Jared Longshore's Blog, page 27

New Year Resolution: The Day of Small Things

The new year brings with it the desire to lay down fresh resolutions. With this spirit comes a variety of temptations, one of which is that of lamenting what few resources we have. You want to make advancements in knowledge, but you have little education in your background. You look to grow your business, but you do not have the financial resources of that successful entrepreneur across the room. You want to bestow wisdom upon our children, but your forefathers were Barbarians and Scythians, so you have no heritage of generational faithfulness to rely upon.

What are you to do? You must not despise the day of small things. This was the word from the prophet Zechariah in the days of Zerubbabel when Israel rebuilt a broken-down Jerusalem. It is a Word we must take to heart. While a top-tier education, a successful business, and generations of faithful forefathers are all things for which to be grateful, none of them are things to trust in. Moreover, God’s pattern is to bring salvation from unlikely and insignificant places. Salvation arrives in the little town of Bethlehem. Jesus is called a Nazarene. And can anything good come from there? Jesse’s son was so small that he wasn’t even invited to the “pick the next king” committee meeting. 

We must learn not to despise God’s blessings while at the same time not despising small beginnings. The natural man must despise one or the other. But our duty is to trust that the God who has helped us to lay the foundation of the house is the God who will see to it that we finish it, even if Sanballat is carrying on over there about how vain our efforts are. Trust God and keep swinging your hammer. The clinking and clanging will drown out his taunts.

The post New Year Resolution: The Day of Small Things appeared first on REFORMATION & REVIVAL.

Learning How to Lose in Advent

Advent season brings with it a good deal of extra labor. You still have your regular work rhythms. Added to those, you have gift purchasing, party planning, meal organizing, and the sense that you should have an eye out to bless those you are able to bless. This means that advent season is a grand opportunity to learn what our Lord teaches in Luke 9:24, “Whosoever will save his life shall lose it: but whosoever will lose his life for my sake, the same shall save it.”

This teaching is a mystery. An unbelieving man calls it crazy. “By definition,” he says, “if I lose my life then it shall indeed be lost, not saved!” But, we can see just how wrong this man is around this time of year. Those who are spending and being spent for others are somehow growing in merriment and greatness of heart, while those who are hedging their sacrifices are not. As the Puritans used to say, “The way down is the way up, to be low is to be high, to give is to receive.” Advent, then, is an opportunity to learn how to lose. In the language of Scripture, it is a time to learn how to be poured out. According to the paradox, if you lose, then you will gain. If you are poured out, you will not only be filled up, but you will find that your vessel has been enlarged and then filled up, so that you might be poured out again.

This often catches us by surprise. But it shouldn’t. Our Father gave His only Son. The Son gave His life. And He received it back, along with the salvation of the world. We must do likewise. Lose your life for Christ’s sake, and you will find life abundant.

The post Learning How to Lose in Advent appeared first on REFORMATION & REVIVAL.

A House of Bread

Jesus was born in Bethlehem. And Bethlehem is a combination of two words: “Beth” and “lehem.” “Beth” means house. And “lehem” means bread, making Bethlehem a house of bread. Of course, in Naomi’s day, she had to leave the house of bread because there was no bread there. But, the exact opposite occurred over one thousand years later when Caesar Augustus declared that all the world should be taxed. The action of that Roman ruler left Mary in the house of bread, pregnant with the bread of heaven. So the bread of life visited the house of bread and this world has never been the same.

We come now to the bread of life and Jesus speaks plainly about what we must do here. He said, “Who so eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed” (John 6:54-55). If this saying sounds strange, then know it sounded strange to the disciples when they heard it. They murmured about it. And Christ knew. And He didn’t step back to explain Himself in terms they found acceptable. He doubled down, asking, “Does this teaching offend you, then what’s going to happen when you see me ascend back to my Father in heaven in this resurrected bread body?”

The answer is that they would shrink back from that ascension just as much as they were shrinking back from feeding upon Christ. Why? Because they wanted to feed on their own wisdom and their own righteousness. They trusted in themselves. And Christ said, “I am your food. I am your life.” “He that eateth me, even he shall live by me” (John 6:57).

So come in faith and welcome to Jesus Christ.

The post A House of Bread appeared first on REFORMATION & REVIVAL.

The Dirty Trough

One of the reasons we don’t do greater things for the Lord is because we are too
afraid of dirt. You can’t get much of anything done in the world without making a
mess. Anyone who has cooked a meal knows this. Anyone who has played a
football game knows it, too. There will be pots to clean and counters to wipe in the
first instance. In the second, there will be shoulders to pop back into sockets. This
is simply how the world works. Proverbs 14:4 says, “Where no oxen are, the crib is
clean: But much increase is by the strength of the ox.”

We are to produce fruit. So don’t be disabled by the mud, the grime, or the trouble
that comes while you’re farming. Sure, I can tell you how you can do less laundry.
Don’t let your kids do anything. No sweating, no running, no eating of any kind;
we can’t afford stains. But abundant crops come by the strength of those little oxen.
There are bumps to doing business: The deal gone bad, the troubled relationship,
the stripped-out screw that you’re now going to have to rip out of the drywall, these
are all production costs. See them for what they are and laugh at them. The man
who can only see the dirty oxen trough is worse than near-sighted; he is blind. He’s
doomed to servile fear and despair. But God has not given you a spirit of fear, but
of power, love, and sound mind.

One of the dirtiest jobs you’ll ever face up to is straightforward, unqualified
confession of sin. Why in the world would you go looking for your own muck and
then, when you find it, hold it up to the Lord with an apology? You do it because
you see beyond this particular ox trough. Get it clean so you can stand up on the
other side and produce greater fruit for the Lord.

The post The Dirty Trough appeared first on REFORMATION & REVIVAL.

Covenantal Coogi and an Ice Cream Shop: Another Reply to James White

So if you’re just joining us, I wrote a piece recently making the ever-so Paedobaptist point that the Christian’s children are in the new covenant. This is run-of-the-mill Paedobaptist stuff. But, as James has detailed, it doesn’t square with the Credobaptist position. It requires that some of the theological furniture gets moved around if you have been steeped in the deep waters of Credobaptism, and that remodel will most likely end with water on the little babes so, reader beware.

James White responded to my original post here. I replied to him here. He has replied to my reply in several installments, which can be found on the Alpha and Omega Ministries YouTube channel. As James noted, and I am thankful he noted this because I was starting to sweat the proverbial bullets, it will be hard to respond at length to James since his replies tally up to more than a couple hours, and those replies are in video format, not written. But, I do think a word on my end might help to move the ball down the court a bit more. While I don’t think we will have solved the Credobaptist/Paedobaptist question, we may be clarifying a few things for some. Plus, this reply affords me the opportunity to thank my friend James White for the engagement.

