Sound of Grace, Issue 197, May 2013

7/30/2019 Sound of Grace, Issue 197, May 2013

1/20


2/20

Page 2 May 2013 Issue 197

Sound of Grace is a publication of Sovereign

Grace New Covenant Ministries, a tax exempt

501(c)3 corporation. Contributions to Sound

of Grace are deductible under section 170 of

the Code.

Sound of Grace is published 10 times a year.

The subscription price is shown below. This is

a paper unashamedly committed to the truth

of Gods sovereign grace and New Covenant

Theology. We invite all who love these sametruths to pray for us and help us nancially.

We do not take any paid advertising.

The use of an article by a particular person

is not an endorsement of all that person

believes, but it merely means that we thought

that a particular article was worthy of printing.

Sound of Grace Board: John G. Reisinger,

David Leon, John Thorhauer, Bob VanWing-

erden and Jacob Moseley.

Editor: John G. Reisinger; Phone: (585)396-

3385; e-mail: [email protected].

General Manager: Jacob Moseley:

[email protected]

Send all orders and all subscriptions to:

Sound of Grace, 5317 Wye Creek Drive,

Frederick, MD 21703-6938 Phone 301-

473-8781 Visit the bookstore: http://www.

newcovenantmedia.com

Address all editorial mater ial and questions

to: John G. Reisinger, 3302 County Road 16,

Canandaigua, NY 14424-2441.

Webpage: www.soundofgrace.org

or SOGNCM.org

Scripture quotations marked (NIV) are taken

from the HOLY BIBLE, NEW INTERNA-

TIONAL VERSION Copyright 1973, 1978,

1984 by International Bible Society. Used by

Permission. All rights reserved.

Scripture quotations marked NKJV are

taken from the New King James Version.

Copyright 1982 by Thomas Nelson, Inc.

Used by Permission. All rights reserved.

Scripture quotations marked (ESV) are from

The Holy Bible, English Standard Version,

copyright 2001 by Crossway Bibles, a

division of Good News Publishers. Used by

permission. All rights reserved.

Contributions

Orders

Discover, MasterCard or VISA

If you wish to make a tax-deductible contri-bution to Sound of Grace, please mail a check

to: Sound of Grace, 5317 Wye Creek Drive,

Frederick, MD 21703-6938.

Please check the mailing label to nd the

expiration of your subscription. Please send

payment if you want your subscription to

continue$20.00 for ten issues. Or if you

would prefer to have a pdf le emailed, that is

available for $10.00 for ten issues. If you are

unable to subscribe at this time, please call or

drop a note in the mail and we will be glad to

continue Sound of Grace free of charge.

ReisingerContinued from page 1

ReisingerContinued on page 4

stars, seven lamps, seven seals, seven

horns, seven eyes, seven angels,

seven trumpets, seven thunders, seven

thousand slain in a great earthquake,

seven heads, seven crowns, seven last

plagues, seven golden vials, seven

mountains, and seven kings.1

The sprinkling of blood seven

times shows the perfection and com-

pletion of Aarons work. Just as no

one assisted him in his work of atone-

ment, no one added anything in any

way to that work. The atonement was

a work of God alone. The sprinkling

of the blood on the mercy seat was

a clear picture of Christ presenting

himself to the Father in sacrice. Our

Lord was the true propitiatory sacri-

ce that fullled and ended the wholesacricial system. There will not only

never be another Day of Atonement,

but there will never be any kind of a

blood sacrice. The entire Old Cove-

nant is forever done away. At Calvary

our blessed substitute shed human

but sinless blood and fully paid the

debt we owed. The hymn writer had it

right, I owed a debt I could not pay.

He paid a debt he did not owe.

The full message of the blood be-ing sprinkled on the mercy seat cannot

be understood until we understand

the great signicance of the ark of the

covenant. The whole system of atone-

ment centered on the box, or ark, with

the solid gold lid called the mercy

seat. It is essential that we ask, What

made that box so important? If you

have never studied the biblical answer

to that question, I would encourage

you read Tablets of Stone & the His-

tory of Redemption. This is one of

the rst books I wrote, and it lays a

foundation for the theology of law and

grace.

One of the reasons the ark of the

covenant was so important was be-

cause of what was in it. The ark was

1 Doug Batchelor, Keys to Bible Num-

bers, The Most Amazing Prophecies:

www.mostamazing prophecies.com.

built for the distinct purpose of hous-

ing the Ten Commandments written

on the two stone tablets of the cov-

enant. We must also ask why the Ten

Commandments were so important

that a special box was built to store

the tablets upon which those com-

mandments were inscribed. A box, wemight add, that was build with rings

and staves to pick it up because God

forbid anyone from even touching the

actual ark. On one occasion they were

moving the ark on a cart and the oxen

stumbled. A man named Uzzah put his

hand on the ark to steady it and God

killed him on the spot.

When they came to the threshing

oor of Nakon, Uzzah reached out and

took hold of the ark of God, because

the oxen stumbled. The Lords anger

burned against Uzzah because of his

irreverent act; therefore God struck

him down, and he died there beside

the ark of God(2 Sam. 6:6-7).

