From: Tim Black

To: presbyterians-opc@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2003 12:33 AM

Subject: Re: [presbyterians-opc] Re: GA & Observations

Hello, brothers,

 

 

I'll conclude this email by attempting to place the debate over the Law of Moses in a

 

III.  broader historical perspective.

 

So, as I've been following this discussion thread, I've been hoping for a clear opportunity to express a biblically-balanced corrective to some of the lack of clarity in the discussion.  I believe Geoff Smith and Bill Baldwin have given me the opportunity.

 

 

First, where Rev. Baldwin says,

 

> So tight is this connection between Decalogue and covenant that the Sciptures, more than once by a natural synecdoche, refer to the Decalogue AS "the covenant."

> For that reason, it is Biblically contradictory to say that the Mosaic covenant is no longer binding but the Decalogue is. The Decalogue IS the Mosaic covenant in its essence. If the Mosaic covenant is binding on the believer, the Decalogue is binding on the believer. And if the Mosaic covenant is not binding on the believer, the Decalogue is not binding on the believer.

> Now, it is beyond dispute that the Mosaic covenant is not binding on the believer.

 

My friend, I had hoped to make a reference to the passages which say the 10 Commandments ARE the covenant (Dt. 4:13; 5:2ff; 5:22ff; 9:9-10), in order to make the point that the Mosaic covenant IS in fact binding on the NT believer! : )  (John 5:45-47)  My motive for wanting to say this is that I believe traditional reformed covenant theology to be faithful to scripture in its emphasis on the UNITY of God's covenant of grace with man.  If God has only made ONE covenant of grace with man, then the Mosaic covenant IS the New covenant.  If we cannot affirm this, I believe we deny the teaching of scripture.

 

This statement may seem too broad and unqualified for those who want to emphasize the diversity between the Mosaic and New covenants.  But that is precisely why I'm making such a broad statement--we need to recognize the unity of the covenant.  Of course, to keep you happy I'll qualify this broad statement below. : )

 

But first, notice that WCF 7.3-7.6 clearly identifies the covenant of grace as one unified covenant.  Notice that it clearly states that the different modes, manners, means, etc. of its dispensation in the OT and the NT do not in any way vitiate the unity of the one covenant of grace.  Last, notice that it clearly identifies the different modes/manners/means of administration (OT:  "promises, prophecies, sacrifices, circumcision, the paschal lamb, and other types and ordinances;" NT:  "the preaching of the Word, and the administration of the sacraments") as administrations of the covenant of grace.  It does not say they are administrations of the covenant of works, regardless of whether or not they are (cf. WCF 19.1-2).  It says the elements which differentiate the Mosaic covenant from the New covenant, however typological, ARE the administration of the covenant of GRACE.  The "substance" administrated through these elements is characterized as the covenant of GRACE, not the covenant of WORKS.  7.6 concludes:  "There are not therefore two covenants of grace, differing in substance, but one and the same under various dispensations."

 

We might ask, is the "substance"--which is "one and the same under various dispensations"--is this substance the same thing as those dispensations, or not the same thing as those dispensations?  Are the "substance" and the "dispensations" identical or distinct?  Unified or diverse?  I believe that biblically, we must affirm both.  Just as God the Father IS the Son, so the Mosaic covenant IS the New covenant in Christ.  Salvation a) promised by the Father b) was produced in the Son and c) is personally applied by the Holy Spirit.  We see a) in Luke 24:25, 27; 44-46; Eph. 1:3-6; b) in Luke 24:26, 44, 46; Eph. 1:7-12; c) in Luke 24:47-49; Acts 1:4-8; chs. 2ff; Eph. 1:13-14.

 

At Covenant College, Henry Krabbendam taught me to be careful not to emphasize unity to the exclusion of diversity, or diversity to the exclusion of unity.  (When and where both are warranted by scripture.)  This is Van Til's influence on Krabbendam, and the Trinity's influence on them both.  He warned us to be careful in theology or any area of our thinking, because just as is the temptation in regard to the Trinity, so in any issue we are always tempted to deny that the perfect unity among the members of a group can coexist with the perfect diversity among those members at the same time.  Sinners either want one God, or three Persons, but not both at the same time, because taken altogether, God "cannot fit into their little pea-brains."  Or better--into their hearts which desire to rebel against the true God in all of His manifestations in creation.  In the same way, I believe sinners either want one covenant, or two dispensations, but not both at the same time.

