Covenant initiation, maintenance, realization

This post may in fact belong as a comment under the Aug. 5 post. Without completely reopening the can of worms, the focus of that session was on covenant keeping. The charges against Future Grace by the video were, in my opinion, really distracting and sensational. However, I did benefit significantly from that post from what JP said, the comments, and in realizing how inadequate my understanding of the covenant really is.

RC Sproul says that to accuse Rome of teaching salvation by works is slander, and I agree with him. Based a recent waste of a lunch hour spent skimming the new catholic catechism (1994), I believe it would be fair to say that the papacy teaches salvation is by God's grace, received at and through the event/act of baptism, and kept through a faithful life in which the supposed believer lives in such a way to continue receiving fresh infusions of grace. How Rome would fit the covenant in there I really don't have the patience to find out.

My interpretation of what Dr. Piper teaches in FG is that salvation is by grace: it is by God's grace that we enter into the covenant, then God gives us the grace to keep the covenant, and finally receive the promise of salvation.

During my considerations of covenant keeping after that post, I became sincerely troubled by what I was hearing. The reason is that although I may be maturing in the faith, I know that I am not a covenant keeper, in fact I am certain that I'm a covenant breaker. My conscience is at rest when I hear Luther's teaching of "simulateously just/sinner". But I cannot make any sense out of simultaneously covenant keeper/breaker.

The writing of Cornelius Venema (Mid-America Reformed Seminary) has really addressed my confusion head-on. First some general statements on the importance of the covenant:

Covenant expresses the manner in which the Triune God enters into and maintains fellowship with His people. (Venema)
The content of God's self-revelation in expressed as a covenant. (Vos)

Due to the recent discussion on covenant keeping, these statements really got my attention:

God alone effectively and graciously brings the covenant relationship to bear fruit through the mediation of Christ and the working of the Holy Spirit. The covenant relationship is, in its origin and administration, an initiative and work of God's undeserved grace and mercy.

The covenant relationship is marked by communion and friendship between God and His people. This relationship involves mutual promises and obligations. God makes promises and stipulates obligations, and so binds Himself to His people as a husband to his wife, as a bridegroom to his bride, or a father to his children. For their part, the covenant people of God are invited to embrace the covenant promises by faith and to acknowledge their corresponding obligations. This mutuality and fellowship, which mark the union and communion of the covenant relationship, however, do not reflect a parity between God and His people in the covenant. God takes the initiative in establishing the covenant. He graciously administers and sustains the covenant. And He ensures the fruitfulness of the covenant. The Triune God begins, maintains, and finally realizes His covenant purpose of saving communion with His people.

Venema also discusses the conditional-ness of the covenant:

One of the more difficult questions...in the formulation of covenant theology is whether the covenant is conditional or unconditional...One one hand, it would seem unconditional: God sovereignly and unilaterally establishes the covenant...However, when the covenant is viewed from the point of view of the work of Christ and the manner of its administration, it is conditional. The blessings of the covenant are contingent, for example, upon the work of Christ in fulfilling the conditions of obedience first set in the pre-fall covenant of works (Rom. 5:12-21).

God the Father secures the covenant's blessings for His people by sending his Son, Christ the Mediator of the covenant of grace, to accomplish their redemption by His atoning sacrifice and the outpouring of His Spirit. Everything that God demands of His people in the covenant of grace, He graciously grants them in Christ.

The obligations of faith and obedience, though not meritorious conditions, are necessary responses to the covenant's promises and are, as such, instrumental to the enjoyment of the covenant's blessings.

With all the talk of a personal-relationship-with-God, it is just wonderful to hear that the relationship is covenental, and have what that means actually explained to me. What's really ironic, is that Venema's statement about God demanding from us what he grants in Christ sounds very much like something Dr. Piper would say. Nevertheless, while our interpretation and understanding of the significance of his statements may be uncertain, I am certain that what he wrote blurred the meritorious/necessary distinction and was not even close to the Reformed doctrine of the covenant. But I really do not wish to end the post on that note. I have no delight in analyzing where someone's writing is lacking; this is not for sport. I just feel justified in my confusion and overjoyed in the correction.

