Beyond the Wicket Gate

Brian Schwertley Vindicates My Thesis in Judicial Warfare

2011-02-23T14:23:00.000-08:00

In his latest lecture on the subject of Christian Reconstructionism and the Federal Vision, Brian Schwertley has not only followed much of my line of thought in the 2009 edition of Judicial Warfare (a copy of which he has in his possession), but he even uses many of the same quotes that I used from Herman Bavinck, Charles Spurgeon, and others to buttress his assertion that Rousas John Rushdoony and Greg Bahnsen were at least partially responsible for the wide acceptance of Shepherdism within the Theonomy camp. Precisely as I did in Chapter Four (Theonomy and the Covenant of Works), Schwertley focuses on the denial of the historic doctrine of the Covenant of Works found in the teaching of both Rushdoony and Bahnsen and criticizes their implicit (and in Rushdoony's case, explicit) monocovenantalism. As I did in Chapter Five (Theonomy's Doctrine of Covenantal Nomism), he also discusses Bahnsen's endorsement of Shepherd and his problematic definition of "working faith." Unfortunately, Schwertley lets both men off the hook at the end of the lecture, claiming that Bahnsen in particular misunderstood Shepherd and would have denounced the Federal Vision movement (despite the evidence which Bahnsen's own son, David, has provided to the contrary on his website).

Oddly enough, Schwertley even acknowledges in his discussion of Christ's active obedience that the law functioned in at least some capacity as a covenant of works - the very point on which he accused me last year of teaching "modified Dispensationalism."

After carefully listening to his latest offering, it seems rather obvious to me that the only real difference between Schwertley's position and mine is our eschatological presuppositions - he is a Postmillennialist and I am an Amillennialist. This affects how we view the extent of the Scripture's applicability to the civil realm. When it comes to how the moral law is to be used by the Christian in his personal sanctification, our views are basically the same despite Schwertley's repeated attempts over the last four years to label me a "natural law antinomian" and other such nonsense. My account of the entire dispute may be read HERE.

Will Schwertley ever come to acknowledge this and retract what he has written and preached against me? That's probably as likely as Schwertley submitting himself to the jurisdiction of a legitimate presbytery. The so-called Westminster Presbyterian Church in the United States continues to be a "presbytery" of just one man, which makes it the equivalent of the "para-church organizations" which he criticizes in his lecture.

An Excellent Source For Christian Apologetics

2011-02-16T08:07:00.001-08:00

I recently found the Giving An Answer website to be an excellent source for Christian apologetics. They have a lot of good information on cults and world religions, with conversations with various experts. Check out their broadcast listing HERE.

A Brief Response to Stephen Halbrook's Defense of Daniel F.N. Ritchie

2010-10-22T11:28:00.000-07:00

Stephen Halbrook recently posted a video on YouTube in which he attempted to defend Daniel F.N. Ritchie from the charge of covenantal nomism. While denying that Ritchie is teaching "justification on account of good works," Halbrook does admit that Theonomists such as Ritchie believe that "the Covenant of Grace is conditional and faith is the condition of the covenant." As I discussed in Chapter Five of Judicial Warfare, Bahnsen and Rushdoony in particular adopted Daniel P. Fuller's redefinition of faith as "obedience." Echoing Norman Shepherd's insistence that faith and works are essentially the same thing, Bahnsen wrote that faith and obedience are "two sides of the same coin." Elsewhere he stated, "Continued blessing for Adam in paradise, Israel in the promised land, and the Christian in the kingdom has been seen to be dependent upon persevering obedience to God's will as expressed in His law." Contrary to Halbrook, such a teaching is a departure from the Reformed teaching that obedience flows out of, and is therefore distinct from, saving faith. A Christian's standing before God is not conditioned on his obedience, but on Christ's obedience in his behalf. To insist, as Ritchie does, that a Christian's eternal destiny depends on his "keeping the covenant" and "striving to obey the law," is a clear perversion of the Gospel.

God, the Only Source of Happiness For the Soul

2010-09-08T17:33:00.000-07:00

The soul of man has a natural desire of happiness: nothing can make it happy but what is commensurable to its desires, or capable of affording it a full satisfaction. Nothing less than an infinite good is such: and God Himself only is an infinite good, in the enjoyment of which the soul can rest, as fully satisfied, desiring no more. Now, since by reason of the vast capacity of the soul, nothing but God Himself can indeed satisfy this its desire of happiness, the which is so woven into the very nature of the soul, that nothing but the destruction of the very being of the soul can remove it; it is evident, that it is impossible the soul of man can ever find true rest, until it return to God, and take up its rest with Him; but must still be in quest of, or desiring its chief good and happiness, wherein it may rest, and this in reality is God Himself only; though the practical understanding being blinded, knows not that, and the perverse will and affections carry away the soul from Him, seeking the desired good and happiness in other things. It is so consistent with man's nature, that it will remain forever in the damned in hell; a chief part of whose misery will lie in that this desire shall ever be rampant in them, but never in the least satisfied; they shall never be freed from this scorching thirst there, nor yet get a drop of water to cool the tongue. - Edward Fisher, The Marrow of Modern Divinity, page 246.

The Secret Cause of Atheism

2010-09-08T08:06:00.000-07:00

...[B]efore a man believe God's love to him in Christ, though he may have a kind of love to God, as He is his Creator and Preserver, and gives him many good things for this present life, yet if God do but open his eyes, to see what condition his soul is in, that is, if He do but let him see that relation that is betwixt God and him, according to the tenor of the covenant of works, then he conceives of Him as an angry Judge, armed with justice against him, and must be pacified by the works of the law, whereunto he finds his nature opposite and contrary; and therefore he hates both God and His law, and doth secretly wish and desire there were neither God nor law. And though God should now give unto him ever so many temporal blessings, yet could he not love Him; for what malefactor could love that judge or his law, from whom he expected the sentence of condemnation, though he should feast him at his table with ever so many dainties? - Edward Fisher, The Marrow of Modern Divinity, page 194.

Glenn Beck, Mormonism, and Islam

2010-09-02T05:44:00.000-07:00

Worldview Radio recently discussed Glenn Beck, and the similarities between his Mormon religion and Mohammed's Islam.

Paul and Covenantal Nomism

2010-08-29T14:26:00.000-07:00

Michael S. Horton writes an insightful piece on the heresy of covenantal nomism, which tries to avoid the charge of legalism by teaching that one enters the covenant by grace alone. Of course, that is not where the problem lies, but rather in the second part of the proposition: that one remains in the covenant by obedience - or, in the words of R.J. Rushdoony, "Justification is by grace; sanctification is by law." That is precisely what the medieval Church taught and was the very point on which the Reformers opposed them.

Avoiding the Extremes of Antinomianism and Legalism

2010-08-14T06:27:00.000-07:00

The law as a rule of life steers a middle course between antinomianism and legalism. Neither antinomianism nor legalism are true to the law or the gospel. Antinomianism stresses freedom from the law's condemnation at the expense of the believer's pursuit of holiness. It accents justification at the expense of sanctification.... [A]ntinomianism fails to see that abrogation of the law's condemning power does not abrogate the law's commanding power.

By contrast, legalism so stresses the believer's pursuit of holiness that obedience to the law becomes something other than the fruit of faith. Obedience becomes a constitutive element of justification. The commanding power of the law for sanctification suffocates the condemning power of the law for justification.

Legalism denies in practice, if not in theory, the Reformed concept of justification. The Reformed concept of the law as a rule of life helps the believer safeguard, both in doctrine and in practice, a healthy balance between justification and sanctification. Justification leads to and finds its proper fruit in sanctification. Salvation is by grace alone and cannot help but produce works of grateful obedience. - Joel R. Beeke, "Publisher's Introduction," in John Colquhoun, A Treatise on the Law and the Gospel (Soli Deo Gloria Publications, 2009), pages xxii-xxiii).

Sanctification is By Faith, Not Law-Keeping

2010-08-02T12:33:00.000-07:00

One great mystery is, that the holy frame and disposition, whereby our souls are furnished and enabled for immediate practice of the law, must be obtained “by receiving it out of Christ’s fulness,” as a thing already prepared and brought to an existence for us in Christ, and treasured up in Him; and that, as we are justified by a righteousness wrought out in Christ, and imputed to us, so we are sanctified by such an holy frame and qualifications as are first wrought out and completed in Christ for us, and them imparted to us. And as our natural corruption was produced originally in the first Adam, and propagated from him to us; so our new nature and holiness is first produced in Christ, and derived from Him to us, or, as it were, propagated. So that we are not at all to work together with Christ, in making or producing that holy frame in us, but only to take it to ourselves, and use it in our holy practice, as made ready to our hands. Thus we have fellowship with Christ, in receiving that holy frame of spirit that was originally in Him; for fellowship is, when several persons have the same things in common (1 John i.1-3). This mystery is so great, that notwithstanding all the light of the gospel, we commonly think that we must get an holy frame by producing it anew in ourselves, and by forming and working it out of our own hearts. Therefore many, that are seriously devout, take a great deal of pains to mortify their corrupted nature, and beget an holy frame of heart in themselves, by striving earnestly to master their sinful lust, and by pressing vehemently upon their hearts many motives to godliness, labouring importunately to squeeze good qualifications out of them, as oil out of a flint. They account, that though they be justified by a righteousness wrought out by Christ, yet they must be sanctified by a holiness wrought out by themselves. And though, out of humility they are willing to call it infused grace, yet they think they must get the infusion of it by the same manner of working, as if it were wholly acquired by their endeavours. On this account they acknowledge the entrance into a godly life to be harsh and unpleasing, because it costs so much struggling with their own hearts and affections to new-frame them. If they knew that this way of entrance is not only harsh and unpleasant, but altogether impossible; and that the true way of mortifying sin, and quickening themselves to holiness, is by receiving a new nature out of the fulness of Christ; and that we do no more to the production of a new nature, than of original sin, though we do more to the reception of it — if they knew this, they might save themselves many a bitter agony, and a great deal of misspent, burdensome labour, and employ their endeavours to enter in at the straith gate, in such a way as would be more pleasant and successful (Walter Marshall, The Gospel-Mystery of Sanctification [Edinburgh: James Taylor, 1887], pages 43-44).

The Westminster Confession is Not Theonomic

2010-07-31T11:46:00.000-07:00

Despite the claims of Brian Schwertley, Daniel F.N. Ritchie, and other self-professed Presbyterian proponents of Theonomy, Dr. Ligon Duncan demonstrates in this piece that the Westminster Confession (either in its original or its revised American version) is antithetical to theonomic principles.

A Critique of Theonomy

2010-07-31T11:13:00.000-07:00

Pastor Todd S. Bordow, of Covenant Presbyterian Church (OPC) in Fort Worth, Texas, offers an excellent critique of Theonomy (Reconstructionism) that summarizes many of the points I made in Judicial Warfare.

The Error of Confounding Israel's National Covenant With the New Covenant

2010-07-25T05:47:00.000-07:00

It is to be remembered that there were two covenants made with Abraham. By the one his natural descendants through Isaac, were constituted a commonwealth— an external community; by the other his spiritual descendants were constituted into a church. The parties to the former covenant, were God, and the nation; to the other, God, and his true people. The promises of the national covenant, were national blessings; the promises of the spiritual covenant (i.e. the covenant of grace) were spiritual blessings, as reconciliation, holiness, and eternal life. The conditions of the one covenant were circumcision, and obedience to the law; the conditions of the other were, and ever have been, faith in the Messiah, as ‘the seed of the woman,’ the Son of God, the Saviour of the world. There cannot be a greater mistake than to confound the national covenant with the covenant of grace, and the commonwealth founded on the one, with the church founded on the other. When Christ came, the commonwealth was abolished, and there was nothing put in its place. The church remained. There was no external covenant, nor promise of external ‘blessings, on condition of external rites, and subjection. There was a spiritual society, with spiritual promises, on condition of faith in Christ. The church is, therefore, in its essential nature, a company of believers, and not an external society, requiring merely external profession as the condition of membership. - Charles Hodge, Princeton Review, October 1853

Some Thoughts on Republication

2010-07-17T05:31:00.000-07:00

"C.T." provides some concise observations HERE on the doctrine of republication and why so many so-called Calvinists today fulminate against it.

The Biblical Perspective on Dinosaurs

2010-07-16T07:57:00.000-07:00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CY-_kJzyRo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqCpLQDZvco&NR=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IEZDA6mqSzE

William Cunningham on Civil Government and Natural Reason

2010-07-12T04:58:00.000-07:00

"[C]ivil government is intended to bear, at least principally and most directly, upon the temporal welfare of men, and ought to be regulated chiefly by a regard to the principles of natural reason. God has not prescribed His written word as the only rule to be followed by nations and their rulers in establishing and administering civil government; and He has not given them in His word sufficient materials to guide them authoritatively in determining all the questions which, with reference to this matter they may be called upon to entertain and dispose of. Yet where the word of God does speak to these issues, it ought to be authoritative in regu lating the opinions and conduct of those who acknowledge it as such” (William Cunningham, Discussions on Church Principles: Popish, Erastian, and Presbyterian [Edingburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1863], pages 196-197).

