Center for Biblical Theology and Eschatology
The Problem with Radical Discontinuity
(Originally posted on Essays on Continuity)
by Greg Welty
An essay on
the Continuity of the Old and New Testaments in Covenant Theology as contrasted
not only with Dispensationalism, but also with "New Covenant
Theology." Presuppositions
assumed but not proven in this essay: The use of language and reason, Calvinism
(which has many implications, such as the infallibility of Scriptures). Presuppositions
assumed and demonstrated (to more or less degree of success): Basic Fundamental
Continuity of the Old and New Testaments, Covenant theology. c 1998, 1999
David Wendt Preface
This presentation was inspired firstly, by my pastor George Carey, who
suggested I teach a Sunday school class on Covenant Theology, and secondly, by conversations
I have had with beloved brothers in Christ who have adopted what is now called
New Covenant Theology. For the most part these dear brothers are influenced by
John G. Reisinger and his disciple, Geoff Volker, who follows Reisinger very
closely in his (Volker’s) teaching ministry called In-Depth-Studies. Doubtless
there are those, such as Fred Zaspel, who while holding to something like NCT,
do not hold to all the radical distinctions of the Reisinger/Volker camp,
but since this is the brand I am most familiar with, most of the quotes shall
come from these two teachers and Randy Seiver. Also the NCT web page links to
Volker's works as an introduction to the system and this is naturally where
seekers will start. All Volker’s quotes are cut and pasted right from the
documents I got from the web in order to ensure accuracy. Since
Dispensationalism is so well known, documentation will be limited. We need to
keep in mind that NCT is not yet systematized and it is likely that many of its
adherents have not thought through all the implications. There are also
contradictions in the system even within the writings of just one person let
alone the whole system.
The debate over continuity/discontinuity is not an easy one. It is
not uncommon to have the waters clouded by not properly understanding the terms
as we will see more of later. "Presenting an issue sharply is indeed
by no means a popular business at the present time... Clear-cut definition of
terms in religious matters, bold facing of the logical implications of religious
views, is by many persons regarded as an impious proceeding..." (Machen, Christianity
and Liberalism 1). When we speak of a basic fundamental continuity, we do
not mean that everything from the Old Testament has come over into the Christian
church unchanged, but we mean that everything from the Old Testament continues
into the New Testament in some form or another, possible even by being
completely fulfilled as with the animal sacrifices finding complete fulfillment
in Christ. We may not say that the New Testament starts with a "clean
slate" and only brings over those things from the Old Testament that are
explicit. Since all of God's word is true in all times, we dare not say some
parts no longer apply without the consent of the writers of the New
Testament as in the case of cessation of animal sacrifices. To ignore the Old
Testament is a sad mistake that causes us to miss out on much that God has said
and wants us to know. Two examples might help to see the relationship of
continuity with discontinuity before moving on.
We will look at the state of God's people as it changes from national to
universal as an example of basic continuity. The state of the church in the New
Testament may seem to some to be a general discontinuity or even a radical
discontinuity compared with the Old Testament church (or "people of
God" for those squeamish about using the word "church," which
however is used in the Septuagint to describe God's people). It may seem at
first glance that the people of God in the Old Testament were national Israel
and that this has changed in a radical way when the Gentiles were brought in
after Pentecost. We can better understand this change, however, as a minor
discontinuity in the context of a basic continuity. Starting after the flood,
Noah's prophecies include "May God enlarge Japheth, and may he dwell in the
tents of Shem" (Gen 9:27). The non-shemites would learn of Shem's God by
dwelling in Shem's tents. We see the promise to Abraham that "in you all
the families of the earth shall be blessed" (Gen. 12:3), "and you
shall be a father of many nations" (Gen 17:4). Not long after we see that
Judah had children by a Canaanite, and Joseph's children were half Egyptian, so
these ethnic groups are brought into Israel in a limited sense. More important
perhaps is that during Israel's exodus from Egypt, "a mixed multitude went
up with them also" (Ex. 12:38). Later we see Rahab and her family becoming
part of the covenant people of God (Joshua 6:22-25). Ruth the Moabite woman was
incorporated into Israel and played a large role in redemption since David and
Jesus claim her as ancestor. Later, Jonah was told to preach to the Ninevites,
who were the enemies of Israel. "Then God saw their works, that they turned
away from their evil way; and God relented from the disaster He said He would
bring upon them..."(Jonah 3:10). When Jonah was angry that God was merciful
ton Nineveh, God replied "And should I pity not Ninevah, that great city,
in which are more than one hundred and twenty thousand persons...?" (Jonah
4:11). A New Testement example is found in the John 4 where the Samaritans
believed in Jesus, calling him "the Savior of the world" and not
the savior of Israel only (verse 42). The fact that the post-Pentecost church
has Gentiles in it is no surprise from what the Old Testament says, especially
when we consider the Protevangelium, where "the continuity of the work of
deliverance is declared; the enmity extends to the seed of the woman and of the
serpent. God’s promise is to the effect that he will keep up the enmity in the
line of human descent and will not allow it to die out" (Vos, Biblical
Theology 42). There is no general or radical discontinuity regarding the
identity of the people of God from the Old Testament to the New, but only a
minor discontinuity when comparing the Mosaic Covenant with the New Covenant,
but even this presupposes a general continuity starting with Adam.
An example of the problematic nature and difficulty of continuity can be
seen by comparing Calvin's view of instruments in the church with the
Campbellite view. Calvin has a very strong view of continuity in his theology,
but the Campbellites have a very strong, even radical discontinuity and yet they
both reject the use of musical instruments in the church. Calvin rejects
it because he associates instrumental music with the temple worship which has
been abolished in Christ. The Campbellites, on the other hand, have different
but related reasons. Historically, the Campbellites came out of Presbyterianism
with its emphasis on regulative worship, i. e. only those things commanded by
God are suitable in worship. Some Presbyterians allow musical instruments in the
church, because they see it as part of the worship service in the Old Testament
and therefore commanded in this dispensation, based on the continuity of worship
and not tied to the cult. The Campbellites, trying to be consistent with the
principle that only those things commanded in the New Testament, as contrasted
with the Bible as a whole, are allowed in worship or in the church see no
explicit New Testament command for using musical instruments. To them it doesn't
matter what the Old Testament says on the subject, but to Calvin it does matter,
and requires more thought to see whether the Old Testament principle carries
over or not. It is possible to have the same or similar conclusions based on
different premises. Calvin's premise is a general continuity which sees minor
discontinuity. The Campbellites premise is a radical discontinuity which is here
consistent. Introduction
Covenant or Federal Theology has as a basic assumption the unity of the
Bible. It sees the continued story of man’s salvation starting in the garden
of Eden with the Protevangelium (First Gospel proclaimed) of Genesis 3:15
and consummated in the death and resurrection of Christ. Salvation has always
been the work of God throughout all history. The sacrifices in the Old Testament
from Genesis on have always pointed toward Christ as the true sacrifice of God,
given for all his people of all time, who are His body, the Church. It has
always been true that "it is the blood that makes atonement for the
soul," for "Without the shedding of blood, there is no remission"
of sins (Lev 17:11, Heb 9:22).
We have already hinted at the major distinction between Covenant Theology
and the various forms of Dispensationalism including its sister, New Covenant
Theology (NCT).1 Federal or Covenant Theology, because it strongly
affirms the unity of the Bible, also affirms a basic fundamental continuity
between the Old and New Testaments. As Bavinck points out, the Old Testament was
the Bible of the New Testament church: The Gospel
implied the Old Testament and without it, the Gospel could not be received or
recognized. For the Gospel is the fulfillment of the promises of the Old
Testament, and without which, it hangs in the air, and the Old Testament is
the pedestal the Gospel rests upon, the root from which it has grown. No
sooner had the Gospel found acceptance anywhere, then immediately and without
any contradiction, along with it and in it, the Old Testament was accepted as
the Word of God . The New Testament church did not exist for a moment without
a Bible; from the beginning, the church was in possession of the Law, the
Psalms and the Prophets.(Magnalia Dei: Onderwijzing in de Christelijke
Religie naar Gereformeerde Belijdenis 120)2
There is no
doubt that there are degrees of continuity/discontinuity in all
theological systems, including Seventh Day Adventism which although holding to a
radical continuity, sees discontinuity regarding sacrifices.
Dispensationalism and some brands of NCT affirm the contrary belief, namely, a
radical discontinuity between the two Testaments. It should go without
saying that this does not mean they see no continuity between the
Testaments at all, but rather that their view of continuity is marred by an overemphasis
on the New Testament and by not seeing that "The New is indeed in the Old,
but its 'concealment' there is not a very secret one! He is there--everywhere.
We learn just as easily from the NT writers that we simply cannot read the OT
without seeing Jesus" (Zaspel, The Theology of Fulfillment). Someone
reading only the Books of Moses would come away with a doctrine of
salvation by faith in the sacrifice that God provides, not a salvation by works.
But some Dispensationalists and some adherents of NCT, instead of seeing
the obvious basic continuity, make statements such as these: "Truths such
as justification and sanctification are not clearly found in the Old Testament
era" (Volker, An Overview of New Covenant Theology). If these
extremely important truths "are not clearly found in the Old Testament
era," there can obviously be little or no continuity between that era and
the New Testament era, and this implies that the same lack of continuity
must also logically exist between the Old and New Testaments themselves, not
just between various covenants. Keep in mind that the Mosaic covenant starts in
the second book of the Bible and is in effect throughout the rest of the Old
Testament. If this covenant (law without grace, they would have us believe) is
regarded as lacking continuity with the other covenants (grace), it would seem
that the Scriptures wherein this covenant is prominent (most of the Old
Testament) must also be mostly discontinuous with the other parts of Scripture,
namely, Genesis and certain prophetic passages, and of course most or all of the
New Testament. The impression given is that the Mosaic covenant and national
Israel are a parenthesis of some kind in the "unity" of
scripture that NCT claims to hold just as the church age is a parenthesis in
Dispensationalism. "Paul's order of salvation history is first promise to
Abraham and his seed (Gal.3:16); secondly, the parenthesis of the Mosaic
Law..." (Jon Zens, Is There a "Covenant of Grace?" [sic]).
Zens goes on to say "we must see the books of the Old Testament as that
body of literature which was associated with the Mosaic Covenant" as
contrasted with the "new body of inspired literature" which "is
binding on the New Covenant community" (ibid.). This is indeed a very
strange kind of unity. Zaspel is perhaps an exception to this radical
view. But Dispensationalism and the Reisinger/Volker brand of NCT both go so far
as to claim that the new covenant and the church are totally and completely
new things: "New Covenant theology sees radical distinctions
between the old [Mosaic] covenant and the new covenant" (emphasis mine,
Seiver, The New Covenant in Promise and Fulfillment). Seiver does notice
areas of continuity between the Testaments, but emphasizes "that in most of
the occurrences of the term 'covenant' in the New Testament Scriptures the
emphasis is on discontinuity between the old and new covenants, rather than
continuity" (THE CROSS: The Heart of New Covenant Theology). In
describing Covenant Theology, he complains that "they make no radical
distinctions between the church of the old covenant and the church of the
new covenant" (emphasis mine, The New Covenant in Promise and
Fulfillment). "The Cross...signals the inauguration of that period to
which Paul refers as "the fullness of the time" (Gal 4:4) and marks a radical
change in God's covenant dealings with His people"(ibid.). "The New
Covenant is not merely a 'new administration' of the supposed covenant of grace,
but is a completely new covenant, totally replacing the Old Covenant" and "The
day of Pentecost (Acts 2) inaugurated the beginning of the Church, the New
Covenant people of God..." (Volker, An Overview Of New Covenant Theology).
The second sentence logically seems to mean, 1) that the Church is equal to
"the New Covenant people of God," and 2) that since the Church began
at Pentecost, it did not exist before that time. If it did not exist before
Pentecost, Old Testament believers were obviously not in the church in their own
natural lifetimes because they died before Pentecost, as also the thief on the
cross did. Reisinger makes it plain that in his NCT system Old Testament
believers were not even "in Christ," or "baptized into the
body of Christ" (Abraham's Four Seeds 61-65,esp. 63).
It should be noted that the Statement
of Faith of Grace Church at the NCT web page seems to contradict these
statements when it says "that the universal Church is the continuation and
fulfillment of the historical people of God," and the Reformation
Statement, written by Volker around 1994 but still on the web, rightly
says, "All of God's elect who have ever lived, are now living, or ever will
live, make up the one true universal or catholic church." Mike Paasch, the
missionary to Mexico sent by Volker's church, informed me of his own position:
"If you believe that I do not believe in the continuity of the church, i.e.
old testament saints are part of the same church as new testament saints, then
you are mistaken...Your perception that we reject that the church is continuous
from the first saint till the last is not correct" (e-mail 15 December
1998). Paasch apparently does not believe that "The day of Pentecost (Acts
2) inaugurated the beginning of the Church, the New Covenant people of
God...," since for him the church includes Old Testament saints. I cannot
reconcile the later statements of Volker with his older ones or with those of
Paasch, unless one assumes either 1) they have different definitions for
"church," 2) this sentence is a misstatement on Volker's part
and therefore he should retract it, or 3) they hold to the doctrine that the Old
Testament saints were not in the church until the Day of Pentecost. The idea of
Old Testament Saints coming into the church together at a certain time is
usually associated with the Romish conception of limbus patrum or sinus
Abrahae, being in "Abraham's bosom" until Christ descended into
Hell (obviously before the Day of Pentecost) and brought them to Heaven,
however, the NCT page has a link to an article that gives this explanation:
"NCT sees the saints of the OT as being added to the church after it's
built. But NCT says that the Bible doesn't call the OT saints 'the
church'"(Donald Hochner and G. Richard Gaudreau, A
Comparison of Three Systems: Dispensationalism - Covenant Theology - New
Covenant Theology). It is also possible to define "church" in
different ways, namely the universal church on the one hand which "consists
of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into
one, under Christ the Head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fulness of
Him that filleth all in all," (Westminster Confession of Faith
Chapter 25,1), and on the other hand, either the visible church, the particular
church, or both, as also the Westminster Confession of Faith implies
(Chapter 25, 2 and 4). In this way, one can consistently hold to particular
atonement, which says Christ died for his church which is his body consisting of
all the elect and only the elect. This idea, although more Biblical is less
consistent than Reisinger in his use of radical discontinuity.