At one point, James explained how unfair he was being to me given that I do not have a multicolored light shining behind me in my videos and I do not have those lovely sweaters he wears, those that would make Joseph himself forget the offenses he suffered and turn to throw James in a pit for jealousy. I agree with James entirely that if you end up siding with him in this exchange it is most certainly due to those snuggle hug coogii he wears, and not because you agree with him on the intricacies of the Greek εἰς τὸ παντελὲς (Hebrews 7:25). Very sneaky those coogii.

A brief word of gratitude here before jumping in. I am grateful for the back and forth from James on this matter, and I am particularly grateful for the manner of the engagement. James noted before that he can disagree with me and others out here in Moscow without the debate getting fleshly. That is true, a grace from God, and a model to others in an age of people getting Moscow moody. 

Boiling the Thing Down

The best I can tell, James’ replies boil down to two items: the nature of the new covenant and the nature of Christ’s mediatorial work. I am not surprised that the dialogue turns to these two doctrines as I think the Paedobaptists and Credobaptists have slightly different takes on both. Notice that word slightly. There is broad agreement on both. But there are differences. I will address the nature of the new covenant by means of the covenant of grace in this post, and I plan to do the same for Christ’s mediatorial work in a future one.

The Nature of the (New) Covenant of Grace

I provided a brief definition of the covenant of grace in my last reply to James. That definition serves as a definition of the new covenant as well. I would add accidental distinctions for a full definition of the new covenant. But again, the definition I’ve supplied for the covenant of grace suffices just fine for a general definition of the new covenant. Given that the nature of the new covenant is a sticking point, I will enlarge that definition of the covenant of grace below. This is important because James says, “from the least of them to the greatest” (Jeremiah 6:13-4; 31:34; Hebrews 8:11) necessitates that each and every member of the new covenant is regenerate. I disagree. And the definition of the covenant of grace and new covenant lurks behind our disagreement. The Credobaptist will certainly still have questions after reading what follows. But, a full description of the nature of the covenant of grace is foundational to the ongoing dialogue between Paedobaptists and Credobaptists. Now, for a full definition.

The covenant of grace is the Heavenly Father’s solemn oath to man on earth of grace, salvation, and life in and by Jesus Christ, conditioned upon obedient faith, that constitutes a legal and relational bond in blood, a community, and/or an organization over and to which God says, “I am y’all’s God and y’all are my people.” Thank you for putting up with my Southern ways. I would note the genius of the Southern folk at this juncture, given that they came up with a word for the second person plural. A most excellent achievement. 

That definition is full and it needs to be supported from Scripture, but there is a lot of text to cover. The word “covenant” appears 284 times in the Old Testament, and it appears 33 times in the New Testament. I won’t cover every appearance of course, but we will examine a few below. But first an illustration.

This covenant of grace is like an ice cream shop. Christ himself is the ice cream in this ice cream shop, “Taste and see that he is good” (Ps. 34:8). God serves ice cream in the ice cream shop. This is simply the way he has chosen to go about it. God’s banner over this ice cream shop is directed to all those inside and it reads, “I am y’all’s God and y’all are my people.” When a man calls upon the name of the Lord, he enters the ice cream shop, and his household comes with him into the ice cream shop. And yes, it is true that not every person in this ice cream shop is actually eating the ice cream.

From the time of our fall in our father Adam, our God set up this gracious ice cream shop in which he served his people Christ, the ice cream. Ice cream eating, genuine and saving communion with Christ that is, has always been by faith. At the coming of Christ in the flesh, he established a new form of this ice cream shop (the new covenant). Christ established a new ice cream shop structure over the old and the old has passed away. So there has only been one true ice cream shop throughout history, but there was a genuine change in the structure of this establishment and its administration (the new covenant). Whether it be the old model or the new, this ice cream shop has served the same ice cream (Christ), housed the same people (covenant members), and it has always been a family- friendly establishment (i.e. when a man enters to eat the ice cream, his household comes into the shop with him). 

American evangelicals by and large envision not an ice cream shop, but an ice cream stand in the street. Jesus is being preached at this ice cream stand. Christ, the ice cream, is being served up, and individuals either eat or do not eat. But, no shop. On the one hand, this ice cream stand approach is not the end of the world. You still have the ice cream (Christ). And you have individuals eating or not eating. On the other hand, in this ice cream stand arrangement, any concept of covenant gets folded into merely eating the ice cream as an individual. To be in covenant with God is simply to eat the ice cream. Covenant is only an individual matter and covenant is reduced to God’s effectual call of an individual in the order of salvation. Covenant becomes simply God getting thing A to individual B (the ice cream to an individual eater). This notion falls short of a biblical definition of the covenant of grace. 

Now, consider a few things about the definition above. 

First, I’ve made the point that it is the Heavenly Father who covenants with man on earth. That is because a divine covenant with man is executed in history. What is in view is not a platonic covenant. It is not the idea of a covenant. It is not a covenant up in the heavens. A covenant is cut. Covenants must be established or they are not divine covenants with man. You have no divine covenant with man if you don’t have a bond in blood. Blood and people are essential ingredients in the covenant of grace. So the heavenly and earthly language, as well as the blood language, is a reminder that covenants originate with God in heaven and they are executed down here on earth with man. God’s dealings with Abraham in Genesis 15 constitutes a clear example. The blood of the slain animals signals an intense and formal covenant established. 

Second, the covenant of grace involves the creation and formation of a constituted people. Theologians often use the language of administration, and that is fine language, but many can mistake such language to mean “getting thing A to individual B,” as in “I administer lotion to my daughter’s knee.” That idea does not capture what is involved in the word administration. Rather, think of how we use the word administration when we refer to the Washington or Jefferson administration. The Washington or Jefferson administration refers to an entity, a people, an organization, a corporate reality. You can be a member of such an administration or not a member of such an administration. It sounds strange to speak of being a member of a covenant if a covenant is nothing more than God’s promise to an individual. You might say that you are a believer of the covenant. But covenant membership implies that a covenant is more than a promise, it is an administration, organization, or league. Membership in an administration involves rights and responsibilities. None of that comes through when we conceive of a covenant as a mere promise from God to an individual. Now, God makes promises to individuals. I’m not disputing that he does. I’m saying that to reduce covenant to such a notion is to do injustice to the covenant idea. 

