Monthly Archives: January 2010

Romans 1-8 (plus) off the top of my head

1 Reply

Roman 1.1-7

Greeting = Paul and Ambassador/Jesus is Lord/ via 2-stage life thru resurrection (applied throughout rest of letter)/Great Commission

Romans 1.8-12
Thanksgiving and prayer for the Romans/wants to visit

Romans 1.13-17

Obligated to preach Gospel even to Barbarians in Spain (so whatf ollows will be an object lesson in humility and need to love and give to the nations) as well as to Romans where Paul wants to make new home. Because Paul is not ashamed of the Gospel (i.e. to be explained–not ashamed that God led Israel to break covenant in order to fulfill the covenant promise of using Israel to bring salvation to the nations), because it is the power to save because it reveals God’s faithfulness in fulfilling his promise of salvation to the benefit of those who believe.

Romans 1.18-3.20

Gospel is power to save from = God’s wrath is snowballing as the world, Jew and Gentile alike, rides straight down to hell in a handbasket/ (and Israel under God’s wrath means that there is no hope to be found in Jewish righteousness)/ In fact, if there is any hope in Israel, it is in their apostasy, but we have no right to judge God for working in this way because he is our judge.

Romans3.21-4.24

God has demonstrated his faithfulness in the faithfulness of Christ in making propitiation in the midst of this wrath and redeeming all who believe, Jew and Gentile/ Thus the law is not to be kept in perpetuity but faith is what matters, just as it did for Abraham who was right with God when he believed but before he was a Jew.

Romans 5.1-11

No more slide to hell in a handbasket. We know we have hope and glory, yet via weakness, not triumphalism.

Romans 5.12-21

So the sin and death spreading from the one trespass of Adam is now all going to be overwhelmed by the much greater righteousness and glory spreading from the one obedience of the New Adam and the many trespasses of Israel brought about through the Law.

Romans 6
But we must not infer that we are to increase sin in order to spread more salvation. Rather, being baptized into the new order, we are now to embrace weakness in the death of Christ that we might walk in the new age of obedience/ Whereas before all lives were characterized by bondage to sin in that old age (even OT believers in comparison to Christians), now we can be assured that our obedience will grow and count towards a glorious future by God’s gift.

Romans 7.1-6
The death and resurrection of Christ freed us from the age of the Law.

Romans 7.7-25
(Romans 5.12ff redux) So Israel was, while under law, always prone to be driven to greater sin by the greater grace it was shown. Thus, many realized that the promises given to Israel to be a light of the world were never going to happen because Israel constantly weakend and fell and came under judgment

Romans 8.1-39
(Romans 3.21ff + 5.1ff redux) So now all that wrath and increasing sin has been absorbed by Jesus so that sin is condemned and we can fulfill the law in the Spirit where the flesh was too weak. Our weakness, on the other hand, will only work for good as we are patterned after the death and resurrection of Christ by the Spirit.

Romans 9.1ff
[Ran out of steam/stopping with this] (Redux Romans 3. + 5.12ff +7.7ff) God is not unrighteous in using Israel because it is consistent with his electing sovereignty that just as he chose to harden Pharaoh to proclaim his power throughout the world so he hardened a controlling part of Israel to display his wrath on sin in Jesus flesh and proclaim his power of God to salvation in the Gospel. …

How Abraham’s uncircumcision became circumcision

Leave a reply

Romans 2.6:

So, if a man who is uncircumcised keeps the precepts of the law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision?

Romans 4.9-11:

Is this blessing then only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? We say that faith was counted to Abraham as righteousness. How then was it counted to him? Was it before or after he had been circumcised? It was not after, but before he was circumcised. He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised.

Still chewing on this.  Plainly, the “law” was not given until Sinai.  But Paul also speaks of “precepts of the Law” and Gentiles becoming a “law to themselves” (2.14).  Further, Paul describes Abraham’s faith as praiseworthy:

16 That is why it depends on faith, in order that the promise may rest on grace and be guaranteed to all his offspring—not only to the adherent of the law but also to the one who shares the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all, 17 as it is written, “I have made you the father of many nations”—in the presence of the God in whom he believed, who gives life to the dead and calls into existence the things that do not exist. 18 In hope he believed against hope, that he should become the father of many nations, as he had been told, “So shall your offspring be.” 19 He did not weaken in faith when he considered his own body, which was as good as dead (since he was about a hundred years old), or when he considered the barrenness of Sarah’s womb. 20 No distrust made him waver concerning the promise of God, but he grew strong in his faith as he gave glory to God, 21 fully convinced that God was able to do what he had promised. 22 That is why his faith was “counted to him as righteousness.”

While this justification is available for David when he sins as well (though if you read the rest of his Psalm it gets interesting), the fact remains that trust in the Lord is itself the real keeping of the Law–because it is loyalty to God/Jesus which God promises to forgive and exalt and to which applies the representative headship of Jesus with the imputation of righteousness, it is commanded by God and thus is obedience, and it is the motivational basis for following God in all his ways.  Thus Romans 3.31: “Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law.” And 3.27: “Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? By a law of works? No, but by the law of faith.”  Or from Romans 9.31-32: “Israel who pursued a law that would lead to righteousness did not succeed in reaching that law. Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were based on works.”

So even though it is not technically law, it does seem that Abraham is the example of the Gentile who is regarded as circumcised because he trusts in God.  Hebrews 11 also points out how faith works itself out in love (Galatians 5.6):

8 By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to go out to a place that he was to receive as an inheritance. And he went out, not knowing where he was going. 9 By faith he went to live in the land of promise, as in a foreign land, living in tents with Isaac and Jacob, heirs with him of the same promise. 10 For he was looking forward to the city that has foundations, whose designer and builder is God. 11 By faith Sarah herself received power to conceive, even when she was past the age, since she considered him faithful who had promised. 12 Therefore from one man, and him as good as dead, were born descendants as many as the stars of heaven and as many as the innumerable grains of sand by the seashore.

13 These all died in faith, not having received the things promised, but having seen them and greeted them from afar, and having acknowledged that they were strangers and exiles on the earth. 14 For people who speak thus make it clear that they are seeking a homeland. 15 If they had been thinking of that land from which they had gone out, they would have had opportunity to return. 16 But as it is, they desire a better country, that is, a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared for them a city.

17 By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises was in the act of offering up his only son, 18 of whom it was said, “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.” 19 He considered that God was able even to raise him from the dead, from which, figuratively speaking, he did receive him back.

And this corresponds to how Abraham is described in Genesis 18:

17 The Lord said, “Shall I hide from Abraham what I am about to do, 18 seeing that Abraham shall surely become a great and mighty nation, and all the nations of the earth shall be blessed in him? 19 For I have chosen him, that he may command his children and his household after him to keep the way of the Lord by doing righteousness and justice, so that the Lord may bring to Abraham what he has promised him.”

And also in Genesis 26.5 “Abraham obeyed my voice and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.”

Now, neither of these makes a distinction between his pre- and post-circumcision faith resulting in obedience, so Paul singles out what happens before circumcision.  But it is hard not to see Abraham, whom Paul singles out as a Gentile for a time, despite the fact that the Law is not yet given, is supposed to count as proof of Paul’s rhetorical question, “So, if a man who is uncircumcised keeps the precepts of the law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision?”

Can God’s law be gracious?

Leave a reply

Supposedly God’s law is not gracious because it bring wrath.

Thus, for example, Romans 7:

4 Likewise, my brothers, you also have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead, in order that we may bear fruit for God. 5 For while we were living in the flesh, our sinful passions, aroused by the law, were at work in our members to bear fruit for death. 6 But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code.

7 What then shall we say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. For I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.” 8 But sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, produced in me all kinds of covetousness. For apart from the law, sin lies dead. 9 I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died. 10 The very commandment that promised life proved to be death to me. 11 For sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me. 12 So the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good.

13 Did that which is good, then, bring death to me? By no means! It was sin, producing death in me through what is good, in order that sin might be shown to be sin, and through the commandment might become sinful beyond measure. 14 For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am of the flesh, sold under sin. 15 For I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate. 16 Now if I do what I do not want, I agree with the law, that it is good. 17 So now it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me. 18 For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out.

Or consider a much shorter statement from Romans 5:

20 Now the law came in to increase the trespass

Romans 4:

15 For the law brings wrath, but where there is no law there is no transgression.

Or this from Romans 3.20:

through the law comes knowledge of sin.

So can the Law be gracious if this is true?

Yes. From Romans 2, in the context of pointing out that being entrusted with the Law as a circumcised Jew does not mean that one is right with God, Paul writes:

3 Do you suppose, O man—you who judge those who practice such things and yet do them yourself—that you will escape the judgment of God? 4 Or do you presume on the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience, not knowing that God’s kindness is meant to lead you to repentance? 5 But because of your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God’s righteous judgment will be revealed.

Notice that this dynamic unfolding from God’s “kindness” is exactly what Paul says that the Law brings. The law was an aspect of God’s kindness and undeserved graciousness to Israel.

Is preaching through Romans a defensive strategy?

Leave a reply

Who could sit down and read through Romans and understand it?

Doesn’t that bother us?  Why don’t we try more often?

