Jared Longshore's Blog, page 30

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.

Are Your Children Members of the New Covenant?

Everyone is agreed that Abraham’s children were members of the covenant God made with him. Genesis 17:7 makes that much plain, “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.” Now, this covenant was one in which God promised to be God to him, as well as his shield and reward (Genesis 15:1). These promises were covenanted to the children, and the whole matter was made plain and clear with a covenant sign: This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; 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.”

But, many claim that the new covenant is so unlike the Abrahamic covenant that the natural children are no longer included as members. This argument is that there was a genealogical principle in the Abrahamic covenant that does not carry over to the New Covenant. The chief text of Scripture supplied as support for this claim is Jeremiah 31:31-34. God says through the prophet— 

Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, That I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers In the day that I took them by the hand To bring them out of the land of Egypt; Which my covenant they brake, Although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord: But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, And write it in their hearts; And will be their God, And they shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: For they shall all know me, From the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord: For I will forgive their iniquity, And I will remember their sin no more. 

The argument then runs as follows. The Old Covenant which God made with Abraham and Israel included natural children and Israel broke that covenant. The New Covenant will be different in that it is not made with natural children but spiritual children (only those who are regenerated unto saving faith) and thus it will not be broken as the Old. Moreover, there will be no need for every man to tell his brother to know the LORD for each and every one in this New Covenant is regenerated unto saving faith. There are no unregenerate covenant members in the New Covenant as there was in the Old back in the days of Abraham, Moses, and David.

Not only can I see how someone could hold to this line of thinking, I myself did hold to it for some time, albeit with a variety of modifications, clarifications, and attendant arguments. Indeed for me making points like the one in this post is an exercise in what Chesterton once said: “If this book is a joke it is a joke against me. I am the man who with the utmost daring discovered what had been discovered before. . . . No one can think my case more ludicrous than I think it myself; no reader can accuse me here of trying to make a fool of him: I am the fool of this story, and no rebel shall hurl me from my throne.”[1] 

Indeed for some time, I considered the various biblical promises God made to His people’s children in the Old Testament as promises God made to Israel and their offspring and in some general sense similar promises were made to New Covenant members and their offspring. I could not say with confidence that they were covenant promises from God to covenant children in the New Covenant for I was convinced that New Covenant membership necessitated regeneration. I was not prepared to claim the active regeneration of my infant so I was not ready to recognize either their New Covenant membership nor the biblical promises above as being vouchsafed to them by Christ’s blood. I took these promises as announced to the Christian’s children, even promises made to such children in a special way given their presence in a Christian home. But I did not take them as promises stuck to them, promises from God signed and sealed upon them. But that is what they are. They are not promises potentially made to your seed or promises merely announced like a general gospel call to the world. They are promises covenantally made, indeed, promises vouchsafed to your children by the blood of Christ. They are sworn oaths of blessing made to your children in a particular way for they are covenant children and the promises are to them, and fulfilled by faith. 

But what about the Jeremiah 31 objection above? I believe the objection I detailed above simply straps too much on the back of Jeremiah. He is a strong prophet, but if we load the stated objection on his shoulders, then we weigh him down with more of an argument than he can bear. Really, we must take it easier on him. The objection claims that Jeremiah 31 proves that each and every New Covenant member is regenerate at this very moment when Jeremiah’s point is that the New Covenant will be better than the Old. Particularly, the New Covenant will be better in that it will not be broken as the Old was, it consists of God’s law being written on the heart of his covenant people, and it will be far more efficacious and potent in the lives of the covenant people. 

Broken

Regarding the New Covenant not being broken, Jeremiah’s point is not that an individual covenant member cannot break covenant with God in the New Covenant. Rather, his point is that the New Covenant itself will not be broken. The Old Covenant as a whole was broken such that it came to an end (2 Cor. 3:11). Think of the administration of the new covenant like a presidential administration, say the Washington or Jefferson administration. Jeremiah is not saying that a card-carrying member of the Jefferson administration cannot resign his membership and leave it. He is saying that administration itself is never going to fade away like the old one did. 

