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.