Nearly everyone, including me,

agrees that the ark of the covenant

was important because it housed the

Ten Commandments. However, it

had nothing to do with any idea that

the Ten Commandments were the so-

called moral law of God. That ideais a pure theological fantasy without

an ounce of biblical evidence. It is

not possible to confuse and misun-

derstand the nature and purpose of

the Ten Commandments as much as

it is to think of them as the so-called

moral law. The ark of the covenant

was holy because the Ten Command-

ments, or words of the covenant, were

written on the Tables of the Covenant

in the ark. The Ten Commandments

were the summary document of theOld Covenant that established Israel

as a special nation before God. The

tablets of the covenant upon which

the Ten Commandments were written

were to Israel what the Constitution of

the United States is to our nation. It

is the founding covenant document.

To think of the Ten Commandments

as the so-called moral law instead


3/20

Issue 197 May 2013 Page 3

WestContinued on page 9

dictory to say that God decreed the

future but remains ignorant of what itcontains. Non-Calvinists, however,

do not have the same logical neces-

sity in their positions. For classical

Arminianism God does know the

future; for open theism he does not.

Once you remove Gods ordination of

all future events, you can argue that

God knows the future some other way,

but it is not logically necessary that he

does.

In fact, it is actually possible to ar-gue that classical Arminianism is more

biblically sound than open theism, but

open theism is more sound philosoph-

ically. I will not rehearse the texts,

but to my mind the Bible clearly,

clearly teaches that God knows the

future! Arminians recognize this, and

stand with what Scripture teaches, and

this is highly commendable. Given

the choice, I would take Arminian-

ism over open theism any day, simply

because it is more faithful to the way

God has revealed himself in his Word.

Arminianism does, however,

introduce some unique difculties

when it comes to understanding Gods

exhaustive knowledge of the future

and human freedom. In this model

Gods knowledge of the future is tied

to his attribute of eternality. God is

depicted as standing outside of our

temporal timeline and seeing it all

from beginning to end. He does notdecree the events, butsees the events.

For example, from all eternity God

has seen that at 9:12 am on March 30,

2012 I will be typing this sentence

(and that my clock will hit 9:13 before

I nished it). God is a great observer;

nothing escapes his vision.

This is more biblical than open

theism, but profoundly problematic.

One massive difculty occurs at the

There has been a very long debate

in the history of philosophy con-cerning the relationship that exists

between Gods knowledge of the

future and human freedom. Calvinist

and Arminian debates often include

disagreement on the meaning of

Gods foreknowledge. Contemporary

open theism (which is not of course

without historical antecedents) denies

that God knows the future, but in a

qualied sense. God is allowed to

know how he will act unilaterally in

the future to accomplish some things

he purposes, but much of the future is

inaccessible to his mind. Whether this

picture drawn by open theists is logi-

cally sustainable is another question

altogether, but the main point here is

they deny that God knows what will

happen in the years ahead.

Epistemologically the issues are

complex. It is not just a question of

the contentof Gods knowledge of

the future, but also a question ofhow

God knows the future. Although

there are some necessary connections

at certain points between these two

questions, there is also some room

for diversity. For example, a strong

Calvinist will believe that God knows

the future exhaustively (so the content

of his knowledge about the future is

perfect), and that how God knows the

future exhaustively is because he has

decreed all that will take place. AnArminian, on the other hand, can say

that God knows the future exhaustive-

ly (ascribing to God the same content

as the Calvinist does), but that he does

so by eternally standing outside of

time, and seeing the entire timeline of

history in one eternal moment.

In the Calvinistic model God can-

not help but know the future, since he

has decreed it. It is logically contra-

level of providence and divine guid-

ance. It is essential to think throughwhat it means that God only observes

the future, and that from all eternity.

If God sees what I will do at 9:12, he

cannot change it. Think about it. God

is only a witness to what happens in

time, and just like a witness watching

a train heading for disaster, he cannot

intervene to do anything. The rea-

son why he cannot interfere is quite

simple: what he sees from eternity

past is what actually happens in time.

He cannot see what willhappen in the

future, and then reactively interfere to

change it, because if he interfered to

change it, he would never haveseen

the original event in the rst place

because it would not have been part of

the future that he was seeing. In other

words, how can God observe events

that dont actually take place?

For example, suppose God sees

in the future that a terrible accident

will occur on a certain day at a certain

time. Can God prevent the accident

from occurring? The answer, on sim-

ple foreknowledge, is no. God cannot

act to prevent the accident, because if

he did the accident would never hap-

pen, and if it never happened it would

not be part of the future, and if it was

not part of the future God never would

have seen it take place! It is critical

to remember that in this model God

is only an observer; he only passivelysees what the future contains; he is not

free (or even able) to alter the content

of what will be.

This reality plays havoc with

divine guidance. Let us say that a

young man feels called into pastoral

ministry. He is unsure if he is quali-

ed for it, and is hesitant to pursue

the call. After wrestling with the idea

Gods Knowledge of the Future and Free Will

Steve West


4/20


5/20


6/20


ReisingerContinued on page 8

cross Jesus cried, It is nished and

yielded up the ghost. The moment he

died the veil in the temple was rent

from top to bottom. There is a lot of

discussion about what Jesus was refer-

ring to when he said, It is nished.

