I wish I could type the entirety of this chapter out but it would take hours and would likely infringe on the fair use copyright law. If you want more, buy the book! The Christ of the Covenants by O. Palmer Robertson. This chapter has been particularly helpful in shifting my understanding of the Mosaic covenant from a dispensational outlook to the covenantal. I will hopefully be able to type more later.
O. Palmer Robertson writes:
The Mosaic dispensation rests squarely on a covenantal rather than a legal relationship. While law plays an extremely significant role both in the international treaty forms and in the Mosaic era, covenant always supersedes law.
Essential to the Hittite treaty form was the recognition of the historical context in which legal stipulations functioned. The historical prologue of the documents set the current relation of conquering lord and conquered vassal in the light of past interchanges.
Nothing could be more basic to a proper understanding of the Mosaic era. It is not law that is preeminent, but covenant. Whatever concept of law may be advanced, it must remain at all times subservient to the broader concept of the covenant.
This point is made most obvious by a recognition of the historical context in which the covenant of law was revealed. Historically, the nation of Israel already was in a covenantal relationship with the Lord through Abraham. The Exodus narrative begins when God hears the groaning of Israel, and “remembers his covenant with Abraham, with Isaac, and with Jacob” (Exod. 2:24). After God has established himself as Israel’s Lord through the historical fact of the deliverance from Egypt, the law-covenant of Sinai is administered. The Decalogue’s “I am the Lord your God which brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage,” provides the essential historical framework in which the Sinaitic law-covenant may be understood. As has been stated:
The laws have their place in the doctrine of the covenant. Yahweh has chosen Israel as His people, and Israel has acknowledged Yahweh as its God. This fundamental O.T. principle is the direct basis of these laws. (W. Gutbrod, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, 1967), 4: 1036)
Covenant, therefore, is the larger concept, always taking precedence over law. Covenant binds persons; externalized legal stipulations represent one mode of administration of the covenantal bond.
God renews an ancient commitment to his people by the covenant of Moses. The law serves only as a single mode of administering the covenant of redemption. Originally established under Adam, confirmed under Noah and Abraham, the covenantal relationship renewed under Moses cannot disturb God’s on going commitment by its emphasis to the legal dimension of the covenant relationship.
The Distinctiveness of the Mosaic Covenant
If the Mosaic covenant stands in a basic relation of unity with God’s earlier covenantal administration, what then is its distinctiveness? What particularly characterizes this covenantal administration? How does it stand apart from God’s other ways of dealing with his people?
The Mosaic covenant manifests its distinctiveness as an externalized summation of the will of God. The patriarchs certainly were aware o God’s will in general terms. On occasion, they received direct revelation concerning specific aspects of the will of God. Under Moses, however, a full summary of God’s will was made explicit through the physical inscripturation of the law. This external-to-man, formally ordered summation of God’s will constitutes the distinctiveness of the Mosaic covenant.
The emphasis in the pentateuch on the “ten words” and the explicit identification of these words with the covenant itself clearly indicate that the distinctiveness of the Mosaic covenant resides in this externalized summation of God’s law. Note in particular the language of the following verses:
… And he [Moses] wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant, the ten words (Exod. 34:28).
So He declared to you His covenant which He commanded you to perform, that is, the ten words; and He wrote them on two tablets of stone (Deut. 4:13).When I went upto the mountain to receive the tablet of stone, the tablets of the covenant which the Lord had made with you….
And…at the end of the forty days and nights … the Lord gave me the two tablets of stone, the tablets of the covenant (Deut. 9:9, 11).
These verses indicate the closeness of identification between the Mosaic covenant and the “ten words.” These words summarize the essence of the Mosaic covenant.
The same verses emphasize also the externalized character of the Mosaic law-administration. The stone-engraven character of the Mosaic covenant does not reflect simply the manner by which covenantal documents were preserved in the days of Moses. This stark, cold, externalized form in which the covenant stipulations appeared manifests eloquently a most distinctive characteristic of the Mosaic covenant. A law has been written, a will has been decreed; but his law stands outside man, demanding conformity. “Law” as it is used in relation to the Mosaic covenant should not be defined simply as a revelation of the will of God. More specifically, law denotes an externalized summation of God’s will.