Volker is by no means clear on his view of the church. He says, "The church
as the people of God includes all believers. The church as the New Covenant
people of God that is made up of both Jews and Gentiles began at
Pentecost." He goes on to say, "...the people of God are all those for
whom Jesus died. The new covenant people of God, is made up of both Jews and
Gentiles and this is a new critter that has not been previously seen." But
later he clarified that, "the New Covenant form of the church is
made up of Jews and Gentiles" (italics mine), which seems to imply that the
church has always existed , but in the new era has a new form. When I asked him
whether the New Covenant church contains Old Testament believers, he answered,
"Yes" (e-mail), but would not tell me when they entered the New
Covenant Church, whether the two "churches" have the same substance,
whether the universal church existed in Old Testament times or what the
difference is between the two. These were not the "right questions" to
ask, but he insisted he was not "evading [my] questions." We know that
the "New Covenant people of God" contains Old and New Covenant
believers, namely all the elect, and we presume only the elect unless it just
means the "visible church." It would seem that the exact same
individuals are contained in both definitions of "church"
("people of God" and "New Covenant people of God"),and yet
for Volker, the two are not identical since the one is a "new critter"
that didn’t exist before Pentecost. He can’t mean that since gentiles are
now being saved, the church is "a new critter." We have already seen
from the Scriptures that Gentiles were saved even during the Mosaic covenant. If
only the form is new, why bother calling the church "a new
critter," and saying "the day of Pentecost (Acts 2) inaugurated the
beginning of the Church, the New Covenant people of God..." (The Seminar
Notes on New Covenant Theology). The difference between the two definitions
is far too subtle for this writer to see. One would wish for more clarity in
Volker’s use of terms. Seiver gives
the following as the presuppositions of NCT: 1. God has
only one purpose. That purpose is the revelation of His glory as He
establishes His sovereign rule over His entire redeemed creation.
2. The
establishment of Israel as a nation was only a means that God used pursuant to
His eternal purpose. God has only one spiritual people. He grants the
spiritual inheritance only to those in Christ.
3. Christ,
and those united to Him by faith, are the true seed of Abraham to whom God
made the promise.
4. We must
interpret old covenant prophecies in the light of their new covenant
fulfillment. (The New Covenant in Promise and Fulfillment)
These however are not the differences between NCT and Covenant Theology.
We can agree with these statements except for the use of the word
"only" in number 2. That word "only" and other statements we
have seen and will see later, betray what the most basic presuppositional
difference is: a radical discontinuity of the Testaments. Some may call this an
over-simplification of the issues, but it is not. "To be specific is not to
the same as oversimplistic" (Francisco Orozco, e-mail conversation, 29 Dec
1998). It is always wise to engage at the most basic level. In conversations
with Mormons, for example we must start at our most basic difference, which is
not authority, or even salvation or the deity of Christ, but rather what is real
and eternal. Since they believe spirit and matter both exist and that all is
eternal (Dualism), they will naturally interpret the Bible according to those
basic presuppositions. It is usually not helpful to start by talking about this
or that verse since they have different definitions of the words according to
their prior assumptions. We need to show them that theism is true and Biblical,
before we even talk about salvation by grace. The same rule applies when dealing
with Christians of differing opinions. They may not admit that this is so,
because we don't always see our basic presuppositions. But it is almost
always fruitless to talk to Dispensationalists about rapture theories without
first examining the basis for them, and perhaps the basis for that basis and so
on, until the most basic difference is understood and discussed. Jon Zens, a
pioneer of recent NCT, says that "dispensationalists come to Scripture with
the presupposition that God has an earthly purpose for Israel, and a heavenly
purpose for the church. Covenant theologians, on the other hand, come to
Scripture with the presupposition that there is one covenant of grace with
various administrations" (An Examination Of The Presuppositions Of
Covenant And Dispensational Theology Chapter 1). He does not even see
that continuity is the more basic issue that drives these other presuppositions.
Seiver uses the expression "radical distinctions" more than once when
discussing NCT and admits that,"we see the basic relationship between the
old and new covenants as one of discontinuity" (THE CROSS: The Heart of
New Covenant Theology). And this is where the real issue lies, in the
radical distinctions which have their root in radical discontinuity.
Dwight Pentecost calls the the church age "an entirely new age,
which...is one of our strongest arguments for the premillennial position. It is
necessary for one who rejects that interpretation to prove that the church
itself is the consummation of God’s program. To do so he must prove that there
is no new revealed program of God in this present age" (Things to Come 136).
See pages 119-128 of Things to Come for the various Dispensationalist
positions on just what the New Covenant is or is not. Dispensationalists are
also not in agreement as to exactly when the church started. Some say at
Pentecost, others, sometime later in the Book of Acts, while still others say
not until Paul told of it in Ephesians. For NCT and Dispensationalism the Mosaic
covenant is strictly a legal covenant. "This new covenant, not like the
covenant made with the people through Moses, would be of grace, not of works;
radical, not external;..." (Seiver quoting Hughes, THE CROSS: The
Heart of New Covenant Theology). There is no grace in that covenant and
Israel would only receive material blessings not spiritual. Dispensationalism
differs from NCT in some areas which need not concern us at this time because
they have the same basic presupposition of radical discontinuity, which we will
attempt to show to be not only a new idea but contrary to the very flow of
Scripture.
It should be noted that Progressive Dispensationalism sees more continuity
than Classical and Revised Dispensationalism or NCT will admit. Craig Blaising
says that the Mosaic Covenant "was not, however, utterly different
from the patriarchal dispensation which preceded it. In fact, the Mosaic
dispensation was a dispensation of the blessing promised to the patriarchs"
(Progressive Dispensationalism 151) and "the dispensation of the new
covenant could not be an utterly different dispensation from that which
preceded it. Its purpose and its continuity with preceding dispensations lie in
the patriarchal covenants" (ibid. 159). He also says that Israel was
"commanded to be a people of faith in the Lord" (143). With the
emphasis on progression which implies continuity, they seem even to give up the
parenthesis around the church age which NCT seems to simply move to the Mosaic
Dispensation. "Progressive dispensationalists believe that the church is a
vital part of this very same plan of redemption. The appearance of the
church does not signal a secondary redemption plan..." (ibid. 47). It is
interesting that NCT, which sometimes likes to call itself "Reformed,"
is moving closer to the very ideas of the older Dispensationalism which
Progressive Dispensationalism is modifying. History
The belief in continuity of the Testaments is the historical
Protestant position. Calvin says, "The covenant made with all the
patriarchs is so much like ours in substance and reality that the two are
actually one and the same...Who, then, dares to separate the Jews from Christ,
since with them, we hear, was made the covenant of the gospel, the sole
foundation of which is Christ?" (Institutes Book II, X 2,4). The
Reformed and Presbyterian Churches have always affirmed continuity in their
confessions as read in The Scotch Confession of Faith (1560): We maist
constantly beleeve, that God preserved, instructed, multiplied, honoured,
decored, and from death called to life, his Kirk in all ages fra Adam,
till the cumming of Christ Jesus in the flesh...to them he gave his
lawes, constitutions and ceremonies...To this same people from time to time he
sent prophets, to reduce them to the right way of their God...(Art. V.)[sic]
The Belgic
Confession (1561),
Article 27, says: This church
has existed from the beginning of the world and will last until the end, as
appears from the fact that Christ is eternal King who cannot be without
subjects. And this holy church is preserved by God against the rage of the
whole world, even though for a time it may appear very small in the eyes of
men--as though it were snuffed out. For example, during the very dangerous
time of Ahab the Lord preserved for himself seven thousand men who did not
bend their knees to Baal.
The
Second Helvetic Confession (1566) chapter xvii on the church says, therefore
it is necessary that there always should have been, and should be at this day,
and to the end of the world, a Church-that is, a company of the faithful
called and gathered out of the world; a communion (I say) of all the saints,
that is of them who truly know and rightly worship and serve the true God, in
Jesus Christ the Saviour, by the word of the Holy Spirit, and who by faith are
partakers of all those good graces which are freely offered through
Christ...This Militant Church was otherwise ordered and governed before the
Law, among the patriarchs; otherwise under Moses, by the Law, and otherwise of
Christ, by the Gospel...Both these sorts of people [Old and New testament
believers] have had, and still have, one fellowship, one salvation, in one and
the same Messiah, in whom, as members of one body, they are all joined
together under one head, and by one faith are all partakers of one and the
same spiritual meat and drink (Schaff, Volume III, 868-870).
See also the Westminster
Confession of Faith (1646) chapters vii and xix.
It is present in Lutheranism as is evident from the Augsburg
Confession, Chapter viii, which calls the church "nothing else than
the assembly of all believers and saints," and also the use of the Ten
Commandments therein and in Luther’s
Small Catechism (but notice that neither Luther nor Melancthon were
Sabbatarians). In The Formula of Concord (1576, 1584) we read, We believe,
teach, and confess that although they who truly believe in Christ, and are
sincerely converted to God, are through Christ set free from the curse and
constraint of the Law, they are not, nevertheless, on that account without
Law, inasmuch as the Son of God redeemed them for the very reason that they
might meditate on the Law of God day and night, and continually exercise
themselves in the keeping thereof (Psa. i.2; cxix.1 sqq.). For not even our
first parents, even before the fall, lived wholly without Law, which was
certainly at that time graven on their hearts, because the Lord had created
them after his own image (Art. VI.I.)
Also see
various Lutheran authors of Old Testament commentaries including Keil, Delitzsch
and Leupold.
The Confession of the Church of England very explicitly says, The Old
Testament is not contrary to the New: for both in the Old and New Testament
everlasting life is offered to Mankind by Christ, who is the only Mediator
between God and Man, being both God and Man. Wherefore they are not to be
heard, which feign that the old Fathers did look only for transitory promises.
Although the Law given from God by Moses, as touching Ceremonies and Rites, do
not bind Christian men, nor the Civil Precepts thereof ought of necessity to
be received in any commonwealth; yet notwithstanding, no Christian man is free
from the obedience of the Commandments which are called Moral (The
Thirty-nine Articles of Religion [1563],Chapter vii).
The
Methodists in The Articles of Religion (1784), Chapter vi, repeat word
for word Chapter vii of The Thirty-nine Articles which is quoted above.
Many Baptist churches have adopted or slightly modified the Baptist
Confession of Faith (AKA The Second London Confession or The
Philadelphia Confession[1677,1689]) which was based on the Westminster
Confession and is firmly committed not only to the doctrine of continuity of
the Old and New Testaments but also to Covenant Theology. Charles Spurgeon
republished this Confession in 1855 and dedicated it to his own church. The Abstract
of Principles (1859) is another Baptist interpretation of the WCF
which "was adopted by the Southern Baptist Seminary, Louisville Kentucky in
1859 and by Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in 1950" (Leith,
339). It is very brief, but implies continuity in Article XVII on the
Lord’s Day. Congregationalists also had adaptions of the Westminster
Confession, such as The Savoy Declaration (1658). The London
Confession [1644] says "unlesse hee [Christ] had been God, he could
never have perfectly understood the will of God, neither had he been able to
reveale it throughout all ages...(sic, emphasis mine, Article
XVI).3
The Anabaptists, however, seem to be the exception to the rule, at least
in regard to the law (The
Dordrecht Confession, 1632, Article v), but even they do not explicitly
affirm discontinuity, although it is implied to some extent. Moreover, they do
seem to see Continuity between the sacrifice offered by Noah and Christ’s
sacrifice, since Christ "delivered up the body prepared for Him, as ‘an
offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet smelling savour’" (Article
iv; compare with Gen 8:21). But they also hold such doctrines as Foot Washing
(Article xi), Pacifism (Article xiv) to the degree of saying a Christian may not
be a magistrate (The
Schleitheim Confession [1527] in Leith, 288) and a "visible Church
of God consisting of those...who are rightly baptized" (The Dordrecht
Confession, Article viii). By being "rightly baptized," they
"become incorporated into the communion of the Saints" (ibid., Article
vii). The plain meaning is that one who is not "rightly baptized" is
not really in the church, and one must wonder if such a person (a Paedo-Baptist,
for example) is even to be regarded as saved. This elitism was not shared by
Protestantism in general and may not be consistent in the minds of the framers
of the confession or in the Mennonites who currently hold to this creed. To
their credit, these creeds did reject many of the other extremes in older
Anabaptist thought such as throwing the New Testament into the water because
they had the Spirit to lead them to all knowledge (a consistent "new
heart" doctrine?).
Dispensationalism arose in Great Britain around 1830 among the Plymouth
Brethren. Their desire to interpret Old Testament promises literally as
pertaining to Israel rather than the church, seems to drive their acceptance of
a radical discontinuity between the Old and New Testaments (or vice versa). But
in their hermeneutics, they could not be consistent in the degree of literalism
they would apply to the New Testament. They would rather that Jesus were using
metaphorical language when He said that Elijah had already come, than to accept
that the Old Testament prediction was metaphorical or spiritual (see the Scofield
Bible, in loc). They also delighted in allegorical interpretations of
historical passages in order to justify their system of belief. Allis has many
examples in Chapter 2 of Prophesy and the Church. Although this system of
"rightly dividing the truth" (according to the correct dispensation),
has no creedal authority, it has been adopted by some claiming to hold to the
old creeds (Joseph Seiss, a Lutheran, is a good example) which clearly disavow
this idea and the chiliasm that accompanied it. Dispensationalists in general,
however, like the Campbellites
(who also hold to a radical discontinuity), like to say, "No creed but the
Bible." They both have, however, built up elaborate systems to justify
their various opinions. We are not to be surprised at this departure from
historical Protestantism in light of what else was happening at the time.
