RE Jeff Cagle asked a series of interesting questions in response to the Joint Federal Vision statement I posted a few weeks ago. So that his questions and my answers don’t get lost in an old blog post I’ve copied them here. I may have to break this up and answer these all in a serial post. We’ll see how it goes. Here’s the first question:

I’m one of the legion of RE’s in the PCA who is now trying to piece together my responsibilities vis-a-vis the 2007 Gen. Assem. report on the Federal Vision and the NPP on Paul. I’ve read some of Wright (St. Paul, NT and the People, Res. and Victory of God), and now the Federal Vision statement.

As a disclaimer: I’m a moderate-to-strict constructionist wrt the WCoF, but I’m also open to ideas and believe that it’s more important to understand first and shoot later only if necessary. So here I am, hoping to get clarity on what the Federal Vision statement means.

If you don’t have time for these questions (you probably get millions of them), I fully understand. Any greater clarity you can provide will be appreciated.

I appreciate the introduction, Jeff. It helps to know where you are coming from and I can see that you have some sincere questions and are not just trolling for a fight. There’s way too much of that on the internet these days.

(1) We affirm that the triune God is the archetype of all covenantal relations.

This appears to take a very different approach to covenants from those of either Meredith Kline or O. Palmer Robertson. For Kline, it was important that the covenant relationship be between unequals: sovereign and people. Does the FV statement imply otherwise? (If you like, do you see WCoF VII.1 implying a relation between unequals?)

For Robertson, the covenant involved an oath, sealed in blood, that implied the destruction of a covenant breaker. Does the FV statement reject this understanding, since God cannot be destroyed? I guess that one could say that the promised destruction was symbolic in some cases, as with God and Abraham…

Lot’s of questions, Jeff. Let’s see if I can help.

First, formulating a one-size-fits-all definition of the covenant is very tricky. Such a definition can be so broad that it really doesn’t help much (e.g., an agreement between two persons) or it can be so narrow that it doesn’t cover everything the Bible calls a covenant. I think Robertson’s definition errs just a bit by being too narrow.

(For the record, I think Robertson’s book is quite good. I studied under him at Covenant Seminary in the mid-1980s. I had three classes with him, I believe—all OT history and biblical theology classes.)

For example, not all covenants are “sovereignly administered.” I’m not sure I know exactly what that means. It sounds good, of course, to Calvinists, but what exactly does it mean? More importantly, I’m not sure its true to many examples of covenants in the Bible (between Jonathan and David, 1 Sam. 18:3; between Abraham and Abimelech, Gen. 21; between Abimelech and Isaac, Gen. 26; between Laban and Jacob, Gen. 31; between husband and wife, Mal. 2). One might argue that someone in each case took the initiative in the covenant-making process, but that’s not the same as “sovereignly administered.”

Read the rest! It is well worth the efforts of anyone who wonders about this “debate” (maybe it will actually become one now).

Vacationing With Jesus
A refuge for frazzled parents, an opportunity for churches.

BY JENNIFER GRAHAM
Friday, August 17, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT

Here is an excerpt:

Glynis Jaszewski, a Roman Catholic who lives in the suburbs of Richmond, Va., sent her two children to Vacation Bible Schools at Protestant churches without qualms. “When I was working, they would always go to two or three of them in the summer; it was day care,” Mrs. Jaszewski said. She believes their generic Christian message doesn’t vary much, even across denominational lines.

Indeed, the big publishing houses that provide VBS material–the SBC’s LifeWay, the United Methodists’ Cokesbury and the nondenominational Standard Publishing (which produced the first printed VBS curriculum, in 1923)–peddle their wares to any church, regardless of denomination. And the simple themes based on Bible verses, with an accompanying VBS cheer (“Run the race, keep the pace, keep your eyes on Jesus!”), rarely stray into Wittenberg-like territory.

Mrs. Youngman, the pastor’s wife, said churches welcome any child to VBS, whatever the parents’ intent. “If we can connect with just one family, it’s worth it,” she said.

Pretty positive take from a major newspaper.  I wonder if the above quotation won’t spark some denunciations…

Sorry, I can’t be party to this.  Give some people some beer and suddenly they jump out of their skins.

God save His Church from the robot menace and from beer innovations!