“We should condemn a return to Old Testament types and shadows and the misguided hermeneutic which leads to … .” Amen!
Amillennialism is Truth except as it is perverted as a result of the error of contrived identity between ethnic, national Israel and the Church. Ethnic, national Israel was merely a predominantly unbelieving type (vessels of wrath prepared for destruction); only the remnant thereof has identity with the Church (the Church being the “remnant” of true believers among that which is considered to be the church).
I’m glad to see you back “at it”; I’m sure that you’ve had a memorable April!
Jim,
Forgive my ignorance, but (being new to these studies) who are some amils who claim that there is “identity between ethnic, national Israel and the Church”?
jAsOn
Unfortunately, Jason, I must assert that most amillenarians are Covenant Theologians; the root error CT is presupposition of identity between Old Covenant Israel and the Church. The sign of the covenant was circumcision; it’s now baptism. Belief in Truth we call Believer’s Baptism is inherently inconsistent with CT. As much as I’d enjoy further delineation, I’ll leave it at that.
JIm,
Certainly not the answer I had expected. Perhaps I’m missing somthing, but you appear to agree with Dr. Waldon much of the time (to the point that I thought you were Amil). Though new to this topic of debate, I am aware that Amils are CT…but I differ with you in that I believe CT is the architecture through which we are to view redemptive history.
I also fail to see how CT logically necessitates paedo-baptism.
Indeed, Jason, I recognize (partial preterist) amilleniallism as Truth, and I do agree with Dr. Waldron (and soon-to-be Dr.) Barcellos extensively. Add an N to your sentence “… I believe [N]CT is the architecture through which we are to view redemptive history” — NCT being New Covenant Theology. Consistent Covenant Theology indeed reckons children of believing parents to be part of the “covenant community”*; hence, they receive the ostensible sign of the covenant — baptism. Again, Truth which we call Believers’ Baptism is inherently inconsistent with CT; again, I reluctantly leave it at that.
* How the Reformers got the Gospel right is truly marvelous; thanks be to our Lord that He used them advance Truth despite their presuppositions!
Jason said, “I also fail to see how CT logically necessitates paedo-baptism.” The only way it can is if infant inclusion in the covenant community is of the essence of the covenant of grace. But CT of all stripes argues that the covenant of grace (as to its essence) was first revealed in the first promise of the gospel in Genesis 3:15. Infant inclusion in the covenant community came with the Abrahamic covenant and, hence, is not of the essence of the covenant of grace. I realize most paedo-baptists disagree with me on this. I can live with that. 
Jim,
Thanks for the clarification, now I know some of your presuppositions, to the degree that I’m familiar with NCT. Noting that all of us have presuppositions
You said,
“How the Reformers got the Gospel right is truly marvelous; thanks be to our Lord that He used them advance Truth despite their presuppositions!”
Likewise, in our relativistic climate, it is truly marvelous that any of us have gotten the gospel right either…I know we would all agree that the correct preaching of the gospel in any generation is due only to the grace of God through His promise to keep Hell from prevailing against His Church.
Mr. Barcelos,
Thanks for your citation of Coxe…I will have to make myself more familiar with that line of argumentation.
I have the DVD of the baptism debate between James White and Bill Shishko, but I’ve only watched it once so the elements of the debate aren’t as fresh in my mind as they could be. One thing I think White argued was that regeneration is the sign of the NC, not physical baptism (as paedo-baptists would insist)…am I correct; would you and Waldron make the same arguments?
I think I sense a bit of equivocation by Jim in his use of the term “Israel”. In one place he refers to “Old Covenant Israel” and in another “ethnic, national Israel”. I submit they are not identical. Indeed, Jim refers to the latter as a “predominantly unbelieving type”. I assume by “type” he means type of the Church. But was unbelieving Israel meant to be a type of the Church.
There is no doubt that Peter and other writers in the NT identify the Church as the continuation of Old Covenant Israel. They did not invent an entirely new terminology to refer to God’s covenant people, but made a clear connection of the new with the old (cf. 1 Peter 2:9,10).
