Eachmonth the "Cross-Examination"

column presents a stnnmary statement

of a Refonned and Reconstructionist
conviction in theology or ethics, and
then offers brief answers to common
questions,objectionsorconfusionswbich
people have about that belief. Send
issues or questions you would like ad-
dressed by Dr. Bahnsen to the editor.
We Believe
God reveals Himself in the pages of
Scripture specifically as the
covenant-keeping God. To understand
Hispersonand works properly, we must
see HUn in light of the ClJvenant He bas
made and fulfills with His people.
Wehave already seen that God's rela-
tionship with man from the very begin-
ning was covenantal in nature. His cov-
enant with Adam wasgraciousincharac-
ter, sovereignly imposed, mutually
binding, called for trust and submission
on Adam's part, and catried sanctions
(blessings or curse). When Adam fell
into sin, God mercifully re-established a
covenantal relationshipwith him, one in
which the gracious and prOnrtssorychar-
acter of the covenant was accentuated
even further. God's grace was magnified
in promising to send a Saviorwhowould
destroy the Tempter, Satan (Gen. 3:15).
As we know, this was the first promise of
the coming of Christ to set things right
betweenGodandman(cf.John12:31-32;
Ijohn3:8). Inthesubsequentpagesof
Scripture God expands upon and ex-
plains this promise, particularly in the
further covenants into which He entered
with His people.
These covenants were thoroughly
gracious, being established by God for
the undeserved benefit of sinful and un-
worthy men. Their aim was that He
would be their God, and they would be
Hispeople-- forinstance: "Hearthewords
of ihfsCOYeliaitt... 50 shall youbemypeople,
andIwillbeyourGod"<Jer.11:2-4). These
covenants were not based upon the ac-
complishments, worthiness, or righ-
teousuess of God's peo.ple, but instead
stemmed from His own lovingkindness.
"The Lord did not setHis love upon you, nor
chooseyou,becauseyouweremoreinnW1lber
thananypeople ... butbecause the Lordloves
yau. ... Know therefore that the Lord your
God, He is God, the faithful God who keeps
covenant andlovingkindness with them that
love Him and keep His commandments"
(beut. 7:7-9).
<4 THE COUNSEL ofChalcedon November, 1992
The various covenants of which we
read in the Old Testament were an cov-
enants of promise, including the cov-
enant oflaw established through Moses.
They were not legalistic or ungracious.
In Galatians 3 Paul categorically and
clearly declares "Thepromiseswere spoken
to Abraham and to his seed.... The law
[Moses1 does not set aside the covenant
previously established by God [Abraham1
and thus doawaywith thepromise. Fonfthe
inheritance depends on the law, then it no
longer depends upon promise .... Is the law
therefore opposed to the promises oj God?
Absolutelynotl"(3:15-22). From the per-
spective of Paul, an of the Jewish cov-
enants - whether made with Abraham,
Moses, or David - were elaborations of
theone,single,basicpromiseofGod. He
wrote in Ephesians 2:12, "You [Genttles]
were at that time separate from Christ..,
strangers Jrom the covenants oj thepromise,
having no hope and without God in the
world."
Therefore,although there were many
covenants made throughout the Old
Testament, it 15 Biblically accurate to
view them as explanations of a single
promise of God. They were an pan of
what we call "the covenant of grace" - an
adminisoationsandapplicationsofGod's
gradous promise of salvatiotL The pro-
visions of God's promise were progres-
sivelymade known through redemptive
history as we read ofit in the Bible. Each
andeveryoneoftheseprovisionspointed
to the person and work oUesus Christ,
the coming Savior. "For however many
may be the promises of God, in him [Christ1
is the yes, wherefore also through him is the
amen unto the glory oj God through us" (2
Cor. 1:20). Every promise in the cov-
enants was affinned and confinned in
Christ.
Thus when the resurrected Lord en-
countered His downcast disciples on the
road to Emmaus, "beglnningjrom Moses
and from all the prophets he interpreted for
them in all the scriptures the things concern-
inghimse!f" {Luke 24:27). All of the Old
Testament -- thatis, the "Old Covenant"
- was about Christ the coming Savior.
Jesus said ''You search the scriptures be-
cause you think that in them you have
eternal life; thesescriptures testiJyaboutme"
(John 5:39).
As the "Mediator of a New Covenant'
which God promised through Jeremiah
(31:31-34),Jesusis the fulffilment of the
Old Covenant'santidpation or promise,
and He is the one who grants God's
people the benefits which were previ-
ouslypromised -- "that they
whil:h are called might re-
ceive the promise oj eternal
inheritance" (Heb. 9: 15).
