Bryan D. Estelle, John V. Fesko and David VanDrunen, editors, The Law is Not of Faith, Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 2009
Comments on the Introduction from pages 19-20, see also p. 25
With this post, I look at the topic of expectations. Specifically, in what manner do our editors, Estelle, Fesko and VanDrunen (EFV), want us to take up this study at their side? They
acknowledge that working through the points of this book call for academic sweat. It’s work! We’re urged to read the essays thoughtfully, carefully. They provide a suggested order in which to move chapter by chapter.
I find this paragraph here to be key regarding their approach and expectations:
Here we go, “…we also wish readers to recognize that this volume does not intend to thrust a single, monolithic view of the Mosiac covenant upon Reformed churches. The Reformed tradition has always acknowledged and tolerated a variety of positions on the Mosiac covenant. This volume, therefore, does not wish to squelch debate but instead to encourage and catalyze discussion about what we believe are important issues for the doctrine and life of the church. Careful readers will even perceive subtle differences among the contributors to this book. No particular view expressed by one contributor should be automatically imputed to any other contributor. Though all of the contributors share a general sympathy with the republication idea and a general desire to recover serious theological reflection on issues related to it, not all share exactly the same sentiments on how best to express the relation of works and grace under Moses or the relations of the Mosiac covenant to the Adamic and new covenants. We hope that the various essays in this volume will serve to renew significant conversations that have not been taking places in recent years, toward the goal of seeing Reformed churches come mutually to a richer understanding of the Old Testament in God’s larger redemptive plan.” pp. 19-20.
Sumpter: I like this. We need to jump up and down on this quote. It’s a conversation. That means we can have some back and forth. We can engage point by point with open Bibles. As well, I like that the authors are conversing with each other. The contributors share general convictions about the republication notion. But any one given writer and his positions should not be seen as a perfect match, hand for hand, on the points and applications of another’s. I think, too, we can infer that they’re teachable. They want us to pitch Bible verses and theological points back at them. This I intend to do.
In thinking about the matter of approach and expectations, I went back and pulled up a comment from Mike Horton, who is a contributor to this book. He reminds us that the subject material of this book calls for big boys to play with big theological toys. Listen to what Mike knocked down back in 2006 in Table Talk magazine: “By far the question that has been taken up the most in the history of Reformed theology is whether the covenant that Israel made with God at Sinai is a re-publication or renewal of the covenant of works made with humanity in Adam.”
Boom! There it is! “By far the question that has been taken up the most in the history of Reformed theology…” There are two things on this for me. 1) Sumpter, breathe. 2) Sumpter, are you ready to play in this sandbox? Big boys play here. They have big toys. Big boys have been playing here for a long time.
Our presbytery has started to play in this sandbox.
The Presbytery of the Northwest of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, some 20-25 churches and chapels that are located in the region of the Northwest USA, will meet soon and matters relative to this book’s topic will be part of our business. Over the past couple of years, we as ministers and elders, serving in our various stations—pastors, evangelists and teachers—have started to express positions about this teaching. What drives us about this? What’s our concern? We desire to honor Christ, God’s Word, God’s Gospel and His people. We want to serve well in preaching and ministering the Word.
Since this 2009 publication hit the book shelves, our men have been taking up the significant conversations hoped for on the part of EFV. Three of our ministers decided it was time to seek Presbytery’s advice about how to proceed. We are accessing study resources and we hope to gain clarity on our approach and how to work well in tackling the subject material. In this pursuit, we want to be the church—the regional church. We want to be men who go to work taking up doctrine for faithful application for faith and life. God has been good to us. I am grateful for the men around me; a good number of these brothers have mentored me since the late 70s. Here’s a web site which provides an overview of what’s before us as a presbytery.
This approach on the part of the editors of the book is a good one. Here are OPC brothers telling us that they don’t want to “thrust a single, monolithic view…upon the Reformed churches.” That’s helpful. When we as church leaders read books like these, with topics like these, we can take a deep breath and say, “Here are positions being explained from Scripture, History, Theology and the Church’s Creeds. Good. My goal is to see them as positions. I am to learn and interact.” And then I can take another deep breath. “Remember, these are brothers. I want to try to understand their views. I want to measure their views against the Bible and confessional theology.” There will be places where I agree and disagree. It’s to be seen as a conversation for learning and for growth.
I will be 55 years old this year. I tell you—I feel like I’m a nine-year-old at second base. The reading I’ve done in the book has been fun—and challenging. I’ve almost completed the full 336 pages of content. I am already forming convictions and pulling together responses.
As an Orthodox Presbyterian for almost 35 years, I’m dialed into what one of the editors, John Fesko, said in reflecting on the historical Presbyterian backdrop, he reminds me:
“Among the Westminster divines [the ones who wrote the historic Presbyterian creeds of the 1640s in London] there were a number of views represented in the assembly: the Mosiac covenant was a covenant of works, a mixed covenant of works and grace, a subservient covenant to the covenant of grace, or simply the covenant of grace. One can find a similar range of views represented in more recent literature in our own day.” p. 25.