 

Just as the Persons are distinct and identical, so the ontological differentia which differentiate the Persons ontologically are yet ontologically identical to one another, because of the simplicity of God.  The differentia are of the ontological substance of God.  And God is one.

 

Brothers, if you are humble before the Trinity, I ask that you would also be humble before the unity and diversity found in the covenant of grace.

 

Diversity:  Its diversity depends on and expresses the diversity of the Persons.  And so to deny the diversity/distinction between the two covenants (Mosaic & New) is to deny the ontological distinction between the Persons whose distinctiveness they express.

 

Unity:  But its unity as well depends on and expresses the unity of the one God who is party to both covenants.  To do violence to the unity between the OT and NT dispensations is to do violence to the God whose unity they express.

 

It appears to me that Luke 24 can be taken in no other way.

 

So Rev. Baldwin encourages us to distinguish between the Mosaic covenant and the New covenant.  I'm pleased with that.  But will he and those who agree with him also affirm that these two covenants are identical, that they are one and the same covenant of grace?

 

Covenant theology says yes.  I hear reformed pastors today saying no.

 

 

Rev. Smith has given us another helpful distinction to use in understanding the covenant of grace--moral vs. typological, rule of life vs. covenant of works.  If I understand Rev. Smith correctly, these two ways of stating the distinction are parallel to each other.  The rule of life is the moral law, the covenant of works is typological.*  It seems the terms should be arranged this way to express what Rev. Smith intends:

 

moral law**                         typological law**

     as                   vs.                       as

rule of life                             covenant of works

      |                                                 |

SUBSTANCE     vs.             DIFFERENTIA

 

* There is some similarity here to distinctions between grace and works, earthly and heavenly, etc.  But I can't figure out how to see the systematic relations so well here, because, for example, Rev. Smith could mean that the rule of life is MORE "heavenly" than the covenant of works, because the former will continue, or he could mean that the rule of life is LESS "heavenly," because what is typological points forward to heaven.

 

** The moral and typological here are not two laws, but rather two aspects or functions of one law, if I understand Rev. Smith correctly.

 

The essential usefulness of these distinctions is that they give us a way of recognizing the distinction between the SUBSTANCE of the Mosaic covenant and the DIFFERENTIA which distinguish the Mosaic covenant from the New covenant.  The substance of the Mosaic covenant is the moral law as a rule of life.  The differentia of the Mosaic covenant are its typological character as a covenant of works.  According to Rev. Smith, the substance of the Mosaic covenant originated in the prior Abrahamic covenant, and continues on into the subsequent New covenant.  The differentia of the Mosaic covenant, however--in regard to the way in which they indicate a difference between the Mosaic and New covenants--the differentia do not continue to bind men under the New covenant in the same way they bound men under the Mosaic covenant.  In that way they DIFFERENTIATE the two covenants from one another.

 

We should ask then, are the differentia distinct from, or identical to, the substance of the Mosaic covenant?  Rev. Baldwin appears to emphasize their identity above, in order to show how the New covenant is NOT the Mosaic covenant.  Rev. Smith, however, emphasizes the distinction between the substance and the differentia, in order to say that the substance of the Mosaic covenant continues on into the New covenant.  They could debate this point, but I'm not encouraging them to debate it.

 

Here is why I don't recommend debating it:  If you identify the differentia of the Mosaic covenant with its substance, then you can fall into the trap of denying all unity between the Mosaic and New covenants.  Does Rev. Baldwin do this above?  If you distinguish the differentia of the Mosaic covenant from its substance, then you can fall into the trap of saying that those differentia themselves share no substance with the substance of the Mosaic or the New covenant.  Does Rev. Smith do this above?

 

For those who have studied the church's debates over the Trinity, is this not precisely the same issue that we've had to work through regarding the Trinity?  The Father and Son are not only economically distinct--distinct in their exercise of authority, role, function--but also ontologically distinct--distinct in their being.  Yet at the same time, they are exhaustively involved in each other's distinctive economic exercise of authority, role, function, just as they are exhaustively identical in their ontological being.  Their differentia differentiate them from one another--ontologically as well as economically--yet the Persons are identical to one another--ontologically as well as economically.  The differentia must be distinguished from the substance of God, and from the substance of each Person, yet the differentia must also be identified as precisely the same thing as the substance of God, and as the substance of each Person.