Are There Two Peoples of God? A Response to Dispensationalism (Part Three)

2010-07-05T05:15:00.000-07:00

The Alleged Distinctiveness of the Church

Witmer then moved on to discuss the logical conclusion of his thesis regarding Israel: that the Christian Church is a completely unique entity which was unknown in the Old Testament era. We need not spend as much time on this subject since his claims regarding the distinctiveness of the Church depend upon the veracity of his claims regarding the distinctiveness of Israel, which have already been disproved above. Witmer wrote, "The distinctiveness of the church rests in its identity as 'the body of Christ' (1 Cor. 12:27; Eph. 4:12; cf. Rom. 12:5; Eph. 1:22-23; 5:23-30; Col. 1:18, 24). The formation of the church as Christ’s body is based on the Lord Jesus’ death, burial, resurrection, and ascension to heaven (Eph. 1:20-23; 4:7-16; Col. 1:18). As a result no redeemed person before Jesus’ ascension to the right hand of God in heaven could be a member of that body."(5)

We have already seen from the third chapter of Galatians that New Testament Christians are fellow-partakers of the very same promises that were given to Abraham. According to verse 7, “they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.” Paul went on in verses 19-25 to teach that the purpose of the Mosaic law, which was “four hundred and thirty years after” (verse 17) the Abrahamic Covenant, was “added because of transgresions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made” (verse 19). Its purpose was to “conclude all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe” (verse 22) and it was “our [the Jews’] schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified” (verse 24). Clearly then, the ultimate purpose of the Mosaic covenant was not to grant national Israel possession of the land of Palestine, but to cause them to despair of their own righteousness and to place their faith in the coming final sacrifice of the Messiah. In verse 8, Paul wrote, “And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.” Consequently, “ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.... There is neither Jew nor Greek.... for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise” (verses 26, 28-29). Paul further expounded on this subject in Romans 11 when he spoke of the Church as an “olive tree” into which Gentiles have been grafted. The root of this olive tree is in Abraham, not in the New Testament; therefore, the believing remnant of Old Testament Israel is of the same body as the believing Jews and Gentiles of the New Testament Church. This was the point of the writer of the epistle to the Hebrews in chapter 11, especially in verse 40: “God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect.” The Old Testament saints only saw the coming heavenly Kingdom of Christ by faith (verse 16), but that they were saints and belonged to Christ is clear. In fact, in Hebrews 12:1, they are described as “so great a cloud of witnesses” — witnesses to Christ.

Moreover, the sermon preached by Stephen prior to his death is a thorough rebuttal of Witmer’s claim that “no redeemed person” in the Old Testament was a member of the Church: "This is that Moses, which said unto the children of Israel, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear. This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with out fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us: to whom our fathers would not obey, but thrust him from them, and in their hearts turned back again into Egypt" (Acts 7:37-39).

Witmer wrote, “The church... constituting all individuals ‘in Christ,’ where “neither is circumcision anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation’ (Gal. 6:15), was never envisioned in the Old Testament....”(6) If all this were true, then Stephen erred in calling the saints of the Old Testament “the church in the wilderness.” Witmer’s statement is also directly rebutted by Galatians 3:8-9: “And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed. So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.”

Again, in Romans 4:11-16, Paul wrote:

And [Abraham] received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, through they be not circumcised; that the righteousness might be imputed unto them also: and the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised. For the promise, that he should be heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.... Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all.

Witmer quoted Charles Ryrie, “‘This relationship was unknown in Old Testament times....” and then added, "Abram was justified on the basis of his faith in God’s promise of a son, not a conscious, explicit faith in Jesus Christ.’”(7) However, according to Galatians 3:16, the object of the Abrahamic Covenant was Christ Himself. Moreover, Paul began his epistle to the Romans with these words: “Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God, which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures” (Romans 1:1-2). How then can it be said that faith in Christ was “not possible” prior to the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ and that a relationship with Christ was “unknown in Old Testament times”? It was not seen as clearly as we see it now, but it was seen nevertheless by the believing remnant: "Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; and were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; and did all eat the same spiritual meat; and did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ" (1 Corinthians 10:1-4).

Paul also wrote in Romans 10:16-21:

But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report? So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world. But I say, Did not Israel know? First Moses saith, I will provoke you to jealousy by them that are no people, and by a foolish nation I will anger you. But Esaias is very bold, and saith, I was found of them that sought me not; I was made manifest unto them that asked not after me. But to Israel he saith, All day long I have stretched forth my hands unto a disobedient and gainsaying people.

Witmer has taken the unbelief of the majority of Old Testament Israel as the proof of his claim that the Gospel was unknown at that time, but Paul’s point is exactly the opposite: they were disobedient because they would not believe the Gospel. The presupposition was that the Gospel was indeed preached to them:

While it is said, To-day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts, as in the provocation. For some, when they had heard, did provoke: howbeit not all that came out of Egypt by Moses. But with whom was he grieved forty years? was it not with them that had sinned, whose carcases fell in the wilderness? And to whom sware he that they should not enter into his rest, but to them that believed not? So we see that they could not enter in because of unbelief. Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left us of entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it. For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it. For we which have believed do enter into rest.... Again, he limiteth a certain day, saying to David, To-day, after so long a time; as it is said, To-day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts. For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day. There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God (Hebrews 3:15-4:1-3, 7-9).

Witmer claimed that “the object of faith in every age is the promise of God; the content of God’s promise changes in various dispensations. This takes into account the distinction between God’s promise to Abram accepted by faith and God’s promise to believers in this age of grace.”(8) To the contrary, the object of faith in every age is none other than Christ Himself and the content of the promise remains precisely the same throughout the various “dispensations”: regeneration, or entrance into the spiritual Kingdom of Heaven by faith:

Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers: and that the Gentiles might glorify God for his mercy; as it is written, For this cause I will confess to thee among the Gentiles, and sing unto thy name. And again he saith, Rejoice, ye Gentiles, with is people. And again, Praise the Lord, all ye Gentiles; and laud him, all ye people. And again, Esaias saith, There shall be a root of Jesse, and he that shall rise to reign over the Gentiles; in him shall the Gentiles trust (Romans 15:8-12).

Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.... And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise (Galatians 3:16, 29).

Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left us of entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it. For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it (Hebrews 4:1-2).

And we desire that every one of you do shew the same diligence to the full assurance of hope unto the end: that ye be not slothful, but followers of them who through faith and patience inherit the promises. For when God made promise to Abraham, because he could swear by no greater, he sware by himself, saying, Surely blessing I will bless thee, and multiplying I will multiply thee (Hebrews 6:11-13).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Endnotes

1. John A. Witmer, "A Review of Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth," Bibliotheca Sacra, 149 (April-June 1992), page 15.

2. Witmer, ibid., page 14.

3. Witmer, ibid.

4. Witmer, ibid., page 15.

5. Witmer, ibid.

6. Witmer, ibid., page 16.

7. Witmer, ibid., pages 16, 23.

8. Witmer, ibid., page 23.

Are There Two Peoples of God? A Response to Dispensationalism (Part Two)

2010-06-05T16:36:00.000-07:00

The Alleged Distinctiveness of Israel

In his review of John Gerstner’s book, Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth, John A. Witmer of Dallas Theological Seminary wrote, “In Scripture Israel’s distinctiveness rests in God’s choosing the nation as a special people for Himself (Deut. 7:6).... This choice was based on God’s oath to the forefathers (Deut. 7:8), which oath is the Abrahamic Covenant (Gen. 17:1-8), the token of which is circumcision of every male Israelite (vv. 9-14).”(1)

It should be noted that the Abrahamic Covenant was actually made in Chapter 15, when Abraham cut the sacrifices and God Himself passed through the pieces. Chapter 17 is just a reaffirmation of the same promises made in Chapter 15. Were these promises for national Israel alone, or were they ultimately for someone else? The Apostle Paul gave the answer in the third chapter of Galatians:

Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham. And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed. So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.... That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith. Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man’s covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or added thereto. Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.... (Galatians 3: 7-9, 14-18, 28-29).

Thus, while the immediate promise in the Abrahamic Covenant was the possession of the land of Palestine, the ultimate spiritual reality behind that promise was really entrance into the “heavenly country” (Hebrews 11:16) — regeneration through faith in Christ Jesus, the Seed to whom the covenant pointed and with whom it was actually made. The writer of Hebrews used the promised land of Palestine as a figure of the Gospel itself and cautioned his Jewish readers not to provoke God to anger by unbelief just as their forefathers had done. He wrote:

While it is said, To-day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts, as in the provocation. For some, when they had heard, did provoke: howbeit not all that came out of Egypt by Moses. But with whom was he grieved forty years? was it not with them that had sinned, whose carcases fell in the wilderness? And to whom sware he that they should not enter into his rest, but to them that believed not? So we see that they could not enter in because of unbelief. Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left us of entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it. For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it. For we which have believed do enter into rest.... Again, he limiteth a certain day, saying to David, To-day, after so long a time; as it is said, To-day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts. For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day. There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God (Hebrews 3:15-4:1-3, 7-9).

If the Abrahamic Covenant was a promise that God would “justify the heathen through faith,” and if the promised land was a type and shadow of the spiritual rest of regeneration, then there is no longer any reason for a distinction between natural Israelites from Gentiles under the New Testament: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise” (Galatians 3:28-29).

Witmer wrote, "Since this covenant, confirmed through Isaac (vv. 19, 21) instead of Ishmael (vv. 9-14), was an “everlasting covenant” (vv. 7, 13, 19), God’s choice of Israel ethnically as a special people also is everlasting. This truth is confirmed by God’s promise through Jeremiah that Israel will continue as a nation as long as the sun, moon, and stars endure (Jer. 31:35-37; 33:19-26)...."(2) We have already quoted Paul’s allegorical reference to Isaac and Ishmael in Galatians 4:22-31. Here, he equates the Christian Church — made up of believing Jews and Gentiles — with Isaac, the “son of promise” and he equates the natural and unbelieving Jews with Ishmael, stating that they are “cast out.” This is exactly the opposite of what Witmer was attempting to prove by referring to the two sons of Abraham. Witmer’s error is further demonstrated in Romans 9:6-8: “Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. That is, they which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.” Again, both Jews and Gentiles are equally the “children of the promise” and are “counted for the seed” if they “be Christ’s.” Nothing could be clearer than that God is through with ethnic distinctions and that His chosen people are now “of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues” (Revelation 7:9).

Witmer did not fare any better in referring to God’s promise in Jeremiah 31:35-37. This is seen when the preceding verses are considered:

Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: but this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel: After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

The parallel passage to the above is found in Ezekiel 36:24-28:

For I will take you from among the heathen, and gather you out of all countries, and will bring you into your own land. Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you. A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh. And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them. And ye shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers; and ye shall be my people, and I will be your God.

Turning again to the New Testament, we find this “new covenant” the main topic of discussion at the Last Supper. Holding forth the Passover elements to His Jewish disciples, Jesus said, “For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins” (Matthew 26:28; cf. Mark 14:24). That this was the same covenant prophesied by Jeremiah and Ezekiel is clear from Christ’s discourse with Nicodemus:

There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews: the same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him. Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb, and be born? Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.... Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be? Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things? (John 3:1-10)

Nicodemus should have understood what Christ was referring to, for in speaking of the new birth “of water and of the Spirit,” He obviously had in mind the promise of God to the Jews that He would “sprinkle clean water” upon them and put “a new spirit” within them. Christ was telling a Jewish leader that it was not enough to be a physical descendent of Abraham (“that which is born of the flesh is flesh”); it was necessary to be regenerated (baptized by the Holy Spirit) in order to “enter into the kingdom of God.” A few verses later comes the well-known proclamation of the universal Gospel (verses 16-18). This all corresponds to the Apostle Paul’s aforementioned distinction between Israel “after the flesh” and the spiritual Israel which is made up of both Jews and Gentiles. According to both Christ and Paul, it is the latter, and not the former, who have inherited the Kingdom of God. The Church, therefore, is the “nation” which continues as long as the sun, moon, and stars endure: “But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvelous light: which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy” (1 Peter 2:9; cf. Exodus 19:5-6).

Witmer wrote:

This separate identity of Israel in distinction from the Gentiles and from “the church of God” (1 Cor. 10:32) continued in the New Testament. It was recognized by Paul (Rom. 3:1-2; 9:3-5; 10:1-3), who insisted that “God has not rejected His people” (11:1-2a). Paul supported this conclusion of God’s continuing choice of Israel with two arguments: (a) “At the present time [there is] a remnant according to God’s gracious choice” (v. 5), including Paul himself, that becomes part of the body of Christ, the church (Eph. 2:13-18). (b) Later after “the fulness of the Gentiles has come in... all Israel will be saved” (Rom. 11:25-26) because “the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable” (v. 29). This final salvation of Israel is seen at least in part in the “one hundred and forty-four thousand sealed from every tribe of the sons of Israel” (Rev. 7:4-8) and in the repentance of Israel at the Lord Jesus’s return to earth (Zech. 12:9-13:1, 9).(3)

Witmer completely misunderstood Paul’s point in Romans 9:6-8: “For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.” Paul then responded to the hypothetical objection, “Hath God cast away his people?” (Romans 11:1) by noting that God’s covenant was always with the remnant of Israel — the true seed “according to the promise” — not with the unbelieving Jews. To this remnant have now been added believing Gentiles (verses 15-19). To be reckoned once again as God’s people and to be grafted back into Israel, the unbelieving Jews must become Christians: “And so [thus] all Israel shall be saved” (verse 26). This same doctrine is taught in John 1:12-13: “But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.” Inclusion in Israel under the New Testament is strictly by regeneration, not by physical descent from Abraham.

Witmer also erred in speaking of a “final salvation of [national] Israel” at the “Lord Jesus’ return to earth.” No such post-second advent salvation is taught anywhere in the Bible, but quite the opposite. According to Paul’s doctrine in 1 Corinthians 15:24, when Christ returns, “then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.” Those, whether they be Jews or Gentiles, who have not believed by that time will have no more opportunity: “When the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, in flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power; when he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe... in that day” (2 Thessalonians 1:7-10).

That having been said, let us look at Witmer’s selected prooftext in Zechariah: "And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will seek to destroy all nations that come against Jerusalem. And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn" (verses 9-10). A parallel passage is found in Joel 2:28-30: “And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions: and also upon the servants and upon the handmaids in those days will I pour out my spirit.” Both prophecies referred to a future time when the Holy Spirit would be poured out upon the Jews resulting in a mourning for their part in the crucifixion of Christ and their salvation according to the New Covenant promise of Ezekiel 36. However, we need not look for this momentous event in the future when Christ alleged returns to set up an earthly kingdom, for, according to no less an authority than the Apostle Peter himself, the fulfillment of the prophecy is found in Acts 2:14-18:

But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and said unto them, Ye men of Judea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my words: for these are not drunken, as ye suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day. But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel; and it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams: and on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy.