On the Heart

Concerning God’s law written on the heart in the New Covenant, Jeremiah speaks to the degree of the Spirit’s power and efficaciousness upon the New Covenant people. He does not imply that the saints under the old administration of the covenant of grace were saved without the work of the Spirit upon the heart. Calvin, for example, writes, “A question may however be here moved, Was the grace of regeneration wanting to the Fathers under the Law? But this is quite preposterous.”[2] He places the difference not as to the substance of the Spirit, but the form or degree of the Spirit—“Then we know that this grace of God was rare and little known under the Law; but that under the Gospel the gifts of the Spirit have been more abundantly poured forth, and that God has dealt more bountifully with his Church.”[3] 

Calvin tracks with this distinction between substance and form throughout his exegesis: 

He afterwards says, I will put my Law in their inward parts. By these words he confirms what we have said, that the newness, which he before mentioned, was not so as to the substance, but as to the form only: for God does not say here, “I will give you another Law,” but I will write my Law, that is, the same Law, which had formerly been delivered to the Fathers. He then does not promise anything different as to the essence of the doctrine, but he makes the difference to be in the form only.[4] 

In other words, whether you believe there is one covenant of grace in substance which has undergone a significant renovation in form and structure with the coming of Christ, or you believe there has been two separate covenants, the old housing the natural family and the new merely individuals who are marked by active regeneration, makes a big difference. 

Shall All Know Me

The greater efficaciousness and potency of the New Covenant is seen in Jeremiah’s language—“they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord’” (Jer. 31:34). Jeremiah here speaks hyperbolically. His point is not that the substance of the New Covenant is different such that each and every New Covenant member is regenerate, opposed to the Old when that was not the case. Rather, Jeremiah amplifies the point that the New Covenant manifests God and his truth far more brightly than the Old. Again, Calvin writes, 

Here is mentioned another difference between the old and the new covenant, even that God, who had obscurely manifested himself under the Law, would send forth a fuller light, so that the knowledge of him would be commonly enjoyed. But he hyperbolically extols this favour, when he says that no one would have need of a teacher or instructor, as every one would have himself sufficient knowledge. We therefore consider that the object of the Prophet is mainly to shew, that so great would be the light of the Gospel, that it would be clearly evident, that God under it deals more bountifully with his people, because its truth shines forth as the sun at noon-day.[5]Indeed, God deals more bountifully with his covenant people in the New Covenant, not less bountifully. The fact that God told Abraham to place the sign of the covenant upon his children is a testimony that his children were included in God’s covenant with him. Does it not stand to reason that in the more bountiful covenant, the children would likewise be included? 

[1] G. K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy (Chicago, IL: Moody Publishers, 2009), 23. 

[2] John Calvin and John Owen, Commentaries on the Prophet Jeremiah and the Lamentations, vol. 4 (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2010), 131. 

[3] Ibid., 131.

[4] Ibid., 131–32. 

[5] Ibid., 134. 

The post Are Your Children Members of the New Covenant?  appeared first on REFORMATION & REVIVAL.

Endure Hardness

Paul told Timothy that he must endure hardness as a good soldier of Jesus Christ. And this is an exhortation that we need to hear regularly.

It is far too easy for us to forget that we are at war. Scripture makes this point often. But it can still surprise us. The kingdom of God has not yet been consummated. So, we still live in the time of Christ’s advance and the world’s resistance. It is easy to forget this point when you live in such a blessed community. So don’t make the mistake that is often made by very good high school football teams. They crush the competition without much of a fight. And this is great for what it is worth, but good coaches start to get nervous. He knows that what the boys really need is to face an opponent who is taller, stronger, and faster than them.

Here’s the application. Don’t make the mistake of thinking that implementing the principles of Scripture in your life is going to be easy. “Ah, but we’re postmill,” you say. Yes, and that is wonderful. But the advances we make in postmillennialism are much more like the advances we made in the D-day invasion than they are the advances one makes down a lazy river.

We are in a war. You are a good soldier of Jesus Christ. And that means you must endure hardship. You must suffer distress, pain, and loss. 

