I’m tired.

Can I ask you something? Are you a cessationist or a continuationist? I don’t want to have an argument, I won’t think anything bad, I appreciate very much both cessationist and continuationist theologians. I ask only to know.

Blessings

I commend your decision to leave the church, under those circumstances, and look for another. In order to grow in unity and maturity, I think it is vital that we have the courage to contend for doctrines which are thoroughly grounded in the scriptures. And I do not see those doctrines you mentioned as minor: they strike at the heart of God’s free grace, the very foundation of the gospel — and, if left unchecked, may pervert the gospel into that which is not the gospel at all.

At the same time, I appreciate your desire to be humble, meek, and loving, and patient in your defence of these and other important matters. May the Spirit empower you to grow in these doctrines, to aid others around you in their doctrinal growth, and to be ready to be corrected by others whenever they bring the scritpures to bear on any point of discussion. If one should refuse to hear, it is not the wiser or more loving thing to see that as a reason for silence. That may result in a superficial appearance of unity, but in the process, the path to real Christian unity will be obstructed.

Love in Christ, Nathan

Do you think that they are minor points too? Do you think I should have accepted their condition?

Now I am striving to be equipped to learn better about the the doctrines of grace, so called…because I want the church around me to well understand and profess these precious truths. I am attending a congregation where these points are not refused, but not strongly affirmed, yet. At least, I can speak and say what I think, I can serve them, step by step, giving them studies for examples, being very patient…And I want to do that wherever I find a professing Christian, but I learn to be patient, and striving to avoiding sectarism, pride, and things like that…

Blessings

Francesco De Lucia

I was finally able to read your article: you made a lot of good points, and for the most part I agree with you. There are a couple of things that I see differently (which I’ll get to in a minute), but I would definitely say we’re in the same camp. Some of the points that I particularly appreciated are as follows:

1. You are clearly against the Dispensational idea of an ongoing distinction between Israel and the church as two peoples of God. That is vital.

2. You fully appreciate the typological nature of Israel’s national form, history, etc.

3. You reject the commonly accepted threefold division of the law, as do I (although most Covenant Theologians [as I would label myself] argue for that division). I would agree that there seems to be no basis for it in Paul’s way of speaking.

4. You recognize that the Mosaic Covenant is different from others, such as the Abrahamic and New, in that it alone was designed to be impermanent (as per Jeremiah 31, Hebrews 8:13).

5. You acknowledge that the Holy Spirit was active in regenerating the Old Testament saint, but allow for some definite advance in the days of the New Covenant (such as his permanent indwelling of all believers). I am not sure what to think of his indwelling of OT believers, but I am certain that he has always regenerated every true believer; and yet his work did change dramatically beginning at Pentecost.

6. You are at least open to the Covenant of Redemption idea from John 17. I would agree that John 17 (as well as other passages throughout that gospel, Psalm 2, etc.) definitely indicates that this is a biblical concept.

As far as points of difference, I would suggest the following:

1. Your contention that, in the New Covenant all members are true believers, and that, therefore, the New Covenant is different from what went before (in particular, the way you use the idea to support credo-baptism), is too ambiguous. Yes, Jeremiah 31 states that, in contradistinction to the Old Covenant, New Covenant members would have God’s law written on their hearts — but what was the Old Covenant contrasted with the New? That which was given on Sinai. The Abrahamic Covenant, just as certainly as the New, was given in a way that demands the true regeneracy of all who are partakers of it. Those who are in the Ab. Cov. are God’s people and he is their God. However, there was a set of criteria given by which to determine whether or not to recognize someone formally as a member of the covenant, which was broader than the set of those who were essential, inward partakers. Romans 11 seems to indicate that this is also the status of the New Covenant. Those who are formally incorporated into the covenant, if they prove to be unbelievers, will be broken off. Those who are true partakers of the Abrahamic Covenant were a subset of those who were formally partakers. That this is still the case today is indicated by the parables of the wheat and tares, dragnet of fishes, etc. One more point: the fact is very clear (as you recognized) that the Ab. Cov. was given as a permanent covenant. Which would mean that the New Cov. is not an entirely different covenant, one that replaces the Abrahamic — it is just a new administration of the Ab. Cov. It is the Ab. Cov. in the days of fulfillment, not just the days of promise.

2. The main point in which I would disagree is your contention that the church is not in the OT. Israel was not merely an earthly picture of the spiritual realities that would later be given to the church. Outward Israel typified the true Israel which actually enjoyed those spiritual realities that were typified. Many Israelities may have experienced no true spiritual blessings, but were content with physical sacrifices, physical land, etc. But true Israelites, such as David, rejoiced in the physical blessings predominantly because they recognized the spiritual realities that they pormised. David rejoiced at the animal sacrifices because he looked ahead to the resurrection of Christ and the non-imputation of sin. Abraham was pleased to wander in the promised land, because he looked ahead to a heavenly city. In other words, true Israel reached beyond the types and embraced Christ and his cross, the fulfillment of all the types. And this true Israel was the same church that we as believers in Jesus are today.

