1992 Issue 10 - Cross-Examination: The Covenant Keeping God Part 2 - Counsel of Chalcedon

8/12/2019 1992 Issue 10 - Cross-Examination: The Covenant Keeping God Part 2 - Counsel of Chalcedon

1/3

Eachmonth the Cross-Examination

column presents a stnnmary statement

of a Refonned and Reconstructionist

conviction n theology or ethics, and

then

offers

brief answers to common

questions,objectionsorconfusionswbich

people have about that belief. Send

issues or questions you would like ad

dressed by Dr.

Bahnsen

to the editor.

We

Believe

God reveals Himself in the

pages

of

Scripture specifically as the

covenant-keeping

God.

To understand

Hispersonand works properly,

we

must

see

HUn

in light of the

ClJvenant He

bas

made and fulfills with

His

people.

Wehave alreadyseen thatGod's rela-

tionship with man from the very begin

ning was covenantal in nature. His

cov

enant with Adam wasgraciousincharac

ter, sovereignly imposed, mutually

binding, called

for

trust

and submission

on Adam s part and catried

sanctions

(blessings or curse). When

Adam

fell

into sin, God mercifully re-established a

covenantal relationshipwith him,one in

which the gracious andprOnrtssorychar

acter of the covenant

was

accentuated

even further. God s

grace was

magnified

in

promising to

senda Saviorwhowould

destroy the Tempter, Satan (Gen.

3:15).

As

we know, this was the first promise of

the coming

of Christ

to set things right

betweenGodandman(cf.John12:31-32;

Ijohn3:8). Inthesubsequentpagesof

Scripture

God expands upon

and

ex

plains

this

promise, particularly in the

further covenants into whichHe entered

with

His

people.

These covenants

were

thoroughly

gracious,

being established

by God

for

the undeserved benefit ofsinful

and

un

worthy men. Their aim

was

that He

would be their God, and they would be

Hispeople--forinstance:

"Hearthewords

o

hfsCOYeliaitt... 50

shallyoubemypeople,

andIwillbeyourGod"


2/3

- was about Christ the coming

Savior.

Jesus

said ''You search the scriptures be-

cause

you

think that in them you

have

eternal

life; thesescriptures testiJyaboutme

(John 5:39).

As the "Mediator ofaNew Covenant'

which

God

promised through

Jeremiah

(31:31-34),Jesusis the fulffilment

of the

Old Covenant'santidpation or

promise,

and

He

is

the

one who

grants God's

people the

benefits

which

were previ

ouslypromised

--

thatthey

whil:h are

called might re-

ceive the

promise oj eternal

inheritance (Heb. 9:

15).

Christ

gained the

inherit

ancepromised

to

Abraham

(Beb. 11:8-10;

Gal

. 3:16;

Eph. 1:14; 1

Peter

1:4).

In

Him all nations will

be

blessed,

as God

promised

Abraham(Luke 2:32;Matt.

12:21;

Acts

13:47-48; Gal.

3:14). Christ

is

the model

of that righteousness re

vealed n the Mosaic law

(Matt.

5:17;

Heb.

4:15; 1

John 2:5-6),

as well as

the

true and

perfect,

atoning

sacrifice for sinners which

required in

the

Mosaiccov

enant (Heb.

9).

He

is the

longawaited

King

which

was promised

n the

Davidic covenant

(Luke 1:32-33;

Acts

5:31; 1Tun. 6:

15;

1

Cor. 15:25).

l) Because all

of

the post-fall

cov

enants

were

gradous in character,

being

elaborations upon God's promise ofsal

vation, and

(2)

because subsequent cov

enants do not conflict with each

other

but complement and expand upon pre

vious

ones,

and

(3)

because all of

the

promises of

God's

covenants center

on

Christ and His redemptive

work,

we

must recognize the unity and continuity

ofGod'scovenantaladministrations. This

is what is meant by speaking of "the

covenant of grace."