Let’s go to work. I want to take up the study aiming at the approach outlined by EFV. Give and take. Give and take. Let’s go to work.
G. Mark Sumpter
I find this paragraph here to be key regarding their approach and expectations:
Here we go, “…we also wish readers to recognize that this volume does not intend to thrust a single, monolithic view of the Mosiac covenant upon Reformed churches. The Reformed tradition has always acknowledged and tolerated a variety of positions on the Mosiac covenant. This volume, therefore, does not wish to squelch debate but instead to encourage and catalyze discussion about what we believe are important issues for the doctrine and life of the church. Careful readers will even perceive subtle differences among the contributors to this book. No particular view expressed by one contributor should be automatically imputed to any other contributor. Though all of the contributors share a general sympathy with the republication idea and a general desire to recover serious theological reflection on issues related to it, not all share exactly the same sentiments on how best to express the relation of works and grace under Moses or the relations of the Mosiac covenant to the Adamic and new covenants. We hope that the various essays in this volume will serve to renew significant conversations that have not been taking places in recent years, toward the goal of seeing Reformed churches come mutually to a richer understanding of the Old Testament in God’s larger redemptive plan.” pp. 19-20.
Sumpter: I like this. We need to jump up and down on this quote. It’s a conversation. That means we can have some back and forth. We can engage point by point with open Bibles. As well, I like that the authors are conversing with each other. The contributors share general convictions about the republication notion. But any one given writer and his positions should not be seen as a perfect match, hand for hand, on the points and applications of another’s. I think, too, we can infer that they’re teachable. They want us to pitch Bible verses and theological points back at them. This I intend to do.
In thinking about the matter of approach and expectations, I went back and pulled up a comment from Mike Horton, who is a contributor to this book. He reminds us that the subject material of this book calls for big boys to play with big theological toys. Listen to what Mike knocked down back in 2006 in Table Talk magazine: “By far the question that has been taken up the most in the history of Reformed theology is whether the covenant that Israel made with God at Sinai is a re-publication or renewal of the covenant of works made with humanity in Adam.”
Boom! There it is! “By far the question that has been taken up the most in the history of Reformed theology…” There are two things on this for me. 1) Sumpter, breathe. 2) Sumpter, are you ready to play in this sandbox? Big boys play here. They have big toys. Big boys have been playing here for a long time.
Our presbytery has started to play in this sandbox.
The Presbytery of the Northwest of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, some 20-25 churches and chapels that are located in the region of the Northwest USA, will meet soon and matters relative to this book’s topic will be part of our business. Over the past couple of years, we as ministers and elders, serving in our various stations—pastors, evangelists and teachers—have started to express positions about this teaching. What drives us about this? What’s our concern? We desire to honor Christ, God’s Word, God’s Gospel and His people. We want to serve well in preaching and ministering the Word.
Since this 2009 publication hit the book shelves, our men have been taking up the significant conversations hoped for on the part of EFV. Three of our ministers decided it was time to seek Presbytery’s advice about how to proceed. We are accessing study resources and we hope to gain clarity on our approach and how to work well in tackling the subject material. In this pursuit, we want to be the church—the regional church. We want to be men who go to work taking up doctrine for faithful application for faith and life. God has been good to us. I am grateful for the men around me; a good number of these brothers have mentored me since the late 70s. Here’s a web site which provides an overview of what’s before us as a presbytery.
This approach on the part of the editors of the book is a good one. Here are OPC brothers telling us that they don’t want to “thrust a single, monolithic view…upon the Reformed churches.” That’s helpful. When we as church leaders read books like these, with topics like these, we can take a deep breath and say, “Here are positions being explained from Scripture, History, Theology and the Church’s Creeds. Good. My goal is to see them as positions. I am to learn and interact.” And then I can take another deep breath. “Remember, these are brothers. I want to try to understand their views. I want to measure their views against the Bible and confessional theology.” There will be places where I agree and disagree. It’s to be seen as a conversation for learning and for growth.
I will be 55 years old this year. I tell you—I feel like I’m a nine-year-old at second base. The reading I’ve done in the book has been fun—and challenging. I’ve almost completed the full 336 pages of content. I am already forming convictions and pulling together responses.
As an Orthodox Presbyterian for almost 35 years, I’m dialed into what one of the editors, John Fesko, said in reflecting on the historical Presbyterian backdrop, he reminds me:
“Among the Westminster divines [the ones who wrote the historic Presbyterian creeds of the 1640s in London] there were a number of views represented in the assembly: the Mosiac covenant was a covenant of works, a mixed covenant of works and grace, a subservient covenant to the covenant of grace, or simply the covenant of grace. One can find a similar range of views represented in more recent literature in our own day.” p. 25.
Let’s go to work. I want to take up the study aiming at the approach outlined by EFV. Give and take. Give and take. Let’s go to work.
G. Mark Sumpter
No comments:
Post a Comment