Archive

Author Archive

R. Scott Clark’s Inconsistent Hermeneutic

February 14, 2018 2 comments

R. Scott Clark employs a non-typological interpretation of Old Testament restoration prophecies in order to defend the practice of infant baptism. The error of this interpretation is demonstrated by other paedobaptists explaining the correct typological interpretation.

MP3 version

For more, see:

Sources:

Advertisements

Chrysostom on 1 Cor. 7:14

January 1, 2018 3 comments

Chrysostom held to the legitimacy interpretation of 1 Cor. 7:14.

Ver. 12. “But to the rest speak I, not the Lord. If any brother have a wife that believeth not, and she is content to dwell with him, let him not leave her. And if any woman hath an husband that believeth not, and he is content to dwell with her, let her not leave him.”

For as when discoursing about separating from fornicators, he made the matter easy by the correction which he applied to his words, saying, “Howbeit, not altogether with the fornicators of this world;” so also in this case he provideth for the abundant easiness of the duty, saying, “If any wife have a husband, or husband a wife, that believeth not, let him not leave her.” What sayest thou? “If he be an unbeliever, let him remain with the wife, but not if he be a fornicator? And yet fornication is a less sin than unbelief.” I grant, fornication is a less sin: but God spares thine infirmities extremely. And this is what He doth about the sacrifice, saying, (S. Matt. v. 24.) “Leave the sacrifice, and be reconciled to thy brother.” This also in the case of the man who owed ten thousand talents. For him too He did not punish for owing him ten thousand talents, but for demanding back a hundred pence from his fellow-servant He took vengeance on him.

Then lest the woman might fear, as though she became unclean because of intercourse with her husband, he says, “For the unbelieving husband is sanctified in the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified in the husband.” And yet, if “he that is joined to an harlot is one body,” it is quite clear that the woman also who is joined to an idolater is one body. Well: it is one body; nevertheless she becomes not unclean, but the cleanness of the wife overcomes the uncleanness of the husband; and again, the cleanness of the believing husband overcomes the uncleanness of the unbelieving wife.

How then in this case is the uncleanness overcome, and therefore the intercourse allowed; while in the woman who prostitutes herself, the husband is not condemned in casting her out? Because here there is hope that the lost member may be saved through the marriage; but in the other case the marriage has already been dissolved; and there again both are corrupted; but here the fault is in one only of the two. I mean something like this: she that has been guilty of fornication is utterly abominable: if then “he that is joined to an harlot is one body,” he also becomes abominable by having connection with an harlot; wherefore all the purity flits away. But in the case before us it is not so. But how? The idolater is unclean but the woman is not unclean. For if indeed she were a partner with him in that wherein he is unclean, I mean his impiety, she herself would also become unclean. But now the idolater is unclean in one way, and the wife holds communion with him in another wherein he is not unclean. For marriage and mixture of bodies is that wherein the communion consists.

Again, there is a hope that this man may be reclaimed by his wife for she is made completely his own: but for the other it is not very easy. For how will she who dishonored him in former times and became another’s and destroyed the rights of marriage, have power to reclaim him whom she had wronged; him, moreover, who still remains to her as an alien?

Again in that case, after the fornication the husband is not a husband: but here, although the wife be an idolatress, the husband’s rights are not destroyed.

However, he doth not simply recommend cohabitation with the unbeliever, but with the qualification that he wills it. Wherefore he said, “And he himself be content to dwell with her.” For, tell me, what harm is there when the duties of piety remain unimpaired and there are good hopes about the unbeliever, that those already joined should so abide and not bring in occasions of unnecessary warfare? For the question now is not about those who have never yet come together, but about those who are already joined. He did not say, If any one wish to take an unbelieving wife, but, “If any one hath an unbelieving wife.” Which means, If any after marrying or being married have received the word of godliness, and then the other party which had continued in unbelief still yearn for them to dwell together, let not the marriage be broken off. “For,” saith he, “the unbelieving husband is sanctified in the wife.” So great is the superabundance of thy purity.

What then, is the Greek holy? Certainly not: for he said not, He is holy; but, “He is sanctified in his wife.” And this he said, not to signify that he is holy, but to deliver the woman as completely as possible from her fear and lead the man to desire the truth. For the uncleanness is not in the bodies wherein there is communion, but in the mind and the thoughts. And here follows the proof; namely, that if thou continuing unclean have offspring, the child, not being of thee alone, is of course unclean or half clean. But now it is not unclean. To which effect he adds, “else were your children unclean; but now are they holy;” that is, not unclean. But the Apostle calls them, “holy,” by the intensity of the expression again casting out the dread arising from that sort of suspicion.

Homily XIX on Corinthians

Israel as a Parenthesis in God’s Plan

December 31, 2017 1 comment

As I was preparing for Part 5 of the Reformed Northwest Podcast series on 1689 Federalism, it ocurred to me that 1689 Federalism’s view of Israel and the church is, in a sense, the inverse of Dispensationalism’s. Dispensationalism teaches that God’s plan has always been for the nation of Israel and that the church is a parenthesis in that plan. Once the church is raptured away, God will resume his plan with Israel. 1689 Federalism teaches that God’s plan has always been for the glorification of Christ in the redemption of the church (promised in Gen. 3:15) and that the nation of Israel was a temporary, typological event in redemptive history. Of course, we don’t mean precisely the same thing by “parenthesis” (i.e. “Plan B”), but I think it’s decently helpful rhetoric to help people understand the position. Please listen to the podcast to hear the full explanation.