But, as you endure hard things, remember that they are not pointless. You suffer as a soldier in the kingdom of God. And that kingdom is coming in power on earth as it is in heaven. As the Puritans would say, “The way down is the way up, to bear the cross is to wear the crown.”

The post Endure Hardness appeared first on REFORMATION & REVIVAL.

A Word About Me and Joe Rigney Prompting a Jim Hamilton Bible Study

Jim Hamilton, a Southern Baptist pastor and professor at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, released the audio of a church-wide bible study that he did at Kenwood Baptist Church in Louisville, Kentucky. He addressed the themes of postmillennialism, theonomy, and the serrated edge, marking disagreements with each. He was very clear about why he was doing this church-wide bible study. One of the reasons was because of me and Joe Rigney, “Baptists who defected and joined team Doug Wilson,” according to Jim. You can hear Jim spelling this out in the first few minutes of his bible study. Evidently, there are other Baptists in Jim’s orbit who are in danger of defecting, so the messaging is, “Don’t defect like Rigney and Longshore did.

Now, I have only listened to Jim’s bible study on postmillennialism. But, given that he named me and that I spent many a year there in Louisville at Southern Seminary, it seems fitting that I should say a few words about this little encounter.

A Bit of Scattershot

Let me start with a shotgun blast, as several things need to be said:

First, praise the Lord for pastors like Jim, who will tell their sheep, “I don’t think this is good, and here’s why.” I worshipped with the saints at Kenwood Baptist Church one Sunday when visiting Louisville to study at Southern Seminary, and it was a lovely time. 

Second, the best part was Jim calling Christians to be manly, full-human beings with the Southern Seminary flavor of “roast coffee and use fountain pens.” This made me recall my old friend Don Whitney shaming any non-fountain pen as a mere “writing stick” when I was back at Southern. I commend the sentiment and say to my Southern Seminary brethren, “Roast on, write on, we’re gaining ground.”

Third, it is intriguing to me that SBC leaders and other evangelical leaders think that men adopting postmillennialism are “joining team Doug Wilson.” This would also be team B. H. Carroll (the first president of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary), team Jonathan Edwards, and team a host of other puritans and reformers. I understand that there is still quite a line drawn between Moscow and much of the Reformed and Evangelical world. But I would note here how silly and artificial that line is. The silliness is quite obvious when a professor at Southern Seminary characterizes becoming a postmillennialist, a long-standing and widely held position in the history of the church, as “joining team Doug Wilson.” 

Fourth, I have been a postmillennialist for over twelve years or so, including my time at Southern. This was not a peculiar position. I sense there are droves of Reformed credo/paedo folks who hold to or lean toward postmillennialism. For an encouraging read see: “The Puritan Hope” by Iain Murray. 

Fifth, the preterist interpretation of the Olivet Discourse Jim addressed is, likewise, not a funky Moscow or Canon Press thing. I learned the preterist interpretation of Matthew 24 years ago from the likes of R. C. Sproul and Marcellus Kik. See: “An Eschatology of Victory” by Marcellus Kik.

Sixth, I understand why Jim speaks of “Baptists who defected.” It fits the Baptist theological paradigm and the pure church sentiments embedded in that tradition. The rock-ribbed Baptist position would not permit Jonathan Edwards, Samuel Rutherford, J. C. Ryle, or R. C. Sproul to become members of their churches. I knew all of this when I was a Reformed Baptist, so I’m not crying foul. Just a note to say it isn’t the same from the other direction. Baptists are “on team” as far as we are concerned.

Seventh, The CREC Council recently reaffirmed that we are a Communion of Reformed and Evangelical Churches, including Baptist Churches. And this unity is indeed another piece of evidence supporting postmillennialism. 

The Mojo

Jim’s take is that many men are adopting postmillennialism and other doctrines, not because of the Bible verses, but because of a mojo. I think the doctrinal changes are much more due to the widespread availability of good teaching made available by podcasts, blogs, and media like Canon+. Nevertheless, Jim is concerned about a fanboy problem. And I at least agree that this is a thing to watch out for. But, the mojo problem is a danger that lurks in every direction. You can bet that there are men walking around Southern Seminary who insist others have changed their theology because of a certain “man,” namely Doug Wilson. So, “Don’t join team Doug Wilson” is one of the messages writ large. 

