Words from Hoekema on the Word

From his book, "The Bible & the Future", Anthony Hoekema has these words to say concerning God's Word,

"Though it is true, therefore, that God reveals himself in the Bible which is his Word, we must not forget that he reveals himself primarily in the historical events which are recorded in the Bible. Revelation occurs through acts as well as through words. But the acts need to be interpreted before their revelatory message can be understood. God reveals himself, therefore, through both acts and words--through his acts as interpreted by his words. So, for example, it is only as the event of the exodus is interpreted by the writers of the Old testament that it is understood to be a revelation of the redemptive power and love of Israel's God who, in the fulfillment of his promises and in answer to their prayers, delivered his people from Egyptian bondage."

This statement causes me to ask just what we think has been "revealed" when we think of the "revelation of God?. One is the revelation of His existence, another thing revealed is His sustaining power, but these two things are revealed also (in more obscure a manner) in the creation itself. In the Bible we find that God revels who He is, His character, who we are and our nature, the fact that we have violated His holiness in Adam and the specific way in which we can be rescued from our unholiness and be reconciled to Him in covenant relationship.

Before the events of history were recorded in the Bible, they were really just part of general revelation and their interpretations could have suffered many widespread errors. Just think of how the Judiazers had misinterpreted the meaning of Christ's fulfillment of all the rituals of the Old Covenant like circumcision. When Paul wrote his letter to the Galatians it had probably been at least 20 years after Christ died. This was ample time for misinformed or malicious persons to arrive at erroneous interpretations of that great historical event before it had been recorded by men, born along by the Spirit of the Author of History Himself, as its interpretation was solidified in special revelation. So, in effect, our understanding of scripture is an interpretation of records which were (at least in its narrative genre) interpretations of historical events. Even though this is the relationship we have to the revelation of God, its complexity doesn't end there The good and simple exposition of the words of the Bible in their contexts do not fully exhaust their meaning for us.

Just as it is absurd (and heretical) to suggest that, because God is a Spirit and He is Holy, then all material things are evil, thus He cannot be incarnate, it is likewise absurd to suggest that just because the Bible does not lay out an idea explicitly, then no "extra-biblical" implication may ever be drawn in support of that idea. It has been the perennial criticism against Covenant Theology that (it's doctrine of a "realized" millennium in particular and its covenantal hermeneutic in general) its working assumptions are only implications drawn from scripture (false implications at that) rather than explications seen on its pages directly. We know of course, that we cannot find a particular verse that explicates the doctrine of particular redemption; "Christ Jesus our Lord died for the individuals the Father predestined and gave to Him and only for them did He shed His blood.", but this doctrine is so clearly implied in scripture that (as far as the historical testimony is concerned) the majority report of Christian orthodoxy affirms it, and so it is with the existence of the covenantal relationships God has ordained in order to commune with His people and His creation at large.

My point is this, I think that the further Christians are removed by time from the cross, the more difficult a time we have interpreting the Bible with its historical generation in mind. This I think is seen clearly in theologies that try to force a hyper-literal or exclusively literal interpretation on texts that (with the entire context of the Bible in mind) do not themselves limit the words that were used to interpret historical people, places, things, and events.

Clearing Up Confusion Over Distinctions #4

Jim or Pat,

Just a few things in the attempt to try to focus the discussion a bit (forgive me but I still feel like you are dodging the essence of my questions:

1. Several times I think Jim has quoted others or made statements himself that seem to indicate that you think NCT is not a system and if one would simple read the bible without any other external influence, then he would just come up with what is referred to as NCT. Though my understanding of NCT is surface, I must say that this line of thinking (assuming that it is your own) would be naive at best. Forgive me for saying so, but EVERYONE’S hermeneutic is colored by his presuppositions…yours included. I’m sure you would not deny the inherent importance of “systems”…the doctrines of grace are such a system.
2. I must say that the words that you write have a tone of arrogance and most of your assertions against CT could simply be turned around and made to point at your own system because they are, for the most part, without proof and stand alone as vain assertions. Even if they were true, you have provided no substance to back them, thus this “dialogue” has been largely without edification.
3. You still maintain that, “CT and RT are interchangeable” with yet any historical proof to back such an assertion. You must know that history is not on your side to make such an assertion without ever providing the references to substantiate it. I will try to read Reisinger’s “Abraham’s Four Seeds”.
4. I’m sure you have thoroughly reviewed the arguments for the separation of the moral Law away from the ceremonial and civic (being the expressed illustration of God’s very character while the later two are typological of Christ) so I won’t expound that here; the division is one of theological inference and the search for NT proof texts is thus a futile and unnecessary one. How can the expression of the very character and otherness of God be annulled and set aside; I beg to differ that this is not the point of the Hebrews 7 passage. Likewise, the Law of Christ is no NEW law but is the correct and theologically amplified interpretation of the OC Law.
5. I must state that CT certainly does not “deny the NC” as you submit, but affirms it in the fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant. How do you think CT denies the CofG?
6. Pat, please forgive me for not reading further in your posted comments where you asked forgiveness for the tone of your written comments, but the pattern seems to be a perennial one, thus maybe you guys should step back and re-evaluate the way you put things in your comments. Jim has claimed that CTs “doggedly adhere to system-driven theology despite ignorance as to what such theology actually teaches” and this not only illustrates just what I have called you two out on, but I find it very difficult to so quickly apply to such men as Waldron and Barcelous and others who have likely invested countless more hours in the study of such topics and deserve (as Christian brothers) the benefit of the doubt as we dialogue to search out the truth of scripture; making bold assertions that another isn’t even interested in seeking the truth simply because he differs from me in his thoughts is prideful and ungracious. Jim said this, “Go ahead an close your mind to pursuit of Truth if your pride causes you to prefer to believe what you would quickly discover to be absurd were you to sincerely pursue Truth. Otherwise (I believe that you may sincerely desire to pursue Truth), get to work…You may find -- if you look for -- reasons to quench the Spirit and dismiss them, but it won't be failure on their part to be irenic. By-the-way, most of those men were seminary-trained in Covenant Theology; their pursuit of Truth was literally as well as figuratively costly and worthy of admiration and emulation.” This type of rhetoric is a primary example of what I am talking about. Your parenthetical phrases of denigration make your stated desires to present yourselves as irenic seem vain. I have had many discussions and debates, with persons I count as brothers and sisters, over Calvinism and CT vs. DT and not a few have resembled the type of argumentation you present above; Jim, it is you who are “thumping your chest”, so check yourself brother, you have NOT avoided to do that which you accuse others of.
7. Pat said this, “Similarly, covenant theology that holds to a "replacement" theology is consistent with itself. The Church replaces Israel and thus it’s children are inherently "children of the covenant" and baptized as such. They are subject to the same 10 commandments or God's "Moral law" including the statute concerning the "Lord's day" or Christian sabbath. This "replacement" is consistent with CT's insistence on a (manufactured) "covenant of grace" with "2 administrations.” Again, I will ask for quotes from CTs that state that they believe that the Church Visible (I assume) has replaced ethnic/national Israel. I’m aware that there may be those who have said that, but to claim that the idea is essential to CT seems to be a stretch. Thus far all I have heard is that it is a theological implication of the practice of baptizing persons who are not yet members of the NC. Surely you would not hold CTs to a monolithic representation, especially in the implications that are wrought out by the system? Your own system cannot be so logically and biblically infallible as to have no latitudinal differences.

For now, those are the issues I believe need addressing. As for the following quotes, I will address in a later post.

“Let me ask you: If a CT guy (rightly) sees the flaw of infant baptism (antithetical to election and numerous passages about a man's enemies being members of his own household) why would he then doggedly hold onto a manufactured “covenant of grace” with “2 administrations?” I ask because it seems there is simply no point in maintaining it anymore. It is unscriptural, but necessary to maintain a “replacement” theology. It is easy to scripturally prove that OT Israel were never a believing people and that the Mosaic Covenant was a covenant of works not grace.” and this “amillennialism which is indeed "replacement theology" is false and worthy of denigration. Ethnic/national Israel wasn't "replaced" by the Church; the Israel of God is and always has been the focus of God's plan of redemption ... ethnic/national Israel NEVER WAS such. Getting that wrong results in Premillennial Dispensationalism or Covenant Theology's errant amillennialism.”

Clearing Up Confusion Over Distinctions #3

The basic need I believe exists to necessitate a discussion of this nature is the confusion of the various definitions of "Replacement Theology" Jim has said this, "Amillennialism is Truth except as it is perverted as a result of the error of contrived identity between ethnic, national Israel and the Church." And this, "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." Lastly, this, "As I've contended, credobaptism and Covenant Theology are inherently incongruent."

My contention in this series of articles will be that Covenant Theology asserts that the Church does not "replace" ethnic/national Israel, but that the gentiles are grafted into the natural olive tree with the Jews, forming one elect body (mixing my Biblical metaphors).

I do agree with Jim that, "Lordship salvation" and monergism appear to be antithetical to dispensationalism. A local pastor, Reggie Kimbro has said that, "Dispensationalism was the vehicle that so many got into to go away from the doctrines of grace". But we do see many varieties of Dispensationalism out there, but as Ryrie has said, the sin quo non of Dispensationalism is the distinction of Israel and the Church. Now what exactly is meant by those two bodies is under dispute.

Sam Storms says this,

"Contrary to the paedo-baptist argument, the New Testament counterpart to Old Testament circumcision isn't baptism; it's regeneration or the new birth. Or again, it is spiritual circumcision of the heart, not water baptism, that corresponds in the New Covenant to Old Covenant physical circumcision of the flesh. [By the way, even if one were to concede that water baptism is the New Covenant counterpart to Old Covenant circumcision, the former is consistently predicated on the faith of the individual, unlike the latter. Indeed, this is the very point of Colossians 2:12, as I'll note below.]

Water baptism is a sign of the circumcision of the heart and the new life and cleansing from sin that it brings. The sign of the New Covenant isn't baptism, but spiritual circumcision or regeneration or the "cutting away" of the heart of flesh, of which water baptism is an outward, symbolic expression."