He could have been referring to the

work my Father gave me to do, or hecould have meant my necessary suf-

ferings. Nearly every suggestion ts

the context. One thing that is helpful

in understanding the implication of

that object lesson and understanding

the phrase is seeing the connection

between Jesus statement, it is n-

ished and the rending of the veil. The

context shows that the rending of the

veil was a direct result of Jesus nish-

ing whatever he was talking about.

The veil could not be removed untilJesus could say, It is nished, and

once whatever he was talking about

was nished the veil was automati-

cally obsolete. It is nished and the

rending of the veil are tied together

as essential cause and effect. As long

as the Old Covenant was in effect, the

veil must remain in place. The veil

shielded the ark of the covenant. That

veil must remain in place until the

terms of the words of the covenant,the Ten Commandments, were fully

met and sin was paid for in full.

The one thing that nished every-

thing was the Old Covenant. Every-

thing without exception that the Old

Covenant established, the Aaronic

priesthood, the sacricial system, the

feast days, the special nation, etc. ,

was totally and permanently nished

and replaced with something better.

This includes the words of the cove-

nant, the Ten Commandments. Before

the better things of the New Cov-

enant could be established, the Old

Covenant things had to be perfectly

fullled and done away with. Our

kinsman redeemer was born under the

covenant written on the stone Tables

of the Covenant in the ark. He perfect-

ly kept all of that covenants terms and

earned the life and righteousness that

it promised. He earned every blessing

Lord spake unto you in the mount out

of the midst of the re in the day of

the assembly: and the Lord gave them

unto me (Deut. 10:1-4).

There is no way that you can make

the Ten Commandments to be the so-

called moral law of God. Covenanttheologians insist on making the Ten

Commandments to be the so-called

moral law instead of being the words

or terms of the covenant. They do this

without a stitch of textual evidence.

They ignore or deny the words just

quoted that clearly state the actual

words of the covenant are the Ten

Commandments. This is a classic

example of systematic theology inter-

preting Scripture instead of Scripture

texts establishing systematic theology.If Covenant Theology is correct, we

should call the ark that houses the Ten

Commandments the ark of the moral

law.

Exodus 32-34 records Israels sin

of idolatry while Moses was on the

mount receiving the Ten Command-

ments. When Moses came down from

the mount and saw the orgy going

on, he smashed the tables of the tes-

timony, or Ten Commandments, thatGod had written on the stone tablets.

Moses did not smash the rst set of

the Tablets of the Covenant because

they were the so-called moral law, but

he smashed them because they were

the the testimony or summary doc-

trine of the covenant that established

Israels nationhood. The Holy Spirit

calls them the two tables of the testi-

mony.

And Moses turned, and went downfrom the mount, and the two tables of

the testimony were in his hand: the

tables were written on both their sides;

on the one side and on the other were

they written. And the tables were the

work of God, and the writing was the

writing of God, graven upon the tables

(Ex.32:15-16).

We mentioned earlier that Matthew

27:51 was the key text for any discus-

sion of the rending of the veil. On the

it promised because he kept every pre-

cept it demanded. He literally brought

to the Tables of the Covenant the holy,

sinless and obedient life it demanded.

Every precept must be fullled. Every

term had to be obeyed just as every

prophecy had to be fullled. Not a jot

or tittle could be left unnished. Onthe cross our Lords mind went down

through the Old Testament, and he

saw one thing in Psalm 69:21 not yet

nished (They gave me also gall for

my meat; and in my thirst they gave

me vinegar to drink. Psalm 69:21).

After this, Jesus knowing that all

things were now accomplished, that

the scripture might be fullled, saith, I

thirst. Now there was set a vessel full

of vinegar: and they lled a spunge

with vinegar, and put it upon hyssop,and put it to his mouth. When Jesus

therefore had received the vinegar,

he said, It is nished: and he bowed

his head, and gave up the ghost(John

19:28-30).

The moment the last Old Covenant

prophecy was fullled, our Lord cried

out, It is nished and gave up the

ghost. The rending of the veil was the

evidence that the old was nished and

the new had come. Understanding themeaning of this evidence is the begin-

ning of understanding New Covenant

Theology.

The last thing put in place when

the Tabernacle was built was the veil

isolating the Most Holy Place. The

ark of the covenant was put in place,

the Tables of the Covenant, or Ten

Commandments, were put in the ark

and nally the veil was hung to shield

the ark. When the veil was hung, the

glory of the Lord lled the Most Holy

Place signifying that God had taken

up residence in the Most Holy Place.

God was truly dwelling among His

people.

