1992 Issue 10 - Cross-Examination: The Covenant Keeping God Part 2 - Counsel of Chalcedon
-
Upload
chalcedon-presbyterian-church -
Category
Documents
-
view
214 -
download
0
Transcript of 1992 Issue 10 - Cross-Examination: The Covenant Keeping God Part 2 - Counsel of Chalcedon
-
8/12/2019 1992 Issue 10 - Cross-Examination: The Covenant Keeping God Part 2 - Counsel of Chalcedon
1/3
Eachmonth the Cross-Examination
column presents a stnnmary statement
of a Refonned and Reconstructionist
conviction n theology or ethics, and
then
offers
brief answers to common
questions,objectionsorconfusionswbich
people have about that belief. Send
issues or questions you would like ad
dressed by Dr.
Bahnsen
to the editor.
We
Believe
God reveals Himself in the
pages
of
Scripture specifically as the
covenant-keeping
God.
To understand
Hispersonand works properly,
we
must
see
HUn
in light of the
ClJvenant He
bas
made and fulfills with
His
people.
Wehave alreadyseen thatGod's rela-
tionship with man from the very begin
ning was covenantal in nature. His
cov
enant with Adam wasgraciousincharac
ter, sovereignly imposed, mutually
binding, called
for
trust
and submission
on Adam s part and catried
sanctions
(blessings or curse). When
Adam
fell
into sin, God mercifully re-established a
covenantal relationshipwith him,one in
which the gracious andprOnrtssorychar
acter of the covenant
was
accentuated
even further. God s
grace was
magnified
in
promising to
senda Saviorwhowould
destroy the Tempter, Satan (Gen.
3:15).
As
we know, this was the first promise of
the coming
of Christ
to set things right
betweenGodandman(cf.John12:31-32;
Ijohn3:8). Inthesubsequentpagesof
Scripture
God expands upon
and
ex
plains
this
promise, particularly in the
further covenants into whichHe entered
with
His
people.
These covenants
were
thoroughly
gracious,
being established
by God
for
the undeserved benefit ofsinful
and
un
worthy men. Their aim
was
that He
would be their God, and they would be
Hispeople--forinstance:
"Hearthewords
o
hfsCOYeliaitt... 50
shallyoubemypeople,
andIwillbeyourGod"
-
8/12/2019 1992 Issue 10 - Cross-Examination: The Covenant Keeping God Part 2 - Counsel of Chalcedon
2/3
- was about Christ the coming
Savior.
Jesus
said ''You search the scriptures be-
cause
you
think that in them you
have
eternal
life; thesescriptures testiJyaboutme
(John 5:39).
As the "Mediator ofaNew Covenant'
which
God
promised through
Jeremiah
(31:31-34),Jesusis the fulffilment
of the
Old Covenant'santidpation or
promise,
and
He
is
the
one who
grants God's
people the
benefits
which
were previ
ouslypromised
--
thatthey
whil:h are
called might re-
ceive the
promise oj eternal
inheritance (Heb. 9:
15).
Christ
gained the
inherit
ancepromised
to
Abraham
(Beb. 11:8-10;
Gal
. 3:16;
Eph. 1:14; 1
Peter
1:4).
In
Him all nations will
be
blessed,
as God
promised
Abraham(Luke 2:32;Matt.
12:21;
Acts
13:47-48; Gal.
3:14). Christ
is
the model
of that righteousness re
vealed n the Mosaic law
(Matt.
5:17;
Heb.
4:15; 1
John 2:5-6),
as well as
the
true and
perfect,
atoning
sacrifice for sinners which
required in
the
Mosaiccov
enant (Heb.
9).
He
is the
longawaited
King
which
was promised
n the
Davidic covenant
(Luke 1:32-33;
Acts
5:31; 1Tun. 6:
15;
1
Cor. 15:25).
l) Because all
of
the post-fall
cov
enants
were
gradous in character,
being
elaborations upon God's promise ofsal
vation, and
(2)
because subsequent cov
enants do not conflict with each
other
but complement and expand upon pre
vious
ones,
and
(3)
because all of
the
promises of
God's
covenants center
on
Christ and His redemptive
work,
we
must recognize the unity and continuity
ofGod'scovenantaladministrations. This
is what is meant by speaking of "the
covenant of grace."