But when we break up the text into sermons, we can evade the problem.  Our need to jump around what is supposed to be an extended argument, as if it were a series of short topical statements, is hidden by the form.

But Romans is meant to be an argument.  It ought to be better understood as a whole.

The Two Ways to Choose From Presented in Romans

1 Reply

Moses confronted Israel with the basic choice at the conclusion of his lecture on the law (which we know as Deuteronomy).  He told them to choose (continuing) life or death–to follow the way set forth in the Torah or to ignore it in favor of some other wisdom or god.

In Romans Paul does the same.  He sees two possible responses to his message.  One is the way of mockery.  To claim that we must do evil that good may come, or to claim that we must remain in sin that grace may abound, and to blame god because he used Israel’s disobedience and yet still hold’s them accountable.

Paul responds to that path by appealing to the uniqueness of God (in that God may use our unfaithfulness to prove faithful) and to the uniqueness of the age of the Law (which is now over so that we are not under law but under grace).

That is the way of death.

The way of life is to learn from the cross that the Christian life is cruciform.  We are to learn that just as god saved us when we were “weak” and did so through the death of His Son, so in our weakness all things work together for good.

That is the way of new life.

Thus we are to learn from how God saves us, not that we may arrange evil but that we can trust God to bring glory out of the evil that we suffer.

Dr. Robert Rayburn’s letter to the PCA’s SJC regarding Dr. Peter Leithart

9 Replies

SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF [to the Standing Judicial Commission]
Judicial Case 2009-6
Pacific Northwest Presbytery
[Presbyterian Church in America]
Robert S. Rayburn
Respondent

Presbytery has received the Proposed Decision of the SJC Panel in Case 2009-6 and respectfully offers this supplemental brief in protest of the decision and its reasoning. To be frank the respondent offers this brief with no expectation of it being read with sympathy. At no point in this process has there been any indication of an intention to give Dr. Leithart or the Presbytery of the Pacific Northwest a sympathetic evaluation, to examine his statements in context, or really to enter into the exploration of the issues raised in this discussion. Nor has there been any acknowledgement that Scripture provides us with data for which the Standards provide us no specific explanations and that is it chiefly this material that comes to the fore in Dr. Leithart’s explorations. I regret to say this brief is offered more as an effort to satisfy the demands of conscience than in any expectation of provoking serious reflection upon the part of the SJC. To that end I protest the decision of the panel and plead with the entire SJC to think again on the following grounds.

The Make-up of the Panel

When the case was first assigned to a panel, Presbytery noted that one of its members had been part of a panel that had heard a case involving similar issues in the Siouxlands Presbytery. Presbytery inquired of the Stated Clerk and the SJC Chairman whether the rules by which panels were appointed had been observed in our case (RAO 17-3) as it seemed doubtful to us that between the spring and the middle of the summer all other members of the SJC would have been selected to serve on panels and the names in the pool been completely turned over (17-3c). The new chairman appointed a different panel, suggesting to us that the roster of the original panel had, in fact, been rigged. But Presbytery now learns that RE Sam Duncan, who authored the panel’s opinion in the present case, was not only a member of the Siouxlands panel, but its chairman. We are trying very hard to believe that this was not an intentional violation of the rules with a view to ensuring that the panel’s judgment would be what it has proved to be. Surely in highly politicized cases such as these, great care should be taken to ensure that the SJC’s conduct of its affairs be above reproach. Has it been? One remembers Herman Bavinck’s melancholy observation – the observation of a politician and a churchman – that while politics are often seamy, church politics are always so.

The Impression of a Prevailing Bias

I simply note the fact that in the panel’s reasoning (C iv) not only is Dr. Leithart cited as writing “The baptized are implanted into Christ’s body, and in Him share in all that he has to give,” but emphasis is added to the last six words. The panel knows very well – it is in the record of the case and was further brought to the panel’s attention during the discussion – that Dr. Leithart retracted that statement as overreaching and unhelpful. To have it used against him in the panel’s report is unconscionable and heightens the overall impression that no effort was made really to extend to Dr. Leithart the courtesy of dealing fairly with his words.

Or, take another illustration. Dr. Leithart’s statement, cited under C vi, that “justification and definitive sanctification are not merely simultaneous…” becomes in the panel’s evaluation a failure to distinguish between justification and sanctification, as if Dr. Leithart were speaking of sanctification in the customary sense of its definition in the Confession and Catechisms. Everyone knows that the distinction between definitive sanctification, a theologoumenon now widely embraced in our circles, and sanctification as a life-process of renovation in righteousness does not appear in the Standards and that definitive sanctification is a dimension of the biblical doctrine that is not clearly represented in their definitions. This failure to extend to a brother the ordinary courtesy of faithfully representing what he actually writes seriously undermines the credit of the panel’s report.

Or, once more, take the statement in the panel’s reasoning that “The Standards teach that faith is the proper response to the Gospel – not to baptism.” [C v] Not only is it an egregious misrepresentation to suggest that Dr. Leithart does not think that faith is the proper response to the Gospel, it is passing strange that a Reformed Christian would not think that faith is the proper response to one’s baptism. Am I not to believe that by baptism I have been enrolled in the church of God? Am I not to believe that being baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit I have a calling to fulfill? Am I not to believe that great and precious promises have been sealed to me in the sacrament and that is my privilege to base my life and hope upon them? Paul certainly seems to feel that faith is the proper response to one’s baptism (e.g. Romans 6:3-4). This kind of argument by false disjunction betrays a spirit and it is not a spirit we should commend.

Theological Reasoning

As the original brief submitted by Presbytery argued there are two fundamental questions that must be answered if a fair judgment is to be reached. Neither of these questions is even addressed, much less answered in the reasoning offered for the panel decision.

The first question is whether any of Dr. Leithart’s teaching actually amounts to a strike at the vitals of the “system of doctrine” taught in the Westminster Standards. The panel can’t have it both ways. Dr. Leithart cannot belong to “the broader reformed community” and, at the same time, have placed himself outside the boundaries of Westminster Calvinism with respect to the vitals of the system. He can’t belong to the broader reformed community and teach that justification is by baptism, not through faith in Christ alone. One suspects that the panel doesn’t really take its own reasoning seriously if it can, at the end of the day, cheerfully acknowledge Dr. Leithart’s membership in the “broader Reformed community.” Quite apart from whether the panel has faithfully represented Dr. Leithart’s views – it most certainly has not (I would say its report demonstrates a perverse tendency not only to cherry-pick citations but to interpret them without regard to the context in which they are found) – Christian brotherhood and loyalty to Holy Scripture (as well as loyalty to the Standards as our subordinate rule of faith) require it to engage the discussion as to whether this teaching in any particular amounts not to a difference of emphasis or an attempt to refine by reference to other biblical data but amounts instead to an attack upon the nervous system of the Reformed Faith. Let me remind the brothers that the sort of arguments used by the panel have not persuaded a significant number of PCA men (two presbyteries have placed their considered opinions on the record), including honored teachers in a number of our theological faculties that Dr. Leithart’s teaching strikes at the vitals. You are purporting to drive out of the church a long-serving minister and you haven’t convinced a sizeable number of able men, just as committed to Westminster Calvinism as you are, that there is any need to do so! It is indeed problematic that a committee of ministers and elders, including men “who have studied at seminary and beyond,” cannot explain to the satisfaction of many of their peers the great danger present in Dr. Leithart’s teaching. [C iv]

In a similar way to represent Dr. Leithart’s taking a side in the now longstanding debate about the covenant of works as striking at the vitals of our system of theology is absurd. Are we seriously of a mind to think that John Murray could not serve in the Presbyterian Church in America? First, the panel treats us to the more than faintly ridiculous conclusion that though Dr. Leithart teaches that is there is discontinuity between the Adamic covenant and the post-lapsarian covenants [C i] – a discontinuity rooted in the entrance of sin and change of federal head from Adam to the Son of God! – that there is nevertheless no significant difference between the covenants. Surely God’s covenant with sinners in Jesus Christ represents a difference of some significance! Second, there is a total failure accurately to represent the nature of this debate. Strip away the sloganeering and what is left is, first, Dr. Leithart’s assertion that there is grace in the first covenant – as demonstrated in Presbytery’s brief, this a commonplace of Reformed teaching and of the teaching of Westminster divines and certainly is not contradicted by any statement in the Standards – and, second, there was the necessity of faith on Adam’s part. Surely, unless Adam were omniscient in Eden and God were then a visible being, Adam must have had to have been a believer! Surely he was required to believe what God told him and to believe that his life lay in obedience to God’s commandments! To equate this position in this debate with overturning our system of doctrine is the worst sort of overreaching. Palmer Robertson wisely points out that the nomenclature of covenant of works/covenant of grace has strengths and limitations and he too asserts that there was grace in the first covenant.1 Those who read the Standards as emphasizing a meritocracy and those who read them as emphasizing the gracious foundation of all God’s covenant dealings with humanity can both find their view in the language of the Standards and in the Westminster tradition. The Standards are simply not sufficiently precise to settle this debate.

