Poythress agrees with theonomists that “all the commandments of the law are binding on Christians,” and he then adds that “the way” in which they are binding is determined by Christ’s authority and “the fulfillment that takes place in His work”; “the way in which each law is fulfilled in Christ determines the way in which it is to be observed now” (pp. 268, 269). He writes that “Christ’s work defines the true nature of continuity and discontinuity between Old and New Testament situations” (p. 286). These are true enough, as formal statements. The question now becomes how this fulfillment is to be defined by the faithful student of Scripture – by the text of Scripture interpreting redemption for us, or by the theologian’s creative and abstract notions of what the age of redemption means?The danger in having only as yet read this appendix from Bahnsen is that presently I'm in the dark about how/if Bahnsen is going to distinguish between moral and ceremonial / ritual laws. Even if as Leithart states this classification is 'legally unworkable and practically awkward', assuming we are able to draw some distinction between here, would the same principle outlined in the final paragraph of the Bahnsen quote hold also for ceremonial law?
The dispute between Poythress and theonomy, it seems to me, is over the way in which the discontinuities with the Old Testament law are to be identified in the Bible. We would have to say that Poythress’ general hermeneutical style is not adequately controlled by the text of Scripture. As we saw above, he gives too much room to playful imagination and loose, ambiguous, thematic connections for there to be any confidence in his conclusions. His reasoning has little protection from unreliability and arbitrariness. You can prove just about anything by means of it. Thus it is theologically unacceptable. To use Poythress’ own words: “If we do not pay careful, detailed attention to explicit texts, we may be filling ourselves merely with our own ideas” (p.350).
It is much safer and Biblically sound to presume continuity with Old Testament moral demands (Deut. 4:2; Matt. 5:17-19) – as properly understood through exegesis of their own original text and context — and then allow specific, relevant texts in the rest of Scripture to amplify or transform or even put aside those requirements, given the inauguration of the radically new age of salvation brought by Christ (e.g., the paradigm of Acts 10). This does not exclude the use of topological interpretation, nor does it prevent reasoning by analogy (regarding classes of laws). It simply demands that the premises of such arguments be justiilable on the basis of textual exegesis.
Thursday, September 21, 2006
theonomic hermeneutics
Here is Bahnsen (No Other Standard - Appendix B: Poythress as a Theonomist) on Poythress (The Shadow of Christ in the Law of Moses) on theonomy and specifically hermeneutical method.
Thursday, September 14, 2006
exegetical presuppositions
Longenecker (Bibilical Exegesis 93-95) points out that it has been observed that “it is doubtful whether we can hope to understand the contents of any mind whose presuppositions we have not yet learned to recognize.” If we are to appreciate the exegetical practices of the apostolic writers, it is necessary to have an awareness of their basic hermeneutical outlooks and attitudes. He then lists four major exegetical presuppositions in early Christian preaching.
Corporate Solidarity. In the first place, the concept of “corporate solidarity” or “corporate personality” had a profound effect upon the exegesis of early Jewish Christians. The concept has been defined as “that important Semitic complex of thought in which there is a constant oscillation between the individual and the group—family, tribe, or nation—to which he belongs, so that the king or some other representative figure may be said to embody the group, or the group may be said to sum up the host of individuals.” The precise nature of the relationships involved is not always entirely clear from the literature of the Jews, nor from that of their semitic neighbors. Probably this is due in large measure to the fact that “ancient literature never does fit exactly into our categories.” But though there are uncertainties as to precisely how the idea expressed itself in ancient life generally and as to the degree of influence it exerted in specific instances in the literature, there seems to be little question of its presence in the structure of Jewish and early Jewish Christian thought.
In biblical exegesis, the concept of corporate solidarity comes to the fore in the treatment of relationships between the nation or representative figures within the nation, on the one hand, and the elect remnant or the Messiah, on the other. It allows the focus of attention to “pass without explanation or explicit indication from one to the other, in a fluidity of transition which seems to us unnatural.”
Correspondences in History. Stemming in part from the concept of corporate solidarity is the understanding of history or, at any rate, of the history of the people of God as evidencing a unity in its various parts which is there by divine ordination. For both Jew and Jewish Christian, historical occurrences are “built upon a certain pattern corresponding to God’s design for man His creature.” This is but one aspect of a larger Hebrew-Christian Weltanschauung, wherein the nature of man, the relations between man and man (contemporary, past and future), the interaction between man and the universe, and the relation of both to God, their Creator and Redeemer, are viewed in wholistic fashion. In such a view, history is neither endlessly cyclical nor progressively developing due to forces inherent in it. Nor can it be considered in a secular manner. Rather, in all its movements and in all its varied episodes, it is expressive of the divine intent and explicating the divine will. With such an understanding of history, early Christians were prepared to trace correspondences between God’s activity of the past and his action in the present—between events then and events now, between persons then and persons now. Such correspondences were not just analogous in nature, or to be employed by way of illustration. For the early Christians they were incorporated into history by divine intent, and therefore to be taken typologically. Their presence in the history of a former day is to be considered as elucidating and furthering the redemptive message of the present.
Eschatological Fulfilment. An obvious presupposition also affecting early Jewish Christian interpretation is the consciousness of living in the days of eschatological fulfilment Peter’s sermon on the day of Pentecost begins with the assertion that the “last days” are being actualized now. And this theme is recurrent throughout the preaching of the earliest Christians. As with the covenanters of Qumran, early Jewish believers in Jesus understood their ancient Scriptures in an eschatological context. Unlike the Dead Sea sectarians, however, whose eschatology was mainly proleptic and anticipated, Christians were convinced that the coming of the Messianic Age was an accomplished fact. Messiahship had been realized in Jesus of Nazareth, and the last days inaugurated with him. While awaiting final consummation, their eschatology was rooted in and conditioned by what had already happened in the immediate past. The decisive event had occurred, and, in a sense, all else was epilogue.
Messianic Presence. In addition, as F. F. Bruce reminds us, the New Testament interpretation of the Old Testament is not only eschatological but Christological.” For the earliest believers, this meant (1) that the living presence of Christ, through his Spirit, was to be considered a determining factor in all their biblical exegesis, and (2) that the Old Testament was to be interpreted Christocenrically. W. D. Davies has pointed out that at least in popular and haggadic circles within Judaism, there existed the expectation that with the coming of the Messiah the enigmatic and obscure in the Torah “would be made plain.” And such an expectation seems to have become a settled conviction among the early Christians, as evidenced by the exegetical practices inherent in their preaching.
Corporate Solidarity. In the first place, the concept of “corporate solidarity” or “corporate personality” had a profound effect upon the exegesis of early Jewish Christians. The concept has been defined as “that important Semitic complex of thought in which there is a constant oscillation between the individual and the group—family, tribe, or nation—to which he belongs, so that the king or some other representative figure may be said to embody the group, or the group may be said to sum up the host of individuals.” The precise nature of the relationships involved is not always entirely clear from the literature of the Jews, nor from that of their semitic neighbors. Probably this is due in large measure to the fact that “ancient literature never does fit exactly into our categories.” But though there are uncertainties as to precisely how the idea expressed itself in ancient life generally and as to the degree of influence it exerted in specific instances in the literature, there seems to be little question of its presence in the structure of Jewish and early Jewish Christian thought.