Here is how I put it on Twitter.

brandon_adams
The first typological Abrahamic promise was given in order for us to
better understand the second, anti-typological promise of Christ.
Dec 17, 2017, 10:51 AM
brandon_adams
Contrary to Dispensationalism, the Church was not a parenthesis in God’s plan. If anything, the nation of Israel was.
Dec 17, 2017, 2:44 PM

A reformed paedobaptist responded:

acmills237
Don’t read the scriptures, the fathers, or the reformers and you’ll come up with this view. twitter.com/brandon_adams/…
Dec 28, 2017, 11:35 AM

This was disappointing given the presence of the Augustine quote in my initial tweet. I sent him a link to numerous quotes from Augustine making the same point. He replied

acmills237
@brandon_adams One down, how many more to go?
Dec 28, 2017, 11:42 AM

I find this kind of tone very unedifying, but I thought this would be a good opportunity to show more support for the statement. The issue is whether Israel was/is the church, or whether Israel was a type of the church.

Early Church

Melito of Sardis

“On the Passover” was a sermon about the typology of the Passover by Melito of Sardis (d. 180), a Hellenistic Jew who converted to Christianity. He goes into great detail to explain what a “model” (type) is (“a preliminary sketch [of] the future thing out of wax or clay or wood”). I highly recommend taking a few minutes to read the whole thing (here is a slightly better translation, but it is only a portion). Here are some excerpts:

The law is old, but the gospel is new; the type was for a time, but grace is forever…

The one [the sheep] was the model; the other [Christ] was found to be the finished product…

35. Beloved, no speech or event takes place without a pattern or design; every event and speech involves a pattern–that which is spoken, a pattern, and that which happens, a prefiguration–in order that as the event is disclosed through the prefiguration, so also the speech may be brought to expression through its outline.

36. Without the model, no work of art arises. Is not that which is to come into existence seen through the model which typifies it? For this reason a pattern of that which is to be is made either out of wax, or out of clay, or out of wood, in order that by the smallness of the model, destined to be destroyed, might be seen that thing which is to arise from it–higher than it in size, and mightier than it in power, and more beautiful than it in appearance, and more elaborate than it in ornamentation.

37. So whenever the thing arises for which the model was made, then that which carried the image of that future thing is destroyed as no longer of use…

39. Therefore, if it was like this with models of perishable objects, so indeed will it also be with those of imperishable objects. If it was like this with earthly things, so indeed also will it be with heavenly things. For even the Lord’s salvation and his truth were prefigured in the people, and the teaching of the gospel was proclaimed in advance by the law.

40. The people, therefore, became the model for the church, and the law a parabolic sketch. But the gospel became the explanation of the law and its fulfillment, while the church became the storehouse of truth.

41. Therefore, the type had value prior to its realization, and the parable was wonderful prior to its interpretation. This is to say that the people had value before the church came on the scene, and the law was wonderful before the gospel was brought to light.

42. But when the church came on the scene, and the gospel was set forth, the type lost its value by surrendering its significance to the truth, and the law was fulfilled by surrendering its significance to the gospel. Just as the type lost its significance by surrendering its image to that which is true by nature, and as the parable lost its significance by being illumined through the interpretation,

43. so indeed also the law was fulfilled when the gospel was brought to light, and the people lost their significance when the church came on the scene, and the type was destroyed when the Lord appeared. Therefore, those things which once had value are today without value, because the things which have true value have appeared…

45. The Jerusalem here below once had value, but now it is without value because of the Jerusalem from above. The meager inheritance once had value; now it is without value because of the abundant grace. For not in one place alone, nor yet in narrow confines, has the glory of God been established, but his grace has been poured out upon the uttermost parts of the inhabited world, and there the almighty God has taken up his dwelling place through Jesus Christ, to whom be the glory for ever. Amen.

Justin Martyr

Written around 150AD, Dialogue with Trypho is a Christian apologetic against the Jews. Justin shows how the church is the true circumcision, the true Israel, promised to Abraham, and prophesied throughout the Old Testament.

“No,” I said, looking towards Trypho, “since, if the law were able to enlighten the nations and those who possess it, what need is there of a new covenant? But since God announced beforehand that He would send a new covenant, and an everlasting law and commandment, we will not understand this of the old law and its proselytes, but of Christ and His proselytes, namely us Gentiles, whom He has illumined, as He says somewhere: ‘Thus saith the Lord, In an acceptable time have I heard Thee, and in a day of salvation have I helped Thee, and I have given Thee for a covenant of the people, to establish the earth, and to inherit the deserted.’ What, then, is Christ’s inheritance? Is it not the nations? What is the covenant of God? Is it not Christ? As He says in another place: ‘Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten Thee. Ask of Me, and I shall give Thee the nations for Thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for Thy possession.’ (CXXII)

“As, therefore, all these latter prophecies refer to Christ and the nations, you should believe that the former refer to Him and them in like manner… ‘Therefore, saith the Lord, I will raise up to Israel and to Judah the seed of men and the seed of beasts.’ And by Isaiah He speaks thus concerning another Israel: ‘In that day shall there be a third Israel among the Assyrians and the Egyptians, blessed in the land which the Lord of Sabaoth hath blessed, saying, blessed shall my people in Egypt and in Assyria be, and Israel mine inheritance.’ Since then God blesses this people, and calls them Israel, and declares them to be His inheritance, how is it that you repent not of the deception you practise on yourselves, as if you alone were the Israel, and of execrating the people whom God has blessed? For when He speaks to Jerusalem and its environs, He thus added: ‘And I will beget men upon you, even my people Israel; and they shall inherit you, and you shall be a possession for them; and you shall be no longer bereaved of them.’ ”

“What, then?” says Trypho [the Jew]; “are you Israel? and speaks He such things of you?”…

I continued: “Again in Isaiah, if you have ears to hear it, God, speaking of Christ in parable, calls Him Jacob and Israel. He speaks thus: ‘Jacob is my servant, I will uphold Him; Israel is mine elect, I will put my Spirit upon Him, and He shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles. He shall not strive, nor cry, neither shall any one hear His voice in the street: a bruised reed He shall not break, and smoking flax He shall not quench; but He shall bring forth judgment to truth: He shall shine, and shall not be broken till He have set judgment on the earth. And in His name shall the Gentiles trust.’ As therefore from the one man Jacob, who was surnamed Israel, all your nation has been called Jacob and Israel; so we from Christ, who begat us unto God, like Jacob, and Israel, and Judah, and Joseph, and David, are called and are the true sons of God, and keep the commandments of Christ.” (CXXIII)