The second question is whether it is proper for PCA ministers to draw our attention to biblical data for which our theological Standards provide no summary. Is it not a salutary work to attempt to account for biblical teaching that is not incorporated in the theological summary provided in the Standards? Is it possible, that is, to affirm from the heart, the assertions of the Standards while pointing out that there are senses in which the Bible uses the same theological terminology in other ways and to other effects? This is, in fact, what the Presbytery concluded Dr. Leithart has done. For example, the panel argues that it is obviously impossible for someone to be justified temporarily. And, no doubt, in the ordinary sense of the term in its theological usage, that is a correct conclusion. But there is no constitutional warrant for the conclusion that the term can always and only be used in accordance with this confessional usage. Justification – whatever else it is – is the forgiveness of sins. It is perfectly obvious that there is such a thing as temporary forgiveness because the Bible says there is (cf. Num. 14:20 with 1 Cor. 10:5; Ezekiel 16:1-14; Matthew 18:32-34; etc.). Whether we are entirely satisfied with Dr. Leithart’s effort to incorporate this biblical material into the larger picture of the way of divine grace, the fact is, temporary forgiveness is a biblical datum. The panel has the audacity to say that “What Scripture says about a particular topic is set forth in our Standards.” [C vi] Really? Where do the Standards deal with temporary forgiveness? If, indeed, Holy Scripture is really our only infallible rule of faith we cannot possibly object to a man working hard to understand how such teaching is to be incorporated into the system, all the more if, as in Dr. Leithart’s case, he confesses loyalty to that system and proves it in his writings. What is more, our loyalty to Holy Scripture absolutely requires us in such a case as this to acknowledge in our discussion of his views of justification and the other benefits of Christ’s redemption that there is obviously a sense in which forgiveness may be temporary, holiness temporary, a family relationship with God temporary, “life” itself temporary, even the love of God temporary (Deut. 7:7-11; Hos. 11:1). To fail to do that, to act as if such ideas were preposterous, is to betray our theology with a kiss. Where, pray tell, do the Standards “reject any form of `theoretical’ or temporary justification”? Do the Standards teach us to deny that the Lord pardoned Israel in the wilderness notwithstanding that she perished in her sins or to deny that he himself says that he washed Israel and made her clean (Ezek. 16:4,9)? If so, let the panel tell us where they teach us to do so?

In the same way, the GA Report notwithstanding, where do the Standards teach that our justification on the last day (our “acquittal” as the Catechisms have it) is not based in any way on our works? [C v] Presbytery’s original brief demonstrated that this is hardly the opinion of the authorities of Westminster Calvinism in general and, in fact, the Standards don’t explain one way or another how our works may be related to our final acquittal. The panel admits that “in one sense” Dr. Leithart’s statement is true that “we are justified by works in whatever sense James means it.” Well, then, in what sense is Dr. Leithart’s statement untrue? Dr. Leithart hasn’t gone nearly so far as Robert Dabney in relating our final justification to our works! What is his error?

Again, who denies that the Standards employ the phrase “union with Christ” to signify Christ’s relationship with the elect? Certainly not Dr. Leithart. When he uses the terminology this way he is in explicit agreement with the Standards. But while this understanding of union with Christ is essential to the Scripture-based theological definition of the term as it is employed in the Standards, it is hardly fair to suppose that the Standards’ definition of union with Christ be deemed present in every biblical passage that uses that same terminology or that drawing attention to the different biblical uses of the terminology somehow amounts to a betrayal of the teaching of the Standards. What grounds (constitutional or otherwise) are there for insisting that all the Hebrew and Greek terms and phrases under consideration must be used by biblical writers only as we find them used in the Standards? The biblical idea of union with Christ is multiform, not uniform and richer than the specific use of this terminology in the Standards. Why is this not cheerfully admitted when it is so obviously true? It poses no threat whatsoever to the constitutional usage to admit this. Why is the discussion of Dr. Leithart’s teaching not conducted with an eye open to these other uses of the terminology? Why is it not obvious in the panel’s reasoning that it is well aware of these facts and was concerned to remain faithful to them in its evaluation of Dr. Leithart’s writings?

Once again, it remains a simple fact that the Standards do not explain what precisely we are to think of the experience of a man who was baptized and who enjoyed powerful experiences of the ministry of the Holy Spirit but who proved at last not to be saved. I am frankly flabbergasted by the assertion of the panel that it is untrue that “some baptized unbelievers have for a time some measure of a real connection with the Son and the Spirit.” [C v] Does not the Scripture say explicitly of such people that they “shared in the Holy Spirit” (Heb. 6:4) and were “sanctified” by the “blood of the covenant” (10:29)? I want very much to believe that we are together committed to Holy Scripture as our only infallible rule of faith, but it becomes harder to believe that when statements are made in the panel’s reasoning in defense of what they take to be the Standards teaching that seem to amount to a direct contradiction of the plain speaking of the Bible.

The Bible does not scruple to attribute life to people who eventually die in their sins (Ezek. 16:6; Matt. 13:5-7). It does this repeatedly. It does not scruple to speak of God’s love for such people and of their having been his children (Isa. 1:2; Jer. 1:16; Matt. 13:5-7; etc.). These are facts and any good faith examination of Dr. Leithart’s work should clearly and emphatically take note of those facts and discuss his proposals in view of them. Otherwise we are not reasoning biblically and theologically, we are sloganeering.

What is repeatedly revealed in the panel’s argument, alas, is a persistent failure to grasp the real status questionis and, consequently, the lines of argument are not drawn with the precision necessary to ensure a proper solution. This is true in respect to every issue the panel takes under its review. For example, in the matter of justification the panel fails carefully to distinguish between the causa materialis and the causae instrumentalium. Reformed theology does not doubt, for example, that faith is a cause of justification, but it is not its ground, which is alone the righteousness of Christ. The Word of God, the gospel, is a cause of justification, but not its ground (1 Cor. 15:2; Eph. 1:13; 2 Thess. 2:14). And, in the same way, the works of a Christian’s life are a cause of the sinner’s final justification (whether as its vindication or its demonstration) while certainly not being its ground or material cause.2 Without attention to such careful distinctions and without the demonstration that Dr. Leithart’s view has been scrutinized in keeping with these distinctions the panel’s reasoning is an exercise in comparing, as we say, apples and oranges.

In the same way the panel’s argument fails to disclose in what ways baptism may serve as a causa instrumentalis in the salvation of sinners, which our Standards certainly teach that it is when they refer to it as a means of grace or as Scripture does when it says that we are cleansed “by the washing with water through the word” (Eph. 5:26). After all, a very simple piece of confessional reasoning leads us to the conclusion that baptism is ordinarily necessary for salvation. We read in WCF XXVIII, i, that baptism is “for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible church….” And we read in WCF XXV, ii, that “outside of [the visible church] there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.” The conclusion follows by rigorous necessity: ordinarily baptism is necessary for salvation. Whatever else one may say about this, it is a reminder that in our Standards there is more to baptism than there is in the panel’s argument! Dr.Leithart’s position is critiqued as if the theological alternative were solely baptism as the ground of justification or salvation, on the one hand, or baptism as contributing little or nothing to salvation on the other.

What the panel should have done was to work hard to set Dr. Leithart’s teaching within the context of this much more sophisticated theology of the causae salutis and the instrumenta gratiarum in hopes of finding that it fits adequately within such a framework. This it very clearly did not do.

Biblical Exegesis

At the beginning of Presbytery’s thirty minutes before the panel Presbytery’s respondent was told in quite a peremptory way to read Romans 6:1-7. “That is not about baptism,” he was told. I assume they meant that it was not about water baptism, the rite of baptism. This is the view now represented in the panel’s reasoning [C v]. Gentlemen, do you really want to go on record saying that the PCA does not believe that Romans 6 is about water baptism? That is a conclusion you will find in no reputable commentary on Romans: from Hodge to Murray, from Bruce to Cranfield, from Ridderbos to Moo. Let’s not make ourselves a laughingstock. Is PCA baptism really so light, so weightless, so invisible that it cannot be found even where it is the explicit subject of a text of Holy Scripture? However else one may account for the reality of baptized unbelief, Romans 6 is most assuredly about water baptism and it is an offense to the entire tradition of Christian biblical study to deny this!

The argument of the panel, according to which we are told how particular texts of Holy Scripture are to be interpreted, amounts to a very different assertion than that the Standards represent “standard expositions of the teachings of Scripture” (BCO 29-1). We are being told that the Standards demand a particular exegesis of various texts, even historically controversial texts such as 1 Pet. 3:21. The SJC has no such authority in our church to determine the exegesis of passages of Holy Scripture. We do not have in the PCA a constitutional standard of exegesis whose effect is that all of us must agree that Romans 6, for example, is not about water baptism! This is only another way in which the panel’s reasoning proves to be extra-confessional if not anti-confessional.

The panel seems to be operating with the assumption that the Standards’ view of sacramental relation (WCF XXVII, ii) amounts to permission to choose in any text whether the reference is to the sacrament or what the sacrament signifies and seals. This is hardly the meaning of the Confession’s statement however and it will be very difficult to find any Reformed authority who thinks it is. The solution to the “problem” created by the fact that the rite of baptism is performed in many cases when the subject does not belong to the elect of God does not lie in the sacramental relation between the sign and the thing signified. That relation rather means that whatever is true of Baptism with the Holy Spirit is attributed to Baptism with water.3 There is no principle of theology or exegesis according to which we may believe that when the Bible mentions baptism it is referring to something else than what everyone understands by the term!

