Jim said,
“Again, ethnic/national
I assume that you are saying that unbelieving
In what way does CT deny that “unbelieving
If there is no “identity” between
Describe the logical process that takes a person from a “failure to recognize such” to CT?
You claim that paedo-baptism is essential to CT, that CT cannot actually be held if credo-baptism is also held. How does one’s adherence to credo-baptism logically prevent him from believing that, God the Father covenanted with God the Son before time to gift Him with a bride (the body of the elect) after He purchased them with His blood (Covenant of Redemption), because Adam would break the Covenant of Works (or “deal” to use Reisinger’s word) God made with him, thus plunging his race into sin; Christ, among other things, obeyed that covenant (thus the second Adam references) and the promise of the Covenant of Redemption is extended into and expounded by the progress of redemptive history by all the temporal covenants we find recorded in scripture (Covenant of Grace)? The identity CT professes between “
You call RBCTs “leaky” simply because they don’t believe that physical baptism is the sign of the NC as circumcision was the sign of the OC, but I think that ignores nearly half the recent history of CT, i.e. the originators and professors of the 1689. If the inconsistency you so poetically accuse RBs (myself included) of is just that the WCF is paedo-baptist then, I’m not convinced that your argument is air tight.
I have downloaded something by Zaspel, Reisinger, Wells, and Tony Warren, but I haven’t had a chance to read them. I plan on responding to those and the quotes at the end of my last post at the same time.
I think it is pretty clear that Hebrews 7:12 is not referring to a replacement of one Law with another Law. I don’t think my intention has been to “defend Waldron/Barcelous, because I’m sure they are capable of doing that themselves…I have quoted them to try to back up points I was trying to make.
p.215 “If someone had said to Jesus the words, "Love unites; doctrine divides," I think Jesus would have looked deep into that person's soul and said, "True doctrine is the root of love. Therefore, WHOEVER OPPOSES IT, DESTROYS THE ROOT OF UNITY."
This quote could be pointed toward you as well, Jim.
p. 217 “When Jesus demanded that we love our enemies by contrasting this with the interpretation that said, "Love your neighbor and hate your enemy", he was lovingly showing us that correcting false interpretations of the Bible is one crucial way to love our enemy.”
I may have terribly misunderstood your mention of this quote, but are you saying that Piper is actually applying this to an intramural debate between Christian brothers; do you think of yourself as loving your enemy when you are pointing out what you claim to be errant doctrine in my affirmations?
p. 218 “In fact, we live in a time when emotional offense, or woundedness, often becomes a criterion for deciding if love has been shown. A person can be genuinely loved and feel hurt or offended or angered or retaliatory or numb without in any way diminishing the beauty and value of the act of love that hurt them. This truth is shown by the way Jesus lived his life. He loved in a way that was often not felt as love. No one I have ever known in person or in history was as blunt as Jesus in the way he dealt with people. He [did] not fret over the possibile criticism that he [was] not being careful enough to distinguish real enemies from annoying brothers.”
First of all, you ain’t Jesus, brother. Second, I never said your statements were unloving, just “puffed up” and contained in an undue quarrelsome tone. Third, if what I have pointed out in your comments is not arrogant, then what in your mind would qualify as being such?
5 comments:
Although our "debate has [anything but] run its course", it's best to "table" such until you've had opportunity to read. Pat Rauh sent to me another comment he'd attempted to post here; inter alia, he has offered to send to you copies of the books with which your reading ought to begin*. Pastor Dustin Seegers sent to me another comment, also. Inter alia, he pointed out that Jesus both eschatologically fulfills the law and decrees new law. He also reiterated that Jesus's staus as "the lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world" is resultant from His having kept the law.
The best outcome -- so far -- is that you apparently intend to begin reading books written by NCT authors (I don't understand how Tony Warren may be such, as his name is one I've never before seen). Again, I cannot strongly enough exhort you to drive to avail yourself of opportunity to learn from Dustin Seegers. He is among those I've described as irenic, remember.
"... no one comes to the Father except by me." To the unregenerate, our mere quotation of John 14:6 is considered to be haughty and arrogant. Please do not confuse confidence in Truth with arrogance!
