Tuesday, November 28, 2006

A POSTMILLENNIAL MODUS PONENS ARGUMENT

The following is a valid modus ponens argument. The law of modus ponens is simply this:

If p, then q.
p.
Therefore, q.

Applying to a major aspect of postmillennialism, we can make a valid postmillennial modus ponens argument.

Let J= Jesus asked the Father for the nations.

Let F= the Father will give Christ the nations.

Here is the argument:

If J, then F.

J.

Therefore, F.

"Ask of Me, and I will make the nations Your inheritance,
the ends of the earth Your possession." --Psalm 2:8

Monday, November 27, 2006

STUDY ON NEW COVENANT THEOLOGY

Hello all. As a Calvinistic Baptist who holds to covenant theology, I thought I would finally give New Covenant Theology a fair hearing and study. I will be honest. There are aspects of New Covenant Theology that I have found attractive (such as its focus toward Christ as higher than the Law of Moses), but there are also certain elements I have found somewhat disturbing (such as its view of the Sermon on the Mount).

But, having said that, I am going to give it a fair hearing. I think this will be useful because many theological disagreements, I believe, are because we do not accurately define our terms and get down to the nitty-gritty. (I thank Paul Manata for pointing this out well.) Also, perhaps our differences can help us. We can learn from New Covenant Theology as covenant theologians, I think. I do think that some strands of covenant theology put more focus on the Law than they do on Christ. Our New Covenant brethren may help us correct this.

WHAT I AM READING

As I embark on this study, I think it is so important as to not merely skim works, but to read them carefully word for word. I will be reading the following works, on both sides:

New Covenant Theology, by Tom Wells and Fred Zaspel

In Defense of the Decalogue, by Richard Barcellos

http://www.ccir.ed.ac.uk/~jad/welty/carson.htm

http://www.ccir.ed.ac.uk/~jad/welty/adams.htm

Articles by Jon Zens

Articles by John Reisinger

As I read these articles, I would like to invite us all to come to the dialogue. I encourage many comments from both sides. I invite New Covenant brethren, as well as covenant brethren (paedobaptists as well as credobaptists).

Please pray as we embark on this study together.
___________________________________________

ADDENDUM: THE DANGER OF www.ids.org

In-Depth Studies is a website which I have some concerns about. The brethren (I do believe they are our brethren) over there do not believe that the active obedience of Christ is imputed to the believer. I have discussed this elsewhere, but for now I will simply post Greg Welty's short article refuting Steve Lehrer's position.

My main reason why I think this happens with certain New Covenant folks is because instead of considering the whole of Scripture as a system, I think these men take certain key texts. They mention that they do not see the imputation of active obedience, but they do see where Jesus had to obey the Law to be the perfect sacrifice. But with that line of thinking, we could ask the question, where does Scripture say His passive obedience is imputed?

The dangers of denying the imputation of the active obedience are many. It is very much connected to the imputation of Adam's disobedience, per Romans 5; it therefore opens up a possible denial of the doctrine of original sin; it may open up a doorway toward Rome or the East.

This can be further discussed in the comments section if you wish. For now, here is Greg Welty's excellent article.