Theological Statement

I have already referred to what I regard as errors of interpretation in the panel’s reasoning. But there are other examples of this that ought not to go unnoticed. For example, we are told [C v] that, according to the Standards “baptism only `represents’ Christ and his benefits.” That is, of course, incorrect. According to the Standards baptism signifies, seals, and exhibits the benefits of Christ. Indeed, in baptism when rightly used, “the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited4, and conferred, by the Holy Ghost…” [WCF xxviii, 6] It makes some difference whether the Standards’ actual view of baptismal efficacy lies behind the critique of Dr. Leithart’s views or the much weaker view of the sacrament entertained by the panel. Their statement about what baptism does raises the obvious question as to whether the panel members themselves should register an exception to the Standards on this point.

Again, we are told that “Leithart is categorically wrong” in saying that baptism “has the power to grant newness of life.” What does that mean? Is the panel supposing that Dr. Leithart actually teaches that baptism works as an opus operatum? That is preposterous and certainly unproven in the record. Are they then denying that baptism is a means of grace? Of course the sacraments have power to grant newness of life. Our Standards say as much. They are “the outward and ordinary means by which Christ communicates to us the benefits of redemption” among which newness of life is chief! The Word has that power; so do the sacraments; so does prayer.5 Of course they work instrumentally. Of course they are not the efficient or the material causes of salvation. Of course they are the apparatus of divine grace and the means of the application of Christ’s redemption by the Spirit. But they certainly have power to grant newness of life. God invests them with that power as our Standards plainly teach. Gentlemen, please do not confirm an explanation of our church’s doctrine that manages to deny what our Standards explicitly affirm.

Similarly, we have the extraordinary statement in C v: “In the place of the Biblical and confessional teaching of salvation, Leithart teaches that those who are baptized with water obtain eternal salvation only through persevering in covenant faithfulness.” Are we actually denying the truth of that statement? Are we denying that sinners obtain eternal salvation only through perseverance? Is it the panel’s view that we obtain salvation without perseverance in covenant faithfulness? Is the necessity of perseverance not what we believe and is it not what the Bible and our Standards plainly teach? Can you not see how such statements as these wholly undermine the case the panel is attempting to make? Brothers, the panel’s reasoning is an argument so confusing as an account of the doctrine of our Standards and so suspiciously uncaring of the plain speaking of both the Standards and Holy Scripture that I can’t help but think it would be deeply embarrassing to us to have it published as the thinking of our church.

The Unity of the Church

Perhaps the most disturbing and discouraging aspect of the panel’s report is its cavalier dismissal of the obligations of Christian unity. In section A, after quoting a statement from the original brief of the Presbytery to the effect that Dr. Leithart holds to the great system of Reformed theology as expressed in the Westminster Confession and Catechisms, we read, “But such external criteria of central tenets is not the appropriate criteria.” I, for one, thought the central tenets by which any system of theology is formed were precisely the criteria by which we determined whether a man held to our system of doctrine. That is almost entirely what the Westminster Confession is concerned with: central tenets. That explains why there is so much biblical data it does not summarize or systematize. It is precisely the challenge posed by Dr. Leithart’s work that he is proposing to give an account of other things besides central tenets. I was, by the way, unaware until reading the panel’s report that there are Anglican Presbyterians! Reformed Baptists, we read, could affirm “some central tenets of the Standards.” Precisely. But they couldn’t affirm others. That is why Reformed Baptists are not Presbyterians. But Dr. Leithart affirms all the central tenets.

The panel seems to accept the existence of denominations with blithe indifference rather than as a tragic necessity that must be worked against with might and main. The panel seems to think it convenient, a happy providence, to be able to offload Dr. Leithart on to the “broader reformed community.” There has been in all of this discussion in our church precious lack of any concern that rending the body of Christ over hyper-fine points of biblical and systematic theology may in fact be an offense to God and a betrayal of the one, holy, catholic church. There is a real risk here, brothers, and the risk is that the Lord Christ will be displeased with what we are doing. I fear that the world will never be likely to infer either that the Father sent the Son or that God loves his people by observing the way our church is practicing unity. [John 17:21-23] No yeoman effort to preserve and protect that unity. No determination to be sure that we have read our brother fairly, have honestly engaged the challenge of his writing, and that we have been compelled to conclude, virtually against our will, that it is an absolute necessity that he not be permitted to remain in our brotherhood. Quite the contrary. The blogs, I hear, are dripping with glee over the panel’s report. What is more, the panel seems virtually to hold it against the Presbytery that we chose to place Dr. Leithart’s statements in the best possible light. Love always hopes but I see little of this hope in the panel’s report. I fear the Lord’s displeasure at this unseemly disunity fueled by party spirit. May I remind the brothers of this statement from the “Preface” of our Book of Church Order:

“While it is necessary to make effective provision that all who are admitted as teachers be sound in the faith, there are truths and forms with respect to which men of good character and principles may differ. In all these it is the duty both of private Christians and societies to exercise mutual forbearance toward each other” (Preliminary Principle 5).

May I also remind the SJC that even such a finding as the panel purports to make, viz. that Dr. Leithart “holds views that place him out of accord with the Standards,” is not yet grounds for a trial. Dr Leithart has made no secret of his views and so has not been neglectful of his vows. Indeed, the panel has failed to persuade the Presbytery that he does not in fact hold to the general and the specific teaching of our Standards. But the fact is, even were the SJC panel correct in its assessment of the relationship between Dr. Leithart’s views and the teaching of our Standards, it would still be possible, indeed preferable, to seek to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace by simply requesting that he register certain exceptions to the Standards and leave it to Presbytery to determine if those exceptions strike at the vitals. Indeed, I think the Presbytery would be very interested to know what exceptions the SJC believes he should take to what particular assertions of the Standards.

What Presbytery is still waiting to receive is a fair representation and examination of Dr. Leithart’s work and Presbytery’s evaluation of it, conducted in a spirit that cherishes unity as well as purity, and that eschews a simplistic criticism that fails to do justice to the richness of biblical teaching and Reformed theology. We despair to believe that such an evaluation cannot still be forthcoming from the courts of our church.”

God’s Patience with the Vessels of Wrath :: Desiring God Christian Resource Library

Leave a reply

God’s Patience with the Vessels of Wrath :: Desiring God Christian Resource Library.

Reviewing John Piper’s argument here is really reinforcing to my mind that Paul is talking about something much different.  While I have no problem with the theology, if that was Paul’s point than Romans 11 is a virtual a reversal of direction.

Piper’s appeal to intertestamental Jewish literature strikes me as ironic, given his reaction to N. T. Wright–but I’m not sure I am being entirely fair.

But his quotation from Second Maccabees reminds me of what God told Abraham in Genesis 15.16: “And they shall come back here in the fourth generation, for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete.”  This used to sound to my calvinistic mind like God wanted them to sin more to punish them more.

But while God’s sovereignty cannot eliminate that perspective, the point was something with better implications:

God doesn’t simply destroy cultures because they are made up of sinners.

In fact, originally, he did not judge at all.  Cain got away with murder–literally–and was permitted to create a thriving culture until all the godly one’s were seduced and only Noah was left.  God intervened at the last possible moment.

After the flood, God promised to never destroy the world again.  What people seem to not realize is that God was promising to judge cultures sooner than he had before. God’s justice demanded that he eventually act.  By promising to not destroy the world he was promising to not let the earth get so wicked that he was obligated to do so.

Thus the contrast between Cain’s city and the Tower of Babel.  Cain goes east and builds a city and increases wickedness.  Nimrod goes east and builds a city and it is scattered.  God will now intervene more quickly.

But it is still not random (even though we can’t know his criteria and timing).  So the fact that God won’t judge the Amorites yet, when he speaks to Abraham, is because they don’t deserve it yet.  We know this is the case because, in the case of the exceeding wickedness of Sodom and Gomorrah, God refuses to wait.  He judges them with fire from heaven in that generation.

And so if God is enduring unbelieving Israel, he is giving people time to switch sides, just like Tamar switched sides and many others joined with Abraham’s clan as servants–becoming Israelites rather than Canaanites.

The difference is that only a minority of Canaanites did this, whereas Paul predicts that the majority of Israel will turn, that they have only received “a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. And in this way all Israel will be saved”

From 2004: Mixing “Law” and Gospel in the Abrahamic Promise, A Response to Michael Horton

3 Replies

One of the odd features of Michael Horton’s version of Covenant theology is his interpretation of the covenant God made with Abraham [or Abram] in Genesis 15. According to Horton,

  1. The very way in which God made the covenant with Abraham (putting him to sleep; walking through the torn animals by Himself, etc) indicates that God made an unconditional covenant which he would fulfill regardless of Abraham’s behavior.
  2. Since eternal life is promised in this way by God in Genesis 15, we do not need to fulfill any covenantal conditions to inherit eternal life.
  3. This promise made in Genesis 15 also includes a grant of the land of Canaan.
  4. This land had to be earned by doing good works.
  5. Thus, both the covenant of grace and the covenant of works are revealed in the promise of Genesis 15.

In the interest of ensuring the reader that I am correctly analyzing Horton’s position, I offer a couple of examples.

