Κρέιγκ
Member
- Messages
- 82
- Theological System
- Westminster Federalism
Latest Reformed Forum Episode
- Thread starter Κρέιγκ
- Start date
Κρέιγκ
Member
- Messages
- 82
- Theological System
- Westminster Federalism
I'm about 50% of the way through, but I've also been working, so probably not fully as attentive as I should be. But I'll go ahead and throw out some comments. Before I do that though, some personal history, in smaller font so that you can ignore it if you want.
I initially was exposed to 1689 Federalism basically concurrent with discovering covenant theology in general. I devoured Brandon's blog, read most of the books that were recommended at the time (Denault, Renihan, Coxe/Owen, Barcellos) and generally was a convinced 1689 Federalist, enough so to the point that I have led a book study on Renihan's more popular work and made some disciples. I dove into the historical issues of covenant theology pretty deeply, tracing out minor subdevelopments in the Scottish Free Church tradition, and taking some classes through the Davenant Institute on Davenant and Dort. Eventually, TBH, I kind got exhausted with the historical debates, and moved on to other issues, especially doctrine of God, and now the New Perspective on Paul and Christology.
One thing those intellectual moves did for me was open up my mind to some of the limitations of the current debate, the gridlock imposed upon the ways people think about God's covenant(s). I'm not here saying that the confessional traditions are false, but only that I often find the paths being tread and re-tread a little tedious and unfruitful, personally. Over time, I felt myself to be losing my agreement with a number of 1689 Federalist distinctives, and finally moving to a paedobaptist position. However, having spent so long invested in 1689 Federalism and still in various ways supporting the movement, I remain an advocate and sympathetic at a number of points. But this thread is not about all that.
Rather, I write all this to say that I'm not a huge fan of ID'ing my confessional position on this website. I think it is a distraction, and causes people to misinterpret what is being said, filtering everything through an in-group/out-group lens that is poorly focused. Not everything I write is meant as some sort of defense of my paedobaptism or assault on 1689 Federalism. It is possible to write in support of something you disagree with. In addition, ID'ing oneself brings with it a false sense of finality, when it is simply a fact that a lot of people interacting with the movement are in fact still figuring out what they think.
TLDR: I don't want to be read in an overly polemical light, I'm not particularly partisan about this, please read me as in good faith just trying to follow the Bible.
Around the 30-minute mark, Lane starts to get into an issue that they will cycle around for about half an hour, which is the status of unregenerate works under the Old Covenant. I think this is perceptive of him for a couple reasons.
Good works performed by the regenerate under the power of the Spirit are imperfect, and therefore blamable. They still require Christ's merit to cover their culpability in this regard. But they are also truly good, inasmuch as they proceed from the Spirit of Christ and a heart cleansed by faith, which themselves are gifts purchased by Christ's meritorious death. In other words, while God's appraisal of the works is gracious, overlooking the faults of the works, and also abundantly over-rewarding the works beyond their intrinsic merit, it nonetheless does have a realistic element, in that the works are truly good, if only in part.
God's appraisal of external works of obedience as posited by 1689 Federalism is, in contrast, somewhat more nominalistic. The Reformed universally teach that there is nothing spiritually good or commendable in the works of the unregenerate. They may do things that are good in themselves and out of a natural love and virtue, but with regards to God, all acts proceed in rebellion against him. There is therefore nothing to positively assess, spiritually speaking, and yet God is said to grant sanction and approval to said works. This, like the other kind of works, can be grounded in Christ's merit, purchasing forbearance and temporal blessing for a time, to ends subservient to his ultimate purpose. Surely something like this is the case in the Noahic Covenant, with the blessings being universally distributed to the end of achieving God's ultimate purpose of saving the elect. Common grace is a thing. But it must be said that we here have to either posit a kind of temporal, limited union with Christ or else a nominalist divine fiat to reward sin. I don't think either horn of this dilemma is appealing to 1689 Federalists, though I presume the majority would choose the former, even if it weakens their polemical stance.