Third, the covenant of grace involves a relationship between God and his covenant people. I’ve moved out of the South, but having lived my whole life there I’ve reflected with a chuckle about how the corporate operated in speech. Growing up, if you saw some friends out and about, you’d likely ask, “How y’all doing?” And when you asked the question, you were not only thinking about the people in front of you. Your friends were in view, yes, but if they were there, their folks were in view too: parents, grandparents, kids, and grandkids. That’s a covenantal way of thinking. So the point to emphasize here is that the covenant of grace concerns man on earth, a real organization, and that organization or entity is not merely an individual, or even a collection of individuals, but one new man. We hear about this one new man in Ephesians 2:15, “Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man.” Interestingly, that text employs the same language we hear when God joins a man and woman together in covenant marriage. 

Fourth, the covenant of grace maintains an eschatological orientation. It is not a static thing. It is the solemn oath of grace and life in and by Jesus Christ. But that does not mean that the covenant of grace only has in view your personal justification. Jesus came to save the world— “For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved” (John 3:17). The covenant of grace regards the promise of the Father of grace, the increase of grace, grace upon grace, grace to the ends of the earth. Now, does this definition (and the ice cream shop illustration above) hold up? 

Well, we might start by looking at a definition of the Hebrew word for covenant. One Hebrew-English lexicon defines covenant as an “alliance of friendship” and “a divine constitution or ordinance with signs and seals” between God and man.[1]  As noted before, this definition of covenant entails more than a promise. Alliance, league, and constitution are hovering right there at the heart of what a covenant is. We see something similar in the New Testament Greek word for covenant. A good Greek-English lexicon defines covenant as “last will and testament.” Covenant involves God determining what to do with what is his, “You are my people, and here is what is going to happen with you.” 

As I mentioned before, the covenant of grace is found throughout the Scriptures. And the context in which it is used sheds light on the nature of God’s covenant of grace. The friendship or relational sense comes through in Psalm 25:14, “The secret of the Lord is with them that fear him; And he will shew them his covenant.” Here I would quibble with those who want to describe the covenant of grace in merely legal terms. The covenant of grace indeed has legal dimensions. But claiming that the covenant of grace is merely legal and not relational in any sense simply does not square with Scripture. David says that God will reveal his covenant to those who fear him like a friend shares a secret with his companion. When God covenants grace to Abraham, he promises “to be God unto thee, and thy seed after thee” (Gen. 17:7). That is relational language. 

The corporate, constitutional, and eschatological dimensions of the covenant of grace are seen in a text like Genesis 9:8-9, “And God spake unto Noah, and to his sons with him, saying, ‘And I, behold, I establish my covenant with you, and with your seed after you.’” God does not only make this covenant with Noah. He speaks unto Noah and to his sons with him. The covenant is corporate, involving more than the individual. Moreover, God’s covenant maintains an eschatological scope, for God will establish his covenant with Noah’s seed after him. The constitutional dimension of the covenant is seen in that God says he will establish his covenant with Noah. God is not simply making a promise to Noah. He is establishing a people to whom a promise is made. 

We see these same things in God’s covenant with Abraham. Genesis 15:18 says, “In the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates.” Again, God’s covenant is not merely with Abram, but Abram’s seed; thus it is corporate and familial in nature. Also, the covenant involves a bond: God “made a covenant with” Abram. He was not merely delivering a promise to Abram, he was establishing a bond with Abram and his seed. Similarly, the earthly component is seen in that God made covenant with Abram in a certain day, thus the covenant was historical in nature. And it, of course, was made with Abraham on earth. 

Covenant Households and the Covenant of Grace

We now have a definition of the covenant of grace. And we already have indicators lighting up the dashboard signaling that when a man enters the covenant of grace his household comes with him into that covenant with God. I have made that assertion above. That is not a novel claim. Herman Bavinck for example has said that the covenant of grace “is never made with a solitary individual but always also with his or her descendants. It is a covenant from generations to generations. Nor does it ever encompass just the person of the believer in the abstract but that person concretely as he or she exists and lives in history, hence including everything that is his or hers. It includes him or her not just as a person but him or her also as father and mother, as parent or child, with all that is his or hers, with his or her family, money, possessions, influence, and power, with his or her office and job, intellect and heart, science and art, with his or her life in society and the state.”[2]

This claim that the covenant of grace “is never made with a solitary individual but always also with his or her descendants” makes sense given the definition of the covenant of grace above. The claim does not make sense if one reduces the covenant of grace to effectual calling or personal regeneration. In that case, Bavinck’s claim would be that your descendants are regenerated by God upon your regeneration. And the good Calvinists know that once regenerated, never unregenerated, lost, or condemned. It would follow, under the “covenant of grace equals regeneration” scheme that all natural descendants of the regenerate would be robotically, mechanically, or automatically regenerate. James mentioned this problem in one of his replies. But, again, the definition of covenant of grace detailed and supported above demonstrates that the covenant of grace cannot be reduced to simply God’s effectual call. 

A good man might still well say, “OK, I see that God’s covenant of grace is historical not ideological, corporate not strictly individual, relational not simply legal, and eschatological in that it concerns seed. But how can I be sure that God’s covenant promise concerns the children of my household such that when I enter into this covenant my children do too?” One response to this well-received question is to say that all of God’s covenantal dealings with man in the covenant of grace include their children. The chief example is Abraham. 

God covenanted the following to Abraham: “And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee” (Gen. 17:7). This covenant is not superficial, physical, or sub-salvific in nature. God covenants to be God to Abraham’s children. God immediately adds the following words to Abraham, “Every man child among you shall be circumcised. And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you” (Gen. 17:10-11). 

God told Abraham that he would be God to his children. And he told him to give those children the sign of that covenant. They were signed and sealed members of the covenant that God made with Abraham. And that covenant promised that God would be their shield and their great reward (Genesis 15:1), indeed that He would God to them (Genesis 17:7). Now these covenant children of Abraham would have to follow in the footsteps of their father. They must keep covenant and the covenant has always been kept by faith. But they clearly grew up as insiders and not outsiders; they were marked with the covenant sign because they were covenant members and God said to them, “I am your God and you are my people.” The same holds true for us today who are children of Abraham. The promises are to us and our children as they were to Abraham and his.

The payout of this description of God’s covenant of grace is this. As a faithful Credobaptist, James says that “from the least to the greatest” indicates that regeneration is definitional of the new covenant. But the nature of the (new) covenant of grace that I’ve detailed above is such that drawing that conclusion becomes a heavier lift because covenant children have always been included in God’s covenant of grace.