In biblical exegesis, the concept of corporate solidarity comes to the fore in the treatment of relationships between the nation or representative figures within the nation, on the one hand, and the elect remnant or the Messiah, on the other. It allows the focus of attention to “pass without explanation or explicit indication from one to the other, in a fluidity of transition which seems to us unnatural.”
Correspondences in History. Stemming in part from the concept of corporate solidarity is the understanding of history or, at any rate, of the history of the people of God as evidencing a unity in its various parts which is there by divine ordination. For both Jew and Jewish Christian, historical occurrences are “built upon a certain pattern corresponding to God’s design for man His creature.” This is but one aspect of a larger Hebrew-Christian Weltanschauung, wherein the nature of man, the relations between man and man (contemporary, past and future), the interaction between man and the universe, and the relation of both to God, their Creator and Redeemer, are viewed in wholistic fashion. In such a view, history is neither endlessly cyclical nor progressively developing due to forces inherent in it. Nor can it be considered in a secular manner. Rather, in all its movements and in all its varied episodes, it is expressive of the divine intent and explicating the divine will. With such an understanding of history, early Christians were prepared to trace correspondences between God’s activity of the past and his action in the present—between events then and events now, between persons then and persons now. Such correspondences were not just analogous in nature, or to be employed by way of illustration. For the early Christians they were incorporated into history by divine intent, and therefore to be taken typologically. Their presence in the history of a former day is to be considered as elucidating and furthering the redemptive message of the present.
Eschatological Fulfilment. An obvious presupposition also affecting early Jewish Christian interpretation is the consciousness of living in the days of eschatological fulfilment Peter’s sermon on the day of Pentecost begins with the assertion that the “last days” are being actualized now. And this theme is recurrent throughout the preaching of the earliest Christians. As with the covenanters of Qumran, early Jewish believers in Jesus understood their ancient Scriptures in an eschatological context. Unlike the Dead Sea sectarians, however, whose eschatology was mainly proleptic and anticipated, Christians were convinced that the coming of the Messianic Age was an accomplished fact. Messiahship had been realized in Jesus of Nazareth, and the last days inaugurated with him. While awaiting final consummation, their eschatology was rooted in and conditioned by what had already happened in the immediate past. The decisive event had occurred, and, in a sense, all else was epilogue.
Messianic Presence. In addition, as F. F. Bruce reminds us, the New Testament interpretation of the Old Testament is not only eschatological but Christological.” For the earliest believers, this meant (1) that the living presence of Christ, through his Spirit, was to be considered a determining factor in all their biblical exegesis, and (2) that the Old Testament was to be interpreted Christocenrically. W. D. Davies has pointed out that at least in popular and haggadic circles within Judaism, there existed the expectation that with the coming of the Messiah the enigmatic and obscure in the Torah “would be made plain.” And such an expectation seems to have become a settled conviction among the early Christians, as evidenced by the exegetical practices inherent in their preaching.
Wednesday, September 13, 2006
Longenecker on NT exegesis
It has become all too common in theological circles today to hear assertions as to what God must have done or what must have been the case during the apostolic period of the Church—and to find that such assertions are based principally upon deductions from a given system of theology or supported by contemporary analogy alone. The temptation is always with us to mistake hypothesis for evidence, and to judge our theological and historical formulations by their coherence and widespread acceptance rather than first of all by their correspondence to historical and exegetical data. History is replete with examples of this sorry condition and its sorry results, and hindsight permits us to recognize it in the past for what it was: a perversion of truth. But we are “sons of our fathers,” composed of the same stuff and subject to the same pressures and temptations. And nowhere do we need to guard against our own inclinations and various pressures more carefully than in our understanding of the New Testament writers’ use of the Old Testament. Neither piety nor speculation—both of which are excellent in their own ways when properly controlled—can here substitute for careful historical and exegetical investigation. Nor can traditional views of either the right or the left be allowed to stand unscrutinized in light of recent discoveries.
The Jewish roots of Christianity make it a priori likely that the exegetical procedures of the New Testament would resemble to some extent those of then contemporary Judaism. This has long been established with regard to the hermeneutics of Paul and the Talmud, and it is becoming increasingly evident with respect to the Qumran texts as well. In view of these materials and the light they throw on early Christian presuppositions and practices, we must abandon the mistaken idea that the New Testament writers’ treatment of the Old Testament was either (1) an essentially mechanical process, whereby explicit “proof-texts” and exact “fulfillments” were brought together, or (2) an illegitimate twisting and distortion of the ancient text. It is true, of course, that literal fulfillment of a direct sort occurs as one factor in the New Testament. The Christian claim to continuity with the prophets could hardly have been supported were there no such cases. And it is also true that the exegesis of the early Christians often appears forced and artificial, particularly when judged by modem criteria But neither approach does justice to the essential nature of New Testament hermeneutics, for both ignore the basic patterns of thought and common exegetical methods employed in the Jewish milieu in which the Christian faith came to birth.
There is little indication in the New Testament that the authors themselves were conscious of varieties of exegetical genre or of following particular modes of interpretation. At least they seem to make no sharp distinctions between what we would call historico-grammatical exegesis, illustration by way of analogy, midrash exegesis, pesher interpretation, allegorical treatment, and interpretation based on a “corporate solidarity” understanding of people and events in redemptive history. All of these are employed in their writings in something of a blended and interwoven fashion, even though there are certain discernible patterns and individual emphases in their usage. What the New Testament writers are conscious of, however, is interpreting the Old Testament (1) from a Christocentric perspective, (2) in conformity with a Christian tradition, and (3) along Christological lines. And in their exegesis there is the interplay of Jewish presuppositions and practices, on the one hand, with Christian commitments and perspectives on the other, which joined to produce a distinctive interpretation of the Old Testament.
Richard N. Longenecker, Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period 205-6
The Jewish roots of Christianity make it a priori likely that the exegetical procedures of the New Testament would resemble to some extent those of then contemporary Judaism. This has long been established with regard to the hermeneutics of Paul and the Talmud, and it is becoming increasingly evident with respect to the Qumran texts as well. In view of these materials and the light they throw on early Christian presuppositions and practices, we must abandon the mistaken idea that the New Testament writers’ treatment of the Old Testament was either (1) an essentially mechanical process, whereby explicit “proof-texts” and exact “fulfillments” were brought together, or (2) an illegitimate twisting and distortion of the ancient text. It is true, of course, that literal fulfillment of a direct sort occurs as one factor in the New Testament. The Christian claim to continuity with the prophets could hardly have been supported were there no such cases. And it is also true that the exegesis of the early Christians often appears forced and artificial, particularly when judged by modem criteria But neither approach does justice to the essential nature of New Testament hermeneutics, for both ignore the basic patterns of thought and common exegetical methods employed in the Jewish milieu in which the Christian faith came to birth.
