Book Review of David VanDrunen’s “Living in God’s Two Kingdoms: A Biblical Vision for Christianity and Culture”

Living in God’s Two Kingdoms: A Biblical Vision for Christianity and Culture

Copyright © 2010 by David VanDrunen

Published by Crossway Books

PRELIMS: This book was provided by Crossway for my personal review.

First off, Dr. VanDrunen is a credible author on the points in which he engages. He is a studied scholar in the realm of divinity and law. Such background is necessary for the topic in which he engages. Secondly, this book is much needed in the “Evangelical” world today as the church struggles and flounders through the murky issues of Christian engagement of culture, politics, etc. Lastly, VanDrunen approaches this work from the rich heritage of the “Two-Kingdom” theory you will find in Augustine, Luther, Calvin (although open to debate), and many contemporary Reformed thinkers.

THE GOOD:

VanDrunen establishes a historical understanding of the issues of how God rules in the world generally and in the Church specifically. He is well aware of Niebuhr’s work on “Christ and Culture” and establishes the framework of the debate judiciously. Before making an inductive thesis in support of the “Two-Kingdom” perspective, he engages critically in modern distortions of the Christians obligation to the world: N.T. Wright and the Emergent Church. His criticisms are insightful and helpful. Read the book for the nitty gritty.

I commend VanDrunen’s covenantal redemptive-historical framework throughout the book. He deals specifically with the covenant with Adam and how it consisted of his tending the garden (priestly duties), as well as governing the land (kingly duties). If Adam and his righteous progeny had succeeded, eternal bliss and rest would have followed, meaning that the “Creation Mandate” had a goal in view. Adam and Eve weren’t to perpetually bear children and work the land forever and ever as the last climatic act in their God-given charge. The priestly duties would have brought about consummated holiness in destroying the serpent and partaking of the tree of life, while the kingly duties would have brought earth under perfect subjection and thus a perfect consummate rest from labor. VanDrunen dedicates an entire chapter in elaborating upon these themes because the rest of the book makes no sense apart from this framework.  VanDruned then dedicates an entire chapter to exactly how Jesus has and will fulfill these charges given to Adam. VanDrunen states the following:

Before the second Adam no one accomplished the task of the first Adam, and after the second Adam no one needs to accomplish it. The last Adam has completed it once and for all. Christians will attain the original destiny of life in the world-to-come, but we do so not by picking up the task where Adam left off but by resting entirely on the work of Jesus Christ, the last Adam who accomplished the task perfectly.

 How did Christ accomplish Adam’s original task perfectly? Jesus did not personally fill the earth with his descendants or exercise dominion over all creatures in his human nature during his earthly ministry. But as considered in chapter 2, Adam was to have his entire obedience in the entire world determined through a particular test in a particular location. So it was for the last Adam. Like the first Adam, the Lord Jesus was confronted by the devil who tried to entice Christ to obey him, and King Jesus resisted the devil and conquered him (Matt. 4:1–11; Col. 2:15; Heb. 2:14). Like the first Adam, the Lord Jesus was called to priestly service, and Christ the Great High Priest purified God’s holy dwelling and opened the way for human beings back into his presence (Heb. 9:11–28; 10:19–22). Like the first Adam, the Lord Jesus was to enter God’s royal rest in the world-to- come upon finishing his work perfectly, and this is precisely what Christ did, entering into heaven itself, taking his seat at God’s right hand, ministering in the heavenly tabernacle, and securing our place in the world-to-come (Heb. 1:3; 4:14–16; 7:23–28).

This is absolutely essential for issues of Christianity and culture! If Christ is the last Adam, then we are not new Adams. To under- stand our own cultural work as picking up and finishing Adam’s original task is, however unwittingly, to compromise the sufficiency of Christ’s work. Christ perfectly atoned for all our sins, and hence we have no sins left to atone personally. Likewise, Christ perfectly sustained a time of testing similar to Adam’s: he achieved the new creation through his flawless obedience in this world. He has left nothing yet to be accomplished. God indeed calls Christians to suf fer and to pursue cultural tasks obediently through our lives. But to think that our sufferings contribute to atoning for sin or that our cultural obedience contributes to building the new creation is to compromise the all-sufficient work of Christ.

VanDrunen even pulls out the exclamation mark in reference to how important understanding the work of Christ is for determining our own obligations as a Christian.  We are now heavenly citizens who taste the world to come, but do not in any way bring it about. He states:

Book Review of Daniel Hyde’s “Welcome to a Reformed Church”

Hyde, Daniel R.. Welcome to a Reformed Church: A Guide for Pilgrims. Orlando, Fla.: Reformation Trust Pub., 2010. Print.

Reformation Trust provided this copy for a honest review on my part, so here it is:

Rev. Hyde offers readers a primer on the history and doctrine of the Reformed Church, focusing mainly on the 3 Forms of Unity (Belgic Confession, Heidelberg Catechism, and Canons of Dordt).

The Good:

Although an Evangelical Baptist, I am indebted to the 3 forms more than any other confession, catechism, or doctrinal formulation. I welcome with joy this brief book which introduces many to a heritage that is little-known in the broader American Evangelical Church.