Further, and I will attempt to provide a quote, Kim Riddlebarger has said that Covenant Theologians do not say that the Church has replaced ethnic/national Israel. Barcelous' quote from below is also helpful.

I also think it would be helpful Jim, if you would provide a line of argumentation proving that credo-baptism is inconsistent with Covenant theology.

Clearing Up Confusion Over Distinctions #2

As Jim requested, here are the all the comments from the feed at Illumination, which generated this discussion. I only omitted the last comment because it was my initiation to conversation here.

1 Written by: Jim McDermott Posted on: April 26, 2008 at 7:18 pm

“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!

2 Written by: jasonpayton Posted on: April 26, 2008 at 8:24 pm

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

3 Written by: Jim McDermott Posted on: April 26, 2008 at 9:22 pm

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.

4 Written by: jasonpayton Posted on: April 27, 2008 at 12:19 pm

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.

5 Written by: Jim McDermott Posted on: April 27, 2008 at 3:20 pm

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!

6 Written by: Barcelou Posted on: April 27, 2008 at 4:13 pm

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. The seventeenth-century Particular Baptist Nehemiah Coxe has a wonderful treatment of these issues in his Covenant Theology from Adam to Christ. You can order it at www.rbap.net. Coxe is very typical of the seventeenth-century Particular Baptist theology of the covenants.

7 Written by: jasonpayton Posted on: April 28, 2008 at 5:57 am

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.

8 Written by: jasonpayton Posted on: April 28, 2008 at 6:04 am

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?

9 Written by: Tom Albrecht Posted on: April 28, 2008 at 10:49 am

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.

10 Written by: Jim McDermott Posted on: April 28, 2008 at 3:10 pm

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.

11 Written by: jasonpayton Posted on: April 28, 2008 at 6:25 pm

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.

12 Written by: Jim McDermott Posted on: April 28, 2008 at 7:45 pm

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.

13 Written by: jasonpayton Posted on: April 28, 2008 at 8:44 pm

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.

14 Written by: Jim McDermott Posted on: April 28, 2008 at 9:31 pm

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.

15 Written by: Tom Albrecht Posted on: April 28, 2008 at 10:27 pm

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?

16 Written by: Sam Waldron Posted on: April 29, 2008 at 5:19 am

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

17 Written by: Tom Albrecht Posted on: April 29, 2008 at 9:14 am

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?

18 Written by: jasonpayton Posted on: April 29, 2008 at 9:16 am

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.

19 Written by: Jim McDermott Posted on: April 29, 2008 at 3:40 pm

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.

Clearing Up Confusion Over Distinctions #1

Over at the MidWest Center for Theological Studies, of which (among others) Dr. Sam Waldron and Mr. Richard Barcelous are a major part, Dr. Waldron has been critiquing Barry Horner's Book, "Future Israel" by way of a series of blog articles. In his latest post, "Future Israel by Barry Horner # 19", Waldron addressed the potential anticipation for a primarily material Kingdom, which is the tendency of premillennialism (my assessment).

The thread of comments that followed very quickly veered off topic (and I blame myself in part). But among those involved in the discussion was a man named Jim McDermott. The intention of this post is to create a forum to continue the discussion were are reluctant to elaborate on in the comment thread over at the Illumination, since it was off topic.

So, I invite Jim to comment here anticipating the evolution of our discussion. Below I will quote one of his comments and my response, which are both included in the thread at the link above.

Comment # 10 Written by: Jim McDermott Posted on: April 28, 2008 at 3:10 pm

"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"


Comment # 11 Written by: Jason Payton Posted on: April 28, 2008 at 6:25 pm

"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."

Well, Jim, it's your turn so to speak. Don't hesitate to suggest the inclusion of more comments from the thread at Illumination.

The Old Covenant Passover: Former Shadow or Supplemental New Covenant Feast? #4

Now to go about the task of answering the objections to the “cessation” of the practice of the Passover as Old Covenant saints practiced it.