There is little indication in the New Testament that the authors themselves were conscious of varieties of exegetical genre or of following particular modes of interpretation. At least they seem to make no sharp distinctions between what we would call historico-grammatical exegesis, illustration by way of analogy, midrash exegesis, pesher interpretation, allegorical treatment, and interpretation based on a “corporate solidarity” understanding of people and events in redemptive history. All of these are employed in their writings in something of a blended and interwoven fashion, even though there are certain discernible patterns and individual emphases in their usage. What the New Testament writers are conscious of, however, is interpreting the Old Testament (1) from a Christocentric perspective, (2) in conformity with a Christian tradition, and (3) along Christological lines. And in their exegesis there is the interplay of Jewish presuppositions and practices, on the one hand, with Christian commitments and perspectives on the other, which joined to produce a distinctive interpretation of the Old Testament.
Richard N. Longenecker, Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period 205-6
Wednesday, August 30, 2006
typological snippets II
In the same collection of essays Francis Foulkes writes
we should not look back to this part of the Bible just for the history of the Jewish religion, nor just for moral examples, nor just for its messianic prophecy, nor to see the excelence of the faith of Israel in contrast to the religious faith andf understanding of the other nations of antiquity... We look to the Old testament to see God in his grace revealing himself in the history of Israel in preperation for the sending of his Son, the Incarnate Word and the Saviour of the world.
We study the Old Testament typologically, for we study it to gain a theological understanding of history; and that theological understanding is christological understanding, for it is only in Christ that the history of Israel, or of any nation or individual, past or present, is able to find its meaning. (370-1)
typological snippets
A few snippets from David L. Baker, on typological reading of Scripture, taken from his chapter in 'The Right Doctrine From The Wrong Texts: Essays On The Use Of The Old Testament In The New'. After defining
a type as a biblical event, person, or institution which serves as an example or pattern for other events, persons or institutions;and further stating that the basis of typology is God's consistent activity in the history of his chosen people, he goes on to say:
typology as the study of types and the historical and theological correspondences between them,
'There is something even more basic about the idea of analogy or typology: it is the way in which almost any biblical text (Old Testament or New Testament) addresses us. The Bible does not generally contain propositions but stories and these can only be relevant in the sense of being typical. What significance would Abraham or Moses have for us if they were not typical? It is of no relevance to us that a frog can hop or that a snake can bite. It is because Abraham and Moses were men like us (James 5:17) and as such encountered the same God as we do, in other words because they were typical, that their experiences are directly relevant to us.' (Baker 323)
'The function of typology is therefore not to find a procedure for using the Old Testament but to point to the consistent working of God in the experience of his people so that parallels may be drawn between different events, persons and institutions and individual events may be seen as examples or patterns for others. Typology cannot be used for exegesis, because its concern is not primarily with the words of the text but with the events recorded in it. This means also that Old Testament exegesis is freed from the pressure to be relevant: often the narrator had recorded only a bare event, but in this very lack of interpretation it may have typical and thus theological significance.' (Baker 329)
'Typology points to the fundamental analogy between different parts of the Bible.... This means that the Old Testament illuminates he New Testament and New Testament illuminates the Old Testament.... although it is not a method of exegesis, typology supplements exegesis by throwing further light on the text in question. The most closely related discipline to the study of the Old Testament is therefore that of the New Testament: ancient Oriental and Jewish studies clarify details of the Old Testament but lack the intrinsic analogy of New Testament studies to Old Testament studies. The corollary is that the most closely related discipline to New Testament is that of the Old Testament... On the one hand a correct understanding of the Old Testament depends on the New Testament, and on the other hand one of the primary uses of the Old Testament is to be the basis for a correct understanding and use of the New Testament.' (Baker 329)
Saturday, August 26, 2006
Dever on Preaching the Gospel Demand
In a society where people want everything as optional Mark Dever's reminder on how to preach the gospel is note-worthy.
"When we hold forth the good news in our preaching, we should particularly beware of presenting this gospel as an option to be exercised for the betterment of sinners’ lives. After all, what would a carnal person consider "better"? Leading questions like "are you scared of death?" "Do you want happiness?" "Wouldn’t you like to know the meaning of your life?" are all well-intentioned, and any of them may be used by God’s Spirit to convict someone, and to lead to their conversion. But such questions may also be answered by a simple "no." To use such questions as if they are the starting point for those considering the gospel is to make it sound all too optional.
I don’t care if my hearers are scared of death, wanting happiness or meaning in life, I know that they will die and stand before God to give an account of their lives. And I know that God will theref
...
This demand—rather than a marketer’s appeal—is to be the basis of the evangelistic call in our sermons. Our gospel sermons are not to sound like the solicitations of a salesman, but the summons of a judge."
"When we hold forth the good news in our preaching, we should particularly beware of presenting this gospel as an option to be exercised for the betterment of sinners’ lives. After all, what would a carnal person consider "better"? Leading questions like "are you scared of death?" "Do you want happiness?" "Wouldn’t you like to know the meaning of your life?" are all well-intentioned, and any of them may be used by God’s Spirit to convict someone, and to lead to their conversion. But such questions may also be answered by a simple "no." To use such questions as if they are the starting point for those considering the gospel is to make it sound all too optional.
I don’t care if my hearers are scared of death, wanting happiness or meaning in life, I know that they will die and stand before God to give an account of their lives. And I know that God will theref
...
This demand—rather than a marketer’s appeal—is to be the basis of the evangelistic call in our sermons. Our gospel sermons are not to sound like the solicitations of a salesman, but the summons of a judge."
Thursday, August 24, 2006
CCEL revamp
While looking around for material from Augustine I noticed that The Christian Classics Ethereal Library, CCEL, has had a makeover and promises to be easier than ever to locate historical documents from church history. They've even added a forum for site members to ask questions and post comments. Invaluable!
Friday, August 18, 2006
plebs, priests and unbelieving partners
I'm currently reading through Leithart's thesis, 'The Priesthood of The Plebs' which seeks to demonstrate how Christian baptism initiates priesthood so that baptism should be seen as the fulfillment of Aaronic ordination. Chapter 1, which Leithart notes in his preface, contains 'vignettes from the history of sacramental theology ..(that are) far to compressed to make much sense to anyone unfamiliar with the debates' [I definitely fall into this group] is excellent in stating the case for where he thinks Reformed and modern sacramental theology has gone wrong. His contention, following Augustine, is that The New is a ‘conjugation’ of the Old and therefore a ‘treatise on the sacraments of the Old Law must serve as prolegomena to a treatise on the sacraments in general’, something much of post medieval Christian tradition has singly failed to do.
By the time he gets to Chapter 4. Leithart applies his findings from the previous chapters to infant baptism. In seeking to demonstrate how infants contribute positively as members of the Christian priesthood and should therefore be baptised, Leithart quotes Mark Searle
But, on the basis of 1 Cor. 7:14, to which Leithart alludes to suggest infants of believers are holy, shouldn't there be an analogous requirement for unbelieving husbands, whom Paul also identifies as holy, to also be considered as those contributing positively as members of the Christian priesthood.
I don't know any paedobaptist's who would want to affirm the above for unbelieving husbands, so why use this method of reasoning for the analogous case of infants?