Rev. Hyde takes great care to represent Reformed theology as a religion of the heart and mind. Hyde states,

“God has established an inseparable connection between truth and godliness. If truth remains in our heads but does not proceed to dwell in our hearts and find expression in our conduct, then we are no different, James says, than the devils (James 2:18-19).”

 Many have criticized Reformed theology as being arrogant and cerebral. While there are some who may unfortunately represent the Reformed heritage in such a way, this certainly is unrepresentative of the whole. Hyde commends Scottish Presbyterian John “Rabbi” Duncan’s quote, “I’m first a Christian, next a Catholic, then a Calvinist, fourth a Paedobaptist and finally a Presbyterian. I cannot reverse the order.” Hyde reminds us that we are first Christians, and secondly catholics. Catholic in the sense that we affirm solidarity with the church behind us, the church around us, and the church ahead of us.

Hyde also reminds us that Reformed theology highlights the importance of Sanctification. While many may first think of God’s sovereignty and Justification as key Reformed doctrines, the Reformers cared just as much about holy living. Hyde notes:

“Our Reformed fathers focused heavily on holy living. The volume of teachings they devoted to sanctification in their confessions and catechisms is striking. The Heidelberg Catechism devotes forty-four of its 129 questions and answers, more than one-third of its material, to sanctification, while the Westminster Larger Catechism devotes an impressive eighty-two of 196 questions and answers (42 percent) to this subject. By this emphasis, the Reformed churches declared that Calvinism is no mere religion of “head knowledge,” and we cannot live as if it makes us the “frozen chosen,” as we are sometimes derisively known. It is a religion of head and heart.”

The last emphasis that I found helpful was Hyde’s treatment of the Church and the centrality of the means of grace through Word and Sacraments. He reminds us that,

“It is the preaching of the gospel of Jesus Christ, then, that creates the people of God. The gospel not only saves us from our sins and the wrath of God, it places us in vital union with Jesus Christ and other Christians. Thus, the church is the fruit of the gospel; it is not our own creation, but a creation of the triune God of grace.”

The Bad:

Galatians 3:15-18 “Christ, the Fruit-Bearing Seed”

“Christ, the Fruit-Bearing Seed”

Galatians 3:15–18 (ESV) — 15 To give a human example, brothers: even with a man-made covenant, no one annuls it or adds to it once it has been ratified. 16 Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, “And to offsprings,” referring to many, but referring to one, “And to your offspring,” who is Christ. 17 This is what I mean: the law, which came 430 years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to make the promise void. 18 For if the inheritance comes by the law, it no longer comes by promise; but God gave it to Abraham by a promise.

15 To give a human example- Speaking in human terms, or by means of a human analogy.

, brothers – Paul is now using a more affectionate term. From when he started the section with “foolish Galtians”. He is appealing to them, trying to reason with them, wrapping his arms around them. The truth rebukes, but also must be spoken in love. This complexity is known to any of us who have parented. Times to be harsh and times to speak affectionately. Times to call them by their full name, times to call them “Sweetie”.

: even with a man-made covenant, no one annuls it or adds to it once it has been ratified. – the word for “covenant” (diatheke), can be understood as covenant or will. In a bi-lateral understanding among men with each other, agreements are binding. If someone decides to change the terms or refuses to honor certain stipulations, they will be legally liable in a just society. If man-made covenants carry this significance, then how much more with God, who makes a covenant with man.

• “Berith” – Testament has referred to the outworking on a uni-lateral promise
• “diatheke” – God initiated, requiring stipulations which can’t be regarded as meritorious but only consistent with the nature of promise which far exceeds the demands of faith.
• “syntheke” – horizontally stipulated, fair, pay for wages.

-          I am a covenant theologian, essentially I read they whole Bible in light of this framework of a gracious God who reaches down to fallen creation in grace to establish relationship. God administrates this covenant through different phases, but each is built upon the idea of promise!!!

The Nicodemus Objection

Over on Facebook, Pastor Rick wrote:

…if there was continuity in the constituting [of] God’s covenant people, Jesus would never have told Nicodemus that he must be born again. How dare Jesus be so pietistic as to tell a respected “covenant” member that he needs to be born again.

He echoes a question I once asked: why would Jesus tell Nicodemus that he must be born again if he was already in the covenant by circumcision?

Someone pointed out to me that “…Jesus is not talking about individual regeneration in John 3. Rather, he is talking about the need for a new Israel, a new humanity. Nicodemus needs to follow Jesus into the new world through death and resurrection. Being baptized will unite him with the disciples of Jesus, with those who are following Jesus into a new world.”

James Jordan puts it this way:

Nicodemus is brilliant. He says to Jesus, “You jest, surely. How many times have we been born again? the Flood, Sinai, Elijah, Cyrus. But it has never taken. You would have to back into mother’s womb and start over.”

“Yep,” says Jesus. “And watch me do it.”

Sure enough, Nicodemus is there when Jesus is buried back into mother’s womb. I’m certain Nicodemus knew Jesus would rise again, born anew from the soil. Maybe the disciples had doubts, but Nicodemus knew.

In union with Jesus’ resurrection we are all born anew from mother’s womb.

He also points out that John describes the tomb as a virgin:

19.41 Now in the place where he was crucified there was a garden, and in the garden a new tomb in which no one had yet been laid.

(Genesis 24.16 The young woman was very attractive in appearance, a maiden whom no man had known.)