I will start by saying that I am not claiming that New Covenant saints should never and under no circumstances practice the Passover in an Old Covenant format but I will say this, it is our “privilege” to circumcise our sons physically and for medical reasons, but we don’t do it so that we can understand more fully the shadow and type of Christ’s being cut off for us that was presented in Old Covenant. Certainly, the Passover feast was intended to make the Old Covenant saint more aware of the future and final atonement in their own context; to make the Old Covenant saint know God’s salvation by grace through faith alone better through the representation of the coming Messiah, but the fact that we now live after the time in history when Christ has lived the perfect life and died on the cross provides us with the reason that we no longer celebrate the Passover feast as pre-cross saints did; we celebrate the Passover as Jesus has reinstituted it in the New Covenant and as Paul has elucidated us in his letters to Jesus’ meaning of the feast. It is the New Passover feast that God has ordained as a means of grace through the remembrance of Christ’s triplex work, not the observance of the type and shadow of the work, pictured in the old Passover before Christ had come…that feast is no longer a means of grace to renew our faith at all in any formal sense, and it is never right to have the Jewish practice and understanding of the Old Passover inform our practice and understanding of the New Passover. Instead, our practice and understanding of the New Passover celebration is what we use to inform our understanding of the way Jews celebrated the Old Passover. Though its studious celebration today may be useful in enlightening us to just how the Old Covenant saints would have celebrated it in times past, it has no sanctifying influence on the New Covenant saint and has only an educational value, thus it isn’t necessary to engage in that Old ritual format even on a periodic basis, but perhaps only in a classroom type setting and perhaps only once in a lifetime. What is further, the yearly practice of the Old Passover format (in addition to the periodic celebration of the Lord’s Supper) when it is instituted by a local church it may actually hinder the effectiveness of the Lord’s Supper by distraction, and confuse the congregants as to the reasons for the separation of the two and the superiority in time and substance of the Lord’s Supper over the Old Passover. I believe some of this confusion is rooted in the dispensational expectation of the reinstitution of Old Covenant types and shadows (such as associated with the earthly temple) rather than their abrogation in Christ as their Archetype and Substance, though not all those who promote a regular celebration of the Old and New Passovers (which I call a practice of “Dual Passover Celebration”) actually settle in dispensational camps.

While it is true, there is no one verse in the New Testament that explicitly states that we should not celebrate the Old Passover, I believe the Holy Spirit through the men born along felt it unnecessary to add such a statement because the books of the New Testament are replete with evidence that shows ALL Old Covenant rituals fulfilled in Christ’s coming and atoning work, the format of the Old Passover feast included. Perhaps the clearest reason for regarding the Old Passover passe and the New Passover (The Lord’s Supper) as its culmination is in Jesus’ words themselves as recorded by Luke in chapter 22:

“14 And when the hour came, he reclined at table, and the apostles with him. 15 And he said to them, "I have earnestly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer. 16 For I tell you I will not eat it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God." 17 And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he said, "Take this, and divide it among yourselves. 18 For I tell you that from now on I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes." 19 And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me." 20 And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.”

In one solemn meal, Jesus assumed the role as the lamb in the eyes of those with whom He partook that last supper; He set Himself up as the vision of sacrifice from them on, instead of the physical exodus from Egypt as the deliverance of the people, He had prepared His disciples to soon look to His passion as their spiritual deliverance and to “do this” as the remembrance. So Christ has taken the Old feast and resurrected it or redeemed it to specifically apply to Himself, thus being changed by the New Covenant feast in His blood. Jesus said that He did not come to abolish the Law but to fulfill it. Of course Jesus thought the Passover was important and He kept it because He kept the whole Law in order to establish all righteousness. It was for that same reason that He submitted Himself to the baptism of John; Jesus lived the perfect life and that included the correct practice of the ritual feasts of Israel which even typified Himself. Jesus affirmed the Law as presented in the Old Testament and re-presented in the New, but this is no reason to keep the feasts of the Old Covenant in their old format because the 10 commandments were reiterated in the New Testament and their keeping is still required just as the Holy character of God, which they illustrate, has not changed, but the cultic ceremonies and rituals of the Old Covenant were not reiterated but rather, they were reinterpreted in Christ. The types and shadows, which the feasts and sacrifices and circumcision were, prefigured Christ, who is their archetype and substance, but the 10 commandments (being a summary of the Law as they were) were not a type or shadow prefiguring Christ and thus their reinterpretation was not necessary. Furthermore, for the above reason, the Old Covenant feasts and sacrifices (and they cannot be separated in such a way as has been suggested) are not “manners and customs that we need to keep” in the same way that the 10 commandments are. In Leviticus 23 the feasts instituted were directly tied to the sacrifices offered so their separation is not allowed if one is to argue that New Covenant saints could celebrate the feast of booths or even the Passover in their previous format:

“37 "These are the appointed feasts of the LORD, which you shall proclaim as times of holy convocation, for presenting to the LORD food offerings, burnt offerings and grain offerings, sacrifices and drink offerings, each on its proper day, 38 besides the LORD’s Sabbaths and besides your gifts and besides all your vow offerings and besides all your freewill offerings, which you give to the LORD.”

The question that must then be asked is, why not practice circumcision and sacrifice grains and animals for the same reasons: Jesus did it, we could learn more about God, it ties the Old and New testaments together?

Another objection to the abrogation of the Old Passover into the New was that no one seemed harmed by its practice, in fact, everyone in attendance “benefited” in some way. Simply because no one in attendance appeared to be “damaged” by the practice of the Old Passover, or because no one has been heard to say that they didn’t benefit from the experience in some small way, is no reason to assert that New Covenant saints might celebrate it. One of the responsibilities of the pastor is to rightly divide the Word of truth and his sheep into sanctifying pastures. The average layman can easily be lead into an errant practice when even well-meaning pastors teach and practice error. One evidence of this may be the first comment that was made on the blog thread which corresponded with the show. I don’t know if or where this lady attends church, but the responses made by the pastor (with whom I disagreed on the topic) regarding my objections to her comments were clearly made in her defense. She clearly has been damaged by the hermeneutical errors that lead one to a duel Passover theology; here is her quote in full:

“THank u thank u …I love u. I am a Jew that came to the Lord Jesus Christ in 1998. I call myself a Messianic Jew not a Christian. I do because most Christians do not follow the beliefs or even know the real Jesus Christ or they would follow the old testament. They would follow what Jesus believed in the Old Testament and preached. Thank u for making my day. I love u guys.”