P.S.
To bring up Kyles question on the covenant renewal ceremony, I am not at all concerned of basking in false humility when I say that I am such an infant in my understanding of the renewal ceremony. What I can say is that we attend church to relate to God uniquely compared to the rest of the week (right?!) and our relationship with him is covenental- so the significance of the covenant must be great in relation to worship. The beautiful thing about the covenant is that it is initiated by God, not God & man, so God is addressing His people. He is addressing his people in the Invitation to Worship, the Assurance of Pardon, the minister's sermon (Spirit ministers internally through your external announcement of the Gospel), the sacraments (as visible signs of invisible grace, as "tokens" (not badges) of God's grace towards His people), benediction, etc. The worship service also contains opportunity for the people to respond to God in singing, prayer, etc; this is the basis for the Reformed Dialogical principle of worship. The idea is that NC worship should be a ceremony of covenant renewal just as the OC worship service clearly was. In any case, the accusations against orthodox Reformed theologians for using Old Covenant precendent and a sledgehammer to define New Covenant practice are unfounded and just wrong- I say orthodox because the non-orthodox proponents of Federal Vision are coming up with crazy stuff because they are doing just that.

Communion here, there, or both (Part II): Form, Content, and Consecration

Referring to the admonition in 1 Cor. 11:29 E Rice said: "this is a very, very stern warning to not treat the sacred as the profane." Great point!

Even if one, when partaking of the Lord's Supper, treats as "common" these consecrated (read: sacred) elements set apart by the Lord for "sacred" use they are partaking "in an unworthy manner" and therefore are "guilty of the body and blood of the Lord" (v.27).

It is important to note the significance of both the consecration of these common elements for the Lord's use and the reading--and explaining--of the words of institution. After all, Paul received these instructions "from the Lord" himself (v.23). Notice he doesn't say he received these instructions from the eleven who were with Christ in the upper room, or even from his quiet time on Wednesday morning. I do believe the words of institution can be read from one of Evangelists' accounts as well. However, personal testimonies or stories, etc. are never okay during this sacred rite.

I contend that it is not just through the partaking of the elements that God blesses his people, though the greatest admonitions are certainly found there. I think a biblical case can be made that the form and content of the entire covenant renewal ceremony and meal is a vital and ordinary means of grace that God uses to bless his people. After all, in His Word the Lord Himself has given most of the form and content that we are to follow when administering the sacrament of the Lord's Supper.

The sacraments have been called "visible signs of the gospel" and places where the "clearest promises" are evident. After all, they are promises to the eye. Therefore, I believe the Lord's Supper ordinarily should only be administered after the preaching of God's Word (the Gospel) within the context of a corporate Lord's Day worship service, and even then, only if they are going to be properly administered.

Communion here, there, or both?

A question of practice resurfaced just a few evenings ago. I recall that as a high school student I took communion at Crossroads as part of the worship service, sunday morning high school class, wednesday night high school class, and a camping trip at Lake Berryessa. The unspoken idea that was conveyed during this time was that taking communion could only help you; the more you got your hands on the bread and wine, the better.

I have since come to disagree with this strategy for communion-taking and now believe that where the church exists, it should only be taken in the worship service. Coming to this view required first a clearer view of what the church is- my assumption for this post is that the Reformed tradition's definition of the church is reasonable and valid: the word preached, the sacraments administered, and church discipline.

Our idea that taking extra helpings of communion could only help does not stand up to the bibles teaching. 1 Corinthians 11 says that whoever fails to discern the body when they take communion eats and drinks judgment upon himself. Taking communion casually does not benefit, and has awful consequences. This is a very, very stern warning to not treat the sacred as the profane.

I believe that the definition of the church is key. How do we prevent people from taking the supper in vain? Someone needs to be preaching the gospel, explaining the spiritual reality behind the carnal signs, so that those who participate will sincerely remember the Lord and proclaim his death. Additionally, someone should be conducting church discipline, making sure that those who due to the hardness of the hearts would take the supper in vain are prevented from doing so. For those reasons, I think that communion should only be taken in the main worship service where pastors and elders are present (unless you're meeting in a basement in China, or whatever other exception you can think of). Where the opportunity exists to take communion every week in the worship service, why would we offer it in other settings?

So the question was: where is it right to give communion, and why? I realize that I've done mostly answering and not asking in this post, but Ive answered using only 1 scripture, and only from my own perspective, so I wanted to post here for our mutual edificaiton. I'm interested to know if you have thought about this before, and why you came to your conclusions.