The glory of God is his imme-

diate presence. The rst mention of

Gods glory is when God appeared

on the mountaintop at Sinai. They

ReisingerContinued from page 4


7/20


GillilandContinued on page 13

2012 Providence Theological

Seminary Doctrinal Conference

At the 2011 conference, I gave a

presentation (also published in Sound

of Grace) entitledNew Covenant

Theology: Is There Still a Role for the

Imperatives?1 In part due to interac-

tion that followed, I would like to

expand that discussion to a broaderconsideration of what has become

known as the modern Grace Move-

ment. Now I recognize that one

begins with a signicant disadvantage

when presenting material criticiz-

ing a movement named Grace.

Perhaps there is an analogy in the

so-called Peace Movement. After

all, who could be opposed to peace?

But certainly some of the methods

advocated or employed in that move-

ment are far from peaceful, and thepractical consequences are far from

what many of its supporters originally

intended. I will explain more as we go

along, but in the end, I hope you will

see that this is not merely an attempt

to balance grace with law, but it is

ultimately about one of the essentials

of reformed soteriology: justication

by faith alone.

A quick word regarding sources

for some of the quotations is in order.Care has been taken to limit named

sources to published documents or

material presented with the clear

intention of public dissemination.

However, because of the contempo-

1 J. David Gilliland,New Covenant

Theology: Is There Still a Role For

The Imperatives? in Sound of Grace,

Issue 183, 184 (Frederick, MD: New

Covenant Media, 2011, 2012).

rary nature of this debate, many of

the anonymous examples come from

Internet discussions in the public

domain, comments that were not

necessarily meant for publication but

representative of the writers position

and helpful in understanding the is-

sues involved. Finally, it is important

to stress that this analysis is a compos-

ite view of a broad movement, not allaspects necessarily being held by any

one theologian. It is a movement that

is much broader than a single denomi-

nation, and includes Baptists, Pres-

byterians, and others. Before I dene

this movement more specically, a

few background comments would be

helpful to put the discussion in its ap-

propriate theological context.

The Denition ofLaw

I make a distinction between o

nomos, the law, which typically in the

NT refers to the Mosaic code, and the

broader use or principle of law, com-

mandment, or precept that refers to

the revealed will of God more gener-

ally, either as it applies specically to

the New Covenant believer or for all

men the distinction between cov-

enantal and trans-covenantal law or

the absolute law of God. For a com-

plete discussion of this distinction,let me suggest Dr. Gary Longs book,

Biblical Law and Ethics: Absolute and

Covenantal.2

Law in the New Testament Scrip-

tures when juxtaposed with grace

or gospel is never mere command

but always the The Mosaic Code

2 Gary D. Long,Biblical Law and Ethics:

Absolute and Covenantal(Frederick,

MD: New Covenant Media, 2008).

as a whole, with the pejorative phrase

works of the Law being typied by

unbelieving Israel and ultimately

reective of the unregenerate man or

womans attempt at being right with

God by self-effort, independent of a

personal faith and trust in God Al-

mighty. And furthermore, this discus-

sion is not about the Ten Command-

ments or the content of the law ofChrist; let me suggest Blake Whites

book, The Law of Christ: A Theologi-

cal Proposal3 for that discussion. This

is about the importance of law or

commandment more generally. And

most importantly for todays discus-

sion, to suggest that there is a positive

use of law, principle, or precept by the

Spirit in the sanctication process of

the believer is not the same thing as an

argument for the 3rd

use of the law orMosaic code as typically understood

by some of the reformers or most

theonomists today.

The phrase obedience to Christ

means many things. We obey Christ

when we follow his example. We obey

Christ when, in good conscience, we

follow the leading of the Spirit and

apply the general principles of the

Word of God. And we obey Christ in

the more restricted sense when we

obey specic commandments in the

written word, all various aspects of

the law of Christ or Gods law for his

New Covenant people. And in using

Gods law in this manner, we are not

equating it with the Mosaic code. I am

3 A. Blake White, The Law of Christ: A

Theological Proposal(Frederick, MD:

New Covenant Media, 2010).

The New Heart, The New Covenant,

and Not So New Controversies:

A Critique of the Modern Grace Movement

Part 1 of 3Dr. J. David Gilliland


8/20


9/20


WestContinued on page 10

WestContinued from page 3

talking to others, and praying, he feels

no closer to absolute certainty than

before. Finally one night he stays up

late pouring his heart out to God, and

asks God for guidance. Should he

become a pastor? What will God do

to help him? Unfortunately, God al-ready knows that this young man will

become a pastor. In fact, God knows

that in 10 years he will be full of pride

and suffer a great moral fall. The

pressure and despair will overwhelm

him, and he will take his own life.

God knows all of this, and God is not

calling the young man into pastoral

ministry. The poor fellow is wres-

tling with the pressure his parents and

youth leaders have put on him, and he

is about to make a terribly wrong de-

cision. As he prays for guidance, God

cannotdirect him not to pursue the

ministry, because God already knows

he is going to. It is as good as done.

It is as much a part of the time stream

as the events of the past. The future is

absolutely xed, God only sees it, and

God cannot change it. Functionally,

the difference is like someone who

has already seen a movie and someone

who hasnt. God knows whats goingto happen in the next scene, but we do

not. Crucially however, neither one of

us has any power to change the next

sceneGod has just had a preview,

but he didnt make the lm.