[1] Francis Brown, Samuel Rolles Driver, and Charles Augustus Briggs, En- hanced Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1977), 136.

[2] Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, vol. 3, Sin and Salvation in Christ, ed. John Bold and trans. John Vriend (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006), 230. 

The post Covenantal Coogi and an Ice Cream Shop: Another Reply to James White appeared first on REFORMATION & REVIVAL.

The Lord Comes, Beware Dark Corners

In the season of Advent, the Christian Church declares that the Lord comes. Beware dark corners. You have sat for long enough, moldy, putrid, wallowing in subterranean rivers of unseemliness. But your days are numbered. The King of Lights has appeared. He did so just outside of an obscure little town, in a sheep pasture, at night, when the dark was black enough that you could have seen the glory shining around those angels for miles.

We rejoice in the advent of our Lord, and it is most fitting to do so. But, we really should understand why so many have embodied the spirit of Mr. Grinch at a time like this. Stand with Herod for just a moment, Herod with his deep, dark precious lust for power, the one for which he was willing to kill many little baby boys; and hear him explain to you why it is no small problem that this new king has come. Stand with the chief priests and scribes shortly after they spoke with Herod, self-righteous with their long prayers and twisted traditions, and hear them out as they tell you of their troubled hearts.

When the Lord comes, He exposes the works of darkness. He reveals some very uncomfortable things. So two roads lie before you. Side with those who despise His coming, those who would rather stay in their soiled garments rather than have them changed, those who hated Him because He testified of their evil works (John 7:7). Or, side with those who say, “Come, Lord Jesus.” But that means He will open you up, He will find what remains of your former self, and He will clean you through and through. This sanitization process will be so thorough it will singe your eyebrows. But you are God’s covenant people so the only response is: Even so, Lord, quickly come.

The post The Lord Comes, Beware Dark Corners appeared first on REFORMATION & REVIVAL.

The Moscow Mood for DeYoung, Restless, and Reformed

Every now and then the Lord tees one up for you. And this He has done in Kevin DeYoung’s critique of the Moscow mood. You have certainly heard of this piece by now, in which DeYoung exemplifies his careful analysis and honest assessment, which really boils down to, “Yes, the Moscow thing has done some good, but I’m very concerned about the long term spiritual effects of the Moscow mood, a mood which pretty much doesn’t comport with Christian virtue.” I say that the Lord has teed this one up, because DeYoung’s critique is both quite plausible to a good portion of the Reformed and Evangelical world, and it is at the same time a critique that has significantly missed the mark and exposed problems in that slice of the Reformed and Evangelical world that appreciates his critique. When something like that happens, we really do need to discuss it. But first let me point you to some key responses.

Toby Sumpter and Joe Rigney have both responded. Because they cover a good bit of the terrain, I am going to focus on one central theme in my reply. I do highly recommend you read those responses which field and reply to Kevin’s critiques about the serrated edge and too much funny business going on rather than sermons and doctrine straight up the middle. Those are plausible critiques from DeYoung which are ably handled by Sumpter and Rigney. I would normally address more of Kevin’s critiques. But, I think these other replies have done the job, so I’m pressing in another direction here.

Here is my reply, plain and simple: Kevin could not be more wrong about his supposed detrimental and long-term spiritual effects of the Moscow mood. Because I know the world from which he writes quite well, I understand how plausible that critique may sound. But, in truth, the Moscow mood is something for which to be grateful. It has had good spiritual effects for some time and it looks to be on a trajectory to continue to bear some great long-term spiritual fruit. Indeed, I commend this Moscow mood to that community formerly known as the Young, Restless, and Reformed, that community which attempted to do something like Doug has done in Moscow, but failed miserably.

It seems to me that humility dictates you thank God for good examples, showing honor where honor is due. DeYoung, honestly, failed in this regard. I recall going to Together for the Gospel conferences, and I recall attending a Gospel Coalition Conference. I remember looking on with intrigue when the Gospel Coalition showed its first signs of decay as it gave Voddie Bauchum the Left Hand of Disfellowship when he began to say too many true things about Ferguson. I recall also watching the Gospel Coalition crumble into a platform promoting weird singleness articles and deep insightful analysis of Taylor Swift’s debauched evenings with men who used her. The goal at the outset was to establish true piety in the city. But the result was that Babylon bent the Young, Restless, and Reformed over her knee and spanked them like an angry step mother. 

Now, I move to Moscow two years ago and I find genuine piety: Psalm sings, hospitality, generational faithfulness, sacrificial patriarchy, happy women, Bible reading plans, regular old evangelical men’s prayer meetings like you’d find all over the country, the arts, Herodotus and Thucydides, Bach and Handel, a flourishing downtown due to the entrepreneurship of the people of God, and a good deal of mirth and cheer in the face of Genghis Khan being at the gates of this formerly Christian nation. There are people who will wrongly bind on to something like Moscow, of course. We look to correct that kind of thing when it happens. But, that was not Kevin’s critique. Kevin’s critique was that the mood cultivated in Moscow is one that does not comport with Christian virtue, which is to say that Kevin has discovered that grapes really do come from bramblebushes (Luke 6:44).

But Grapes Don’t Come From Bramblebushes

Kevin himself said that Doug “offers the world and the church an angular, muscular, forthright Christianity.” He added that, “his family loves him and loves Christ.” He went on to describe the notable institutional output coming from this little northern Idaho town. But, then he turns to say that the mood cultivated here is going to bear bad fruit, spiritually speaking. But, how does that square with our Lord’s teaching about men not gathering figs from thorns? I smell a false dichotomy between good cultural fruit and good spiritual fruit. But why must we choose? And doesn’t the latter lead to the former?

Related, Kevin laid out two roads, to options for Doug to take: “He could use the eighth decade of his life to devote his considerable writing talents to persuading unbelievers to consider Christianity, to passing on the Reformed faith, and to offering a deep, penetrating cultural analysis. I believe he could do all this if he wanted to. Or he can pepper his writing with naughty words, play with blowtorches, and make fun of Southern Baptists. That’s the other option. It will be hard to take both approaches at the same time.”

But here’s the thing. Doug has been taking both approaches for decades. I repeat, his approach has been getting the job done and the good news is, it has been getting the job done without Doug having to spend anytime in purgatory. DeYoung evidences yet another false dichotomy: Good cultural analysis and doctrine pure and simple, or write like Wodehouse and play with fire in November. But, I have good news for you: You don’t have to choose, you can have both.