 

If you identify the differentia of the Father with His substance, then you can fall into the trap of denying all unity between the Father and the Son.  If you distinguish the differentia of the Father from His substance, then you can fall into the trap of saying those differentia themselves share no substance with the substance of God the Father or the Son.

 

The trinity is not only similar to the relation between the Mosaic and New covenants, but manifests itself in that relation and thereby gives that relation its distinctive character.  The divine unity of Being, diversity of Persons, and differentia characterize the unity, diversity, and differentia of the covenant(s).

 

In Luke 24 Jesus associates the differentia of the Father (v. 49) with the promissory (v. 49) and requiring (v. 26) aspects of the Old covenant as expressed in "all the Scriptures"--Moses, the Prophets, and the Writings (v. 27).  There also Jesus associates the differentia of the Son and the Spirit respectively with the productive and applicatory aspects of the NT gospel's message.  The salvation which the Father promised, the Son produced, and the Spirit applies.  Because they are one God, there is one salvation.  Because they are three Persons, there are at least 2 dispensations.  Because there is one God, there is one covenant.  Because there are three Persons, there are at least 2 covenants.

 

We can represent these relations as follows:

 

Person:     Father                                             Son          /     Spirit

covenant:  Old covenant (including Mosaic)      New covenant

aspect:      Promissory & requiring                    productive / applicatory

 

In order to deny the above on the point that God's eternal ontological unity and diversity are revealed in His economic activities in creation and history, some today argue that 1)  the ontological trinity is eternal, transcendent, hidden, and unknowable to man, and that it is only the economic trinity which is temporal, immanent, revealed, and knowable to man.  Some in this line of thought argue further that 2)  the diversity of the Persons is only known in God's economic interaction with creation, especially, in the economy of salvation, as if the interrelations of the Persons are only known in what is revealed through and of their salvific exercise, and as if the diversity of Persons is only economic and not ontological.

 

But we must deny both errors.  1)  First, the economic aspect of the trinity is just as eternal as the ontological aspect.  For this reason, John says the Word was "pros ton theon" ("with" or "to" God) just as eternally as the Word "was God."  "pros" here connotes an order of subordination as well as a proximity of location.  The subordination is economic, not ontological, because the immediately-following "was God" indicates an ontological equality without subordination.  If not an eternal order of function, this economic subordination is an eternal order of authority.  The Father is eternally in authority over the Son and Spirit; the Father and Son are eternally in authority over the Spirit.  Economic subordination is eternal.  2)  Second, the ontological aspect of the trinity is just as revealed-in-time as the economic aspect.  For this reason, in John 17:11 and 22 Jesus speaks of the uniqueness of the works of the Father and the Son in such a way that the uniqueness of the economic functioning of the Father and the Son manifests the uniqueness of the ontological identities of the Father and the Son.  But simultaneously, these distinct, differentiated works of the Father and the Son are manifestly one work, shared by both members of the trinity, even such that each member of the trinity is fully involved in the unique work performed by the other member of the trinity, and as such, the unity and identity of the one economic work manifests the unity and identity of the one ontological Being who performs it.  The ontological trinity is revealed.

 

Many other passages could be used to make these same points.  And, I might say, this is because EVERY other passage makes these same points.

 

So then, insofar as in Luke 24 Jesus ties the differentia of the Father to the differentia of the Mosaic covenant, and the differentia of the Son/Spirit to the differentia of the New covenant, Jesus is not merely speaking about the economic trinity, but also the ontological.  Jesus ties the ontological differentia of the Godhead to the differentia of the covenants.

 

DIVERSITY:  The Father's ontological uniqueness is manifested in His unique economic work in the Mosaic covenant of promising and requiring Christ and the Holy Spirit.  The Son's and Spirit's ontological uniqueness is manifested in their unique economic work in the New covenant of producing and applying the salvation the Father promised and required.  And so we must distinguish the Mosaic and New covenants clearly and absolutely, in order to maintain the full uniqueness of the Father and the Son.

