am loathe to take on such a fine and brilliant mind as Ed Stevens, who has shown in many of his works that he is well educated and a master of the Greek and of Scriptures. At the same time, we are both human, rather than divine, and therefore subject to error and to disagree with each other. We also, as he says in this paper, are subject to running our opinions and learning through our own paradigms and grids, which can certainly prejudice the outcome of our research. Let me say right now that I hold Brother Ed in the highest esteem. I believe him to be one who loves the Lord and his walk with Christ shows that love. I just hope that as the tenor of this paper makes it clear where my spiritual journey is ultimately taking me, that he will continue to be able to say the same for me. Those who leave the Reformed faith are not usually looked upon with kindness by the brethren they have left behind.



It is incredible to me that the more I see of the Internet, the more I see "believers" constantly arguing with one another. I find myself wondering if this was the "unity" which our Lord had in mind when He prayed that "they all might be one". Unfortunately, this will be just one more arguement. I hope that as it is read, one will not think that in trying to be firm I have not stooped to too low a level.



In the first response section, Brother Ed talks about the kingdom in such a way that I wonder if he considers it to be a separate article from the Church itself. I have always understood that the Church and the kingdom have been, in some ways, considered to be one and the same thing. I note that when our Lord spoke of the kingdom, he did not say "the kingdom WILL BE like unto", indicating a presence of the kingdom already. He used the language of describing that which was already extant. This ties in nicely with Matthew 21:33-46 (I will be referring to this passage a lot -- there are a number of tremendous implications in this parable)



Ed's second response is extremely interesting to me as a covenantalist. He talks about the camp of the "post everythingists", those who consider everything to be past. He also states that there is a very limited number of them out there. Then he discusses the need for the continuing covenantal signs/seals. This is most important, for if one were to insist that the Church is not here today, as Brother Ed seems to do with his "complete fulfillment", then one would have to immediately ask "But how do we NOW make covenant with God, since there is no longer a Church and hence, Baptism as a covenantal sign/seal is no longer valid? How do we obtain forgiveness of sins if the Eucharist is no longer valid?" A serious concern indeed for those who are covenantal and in that covenantalism understand that the Sacraments as operating "ex opere operato."



I am curious to know what Ed means by "other ongoing expressions of our covenantal relationship with God". Is he becoming a Sacramentalist in the Catholic tradition?



What is Max King's covenant eschatology? Sounds like something I really want to get a handle on, since ANYTHING with the word "covenant" in it IMMDIATELY catches my attention! When I hear that Max approaches the covenant from a corporate position, I want to know more. The corporate covenant of God, especially the Yom Kippor of Christ in Heb. 9, is possibly the most misunderstood part of the New Covenant, and is responsible for the reprehensible doctrine of "once saved -- always saved".



I will have to do extensive studying of the idea of the millenium happening between AD 30 and AD 70. Not that it couldn't be. We have to remember that the thrust of eschatology was involving the covenant people of that time, which was the nation of Israel. It was they who were the keepers of the Lord's vineyard but were about to be thrust out of it (Matt. 21: 33-46). It was prophesied of them that they were about to inherit the wrath of God for all that they (in their fathers and in person) had done to those servants of the Most High God when they walked among the Jews and reproved them for their wickedness. Therefore, knowing the symbolism of the number 1000, we may indeed find that this period of time was God's COMPLETION of the covenantal status of Israel and the bringing in of the new covenant. I would need to study the ramifications of having the millenium over with in AD 70 vs the idea that we are in the millenium right now until the end of time. Specifically, what does this view do to the Church? If it destroys the Church in its permanency as the kingdom of God, then it is to be rejected out of hand.



In his third answer, Ed states



"We believe the Old Testament world (the old “heaven and earth”) passed away at AD 70, so the Old Testament Law is no longer binding upon us in the same way it was upon Jewish Christians living in Palestine before the end of the Jewish government in AD 70.



I find myself wondering if this creates a disconnect which is too great for the Church to leap over. I see Ed treating the Church as if it were a completely new and totally different organism than the nation of Israel. Scripture doesn't seem to warrant such distinction. This is more the dispensationalist position than that of one who is supposed to be a believer in the covenant of God as a Presbyterian (at least, the last time I spoke with Brother Ed).