Peter was speaking to the very crowd referred to in Zechariah 12:9: “the inhabitants of Jerusalem.” What followed was the first sermon of the Christian Church in which he expounded upon the Old Testament prophecies concerning Christ, proving that it was “the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God” that the Jews would take and kill their own Messiah. In concluding his sermon, Peter said, “Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ” (verse 36). The reaction of his audience was exactly as Zechariah prophesied it would be: “Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?” (verse 37) Peter responded by instructing them to be “baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost” (verse 38) — another clear reference to the New Covenant in Ezekiel 36. Peter continued: “For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call” (verse 39). What promise was he referring to? The promise given to Abraham: entrance into the “land” of regeneration. Was this promise for ethnic Israel only? No, it was also “to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call” — to the Gentiles who were once “aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise” (Ephesians 2:12) and who were once “afar off” but now “are made nigh by the blood of Christ” (verse 13).

Witmer quoted Romans 11:29 in an attempt to prove that unbelieving Jews still have a covenant relationship with God based, not on faith, but upon blood — which, as we have already seen, is directly contrary to Paul’s point in Romans 9:8 that “the children of the flesh... are not the children of God.” This corresponds to Christ’s discourse of the scribes and Pharisees in the gospel of John:

Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; and ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free. They [those Jews who did not believe on Him] answered him, We be Abraham’s seed, and were never in bondage to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free? Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever commiteth sin is the servant of sin. And the servant abideth not in the house for ever: but the Son abideth ever. If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed. I know that ye are Abraham’s seed; but ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you. I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and ye do that which ye have seen with your father.

They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham’s children, ye would do the works of Abraham. But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham. Ye do the deeds of your father.

Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God.

Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me. Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word. Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning,a and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not. Which of you convinceth me of sin? And if is say the truth, why do ye not believe me? He that is of God heareth God’s words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God (John 8:31-47).

Here we see the unbelieving Jews clinging to the very same error now held by Dispensationalists such as Witmer: that God is the unconditional covenantal Father of the physical descendants of Abraham. Jesus responded by calling them instead children of their father, the Devil, who is the father of lies. Again, we see that faith in Christ is what makes one “the seed of Abraham,” not blood.

Jesus again addressed these same unbelieving Jews in Matthew 21:33-43:

Hear another parable: there was a certain householder, which planted a vineyard, and hedged it round about, and digged a winepress in it, and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into a far country: and when the time of the fruit drew near, he sent his servants to the husbandmen, that they might receive the fruits of it. And the husbandmen took his servants, and beat one, and killed another, and stoned another. Again, he sent other servants more than the first: and they did unto them likewise. But last of all he sent unto them his son, saying, They will reverence my son. But when the husbandmen saw the son, they said among themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and let us seize on his inheritance. And they caught him, and cast him out of the wineyard, and slew him. When the lord therefore of the vineyard cometh, what will he do unto those husbandmen?

They say unto him, He will miserably destroy those wicked men, and will let out his vineyard unto other husbandmen, which shall render him the fruits in their seasons.

Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord’s doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes? Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.

Jesus continued speaking to the same Jews in Matthew 23:32-36:

Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers. Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell? Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city. That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar. Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation.

This all seems to be very strange language for the Son of God to use in addressing His Father’s chosen people. Witmer insisted that God’s covenant with the physical house of Israel has never been revoked, but what did Jesus say? “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! Behold, your house is left unto you desolate” (verse 38). This was not just a reference to the Temple, but to the very covenantal status of the nation of Israel itself. As Jesus said to the fig tree (a type of Israel): “No man eat fruit of thee hereafter for ever” (Mark 11:14).

Before we leave this subject of the cutting off of unbelieving Israel, let us return again to Witmer’s prooftext from the prophecy of Zechariah:

Awake, O sword, against my shepherd, and against the man that is my fellow, saith the LORD of hosts: smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered: and I will turn mine hand upon the little ones. And it shall come to pass, that in all the land, saith the LORD, two parts therein shall be cut off and die; but the third shall be left therein. And I will bring the third part through the fire, and will refine them as silver is refined, and will try them as gold is tried: they shall call on my name, and I will hear them: I will say, It is my people: and they shall say, The LORD is my God (Zechariah 13:7-9).

The context of the above prophecy shows that it refers to the time of Christ’s crucifixion, not His second advent. The two parts that “shall be cut off and die” are the unbelieving Jews to whom Jesus was speaking and to whom Paul referred in Romans 11. The “third part” is the remnant, also referred to by Paul in Romans 11, and also addressed by Peter in 1 Peter 1:1-7:

Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied. Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you, who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time. Wherein ye greatly rejoice, though now for a season, if need be, ye are in heaviness through manifold temptations: that the trial of your faith, being much more precious than of gold that perisheth, though it be tried with fire, might be found unto praise and honour and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ.

Witmer wrote, "In addition to Israel’s continuation as God’s chosen people and her continuing title to the promise land is her continuation as a political entity, a nation. This involves God’s covenant with David concerning the everlasting establishment of David’s house (lineage), kingdom, and throne (2 Sam. 716; cf. vv. 24-25; Ps. 89:19-37). God stated that sin by David’s descendants would bring divine chastisement (2 Sam. 7:14; Ps. 89:30-32), but that His mercy would not depart from them as He had removed it from Saul (2 Sam. 7:15; Ps. 89:28-29, 33-37)."(4) First of all, his claim that God promised that Israel would continue as a nation is contradicted by Genesis 49:10: “The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be.” That this is a prophecy of Christ is beyond dispute. Also indisputable is the declaration that the sceptre (a symbol of national existence) would indeed “depart from Judah” when the Messiah began to gather the people — the “third part” remnant of Israel along with the believing Gentiles.

Furthermore, God’s promise that David would never lack a descendant to sit upon his throne was and continues to be fulfilled in Jesus Christ, the “son of David.” He is not waiting for His second advent to sit upon this throne, but sat upon it when He was resurrected and ascended to the “right hand of the Father” (Psalm 2; cf. Matthew 28:18; Acts 13:22-23; Ephesians 2:4-7).

Witmer concluded his section on the distinctiveness of Israel by citing a string of prooftexts which he believes prophesy “the future kingdom for Israel and its character (e.g., Isa. 2:1-5; 4:2-6; 9:6-7; 11:1-12:6; 14:1-3; Zech. 8:1-8; 14:1-21; Acts 1:6-7; 3:20-32; 1 Cor. 15:20-26).” Upon examination, however, none of these passages support his claim, but rather find their fulfillment in the preaching of the Gospel in Jerusalem by the Apostles and its acceptance, first by the Jewish remnant, and then by the believing Gentiles. The “future kingdom for Israel” is actually the present kingdom of the Church.

To Be Continued...

Are There Two Peoples of God? A Response to Dispensationalism (Part One)

2010-05-07T08:41:00.000-07:00

Differences in Hermeneutics

The Dispensational heremeneutical principle rejects or at least discourages any allegorization of the Old Testament and Origen of the ante-Nicene patristic period is often pointed to as the source of the allegorical principle of interpretation. The oft-repeated claim of those of the Dispensational tradition is that they interpret the Scriptures “literally” whereas those of the Reformed (Amillennial) tradition are frequently criticized for “spiritualizing” the Scriptures. In reality, the difference is really that the former tradition generally understands the Old Testament only from an earthly (carnal) perspective, while the latter insists that the doctrines, rituals, and events of the Old Testament were always intended by God to provide a living picture to His people of the greater spiritual truths which are more clearly taught in the New Testament.

Because of the sharp distinction he makes between national Israel and the Church, the Dispensationalist will mainly confine his interpretation of Old Testament soteriology to the Old Testament text itself, and will likewise restrict his interpretation of New Testament soteriology mainly to the Pauline epistles. In fact, the consistent Dispensationalist will deny that the Gospel and the Christian Church are found in the Old Testament. The Reformed expositor, however, sees the New Testament as the fulfillment of the Old Testament, and will interpret the types and shadows of the Old in light of the clear revelation of the New. There is therefore a continuity between the two Testaments; the Old Testament serves as the foundation of God’s revelation — each successive covenant is the addition of another floor to the building — and the New Testament serves as the roof of the completed structure:

But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.... Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste (Isaiah 28:13, 16; cf: Matthew 21:42; Mark 12:10; Luke 20:17).

Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands; that at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world: but now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; and that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby: and came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh. For though him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father. Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow-citizens with the saints, and of the household of God; and are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; in whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: in whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit (Ephesians 2:11ff).

Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus; who was faithful to him that appointed him, as also Moses was faithful in all his house. For this man was counted worthy of more glory than Moses, inasmuch as he who hath builded the house hath more honour than the house. For every house is builded by some man; but he that built all things is God. And Moses verily was faithful in all his house, as a servant, for a testimony of those things which were to be spoken after; but Christ as a son over his own house; whose house are we, if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end (Hebrews 3:1-6).

Contrary to Dispensationalism, the New Testament makes free use of the allegorical method of interpreting the Old Testament. For example, the Apostle Paul wrote:

For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman. But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise. Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all. For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband. Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise. But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even it is now. Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman. So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free (Galatians 4:22-31).

Under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, Paul pointed to Hagar and Ishmael as a type of national Israel under the bondage of Sinai, which was to be “cast out,” and to Sarah and Isaac as a type of the Church (Zion), the members of which “are the children of promise.” It should be noted that Paul clearly stated in verse 21 that this allegory was the true meaning of the law: “Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?” In Colossians 2:16-17, Paul again referenced the true spiritual meaning behind the Old Testament, focusing specifically on the ceremonial laws: “Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.” In 1 Corinthians 9:7-12 and 1 Timothy 5:17-18, Paul gave the Mosaic case law against muzzling an ox a spiritual interpretation and applied it to Christian ministers. The writer of Hebrews likewise wrote that the temple was a type of “the true tabernacle” (Hebrews 8:2) and that the sacrifices were a “shadow of heavenly things” (verse 5). In the next chapter, we read that the law was “a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things” (Hebrews 10:1). Again, the true interpretation of the Old Testament, according to the New Testament writers, is a spiritual one, not a natural or carnal one. It was because the Jews failed to discern the spiritual meaning of "the law and the prophets" that they were unable to receive their Messiah when He walked among them:

But though he had done so many miracles before them, yet they believed not on him: that the saying of Esaias the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spake, Lord, who hath believed our report? and to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed? Therefore they could not believe, because that Esaias said again, He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them. These things said Esaias, when he saw his glory, and spake of him (John 12:37-41).

But as it written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned (1 Corinthians 2:9-14).

[God] also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life. But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not steadfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away: how shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious? For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory. For even that which was made glorious had no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that excelleth. For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious. Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech: and not as Moses, which put a veil over his face, that the children of Israel could not steadfastly look to the end of that which is abolished: but their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same veil untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which veil is done away in Christ. But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the veil is upon their heart. Nevertheless when it shall turn to the Lord, the veil shall be taken away (2 Corinthians 3:6-16).

With all the above scriptural evidence in mind, it is clear that any system which adopts the hermeneutical principle of the Jews — a principle which caused them to reject and crucify the Son of God and thus to be severely judged by God — has to be rejected by the Christian, for surely it will have a negative effect on his faith and understanding of the true nature of the Gospel.

To Be Continued...

Mark Karlberg's Covenant Theology in Reformed Perspective

2010-05-04T18:38:00.000-07:00

For those who are interested in the Theonomy/Federal Vision/New Perspective on Paul debates (a.k.a. bi-covenantalism vs. monocovenantalism), I highly recommend Mark Karlberg's Covenant Theology in Reformed Perspective (2000). It documents how the various streams of thought developed and how they differ from historic Covenant theology. I'm not very far into it, but it is a fascinating study thus far - and best of all, it's free! Download it HERE.

Sinclair Ferguson on the Marrow Controversy

2010-05-02T14:49:00.000-07:00

In this lecture, Dr. Sinclair Ferguson discusses the historical background of the so-called "Marrow controversy" in the Church of Scotland, sparked by the republication of Edward Fisher's, The Marrow of Modern Divinity. There are a lot of correlations to the present controversies in today's Reformed churches regarding justification and the law/gospel distinction.

Nihilism: The Logical Consequence of Atheism

2010-04-30T07:07:00.000-07:00

The speaker in this short video is correct in noting the inconsistencies inherent in "secular" humanism, which teaches that "one ought to do this or not do that to one's fellow man." If there is no God, there is no "ought," only personal preference, and therefore no good or evil. Nihilism (amoralism) is the logical outworking of consistent atheism. "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom: but fools despise wisdom and knowledge.... All who hate me love death" (Proverbs 1:7, 8:36). "And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind..." (Romans 1:28)

Atheism and the Gospel

2010-04-29T09:31:00.000-07:00

The whole point of atheism is this: if there is a God, then there is an absolute moral standard to which I am accountable. I have violated this moral standard and I can't stop violating it, no matter how much I resolve to stop. Therefore, I am guilty and subject to judgment and punishment. The fear of this judgment and punishment is hanging like a dark cloud over my head and keeping me from enjoying life. In order to have peace, I need to erase any thought of this God from my mind and fill it with something else instead - philosophy, hedonism, illicit sex, drugs, whatever. This is really hard work, so I'm going to get very angry at anyone who stymies my efforts by reminding me that there is a God to whom I am accountable.

The Gospel says: yes, there is a God to whom you are accountable, and yes, you have violated His moral law and you can't stop violating it. God knows your predicament and has provided a remedy by sending His own Son to not only keep that moral law perfectly in your behalf, but also to suffer the punishment due to your failure to keep it. Now, stop trying to do what you cannot do and believe on Christ and receive what He has done as a free gift. You will then have the peace that you desire because you will no longer fear judgment and punishment, and because you will also have a new nature that delights in the moral law and loves to obey it.

R. Scott Clark on the Federal Vision

2010-02-23T07:41:00.000-08:00

Dr. R. Scott Clark of Westminster Theological Seminary in California gives an excellent overview of the Federal Vision theology in this series of lectures. It is amazing that there are so many Theonomists and Reconstructionists who are blind to the fact that Rushdoony's and Bahnsen's redefinition of Covenant theology was very similar to that of Federal Vision, especially in their either explicit or implicit rejection of the Covenant of Works, their redefinition of saving faith, and their essentially Romish view of sanctification.