Put this together with Luke’s record of Jesus vs. Sadducees on resurrection where he says that one becomes a son of God by being a son of the resurrection, and Peter’s sermon in Acts 2 about the “birth pangs” of death being unable to stop Jesus, the use of Psalm 2 (“today I have begotten you”) in the preaching of the resurrection of Jesus in Acts, the title “firstborn of the death,” Romans all over the place….

My Angst with Dispensational Defiance of Rejecting an Apostolic Hermeneutic of the Old Testament

The cited material comes from Robert L. Thomas’ volume, “Understanding Spiritual Gifts”. Thomas (1999:141), who is an able exegete and professor at the Master’s Seminary, evidences nonetheless a priori commitment to a systematic paradigm that influences, in my estimation, a reading of certain texts, namely Joel 2:28:

Prophets in the future will minister to people of Israel and the world at large during the seventieth week of Daniel, after the rapture of the church (Joel 2:28). They will not be the prophets described in relation to the gifts of the Spirit bestowed on members of the body of Christ because the church will no longer be on earth during that period.

Thomas’ dispensational paradigm won’t allow him to see any application of Joel 2:28 to the church, even in the face of Peter’s application of such to the “Church”. While Dispensationals will respond by stating that Peter’s application of Joel was only applicable for the nation of Israel, this ignores the fact that Peter offers the same promised Spirit to those “afar off”, to all who would repent and be baptized. 3000 Jews repented on the day of Pentecost, so one can’t say that the Joeline promise was pulled from the table because of Israel’s rejection. Israel’s acceptance opens the door for the same promise to extend outward to include even Gentile believers, which was the great scandal of the Gospel. While I admit that Peter may have been speaking better than he knew, it is clear for me, that according to Luke’s recounting the Joeline promise was distributed to Gentiles and would continue to be dispensed upon all who turn to Christ in repentance.

For Thomas to run roughshod over Peter’s application and state so clearly that Joel’s application is relegated only to Daniel’s seventieth week to a specific number of prophets who are mainly ministering to the Jewish nation is a rejection of the expansion of this promise to the New Covenant. It is a reading of Joel that ignores the fact that Peter applied it in a way that contradicts a priori hermeneutical conviction that Joel must apply to ethnic Jews and within a brief appointed time in God’s eschatological theme. Dispensationals wish to deal with the OT on its own terms, which is commendable, but almost treat the Apostolic hermeneutic of the OT as erroneous and an inconvenience. Do these Dispensationals really understand the OT better than Jesus and the Apostles?

Thomas (1999:134) also argues against the application of Joel 2:28-29 to the current New Covenant era based on the fact that not “all” prophesy:

Based on Numbers 11:29 and Joel 2:28-29, the expectation of all God’s people was that everyone would prophesy, but God has appointed only a limited number to be prophets. The idea that Christians should seek the gift as thought it were available to all is misleading if it is available only to a restricted number of Christians.

I agree that not all prophesy, but hardly see that as proof that Joel is not being fulfilled. It is like saying that the New Covenant promises of salvation being extended to all people isn’t literally being fulfilled because not all people are saved. Should we dare claim the promises to people and encourage them to seek salvation knowing that not all are saved? Thomas is presuming that to be faithful to Joel’s promise, all of God’s people must prophesy. The irony is that most Dispensationals don’t even believe that all will prophesy when Joel is fulfilled in Daniel’s seventieth week. Thomas thinks that, “The idea that Christians should seek the gift as thought it were available to all is misleading if it is available only to a restricted number of Christians.” Well, apparently Paul had no problem encouraging the Christian community to desire prophecy (1 Cor. 14:5). Peter presumed that the collective Christian community was endowed with “charismata”, including speaking gifts (1 PT 4:10-11).

If Thomas thinks it erroneous for Christians to be so mistaken as to dare seek prophecy, he stands in contradiction to Paul and Peter. Paul and Peter apparently didn’t share Thomas’ exegesis and theology on this point. Prophecy is not only available to the Christian community, but they are actually encouraged to seek it. While not all will prophesy, this is hardly proof against the fulfillment of Joel 2:28-29, which Peter seem convinced was the best explanation for the observed behavior on Pentecost. Who are we to believe in this matter? I would encourage Thomas and dispensational to stop accusing folks like me of altering the literal meaning of “all” in Joel 2:28-29 when there is Apostolic precedent that the text wasn’t understood, nor applied in that manner.

As much as I disagree with a Covenantal view of Joel’s application within the New Covenant, they at least view Pentecost itself as fulfillment of Joel 2:28-29. While they restrict the fulfillment to Pentecost, they prove more faithful to Peter than the Dispensationals do.

Craig Keener’s Argument for the Continuation of “Charismata”

NT scholar Craig Keener makes what I have always found to be a simple and logical conclusion on the implications of Pentecost and Peter’s preaching to the continuing nature of the New Covenant with relation to Spiritual gifts.  This excerpt is from his volume, “The Spirit in the Gospels and Acts”. Keener (1997:197-198) contends against the notion that the accompanying signs of the Spirit’s reception in Acts was confined to some brief era:

The phrases “and your children” and “As many as God shall call” likewise make clear that Luke does not envision the outpouring of the Spirit as a past, temporary gift; if Luke does not regard it as still available, then by his argument God’s calling, the new era, and the availability of salvation must have also been retracted. In this case Luke expects his Christian audience to reject the whole point of Peter’s sermon, as he reports that Peter’s unrepentant Jewish hearers did. The implications of such an interpretation run totally counter to Luke’s theology; clearly he assumes that Pentecost’s endowment of the Spirit and dynamic manifestations of the Spirit such as glossolalia are to continue until Jesus’ return. If “the last days” did in fact begin on Pentecost (2:17), and if, in the words of many scholars today, Luke’s view of the kingdom is “already” as well as “not yet,” Luke believes that Spirit baptism remains normative for God’s community, both to Israel and to “far off” Gentiles.