Back to Matthew 21 again. I see NO DIFFERENCE in the vineyard itself. The only thing I do see a difference in is in the change of administration. The old administrators are kicked out and the new ones brought in at the AD 70 destruction of Jerusalem. The Church has long been considered to be the continuation of the nation of Israel. There is a continuance of sacrifice for sins, there is the Yom Kippor which was done in Heaven, which Brother Ed so beautifully teaches on, there is priesthood, the mention of temple, liturgy, prayer, holy days and feasts, a Church calander. In short, as we trace the Church and Her progession through history, we see the continuance of the Jewish nation, but with a new administration, and most of all, a better covenant and Sacrifice. To say that the Old Testament Law is not binding upon us in the same way requires a further discussion. I do hope that Brother Ed doesn't mean that it is not even applicable, but rather than those items which the Lord has fulfilled and replaced (such as the dietary laws cf. Acts 10 & 11) are what he is talking about.



The structure of covenantalism, as found in Deut. 28 must remain in place, with just the nature and administration of the covenant changing from Old to New Covenant.



The promise of Hebrews 12:22-29, the establishment of a new kingdom which cannot be moved, does not mean that this cannot be the Church here on earth. In fact, if we keep in type, it must mean that. It does not seem right to insist that the first earthly ecclesia, which is seen, physical, and earthly, be replaced with a new ecclesia which is invisible, spiritual only, and strictly in Heaven. This is the error of the reformed where they, in order to justifiy their rebellion from the errors of the Church, described the church as a strictly spiritual body. This is not warranted from Scripture. The resurrection chapter, 1 Corin. 15, describes the Second Adam as a spiritual being, but does that mean that He had no physical body? That heresy was dealt with in the early stages of the Church by those who insisted that Christ was not fully man, but only appeared to be man. The idea that a spiritual being is not able to have an earthly body is an attack upon the Incarnation of Christ Himself. He is described as being made a quickening spirit, but this does not mean that He was not fully human. In like manner, the Church is an earthly Body which is also the heavenly Jerusalem. The Church on earth is the incarnation of that true which is in Heaven (cf. Heb 9).



In the very next paragraph, Brother Ed totally validates the existence of the Church.



The New Covenant is not going to replace the Old with something different in kind, but only different in glory.



Read that again carefully. Not different in kind, but in glory. No wonder the Catholic Church talks about the "fullness of the faith" found within Her walls. She is the continuation of the Old Covenant, retaining the same kinds of liturgies and worship practices, yet having the glory of the New Covenant by having now the PERFECT Lamb which is offered on the altar. Protestantism tries to destroy this continuation by creating two entirely different covenants with two entirely different bodies. I think I will memorize this phrase, for it is a good explanation of the change in covenants.



As we have seen throughout this book, the passing away of the heaven and earth does not need to refer to the physical world. It often refers to a covenantal establishment.



Oh, boy! This is getting better and better! It was indeed not the Church (ekklesia -- gathering -- covenantal family of God) which passed away. It was not that the Church of the New Covenant is something radically different from the Church of the Old Covenant, but that the covenanat establishment (administration) was replaced. Think of a house with tennants who have killed the son of the owner. They are destroyed, but the house itself still remains, and new tennants are brought in. That is the picture we miss in the parable of the Wicked Husbandmen. The covenantal ceremonies of worship, cutting covenant, praise and thanksgiving , and most of all, of sacrifice, are kept. It is the adminstrators who are tossed out on their ear! Look at the ceremonies of the Catholic Church and you will see, if you look closely, Jewishness written all over them.



Now Brother Ed steps on a landmine.



Every generation must continually be reforming and reconstructing the church and society around RIGHTLY INTERPRETED AND APPLIED BIBLICAL LAW.