This was just after the Industrial Revolution which encouraged men to
become more self-reliant spiritually as well as materially. About this time many
old heresies reared their ugly heads. Pelagianism was seen in the preaching of Charles
Finney and in the Campbellite movement, as well as in Mormonism which also
adopted Dualism, Gnosticism, and a Millenarianism similar to that of
Dispensationalism. A few years later came Russellism (Jehovah’s
Witnesses) with its Arianism added to Pelagianism and Adventism. Russellism
and Campbellism also affirmed a radical discontinuity. The Seventh Day
Adventists, on the other hand, had a radical continuity as the center of their
theology with their insistence on keeping the Jewish Sabbath and dietary laws
which the New Covenant abrogated as early as Jesus’ ministry (Mark 7:18,19);
as repeated to Peter (Acts 10:9-16) and clarified by Paul (Col 2:16, 1 Tim 4:4).
The time after the Industrial Revolution was the age of new things and new
religions. The confessions and study of Dogmatics were almost unknown it seems,
and history would repeat itself as Millenarianism, Dualism, Pelagianism,
Judaistic tendencies, and Arianism were once again proclaimed, although the
adherents of these various errors would no doubt reject the historical names we
assign to them. The fact that the belief in discontinuity is a novum in
Protestantism, should be enough to make us suspicious; but a look at the melting
pot it came from leads to even more doubt as to its veracity. New beliefs,
certainly, need to be scrutinized very carefully to find out if they are
Biblical. And it is the height of rashness and very foolish to accept them on
the basis of deference to a religious leader without meticulously examining
whether these things are so, especially in light of these historical conditions
which bred all sorts of filth!
New Covenant Theology has become popular in the last few years. It can be
traced back to Norbert Ward of Murfreesboro, TN, who published a Reformed
Baptist magazine in the tradition of the Puritans. "The Baptist
Reformation Review...was a sound Puritan (though Baptistic) magazine.
Norbert came under the teaching of [Jon] Zens late in his (Ward's) life"
(Richard Bacon). This does not mean that Ward accepted everything that Zens
taught. Zens denied the title of "Reformed Baptist" to himself and it
comes to no surprise that the name of the magazine was also changed. Searching
Together presented the new distinctions that Zens advocated, today known
as New Covenant Theology. John Reisinger gives the impression (Abraham's Four
Seeds 78 et al) that he had many discussions with Presbyterians who did not
really understand Covenant Theology, but held to it because of the creed. One
wonders if some Reformed Baptists simply got tired of debating with certain
unread Presbyterians over baptism, because they would always refer to the
continuity of the covenants as a presupposition in their arguments. "Not a
few Baptists have virtually capitulated to infant baptism upon a consideration
of the 'one covenant of grace variously administered.' That is why it is
absolutely imperative for Calvinistic Baptists to think through this matter. Is
the covenant of works/covenant of grace theological structured exegetically
tenable or not?" (Zens, An
Examination Of The Presuppositions Of Covenant And Dispensational Theology 9.4).
Since these "Reformed" Baptists also did not have a proper
understanding of Covenant Theology, it was easy for them to reject the whole
system (and more) in their rejection of continuity which, as we have shown, is
not peculiar to Reformed Theology. Now they could easily win arguments with the
Paedo- Baptists, at least in their own minds, because the Paedo-Baptists were
basing their arguments on a (to them) false assumption. A Reformed Baptist
Pastor, John Giarrizzo, in an as yet
unpublished paper notices that "Reformed Baptists and Sovereign Grace
Baptists who are not properly grounded in Old Testament Theology are most
vulnerable" to the influences of NCT. A good example of this is seen in the
In-Depth-Studies Seminar Notes on New Covenant Theology where one of the
headings is "Why 7th Commandment is not in force TODAY." Continuity in
the Sacrifices of the Old Testament
It is obvious that the doctrine of Continuity is the historical Protestant
position and that the contradicting view which may have had its seed in
Anabaptist theology (but NOT in Baptist theology) is relatively new. But what
are the implications of the doctrine of Continuity contrasted with that of
Discontinuity, and can it be shown to be Biblical? One of the major tenets is
that "Salvation is of the Lord" (Jonah 2:9). God saves sinners and has
been doing it since the fall by the same means, namely by regeneration which
brings faith to the sinner, which faith is the means of the imputation of
Christ’s righteousness. "Having been justified by faith, we have peace
with God through our Lord Jesus Christ" (Rom 5:1; see John Murray,
Redemption: Accomplished and Applied 79 f. for the Order of
Salvation). The sinner’s faith is in the sacrifice that God Himself has
provided, the anti-type of which is later shown to be Jesus Christ, God in the
flesh, the Lamb of God slain before the foundation of the world! "God in no
time received men to mercy without sacrifices. And that was to betoken that if
we will obtain forgiveness of our sins, we must have recourse to the Sacrifice
that was offered up once for all for our redemption. For so long as Jesus Christ
is not the means between God and us, we must continue accursed, forlorn and
hopeless" (Calvin, Sermons on Job 745).We will start by examining
the continuity of the sacrifices of the Old testament.
The idea of a sacrifice permeates Scripture from Genesis to the New
Testament. It is presupposed before the Mosaic Law makes it more explicit. The
first sacrifice or at least the idea for sacrifice was made by God Himself after
the fall of man in the garden. Some of the NCT camp have doubted that this is a
real sacrifice because the word "sacrifice" is not used in the text.
But although the word "hypocrisy" is not used in Isaiah chapter 1, no
one doubts the idea is present there. Closer to home is the fact that the word
"sin" is not used in Genesis 3 at all, but no one would say we
couldn’t have known Adam’s action was sin until Paul makes it clear in
Romans 5. We needn’t have a particular word used in order to have the meaning.
Before the making of clothes for Adam and Eve, we find in Genesis 3:15 the
Protevangelium (First Gospel) which declares to the Serpent (Satan) that
"He (Jesus) shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel." It
is interesting that those who hold to discontinuity, also accept this passage as
referring to Christ defeating Satan when the closest New Testament allusion is
Romans 16:20, "And the God of peace will crush Satan under your feet
shortly," which seems to say the church will in some way crush Satan. If
they were more consistent in their view of rejecting interpretations not
explicitly spelled out in the New Testament, they must agree with the liberal
Skinner who says, "It is doubtful the passage can be regarded in any sense
a Protevangel" (quoted by Leupold in Exposition of Genesis 164),
rather than holding to the traditional messianic view of the Targum and
the early church. Leupold rightly says: Not every
messianic passage is mentioned definitely in the New Testament...after
Christ’s public ministry is officially inaugurated by His baptism, He
encounters the devil in a temptation, even as the first parents encountered
him. This, first of all, confirms the fact that the first tempter was the
devil, but it more distinctly displays the first crushing defeat that the seed
of the woman administered to His opponent. On the cross this victory was
sealed and brought to its perfect conclusion (Exposition of Genesis
170).
Luther
regarded this passage in Genesis as having in it "everything noble and
glorious that is to be found anywhere in the Scriptures" (quoted by Leupold
163). W. a Brakel sees the Gospel shining through: After Adam
and Eve had transgressed the covenant, the Lord declared a new covenant, a
covenant of grace with the words (of Gen 3:15)...These are brief words, but
contain the great work of the redemption of a sinner, the severing of the
violent might of the devil over the elect, the enmity and conflict of the
children of God and the children of the devil, the Person through whom this
should be carried out under the name of the seed of the woman (not of the
man), which is Christ the seed of Abraham, Isaak, Jacob, David, [born] of
Mary, who through his death neutralized the devil, Heb. 2:14. (Redelijke
Godsdienst Derde Deel 4 [EV Vol.3, Page 4])4
Hengstenberg
sums it up thus: "As the mission of the Messiah was rendered necessary by
the fall, so the first obscure intimation of Him was given immediately after the
event" (Christology of the Old Testament 29).
Verse 21: "Also for Adam and his wife the Lord God made tunics of
skin, and clothed them." Leupold prefers to take this only in the literal
sense of the need for clothes to guard against the elements, but admits,
"this may have suggested to man the idea of sacrifice," and "It
is difficult to say whether the slaying of beasts for purpose of clothing in
Adam’s day already involved sacrifice" (ibid. in loc.) But it seems
unlikely that the idea for sacrifice came from man because Christ is the Lamb
who was slain before the foundation of the world. Man-made worship or
propitiation is unacceptable to a holy God. Delitzsch rightly says, "Since
Adam calls his wife Eve (Chavva [life or living]), he announces his faith
in the promise; and since God provides for the covering of man’s nakedness, He
typically prefigures His atoning grace, for kippur is a synonym of kithah
and signifies covering of sin, so that in God’s sight it is as though it
did not exist" (Old Testament History of Redemption 26). Compare
also Galatians 3: 27, "For all of you who were baptized into Christ have
clothed yourselves with Christ" (NIV) which uses the same Greek word (enduo)
as that of the Septuagint translation of Genesis 3:21. We have here in Genesis 3
the story of man’s fall and of God’s restoration of fallen man, which Vos
refers to as "the divine initiative in the work of deliverance" (Biblical
Theology 42). God initiated the whole thing Himself. Adam passed the blame,
but God promised a Redeemer and Adam believed God. If the killing of the
animal(s) to provide clothing for Adam and his wife is not a sacrifice, it is
interesting that 1) it looks very much like one, 2) it acts like one in
providing a covering, 3) it fits the axiom that "God will provide the
sacrifice" as in the case of Abraham and Isaac, and especially in the case
of Christ, 4) it explains the use of sacrifices as early as Genesis 4 and in the
book of Job before the giving of the Law on Mount Sinai, and 5) it fits in
beautifully with the passage from Hebrews 9:22, that "without the shedding
of blood there is no forgiveness." Even if one is not convinced of the
sacrificial character in verse 21, it cannot be denied that God is shown in this
chapter to be "merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abounding in
goodness and truth,...forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin" (Exodus
34:6,7). He will "by no means clear the guilty"(verse 7), but He will
impute the righteousness of Christ into the elect, so that they are no longer
guilty. "Salvation is of the Lord!" The Scotch Confession of Faith (1560)
makes it plain that Adam was saved by Christ: For this we
contantlie beleeve, that God, after the feirfull and horrible defectioun of
man fra his obedience, did seek Adam againe, call upon him, rebuke his
sinne, convict him of the same, and in the end made unto him ane most joyful
promise, to wit, That the seed of the woman suld break down the serpents
head, that is, he suld destroy the works of the Devill. Quhilk promise, as
it was repeated, and made mair cleare from time to time; so was it imbraced
with joy, and maist constantlie received of al the faithfull, from Adam to
Noe, from Noe to Abraham, from Abraham to David,
and so furth to the incarnatioun of Christ Jesus, all (we meane the
faithfull Fathers under the Law) did see the joyfull daie of Christ Jesus,
and did rejoice (Art. IV.)
As already mentioned, we see sacrifices as early as Adam’s children,
Cain and Abel. Although the word "sacrifice" is not used in Genesis 4,
the writer of Hebrews makes it plain that "by faith Abel offered a more
excellent sacrifice than Cain" (11:4). We read that "the Lord
respected Abel and his offering, but did not respect Cain and his offering"
(Gen 4:4,5). We don’t read of Adam offering a sacrifice (perhaps because God
already did it for him in Gen 3?) or even teaching his sons about the need for
sacrifices, but somehow they knew about it. It seems likely that Adam told his
children about the fall and the covering that God provided, since it is
contained in many religions, although in a perverted form. Delitzsch thinks that
"Sacrifice in its origin is not the satisfaction of a divine command, but
of an inward need" (Old Testament History of Redemption 31). But God
is not one to accept the inventions of men to pacify him (or is the "inward
need" planted by God?). "It is inconceivable that either the propriety
or probable utility of presenting material gifts to the invisible God. and
especially of attempting to propitiate God by the slaughter of his irrational
creatures, should ever have occurred to the human mind as a spontaneous
suggestion" (A. A. Hodge, The Atonement 123). "God hath
ordained sacrifices even from the beginning of the world. For had they been
invented at man’s pleasure, they had been but trifles and apish toys"
(Calvin, Sermons on Job 11). But God "respected Abel and his
offering." Why did He not respect Cain? We are not given an answer in the
Genesis text. We are told that Cain’s offering was "of the fruit of the
ground," but Abel’s was "of the firstborn of his flock and of their
fat." Later we are told that Abel’s sacrifice is "more
excellent." That is, the sacrifice itself, was more excellent. "The
bloody offering contains the expiatory element, which is wanting in the
vegetable offering, and therefore takes the precedence of it; but...Every
offering is worthless without the right internal state of the one bringing
it" (Delitzsch 32). This "more excellent sacrifice" was offered
by faith, but the contrast to Cain’s offering is not the faith, but what was
offered ("a more excellent sacrifice"). It is true, without faith we
cannot please God, but faith must be based on the truth of God, not the
inventions of men. "But if Abel had devised the said manner of sacrificing
to God of his own head, he could not have faith...and faith can never be without
obedience; it must needs be answerable to that which God hath ordained"
(Calvin, Sermons on Job 11). The reasonable answer to our question of why
God did not accept Cain's offering is that Cain’s offering was less excellent
because there was no shedding of blood. "Without shedding of blood there is
no remission" (Heb 9:22). Abel’s sacrifice pointed toward the vicarious
sacrifice of Christ who shed His blood for His people. Vos rightly says, All
Biblical sacrifice rests on the idea that the gift of life to God, either in
consecration or in expiation, is necessary to the action or the restoration of
religion. What passes from man to God is not regarded as property but, even
though it be property for a symbolic purpose, means always in the last
analysis the gift of life. And this is, in the original conception,
neither in expiation nor in consecration the gift of alien life; it is the
gift of life of the offerer himself. The second principle underlying the idea
is that man in the abnormal relations of sin is disqualified for offering this
gift of his life in his own person. Hence the principle of vicariousness is
brought into play: one life takes the place of another life (Biblical
Theology 92-93).