______________________________
A Response to Steve Lehrer’s "The Active Obedience of Christ in NCT (Part II)"
by Greg Welty Download in MS Word format (7k)-->
In his "The Active Obedience of Christ in NCT (Part II)," Steve Lehrer argues that Paul is exclusively addressing Jews in Galatians 3:10-14. Thus, when Paul says that "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the (Mosaic) law" (3:13), he means to say that only Jews (and not Gentiles) were under the curse of the Mosaic law.
Lehrer says that "We believe that the verses under consideration are addressed only to Jewish Christians. We realize that this is a minority opinion. But we believe that our argument from Scripture is decisive." So what is Lehrer’s Scriptural argument that Paul is exclusively addressing Jews in Ga 3:10-14? And is it decisive?
First, Lehrer says that "in verses 2:15-17 Paul begins addressing Jews." As a matter of fact, Paul is simply continuing his account of his conversation with Peter, the conversation he began in v. 14, and continues until v. 21 (this is where the NIV ends the quotation). That is, Paul is informing his predominantly Gentile readership of the conversation he had with Peter. To be sure, in these verses Paul is addressing Peter’s Jewish background ("we who are Jews by birth"), pressing upon Peter the knowledge which Peter as a Jew should have appreciated. Nevertheless, Paul is recording this conversation for the benefit of a church in a predominantly Gentile region. Paul is writing to Gentiles about a conversation he had with a Jew. He is not writing to Jews exclusively.
Second, Lehrer says that "Paul continues in 3:6-9 to advance his argument," and that Paul does so "with no clues that the addressees change." Yes, but since Lehrer has misidentified the ‘addressees’ in Gal 2:15-17 as Jews, it is no wonder that Lehrer thinks that the addressees continue to be Jews exclusively. As we have seen above, Lehrer has collapsed the distinction between Paul’s conversation with Peter, and Paul’s recounting of that conversation to the Galatians. Apparently, when Paul "advances his argument" and says in 3:1 "You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you?", Lehrer thinks that the Galatians were exclusively Jews, which is a very odd hypothesis about a church in a predominantly Gentile region, founded by the one who was the apostle to the Gentiles (1:16; 2:2; 2:7,8,9). For only if the ‘us’ of Ga 3:13 is addressed exclusively to Jews can Lehrer argue that Gentiles are not under the curse of the Mosaic law. It is no wonder that Lehrer concedes that his view "is a minority opinion"!
Third, Lehrer says that Paul’s argument in Ga 3:6-9 "runs as follows: Why would you ‘who are Jews by birth’ rely on the law to be justified before God? Doing this not only brings the curse of the Mosaic Covenant down on you, but to go back to the Mosaic Covenant is to shut off God’s work in fulfilling the Abrahamic Covenant and bringing the gospel to the Gentiles." Again, Lehrer confuses Paul’s language about himself and Peter (‘we who are Jews by birth’) with his writing to the Galatians. In addition, there is not the slightest chance that Ga 3:6-9 teaches that those who "rely on the law to be justified before God" and who "go back to the Mosaic Covenant," by that very act "shut off God’s work in fulfilling the Abrahamic Covenant and bringing the gospel to the Gentiles." If anyone actually reads the text of Ga 3:6-9, he will see that it cannot even remotely be said to teach this. Where is this in the text? Indeed, the whole idea is very odd. A legalistic Jew, in the era of the New Covenant, can by his legalism prevent the fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant? How can that be, when Lehrer himself later argues that it is the death of Christ which objectively removed the ‘barrier to the Abrahamic Promise of salvation to the Gentiles being fulfilled’? Lehrer goes so far as to claim that "If Jewish believers decide to go backwards, they deny the Gentiles the possibility of salvation, which is the fulfillment of the prior promise to Abraham." One wonders how backsliding Jews can undo the work of Christ and "deny the Gentiles the possibility of salvation"!
Fourth, Lehrer emphasises the pronoun ‘us’ and ‘we’ throughout Ga 3:13-14, and sets it in contrast with ‘the Gentiles’ in v. 14: "Christ redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit" (v. 14). But this contrast between people groups is not necessary at all in order for the passage to make sense. "Angry Muslims bombed us so that Americans might receive a curse." "Christ redeemed us in order that blessing might come to the Gentiles." In each case, only one people-group (not two) is the recipient of the actions described (Americans, Gentiles). There is no need to set ‘us’/‘we’ against ‘Gentiles’ in order for the passage to make perfect sense. Lehrer thinks otherwise, because he thinks Christ’s "overall purpose of taking on the curse of the law was to move it out of the way because it was a barrier to the Abrahamic Promise of salvation to the Gentiles being fulfilled." But one searches the Galatians passage in vain for this talk of the law as a ‘barrier’ that somehow prevents ‘fulfilment’ of the promises. On the contrary, Paul says that the law was a tutor that leads us to Christ!
Another way to see how Lehrer’s specific contrast doesn’t make sense, is to note how it splits up the hina purpose clauses of v. 14. Paul says that "Christ redeemed us" with a double purpose in mind: "in order that [hina] the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus," and "so that [hina] by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit." Since according to Ga 3:8-9 the Abrahamic blessing is justification itself, on Lehrer’s view Christ redeemed Jews in order to justify Gentiles, so that Jews might receive the Spirit. But why do Jews specifically need to be redeemed, in order for Gentiles to be justified? Does it not make much more sense to think that Gentiles need to be redeemed in order for Gentiles to be justified? And why do Gentiles specifically need to be justified, in order for Jews to receive the Spirit? The fact of the matter is that the same people are redeemed, justified, and indwelt by the Spirit; this is Paul’s consistent teaching throughout his letters. By importing a contrast between Jews and Gentiles in Ga 3:13-14, Lehrer turns the passage into a big puzzle.
Fifth, Lehrer says Paul’s argument in Ga 3:10-14 ‘echoes’ his argument in Eph 2:11-19. But they are two completely different arguments. In Ga 3, the argument is that the law is a tutor that reveals our sin and leads us to Christ. In Eph 2, the argument is that the law is a barrier that divides Jews and Gentiles. If anything, the function of the law in Ga 3 as that which reveals our sin and need of Christ only supports the relevance of that law to Gentiles. Paul argues in Ga 3:21 that the law is not ‘opposed to the promises of God’. The law is not a source of righteousness that competes with what can be obtained from the promise. And how do we know this? Because "the Scripture declares that the whole world [ta panta] is a prisoner of sin" (Ga 3:22).
Sixth, Lehrer cites Ga 3:22, "But the Scripture declares that the whole world is a prisoner of sin," and comments: "The Mosaic Law placed all who were under it under the power of sin." Lehrer is right to correlate the condemning power of the law with those who were under the law. But (as we just saw above) Paul’s statement is that the whole world is a prisoner of that sin which the law reveals. Lehrer reads into v. 22 an exclusively Jewish context, despite the fact that Paul is talking about all men.
Seventh, Lehrer emphasises the pronouns ‘we’ and ‘us’ throughout Ga 3:23-25, in an attempt to make Paul’s readers exclusively Jewish. But this overlooks the very next verse: "26 You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, 27 for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise." Paul’s readers were Jew, Greek, slave, free, male, female. They were not exclusively Jewish.
Eighth, Lehrer tries to make a parallel between Gal 4:4-5 and Gal 3:13-14. To be sure, both passages talk about Christ’s work of redemption. But to import a distinction between Jews and Gentiles into Gal 3:13-14 generates the implausibilities noted in the fourth point above. Alleged ‘parallels’ do not illuminate a passage if they turn it into a big puzzle.
Ninth, and finally, Lehrer overlooks the specific evidence for the Gentile readership of Galatians, found in 4:8-11. Would Paul tell Jews that they formerly ‘did not know God,’ that they ‘were slaves to those who by nature are not gods,’ that the Mosaic law was composed of ‘weak and miserable principles’? Surely he is addressing Gentiles who have escaped from pagan religion. As The Expositor’s Bible Commentary puts it, "That highly undesirable former state was also one of ignorance of the true God in which the pagans worshiped those who were not gods. The reference is clearly to the idols of paganism, which, in typically Jewish idiom, Paul terms ‘no gods.’ This ignorance was actually one cause of their bondage to paganism." And why would Paul warn Jews not to allow themselves to be circumcised (5:2-3), if Jews by definition would already be circumcised?
Clearly, the Galatians are former pagans. Just as clearly, Christ redeemed these Gentiles from the curse of the Mosaic law, by becoming a curse for them (Ga 3:13).