If you do sincerely pursue Truth, you will be -- as I am -- embarrassed to have believed (let alone championed) the traditions of men. At the same time, you will experience the absolute joy which accompanies truly understanding Scripture.
My understanding of Piper as to what I quoted is that his point is that Jesus was more concerned with advocating Truth (Himself!) than with folks' concern that his teaching of his chosen followers (brothers) may be mistaken as speech toward enemies. Again, for most who adhere to system-driven theology, such is resultant from Spirit-quenching rather than from absence of regeneration. As to you, I've believed that you may sincerely desire to not quench the Spirit, especially because you've apparently not before been challenged to examine the validity (lack thereof) of CTs presuppositions.
Regardless of the litany of godly, intelligent men who have/do champion(ed) CT (and DT!), that which is believed and taught is rooted in grievous falsehood. You'll soon "see" such for yourself soon, I pray.
The Israel of God is the elect. O. Palmer Robertson's book The Israel of God, especially the final chapter thereof (The Israel of God in Romans 11) is indispensable. Dr. Waldron, via his concluding "post" regarding FUTURE ISRAEL, refers to such, but advocates a different position [Dr. Robertson view -- and mine -- is that the remnant (elect among ethnic/national Israel) are objects of God's plan of redemption, but ethnic/national Israel is not]. Dr. Robertson's ISRAEL OF GOD is but one of dozens of books written by CT authors I've read during the past 1 1/3 years, by-the-way.
The remnant was a type of the Church; identity is between the remnant and the Church (the Israel of God). CT presupposes identity between the Church and ethnic/national Israel as a whole.
As I've mentioned, I've recently received a copy of John Reisinger's latest book -- a response to Richard Barcellos. Perhaps it is the book which would be of most immediate initial benefit to you. You surely will be quite disconcerted if you read even what I've read so far. It's astonishing to read quotations of John Owen and John Bunyan which utterly eviscerate CT. More recent "heroes" are quoted to the same end. To wit:
"As it is impossible to be justified by the Law, it is impossible to be sanctified by the Law. [I]t is actually true to say that the Law is a hindrance to sanctification. That is the thesis of [Romans 7]; not only can a man not sanctify himself by observance of the Law, THE LAW IS EVEN A HINDRANCE AND AN OBSTACLE TO SANCTIFICATION." Martin Lloyd-Jones, Romans: Exposition of Chapter 7:1 - 8:4, The Law: Its Function and Limits, pp. 4, 5 (emphasis sic).
Reisinger comments (p. 19 of In Defense of Jesus, the New Lawgiver): "[T]he preacher who consistently preaches law to the conscience hinders biblical growth in grace. Such a preacher is not helping saints to be truly holy, even though that intention lies behind the preaching. He is, even if unknowingly, giving sin an advantage because 'the strength of sin is in the law' (1 Cor. 15:56)".
"The Law" is O.C. law; New Covenant law is, of course, incomparably higher. Unlike the "ministry of death" / the "yoke neither [James, Peter, Paul, et al.] nor [their] forefathers were able to bear", the law of Christ is written on the heart ... that is, the NEW HEART is the means by which the law of Christ is pursued.
I'll leave it at that for now. I'll be "watching" (D.v.) for more from you as you're ready/inclined. May you ultimately find that our "debate" has proved to be edifying after all! Either way, thanks for taking time and providing a forum.
* I assume that you'll be able to contact Pat or me; if not, so indicate via comment to the instant "post".
Thanks for your comment Jim,
I didn't mean to intimate that the "debate" was over, as in, there's no need for further discussion..."tabling" is a better word.
Why couldn't Seegers and Pat post; what is "Inter alia"?
By God's grace, it has been my practice, when confronted with theologies I don't understand, or ones with which I disagree, that I try to read what their proponents have said in their own words. Of course I have been embarrassed by things I used to believe, I was once a "Ryrie" Dispensationalist and antagonistic towards the doctrines of grace, and held to what I now consider the "traditions of men" as a consequence of former positions I've held.
As I have said before, I believe that we all have systematic presuppositions to deal with...the issue is whether or not they are biblical.
