Tag Archives: Covenant Theology

September 20, 2011

The Importance of Sacraments

By Pooka

RCC Baptism In Progress

Can the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper be overstressed? Of course they can. It’s apparent in the beliefs that center on Baptism being salvific or regenerative or in the Supper that implies the actual physical consumption of Christ’s blood and flesh. The list of extremes goes on a bit from there but I’ll hang my hat at this point. Also, I’m not going to go all through the details of baptism and the Supper – that’s not the point here, so when I speak on the importance and meaning of these two, I am not including all that is implied in the Reformed view of the sacraments.

On the other hand, is it just as possible to under stress them? And if so, which is worse? Overdoing it or minimizing the importance sacraments? I’m leaning toward thinking the greater of the two evils is putting  Baptism and the Supper down at the bottom of importance. I’ll qualify that by remembering Baptism doesn’t save, which hopefully isn’t easy to miss in previous posts here at LAH.

Take a look at this, from a church in Wichita, Kansas: Lord’s Supper Fallacies.

And this is from the Southern Baptist Convention’s Basic Beliefs:

Christian baptism is the immersion of a believer in water. …It is an act of obedience symbolizing the believer’s faith in a crucified, buried, and risen Saviour, the believer’s death to sin, the burial of the old life, and the resurrection to walk in newness of life in Christ Jesus.

I think responses to the overdone Roman Catholic idea of baptism (as well as perhaps that of the Pentecostal idea that the H.S. indwells at baptism) have some responsibility for the loss of sacramental weight in the church. In addition to that, superficial study of the Scriptures certainly could lead to conclusions that make the sacraments to be little more than obedience and memorial. I’d rather deal with someone over-dosing on grace than to lose it altogether. Therefore (at risk of my own neck, theologically speaking), I’ll hazard that receiving the sacraments as a phased imparting of grace is safer than the dead works of cold obedience.

RCC Communion In Progress

Here are some references via Biblos, one of my favorite online resources: Baptism Occurrences.

I’d like to mention what convinced me of the inaccuracy concerning ordinances of my youth in the church.

  • The heavy weight of coming to terms with infant-baptism demanded much reading and thinking. 
  • My family and I were joining a church that greatly stressed the importance of the sacraments.
  • In reading through historical Christian works, I kept encountering well developed indications that there has always been more to baptism and the Supper than I’d been taught growing up.
  • It just seemed difficult to really accept that the two ceremonies instituted by Christ should mean so little to individual and corporate Christianity.

One big thing I’ve been thinking about lately is assurance. The sermon series in the evenings at our church is working through Acts. There is plenty about baptism in Acts and so plenty of opportunity to think about the point. Our pastor has banged away at this over and over again: we have these sacraments not just as memorials and rituals of obedience but as concrete assurances. We are certain that God is for us, loves us and cares for us by the promises in baptism and the Supper. We can look back to our baptism as God’s claim on us and look forward to the fulfilment of His claiming us at the End. We can put our trust in Him as He never fails to provide the Supper for us, a (weekly, in our case) meeting place where we commune with Christ.

There is hope and assurance in these ceremonies which, though they do not save or make us more holy, do serve to keep us – preserve us in our memories and hopes and present state.  To reduce baptism to a simple act of obedience makes nothing more than a new law and it is neither not redemptive nor representative of the Gospel. Conversely, if we switch views around and see that God, through His minister and the Church, is baptizing us into Christ’s Church and marking us with the promises (covenant) that He makes, is that not grace? The first version leaves the burden on us — we have gained nothing through baptism. In the latter, we have gained everything — the promises, place and hope of the Church and redemption.

The same situation goes for the Supper. If we deny everything but the tombstone memory of a Savior broken and slain for our sins, what does that for us? We don’t need a ceremony for that — there are hymns and Scriptures for that. Why not just read the crucifixion for 15 minutes every Sunday. If we switch views as with baptism, why not see God the Father, through His minister and the Church, bringing us to the Table with our Lord and Savior to fellowship in spirit (through the Spirit) over the grace and mercy we have in Him as Jesus is seated at the right hand of the Father? Is that not grace when we are assured that we have a place waiting for us?

I believe that these themes are especially important in this age of electronic mist and passing information. The physical world is becoming less and less important to many (if not most) of us. Because of this, we show up in church on Sunday to consume data, regurgitate a few disposable MP3 songs together and then file it all away until next week. We go home no more confident in our God’s promises than 6 months ago or a decade ago. Unless the mind and spirit, the intangible realm are brought to us in the physical through some medium.

Leave a comment   |  tags: , , , , | posted in The Faith

September 19, 2011

The End of the Sacraments?

By Pooka

If we miss the great importance of the centrality of the church and her proper administrations, we certainly can lose the value and validity of baptism (as well as the Supper). This makes it all too easy to classify the sacraments as ceased along with sign-gifts like healing and tongues. In fact one thing that stands out is that Christ didn’t tell the apostles, in the Great Commission to “baptize and heal” but just baptize. And so, healing as a sign-and-testament to the veracity of the preacher’s Gospel is gone.

It’s hard to see the similarity between the cessation of circumcision and baptism, much as I can’t make the end of feasts/ceremonial calendars jive with an end to the Lord’s Supper. That is, unless we dismiss the church as the Body of Christ, established and visible. It’s public and so not all that occurs is absolutely spiritual, invisible and experiential. There’s objectivity in the physical. Think Real Life (RL) versus Virtual Life (VL). You can hack one, misrepresent and manipulate it. But RL has objective concretes which (though moderns and relativists try otherwise) can’t be dismissed. So God works through His creation and through the Spirit to create a full-orbed reality.