But Piety and a Flamethrower Go Together Quite Nice

I would add that I commend both to you. I am not simply saying that you can have both. I’m saying there’s something to having both. Piety and the flamethrower is a combination that Kevin insists you cannot enjoy. But, I’m telling you that they go together like cheese and wine, like peanut butter and jelly.

In short, mood matters. I believe Kevin knows this. He started his critique by saying that the attraction to Moscow is visceral more than intellectual, that doctrinal changes like that of postmillennialism are lagging indicators rather than leading indicators. He writes as if this is wrong. But there is nothing wrong about it. Humans are embodied creatures, not rational computers. If we are to avoid the influence of mood, ethos, or aroma, then why are the saints called to be an aroma of Christ (2 Corinthians 2:15-17), and for Pete’s sake, why are we to adorn the gospel of God (Titus 2:10)? Don’t adorn it! Isn’t it perfectly true enough without you wooing people to it with some mood draped all over it?

Rules for Reformers

I said that DeYoung’s piece exposes problems in a certain slice of the Reformed and Evangelical world. Let me see if I can boil them down for the note takers. That world thinks that Classical Christian Education can’t pair with flamethrowers, that ministers can’t write like Wodehouse, that piety cannot pair with poking fun at Southern Baptists’ folly, that the language of the old testament prophet’s cannot be paired with a new testament ministry, that the Puritan’s prayers cannot be paired with Puritan political theology, that justifying faith cannot be paired with obedience [insert FV charge here], that a shoulder’s loose Narnian spirit cannot be paired with Ezra weeping over the famine of God’s Word, that heaven cannot be paired with earth, that the spirit cannot be paired with the body, that the Great Commission cannot be paired with the dominion mandate, that doctrine cannot be paired with application, and that reformers cannot be paired with actually reforming anything. 

Many books come to mind that would remedy all of these false dichotomies. But the best place to go if you want to Moscow mood even harder is Rules for Reformers, highly recommended.

In conclusion, Spurgeon’s point about Reformers is just as true today as it ever was:

“We admire a man who was firm in the faith, say four hundred years ago…but such a man today is a nuisance, and must be put down. Call him a narrow-minded bigot, or give him a worse name if you can think of one. Yet imagine that in those ages past, Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, and their companions had said, “The world is out of order; but if we try to set it right we shall only make a great row, and get ourselves into disgrace. Let us go to our chambers, put on our night-caps, and sleep over the bad times, and perhaps when we wake up things will have grown better.” Such conduct on their part would have entailed upon us a heritage of error. Age after age would have gone down into the infernal deeps, and the pestiferous gobs of error would have swallowed all. These men loved the faith and the name of Jesus too well to see them trampled on… It is today as it was in the Reformer’s days. Decision is needed. Here is the day for the man, where is the man for the day?”

The post The Moscow Mood for DeYoung, Restless, and Reformed appeared first on REFORMATION & REVIVAL.

Give Thanks When They Act Like Turkeys

Thanksgiving is just on the horizon, so we are counting our many blessings and marking a variety of things to be thankful for. As you number those blessings, I want to remind you of one particular kindness from the Lord for which you should be grateful. That is God’s kindness of having people say all sorts of evil things about you falsely. Ah, you have been slandered. And the bigger the slander, the bigger your Thanksgiving turkey should be.

Jesus tells us that we should be exceedingly glad when this kind of thing happens for our reward is great in heaven, and we are following in the footsteps of the faithful prophets who went before us (Matthew 5:12). 

This is a lesson that peace-loving, kind, and faithful Christians like yourselves must take to heart. In the first place, it is one thing to remember this truth when the sun is shining and no one is calling you a misogynistic rape apologist. And it is another thing to remember it when those slander-bullets are actually flying. So store up this truth in your heart so it will be there in the day of battle. 

In the second place, you must store up this truth in your heart because you are a kind lot of Christians who, of course, don’t want to be brawlers. That is good. You want to pray for those who have done you the wrong, and that is good, too. But, in case you may be tempted to say, “I just can’t rejoice and be glad given these horrible things that have been said about me or my people,” let me remind you that God is so pleased about people saying nasty false things about you that He has seen fit to increase your heavenly bank account. If God is happy, you should be, too. 

Do ensure that this kind of thing doesn’t turn into rejoicing when your enemy falls. You want to give thanks in such a way that God’s favor will continue to rest upon you. But give thanks you must. And that thanksgiving should be exceedingly glad.  

The post Give Thanks When They Act Like Turkeys appeared first on REFORMATION & REVIVAL.

Living Sacrifices

One of the mistakes we make when it comes to our worship is thinking that it is merely an exercise in which we are refilled. We have spent ourselves for Christ and here we are on the day of rest to be repowered by the Spirit in worship. There is truth in the sentiment for “from him, through him, and to him are all things.” So there is a “from him” in worship. 

But, Paul says that we “present our bodies as living sacrifices unto God.” And he adds that this is our reasonable service and worship. Worship, then, is a very active endeavor. You are presenting yourself to God, and you are doing so as a sacrifice. 

The sacrifices of the Old Testament were quite passive. Their job was to be taken to the altar and killed. But, those sacrifices could never take away sin. Christ was the only sacrifice that could cancel sin entirely. And He was not taken to the slaughter by another but laid down His own life willing.

In the new covenant, we don’t need any more blood sacrifices, for Christ was the once for all time sacrifice who paid for our sin completely. 

But, where does that leave us? Aren’t our bodies sacrifices as we worship God? Yes, indeed. But we are not sacrifices for sin. We are living sacrifices. And as we offer up our very selves to God it should be a lively endeavor. 

So sing robustly. Pray fervently. Hear the Word attentively. Confess sin diligently. Receive assurance of your forgiveness gladly. Eat and drink at the table with a lively faith. 

Be done with dead and dreary words, attitudes, and works. You are very much alive. So alive, you will never truly die. So alive, you can go sacrifice yourself on an altar and go right on living.

The post Living Sacrifices appeared first on REFORMATION & REVIVAL.

For James White, About Those Children in the New Covenant

So last week, I made the mistake of getting James White’s attention. You have likely seen the man debate, and so you know his skills. The best thing to do is to make your points when he’s not looking so you don’t end up having him draw that dividing line of his and take you to task. It also works to have someone kneecap him while you state a few claims. The pain, you see, distracts him. But, alas, I spoke when he was both awake, in earshot, not cringing in pain, and now look at the trouble I’m in.