By the time he gets to Chapter 4. Leithart applies his findings from the previous chapters to infant baptism. In seeking to demonstrate how infants contribute positively as members of the Christian priesthood and should therefore be baptised, Leithart quotes Mark Searle
a newborn infant alters the configuration of family relationships from the day of its birth, if not sooner, having a major impact on the lives of its parents and siblings. . . . Children will test the sacrificial self-commitment, the self-delusions, and the spurious faith of those with whom they come in contact for any length of time. They summon parents particularly to a deeper understanding of the mystery of grace and of the limitations of human abilities. . . . All this is merely to suggest that in their own way children in fact play an extremely active, even prophetic, role in the household of faith. The obstacle lies not in the child but in the faithlessness of the adult believers (153).
But, on the basis of 1 Cor. 7:14, to which Leithart alludes to suggest infants of believers are holy, shouldn't there be an analogous requirement for unbelieving husbands, whom Paul also identifies as holy, to also be considered as those contributing positively as members of the Christian priesthood.
an unbelieving husband alters the configuration of family relationships from the day of the spouses conversion, if not sooner, having a major impact on the lives of the believing spouse and any children they have. . . . The unbelieving husband will test the sacrificial self-commitment, the self-delusions, and the spurious faith of those with whom they come in contact for any length of time. They summon the believing spouse particularly to a deeper understanding of the mystery of grace and of the limitations of human abilities. . . . All this is merely to suggest that in their own way unbelieving husbands in fact play an extremely active, even prophetic, role in the household of faith. The obstacle lies not in the unbelieving husband but in the faithlessness of the adult believers.
I don't know any paedobaptist's who would want to affirm the above for unbelieving husbands, so why use this method of reasoning for the analogous case of infants?
Tuesday, August 15, 2006
temporizers and apostasy
Joel Garver has a really interesting article here outlining a generally oriented FV position and I think rightly identifying it within the bound of orthodoxy. However my question would be 'Is the salvation that all covenant members, including those who will finally fall away experience, a benefit that is purchased by Christ's atonement and if so what does this do for our doctrine of limited atonement?' All of the benefits of salvation that come to the eschatologically saved are purchased by Christ’s blood. Do the temporal and yet shared and real benefits that come to those covenant members who will finally apostatize come to them in the same manner, as purchased by Christ, or is this merely God’s ‘common grace’, with the shared benefit’s that the ‘temporarily faithful’ gain merely by association.
Maybe this could be a false dichotomy, but while not all traditional Reformed thinking would not want to affirm the former, the later appears to prompt difficulties for FV proponents who want to promote an objective covenant where all within that covenant receive blessings by virtue of their own real and full inclusion.
Interestingly I think this is where the marriage analogy just doesn’t help. All those who receive the sign of the ordinance are truly found within that relationship and are recipients of such benefits as the objective relationship entails. But as the elect receive all of the benefits of the objective relationship they have entered into as the purchased gifts of Christ’s death – on what grounds do those in the covenant who will fall away receive the benefits that come to them. The marriage analogy does not seem to fit this at all.
Maybe this could be a false dichotomy, but while not all traditional Reformed thinking would not want to affirm the former, the later appears to prompt difficulties for FV proponents who want to promote an objective covenant where all within that covenant receive blessings by virtue of their own real and full inclusion.
Interestingly I think this is where the marriage analogy just doesn’t help. All those who receive the sign of the ordinance are truly found within that relationship and are recipients of such benefits as the objective relationship entails. But as the elect receive all of the benefits of the objective relationship they have entered into as the purchased gifts of Christ’s death – on what grounds do those in the covenant who will fall away receive the benefits that come to them. The marriage analogy does not seem to fit this at all.
Thursday, August 10, 2006
Sacramental Hermeneutics
Leithart notes his frustration with Berkhof's typological assumptionshere, claiming that the move from the purely carnal and external to the purely spiritual and internal between antitype and type is more in line with Baptist theology. No thanks Peter, you can keep him.
Anyway, he picks up the same theme in his chapter in The Case for Covenant Communion entitled 'Sacramental Hermeneutics and the Ceremonies of Israel', in which he highlights, what is to me, the weakness of the paedo-baptism and paedo-communion argument. (Leithart refers to these generically as the paedo-argument). Leithart begins by stating that Reformed paedo-arguments basically hold the following logic.
Children were included in Israel in the OT, Israel and the church are the same people, bearers of the same promise, therefore just as children (males) were marked for inclusion by circumcision and children ate with their parents at the feasts of Israel in the old covenant, so children should be marked for inclusion by baptism and participate in the Christian feast under the new covenant.
Leithart acknowledges that these paedo-arguments raise several hermeneutical questions, among which are:
Leithart's suggests that his account of how the priestly ministry and accompanying benefits (access to meat from sacrifices) have moved from the sole preserve of the Levitical order under the old, to the priesthood of all believers under the new supports paedo-communion, given that children are to be included in the holy priesthood based on 1 Cor. 7:14. But even conceeding Leithart's understanding of 1 Cor. 7:14 as correct, which I wouldn't want to, this appears suprising weak for someone so capable and who has spent so much time and effort on this subject. From Paul's statement that as an apostle he carries out priestly duties (Rom. 15:15-16) and that ministers of the gospel should be recompensed for their labours in the Lord even as those who ministered at the alter did (1 Cor. 9:13-14), Leithart maintains that all the Christian communtiy (including those holy infants) may partake of the Lord's supper.
Leithart appears to think that if he can prove that points 1.and 2. above occur in any way in Scripture, then this gives support for the paedo-arguments. I'd suggest that this is nowhere near the level of support required. Leithart would need to show that Scripture demonstrates the OT
Anyway, he picks up the same theme in his chapter in The Case for Covenant Communion entitled 'Sacramental Hermeneutics and the Ceremonies of Israel', in which he highlights, what is to me, the weakness of the paedo-baptism and paedo-communion argument. (Leithart refers to these generically as the paedo-argument). Leithart begins by stating that Reformed paedo-arguments basically hold the following logic.
Children were included in Israel in the OT, Israel and the church are the same people, bearers of the same promise, therefore just as children (males) were marked for inclusion by circumcision and children ate with their parents at the feasts of Israel in the old covenant, so children should be marked for inclusion by baptism and participate in the Christian feast under the new covenant.
Leithart acknowledges that these paedo-arguments raise several hermeneutical questions, among which are:
1. They assume that 'ceremonial' regulations of the old covenant have 'ceremonial' import in the new. Whilst Leithart acknowledges that the 'ceremonial' / 'moral' distinction is 'legally unworkable and practically awkward' he suggests that it is wrong simply to 'moralise', 'spiritualise' or 'humanise' the OT ceremonial regulations, if the NT warrents that they can support NT ceremonial practices.Leithart deals most fully with points 1. and 2. in his chapter and states that
2. Further, the paedo-arguments assume a typological hermeneutic in whihc the OT persons, institutions, and events not only typify Jesus Christ but also have some regulatory authority in the church. In Augustinian terms, these arguments assume that the OT is typological not of Jesus simply but of the totus Christus, the whole Christ, both head and body.