Pentecost Inaugurates a New Israel and a New Creation

Sweeney, M.A. (2000). The Twelve Prophets: Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah (vol. 1). Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press.

M.A. Sweeney (2000:174) likens the outpouring upon Israel as a reconstitution of His people of sorts, hearkening back to creation and the work of the Spirit amidst the cataclysmic events:

Indeed, the image of the Hamsin/Sharav appears to underlie much of the imagery of cosmic transformation in this passage, but it is combined with the imagery of prophecy once again to demonstrate the interrelatedness of the natural and the human worlds in the book of Joel….The list of persons involved, sons and daughters, elders, young men, slaves and maid servants, is intended to be comprehensive. This phenomenon appears to project a return to a much earlier or ideal time prior to the establishment of Israel as a nation ruled by a king in its own land, such as the Exodus and wilderness period when the seventy elders of Israel began to prophesy when the “spirit” of G-d descended upon them (Num 11:25) or the period prior to the time of Samuel and the emergence of the first king, Saul, when 1 Sam 3:1 states that the word of YHWH and visions were rare at that time.

Sweeney (2000:174) adds the following:

To a certain extent, the passage attempts to portray a return to a state prior to creation, either of the natural world order or of the nation Israel, which of course enables both YHWH and Israel/Judah to start all over again on a new basis. The portents in the heavens and on the earth recalls both the use of heaven and earth as the comprehensive designation for all creation (Gen 1:1; 2:1,4) and the actions of YHWH in the Exodus narrative that forced Pharaoh to free the Hebrew slaves and that prompted the creation of Israel as a nation and its covenant with YHWH (Exod 6:1-9; 7:1-7).

Sweeney (2000:175) continues:

The images of “blood, fire, and columns of smoke” appear to be destructive at first sight and suggest the motif of YWHW’s battles against the nations that oppress Israel in the following passages. But these images are also the images of the altar at the Jerusalem Temple….Once the animal is slaughtered and prepared for the altar, it is set on fire and consumed entirely, resulting in a thick column of smoke that will stand over the site of the Temple complex. Although the imagery is destructive, it is also constructive in the sense that the Temple sacrificial ritual is intended to maintain or restore the order of the created world. In a similar manner, the Hamsin or Sharav that darkens the sun and causes the moon to appear red as blood is both destructive and transformative in that it marks the transition from one season to another; one reality is destroyed as another emerges. Altogether, such transformation in both the natural and the human world is labeled as the coming “Day of YHWH” in verse 4 [NRSV:31].

Pentecost therefore marks the commencing of judgment on the “old era”, which is passing away, and the inauguration of the “new era”, which is ever closer to its full consummation.  The signs and wonders surrounding the crucifixion, ascension, Pentecost and the eventual destruction of Jerusalem on 70 A.D. also marks a destructive work on the “old Israel” and the constructing of a “new Israel” that will bear fruit in keeping with repentance. The “last days” as a whole also have cosmic consequences as the “old earth” is literally passing away and is yet being renewed.

Former Westminster O.T. Professor Raymond Dillard Sounding Very Covenantal-Charismatic

The late Dr. Raymond Dillard, who served as Professor of O.T. at Westminster Theological Seminary (Philly), penned a great commentary on Joel that is included in the McComiskey edited work on the Minor Prophets. I have quoted extensively from it in my thesis research and thought the following couple quotes were quite bold coming from a Westminster prof:

Dillard (1992:295) encourages the modern church to consider the implications of being a “prophethood of believers” in addition to the Protestant emphasis of the “priesthood of believers”:

Protestant theology is accustomed to speaking of the “priesthood of all believers”; perhaps in light of Acts 2 and Joel 2:28-32, we must also speak of the “prophethood of all believers.” The coming of the Spirit at Pentecost inaugurated a new age, the age when Moses’ prayer is realized and all God’s people are endued with the Spirit of prophecy. The possession of the Spirit would never again be the restricted preserve of a few; all who call on the name of the Lord (2:32) now have the equipage and the obligation incumbent upon prophets to bear witness to their generation.

One would naturally inquire as to what this ought to look like in the New Testament church, and Dillard (1992:295) sounds much like modern Pentecostal/Charismatics when he states the following,

“This enduement with the Spirit of prophecy belongs to the general office of the church—rich and poor, young and old, male and female; the privilege of proclaiming God’s truth to a waiting world is not the province of the special office alone.”