An Open Letter to Brian Schwertley

2010-02-22T10:46:00.000-08:00

Mr. Schwertley,

I have become aware that you have renewed your public attacks on me in print and on Sermon Audio. The majority of what you have written (I have not listened to the lecture series) is merely a reiteration of what you presented in your series entitled "A Reformed View of the Judicial Law" beginning in August of 2007, and so my previous response still generally applies. You have, however, included some additional falsehoods to which I will now briefly respond. I will prepare a more detailed response to some of the doctrinal issues you have raised as time permits.

Like before, you confine your most recent review of my book Judicial Warfare to carefully isolated extracts from the first edition and a few private email exchanges. As I informed you previously, the original manuscript was written in the summer of 2002 to provide the session of Chalcedon Presbyterian Church (RPCUS) in Cumming, Georgia with the reasons why I could not, in good conscience, retain my membership there. At your request, I sent you an email copy of the manuscript in August of that year and asked you, in your then-capacity as a minister in that denomination, to assist me in correcting any factual or theological errors which I may have committed. You did not respond. I then submitted the manuscript to several Reformed ministers and elders in other denominations and received only positive feedback. Consequently, I decided to publish the manuscript in book form. You did not respond to my book until five years later, when a young man declined to join your congregation after reading it. You have now devoted approximately fifteen hours to attacking me on Sermon Audio, and your actions have taken on the distinct appearance of a personal vendetta.

At no time in your review do you ever acknowledge that an updated and expanded second edition has been published which specifically addresses many of the issues which you raised in 2007 and have again raised now. This new edition has been available on the internet for nearly a year and for several months in book form. It would seem that a scholarly assessment of another's theological position requires one to interact with his newer material, especially when that newer material clarifies the admitted insufficiencies of the older. To say that you were unaware of the new edition is proof that you are not as informed regarding myself and my thought as you claim to be. [ADDED NOTE: I mailed copies of the new edition, along with this letter, to Schwertley and his two elders, Olev Tauts and Dwayne Riendau, on 19 March 2010. He is therefore now well aware that his claims of what I believe and teach are directly contradicted by what I have actually written, and yet he has made no effort to correct or retract the contents of his essay or Sermon Audio series. No clearer evidence is needed that Schwertley is deliberately attempting to deceive his readers and listeners).

You begin your review with this statement:

In 2007 this author did a series of lectures on the judicial laws of Israel in which a number of comments from Greg Loren Durand's book and e-mails were criticized as "a modified form of dispensationalism." These criticisms of Loren's [sic] teachings on the law have caused great ire on his part and I have been accused of misrepresenting his positions. Mr. Durand has even devoted a section of his website claiming that I have committed a "grievous sin" against him. Since I still regard Durand's views to be outside the pale of Reformed orthodoxy, I would like to lay out some of his ideas and let the reader decide if they indeed are orthodox.

I should point out that you have never met me in person or spoken to me directly. Your statement regarding my alleged "great ire" is therefore entirely subjective, and, coupled with your later description of me as a "crackpot," it is a rather obvious attempt to "poison the well." Everything that I have written to you and about you is online for the public to read and judge for themselves whether your assessment is correct or even relevant. It is very telling that, while I have always provided my readers with complete documents and direct links to your lectures, you have never done so with your audience regarding my work, apparently expecting them to merely take you at your word. This at least suggests that you have something to hide.

The first falsehood that I would like to address is the following statement:

After my sermon series on the judicial law, Durand accused me of lying regarding his views, obtained two witnesses (i.e. two poor, deluded fellows who appear to have bought into Durand's unique type of dispensational thought) and brought charges to the session of the church I pastor. Our session was willing to examine his case and asked Durand which church he was a member of, but Durand refused to tell us the name of the church. Durand said he was a member of a church, but was no longer attending that particular and that he was in transition. Given fact that Durand was unwilling to provide any proof that he was a member in good standing of a Bible-believing church, our session refused to take the case. Durand then sent his accusations to all the members of the WPCUS.

There are a number of glaring errors in this statement. My complaints were not made "after" your lecture series as you claim, but all the way through it, beginning with a comment I attempted to leave on Sermon Audio following the first installment of 26 August 2007 (which comment you deleted). You fail to mention that I approached you privately throughout the following month and attempted to clarify those areas in which I felt you had misunderstood my position. Your responses were rude and you stubbornly refused to desist in your public statements regarding my alleged beliefs. Your series was not complete until December of 2007, but my witnesses approached you two months prior to that time in October. You did not have the courtesy to even respond to them, but I still waited until 26 December 2007 to appeal to the WPCUS Presbytery. Your claim that I "brought charges to the session of the church [you] pastor," is directly contradicted by the actual words of my letter to the presbyters which you referenced, but did not actually quote:

I have enclosed a copy of my book as well as the documentation relating to my dispute with Rev. Schwertley. Please understand that, as a member of another denomination, I am not interested in bringing formal charges against him at this time. My only concern in this matter is to have my good name restored to me and that my views be accurately represented before the public.

In that light, I trust that you will do all that you can to convince him of the moral necessity of deleting his series from Sermon Audio and posting a retraction at the earliest possible date. I understand that you are no doubt busy with your own duties, but given the public nature of this controversy, and the potential harm that it may bring to both myself and to the denomination which Rev. Schwertley represents, I do request that this matter be resolved quickly.

That I was not bringing charges against you, but attempting to work toward reconciliation in the spirit of Matthew 18, was also expressed in my 7 April 2008 letter to Olev Tauts, a copy of which was sent to you: "I was informed by Mr. Schwertley in his email dated 27 October 2007 that proof of my church membership would be required should I decide to bring formal charges against him. I clearly indicated in my letter dated 26 December 2007 that I did not intend to bring formal charges, but that I was merely asking for the ministers of the WPCUS to intervene in my behalf."

I would like to know how you can reconcile your claim that I "brought charges" against you with the actual facts as documented above. I would also like to point out that I did not receive any communication whatsoever from your session until 9 March 2008 - over two months after I had written to the presbytery. To the contrary, you claim that "our session was willing to examine his case," but "given [the] fact that Durand was unwilling to provide any proof that he was a member in good standing of a Bible-believing church, our session refused to take the case. Durand then sent his accusations to all the members of the WPCUS." In this, you are attempting to give the impression that your session acted in good faith, and that I did not. However, your timeline is false as the record proves.

Finally, I should note that the presbytery to which I wrote in December 0f 2007 no longer exists, since you are now the only ordained minister in the WPCUS. Because a "one-man denomination" is the very definition of unaccountability and is certainly not Presbyterian, I am left to wonder at the inconsistency of your remarks regarding my own church membership. In contrast to your questionable ecclesiastical status, my membership in good standing in a reputable Presbyterian denomination is easily verifiable using any internet search engine.

The second falsehood I will address is that regarding the so-called "second legislation" theory:

One of Durand's strangest teachings is the idea that the second giving of the law was radically different from the first law given to Moses; that as a consequence of their idolatry the second law was "a localized codification of the Covenant of Works":

Paul wrote that the Mosaic law "was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made" (verse 19), which was apparently a reference to Israel's making and worshipping of the golden calf during Moses' first sojourn on Mount Sinai (Deuteronomy 9:12). The first covenant which God had made with the children of Israel bound them to observe the moral law written on the stone tablets (Deuteronomy 5:22). God's promise to them was as follows: "Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation" (Exodus 19:5-6). However, when the Israelites rebelled and broke this covenant, God placed them under a second covenant containing far greater restrictions and obligations—613 in all (Deuteronomy 12-27). It was this second covenant that was temporary and served to "shut up" the Hebrew people until the object of the promise—Christ—should be revealed: "But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith" (verses 23-24) [quotation from page 33 of Judicial Warfare, first edition]

There are a number of serious problems with this statement. First, Durand interprets Paul's statement in Galatians, "It [the law] was added because of transgressions" (3:19), as meaning a second, more restrictive version of the law was given to Israel as a direct consequence of their worshipping of the golden calf. The implication is that the second giving of the law is a punishment or at least a judgment against Israel for its idolatry. (Durand in an e-mail vigorously denies this, but then quotes in support of his position Johannes Cocceius, who says "the ceremonial law was added to the Decalogue, as a punishment inflicted on them by the Supreme Being." Cocceius' view is nonsense).

You claimed in the 7 October 2007 installment of your "Judicial Law" series that my presentation of this theory was "completely unique," that I "just made it up," and that "there are no Reformed commentators or theologians who have this view. None." I will consider your acknowledgment that such was the position of Johannes Cocceius to be a public retraction of those assertions. However, you fail to provide your audience with the context of my citation of Cocceius. In the 19 October 2007 email which you referenced, but did not quote, I wrote:

I do not agree that the covenant of works that was added was merely the "ceremonial law," as did Cocceius, but it can be seen that he held to the position that the second giving of the law was a punishment inflicted on the Israelites for their worship of the golden calf, which position Schwertley falsely attributed to me and thereafter used to determine my view to be "heretical."

In other words, Cocceius held to a view similar to my own, with the exception that I did not accept his identification of the "second legislation" as the "ceremonial law" only, nor did I concur with him in viewing it as "a punishment inflicted on them by the Supreme Being in his righteous displeasure."

You also fail to inform your audience of my citation in that same email of Puritan Thomas Boston, who wrote:

I conceive the two covenants to have been both delivered on Mount Sinai to the Israelites. First, The covenant of grace made with Abraham, contained in the preface, repeated and promulgated there unto Israel, to be believed and embraced by faith, that they might be saved; to which were annexed the ten commandments, given by the Mediator Christ, the head of the covenant, as a rule of life to his covenant people. Secondly, the covenant of works made with Adam, contained in the same ten commands, delivered with thunderings and lightnings...

According to this account of the Sinai transaction; the ten commands, there delivered, must come under a twofold notion or consideration; namely, as the law of Christ, and as the law of works: and this is not strange, if it is considered, that they were twice written on tables of stone...

I do not say, God made the covenant of works with them, that they might obtain life and salvation thereby; no, the law was become weak through the flesh, as to any such purpose, Rom. viii. 3. But he repeated, or gave a new edition of the law, and that as a covenant of works, for their humbling and conviction.

Moreover, you fail to mention my citation of John Brown of Edinburgh:

The "transgressions," on account of which the law was added, refer, I apprehend, to the criminal conduct of the Israelites, which rendered the introduction of such a system as the law necessary in order to the attainment of the great object of the covenant about Christ, and justification by faith through him....

In consequence of the descendants of Jacob coming down into Egypt, they gradually contracted a fondness for Egyptian superstitions, and were fast relapsing into a state of idolatry, which must soon have terminated in their being lost among the nations, and the revelation with which they were entrusted being first corrupted and them forgotten, when God raised up Moses as their deliverer, brought them out of Egypt, and placed them under that very peculiar order of things, which we commonly term the Mosaic law....

Their "transgressions" rendered some such arrangement as the Mosaic law absolutely necessary.... We are not so much, if at all, to consider the Mosaic law as a punishment for the transgressions of the descendants of Abraham. We are rather to consider it as the means which their transgressions rendered necessary in order to secure the object of their being chosen to be God's peculiar people. To be preserved from being involved in the ignorance, and idolatry, and vice in which the surrounding nations were sunk, was a blessing, at whatever expense it might be gained.

My comment which followed this quotation was thus: "Brown's position comes the closest to what I was trying convey in my book and my email to Schwertley." You are free to disagree with Brown, but you will be hard pressed to prove that he had "abandoned the Reformed faith" in favor of a "modified Dispensationalism," since he was a reputable Presbyterian scholar in the Covenanter tradition.

As before, you never inform your audience of the true source from whence I obtained the "second legislation" theory - Ireneaus. I will quote him here:

They [the Jews] had therefore a law, a course of discipline, and a prophecy of future things. For God at the first, indeed, warning them by means of natural precepts, which from the beginning He had implanted in mankind, that is, by means of the Decalogue (which, if any one does not observe, he has no salvation), did then demand nothing more of them. As Moses says in Deuteronomy [5:22], "These are all the words which the Lord spake to the whole assembly of the sons of Israel on the mount, and He added no more; and He wrote them on two tables of stone, and gave them to me." For this reason He did so, that they who are willing to follow Him might keep these commandments. But when they turned themselves to make a calf, and had gone back in their minds to Egypt, desiring to be slaves instead of freemen, they were placed for the future in a state of servitude suited to their wish — a slavery which did not indeed cut them off from God, but subjected them to the yoke of bondage; as Ezekiel the prophet [20:24], when stating the reasons for the giving of such a law, declares: "And their eyes were after the desire of their heart; and I gave them statutes that were not good, and judgments in which they shall not live" (Against Heresies, Book IV, Chapter XV).

This concept was also present in Justin Martyr's Dialogue With Trypho, A Jew, and was again presented in the Third Century Church document entitled, Didascalia Apostolorum, and therefore has at least some historical precedent. However, your claim that this is the premise upon which my view of the Mosaic covenant is founded is simply false. Not only did I mention this theory in only one paragraph in the 2003 edition of my book, and once in my 24 September 2007 email to you, but I also clearly said it was "incidental" to my position in my 19 October 2007 email and have further qualified it as "historical speculation" in the new edition of my book. The fact is that my position stands or falls, not on the "second legislation" theory, but on what has come to be known as the doctrine of "republication." This latter position is held by the faculty of Westminster Theological Seminary in California and is the subject of numerous articles on the internet and of the 2009 book entitled, The Law is Not of Faith: Essays on Works and Grace in the Mosaic Covenant. An interview with the editors of this volume may be accessed HERE. You have never given any indication that you are aware of this train of thought within the Reformed community, and your attempts to caricaturize me as a "crackpot" for holding to such a position does not speak well of your scholarship.