Christ gained the inherit-
ancepromised to Abraham
(Beb. 11:8-10; Gal. 3: 16;
Eph. 1:14; 1 Peter 1:4). In
Him all nations will be
blessed, as God promised
Abraham(Luke 2:32; Matt.
12:21; Acts 13:47-48; Gal.
3:14). Christ is the model
of that righteousness re-
vealed in the Mosaic law
(Matt. 5:17; Heb. 4:15; 1
John 2:5-6), as well as the
true and perfect, atoning
sacrifice for sinners which
required in the Mosaiccov-
enant (Heb. 9). He is the
long awaited King which was promised
in the Davidic covenant (Luke 1:32-33;
Acts 5:31; 1 Tun. 6: 15; 1 Cor. 15:25).
(l) Because all of the post-fall cov-
enants were gradous in character, being
elaborations upon God's promise of sal-
vation, and (2) because subsequent cov-
enants do not conflict with each other
but complement and expand upon pre-
vious ones, and (3) because all of the
promises of God's covenants center on
Christ and His redemptive work, we
must recognize the unity and continuity
ofGod'scovenantaladministrations. This
is what is meant by speaking of "the
covenant of grace."
Dispensational theology has enjoyed
widespread endorsement among
twentieth-century evangelical schools
and churches, and its influence has been
felt even among a number of Reformed
preachers. At the heart of
dispensationalism is the denial of "the
covenant of grace." It is denied when
dispensationalists claim that God has
two plans (not one) revea1edin the Scrip-
tures: a plan regarding Christ and the
church (a mixed Gentile and Jewish
people forwhom ChrististheRedeemer),
and a distinct plan regarding the Jewish
people themselves and the land of Pales -
tine (where Christ will yet become the
Davidic King). Dispensationalists some-
times refer to these distinct plans and
peoples of God as His "heavenly" and
"earthly" programs. Thus dispensa-
tionalists insist on drawing a dichotomy
between Israel and the church.
This is contralY to Paul, who called
the mixed Galactan congregation "the 1s-
rael oJGod" (Gal. 6: 16),and whosaidthat
Gentiles who are saved by Christ have
now been incorporated into "the com-
monwealt1lOJIsrael" (Eph. 2:12).
Ukewise, dispensationalistsdenythe
unity of Old Testament covenants, for
they teach that therewasa root difference
between the gradous character of the
Abrahamic covenant and the (alleged)
legalistic character of the Mosaic cov-
enant. They maintain that God granted
His blessings to Abraham on the basis of
promise, but in the Mosaic ern God held
out --hypothetically -- the offer of bless-
ing hased on meritorious obedience to
the law.
This too is contrnry to Paul, who
wrote in Romans 9:31-32 that Israel did
not arrive at the righteousness of the law
because "they sought it not by Jaith, but as
itwere by worhs." The Mosaic
law itself would have taught
them not to be legalists! (Gal.
2:19). The covenant God
made with Abraham could
not be disannulled 430 years
later by the covenant made
with Moses, making the
promise of no effect (Gal.
3: 17). Was the law, then,
against the promises of God?
Paul declared "Absolutely notJ
n
(3:21).
Finally, dispensationalists
deny the covenant of grace by
teaching that the benefits of
the Abrahamic covenant,
which come to Jewish and
Gentile believers in thechurch
(Gal.3:7,29),aretobeviewed
as tandem orparnllel with the
benefits of the Mosaic and Davidic cov-
enants, which come to the literal Jewish
childrenofAbrnham--andwhichwillbe
fulfilled when Christ returns to establish
an earthly kingdom in Palestine.
We are now in a position to define
"covenant theology; which is the major
opponent and alternative to
dispensationalism within the evangelical
church. Covenant theology is based
squarely upon the Biblical teaching re-
garding the covenant of grace. Covenant
theology is the position that all of the
post-fall covenants made by God are
essentially one, centering on God's gra-
cious promise in Jesus Christ, with each
successive covenant expanding on pre-
vious ones, ratherthandisregardingthem
or ruIlI)ing parallel to the others; the
November, 1992 TIlE COUNSEL of Chalcedon 5
coVenants prior to Christ were marked
by antidpation and administered by
foreshadows of the Savior, while the
jjlJ6Dment or substance came in peISOn
and redemptive work of Christ, who
established the New Covenant today in
the imemational church of Christ. (ro BE
CONI1NUED)
Further Investigation
For further swdies regarding God or
covenant theology on tape - especially
"The Distinctives of the Reformed Faith"
-- write foracatalog from Covenant Tape
Minisny,24198Ash Court, Auburn, CA
95603.