In the case of the Mosaic covenant, the prominence of this external form of God’s will provides ample justification for the characterization of the Mosaic covenant as the covenant of law. This characterization has the full support of the New Testament Scriptures. “The law was given through Moses,” says the apostle John (John 1:17). In his letter to the Galations, Paul clearly characterizes the Mosaic period as the epoch of “law” (Gal. 3:17)
This phrase “covenant of law” must not be confused with the traditional terminology which speaks of a “covenant of works.” The phrase “covenant of works” customarily refers to the situation at creation in which man was required to obey God perfectly in order to enter into a state of eternal blessedness. Contrary to this relation established with man in innocence, the Mosaic covenant of law clearly addresses itself to man in sin. this latter covenant never intended to suggest that man by perfect moral obedience could enter into a state of guaranteed covenantal blessedness. The integral role of a substitutionary sacrificial system within the legal provisions of the Mosaic covenant clearly indicates a sober awareness of the distinction between God’s dealings with man in innocence and with man in sin.
As already has been indicated, God’s covenantal commitment to redeem from the state of sin a people to himself was in effect prior to the giving of the law at Sinai. Israel assembled at Sinai only because God had redeemed them from Egypt. For the covenant of law to function as a principle of salvation by works, the covenant of promise first would have to be suspended.
The concrete externalization of covenantal stipulations written on tables of stone never was intended to detract from the gracious promise of the Abrahamic covenant, as Paul argues so aptly. The covenant of law, coming 400 years after promise, could not possibly disannul the previous covenant (Gal. 3:17).
Not only did the covenant of law not disannul the covenant of promise; more specifically, it did not offer a temporary alternative to the covenant of promise. This particular perspective is often overlooked. It is sometimes assumed that the covenant of law temporarily replaced the covenant of promise, or somehow ran alongside it as an alternative method of man’s salvation. The covenant of law often has been considered as a self-contained unit which served as another basis for determining the relation of Israel to God in the period between Abrahamic covenant and the coming of Christ. In this scheme, the covenant of promise is treated as though it has been set aside or made secondary for a period, although not “disannulled.”
However, the covenant of promise made with Abraham always has been in effect from the day of its inauguration until the present. The coming of law did not suspend the Abrahamic covenant. The principle enunciated in Genesis 15:6 concerning the justification of Abraham by faith never has experienced interruption. Throughout the Mosaic period of law-covenant, God considered as righteous everyone who believed in him.
For this reason, the covenant of law as revealed at Sinai would best be divorced from “covenant of works” terminology. The “covenant of works” refers to legal requirements laid on man at the time of his innocency in creation. The “covenant of law” refers to a new stage in the process of God’s unfolding the richness of the covenant of redemption. As such, the law which came through Moses did not in any way disannul or suspend the covenant of promise.
It is asserted in the first chapter of this Confession [The Westminster Confession of Faith], and vindicated in this exposition that the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, having been given by inspiration of God, are for man in his present state the only and the all-sufficient rule of faith and practice. All that man is to believe concerning God, and the entire duty which God requires of man, are revealed therein, and are to be believed and obeyed because contained therein, because it is the word of God. This divine word, therefore, is the only standard of doctrine which has intrinsic authority binding the conscience of men. And all other standards are of value or authority only in proportion as they teach what the Scriptures teach.
While, however, the Scriptures are from God, the understanding of them belongs to the part of men. Men must interpret to the best of their ability each particular part of Scripture separately, and then combine all that the Scriptures teach upon every subject into a consistent whole, and then adjust their teachings upon different subjects in mutual consistency as parts of a harmonious system. Every student of the Bible must do this, and all make it obvious that they do it by the terms they use in their prayers and religious discourse, whether they admit or deny the propriety of human creeds and confessions. If they refuse the assistance afforded by the statements of doctrine slowly elaborated and defined by the Church, they must make out their own creed by their own unaided wisdom. The real question is not, as often pretended, between the word of God and the creed of man, but between the tried and proved faith of the collective body of God’s people, and the private judgment and the unassisted wisdom of the repudiator of creeds.