Dispensational theology has

enjoyed

widespread endorsement among

twentieth-century

evangelical

schools

and churches, and its influencehas been

felt

even

among a number of

Reformed

preachers. At the heart

of

dispensationalism is

the denial

of the

covenant of

grace." It

is denied when

dispensationalists claim

that

God

has

two plans(not

one) revea1edin the

Scrip

tures: a plan regarding Christ and the

church

(a

mixed

Gentile

and Jewish

people

forwhom ChrististheRedeemer),

and a distinct plan regarding

the

Jewish

people themselves and the land of

Pales

-

tine (where Christ

will

yet become the

Davidi

cKing). Dispensationalists some

times refer to

these distinct plans and

peoples of God as

His "heavenly"

and

"earthly" programs. Thus dispensa

tionalists insist on drawing a dichotomy

between

Israel

and the church.

This is contralY to Paul, who called

the

mixed Galactan

congregation

the

s-

rael oJGod

(Gal.

6:

16),and whosaidthat

Gentiles

who

are

saved

by Christ

have

now been incorporated into "the o -

monwealt1lOJIsrael

(Eph. 2:12).

Ukewise, dispensationalistsdenythe

unity of Old Testament

covenants, for

they

teach

that therewasa root

difference

between the gradous character of the

Abrahamic covenant and the (alleged)

legalistic character of the

Mosaic

cov

enant. They

maintain that God granted

His blessings

to

Abraham

on

the basis

of

promise

, but in the

Mosaic ern

od held

out --hypothetically -- the offer of bless

ing hased

on

meritorious obedience to

the law.

This too is contrnry to Paul, who

wrote

in

Romans

9:31-32 that Israel did

notarrive at the righteousness of the law

because they sought it

not

yJaith, but as

itwere

by worhs. The

Mosaic

law itselfwould have taught

them not

to

be

legalists (Gal.

2:19). The covenant God

made with Abraham could

not be disannulled 430

years

later by the covenant made

with Moses, making the

promise of no effect (Gal.

3:

17). Was

the

law,

then,

against the promises of

God?

Paul declared

Absolutely notJ

n

(3:21).

Finally,

dispensationalists

deny thecovenantof grace by

teaching that the benefits of

the Abrahamic covenant,

which come to Jewish and

Gentile believers n

hechurch

(Gal

.3:7,29),aretobeviewed

as

tandem orparnllel with the

benefits of the Mosaic and

Davidic

cov

enants,

which come to the literal Jewish

childrenofAbrnham--andwhichwillbe

fulfilled when Christ returns to establish

an earthly kingdom in

Palestine.

We

are now in a position to define

covenant theology; which is the major

opponent and

alternative

to

dispensationalism within the

evangelical

church. Covenant theology is based

squarely upon the

Biblical

teaching re

garding the covenant of

grace.

Covenant

theology is the position that ll of the

post-fall

covenants made by

God are

essentially

one, centering on God's gra

cious promise in Jesus Christ, with each

successive

covenant expanding on pre

vious ones,

ratherthandisregardingthem

or ruIlI)ing parallel

to

the others; the

November,

1992

TIlE COUNSEL of Chalcedon 5


3/3

coVenants prior to Christ

were

marked

by antidpation and administered

by

foreshadows of the Savior,

while

the

jjlJ6Dment

or substance came in

peISOn

and redemptive work of Christ, who

established the New Covenant today in

the imemational church of

Christ.

(ro

BE

CONI1NUED)

Further Investigation

For further swdies regarding God or

covenant theology on

tape

-

especially

"The

Distinctives of

the

Reformed Faith"

--

write foracatalog from

CovenantTape

Minisny,24198Ash

Court,

Auburn,

CA

95603.

To receive Dr.Bahnsen

's

free

monthly

newsletter, Penpoint, write

to

Southern

California Center for Christian Studies,

P. O. Box

18021,

Irvine, CA

92713.

yron Snapp

ook Review

During the recent upheaval within

theformerSovietUnionmanywondered

i

Russia,

their largest state, would take

actionagainstthemuchsmaUerdi.s9mting

states. How would world opinionhave

reactedifthe Russianmilitary hadmoved

into

Georgia

or the Uktaine and opened .

fire on the dissidents?

This

possibility

caused me

to

thinkaboutan

event

on our

own. oil a little over a

centUlyago.

The War

Between the States gives

us

thisscenario. TheSouthernstatesthought

they had every right to

secede

from the

Union and establish their own country

''theConfederateStatesofAmerica.They

put their

beliefs

into actions.