 

UNITY:  But at the same time, if the differentia of the Mosaic covenant express the Father's economic and ontological differentia, and if the Father's differentia ARE the same in substance with the Son's differentia (because God is one, so all of God is the "same in substance"), then we MUST expect the differentia of the Mosaic covenant to be identical to the differentia of the New covenant in substance.  The two covenants must simultaneously be one covenant.  The differentia of the Mosaic covenant must be the same in substance as the substance of the Mosaic covenant.  And so it is in fact on the basis of this unity, this identity, that Jesus argues in Luke 24--"'O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken!  Ought not the Christ to have suffered these things and to enter into His glory?'  And beginning at Moses and all the Prophets, He expounded to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself."  (25-27)  Here and in 44ff Jesus affirms that the OT still binds men to believe its message, in the same way that message was originally intended to be understood, even now in the New covenant.  The Mosaic covenant is binding on New covenant believers, because it is what the Father required them to believe!  The Father's promise (49) was a promise OF the Son's fulfillment (44).  The Father's requirement ("dei" in 26, 44) was a requirement OF the Son's fulfillment.  Likewise, the Father's requirement was a requirement OF the preaching of "repentance" (47), and thereby, it was the requirement of that repentance as well.  The Father's OT requirement of "repentance," given even in "Moses" (27, 44), is binding on New covenant believers, by virtue of their union with Christ in His death and resurrection (26, 46-47 "in His name").  The promises and laws of the Mosaic covenant can only find their fulfillment in Christ if Christ truly is what they promised and required.

 

So we must conclude that in fact the Mosaic covenant and the New covenant are the same in substance, else Jesus could not say that the Mosaic covenant requires believers in the New covenant to fulfill their essential New covenant obligations.  In substance, the Mosaic and New covenants are one and the same covenant.  And at the foundation of the unity of this one covenant of grace is the unity of the one God who made it with us.  Just as to deny the diversity between these two covenants as Jesus speaks of them in Luke 24 is to deny the diversity between the two Persons of the trinity who are uniquely involved in those two covenants, so also to deny the unity between these two covenants as Jesus speaks of them in Luke 24 is to deny the unity of the two Persons who are equally, exhaustively, mutually involved in those two covenants, as Jesus expresses that divine unity in Luke 24.  The Father could not require repentance in Christ's name unless in terms of divine substance, Christ IS the Father.  Therefore, to deny the requirement is to deny the unity of the Godhead.

 

The direction in which my line of argumentation leads here is that we cannot affirm the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity unless we admit that the differentia of the Mosaic covenant are both IDENTICAL to and DISTINCT from the substance of the Mosaic covenant.  Only by that means can we likewise then say that the Mosaic covenant is both identical to and distinct from the New covenant.  And only by recognizing both the unity and diversity of the Mosaic and New covenants can we recognize the unity and diversity seen in the ontological and economic trinity in Luke 24, as well as throughout the rest of the scripture about which Luke 24 teaches.

 

I may have missed some important steps along the way of this argument, so feel free to show me where I may be in error.  But carefully consider that to aim your argument against either the biblical unity, or the biblical diversity, in the covenant of grace, does not lead to a biblically-balanced conclusion.

 

 

The main emphasis of my argument is to correct an unbiblical emphasis on diversity--diversity that excludes the biblical unity.  This is because in the broader scope of church history, as well as in the recent history of the reformed tradition, this is the greater danger facing the church.  But I truly am as equally opposed to an unbiblical emphasis on unity--unity that excludes the biblical diversity.  I don't desire to fall into either error.

 

For this reason I greatly appreciate what Rev. Smith says where he says this in reply to Rev. Ramsey:

 

> In a similar way, the Law was what we might call a covenant of works and a rule of life. Marriage is a legal arrangement and a love relationship. Derek Jeter's job is playing a game! Why can't one thing be in two categories at one and the same time?

 

Elsewhere Rev. Smith says similarly,

 

> The law was their rule of life (at an individual and corporate level) and it was, at one and the same time, a covenant of works. Failure to keep the law as a rule of life made the nation liable to the curse sanction of exile from the land.

 

Here Rev. Smith states that there is a real unity between the substance and the differentia of the Mosaic covenant.  For Rev. Smith, the substance and differentia are at least inseperable, whether or not they can be conceived of in any way as identical.

 

But then why did Rev. Ramsey have the impression that the two sides of each of Rev. Smith's distinctions were mutually exclusive of each other--that the "covenant of works" and the "rule of life" could not be the same thing at the same time?

 

I believe the reason is that both in Rev. Baldwin's distinction, and in Rev. Smith's, the major emphasis is on the DIFFERENCE between the two things distinguished.  Not on the IDENTITY between the two things distinguished.  Why this emphasis?  What is driving Rev. Smith's concern?