“All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”

But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.”

One argument is that there is “One Baptism” and that it is the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Fortunately, this can’t stand because Christ didn’t tell the apostles to (baptize with) administer the Holy Spirit. He told them to baptize (with water) disciples. This wasn’t even a revolutionary commandment since the practice had been in force in some form prior to Christ’s incarnation in the first place. Post-Acts lack of reference to water, whether sprinkling or immersion has no bearing in the discussion as it was normative to baptize. Baptism is assumed, if you will.

I’d like to refer to the two long-standing documents that helped me to most make sense of the lasting value and importance of baptism: Calvin’s Institutes “Of Baptism” and Westminster Confession “Of Baptism”. These make much more of baptism (in accordance with what sure seems to be solid Scriptural reference) than the idea that it is a plain profession or hoop to jump in the process of becoming officially-socially Christian.

I’m a convinced paedo, but I’m not greatly interested in the can-o-worms that pops when we get into the fight over which is correct. Mode is even less worth treatment as an important controversy. But a suggestion that water baptism is nulled just can’t work. The argument using “one” baptism seems to miss the fact that God is working through an outward sign of an inward reality. Baptism = entry into the visible, known church (temporal) wherein Spirit Baptism is entry into the Spiritual Kingdom (eternal).

I think, in the end, that the new ideas that hyper-dispensationalism adds to theology are just  more evidence of the precarious stand on the edge of the correct Gospel that dispensationalism, in general, maintains. The theology in many cases (NOT ALL) has ranged so far from historical agreement that even orthopraxy is becoming unrecognizeable. It’s becoming like the discussion of Roman Catholic Believers in which I’ve engaged many times – Yes, there are truly faithful believers, Elect, in the R.C.C. but they’re not the norm, but the exception and we can actually pray hard for those redeemed souls to flee for the safety of the real church.

Dispensational and mainstream Evangelical churches aren’t quite there, but I can’t be the only one who sees the dulled memorialistic-ordinance, personal-relationship, experience-oriented, pharisaical-teaching, church-demeaning symptoms of a religion slowly losing the life-changing Gospel.

That’s the end of the real talking

All this stems from a discussion wherein I couldn’t help but pipe up leads to this post regarding baptism. If I was wrong in my reading of the thread this came from, it’s one thing, but the problem still needs addressing whether specifically there or not. In further reading, apparently the issue is Hyper-Dispensationalism, which puts Paul in as a replacement for previous apostolic practices and teaching. That such a theory has any grab on protestants is indicative of how far we’ve gone from the center of truth. But I’m not here to argue that part, but the particulars of the Sacraments’ continuation.

If I tweak feathers, especially at the end, I humbly admit that I’m saddened to come to the conclusions I’ve reached, but it’s not something I’ll dismiss. Offense not intended, though my honest perception is intended. Nor is my thinking here merely a door for proclaiming the PCA or denomination-I-like spiffiness. I am sad to listen to Pirate Christian Radio or Albert Mohler and see time and again the depths of disparity between what the Bible says and what churches who claim to cleave to the Bible say.

Leave a comment   |  tags: , , , , , , | posted in The Faith

June 12, 2011

Escape Evangelicalism Or Reform Part 3

By Pooka

Carried over from Part 2.
Part 1 is here.

I don’t think we can ditch. Aren’t the Reformed still Evangelical? Aren’t Baptists from a history of devout believers? Just because either of these two camps have masses of stumbling congregations or tinkering leaders, should it be exit time? Even if there are waves of apostasy running through them, should we can the whole operation and become Catholics or worse (and I know I’m exaggerating). Writing off Evangelicalism just doesn’t seem the right way to me. Reforming it does. Rather than looking for a new religion that deviates just a little, and is off the grid, I think we should tackle the problem instead, before it does become high-time to run for the hills as with the Episcopals and the PCUSA. That’s the real sign that things are at the bottom.

Should we head off congregation that has the marks but with a big problem in the middle? In doing so, is it okay to convert to a different set of beliefs concerning salvation and sacraments that doesn’t jive with what we left behind?

I think, rather, that we should keep the mess, come at it with sound doctrine and grace in order to clean it up. If it’s one church at a time, so be it. I want others to know the joy of a Biblical church. What’s better than a church family that gathers around the Word and the Table, celebrating the freedom we have in Christ?

Here are some who are, in different ways, working on making that difference publicly.
Table Talk Radio
Fighting For The Faith
White Horse Inn
Albert Mohler

Those are just a few of my favorite things. I picked them because they’re podcasts and easy to follow. Funniest is, they’re from across the spectrum. Two Lutheran shows, a quartet of theologians from Baptist, Reformed and Lutheran spheres, and the President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.

And you know what they’re all doing? Know what they are calling for?

Return to the Marks. Go back to the beginning. The Gospel, no frills. The Table, all the time. Discipline, courageously, passionately, lovingly. Just that. No more dollars under the seat, rock-star worship, outreach outreach outreach without in-reach in-reach in-reach. I heard somebody say, or maybe read it recently, “we need to pull back in and clean up the church before we head out to clean up the culture.”

I think that’s right on. If Christ isn’t in His Church, we can’t expect to bring Him out to the rest of the world.