Likewise, to make ill-named doctrine of believer’s baptism the sine qua non of the new covenant is to misunderstand the true nature of the covenant of grace and its relationship Abraham’s seed.
Dr. Waldron and (soon-to-be-Dr.) Prof. Barcellos’ Reformed Baptist Manifesto: The New Covenant as the Constitution of the Church (as I recall the subtitle) and/or Dr. Thomas Schreiner’s Believers’ Baptism: Sign of the New Covenant in Christ are helpful books which probably wouldn’t be avoided by instant readers.
My (Scripture-based) presupposition is that ethnic/national Israel, with a small number of notable exceptions, was comprised of unbelievers. As Hebrews, especially chs. 7 and 8, unequivocally reveals, the Old Covenant was merely a type (”shadow”) of the New Covenant (substance/realilty).
Presupposition (Spirit-quenching) as to ethnic/national Israel other than that it was an unbelieving type is the root of all* major error extant among the Church (error among the church is resultant from absence of regeneration).
* Ultimately, the New Covenant is denied [eg. not for us/now or merely the second administration of one (man-invented) “Covenant of Grace”]; hence, ultimately, the New Heart is denied; hence, a myriad of error including “carnal christians”, “second blessing”, anthropocentric soteriology, etc.
Jim,
I have read Waldron and Barcelous’ book and perhaps I should re-read the part on baptism.
Let me try to rephrase your statements into positive assertions to see if I understand what you are saying:
1. Ethnic/national Israel was the unbelieving type of the New Covenant Church.
2. The negated form of assertion #1 is an unbiblical presupposition.
3. The denial of #1 has lead to the aberrant doctrines of “canal Christianity”, “second blessing theology”, and “anthropocentric soteriology”.
Please correct these 3 assertions if they are not yours, and if they are (perhaps on another forum, b/c this seems a bit off topic) please back up the assertions made in #3.
As the Old Covenant was but a shadow of the New Covenant, its subjects were but a shadow of those upon whose hearts are written the Law of Christ. Ethnic/national Israel was yoked with a “ministry of death”; the Israelites were not equipped to keep the (old) covenant … their hearts were uncircumcised.
The Old Covenant was a “yoke that neither [James’, Peter’s, Paul’s, … ] forefathers nor [they were] able to bear” [Acts 15:10 (HCSB)]. “But Israel, pursuing the law FOR RIGHTEOUSNESS, has not achieved the law” {Romans 9:31 [HCSB (emphasis mine)]}. “Because they disregarded the righteousness from God and attemped to ESTABLISH THEIR OWN RIGHTEOUSNESS, THEY HAVE NOT SUBMITTED TO GOD’S RIGHTEOUSNESS” {Romans 10:3 [HCSB (emphasis mine)]}.
“If, then, PERFECTION came through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received THE LAW), what further need was there for another priest to arise in the order of Melchizedek, and not … the order of Aaron? FOR WHEN THERE IS A CHANGE IN THE PRIESTHOOD, THERE MUST BE A CHANGE IN THE LAW AS WELL. * * * So the previous commandment is ANNULLED because it was weak and unprofitable (for THE LAW PERFECTED NOTHING)), but a better hope is introduced, through which we [ACCESS] God.” {Hebrews 7:11, 12, 18, 19 [HCSB] (emphases mine)]}.
The law — inarguably — has changed (metatithemi); it was never meant to PERFECT/provide ACCESS to God. Indeed, its purpose was to demonstrate unequivocally that God’s standard (KANON) cannot be kept by the natural man {”Be ye PERFECT, as your Heavenly Father is perfect”; “Your righteousness must exceed that of [the Pharisees]”}. It has been lifted out, set aside/annulled. Thanks be to our Lord, He kept the Old Covenant law perfectly; His righteousness (NOT His perfect law-keeping) is imputed to the regenerate elect, whose sin is imputed to Him.
I realize that is seems that I’ve steered even farther off course, but the foregoing is more pertinent to my advocacy here that Spirit-quenching insistance that ethnic/national Israel was other than predominantly unbelieving has led/leads to error and concomitant beliefs and practices, of which some are woeful. Indeed, that which is taught as Truth, but isn’t, is woeful.