Dispensational theology has
enjoyed
widespread endorsement among
twentieth-century
evangelical
schools
and churches, and its influencehas been
felt
even
among a number of
Reformed
preachers. At the heart
of
dispensationalism is
the denial
of the
covenant of
grace." It
is denied when
dispensationalists claim
that
God
has
two plans(not
one) revea1edin the
Scrip
tures: a plan regarding Christ and the
church
(a
mixed
Gentile
and Jewish
people
forwhom ChrististheRedeemer),
and a distinct plan regarding
the
Jewish
people themselves and the land of
Pales
-
tine (where Christ
will
yet become the
Davidi
cKing). Dispensationalists some
times refer to
these distinct plans and
peoples of God as
His "heavenly"
and
"earthly" programs. Thus dispensa
tionalists insist on drawing a dichotomy
between
Israel
and the church.
This is contralY to Paul, who called
the
mixed Galactan
congregation
the
s-
rael oJGod
(Gal.
6:
16),and whosaidthat
Gentiles
who
are
saved
by Christ
have
now been incorporated into "the o -
monwealt1lOJIsrael
(Eph. 2:12).
Ukewise, dispensationalistsdenythe
unity of Old Testament
covenants, for
they
teach
that therewasa root
difference
between the gradous character of the
Abrahamic covenant and the (alleged)
legalistic character of the
Mosaic
cov
enant. They
maintain that God granted
His blessings
to
Abraham
on
the basis
of
promise
, but in the
Mosaic ern
od held
out --hypothetically -- the offer of bless
ing hased
on
meritorious obedience to
the law.
This too is contrnry to Paul, who
wrote
in
Romans
9:31-32 that Israel did
notarrive at the righteousness of the law
because they sought it
not
yJaith, but as
itwere
by worhs. The
Mosaic
law itselfwould have taught
them not
to
be
legalists (Gal.
2:19). The covenant God
made with Abraham could
not be disannulled 430
years
later by the covenant made
with Moses, making the
promise of no effect (Gal.
3:
17). Was
the
law,
then,
against the promises of
God?
Paul declared
Absolutely notJ
n
(3:21).
Finally,
dispensationalists
deny thecovenantof grace by
teaching that the benefits of
the Abrahamic covenant,
which come to Jewish and
Gentile believers n
hechurch
(Gal
.3:7,29),aretobeviewed
as
tandem orparnllel with the
benefits of the Mosaic and
Davidic
cov
enants,
which come to the literal Jewish
childrenofAbrnham--andwhichwillbe
fulfilled when Christ returns to establish
an earthly kingdom in
Palestine.
We
are now in a position to define
covenant theology; which is the major
opponent and
alternative
to
dispensationalism within the
evangelical
church. Covenant theology is based
squarely upon the
Biblical
teaching re
garding the covenant of
grace.
Covenant
theology is the position that ll of the
post-fall
covenants made by
God are
essentially
one, centering on God's gra
cious promise in Jesus Christ, with each
successive
covenant expanding on pre
vious ones,
ratherthandisregardingthem
or ruIlI)ing parallel
to
the others; the
November,
1992
TIlE COUNSEL of Chalcedon 5
-
8/12/2019 1992 Issue 10 - Cross-Examination: The Covenant Keeping God Part 2 - Counsel of Chalcedon
3/3
coVenants prior to Christ
were
marked
by antidpation and administered
by
foreshadows of the Savior,
while
the
jjlJ6Dment
or substance came in
peISOn
and redemptive work of Christ, who
established the New Covenant today in
the imemational church of
Christ.
(ro
BE
CONI1NUED)
Further Investigation
For further swdies regarding God or
covenant theology on
tape
-
especially
"The
Distinctives of
the
Reformed Faith"
--
write foracatalog from
CovenantTape
Minisny,24198Ash
Court,
Auburn,
CA
95603.
To receive Dr.Bahnsen
's
free
monthly
newsletter, Penpoint, write
to
Southern
California Center for Christian Studies,
P. O. Box
18021,
Irvine, CA
92713.
yron Snapp
ook Review
During the recent upheaval within
theformerSovietUnionmanywondered
i
Russia,
their largest state, would take
actionagainstthemuchsmaUerdi.s9mting
states. How would world opinionhave
reactedifthe Russianmilitary hadmoved
into
Georgia
or the Uktaine and opened .
fire on the dissidents?