Strangely the idea of simple

foreknowledge and human freedom

really serves to undercut the guidance

God is able to give his people. One

of the supposed strengths of all free

will theologies is that they make God

a genuinely relational being. God issupposed to interact with us in a truly

dynamic, living relationship. He is

supposed to respond to us, and partner

with us. When we with our free will

seek guidance, God is supposed to

give it. But all these strengths are

illusory when combined with Gods

knowledge of the future. The Armin-

ian view of the will and Gods knowl-

edge of the future turn out to empty

any meaning out of the responsiverelationship. Again, think of a woman

who is about to marry a man who is

going to horribly abuse her. God al-

ready knows she will marry him, and

God already knows he will abuse her.

When she sincerely prays for guid-

ance, God wishes she wouldnt marry

him, but since she is going to, there

is nothing he can do to intervene. If

he intervened, he would never have

actually seen them get married, and

if they were never married he wouldnever have seen him abuse her. Since

Gods guidance is based on what he

sees, if he never saw the abuse, he

could never have that as a reason to

inform his guidance. Like an observer

on a mountaintop, God sees two cars

speeding towards an intersection, and

he knows they are going to crash,

but there is nothing he can do to stop

them.

Now it can be replied that Calvin-

ism does no better when it comes toGod giving guidance to his children.

After all, if God has already decreed

the future then every detail of our

lives is already written in stone, and

God is not going to alter or change

them in any way. Why should the

young man ask God to help him

decide whether or not to go into the

ministry, if God has already decreed

one way or the other? Why should

the young woman ask God for helpin deciding to marry the abusive

husband, given that God has already

decreed that she will? There are a few

relevant differences, but only two will

be briey mentioned.

First, it has often been noted by

Calvinists that if God ordains the ends

he also ordains the means. So God

does guide his people through their

prayers; their prayers are as much

part of his plan as the outcomes oranswers. The massive difference,

then, is that in this model God is in

control, whereas in the other model

I would like to help support the ministry ofSound of Grace:

A tax-deductible gift in the amount of ____ __ __ __ ____ is enclosed.

I would like to receive Sound of Grace via the USPS:

A check in the amount of $20.00 for a paper copy (payable to Sound of Grace) is enclosed.

I would like to receive Sound of Grace via email: A check in the amount of $10.00 for a pdf le (payable to Sound of Grace) is enclosed.

Please continue free of charge: Via email via USPS

PLEASE PRINT CLEARLYTHANK YOU

Name:

Street Address:

City: State/Providence: Zip/Postal:

Email address: @ Phone number:

Mail to: Sound of Grace, 5317 Wye Creek Drive, Frederick, MD 21703-6938


10/20


WestContinued from page 9

God is helpless to act. Regardless of

what this entails for us, there are huge

entailments for God. Can God act to

bring about all that he wants in the

future? Yes, if he decrees it. No, if

he merely observes it from an eter-

nal perspective. A Calvinist shouldbelieve they are praying to a God who

through his will can bring about cer-

tain outcomes through the means of

prayer. An Arminian should believe

that God, no matter what is prayed,

cannot act to change what he has

already seen. And this, it should be

noted, pushes with considerable force

into the doctrine not of omniscience,

but of omnipotence.

Second, the Calvinist model allowsthe promise of Romans 8:28 to have

its maximal power. Perhaps the wom-

an will marry an abusive husband:

even so, God will work it together

for good. This is a world of sickness,

tragedy, sin, pain, tears, and death. If

God merely sees these things, why

should we trust they will all work

for good? God, to say it again, only

observes what happens, even if he

doesnt want it to take place. Or we

can swallow deeply and walk by faithnot by sight, trusting that God is at

work in the darkest corners of our

universe to bring himself glory and

to work things out for good. I cant

pretend this is easy, but who am I to

talk back to God? And at least the

Calvinistic model can be articulated

with a coherent relationship between

Gods ability to work and his knowl-

edge of the future (or at least so it

seems to me).One last thought. If a Christian

working from an Arminian framework

simply responds that they are con-

vinced the Bible teaches libertarian

free will, and that the Bible teaches

that God knows the future, and that

God answers prayer and can guide us

on the basis of what he sees, butthey

dont know how all that is possible,

theyve got a friend in me! Conceptu-

ally, I think there is massive confu-

sion in holding to all that, and I think

theyre wrong biblically to boot. But I

would much, much rather have some-

one say: I stand with what the Bible

teaches, even though some of it is be-

yond my ability to understand or hold

together, then have someone say:Im not going to believe anything the

Bible teaches unless it measures up

to what I think is rational. Frankly,

none of us, no matter where we fall

on the Calvinist-Free Will theol-

ogy spectrum, have the faintest idea

exactly how all the biblical data about

God cohere together! We do not and

cannotfully comprehend the nature

of God or his plan. Nevertheless, we

should do our best to avoid concep-

tual inconsistencies and tie up looseends where they are not absolutely

necessary, and on this score I think the

Calvinist model of Gods exhaustive

knowledge of the future by virtue of

his decree is more compelling bibli-

cally, and more coherent philosophi-

cally.