3 comments   |  tags: , , , , , , | posted in special, The Faith

June 11, 2011

Escape Evangelicalism or Reform Part 2

By Pooka

This is part 2 of my thoughts on my own travels through the church-o-sphere. Part 1 is here. I was talking about my experience and am now over to the difference in my arrival and finally the way it should be looked at from the beginning.

Coming in at a slew, I’ll explain. Three marks of the church (Four, sir!) are

• Preaching the Word (1 Timothy 4:6-16, 2 Timothy 3:1-4)

• Administering the Lord’s Supper and Baptism (Acts 2:41-42, Matt 28:19, Luke 22:19-20, 1 Corinthians 11:23-26)

• Church Discipline (Matthew 18:15-20, Titus 1:10-16)

• And, unofficially, Fellowship of the Saints

The preaching is straightforward. It’s focused on two things: Dealing with sin and Dealing with hope. We are given Law and Gospel for our sinful lives, to reveal our need and the remedy for our need. Then we are given, in the same breath, reason to continue, to persevere and look forward to our savior’s return. There’s no attempt to pull culture and philosophy of man into the teaching here. Our teachers want us to get the Bible. They want us to walk out on Sunday to face Monday with the Word of God as our philosophy and culture. I’m convinced of this. This battles my need for acceptance and significance. More importantly it humbles me, reminding me how dependant I am on the Word for my continuing as a faithful Christian. Losing the Word means losing my understanding of what’s really important. It’s humbling.

The sacraments are tougher, because they’re mystical, mysterious to some extent. But their impact is not. These two administrations are God’s most direct touch in our lives. Baptism is the monumental presentation of His claim on our lives and promise of the benefits of Christ. The Table is our fellowship with Christ at the head, meeting with us over His body and blood as He has done since the night before He died. These two things also battle my need for acceptance and significance by comforting me in the warm cloak of promises, belonging and being sustained.

Church Discipline knocks the ball out of the park. I’m thankful that there are caring, watchful leaders (and brothers) in my church who will step in to work me over if I’m in error. I have been straightened out a few times already. Discipline doesn’t mean punishment, it means care-giving from the education all the way to the calibration of a believer. It’s a church that desires most that her members believe, believe rightly and behave in keeping with that belief. True joy and contentment come from being on the right path!

These things aren’t marks of the True Church because the congregation simply does them. It’s because they WORK in the congregation. You can go about these things the wrong way. Just check out the problems listed all over the Web and in piles of (the intelligent ones) Evangelical publications.

The marks have to be a positive presence of Word, Sacrament and Discipline. I think you’ll best see that in the fellowship of the saints. It’s probably the real product of the rest. And I guess that’s why it’s not included in the official list, because if you have the Big THREE, you get the Big ONE.

Thing is, that’s what I think I was looking for. That’s what believers are looking for. Generally speaking, the Evangelosphere is not stocking it on the shelves.

I’ll grant that the MER churches are hiding the truth (not necessarily intentionally) behind meeting desires. They’re substituting Christmas Presents for Daily Rations. Ask your kids which they’d really like:

• Ask ‘em about a new toy and cookies or no present but a hearty meal and what will they say?

• Ask ‘em about a new toy and second-chance or no present but a spanking – what then?

• Ask ‘em about a new toy or an “I love you” and a hug – what’s the response?

You may mean well… But they’ll candy and play themselves to death. There are those who have gone so far that I’m sure they’re more than aware of their gross crimes. Thankfully, that’s not the norm. Yet.
Speaking to something that is probably a temptation for many, and happens from time to time as various movements or denominations head south, should we seriously consider separation?

Part 3 follows.

2 comments   |  tags: , , , , , , | posted in special, The Faith

June 10, 2011

Escape Evangelicalism or Reform Part 1

By Pooka

A look at travels through the church-o-sphere.

Some of my background and travels through the Mainstream Evangelical Religion (MER): Having done the church search with my family through the years we’ve been a Christian household, we’ve gone through a fair gauntlet of the variety of MER congregations. We’ve been to

1. non-denom Pentecostal (Word of faith/prosperity/healing)

2. dry, dusty SBC

3. hard-chargin’ Fundamentalist

4. believer or disciple (two kinds of Christian) stereotypical MER

5. nearly isolationist Reformed Baptist

6. kind and faithful Evangelical Free

7. Confessional, PCA

And those are just the longer-termed stays. Being regularly moved around the country (ever 2-3 years), we haven’t been allowed to mesh thoroughly into our local congregation. Important as time is, I think that “giving it enough time” is overrated. In a couple of cases, we gave it too much time. I’ll give the credit to my Wonderful Wife, who is not guilty of this failure. She comes to good conclusions well before I do, and usually my decisions are made because she throws in the final Lego Brick that completes my constructed reasoning. I’m unwilling to just jump when it comes to churches – unwisely so, most of the time.

Point is, experience was a major part of joining all these churches, to the sacrifice of considering doctrine. I didn’t think through the -ologies very well. I can blame that on new-believer syndrome or simply grabbing for what sounded good in my lack of thorough understanding, but it was a failure either way. It took some time to settle down, learn, grasp the life-blood theology that has taken root in my heart and mind. I thought good environment was good theology, in other words. It matched my own desires, made me feel important or necessary, which is a major sin I’ve battled most of my life. I was blinded to my sin and the error in doctrine, culture and practice.