But these same men partake in an institution where one can obtain a President Al Mohler bobblehead doll. There is a Ph.D. lounge at Southern, with a tightly governed passcode for entry. This lounge sits atop the fourth floor of the stately Boyce Library and overlooks a perfectly manicured lawn the length of a couple of football fields. You get there by passing Charles Spurgeon’s Bible encased in glass. Southern has a fancy store just across that lawn where seminarians can purchase both the wax and a wax seal stamp with Southern’s emblem on it, along with fountain pens north of $800, and a tie that is mapped off of the one that Al Mohler is going to be buried in.

Now that is some mojo. 

I’ll be honest with you, I am all for well-manicured lawns and I have no problem whatever with special lofty spots where the PhDs can do their research. I actually think it is all quite fun and would happily go back to Louisville for a visit to trod that ground again with friends. But I do want to check the notion that the only mojo you should watch out for is what is coming out of Moscow.

Genuine Differences

Now to the nub of the issue. Jim is highlighting real differences that exist within the Bride of Christ. We should thank God for our unity while taking note of these differences. Postmillennialism, general equity theonomy, and the serrated edge, for that matter, stem from an approach to the Christian faith that is concerned with all things of earth. It is not earthly-minded. But this approach does look for the kingdom of God to come on earth as it is in heaven, as our Lord taught us to pray. Jim made clear that he believes our Father will only answer this prayer after the final coming of our Lord. I disagree. And that disagreement results in different approaches to the Christian life, including Christian ministry, worship and sacraments, and family. 

If the Southern Baptist flavor errs, it errs by leaving the faith in the upper story, a practice that Francis Schaeffer warned about. Quite frankly, that error is leading to the devouring of our society and the Christian gospel. Granted, if postmillennialism, theonomy, and the serrated edge err, they do so by becoming worldly (the danger Jim is likely worried about). 

The fact is, we are talking about these things now because the world has gone mad, and the saints are rediscovering that Augustine’s City of God was embedded in the city of man, not simply up in Plato’s realm of the forms.

A while back, I wrote on three different futures for your Christian community: Separatist Pietism, Defensive Evangelicalism, and Reformed Kuyperianism. It is clear that the Southern Baptists and Southern Seminary toggle between the first two options. The third position, the one I commend, involves the principles that Jim is concerned about, and those principles have become very appealing. Given these developments, I have a very simple encouragement to those who are taking note of things.

Do Work Through It

My encouragement, as my friend Timon Cline puts it, is to do the reading. Do work through the issues. Some men have studied and become convinced of historic premillennialism. Others are convinced of an approach to civil government that claims secularism is just as good as Christendom, as Scott Aniol recently announced. If you have worked through things and landed, then good on you. We are all brothers and very much on team together. But, others are pressured by comments like, “Longshore and Rigney defected” and “for Pete’s sake if you adopt an optimistic view of the kingdom’s advance, you are joining that naughty man from Moscow who burns couches in November.”

They hear, “Bad! Bad! Bad!” But then they realize that R. C. Sproul, the man all over their bookshelves, held to the preterist interpretation of the Olivet Discourse. And then they start to wonder why Calvin, Owen, and Edwards, along with loads of the other godly Puritans and reformers, held to a Christian faith that proclaimed Christ is Lord of all, including the public square and the civil magistrate. 

We have extended several invitations to those who have spoken up as of late with concerns on these matters and the related one of Christian Nationalism. The invitation is to come sit down and talk these things over. The response has been along the lines of, “I am not able to engage in a public conversation,” and “I don’t think there is much of an advantage in doing so.” Even so, the invitation remains. This is the lot of the matter: As we have pulled down deep heaven on our heads, God has given us an opportunity to look good and hard at Scripture. So, “To the law and to the testimony: If they speak not according to this word, It is because there is no light in them” (Isaiah 8:20).