3. Paedo-arguments assume that in the midst of discontinuities between the institutions of the old and the new there is continuity. The question is, how do the arguments determine which features shared by circumcision-baptism and Passover-Supper are relevant and which are not. (112-113)
Though not often admitted, accepting the paedo-arguments involves a prior commitment to particular answers to these problems. Accepting that infant circumcision supports infant baptism logically entails accepting the ceremonial regulations of the Old can be applied as ceremonial regulations in the New. And accepting that the inclusion of children at the Passover is an argument for their inclusion at the Lord's Supper assumes that we are capable of discerning a specific point (or points) of similarity between the two meals in the midst of their evident dissimilarities.The point is that after dealing with 1 Corinthians 5, 9, 10; Acts 15:20, 29; Romans 15:15-16 and briefly alluding to Hebrews 13:10-13, Leithart concludes the chapter thus
That these assumptions go largely unexamined is evident from the inconsistent hermeneutical practices of some paedobaptists. Applying the logic of the paedo-arguments, some (myself included) have argued that the sacrifical procedures of the Levitical law govern the order and procedures of Christian worship. That is, the ceremonial regulations and patterens of animal offerings in Leviticus provides a pattern for the ceremonies of worship in the church.(113)
This exploration has not uncovered any knock-down text that proves the paedo-arguments beyond a shadow of doubt. But it has, I hope, given a plausible account of, and justification for, one key assuption of those arguments.(129)That key assumption that Leithart hopes he has given a plausible account of are hermeneutical issues 1. and 2. above, but it is far from clear that he has been sucessful. At most, from a mixture of Romans 15 and 1 Corinthians 9 Leithart may demonstrate that the ceremonial regulations of the old can tropologically apply as ceremonial regulations in the new. But it is unclear how this application should be made if valid, and especially if the point of application supports the paedo-arguments. My suggestion is it doesn't and that Leithart fails to give anywhere near conclusive evidence that it does.
Leithart's suggests that his account of how the priestly ministry and accompanying benefits (access to meat from sacrifices) have moved from the sole preserve of the Levitical order under the old, to the priesthood of all believers under the new supports paedo-communion, given that children are to be included in the holy priesthood based on 1 Cor. 7:14. But even conceeding Leithart's understanding of 1 Cor. 7:14 as correct, which I wouldn't want to, this appears suprising weak for someone so capable and who has spent so much time and effort on this subject. From Paul's statement that as an apostle he carries out priestly duties (Rom. 15:15-16) and that ministers of the gospel should be recompensed for their labours in the Lord even as those who ministered at the alter did (1 Cor. 9:13-14), Leithart maintains that all the Christian communtiy (including those holy infants) may partake of the Lord's supper.
Leithart appears to think that if he can prove that points 1.and 2. above occur in any way in Scripture, then this gives support for the paedo-arguments. I'd suggest that this is nowhere near the level of support required. Leithart would need to show that Scripture demonstrates the OT
- is typological not only for Jesus simply but for totus Christus specifically in respect to the paedo-arguments (point 2. above).
- and that the 'ceremonial' regulations of the old covenant have 'ceremonial' import into the new specifically with respect to the paedo-arguments.
Monday, August 07, 2006
Dagg on 1 Corinthians 7:14
Stan Reeves gives an interpretation of 1 Corinthians 7:14 here, based on John Dagg's understanding of this controversial verse. Dagg argues that Paul
is arguing from analogy rather than by cause/effect. If the unbelieving spouse is holy, the children are holy; if the unbelieving spouse is unclean, the children are unclean -- not because one causes the other but because they are like cases.
Covenant Communion
The Case for Covenant Communion is an interesting book, if for nothing else in that it shows the unanswerable inconsistency of administering one of the sacraments to infants and then withholding the other from them. Something that has been the practice of the overwhelming majority of the Reformed tradition from Geneva onwards and something Baptist’s have consistently highlighted.
Baptist’s have also too often been guilty of using this as a conclusive argument against Paedobaptists. As if somehow that by pointing out the inconsistency in their opponent’s argument, that by de facto proves that your argument must be right. Dream on! Actually the Paedobaptist’s answer to the Baptist’s cry of ‘Well you don’t allow your children to the table’ should always have been ‘No, but actually we should’. So the Auburn Avenue’s latest publication is also of value in removing a poor and all too frequent Baptist argument within this debate.
Baptist’s have also too often been guilty of using this as a conclusive argument against Paedobaptists. As if somehow that by pointing out the inconsistency in their opponent’s argument, that by de facto proves that your argument must be right. Dream on! Actually the Paedobaptist’s answer to the Baptist’s cry of ‘Well you don’t allow your children to the table’ should always have been ‘No, but actually we should’. So the Auburn Avenue’s latest publication is also of value in removing a poor and all too frequent Baptist argument within this debate.
Wednesday, August 02, 2006
'tu quoque' cry the Baptists
Well at least those with a rudimentary grasp of Latin do. I mentioned here how Federal Vision proponents have rightly criticised Guy Waters for his misrepresentation of their views. To demonstrate there is much misrepresentation on both sides of this debate here are two examples I've come across since I wrote that blog entry by FV proponents misrepresenting a Baptist view.
First Leithart says here that
No doubt some Dispensationalist Baptist's are guilty of considering that God's plan has changed as they understand him to move from intending to form a new humanity made up of people, including infants, from all stages of life in Israel to now working with the Church of Christ made up of those solely who are capable of making a profession. Yet this is certainly a false charge against the Baptist position I and those Baptists I know hold. Leithart's accusation that to deny paedobaptism is to understand God's plan as having changed is just incorrect.
If one understands God to have one redemptive plan whereby he is forming a new humanity to himself in Christ Jesus, which was in some ways foreshadowed in Old Testament Israel and which is fulfilled in the New Testament church, Leithart's charge won't stick. In the biblical story God redeems adult and infant both before and after Christ's incarnation and death, but the shift in the composition of the people with whom he is at work and how they are to be identified is part of the movement from shadow to fulfillment that exists between the Testaments on a Baptist understanding of that story.
Secondly, upon receiving my copy of The Case for Covenant Communion I flicked briefly to Rich Lusk's chapter on 'Infant Faith in the Psalter' having previously posted some thoughts on his treatment on this isuue in his book on paedofaith here. By page two Lusk states
Let's give Lusk the benefit of the doubt and understand the some at the beginning of the quote as refering to some, but not all in the Baptist tradition. Even if this is the case, Lusk's association of a theological position with a whole tradition where only some in that movement hold to that stance is guilty of the same faulty method of argumentation that Waters uses against FV proponents and for which he has been rightly criticised.