The next sacrifice is mentioned (again not by the word
"sacrifice," but "offerings") in Genesis 8:20, where, after
the flood, "Noah built an altar to the Lord and took of every clean animal
and of every clean bird, and offered burnt offerings on the altar." The
result was that "the Lord smelled a soothing aroma," and promised
never again to flood the earth. He also instituted capital punishment for murder
(the shedding of blood for the shedding of blood) and prohibited eating flesh
with the blood, which is its life (Gen 9:4-6). Perhaps the blood is reserved
only for God as expiation. "For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and
I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it
is the blood that makes atonement for the soul" (Lev. 17:11). Again, since
the Lord would not be pleased by man-made worship, the idea of sacrifice must
have come from God. Notice also that even before the Mosaic law there was the
idea of clean and unclean animals. "When it is said that Noah after the
flood took of the clean beasts to sacrifice, thereby we see he had instruction
from heaven, for it lay not in him to discern between beast and beast, so as he
should say, ‘Among these I see some that be pure and and clean, and the
residue be unclean.’ Needs must God have taught him that" (Calvin, Sermons
on Job 11).
The story of the Book of Job is usually regarded as "laid in the
far-off patriarchal age...a time long before the Israelitish state, with its
religious, social and political organization, existed" (ISBE, 1680).
Job seems to be the priest for his household as seen from verse 1:5 which says
he would "sanctify [his children] and offer burnt offerings" for them
and it is suggested in 42:8 where God tells his friends Job will pray for them.
Since Job "was blameless and upright, and one who feared God and shunned
evil" (Job 1:1), he would not have a worship and offering that was not
sanctioned by God. "He had the doctrine that came from God and which Noah
had given unto his children" (Calvin, Sermons on Job 11). Indeed in
chapter 42, Job’s friends are explicitly told by God to "take for
yourselves seven bulls and seven rams...and offer up for yourselves a burnt
offering" because God’s wrath was aroused against them (verses 7 and 8).
This is proof that animal sacrifices were ordained by God before the Mosaic Law
for the purpose of propitiation "lest I deal with you according to your
folly."
With regard to Abraham, there are at first only hints about sacrifices in
the fact that "he built an altar to the Lord" (Gen 12:7), and in the
covenantal offering of "a three-year-old heifer, a three-year-old female
goat, a three-year-old ram, a turtledove, and a young pigeon," which were
cut in two by Abraham (Gen 15:9,10). But there is nothing explicit until after
Isaac is born. Abraham is told to "take now your son, your only son Isaac,
whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt
offering..." (Gen 22:2). Isaac seemed to be quite familiar with sacrifices,
however, even knowing what animal should be used, when he says, "Look, the
fire and wood, but where is the lamb for a burnt offering" (22:7).
Abraham’s well known answer is, "God will provide for Himself the lamb
for a burnt offering" (vs 8). Years later, John the Baptist will say about
Christ, "Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world"
(John 1:29). There is only an implication that Isaac offered sacrifices in the
fact that he built an altar to God (Gen: 26:25) . But, "Jacob offered a
sacrifice on the mountain," after Laban pursued him. He also "erected
an altar" before the city of Shechem (Gen 33:18), and was commanded
explicitly by God to make an altar in Bethel (Gen 35:1).
The meaning of the Law is by far the most controversial topic in the
discussion of Continuity and Discontinuity. Dispensationalists regard it as
being only a legal covenant with no grace. They draw a sharp contrast between
the promises of Abraham and the Law of Moses. The covenant with Abraham, they
say was unconditional, but the law has obedience as its condition. Referring to
New Covenant Theology, which shares presuppositions with Classical
Dispensationalism (although usually without the premillennialism), Volker says
"It understands the Mosaic Law to be a legal covenant that demands perfect
obedience in order to receive the promised blessings" (Defining New
Covenant Theology). "There is no grace in the law covenant made at
Sinai" (Reisinger 83). "God intended from all eternity that Israel
experience the condemning results of the Old Covenant" (Volker, The
Mosaic Covenant is a Gracious Covenant [the covenant but not the law, for in
the same article he says, "The Mosaic Law is not a gracious
covenant"]) "This Law was never meant for the real people of God"
(Volker, The Law of Christ). "This new covenant, not like the
covenant made with the people through Moses, would be of grace, not of works;
radical, not external;..." (Seiver [quoting Hughes], THE CROSS:
The Heart of New Covenant Theology). In the law, remission of sins was
carnal and earthly for "Israel's adoption, redemption, calling, etc., were
only external, typical, blessings" (Seiver, ibid.).From this point of view,
the law has nothing to do with grace, but is the direct opposite.
"According to our opponents, [Moses] performed no other office than to
induce carnal folk to worship God by promising them fertile fields and an
abundance of all things. Yet, unless we willfully shun the proffered light, we
already possess a clear affirmation of the spiritual covenant" (Calvin, Institutes
II, X 15).
First let us observe that prior to the giving of the Law on Sinai, God
says that Abraham had already "obeyed My voice and kept My charge, My
commandments, My statutes, and My laws" (Gen 26:5). Indeed, "the work
of the law [is] written in their hearts" (Romans 2:15) and "what may
be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them...so that they
are without excuse" (Romans 1:19, 20). Moses was already making known
"the statutes of God and His law" before he came to Mount Sinai. The
"conditions" of obedience are not new in the Law. As for sacrifices,
when Moses told Pharaoh the people needed to "serve the Lord," (Ex
7:16; 8:1), Pharaoh rightly understood it to mean make sacrifices: Then
Pharaoh called for Moses and Aaron, and said, "Go, sacrifice to your God
in the land." And Moses said," It is not right to do so, for we
would be sacrificing the abomination of the Egyptians to the Lord our God. If
we sacrifice the abomination of the Egyptians before their eyes, then will
they not stone us?" (Ex 8:25, 26; Ex 5:3).
Again
this was before the Mosaic law and covenant were given, that the people were to
go sacrifice to the Lord. Already they are pointed backward to Abraham’s
covenant and faith in the God who provides, and forward to Christ the true
sacrifice. The exodus of the children of Israel is said to be by virtue of
God’s covenant with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob: "So God heard their
groaning, and God remembered His covenant with Abraham, with Isaac, and with
Jacob. And God looked upon the children of Israel, and God acknowledged
them" (Ex 2:24,25). We are also told that "the law which was four
hundred and thirty years later, cannot annul the covenant that was confirmed
before by God in Christ, that it should make the promise of no effect" (Gal
3:17). The law
which attended the promise (to Abraham) has not made this promise
powerless or neutralized it, but rather has taken it up and rendered service
in its development and fulfillment. The promise is the main point, the law is
subordinate; one is the end, the other the means; not in the law, but in the
promise is the kernel of God's revelation and the heart of Israel's religion (Bavinck,
Magnalia Dei 80).5
So the
patriarchs understood the necessity of doing those things that God commanded,
"My voice...My charge, My commandments, My statutes, and My laws" (Gen
26:5). The children of Israel were learning these things as well as the Passover
Rite (which Delitzsch sees as a real sacrifice 60), from Moses before the
covenant was given at Mount Sinai, not as a works salvation, but to show sin
more clearly and to point to Christ! "When we read of the law entering and
see its ability to point out sin, our minds should race quickly to Him who is
'the end of the law for righteousness to him that believes'"(Zaspel, The
Theology of Fulfillment). Vos points out that the people were redeemed from
Egypt before the law, "Particularly their taking possession of the promised
land could not have been made dependent on previous observance of the law. For
during their journey in the wilderness many of its prescripts could not be
observed. It is plain, then, that law-keeping did not figure at that juncture as
the meritorious ground of life-inheritance" (Biblical Theology 127).
Even after Israel's many failures and being thrust out of the land, God
"takes Israel back into favour...after due chastisement and
repentance" (ibid. 128). After showing beyond doubt that the gospel was
present in the Old Testament, Vos sums up: "Nor was this
gospel-element contained exclusively in the revelation that preceded,
accompanied, and followed the law; it is found in the law itself. That
which we call 'the legal system' is shot though with strands of gospel and grace
and faith. Especially the ritual law is rich in them. Every sacrifice and every
lustration proclaimed the principle of grace. Had it been otherwise, then the
idea of positive, vital continuity would have to be abandoned. There would be
conflict and opposition instead. Such is the Gnostic position, but it is not the
view either of the Old testament itself, or of Paul, or of the Church
theology" (ibid. 129). In light of the gracious gift of the
sacrificial system in the Mosaic covenant, which shows man's sin and
points to Christ, we cannot agree with Seiver who says, "God intended
the old covenant to have a condemning and killing effect. It could only grant
life to those who kept it perfectly" (THE CROSS: The Heart of New
Covenant Theology). We agree that the law cannot grant life at all
since only God can do that, but God shows his grace even in the law by means of
the propitiation of the sacrifices. The
difference between the law and the promise was not one of kind but of degree.
The law did not demand obedience and righteousness of men to whom obedience
and righteousness were quite unknown as the condition of blessedness. The
Flood, which destroyed the whole human race except for one righteous man and
his family, had made known the righteous judgments of God centuries before the
time of Abraham. Paul tells us plainly that sin entered into the world
"through the disobedience of one man," which carries us back to Adam
and the Fall. The difference between the law and the promise does not,
therefore, consist in this, that under the promise men were saved without
obedience and under the law they are saved because of obedience...The
difference lay in this, that the law made the will of God more plain by
stating it in terms of definite commands, "thou shalt" and
"thou shalt not"; and that by the very severity of its requirements
it exposed more fully the sinfulness of man’s heart and his alienation from
God. Because of this the law made elaborate provision for atonement for sins
done in ignorance and frailty, and so by doing pointed forward to the Cross.
The great teaching of the Levitical law is that, "without the shedding of
blood there is no remission" (Lev. xvii. 11; cf. Heb ix 22) (Allis, Prophesy
and the Church 37-38).
"But
what about the book of Isaiah?" some may ask. Didn't God say He
didn't really want sacrifices? Some Liberals go so far as to say that this is a
new development in Israel which contradicts the prior revelation of God given in
the Law. Isaiah says: Hear the
word of the LORD, you rulers of Sodom; Give ear to the law of our God, you
people of Gomorrah: "To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices
to Me?" says the LORD. "I have had enough of burnt offerings of rams
and the fat of fed cattle. I do not delight in the blood of bulls, or of lambs
or goats. When you appear before Me, who has required this from your hand, to
trample My courts? Bring no more futile sacrifices; incense is an abomination
to Me. The New Moons, the Sabbaths, and the calling of assemblies-I cannot
endure iniquity and the sacred meeting. Your New Moons and your appointed
feasts My soul hates; they are a trouble to me. I am weary of bearing them.
When you spread out your hands, I will hide My eyes from you; even though you
make many prayers, I will not hear. Your hands are full of blood" (Isaiah
1:10-15).
It should be
obvious to anyone reading the passage that God has not changed His mind about
sacrifices or his law. Isaiah says, "Give ear to the law of our
God." The problem is the hypocrisy of the people. "The very
rites ordained by God himself, and once acceptable to him. had, through the sin
of those who used them, become irksome and disgusting" (J. A. Alexander, The
Prophecies of Isaiah 87). Since the atonement of Christ also purchases
sanctification for His people, this type of behaviour makes the sacrifices
"futile" because they no longer point to Christ. We see in the Romish
mass, something not unlike this. Unjustified men partake of the
"sacrifice" and go their own way to their destruction, "since
they crucify again for themselves the Son of God and put Him to an open
shame" (Hebrews 6:6).
In the place of sound theology it is not uncommon to have slogans that on
the surface sound holy and wonderful. A good example is "Christ is the only
acceptable sacrifice" to God or for sin. Certainly there is much truth in
this statement, "for it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats
could take away sins" (Hebrews 10:4). But without clarification, it
misrepresents the truth and even lends itself to the idea of contradictions in
the Scriptures. We have seen over and over again the many sacrifices that were
indeed acceptable to God. He commanded them and was well pleased with them. We
are told to present our bodies as living sacrifices to God (Rom 12:1). The truth
contained in the above slogan is that all well-pleasing sacrifices are only so
because they point to Christ, the one true sacrifice. "For if the blood of
bulls and goats and the ashes of a heifer, sprinkling the unclean, sanctifies
for the purifying of the flesh, how much more shall the blood of Christ, who
through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, cleanse your
conscience from dead works to serve the living God?" (Hebrews 9:13,14) Behold, God
being the wellspring of all righteousness, sheweth himself an enemy of all
sin. But sin dwelleth in us: therefore must God needs be at open war with us,
and his vengeance must light upon us, yea and tarry upon us forever; and there
is no shift to escape from it, but by resorting to the Sacrifice whereby we
have been once reconciled unto him. And therefore let us mark, that we be so
much the less to be excused nowadays, after that Christ hath suffered his
death and passion, if we think to be acquitted before God by any other means,
than by the cleansing which Christ hath made,[or for any other cause] than for
that he hath made satisfaction for us, to discharge us of the condemnation of
death wherein we were. Then if we seek to obtain mercy...we must always bear
in mind the death and passion of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is the sacrifice
of our redemption and atonement (Calvin, Sermons on Job 745).
. Continuity of
the Church and Salvation
There is a "family squabble" between Dispensationalism and NCT
regarding the church or the people of God. Dispensationalists regard physical
Israel as the true people of God, with whom God must finish his dealings, that
is, fulfill the promises literally. The New Testament church is a parenthesis in
God’s plan, and as such the church has nothing to do with Israel, and is a
totally and completely new thing. "The existence of this present age, which
was to interrupt God’s established program with Israel was a mystery"
(Pentecost, Things to Come 135). Old Testament saints are not included in
the church. Israel is "the wife of God," but the church is "the
bride of Christ." Older Dispensationalism, being very consistent, went so
far as to teach that people were saved in different ways in the various
Dispensations. In the Dispensation of Conscience, they were saved by obeying
their conscience; in the age of Law and in the future kingdom age, people are
saved by obeying the Law; in the age of grace (the church age) salvation is by
grace. Most modern Dispensationalists have dropped this distinction and maintain
that the Old Testament Saints looked forward to the cross, but they are still
not part of the church. This is also true of progressive dispensationalism. Like
earlier dispensationalists, progressive dispensationalists view the church as
a new manifestation of grace, a new dispensation in the history of redemption.