However, they have somewhat of a trump card in their hands inasmuch as they can point to a blunt fact of Scripture, "The angel of death passed over every Israelite with blood on the doorposts, irrespective of their spiritual condition. We know the wilderness generation was mixed spiritually (understatement), and hence we can be reasonably certain that regeneration was not a prerequisite to God's blessing." This has for a long time to me stood as an undefeatable observation. It serves as good shorthand for the whole issue of two-tier typology, which I have generally taken 1689 Federalists to have gotten the better part of the argument. Carlton at points notes this argument.
I think a few things should be said in response to it though. One is the way this argument fronts the individualistic element of the Old Covenant. And the covenant does include individualistic elements. Each uncircumcised man will be cut off. There are ways in which the covenant relationship subsists intimately between God and the singular Israelite. But in general, the covenant has a more corporate flavor—the blessings are by and large not of the sort that you can enjoy for yourself while your neighbor lacks it. Likewise, the conditions are generally a matter of the people as a whole and are only individualized in the case of those who precisely are legal representatives of the corporate mass. That is all to say, circumcision and lamb blood may not require regeneration but focusing on them as the condition of the covenant is a little misleading, since the real condition is something bigger than any one person. It is a matter of the nation as a whole. To say that these are evidence that the requirement of the covenant was mere outward conformity is to miss the point in that sense. They simply aren't the right kind of evidence. The condition may indeed be outward conformity, but not at the level of the individual.
I don't take what I've just said to be objectionable to 1689 Federalists. Indeed, I think many would endorse it. The idea that the conditional Old Covenant really boiled down to the actions of the king in enforcing the external covenant on the nation is a common one. I think at this point I can put my own cards on the table a little bit. I think we can interpret the blessings upon the unregenerate in the Old Covenant as a species of common grace. God is ultimately tending his elect via the Old Covenant, but as a result of this, blessings accrue to their associates. God's determination to require mere blood on the door post is not a concession to the reprobate but rather a sacrament to his elect, which, in its visible, temporal nature, is open to the manipulation of those who lack genuine faith. His toleration of their abuse is a kindness, but it isn't some sort of covenanted mercy, a blank check to hypocritically take up his ordinances and use them as a way to twist God's arm.
I'm not really making an argument just an assertion. And maybe a confused one at that (I never claimed to be a leader of this discussion).
I'll offer up more reflections when I've watched some more.
I initially was exposed to 1689 Federalism basically concurrent with discovering covenant theology in general. I devoured Brandon's blog, read most of the books that were recommended at the time (Denault, Renihan, Coxe/Owen, Barcellos) and generally was a convinced 1689 Federalist, enough so to the point that I have led a book study on Renihan's more popular work and made some disciples. I dove into the historical issues of covenant theology pretty deeply, tracing out minor subdevelopments in the Scottish Free Church tradition, and taking some classes through the Davenant Institute on Davenant and Dort. Eventually, TBH, I kind got exhausted with the historical debates, and moved on to other issues, especially doctrine of God, and now the New Perspective on Paul and Christology.
One thing those intellectual moves did for me was open up my mind to some of the limitations of the current debate, the gridlock imposed upon the ways people think about God's covenant(s). I'm not here saying that the confessional traditions are false, but only that I often find the paths being tread and re-tread a little tedious and unfruitful, personally. Over time, I felt myself to be losing my agreement with a number of 1689 Federalist distinctives, and finally moving to a paedobaptist position. However, having spent so long invested in 1689 Federalism and still in various ways supporting the movement, I remain an advocate and sympathetic at a number of points. But this thread is not about all that.
Rather, I write all this to say that I'm not a huge fan of ID'ing my confessional position on this website. I think it is a distraction, and causes people to misinterpret what is being said, filtering everything through an in-group/out-group lens that is poorly focused. Not everything I write is meant as some sort of defense of my paedobaptism or assault on 1689 Federalism. It is possible to write in support of something you disagree with. In addition, ID'ing oneself brings with it a false sense of finality, when it is simply a fact that a lot of people interacting with the movement are in fact still figuring out what they think.