The first example is found in Horton’s (quite decent!) book on Reformed liturgy, A Better Way: Rediscovering the Drama of God-Centered Worship (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002; p. 22). You can also find it here as long as Google keeps it archived. Horton writes of Genesis 15 (specifically verse 8-10, 12-14, 17-18):

Two sorts of things are promised by God in this covenant: a holy land (Canaan) and everlasting life. What especially distinguishes this suzerainty treaty is the fact that although God and Abram are covenant partners, the Lord (appearing as a smoking firepot with a blazing torch) walks alone through this path, placing on his own head all of the sanctions and assuming on his own shoulders the curses which he himself has imposed, should the treaty be violated by either party…Eventually, God’s promise was fulfilled: Israel did inherit the land. As mentioned previously, God promised a holy land and everlasting life. As becomes clearer with the progress of redemption, the land was (like Adam’s enjoyment of Eden) dependent on works — the obedience of the Israelites. The Mosaic covenant, with its ceremonial and civil as well as moral laws, promised blessing for obedience and judgment for disobedience. Once again, God would fight for his people and give them a new Eden, a land flowing with milk and honey. God would be present among his people in the temple as long as they were righteous.

But (also like Adam) Israel failed and in its rebellion violated the treaty with the great king, provoking God to enact the sanctions of this works covenant. The lush garden of God became a wasteland of thorns and thistles, as God removed his kingdom back up into heaven, the children of Israel being carted off to Babylonian exile.

Our second example comes from a presentation of views in which Horton participated with a Lutheran spokesman. In a discussion in which Horton wants to persuade his Lutheran dialogue partner that Reformed theology is compatible with the Lutheran law-gospel emphasis , he says in part:

As Reformed theologian Meredith Kline has underscored, the Mosaic administration is a covenant of works with the covenant of grace nevertheless still alive and well, running throughout and under his administration. The Mosaic economy, enshrined in the theocracy, could never have supplanted the Abrahamic covenant of grace, although both coexisted in the theocratic period (Gal. 3:15-18). How can this be? It is clear from numerous texts that there are conditional promises and unconditional promises. In the Abrahamic Covenant, God himself walked through the severed halves of sacrificial animals, taking personal responsibility by himself for all the covenantal sanctions. “May the judgment fall upon me if this covenant is broken,” God is telling Abraham in this mysterious dream in Genesis 15. It is repeatedly called an “everlasting covenant” that will result in a Seed who will be their Savior and in whom all the nations of the earth will be blessed. This is an “I will do this” covenant, with God doing the talking, not an, “If you do this, I will do that” sort of arrangement.But a different set of promises is given as well. They pertain not to all the earth, but to Abraham’s physical descendants, and they pertain to an earthly land, not to the heavenly rest. These promises are distinguished further by their obvious conditionality. As long as his descendants obey, they will live long in the land, just as Adam’s inheritance was dependent on his personal fulfillment of the covenant’s conditions. Israel was God’s servant, like Adam. It was God’s theocracy, his presence in glory among his people redeemed from Egyptian servitude. But they did not serve the Lord; instead, they turned to other gods that could not redeem.

The Old Covenant contains both the covenant of works (the typological land with its conditional promises) and the covenant of grace (heavenly land with its unconditional foundation in Jesus Christ who has fulfilled the covenant of works). The law is fulfilled at last, not set aside. The wicked are justified under a new federal head. And the conditional promises in the Old Covenant are interpreted as applying solely to the national Israel under the law, bearing its curses with its eventual expulsion from the land. Rather than simply pitting the Old Covenant against the New, then, we recognize a disparity even within the Old Covenant itself, as the theocracy based on the Mosaic laws fails and yet is left with faithful prophets with their fingers pointing forward to a future fulfillment: “Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world.”

This is how we understand Jeremiah 31, with the promises of the New Covenant. It is precisely this covenantal explanation that Paul uses to make sense of things in Galatians, especially in 4:21-31. There, the two covenants are represented by two mothers, Hagar and Sarah, and by two mountains, Sinai and Zion. Shocking to the Judaizers, Paul identifies Hagar-­the mother of Ishmael, with the earthly Jerusalem “in bondage with her children,” while Sarah and her children are free, belonging to Zion, “the Jerusalem above.” At least Paul sees Federal theology as the structural way of presenting the law-Gospel distinction in its sharpest features.

Does the covenant of grace involve responsibilities on our part? Of course it does. It requires repentance and faith. Does this make it conditional after all? Some Federal theologians, especially some of the later Puritans who were justifiably worried about an overemphasis on this side of things, refused to acknowledge repentance and faith as “conditions,” since God gives them both as gifts. But whether or not we call them conditions, surely our Lutheran brothers and sisters would agree that they are necessary for salvation — not as works or a basis, but as the divinely given response to God’s objective and completed work in Christ.

I must point out that this last paragraph is quite hopeful. Here we are told that the Reformed heritage is, for the most part, quite comfortable saying that faith and repentance are conditions. Only some later ones, mainly Puritans, began to question this. It would be helpful to know who Horton means, especially given the rise of outright antinomianism among the later Puritans, but it is still good to read these acknowledgments. We must also appreciate that Horton says that it really should not matter if one calls them conditions at all. However, since Horton has just insisted that there are entirely unconditional promises made in the Abrahamic covenant, one wonders how this concluding comment comports with his argument. This might explain why some Reformed writers have found themselves to be the targets of Horton’s criticism for affirming the very thing which the early Reformers and mainstream Federal theologians also affirmed.

THE BASIC PROBLEM: CONDITIONAL OR UNCONDITIONAL?
Putting that aside for the moment: Horton’s basic argument is self-contradictory. Consider points (1) and (3) above. It is impossible to say that the method by which the covenant was made rules out works-righteousness and then, in the same breath or on the same page, say that, in fact, one of the things contained in the promise was meant to be attained by works of obedience after all. If the thing promised is conditional then one must hold that the promise was not unconditional. Horton argues the land was promised in Genesis 15. If the land is held conditionally, then the promise is conditional. And if the land is held on the basis of works-righteousness, then the promise is given on the condition of works-righteousness.

In my opinion, Horton is right to see that the covenant God made with Abraham was fundamentally gracious. However, it was not, therefore, unconditional. Faith and repentance were required then as they are for us. Furthermore, faith and repentance were required in order to receive and remain in the land as well as for resurrection life afterwards.

WHERE IS ETERNAL LIFE MENTIONED?
To look at Horton’s assertions, one would expect to find two separate promises, one of land and the other of eternal life. But we find no such thing in the text:

After these things the word of the Lord came to Abram in a vision: “Fear not, Abram, I am your shield; your reward shall be very great.” But Abram said, “O Lord God, what will you give me, for I continue childless, and the heir of my house is Eliezer of Damascus?” And Abram said, “Behold, you have given me no offspring, and a member of my household will be my heir.” 4 And behold, the word of the Lord came to him: “This man shall not be your heir; your very own son shall be your heir.” And he brought him outside and said, “Look toward heaven, and number the stars, if you are able to number them.” Then he said to him, “So shall your offspring be.” And he believed the Lord, and he counted it to him as righteousness.And he said to him, “I am the Lord who brought you out from Ur of the Chaldeans to give you this land to possess.” But he said, “O Lord God, how am I to know that I shall possess it?” He said to him, “Bring me a heifer three years old, a female goat three years old, a ram three years old, a turtledove, and a young pigeon.” And he brought him all these, cut them in half, and laid each half over against the other. But he did not cut the birds in half. And when birds of prey came down on the carcasses, Abram drove them away.

As the sun was going down, a deep sleep fell on Abram. And behold, dreadful and great darkness fell upon him. Then the Lord said to Abram, “Know for certain that your offspring will be sojourners in a land that is not theirs and will be servants there, and they will be afflicted for four hundred years. But I will bring judgment on the nation that they serve, and afterward they shall come out with great possessions. As for yourself, you shall go to your fathers in peace; you shall be buried in a good old age. And they shall come back here in the fourth generation, for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete.”

When the sun had gone down and it was dark, behold, a smoking fire pot and a flaming torch passed between these pieces. On that day the Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying, “To your offspring I give this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the river Euphrates, 19 the land of the Kenites, the Kenizzites, the Kadmonites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Rephaim, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Girgashites and the Jebusites.”

The “great reward” God promises is an heir and an inheritance in land. Abraham is declared righteous because he believes that he will have a son and, from him, a great people. God’s declaration is that he will rescue his descendents from Egypt and bring them into the Promised Land to own it.

Unquestionably, God promised Abraham more than land, but he did so in his promise of land. There are not two separate promises here, but rather one promise that includes everything from Palestinian real estate to resurrection. As Paul writes, “For the promise to Abraham and his offspring that he would be heir of the world (cosmos) did not come through the law but through the righteousness of faith.” This is obviously a reference to Genesis 15 (interpreted in light of Gen 12.3; 22.17, 18) and Paul assumes that the land promised represents the entire new creation. The land is eternal life, representatively or perhaps typologically; anyone who has preached on the burial stories in Genesis knows this.

THE LAND A GRACIOUS GIFT
Consider Psalm 16.1-6:

Preserve me, O God, for in you I take refuge.
I say to the Lord, “You are my Lord;
I have no good apart from you.”

As for the saints in the land, they are the excellent ones,
in whom is all my delight.