This apparent ignorance on your part is further demonstrated in the claim that my understanding of the Mosaic covenant as a "covenant of works" is that of the first-century Judaizers and of classic Dispensationalism. You state:

Durand teaches a view of the law virtually identical with the Pharisees and the Judaizers, with one important exception. He acknowledges the fact that it is impossible to obey the law. He should read Galatians 3:21, "Is the law against the promises of God [i.e. the promises to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob]? Certainly not! For if there had been a law given which could have given life, truly righteousness would have been by the law." According to Durand, God gave the second law to Israel as a means of achieving life even though God knew it was impossible. According to Durand, God was the first Pharisee.

Durand's bizarre and highly unusual interpretation of the second giving of the law would not be so bad, except that it takes him down a path very similar to classic dispensationalism. Both Durand and the original dispensationalists teach that the Mosaic law has absolutely nothing to do with the covenant of grace, but truly was a covenant of works.... If one defines the expression "the Covenant of Works" in its traditional Reformed sense, then according to Durand the second giving of the law was a body of law given to Israel to obey if they were to achieve eternal glorified life. As he himself says, “It demanded perfect and perpetual obedience, and pronounced death and damnation for even the slightest infraction of its precepts".... The Westminster Standards teach a bi-covenantal view of history. The covenant of works does not apply directly to men after the fall, as a method of attaining eternal life. The covenant of grace is the only way that men can approach God after the fall. Durand's idea that the Mosaic law (the second giving of the law; Ex. 34:1ff) is a new covenant of works is explicitly unconfessional.... The covenant of works, as a system of achieving glorified life, has nothing to do with the Mosaic law. The Jews were expected to look to Jesus Christ (who was to come) by faith alone and were not required to obey the law to achieve salvation; but, rather, were to obey God's law as a way to be holy (sanctification)....

In your 24 September 2007 email, you asked, "When you say that Israel was put under a covenant of works with the second giving of the law on Sinai, are you saying they had to perfectly obey the law in order to be saved?" That you asked this question in the first place indicates that you were not sure if this was indeed my position. I thought the question so preposterous that I did not respond at that time, and yet you have now built your case against me on my temporary silence. This is a straw-man and nothing more, for in making these statements, you have completely ignored what I later wrote in my letter to the WPCUS presbyters:

The Mosaic law had both typological and antitypological aspects which Covenant theologians in the past have described in terms of the legal and gracious elements present in the Sinaitic covenant. In other words, the Sinaitic covenant assumed the pre-existing Abrahamic covenant of grace, but added to it a legal arrangement which echoed the Adamic covenant of works. As I have outlined in the enclosed document entitled "Different Views of the Mosaic Covenant Within the Reformed Tradition," many Covenant theologians have noted the striking similarities between the Adamic and the Sinaitic covenants and have concluded that the latter is a typological restatement of the former while being careful to teach the impossibility of the actual re-institution of the Adamic covenant. A few, particularly Samuel Petto, have gone further to state that the Mosaic covenant was more than merely typological, but that it was an actual covenant of works put in place for Christ, as the true Israel, to fulfill.

In opposition to classic Dispensationalism, all Covenant theologians who fall into the above categories are agreed that the legal element of the Sinaitic covenant was subservient to, and therefore did not abrogate, the Abrahamic covenant. This legal element stands at the forefront of the covenant and has reference primarily to possession of the land of Canaan and to temporal blessings and cursings, but, as indicated by the New Testament writers, this temporal element was merely typological in nature and found its spiritual fulfillment in Christ and the eternal blessings which He merited in behalf of and bestowed upon His people, the Church. Second Temple Judaism confounded the typological and antitypological dimensions of the Mosaic covenant, and, failing to see its true pedagogical function, the Jews changed it from a system of geo- political works-righteousness into a system of spiritual works-righteousness in which salvation itself could be attained through the works of the law. The Judaizers with whom Paul later contended, though accepting Jesus as the promised Messiah, likewise had this mistaken view of the law, and thereby insisted that Gentiles must be circumcised and submit to the Mosaic economy in order to be justified.

Here, in plain English, is clear evidence that I do not believe the Mosaic covenant to have been an actual covenant of works for the purpose of obtaining "eternal glorified life" (justification), other than for Christ Himself as the second Adam, and that I do not believe that it abrogated the Abrahamic Covenant of Grace, but was rather subservient thereunto. This clarification is made repeatedly throughout the new edition of Judicial Warfare. While I did write in a private email that the Mosaic law "demanded perfect and perpetual obedience, and pronounced death and damnation for even the slightest infraction of its precepts," I had in mind a typology only. I later realized that this statement was imprecise, and so it now appears in the new edition of Judicial Warfare as follows: "[The Mosaic law] demanded perfect and personal obedience, and pronounced expulsion from the land and ultimately death for covenant-breaking...." (page 19) No credible Reformed theologian has ever denied that the land of Canaan was a type of Heaven itself; consequently, to be cut off from the covenant nation or exiled from the land was a type of eternal separation from God. That was all I intended to say. To further clarify that I am not presenting the Dispensational doctrine of a way of salvation distinct from the Gospel, the following footnote appears in the new edition of my book: "It is important to note that the Sinatic covenant is here spoken of in its national capacity only. This is not to say that the believing remnant within the nation were ever under any other spiritual covenant than the Covenant of Grace" (page 19).

The contradiction between what you say I have written and what I have actually written is too evident to require further comment. I will point out, however, that the understanding of the Mosaic covenant as a covenant of works in some sense (and there have been fourteen historical variations on this interpretation), is a staple of traditional Covenant theology. I will give a few examples here. John Owen: "In the giving of the law, and the curse wherewith it was accompanied, which were immixed with that administration of the covenant, there was a solemn revival and representation of the first covenant [made with Adam], and its sanction, whereby it had life and power given to it to keep the people in bondage all their days." Herman Witsius: "In the Ministry of Moses, there was a repetition of the doctrine concerning the law of the covenant of works....." Thomas Boston: "[God] repeated, or gave a new edition of the law, and that as a covenant of works, for their humbling and conviction." Robert Lewis Dabney: "[The Mosaic law was] a perpetual reminder of the law which was to Adam, the condition of life, now broken, and its wrath already incurred, thus to hedge up the awakened conscience to Christ." Geerhardus Vos: "[The Mosaic covenant was] a reflection of the covenant of works revived, as it were, in the interests of the covenant of grace continued at Sinai." Louis Berkhof: "It was a truly national covenant" which "included a service that contained a positive reminder of the strict demands of the covenant of works." I direct you to Chapter Two of the new edition of Judicial Warfare for a more thorough treatment of this subject. To say that I am "outside the pale of Reformed orthodoxy" for holding to a position that such prestiguous Reformed theologians as these and others have also held is both false and uncharitable. You would have done much better to simply present your case as to why you disagree with such a position.

There is so much misrepresentation throughout your essay that it would take an entire volume to respond to it all. Due to present time limitations, I will simply conclude this preliminary response by correcting the claim found in the final footnote: "I offered to debate Durand on the abiding validity of the Old Testament revealed moral laws back in 2007. He declined." I have an online record of our entire email exchange. At no time did you ever give such an invitation and at no time did I ever decline. I challenge you to produce any evidence to the contrary. If you cannot do so, then you should publicly retract this statement.

The Covenantal Nomism of Daniel F.N. Ritchie

2010-02-18T09:43:00.001-08:00

Recently, I had an encounter with Daniel F.N. Ritchie of Northern Ireland on the Confessional Puritan message board. Ritchie is the latest author attempting to breathe life into the decomposing corpse of Theonomy and is also a devoted follower of the "one-man denomination" Brian Schwertley. In our very brief exchange, he accused me of slandering R.J. Rushdoony and other theonomic writers by pointing out that their monocovenantal "covenant of grace which is also a covenant of works" teaching constitutes a dangerous admixture of grace and law, a deceptive redefinition of the historic Reformed understanding of sanctification, and an undermining of the Gospel itself. The majority of my comments were deleted by Mr. Ritchie, who is the owner of said board, but the comment which he allowed to remain is as follows:

1. There was a pre-Fall Covenant of Works under which Adam, as the representative head of mankind, was placed and by which, if he had fulfilled its terms of perfect obedience, he would have received the reward of glorified life.

2. He broke the covenant and, with all those whom he represented, was subject to the penalty, which was eternal damnation.

3. God established a new covenant (not renewed the same covenant) with Adam which was wholly gracious, and not legal.

4. The demand of the original covenant (perfect obedience to the law) still required fulfillment in order for the promise to take effect, so Christ, acting as Surety (the second Adam), subjected Himself to the law in order to merit eternal life for His elect.

5. The Mosaic covenant served as a form of the original covenant - typologically for the Israelites (their possession of the Promised Land, which was symbolic of Heaven, was contingent upon their obedience), but was an actual covenant of works for Christ. Because it was typological only for the Israelites, it did not abrogate the Covenant of Grace (Dispensationalism), nor was it intended as a scheme of works-righteousness (Phariseeism/Judaizers).

6. This legal aspect of the Mosaic covenant is absolutely essential to the doctrine of the imputed active obedience of Christ, for without it, we are left with only forgiveness of sin through His shed blood, but without the positive righteousness required by God for eternal life. To deny the legal aspect of the Mosaic covenant, then, is to place the Christian back into a probationary state as was Adam with the threat of the law's curses constantly hanging over his head.

Thus, traditional Reformed theology is bi-covenantal: there is a Covenant of Works and there is a Covenant of Grace - two completely separate covenants. The former no longer binds the elect because they are in union with the One by whom it was fulfilled. "We are under grace, not law."

Rushdoony explicitly denied that the Adamic covenant was one of works and instead extended the Covenant of Grace back into the Garden of Eden. Rather than preserving the proper distinction between grace and law, he wound up mixing the two. In fact, he taught that the "covenant of grace is also a covenant of works." This monocovenantalism is also the basis of Federal Vision. It is my contention that those Theonomists who have gone into Federal Vision are really the ones who are consistent with Rushdoony's teachings.

BTW, nowhere in my book do I say that the theonomic writers deny justification by faith. It is what Rushdoony (and sometimes Bahnsen) did with "sanctification" that is the problem. There are numerous passages that I could quote from their works which show that their understanding of sanctification was more akin to "progressive justification." There were still "works required," according to Rushdoony, and Bahnsen wrote that "our entrance into the kingdom is dependent on attesting obedience." Gary North is also constantly talking about the necessity of "covenant-keeping."

I have had my views condemned as "modified Dispensationalism" and "natural law antinomianism" - neither of which is even close to the truth. What I am is actually an "ultra-nomian."

My view of the moral law is that it covers every conceivable thought, word, or deed, not only in one's waking hours, but also when one sleeps. Sinful dreams are just the product of a sinful mind, so even they are violations of the law. In order for one to be a "covenant-keeper," one has to keep the moral law in its entirety for his/her entire life. Anyone that thinks they can do that is deluded.

To this, Mr. Ritchie responded:

Your comments about "covenant-keeping", sanctification, and your novel view of the Mosaic covenant further reveals your deep confusion and antinomianism, and your dogma is explicitly contrary to the Westminster Standards (WCF 7 and 19). People who do not keep the covenant, and strive to obey the law, will be damned. Have you ever read the book of James? Perhaps you should go somewhere more congenial to your antinomianism.

Because I was banned from the Confessional Puritan Board and thus was not allowed to respond to Ritchie's comments, I will do so here. One will immediately notice his own latent antinomianism in the belief that a mere "striving to obey the law," rather than actually obeying it, constitutes "keeping the covenant." In order to make this assertion, Ritchie has to do the following: (1) reduce the demands of the law to a carnal level where he thinks he can keep it, or (2) claim that God's demand of perfect obedience has been abrogated. If he does the first, then he falls into the self-righteous trap of the Pharisees (not to mention the Federal Visionists); if he does the second, then he contradicts his own theonomic interpretation of Matthew 5:17-20.

Furthermore, while denying that Theonomy teaches justification by works, Mr. Ritchie nevertheless inserts this teaching into the second chapter of James when he makes "covenant-keeping" and obedience to the law necessary for salvation. After all, the opposite of being damned is being saved, is it not? In this, Ritchie is summarizing what Greg Bahnsen himself said when he defended the heresies of Norman Shepherd some years ago:

...[S]ome people will say James can't mean the word justify in a forensic sense, because then he would contradict Paul. Paul says we are justified by faith, not works. James says we are justified by works. So if they both mean "justify" in the forensic sense, there is a contradiction. Well, I don't think so, because in Galatians 5:6 Paul teaches exactly what James does. Paul says we are justified by faith working by love. We are justified by working, active, living faith. I think that's what James is teaching. They mean exactly the same thing. But... this has been a bone of controversy in my denomination even, because a professor at Westminster Seminary insisted James means this in the forensic sense.

Now… people who don't like that say, It is to be taken in the demonstrative sense. The problem is, the demonstrative sense of the word justify means "to show someone to be righteous," and that doesn't relieve the contradiction between James and Paul, because Paul in Romans 4 looks at Abraham as an example of how God justifies the ungodly. James is saying, Look at how God justifies someone demonstrated as godly. The contradiction is not relieved. And so what you really get — and this is crucial, this is a crucial point — modern interpreters who don't like what I am suggesting and what Professor Shepherd is suggesting end up saying that to justify in James 2 really means "to demonstrate justification," not to "demonstrate righteousness." That is, they make the word to justify mean "to justify the fact that I'm justified." And the word never means that. That's utterly contrived. It means either "to declare righteous" or "to demonstrate righteous." It does not mean "to justify that one's justified."

...I'm suggesting that the reason Paul and James are not contrary to one another is because the only kind of faith that will justify us is working faith, and the only kind of justification ever presented in the Bible after the Fall is a justification by working faith, a faith that receives its merit from God and proceeds to work as a regenerated, new person.