Earlier dispensationalists viewed the church as a completely different kind of
redemption from that which had been revealed before or would be revealed in
the future. The church then had its own future separate from the redemption
promised to Jews and Gentile in the past and future dispensations. Progressive
dispensationalists, however, while seeing the church as a new manifestation of
grace, believe that this grace is precisely in keeping with the promises of
the Old Testament, particularly the promises of the new covenant in Isaiah,
Jeremiah, and Ezekiel. The fact that these blessings have been inaugurated in
the church distinguishes the church from Jews and Gentiles of the past
dispensation (Progressive Dispensationalism 49).
A recent
booklet, however, called Millions Disappear: fact or fiction? gives the
old school advice of "what to do in case you miss the rapture" (22).
Part two says "Start working your way to heaven" (23). We are also
told to "Die as a martyr" (26) and "Support the Jewish
people" (28). The main point is: "It will take faith in Christ’s
shed blood, plus works?exactly as in the Old Testament" (26). Again, this
is the old view and is not held by most Dispensationalists, but even the new
view of salvation held by Dispensationalists cannot consistently say all the
elect are saved in the same way. Since the Old Testament Saints are not in the
church, they are also not "in Christ" as we shall shortly see.
"Indeed, that wonderful rascal Servetus and certain madmen of the
Anabaptist sect...regard the Israelites as nothing but a herd of swine...For
they babble of the Israelites as fattened by the Lord on this earth without any
hope of heavenly immortality" (Calvin, Institutes II, X 1). Some
revised dispensationalism does give Israel a heavenly hope by putting them in
heaven with the church in the final state or by putting the church in the
"new earth" with the Old Testament saints. "Progressive
dispensationalism offers a more unified view of the biblical covenants than
earlier dispensationalism" (Progressive Dispensationalism 53) and
also more unified than New Covenant Theology. For progressive dispensationalism,
"the Mosaic dispensation is a progression in dispensational history...and
it provided the means for blessing an entire nation and, through them, all the
peoples of the earth" (ibid 151).
New Covenant Theology "views the nation of Israel as a
picture of the people of God but not the real thing" (Volker, Defining
New Covenant Theology). "The Church is the true Israel of God"
(Volker, An Overview Of New Covenant Theology) and as such the
(unfulfilled) Old Testament prophecies apply only to the church and not to
Israel. "Israel had the promises; we enjoy the fulfillment" (Seiver, The
New Covenant in Promise and Fulfillment)."The real thing" is the
New Covenant Church that would appear at Pentecost. "The day of Pentecost
(Acts 2) inaugurated the beginning of the Church, the New Covenant people of
God..." (ibid).6 "Since you already had the people of God
(Israel) in picture form there was no need to bring in the true people of God
until the appointed time (the New Covenant era - inaugurated at Pentecost)"
(Volker, An Overview Of New Covenant Theology). "Though He [God]
granted blessings to Israel under that covenant, those blessings were only
typical of the true, spiritual blessings that result from the mediatorial work
of Christ. God could not grant the antitypical blessings until one came who
could meet the terms of the covenant" (Seiver, THE CROSS: The Heart of
New Covenant Theology). These statements seem to imply that "In the
law, remission of sins was carnal and earthly" (Servetus, Christianismi
restitutio, quoted in the footnotes of Calvin’s Institutes 429).
Notice that also for NCT the church is a totally and completely new thing. The
church as "the New Covenant people of God" does not include Old
Testament saints unless they were added in after the church supposedly
began at Pentecost. NCT would like to maintain as true that all the elect are
saved in the same way, but they have the same problem as Dispensationalism.
Reisinger is very clear that Old Testament saints were not "in
Christ," or "baptized into the body of Christ", (61-65,esp. 62).
We (the New Covenant believers) are saved by becoming "part of the body of
Christ," which Reisinger says is the same as being "in Christ"
(ibid.), but the Old Testament believers are not saved by becoming part of the
body of Christ. Are all
believers today, without exception, "in Christ?" Yes, beyond
question...Is being "in Christ" and being part of "the body of
Christ" the same thing? Yes, they are interchangeable statements...How
does one get into the body of Christ? We are "baptized into the body of
Christ" by the Holy Spirit...Were believers living prior to Pentecost
also, at that time, "baptized into the body of Christ" and given the
Holy Spirit as the "Spirit of Adoption? No, because such an experience
was impossible prior to the personal advent of the Holy Spirit on the Day of
Pentecost. (Reisinger, Abraham’s Four Seeds 62).
"Who,
then, dares to separate the Jews from Christ, since with them, we hear, was made
the covenant of the gospel, the sole foundation of which is Christ?"
(Calvin, Institutes II, X, 4). A little logic would show that for
Reisinger, Old and New Testament saints must be saved in different ways. It is
easy to see why Reisinger disparages logic as a "good mistress but a very
bad master"(ibid. page i)!
Let us look at some passages in Scripture to find out if these things are
so. We learn in Hebrews 11:23-25 that Moses "refused to be called the son
of Pharaoh’s daughter...esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than
the treasures in Egypt," but according to NCT he was not "in
Christ." All the faithful mentioned in Hebrews 11, we are told, "did
not receive the promise...that they should not be made perfect apart from us"
(vss. 39,40). And yet according to Reisinger, they are apart from us in
not being in the church and in Christ with us. In Cor 10:1-5 we read that all
those with Moses "drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that
Rock was Christ. But with most of them God was not well pleased."7
Those with whom God was not well pleased, no doubt did not have faith. The
others who both had faith and drank from Christ, we are told by Reisinger, are
not part of his body and are not "in Christ." "If any one does
not have the Spirit of Christ he is not his" (Rom 8:9). Can someone who is
not "in Christ" (which must mean he is outside of Christ) have the
Spirit of Christ? If not, then according to NCT and Dispensationalism, Moses,
Abraham and David are not Christ’s! And what about Simeon in Luke 2:25-35?
"It had been revealed to him by the Holy Ghost that he would not see death
before he had seen the Lord's Christ" (vs.26). And were Mary, Elizabeth and John
the Baptist not "in Christ"? And what about the thief on the cross who
according to NCT died before the church existed? We affirm with historical
Christianity that they were "in Christ" as all the elect must be.
Let’s now look at Romans 5, the locus classicus for the doctrine
of original sin. For a fuller treatment see Hodge's Commentary on
Romans, in loc. For our purpose we will look at verse 18: "Therefore,
as through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in
condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to
all men, resulting in justification of life." As Steele and Thomas point
out, this verse taken literally teaches universalism which contradicts the rest
of Scripture (Romans: An Interpretive Outline in loc.), for we know that
at the very least Judas is in hell. "It would have been good for that man
if he had not been born" (Matt 26:24). Therefore, the verse needs some
qualification in order to make sense. The simplest way is to understand that
Paul is talking about all men who are "in Adam" in the one case
(namely all humans except Christ), and all people who are "in Christ"
in the other case (namely all the elect). C. K. Barrett puts it this way: There are
two ways of looking at men. They may be considered "in Adam" (cf. I
Cor. xv.22); that is, viewed as independent, self-explanatory persons, members
of a race which has cut itself off from its Creator and wages war against him.
This is the natural way of looking at the race, and the way in which it is
natural for the race to consider itself. Viewed and understood in these terms
it can have one end only. But is is also possible (by faith, for this is no
human possibility) to see mankind "in Christ" (cf. I Cor. xv. 2),
the new Man. Men are then clothed in a righteousness which is not their own,
and in virtue of it they can and will be justified. (A Commentary on the
Epistle to the Romans 166,117)
Also of
interest is II Corinthians 5:14-21. Starting at the end of verse 14 we read,
"if One died for all, then all died; and He died for all that those who
live should no longer live for themselves, but for Him who died for them and
rose again." Compare Romans 6:7, "Now if we died with Christ, we
believe that we shall also live with Him." We again have the idea of being
"in Christ." One died for all who are in Him, (his elect), all who are
in Him died with Him. No one died with Him except those for whom he was the
Federal (covenantal) Head. This has been the Reformed way of looking at these
passages, but for NCT, it must be abandoned if they continue to hold that Old
Testament saints are not "in Christ." There must be another class of
people who are not "in Christ," for whom Christ did not die, but are,
nevertheless saved. This thought is consistent in older Dispensationalism and
this pitfall cannot be avoided in any reasonable way if a radical discontinuity
of the church is maintained. Perhaps the NCT explanation should be to qualify
what it means for "the free gift [to come] to all men, resulting in
justification of life" rather than to qualify who is meant by using the
terms "all in Adam" contrasted with "all in Christ." They
could agree with the Lutherans or Arminians and say what determines salvation is
whether man rejects (according to the Lutherans who say faith is a gift of God,
but man can veto it), or accepts (according to the Arminians, who say faith is
man’s gift to God), the free gift which has really come to every man (or for
the Lutherans, every man in the church). This way the idea of being "in
Christ" need not be present, at least in this passage, since the free gift
is fully universal. Perhaps they would also not need to hold on to the idea of
immediate imputation and that could clear away some of the inconsistencies from
their theology, but would also greatly impoverish soteriology for the sake of
holding on to their radical discontinuity. We prefer to say, however, that all
the elect were bought by Christ’s blood. They died with Him who died for them,
and they, and no one else, were all "in Christ," that is, they are
part of His body, which is the church.
Another problem with Reisinger's doctrine is how it must logically view
election. Paul tells us that God has blessed
us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, just
as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we
should be holy and without blame before Him in love, having predestined
us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Him (eis auton, not 'eauton),
according to the good pleasure of His Will...(Ephesians 1:3-5).
Notice that
election is "in Christ." If Reisinger is consistent, he must limit
this election to "us" the New Covenant believers because, according to
him, Old Testament believers are not "in Christ." I'll let the reader
ponder what this does to our Reformed doctrine of Predestination. The Gentiles
whom Paul describes as "now in Christ" (Ephesians 2:13) were once
"without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers
from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world"
(Ephesians 2:12). Now being in Christ, the opposite is true. They are no longer
"without Christ." They are no longer "aliens from the
commonwealth of Israel." How strange it would be that the Old Testament
believers who were not "aliens from the commonwealth of Israel" should
not be "in Christ" and "chosen in Christ" just as the
Gentiles were! They are also no longer "strangers from the covenants
of promise." Notice he doesn't say covenant but covenants in the
plural. Which covenants does he mean? They are no longer "hopeless and
atheists in the world." This being "in Christ" looks the same as
being a believer in the Old Testament. Zaspel points out in regard to Romans 11,
"In keeping with the tree analogy, we must say that there is a very real
unity between Israel and the church. This would be in contradiction to the
traditional dispensational teaching, but the fact remains that there is but one
tree. And in this tree the two are brought together into one, and that with a
common root" (Jews, Gentiles, & the Goal of Redemptive History).
"Union with Christ is really the central truth of the whole doctrine of
salvation not only in its application but also in its once-for-all
accomplishment in the finished work of Christ" (John Murray, Redemption -Accomplished
and Applied 161).
Volker also maintains that "Truths such as justification and
sanctification are not clearly found in the Old Testament era" (An
Overview of New Covenant Theology). This seems to be a very rash statement.
We find as early as Genesis 15:6 that Abraham "believed in the Lord and He
accounted (or imputed) it to Him for righteousness." What else is
justification than the imputation of righteousness? And whose righteousness was
it, but Christ’s, who also died for Abraham who was "in Him"? And
David says, "Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is
covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord does not impute iniquity"
(Psalm 32:1,2) and, likewise, "Blot out my transgressions" (Psalm
51:1). Since Volker elsewhere admits that the "Abrahamic Covenant
introduces justification by faith alone" (ibid), one is led to think he
doubts the perspicuity of these passages. I don’t see how anyone can say
that the doctrine of justification is not clear in these passages. "The New
is indeed in the Old, but its 'concealment' there is not a very secret one! He
is there--everywhere. We learn just as easily from the NT writers that we simply
cannot read the OT without seeing Jesus" (Zaspel, The Theology of
Fulfillment). Even those who neglect reading the Old Testament should know
this since Paul uses two of these examples in Romans 4. See also Delitzsch, page
26 (quoted earlier in this essay) regarding Adam’s faith. As for
sanctification, if it is not taught in Psalm 51:2, "Wash me thoroughly from
my iniquity, And cleanse me from my sin" (that is, if some insist it refers
to justification rather than sanctification), it is most surely and clearly
proclaimed in verse 10, which I shall quote for those unfamiliar with the
Psalms. "Create in me a clean heart, O God and renew a steadfast spirit
within me." Some OT
scholars have argued that we should read and study the OT on its own terms.
That is, we should seek to understand it by itself without "reading
back" into it from the NT. There is a sense, of course, where that is
right. But what Jesus seems to be emphasizing in these passages is that we in
this age should be able to read the OT better than that. There is the matter
of "historical-grammatical" interpretation, to be sure. But if
"historical-grammatical" leaves out the Christological focus, it is
deficient. In fact, Jesus seems to be implying that this is how the OT could
always have been read! "Moses wrote of me . . . Abraham saw my day"
seem to insist that the NT "revelation" is precisely the message of
the OT (Zaspel, The Theology of Fulfillment).