Friday, November 24, 2006

UNLESS GOD SURROUNDS US, WE PERISH

Yesterday something special happened between me and my second-born son, Aaron. We were going through an automatic car wash, and he was scared. He started crying and calling out for me. I turned around and held his hand, but that was not enough. So, I took him out of his car seat and put my arms around him and held him tight.

He immediately stopped crying and was comforted. He buried himself in my chest and placed his arms inside my grip.

I was thinking about this. This is exactly how we are, as weak sinners. We need God's sovereign care and sustaining to embrace us. If God were to "barely" hold on to us, we would not be comforted, even as Aaron was not comforted with me just holding his hand.

No, we need our Lord to envelope us with His care. Then, and only then, will we be comforted.

My son Aaron was comforted because he trusted that I would protect him. Not only did he trust that I would protect him, but he knew that I was able to.

May we trust that our Lord will sustain us and surround us with His utmost care and love. Not only that, but may we meditate on the fact that He is able to because of Who He is. He is the great I AM.

See Isaiah 40.

MY BEST THANKSGIVING EVER

Yesterday I had the awesomest Thanksgiving ever. My family and I enjoyed our meal with members of our church. One brother in particular and I discussed how Christ is the fulfillment of the Mosaic Law, and how the New Covenant is better than the Mosaic Covenant. We discussed how Christ is the doctor for sick people like us. I must say, that this was the best Thanksgiving I ever had so far. I didn't eat a whole lot of physical food, but the brethren and I were able to feast upon Christ and His work for us. What a treat this was!

Wednesday, November 01, 2006

TRUE SAVING FAITH

Evangelicalism today has a form of godliness, but denies its power. They speak of the truth that they sin, and that they are sinners, but they dare not admit the biblical truth that we are sin from head to toe.

I thought that the following statement by the great Anglican J.C. Ryle expressed this truth perfectly:

The more real grace men have in their hearts, the deeper is their sense of sin. The more light the Holy Spirit pours into their souls, the more do they discern their own infirmities, defilements and darkness. The dead soul feels and sees nothing; with life comes clear vision, a tender conscience and spiritual sensibility. Observe what lowly expressions Abraham and Jacob and Job and David and John the Baptist used about themselves. Study the biographies of modern saints like Bradford and Hooker and George Herbert and Beveridge and Baxter and McCheyne. Mark how one common feature of character belongs to them all—a very deep sense of sin.
Superficial and shallow professors in the warmth of their first love may talk, if they will, of "perfection." The great saints, in every era of church history, from Paul down to this day, have always been "clothed with humility."
He that desires to be saved, among the readers of this message, let him know this day that the first steps towards heaven are a deep sense of sin and a lowly estimate of ourselves. Let him cast away that weak and silly tradition that the beginning of religion is to feel ourselves ‘good.’ Let him rather grasp that grand scriptural principle, that we must begin by feeling ‘bad’ and that, until we really feel ‘bad’ we know nothing of true goodness or saving Christianity. Happy is he who has learned to draw near to God with the prayer of the tax-collector "God be merciful to me a sinner" (Luke 18:13).


--JC RYLE