There are several problems with her statements that should raise red flags. The first one is that she does not call herself a Christian, and the second (which apparently is her reason for the first) is that she believes that most “Christians” do not know Jesus Christ nor believe what He believes, for (in her mind) if they did, they would “follow the Old Testament”. If the application of normal Christian terminology is followed, what else could possibly be meant by that except a connection between knowing Christ and Old Covenant obedience? I believe the proper response to this lady is that Paul has already refuted her line of reasoning when he addressed the Galatians. Unfortunately, after I had opposed her comment, her statement was later defended by other participants in the thread of comments. I believe she is a prime example of how this hermeneutical error misunderstands the fulfillment of Old Testament types and shadows and which can lead to damaging results from a pastoral perspective.

To conclude, New Covenant saints actually do celebrate the Passover, but it is not in the same way as the Old Covenant saints did. Jesus fulfilled all the types and shadows of the Old Testament, feasts and sacrifices. So, to usher in the new era, as an inaugural feast of the advent of the Kingdom of God, Jesus took the Old Passover meal with His disciples, on the night before His death, and expanded its Old Covenant meaning by showing that the bread represented His body and the wine represented His blood. In its institution, and later in Paul’s commentary of it, Christ told them to take the meal with those elements, “in remembrance of Me”, and we are told to take this meal until His return. So Christ did not destroy the Old Passover just like He did not destroy the Law, He elucidated them; because of the Jew’s misunderstanding of the Law, Jesus told them that not only was it adultery to take another man’s wife, but if you even look on another man’s wife you have committed adultery already in your heart, not only was it murder to take your neighbor’s life, but if you hate him then you are already guilty of murder in your heart, likewise, He took the bread and cup of the Passover meal and added to their meaning thus when we come to the Lord’s Table, in essence we are continuing to obey the Lord’s command to continue the feast.

100th Post

Incredible, God has sustained me through 100 articles posted! As though this was work. It has been a joy to hopefully have proclaimed the gospel accurately through the blog medium. I remember the first time I heard the word "blog", it was on the Al Mohler show when he gave the explanation of the word as the combination of two words, web log, hence the compound, BLOG. So, for anyone out there reading, thank you for taking the time to look and ponder; I pray the words I have written have in some way been edifying or challenging, and I certainly hope they have been glorifying to God because, as Steve Camp might say, we have an audience of one.

On another note, I just visited the T4G site. I didn't get to attend this year, but I'm sure all those who did were fabulously blessed by the fellowship and teaching. To the delight of everyone who attended in 2006 and who weren't able to attend this past week, they have posted all the formal presentations on the website for free download.

I pray that I am able to write and post another 100 articles, but I pray even more so, Maranatha, Come Lord Jesus Come!

The Old Covenant Passover: Former Shadow or Supplemental New Covenant Feast? #3

In this article I am simple presenting some of the quotations for advocates of the dual celebration of the Old and New Passover by post cross saints. I must note here that when I refer to the Old Passover I will be referring to the feast commanded by God in Leviticus 23, and all of its Old Covenant significance for the Jew at the time of its institution and until the last supper.

First of all, many of the “benefits” that have, in reason number 2 above, been ascribed to the celebration of the Old Covenant form of the Passover are actually benefits that Christians of all ages should seek: knowing God better and being close to Him, deep meaning and spiritual significance in our lives, understanding the bible and grace better. All of those things are desirous for the maturity of a Christian and can be means of our sanctification. Here are several quotes that were used in the discussion to demonstrate why persons believe that the celebration of the Old Passover is beneficial to the Christian today:

“It is beneficial to your faith and your understanding of the Bible. Passover, Communion, the Last Supper, the Exodus all have deep symbolism and meaning to our personal faith.”

“I understand more about communion, the last supper and my faith from passover seders. If you can learn more about Jesus, who is central to passover, why would you not have ‘the inclination’ [to celebrate the Passover feast]?”

“I don’t go because it’s something that is required but because I want to learn more about the God I serve... You will walk out of there knowing God a little more than when you walked in. That’s the point.”

“To take a little time and fellowship with other believers or seekers and learn more about God’s heart and grace is an experience that will only bring you closer to him. It ties so much of the OT and NT together that if you just look at it simply, you will enjoy it.”

Second, advocates of the practice make the claim that the celebration of this feast is not explicitly prohibited in the words of the New Testament, in fact, Christ celebrated it and because He commands us to continue to love the Lord God and to love our neighbor, we thus have reason also to continue to celebrate the feast of Passover.

“I want to know and to learn as much about Jesus and the Bible as I can. I wish all that say they follow Jesus would as well. If Jesus thought the passover was important enough to celebrate it the last night with the disciples, I want to learn about it.”