You said, "the remnant (elect among ethnic/national Israel) are objects of God's plan of redemption, but ethnic/national Israel is not]."
In the sense that this distinction is the same as the distinction between the elect and the non-elect, I agree.
You said, "The remnant was a type of the Church; identity is between the remnant and the Church (the Israel of God)."
I agree that the continuity is between the remnant and the Church, in fact, I believe they are of the same group (the Israel of God).
You quoted Lloyd-Jones, "As it is impossible to be justified by the Law, it is impossible to be sanctified by the Law. [I]t is actually true to say that the Law is a hindrance to sanctification. That is the thesis of [Romans 7]; not only can a man not sanctify himself by observance of the Law, THE LAW IS EVEN A HINDRANCE AND AN OBSTACLE TO SANCTIFICATION."
I agree.
You quoted reisinger, ""[T]he preacher who consistently preaches law to the conscience hinders biblical growth in grace. Such a preacher is not helping saints to be truly holy, even though that intention lies behind the preaching. He is, even if unknowingly, giving sin an advantage because 'the strength of sin is in the law' (1 Cor. 15:56)"."
I agree.
Maybe more later :)
I'm encouraged, Jason, by that to which you've expressed agreement! The quoted Martin Lloyd-Jones and John Reisinger assertions are Truth -- Truth which is diametrically opposed to CT. Your experience gained via renouncing Dispensationalism and Arminianism may have prepared you for such a time as this!
Inter alia = among other(s).
Pat encountered difficulty first with Google/Blogger, then with Name/URL; in-between, he posted a comment via Google/Blogger. Dustin may have preferred to "stay out of the fray"; he may have "cringed" at some of my assertions, too.
Obviously, I believe that earnestly contending for the faith once for all delivered to the saints entails risk of offending bretheren. I don't seek to offend, but I, obviously, risk offending. If I didn't have confidence that you'd "hang in", I'd have backed off.
For sake of clarity:
The Israel of God is indeed comprised of the elect of all time -- the remnant, pre-Pentecost; the Church, post-Pentecost.
Ethnic/national Israel (not including the remnant) served a function in God's plan of redemption: Vessels of wrath prepared for destruction.
Despite recognition by NCT folks that ethnic/national Israel was but a "picture", many continue to adhere to eschatology which includes some hope for ethnic/national Israel. Some are amillennial and believe as do Drs. Waldron and Riddlebarger; some are premillennial(!). Thanks be to our Lord that He has directed or allowed men like Dustin Seegers, Kerry Kinchen, Mike Adams, etc., to understand that the Harlot was stoned A.D. 70 and that elect descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are (re)grafted into the Vine. {Mike's articles regarding John 15 are quite edifying [Romans 7, too (Geoff Volker co-wrote)]}. I pray that He's using me -- even if as a burr under the saddle -- and them to advance Truth among NCT folks who have "stopped in the middle of the intersection" (as Pat Rauh expressed it)!
By-the-way, the thought which occurred to me as I wrote my comment last evening has "solidified": John Reisinger's latest book -- response to Richard Barcellos -- is the one which you ought to read first. His Abraham's Four Seeds is a close second, and his Tablets of Stone and But I Say Unto You aren't far behind. Steve Lehrer's New Covenant Theolgy: Questions Answered should be read upon reading Abraham's Four Seeds, then Ken Gentry's Before Jerusalem Fell; Tom Wells' The Priority of Jesus Christ after that, then Wells and Zaspel's New Covenant Theology. You'll be enthralled ... and thankful to God for those men and their work!
Jim said,
"Dustin may have preferred to 'stay out of the fray'".
Naah, it's just because I'm way too busy being a dad, a hubby, a pastor, and a 35 hour/week sports-therapist/athletic trainer. I prefer face-to-face interaction or phone conversations vs. e-mails and combox interactions due to my time limitations.
If anyone wants to contact me to discuss any of these things, they can do so at pastordustin@gmail.com or better yet, just give me a call anytime at (336) 848-7197.
May God richly bless your studies!
Jim,
I am in the midst of reading pertinent writings.
Post a Comment