daveleau said:
Interesting. I always thought of strict covenantalism as a Arminian concept.
I can see how you would think that. Dispensationalists lay a strong claim to the Calvinist moniker, but it is undeserved. A four-point system is not a Calvinist system, after all. It should be mentioned that Arminianism was pretty much the accepted soteriological view until Augustine. Of course, back then it wasn't called Arminianism and there hadn't been a lot of debate on the subject. The early church was too busy fighting off gnosticism, pantheism, paganism, etc., to develop the thorough and biblically precise theological system of soteriology that Augustine did. The influence of Greek philosophy on the early church was probably a cause of early "Arminian" theology as well. The Greeks were quite enamored with the concept of freedom and self-determination, and all manner of other humanistic concepts that glorified the human over the divine. This shows very strongly in the writings of the early church fathers, such as Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, Clement of Rome, and Origen. Origin was especially involved in the mystical aspects of Greek philosophy and he was among the first to teach an allegorical hermeneutic for the Word.
Other aspects of early church theology reeked of Greco-influence as well. It is especially apparent in the core doctrines of the church, viz. Christology and the Trinity. It is very telling to note that all of the early church fathers were thoroughly convinced of the infallibility and inspiration of the Scriptures, though, and that they unanimously agreed that the system which we now call Covenant Theology was the correct interpretation of the Scriptures. No one embodied this commitment to claiming the whole of the Word for the church than Justin Martyr who, in continuing correspondence with Tryppo the Jew, advocated the rightness and truthfulness of the view that all of the Bible is about Christ and for his bride.
daveleau said:
To what level do Reformed hold to covenentalism?
My opinion is that covenantalism is a prerequisite to use of the moniker
Reformed. Reformed Dispensationalists by definition are contradictory.
daveleau said:
Do you think the OT passages relating to Israel will be placed on the Church at some point?
I'm going to have to ask which passages you mean. Essentially, all of the Old Testament texts, with the exception of the law, are made to Israel and the church as a type of Israel. The church is the "children of the promise" mentioned by Paul in Romans. The church is the "seed of Abraham"; therefore, all promises made to God's elect in the Old Testament, all promises made to the sons of Abraham are also promises made to the bride of Christ: God's elect.
daveleau said:
Do you believe in the progressive revelation of God (first w/o law, then w/ law then w/ Jesus' teachings)?
Yes; however, I also believe that the progress of revelation has been stopped until the second coming of our Lord. That is, with the closing of the canon came the implicit halting of new revelation. All present work and revelation of the Holy Spirit is contained and was prophesied in the Scriptures. "There is nothing new in the earth," to quote the preacher out of context.
daveleau said:
I have some covenental leanings, such as I believe that while those before Christ were bound to the Law, they were saved by Grace.
This is well. This is precisely what the Scriptures teach. I praise God that he, in his grace has enabled you through his Holy Spirit to accept this vital truth. Unless we acknowledge the truth of what you say, how else can we understand Psalm 65:4?
Blessed is the man whom thou choosest, and causest to approach unto thee, that he may dwell in thy courts: we shall be satisfied with the goodness of thy house, even of thy holy temple. (KJV)
daveleau said:
But, do you believe that the Law still applies?
This is an harder question. That this very question has been a struggle for Christians in the past as well is very evident in Paul's letter to the Galatians; however, at that point, we can also see that Paul's letter provides the answer to that question.
Let's have a cursory look at some key verses in Galatians.
(Gal. 2:3 KJV) But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised:
Here we see that the practice of the apostles was not the circumcision of the uncircumcised. From the beginning they knew and understood that the law was manifest only that the "sin should abound" (Rom. 5:20). But where sin abounded, grace abounded much more (Rom. 5:21). Therefore, being freed from the law of sin and death, we are made alive in Christ, for sin shall have no dominion over us. We are not under the law, but under grace (Rom. 6:14).
This is why Titus was not compelled to be circumcised. His outwardly adherence to the law had no meaning now that Christ had completed the work that the law could not; "for what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh" (Rom. 8:3).
Now let's look at a key passage. This is the oft-noted passage in which Paul confronts Peter for showing disfavor toward the Gentiles in the presence of Jews:
(Gal 2:11-21 KJV) But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. 12) For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. 13) And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation. 14) But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews? 15) We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, 16) Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. 17) But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid. 18) For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor. 19) For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God. 20) I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me. 21) I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.
Here Paul confronts Peter for his deference toward the Gentiles. You see, to the Jews it was considered to be unclean to associate with the Gentiles. The Gentiles were an "unclean" people. They were still adhering to the law. Paul reprimanded Peter because he should have known better. In v. 19, Paul makes it clear that we are dead to the law
that we might live unto God. The law cannot save us. Its worth lies only in the value that it made sinfulness known. It worth was in the systematical structuring of God's commandments toward his people in faith.
The whole of Galatians is written as a response to the Galatian church's regression into adherence to the law. Paul reproves them and corrects their poor doctrine and their "fall from grace." You see, that passage (5:1-4) is not at all about committing sin and losing your salvation. It is about returning to the following of the law of losing the gift and joy of knowing you are under grace. It's a temporal consequence, not an eternal one.
You won't jeopardize your salvation by fulfilling the Jewish law, but you will adversely affect your walk and, at least in part, deny the true Gospel of Christ.
daveleau said:
A ton of questions, I know. I appreciate any help in understanding.
God bless you,
Dave
Only too happy to be able to discuss it with you, brother.
Soli Deo Gloria
Jon