January 28, 2010

Turretin says of the Mosaic covenant
The law is not administered without the gospel, nor is the gospel without the law. So that it is as it were a legal-gospel and an evangelical-law; a gospel full of obedience and a law full of faith
And ten thousands of Lutheran's head's asploded.

January 25, 2010

I was glad to note Dr Ryken taking Romans 8:4 in the sense of Spirit-led sanctification.

Previously I had only heard of an Alliance pastor taking it in the sense of justification
so that the [righteous] requirement of the law might be fulfilled in US. Fulfilled in Full. God did not indulgently decide to require less than the law righteously required. Jesus Christ through his active and passive obedience completely fulfilled all the laws requirements. Who are we? We are those who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit. Verse 15 we are those who are not given a spirit of Slavery....
That exegesis seems strained.

It makes the reference to "requirement" of the law 1) into "requirements", 2) into something that is only true by imputation. But imputation language is almost never indicated by "In". The law is fulfilled IN us by imputation? How is that supposed to work?

It also moves from Paul noting the fulfillment of the law's "righteous requirements" to nothing other than an identification of those who receive that imputed righteousness.

But I don't think that's how Romans 8:4 works,. The requirement of the law is fulfilled IN us, as we live out our lives, insofar as the Spirit leads the Christian in a righteous walk. Paul introduces the rest of Romans 8, all about the Spirit's guidance, how now WE can please God.

If we're going to start talking about an "alien righteousness" but one that is "in" us, I'm not sure what language means anymore.

Fortunately Ryken demonstrated a more excellent way.

January 19, 2010

"One word, Ma'am," he said, coming back from the fire; limping, because of the pain. "One word. All you've been saying is quite right, I shouldn't wonder. I'm a chap who always liked to know the worst and then put the best face I can on it. So I won't deny any of what you said. But there's one thing more to be said, even so. Suppose we have only dreamed, or made up, all those things - harmonizations and unified readings of Genesis 1 and 2 and angelic divine courts and truth claims that only come from harmonized readings, and objective transcultural truth and inerrancy and an unquestionably divine Jesus to tell us about it. Suppose we have. Then all I can say is that, in that case, the made-up things seem a good deal more important than the real ones. Suppose this claim that its totally ok to claim to be Daniel and 'predict' the future when you're not and aren't is true. Well, it strikes me that that Daniel is a pretty poor prophet. And that's a funny thing, when you come to think of it. We're just babies making up a game, if you're right. But four babies playing a game can make a storybook which licks your real book hollow. That's why I'm going to stand by the storybook. I'm on inerrancy's side even if there are errors. I'm going to live as like a signer of the CSBI as I can even if the CBSI isn't coherent or if it based on outmoded views of truth. So, thanking you kindly for our supper, if these two gentlemen and the young lady are ready, we're leaving your court at once and sitting out in the dark to spend our lives looking for inerrancy. Not that our lives will be very long, I should think; but that's a small loss if the Bible's as dull a book as you say."

January 12, 2010

I had put a draft of this quote on blogger, but never published it (not sure why).

Now, reading the Kerux review, I see more about Owen's perspective here. As John Owen did not agree with the Reformed and Calvinian consensus on the nature of the Mosaic covenant as an administration of the covenant of grace, it stands to reason that he would not think it communicated grace very well.

On the "poverty of types" from his Hebrews commentary
Such was the poverty of the types that no one of them could so much as shadow out or represent all that advantage which we really enjoy and therefore they were multiplied and the work distributed amongst them which they were to represent. This made them a yoke and that grievous and burdensome. The way of teaching in them and by them was hard and obscure as well as their observation was difficult. It was a hard thing for them to learn the love grace and mind of God by them God revealed himself in them by many parts and pieces according as they were capable to receive impression from and make representation of divine wisdom, goodness, and grace; whence our apostle says that the law had but a shadow and not the image itself of things. It had some scattered shades which the great limner had laid the foundation of symmetry in but so as to be discernible only unto his own infinite wisdom. A perfect image wherein all the parts should exactly answer unto one another and so plainly represent the thing intended, that it had not. Now it was a work beyond their wisdom, out of the scattered pieces and parts of revelation, especially being implated upon carnal things, to gather up the whole of the grace and good-will of God
Owen seems overly hard on how "difficult" it would be to se the grace of God in the OT. But so would argue a Horton or a T. David Gordon.

Still reading the Kerux review of The Law is not of Faith

It seems pretty clear to me that the Kerux review guys are getting the "system of doctrine" of the WCF right. It also seems to me that, with the way the Marrow controversy fell out, that the WCF doesn't contain enough to guard against all forms of legalism.

I'm sympathetic in one respect to the Fesko/Estelle/Gordon/Kline guys. I think Romans makes it rather clear that Torah ends up putting Israel back in a Adamic situation, and she falls just as hard. But if they're right, then the WCF is REALLY wrong to say, for instance, that the prelude to the decalogue is all about the substance of the covenant of Grace.

Maybe what the Confession is doing is showing how the elect should be 'hearing' the law in such a way that they understand it rightly from a New Covenant perspective. Kinda like how everyone is now noticing that the New Testament writers are taking stuff from the OT and radically reinterpreting it in the light of Christ, the WCF is doing the same. While it may have seemed like a subservient covenant in its historical context now we need to go back and look at it again. And Paul is saying that Israel missed the point at the time.

I also think that FV and Klineanism may be two reactions to the same data.

Kline looks at Moses and the WCF and says "look how much analogy there is between the Mosaic and Adamic situations. We really need to be careful and distinguish them both more sharply from the Covenant of Grace"

FV looks at the same, and says "well, I want to be faithful to the fact that the WCF sees the Mosaic covenant as a covenant of grace too. I'll deal with the similarity by emphasizing some of the *gracious* continuity between the Adamic and Mosaic covenant." All that stuff at the start of the Kerux article about anti-pelagianism applies in the Adamic situation too. "What do you have that you did not already receive". Or James Jordan noting that actually, Adam has a 'lack' in dealing with the serpent. He needs to pray, like Augustine "give what Thou commandest, and command what Thou wilt".

In either case, the WCF is up for some revision, it would seem.

De script shun




Counter Strike


Powered by Blogger