I would like to draw this particu-

lar article to a close by quoting the

Apostle Paul. At the end of Romans

9-11, where Paul has examined somegreat themes concerning salvation,

election, human freedom, and Gods

sovereignty, he concludes with doxol-

ogy. He concludes by praising God,

and recognizing that God is simply

beyond his ability to fully understand.

We can try as we might, but God is

simply incomprehensible and unfath-

omableand this should result in

praise. So, with Paul we conclude:

Oh, the depths of the riches of thewisdom and knowledge of God! How

unsearchable his judgments, and his

paths beyond tracing out! Who has

known the mind of the Lord? Or who

has been his counselor? Who has

ever given to God, that God should re-

pay him? For from him and through

him and to him are all things. To him

be the glory forever! Amen. W

Thats the position I hold, and I would

urge you to get a copy of Bacchioc-

chis book and consider the arguments

that he gives. I think it is interesting to

observe this about the one place that

the Lords Day is mentioned. It is not

mentioned as a command to observeit, but it is simply a declaration that

this was a title that the early church

came to apply to the rst day of the

week. There is no perceptual directive

anywhere in all of the New Testament

to meet on the Lords Day or to keep

the Lords Day holy. The emphasis in

the New Testament falls on our duties

and responsibilities to one another and

not to a day. Hebrews 10:23-24 says,

Let us hold fast the confession of our

hope without wavering for he who

promised is faithful and let us con-

sider how to stimulate one another to

love and good deeds. It is interesting

that holding fast our confession and

stimulating one another by love and

good deeds are joined together as a

part of the means that God has or-

dained in the necessary perseverance

that Hebrews has been so diligent

to teach. Perseverance comes by the

fellowship of the saints, and theyreconsidering how to stimulate one an-

other to love and good deeds while as

it says in Hebrews 10:25: not forsak-

ing our own assembling together as

is the habit of some but encouraging

one another all the more as you see

the day drawing near The argument

of the author of Hebrews is that our

duties and responsibilities as we as-

semble together should be viewed not

in relationship to a day but in relation

to one another and to simulate oneanother to love and to good deeds.

Perseverance is joined to the corporate

responsibility.

I think, however, that there are

some reasons for preferring the rst

day of the week. It is the day of the

resurrection; therefore, it is the day of

the nal ratication of the New Cov-

enant. A most astounding statement is

made about the resurrection in Ro-

CarpenterContinued from page 5


11/20


12/20

Page 12 May 2013 Issue 197WhiteContinued from page 1

WhiteContinued on page 18

epitome of unrenement and savage-

ry.5 Josephus the Jew referred to the

Scythians as little better than wild ani-

mals.6 Barbarian refers to the people

who live at the southern ends of the

earth. So barbarian, Scythian in

Colossians 3:11 refers to the peoplesat the extreme northern and extreme

southern ends of the earth. The gospel

is universally inclusive. Through the

gospel, God is forming a new human-

ity consisting of all nations of the

earth. In Galatians, this has particular

application to Jews and Gentiles. We

see this reality gloriously taught in

Ephesians 2:11-22:

Therefore remember that at one

time you Gentiles in the esh, called

the uncircumcision by what is

called the circumcision, which is made

in the esh by handsremember that

you were at that time separated from

Christ, alienated from the common-

wealth of Israel and strangers to the

covenants of promise, having no hope

and without God in the world. But

now in Christ Jesus you who once

were far off have been brought near by

the blood of Christ. For he himself is

our peace, who has made us both one

and has broken down in his esh thedividing wall of hostility by abolishing

the law of commandments expressed

in ordinances, that he might create

in himself one new man in place of

the two, so making peace, and might

reconcile us both to God in one body

through the cross, thereby killing the

hostility. And he came and preached

peace to you who were far off and

peace to those who were near. For

through him we both have access in

one Spirit to the Father. So then you

are no longer strangers and aliens, butyou are fellow citizens with the saints

and members of the household of God,

built on the foundation of the apostles

and prophets, Christ Jesus himself

being the cornerstone, in whom the

whole structure, being joined to-

gether, grows into a holy temple in the

Lord. In him you also are being built

5 Moo, The Letters to the Colossians,

271.

6 Contra Apion 2.269.

together into a dwelling place for God

by the Spirit.

In Ephesians 3:6, Paul says, This

mystery is that the Gentiles are fellow

heirs, members of the same body, and

partakers of the promise in Christ

Jesus through the gospel.

Now, this does not mean that all

differences are erased. Paul himself,

in other places, tells slaves to obey

their masters and tells wives to submit

to their husbands. We all keep our

ethnicities and gender roles, but old

divisions and wrong attitudes of su-

periority are abolished. These distinc-

tions are irrelevant for being included

in Christ.

And if you are Christs, then you

are Abrahams offspring, heirs accord-

ing to promise. (Gal 3:29)

To limit ourselves to Galatians,

Paul teaches the same truth through-

out:

3:7 - Know then that it is those of

faith who are the sons of Abraham.