“I wish, sirs,” I said, “to learn from you what is the force of the name Israel.” And as they were silent, I continued: “I shall tell you what I know… the name Israel signifies this, A man who overcomes power; for Isra is a man overcoming, and El is power. And that Christ would act so when He became man was foretold by the mystery of Jacob’s wrestling with Him who appeared to him, in that He ministered to the will of the Father, yet nevertheless is God, in that He is the first-begotten of all creatures… But Israel was His name from the beginning, to which He altered the name of the blessed Jacob when He blessed him with His own name, proclaiming thereby that all who through Him have fled for refuge to the Father, constitute the blessed Israel. But you, having understood none of this, and not being prepared to understand, since you are the children of Jacob after the fleshly seed, expect that you shall be assuredly saved. But that you deceive yourselves in such matters, I have proved by many words. (CXXV)

[T]hose who were selected out of every nation have obeyed His will through Christ,—whom He calls also Jacob, and names Israel, —and these, then, as I mentioned fully previously, must be Jacob and Israel. (CXXX)

Jacob was called Israel; and Israel has been demonstrated to be the Christ, who is, and is called, Jesus. (CXXXIV)

“And when Scripture says, ‘I am the Lord God, the Holy One of Israel, who have made known Israel your King,’ will you not understand that truly Christ is the everlasting King? For you are aware that Jacob the son of Isaac was never a king. And therefore Scripture again, explaining to us, says what king is meant by Jacob and Israel: (Is. 43:1-4). Then is it Jacob the patriarch in whom the Gentiles and yourselves shall trust? or is it not Christ? As, therefore, Christ is the Israel and the Jacob, even so we, who have been quarried out from the bowels of Christ, are the true Israelitic race. Is. 65:9-12

Such are the words of Scripture; understand, therefore, that the seed of Jacob now referred to is something else, and not, as may be supposed, spoken of your people. For it is not possible for the seed of Jacob to leave an entrance for the descendants of Jacob, or for [God] to have accepted the very same persons whom He had reproached with unfitness for the inheritance, and promise it to them again; but as there the prophet says, ‘And now, O house of Jacob, come and let us walk in the light of the Lord; for He has sent away His people, the house of Jacob, because their land was full, as at the first, of soothsayers and divinations;’ (Is. 2:5f) even so it is necessary for us here to observe that there are two seeds of Judah, and two races, as there are two houses of Jacob: the one begotten by blood and flesh, the other by faith and the Spirit. (CXXXV)

[T]he true spiritual Israel, and descendants of Judah, Jacob, Isaac, and Abraham (who in uncircumcision was approved of and blessed by God on account of his faith, and called the father of many nations), are we who have been led to God through this crucified Christ, as shall be demonstrated while we proceed. (XI)

Blessed therefore are we who have been circumcised the second time with knives of stone. For your first circumcision was and is performed by iron instruments, for you remain hard-hearted; but our circumcision, which is the second, having been instituted after yours, circumcises us from idolatry and from absolutely every kind of wickedness by sharp stones, i.e., by the words [preached] by the apostles of the corner-stone cut out without hands… But you do not comprehend me when I speak these things; for you have not understood what it has been prophesied that Christ would do (CXIV)

Irenaeus

Written around 180AD, Against Heresies argues (amongst other things) that the God of the OT is the same God of the NT.

Chapter XXV.—Both covenants were prefigured in Abraham, and in the labour of Tamar; there was, however, but one and the same God to each covenant.

1. For thus it had behoved the sons of Abraham [to be], whom God has raised up to him from the stones, and caused to take a place beside him who was made the chief and the forerunner of our faith (who did also receive the covenant of circumcision, after that justification by faith which had pertained to him, when he was yet in uncircumcision, so that in him both covenants might be prefigured, that he might be the father of all who follow the Word of God, and who sustain a life of pilgrimage in this world, that is, of those who from among the circumcision and of those from among the uncircumcision are faithful, even as also “Christ is the chief corner-stone” sustaining all things); and He gathered into the one faith of Abraham those who, from either covenant, are eligible for God’s building. But this faith which is in uncircumcision, as connecting the end with the beginning, has been made [both] the first and the last. For, as I have shown, it existed in Abraham antecedently to circumcision, as it also did in the rest of the righteous who pleased God: and in these last times, it again sprang up among mankind through the coming of the Lord. But circumcision and the law of works occupied the intervening period.

[Editor’s Note:  the Gentile Church was the old religion and was Catholic; in Christ it became Catholic again: the Mosaic system [starting with circumcision, per Irenaeus] was a parenthetical thing of fifteen hundred years only. Such is the luminous and clarifying scheme of Irenæus]

[…]

3. For it was requisite that certain facts should be announced beforehand by the fathers in a paternal manner, and others prefigured by the prophets in a legal one, but others, described after the form of Christ, by those who have received the adoption; while in one God are all things shown forth. For although Abraham was one, he did in himself prefigure the two covenants, in which some indeed have sown, while others have reaped; for it is said, “In this is the saying true, that it is one ‘people’ who sows, but another who shall reap;” but it is one God who bestows things suitable upon both—seed to the sower, but bread for the reaper to eat. Just as it is one that planteth, and another who watereth, but one God who giveth the increase. For the patriarchs and prophets sowed the word [concerning] Christ, but the Church reaped, that is, received the fruit. For this reason, too, do these very men (the prophets) also pray to have a dwelling-place in it, as Jeremiah says, “Who will give me in the desert the last dwelling-place?” in order that both the sower and the reaper may rejoice together in the kingdom of Christ, who is present with all those who were from the beginning approved by God, who granted them His Word to be present with them.

Chapter XXII.—Christ did not come for the sake of the men of one age only, but for all who, living righteously and piously, had believed upon Him; and for those, too, who shall believe.