To digress slightly, certainly the Anabaptists that Calvin came up against denied the possibility of infant faith. Their use of Deut. 1:39 to claim that infants who could not know right from wrong, could not actually know anything and could therefore not know God, was at least part of the reason Calvin shifts his defense of infant baptism from stating
in the 1536 edition of his Institutes, to more reservedly writing in the 1559 edition
This is neither the same faith nor the same knowledge of faith that is allotted to adults yet it has the same genus. For Calvin, the church therefore, is to baptise infants into future repentance and faith, and not as those presently possessing actual faith. Though neither of these has yet been formed in them,
Calvin's shift from ascribing full faith to infants in 1536 to allowing them only a seed of faith addresses the Anabaptist criticism he faced and left him in a position where at least some Baptist's would be in agreement with respect to infant faith. Calvin however baptised infant's not because he thought they presently possessed faith but because of their prior inclusion in the covenant and elect of God based on the promise. Thus Lusk not only misrepresents Baptists who would want to affirm the possibility of a seed of faith in infants, but also I would suggest Calvin himself. Directly after the quotation above Lusk continues
Lusk seems to suggest that Calvin is one of those 'many early Reformers' but this is misrepresenting Calvin, who would have insisted faith was necessary to right reception of baptism and that infants were capable of faith, but does not understand present faith as being normative for those baptised in infancy. As a Baptist I'd want to affirm Calvin's 1559 position with respect to infant faith. Where I'd disagree with him is on all the children of believers being previously included in the covenant and elect of God based on the promise.
'and with the measure you use it will be measured to you' (Matt. 7:2). Whilst the level of misrepresentation in the current FV debate is concerning, making accusations against your opponent while not wrentching out the log in your own eye makes for hypocrisy. Lord, from such preserve us all.
First Leithart says here that
if you refuse to baptize infants, then you are saying that God's plans have changed. Once upon a time, God intended to form a new human race that would share His life and glory. But that plan failed, so He has now decided to gather together adults who will share in that life and glory.
No doubt some Dispensationalist Baptist's are guilty of considering that God's plan has changed as they understand him to move from intending to form a new humanity made up of people, including infants, from all stages of life in Israel to now working with the Church of Christ made up of those solely who are capable of making a profession. Yet this is certainly a false charge against the Baptist position I and those Baptists I know hold. Leithart's accusation that to deny paedobaptism is to understand God's plan as having changed is just incorrect.
If one understands God to have one redemptive plan whereby he is forming a new humanity to himself in Christ Jesus, which was in some ways foreshadowed in Old Testament Israel and which is fulfilled in the New Testament church, Leithart's charge won't stick. In the biblical story God redeems adult and infant both before and after Christ's incarnation and death, but the shift in the composition of the people with whom he is at work and how they are to be identified is part of the movement from shadow to fulfillment that exists between the Testaments on a Baptist understanding of that story.
Secondly, upon receiving my copy of The Case for Covenant Communion I flicked briefly to Rich Lusk's chapter on 'Infant Faith in the Psalter' having previously posted some thoughts on his treatment on this isuue in his book on paedofaith here. By page two Lusk states
Some have adamantly denied the possibility of infant faith. Certainly this has been true of the Anabaptist and Baptist traditions, but it has also been the case with many Reformed theologians as well. Others have vigorously affirmed infant faith, pointing to infants as the best illustrations of gospel grace. Apart from intellectual and rational abilities, the Spirit is able to regenerate and sanctify infants so that they have a kind of 'baby faith'. This view was advocated by Martin Luther, Ulrich Zwingli, John Calvin, and Zacharias Ursinus among others.
Let's give Lusk the benefit of the doubt and understand the some at the beginning of the quote as refering to some, but not all in the Baptist tradition. Even if this is the case, Lusk's association of a theological position with a whole tradition where only some in that movement hold to that stance is guilty of the same faulty method of argumentation that Waters uses against FV proponents and for which he has been rightly criticised.
To digress slightly, certainly the Anabaptists that Calvin came up against denied the possibility of infant faith. Their use of Deut. 1:39 to claim that infants who could not know right from wrong, could not actually know anything and could therefore not know God, was at least part of the reason Calvin shifts his defense of infant baptism from stating
no men are saved except by faith, whether they be children or adults. For this reason baptism also rightly applies to infants, who possess faith in common with adults
in the 1536 edition of his Institutes, to more reservedly writing in the 1559 edition
the Lord might shine with a tiny spark at the present time on those whom he will illumine in the future with the full splendor of his light.(IV.xvi.19)
This is neither the same faith nor the same knowledge of faith that is allotted to adults yet it has the same genus. For Calvin, the church therefore, is to baptise infants into future repentance and faith, and not as those presently possessing actual faith. Though neither of these has yet been formed in them,
the seed of both lies hidden within them by the secret working of the Spirit.(IV.xvi.20)
Calvin's shift from ascribing full faith to infants in 1536 to allowing them only a seed of faith addresses the Anabaptist criticism he faced and left him in a position where at least some Baptist's would be in agreement with respect to infant faith. Calvin however baptised infant's not because he thought they presently possessed faith but because of their prior inclusion in the covenant and elect of God based on the promise. Thus Lusk not only misrepresents Baptists who would want to affirm the possibility of a seed of faith in infants, but also I would suggest Calvin himself. Directly after the quotation above Lusk continues
They (Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, Ursinus) all connected faith with baptism. They insisted that faith was necessary to a right reception of the sacrament and that infants were capable (by grace) of such a right reception. Many early Reformers viewed infant faith as having a kind of normativity with regard to those infants born in the context of the church.(TCFCC 91)
Lusk seems to suggest that Calvin is one of those 'many early Reformers' but this is misrepresenting Calvin, who would have insisted faith was necessary to right reception of baptism and that infants were capable of faith, but does not understand present faith as being normative for those baptised in infancy. As a Baptist I'd want to affirm Calvin's 1559 position with respect to infant faith. Where I'd disagree with him is on all the children of believers being previously included in the covenant and elect of God based on the promise.
'and with the measure you use it will be measured to you' (Matt. 7:2). Whilst the level of misrepresentation in the current FV debate is concerning, making accusations against your opponent while not wrentching out the log in your own eye makes for hypocrisy. Lord, from such preserve us all.
Tuesday, August 01, 2006
Garver on Wright on Paul
Joel Garver has posted an excellent sympathetic summary of N T Wright's thoughts on Paul which is well worth a read for those unclear of the issues surrounding the current debate. Suggesting reasons for why Wright is loved by some and held in suspicion by others within evangelicalism he starts and ends his summary thus:
I was asked recently, by someone who has found what she's read of Tom Wright's work to be helpful and edifying, why his writings have been such a particular focus of criticism among evangelicals. Part of the answer is that Wright probably has a greater degree of direct influence over evangelical thought than many other contemporary mainstream New Testament scholars, thereby coming under closer scrutiny, as well as the fact that we tend to criticize most sharply those with whom we differ who are otherwise the closest to us.
Though these comments are brief, perhaps for some they will help defuse the overly simplistic notion that Wright is of a piece with some wider "new perspective" movement. These comments might also help clear up some of the common misunderstandings and misconstruals of his work, in order that genuine disagreements can be pursued without unnecessary distraction from the relevant issues.
Monday, July 31, 2006
Lusk on normative infant faith
In Rich Lusk’s Peadofaith, he seeks to make the case for the normacy of infant faith within the covenant community. For Lusk faith in covenant infants is to be presumed in order for one to practice paedobaptism as ‘to baptise unbelieving subjects would profane and abuse baptism just as much as inviting unbelievers to the Lord’s Table would abuse the sacramental meal.’ While some may affirm paedofaith as normative from a judgement of charity, Lusk prefers to hold this as being the case from God’s covenant promises.