Later on, I ended up swinging on the pendulum and putting doctrine in front of environment. That is probably a better end, but not if the doctrine presented is in error. Or, worse, that it has replaced the subject of the doctrine. I bought that line, hook and sinker. I’m one of the elitist-intellectual types mentioned in an article “Why I Walked Away From Evangelicalism.” I love to look down my nose at those other “little people” who are wrong or hopelessly dumb. It’s a sin I love to sin. And I hate it. But the experience of being on the right path, passing up all those other Christians (leaving them in the dust) was too good, so I was blinded to my sin and to the error in the doctrine, culture and practice.

One could try the claim out on me, questioning “what’s different about the church you’re in now?” And I admit that my sin is not eradicated. I think I can still easily gloss over failures in my church because of the benefits. And I know I can stare down the roughest-toughest Evangellyfish sub-Christian with my newfound power-theology. But I believe a couple of things about this church that both provide a safety-net for me and are going to help me deal with my failures. On with the Reformed bandwagon in Part 2.

4 comments   |  tags: , , , , , , | posted in special, The Faith

May 31, 2011

My Progress In Theology 8

By Pooka

From my paper “Covenant Theology As Grasped By A Regular Guy”

I’m skipping over one section in my paper. Will revisit the last (previous) part in due time. Right now, I’m rather interested in this one. I’ve been listening to a few radio programs on workday driving and assurance is a common talking point. Most of the shows are caller-based, so I hear a lot of questions and answers.

Regarding the problem of assurance, I think there is little difference in the outworking of either the Dispensational or CT perspective. Both positions have flaws that are similar, but ultimately both believe that a regenerate man is held not by his own faith or works but by God and rests assured in the promises and integrity of God Himself. We trust that our belief is in the truth because of the historical events concerning Christ which correspond to the sensible and believable promises surrounding His life of obedience, demonstration that He is God, his death and resurrection.

Where DT tends to focus on the view that “once-saved-always-saved”, praying the prayer and really believing in the heart that a man has invited Jesus to come into his life as personal Lord and Savior, there is often a false sense of security in that having prayed the prayer and “done the deed” there is eternal security. This fails to account for apostasy flat out. DT makes the assumption that church membership is for the regenerate only.

Otherwise, in a DT church, the believer is repeatedly immersed in the faithfulness of God and His promises for assurance of being elect.

Where CT fails is often making the assumption that a member, baptized as a child is certainly regenerate, or elect, the church does something similar to what DT does in promising a “grown-up-born-again” (GUBA) eternal security by reference to baptism. This obviously is just as incorrect as getting someone to say the sinner’s prayer and blam call them saved. Here is where eternal security or assurance of salvation really resides, and I believe the core of CT maintains this based on the Westminster Confession and Catechisms which are the “statement of faith” in the Presbyterian Church. Assurance is found in the wealth of Scripture that demonstrates God is the savior of His people and will not forsake them. The Holy Spirit is given as the seal, down payment, for our eventual eternal life in Christ. The effectual call that brings about regeneration, faith, repentance, a new heart of flesh in place of the stone one, results in the Spirit applying salvation. The Spirit witnesses with ours as we walk with Christ and assures us of our secure position in Eternity.

One thing I have noticed in the Reformed circle is that great attention is given to a continual declaration of the Gospel to the members of the congregation. The reason for this is not to repeatedly save our members but to continually bring them back to that which saves them. The Scripture is filled with both promise and warning and this is to good effect. There are those who are members of the church (all churches) who are not regenerate and since they are in the covenant community we are absolutely responsible to call out to them with the Gospel every time they are under the preaching of the Word. Also, just as important, the warnings in the Word are written quite directly to warn the people that they must walk in God’s law, that they are at risk of losing their assurance if they do not live a life of continual repentance and faithfulness.

We’ve all experienced it, I’m sure, those times where it just didn’t seem as true and trustworthy as it should, our faith. We’ve found ourselves too undeserving of mercy and grace to trust in God’s promise. This is considered to be expected in the Reformed system. We sin and damage our clean view of God. We grieve the Holy Spirit and what else could occur but we fall away from our full trust and assurance in God. It would be ridiculous to think that in our blackest moments of self-righteous sinfulness the Holy Spirit would be most likely to pause everything and give us a good word of encouragement that we’re eternally secure. No, rather, the best tool for a wayward child is that insecurity, shame, fear and discipline of a damaged relationship. Hence the warnings.

Does this limit or remove the sense of Eternal Security? No, it is the perseverance of the saints. It is our continuing growth in the faith that assures us and it depends on far more than the individual. This also is why I think CT is a better system in that the entire church is centered around the Gospel and the Law and knows perseverance needs outside help, encouragement, exhortation and routine discipline. I cannot see my own growth in Christ quite often due to the weeds in my life. I often am brought low due to the weight of my own sin and the only help is when a brother comes alongside to show me where Christ is evident in my life and encourage me. I think, at least in my little experience here, that the Reformed have nailed assurance with their view of the Church, her mission and administration of the Covenant, her government and her in-depth involvement in all aspects of families in her membership.

I had a discussion recently that talked about being “left behind.” And I saw another mention of it on Facebook just today. It’s that horrid, life-pausing and breath-stopping moment when the house is vacant, or appears so, and one wonders if the Rapture just happened and one didn’t make the cut. We gaff it off, silly us, and try to continue on with our lives. But it kills me a little inside, whenever the fear bubbles up and I wonder just for a second, if it’s really what happened.