TLDR: I don't want to be read in an overly polemical light, I'm not particularly partisan about this, please read me as in good faith just trying to follow the Bible.
Around the 30-minute mark, Lane starts to get into an issue that they will cycle around for about half an hour, which is the status of unregenerate works under the Old Covenant. I think this is perceptive of him for a couple reasons.
Good works performed by the regenerate under the power of the Spirit are imperfect, and therefore blamable. They still require Christ's merit to cover their culpability in this regard. But they are also truly good, inasmuch as they proceed from the Spirit of Christ and a heart cleansed by faith, which themselves are gifts purchased by Christ's meritorious death. In other words, while God's appraisal of the works is gracious, overlooking the faults of the works, and also abundantly over-rewarding the works beyond their intrinsic merit, it nonetheless does have a realistic element, in that the works are truly good, if only in part.
God's appraisal of external works of obedience as posited by 1689 Federalism is, in contrast, somewhat more nominalistic. The Reformed universally teach that there is nothing spiritually good or commendable in the works of the unregenerate. They may do things that are good in themselves and out of a natural love and virtue, but with regards to God, all acts proceed in rebellion against him. There is therefore nothing to positively assess, spiritually speaking, and yet God is said to grant sanction and approval to said works. This, like the other kind of works, can be grounded in Christ's merit, purchasing forbearance and temporal blessing for a time, to ends subservient to his ultimate purpose. Surely something like this is the case in the Noahic Covenant, with the blessings being universally distributed to the end of achieving God's ultimate purpose of saving the elect. Common grace is a thing. But it must be said that we here have to either posit a kind of temporal, limited union with Christ or else a nominalist divine fiat to reward sin. I don't think either horn of this dilemma is appealing to 1689 Federalists, though I presume the majority would choose the former, even if it weakens their polemical stance.
However, they have somewhat of a trump card in their hands inasmuch as they can point to a blunt fact of Scripture, "The angel of death passed over every Israelite with blood on the doorposts, irrespective of their spiritual condition. We know the wilderness generation was mixed spiritually (understatement), and hence we can be reasonably certain that regeneration was not a prerequisite to God's blessing." This has for a long time to me stood as an undefeatable observation. It serves as good shorthand for the whole issue of two-tier typology, which I have generally taken 1689 Federalists to have gotten the better part of the argument. Carlton at points notes this argument.
I think a few things should be said in response to it though. One is the way this argument fronts the individualistic element of the Old Covenant. And the covenant does include individualistic elements. Each uncircumcised man will be cut off. There are ways in which the covenant relationship subsists intimately between God and the singular Israelite. But in general, the covenant has a more corporate flavor—the blessings are by and large not of the sort that you can enjoy for yourself while your neighbor lacks it. Likewise, the conditions are generally a matter of the people as a whole and are only individualized in the case of those who precisely are legal representatives of the corporate mass. That is all to say, circumcision and lamb blood may not require regeneration but focusing on them as the condition of the covenant is a little misleading, since the real condition is something bigger than any one person. It is a matter of the nation as a whole. To say that these are evidence that the requirement of the covenant was mere outward conformity is to miss the point in that sense. They simply aren't the right kind of evidence. The condition may indeed be outward conformity, but not at the level of the individual.
I don't take what I've just said to be objectionable to 1689 Federalists. Indeed, I think many would endorse it. The idea that the conditional Old Covenant really boiled down to the actions of the king in enforcing the external covenant on the nation is a common one. I think at this point I can put my own cards on the table a little bit. I think we can interpret the blessings upon the unregenerate in the Old Covenant as a species of common grace. God is ultimately tending his elect via the Old Covenant, but as a result of this, blessings accrue to their associates. God's determination to require mere blood on the door post is not a concession to the reprobate but rather a sacrament to his elect, which, in its visible, temporal nature, is open to the manipulation of those who lack genuine faith. His toleration of their abuse is a kindness, but it isn't some sort of covenanted mercy, a blank check to hypocritically take up his ordinances and use them as a way to twist God's arm.