One must also wonder at these statements, "Justification is pictured
in the sacrificial system of the nation of Israel. Sanctification is pictured in
the holiness laws of the nation of Israel" and the statement that
"Israel [is] only a picture of the real people of God that is revealed in
the New Covenant era" (Seminar Notes on New Covenant Theology). This
"picture system" seems to be dangerously close to the symbolic theory
of atonement which sees the sacrifices as merely pictures of
sanctification and favour, rather than as vicarious. Vos describes it thus: According
to it [the purely symbolic theory] the sacrificial process exhibits in a
picture certain things that must be done to the offerer, and that can and will
be done to him with the proper effect. The picture as a mere picture, must
needs remain within the sphere of subjectivity; it exhibits in no way what
must take place outside of man for him, but only what takes place within him;
we, therefore, call this the purely symbolic theory. Speaking in dogmatic
language we might say, that on this view of the matter sacrifice is a
pictorial representation of such things as sanctification and return to favour
of God. The utmost that this theory could possibly concede would be, that the
ritual perhaps depicts some objective obligation, that might have been imposed
upon man, of which by way of a lesson he is reminded in the sacrifice, but
which is not further carried out or enacted from man, not even symbolically,
in the further process. This interpretation of the sacrificial procedure lies
on the line of the moral and governmental theories of the atonement [rather
than the symbolico-vicarious] (Biblical Theology 159-160).
There are of
course differences; namely that the "purely symbolic theory" has a
sacrifice that is to the offerer certainly not objective but at least subjective.
But the NCT theory doesn’t seem to have anything to do with the contemporary
offerer (objective or subjective), since the sacrifice is seen as only a
picture, not primarily for the benefit of the offerer, but for the benefit of
New Covenant believers. Continuity of
the Covenants
NCT must also reject the Reformed idea of the Federal Headship of Adam,
which is based on Romans 5. They can only logically and consistently accept him
as our natural head, although some still want to hold on to the doctrine of
immediate imputation of Adam’s sin (at least for now), because the imputation
of Christ’s righteousness is also rightly said to be immediate. There is no
doubt that Adam was the natural head. The idea of Adam as only a natural
head, however, seems to be excluded since "children shall not be put to
death for their fathers" (Deut: 24:16), and if he is the natural head only,
this seems to imply that original sin was imputed in a natural way through the
body, unless the theory of Traducianism is adopted, which says souls were
propagated by souls. Traducianism has found favor among the Lutherans, and also
some Reformed writers, who still, nevertheless, hold to the immediate imputation
of Adam’s sin. Gordon Clark is a recent example, but he is also a Federalist (The
Biblical View of Man 45 f.). Calvin holds to a "mystic Realism" (Berkhof
quoting Thornwell, 211) in his view of original sin, but Calvin does NOT commit
himself to Traducianism. "No anxious discussion is needed to understand
this question...whether the son’s soul proceeds by derivation [tradux]
from the father’s soul" (Institutes II,1,vii, page 249), "for
the contagion does not take its origin from the substance of the flesh or soul,
but because it had been so ordained by God that the first man should at one and
the same time have and lose, both for himself and for his descendants, the gifts
that God had bestowed upon him" (250). About Romans 5:12, Calvin says,
"But to sin in this case ["for that all have sinned"], is to
become corrupt and vicious" (Commentary on Romans, in loc.), which
shows he did not hold consistently to the Realist view (which says "all have
sinned," not "become corrupt and vicious," but actually
sinned, in the person of Adam [cf. Hebrews 7:9]) but more to a "sovereign
imputation" view, which very naturally leads to Federal Headship. See
Shedd’s discussion for a more consistent view of Realism (Commentary on
Romans 120-135) which, contradicts Calvin in saying, "but the doctrine
that the posterity of Adam are gratuitously condemned would be both absurd and
impious" (ibid.127). Realism, when coupled with Traducianism, which
although not explaining the absolute need for immediate imputation of Adam’s
sin in itself, would not imply the Dualist idea of matter being evil which must
be the case if Adam’s sin is physically transmitted. Without committing
oneself to Traducianism and/or Realism (at least to Realism, which I think is
the only way out for NCT. But would consistency necessitate Traducianism? See
the Searching Together article Imputation,
by E. W. Johnson, who favors Realism), the question still exists, as
to how Adam represented his people in a way other than as the Natural Head. The
(Post-Reformation) Reformed way of putting the picture together has been to see
that, since Christ is the Federal (covenantal) Head of all who are "in
Christ," it makes sense in light of the parallelism in Romans 5, that Adam
must be the Federal (covenantal) Head of all who are in Adam. John Bunyan, no
doubt agrees, although he starts with Adam. "For as the first covenant was
made with the first Adam, so was the second covenant made with the second; for
these are and were the two great public persons, or representatives of the whole
world, as to the first and second covenants" (The Doctrine of Law and
Grace Unfolded 93). To accept this would mean to embrace the idea of a
prelapsarian covenant with Adam, because if Adam is the Covenantal Head, there
must have been a covenant in which he was involved. Van Leeuwen, in his
commentary on Romans 5:12 says, ... then
here is pointed not only to the organic relation of the entire human
race with Adam as the head of the race, as ancestor, but then in these words
of Paul is also incorporated the relation of the whole of humanity with Adam
as the covenant head: his obligation applies to all, in his disobedience all
are affected, compare verse 19. (De Brief aan de Romeinen 90)8
One cannot
consistently embrace Federalism without holding to Covenant Theology,9 despite
what Volker says: "I very much agree with federalism in regard to original
sin and our salvation, but I do not agree that holding to federalism necessarily
forces you to embrace Covenant Theology" (e-mail communication, 19 December
98). One of the problems is very simply that of defining terms. When I asked
Volker how he defined "federalism," he gave me this answer: I define
Federalism as representation. That is the method that God used to save (Romans
5:12-19). I agree that federalism is generally a basic building block of
Covenant Theology, but we know of covenant theologians ex. Shedd) who embrace
realism for original sin. (sic.; e-mail, 19 December 98)
It is obvious
to anyone who has studied Reformed Theology or historical doctrine that this
definition is very incomplete. First, Federalism is not merely
"representation," but rather, covenantal representation, which
is based on Federal (Covenant) Theology (Berkhof 238-239). "To the natural
relationship in which Adam stood to his descendants God graciously added a
covenant relationship..." (ibid 242). A. A. Hodge rightly says The essence
of redemption lies in the fact that Christ was justly punished for our sins as
federally responsible for them, and that we are justly justified on the ground
of his obedience, because by the terms of his covenant with the Father the
rewardableness that the guilt or obligation to punishment, accruing from
Adam's sin to us, is by the terms of the covenant justly ours, and hence that
native depravity and all other natural evils are justly inflicted upon us as
the punishment of that sin (The Atonement 93-94).
There is no
"federal" representation without a covenant. The term itself came from
the "Federal Theology" of the Post-Reformation Dogmaticians, who
insisted that the reason Adam’s descendants have his sin imputed to them
is "because Adam was the head of the whole human race and the first party
to the covenant;" and, in like manner, "because all men were in the
same covenant along with Adam, therefore they broke the covenant along with
him" (Braun in Heppe 332). John Owen says the act of imputation
"may be done upon a double relation unto those whose they are, 1. Federal.
2. Natural. Things done by one may be imputed unto others, propter relationem
foederalem, because of a covenant relation between them. So the sin of Adam
was imputed unto all his posterity. And the ground hereof is, that we stood in
the same covenant with him who was our head and representative" (quoted by
Hodge in A Commentary on Romans 179). Secondly, that Shedd held to
Realism has nothing to do with this issue. It doesn't matter if Shedd is a
Covenant Theologian who embraces Realism. That does not change the definition of
Federalism (or Federal Headship), which comes from the Latin foeder, foedus meaning
covenant. Volker may well keep his undeveloped doctrine of
"representation," but it is misleading to call it Federalism. The kind
of blunder that Volker made could only happen in America! Even educated people might
think the word means "representation" when they think about the
Federal Government of the United States of America. Since the people are
represented, "federal" must mean "representation," they
falsely conclude. The word "federal," like the word
"confederation," has nothing to do with representation, but rather
both words have to do with a compact or agreement, a binding. The Dutch
word verbond has these meanings in English: alliance, coalition,
federation, league, union, pact, covenant. The only representation federalism
allows must be based on the idea of a compact or covenant. It is very
irresponsible for a pastor to use a word so carelessly, especially when it is a
technical term in theology. This is like the Arminian pastor who believes
"once saved/always saved" calling himself a Calvinist! It would be
good if those in positions of authority would be more careful about the language
they use, since teachers "receive a stricter judgment" (James 3:1).10
The idea of a Covenant of Works in contrast to a Covenant of Grace seems
to be unique to Reformed Theology, but not to the Westminster Confession of
Faith or the Baptist creeds based on it. It is also explicit in the Formula
Consensus Helvetica and is seen in the Dutch Reformed Systematic Theology of
Louis Berkhof. The Irish Articles of Religion (1615) say, Man being
at the beginning created according to the image of God (which consisted
especially in the wisdom of his mind and the true holiness of his free will),
had the covenant of the law ingrafted in his heart, whereby God did promise
unto him everlasting life upon condition that he performed entire and perfect
obedience unto his Commandments, according to that measure of strength
wherewith he was endued in his creation, and threatened death unto him if he
did not perform the same (Article 21).
Even the
London Confession [1644] which was not based on the WCF hints at the idea where
it says, "Jesus Christ onely is made the Mediator of the new Covenant, even
the everlasting Covenant of grace between God and Man..." (Article
X). The word "everlasting" here must mean eternal because Jesus
"was fore-ordained from everlasting..." (Article XI). The Confession
is explicit about a pre-temporal covenant being made between the Father and Son:
"none takes this honour but he that is called of God, as was Aaron, so also
Christ, it being an action especially of God the Father, whereby a special
covenant being made, hee ordains his Sonne to this office: which covenant is
that Christ should be made a Sacrifice for sinne..." (Article XII). The ordaining
of "his Sonne to this office" is done by means of "a special
covenant." This is not the same as the "everlasting Covenant of grace between
God and Man" which is based on this special covenant between the
Father and Son. This is no doubt the same distinction made between the
Covenant of Redemption and the Covenant of Grace in classical Covenant
Theology. This should show that even this confession has its roots in Covenant
Theology, rather than in Anabaptist thought. John Bunyan also held to a
"covenant which was made between the Father and the Son before the world
began" (The Doctrine of Law and Grace Unfolded 92).
Historically, the use of the word "covenant" in reference to Genesis 3
goes back a long way. In the Apocryphal book called Ecclesiasticus it is
written, "All flesh waxeth old as a garment: for the covenant from the
beginning is, thou shalt die the death" (14:17, 1611 KJV) which was
possibly influenced by the literal meaning of Hosea 6:7: "But like Adam
they transgressed the covenant." Augustine uses the word
"covenant" to refer to the relation God had with Adam. "But even
the infants, not personally in their own life, but according to the common
origin of the human race, have all broken God’s covenant in that one in whom
all have sinned" and "For the first covenant, which was made with the
first man, is just this: ‘In the day you eat thereof, ye shall die the
death" (City of God, Book XVI, chapter 27). The doctrine is not
developed in the scholastic literature or even in Calvin, but "all the
elements which later on went into the construction of the doctrine of the
covenant of works were already present" (Berkhof 211). Even The New
Scofield Reference Bible uses the word "covenant" to describe both
Adam's relation with God in Eden and the promise of the protevangelium:
"The first or Edenic Covenant required the following responsibilities of
Adam..."(5), and "The Adamic covenant conditions the life of fallen
man..." (7).
The need for development of doctrinal truth is evident from all history. The
doctrines of the Trinity, the Person and Nature of Christ, Man’s Depravity,
and the Atonement (especially particular atonement) were developed in much
greater detail throughout the centuries after Christ, but they are not novums.
They strive to give greater clarity to what has been said before. The doctrine
of a covenant of works is in no sense a novum. It seeks not to repudiate
or abandon the old paths, as does Dispensationalism, but rather, to advance the
age old doctrines of the church in a more consistent way. It is the
systematizing of the history of redemption, in particular the need for a Savior.
We can look at the relation of God to Adam as an "arrangement"
or a "disposition" that was sovereignly imposed on Adam. Adam being
the creature was duty bound to obey God without any hope of reward or even
friendship with God. "When you have done all those things which you are
commanded, say, ‘We are unprofitable servants. We have done what was our duty
to do’" (Luke 17:10). But God the transcendent one chose to condescend to
Adam. There is little doubt that Adam had by nature in his conscience a sense of
the law (Rom 1:19,20; 2:14, 15). Without a
doubt Adam had the most perfect law. Now the most perfect law is the law of
love, and this is the law of the ten Commandments. Matt. 22:37-39. So then,
Adam had the law of the ten Commandments. 2. The law that the heathen had
and which is a remainder of the law that Adam had in his nature, is the same
as the law of the ten Commandments, with all consent; so then the law of Adam
is the law of the Ten Commandments. 3. This is seen in Rom. 8:3, mentioned
above. There Paul speaks of a law, calling it without further description
"the law." Without hesitation that is the law of the ten
Commandments; now the law had Adam in its power, the same law which after the
fall was powerless as was shown. So Adam had the law of the Ten Commandments.
4. There is only one holiness, because holiness is the image of God, which is
one. So also is the law one, because the perfect agreement of man with the law
of the ten Commandments is holiness; thus Adam in his perfection had the ten
Commandments as his law as far as the content is concerned. (W. a Brakel, Redelijke
Godsdienst Eerste Deel 295 [EV vol 1, 359]).11
John Bunyan
agrees: "Therefore the law given before by the Lord to Adam and his
posterity, is the same with that afterwards given on Mount Sinai" (The
Doctrine of Law and Grace 21).
In the prohibition about the fruit, Adam was given "an outward and positive
commandment; something wrong simply because it is forbidden, and not evil in its
own nature" (Hodge, Volume II 119). The breaking of the command, however,
was a violation of more than one of the Ten Commandments. Tertullian tries to
show that they all were violated in this one action (Heppe 303). Certainly the
first was violated, since Adam put himself in the place of God as the one who
determines right from wrong. He disobeyed his Father, coveted and stole that
which was not his, believed a lie and in so doing murdered himself and his
descendants. The price for rebellion was death, which means in Scripture, first,
separation from God, later, a separation of the soul from the body, and finally
eternal separation from God unless a remedy is found. This implies that had he
not rebelled he would have life. That life was either the same natural life he
was created with, or more likely, in parallel with death, eventually eternal
life with God (Romans 5:6).