The sorrows of those who run after another god shall multiply;
their drink offerings of blood I will not pour out
or take their names on my lips.

The Lord is my chosen portion and my cup;
you hold my lot.
The lines have fallen for me in pleasant places;
indeed, I have a beautiful inheritance.

Now we see here that God is giving David more than mere land (vv. 9-10 are mentioned by the Apostle Paul as prophesying the resurrection of Jesus). But we certainly see that land is in view. The Israelite families were given their heritage, their property in the Promised Land, by God working through the casting of lots. This placement was not something they earned, nor was it held by them on the basis of the perfect, perpetual obedience required of Adam and Eve. No they thank God for it because he gave it too them out of sheer grace.

But this gracious gift does not mean that the land was held unconditionally. “The sorrows of those who run after another god shall multiply; their drink offerings of blood I will not pour out or take their names on my lips.” Leviticus and Deuteronomy are clear that, if the people go after other gods, the Lord will remove them from their land. Of course, if one is speaking of meritorious works then the land and all other blessings are unconditional. But warning the Israelites of destruction if they turn away from the true God to false ones is not an demand for perfect obedience but rather a warning that apart from faith it is impossible to please God (Hebrews 11.6).

In Moses’ farewell sermon, which we know as Deuteronomy, he repeatedly reminds them that the land is a gracious gift:

For you are a people holy to the Lord your God. The Lord your God has chosen you to be a people for his treasured possession, out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth. It was not because you were more in number than any other people that the Lord set his love on you and chose you, for you were the fewest of all peoples, but it is because the Lord loves you and is keeping the oath that he swore to your fathers, that the Lord has brought you out with a mighty hand and redeemed you from the house of slavery, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt (7.6-8).Do not say in your heart, after the Lord your God has thrust them out before you, ‘It is because of my righteousness that the Lord has brought me in to possess this land,’ whereas it is because of the wickedness of these nations that the Lord is driving them out before you. Not because of your righteousness or the uprightness of your heart are you going in to possess their land, but because of the wickedness of these nations the Lord your God is driving them out from before you, and that he may confirm the word that the Lord swore to your fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob. Know, therefore, that the Lord your God is not giving you this good land to possess because of your righteousness, for you are a stubborn people. Remember and do not forget how you provoked the Lord your God to wrath in the wilderness. From the day you came out of the land of Egypt until you came to this place, you have been rebellious against the Lord. 8 Even at Horeb you provoked the Lord to wrath, and the Lord was so angry with you that he was ready to destroy you. When I went up the mountain to receive the tablets of stone, the tablets of the covenant that the Lord made with you, I remained on the mountain forty days and forty nights. I neither ate bread nor drank water. And the Lord gave me the two tablets of stone written with the finger of God, and on them were all the words that the Lord had spoken with you on the mountain out of the midst of the fire on the day of the assembly. And at the end of forty days and forty nights the Lord gave me the two tablets of stone, the tablets of the covenant. Then the Lord said to me, “Arise, go down quickly from here, for your people whom you have brought from Egypt have acted corruptly. They have turned aside quickly out of the way that I commanded them; they have made themselves a metal image” (9.4-12).

Obviously there is no way that Moses is telling the Israelites that they receive the land by earning it. On the contrary, they have been so disobedient that they should already be dead, not standing at the edge of the Promised Land. The Land is given by God out of mere grace and it is received and remained in by faith and repentance.

PAUL’S DEUTERONOMIC GOSPEL
Thus, Moses tells the people to live by faith and to live a life of repentance:

For this commandment that I command you today is not too hard for you, neither is it far off. It is not in heaven, that you should say, “Who will ascend to heaven for us and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?” Neither is it beyond the sea, that you should say, “Who will go over the sea for us and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?” But the word is very near you. It is in your mouth and in your heart, so that you can do it.See, I have set before you today life and good, death and evil. If you obey the commandments of the Lord your God that I command you today, by loving the Lord your God, by walking in his ways, and by keeping his commandments and his statutes and his rules, then you shall live and multiply, and the Lord your God will bless you in the land that you are entering to take possession of it. But if your heart turns away, and you will not hear, but are drawn away to worship other gods and serve them, I declare to you today, that you shall surely perish. You shall not live long in the land that you are going over the Jordan to enter and possess. I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse. Therefore choose life, that you and your offspring may live, loving the Lord your God, obeying his voice and holding fast to him, for he is your life and length of days, that you may dwell in the land that the Lord swore to your fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give them (Deuteronomy 30.11-20).

We know that Moses is preaching grace and faith rather than a demand for perfect obedience and works-righteousness because the Apostle Paul makes it clear that, far from setting forth a “typological covenant of works” Moses is preaching the Gospel beforehand:

the righteousness based on faith says, “Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’” (that is, to bring Christ down) or “‘Who will descend into the abyss?’” (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart” (that is, the word of faith that we proclaim); because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. For the Scripture says, “Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame” (Romans 10.6-10).

BREAKING COVENANT
Horton strongly implies that it is impossible to be punished as a covenant-breaker in the Abrahamic covenant: “In the Abrahamic Covenant, God himself walked through the severed halves of sacrificial animals, taking personal responsibility by himself for all the covenantal sanctions. ‘May the judgment fall upon me if this covenant is broken.’” According to Paul, Christians need to watch out lest they share the same fate as those under Moses who did not inherit the promises. For example:

I want you to know, brothers, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, 3 and all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ. Nevertheless, with most of them God was not pleased, for they were overthrown in the wilderness.Now these things took place as examples for us, that we might not desire evil as they did. Do not be idolaters as some of them were; as it is written, “The people sat down to eat and drink and rose up to play.” We must not indulge in sexual immorality as some of them did, and twenty-three thousand fell in a single day. We must not put Christ to the test, as some of them did and were destroyed by serpents, nor grumble, as some of them did and were destroyed by the Destroyer. Now these things happened to them as an example, but they were written down for our instruction, on whom the end of the ages has come. Therefore let anyone who thinks that he stands take heed lest he fall. No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your ability, but with the temptation he will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it.

Therefore, my beloved, flee from idolatry. I speak as to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I say. 16 The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread. Consider the people of Israel: are not those who eat the sacrifices participants in the altar? What do I imply then? That food offered to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything? No, I imply that what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God. I do not want you to be participants with demons. You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons. Shall we provoke the Lord to jealousy? Are we stronger than he? (First Corinthians 10.1-22).

There is no way this warning is compatible with the idea that we are in an unconditional covenant while the Israelites were under a “works covenant.” It simply makes no sense. Furthermore we see the same thing in Romans 11 where the Christians are warned not to fall by unbelief the way the Jews have. It is repeated more than once in Hebrews. Indeed, the author of Hebrews explicitly states that the Israelites were supposed to receive the land by faith but, because they did not mix what they heard with faith, then died in the wilderness.

For who were those who heard and yet rebelled? Was it not all those who left Egypt led by Moses? And with whom was he provoked for forty years? Was it not with those who sinned, whose bodies fell in the wilderness? And to whom did he swear that they would not enter his rest, but to those who were disobedient? So we see that they were unable to enter because of unbelief. Therefore, while the promise of entering his rest still stands, let us fear lest any of you should seem to have failed to reach it. For good news came to us just as to them, but the message they heard did not benefit them, because they were not united by faith with those who listened (3.16-4.2).

The land was given by grace and received by faith, not by works. Christ—his life, death, resurrection, ascension, and intercession—was the ground of the covenant both before his work and after it. The conditions of the covenant grant, whether narrowly construed as land or more accurately understood as the new creation, were alwaysfaith and repentance. If those within that covenant refuse to repent or believe then they are covenant breakers irrespective of the allegedly unconditional nature of the Abrahamic Covenant in Genesis 15.

According to Horton, Israel lost the land because they did not meet up with the strict demands of the Covenant of works. According to Hebrews, Israel lost the land because they refused to believe the Gospel. According to Horton, Christians need not fear that the covenant can be broken because they are in a different covenant than that of the Israelites. According to Paul, the Israelites provide a negative example for us and we need be warned lest we too break covenant.

LAW AND PROMISE
Horton’s understanding of how Galatians 3 works has a great deal more precedent than other things that he says. Nevertheless, I think he is wrong. The contrast between Law and Promise is not a contrast between meriting and freely receiving. Rather it s a contrast between two contents. The content of the Promise was that all nations would be blessed in him—in his seed (vv. 8, 16). The Law, however, established division, especially division between Jew and Gentile (v. 20). There was only a temporary need for Israel to be under the Law. In Galatians, as in Romans, Paul argues that monotheism should prove that a law entailing division—many “seeds”—could not possibly be His ultimate will for mankind (v. 20; Romans 3.28-31). God is one. God is the god of both Jews and Gentiles. The promise to Abraham is for one family and the law, which violates this principle, could only be a temporary necessity to help bring about the ultimate fulfillment of this promise.