(A Short History of Creeds and Confessions, A.A Hodge)
I thought that was an excellent assessment and very helpful in articulating what is wrong with this modernistic post-enlightenment “Christianity”. It comes from a Psalter/Hymnal.
In an answer to one of my questions, “how can we better engage the culture” Douglas Wilson responds, “We are not currently in a culture war, but we do need to get into a culture war. But there are prerequisites. Before you can have a war, you need weapons. And before you can have a culture war, you need to have a culture.” This is clearly a long-term goal.
Today’s Christianity has made peace with modernity as Wilson says. This brief manifesto has quite a bit to chew on. This has helped me make better sense of my discontentment with modern Christianity and what (at risk of sounding pragmatic) practical things we can do to combat it. I think however that if we will make any headway in this area of establishing culture we MUST see to it that our children understand and carry with them the same mindset… and we must see to it that we truly understand the heart of the issue as well. If this battle is to be a sustaining success it will not be won in or by a single generation. While we ought to be expecting and desiring the Lords return, this dispensational ‘rapture ready’ mindset has crippled Christians to live for the now and forsake the future. It’s no wonder modern Christianity is in such shambles.
If there is anything that Calvary Chapel prides itself in it’s in the fact that it is non-denominational. An excerpt from a popular Calvary Chapel website states, “Calvary Chapel is a non-denominational church movement focused on the inerrancy of the Bible and the expository teaching from Genesis to Revelation.” From a statement of faith found on many of their sites, “nor are we opposed to denominations as such, only their over emphasis of the doctrinal differences that have led to the division of the Body of Christ.”
If there is a distinctive of modernism that is chief of all it is a disdain for truth and doctrine, if I were to put it bluntly I would call it liberalism. The idea that we can not know truth, that it is not important or that it divides rather than unites is paramount to modern evangelicalism. It is a running joke that some churches can get along with a statement of faith that fits on the back of a bulletin. While it’s nice to have a condensed version, it is never acceptable to stop at saying, “we believe in the trinity, the holy spirit, Jesus and spiritual worship…”. What does that mean?! I have found that this is not limited to the non-reformed. This lack of confession is also carried about by churches that boast of “reformation.”
In the book “Calvary Chapel Distinctives” Chuck Smith states, “You know the beautiful thing about being called Calvary Chapel? People don’t know where you really stand… And the whole field is ours… When you’re marketing something, you want the largest market appeal possible. So don’t chop up the market and say, ‘Well, we’re just going to fish in this little market here.’ Keep the market broad. (pg. 49, 50).” In a consumer driven world it is sad that churches expect and encourage men to make a choice for a church based on externals (music, pep, relevance, simplicity, comedy, lax dress-code, youth, etc…) rather than by what they believe the bible says. There is an acceptable degree of consumerism by which I must find a church in this fallen world and it is only in confessional churches where I have been handed material upon material to read concerning the one thing that counts… DOCTRINE.
Too many churches are aiming at doctrinal ambiguity and hoping to attract people by their atmosphere, cool worship, funny pastor, amneties, young crowd, etc…
I like the fact that reformed churches are confessional and historical, check out the OPC. If I want to know what they believe I can read the westminister confession. It is quite a work! In fact it is a direct product of the reformation and full of scripture for reference. They also have a manual on church discipline, a manual on the deaconate, eldership, etc… Nothing is a surprise. They have been standing on the shoulders of giants since the reformation and have 500 years of experience and mistakes to draw from.
As far as Calvary Chapel is concerned: It is hypocritical for a church that totes unity through anti-doctrinal means to have been formed by a man who found a subjective distaste for his original form of church (doctrine in the so-called ‘non-essentials’) and decided now, with his finite experience, that he will create his own sect that meets these new needs. It is this individualistic, non-submissive, consumer mentality that has permeated the “laymen” and it is precisely for the sake of unity that all men should abandon their modernistic churches and return to historic Christianity.