…2. For it was not merely for those who believed on Him in the time of Tiberius Cæsar that Christ came, nor did the Father exercise His providence for the men only who are now alive, but for all men altogether, who from the beginning, according to their capacity, in their generation have both feared and loved God, and practised justice and piety towards their neighbours, and have earnestly desired to see Christ, and to hear His voice. Wherefore He shall, at His second coming, first rouse from their sleep all persons of this description, and shall raise them up, as well as the rest who shall be judged, and give them a place in His kingdom. For it is truly “one God who” directed the patriarchs towards His dispensations, and “has justified the circumcision by faith, and the uncircumcision through faith.” For as in the first we were prefigured, so, on the other hand, are they represented in us, that is, in the Church, and receive the recompense for those things which they accomplished.

Cyprian

Written in 248AD, Testimonies Against the Jews explains the relationship between Christianity and Judaism.

Preface

[T]he Jews, according to what had before been foretold, had departed from God, and had lost God’s favour, which had been given them in past time, and had been promised them for the future; while the Christians had succeeded to their place, deserving well of the Lord by faith, and coming out of all nations and from the whole world…

8. That the first circumcision of the flesh is made void, and the second circumcision of the spirit is promised instead.

In Jeremiah: “Thus saith the Lord to the men of Judah, and to them who inhabit Jerusalem, Renew newness among you, and do not sow among thorns: circumcise yourselves to your God, and circumcise the foreskin of your heart; lest my anger go forth like fire, and burn you up, and there be none to extinguish it.” Also Moses says: “In the last days God will circumcise thy heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the Lord thy God.”…

19. That two peoples were foretold, the elder and the younger; that is, the old people of the Jews, and the new one which should consist of us.

In Genesis: “And the Lord said unto Rebekah, Two nations are in thy womb, and two peoples shall be separated from thy belly; and the one people shall overcome the other people; and the elder shall serve the younger.” (Gen 25:23) [Note: This interpretation is found in numerous early church writings that I read]. Also in Hosea: “I will call them my people that are not my people, and her beloved that was not beloved. For it shall be, in that place in which it shall be called not my people, they shall be called the sons of the living God.” (Hos 2:23; 1:10)

Augustine

See extensive quotations here.

Reformers

As I explain in Calvin vs 1689 Federalism on Old vs New, the magisterial reformers’ perceived need to defend the state church model led them to depart from the Augustinian understanding of Israel. However, it can still be found in some (notably Congregationalists, who were not led astray by a need to defend a state church).

Owen

Answerably unto this twofold end of the separation of Abraham, there was a double seed allotted unto him; — a seed according to the flesh, separated to the bringing forth of the Messiah according unto the flesh; and a seed according to the promise, that is, such as by faith should have interest in the promise, or all the elect of God… It is true, the former carnal privilege of Abraham and his posterity expiring, on the grounds before mentioned, the ordinances of worship which were suited thereunto did necessarily cease also. And this cast the Jews into great perplexities, and proved the last trial that God made of them; for whereas both these, — namely, the carnal and spiritual privileges of Abraham’s covenant, — had been carried on together in a mixed way for many generations, coming now to be separated, and a trial to be made (Malachi 3) who of the Jews had interest in both, who in one only, those who had only the carnal privilege, of being children of Abraham according to the flesh, contended for a share on that single account in the other also, — that is, in all the promises annexed unto the covenant. But the foundation of their plea was taken away, and the church, unto which the promises belong, remained with them that were heirs of Abraham’s faith only.

The Oneness of the Church

 

The persons with whom this covenant is made are also expressed: “The house of Israel, and the house of Judah.”… Wherefore this house of Israel and house of Judah may be considered two ways:
[1.] As that people were the whole entire posterity of Abraham.

[2.] As they were typical, and mystically significant of the whole church of God.

Hence alone it is that the promises of grace under the old testament are given unto the church under these names, because they were types of them who should really and effectually be made partakers of them…

In the second sense the whole church of elect believers is intended under these denominations, being typified by them. These are they alone, being one made of twain, namely, Jews and Gentiles, with whom the covenant is really made and established, and unto whom the grace of it is actually communicated. For all those with whom this covenant is made shall as really have the law of God written in their hearts, and their sins pardoned, according unto the promise of it, as the people of old were brought into the land of Canaan by virtue of the covenant made with Abraham. These are the true Israel and Judah, prevailing with God, and confessing unto his name.

Hebrews 8:8 Commentary

Samuel Mather

The whole nation of the Jews. They were a typical people; their Church-state being very ceremonial and peculiar to those legal times, (Therefore now ceased and abolished) did adumbrate and shadow forth two things.

  1. Christ himself; hence Christ is called Israel, Isa. 49.3. By Israel is meant Christ, and all the faithful, as members of him their head.
  2. They were a type of the Church of God under the New Testament. Hence the Church is called Israel, Gal 6.16 and Rev 7. The twelve tribes of Israel are numbered up by name, to shew forth the Lord’s particular care of every one of his people in particular. That place is not meant properly of Old Israel, because it relates to the times of the Antichristian locusts; compare cap 7. with cap. 9.4.The analogy lies in this, that they were a peculiar people to the Lord, chosen and singled out by him from all the world: So is Christ the Lord’s chosen, Behold my servant whom I have chosen, mine elect in whom my Soul delighteth: So are all the Saints, 1 Pet 2.9. A royal nation, a peculiar people, gathered from among all nations, Rev 5.9. Hence the enemies of Israel were typical enemies; as Egypt and Babylon under the Old Testament, types of Antichristian enemies under the New: And the providences of God towards that people of Old, types and shadows of his intended future dispensations towards his people under the New; as you will see further when we come to speak of typical providences.