“many things that Jesus said, he was quoting the Hebrew scriptures. Deut 6:4 ‘Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one! 5 You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your strength.’ NKJV

Lev 19:18 ‘You shall not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the children of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the LORD.’ NKJV

certainly these are manners and customs that we need to keep.”

“No one can quote a verse that says we should not celebrate passover.”

“the shadows mentioned in hebrews has more to do with the offerings that with the feasts.”

“Christians have no problem or questions celebrating Christmas and Easter, though the origins and some of the customs involved are questionable. I do celebrate Christmas and Resurrection Sunday (better name than Easter/Ishtar). Passover is a biblical feasts.”

“I would, again, encourage anyone and everyone to attend a Passover Seder so they can comment based upon their own personal experience whether it is helpful or beneficial (or damaging?) to their faith, biblical knowledge and understanding. I have never encountered anyone who attended one and said well, that did not help me in anyway. Not saying they don’t exists, just never met anyone. Anyone out there have this experience? To enter into a discussion without ever attending one makes it difficult to understand the relevance I am speaking about. I am passionate about people understanding the whole Bible.”

In the next post I will begin to answer these reasons.

Evidential versus Presuppositional Apologetics

One of these days I suppose I will endeavor to avail myself to the debate among Christians between two different schools of apologetics: the classical and the presuppositional. Perhaps that day is today. Below are the words of Van Til regarding the later, taken from his argument for the existence of God.

"Now, in fact, I feel that the whole of history and civilization would be unintelligible to me if it were not for my belief in God. So true is this, that I propose to argue that unless God is back of everything, you cannot find meaning in anything. I cannot even argue for belief in Him, without already having taken Him for granted. And similarly I contend that you cannot argue against belief in Him unless you also first take Him for granted. Arguing about God's existence, I hold, is like arguing about air. You may affirm that air exists, and I that it does not. But as we debate the point, we are both breathing air all the time. Or to use another illustration, God is like the emplacement on which must stand the very guns that are supposed to shoot Him out of existence."

"Do you suppose that our God approves of this attitude of His followers? I do not think so. The God who claims to have made all facts and to have placed His stamp upon them will not grant that there is really some excuse for those who refuse to see. Besides, such a procedure is self-defeating. If someone in your home town of Washington denied that there was any such thing as a United States Government would you take him some distance down the Potomac and testify to him that there is? So your experience and testimony of regeneration would be meaningless except for the objective truth of the objective facts that are presupposed by it. A testimony that is not an argument is not a testimony either, just as an argument that is not a testimony is not even an argument."

These of course are some of Van Til's reasons behind the presuppositional apologetic method. In the future I hope to explore some of the reasons given for the classical method, and to decide whether or not one must choose one or the other.

The Old Covenant Passover: Former Shadow or Supplemental New Covenant Feast? #2

In this post I will present several of the reasons persons on the Truth Talk Live forum gave for the continuation of the Passover in the same form as it was practiced in the Old Covenant. Note that these persons promote what I am going to call the "dual Passover institution", in other words, they suggest the celebration of the Old and the New Covenant Passover rituals.

Aside from the one comment that basically repeated the heresy of the Judaizers, below were the basic reasons given in four different categories (as I see it) for continuing the practice of the Old Covenant format of the Passover. I will address the Judaistic objection to the Old Covenant Passover format.

1. It is the New Covenant believer’s privilege to partake of the Old Covenant feast.

i. One comment included this quote, “It’s not bondage to celebrate what God has told us to celebrate. It’s understanding why Jesus did what he did. The more you understand that, the more grace will abound and prosper in YOUR life.”

2. Celebrating the Old Covenant form of the Passover benefits our faith.

i. By this celebration you can know God/the Person of Christ better, and you will be brought closer to Him.

ii. Celebrating this feast provides deep meaning in your life and spiritual significance.

iii. The practice of this feast helps you to understand the bible and grace better.

3. The New Testament doesn’t explicitly forbid the celebration of the Old Covenant form of the Passover.

i. Jesus celebrated it.

ii. Hebrews speaks more about the abrogation of the Old Covenant sacrifices than the abrogation of the Old Covenant feasts.

iii. Christ commanded that we continue to obey Old Covenant commands, i.e., love the Lord and your neighbor.

iv. We celebrate Holy Days (holidays) such as Christmas and Easter, which are not explicitly sanctioned in the bible.

v. There is vast statistical approval of the celebration of the Old Covenant format of the Passover by attendees.

4. 1 Cor. 5:7-8 Paul reiterated the Old Covenant command to “keep the feast”.

In the following posts I will answer these objections.

The Old Covenant Passover: Former Shadow or Supplemental New Covenant Feast? #1

Over the next few days I plan on covering a topic peripheral to the idea of covenant types and fulfillments. There has been a discussion on Truth Talk Live recently, regarding the importance of New Testament Christians attending or participating in a Passover Seder. This post will serve mainly as an introduction to the series.

The questioned asked to begin the conversation was this,

“Why Should Christians Care About an Old Testament Feast?” In order to clarify my objections to the subsequent comments, I need to dissect the meaning of the terms in the sentence. "Christians" of course refers to those believers in Christ today. "Old Testament feast" generally refers to any feast commanded by God in the Mosaic Covenant and ritually celebrated by the nation of Israel, but specifically (in the conversation that ensued) refers to the Passover Seder.