The post A Word About Me and Joe Rigney Prompting a Jim Hamilton Bible Study appeared first on REFORMATION & REVIVAL.

For the People Had a Mind to Work

Nehemiah tells us that the Jewish returned exiles finished the wall, even in the face of Sanballat’s mockery, because the people had a mind to work. They didn’t seem to care that Sanballat was over there saying, “What do these feeble Jews think they are doing? Will they rebuild out of the heaps of rubbish which are burned?” And Tobiah added, “Even if a fox went up on the wall, he would break it down.”
 
We love the story. But we can’t simply love it in theory. What do you do when you are working on a project that really does need improvement? How do you respond when the wall you are building starts to wobble and your fellow brick-layer starts to look like he’s dreaming about how nice he had it back in Babylon?
 
Everyone wants to be the guy who lays the last brick on the unshakeable fortress. Everyone wants to enjoy the protection of the fortresses’ high walls. Everybody wants to play for the Chicago Bulls in the ’90s Michael Jordan era when all of the three-pointers seemed to fall, and the wins came easy. But there is a world of difference between wanting to cultivate a lovely family, church, or community and simply wanting to live in one. Working and keeping the garden is not the same thing as eating its fruits.
 
God has called us to build and fight in the day of adversity. And Proverbs 24:10 says, “If thou faint in the day of adversity, Thy strength is small.”
 
So here is your exhortation: Fear not wobbles in the wall. But do fix them, having a mind to work. Pay attention, stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong.

The post For the People Had a Mind to Work appeared first on REFORMATION & REVIVAL.

The Missing Covenant and the Disintegration of the Gospel-Centered Movement

I have seen a few posts cross the line covering the dissolution of the gospel-centered movement. There was this very good one from Jamie Brambrick that emphasized the lack of God’s law in the gospel-centered movement. Toby Sumpter noted that some have objected to Brambrck’s take, since Piper, Mohler, and others affirm the third use of the law. But, Toby writes, “COVID showed how flimsy that understanding was.” Very true. Then there is the very fine piece from Stephen Wolfe that signals the downturn involved the “politics-as-witness model” meeting Aaron Renn’s “negative world.”

I find both Brambrick’s take and Wolfe’s to be stirring. They are hitting on topics and history that I lived through, up close and personal. Brambrick points out the problem of neglecting the law. As I listened to him, I recalled all of the trips I took up to Southern Seminary to complete seminary studies. Back then, I was already squared away on the third use of the law, and there was a good deal of hesitation about the law of God there in Louisville. I remember thoroughly marking up a book by Jason Meyer while taking the plane home from Louisville after a week of classes. That book was called, The End of the Law: Mosaic Covenant in Pauline Theology. I believe this work was his dissertation. Shortly after my flight with his book, in which I kept arguing with Meyer about his take on the end of the law, he became the pastor of Bethlehem Baptist Church. As I saw Bethlehem deal with a rise of wokeness, I could not help but think that there was a connection between the neglect of God’s law and the inroads made by the social justice movement at Bethlehem. 

Likewise, on the political front, Wolfe noted the misdeeds of Russell Moore and other evangelical elites. We used to hammer these misdoings quite thoroughly when I was back in the Southern Baptist Convention. I still remember when the Founders Ministries “By What Standard” trailer dropped. The internet did a thing, and nearly everyone out there was calling me and Tom Ascol racists, misogynists, haters, and any other naughty title that could be cooked up. All of the members of the Founders board resigned in the wake of that “By What Standard” trailer and there was a bit of a lonely road to walk for a while before the tide turned and it became easier and even advantageous to stand against the woke. We have been in that new season now for a couple few years. But, I remember the time when pointing out the woke compromises of “the evangelical elite” was uncommon and risky. 

By the way, that documentary is downright fantastic. It is free, informative, and a testimony to the genius of The Chocolate Knox. There is also a book that I edited by the same name, which addresses key themes in the film. You can get a copy here.