"The elements of a covenant are present in the early narrative,"
namely, "two parties are mentioned, a condition is laid down, a promise of
reward for obedience is clearly implied, and a penalty for transgression is
threatened" (Berkhof 213). "(God's) covenant work is (a) To give a
law. (b) To promise bliss and threaten damnation. (c) To set up a 'sealing tree'
and a probation tree. " 12 (W. a Brakel, Redelijke Godsdienst
Eerste Deel 293 [EV vol. 1, 356]). The main objection is that the
word "covenant" is not used in the narrative. But neither is the word
"sin." Knapp points out that "In the Mosaic account of the fall,
and in the Old Testament generally, the imputation of Adam’s sin is not
mentioned under the term imputation, although the doctrine is contained
therein" (quoted by Hodge, Commentary on Romans 154). Also the word
"redemption... does not occur until the Mosaic period" (Vos, Biblical
Theology 41) but none would be mad enough to say that Abraham was not
redeemed. These objectors, however, are in no way consistent with this idea. The
Greek word ekklesia (church) is used in Acts 7:38 to describe Israel,
but, the objectors assure us, it’s the idea not the word that counts. And we
have already noticed that Hosea 6:7 uses the exact word "covenant"
with the exact word "Adam," albeit translators take the singular adam
as a collective noun for "mankind." The "arrangement" God
had with Adam certainly resembles a covenant, and his sin is parallel with
Christ’s righteousness in what it does and how it does it. So then,
the likeness of Adam’s transgression is in us, because we must die, as if we
had sinned in the same way as he. And the likeness of Christ’s justification
is in us, because we have life, as if we had done justice in the same way as
he. Because of this likeness, therefore, Adam "is a figure of him who was
to come," namely, of Christ who came after him. (Luther, Lectures on
Romans 173)
Notice even
in Luther, a non-Realist imputation ("as if we..."), the seed which
has led to Federalism. Indeed Luther translates Hosea 6:7, "Aber sie
uebertreten den Bund, wie Adam; darin verachten sie mich" and there is a
cross-reference to "1 Mos. 3,6 " (Gen 3:6). "There may still be
some doubt as to the propriety of the name ‘Covenant of Works,’ but there
can be no valid objection to the covenant idea" (Berkhof 214). Even NCT
adherents and Dispensationalists use theological terms not found in scripture:
trinity, limited atonement, irresistible grace, total depravity, unconditional
election, perseverance of the saints, federalism, transcendence, immanence,
hypostatical union, millennium, traducianism, vicarious atonement, etc. Most of
these are based on ideas in scripture,and some have the exact words,
although not used together. Covenant of Grace and Covenant of Works are no
exceptions. The individual words are scriptural words, but more importantly, the
ideas are contained in scripture.
Let’s take a look at how man merits anything from God and why salvation
must be by grace alone. We start out with what looks like a contradiction to the
last statement: Salvation is by works, that is doing perfectly everything
that the law says. "Be perfect as your Father in heaven is perfect"
(Matt 5:48). "God...will
render to each one according to his deeds"[Psalm 62:12, which is very
"evangelical"]: eternal life to those who by patient continuance in
doing good seek for glory, honor and immortality; but to those who do not obey
the truth, but obey unrighteousness?indignation and wrath, tribulation and
anguish, on every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the
Greek; but glory, honor, and peace to everyone who works what is good, to the
Jew first and also to the Greek. For there is no partiality with God. For as
many as have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and as
many as have sinned in the law will be judged by the law (for not the hearers
of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be
justified) (Romans 2:5b-13).
This is true
even now. But where was this instituted if not in the creation of man and the
"arrangement" God imposed upon Adam? Remember, already Abraham needed
to be justified by faith, and even Abel needed to propitiate God with a
"more excellent sacrifice" (Heb 11:4). However, if you could convince
God that you have done perfectly all the things of His law, you would, no doubt
be accepted. The heretic Pelagius saw clearly that "the doers of the law
will be justified," but he did not see that since the fall of Adam no one
can keep the law. Indeed he did not see that our natures were corrupt and that
we had already broken the law in Adam (Romans 5) when he sinned in the Garden of
Eden (Seeberg, Vol I 332 f). The original "arrangement" with Adam was
left unfulfilled and incomplete, but the "second Adam" came to
complete what Adam’s sinful race could not do. This shows a continuity between
the "arrangement" God had with Adam, and the Covenant of Christ!
"For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one
may receive the things done in the body, according to what he has done, whether
good of bad" (2 Cor 5:10). Praise be to God that we have the imputation of
Christ’s righteousness when we stand for judgment, so God sees us as being
righteous, for "by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous"
(Rom 5:19). A misunderstanding of this leads to other errors as W. a Brakel
observes: Much relies
on knowing this, because those who err in this regard, or deny this Covenant
of Works, won't understand the Covenant of Grace, and somewhat err in the
surety of the Lord Jesus, and especially somewhat deny that Christ has rightly
earned eternal life for the elect through his immediate obedience, as we see
in different parties who because of their errors in the latter, also deny the
former. Therefore, he who denies the Covenant of Works is rightly suspected of
holding that there is also something amiss in the Covenant of Grace.13 (Redelijke
Godsdienst 293 [EV vol 1, 355]).
God made a covenant with Abraham. The main promise, clearly, is not the
giving of the land, "for he waited for the city which has foundations,
whose builder and maker is God" (Heb 11:10), but rather, the main promise
was "to be God to you and your descendants after you" (Gen 17:7). Who
are the descendants of Abraham according to Paul? "Therefore know that only
those who are of faith are sons of Abraham" (Gal 3:7). "So then those
who are of faith are blessed with believing Abraham" (vs 9). "If you
are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the
promise" (vs 29). This shows the continuity of Abraham’s covenant with
Christ’s. As for the law, we know that Abraham’s covenant was still in force
during the Mosaic dispensation, for "the law, which was four hundred and
thirty years later, cannot annul the covenant that was confirmed before by God
in Christ, that it should make the promise of no effect" (Gal 3:17).
"The law and promise aspect of God’s covenant relationship with his
people do not violate each other. Deuteronomy 29:13-14 shows the Sinactic
Covenant was an extension of the Abrahamic Covenant, both of which are called
here ‘a sworn covenant.’ The Sinai renewal merely stressed man’s
responsibility where the Abrahamic Covenant emphasized God’s promise"
(Elmer Smick in Harris, et. al., Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament,
vol. I 129). The law is not "against the promises of God" (Gal 3:21),
but the perversion of the law as a means of righteousness most definitely is.
And this applies also to the "Law of Christ" (defined by NCT as only
those rules set forth in the New Testament) that NCT says the Christian is
under. "The issue is not whether or not believers in the New Covenant era
are under law.14 The issue is which law are the believers under in
this present era" (Volker, An Overview of New Covenant Theology).
This is the same position taken by Blaising, but stated better. The
progressive dispensationalism of New Testament theology is not antinomian. For
while it teaches that Mosaic covenant law has ended dispensationally, it also
teaches that it has been replaced by new covenant law, and it presents this
dispensational change as integral to God’s plan of redemption which affirms
and fulfills the divine demand for righteousness and holiness even as it saves
and eternally blesses the redeemed (Progressive Dispensationalism 199).
The "Law
of Christ" is not against the promises, as they will admit, but there are
people among the Campbellites, and even some Baptists, for example, who strive
to be justified by the New Testament laws as a whole or by what they regard as
the "New Law," namely, faith seen as their gift to God. Neonomianism
is as dangerous to salvation as any other form of legalism, perhaps more so
because it is so subtle. What Delitzsch says about the Mosaic Law is also
applicable to the "Law of Christ": The law
curses all those who do not absolutely fulfil all its commands, and therefore
leaves man only the threefold possibility, either carnally to ignore it, or to
despair, or to take refuge in mercy (Old Testament History of Redemption
62).
And mercy is
in Christ alone who died to secure salvation for his people. "And you shall
call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins" (Matt
1:21).
As for the new covenant, Bunyan is very clear that it is the same covenant
of grace in Old Testament times. So then
when he saith, "The days are come, in which I will make a new
covenant," it is rather to be meant a changing of the administration, a
taking away of the type, the shadow, the ceremonies form the house of Israel
and Judah, and relieving by the birth of Christ, and the death of Christ, and
the offering of the body of him, whom God the Father had given for a ransom by
covenant for the souls of the saints; and also to manifest the truth of the
covenant, which was made between the Father and the Son before the world
began. (The Doctrine of Law and Grace Unfolded 92).
The newness
of the new covenant is not a temporal matter for Bunyan since the covenant of
grace is age old. Indeed "...the new covenant was made before the world
began, and also every one in all the ages was saved by virtue of that covenant;
yet that covenant was never clearly manifest as at the coming, death, and
resurrection of Christ" (ibid. 92-93). Bunyan, who is praised by some
adherents of NCT, does not clearly see the newness of the New Covenant because
he confuses the new covenant with the covenant of grace. He maintains that
"these words here [Jer 31:31] are spoken, first to show rather the end of
the ceremonies, than the beginning or rise of the new covenant" (ibid 92).
Bunyan makes the error of confusing the Adamic and Mosaic covenants. "That
[covenant] which was delivered in two tables of stone on Mount Sinai, is the
very same that was given before to Adam in paradise, they running both alike.
That in the garden says, ‘Do this and live’..." (ibid. 22).15
Murray rightly says, "The view that in the Mosaic covenant there was a
repetition of the so-called covenant of works, current among covenant
theologians, is a grave misconception and involves an erroneous construction of
the Mosaic covenant, as well as fails to assess the uniqueness of the Adamic
administration" (Collected Writings Volume 2 page 50). Murray states
the newness of the new covenant much better than Bunyan: "(T)he spiritual
relationship which lay at the centre of the covenant grace disclosed in both the
Abrahamic and Mosaic covenant reaches its ripest fruition in the new covenant.
So great is the enhancement that a comparative contrast can be stated as if it
were an absolute" (The Covenant of Grace 28).
Greg Bahnsen, after a chapter on the Continuity Between the Covenants
on the Law, gives some good detail on the discontinuity, or newness of the
New Covenant. "The New Covenant surpasses the Old in glory, power,
realization, and finality" (By This Standard 154). He elaborates
further to show the glory of the New Covenant is shown to be greater in
righteousness and life as compared with condemnation and death. "The law is
good?indeed ordained unto life" (ibid. 155) as Paul says, but it does not
have the power to bring life to the dead. "The Old Covenant law commanded
good things, but only the gospel could fully confer them; the righteousness
demanded by the law was only supplied with the redemptive work of Christ"
(ibid. 156). There is also a greater confidence to approach God and the glory of
the New Covenant is permanent not temporary like that of the Old. As for power,
the new provides "further and stronger motivation to obey the law"
(ibid. 159), and that obedience is empowered by God. The New Covenant surpasses
the Old in realization. The promised redemption is actually secured by
Christ’s death. There is no longer any need for the shadows of the Old
Covenant. And because this realization is universal, the people of God are
redefined. No longer are God’s people confined to a certain land, "but
under the New Covenant the people of God is an international body comprised of
those who have faith in Christ" (ibid. 165). The finality of the New
Covenant is manifested by the clarity of the new revelation and Christ’s life.