 

The longer history of this emphasis goes back to Jesus and Paul.  Jesus and Paul opposed the Jews, and the Judaizers, both of whom sought to apply the differentia of the Mosaic covenant in the same binding way to men under the New covenant as they were applied to men under the Mosaic covenant.  They sought to apply the law as a covenant of works, denying the typological way in which it pointed to Christ, in its "promises, prophecies, sacrifices, circumcision, the paschal lamb, and other types and ordinances."  (WCF 7.5)  That is, the Jews and Judaizers did not recognize the way in which the differentia of the Mosaic covenant served to DIFFERENTIATE the Mosaic covenant from the New covenant.

 

The history of this emphasis was carried on into the Reformation.  Luther, Calvin, the magisterial as well as radical reformers opposed the Catholics, who sought to apply the moral requirements of the Mosaic law, and of the New covenant's commands (as well as other humanly-imagined requirements), as a covenant of works, denying the way in which salvation is received only by faith in Christ, and is not received or generated by works, but only is manifested in actively-lived-out works.  The instrumentality of faith in justification is to RECEIVE Christ and all His benefits; the only instrumentality of works in justification is to MANIFEST that faith, that Christ, those benefits, received by faith alone.

 

Closer to home, this emphasis has continued in 20th century covenant theology, particularly in the development of the redemptive-historical method dependent largely on Geerhardus Vos's biblical theology and understanding of the Pauline eschatology, developed by Herman Ridderbos, John Murray, Meredith Kline, Richard Gaffin (and others), promoted by many, including Charles, Jim, and Bill Dennison.  There exists, of course, a great diversity of opinion among the redemptive-historical community on the details, but in my 6 years of study under the Dennisons and with those they have directly influenced, as well as my continued 3 years of study at WTS in PA, I have come to see that one emphasis almost always found among the 20th century conservative reformed (read:  could be ordained in the OPC) redemptive-historical community is on a DISCONTINUITY between the earlier (protological) and the later (eschatological), and between the "lower" (earthly) and the "higher" (heavenly).  Between "this age" and "the age to come," the OT and the NT, the covenant of works and the covenant of grace, type and antitype (on the temporally-horizontal axis of earlier and later), type and ectype (on the cosmological and vertical axis of earthly and heavenly).  This emphasis on DISCONTINUITY serves to biblically combat the errors of Judaism, Judaizing, of Catholicism, as well as of more radical neo-Calvinism and theonomy.  As such it is taught as faithfully biblical, and traditionally reformed.

 

Hm.  But theonomy claims to be traditionally reformed as well.  Why?  What are the chief errors theonomy seeks to avoid?  Antinomianism, and dispensationalism, both of which emphasize the discontinuity between the OT and the NT to the exclusion of the biblical continuity.  Antinomianism and dispensationalism are in part the fruit of the radical reformation, as well as of 19th century liberal theology, both of which denied the biblical continuity of the progress of God's redemptive activity over time in history, as well as the integral unity of each part of the biblical text with the rest of scripture.  What is the background to this tendency toward discontinuity and diversity in post-reformation Christianity?

 

 

Ancient and medieval philosophy emphasized unity, universality.  Plato's and Aristotle's forms governed matter; matter was the source of destructive diversity, the forms provided unity.  So, drawing on ancient and medieval philosophy, for Catholicism, grace governed nature, grace was the principle of unity and universality; nature was the principle of diversity and particularity.  Catholicism's emphasis fell on unity, unity between God and man, unity between justice and grace, works and grace.

 

 

Against this pagan influence on Catholicism, Luther cried, "Where is grace?"  Catholic "grace" in the end was no grace, but only strict justice.  It was stifling order.  The Reformation restored a biblical emphasis on BOTH God's justice and grace, so that BOTH justice and grace were woven throughout our theology.  And likewise, as such the reformation helped restore a more biblical understanding of the relation between unity and diversity, universality and particularity.  Union with Christ retains Catholic unity, while fully restoring biblical diversity.  (More on this here - http://www.alwaysreformed.com/publicdocs/st313.)