The Truth Talk Live blog is actually a function of the radio Christian talk show that broadcasts from 5 PM to 6 PM Monday through Friday on WTRU (AM 830 in the Triad, NC area), and near the beginning of the show, Pastor David McGee (brother in Christ and guest on the show on April 16th, 2008) intimated that our understanding of Christ's work could be deeper by attending the Passover Seder they practice at their church.

As I will maintain for the duration of this series, the bible does not specifically deny for New Covenant Christians, the practice of the Old Testament format for the Passover meal, but the reasons for its continuation that were offered on the blog comment strand corresponding to the show, were biblically deficient in this author's opinion, and the following posts in this series will discuss those reasons for its continuation and my reasons for not continuing the practice as it was stipulated in the Old Covenant.

"Why I believe in God" by Cornelius Van Til

Below is a quote from Cornelius Van Til's, "Why I Believe in God", which was published by Westminster Theological Seminary, and he was a part of the conservative group that founded the institution, and at which he served God along side such men as J. G. Machen. He was a Dutch Reformed theologian and possibly on of the greatest philosophical minds of the last 100 years. He lived from May 3, 1895 - April 17, 1987.

"I must make an apology to you at this point. We who believe in God have not always made this position plain. Often enough we have talked with you about facts and sound reasons as though we agreed with you on what these really are. In our arguments for the existence of God we have frequently assumed that you and we together have an area of knowledge on which we agree. But we really do not grant that you see any fact in any dimension of life truly. We really think you have colored glasses on your nose when you talk about chickens and cows, as well as when you talk about the life hereafter. We should have told you this more plainly than we did. But we were really a little ashamed of what would appear to you as a very odd or extreme position. We were so anxious not to offend you that we offended our own God. But we dare no longer present our God to you as smaller or less exacting than He really is. He wants to be presented as the All-Conditioner, as the emplacement on which even those who deny Him must stand."

Responding to Dispensationalism, Installation # 29: Conclusion

In conclusion to the series I have posted contrasting dispensational with covenantal hermeneutics , I would like to say that I certainly think of the vast majority of dispensationalists as my brothers in Christ, and most of popular dispensational teaching remains within the bounds of Christian doctrine, though portions of it (when one considers the context of the entire canon of Scripture and the great resources we have in studies of historical theology) tend toward aberrancy. As in all theological systems, there are doctrines which are byproducts of dispensational theory that are heretical. Take for instance the denial of possible apostasy which results from the “Lord less” Christ of Zane Hodges and others; antinomianism has always been a heresy. In kind, the pastures of covenant theology also have its black sheep in the federal vision camp. I also believe that (at least at its inception and the 50 to 75 years immediately following) the eschatological maze work of dispensational theology that results from an unbiblical separation of the “Israel of God” from the Church has a distinctly Gnostic character to it and has historically associated itself with semi-Pelagianism and sometimes even anti-Calvinistic rhetoric thus, in my mind, rendering it sub-biblical at those points as well.

As to its definition, based on my brief study and review of the history of Dispensationalism, I still only regard as true dispensationalist, Darby, Scoffield, Chaffer, and other likeminded folk who accept the two gospel, two peoples, two sets of promises, two eternal destinations and thus the two “ways” of salvation interpretation of God’s dealings with man in history. As for the others, I believe many (Walvood, Ryrie, Ice, Pentecost) have accepted the formal tenets of Dispensationalism, but have also accepted a contradiction because (thankfully) they reject the idea of two ways of salvation, and at least to the degree they regard the distinction of the Israel of God and the Church, and the hermeneutic it encapsulates, as important, in that measure they are dispensationalists of the semantic variety. But when one begins to negotiate that very important distinction between the Israel of God and the Church, whether by attributing even one promise made (exclusively they assume) to the nation of ethnic Israel to the New testament Church, or by denying a premillennial return of Christ, or by denying the literal fulfillment of Ezekiel’s temple/land prophesies in their absolute entirety then, in my humble opinion he (Blaising, Bock, MacArthur, and others) has formally stepped outside the walls of the dispensational camp.

Has Mobility Cultivated the "Seeker" Movement?

Today the Church of Christ in nearly all its denominations has to face, or already is facing the seeker friendly or seeker sensitive movement. I hardly need to describe the essential nature of this movement becuase it has been tangental to most lives, so if you have been involved in church life at all in the past 25 to 30 then you likely have, either been a part of the seeker movement, or an opponent of it. I think it is important to define at this point, the"seeker" category. Who are being referred to when this term is employed? And, if there are those who are seeking, then as a group they are, quite necessarily, set apart from the whole, thus their opposite must also exist--those who are not seeking. But in Romans 3, Paul has this to say,

9 What then? Are we Jews any better off? No, not at all. For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin, 10 as it is written: "None is righteous, no, not one; 11 no one understands; no one seeks for God. 12 All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one." 13 "Their throat is an open grave; they use their tongues to deceive." "The venom of asps is under their lips." 14 "Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness." 15 "Their feet are swift to shed blood; 16 in their paths are ruin and misery, 17 and the way of peace they have not known." 18 "There is no fear of God before their eyes." 19 Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God. 20 For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.