Hooooowheeeee!! Does this man know what he has just done? And just WHO is going to be the institution to rightly interpret and apply Biblical law? The Theonomists? The Reconstructionists? The Baptists, Methodists, Lutherans, Eastern Orthodox, Presbyterians, Fundamentalists, or Episcopalians? There are thousands of denominations, sects, and cults within Protestantism. They all have books of "exegesis" which defend their positions. Ed, you don't really think that they are going to give two hoots and a hollar about YOUR interpretation of the Scriptures, do you? By what right and authority do you and the reformed, reconstructionist, theonomists claim divine guidance over your interpretations and applications of the Law of God? You are going to have to bring to the table some serious proof that God has spoken to YOU and the reconstructionist/theonomists and laid the mantle of infallibility upon your shoulders so that others put down their exegetical swords and get in line behind your authority. That is going to be one heavy burden to bear, especially when the reformed destroy the notion of an earthly Church by their creation of the "invisible Body of believers" as the true Church on earth. Well, how very nice! How do you know then WHO has the authority to speak if you don't have a visible body on earth as a point of reference? This is going to be fun to watch. I hope to have a front row seat in Heaven as this all works itself out. Should be very entertaining.



This is the legacy of the reformation and its insistence upon "sola scriptura" and the right of private interpretation. When I was a Presbyterian Calvinist, I often wondered, and could not understand, why everyone in the world couldn't see that our position was the right one. Of course, I am sure that the Baptists with whom I disagreed couldn't understand how I could be so chowder headed as to not see that they had the correct understanding of Scripture. I have more fun on the Internet than I can shake a stick at watching various Protestant denominationalists fight and wrangle over Scripture!! Luther himself lived long enough to see the bitter fruits of his rebellion against authority, writing that "every fool with a pulpit and a Bible considers himself a teacher of the Word, spewing forth the most abominable heresies...."



Well, Herr Doktor Luther, you have no one to blame but yourself for shredding the Body of Christ into thousands of pieces. Yes, the Church was in serious need of reforming certain abuses which had crept in, but you threw out the baby with the bathwater, tossing out not only those activities which were being abused and may have been inventions of men, but also twisting and perverting 15 centuries of Church doctrine which was solidly founded upon the teachings of the Apostles. Once you did that, and insisted that you had as much right and authority to make up your theological novums, such as "sola scriptura" and "sola fidei" (in which case you were even unafraid to tread where angels fear to tread, changing the very Word of God itself), you opened the doors for everyone to claim as much authority. Yet I find nowhere that authority is given to anyone but the Apostles (Matt. 16:18-19) and their heirs by the laying on of hands (Acts 8: 18, 1 Tim. 4:14, Heb 6:2). It is not some invisible entity which was given authority to speak for God, but the visible Church here on earth, and I find nowhere in Scripture where you were given the right to leave the Church and start a new body. Even in the Old Testament when the covenantal nation of Israel was in apostasy and rebellion, I find nowhere does God say to those who remained faithful "Go and start another nation and I will bless you there" The family is supposed to remain intact, but you, Herr Luther, have tossed Her sons and daughters to the wind.



Brother Ed, I only see ONE group of people to whom the promise was made that they would be led into ALL TRUTH -- The Twelve. (John 16:13) There were twelve "offices" of the new covenant which replaced the twelve authoritative tribal leaders of Israel. The promise of being led into all truth was given to them as covenantal heads of the new covenant Body which they would establish. That Body was the Church and it was embarrassingly catholic in doctrine and practice by the end of the third century, long before the so-called "paganization" of Constantine. You must show me where Christ took that authority from the Catholic Church of the Early Fathers on earth and gave it to another body. And then, you are going to have to show me WHICH BODY on earth our Lord gave it to!! I hope you see this as the daunting challenge I see it as.



Further on down the article, I find another statement which just torpedoes the whole reformed position.



Jesus said He would build His church (the kingdom) and the dominion of Death and Hades would not prevent it. Is the church here? Did it survive the Jewish attempts to destroy it? Has it made any progress in the last two thousand years?