Both Bahnsen and Ritchie have misread the book of James, which does indeed use the word "justify" demonstratively, not soteriologically as Paul does in Romans. In other words, a man's obedience vindicates his claim to know God, but has nothing at all to do with his legal standing with God. Those whom God elected from all eternity, those for whom Christ lived and died, and those whom the Holy Spirit has regenerated will not be damned - period. Nothing they do or do not do will change that fact. As I pointed out in Chapter Five of Judicial Warfare (Second Edition, 2009):

By injecting works into the definition of saving faith and then ascribing merit to such faith, Bahnsen was left with an understanding of justification which was based, at least in part, on works. However, contrary to Bahnsen, the believer is not justified by his faith at all, but by the One in whom his faith is placed; faith is the means through which justification comes to the believer, but it is not the grounds thereof....

Furthermore, the faith through which justification comes is not a "working faith," but a resting faith which surrenders all and throws oneself on the mercies of God in Christ. In the words of the Westminster Shorter Catechism, "Faith in Jesus Christ is a saving grace, whereby we receive and rest upon him alone for salvation, as he is offered to us in the gospel".... Such a faith is “the gift of God” (Ephesians 2:8) and full justification occurs the instant it is exercised. The good works that necessarily follow this saving faith flow from a regenerate heart into which the principle of obedience has been planted, but they are merely the evidence of true conversion and have nothing to do with justification itself. Rushdoony's suggestion that the "covenant of grace... is also a covenant of works" simply cannot be reconciled with Scripture, for the Covenant of Grace was a covenant of works only for Christ, not for the believer to whom Christ's perfect obedience to the law is already imputed....

The works required by the law have already been done, and therefore our own works have absolutely nothing to do with our standing before God. They flow from our salvation, but never do they contribute to it.

While the Bible does speak of the necessity of perseverance (Matthew 10:22), it is the perseverance in faith that is in view. In other words, it is necessary to maintain the imputed righteousness of Christ as the sole ground of our acceptance before God; once our own obedience enters into the equation, we are "fallen from grace" and are cut off from Christ (Galatians 5:4). The elect will, in fact, persevere in this faith, whereas the non-elect professor will eventually fall into the error of works-righteousness and either be drawn into a system which will accord with that error, such as Romanism or one of its myriad of imitators, or will become disillusioned with Christianity altogether and apostatize back into the world system (Hebrews 6:4-6).

I would like to thank Mr. Ritchie for making my point for me: Theonomy's doctrine of covenantal nomism is a modern variation of the ancient Galatian heresy which makes law-keeping contributory to, if not the basis of, our acceptance with God. As is typical of the Theonomists, especially those who have criticized their brethren in the so-called Federal Vision movement, Ritchie denies what he affirms, and affirms what he denies. Also, like so many of his fellows, he doesn't seem aware that the Reformed churches have dealt with this issue of antinomianism, law-keeping, justification, sanctification, etc. long ago. It was called the "Marrow controversy" in the Eighteenth Century, and resulted from the publication of Edward Fisher's The Marrow of Modern Divinity. This important work was written in the form of a dialogue between Evangelista, a minister of the Gospel, and Neophytus, a young Christian, with extensive rebuttals of their two opponents, Nomista, a legalist, and Antinomista, an antinomian. Not only did Fisher teach the very same doctrine of the law that I have presented in my own book, but the eminent Thomas Boston elaborated further thereon in his explanatory notes. It is interesting to note that those in the Church of Scotland who opposed Fisher's work repeatedly assailed its supporters with the charge of antinomianism for the very same reason that Ritchie has now assailed me (and, I might add, the same reason the Judaizers assailed the Apostle Paul in the First Century). Indeed, "there is nothing new under the sun." I would encourage everyone to obtain a copy of this book and read it carefully. If the Reformed churches of today would cease viewing Theonomy, Federal Vision, and other related movements as novelties, instead of a resurgence of the exploded heresies of the past, they would not have to convene committees and counsels to decide whether they should expel these "disturbers" from their flocks.

ADDITIONAL NOTE (added 2 August 2010): Daniel Ritchie has deleted the above-referenced conversation from his message board. Fully expecting that he would eventually do this in order to suppress his incriminating comment that "people who do not keep the covenant... will be damned," I posted a screen-shot HERE. The cache of this page that was available through Google has been removed.

ADDITIONAL NOTE (added 22 October 2010): Stephen Halbrook attempted to defend Ritchie from the charge of covenantal nomism on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3a81nkZb7g While denying that Ritchie is teaching "justification on account of good works," Halbrook does admit that Theonomists such as Ritchie believe that "the Covenant of Grace is conditional and faith is the condition of the covenant." As I discussed in Chapter Five of Judicial Warfare, Bahnsen and Rushdoony in particular adopted Daniel P. Fuller's redefinition of faith as "obedience." According to Bahnsen, faith and obedience are "two sides of the same coin." Elsewhere he wrote, "Continued blessing for Adam in paradise, Israel in the promised land, and the Christian in the kingdom has been seen to be dependent upon persevering obedience to God's will as expressed in His law." Contrary to Halbrook, such a teaching is a departure from the Reformed teaching that obedience flows out of, and is therefore distinct, from saving faith. A Christian's standing before God is not conditioned on his obedience, but on Christ's obedience in his behalf. To insist, as Ritchie does, that a Christian's eternal destiny depends on his "keeping the covenant" and "striving to obey the law," is a clear perversion of the Gospel.

Brian Schwertley Strikes Again

2010-02-16T06:36:00.000-08:00

As of 7 February 2010, Brian Schwertley has renewed his attacks against me on Sermon Audio and in print. The majority of what he is currently presenting is merely a repetition of what he has said in the past, so my previous response on 28 December 2007 still applies (see also my "open letter" to Schwertley). However, one important factor has changed since I corresponded with Mr. Schwertley over two years ago: he is no longer a member of a legitimate presbytery or denomination. The presbyters of the Westminster Presbyterian Church in the United States to whom I wrote in December of 2007 have all since severed their ties with Schwertley. Consequently, without a presbytery, not to mention a synod or general assembly, the WPCUS exists in name only. A "one man denomination" is a contradiction in terms and is, in fact, the very definition of schism. Furthermore, according to eyewitnesses, Schwertley's own congregation has dwindled to "just a couple of cars in the lot – the lot at Brian’s house, that is." And yet, Schwertley continues to perpetuate the fraud on the internet that he is a Presbyterian minister in an actual Reformed denomination.

Additional comment (added 19 February 2010): I ask anyone who reads or listens to Schwertley's "review" of Judicial Warfare that they also read what I have actually written before they arrive at any conclusions. The book is now in an expanded second edition, and is posted in its entirety online for free, so there is absolutely no excuse for not doing so. Scripture commands Christians to "test all things," and yet Schwertley's followers have displayed an appalling unwillingness to compare what he claims I teach in my book to its actual contents. I am confident that Judicial Warfare can endure scrutiny and that its thesis will be found to be well within the bounds of Reformed orthodoxy, despite Schwertley's blundering attempts to prove otherwise. I also highly recommend another book that was recently edited by some faculty members of Westminster Theological Seminary in California that deals with much of the same subject matter as my own: The Law is Not of Faith: Essays on Works and Grace in the Mosaic Covenant. In this interview, the editors discuss how they also have been accused of propagating Dispensationalism, so I am in good company.

Additional comment (added 23 February 2011): In his latest lecture entitled "Christian Reconstruction and the Federal Vision," Schwertley vindicates the main thesis of Judicial Warfare by criticizing Rushdoony and Bahnsen on precisely the same points that I did in Chapters Four and Five of my book. He even acknowledges the importance of viewing the Mosaic law at least in some sense as a covenant of works, despite his attempt just a year ago to label me a "modified Dispensationalist" on that very point.

The Gospel According to the Bible (T.U.L.I.P.)

2009-12-30T11:24:00.000-08:00

Total Depravity: Due to the corruption of human nature as a result of Adam's fall (Romans 5:12), every child is born inherently wicked (Genesis 6:5), hostile to his Creator (Romans 8:7), and content to remain in his sin (John 3:19). Though a free moral agent, man's will is nevertheless limited in that he can only choose to do those things which are in accord with his nature (Ephesians 2:1-3). Consequently, apart from divine intervention, he cannot see God (John 3:3), he cannot hear God's Word (John 8:43, 47), he cannot receive God's truth (1 Corinthians 2:14), and he cannot seek after God for salvation (Romans 3:11).

Unconditional Election: Since man in his spiritual condition is hopelessly lost, his eternal destiny rests solely in the hands of his Creator (Romans 9:20-21). Furthermore, since all men have sinned against God in thought, word, and deed, all stand guilty and justly condemned before Him (Romans 3:23). It is therefore the prerogative of God to show mercy to those whom He has chosen to save, while justly requiring all others to answer and suffer for their wickedness (Exodus 33:19). Thus, those finally consigned to eternal punishment will receive what they deserve, while those in heaven will receive what they neither deserve nor sought (Romans 6:23).

Limited Atonement: While the redemption of sinners was predetermined by God before the creation, it was on Calvary where sovereign grace was finally manifest to the world (Colossians 2:15). Christ's death on the cross was not a purposeless act of a hopeful Savior, but was specifically designed to atone for the sins of those whom God had elected to salvation (Luke 19:10). Being omnipotent in its power to save, Christ's blood was nevertheless intended to be the purchase price of His Bride, the Church (Acts 20:28), and thus fully accomplished the purpose for which it was shed (John 19:30).

Irresistible Grace: Since man in his fallen state is not able to seek after God, he is also not able to resist the calling of God unto salvation (John 6:37). God's eternal election of His people coupled with Christ's death in behalf of the same has rendered their salvation certain (Ephesians 1:4-5). It is impossible for the elect to decline God's grace simply because all inherent desire to reject God has been removed and replaced by a new heart which seeks after Him (Ezekiel 36:26).

Perseverance of the Saints: With a proper understanding of God's immutability (Malachi 3:6) and His eternal grace towards those whom He has elected (1 Peter 5:10), the true believer may rest assured that God's favor will never be revoked (Romans 8:38-39). Though the Christian will never achieve sinless perfection while still in his mortal state (Romans 7:21-24), he can be confident that the Holy Spirit will continue to work within to sanctify him (Philippians 2:12-13), and to conform him to the image of Christ (Romans 8:29), until he is finally glorified in the presence of God (1 Corinthians 13:12). Salvation in its three stages - justification, sanctification, and glorification - is therefore the sovereign work of God (Hebrews 12:2) and not the result of the religious efforts of man (John 1:12-13).

Of Repentance Unto Life

2009-08-21T05:04:00.000-07:00

In his commentary on Chapter XV of the Westminster Confession of Faith, Robert Shaw wrote:

"The repentance described in this chapter is called repentance unto life, because it is inseparably connected with the enjoyment of eternal life, and to distinguish it from the sorrow of the world, which worketh death. It is styled a grace because it is the free gift of God, and is wrought in the heart by the operation of the Spirit. 'Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.' Acts xi.18. 'Turn thou me, and I shall be turned; surely after that I was turned, I repented.' Jer. xxxi. 18, 19. This repentance is also denominated an evangelical grace, to distinguish it from legal repentance. The latter flows from a dread of God's wrath; the former, from faith in God's mercy. In the latter, the sinner is chiefly affected with the punishment to which his sin exposes him; in the former, he mourns for his sin as offensive and dishonouring to God. Cain and Judas repented, but it was on account of the consequences of sin to themselves; whereas the true penitent mourns after a godly sourt, with a godly sorrow, or a sorrow which directly regards God. 2 Cor. vii. 9, 10." - Rev. Robert Shaw, An Exposition of the Confession of Faith of the Westminster Assembly of Divines (1846), pages 178-179.

Back in Shaw's day, when the holiness of God, the necessity of His judgment of sin, and His wrath toward the unrepentant was still being preached from the pulpits, there was a danger that many professing Christians merely had this "legal repentance," rather than the required "evangelical repentance." Today, when preaching has become so watered down that God is believed to just love and forgive everyone indiscriminantly, there may not even be "legal repentance" in the majority of those sitting in the pews.

Evidence That People Hate the Gospel

2008-11-13T06:09:00.000-08:00

Check out The Virtuous Woman blog for all the evidence one could ask for that fallen humanity hates the Gospel and the God who gave it. Notice how many of the negative commenters are professing Christians. What a sad state the modern Church is in today!

Thomas E. Peck on the Judicial Law of Moses

2008-09-25T14:07:00.000-07:00

While government is the ordinance of God (Rom. xiii.), in the sense that the social nature of man necessarily gives rise to it, yet as to the form which this government may assume in all other other nations, and the special laws by which the ends of government may be secured, God has prescribed nothing except that the civil magistrate shall have the power of life and death, and that it shall be his duty to inflict the penalty of death for the crime of murder. Regulative principles of government are implied in the moral law, and in the general tenor of Scripture teaching, but the constitutive principles of government there are none, except in the case of the Jews. The case of the Jews was made an exception, because they were to be separated from all other nations for the specific purpose of being a type of the kingdom of God and a preparation for it. Hence, a purely natural civil development could not be allowed, as it would interfere with the execution of this purpose. If the Hebrews had been permitted to determine their own polity and laws, they would soon have lost their distinctive character and become mingled with the Gentiles. In point of fact, we find that they did lose it in a very great degree, in spite of all the legal regulations which were prescribed to prevent it. The great powers of the old world struggled for the possession of the land of Palestine, just as the great powers of the modern world have struggled for it, and are now watching one another with intense eagerness and jealousy in regard to it. It was to prevent the Hebrew power from becoming a member of the “political system” of the Orient that the judicial law was given, but given, to a great extent, in vain (Writings of Thomas E. Peck, Volume Two, pages 158-159).

David Dickson on the Judicial Law of Israel

2008-09-16T08:06:00.000-07:00

...[D]o not some err, though otherwise orthodox, who maintain, That the whole judicial law of the Jews, is yet alive, and binding all of us, who are Christian Gentiles?

Yes.

By what reasons are they confuted?

1st, Because the judicial law was delivered by Moses to the Israelites to be observed, as a body politic, Exod. 21.

2d, Because this law, in many things which are of a particular right, was accommodated to the commonwealth of the Jews, and not to other nations also, Exod. 22.3. Exod. 21.2. Lev. 25.2,3. Deut. 24.1-3. Deut. 25.5-7.

