Romans 11: No Special Guarantees

Epistle of Paul to the Romans, Chapter 11

and Revelations 2.

Implications for churches: 

* individual churches can fail (be "broken off" / lampstand removed) e.g. due to arrogance or lack of the fear of God.

* wayward churches are called to repent (and be "grafted" in again to the root)
* the root precedes the churches; e.g. the root is that root of the Olive Tree that is Israel: God (Christ).

* the principle of unity is covenantal and pertains to belief.

Romans 11:17 Now if some of the branches were broken off, and you, a wild olive shoot, were grafted in among them and participated in ¹³  the richness of the olive root, 11:18 do not boast over the branches. But if you boast, remember that you do not support the root, but the root supports you. 11:19 Then you will say, “The branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in.” 11:20 Granted! ¹⁴  They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but fear! 11:21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, perhaps he will not spare you. 11:22 Notice therefore the kindness and harshness of God – harshness toward those who have fallen, but ¹⁵  God’s kindness toward you, provided you continue in his kindness; ¹⁶  otherwise you also will be cut off. 11:23 And even they – if they do not continue in their unbelief – will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. 11:24 For if you were cut off from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and grafted, contrary to nature, into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these natural branches be grafted back into their own olive tree?

Revelations 2:5 Therefore, remember from what high state ¹³  you have fallen and repent! Do ¹⁴  the deeds you did at the first; ¹⁵  if not, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place – that is, if you do not repent. ¹⁶

Useful reading: http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2011/02/solo-scriptura-sola-scriptura-and.html

On the Theonomy Debate

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DvCJEGM0WMw&list=PLjGONzvY0sDWijCUXEyN9g-l3NdL-ihdZ


An attempted summary, with some editorial.  I'm missing a substantial amount of McDurmon's comments that I think are important.  I'll dig them out.

It seems to me that theonomy is not the same as the concept of Natural Law, as seen (apparently) in or around the Catholic church.  The difference is apparently that theonomy EQUATES the Mosaic civil laws as THE Natural Law AND that God's promises and curses based on Israel's adherence to those laws apply to all nations, regardless of their religion.

It appears to be closer to Shari'a law.  OK, I'm sure I'm going too far, but that's what I hear in my head.

Executive Summary

Dr. Joel McDurmon (americanvision.com): Mosaic civil laws are obligatory for civil governments today.  Cultures / nations are judged, or will be judged, by God, for disobedience to these laws.

Jordan Hall: Mosaic civil laws serve as an example to all, but is today a pattern for church discipline.

The Issue

Psalm 19:7.

[McDurmon] If the laws are just, perfect, true, righteous, etc, AND they have not been rescinded, explicitly or by natural deduction, then they are not just applicable but obligatory.  To do otherwise is unjust.

[Hall] Halls says that that position goes too far in separating Israel from the church.  Or, perhaps, his point is that the New Testament indeed clearly shows us that Jesus and Paul applied the civil law to the ekklesia, the assembly of believers, the church.

The Pivot

1 Tim 1:3-11.  How does one use the law "lawfully"?

Terms

"General Equity": God's moral law, which is written on everyone's heart, embodied in the Decalogue.  [McDurmon: the moral law is a summary of God's righteous character].

[McDurmon] "Common Equity": Does not spiritualize the law.  That part of the moral law which is written, continues, and applies to all nations at all times.  A detailed application of General Equity.

[McDurmon] "Particular Equity":

The Arguments

 [McDurmon] Per 1 Tim 1, despite nomo didaskoloi "teachers of the law" (Judaizers) and oikonomos "rules of the house", Paul does not throw out the law.  "Paul read [Greg] Bahnsen" (a calvinist theonomist).  The law is "laid down" for the lawless.  McDurmon then says this means the law is not just for the church ( = believers), but for outside the church ( = unbelievers) as well.

This appears to be the foundation upon which McDurmon builds his argument.  He believes that his foundation is so solid that he claims his opponent must be forced to call God's laws unjust in order to hold the opposite position.

Illuminating 1 Tim further is Hall's mention of 1 Cor 6:9-11.  He makes the point that these lists are of sins and crimes against God, used as a means to explain GRACE.  By implication (or perhaps more directly by Paul), church rules and church discipline (and so on) are (therefore?) the "lawful way to use the law".

[Hall] Theonomy is insufficiently Christocentric.  It refuses to see these laws and Israel "tied up in the typological foreshadowing" as the church as the fulfillment of Israel.  The church is spiritual Israel, the reality to which physical Israel is the shadow.  Lev 19:13.  Deut 25:4.  1 Cor 5 (Deut 13:5, 17:7, 17:12, 21:21) ... the NT applies the civil code to the church's obligations.

[McDurmon] The above criticism is not necessarily true.  The desire is for people to "get on board" and take it seriously, and figure out what laws are continuous and abiding, and how.

[Hall] There are judicial laws which are expressions of the moral law which require protection.  Example: child-rearing laws.  How justice is administered changes.

[McDurmon] Does this make God's previous justice unjust today?

[Hall] The civil law is immutable until it accomplishes its divine purpose.  The moral law, tied intrinsically to the character of God, does not change.


Hall summed up with the "Render unto Caesar" passage.  Apparently 1st century Jews treated this coin as a breaking of the first two commandments.  (Is it true that Jesus didn't "expect" Rome to uphold the first table of the law?  In what sense?)  And I don't see how submitting to a relatively blasphemous government is incompatible with desiring a theonomy and pursuing one via legitimate means.

McDurmon claims that the issue is about whether or not civil law faithfully represents God's standard of justice.  Or, perhaps, Justice (with a capital J), as a characteristic of God. But I think that's just one third of his point, the second third being that God's concept of justice is embodied or implemented in the Mosaic civic laws, and the third third being that God judges nations which do not do this.

Salvation hangs on Justification

When you debate, you have an obligation to understand both sides of the argument.  Ideally, you should be able to competently argue FOR the opposition.  And in general, with any argument that is over 500 years old, you should never expect to just solve the problem once and for all, as if all of the educated minds that came before you were dunces.

After reading some of an argument against imputation, I was impressed that Mr. Rose started with articles from reformed sources, including the Westminster Confession of Faith.  He went through the various uses of logizomai and cheseb, and how the term could be interpreted various ways based on its use.  After the article started getting ponderous, I scrolled down to where the writer deals with Calvin, Owen, Turretin, Hodge, and others, whom he proceeded to call ridiculous and dishonest.

I was not impressed with his dismissive attitude towards men who each may have known more about Christianity than Mr. Rose and I will ever know combined.

So I went back and found two things to comment on.  The first is a quote from A Theology of the New Testament on "Imputation".  Mr. Rose took a snippet of it without following it to its conclusion.

Paul never expressly states that the righteousness of Christ is imputed to believers. His words are, “And to the one who does not work but trusts him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness” (Rom 4:3,5).
These words could be taken to mean that God regarded faith as the most meritorious human achievement, and therefore God accounts faith as the equivalent to full righteousness. This, however, would ignore the context of Pauline thought.
(A Theology of the New Testament, “Imputation”)

I've put the last sentence in red, because Mr. Rose doesn't follow the line of thought beyond what was expedient to him.  But you can follow it here.

I considered the vanity of blogging on this, but oh well.