Here is Brother Ed's admission that the kingdom and the Church are one and the same. The Matthew 21 parable gives us no room to insist, as do the reformers, that the Church is changed from the visible, physical, and seen entity which God dealt with under the Old Covenant, to an invisible, spiritual, and unseen entity which has doubtful authority over the lives of believers. I would ask Brother Ed to please find me in this parable any indication that the nature of the vineyard changes. The adminstration changes, with the change of the covenant from old to new, but the vineyard remains the same in structure. We have a better covenant in which we now cultivate the True Vine and give the fruits of this Vine to the nations for their healing.



If the Catholic Church was not the "new nation" (1 Peter 2:9) of the new covenant, then the gates of hell indeed did destroy the Church. The Gospel which went to the ends of the earth was not, despite the wailings of the Calvinists to the contrary, Calvinism and "sola fidei/sola scriptura". Justification by faith alone is called the egg which Luther laid and Calvin hatched. The only problem with it is that this idea was unknown by the Church for 15 centuries, which means that if Calvin is right, the gates of hell and death did prevail for 15 centuries and MILLIONS of believers went right straight to hell. You cannot parse this any other way. You cannot insist that there was some mysterious "remnant" which held to the true Gospel (unless you passionately cling to your dog-earred copy of THE TRAIL OF BLOOD) because the WHOLE ECCLESIASTICAL WORLD WAS CATHOLIC!!



And it is not just justification by faith alone. It is the Eucharist, the issue of baptismal regeneration (which if you are any kind of covenantalist you should believe in), the continuing mediatorial priesthood, it is, in fact, 90% of Catholicism (Eastern Catholics don't accept purgatory, indulgences and certain Marian doctrines) which the reformed of today would have to claim that came directly from the pit itself, thus making Satan the winner for 15 centuries rather than God. I just don't see that as a very decisive victory for Christ or for the Church which He promised would not be overcome by the gates of hell and death.



Bottom line, it was either the Catholic Church which our Lord was making these promises to, or it couldn't really be any body and institution here on earth. Or perhaps I should say, the Church which became Catholic as it developed and grew over centuries. One has to wonder why those men who spoke Greek and understood all of its tenses and nuances as easily as we handle the English language, didn't come to Luther and Calvin's understandings by the second or third century? Were they all THAT DUMB? And to top it off, they had the Apostolic promise of being led into all truth, therefore, those things which St. John taught and handed down to Polycarp, for instance, had to have the imprimateur of truth upon them as teachings.



The pre-70 saints only had an “earnest” or “pledge” of the benefits that we now enjoy in the fully-arrived kingdom.



Here is another fine example of twisting Scripture to prove what one wants to prove.



Eph 1:14 Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.



We have the Holy Spirit as the earnest of our inheritance, not as the earnest of the coming kingdom. Now what is the inheritance of the believer?



Eternal life.



Lu 18:18 ¶ And a certain ruler asked him, saying, Good Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? (Notice the eloquent silence from our Lord regarding this man's understanding of eternal life as an inheritance. Why did He take this wonderful opportunity to correct this man's thinking and establish the Reformed position for ever?)



This is where the thinking of Calvinists and Catholics comes to a screeching disconnect, based on Luther's faulty notion of "sola fide" justification. This isn't even covenantal and those who are in the reformed camp ought to take a closer look at how a covenant works before they go spouting off Luther's nonsense as truth.



CRITICAL POINT: a covenant has terms! There is no such thing as an unconditional covenant. The corporate covenant of Yom Kippor had terms. That was why the High Priest went into the Holy of Holies with a rope tied around his ankle. Deut. 27 & 28 clearly spell out the terms of covenant. Under the New Covenant, we again see the conditional nature of the covenant in the warnings to believers against apostasy. Those warnings are there specifically because a covenant is conditional! If the covenant of salvation is unconditional, those warnings are the most foolish writings in the whole corpus of Holy Writ.



I have written a 48 page dissertation on the covenant and how it works, so I hardly intend to repeat all that here. Let me say that one of the most important aspects of the covenant is that it is not just some legal document. It is not merely juridical. A Biblical covenant, while having elements of the juridical in it, is a giving of one person to another. This theme runs through the Scriptures, from God and Adam pledging themselves one to another to the giving of Christ and His Bride to one another. As part of this, God calls the world to come to him and be adopted as sons, giving ourselves to Him and He to us in a family covenant.