At first glance one might get the impression that Paul is quoting the psalmist to infer that no one "seeks" after God, not even one. This would be a fairly good understanding with which to come away from the text; notice that he says that very thing in verse 11. Some have tried to say that the emphasis Paul places on "no one" exclusively proves the point that neither the Jewish man, nor the gentile man is without sin; that all "groups" of people are "not good". While this is true, it also must be said that if none of those groups are good, then none of the individuals contained therein are good; you can't have a group that isn't good to some degree, if some individuals in it are in fact good.

Rooted in a pragmatic approach, the "seeker" profile could be anyone from a nonbeliever who finds some sort of desire fulfilled in the attendance of and fellowship produced by the visible church, to the saved individual whose priorities in seeking or finding a church home are skewed away from biblical standards (proper Law & Gospel preaching and the sacraments rightly administered) toward any other number of variable qualifications that are utterly subjective to the seeker's eclectic religious tastes. So one could say that the "seeker" demographic ranges in personalities from the outside consumer to the dictating shareholder. But, in light of the passage in Romans, we know that we should not call an unbeliever a "seeker" in the biblical sense of seeking after God. Though we know he was not perfect, we are told that David was a "man after God's own heart", and Abraham was a friend of God, but we also know that their pursuit of God (imperfect as it was) was initiated by God Himself, for He loved them before they loved Him. In addition to the Reformation distinction between the visible and invisible church and for our day especially, I suggest that there is a third category in which we can view persons: those unbelieving individuals outside the visible church who periodically attend our churches; those who are interested in hearing what the bible means; maybe those who just have a fear of what lies beyond death, often these folks will be deists who have been convinced by general revelation, but have not been called by the Spirit through the instrument of special revelation. In one sense these persons are "seeking", either information or experience, but they certainly are not "seeking" after God, or pursuing Him in a way that is not sinful, so the question to answer is, how do we refer to this group, and the broader question that is not fully addressed in this article is, how do we relate to them? The specific question being addressed in this article is, has physical mobility helped to cultivate the "seeker" and "seeker sensitive" movement? As to the name of a category of persons outside the visible church who show some degree of interest in questions conjured by thoughts of eternity, I suggest we continue to use what the bible allows, unbelievers.

Those of us who stand outside the boundaries of the seeker or seeker sensitive camps must begin to wonder how this phenomenon came into existence. Of course the two afore mentioned camps relate to one another in a symbiotic way; the seeker is catered to by those sensitive to his felt needs, and the seekers existence is perpetuated by those who find it their job description to meet his needs. But what other things happened in American culture and church life and practical theology in the past 50-1oo years to bring this about?

While I am fairly certain that the number of conditions and elements of cultural climate which have shaped this phenomenon is vast, I will suggest one--mobility. I believe that the ability persons in the United States posses to move on to the "next best thing" has permeated our culture; if you don't like the product one retailer is distributing, then you simply threaten to go down the street in pursuit of a product you believe is more fit for you to consume. This same demand for product customization has been applied to one's pursuit of "the right church". I submit that, because we can (and often we are willing) to travel miles and miles to attend a church in a community far removed from our own, the visible church at large has sold out to the expectations of the prospective demographic profile of those persons in the surrounding area, desperately trying to obtain a larger portion of the "market share". The region in which I live is spotted with many, many church buildings and congregations, and I am glad that my family and I have the resources to travel 20 minutes to go to what we consider a "good" church, but I must admit that this church really isn't what I consider "local"; it is not in the community in which we live; no one in our neighborhood goes to our church, in fact (with the exception of two households) only two families in our neighborhood attend the same church. Don't get me wrong, I am glad that we only have to travel 20 minutes to find a church we are "seeking"; we have heard of those who travel nearly an hour to find a church that even preaches the gospel, and we justify our decisions to forgo attending churches in our own local by marking it up to discernment. I want to reinforce the idea that there certainly are times when we must decide to leave churches which do not preach the gospel of justification by faith alone, and there really are a multitude of nuances within that provision by which we as Christians are given to leave a particular church or travel outside our immediate area to find good Law & Gospel teaching for our own spiritual good and the spiritual wellbeing of our families. I submit though, that we have taken that privalege for granted, and we use it to justify all kinds of unreasonable movement within the body.

We shouldn't forget how recent this resource of physical mobility is. My grandmother (who was born in 1913) just died this year, and she lived primarily a span of time which can be referred to as the time from horse & cart to piston and air conditioning. So with just a brief and superficial study of travel and mobility in the United States in the past 100 years, we discover that persons have become increasingly able to move; whether it be large scale movement, all at once (most often for career reasons), or periodic movement to visit family and friends or for vacation, or daily commuting that is most often job related.

In conclusion, I think we can safely say that this development has cultivated the occurance of consumer oriented church seeking and the church catering to those "seekers".