The

Union

took the position

th t

individual

states

couldnotseCede fromthe Union Putting

theirbeliefs imo action, they invaded the

South. Theyviewedtheconflictasadvil

war.

The South saw it as one nation

invading another nation without any

warrant for so

doing.

The South Was ight

by James R

Kennedy

and Walter

D. Kenny

(land

and

Land

,

P.O

.

Box 1921

Baton

Rouge,

La. 70821 Ph. (504)344-1059 $19.95

$2.00 shipping and handling 210 pp.,

including addendum and

index

hb.)

providesuswith

excellemmaterial

tonot

only more correctly interpret

our own

history, but to also have a better

understanding of current events both

here and abroad.

The

authors show the

reader

that

much of he history taught regarding the

WarBetWeen the

States is

a myth. They

believeithasbeenwrittenfromaNorthem.

perspective. Did

the South

fight

the War

to preserve slavery? The authors

point

out that

"75%

to 90% of

the Coufederate

soldiers and sailors were NOT slave

owners"Cp

.16). Was

the

SoUthbetter

off

as a result of losing the War?

Many

students are taught that this is

true.

Yet

we

must look at the facts:

..

one year

after

the

War the

state

of

Mississippi

allotted one fifth of it's revenues

for

the

purchase of artificial anns and

legs

...it

wasnotuntil1951 thatthe taxable assets

of the state of Georgia surpassed the

value

of

1860"(p.18).

Examining the 1980 census the

authors report that 'The

U.S.

Census

Bureau

found

thatthepovertyrateforthe

South was 20% higher than the nation

as

a

whole. All

the

states

with the

highest

poverty evelswerein theSouth,whereas,

a of the states with the lowest

poverty

rates

were in the North"(p. 20).

The

authors believe

this

poverty is traceable

totheimpoverisbmentofthesouthduring

and after the War.

KennedyandKennycontend that the

Northwasinvolvedinslaveryandheavily

involved in the slave rrade. They point

outthattheNorthernersenslavedIndians

andprolitablyshippedthemtoCaribbean

islands.

"The Yankee slave commerce

was to continue legally until 1808 and

illegally until the War for Southern

Independence" (p.35). You may

well

be

surprised to learn of the first

state

that

6

THE

COUNSEL

of

ChaIcedon November,

992

attempted to prohibit the importation of

slaves as

well

as

how

slaves were

freed

in

the North

Northern acrocities upon the South

during the War

are recoumed.

These

atrodties continued in a

different way

following the War.

The

North set the

tenns by

which

Southernstates

could be

readmitted

to

the

Union.

The

authors

remind us that

this was the "same Union

from which the North had previously

s id we could

not

withdraw "

(p.80).

Local

governmental

power began

to

be

replaced increasingly by a powerful

centralgovernment. We continue

to

see

this

growth of power and its esults

throughout society

today.

The

authors contend that

the

South

w s right in

its

stand and it's fight. But

neither

the

authors nor this

reviewer

support Southew

slavery

.

The

warwas

not fought over slavery. It was fought

over

the issue ofsovereignty. Does such

sovereignty

rest in individual states by

the consent of the

governed,

or

does

it

rest in a powerful central government?

The North's victory

paved

the way

for a

strong central gOvernment. .

Ahigblightofthisveryreadablebook

is the

amount of

research

that

is made

available

to

the

reader. Although many

quotations

are given, hviU

ouIymention

aquote ofAbraham UncoIn in the 1847

Congressional Record "Any people

whatever have

a right to

abolish

the

existinggovemment

andform anew

one

that suits

them better"

(p.145).

Addendum sections include the

Constitution

of

the Confederate States

of

America and

it's comparison

with the

U.S .SenateandDavis' inaugural

address

as President of the Confederate State of

America.

TheauthorstracetheSouth'sposition

on

secession

to John Milton and John

Locke.

1

believe this

is a

drawback to the

book. Actually the understanding of

civil

govemmE;ll.t and the governedmust

be traced back to the triune God. While

a

development

ofthis thought

is

beyond

1992 Issue 10 - Cross-Examination: The Covenant Keeping God Part 2 - Counsel of Chalcedon

Documents