But the gospel is simple, right? Anyone can pastor a church…
If you have sat under Calvary Chapel teaching long enough you have heard the joke, “you don’t need to go to cemetery, I mean seminary, to become a Pastor.” Studious, intellectual study of the scriptures, theology or anything is not only frowned upon, it’s laughed at…
Donald Van Dyken in “Rediscovering Catechism” writes, ‘Perhaps we can understand how an anti-intellectual, anti doctrinal atmosphere has found acceptance. Christians have watched brilliant theologians mutilate, twist, and pervert the Word of God. Disgusted with these ways of turning the truth of God into a lie, some Christians have eschewed learning itself, whether past and present. “away with theology!” they cry. “Give me the simple gospel!” But is ignorance better than falsehood? Can the great God and Creator whose mighty acts and wondrous character confront us on every page of Scripture be reduced to a scant few beliefs? The simplicity of the gospel is precious, but its simplicity never robs it of its profundity. Place a rose in the hand of a child, and that child can see that it is a beautiful, fragrant flower, a gift of God. But place a rose in the hand of Luther Burbank, and without losing any of his simple, child-like wonder and appreciation for its beauty, he could devote a lifetime exploring its profound complexity… Some Christians harbor the notion that doctrine divides people. But true doctrine unites rather than divides. True doctrine teaches us about Christ, who is the Truth, the Word from above. When we teach and keep the truth about him, we are bound together in an eternal bond. The truth unites us to God and to each other.’
Quoted by Michael Horton, Hofstadter in “Anti-Intellectualism in American Life” says, ‘The Puritan ideal of the minister as an intellectual and educational leader was steadily weakened in the face of the evangelical ideal of the minister as a popular … exhorter. Theological education itself became more instrumental. Simple dogmatic formulations were considered sufficient. The churches withdrew from intellectual encounters with the secular world, gave up the idea that religion is a part of the whole life of intellectual experience, and often abandoned the field of rational studies on the assumption that they were the natural province of science alone. By 1853 an outstanding clergyman complained that there was “an impression, somewhat general, that an intellectual clergyman is deficient in piety, and that an eminently pious minister is deficient in intellect.”‘ Horton comments, “By the time of the Second Awakening (beginning in the last quarter of the eighteenth century through first quarter of the nineteenth), the existential act of faith replaced the objective content of faith in popular revivals. People wanted to decide for themselves which church came closest to their views. Sects proliferated. ‘The idea of a historical continuity in the life of the Church,’ says Hofstadter, ‘ carries no weight whatever for the sect consciousness.’ In fact, ‘since there need be only a shadow of confessional unity in the denominations, the rational discussion of theological issues- in the past a great source of intellectual discipline in the churches- came to be regarded as a distraction, as a divisive force.'”
I will always champion of unity. Paul commanded, “Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace.” While this has been taken by modernists to mean that doctrinal discussions or debates are dangerous- we should never give in to such liberal folly. This is how, as I will write in the future, a church such as Calvary Chapel can pride itself in “teaching through the bible” yet miss the serious implications of the gospel (see: Priority of the Word). This is why you find such inconsistency in a preachers understanding of the gospel from Calvary Chapel to Calvary Chapel. Some teach a false man-centered gospel and others, closer to the truth, teach a /near/ accurate God-centered gospel (yes there are some faithful men in Calvary Chapel).
Why I Left Calvary Chapel: Introduction
If you are at all familiar with Calvary Chapel you may find it interesting how someone could be so gung-ho for a fellowship of Churches like Calvary Chapel and then end up in a confessional, Orthodox Presbyterian Church (opc.org). I had spent an entirety of six years in Calvary Chapel and have served in a variety of ways from being on the facilities team, sound team, co-leading and teaching “College and Career Night” to being involved in a Calvary church plant, serving on the board and teaching on various occasions… even desirous of being sent out myself someday to plant a church. There was a point in time where I thought the Calvary way was the modern extension of the book of acts church, oh how ignorant I was!