Now, thankfully (whispering in the weight of the joy of freedom from these bonds), I have not suffered this affliction for over a year. I did, for the longest time, since I was a little boy, but I think it’s over finally. The repair to my problem occurred when I first heard Revelation explained from an Amillenialist point of view. Suddenly, in the middle of the sermon series, everything fell into place. And then Covenant Theology fell into place. And Calvinism finally sealed up and made sense.

Not saying, however, that I’ve reached the moment and am finally arrived. I don’t get everything. But I can’t find all that baggage I’ve been carrying over the years. The overwhelming doubt and confusion have vanished. I believe. More so than in the past. It transcends and begins to explain much of what led to my departure from the faith in which I was raised; led to witchcraft and humanism.

And it gives me hope. Every Sunday, salvation awaits. No, I’m not saved every Sunday nor am I forgiven every Sunday. But I’m assured every Sunday. My life that so often embraces sin, though I’m righteous in Christ my King, is reset on Sunday. I’m reminded that I’m free from the slavery and forgiven my miserable sins. Fellowship with Christ, and His people are restored on the first day of the week. And that is a product of the high view of God, the Bible, the Church, Preaching and the Minister that simply cannot be found elsewhere. At least I haven’t seen it outside the CT community. It may be sufficient to save and exist in the DT world, but I dare say it is not as full, assuring, or comforting.

When I sin, I lose a touch of that assurance. Sometimes I am able to doubt my relationship with the Lord, even the veracity of The Faith. Those doubts are dashed in the light of His glorious Word and sacrament every Sunday. And so I keep coming, bringing my family, and we are washed anew each week’s beginning. I love it. I can’t bear to think of not having it.

2 comments   |  tags: , , , , , , , , | posted in The Faith

May 9, 2011

My Progress In Theology 7

By Pooka

From my paper “Covenant Theology As Grasped By A Regular Guy”

Here are some important things I want to jabber on about. I’m increasingly convinced that we’ve lost some things over time that have diminished the value and importance of the church to her people. The idea that church is a weekend club or activity has consumed the popular view. Membership as status has waxed and waned in priority these modern days, and simply being associated with a particular body seems to have become the new membership.

So, by way of that, certain principles should stand in the New Testament. For instance entry into the church is administered by the church just as entry into Israel was administered by Israelites. Specifically, Israel had ritual requirements to bring outsiders into the covenant community. Converts were required to be circumcised and comply with the ceremonial law. Similarly, church members are to be baptized and must comply with church order and conduct. The feasts of the OT are replaced by the Lord’s Supper in the NT. He, as it were, satisfies all the feasts in His flesh and blood.

God Himself did not step in to handle the initiatory rites of the Israelites. He had priests to do that. He has always worked through men for His purposes. This, of course is supported by the idea that He chooses men to proclaim the Gospel. We have no problem with preachers preaching but so often, there is great distress when someone claims more than that; that the Church actually has the keys to the Kingdom. God has always run the system through His people. Christ chose out 12 apostles for the administration of His New Covenant.

The apostles established the church and here we are today, that same church (at least theoretically now), doing what God has purposed all along. I think our American individualism, Kantian philosophy and all that’s gone on in the last 200 years has done great damage to the idea of the church, but if we are honestly looking at the Bible, it’s not hard to see what God means for His covenant people to be doing.

Here is where baptism of children comes in. Israel was dealt with as a holy people. The Church is also a holy people. The fundamental unit of God’s operation in the OT was with families, or households, though of course there were individuals with whom God dealt. Entire families, starting from the garden, were objects of God’s covenantal dealings. Usually, promises made were on the basis of the belief of a head of a family. A believing adult would be the criterion that admitted an entire household into covenant relationship with God.

There is no indication in the New Testament that this has changed. Granted there is no outright statement to either side of the baptism argument, but it remains, absolutely, the responsibility of the side that affirms a change to consistent practice to prove the fact that God at some point ceased to deal with families as his primary unit for covenants. Therefore, if the Church operates on the same premise as Israel, meaning maintaining membership rules and proceedings for entry and following practice, the Church is in the business of serving families the covenant sign and seal of membership.

What stands out to me in the important issue of who is in the covenant and what membership means is the significance of the issue of membership. And along with that, the significance of being in the Body of Christ. One might think that the seriousness and weight placed on the formation of God’s people into a body would be fairly easy to grasp. It sure seems to be a demanding issue in Scripture.

But, more than that, looking at all of Scripture, the issues of what the Body is all about are covered everywhere. God is an active God. He does not depend on people making Him real or productive. That’s what pagans do – drum up, or evoke (stir up) their deities with their own activities. Our God, Jehovah, does not work this way. He’s the one who makes things happen. So when we come to church, it’s not all about us doing, but about Him doing.

Church is not simply a place to be that connects us to other Christians. It’s not “the thing to do” on Sunday in between football games and sleeping in. Ironically, it’s a bit funny that some even might feel a little guilty not making it to services in modern church. As vitally important as Church is, one would not come to this conclusion at the average assembly. Try Southern California sometime.

I mean, the whole mess appears to be all about celebrating what we’ve done for Christ in the past week, or sharing what nuggets we’ve accumulated from our personal devotions on whatever random day we managed to squeeze in five minutes with the Word between the bedroom and Starbucks-on-the-way-to-the-office. At least, that’s the latest version of Church. Praise songs make us feel important to Christ. The sermon gives us insightful means to get in good with God by our own hard work.