I refer to myself as being Covenantal-Charismatic, in that I see Pentecost not merely as a foreshadowing (Dispensational), or as a complete fulfillment (Some Covenantal), but as an inauguration of a “new age” (to use Dillard’s terminology) that is not marked merely by a soteric working of the Spirit, as awesome as that is, but is also accompanied by a Charismatic enduement. Just as Dr. Doug Oss (a Westminster grad turned Assemblies of God seminary professor) argued for a Pentecostal understanding of the “new era” based primarily on the covenantal framework  (See Zondervan’s Counterpoint Volume) that he learned at Westminster, so I also contend for the clear unification of Covenantal and Charismatic theologies. I am encouraged that Dr. Dillard also enumerated some conclusions on Joel’s text that sounds awfully close to the Covenantal-Charismatic paradigm that I think deserves more attention.

Jonathan Edwards and the Decline of the Puritan Covenant

In Chapter 3 of America’s God, Noll writes that while Jonathan Edwards ably defended the doctrines of Calvinism in a way that understood the Enlightenment, his conception of the church represented a break with the Puritan ideal.

The Puritan covenant bound society and church under a covenant with God, using biblical Israel as the model.  In Puritan Massachusetts, the official theology taught that the society was truly a covenant community.  One needed to give a convincing testimony of being born again to join a church, and men needed to be church members to vote, but all society was to be under God’s law.  Of course, there were tensions:

• Only church members could take communion, but by the terms of the Half-Way Covenant of 1662 the children of baptized nonmembers could themselves be baptized.
• Roger Williams argued that the faith could not be compelled, and set up a colony in Rhode Island to set up a colony with religious liberty.
• Anne Hutchinson denied the responsibility of believers to keep the law and held private religious meetings, and she also left Massachusetts.
• Edwards’ grandfather Solomon Stoddard argued that communion was a sign of the covenant with New England society and therefore allowed all church attenders to take communion, regardless of whether they had made a profession of faith.

These point to the central difficulty that the Puritans faced.  They held to the ideal of Christendom, a godly society ordered by Christian principles.  But they also were Protestants who believed that faith alone began the new birth of the Christian, unlike Catholics who believed that regeneration began with baptism.  So the number of true Christians was fewer than the number of baptized Christians.  But all people were under the covenant of God with society.

Noll argues that for all of Edwards’ defense of traditional doctrine, his writing and revivals of the 1730s-1760s (the Great Awakening period) helped to destroy the Puritan idea as a comprehensive system.  Edwards saw the church as a gathering of born-again people only, and eventually argued that only Israel was a truly covenanted nation with God.  In this vein, he only allowed church members (who had given testimony of their conversion) to recieve communion and only church members to have their children baptized.

Noll writes that the Puritan ideas of a chosen nation continued in their influence after the Great Awakening, but the convenant as a systematic way of looking at life lost its considerable influence.  This opened theology in America to new influences.

Can One Be a Credo-Baptist and Still Hold to a Nuanced Reformed-Covenantal View of Children?

Greetings blog-readers!!! I have not touched on a subject that is very dear to my heart, children. A couple of years ago I took a sabbatical to research the theology of both baptism and children. I came away more intrigued in developing a theology of Children that was faithful to Scripture…albeit a convinced Covenantal Credo-Baptist.

Suffice it to say that some of my colleagues have stated that my theology of children and passion to nurture them in the faith seems more zealous than their pastoral colleagues within their Reformed Paedo-Baptist denominations. What puzzles them most is that I am still a Credo-Baptist though I speak Covenantal language with regards to children of believers.

Anyhow, I continue to research and grow in my understanding of Scripture on the issue of children on relation to Covenant parents. I hope to discuss this issue further in future entries. I want to share my thoughts one tid-bit at a time.

For this first entry, I want to state that the ideal conversion of children should be stated, like the Psalmist: “For thou, O Lord, art my hope; my trust, O Lord, from my youth” (71:5). As such, I believe that God’s grace operates preveniently through the loving nurture and instruction of the parents to child. Though affirming the doctrine of original sin, I would also state that it would be difficult to resist such grace in its 24/7 ethos of the home. I would also affirm that God’s grace is extended through the Church to the child, binding them to God’s Word, promising great blessing upon their trust in the Savior. I would also state that the Church has jurisdiction over the entire household, where believing parents are present. Now some are asking the question, “Why then would you withhold baptism from these children?”. I will answer that question at another time, but will minimally state that though God’s grace is operative towards the child through both parents and church, it is no guarantee of an inward working unless such instruction is received in faith. I believe that my 2 and 4 year old daughters have shown signs of faith that is comparable with their age…I don’t minimize or disdain their childlike faith. Such was commended by our Lord. I’m not waiting for some radical conversion experience before bestowing the sign of baptism, but rather confirming fruits of what I already suspect to be present within their hearts. I acknowledge the tension in defining what that burden of proof should be before admitting one to baptism…am I looking for 2 year old faith, 6 year old faith, 10 year old faith? I also struggle with the other sacrament of communion. To be honest, speaking from my gut (which isn’t the final arbiter in truth, thank goodness), I want my little girls to receive the supper because it feels right to include them in this symbol of the Body of Christ, and His saving benefits to all who believe. The words of Jesus, “Suffer not the children come to me”, may be relevant on this issue…I want them to understand that they do in fact belong to Jesus, even if their faith is at 2 and 4 year old levels. After all, Kira and Lexi are encouraged to pray during our family prayer times and often lead out in prayers that I must presume are being heard by our Savior and mediated by Him. I have no good reason to say that their prayers are deficient. True they pray for candy at times, etc, but they have shown heartfelt concern in praying for the health and wellbeing of certain family members when sick, etc. They are also leading us in prayer through the Lord’s Prayer daily now. Perhaps Kira should soon be baptized, perhaps we should wait. She doesn’t want to be baptized though because it looks scary to her and she has stated that “older people get baptized”. Her faith isn’t being damaged by withholding the sign, so I am content to wait till she is eager for it and hungry for the Supper.