If you came here expecting a rant on the evils of Calvary Chapel or to see me air dirty laundry you came to the wrong place. While I might list specific issues with Calvary Chapel- the issues really apply to the entirety of the modern evangelical church in America. The application ranges from the very modernistic church to the essentially reformed and “reformed” churches I have visited along the way. My purpose here is not to BASH anyone but to set off in reformation. American Christianity is in a sad, sick place. We say, I am rich, have prospered and need nothing- not realizing that we are wretched, pitiable, poor, blind and naked (Rev 3:14-22). It’s easy for us to point our fingers at the extremes like Rick Warren and Joel Osteen and say, “those are the Laodiceans of Revelation Chapter 3″ when in actuality it may very well be us too.
American evangelicalism may trophy the conservative label around or claim to be biblical, but it has not only embraced secularization, pragmatism, pop-psychology and the liberal mindset- it has led the way in it. Many of the references I make will come from Michael Horton’s book, “Made in America.” You would do better to read his take on the issue rather than mine. In either case look forward to future writings on the issue as I try to paint the picture with more specific cases from my prior circle of modern evangelicalism.
Read Through the Bible in a Year Bookmark
This through the bible in a year reading plan bookmark is double sided and fits in the smallest of small bibles. Print it out on cardstock for durability and keep it in your bible as a place mark.
No need to be legalistic: the reading plan allows for 15 spare weeks which can be used to either take two days a week off or as a buffer during your busy schedule.
Do not fit to page when printing otherwise it will be too big. It’s 3.4 x 4.8 inches once trimmed.
Justification and Sanctification
Confusing the two will bring condemnation and distance us from the Lord… but separating the two… perhaps just as bad.
Justification refers to my status; sanctification to my state.
Justification is about God’s attitude to me changing; sanctification is about God changing me.
Justification is about how God looks on me; sanctification is about what he does in me.
Justification is about Christ dying for my sins on the cross; sanctification is about Christ at work in me by the Holy Spirit changing my life.
The Reformers were careful to distinguish the two—but not to separate them. One cannot have the one without the other—as with the heat and light of the sun. The sun gives out heat and light. These two cannot be separated. When the sun shines there is both heat and light; yet they are distinct and not to be confused. We are not warmed by the sun’s light nor illuminated by its heat. To use a modern illustration, justification and sanctification are like the two legs of a pair of trousers, not like socks which may well become separated and, in the author’s experience, too often do become separated.
Anthony N. S. Lane from Justification by Faith in Catholic-Protestant Dialogue: An Evangelical Assessment
I am convicted by this charge to Godly Disputation by John Newton (file attached). I suggest all read it!
The Gospel and the Ministry of Reconciliation
If anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come. All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.
2 Corinthians 5:17-21
Apparently he died for all, that those who live might no longer live for themselves but for him who for their sake died and was raised.
Six things the cross of Christ is not
I would be plagiarizing to claim these following “six things the cross of Christ is not” my own. I have been blessed reading the book, “The Cross of Christ” by John Stott and I find these on page 158-159. They are not styled in list format in the book. I have only added them here as such to go along with the theme of the previous entry on the false gospel, “six things the gospel is not”
So here they are, “Six Things the Cross of Christ is not:”
- The cross was not a commercial bargain with the devil, let alone one that tricked and trapped him;
- nor an exact equivalent, a quid pro quo to satisfy a code of honor or technical point of law;
- nor a compulsory submission by God to some moral authority above him from which he could not otherwise escape;
- nor a punishment of a meek Christ by a harsh and punitive Father;
- nor a procurement of salvation by a loving Christ from a mean and reluctant Father;
- nor an action of the Father which bypassed Christ as Mediator.
Instead, the righteous, loving Father humbled himself to become in and through his only Son flesh, sin and a curse for us, in order to redeem us without compromising his own character.
Stott points out that these six excuses are given for the cross of Christ in order to pacify our proud hearts which rebel against the “scandal,”or stumbling block, of the cross (pg 160). We cannot bear to acknowledge either the seriousness of our sin and guilt or our utter indebtedness to the cross.