As many of you know, James is a friend. He asked a few questions when he was addressing my recent article on the Dividing Line. So, here is my attempt to answer those questions. Here’s how we shall carve this post up: First, a few introductory matters. Second, James’ central objection (that my position destroys the apologetic argument in Hebrews) is restated and addressed. Third, James’ central objection is enlarged and addressed. Finally, a scattershot of responses to questions or thoughts that arose here and there on James’ Dividing Line.

Introductory Matters

For reference, I published a piece that said the Christian’s children are in the new covenant. And James responded here.

Let me reiterate what James said online. He essentially noted that much of the Reformed world is quite grumpy and increasingly so, and he and I (and other folks here in Moscow) can disagree and still be good friends. This is all quite on the money, and so three cheers from me.

The nub of the issue is this: The Credobaptist position says that the new covenant is so unlike the old and so much better that each and every member of the new covenant is actively regenerate, unlike the old when children were included. The Paedobaptist position says that the new covenant is unlike the old and better by far, but such that the inclusion of children in the covenant remains, old and new.

Covenant theology is notoriously complex and fascinating, so we should all have a good time studying and not be hasty when dealing with brothers working things out. On this point, there is some tightly reasoned covenant theology coming. 

This is necessary given the questions that naturally arise from Scripture. I am stating some key questions from the Credobaptists to the Paedobaptists in this post, and seeking to answer them. But there are tough questions that go the other way as well. For example, when it comes to the olive tree in Romans 11 or the vine in John 15, the Calvinistic Credobaptists and Paedobaptists all agree that elect branches cannot be removed. But the non-elect branches . . . what are they being removed from? With that, on to the matter at hand.

James’ Central Objection: Destroys Apologetic Argument

James’ central objection to my claim that the Christian’s children are members of the new covenant is that holding such destroys Paul’s apologetic argument in Hebrews. (I will simply assume Pauline authorship here). James and I agree entirely on the apologetic argument being made. It is this: “Don’t go back to the old covenant because there is nothing to go back to.” Imagine we are back with Paul when Hebrews was being written. It is before the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. And Jim-Bob the Christian is wanting to go back to the old covenant, Judaizer style. He is being tempted to think that if he is going to really be saved, then he must go back to the old covenant with its animal sacrifices, circumcision, temple worship, etc. We know he’s in a bad way, you and I, so we tell him to knock it off. Why? Well, I agree entirely with James that the apologetic argument in Hebrews is that Jim-Bob can’t go back to the old covenant because there is nothing to go back to. 

In short, nothing I’ve proposed destroys the apologetic argument of Hebrews because I, with James and Paul, could have said loud and clear to Jim-Bob, “You can’t go back to the old covenant because there is nothing to go back to.”

There are three alternatives for not going back:

1. Don’t go back to the old covenant because it never saved in the first place and it is vanishing.

2. Don’t go back to the old covenant because the new covenant saves each and every one of its members, whereas the old only saved a few of its members, and the old is vanishing.

3. Don’t go back to the old covenant, for though it saved some of its members, it indeed is vanishing, and the new covenant is far better.

If I understand him rightly, James is number 2. I am number 3. And the 1689 federalists are number 1. 

But, I would simply point out that the central apologetic argument is intact: There’s no going back to the old covenant because there is nothing to go back to. As Paul writes, “In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away” (Hebrews 8:13).

James’ Objection Enlarged: Anything Coherent Left for Hebrews 10:10?

Now, my guess is that James is going to say, “Hold it right there my friend, there is more to the apologetic argument than the central truth that the old covenant is vanishing.” I would happily agree with him and add, “But you must admit that we both still have that central apologetic argument intact, yes?” And I trust Dr. White would smile and say, “Why Jared, I believe you are right on that. Well done. I mean, really, I am impressed.” Then we would go off and enjoy lunch at one of the lovely establishments here in Moscow, and I would avoid having to get into the weeds in this next section. But, alas, he brought up this Hebrews 10:10, so buckle up and say a prayer. 

Let me strong man James’ point here. It is thusly: Hebrews 10:10 says, “And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.”

First, (James would say) this speaks of a better sacrifice, the body of Jesus Christ, instead of the blood of bulls and goats. The new covenant involves the sacrifice of Christ Himself. You mean to tell me that the covenant which pertains to such a better sacrifice will not save all of its members, Bucko? (James wouldn’t really say Bucko. But I would if I were him, and I’m the one doing the strong manning, so take that). [better sacrifice]

Second, who in tarnation is the “we”? Do you mean to tell me that the “we” is a covenant people, only some of whom will go to heaven? Why does the text not say, “And by that will some of us have been sanctified and others of us not . . . “? [better people]

Third, zooming out a bit from this text, the context clearly speaks to better promises: “he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises” (Hebrews 8:6). But, you sprinklers of infants leave the new covenant promises no better than the old, for the promises of both, according to you, don’t secure each and every member. [better promises]

Fourth, that same Hebrews 8:6 says that Christ has “obtained a more excellent mediatorial ministry.” But, as with His sacrifice, shall this mediator, who is Christ Himself, not effectively mediate each and every one of His new covenant people unto salvation? If not, what makes His more excellent mediatorial ministry more excellent? [better mediatorial ministry]

Fifth, that same Hebrews 8:6 says that the new covenant Christ mediates is better. But, it does not seem that much better to me if you can slip out of this new covenant bond just like you could the old. [better covenant]

By way of summary, the apologetic argument (according to James as I understand him) is not merely that you should not go back to the old covenant, for there is nothing there to go back to. But it is also that you should not go back to the old covenant because the new covenant sacrifice is better, sanctifying each and every member (1), the new covenant people are better, each and every one of them being actively regenerate (2), the new covenant promises are better, ensuring the active regeneration of each and every member (3), the new covenant mediatorial ministry is better, ensuring that Christ mediates such that each and every new covenant member goes to heaven (4), and the new covenant itself is better, it being designed as a bond that cannot be unbonded by a single new covenant member (5). 

The question then is: “If you don’t affirm the five points above, how can you say anything coherent about the better sacrifice, people, promises, mediatorial ministry, and the new covenant itself? 

Thus far, the force of James’ argument. I told you covenant theology is complex. Now for a reply:

My Reply:

In short, we can indeed detail a coherent take on the better sacrifice, people, promises, mediatorial ministry, and the new covenant itself without having to claim the new covenant membership is made up of only the actively regenerate. “I’d like to see you try,” say the Credo brethren. OK, I will do my best, but do pray for me.