3:29 - And if you are Christs, then

you are Abrahams offspring, heirs

according to promise.

4:28 - Now you, brothers, likeIsaac, are children of promise.

4:31 - So, brothers, we are not

children of the slave but of the free

woman.

6:16 - And as for all who walk by

this rule, peace and mercy be upon

them, and upon the Israel of God.

We see that it is those who be-

lieve who are the true Israel. It is

those who glory in Christ Jesus who

are the circumcision (Phil. 3:3). AmI saying that the Church=Israel and

Israel=Church like Covenant Theol-

ogy? No. Lets pay close attention to

our text. Paul says, If we are Christs,

then you are Abrahams offspring.

As in all of theology, Christ is the key!

We cannot simply equate the Church

and Israel. The proper theological

articulation is not Israel=Church,

but Israel=Christ=Church. We only

receive the promise made to Israel

by being united to the only faith-

ful Israelite in history: Jesus. Jesus

recapitulates the life of Israel.7 He is

the faithful Israelite, and all who trust

in his faithfulness become Israelites

with him. It is worth quoting Southern

Baptist theologian Russell Moore atlength on this point:

For the new covenant apostles,

Jew-Gentile unity is pivotal to the

early church. It is about more than

human relational harmony. Instead,

it acknowledges that Gods kingdom

purposes are in Christ. He is the last

man and the true Israel, the bearer

of the Spirit. A Jewish person who

clings to the tribal markings of the old

covenant acts as though the eschatonhas not arrived, as though one were

still waiting for the promised seed.

Both Jews and Gentiles must instead

see their identities not in themselves

or in the esh but in Jesus Christ and

in him alone. Jesus is the descendant

of Abraham, the one who deserves

the throne of David. He is the obedi-

ent Israel who inherits the blessings

of the Mosaic covenant. He is the

propitiation of Gods wrath. He is the

rstborn from the dead, the resur-rection and the life. Those who are

in Christ whether Jew or Gentile

receive with him all the eschatological

blessing that are due to him. In him,

they are all, whether Jew or Gentile,

sons of God not only in terms of

relationship with the Father but also in

terms of promised inheritance (Rom.

8:12-17). In Christ, they all whether

Jew or Gentile are sons of Abraham,

the true circumcision, the holy nation,and the household and commonwealth

of God (Gal. 3:23-4:7; Eph. 2-3; Col.

2:6-15; 3:3-11; 1 Pet. 2:9-10). Both

Covenant Theology and Dispensation-

alism, however, often discuss Israel

7 Russell D. Moore, Personal and Cos-

mic Eschatology, inA Theology for

the Church (Nashville: B&H Academ-

ic, 2007), 864.


13/20


14/20


these promises beloved(standing and

identity), let us cleanse ourselves from

every delement of body and spirit,

bringing holiness to completion in the

fear of God.

John Owen summarized it this

way:

Sanctication is an immediate

work of the Spirit of God on the souls

of believers, purifying and cleansing

of their natures from the pollution

and uncleanness of sin, renewing in

them the image of God, and thereby

enabling them, from a spiritual and

habitual principle of grace, to yield

obedience unto God, according unto

the tenor and terms of the new cov-

enant, by virtue of the life and death of

Jesus Christ.5

J.I. Packer describes the process of

biblical holiness in a similar way:

Holiness means Christ-centered-

ness as ones way of life: holiness

is a matter of being Jesus disciple,

of listening to his word and obeying

(intentionally or volitionally) his com-

mands, of loving and adoring him as

ones Redeemer, of seeking to please

him and honor him as ones Master,

and so of making ready for the daywhen we shall see him and be with

him forever.6

The Central Issue: The Role

of the Scriptures in the Life of the

Believer

Consider the following well-

known texts of Scripture:

The law of the LORD is perfect,

reviving the soul; the testimony of the

LORD is sure, making wise the simple;

the precepts of the LORD are right,rejoicing the heart; the command-

ment of the LORD is pure, enlighten-

ing the eyes; the fear of the LORD

is clean, enduring forever; the rules

5 John Owen, The Works of John Owen,

Volume 3, edited by W. Goold (Lon-

don: Banner of Truth, 1966), 386.

6 J.I. Packer,Keeping in Step With the

Spirit: Finding Fullness in Our Walk

with God, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI:

Baker Books, 2005), 34.

of the LORD are true, and righteous

altogether. (Psalm 19:7-9)

How can a young man keep his

way pure? By guarding it according

to your word. With my whole heart I

seek you; let me not wander from your

commandments! I have stored up your

word in my heart, that I might not sin

against you. (Psalm 119:9-11)

For while we were living in the

esh, our sinful passions, aroused by

the law, were at work in our members

to bear fruit for death. But now we are

released from the law, having died to

that which held us captive, so that we

serve in the new way of the Spirit and

not in the old way of the written code.