 

 

But the radical reformation, and liberal theology as well, took the reformation's correction too far, so as to deny the unity between justice and grace, between OT and NT, one passage and another.  (Neo-orthodoxy follows liberalism with little essential change on these matters.  Tension, not harmony, is the hallmark of dialectical theology.  Even in regard to justice and mercy.)  Modern philosophy, on which liberal/neo-orthodox theology depends, has done essentially the same.  For Kant, the lower realm in which we live--"Nature"--is the realm of the constraining order of the laws of causality, the laws of science, of the "categories of the understanding" which our minds categorize the observable phenomena around us.  And for Kant, the higher, transcendent realm in which God, the soul, and other "things in themselves" exist--"Freedom"--is beyond categorization, it is free, it is not subject to the limitations and constraining order of causality, science, human thought.  Modern thought, as well as modern theology, emphasizes the freedom of man from historically-earlier and cosmologically-"lower" constraining order.  Modern thought emphasizes DISCONTINUITY along these two axes--the historically horizontal and cosmologically vertical.  And a dialectical antithesis between them.  Modern thought has rebelled against ancient, medieval, and Catholic "order," in order to find modern "freedom."

 

The emphasis of your worldview is shown in the theologies you despise.  In the context of ancient and Catholic UNITY, Marcionism was obviously heretical.  In the context of modern DIVERSITY, theonomy and those of their ilk are obviously counter-cultural.  In the context of the ancient emphasis on God's unifying control, neo-Platonism's mystical union between the divine and human was canonized, and Pelagianism's human freedom was anathematized.  But isn't it curious-- in the context of the modern emphasis on man's freedom from such control, (semi-Pelagian) Arminianism is "canonized," and Calvinism is anathematized as if it is hyper-Calvinism.  Modern freedom and diversity smiles on liberalism and dispensationalism alike, but will have little to do with the order and unity of conservative scholarship, and covenant theology.

 

Against this broader backdrop of the history of the church, in view of the general shift from the ancient emphasis on historical and cosmological continuity to the modern emphasis on discontinuity, we can now see the current debate with a bit more clarity.

 

Redemptive-historical thought, in critiquing liberalism's exegesis and theological constructions, developed a biblical theology that yet retained some of modern liberalism's emphasis on DISCONTINUITY between the "earlier" and "later," and between the "lower" and "higher."  I've given evidence for this at http://www.alwaysreformed.com/publicdocs/papers/ancrit.pdf.  To me, Rev. Baldwin's antithetical contrast between the "earlier" and "later" - Mosaic and New covenants - follows the redemptive-historical emphasis on discontinuity along the horizontal axis of historical development.  Similarly, Rev. Smith's partially antithetical contrast between "lower" and "higher" - moral and typological - is reflective of the redemptive-historical emphasis on discontinuity along the vertical axis of a two-order cosmology, or of synchronic aspects.  I do not believe that this emphasis on discontinuity is as circumspectly biblical as it ought to be; perhaps unwittingly it retains too much of the modern penchant for discontinuity, diversity.  At the same time, it respects the biblical continuity and unity far more than does modern liberalism, or neo-orthodoxy.  One way in which it does so is in seeing a real correlation between (historical) type and antitype, and (cosmological) type and ectype.  Yet, regrettably, the emphasis on discontinuity, antithesis and tension along these axes remains.  In the end, OT and NT share no substance, nor do heavenly and earthly existence, when this discontinuity runs to its full extent.

 

What of theonomy?  Which I expect could motivate some participants in this discussion.  Theonomy's emphasis on continuity is certainly opposed to the modern theological emphasis on discontinuity.  But, I find theonomy's emphasis on continuity between the OT and NT to exclude the biblical typological functioning of the differentia of the Mosaic covenant.  The differentia must differentiate.  So I absolutely cannot be a theonomist.  But in what way is theonomy reformed?  In emphasizing a CONTINUITY between the earlier and later, as well as lower and higher, which continuity was lost in the radical reformation, in antinomianism, in modern philosophy, liberal/neo-orthdox theology, and in dispensationalism.  These latter theologies' emphasis on discontinuity is what theonomy is good at protecting against.