Samuel Mather on Israel as a type of the Church

Jonathan Edwards

That nation, that family of Israel according to the flesh, and with regard to that external and carnal qualification, were in some sense adopted by God to be his peculiar people, and his covenant people… On the whole, it is evident that the very nation of Israel, not as visible saints, but as the progeny of Jacob according to the flesh, were in some respect a chosen people, a people of God, a covenant people, an holy nation; even as Jerusalem was a chosen city, the city of God, a holy city, and a city that God had engaged by covenant to dwell in. Thus a sovereign and all-wise God was pleased to ordain things with respect to the nation of Israel…

That nation was a typical nation. There was then literally a land, which was a type of heaven, the true dwelling-place of God; and an external city, which was a type of the spiritual city of God; an external temple of God, which was a type of his spiritual temple. So there was an external people and family of God, by carnal generation, which was a type of his spiritual progeny. And the covenant by which they were made a people of God, was a type of the covenant of grace; and so is sometimes represented as a marriage-covenant.

Jonathan Edwards on the Nation of Israel as a Type of the Church

John Erskine

…as things were termed unclean, which were types or emblems of moral impurity, so the Jews were termed holy, not only because they were separated from other nations, but because they typified real Christians, who are in the fullest and noblest sense a holy nation, and a peculiar people (a). Types are visible things, different in their nature, from the spiritual things which they typify. If then the Jewish dispensation was typical, we may safely conclude, that the holiness of the Jewish nation being intended to typify the holiness of the Christian church, was of a different nature from it. And it is for this reason, that the Jewish dispensation is called the flesh and the letter, because persons and things in that dispensation, typified and represented persons and things under a more spiritual dispensation. (a) 1 Pet. ii. 9.

John Erskine’s “The Nature of the Sinai Covenant” (17-21)

Present Day

Gentry

Why is there so much judicial imagery in the book of Revelation? In Revelation 5, while he’s seated on the throne, he hands out a seven-sealed scroll, which I believe represents God’s divorce decree against Israel. It’s his bill of divorcement against Israel. He is divorcing this harlot so that He can take a new bride, the church. That’s the judicial imagery in Revelation.

@1:17:00 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sy7cEW4MJac

Strimple

All evangelical Christians are accustomed to viewing the Old Testament sacrifices and feasts and ceremnonies as being types, that is, teaching tools pointing forward to the work of Christ. Why then should the elements that we will consider now – the land of Canaan, the city of Jerusalem, the temple, the throne of David, the nation Israel itself – not be understood using the same interpretive insight that we use in interpreting the sacrifices and ceremonies?…

The true Israel is Christ… Since Christ is the true Israel, the true seed of Abraham, we who are in Christ by faith and the working of his Spirit are the true Israel, the Israel of faith, not of mere natural descent (Gal 3:7-9, 26-27, 29). Too often in meditating on this wonderful truth, we omit the all-important link in the chain of redemption that Christ himself is. We say: `Yes, the nation of Israel was the people of God in the old covenant. Now in the new covenant the believing church is the people of God.’ And thus we quickly run past (or we miss the blessed point entirely) the fact that we Christians are the Israel of God, Abraham’s seed, and the heirs to the promises, only because by faith, we are united to him who alone is the true Israel, Abraham’s one seed (Gal 3:16).

Three Views on the Millenium and Beyond (86-89)

Kline

[T]he socio-geo-political sector of the Israelite kingdom of God was a part of the total system of kingdom typology established through the covenantal constitution given to Israel in the law of Moses… Israel as a geo-political kingdom is… expressive of the restorative-redemptive principle, it is…a type of the antitypical kingdom of Christ, the Redeemer-King… This kingdom of Israel – not just the temple in its midst, but the kingdom of Israel as such, the kingdom as a national geo-political entity – was a redemptive product of God, a work of divine restoration, given as a prototype version of the kingdom of God in the perfect form it was to attain under the new covenant in the messianic antitype of that Israelite kingdom.

Comments on an Old-New Error

Horton

Chris Whisonant brought to my attention a rather pertinent quote from Michael Horton’s Pilgrim Theology.

Paul’s contrast between the heavenly and earthly Jerusalem in the allegory of Sarah and Hagar (Gal 4:21-31) redraws the boundaries of Israel around Jesus Christ. Earthly descent no longer means anything, since the Mosaic covenant is no longer in force and it could never annul or revise the earlier Abrahamic covenant, which promised blessing to the nations through the seed of Abraham and Sarah. As a result, the Jew-Gentile distinction no longer has any religious or ecclesial significance (Gal 3:15-4:7). It is the promise, not the law, that determines inheritance – and this is true now for everyone. “This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the chidren of the promise are counted as offspring” (Rom 9:8). The church is not a parenthesis in the history of redemption between national Israel’s rejection and embrace of the kingdom. Rather, the national theocracy was a parenthesis in what Paul calls the mystery of the church (Eph 1:9; 3:4; 5:32; Col 1:26). The church is Israel – the truly circumcised remnant within the nation that clung to God’s promises even through the exile, now with natural branches broken off and foreign branches grafted in.

Clark

Israel was not, however, God’s natural Son. That much was evident in the wilderness, in Canaan and finally in the ejection when God changed the name of his “son” Israel to “Lo Ammi, not my people” (Hos 1.9-10)

God disinherited his adopted, temporary, national “son” Israel as a national people precisely because God never intended to have a permanent earthly, national people. After the captivity, they had largely fulfilled their role in the history of salvation. As a sign of this fact, the Glory-Spirit departed from the temple. This is because their chief function was to serve as a type and shadow of God’s natural Son, Jesus the Messiah (Heb 10.1-4).

It is the argument of this essay that Jesus Christ is the true Israel of God and that everyone who is united to him by grace alone, through faith alone becomes, by virtue of that union, the true Israel of God. This means that it is wrong-headed to look for, expect, hope for or desire a reconstitution of national Israel in the future. The New Covenant church is not something which God instituted until he could recreate a national people in Palestine, but rather, God only had a national people temporarily (from Moses to Christ) as a prelude to and foreshadowing of the creation of the New Covenant in which the ethnic distinctions which existed under Moses were fulfilled and abolished (Ephesians 2.11-22; Col 2.8-3.11).