(Romans 7:6)

Here is the important question:

which one of these sets of verses isstill true and applicable as to their

original intent, Psalm 19 and 119 or

Romans 7:6? Well, of course, Chris-

tian orthodoxy has always held that

they both are. But if so, it must be the

case that the word and commandment

as David and the OT saints understood

them is not the same reality that Paul

is referring to in Romans 7:6, the old

way of the written code. For many in

the Grace Movement, whether in-

tended or not, the old way of the writ-

ten code and all that it represents or

symbolizes in Pauls writings is being

equated with the OT saints intentional

obedience to the written word. And

rather than a means that the Spirit uses

in the sanctication of the believer,

for many in the Grace Movement,

intentional obedience to the written

Word is considered Old Testament

moralism and is being contrasted with

the new way of the Spirit.

Rather, what Paul is employing is

a salvation history argument, not an

absolute contrast between the written

Word and the Holy Spirit. When con-

trasted with the principle of grace and

the way of the Spirit, the phrase the

old way of the written code is para-

digmatic for the natural mans procliv-

ity for using God-ordained means for

the purpose of self-justication. Paul

is not making a contrast between the

Word of God and the Spirit in an abso-

lute sense, or else 2 Timothy 3:16-17

would make no sense. Furthermore,

if Paul were contrasting the way of

the Spirit in the New Covenant saint

with volitional obedience to the Word

of God in the OT saint, we wouldhave to argue that the OT saints were

sanctied by the principle of legal-

ism or works. On the contrary, Paul is

arguing here for two different ways of

life; the way the nonbeliever interacts

with the written word in comparison

with the way the Spirit-led believer

responds to that same word. In his

discussion of Romans 7:6, Martyn

Lloyd-Jones put it this way:

Here we meet with a fundamentaldistinction between the two cov-

enants, the two ways of life. Before

you become truly Christian you try to

conform to a standard and a pattern

outside yourself; but to be a Christian

means that the standard is inside you.

Of course, in one sense it is still out-

side, but the important fact is that it

is now inside as well.You read it in

the Word, but it is also in your mind

and in your heart. You are not only

looking at something external, you are

also aware of that which is within. Youdo not have to be persuaded to look at

that which is outside you; there is now

a power within you calling your atten-

tion to it, a principle operating in the

center of your personality. The same

truth is stated in the epistle to the Phi-

lippians, chapter 2, verse 13: Work

out your own salvation with fear and

trembling. For it is God that works in

you (inside you) both to will and to

do of his good pleasure. The apostle

rejoices that we have become dead

to the Law, and that we are deliveredfrom the Law which formerly held us

because we can now serve in new-

ness of Spirit, not in the oldness of the

writing. It is within us, in our minds

and in our hearts.7 (emphasis mine)

7 Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Romans: An

Exposition of Chapter 7.1-8.4, The

Law: Its Functions and Limits (Grand

Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1973), 98.

GillilandContinued from page 13

GillilandContinued on page 18


15/20


16/20


17/20


18/20


19/20


Speakers and Schedule

A. Blake WhiteBlake is a regular contributor to Sound of Grace and has written many articles. He is a leading

apologist for New Covenant Theology and the author of seven books, including the recently released Theological Foun-

dations for New Covenant Ethics, his well-known What is New Covenant Theology: An Introduction, The Law of Christ:

A Theological Proposal, and The Newness of the New Covenant.

Chad Richard BressonChad is the new Assistant Director of The Center for Pioneer Church Planting with To Ev-

ery Tribes in Los Fresnos, Texas. He has been the Pastor for Adult Bible Education at Clearcreek Chapel in Springboro,

Ohio, and is relocating to Los Fresnos this summer.

Steve BestSteve serves as theDirector of the Center for Pioneer Church Planting. His love for Christ and the

gospel has been evident through his passion for expository preaching and encouragement for intentional shepherdingthrough the family of families.

Grace Bible Church3715 Wilson Avenue

Grandville, Michigan 49418

Friday, June 21

6:30 PM 7:30 PM Session 1Blake: The Genesis of Missions

8:00 PM 9:00 PM Panel Q&A: What is New Covenant Theology

Saturday, June 22

9:00 AM 10:00 AM Session 2Steve: A Light to the Gentiles

10:15 AM 11:15 AM Session 3Chad: Jonah and Old Covenant Missions

11:30 AM 12:00 PM Panel Q&A

12:00 PM 1:30 PM Lunch

1:30 PM 2:30 PM Session 4Blake: Christs Mission in the New Covenant

2:30 PM 3:30 PM Session 5Steve: The Great Commission and the New Covenant

4:00 PM 5:00 PM Panel Q&A

5:00 PM 6:00 PM Dinner

6:30 PM 7:30 PM Session 6Blake: The Ministry of the New Covenant

7:45 PM 9:00 PM Session 7Chad: The Equipping of the New Covenant Member

Sunday, June 23

9:00 AM 10:00 AM Adult Bible Hour with Grace Bible Church

10:15 AM 11:45 AM Morning Worship with Grace Bible Church

12:15 PM 2:00 PM Lunch Provided

Please visit our website at www.kainosconference.com and

"like" us on Facebook at: facebook.com/kainoscon


20/20

Sound of Grace, Issue 197, May 2013

Documents

Transcript of Sound of Grace, Issue 197, May 2013