Before answering each point in turn, we must start with a definition of the covenant of grace itself. To keep it simple, let us call the covenant of grace God’s solemn oath of salvation in and by Jesus Christ, conditioned upon obedient faith, that bonds His people to one another and Himself. Note, both the Westminster Confession of Faith and the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith speak of this covenant of grace, so I think we’re on safe and common ground thus far. Anyone who has studied covenant theology a bit knows that I could add sacraments, blessings and curses, and a host of other dimensions to this covenant. I have simply stated a definition that is manageable and likely agreeable to most.

I should add that I take the old covenant and new covenant simply as different administrations of this one covenant of grace, something that 1689 federalism denies. And I’m not entirely sure where James is on this. But, I believe the substance of the covenant of grace I defined above is in both the old and new covenants, each of them having particularities that don’t do away with the substance.

Now for the points in turn, and I am going to take them in reverse order:

First, the new covenant is better than the old covenant, not because a single new covenant member cannot go out from the new covenant, but because the new covenant maintains a greater measure of the Spirit, greater liberty, greater clarity, and the cause and completion of our salvation arrives in the person of Christ. It is also better in that it will never vanish like the old, and this is the central point in the apologetic argument. More could be said. But this is pretty standard Reformed Paedobaptist talk on what makes the new covenant better. For example, Witsius says that people mistakenly assume that the old covenant did not provide salvation, circumcision of the heart, the law written on the heart, justification, adoption, and peace of conscience (The Economy of the Covenants, volume 2, chap. 12). Indeed, the old covenant (the old administration of the covenant of grace that is) provided all of those things. That old covenant did not, however, supply the greater potency of the Spirit, greater liberty, Christ in the flesh, and the completion of our salvation.

Second, Hebrews says that Christ has obtained a more excellent mediatorial ministry, and that indeed is the case. But it need not follow that each and every member in the new covenant that He mediates be actively regenerate. Paul makes plain wherein lies the superiority of his ministry, for he said of the Old Testament priests, “And they truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death: But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood” (Hebrews 7:23-24). That indeed signals a better mediatorial ministry. It is also in keeping with the central apologetic argument in Hebrews: “Don’t go back to the old covenant because there is nothing to go back to, and don’t go back to the old covenant priesthood because there is no old priesthood to go back to. But in Christ we have an unchangeable and better priesthood.” I can imagine a guy saying, “But, seriously, are you saying that Christ is the better mediator of the new covenant and He doesn’t mediate eternal life effectively to every member of that new covenant?” Well, yes, I am saying that. And one reason this point is hard to get across is that we think of Christ as merely a personal mediator, a point which I do not deny to the elect. But, the text says He is the “mediator of a better covenant” (Hebrews 8:6). In other words, it is no offense to Christ’s more excellent mediatorial ministry that some in the new covenant will not endure until the end for Christ mediates the new covenant according to its terms and conditions, not contrary its terms and conditions. And as seen above in the definition of the covenant of grace, that condition is obedient faith. 

Now, here arises a natural question, “But, isn’t the condition of faith a gift from God given in the new covenant?” Indeed. But that giving of faith, let’s call it God’s effectual call, is not identical to the covenant itself. Herein lies all the rub, honestly. If you were to look up “the new covenant” in the Credobaptist dictionary, it would be essentially the effectual call of God to an individual sinner that always gives new birth and eternal life to that individual. (They would build out that definition, of course, but this personal effectual call would be right at the heart of the very definition of the new covenant itself). Whereas, the Paedobaptist, generally speaking, who holds to this very same effectual call that the Credobaptist does, simply does not equate that effectual call with the new covenant itself. Rather, the new covenant is the instrument of God’s effectual call, and He is not skimpy with this effectual call in and through the new covenant. He works regeneration far and wide. Even so, effectual calling is not identical but intimately related to the new covenant. For further reading on this, see John Ball, the well-respected covenant theologian. He makes this important distinction in his “Treatise of the Covenant of Grace” pages 324ff. 

I might add here that this seems to me to line up with both the 1689 Baptist Confession and the Westminster Confession of Faith. They are identical in this regard. They both say that God made the covenant of grace “wherein he freely offereth unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of them faith in him, that they may be saved; and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto [eternal] life, his Holy Spirit, to make them willing and able to believe.” Notice that according to the language of the confession, faith is a required condition in the covenant of grace, and it is implied that not all but “those that are ordained unto eternal life” will be made willing and able to believe by God’s effectual call.

Summarizing this second point, Christ indeed has a better mediatorial ministry in the new covenant, but the superiority of His mediatorial ministry centers on Him being an unchangeable (Hebrews 7:24), undying priest who ministers from the heavenly tabernacle, not a mere earthly one (Hebrews 8:1-4). Thus His superior ministry simply does not require that each and every new covenant member be actively regenerate.

Third, the new covenant indeed is most certainly enacted on better promises, but it does not follow that one of those new promises is that each and every member of the new covenant is actively regenerate. Those new promises I have detailed in my “first” reply above. I would add that, while there are actually promises of the new covenant that are far better than the old (potency of the Spirit, the efficacy of Christ, the measure of faith in the covenant community, etc.), the key promise in view is a promise about the new covenant itself. Recall, as I noted in my first post, that the covenant is much more of a “league” or an “administration” (like a presidential administration) than most think. So a better promise pertaining to the new league or administration itself is that the new league will never fade away like the old one did. So we say to Jim-Bob, “The new covenant has a better promise concerning it, namely that it will never vanish. Are you really going to go back to the old covenant, which is vanishing? The old covenant doesn’t have that better promise.”

Fourth, the new covenant people, indeed, are better in a sense, but it is not because each and every member of the new covenant is actively regenerate. There are still those who go out from us for they are not of us (1 John 2:19), and those who trod under foot the Son of God after having received the knowledge of the truth, and count the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified an unholy thing and outrage the Spirit of grace (Hebrews 10:29). But, this new covenant people do have a greater measure of faith for the Spirit has been poured out on them at Pentecost in a more potent way than He was before. While we still have plenty of growing to do, the people of God have gone from being but a child to a grown man (Galatians 4:1-7). 