In my opinion, Horton’s interpretation of Galatians as a tract for free grace over against earning salvation by obeying the law is simply not supportable from the text. It simply does not do justice to the text. Paul does not say that Titus was examined to make sure he was obedient enough to be saved. He says that he was not required to be circumcised even though everyone knew he was a Gentile (2.3). Peter never demands meritorious works of anyone; he is not walking according to the truth of the Gospel because he decides he must only eat with Christian Jews (2.11-14). Paul’s argument is not that one must refuse to earn salvation (and we need a lot more evidence to believe the Galatians, foolish though they were, were really that stupid), but that one must not go back in time to the age of the flesh and try to mix it with the new age of the Spirit (3.3; 4.1-7; Also note “this present evil age” in 1.4).

Paul’s order for history in Galatians is the same as in Romans and in First Corinthians 15. The flesh comes first and then the Spirit. The Judaizers wanted the law to be everlasting, with the gospel as some sort of completion to what they already had. Paul responds that what they had was only temporary until Jesus, by suffering the curse of the Law, brought the promised blessing to believers.

The Judaizers, by trying to hold onto the Law as given by Moses, are revealing themselves to be hypocrites who are really only exalting themselves at the expense of other Christians. After all, what would it mean to obey the Mosaic Law? At the very least, it would mean using the sacrificial system and going to the central sanctuary three times a year as required in Deuteronomy (Does any think that Galatian Jews were spending all their times in caravans going back and forth?). In this sense, “the Law is not of faith” (3.12). You have to refuse the Gospel and continue in the former, or leave the Law and embrace the latter.

The Judaizers wanted it both ways. The simple fact was that everyone acknowledged changes in redemptive history. It was not principle but pure pride for the Judaizers to hang on to circumcision, the calendar, and food laws (plus many evil traditions; there is no Law that forbid Jews to eat with Gentiles). It was really all about holding oneself aloof from others, not actually honoring the Mosaic law. Thus, it perpetuated the divisions of the flesh (the old creation under the Law) and displayed the fruits of the flesh (the “sinful human nature” as the NIV usually paraphrases).

SARAH & HAGAR
This provides us with a much more natural reading of the allegory of the two wives and two sons. Galatians 4.23 says nothing about “human effort,” as the NIV paraphrases in this one case. Rather, Ishmael was born “according to the flesh.” This can’t be a reference to the sin of polygamy, since God built the twelve tribes through Jacob by means of two wives and two slaves without calling into question whether or not they were part of the chosen seed. Rather, in the context of Genesis 15 and 17 the most natural understanding is that Paul is pointing out that Ishmael was conceived before the covenant of circumcision was made. Ishmael was conceive “according to the flesh,” but Isaac after the flesh had been cut.

What readers need to remember is that it is entirely mysterious as to why God would make two successive covenants with Abraham listing different conditions in the case of the second. Abraham was certainly caught by surprise. God had appeared to him and promised him that he would have a child who would inherit the land. God made a covenant with him. Abraham then proceeded to conceive a son and raise him to inherit the promises. Then God suddenly shows up and makes another covenant by means of circumcision rather than the slaughter of animals. He also changes his name from Abram to Abraham. Why the need for a second covenant?

Paul sees this all as typological. Now that the Jews and God-fearers have alike been given a new name, “Christian,” a name received not in circumcision but in baptism, they are obviously members of a new covenant. The story of Hagar and Sarah indicates that it is impossible to have both Ishmael and Isaac in the same household. Again, the issue is redemptive-historical, not some eternal principle of earning as wages rather than inheriting as a gift. The question is, “What time is it?” not “Do I earn or receive as a gift?” From Genesis 3.15 onwards it has always been about receiving a gift. That is not the issue in Galatians. (Paul raises the issue of earning wages in Romans 4 not in order to refute it as a serious idea that anyone would accept, but to use it as an ad absurdum argument. Paul’s opponants are supposed to recoil at the suggestion of earning favor from God.)

IS PARTIAL LEGALISM REFORMED?
I find Horton’s understanding of two promises with differing conditions (“unconditional” though requiring faith and repentance, and conditional because demanding perfect obedience) to be alien to my understanding of the Bible and theology. This might be due to the fact that I learned from John Calvin rather than Meredith Kline. In denying our works are meritorious before God, John Calvin writes against his Roman Catholic opponents who appeal to Hebrews 13.16:

In the Epistle to the Hebrews there is no room for their quibbling on one little word, for in the Greek the Apostle simply says, that such sacrifices are pleasing and acceptable to God. This alone should amply suffice to quell and beat down the insolence of our pride, and prevent us from attaching value to works beyond the rule of Scripture. It is the doctrine of Scripture, moreover, that our good works are constantly covered with numerous stains by which God is justly offended and made angry against us, so far are they from being able to conciliate him, and call forth his favor towards us; and yet because of his indulgence, he does not examine them with the utmost strictness, he accepts them just as if they were most pure; and therefore rewards them, though undeserving, with innumerable blessings, both present and future. For I admit not the distinction laid down by otherwise learned and pious men, that good works merit the favors which are conferred upon us in this life, whereas eternal life is the reward of faith only. The recompense of our toils, and crown of our contest, our Lord almost uniformly places in heaven. On the other hand, to attribute to the merit of works, so as to deny it to grace, that we are loaded with other gifts from the Lord, is contrary to the doctrine of Scripture. For though Christ says, “Unto every one that has shall be given;” “thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things” (Mt. 25:29, 21), he, at the same time, shows that all additional gifts to believers are of his free benignity: “Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters, and he that has no money, come ye, buy, and eat: yea, come, buy wine and milk, without money and without price” (Isaiah 55:1). Therefore, every help to salvation bestowed upon believers, and blessedness itself, are entirely the gift of God, and yet in both the Lord testifies that he takes account of works, since to manifest the greatness of his love toward us, he thus highly honors not ourselves only, but the gifts, which he has bestowed upon us (Institutes of the Christian Religion, 3.15.4).

The idea that there could be a covenant of works for earthly blessings and an unconditional covenant for heavenly blessings, makes no sense in Calvin’s scheme.

The Westminster Confession of Faith agrees with this, saying that the Law of God, understood as summarized in the Ten Commandments, is of use to believers to show them “God’s approbation of obedience, and what blessings they may expect upon the performance thereof: although not as due to them by the law as a covenant of works” (19.6).

THE MOSAIC LAW & THE COVENANT OF GRACE
If the blessings are not due to obedient believers by the law as a covenant of works, then how are they due to them. The answer is obvious. Blessings are promised to obedient believers by the law as a covenant of grace. This is precisely what Chapter 7 of the Westminster Confession of Faith requires Presbyterian ministers to believe and teach:

The first covenant made with man was a covenant of works, wherein life was promised to Adam; and in him to his posterity, upon condition of perfect and personal obedience.Man, by his fall, having made himself incapable of life by that covenant, the Lord was pleased to make a second, commonly called the covenant of grace; wherein he freely offereth unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ; requiring of them faith in him, that they may be saved, and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto eternal life his Holy Spirit, to make them willing, and able to believe.

This covenant was differently administered in the time of the law, and in the time of the gospel: under the law, it was administered by promises, prophecies, sacrifices, circumcision, the paschal lamb, and other types and ordinances delivered to the people of the Jews, all foresignifying Christ to come; which were, for that time, sufficient and efficacious, through the operation of the Spirit, to instruct and build up the elect in faith in the promised Messiah, by whom they had full remission of sins, and eternal salvation; and is called the old testament.

The Mosaic Law was an administration of the Covenant of Grace. Thus, Zacharias Ursinus, in arguing that the Mosaic Covenant was substantially identical to the New Covenant wrote:

There is but one covenant because the principal conditions, which are called the substance of the covenant, are the same before and since the incarnation of Christ; for in each testament God promises to those that repent and believe, the remission of sins; whilst men bind themselves, on the other hand, to exercise faith in God, and to repent of their sins (Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism, p. 99).

So, for the Reformers, the Mosaic Covenant was the Covenant of Grace while, for Horton following Kline, “the Mosaic administration is a covenant of works with the covenant of grace nevertheless still alive and well, running throughout and under his administration.” In my opinion these are substantially divergent viewpoints.

The view of the Westminster Confession is amply supported by the catechisms. Nowhere do they compare the covenantal status of believers to that of the Abrahamic covenant in contrast to that of the Mosaic. On the contrary, according to the Larger Catechism, the giving of the Decalogue on Mount Sinai is a type of the Gospel administration of the same covenant of grace.

Q101: What is the preface to the ten commandments?
The preface to the ten commandments is contained in these words, “I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.” Wherein God manifesteth his sovereignty, as being JEHOVAH, the eternal, immutable, and almighty God; having his being in and of himself, and giving being to all his words and works: and that he is a God in covenant, as with Israel of old, so with all his people; who, as he brought them out of their bondage in Egypt, so he delivers us from our spiritual thralldom; and that therefore we are bound to take him for our God alone, and to keep all his commandments (emphasis added).

The Shorter Catechism is, of course, shorter, but even more provocative in context. Compare question and answer #44 with #20 and #21:

What doth the preface to the Ten Commandments teach us?
The preface to the Ten Commandments teacheth us, That because God is The Lord, and our God, and Redeemer, therefore we are bound to keep all His commandments.Did God leave all mankind to perish in the estate of sin and misery?
God having, out of his mere good pleasure, from all eternity, elected some to everlasting life, did enter into a covenant of grace, to deliver them out of the estate of sin and misery, and to bring them into an estate of salvation by a Redeemer.