Anyhow, I just want to be honest about the tension I feel in these areas. I am trying to reconcile my theology of children and the sacraments and acknowledge it isn’t easy. I am not alone. Most of my Presbyterian-Reformed friends are also struggling with these very same issues and

Geerhardus Vos = Charismatic Theologian?

Okay, I know that some are about to stone me for even mentioning Geerhardus Vos and charismatic in the same sentence. It was intended to be provocative, but I must say that Vos’ pnuematological insights align well with a Redemptive-Charismatic hermeneutic. He quotes:

The position of Jesus in the development of pneumatology as between the Old Testament and Paul can be broadly defined as follows: In the Old Testament the Spirit is the Spirit of theocratic charismata, who qualifies prophets, priests and kings for their office, but is not communicable from one to the other. Of this charismatic Spirit Jesus has received the fullness, and, having the fullness, dispenses of it to His followers, first partially and by means of promise, then in greater fullness by way of fulfillment at Pentecost (Vos:387).

This “theocratic” work of the Spirit did manifest itself by possessing prophets, priests, and kings. Each office complements one another and requires a special empowering that only God can provide through the agency of the Holy Spirit. Old Testament pneumatology is therefore mostly confined to this “theocratic” nature. The Spirit’s work was specific and specifically given only to those who occupied each of the offices. Joel’s promise of the Spirit (2:28-32) ascends from this backdrop of “theocratic charismata” and declares that such phenomenon will not only accompany the three offices, but rather all of Israel. Though the outpouring of the Spirit contains within it a soteriological nature, the emphasis for Joel was on its charismatic nature in the life of Israel.

Vos understands Jesus as the climatic bearer of the Spirit as He possessed all three offices within the theocratic strata. The Spirit is therefore understood as a vocational empowering upon Jesus to fully execute His offices of prophet, priest, and king. Lukan Christology and Pneumatology converge in Jesus baptism, where He receives the Holy Spirit. For Luke, this Spirit is what ushers in Jesus’ Messianic ministry. He is full of the Spirit and led by the Spirit into the wilderness (Lk. 4:1), returns from the wilderness to Galilee “in the power of the Spirit” (Lk. 4:14), and proceeds to quote Isaiah 61 on the Sabbath in Nazareth,

“And the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was given to him. He unrolled the scroll and found the place where it was written, “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.”” (Lk 4:17-19, ESV)

Shortly after Jesus’ reading, he proceeds to heal a demon possessed man in Capernaum, Simon’s  mother in law, and then all who were brought to him (Lk. 4:31-41). This is no small thing in Luke’s account. Jesus is clearly being portrayed as the great theocrat, endued with power. It is this very same paradigm that Luke unpacks in Acts as the disciples are told by Jesus to wait in Jerusalem for “power” from on high. This was not a soteriological or sanctifying work of the Spirit, but clearly a “theocratic” vocational endowment of the Spirit for the disciples.

Lukan pneumatology should therefore be understood less in a soteric/regenerative aspect and instead in an empowering/theocratic aspect. I think Vos was onto something, although he didn’t enumerate  his points in an apologetic for what is now understood as “charismatic” theology. The foundations he lays, however, align better with “charismatic” theology than his “cessationist” grandchildren. 

Book Review of Dennis Johnson’s “The Message of Acts in the History of Redemption”, Plus my Proposal that Covenant Theology and Charismatic Theology Marry Each Other

 

Johnson, D.E. (1997). The Message of Acts in the History of Redemption. Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed. 

I am not shocked to see that Dr. Johnson’s first person thanked under “Acknowledgments” is none other than Dr. Richard B. Gaffin, Jr. While I strongly disagree with Gaffin’s contribution to Zondervan’s Counterpoint Book, “Are Miraculous Gifts for Today”, I very much appreciate his redemptive-historical hermeneutic, which I actually think is consistent with a Charismatic hermeneutic.

Anyhow, everything that I appreciate about a Covenantal, redemptive-historical approach to Scripture, which Dr. Gaffin holds to, is seen in Dr. Johnson’s approach to the book of Acts. I must admit that while growing up a Charismatic, one weakness in the approach to Acts is that it was seen first and foremost as a blueprint or manual for the contemporary church. While I very much appreciate the relevance of Acts for the contemporary church, it must first be read in its context as Luke’s contention for a realized “eschatos”, which is rooted in Covenant promise in the Old Covenant. Such a reading will only enhance ones understanding of God’s actions in the early church as a fulfillment of previous promises. This appreciation will then yield greater relevance for God’s continued working in the church today as seen in her in-breaking on Pentecost.