These two themes taken up by Brambrick and Wolfe go a long way to explain why the gospel-centered movement dissolved. But they leave me with a theological itch to scratch. We desperately need a recovery of the third use of the law and a robust and faithful political theology. But undergirding those two recoveries, we need a foundational recovery. That is a recovery of the covenant, the covenant mind, covenant theology, the covenant of grace, and its implications. Much needs to be said about this covenant, more than I can put into this article. But I would at least like to sketch it from 10,000 feet.

The Missing Covenant

Take Doug’s recent post as a leaping-off point to get the blood circulating. He writes, “The collapse of the gospel-centered movement was not due to their center. It was the result of a refusal to define the circumference. The gospel as the center of what exactly?”

I honestly don’t know what Doug would say to the question, “OK, Doug, so what is the circumference?” But that question makes me think of both the 2nd London Baptist Confession and the Westminster Confession of Faith on the doctrine of covenant. Notice the language:

“Man by his fall having made himself incapable of life by that covenant, the Lord was pleased to make a second, commonly called the covenant of grace: wherein He freely offered 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 life, His Holy Spirit, to make them willing and able to believe.” (WCF 7.3 and 2LBC 7.2)

A striking thing about both of the confessions is that they indicate the gospel (indeed the gospel’s center) is found “in” God’s covenant of grace. What is the circumference of the gospel’s center? It is the covenant of grace. Look again at that section from the confession. God freely offers unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of them faith that they may be saved. That is the kind of message that you would hear at Together for the Gospel, and in that message, we rejoice. But where is that offer made? It is made in God’s covenant of grace.

The reformed like to talk about that covenant. We have covenant promises, covenant children, covenant churches, and covenant coffee roasters. But as soon as you ask what this covenant of grace actually is, you can get a good many responses with several different flavors. Even so, it is an important study. The word “covenant” appears nearly 300 times in the Old Testament, and over 30 times in the New Testament. Here is a definition of the covenant of grace, followed by three key themes found therein, which the gospel-center movement lacked, and thus collapsed.

The covenant of grace is the Heavenly Father’s solemn oath to man on earth of grace in and by Jesus Christ that constitutes a legal and relational bond in blood, a community, and/or an organization over and to which God says, “I am your (plural) God and you (plural) are my people.” 

First, 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 the gospel flying overhead at 10,000 feet. It is not a covenant up in the heavens. A covenant is cut on earth. 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 is a reminder that covenants originate with God in heaven and they are executed down here on earth with man.

One of the problems with the gospel-centered movement was that it didn’t have enough earth in it. It didn’t go thwack. It didn’t put feet to pavement. A recovery of the covenant fixes that problem.

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” like 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. In fact, 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 in that instance. 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. Note, God makes promises to individuals. I’m not disputing that he does so. I’m saying that to reduce covenant to such a notion is to do injustice to the covenant idea.

This second point answers the problem of atomization in the gospel-centered movement. The plan was to be “Together for the Gospel” and a “Gospel Coalition.” But how serious was that togetherness? How tight was that coalition? It fractured in part because there was no objective covenant acknowledged which binds the saints together.

Third, the covenant of grace maintains an eschatological orientation. It is not a static thing. It is the solemn oath of grace 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. This covenant community grows. It fills the whole earth as the knowledge of the Lord covers the earth as the waters cover the sea. The kingdom of God advances and that kingdom is a covenanted kingdom.

This eschatological orientation was also lacking in the gospel-centered movement. It didn’t quite know where it was heading in this world. It was very American and evangelical in that regard. I remember attending Billy Graham’s last crusade in Raymond James Stadium in Tampa Bay, Florida. There are similar themes between Billy’s evangelistic preaching and what the gospel-centered movement was up to. Both preached Christ, and for that we are thankful. But neither developed the truth of Christ as the Second Adam who has come to constitute a new, redeemed humanity that would exercise dominion to the ends of the earth, teaching the nations to obey all that Christ has commanded. Here again, the doctrine of the covenant comes with blessings in its hand.

Much more needs to be said on this subject. I said some of those things in my recent book The Case for the Christian Family.

The post The Missing Covenant and the Disintegration of the Gospel-Centered Movement appeared first on REFORMATION & REVIVAL.