I'm not really making an argument just an assertion. And maybe a confused one at that (I never claimed to be a leader of this discussion).
I'll offer up more reflections when I've watched some more.
Κρέιγκ
Member
- Messages
- 82
- Theological System
- Westminster Federalism
Alright, finished it, but again, only semi-attentive. Here comes a rant. Lol.
Some background to the whole typology discussion and the way that it has been the focus of debates between RF and 1689 Federalism for a while. On the Reformed Forum side of things, they formulated a fine-grained, detailed doctrine of typology prior to coming to this debate, due to the nature of controversies within the faculty of Westminster in the early 2010s. You can see this in episodes like this one (also see here). So, they come to the conversation positively with an already well-defined doctrine and negatively with an axe-to-grind/baggage from other controversies. Compare their commentary to Mark Garcia, speaking in a very different context that has again, more relevance to early 2010s Westminster than 1689 Federalism.
On Brandon's side, not to speak for him, but I think the emphasis on typology has been primarily to ward off accusations from paedobaptists that 1689 Federalism doesn't have a mechanism for conferring grace to Old Covenant believers. In other words, the emphasis is a defensive one, meant to clarify how salvation in the Old Covenant occurred. It needn't be the crux of division between Westminster and 1689 Federalism, indeed, it theoretically ought to be a bridge of common ground (Vos sure sounds like 1689 Fed in Biblical Theology, 144ff), at least in its original intention. Again, to state my sympathies, I tend to think the 1689 Federalists have the better of this argument from a historical and logical standpoint.
So, I think both sides have a lot of history with this point, and it has moved into the center of the debate when it really is not actually all that clarifying. As seemed fairly clear from the end of the episode, the RF guys seemed close to being willing to admit that there's enough depth to the two systems to allow for more or less reasonable explanations of the point at hand. A charitable participant in the debate can probably find a way to harmonize the two-level operation of types in the OT with either federal system.
Which gets me to the next thing I want to say. In general, and maybe this reflects the predominance of people who like systematic theology in the debate, there is an emphasis on attempting to prove deductively some sort of logical inconsistency in the opposing viewpoint such that it can be rejected as false. In other words, great energy is expended attempting to prove the incoherence of one view or another, and in principle for these people, it seems that we could determine which view is false without ever knowing the true one.
I really take issue with this approach for a couple of reasons. One is that both viewpoints seem to me to be pretty much more or less coherent and given that the economy of salvation is in one sense artificial (i.e., up to God's will, not necessary in all points, contingent), I don't see why in principle there couldn't be multiple coherent schemes of salvation/redemptive-history which God had the ability to implement. Of course, he only implemented one, but the point is that I don't think we can determine which one in fact is the one simply by logical evaluation, because if I'm right, there were multiple possibilities.
So that means we need to stop trying to prove the other view is incoherent and instead focus on building up an inductive argument from Scripture for what God actually did and recognize that this will involve a degree of probability and hence uncertainty. The successful argument is the one that best makes sense of all the evidence before us, and that will probably not be a 100% determination, because we are fallen, sinful, and finite humans assessing events in the distant past from a foreign culture. I'm not trying to suggest that Scripture is unclear in general, but only recognizing that the finer grained points are subject to a greater possibility for error in reception.
Likewise, pivoting back to the whole logical deduction thing, the fact is we aren't computers and God's plan of salvation is antithetical to our sinful natures, so I would really be suspicious of our ability to deduce what is incoherent in soteriology. We need to embrace some epistemological humility (not accusing anyone) and recognize that our ability to determine an incoherence is quite limited. If we were so brazen with the doctrine of the Trinity, we would probably reject it, because it isn't easy to harmonize either. Instead, we sit in humility before the Scriptural data and embrace the truth even as it exceeds our understanding of it.