3d, Because in other things, which are not of particular right, it is neither from the law of nature obliging by reason; neither is it pressed upon believers under the gospel to be observed.

4th, Because believers are appointed under the gospel, to obey the civil law, and commands of those under whose government they live, providing they be just, and that for conscience sake, Rom. 13.1,5. 1 Pet. 2.13,14. Titus. 3.1. - Commentary on the Westminster Confession of Faith

Theonomy and the Covenant of Works

2008-09-16T07:31:00.000-07:00

The backbone of Theonomy is a subtle, and sometimes outright, denial of the Reformed doctrine of the Covenant of Works. According to R.J. Rushdoony:

The Westminster Confession, one of the great documents of the Christian faith, has at one point been rightly criticized over the years. Its concept of a covenant of works is not only wrong but shows a misunderstanding of the nature of the covenant...

The covenant is always and only instituted by God's grace. It always is a covenant of law, because covenants are a form of law, and therefore it always requires works. This, however, does not make it a covenant of works (R. J. Rushdoony on "The Covenant of Works," Systematic Theology, Volume One [Ross House Books, Vallecito, CA: 1994], pp. 376-379).

This same idea was present in the writings of Greg Bahnsen:

His covenant with Adam was gracious in character, sovereignly imposed, mutually binding, called for trust and submission on Adam's part, and carried sanctions (blessings or curse). When Adam fell into sin, God mercifully re-established a covenantal relationship with him, one in which the gracious and promissory character of the covenant was accentuated even further -- in the promise of a coming Savior, a promise which is progressively unfolded and elaborated upon throughout the Old Testament (The Counsel of Chalcedon [December, 1992], "Cross-Examination: Practical Implications of Covenant Theology).

The implication in this statement is that the post-lapsarian covenant of Genesis 3:15 was the same in substance as the original covenant. The result of this monocovenantal interpretation is that the clear distinction between the Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Grace is obliterated and the legal demand of the former ("Do this and live") is necessarily carried over into the latter, thereby mixing works with faith: "Why must one practice and teach the details of God's law? Because then your righteousness will exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees who have no part in the kingdom.... The New Testament and Covenant continue the same demand for obedience. Entrance to the kingdom is dependent upon attesting obedience" (Bahnsen, Theonomy in Christian Ethics, page 202).

Contrary to Bahnsen's suggestion that the Adamic covenant was essentially one of grace, historic Covenant theology has instead taught that it was a covenant of divine condescension. Biblically speaking, grace is an attitude of favor which God exhibits towards those who not only do not deserve such favor, but who actually deserve the opposite - His wrath. In this sense, then, Adam in his prelapasarian state could not have enjoyed God's grace, for as yet he had not sinned and therefore did not deserve His wrath. God's favor was not given to him, but was already his by virtue of his innocence. However, this is not to say that Adam had any claim, as a creature, to the eternal life which God promised to him in the Covenant of Works. God did not originally owe Adam anything, but voluntarily bound Himself to grant the man an additional reward in exchange for his obedience. This voluntary act of God toward His creature was not one of grace, but of condescension.

In the postlapsarian covenant of Genesis 3:15, the situation is altogether different. Having violated the terms of the Covenant of Works, Adam justly incurred the wrath of God and the penalty of death, and with the loss of his innocence came the loss of God's favor. It was impossible for God to re-establish the original covenant relationship with Adam, as Bahnsen suggested, but the new covenant of necessity must have been, not only one of condescension, but of pure grace.

Bahnsen's monocovenatalism led him to completely misunderstand the nature of the later Mosaic covenant and to insist that Christians remain under its authority:

Now some people would say that New Covenant believers are under the Abrahamic covenant of promise today, but not the Mosaic covenant with its laws. However that is far from the outlook of the scriptural writers. In Galatians 3:21 Paul addresses this question to those who speak of being under one or the other covenant: "Is the law contrary to the promises of God?" And his inspired answer is, "May it never be!" The fact is that all of the covenants of the Old Covenant (that is, all of the Old Testament covenants) are unified as parts of the one overall covenant of grace established by God. Paul spoke of Gentiles who were not part of the Old Covenant economy which included the Abrahamic, Mosaic, and Davidic covenants as "strangers to the covenants of the promise" (Eph. 2:12). There were many, progressively revealed aspects to the single promise of God in the Old Testament: many administrations of the one overall covenant of grace. Thus the various covenants of the Old Covenant were all part of one program and plan. Not only were they harmonious with one another, but they are unified with the New Covenant which was promised in Jeremiah 31 and is enjoyed by Christians today (cf. Heb. 8:6-13). There is one basic covenant of grace, characterized by anticipation in the Old Covenant and by realization in the New Covenant (cf. John 1:17).... ("God's Uniform Standard of Right and Wrong," Institute for Christian Economics, Volume I, Number 3, November, 1978).

According to the Westminster Confession, "The first covenant made with man was a covenant of works, wherein life was promised to Adam, and in him to his posterity, upon condition of perfect and personal obedience" (Chapter VII:2). That the Westminster divines associated the Sinaitic covenant with the Adamic Covenant of Works is seen in their choice of proof-texts for this teaching: Genesis 2:17 and Galatians 3:10. The first verse contains the prohibition against eating from the forbidden tree and the second references the "works of the law," with a quotation from Deuteronomy 27:26, "Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the book of the law to do them." The phrases "the law" and "the book of the law" can mean nothing else but the Mosaic covenant. We see this same association implied in Chapter XIX of the Confession: "God gave to Adam a law, as a covenant of works, by which He bound him and all his posterity to personal, entire, exact, and perpetual obedience; promised life upon the fulfilling, and threatened death upon the breach of it: and endued him with power and ability to keep it. This law, after his fall, continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness, and, as such, was delivered by God upon Mount Sinai, in ten commandments, and written in two tables..." (1-2). Thus, the Decalogue itself is identified as a codification of the "perfect rule of righteousness" to which Adam was bound in the Covenant of Works, thereby rendering the Sinaitic covenant a restatement of the original Covenant of Works. Again, Genesis 2:17 is connected with Galatians 3:10, with the addition of Romans 2:14, which contrasts the nation of Israel, to which the written law was covenantally delivered, with the Gentiles "which have not the law," and Romans 10:5, which directly speaks of the righteous requirements of the Mosaic law. In the Larger Catechism, we read, "The providence of God toward man in the estate in which he was created, was the placing him in paradise... [and] entering into a covenant of life with him, upon condition of personal, perfect, and perpetual obedience, of which the tree of life was a pledge; and forbidding to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, upon the pain of death" (Question 20). Once again, the divines chose to proof-text this teaching by citing Paul's discussion of the Mosaic law in Galatians 3:12 and Romans 5:5. It should be noted that the usage of the variant terms "covenant of life" and "covenant of works" did not imply different covenants, but the one covenant seen from the two different perspectives of condition and promise - the condition of perfect obedience and the life promised for the rendering of that obedience.

Since it is obvious that "no mere man after the fall can perfectly keep the ten commandments" (Westminster Shorter Catechism, Question 103), how then can it be said that the Sinaitic covenant was, in any way, a covenant of works? It was so on two levels. With reference to the Israelites, the Mosaic law was a covenant of works on a typological, or temporal, level. Their tenure in the promised land was dependent upon their keeping of the terms of the covenant; the "life" promised was therefore possession of the land, and the "death" promised was expulsion from the land. As Moses proclaimed, "I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live" (Deuteronomy 30:19). This "life and death, blessing and cursing" was expounded in the covenantal sanctions of Deuteronomy 28. On this typological level, the Sinaitic covenant was merely a restatement of the original Covenant of Works, but it could not be a formal ratification of that covenant because, though broken by mankind in Adam, the Covenant of Works had never been abrogated and it was therefore impossible for God to reinstate it afresh for fallen men without dismissing the guilt that had existed up to the giving of the law at Mount Sinai. For God to have thus pardoned the Israelites without also pardoning the rest of the world, and millions of those who has already perished in their sins up to that point in time, would have been unjust and contrary to His holy character, for He is "no respecter of persons" (Romans 2:11). Therefore, the Sinaitic covenant, in its relation to the Israelites, could only be an echo of the Covenant of Works, put into place primarily for the temporal purposes mentioned above, and ultimately to remind them of their guiltiness before God and their need of a Redeemer. Thus, the Mosaic law was subservient to, and therefore did not supplant, the Abrahamic covenant of promise, or the Covenant of Grace.

However, it was with reference to the Redeemer that the Sinaitic covenant was indeed a formal reinstatement of the original Covenant of Works. Being the Son of God incarnate in human flesh and born of a virgin, Christ was not touched by the guilt of Adam's sin. Therefore, the Covenant of Works could be established with Him, as the second Adam, through the instrument of the Mosaic law without the necessity of God pardoning the rest of mankind. The promise of life for Christ was not merely typological and tied to possession of the land, but an actual promise of glorification and eternal life in the anti-typological Kingdom of Heaven. Furthermore, because He was not a mere creature as was Adam, Christ's obedience to the terms of the covenant was meritorious for both Himself and those joined to Him by faith:

...[A]s a human being Christ was certainly subject to the law of God as the rule of life; even believers are never exempted from the law in that sense. But Christ related himself to the law in still a very different way, namely, as the law of the covenant of works. Adam was not only obligated to keep the law but was confronted in the covenant of works with that law as the way to eternal life, a life he did not yet possess. But Christ, in virtue of his union with the divine nature, already had this eternal and blessed life. This life he voluntarily relinquished. He submitted himself to the law of the covenant of works as the way to eternal life for himself and his own.

The obedience that Christ accorded to the law, therefore, was totally voluntary. Not his death alone, as Anselm said, but his entire life was an act of self-denial, a self-offering presented by him as head in the place of his own (Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, Volume III, page 379).

Thomas Boston on Law and Gospel

2008-09-10T07:48:00.000-07:00

Such is the natural propensity of man's heart to the way of the law, in opposition to Christ, that, as the tainted vessel turns the taste of the purest liquor put into it, so the natural man turns the very gospel into law, and transforms the covenant of grace into a covenant of works. - Thomas Boston, Human Nature in Its Fourfold State (Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publications, 1860), page 70.

The Operation of the Conscience in the Unbeliever

2008-08-16T08:29:00.000-07:00

Romans 1:18-32 teaches that fallen man not only knows that the true God exists (verses 20-21), but he also knows that this God has an absolute moral standard which binds all mankind and to which is attached the penalty of death for disobedience (verse 32). In other words, men are aware that there is a covenant of works because the "work of the law" has been "written in their heart" (Romans 2:15). This assertion is proven by the fact that every religion known to man is a manifestation, in one form or another, of a works-based system of righteousness. Even the most primitive savage has a concept of deity whose wrath he fears and whose favor he seeks to earn through good deeds, rituals, or even sacrifice.

The subject of which Paul wrote is the conscience, a word derived from the Latin "com" (with) and "scire" (to know or to discern). A man with a conscience is a man "with knowledge." The conscience is "the faculty by which [man] perceives the moral effect of actions in Time in reference to their results upon himself in Eternity. It is that sense which over and above the idea of Right and Wrong, has with it the idea of duty, the sense that it is right, and proper, and suitable to act this way, and not that; and the sense that if we do this way, then are we to be declared just; if we do that way, then are we to be declared unrighteous. That it is the sense of Duty and of Responsibility" (William Smith, The Elements of Christian Science [1857], page 78). The function of the conscience is threefold: "The first is Prohibitory. 'This act thou shouldest not do.' The second, Recording. 'This act I have done.' The third is Prophetic. 'Therefore for this act I am responsible'.... The Prohibitory has reference to the Present; the Recording to the Past; the Prophetic to the Future." (ibid., page 81). It is therefore the agent of the covenant of works, setting forth the moral standard, reminding man that he has failed to meet this standard, and declaring that he stands before his Creator in a position of condemnation as a result of that failure. Shakespeare put it thusly: "My conscience hath a thousand several tongues; and every tongue brings in a several tale; and every tale condemns me for a villain."

Through his conscience, the unregenerate man can only know God as his Judge. Inheriting original sin from Adam, and worsening his condition by his own actual sins, the sinner is always running away from God and yet at every turn, God thunders out His judgments through the faculty of his own conscience. Indeed, there is a civil war raging within the unbeliever in which his depraved will urges him to indulge his sinful passions in opposition to the authority of conscience; in fact, the obstinate sinner will spend his whole life trying to silence the voice of his conscience - to suppress the righteousness of God (Romans 1:18) - and in this effort he will only be successful if abandoned by God to his own lusts (Romans 1:28). The traditional Reformed doctrine of common grace enters at this point to teach that all men are not as evil as they could or would be because God inhibits such efforts to render the conscience inactive. Man longs for autonomy, but his own conscience - the ever-present voice of God's moral law - stands as a barrier to that goal and he is thus prevented from giving full vent to his depravity. The utter impossibility of escaping God's presence should lead him to repentance, but, if left to himself, he will instead respond by hating his perceived tormenter. The unregenerate sinner is therefore rendered unable to hear the call of a merciful God as it is declared in the Gospel and unable to trust in Christ for salvation.

The Calvinistic doctrine of "total depravity" is often misunderstood to mean that fallen man is so thoroughly wicked that he cannot do or know any temporal good. Of course, the Bible itself nowhere teaches that the functions of human nature are inoperative or that they are evil in and of themselves; man's problem is that his will has been corrupted by sin and his mind is "enmity against God" (Romans 8:7), but that, under normal circumstances, the conscience remains quite active and it is to this human faculty that the Gospel message is addressed.

A Brief Response to Brian Schwertley

2007-12-28T05:02:00.000-08:00

Many people can boast of their "fifteen minutes of fame." Well, I've been "blessed" with about 500 minutes of fame so far on Sermon Audio, thanks to the good Reverend Brian Schwertley. It seems that he took unbrage at the 2003 edition of my critique of Theonomy and Christian Reconstructionism when a potential parishioner left his church after reading it last year (NOTE: This book is now available in an expanded and updated second edition). Since late August of 2007, he has been preaching an ongoing series entitled "A Reformed View of the Judicial Law," in which I am the primary target — ten parts thus far. The only problem is, though I am the target by name, my actual position, as presented in my book, is not. Schwertley sees himself as a defender of Reformed orthodoxy, but he has proven himself to be, in this series at least, nothing more than a destroyer of straw men.