This
possibility
caused me
to
thinkaboutan
event
on our
own. oil a little over a
centUlyago.
The War
Between the States gives
us
thisscenario. TheSouthernstatesthought
they had every right to
secede
from the
Union and establish their own country
''theConfederateStatesofAmerica.They
put their
beliefs
into actions.
The
Union
took the position
th t
individual
states
couldnotseCede fromthe Union Putting
theirbeliefs imo action, they invaded the
South. Theyviewedtheconflictasadvil
war.
The South saw it as one nation
invading another nation without any
warrant for so
doing.
The South Was ight
by James R
Kennedy
and Walter
D. Kenny
(land
and
Land
,
P.O
.
Box 1921
Baton
Rouge,
La. 70821 Ph. (504)344-1059 $19.95
$2.00 shipping and handling 210 pp.,
including addendum and
index
hb.)
providesuswith
excellemmaterial
tonot
only more correctly interpret
our own
history, but to also have a better
understanding of current events both
here and abroad.
The
authors show the
reader
that
much of he history taught regarding the
WarBetWeen the
States is
a myth. They
believeithasbeenwrittenfromaNorthem.
perspective. Did
the South
fight
the War
to preserve slavery? The authors
point
out that
"75%
to 90% of
the Coufederate
soldiers and sailors were NOT slave
owners"Cp
.16). Was
the
SoUthbetter
off
as a result of losing the War?
Many
students are taught that this is
true.
Yet
we
must look at the facts:
..
one year
after
the
War the
state
of
Mississippi
allotted one fifth of it's revenues
for
the
purchase of artificial anns and
legs
...it
wasnotuntil1951 thatthe taxable assets
of the state of Georgia surpassed the
value
of
1860"(p.18).
Examining the 1980 census the
authors report that 'The
U.S.
Census
Bureau
found
thatthepovertyrateforthe
South was 20% higher than the nation
as
a
whole. All
the
states
with the
highest
poverty evelswerein theSouth,whereas,
a of the states with the lowest
poverty
rates
were in the North"(p. 20).
The
authors believe
this
poverty is traceable
totheimpoverisbmentofthesouthduring
and after the War.
KennedyandKennycontend that the
Northwasinvolvedinslaveryandheavily
involved in the slave rrade. They point
outthattheNorthernersenslavedIndians
andprolitablyshippedthemtoCaribbean
islands.
"The Yankee slave commerce
was to continue legally until 1808 and
illegally until the War for Southern
Independence" (p.35). You may
well
be
surprised to learn of the first
state
that
6
THE
COUNSEL
of
ChaIcedon November,
992
attempted to prohibit the importation of
slaves as
well
as
how
slaves were
freed
in
the North
Northern acrocities upon the South
during the War
are recoumed.
These
atrodties continued in a
different way
following the War.
The
North set the
tenns by
which
Southernstates
could be
readmitted
to
the
Union.
The
authors
remind us that
this was the "same Union
from which the North had previously
s id we could
not
withdraw "
(p.80).
Local
governmental
power began
to
be
replaced increasingly by a powerful
centralgovernment. We continue
to
see
this
growth of power and its esults
throughout society
today.
The
authors contend that
the
South
w s right in
its
stand and it's fight. But
neither
the
authors nor this
reviewer
support Southew
slavery
.
The
warwas
not fought over slavery. It was fought
over
the issue ofsovereignty. Does such
sovereignty
rest in individual states by
the consent of the
governed,
or
does
it
rest in a powerful central government?
The North's victory
paved
the way
for a
strong central gOvernment. .
Ahigblightofthisveryreadablebook
is the
amount of
research
that
is made
available
to
the
reader. Although many
quotations
are given, hviU
ouIymention
aquote ofAbraham UncoIn in the 1847
Congressional Record "Any people
whatever have
a right to
abolish
the
existinggovemment
andform anew
one
that suits
them better"
(p.145).
Addendum sections include the
Constitution
of
the Confederate States
of
America and
it's comparison
with the
U.S .SenateandDavis' inaugural
address
as President of the Confederate State of
America.
TheauthorstracetheSouth'sposition
on
secession
to John Milton and John
Locke.
1
believe this
is a
drawback to the
book. Actually the understanding of
civil
govemmE;ll.t and the governedmust
be traced back to the triune God. While
a
development
ofthis thought
is
beyond