Let us now look at one of the most misused stories in Scripture to see how a family covenant, and ultimately, eternal life, works. It it the story of the Prodigal Son. Note first of all that he is a son in the father's house. He is not a foreigner. I have heard preacher after preacher insist that this parable is the story of God saving sinners.



HOGWASH! (I really wish I could say something more to indicate the strength of my disagreement).



This is the story of one who is ALREADY A SON! It is us after our adoption by grace through baptism into the family of God. Throughout the Scriptures we see God painting His relationship with His creation as that of a Father. The family unit is seen as a covenantal unit in the Scriptures. We have the right, therefore, to apply the covenant of salvation, the family covenant God makes with believers through Christ, to this story.



The son asks for his inheritance, a rather nasty insult to the father. But does he get the whole inheritance? NO. He gets an earnest of it. The father does not give the boy everything he has. We know this because there is yet fortune to dispense left in the father's hands when the son returns. The son gets his earnest and begins to spend it. We get the earnest of the Holy Spirit and are expected to use it wisely. The son, rather than doing wisely with this largess, goes to the far country and wastes it all. This is a picture of what believers do when they go into continued, unrepented of sin or apostasy. Hence St. Paul's warnings to his flock against falling away and losing their salvation.



Now, there still awaited further inheritance for the boy at the father's house. We see him come to his senses and return to the father's house and receive that which was there for him. But suppose--



Suppose the boy had died in the far country?



Would he then have received the inheritance? No. He would have died in his cursed (covenant breaking) condition. This is a picture of those who break the family covenant with the Father and leave the household of God, going into the "far country" of sin or apostasy. At the Judgement Day they will find that they have been disinherited by their absence from the Father's household and their acts of rebellion.



(Rom 2: 5-10), all men will be judged by their acceptance and adherence to God's gracious offer of family covenant. Those who have never accepted the covenantal terms, and those who have turned from the covenant, shall be disinherited. It is the faithful covenant keepers who may expect the inheritance. And what is our family inheritance?



Mt 19:29 And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.



Right from the lips of our Lord Himself. Eternal life is an inheritance. Those who remain in the family, keeping the covenant they made by oath (sacramentum) with God, shall indeed inherit their full blessing. But the earnest we have now is just the foretaste of better things to come.



If we are still in the transitional millennial period, the Paraclete is still actively revealing new Scripture and giving out charismatic gifts in Christ’s absence. The Paraclete is to operate until Christ’s return (which Gentry believes will occur after the millennium which is still in progress). One of the main functions of the Paraclete was to reveal new information about the plan of redemption. (cf. John 14-16)



The problem here is that Brother Ed assumes that the promises which are made in John 14 -16 are to be promiscuously applied to every believer of every age. Yet there are several qualifiers in these three verses that we would do well to consider:



Joh 14:25 ¶ These things have I spoken unto you, being yet present with you.



Not unto the whole world of believers, but unto The Twelve, unto those who were the replacement for the twelve tribes of Israel. Those upon whom the mantle of authority would fall.



Joh 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.



What a singular promise this was! If these men were anything like the rest of us, they would be confused and short of memory regarding the teachings of the Lord by which the New Covenant believers were to be led. Here is a most comforting promise that the Holy Spirit would bring to them, the men right there with Christ, all truth and all that He had taught and said to them. This couldn't possibly be a promise to all believers of all time and the proliferation of denominations, sects, and cults in the world, all claiming to be led of the Holy Spirit and all disagreeing, is mute testimony to this truth. This is a specific promise to specific men who were about to embark upon the leadership of the Church without their beloved Master.



Joh 16:2 They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service.



Another verse showing us the localized and specific application of this discourse to those gathered together with Christ in the Upper Room. This is just as locally applicable as Matthew 16:28, where it says that those who are standing there listening to Christ will not all die before His return. Brother Ed should appreciate this, since I know that he, like I, has to fight with people who want to take this distinctly local promise and make the word generation apply to something other than those standing there listening to Christ.



Joh 16:12 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.

Next Page (2/5)

[ Go Back ]

Planetpreterist.com