Some of the insights I found particularly helpful in Johnson’s book are the following:

Bible Scholar Dan Lioy Expounds Ideas of “Progressive Covenantalism” in Response

Dr. Dan Lioy was gracious enough to expound his understanding of the Old and New Covenants. To see the initial  post my myself, click: http://endued.wordpress.com/2007/12/21/book-review-part-3-of-dan-lioys-jesus-as-torah-in-john-1-12-chp-3-jesus-as-torah-in-john-1/

Rick,

I also wanted to respond to your comments regarding the new covenant, especially its relationship to the people of God today. My journal article titled “Progressive Covenantalism as an Integrating Motif of Scripture” deals with this and other interrelated issues. It was published in the March 2006 issue of Conspectus, the e-journal of SATS. Here’s the link: http://www.theological-research.org/conspectus.php

The abstract for the essay says the following:

>>>Progressive covenantalism is a new working model for comprehending the relationship between the Old and New Testaments. The goal is to articulate a consistent understanding of how to put together seemingly heterogeneous portions of Scripture. This integrating motif asserts that God’s progressive revelation of His covenants is an extension of the kingdom blessings He first introduced in creation. Affiliated claims are that the various covenants revealed in Scripture are interrelated and build on one another, that the people of God throughout the history of salvation are united, and that they equally share in His eschatological promises.<<>>Concerning Jeremiah 31:31-34, this arguably would have been the high point of Jeremiah’s prophetic ministry. By saying that a day will come, Jeremiah also indicated that the new covenant will be part of the future messianic age (v. 31; Feinberg 1976:6:574-575). More than a century before (722 BC), the Assyrians had defeated and removed the residents of Israel (cf. 2 Kings 17:5-6); however, even though the northern kingdom no longer existed, Israel would be included along with Judah in the new covenant (Jer 31:31). This indicates that it was to be for all God’s people. Indeed, “Israel” (v. 33) refers to the entire nation, which was divided into the house of Israel and Judah; also, the phrase “after that time” refers to the Jews’ return from exile and their repopulation of the promised land.

As Thompson (1980:580) points out, the covenant the Lord inaugurated between Himself and the Israelites at Mount Sinai forms the backdrop to Jeremiah’s announcement (Exod 19:1-24:11; cf. Keown, Scalise, and Smothers 1995:133). The limitations associated with the old covenant underscored the reason for the new covenant. In the former, which God originally made with the ancestors of the Jews, He took them by the hand (in a manner of speaking) and led them out of the land of Egypt (v. 32). Even though the Lord was like a faithful and devoted husband to Israel, the people continually broke the Mosaic covenant. The new covenant would have to address the problem inherent in the old one. In particular, it would have to compensate for the inability of the people to perform up to God’s standards.

It was never God’s intent that the Mosaic law be used as a means to obtain salvation; instead, forgiveness of sins has always been the Lord’s gracious gift to those who have humbled themselves before Him in faith (Gen 15:6; Rom 4:3). The law was God’s way of pointing out the pathway that believers should walk (Rom 7:7; Gal 3:19, 24; for a detailed discussion of the biblical concept of the law, cf. Lioy 2004:13-34). Thus, the problem with the covenant at Mount Sinai was not in God’s provision, but in Israel’s response. Only the Lord could change the hearts and minds of His people; thus, a new covenant was needed.

In Jeremiah 31:33, the Lord pledged to do three things in the new covenant. First, He would put His law within His people; it would become a part of their innermost being. Second, God would write the law on their hearts; expressed differently, His will and Word would affect their thoughts, emotions, and decisions. Third, the Lord would be the God of the Jews, and they would be His chosen people. Jeremiah was echoing several Old Testament promises (cf. Gen 17:7; Exod 6:7; Lev 26:12). Nonetheless, the life, death, and resurrection of the Messiah opened a new avenue for human beings to relate to their heavenly Father. Because of the salvation provided by the Redeemer, all believers can enter into God’s presence. Here is seen the essential difference between the old and new covenants. The new one would be primarily internal, while the old one was principally external. The new covenant represented a relationship, while the old covenant was more of a legal document. The old was written on tablets of stone, while the new would be written on human hearts (cf. 2 Cor 3:3). Once the law of God could be implanted within people’s hearts, their relationship with the Lord could be permanent (cf. Malone 1989:211-213).

Such distinctions, however, should not be overstated (Barker 1982:6), for there remains a fundamental unity between the old and new covenants. Indeed, embedded within the concept of covenant is “continuity in the divine purpose in history” (Campbell 1993:182). This observation implies that the new covenant is “not new in essence, but new in fulfillment” (Thompson 1979:1:792; cf. Dumbrell 1984:175, 184-185, 199-200). In Romans 11:11-24, Paul revealed that the Lord has grafted Gentiles into the people of God (that is, the stem of Abraham), like wild olive shoots into the main trunk of an olive plant. Similarly, the new covenant is “part of the same tree” as the old covenant, not “an altogether new stock” (McKenzie 2000:107; cf. Shelton 2005:49).

McKenzie (2000:59) explained that both the old and new covenants involve the same parties, namely, the Lord and His people. In the time of Jeremiah, the latter would have been “the descendants of the exodus generation, who were the recipients of the original covenant.” Furthermore, both covenants have God’s moral code as their ethical foundation, with the Mosaic law being the chief historical expression of it. As Barker (1982:6) noted, the Old and New Testaments alike “speak with a united voice on the importance—indeed, the necessity—of adhering to the spirit of the law.” Moreover, the new covenant, like its predecessor, is rooted deeply in the sacred traditions, writings, and communal life of ancient Israel (McKenzie 2000:89; cf. Kaiser 1978:233-234). . . .