If the whole New Testament, from Acts to Revelation is written in context of the Church, which it is, then we should be looking at Church from a view that it is the thing. The minister is he who delivers, serves up, the words of God from the Word of God. The people are there to be fed.

What are the people fed? Rules and regulations? Policies by which to live? Tips and tricks for living righteously? Nope. The Gospel. That’s what we’re here for. We want the Word, the Sacraments, the Discipline and the Fellowship to be centered on celebration. Celebration of God’s wonderful grace, mercy, salvation. All that is tied into the Gospel.

I’m sure it’s our tendency as men to insist that we must do something about ourselves. We’re all legalists at heart. Being self-centered egoists one and all, we are convinced to the core that we must (and can) pay God for services rendered. Funny thing is that God is the one who picks up the tab. Every time. He’s the only one with funds in the first place. We have no moral credit whatsoever.

So we try to work out our sanctification with sweat and straining. There’s a passage that tackles this failure to catch on:

Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure. – Philippians 2:12-13

The chapter doesn’t deal with works for sanctification. It’s all about what Christians look like! And I think it underlines our dependence on the Lord to provide the resource for our progress. If we could work to our sanctification, why would we need to fear and tremble at working out salvation? Work for one would imply work for the other. And if we don’t work for salvation, how can we work for sanctification? I think there should be more fear and trembling, awe in the shadow of a holy and all-powerful God who amazingly DOES for us what we cannot do ourselves. That should be motivation for us to obey, yes, but hardly with a goal of sanctifying ourselves through obedience.

Leave a comment   |  tags: , , , , | posted in The Faith

April 4, 2011

My Progress In Theology 6

By Pooka

From my paper “Covenant Theology As Grasped By A Regular Guy”

This part here is at the heart of covenant theology. It is where the Reformed depart from the Evangelical mainstream. My convictions are no longer a product of a roughly realized “second family” of God. There is a lot of cargo in this change in my theology. I understand that I’ve discarded a lot of the practices and systems of my past in cleaving to CT. Rather than discussing all this Church-Israel relationship, drum beating that I think is more diatribe and pontificating I don’t need to pursue, I intend to measure some of the differences into which this change has led. Here is what I wrote:

In the church, we see a correspondence to Israel. The church is Israel fully realized. This makes sense if we consider the nature of both New Testament Church and Old Testament Israel and see their positions in the covenants.

Israel is God’s People. They are His people. A holy nation. Exodus 6:1-9.
The Church is God’s people. They are His people. A holy nation. Hebrews 8:1-13.

Know then that it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham. And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “In you shall all the nations be blessed.” So then, those who are of faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith. Galatians 3:7-9

Both are given rules to live by and ordinances that set members apart from the outside. Circumcision and ceremonial law, the temple and priesthood served Israel for their identification, purification and instruction. Baptism and the Lord’s Supper serving the Church for their identification, purification and instruction. Note that Christ is ultimately the source of regeneration and forgiveness in both.

The Old Testament covenantal administration was a shadow of what Christ would do perfectly. From circumcision to sacrifice, from kings to prophets and judges, Christ is all of them now.

Similarly, both were required to accomplish God’s will. They both were to believe and obey Him.

This tells me that there may be differences in the way God dealt with His people economically, the fundamental essence of His people has not changed. Though the Old Covenant was outward in application, being written on stone and practiced in ritual and the New Covenant is inward, written on the hearts of men, the elect in Israel are saved in the same fashion as the elect in the church. God calls them to repentance and to trust in Him for new hearts, forgiveness, and to supply that obedience that cannot be accomplished by the people.

If this view of the Scriptures, that covenants guide our relationship to God and that Jesus fulfilled the covenantal requirements, is the heart of CT, then the spine is the character that Reformed churches maintain in being Confessional. Confessional churches are those who adhere to a set of standards which distill the Bible’s main teachings, regulate their practices and essentially clarify who is orthodox in their Christianity. This is not to say that a non-confessional church is not orthodox (properly teaching and believing in accordance with the Scripture), since there are many who are. It simply means that Reformed churches hold to a tradition that submits that men are not good at innovating when it comes to religion.

In order to conform to a Biblical standard of belief and teaching, worship and relationship in-and-out of the church, the Reformed (at least Presbyterian and derivatives of the Dutch Reformed) have submitted to a body of creedal or doctrinal statements called standards. Here are either the Westminster Standards or the Three Forms Of Unity that lay out the principles Christians have historically drawn from the Bible. I’ve sort of fallen in love with this aspect of my church. We have a government that doesn’t center around one person or even entirely on a group, but all members and leaders together have committed themselves to adhering to the Standards as the benchmark for their orthodoxy. The Standards are, as I said, a compilation of the central doctrines that have survived the test of the centuries in all the varieties of cultural complications since the Bible was canonized. In this system, confessionalism, the culture that grows up around one man or one theological emphasis is capably combated. Everyone has a basis for their perspective on the most critical aspects of the church and faith.

The thing that stands out to me in these confessions is that the idea of God dealing with His people in covenants is explicit.

WCF VII.I. The distance between God and the creature is so great, that although reasonable creatures do owe obedience unto Him as their Creator, yet they could never have any fruition of Him as their blessedness and reward, but by some voluntary condescension on God’s part, which He has been pleased to express by way of covenant.

Okay. I’m about to finish up here tonight. I have only 2 more things to say.