So, I take a big issue with the theological mode this debate has been pursuing. A more exegetical, Biblical theological, inductive approach is needed, with a healthy dose of humility, and that task should be separated out from polemics with other views and assessments of historical origins.
Secondly, I have a more specific method criticism about this whole debate, and that is the way the New Testament is not the center of the discussion. I used to go to a Dispensationalist church, and in many ways the pattern of the discussion here reminds me of my interactions with interlocutors there on eschatology. The primary move on their part would be to pivot to the Old Testament to provide supplemental information to the New Testament. In other words, they would assent to the New Testament, but then say, additionally, the Old Testament adds the following to the picture (millennial kingdom). As an Amillennialist, I disagreed. I believe that the New Testament provides a comprehensive and controlling interpretation of the Old Testament that leaves nothing of significance out. I do not view the Old Testament as containing some additional well of untapped information, but rather the New Testament is the authoritative exposition of the Old. Hence, from my perspective, the argument should be a matter of New Testament exegesis ultimately, and that exegesis is decisive.
Likewise, I would say that for the issue of Baptism and Covenant, ultimately, the information needed to determine the subjects is provided by the New Testament itself. If we don't find the New Testament clear, it's because we aren't reading it right. The practice of baptism or the extent of the covenant are not in the last assessment going to come down to some fine-tuned assessment of how the paschal lamb is efficacious or not. If our beliefs do boil down to that, they are built on unstable ground. Rather, a mass of evidence should be gathered from the New Testament providing a very probable picture which will not be easily overturned by one more clever speculative leap.
Alright, I said it was a rant, and I don't really intend this as directly railing against any of the participants themselves, but I'm weary of the typology merry-go-round, and I bet a lot of other people are too. Personally, I moved on on this issue precisely by doing what I recommend above, and I think others would find themselves a little more settled if they would do the same.
I did like hearing Camden say they would consider a symposium. That would be entertaining at least. I'm not sure though that the mode and structure of the arguments as built right now really allows for any meaningful progress though. I strongly would urge everyone to pivot to a different approach like the one I've outlined above.
Some background to the whole typology discussion and the way that it has been the focus of debates between RF and 1689 Federalism for a while. On the Reformed Forum side of things, they formulated a fine-grained, detailed doctrine of typology prior to coming to this debate, due to the nature of controversies within the faculty of Westminster in the early 2010s. You can see this in episodes like this one (also see here). So, they come to the conversation positively with an already well-defined doctrine and negatively with an axe-to-grind/baggage from other controversies. Compare their commentary to Mark Garcia, speaking in a very different context that has again, more relevance to early 2010s Westminster than 1689 Federalism.
On Brandon's side, not to speak for him, but I think the emphasis on typology has been primarily to ward off accusations from paedobaptists that 1689 Federalism doesn't have a mechanism for conferring grace to Old Covenant believers. In other words, the emphasis is a defensive one, meant to clarify how salvation in the Old Covenant occurred. It needn't be the crux of division between Westminster and 1689 Federalism, indeed, it theoretically ought to be a bridge of common ground (Vos sure sounds like 1689 Fed in Biblical Theology, 144ff), at least in its original intention. Again, to state my sympathies, I tend to think the 1689 Federalists have the better of this argument from a historical and logical standpoint.
So, I think both sides have a lot of history with this point, and it has moved into the center of the debate when it really is not actually all that clarifying. As seemed fairly clear from the end of the episode, the RF guys seemed close to being willing to admit that there's enough depth to the two systems to allow for more or less reasonable explanations of the point at hand. A charitable participant in the debate can probably find a way to harmonize the two-level operation of types in the OT with either federal system.
Which gets me to the next thing I want to say. In general, and maybe this reflects the predominance of people who like systematic theology in the debate, there is an emphasis on attempting to prove deductively some sort of logical inconsistency in the opposing viewpoint such that it can be rejected as false. In other words, great energy is expended attempting to prove the incoherence of one view or another, and in principle for these people, it seems that we could determine which view is false without ever knowing the true one.