This new revelation is efficient for every good work. There is no need that
anything else be revealed. This leads to a greater responsibility on the part of
New Covenant believers (ibid 167). There is a "newness" in the New
Covenant, but it is based on a general continuity with the Old. Conclusion
Most NCT adherents claim to be reformed because they believe in the five
points of Calvinism. "Don’t ever equate Covenant Theology with Reformed
Theology" (Reisinger 46). This would make the early Dispensationalists such
as the Plymouth Brethren and H. A. Ironside reformed because they also believed
the five points of Calvinism. But no one will buy that argument. Randy Seiver is
a little more thoughtful when he asks, "Should we call ourselves 'Reformed
Baptists'-- a seeming contradiction in terms--even though we differ in many of
our emphasis from those who use that title?" (THE CROSS: The Heart of
New Covenant Theology). As we have seen, much Reformed Theology including
Federal Headship and a consistent view of both election and particular atonement
must be abandoned by the various schools of NCT because of their radical
discontinuity. We have also noticed that not only the Reformed view, but the
historical Protestant view of the Church and Israel, the relationship between
the Old and New Testaments, and the meaning of the Law have all been modified in
the direction of Classical Dispensationalism. In these subjects Progressive
Dispensationalism is closer to the historical protestant view than is NCT. New
Covenant Theology is no "reformed" theology, since even their supposed
Calvinistic doctrines of anthropology and soteriology have been altered,
particularly the Federal Headship of both Adam and Christ with all the
"old" implications. My hope is that the proponents of NCT will see how
much they have to give up of the good old theology in order to hang on to their
new beliefs with any consistency. Endnotes: 1.Those who
object to NCT being associated with Dispensationalism have no qualms about
calling Arminianism "semi-Pelagianism" because, even though the
Arminians may not acknowledge it, the relationship is obvious to anyone who has
read even a small amount of Church history or Theology. Arminianism is no doubt
a modified form of Pelagianism, although it is not derived from Pelagius himself
and probably not even from his followers. But it is the name we give to the
doctrine. Some Arminians may not even like being called "Arminians"
either, since, they tell us, they get their doctrine from the Scriptures not
from Arminius! If one were to start with Classical Dispensationalism with the
"earthly promises for earthly people,"and a parenthesis around the
church age, but then realizing that the spiritual is more important than the
earthly, and therefore concluding that the "earthly people" were not
the real people after all, they would perhaps put a parenthesis around the time
of the Mosaic (earthly) covenant instead of around the church, and even
apply all the OT promises to the church instead of to Israel. The result
would look very much like NCT. It is more difficult to imagine modifying
Covenant Theology to such an extent that the covenants are no longer
dispensations of grace (some being radically different from others such as the
Mosaic covenant being law with no grace) and that the church did not even exist
at some time. Not only would the presupposition of basic continuity have to be
rejected, but also the traditional definitions of both "church"
and "covenant." 2. Het
Evangelie bracht het Oude Testament mede en kon zonder dit niet aangenomen en
erkend worden. Het Evangelie is immers de vervulling van de beloften des Ouden
Testaments en hangt zonder deze in de lucht, en het Oude Testament is het
voetstuk, waar het Evangelie op rust, de wortel, waaruit het gegroeid is. Zoodra
het Evangelie ergens ingang vond, werden daarmede en daarin ook tegelijk en
zonder eenige tegenspreking de Schriften des Ouden Testaments als het Woord Gods
aanvaard. De Nieuw-testamentische gemeente bestond dus geen oogenblik zonder
Bijbel; van den beginne af was zij in 't bezit van de wet, de psalmen en de
profeten. 3. The
Covenant of Redemption is very clear in Articles X and XII. Three of the signers
of this confession later also signed the Second London Confession which
teaches covenant theology. 4. Nadat Adam en Eva het verbond der werken
overtreden hadden, zoo kondigte de Heere een nieuw verbond, een verbond der
genade af onder de woorden: "En ik zal vijandschap zetten tusschen u en
tusschen deze vrouw en tusschen uw zaad, en tusschen haar zaad, datzelve zal u
den kop vermorzelen, en gij zult het verzenen vermorzelen."... 't Zijn
korte woorden, maar behelzen het groote werk der verlossing van een zondaar, de
verbreking van het geweld des duivels over de uitverkorenen, de vijandschap en
strijd van de kinderen Gods en des duivels, den Persoon, door wien dit
uitgevoerd zou worden, onder de benaming van 't zaad der vrouw, niet des mans,
welke is Christus, het zaad Abrahams, Izaks, Jakobs, Davids, van Maria, dewelke
door zijnen dood den duivel heeft te niet gedaan, Hebr. 2:14. 5. De wet, die bij
de belofte is bijgekomen, heeft die belofte niet krachteloos gemaakt of te niet
gedaan, maar haar opgenomen en aan hare ontwikkeling en vervulling dienst
bewezen. De belofte is de hoofdzaak, de wet is ondergeschikt; gene is doel,deze
is middel; niet in de wet, maar in de belofte ligt de kern van Gods openbaring
en het hart van Israels godsdienst. 6. It has been mentioned in the Introduction
that Volker’s Reformation Statement seems to deny this, but the
sentence just quoted must logically mean that the Church did not exist before
Pentecost and that the Church is equal to "the New Covenant people of
God" as compared with the Old Covenant people; and this sentence being more
recent, seems to show a movement in his theology towards a more consistent view
of discontinuity which, however, might allow the OT saints to enter the church
at Pentecost. 7. But even Moses was not allowed to enter the land of Canaan
because of his sin of unbelief. "Then the LORD spoke to Moses and Aaron,
'Because you did not believe Me, to hallow Me in the eyes of the
children of Israel, therefore you shall not bring this assembly into the land
which I have given them'" (Num 20:12). "The LORD spoke to
Moses...saying: ‘Go...and die on the mountain...because you transgressed
against Me among the children of Israel at the waters of Meribah Kadesh in the
Wilderness of Zin, because you did not hallow Me in the midst of the children of
Israel’" (Deut 32:48-51). 8. ...dan wordt hier gewezen niet alleen op den
organischen samenhang van het gansche menschelijk geslacht met Adam als het
geslachts-hoofd, als stamvader, maar dan ligt in deze woorden van Paulus ook
opgesloten het verband der gansche menschheid met Adam als verbonds-hoofd: zijn
verplichting gold allen, in zijn ongehoorzaamheid zijn allen getroffen, vgl. vs.
19 9.The expression "federal headship of Adam" may only require belief
in a prelasparian covenant rather than covenant theology since it just means
"covenantal headship." Thus, even the editors of the New Scofield
Bible seem more justified in using this phrase than those Calvinist who,
while defending representation, deny a covenant with Adam. "Federeralism,"
however, means covenant theology. 10. They insist on the one hand that they
should be allowed to use the words "federalism" and
"Reformed" to describe their theology, even though they reject the
basic presuppositions of Federalism and Reformed Theology. On the other hand,
while sharing common presuppositions with Classical Dispensationalism, they
detest being associated with them. They seem unhappy that Reformed Christians
don’t wish to change the definitions. "Clear-cut definition of terms in
religious matters, bold facing of the logical implications of religious views,
is by many persons regarded as an impious proceeding..." (Machen, Christianity
and Liberalism 1). But even John Murray who holds to Covenant Theology seems
hesitant to use the expression "federal headship" in The Imputation
of Adam’s Sin, and other writings, since he has a definition for
"covenant" that precludes a covenant of works (TheCovenant of Grace
passim). Calvin and his French Confession do not develope the doctrine of
original sin beyond the sovereignty of God. "And we consider that it is not
necessary to inquire how sin was conveyed from one man to another, for what God
had given Adam was not for him alone, but for all his posterity; and thus in his
person we have been deprived of all good things, and have fallen with him into a
state of sin and misery" (Article X). 11. 1. Zonder twijfel had Adam de
volmaakste wet. Nu, de volmaakste wet is de wet der liefde, en deze is de wet
der tien Geboden. Matth. 22:37-39... De wet, die de Heidenen in hunne natuur
haden, en een overblijfsel is van die wet, die Adam in zijne natuur had, is
dezelfde met de wet der tien Geboden, met aller toestemming... Dit blijkt uit
Rom 8:3, boven herhaald. Daar spreekt Paulus van eene wet, noemende die, zonder
verdere beschrijving, de wet. De wet is de wet der tien Geboden, dat is buiten
bedenking; nu, die wet had Adam in hare kracht, die na den val was krachteloos
geworden, gelijk getoond is...Er is maar eene heiligheid, want heiligheid is het
beeld Gods, dat een is. Zoo is dan de wet ook een; want de volmaakte
overeenkomst des menschen met de wet der tien Geboden is heiligheid; dus had de
volmaakte Adam de tien Geboden, zooveel den inhoud aangaat, to zijne wet. 12.
Zijn verbodswerk is: (a) Eene wet te geven. (b) Zaligheid te beloven en
verdoemenis te dreigen. (c) Te stellen een verzegelende boom en een proefboom.
13. Aan de kennis daarvan is veel gelegen, want die hierin dwaalt, of dit
Verbond der Werken ontkennt, zal niet wel het Verbond der Genade verstaan, en
lichtelijk dwalen in de borgtocht van den Heere Jezus, en bizonder lichtelijk
ontkennen, dat Christus door zijne dadelijke gehoorzaamheid voor de
uitverkorenen recht tot het eeuwige leven verworven heeft; gelijk wij zien in
verscheidene partijen, die om hunne dwalingen in het laatste, het eerste
ontkennen, daarom is hij, die het Verbond der Werken ontkent, met recht verdacht
te houden, dat er ook wat hapert omtrent het Verbond der Genade. 14. It is
interesting that Volker uses the phrase "under the law" to describe
the believer’s relationship with the law. Biblical language says "But if
you are led by the Spirit, you are NOT under the law" (Gal. 5:18). 15. It
is not surprising that Bunyan sees the new covenant throughout the Old Testament
and the old covenant even in our age since for him they are principles rather
than temporal covenants. "Souls being ignorant of the nature of the old
covenant, do even, by their subjecting to several gospel-ordinances, run
themselves under the old covenant, and fly off from Christ, even when they think
they are coming closer to him." ( The Doctrine of Law and Grace 190).
A failure to understand Bunyan’s definitions of the old and new covenants will
no doubt lead to misunderstanding many of his statements. .
Bibliography Alexander, J.
A. The Prophecies of Isaiah [1875]. Zondervan, Grand Rapids, 1974. Allis, O.T. Prophecy
and the Church [First Edition]. Presbyterian and Reformed, Philadelphia,
1945. Augustine. City
of God. The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian
Church, Volume II, edited by Philip Schaff, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, 1983 (r). Bacon,
Richard. Personal e-mail discussions, 1998 Bahnsen,
Greg. By This Standard: the Authority of God’s Word Today. Tyler, TX:
The Institute for Christian Economics, 1985. Barrett, C.
K. A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans [1957]. Hendrickson
Publishers, Peabody, Massachusetts, 1987. Bavinck, H. Magnalia
Dei: Onderwijzing in de Christelijke Religie naar Gereformeerde Belijdenis.
J. H. Kok, Kampen, [Nederland], 1909. Berkhof,
Louis. Systematic Theology, New Edition. Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, 1996. Blaising,
Craig and Darrell L. Bock. Progressive Dispensationalism. Bridge Point,
Wheaton, 1993. Brakel, W. a.
[Logike Latreia, dat is] Redelijke Godsdienst. Three volumes bound in
two. D. Donner, Leiden, [Nederland], 1882. Bunyan, John.
The Doctrine of Law and Grace Unfolded. Reiner Publications, Swengel, PA.
1974 Calvin, John.
Commentaries
on the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans [1539]. Baker, Grand
Rapids, 1996, (r). Calvin, John.
Institutes
of the Christian Religion [1536-1559]. The Library of Christian
Classics, Volume XX. The Westminster Press, Philadelphia, n.d. Calvin, John.
Sermons on Job [Facsimile of 1574 Edition]. The Banner of Truth Trust,
Edinburgh, 1993. [I have modernized the spelling in all quotations form this
work] Clark, Gordon
H. The Biblical Doctrine of Man. The Trinity Foundation, Jefferson,
Maryland, 1984. Delitzsch,
Franz. Old Testament History of Redemption [1881]. Hendrickson
Publishers, n. p., 1995. Harris, R.
Laird, Gleason L. Archer, Jr., Rruce K. Waltke (editors). Theological
Wordbook of the Old Testament. Chigago, Moody Press, 1980. Hengstenberg,
E. W. Christology of the Old Testament [1854-1857]. Kregel, Grand Rapids,
1987 (r). Heppe,
Heinrich. Reformed Dogmatics. Baker Books, Grand Rapids, 1978 (r). Hochner,
Donald and G. Richard Gaudreau. A
Comparison of Three Systems: Dispensationalism - Covenant Theology - New
Covenant Theology. Hodge,
Archibald A. The Atonement. [1867] Evangelical Press, London, 1974. Hodge,
Charles. A Commentary on Romans [1864]. The Banner of Truth Trust,
Edinburgh, 1983 (r). Hodge,
Charles. Systematic Theology, Volume II. Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, 1993
(r). Leith, John,
editor. Creeds of the Church, Third Edition. John Knox Press, Atlanta,
1982. Leupold, H.
C. Exposition of Genesis. The Wartburg Press, Columbus, 1942. Luther,
Martin (Uebersetzer). Die Bibel oder die ganze Heilige Schrift. Concordia
Publishing House, St. Louis, 1895. Luther,
Martin. Kurze
Auslegung des Kleinen Katechismus. Concordia Publishing House, St.
Louis, n. d. Luther,
Martin. Lectures on Romans. [1515-1516] The Library of Christian
Classics,Volume XV. The Westminster Press, Philadelphia, 1961. Machen, J.
Gresham. Christianity and Liberalism. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974, (r). Murray, John.
Collected Writings of John Murray. Banner of Truth, Edinburgh, 1977. Murray, John.
The Covenant of Grace [1953]. Presbyterian and Reformed, Phillipsburg,
New Jersey, 1988. Murray, John.
Redemption-Accomplished and Applied [1955]. Eerdmans, Grand Rapids,
1985, (r). Orr, James,
editor. The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia [1929] . Eerdmans,
Grand Rapids, 1984 (r). Pentecost, J.
Dwight. Things to Come. Dunham Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, 1964
(r). Reisinger,
John G. Abraham’s Four Seeds: An examination of the basic presuppositions of
covenant theology and dispensationalism...etc. [Sound of Grace, Webster, NY]
n. d. Schaff,
Philip (revised by David S. Schaff). The Creeds of Christendom Volume
III.Baker Books, Grand Rapids, 1998, (r) Scofield, C.I
(Editor). The New Scofield ReferenceBible. Oxford University Press, New
York, 1967 Seeberg,
Reinhold. Text-book of the History of Doctrines [two volumes in one].
Baker Books, Grand Rapids, 1996 (r). Shedd,
William G. T. Commentary on Romans [1879]. Baker Book House, Grand
Rapids, 1980 (r). Seiver,
Randy. ["Randy Sievers" in some documents] THE CROSS: The
Heart of New Covenant Theology http://www.cet.com/~dlavoie/solo.christo/theology/nct/cross_nct.html Seiver, Randy
The New Covenant in Promise and Fulfillment. http://www.cet.com/~dlavoie/solo.christo/theology/nct/promisefulfill.html Steele, David
N. and Curtis C. Thomas. Romans: An Interpretive Outline. Presbyterian
and Reformed, Phillipsburg, New Jersey. Van Leeuwen,
J. A. C. en D. Jacobs. De Brief aan de Romeinen in Korte Verklaring der
Heilige Schrift. J. H. Kok, Kampen, [Nederland], 1932. Volker, Geoff
[and Mike Adams]. [Various on-line articles associated with the New Covenant
Theology Web Page (https://web.archive.org/web/20060927014706/http://solagratia.org/NCT.html)
and the In-Depth-Studies Web Page (http://www.ids.org/welcome.html)
or The Seminar Notes on New
Covenant Theology which includes An Overview of New Covenant Theology
(http://www.ids.org/ids/seminar.html)] Vos,
Geerhardus. Biblical Theology: Old and New Testaments [1948]. Eerdmans,
1985 Zaspel,
Fred G. Jews, Gentiles, & theGoal of Redemptive History. Zaspel,
Fred G. The Theology of Fulfillment. Zens, Jon An
Examination Of The Presuppositions Of Covenant And Dispensational Theology.
http://www.cet.com/~dlavoie/solo.christo/theology/nct/Presuppositions/presup.cov.html Zens, Jon. Is
There A "Covenant Of Grace?" (sic). http://www.cet.com/~dlavoie/solo.christo/theology/nct/covenant.html [unknown] Millions
Disappear: Fact or fiction? Fact or Fiction, P.O. Box 7135, Pensacola, FL
32534. n. d.