 

What of dispensationalism?  Which I expect was the theology to which some in this discussion used to hold, and away from which they are still moving.  Dispensationalism's starting point is its attempt to interpret every passage "literally," whenever possible.  This drives them to seek a future "literal" fulfillment for every OT prophecy, for every OT type.  But at the same time, it drives them to seek a "spiritual" fulfillment for every OT prophecy and type in its application to the NT Christian.  The reason for this is that the dispensationalist wants the OT prophecy to apply to the Christian ( = unwitting desire for continuity), but because no "literal" ( = overt continuity) fulfillment for the Christian can be found today, only a "spiritual" fulfillment can be found.  Dispensationalism concludes from this starting point that the "spiritual" fulfillment must be for the Church, and the future "literal" fulfillment must be for Israel.  Every OT prophecy or type then has 2 levels of meaning--the literal and the spiritual.  These two meanings are not the same meaning; the whole point of the distinction between them is to say that the two meanings are DISTINCT, even antithetical in character.  As such these two meanings are connected to two antithetical ways of salvation--taken in its "literal" or "earthly" sense, the OT teaches that under Moses Israel was saved by a covenant of works, according to a principle of works-righteousness or strict justice; but taken in its "spiritual" or "heavenly" sense, the OT teaches that under Christ the Church is saved by a covenant of grace, according to a principle not of works-righteousness but of grace.  As such the Mosaic covenant CANNOT be the New covenant.  Because the economy of works is incompatible with the economy of grace.  The antithetical character of the literal-spiritual distinction along the vertical (somewhat cosmological) axis results in the antithetical distinction between the Mosaic and New covenants along the horizontal (historical) axis.  The bottom line is that dispensationalism emphasizes discontinuity on both the vertical and horizontal axes.

 

I see important similarities between dispensationalism and the redemptive-historical position promoted by some today, along these lines.  A (sometimes only partial) denial of the identity of substance between the moral and typological aspects of the Mosaic law leads to a denial of the identity of substance between the Mosaic and New covenants.  Taking law and gospel, works and grace, as synchronic antithetical principles found in the OT, leads to an antithesis between the OT and the NT along the diachronic axis.

 

Is there any real similarity along these lines between dispensationalism and Marcionism?  I think so, though we must recognize that the similarities are a matter of a common emphasis, and not of precisely common doctrine.

 

Marcion is usually associated with the history of the church's formal and official recognition of the canon.  But the recognition of the canon was bound up with the formulation of the doctrine of the trinity.  So the above discussion has made me wonder to what extent Marcionism was of concern to the church during the trinitarian debates.  So, after some reading, I offer this for your consideration--

 

Marcionism sparked the church's reaction in Monarchianism, and thereby helped to originate the trinitarian and Christological controversies.  Marcionism did not merely see an antithesis between two gods within the Bible, but between the two testaments, between the two principles of law and grace, and between the two realms of flesh and spirit.  The OT Creator-god was associated with law, wrath, Judaism, and the flesh.  The NT Father-god was associated with grace, mercy, Christianity, and the spirit.  The unity between the OT and the NT was at stake in Irenaeus' Monarchianistic arguments for the unity of the Godhead against Marcion.  "The continuity between the Old Testament and the New was a corollary of the oneness of God, as the difference between the two Testaments was based on the two dispensations of the one God.  The continuity of the New Testament with the Old required a continuity between creation and redemption."  (Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian Tradition, vol. 1, pp. 111-112)  Pelikan continues, quoting Irenaeus, "'The entire ecumenical church has received from the apostles the tradition' that the one God who was Maker of heaven and earth was also the one who should be addressed as 'our Father.'" (p. 112)

 

Marcion's antithesis between the god of the OT and the god of the NT was essentially the same antithesis Marcion saw between the OT and the NT.  His antithesis between two parts of God's revelation implied an antithesis between two gods.  Marcion's antithesis between the OT and NT was a doctrine antithetical to the trinity, and in fact the subsequent trinitarian debates were an attempt to repudiate Marcion's antitheses between law and gospel, OT and NT, Creator and Redeemer.  Pelikan writes, "So it was that Marcion resolved the tensions within the Christian doctrine of God by a radical separation, which purchased the doctrine of salvation at the cost of the doctine of the unity of God.  The importance of the issue can be gauged by the later struggle to maintain both doctrines at once in the doctrine of the Trinity."  (p. 75)  I recommend reading all of Pelikan on Marcion here.  Pelikan states clearly that along the axes of Marcion's chief distinctions, Marcion's emphasis was on "discontinuity" (p. 76) and against "continuity" (p. 78).

 

As such, the general emphases of Marcionism, dispensationalism, and the redemptive-historical method, bear real similarities, however broad, along similar axes.  All emphasize discontinuity that excludes continuity.  Each needs to more fully and consistently emphasize continuity along each axis.