To receive Dr. Bahnsen's free monthly
newsletter, Penpoint, write to Southern
California Center for Christian Studies,
P. O. Box 18021, Irvine, CA 92713.
Byron Snapp
Book Review
During the recent upheaval within
theformerSovietUnionmanywondered
if Russia, their largest state, would take
actionagainstthemuchsmaUerdi.s9mting
states. How would world opinion have
reactedifthe Russianmilitary hadmoved
into Georgia or the Uktaine and opened .
fire on the dissidents? This possibility
caused me to thinkaboutan event on our
own. soil a little over a centUlyago.
The War Between the States gives us
thisscenario. TheSouthernstatesthought
they had every right to secede from the
Union and establish their own country
''the ConfederateStatesofAmerica." They
put their beliefs into actions. The Union
took the position that individual states
could notseCede fromthe Union Putting
their beliefs imo action, they invaded the
South. Theyviewedtheconflictasadvil
war. The South saw it as one nation
invading another nation without any
warrant for so doing.
The South Was Right by James R
Kennedy and Walter D. Kenny (land
and Land, P.O. Box 1921 Baton Rouge,
La. 70821 Ph. (504)344-1059 $19.95 +
$2.00 shipping and handling 210 pp.,
including addendum and index hb.)
providesuswith excellemmaterial tonot
only more correctly interpret our own
history, but to also have a better
understanding of current events both
here and abroad.
The authors show the reader that
much of the history taught regarding the
War BetWeen the States is a myth. They
believeithasbeenwrittenfromaNorthem.
perspective. Did the South fight the War
to preserve slavery? The authors point
out that "75% to 90% of the Coufederate
soldiers and sailors were NOT slave
owners"Cp.16). Was the SoUthbetter off
as a result of losing the War? Many
students are taught that this is true. Yet
we must look at the facts: " ... one year
after the War the state of Mississippi
allotted one fifth of it's revenues for the
purchase of artificial anns and legs .. .it
wasnotuntil1951 thatthe taxable assets
of the state of Georgia surpassed the
value of 1860"(p.18).
Examining the 1980 census the
authors report that 'The U.S. Census
Bureau found thatthepovertyrateforthe
South was 20% higher than the nation as
a whole. All the states with the highest
poverty levelswerein the South, whereas,
aU of the states with the lowest poverty
rates were in the North"(p. 20). The
authors believe this poverty is traceable
totheimpoverisbmentofthesouthduring
and after the War.
Kennedyand Kennycontend that the
North wasinvolvedinslaveryandheavily
involved in the slave rrade. They point
outthattheNorthernersenslavedIndians
andprolitablyshippedthemtoCaribbean
islands. "The Yankee slave commerce
was to continue legally until 1808 and
illegally until the War for Southern
Independence" (p.35). You may well be
surprised to learn of the first state that
6 THE COUNSEL of ChaIcedon November, 1992
attempted to prohibit the importation of
slaves as well as how slaves were freed in
the North
Northern acrocities upon the South
during the War are recoumed. These
atrodties continued in a different way
following the War. The North set the
tenns by which Southernstates could be
readmitted to the Union. The authors
remind us that this was the "same Union
from which the North had previously
said we could not withdraw!" (p.80).
Local governmental power began to be
replaced increasingly by a powerful
central government. We continue to see
this growth of power and its results
throughout society today.
The authors contend that the South
was right in its stand and it's fight. But
neither the authors nor this reviewer
support Southew slavery. The warwas
not fought over slavery. It was fought
over the issue of sovereignty. Does such
sovereignty rest in individual states by
the consent of the governed, or does it
rest in a powerful central government?
The North's victory paved the way for a
strong central gOvernment. .
Ahigblightofthisveryreadablebook
is the amount of research that is made
available to the reader. Although many
quotations are given, hviU ouIymention
a quote of Abraham UncoIn in the 1847
Congressional Record. "Any people
whatever have a right to abolish the
existinggovemment and form anew one
that suits them better" (p.145).
Addendum sections include the
Constitution of the Confederate States of
America and it's comparison with the
U.S. SenateandDavis' inaugural address
as President of the Confederate State of
America.
TheauthorstracetheSouth'sposition
on secession to John Milton and John
Locke. 1 believe this is a drawback to the
book. Actually the understanding of
civil govemmE;ll.t and the governedmust
be traced back to the triune God. While
a development of this thought is beyond