Who is the Redeemer of God’s elect?
The only Redeemer of God’s elect is the Lord Jesus Christ, who, being the eternal Son of God, became man, and so was, and continueth to be, God and man in two distinct natures, and one person, for ever.

The Law is not a typological works covenant, but rather a type of the Gospel covenant and the same in substance with it as an administration of the covenant of grace. The Ten Commandments promise God is our redeemer.

If there is any backing for Horton’s position it would be nice to see his sources. In both of the two quotations above Horton simply speaks authoritatively for the Reformed Faith as if he incarnates it without remainder. If one strains one can detect a glimmer that the tradition may be broader than himself (the reference to the later Federal theologians and some Puritans), but for the most part he acts and speaks as the Ambassador of the true faith. Yet, given the stature of Zacharias Ursinus and the Westminster Confession, he can only at most represent a small stream within the Reformed heritage. It would be more becoming, in my opinion, if he would act and speak like a reformer himself who wants to convince us from the Word of God that we should continue to reform our theology and doctrinal statements so that they conform to the Scriptures. Then we would be considering what the Bible has to say without having to resist the temptation to resent being accused of an implied trademark monopoly which Horton seems to think he possesses with regard to the word Reformed.

CALVIN ON LAND & ETERNAL LIFE
The contrast between Calvin and Horton goes farther. For Calvin the Israelites received the Land and other blessings as a type and encouragement that God would grant them eternal life. It is not works that gain them the land, but God’s grace received by faith:

The same inheritance was destined to them as to us, but from nonage they were incapable of entering to it, and managing it. They had the same Church, though it was still in puerility. The Lord, therefore kept them under this tutelage, giving them spiritual promises, not clear and simple, but typified by earthly objects. Hence, when he chose Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and their posterity, to the hope of immortality, he promised them the land of Canaan for an inheritance, not that it might be the limit of their hopes, but that the view of it might train and confirm them in the hope of that true inheritance, which, as yet, appeared not. And, to guard against delusion, they received a better promise, which attested that this earth was not the highest measure of the divine kindness. Thus, Abraham is not allowed to keep down his thoughts to the promised land: by a greater promise his views are carried upward to the Lord. He is thus addressed, “Fear not, Abram: I am thy shield, and thy exceeding great reward,” (Gen. 15: l.) Here we see that the Lord is the final reward promised to Abraham that he might not seek a fleeting and evanescent reward in the elements of this world, but look to one which was incorruptible. A promise of the land is afterwards added for no other reason than that it might be a symbol of the divine benevolence, and a type of the heavenly inheritance, as the saints declare their understanding to have been (Institutes 2.11.2).

This is Calvin’s consistent position. He never plays off the patriarchical promises against the promises in the Mosaic administration:

We have not yet come farther down than the books of Moses, whose only office, according to our opponents, was to induce the people to worship God, by setting before them the fertility of the land, and its general abundance; and yet to every one who does not voluntarily shun the light, there is clear evidence of a spiritual covenant (Institutes 2.10.15).

While Calvin argues forcefully that the Israelites wanted more than blessings for the present life, he never states that these are attained in two different ways according to opposed covenants. It is, instead, all of grace.

CONDITIONS & THE REFORMED HERITAGE
While Horton admits it should not matter if faith and repentance are called conditions, it should be pointed out that the mainstream Reformed Tradition is unambiguously in favor of it—on the assumption that meritorious conditions are not intended. Consider Calvin’s rejection of the conditions placed on believers by the Roman Catholic penitential system in favor of a simpler, Biblical, and Gospel-driven form of pastoral absolution:

On the part of the penitent, again, it is hence obvious in what a state of pernicious anxiety his conscience will be held; because, while he leans on what they call the discernment of the priest, he cannot come to any decision from the word of God. From all these absurdities the doctrine which we deliver is completely free. For absolution is conditional, allowing the sinner to trust that God is propitious to him, provided he sincerely seek expiation in the sacrifice of Christ, and accept of the grace offered to him. Thus, he cannot err who, in the capacity of a herald, promulgates what has been dictated to him from the word of God. The sinner, again, can receive a clear and sure absolution when, in regard to embracing the grace of Christ, the simple condition annexed is in terms of the general rule of our Master himself–a rule impiously spurned by the Papacy–”According to your faith be it unto you” (Mt. 9:29) (Institutes of the Christian Religion, 3.15.4; emphasis added).

The Westminster Larger Catechism is clear that the Covenant of Graces involves “requiring faith as the condition” for sinners to have an interest in Christ, and that “holy obedience,” is “the way which he hath appointed them to salvation.” Of course, the faith is itself a gift and the resulting further sanctification is also the work of God’s grace. Nevertheless, the Reformed Faith acknowledges that the Bible commands people to believe and repent if they would be saved. Thus, question 153 of the catechism:

What doth God require of us, that we may escape his wrath and curse due to us by reason of the transgression of the law?
That we may escape the wrath and curse of God due to us by reason of the transgression of the law, he requireth of us repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ, and the diligent use of the outward means whereby Christ communicates to us the benefits of his mediation.

This way of thinking and speaking goes back to the early Reformed Tradition. Heinrich Bullinger in his A Brief Exposition of the One and Eternal Testament or Covenant of God makes this quite clear. Early in his work he discusses the relationship between grace and responsibility:

And indeed one may easily get in trouble here unless one proceeds on the royal highway. For those people who consider only the conditions of the covenant and in fact disregard the grace and promise of God exclude infants from the covenant. It is true that children not only do not observe the terms of the covenant but also do not even understand these terms. But those who view only the sacrament, ceremony, or sign of the covenant count some in the covenant who are really excluded. But if you consider each one separately, one at a time, not only according to the conditions of the covenant but also in terms of the promise or the mercy of God, and the age and reason of a person, then you will realize that all those who believe from among the Jews and the Gentiles are the descendants of Abraham with whom the Lord made the covenant. In the meantime, however, their offspring, that is, their children, have by no means been excluded from the covenant. They are excluded, however, if having reached the age of reason they neglect the conditions of the covenant.In the same way, we consider children of parents to be children and indeed heirs even though they, in their early years, do not know that they are either children or heirs of their parents. They are, however, disowned if, after they have reached the age of reason, they neglect the commands of their parents. In that case, the parent no longer calls them children and heirs but worthless profligates. They are mistaken who boast about their prerogatives as sons of the family by virtue of birth. For he who violates the laws of piety toward parents is no different from a slave; indeed, he is lower than a slave, because even by the law of nature itself he owes more to his parents. Truly this debate about the seed of Abraham has been settled for us by the prophets and the apostles, specifically that not everyone who is born of Abraham is the seed of Abraham, but only he who is a son of the promise, that is, who is faithful, whether Jew or Gentile. For the Jews have already neglected the basic conditions of the covenant, while at the same time they glorified themselves as the people of God, relying on circumcision and the fact that they were born from the parent Abraham. Indeed, this error is denied and attacked not only by Christ along with the apostles but also by the entire body of the prophets (in Charles S. McCoy and J. Wayne Baker Fountainhead of Federalism: Heinrich Bullinger and the Covenantal Tradition [Louisville, KY: W/JKP, 1991], 106).

In Bullinger’s world of thought, the Abrahamic Covenant had conditions. Indeed, he contrasts the Abrahamic and Mosaic Covenants in a far different way than Horton and Kline do. For Bullinger, “The Lord made a pact with Abraham with words and demanded nothing except obedience from him” (p. 128; quoting Johannes Oecolampadius). The particularities of the Mosaic Covenant consist simply in ceremonies that were unessential and meant only for a time. I don’t fully agree with Bullinger, but his view that Abraham was required to trust and obey, to practice faith and repentance, was a view that was accepted by many in the Reformed tradition to follow him. After all, according to Zacharias Ursinus, the reasons why Christians should obey God include “that we may escape temporal and eternal punishment” and “that we may obtain from God those temporal and spiritual rewards, which, according to the divine promise, accompany good works both in this and in a future life” (p. 484).

CONCLUSION
There’s nothing wrong with disagreeing with Ursinus or Calvin or Bullinger. But if one stream of thought is consistently represented as the Reformed position, the forgetful ignorance can conceivably result in fratricidal “excommunications.” We have a broad and deep heritage not only in the whole Christian Church, but especially in the Reformation from the sixteenth-century to the present. As the Reformed Faith continues to enjoy a revival (as it has consistently over the last few decades) we are discovering more and more of the diversity that is inherent in the tradition. A greater demand allows for more investigation and publication of various sources.

In cases where this diversity leads to areas opposition, we need to appeal to Scripture and make our case from there without claiming to represent the only Reformed position. It is understandable that in dialoging with Lutherans, one would represent oneself as representing the “best” of the Reformed heritage. In intra-mural education and discussion within the Reformed communions, however, such a position can be damaging.

Hopefully I have set forth adequately, if not exhaustively, why I disagree with Horton’s interpretation of Genesis 15 and why I don’t think it should be represented as the Reformed position. Much of this is superfluous to the issue that motivated me to begin this brief essay, so I will now repeat it lest it be forgotten amid all my words:

Horton’s case from Genesis 15 is self-contradictory. He claims that God made an unconditional promise and that one of the things included in this promise was only to be received by meeting conditions.

That is it, as they say, in a nutshell.