Hebrews 8 provides additional commentary on the interrelationship between the old and new covenants. An examination of this passage indicates that God’s progressive revelation of His covenants is the integrating motif (or the determining, controlling concept) between the testaments. Verses 1-5 reveal that because Jesus’ ministry is heavenly and unlimited, it is superior to that of the Levitical priests. The Saviour, as the mediator between God and humanity (1 Tim 2:5), has inaugurated a new and better covenant than the old one based on the Mosaic law. The new covenant is better, precisely because it is “established on better promises” (Heb 8:6). As deSilva (2001:24) noted, “Jesus is the focal point, the lens through which the light of God’s favor and promises come into focus and shine out to humanity.”

The writer of Hebrews argued that if the first covenant had sufficiently met the needs of people and had adequately provided for their salvation, then there would have been no need for a new covenant to replace it (v. 7). But the old covenant was insufficient and inadequate in bringing people to God, and therefore a new covenant had to be established. The nexus of the shortfall was not the covenant in and of itself, but those living under it. God had found fault with the Israelites, primarily because they did not continue in that covenant (v. 8). While God initiated the old covenant with His people, they also willingly agreed to it (cf. Josh 24). Thus, the covenant was a mutual obligation between God and the people. Nonetheless, the people often failed to live up to their part of the obligation (cf. Neh 9; Dan 9:1-19). As a result, human failure rendered the old covenant inoperative (cf. Rom 7:7-25). The establishment of a new covenant naturally implies that the old covenant is obsolete, needs to be replaced, and will eventually disappear from the scene altogether (Heb 8:13).

In would be incorrect to conclude from the preceding remarks that the writer of Hebrews disparaged or maligned the old covenant. After all, as Newman (1997:248-249) points out, the contrast is not between an evil system (namely, the old covenant) and a good system (namely, the new covenant), but between what is good and what is better. This train of thought, which was common among the Jewish people in the first century A.D., is an “argument from the lesser to the greater.” It is comparable to the rationale offered by Paul in 2 Corinthians 3 on the subject of the greater glory of the new covenant compared to the old covenant. In the case of the Mosaic covenant, it was provisional in nature. With the advent of the Messiah, “a new day in salvation history has dawned” (cf. Jocz 1968:243-245; Malone 1989:211).<<<

Dan Lioy

Book Review of Cornelis Venema’s “Getting the Gospel Right: Assessing the Reformation and New Perspectives on Paul” + My thoughts on “Covenantal Nomism”,”works of the law”, and “justification” as understood by E.P. Sanders, J.D.G. Dunn, and N.T. Wright

This is a tidy primer, assessing the works of E.P. Sanders’ ”Paul and Palestinian Judaism”, J.D.G. Dunn’s “New Perspective on Paul”, and N.T. Wright’s views of Justification.

To be fair to the scholars assessed here, I have familiarized myself with Covenantal Nomism as presented by Sanders, have done some research into “works of the law” as used by Paul and understood by Dunn, among others…and have read, “What Saint Paul Really Said” by Wright.  Venema views the work of these 3 scholars as a departure from the traditional reformed understanding of the law, justification, and penal atonement.

To be honest, I wasn’t alarmed at reading the contributions of the 3 mentioned scholars. The thought presented by Sanders, that 2nd temple Judaism wasn’t a legalistic sect that viewed the law as a job description to earn favor with God, is helpful. At the same time, it would be dangerous to characterize the thought life of Judaism with a blanket assessment. As for Dunn’s understanding of Paul’s usage of “works of the law” to refer to the boundary marker laws which made Jews look differently than others, may in fact be what Paul is talking about in certain cases. I think that Paul didn’t have a problem with Jews continuing to practice certain ceremonial aspects of the law…In fact, Paul had Timothy circumcised to appease unbelieving Jews for the pragmatic intent of being all things to all people so as to not hinder in any way the advance of the Gospel. At the same time, Titus was not circumcised, and Paul was cool with it. Paul was about getting the gospel out and at the same time showed some latitude on peripheral issues. Paul was clearly opposed to Jews who sought to impose upon Gentiles the ceremonial aspects of the law. I think that is what Paul specifically has in mind in Galatians, and such doesn’t undermine the idea that Paul opposed the whole notion of the law making us right. Paul, in Romans, does not restrict the law to simply ceremonial aspects (except when he mentions circumcision) and has in view the totality of the law, including the so-called “moral” aspects of the law. Being the case then, I am not threatened by Dunn’s work.

As for N.T. Wright, though, I am still working through his stuff. My initial response is one of concern regarding the atonement. Wright tends to emphasize other aspects in the atonement, almost rejecting any notion that a transaction took place on the cross where our sins were abolished and Christ’s righteousness was imputed to His sheep. Though Wright may be right on with most of his stuff, it is at this point of justification that causes concern in the Evangelical community. John Piper has just released a work, “The Future of Justification”, which is a direct response to N.T. Wright. I will be interested to see where this goes.

As for Venema’s work, I would recommend it as an introductory volume on the issue, but urge people to acquaint themselves directly with E.P. Sanders, J.D.G. Dunn, and N.T. Wright in order to fairly assess these issues.