I really take issue with this approach for a couple of reasons. One is that both viewpoints seem to me to be pretty much more or less coherent and given that the economy of salvation is in one sense artificial (i.e., up to God's will, not necessary in all points, contingent), I don't see why in principle there couldn't be multiple coherent schemes of salvation/redemptive-history which God had the ability to implement. Of course, he only implemented one, but the point is that I don't think we can determine which one in fact is the one simply by logical evaluation, because if I'm right, there were multiple possibilities.
So that means we need to stop trying to prove the other view is incoherent and instead focus on building up an inductive argument from Scripture for what God actually did and recognize that this will involve a degree of probability and hence uncertainty. The successful argument is the one that best makes sense of all the evidence before us, and that will probably not be a 100% determination, because we are fallen, sinful, and finite humans assessing events in the distant past from a foreign culture. I'm not trying to suggest that Scripture is unclear in general, but only recognizing that the finer grained points are subject to a greater possibility for error in reception.
Likewise, pivoting back to the whole logical deduction thing, the fact is we aren't computers and God's plan of salvation is antithetical to our sinful natures, so I would really be suspicious of our ability to deduce what is incoherent in soteriology. We need to embrace some epistemological humility (not accusing anyone) and recognize that our ability to determine an incoherence is quite limited. If we were so brazen with the doctrine of the Trinity, we would probably reject it, because it isn't easy to harmonize either. Instead, we sit in humility before the Scriptural data and embrace the truth even as it exceeds our understanding of it.
So, I take a big issue with the theological mode this debate has been pursuing. A more exegetical, Biblical theological, inductive approach is needed, with a healthy dose of humility, and that task should be separated out from polemics with other views and assessments of historical origins.
Secondly, I have a more specific method criticism about this whole debate, and that is the way the New Testament is not the center of the discussion. I used to go to a Dispensationalist church, and in many ways the pattern of the discussion here reminds me of my interactions with interlocutors there on eschatology. The primary move on their part would be to pivot to the Old Testament to provide supplemental information to the New Testament. In other words, they would assent to the New Testament, but then say, additionally, the Old Testament adds the following to the picture (millennial kingdom). As an Amillennialist, I disagreed. I believe that the New Testament provides a comprehensive and controlling interpretation of the Old Testament that leaves nothing of significance out. I do not view the Old Testament as containing some additional well of untapped information, but rather the New Testament is the authoritative exposition of the Old. Hence, from my perspective, the argument should be a matter of New Testament exegesis ultimately, and that exegesis is decisive.
Likewise, I would say that for the issue of Baptism and Covenant, ultimately, the information needed to determine the subjects is provided by the New Testament itself. If we don't find the New Testament clear, it's because we aren't reading it right. The practice of baptism or the extent of the covenant are not in the last assessment going to come down to some fine-tuned assessment of how the paschal lamb is efficacious or not. If our beliefs do boil down to that, they are built on unstable ground. Rather, a mass of evidence should be gathered from the New Testament providing a very probable picture which will not be easily overturned by one more clever speculative leap.
Alright, I said it was a rant, and I don't really intend this as directly railing against any of the participants themselves, but I'm weary of the typology merry-go-round, and I bet a lot of other people are too. Personally, I moved on on this issue precisely by doing what I recommend above, and I think others would find themselves a little more settled if they would do the same.
I did like hearing Camden say they would consider a symposium. That would be entertaining at least. I'm not sure though that the mode and structure of the arguments as built right now really allows for any meaningful progress though. I strongly would urge everyone to pivot to a different approach like the one I've outlined above.
Interesting you mention that because that has been a thought of mine recently as well - the OT interpretive priority for both dispensationalists and 1 Covenant/2 Administration theological frameworks. Which is ironic given that their conclusions are quite contrary.