Jim,
I believe you are right when you say that you have steered even further off course…at least it seems that way to me.
Two questions in addition to the others I posed in #11, which CTs say that the church is identical to ethnic/national Israel?
and, I think it is clear that the remnant among ethnic Israel fluctuated in percentage of the whole of the nation…do you deny that?
I intend this in the most constructive way possible, but it appears to me that many of your comments (the last in particular) are intentionally obtuse. That is an observation you may take or leave.
Obtuse*, perhaps; not intentionally so, though. As I’ve mentioned, the identity is “remnant”/Church, not Old Covenant/ethnic Israel/church. The latter is inherent to CT. I’ve not heard/read the term “leaky Covenant Theologian”, but I suppose some who adhere to CT may nonetheless disavow presuppostion of Old Covenant/ethnic Israel/church identity.
By-the-way, Jason, I appreciate your questions (although I may not have much “company”, given that I answer (obtuse* or not) them.
* Some of what I write must be read either slowly or twice or both, I understand.
Jim,
Is there significance to “Church” vs. “church” in what you’ve written?
I not sure you sweeping statements regarding the true spiritual condition of old covenant Israel (“the Israelites were not equipped to keep the (old) covenant … their hearts were uncircumcised.”) can be supported from Scripture.
It is true that there were generations of Israel that were more or less faithful to the call of God, just as it is true that there have been generations of the Church more or less faith to God (cf. WCF 25:4).
Regarding the quotes from Romans, was Paul identifying Israel as the then-living generation, or all Israel of all time? I think you would have a hard case to make if you think it is the latter.
“Spirit-quenching insistance” - is that some pejorative I’m not familiar with? Do you have a point, or does it just sound good in your estimation?
I take it from all this interaction(which has little to do with anything I wrote in this post) that the agreement I have with Horner on material spirituality is granted.
Dr. Sam
Dr. Sam,
As a postmil, I certainly can agree with the notion of spiritual materiality to a certain degree. It’s all a matter of timing.
But doesn’t this concession undercut in some sense the basic raison d’être of amillennialism, i.e., “no milllennium”? After all, if you believe there was a mingling of physical and spiritual prior to Christ’s first coming, and we agree that there is a mingling of physical and spiritual after Christ’s second coming, isn’t it a bit arbitrary to see the interadvental “thousand years” as entirely spiritual and having nothing to do with the physical?
That may not be your position, but it certainly appears to be the predominant position within amil circles.
And how do you see your position as working against postmils?
Regarding the matter of the new earth, in light of Isaiah 65:17ff, is it really proper to push the new earth entirely into the post-second coming era? Or can’t this be taken as a confirmation of where we are today in a truly Reformed now-not yet eschatology of hope through the gradual redemption of God’s creation?
Jim,
This is an interesting discussion, but Dr. Waldron is right, it has very little to do with this article in general. In order not to clutter the thread with the discussion of an impertinent topic, perhaps there is another forum where we can carry on. I have a blog were I can post a related article so we can continue.
Jason ~
That’s what I was attempting to convey; I won’t be able to interact at your site until tomorrow (D.V.); thanks.
Tom ~
I don’t really have even a few minutes to spare until tomorrow, so I’ll have to just “throw out” some citations which immediately come to mind (not exhaustive!):
Romans 2:25 - 29; 2 Cor. 3:14 - 18; Galatians 3:5 - 18; 1 Peter 2:6 - 8.
Citation of confession exacerbates my frustration that my time is severely limited today; perhaps its best that I must refrain from comment beyond this: Regardless of claims of “Sola Scriptura”, reliance on confessions is tantamount to Roman Catholics’ reliance on their Catechism (and Magisterium).
How tragic that they’re substitutes for rather than guides to the Truth itself.
As to application of the Romans passage: After A.D. 70, direct, literal application is n/a. Of course, even today, portions of Old Covenant law continue to be central to the religion of many; tragically, some still seek self-righteousness via law-keeping.
Credit for the concept of Spirit-quenching belongs to Paul, of course. Church = regenerate elect; church = those who profess but don’t posess saving faith.
No comments:
Post a Comment