The Israel of God

A former student of R. Scott Clark’s noted how he expressed this in class.

brianonstead
Dr. Clark taught in class that Israel was the parenthesis, not the church and that The church is the Israel of God.
Dec 29, 2017, 12:22 PM
brianonstead
He would add qualifications to that whereby he differs with Baptists, but he at least holds to this basic truth.
Dec 29, 2017, 3:38 PM
brianonstead
He said it in the context of where covenant theology differs from Dispensationalism. Dispy says that the church is the parenthesis and Israel is the main show, so to speak. However, cov theo holds to the opposite.
Dec 29, 2017, 3:41 PM

Where Clark and Horton “differ with Baptists” is they try to argue that “theocratic Israel” (the parenthesis) is only Mosaic and is somehow distinct and separate from Abraham’s descendents in the Covenant of Circumcision. But this distinction is entirely untenable. As Irenaeus noted, the parenthetical intervening period began with circumcision. A more biblical version of Clark’s statement above would be “God only had a national people temporarily (from Abraham to Christ) as a prelude to and foreshadowing of the creation of the New Covenant.” The magisterial reformers argued for national holiness and thus a national church from Abraham because theocratic Israel is thoroughly Abrahamic (see Gen 17:7; Ex. 2:24-25; 6:6-7; 19:4-6; Ezek 16:8; Deut 4:32-40; 29:10-13; Ps. 147:19-20; Amos 3:1-2; Hosea 1:9; Deu 7:12-13; Jer 11:3-5). So is true Spiritual Israel. Both are the offspring of Abraham – one as type, the other as antitype. Both correspond to two different Abrahamic promises, as Augustine explained at the beginning. Acknowleding this undoes Horton and Clark’s paedobaptistism. They want to argue that Israel was the Church and that Israel was a type of the Church, but they cannot have their cake and eat it too.

For further reading:

Overview of 1689 Federalism on the Reformed Northwest Podcast

December 21, 2017 4 comments

I recently joined the Reformed Northwest Podcast for a 5-part overview of 1689 Federalism. I’d love to hear any comments/thoughts/feedback/criticism/disagreement you may have.

Categories: 1689 federalism Tags:

Galatians 3 vs Romans 4

December 17, 2017 1 comment
Galatians 3
Romans 4
6 just as Abraham “believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness”?
3 For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.”
7 Know then that it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham.
16 That is why it depends on faith, in order that the promise may rest on grace and be guaranteed to all his offspring—not only to the adherent of the law but also to the one who shares the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all 17 as it is written, “I have made you the father of many nations”
8 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.”
18 In hope he believed against hope, that he should become the father of many nations, as he had been told, “So shall your offspring be.”
9 So then, those who are of faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.
11 He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. The purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised, so that righteousness would be counted to them as well,
16 Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, “And to offsprings,” referring to many, but referring to one, “And to your offspring,” who is Christ.
13 For the promise to Abraham and his offspring that he would be heir of the world…
17 the law, which came 430 years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to make the promise void.
14 For if it is the adherents of the law who are to be the heirs, faith is null and the promise is void.
18 For if the inheritance comes by the law, it no longer comes by promise; but God gave it to Abraham by a promise.
13…did not come through the law but through the righteousness of faith.
29 And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise.
13 For the promise to Abraham and his offspring that he would be heir of the world… 16 to the one who shares the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all
Categories: Specific Passages

Presbyterian vs Congregationalist vs Baptist Sacramentology

December 7, 2017 Leave a comment

Visible Saints and Notorious Sinners: Presbyterian Sacramental Doctrine and Practice and the Vicissitudes of the Baptist Movement in New England and the Middle Colonies is an interesting essay from OPC pastor Peter J. Wallace. He argues that after the Great Awakening, baptist convinctions grew in Congretationalist New England but not in the Presbyterian Middle Colonies because of a difference in sacramentology. Both baptized infants, but they had different views of the visible church.

Congregationalists held to the “English Puritan” belief in “visible saints.” The visible church is for those who have been saved. The Scots and Scotch-Irish Presbyterians rejected that idea. The visible church is for those who want to be saved. Wallace traces some of the history involving Isaac Backus, showing how the baptists convincingly pointed out that if the church is for those who have been saved, then there is no reason left for baptizing infants.

In Congregationalism, in order to partake of the Lord’s Supper (become a “communicant member”), one had to become a visible saint by professing that they were saved.

While the early Puritans, such as William Perkins, still insisted on baptizing all children within the parish [i.e. every English-born child], the increasing emphasis on inward subjectivity and the “disciplined and communal character of the Christian life” in English Puritanism led to a growing emphasis on baptizing only the children of visible saints.[14]  The original New England Puritans attempted to combine the ideal of the pure church with the holy commonwealth [i.e. state church], holding purity and inclusiveness in tension.[15]

They began to recognize this tension and adopted the Half-Way Covenant solution: rather than becoming a visible saint, one merely had to “assent” to Christian doctrine and the desire to be saved in order to have their children baptized (they had to have “historical faith”). They still could not take the Lord’s Supper. According to Wallace, this was a half-step back towards Presbyterianism (rooted in the parish model). “Hereafter the sacraments took on new functions in New England culture:  baptism was the symbol of inclusion in the holy commonwealth, while the Lord’s Supper became the test of purity within the commonwealth.”

Stoddard

Many years later, New England Congregationalist pastor Solomon Stoddard recognized that tension still remained. He took another half-step back towards presbyterianism.

