority anyway) or sanctification. We do not promote quietism, a nonchalant regard for spiritual life and growth; but also aren't interested in claiming credit for the fruit God is producing from his product. His fruit pleases us, his workmanship, as it attests to his attention and cultivation. "He shall be like a tree planted by the rivers of water, that brings forth its fruit in its season," Ps.1:3.

Thank you for this.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

It is synergistic (I don't like the term) in terms of I do my 100% and God does His 100%. Not a 50-50 or 99-1 split. We and God do not have the same roles in sanctification.

Sproul says:
We say it is synergistic because both God and we are doing something. Yet, we aren’t equal partners. God wills and works in us according to His good pleasure so that we progress in holiness (Phil. 2:12–13). But as God works in us, we work as well, pursuing Him in prayer, relying on the means of grace—the preached Word and the sacraments—seeking to be reconciled to those we have offended. There’s no shortcut for sanctification. It’s a process, and one that all too often seems overly plodding, with progress taking years to discern.

No Shortcuts to Growth by R.C. Sproul - Ligonier Ministrieshttps://www.ligonier.org › Learn › Articles

If you don't like the term--synergistic is not a good one, and you should abandon it--there's bound to be a better way of expressing your mind. The "all" God is doing is called sanctification. The "all" I do is not of a piece with what he's doing. We aren't partners in effecting my transformation into Christlikeness. I produce his fruit (if I am his true child), and submit to his pruning and other labor. I should put forth the energy to be joyfully engaged with him, but not suppose my efforts are material contributions to my spiritual net worth.

Again, I wish RCS had found another way to declare himself on the subject. I think he took from his teacher, J.Gerstner, who was a J.Edwards scholar (JE famously said, "God does all, and we do all"). https://dpz73qkr83w0p.cloudfront.net/en_US/transcripts/CH504-19.pdf

 

[Polanus1561]

If you don't like the term--synergistic is not a good one, and you should abandon it--there's bound to be a better way of expressing your mind. The "all" God is doing is called sanctification. The "all" I do is not of a piece with what he's doing. We aren't partners in effecting my transformation into Christlikeness. I produce his fruit (if I am his true child), and submit to his pruning and other labor. I should put forth the energy to be joyfully engaged with him, but not suppose my efforts are material contributions to my spiritual net worth.

Again, I wish RCS had found another way to declare himself on the subject. I think he took from Gerstner, who was a J.Edwards scholar (JE famously said, "God does all, and we do all").

I don't like it myself. But only use it in response to someone asking about it (in other real life siutations)

 

[No Other Name]

I don't like it myself. But only use it in response to someone asking about it (in other real life siutations)

I am genuinely appreciative of your engagement here. Thank you, brother.

 

[Phil D.]

What are some thoughts on the idea that the "fading away" in Heb. 8:13 is immediately referring to a relatively short, overlapping period of transition from the observance of the OT's ceremonial laws (pre-type) into the full formation of church life in the NT (post-fulfillment). This is said to account for things like Paul's actions in places like Acts 16:3 (seemingly borne from the attitude seen in 1 Cor. 9:20), which would not necessarily be advocated as a good course of action today.

Would it be fair to say this is at least a plausible understanding?

 

[brandonadams]

Would it be fair to say this is at least a plausible understanding?

Yes

 

[Ben Zartman]

As a summary of the pre-Mosaic, transcendent moral law that has always obligated all image bearers, yes.

Thank you.