First, I have to make sure this is clear, that the Reformed don’t go to the Standards to form their hermeneutic relationship to the Scriptures. The Reformed developed the Standards as a synopsis and guide for reference based on their hermeneutic relationship to the Scriptures. In no way to the Standards determine orthodoxy, rather, they are the reflection of the ultimate standards that are present in God’s Word.

Second, I highly Highly recommend that everyone read through the Westminster Standards or the Three Forms Of Unity at some point in their theological studies. They are accessible to any reading level, valuable to pastors as well as us little guys and absolutely fabulous for instructing children. Anyone who doesn’t really get the idea of a high view of Church, the Preached Word, Elder Leadership and many other “highs” of the confessional churches should read these valuable resources with care. 

Leave a comment   |  tags: , , , , , | posted in The Faith

March 28, 2011

My Progress In Theology 5

By Pooka

From my paper “Covenant Theology As Grasped By A Regular Guy”

I think this section is pretty important. I never really thought much about it until I was drawn into CT thought. I suspect it’s a sort of low-level misconception (meaning people sort of tend to assume without really thinking carefully) that our religious practices save us, or at least play a part in salvation in some vital sense. Most commonly, I believe, this is a problem with historical Israel and ceremonial law. Now, it’s an easily corrected view, by pointing to salvation by faith alone, but simply reading the OT isn’t gonna clear this up. That is the NT, the fulfillment of the OT promises in Christ, which explicitely fixes things. If the message were clear enough in the OT, the pharisees should’ve made a very different progress and definitely been a very different group in the NT.

Now, it must be understood that God’s covenants are not administered in a way that saves His people. People are saved by the person and work of Christ. This presents a problem for us when we look at the Law and the Church. Covenant is the promise; Christ is fulfillment of that promise. In whatever administration of whatever covenant (circumcision, nation, ceremony, Law, church), the center of all is Christ Himself.

We tend to assume or presuppose that the Elect comprise all of God’s covenant community. Especially in the New Testament where fulfillment, if taken incorrectly, seems to say that salvation is the mark of the church. This is simply not so. God’s covenant community consists of both regenerate and unregenerate people. Not all of OT Israel was elect, nor are all members of the NT church elect. Not even all of Christ’s 12 disciples were elect (Judas). This situation is because both Israel and the church are houses of people who are in covenant with God, not explicitly regenerate. God expects something from these people (belief and obedience) and so He has dealt with both spiritual conditions equally throughout history. In other words, elect and non-elect within the covenant community are dealt with through judgment.

Elect are judged via Christ’s substitution and non-elect are judged via the absence of Christ’s substitution but both are called, warned, disciplined and served within the covenant framework. Note that Isaac’s sons were absolute indications of this consistency: both sons were included in covenant administration and yet Jacob was loved while Esau was hated. The New Testament includes a similar situation wherein Peter and Judas both betrayed Christ. One was forgiven and the other condemned but both were in the position of disciples of Christ.

I think we tend to be unwilling to accept the idea that God sovereignly chooses those who will believe in Him because of the tension between human responsibility and God’s sovereignty. Though God knows all and directs all, we are still responsible for our failure to uphold His standards. An aside here, we are likewise commended for our good works, which I think is grossly forgotten in this age of false humility and unwillingness to accept this tension. Shoot, I am increasingly amazed at how it seems many of our problems with theology stem from the fear or dislike of the tension maintained in the Scriptures. Already-not-yet and man’s need vs. God’s requirements are biblical but many times we persist as if they are not.

So, back to the subject at hand, election is the name applied to those who are chosen by God to be the recipients of His mercy. Regarding Jacob and Esau, the classic example of election:

This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring. For this is what the promise said: “About this time next year I will return, and Sarah shall have a son.” And not only so, but salso when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls— Romans 9:8-11

I heard not too long ago about the term used in John “draw”

No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day. – John 6:44

The actual word in the original language is “drag” as in forcefully pull. Christians are not, ultimately, given a choice between God and Hell. Here’s that tension again, choice and sovereignty, but in the end, sovereignty trumps all. Any time it comes down to salvation or destruction, forgiveness, atonement, condemnation or regeneration, either on an individual or gross level, God has the action. He saves, He renews, He destroys, He judges.

God makes His people. This idea validates His promises, unconditional promises that “I will be their God and they shall be My people” which are found throughout the Scriptures, NT and OT.

How does this work in the problem of covenants and whether they are salvific (in whole or in part)? We’ve established that God is sovereign and that His promises are because of His own work. Christ’s atonement, God’s drawing (dragging), those are divine works and only those are ultimately saving works. We don’t contribute to salvation (well, we contribute sin to the equation, but that’s not really part of this mess right now).

So, covenants, specifically those instructions that God has provided within the framework of covenants, do not save. God never once set things in motion that made Him dependent on the proper observation of the ceremonial law in order to save any Jews. To say the Jews were saved by their keeping of the Law is just wrong. God set this up just as a parent sets up rules in the home. Both knew, absolutely, that the ruled would not keep the laws in front of them.

The end of Deuteronomy explains God’s perspective on His chosen nation:

Now therefore write this song and teach it to the people of Israel. Put it in their mouths, that this song may be a witness for me against the people of Israel. For when I have brought them into the land flowing with milk and honey, which I swore to give to their fathers, and they have eaten and are full and grown fat, they will turn to other gods and serve them, and despise me and break my covenant. And when many evils and troubles have come upon them, this song shall confront them as a witness (for it will live unforgotten in the mouths of their offspring). For I know what they are inclined to do even today, before I have brought them into the land that I swore to give.” – Deuteronomy 31:19-21

Here’s what saves: Christ. The Gospel is the power of God unto salvation. Everything that God instructs and promises must point to Christ.