[T]he inclusive policies of the Halfway Covenant received an extra push from the presbyterianizing Solomon Stoddard… Stoddard argued that the church should indeed consist of visible saints, and that those who did not exhibit such signs should be excluded altogether and banished from the church.  But those who qualified for baptism also thereby qualified for the Lord’s Supper.  The Halfway Covenant erred in retaining too strict a definition of visible saints:  “There is not the least foundation in Scripture, for two sort of adult members, one that might, an other that might not come to the Lords Supper; unless they were under offense, or wanted sufficient knowledge for that Ordinance.”[26] Instead, he declared that the Table was for all who made a “solemn Profession of Faith, & Repentance, & are of Godly Conversation, having Knowledge to Examine themselves, & discern the Lords Body.”  This profession was not “an Affirmation that they have Saving Faith and Repentance” but only “an Assent unto, & Acknowledgement of the Doctrine of Faith & Repentance (as the onely Doctrine according to which they hope for Salvation) together with a Promise of Obedience to all the Commandments of God.”[27]

When Stoddard replied in 1690 that the Lord’s Supper was a converting ordinance, he did so on the grounds that the means of grace were intended for all those in the visible church, not only for those who were regenerate, but for all members of the covenant–thereby including only those unregenerate who were already within the covenant.[30]

Edwards & the Baptists

On February 15, 1727, Edwards was ordained minister at Northampton and assistant to his grandfather Solomon Stoddard. Stoddard died 2 years later, leaving Edwards to fill the pulpit. Eventually, Edwards came to disagree with Stoddard’s sacramentology and returned to the Half-Way Covenant, requiring a profession of saving faith for admission to the Lord’s Table. The Northhampton congregation kicked Edwards out of the pulpit, but his views took root elsewhere.

Insisting that only those who were admitted to the Lord’s Supper could have their children baptized (and requiring transfers from “impure” churches to make a full profession of faith), the New Divinity pastors were often indistinguishable from the Separatists, and frequently cooperated willingly with Isaac Backus and the growing Baptist movement.[37]

Moses Mather and the Old Calvinist establishment responded with alarm.  If gracious affections are “the Band of Union to the visible Church; it will follow, that no Person in an unrenewed State can be a Member of it.”[38]  In Mather’s mind, it was only a small step from such a position to denying infant baptism…

Pushing the visible saints criterion to the next step, Backus argued that only the Baptists could faithfully continue the New England tradition, since even Edwards and the New Lights compromised their principles by allowing non-professing infants into church membership.  Claiming that only the New Testament was a sufficient guide to understand who the church should admit to the sacraments, the Baptists relied heavily on the argumentation of the New Lights to show that the only way to guarantee a church full of visible saints was to stop baptizing babies.[43]

The Great Awakening alone (to say nothing of later developments) produced almost 100 separatist churches–many of which became Baptist.  C. C. Goen’s survey of these churches suggests that “the logic of the pure church ideal” drove New Englanders to affirm believers’ baptism as the only way to guarantee a pure church.[44]  Denying entirely that the “ordinances” of baptism and the Lord’s Supper were converting ordinances, Backus claimed that in them the “work of sanctification in believers is carried on,” but no salvific power.  Hence he denied access to all but visible saints.[45] He rejected infant baptism for several reasons:  1) it falsely supposed that there is no distinction between the old covenant, which was based on the family and the nation, and the new covenant, which was made purely with elect individuals; 2) it permitted the baptism of those who were neither regenerate nor even disciples, since they had not been taught; 3) historically, it was an innovation from the second or third century without warrant in the New Testament; 4) it violated the heart of the Puritan doctrine of visible saints, creating a territorial church that gets mingled with the world; 5) it is harmful to children by making them think that they are inside the covenant of grace, when actually even paedobaptists only believe that they are inside the external covenant; 6) if its advocates were truly consistent, they would give the Lord’s Supper to infants as well.[46]  His arguments resonated with his audience.  Within a span of only fifty years, nearly 300 Baptist churches were founded in New England.

Scottish and Scotch-Irish Presbyterianism in America

Presbyterian sacramental doctrine and practice was rooted in its Scottish and Scotch-Irish background.  Puritan sacramental practices had developed through their attempt to purify the Church of England, resulting in an emphasis on the gathered congregation of visible saints, called out of the world.  Presbyterian sacramental practices had developed through the resistance of local communities against external pressure from England (not to mention a century of struggle with Scottish episcopacy), resulting in a strong emphasis on the sacraments as bonds which held together the whole community… Since Presbyterians emphasized the church “as the means of organising and disciplining the whole society” they only required “external [i.e. non-saving] profession and decent conduct” for church membership.[53] … This Scottish and Ulster Presbyterian community was transplanted to the new world, where it developed in slightly different directions from the parent communities, but still within a similar trajectory.

Wallace argues that Baptist principles did not experience the same growth in the Middle Colonies as it did in New England because Presbyterian sacramentology was not as susceptible to baptist critique of Congregationalism. Presbyterianism did not require a profession of saving faith – only an assent to the truth of Christian doctrine (“historical faith”).

The Presbyterian practice was that virtually everyone should be baptized (even those who were born of scandalous parents could be sponsored by godly folk, who would thereby promise to give them a Christian education).  But some profession was required for admission to the Lord’s Table.  Not indeed the Puritan requirement of a conversion narrative, nor an Edwardsean profession of the will; they simply required that each communicant have an adequate knowledge of Christian doctrine and an outwardly godly life.  Only the scandalous and profane were to be excluded from the Table…

The practice of American Presbyterians in determining the subjects of baptism prior to the Great Awakening was set forth in the Minutes of Synod in 1735:

“And [we] do also exhort all the ministers within our bounds, to take due care in the examination of all candidates for baptism, or that offer their children to God in that sacred ordinance, that they are persons of a regular life, and have suitable acquaintance with the principles of the Christian religion; that that seal be not set to a blank, and that such be not admitted to visible church relation that are manifestly unfit for it.” [68]

Here there is neither a requirement for an account of a conversion experience, nor is there any mention of a “profession of faith,” per se.  Insisting that ministers could not judge the heart, they did not require positive proof of godliness, merely an understanding of the gospel and a life that was consistent with such an understanding [i.e. not scandalous]…

[W]hile some New Side Presbyterians were drawn towards a practice that echoed certain features of the halfway covenant, others appear to have retained the traditional Presbyterian understanding that Christ called all who were “labouring and heavy laden” to the Table.  The key difference from the Congregational practice is that Presbyterianism had no strong tradition of the “visible saints” doctrine.  Rather, colonial Presbyterians had inherited from Ulster and southwestern Scotland a tendency to develop regional communities organized around their presbyteries…

This also helps to explain why Baptists never took root among the Scots and Scotch-Irish.  Baptists affirmed an extreme version of the Puritan visible saints criterion, insisting that the church should be composed only of the hopefully converted.  Presbyterians had little interest in starting with visible saints; they gathered all but the profane and scandalous into the church and through preaching, catechizing, and communing, sought to transform the community into visible saints.