Here is Schwertley's complaint in a nutshell:

Greg Loren Durand has written a book against Theonomy. And the book is not just against Theonomy. I can understand people writing a book against the abuses of Theonomy, but he basically rejects the Reformed faith for a modified form of Dispensationalism. The book is totally unconfessional. The idea that the whole law of God has been done away....

If you want to know if a law is right and good, you have to go to God's Word. And what amazes me about these people that say, "Well, we're going to ignore" — especially Greg Loren Durand, or whatever his name is, "we're going to ignore the whole law — he teaches that the whole moral law of God — the whole law of God that was given to Moses has been done away, even the Ten Commandments.... That's exactly what he teaches....

Greg Durand’s book is just pitiful. ..[H]e believes you cannot use the law of Moses in any way — and we’re talking about the judicial or the Ten Commandments — you can’t use those in any way for sanctification.... He takes the book of Galatians, which was written to rebuke those who believe that you need to follow the law of Moses, including the ceremonial laws, to be justified before God. You need to keep the law. And he takes that and he says, “No, we’re not allowed to go to these laws for sanctification either”....

Now, to expose Durand's heretical understanding of God's law, the first thing we want to do is correct his false presupposition regarding the book of Galatians. Did Paul, as Durand asserts, write Galatians to show believers that the whole law of Moses was abrogated — that believers are now not in any sense under the law of Moses? Now, remember, the Christian Reconstructionists... he's saying that they're a bunch of legalists because Christian Reconstructionists say that we should obey the laws in the Old Testament as a guide for sanctification....

Contrary to what Rev. Schwertley has asserted in his series, I do not believe that the moral principles, or general equity, contained in the Mosaic judicial laws are not binding on the nations of the world and that the civil magistrate may not use them as a guide for just laws. I do not believe that the Ten Commandments, taken individually on their own merits and outside of their immediate Old Covenant context, have been abolished and are not binding on all mankind. I do not believe that the Old Testament should be ignored and that it may not be used for personal sanctification. His claim that I am teaching a "modified Dispensationalism," his labelling of me as a "natural law antinomian," and his latest charge of "heresy," are all incredibly absurd.

Here is what I do believe: The Mosaic law had both typological and antitypological aspects which Covenant theologians in the past have described in terms of the legal and gracious elements present in the Sinaitic covenant. In other words, the Sinaitic covenant assumed the pre-existing Abrahamic covenant of grace, but added to it a legal arrangement which echoed the Adamic covenant of works. Many Reformed commentators have noted the striking similarities between the Adamic and the Sinaitic covenants and have concluded that the latter is a typological restatement of the former while being careful to teach the impossibility of the actual re-institution of the Adamic covenant. A few, particularly Samuel Petto, have gone further to state that the Mosaic covenant was more than merely typological, but that it was an actual covenant of works put in place for Christ, as the true Israel, to fulfill.

In opposition to classic Dispensationalism, all Covenant theologians who fall into the above categories are agreed that the legal element of the Sinaitic covenant was subservient to, and therefore did not abrogate, the Abrahamic covenant. This legal element stands at the forefront of the covenant and has reference primarily to possession of the land of Canaan and to temporal blessings and cursings, but, as indicated by the New Testament writers, this temporal element was merely typological in nature and found its spiritual fulfillment in Christ and the eternal blessings which He merited in behalf of and bestowed upon His people, the Church. Second Temple Judaism confounded the typological and antitypological dimensions of the Mosaic covenant, and, failing to see its true pedagogical function, the Jews changed it from a system of geo-political works-righteousness into a system of spiritual works-righteousness in which salvation itself could be attained through the works of the law. The Judaizers with whom Paul later contended, though accepting Jesus as the promised Messiah, likewise had this mistaken view of the law, and thereby insisted that Gentiles must be circumcised and submit to the Mosaic economy in order to be justified. It is my contention that the Reconstructionists of today, following the writings of R.J. Rushdoony and Gary North, commit the same foundational error when they transfer the typological elements of the Old Covenant to the New Covenant, and teach law-keeping (covenant-keeping) as a condition for entrance into God’s Kingdom as it is manifested on earth through the dominion work of the Christian Church. Thus, Second Temple Judaism, First-Century Galatianism, and modern-day Reconstructionism are all variations of the same heresy, despite their superficial dissimilarities. Ironically, classic Dispensationalism also commits this same error when it fails to interpret the Old Testament land promises typologically and therefore teaches a future resurrection of the Jewish theocracy and a reinstitution of the Mosaic covenant during an earthly millennial period.

In my book, I focused almost exclusively on the typological aspects of the Mosaic law, which have been abolished in Christ, while in his series, Schwertley has focused almost exclusively on the moral aspects of the law, which are not, and cannot be, abolished. As a result, every time he has criticized my typological arguments from his moral perspective, he has committed a categorical fallacy and thus has completely misrepresented my position as a “modified form of Dispensationalism,” which it certainly is not.

In answer to the inevitable question: Yes, I have confronted Schwertley privately according to Matthew 18:15-17, and he has refused to listen or repent of his misrepresentations. I am biblically justified, therefore, in taking this matter to the Christian public. The entire record of my correspondence with Schwertley, and a detailed clarification of my position on the Old Testament law may be read HERE.

UPDATE: As of 7 February 2010, Schwertley has renewed his attacks against me on Sermon Audio and in print. The majority of what he is currently presenting is merely a repetition of what he has said in the past, so my above response still applies (I have also posted an open letter to Schwertley here). However, one important factor has changed since I corresponded with Mr. Schwertley two years ago: he is no longer a member of a legitimate presbytery or denomination. The presbyters of the Westminster Presbyterian Church in the United States to whom I wrote in December of 2007 have all since severed their ties with Schwertley. Consequently, without a presbytery, not to mention a synod or general assembly, the WPCUS exists in name only. A "one man denomination" is a contradiction in terms and is, in fact, the very definition of schism. Furthermore, according to eyewitnesses, Schwertley's own congregation has dwindled to "just a couple of cars in the lot – the lot at Brian’s house, that is." And yet, Schwertley continues to perpetuate the fraud on the internet that he is a Presbyterian minister in an actual Reformed denomination.

The Error of Theonomy in a Nutshell

2007-11-09T12:28:00.000-08:00

Although it has some roots in New England Puritanism and historic Covenant Theology, Theonomy, or Christian Reconstruction, is a distorted version of both and may perhaps be classified as "hyper-Puritanism." Its adherents often will claim that they hold to the classic three-fold division of the Mosaic law into ceremonial, judicial, and moral categories, but they actually collapse the judicial into the moral and therefore think in terms of only a two-fold division. This presupposition may be seen in their frequent reference to the "moral case laws" found in the Old Testament, which they insist were binding on the nations outside of Israel and remain perpetually binding. However, this division is much different than in conventional Reformed thought, amounting to a radical separation of "the ceremonial law" from "the moral-judicial law" so that the one may be abolished while the other remains intact.

As a result, Theonomists are forced to redefine Covenant Theology and posit a continuity where Reformed commentators generally have not. For example, the traditional Reformed position sees a continuous unfolding of redemptive history in various administrations of the one Covenant of Grace, beginning with the promise of the Redeemer in Genesis 3:15, continuing with the establishment of the Noahic, Abrahamic, and Davidic covenants, and finding its clearest pre-Christian expression in God's promise of the "New Covenant" in Ezekiel 37:36 and Jeremiah 31:31-34. The Mosaic covenant, or "Old Covenant," is seen as a temporary "parenthesis" period existing from its establishment at Mount Sinai 430 years after Abraham until its judicial termination on Calvary and its actual termination with the expiration of the nation of Israel in A.D. 70. It was "added because of transgression" (Galatians 3:19) — the rebellious and "stiff-necked" nature of the Israelites (Exodus 32:9-10; Acts 7:51) — and served to "shut [them] up unto the faith" (Galatians 3:23) which was foreshadowed in the various sacrifices and ceremonies and would later be fully revealed in Christ Himself. It was the Mosaic covenant itself that separated the Jews from the Gentile nations of the world and made them a distinct people, and it was this covenant which has now passed away.

This is clearly the doctrine of the New Testament, particularly the Pauline epistles. However, Theonomists deny the provisional character of the Mosaic economy and instead view it as one of the two administrations of the Covenant of Grace. The terms "Older Covenant" and "Newer Covenant" were coined by Greg Bahnsen in Theonomy in Christian Ethics, and have been used by other writers such as Brian Schwertley, in order to distinguish between the previous administration of Moses and the new administration of Christ without implying discontinuity between them. Consequently, Theonomists have two different things in mind when they speak of "the law," depending on the context. When Scripture speaks of "the law" as having been "established," as in Romans 3:31, or "fulfilled," as in Matthew 5:17-19, they interpret this to mean "the moral-judicial law." However, whenever Scripture speaks of the Mosaic law as having been "done away" (2 Corinthians 3:7-11) or "abolished" (Ephesians 2:15), Theonomists invariably interpret this to refer to "the ceremonial law." They wrongly identify only "the ceremonial law" as the covenantal barrier between Jew and Gentile which was "added" at Mount Sinai and later "nailed to the cross" (Colossians 2:14), thus ending forever the covenantal separation of Jew and Gentile (Ephesians 2:14-15). Consequently, they cannot see Paul's cogent argument in his epistle to the Galatians that any attempt to carry the Mosaic economy over into the New Covenant era is a denial of the very Gospel itself, and instead read this epistle as a diatribe against the use of "the ceremonial law," and circumcision in particular, as a means of justification.

This underlying error leads to other errors, some of which are quite serious. Chief among these is their concept of "taking dominion" using "God's law-word" (the "moral judicial law") — a novel version of Postmillennialism which arises from R.J. Rushdoony's theory of "restitution." Briefly stated, Reconstructionists view themselves as having been restored to the covenantal relationship which Israel forfeited by disobedience, together with its mission to make restitution to God for Adam's rebellion by subduing the world, or reconstructing the nations of the earth in God's image. They believe that this covenantal restoration, or "justification," is through faith alone, but that the dominion mandate, or "sanctification," is fulfilled individually through the application of "moral judicial law" to "every area of life," and nationally through the application of that same law to society by the civil magistrate. When a five-fold restitution has been paid to God by the Christian Church, according to the principle of Exodus 22:1, her mission will be complete and Christ will return to consummate history. To reject this "restitution gospel" in favor of the mainstream eschatologies such as either historic Postmillennialism or Amillennialism, or even Dispensationalism, is to be "antinomian" and thus an enemy of the true covenant people of God. Thus, no more subtle re-packaging of the ancient Judaizing heresy may be found than in the modern Reconstruction movement.

How To Spot a Tare

2007-11-03T12:21:00.000-07:00

I found this comment recently on Sermon Audio:

A tare doesn't care, has no love, has no mercy, no sense of justice or fairness, no love of the truth, loves and makes a lie. They are fakers and phonies, full of pride and looking down their noses all the time. They are greedy and destructive, and they usually claw their way to the front of the church, and you can usually find them up on the dais sitting in the red velvet chair next to the pastor, and/or oftentimes in the pulpit itself.

I have run across more than a few of these people in my 23 years as a Christian, and most of them have had "Rev" before their names.

Encounter on the Path Travail

2007-10-22T15:18:00.000-07:00

Below is a poem I wrote about 15 years ago after reading John Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress for the first time. It was meant to be an allegorical illustration of spiritual declension and renewal.

--------

‘Twas an evening dark and cold as I labored on the trail;
A signpost to the right of me marked out the path "Travail."
My eyes were fixed upon my feet, no further could I see;
My back was bent beneath the weight of the burden placed on me.

‘Twas nigh to night I didst perceive a stranger at my side;
He fell in step with those mine own and bid me in him confide.
"My friend," said he, "I pray thee tell, by what name are ye known?
And wherefore doth thou treadest now this dreary path alone?"

I strained to look upon his face and my lips produced a sigh;
I thanked him for his company, and then finally said I,
"'Despondence' now by name I’m known, though once my name was 'Free;'
I labor now upon this path beneath the burden thou doth see."

"Yea," said he, "I clearly see the weight upon thy back,
And that thy gaze is fixed upon thine own feet as they track.
I pray thee tell the reason why thou didst choose to change thy name
From one of such nobility to this so full of shame?"

"My name," said I, "‘Despondence’ now, for this is all I know;
My feet tread slow for unsure am I whither do they go.
The burden on my back you see is a weight I must now bear -
A symbol of anxiety, which garments I now do wear."

"I recall," continued I, "When once my cares did cease;
My burden then as now was great, but in Him I found release."
I spoke of a path I did once pursue, joy its fruit begotten;
My head in sorrow hung as I confessed ‘twas all forgotten.

Reaching out to me he offered silent comfort with his hand;
And then with gentle words bade me to help him understand.
"Thou sayest that thy step was light and nothing didst thou lack;
Wherefore doth thou now return this burden to thy back?"

"Was He to whom thou hadst turned unfaithful and untrue?
Did He ever break His oath and turn away from you?
Or didst thou simply shun His peace, thus choosing for thine own,
The state in which I find thee now, upon this path alone?"

"Stranger," said I, "Thou makest clear the folly that was mine,
In taking back the things I didst then leave in hands divine.
Thy wisdom kindly spoken has allowed me now to see,
‘Tis naught but mine own unbelief that binds this weight to me."

I loosed the burden from my back and dropped it to the ground;
Then turned to thank the stranger there, but nowhere was he found.
I thought perchance he may have been an angel from above,
Sent to point the way once more back to my first love.

And so turned I myself about, a new path my feet didst track;
One by name of "light" and "easy," with no burden on my back.
Surrendered to the Holy One, "Faithful and True" His name;
Free once more within His care, and there I shall remain.