Okay. Done with that. The next part: The outside of Election. By the outside, I must now define two terms. Visible and invisible. The visible church is all persons who are within the covenant. Israel was the “visible church” of the Old Covenant. Today, the visible church is quite similar: entire families are partakers of the New Covenant. Not everyone in the New Covenant (the church) is saved. That’s demonstrated in Israel, in Jacob and Esau, in the New Testament, throughout history. There is still a place for a “personal relationship with Jesus” which is that relationship which places one in the invisible church.

This is how I can believe that infant baptism is acceptable practice. This is how I can believe that someone who claims to be and acts like a Christian can “fall away” later in life to the extent that he actually condemns his faith and the truth of God. It’s simply too much to assume that everyone who is a baptized member of a local church is a bona-fide regenerate Christian. I sure wasn’t, though raised through 18 years in Christian churches, baptized, “walked the aisle” and everything else. I fell away, into neo-pagan Wicca (plain old witchcraft) for 10 years, denying my heritage and the church.

I do not believe my spot was “reserved” in the pews of a future church. When I apostatized, that was a demonstration of my unregenerate condition. I was still a child of God’s wrath, not a backslidden Christian. My baptism was one pointing to judgement. So what does this mean? It means that covenants are God’s picture frame around His particular people. He has promises and commands built into His covenants as well as signs and seals of membership, of participation, in that frame. It doesn’t mean that those in the frame are all regenerate, but that they enjoy access to all the benefits of the temporal institution of God’s Chosen People. Works the same way today in the NT church as it did in the OT nation of Israel. It looks different, yes, regarding operation of ceremony, administration and symbolism, but membership and status are still the same.

Leave a comment   |  tags: , , , , , , | posted in The Faith

March 26, 2011

My Progress In Theology 4

By Pooka

From my paper “Covenant Theology As Grasped By A Regular Guy”

This next portion and probably the next couple that follow are distinctives of Covenant Theology. They were catalytic in the process that led me to the Reformed church. Not saying they are the end-all of this system of theology by any means, but paedobaptism, the concept of  households and covenantal dealings with church and Israel are the most poignant differences from my background in mainline evangelical Christianity.

I believe a clear example of this continuation is in the repeated inclusion of children and households and constant comparison of Israel as a body of people, historically in national Israel, to spiritually in True Israel.  This is most critical in Acts where the church is being established in its infancy. In defense of this view, I must assert that any deviation from covenant dealings should become apparent with obvious clarity in this book first and foremost. Instead, Acts seems to replicate the covenantal means by which God deals with His people. Specifically, Peter’s speech in Acts 2:38-40, 3:17-26 are covenantal in their language. Acts 3:25-26 connects Abraham and Gospel explicitly enough that we can say CT is the Gospel. It’s all about God’s promise to redeem His creation, stem to stern.

 

I’m not going to spend a load of words on this section. Maybe just a fleshing out of what I didn’t hit in my original writing. I’ve done all the focused studying I can tolerate for now and though I don’t have it all perfectly lined up in my mind, ain’t gonna redo it all here.

Here are my discussions of the paedo/household baptism side of things:

But As For Me And My House

No Hope For Our Children?

The Rings

I want to add that Paul talks about this covenant carryover too. In this passage from Romans, Paul is explaining how all Israel will be saved. Notice that the completion is not until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in.

Lest you be wise in your own sight, I want you to understand this mystery, brothers: a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. And in this way all Israel will be saved, as it is written,

“The Deliverer will come from Zion,
he will banish ungodliness from Jacob”;
“and this will be my covenant with them
when I take away their sins.”
- Romans 11:25-27

And this one:

But their minds were hardened. For to this day, when they read the old covenant, that same veil remains unlifted, because only through Christ is it taken away. – 2 Corinthians 3:14

Lastly, I want to bring to mind Hebrews. From chapter 7 and on, I keep seeing new, better covenant. I see that it’s not just a new one, but a better one. And this letter, written to Hebrews, is talking to those covenant people. I’m really wondering why it is so commonly believed that God turned off the old covenant and brought in the new one if Israel is to be dealt with differently, outside the new covenant. I mean, why not just keep them in the old and reach the gentiles with the new? Maybe this is crass, but really, it makes sense that if Christ came from the Jews and all the promises of the OT are promises of salvation for the Jews, then Jews who are saved are Christians, right? So why another way of dealing with them instead of the way the Bible handles the future of Christians?

The recurring story of Israel is about how they would not keep the covenant.

“Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord,
when I will establish a new covenant with the house of Israel
and with the house of Judah,
not like the covenant that I made with their fathers
on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt.
For they did not continue in my covenant,
and so I showed no concern for them, declares the Lord.
For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel
after those days, declares the Lord:
I will put my laws into their minds,
and write them on their hearts,
and I will be their God,
and they shall be my people.
And they shall not teach, each one his neighbor
and each one his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’
for they shall all know me,
from the least of them to the greatest.
For I will be merciful toward their iniquities,
and I will remember their sins no more.”
- Hebrews 8:8-12

God is gonna make Jews into Christians. Or, better, True Jews are Christians. Just as Christ is Israel.

Leave a comment   |  tags: , | posted in The Faith

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.