To support the claim that paedofaith within the community was considered normative within Scripture and therefore should be considered as normative by Christians today Lusk quotes Psalm 22:9-10, 71:5-6 and 139:14-15 as examples of infant faith in the Psalter.
He suggests that these passages demonstrate not just God’s knowledge of David as an infant but also David’s corresponding knowledge of God. This, along with the language of the Psalter as a whole demonstrate David’s covenantal relationship with God from birth and thereby acts as a rebuke to today’s prevalent conversionist mentality of believing parents to their children. Thus ‘you have been my God’ and ‘upon you have I leaned from my mothers womb’ is David’s testimony even though whilst not requiring self-conscious knowledge in his earliest days. Indeed the fact that the Psalmist claims to have had paedofaith at a time when he was unconscious of it based solely from his understanding of the promise of God, demonstrate that this is to be the paradigm for all within the covenant community as they view their infancy. Thus Lusk states that before a child of the promise can do either good or bad, God is already his God as David evidences as he views his infancy from those promises (Gen. 17:7).
Importantly Lusk is keen to stress that the paedofaith owned by the psalmist it not a ‘one-in-a-million’ case. The description of his faith is located in Israel’s public hymnbook to be used in corporate worship so that each covenant member would have been encouraged to own this liturgy as their own and ‘would have been expected to be able to identity with them in some sort of fashion.’ Thus paedofaith is claimed to be ‘normative’, ‘paradigmatic’ and ‘expected’ within the covenant community, both for Israel then and Christians now, founded on God’s promise. This is God’s ordinary dealing with covenant infants from the womb.
In response to Lusk, it would firstly be wrong to deny the possibility of infant faith, with the Holy Spirit working as he will to regenerate from conception thereby causing even the youngest embryo to move from being in Adam to in Christ. The larger question that Lusk asks and seeks to answer affirmatively is whether this possession of faith from earliest life is to be considered normative within the covenant community.
With respect to Lusk’s use of the language found within these Psalms one need not however resort to a normative understanding of paedofaith to explain it. Cannot any member who has entered the covenant through an adult conversion truly say that God’s hand was upon them to call them to himself even while they lived consciously and unconsciously in rebellion against him. Certainly the language of Ps. 22 and 139 appear to be understandable this way without implying infant faith. Before God works in the lives of the pagan, Hindu or the Muslim to cause them to own Christ as their Saviour and King, the one true God is in a very real sense already their God, which they will testify to after conversion in their recognition that previously they had worshiped idols and false gods.
But it is quite possible to affirm Lusk’s understanding of these passages and to agree that the Psalmist never knew a time when he did not trust the Lord. We must therefore read ‘you have been my God’ in Ps. 22:10 to denote not only that the Psalmist considers that God is the only God and Lord whether one confesses him to be or not, but that as Ps. 71 apparently intimates, he had owned and trusted God from his earliest moments.
However is this experience, which as Lusk rightly points out became part of the covenant community’s liturgy, to be considered as paradigmatic for each member as something they could identify with ‘in some sort of fashion’? It is only if this is true and paedofaith can be considered normative that paedobaptism is warrantable on the basis of presumed faith in the infants of believers.
It is difficult to see how Lusk can make a case for this, especially in the light of Psalm 22 as a whole. Lusk rightly notes that the experience described in the Psalm cannot be split, attributing some of it David and some to the Messiah. All recounted was true, in somewhat various ways of both David and David’s greater son. Yet if Lusk is seeking to make a case that paedofaith is normative within the covenant community based on the fact of each member of the assembly identifying with the words of the Psalmist, then it is odd that the language of v. 1-2 of the Psalm should also be considered as paradigmatic for them:
Again one must agree that the language of the whole of Psalm 22 is a true description of both David’s and Messiah’s experience, but are we to understand that all of the community are to experience the feeling of being forsaken by God – and that this is in fact ‘normative’, ‘paradigmatic’, ‘expected’! I’d want to affirm that this can be the case, but whether it’s something is normative is highly questionable.
Even if Ps. 22:12-20 contains metaphorical language as Lusk claims, read in the same manner that he suggests for those verses he uses to support normative paedofaith, it must still in some way be paradigmatic for all of the covenant community but it not clear that this language is meant to be taken as normative for each member in the community.
This leads one to consider whether the Psalms are meant to be read and ‘owned’ by each member of the community, as readily and in as un-nuanced a fashion as Lusk seems to claim. The Baptist need not deny the possibly of infant faith within the community, but it appears that certainly from these Psalms, one need nor ought to imply that paedofaith is normative and to be presumed. Where this cannot be done the practice of paedobaptism is questionable on Lusk’s own admission.
To support the claim that paedofaith within the community was considered normative within Scripture and therefore should be considered as normative by Christians today Lusk quotes Psalm 22:9-10, 71:5-6 and 139:14-15 as examples of infant faith in the Psalter.
Ps. 22:9 Yet it was you who took me from the womb; you kept me safe on my mother's breast. On you I was cast from my birth, and since my mother bore me you have been my God.
Ps. 71:5 For you, O Lord, are my hope, my trust, O LORD, from my youth. Upon you I have leaned from my birth; it was you who took me from my mother's womb. My praise is continually of you.
Ps. 139:14 I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Wonderful are your works; that I know very well. My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately woven in the depths of the earth.
He suggests that these passages demonstrate not just God’s knowledge of David as an infant but also David’s corresponding knowledge of God. This, along with the language of the Psalter as a whole demonstrate David’s covenantal relationship with God from birth and thereby acts as a rebuke to today’s prevalent conversionist mentality of believing parents to their children. Thus ‘you have been my God’ and ‘upon you have I leaned from my mothers womb’ is David’s testimony even though whilst not requiring self-conscious knowledge in his earliest days. Indeed the fact that the Psalmist claims to have had paedofaith at a time when he was unconscious of it based solely from his understanding of the promise of God, demonstrate that this is to be the paradigm for all within the covenant community as they view their infancy. Thus Lusk states that before a child of the promise can do either good or bad, God is already his God as David evidences as he views his infancy from those promises (Gen. 17:7).
Importantly Lusk is keen to stress that the paedofaith owned by the psalmist it not a ‘one-in-a-million’ case. The description of his faith is located in Israel’s public hymnbook to be used in corporate worship so that each covenant member would have been encouraged to own this liturgy as their own and ‘would have been expected to be able to identity with them in some sort of fashion.’ Thus paedofaith is claimed to be ‘normative’, ‘paradigmatic’ and ‘expected’ within the covenant community, both for Israel then and Christians now, founded on God’s promise. This is God’s ordinary dealing with covenant infants from the womb.
In response to Lusk, it would firstly be wrong to deny the possibility of infant faith, with the Holy Spirit working as he will to regenerate from conception thereby causing even the youngest embryo to move from being in Adam to in Christ. The larger question that Lusk asks and seeks to answer affirmatively is whether this possession of faith from earliest life is to be considered normative within the covenant community.