3. Your rejection of the Covenant of Grace is my last point of disagreement. I would contend that God gave to Adam a covenant of works in the garden — which he failed to keep. In response, God devolved the Covenant of works upon the coming promised Seed of the Woman, his own Son, and offered again to Adam the blessings of that Covenant — but this time, without the necessity of works, only of believeing in the Mediator who would come to fulfill the works Adam had abrogated. This was the Covenant of Grace, and it is the heart of all subsequent scripture. While I recognize (in contradistinction to many Covenant Theologians) that the Mosaic administration was temporary, from texts such as Jeremiah 31 and Hebrews 8, I also recognize that, at the same time the impermanent covenant of law-fulfillment was given, the ongoing gospel-promise of grace was reaffirmed for those who would trust in the coming Rdeemer. In other words, the law, which came 430 years after, could not negate the covenant of grace, i.e. the permanent covenant first made with Adam, and coming to its definitive form with Abraham. The end of the Bible, Rev. 21, is simply a look ahead to the final fulfillment of the covenant made with (fallen) Adam, and definitized with Abraham. Galatians 3 and Romans 10 are two texts which lead me to affirm that, contemporarily with the giving of the impermanent covenant of law, the permanent covenant of grace was reaffirmed for those who had hearts to look to Christ.

I guess I’ve rambled enough. Thanks for the link. Your article was helpful. In spite of my differences, I think I am in basic agreement with the majority of what you had to say. God bless.

Nathan and Matt,

Your points are excellent and necessary — and I’m not sure how to respond. It’s somewhat baffling to me how Paul can respond so differently in what seem to be very similar situations. How, for instance, can he “be as under the law to the Jews,” (I Corinthians 9), and yet say that, if you are circumcised then Christ profits you nothing, and if you are under the law you have fallen from grace (Galatians 5)? How can he say, “If meat makes my brother stumble, I will eat no meat until the end of the world” (or something like that — I Corinthians 8), and yet say, “Let no one judge you with respect to meat or drink, etc.”(Colossians 2); not to mention his labeling of abstainers as men characterized by the doctrines of devils in I Timothy 4?

There is definitely a need for much discernment in determining who is truly clinging to Christ alone for righteousness, and yet a weaker brother in non-essential matters; and who is a false teacher, propagating works-righteousness. Maybe we could say that, if someone is abstaining from alcohol due to past addiction, a perceived relationship to immoral parties, etc., he is a weaker brother who should be deferred to and lovingly taught; but someone who is actively condemning others and asserting that one cannot drink and be accepted by God should be openly resisted. That’s still vague and general. I definitely think we need to work through this issue a little more fully.

Which seems to indicate that there is some level of separation that is necessary. I obviously wouldn’t draw this line where Fundamentalists tend to these days, but there’s still some necessity for this. But then it all comes back to the question, what is important enough to draw this line?

Here is what’s been bothering me lately in light of recent discussions on blogs. What you’ve said is what the Bible teaches in regard to the reality of our unity in Christ with other real believers. My problem revolves around passages like I Timothy 4:1-5 that speak of teachers who in fact “depart from the faith” and devote themselves to “deceitful spirits and teachings of demons.” In a fit of fury and frustration, I may have implied recently that a pastor who was requiring from his readers abstinence from alcohol as the only wise thing to do was in fact one such “false teacher.” Of course, this was met with anger and an invitation to not post comments on that site again. At first, I paused and thought that I may need to apologize for such an accusation. I realized, though, that this is exactly the kind of deceitful teaching that I Timothy is referring to. That said, forbidding marriage and consumption of food is seemingly insignificant in my mind compared to the dangers of such secondary doctrines as dispensationalism.

What I’m saying is that the visualization of unity as a promotion of doctrinal growth in our brothers would only seem to be possible if all parties exhibit a level of respect for the Word as the final authority. My experience is that the Bible plays second fiddle to the so-called “common sense” of man (i.e., “yes, the Bible allows it, but look at [anecdote][statistic]” – from the alcohol discussion). Is the intellectual brick wall I keep running into something deeper than just stubbornness? Or, at what point is the essential unity of the gospel no longer an issue because a party may in fact have departed from the faith? Basically, how does a continual refusal to accept the clear teaching of Scripture – or an overruling practice of trumping Scripture with personal opinion – play into the model you’ve laid out? I understand a definitive answer may be tricky here, but I’d appreciate some help.

Great post. I really appreciate your dealing with this issue in such a thoughtful way.

I think those who are so quick to separate and cut off unity with other believers due to their desire to defend secondary doctrinal matters, actually are maximizing the importance of their interpretations of secondary matters and minimizing the importance of the major doctrines around which Christians have real unity. Is not our unity in Christ which is based on our mutual affirmation of the huge truths of the Gospel and the authority of Scripture, etc., big enough and amazing enough to demand that we recognize our unity in Christ with others who interpret secondary doctrinal matters differently than we do? This methodology stands the Bible on its head. That which is explicitly and very clearly declared and which is explicitly declared to be central and absolutely essential is made to be very minor–not a big enough reason to unify in meaningful fellowship with others. And that which the Bible does not explicitly and clearly address, but which addresses in a less clear way than other doctrines, and that which clearly does not affect our understanding of other more major doctrines–and even those points which Scripture itself declares to be of secondary importance–these doctrines are made to be so important that unity itself must bow down to our interpretation of them.

One more thing, congrats on your being made a contributor to Reformation Theology Blog. I am waiting for your first post over there! I am very excited that you will have an increased opportunity to minister to the body of Christ through the wider reach of that blog.

God bless you and yours,

Bob Hayton

Striving for the unity of the faith for the glory of God. (Eph. 4:3,13; Rom. 15:5-7)

It’s very comfortable hanging exclusively with believers who believe the same things as you do about all but the most minor of doctrines, but there is much less giving of yourself to promote doctrinal purity in this environment. Perhaps this is partly why there is so little discussion of spiritual things even when around other Christians.

I respect your work, and I would like your opinion on my recent essay on the relation of the Biblical covenants.