I did raise a very particular question when strong manning this point above, namely, “Who in tarnation is the “we” in Hebrews 10:10?” In other words, does Jesus sanctify this whole new covenant people, even the ones who the Paedobaptists claim are not among those who will end up in heaven? The answer is yes, Christ does sanctify them, and, of course, the sense of this sanctification is very important. Most people only think of sanctification as a logical step in the ordo salutis that follows regeneration and justification, which, once possessed, can never be lost. If this is all one understands by “sanctification,” then he is going to think my claim quite inconceivable. But there are other kinds of sanctification. Most admit this given Paul’s testimony that the children of a believing parent are “holy” (1 Corinthians 7:14). That “holiness” is the kind of holiness in view in our Hebrews text. I stand with John Owen on this point. He explains that this “sanctification” in Hebrews 10:10 is simply not the “sanctification” one learns in an ordo salutis soteriology lecture in the second year of seminary. 

Owen writes of this verse, “The principal notion of sanctification in the New Testament, is the effecting of real, internal holiness in the persons of them that do believe, by the change of their hearts and lives. But the word is not here so to be restrained, nor is it used in that sense by our apostle in this epistle, or very rarely.”[1] What this sanctification entails requires an analysis of our forthcoming and fifth point. For now, let’s say that this sanctification refers to a setting apart of the whole new covenant people of God unto a holiness that they did not have under the first administration. This new and better holiness involves the potency of the Holy Spirit poured out at Pentecost, a nearness to God through the Godman crucified and risen that was unknown to the old covenant people, and a complete removal of sin (even from the account of Christ) by His death. With that, we turn to the fifth point.

Fifth, Christ’s sacrifice of Himself indeed is far better than the old covenant sacrifices of bulls and goats. But it does not follow that the new covenant, to which the blood of Christ pertains, consists of only regenerate members. Again, if you merely think of Christ dying for you as an individual, then my point will be incomprehensible. He manifestly did die for individuals. That bears repeating: Christ died for individuals. But he also died for a bride, as the good old hymn “The Church’s One Foundation” says—”with His own blood He bought her and for her life He died.” In other words, His blood was the “blood of the new covenant” (Matthew 26:28). That blood operates according to the terms and conditions of the covenant. If members of the covenant do not walk by faith, then they will not receive the benefits purchased by Christ’s blood. 

So, “How is Christ’s blood better than bull’s blood,” you ask? Bull’s blood could not take away sin (Hebrews 10:4). Indeed, bull’s blood was a reminder of sin (Hebrews 10:3). But, this does not mean that bull’s blood was a reminder to the Old Testament saints of sin that was still in their account. By faith, they received the virtue and efficacy of Christ’s redemption back then, their sins being taken from their account and placed on Christ’s account. So there those sins were, sitting in Christ’s account. Then, when Christ came, His blood actually paid for those sins such that now they are not even in Christ’s account. Thus, this sacrifice of Christ is once for all. As James mentions, this is not once and for all people; it is once and for all time. In the new covenant, these sins have been blotted out entirely by Christ’s blood such that God says, “And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more. Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin” (Hebrews 10:17-18). 

God remembers our sins no more because there are no more sins in any account to remember. Bull blood couldn’t do that, for the law only had a shadow of the good things to come and not the very image of them. So the sacrifices could not make the old covenant people perfect (Hebrews 10:1). Thus, the Old Testament saints still had remembrance of sins (Hebrews 9:14; 10:2-3). But, this was temporary, for Christ has died, canceling sin completely, making us perfect, and doing away with sin such that there is no more remembrance of them.

Thus the true logic: Don’t go back to bull sacrifices, for while they served as a means to communicate the virtue and efficacy of Christ’s redemption to Israel (WCF 8.6; 2LBC 8.6), they certainly did not cancel sin entirely. Only Christ’s sacrifice can take away sin. And if you leave Christ’s sacrifice, Jim-Bob, to go back to bull and goat blood, there won’t be any sacrifice left for sin (Hebrews 10:26). The old sacrifices are vanishing, and the new once-for-all all sacrifice of Christ’s body is all that remains.

In summary, the claim that the Christian’s children are in the new covenant indeed involves the further claim that not each and every member of the new covenant is actively regenerate. But it does not follow that this claim destroys the apologetic argument of Hebrews. You could build quite a case for telling Jim-Bob not to go back to the old covenant, indeed an argument in keeping with just what Paul is saying in the text.

Scatter Shot

James asks, “Who does Christ intercede for in the new covenant?” Answer: All new covenant members, and as clarified above, He does so according to the conditions of the covenant, not contrary to those conditions. In other words, He intercedes for all the fish in the net of His kingdom (Matthew 13:47-50). At the same time, He intercedes for the good fish in the net in a way He does not intercede for the bad fish in the net.

He also asks, “What does Christ mediate in the new covenant?” Answer: He mediates the covenant. The Father’s solemn oath of life to man on earth is an oath “in and by Jesus Christ” and conditioned upon obedient faith. I should add this “obedient faith” condition is not legalism, much less FV redux. See John Ball, the Westminster trusted and beloved covenant theologian on covenant conditions. He puts obedience right there as a condition of the covenant.

James states, “This covenant (the new covenant) brings about regeneration, and not in the minority.” Response: I agree, as noted above.

James indicates that the new covenant actually establishes a relationship between God and the covenant members. Reply: I agree, a covenantal relationship for all and a living, internal, personal relationship for the elect.

James says, “The new covenant is salvific.” Reply: I agree, and so was the old. Clarifications on the nature of that salvation must be made from there, and many of them are made above.

James acknowledges the Paedobaptist argument regarding the eschatological nature of Jeremiah’s prophecy. This eschatological argument claims that the “regenerate church” the Credobaptists are after will indeed come about in the end. But James says that this eschatological argument means the new covenant was not fully established. Reply: I disagree with James that it follows that the New Covenant would then not be fully established. I agree with the Paedobaptist eschatological argument and would say the new covenant is fully established but not fully consummated. 

James emphasizes the individual at points. And I agree with the emphasis, but want to include the corporate along with the individual. See O. Palmer Robertson’s Christ of the Covenants on both the individual and corporate dimensions of the new covenant. 

The Highest of High Fives to My Friend James White

In conclusion, much thanks to James. The topic of covenant is a whole bunch of fun. Much love to all, whether you’re Credo of Paedo. I will leave you with a word of wisdom from Pastor Doug’s benediction just this last Sunday at Christ Church. He said that covenant theology is like a lovely fireplace, the intricacies and details can be quite striking. But, whatever your fireplace, the essential thing is that you have a fire in it. And the fire is Christ. Here’s to having all of our covenantal conversations around the fire.

[1] John Owen, An Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews, ed. W. H. Goold, vol. 23, Works of John Owen (Edinburgh: Johnstone and Hunter, 1854), 478.

The post For James White, About Those Children in the New Covenant appeared first on REFORMATION & REVIVAL.