With respect to Lusk’s use of the language found within these Psalms one need not however resort to a normative understanding of paedofaith to explain it. Cannot any member who has entered the covenant through an adult conversion truly say that God’s hand was upon them to call them to himself even while they lived consciously and unconsciously in rebellion against him. Certainly the language of Ps. 22 and 139 appear to be understandable this way without implying infant faith. Before God works in the lives of the pagan, Hindu or the Muslim to cause them to own Christ as their Saviour and King, the one true God is in a very real sense already their God, which they will testify to after conversion in their recognition that previously they had worshiped idols and false gods.
But it is quite possible to affirm Lusk’s understanding of these passages and to agree that the Psalmist never knew a time when he did not trust the Lord. We must therefore read ‘you have been my God’ in Ps. 22:10 to denote not only that the Psalmist considers that God is the only God and Lord whether one confesses him to be or not, but that as Ps. 71 apparently intimates, he had owned and trusted God from his earliest moments.
However is this experience, which as Lusk rightly points out became part of the covenant community’s liturgy, to be considered as paradigmatic for each member as something they could identify with ‘in some sort of fashion’? It is only if this is true and paedofaith can be considered normative that paedobaptism is warrantable on the basis of presumed faith in the infants of believers.
It is difficult to see how Lusk can make a case for this, especially in the light of Psalm 22 as a whole. Lusk rightly notes that the experience described in the Psalm cannot be split, attributing some of it David and some to the Messiah. All recounted was true, in somewhat various ways of both David and David’s greater son. Yet if Lusk is seeking to make a case that paedofaith is normative within the covenant community based on the fact of each member of the assembly identifying with the words of the Psalmist, then it is odd that the language of v. 1-2 of the Psalm should also be considered as paradigmatic for them:
Ps. 22:1-2 My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? Why are you so far from helping me, from the words of my groaning? 2 O my God, I cry by day, but you do not answer; and by night, but find no rest.
Again one must agree that the language of the whole of Psalm 22 is a true description of both David’s and Messiah’s experience, but are we to understand that all of the community are to experience the feeling of being forsaken by God – and that this is in fact ‘normative’, ‘paradigmatic’, ‘expected’! I’d want to affirm that this can be the case, but whether it’s something is normative is highly questionable.
Even if Ps. 22:12-20 contains metaphorical language as Lusk claims, read in the same manner that he suggests for those verses he uses to support normative paedofaith, it must still in some way be paradigmatic for all of the covenant community but it not clear that this language is meant to be taken as normative for each member in the community.
Ps. 22:12-20 Many bulls encircle me, strong bulls of Bashan surround me; they open wide their mouths at me, like a ravening and roaring lion. I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint; my heart is like wax; it is melted within my breast; my mouth is dried up like a potsherd, and my tongue sticks to my jaws; you lay me in the dust of death. For dogs are all around me; a company of evildoers encircles me. My hands and feet have shriveled; I can count all my bones. They stare and gloat over me; they divide my clothes among themselves, and for my clothing they cast lots. But you, O LORD, do not be far away! O my help, come quickly to my aid! Deliver my soul from the sword, my life from the power of the dog!
This leads one to consider whether the Psalms are meant to be read and ‘owned’ by each member of the community, as readily and in as un-nuanced a fashion as Lusk seems to claim. The Baptist need not deny the possibly of infant faith within the community, but it appears that certainly from these Psalms, one need nor ought to imply that paedofaith is normative and to be presumed. Where this cannot be done the practice of paedobaptism is questionable on Lusk’s own admission.
Saturday, July 29, 2006
Representing opponents fairly
Guy Waters' new book on the Federal Vision has come in for some heavy criticism by those he seeks to critique, over his mis-representation of their position. Sadly they have a point. In failing to agree to meet with those whose doctrine he considers in the book, especially when several of them had offered to meet with him in advance of publication to confirm he had represented them faithfully, Waters surely shot himself firmly in both feet.
As someone who is by no means convinced by Federal Vision theology and yet wants an informed critique it has been frustrating to read this book. Indeed, it's difficult to see how this book will progress the debate in any constructive manner and one fears that it will only see proponents on either side of the debate further entrench themselves behind party lines.
Of more concern, the current level of interaction and debate around this issue shows little willingness to seek to understand nuances within their opponent's position or to demonstrate brotherly love that believes, hopes and endures all things and forgives seventy times seven.
As someone who is by no means convinced by Federal Vision theology and yet wants an informed critique it has been frustrating to read this book. Indeed, it's difficult to see how this book will progress the debate in any constructive manner and one fears that it will only see proponents on either side of the debate further entrench themselves behind party lines.
Of more concern, the current level of interaction and debate around this issue shows little willingness to seek to understand nuances within their opponent's position or to demonstrate brotherly love that believes, hopes and endures all things and forgives seventy times seven.
Friday, July 28, 2006
Presumed Child Covenant Membership
Those who baptise children in infancy often question the Baptist's reluctance to administer the sacrament to those young children who profess faith due to the difficulty of determining the genuiness of such a profession. Whilst acknowledging that the real debate lies elsewhere in the assumptions that are being made for any children born into the covenant community, the Baptist is entirely justified to redirect the question back to their Paedobaptist friends.
If one assumes that children of believers are within the covenant until they prove otherwise, exactly what manner of behavior from the three year old would be deemed as evidence of covenantal unfaithfulness and worthy of community discipline and possible future excommunication should they not repent? Or is there a certain age under which this does not apply and if so where would one find evidence for this? As hard as it may be for the Baptist to discern when young children may be admitted as full members of the community, it seems equally as difficult for the Paedobaptist to discern when a child's behavior shows covenant breaking, especially when the assumption is that God's promise is to their children as much as to professing parents. A subjective call is required by both Baptist and Paedobaptist parents alike.
For how long should those who understand their infants as being fully fledged members of the covenant maintain a judgement of charity when a child shows more and more evidence of lacking a new heart?
To therefore take an agnostic view in terms of the state of the young child and wait for evidence seems wise. However as we'll consider in future posts, the real debate is not over what one thinks of a childs subjective profession but rather over how one considers God's promises to Abraham and Isreal to function in the New Covenant.
If one assumes that children of believers are within the covenant until they prove otherwise, exactly what manner of behavior from the three year old would be deemed as evidence of covenantal unfaithfulness and worthy of community discipline and possible future excommunication should they not repent? Or is there a certain age under which this does not apply and if so where would one find evidence for this? As hard as it may be for the Baptist to discern when young children may be admitted as full members of the community, it seems equally as difficult for the Paedobaptist to discern when a child's behavior shows covenant breaking, especially when the assumption is that God's promise is to their children as much as to professing parents. A subjective call is required by both Baptist and Paedobaptist parents alike.
For how long should those who understand their infants as being fully fledged members of the covenant maintain a judgement of charity when a child shows more and more evidence of lacking a new heart?
To therefore take an agnostic view in terms of the state of the young child and wait for evidence seems wise. However as we'll consider in future posts, the real debate is not over what one thinks of a childs subjective profession but rather over how one considers God's promises to Abraham and Isreal to function in the New Covenant.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