The Covenant Theology of John Piper's Future Grace

I had initially titled the post on Aug 2, 2009: "How Not to Have a Theological Debate." Perhaps I should change the title back to that. The first time I watched the video (here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLEzINyXle8) I wasn’t quite sure what to think. I didn’t know if it was a joke or if there was any weight to what they were claiming. But that was before I read Future Grace again. To make a long story short, as many of you know I have the utmost respect for Dr. John Piper. The numerous resources available from Desiring God Ministries have been vital for helping me, and many I know, understand the “justification of the ungodly” and its basis.

About the video:

I don’t think the “Catholics” in the video were taking a shot at the pulpit ministry of John Piper as much as they were his writing ministry. They seemed to take issue with his book Future Grace, calling it, “A Jesuit book…and a masterpiece in Catholic teaching.” Based on the rest of the video, I assume they are taking issue with what they perceived as a confusion, conflation, or even a strict separation of justification and sanctification in Future Grace. After looking into these seemingly outlandish claims for myself, I am a bit troubled by some of the language in chapters 18-20 which begin a part VI of the book: "Unmerited, Conditional Future Grace" (229, emphasis mine). Here are some quotes from that section (below). By the way, we all know John Piper has a way with language that few possess, and it may be that I am simply misreading him. Please feel free to help me further understand what he means by the following statements.

“All the covenants of God are conditional covenants of grace—both the old covenant and the new covenant. They offer all-sufficient future grace for those who keep the covenant” (248, emphasis mine).

Piper adds, “This covenant-keeping condition of future grace does not mean we lose security or assurance, for God has pledged himself to complete the work he began in the elect (Phil. 1:6)…He fulfills the conditions of the covenant through us (Ezek. 36:27) (248, emphasis mine).

After exegeting Psalm 25 to prove his point he concludes with this bomb: “I am hard pressed to imagine something more important for our lives than fulfilling the covenant that God has made with us for our final salvation” (249, emphasis mine).

One comment, at least for now, based on my reading of Piper here:

Piper, by denying the classic understanding of the covenant of works (p.248, 413n.4) leaves believers, those who are in Christ mind you, as the ones who have to fulfill "the covenant God has made with [them] for [their] final salvation" (249). However, he also appears to argue that “[God] fulfills the conditions of the covenant through us” (248, emphasis mine).

Discerning the content of this covenant is where it gets tricky. But I will sum it up in one word faithfulness. In chapters 19 and 20 of Future Grace it’s not the faithfulness of a covenant mediator but the faithfulness—not faith—of the Christian that ultimately assures final salvation.

For Piper the subject of this faithfulness is the believer, and its twofold object is God and neighbor. Rather than the faithfulness of the second Adam (Jesus Christ the object of a believer’s faith) who as the Suffering Servant fulfilled the Law’s demands--under a covenant of works--by perfectly loving God and neighbor, bore its curse through His active and passive obedience, and thus merited for His Church a once for all eternal redemption, the believer is forced to rely on their own covenant keeping rather than Christ’s on their behalf to provide the assurance and ultimately the basis of their salvation.

Finally, there are few men who contend for the Gospel as ardently as Dr. Piper and few men that I am as great a debtor to that John Piper. Perhaps I am misreading the language he uses in an overall edifying book. But based on the way in which Piper argues for a conditional final salvation, the basis of which consists in our own covenant keeping, I cannot, at this time, exonerate his work of Future Grace on the charges of confusing justification and sanctification as they relate to a Christian’s salvation (i.e. Romish tendencies). I will change the title of the post though.

Hart on a Revivalist Ecclesiology

"Awakenings may change individuals. But what is often missed is that they also change churches. And that’s because revivals feature a form of Christianity in which the church, her clergy, creeds, and worship are peripheral" (DG Hart@oldlife.org).

How Not to Have a Theological Debate

“Unicam esse hominibus iustitiam, Dei misericordiam in Christo, dum per Euangelium oblate, fide apprehenditur” (Man’s only righteousness is the mercy of God in Christ, when it is offered by the Gospel and apprehended by faith).

Iohannis Calvini, Commentarius Epistolam Pauli ad Romanos, ed. T. H. L. Parker, Studies in the History of Christian Thought 22, (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1981), 7.

R.A. Finlayson on Heaven and Hell

Hell is eternity in the presence of God without a mediator.

Heaven is eternity in the presence of God, with a mediator.