John Green & Modern Presbyterianism

In 1764, under the influence of Edwards, John Green sought to change Presbyterian sacramentology.

At first he had followed his mentors, Jonathan Dickinson and Aaron Burr in “admitting to the sacraments all who seemed desirous of leading a godly life,”[79] but now after reading Watts and Edwards he had decided that only those who could manifest a “relish for religion” would be permitted to have their children baptized (9)… Green concluded by asserting that membership in the visible church consisted of three things for an adult:  profession, life and baptism; but four for an infant:  being a child of believing parents, baptism, and then profession and life when he reached years of understanding.  Here he clearly followed the trend in New England to dissociate church membership from baptism.  Insisting that the church should discipline her youth, he argued that if by age eighteen or so they neither love Christ nor walk in his ways, churches should “drop them out of their number” (71).

Note that Green’s view matches the practice of modern American Presbyterianism. When a baptized infant becomes an adult, they must become a visible saint by professing saving faith, or else be dropped from membership entirely. But in the 18th century, Green’s views were rejected. “Faced with resolute opposition from even the New England-born ministers in the New York Presbytery, Green finally led a four minister secession in 1780, founding the independent Morris Presbytery on Edwardsean principles.”

Presbyterianism responded by the pen of John Blair. “Blair had previously established himself as one of the leading Edwardseans in the Presbyterian church” but came to reconsider his position. He argued since there is no promise of salvation outside the church, all those who want to be saved should be included.

Blair bluntly asserts that baptism alone makes one a church member:  “Membership in the Church of Christ admits not of Degrees” (9).  There are no grounds, he claimed, for distinguishing between the church and the congregation–as though one were gathered out of the other.  Rather, all who are baptized are commanded by Christ to come to the Table as soon as they have sufficient knowledge to examine themselves and discern the Lord’s body (11).

Rejecting Green’s insistence on trying to discern a work of grace, Blair argued that the “visible church consists of all those, who by an external Profession of the Doctrines of the Gospel, and subjection to the Laws and Ordinances of Christ, appear as a Society separate from the World, and dedicated to God and his Service” (13-14)…

Blair argued that if we view baptism as the seal of the covenant which truly makes us members of the visible church, then we should treat all baptized children as fully obligated to the covenant.  Those who do not live according to Christ should be cut off (20-21).  Yet the very means by which Christ has chosen to build faith within his people is through the sacraments.  Baptism and the Supper “exhibit Jesus Christ and him crucified” and by the Holy Spirit “quicken and raise the Affections, and enliven every grace” (21).  But if we truly believe that baptism brings our infants into the covenant, then we should believe that infants are “reputed the Professors of it untill they disavow it” (24).

But Blair went a step further and challenged the very notion of a profession of faith arguing that requiring a public profession of baptized infants denies their membership:  “Are not the signs which our Lord Jesus Christ has appointed and the Manner of Covenanting which he has prescribed sufficient, without the Addition of our own Inventions to supply the Defect?” (26).  Those who have been baptized should be welcomed to the Table as soon as they have sufficient knowledge to examine themselves.  No public profession is necessary…

[R]egeneration is not accomplished apart from the means of grace; hence we ought to welcome all who desire salvation into the church (74)…

In this argument Blair returns to the Scottish and Scots-Irish practice of viewing the sacraments as the bonds which hold the community together… [H]is description of the sacraments as converting ordinances … echoes the Stoddardean approach.  As odd as it may sound, Blair utilized an Edwardsean understanding of regeneration to undergird his Stoddardean (or more precisely, Presbyterian) view of the sacraments.

Conclusion

Wallace concludes

Scots and Scotch-Irish Presbyterians had never developed the “visible saints” criterion that had arisen among the English Puritans, but had welcomed all who desired salvation into the church.  While both camps may have sounded similar when insisting upon faithful participation in the Lord’s Supper, the actual practice of communion differed drastically, due to the fundamentally different conceptions of the nature of the visible church.

Below is attempt to categorize these differing views.

Baptism
Lord’s Supper
Non-Communicant Adults
Examples
Scottish Presbyterianism
all in external covenant:
regenerate & unregenerate
all in external covenant:
regenerate & unregenerate
only the scandalous; barred from communion but continue as members
John Blair, Solomon Stoddard
Half-Way Covenant
all in external covenant:
regenerate & unregenerate
visible saints
(profession of saving faith)
all baptized members who do not profess saving faith; continue as members & may baptize their children
Increase Mather*
Modern Presbyterian**
only the children of visible saints
visible saints
(profession of saving faith)
if fail to profess saving faith when an adult, then dropped from membership (no non-communicant adult members)
John Green, Increase Mather*, OPC, PCA
Baptist
visible saints
(profession of saving faith)
visible saints
(profession of saving faith)
none
2LBCF adherents, Benjamin Keach, Isaac Backus

*At first, Increase Mather opposed the Half-Way Covenant, but when challenged, he could not reconcile his opposition with the practice of infant baptism, so he embraced and began to defend the Half-Way Covenant. He later argued against Stoddard’s practice.

**I am not sure how best to label this position

Further Reading:

“In the Space of Six Days”

December 5, 2017 2 comments

I recommend listening to Dr. James Renihan’s recent lecture on the meaning of “in the space of six days” in 2 LBCF 4.1

“1. In the beginning it pleased God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, for the manifestation of the glory of His eternal power, wisdom, and goodness, to create or make the world, and all things therein, whether visible or invisible, in the space of six days, and all very good.”

Categories: science