 

Pelikan states that too many comparisons between Marcion and Luther have been superficial. (p. 81).  I have attempted to avoid being superficial here by stating that an agreement of one theological system with Marcion's emphasis on discontinuity does not mean that a theological system agrees with Marcion on any point of doctrine.  However, I believe it is not "superficial," but rather is the exercise of wisdom on a "general" level, to recognize that when two theological systems have similar emphases along similar axes, they can be expected to follow similar trajectories, and lead to similar conclusions.

 

In the context of the ancient philosophical and Catholic theological emphasis on order, unity, continuity, Marcion was recognized as a heretic.  Would he still be recognized as a heretic amidst the modern philosophical and theological emphasis on freedom, diversity, and discontinuity today?  I trust he is.

 

The Apostles' Creed was used to deny Marcion's theology, in its words, "I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth."  In those words, the creed says that the OT Creator-God and the NT Father-God are one and the same God.  Similarly, the Apostles' Creed goes on to deny the anti-trinitarian tenor of Marcion's theology by affirming belief "in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord."  The Nicene Creed went on to specify more explicitly that God the Son of the NT was just as much the God of the OT as was God the Father.  That is to say, the apostolic and ecumenical creeds of the early church decided in seed form the continued debates over continuity and discontinuity in the rest of theology.  This is seen in that the doctrine of the trinity was in fact formulated and confessed by the church specifically with the intent of thereby affirming the UNITY between the OT and the NT.  The fact that prior to the Council of Nicea, heresies developed both on the side of emphasizing unity and on the side of emphasizing diversity within the Godhead further indicates that the ecumenical creeds DID principially decide the issue of whether in the relation between the OT and NT unity or diversity may be given the "upper hand"--the creeds imply that neither unity nor diversity may be considered the more ultimate.  Unity and diversity are equally ultimate in the Godhead, and thereby are equally ultimate as well as in His revelation.  Specifically, between the OT and NT, the Mosaic covenant and the New covenant, the differentia of the Mosaic law and the differentia of the New covenant, insofar as they are necessary for expressing the differentia of the Persons of the Godhead.

 

So, Rev. Smith is somewhat correct where he says the following:

 

> After all, there has never been a monolithic Reformed position on God's law (unlike so many other points of doctrine). WCF 19 does not have the time-tested standing of the ecumenical councils and the creeds they produced. It doesn't even have the full support of those who claim a Reformed and creedal version of the Christian faith.

 

But it seems to me that in principle, the ecumenical councils and creeds DID decide the issue of the continuity and discontinuity between the OT and NT.  At their heart, the creeds express that we have one God, in three Persons, and thereby one covenant, in two dispensations.  To overlook the Westminster Standards' continuation of this ecumenical line may in fact be to overlook the catholicity of the Reformation.

 

 

Please bear with me here if I've used words that are too strong or a brush that is too broad; I may have erred in some specifics, and I do not intend to be unkind to any person.  I also have not had time to read everyone's posts on this discussion thread.  My concern is that our general methodological principles must be in accord with the trinity, specifically, that we must seek to argue for BOTH the unity AND the diversity found in scripture, and make it our methodological aim to do so, lest we dishonor the God who speaks it to us.  I hope as you continue discussing the issues surrounding the law, that you will consider for yourselves, and reveal to the rest of us, whether you are arguing more for unity, more for diversity, or for both equally, and where and how you are doing so.  This will help us see clearly where you stand on an issue, compare your view with others, and hopefully, it will help us all grow in more fully tracing the biblical unity and diversity which God has revealed.

 

To end with a bit of self-deprecating humility, then....

 

"For my part, if I am to write the truth, my inclination is to avoid all assemblies of bishops, because I have never seen any council come to a good end, nor turn out to be a solution of evils.  On the contrary, it usually increases them.  You always find there love of contention and love of power (I hope you will not think me a bore, for writing like this), which beggar description; and, while sitting in judgment on others, a man might well be convicted of ill-doing himself long before he should put down the ill-doings of his opponents.  So I retired into myself; and came to the conclusion that the only security for one's soul lies in keeping quiet."  -- Gregory of Nazianzus

 

: )

 

I've seen a much more godly spirit among OPC presbyters than Gregory speaks of here, and I praise the Lord for that.  I pray that this email serves for peace and edification, else I'd rather keep quiet.

 

A brother in Christ,

Tim Black

Under care, OPC PNW

M.Div. student, WTS PA