Notes About Covenant and "Non-Covenant" Theologies

A common mistake made by Reformed pastors is to dismiss non-covenant theologies because it was not held from antiquity.  But they're not serious, because they've forgotten the 14th and 15th centuries.

The primary marker for Proto-Covenant Theology is infant baptism.  If your church baptizes infants, it's because your church believes it is a physical continuation of Israel, the heir of the promises made to Israel.  This practice dates to at least 215 AD. Thus by the reports of at least some Early Church Fathers, including Iraneus, Origen, and Justin Martyr (155 AD), the Church generally believed itself to be the heir of the promises to Israel; one sign of that is that baptism replaced circumcision. Once the two ideas were linked, then infant baptism followed naturally.

In opposing Rome, Wyclif, Hus, and the Reformation began the long road of dismantling Christendom. This opposition came from Biblical literacy. Everyone should learn the Bible well enough to examine oneself with it.  It didn't automatically solve problems; instead, it allowed reasoned, prayerful dialogue. It commands patience and humility. 

But in denying the temporal authority of the Church, you begin to realize that replacement is nuanced. Then in reading the Bible on your own, you see that Paul's motif is not quite replacement, but actually fulfillment -- of the law's requirements by Christ, which Israel could never fulfill. Yet Paul wasn't really a replacement theologian, because he also believed in the idea of the remnant: that a believing remnant of Jews will become partakers of the New Covenant of Christ.

The primary marker for this theology is credo-baptism.  And the way it's maintained is through biblical literacy.

Why Priests? by Garry Wills

 Some notes as I was reading his book.

---

The Point: What is the Body of Christ?

Wills' argument is that the Roman Catholic Church has reversed the place of Eucharist and Congregation: the congregation is now the symbol, and the eucharist the reality, wheras originally it was the other 'way 'round.  This seems to me to apply to other churches that have priests.

1. 1 Cor 10:18, 12:27: we are one body
2. 1 Cor 11:29: They've forgotten what the Body of Christ is!
3. de Lubac -> the church is the physical manifestation of the Body of Christ.

(note: Wills quotes a lot of liberal Catholic theologians, some of whom have theology that diverges from the Bible.  He apparently quotes them when they are making points Biblically.  Be careful.)

What is the Eucharist then?

A Thanksgiving

A celebration of the peoples' oneness at the "one altar"

Augustine: can the body of Christ be digested?

1 Cor 10:17

It's Not About the Pope

[Rob's notes]

The church with a single representative, moral leader, top executive e.g. monepiscopacy or whatnot is not anti-biblical.  Wills' argument is that the priesthood is a non-Christian import that subverts the body of Christ.  He claims to still be a Catholic and expresses no intention of leaving.  He points out that Protestant churches seem to do fine without priests, so in his view the Roman Catholic Church would similarly "be fine without priests."  

The absence of priests would also jettison the consecrations they perform; in Wills' view this is better than what the CC has today.  He thinks that one of the effects of the priesthood is, paradoxically, to isolate the members of the Body of Christ rather than fostering one-anotherness.  

The Classical Pagan Position on Christianity

"Christianity can't be a religion, because it has no priests, no altars, no designated places of worship."

What is a Christian Priest?

  

It's more or less completely described as the one who consecrates the Eucharist.

Contra Catholic Interpretation of the Eucharist

(P.S. everyone agrees that Aristotle is not infallible (Aquinas knew this too))

Not agreed on by Doctors and teachers of the CC.

• Augustine ("it's a symbol of our unity in Christ")
• de Lubac in his work Corpus Mysticum
• Berengar
• Occam
• Ratrammus
• Origen "the bread is the Word of Christ"

It's a reversal of the relationship, putting Eucharist over Body.

[Rob] Eucharist looks like a fiat rather than a logical chain.

[Rob] Looks like a symbol for control rather than unity.

First Generation Christianity (1G) 

had EKKLHCIAE ("house gatherings").

1. charisms, including apostles
2. communal meal where memories of Jesus were shared (the gospels now fill that function).
3. prayer, prophesy (< using OT and elaborating to communicate gospel)
4. composed their own hymns
5. baptized newcomers

There were no consecreations.

There were no priests, because Jesus and his Apostles didn't ordain any.

Apostles

The sending out of the apostles between churches explains Paul's urging for hospitality.

- Mk 6:7, Rom 12:13, Heb 13:2, 2 Cor 8:23.

NOTE: "The Twelve" is clearly a symbol of the End Time, as judges of the 12 tribes in the End Time.

- Lk 22:28-30, Mt 19:28, Rev 21:10-14.

Christians' Names for Themselves

• Housefellows (Gal 6:10, Eph 2:9)
• Followers
• Learners 
• Following "The Path"
• Jesus as DIDASKALE or rabbi
• Brothers and Sisters (ADELPHOI and ADELPHIA)
• The Called (KLHTOI)
• The Holy
• Those In Messiah

The 1G was Egalitarian and Charismatic

"Community functions are direct gifts of the Spirit", not by hierarchical rules or appointments.

Rom 12:7-8, Eph 4:11 "shepherd"

Egalitarian: Mk 9:33-37, Lk 14:7-11, Mt 23:5-12.

- Rob's note: this looks apparently temporary both as a sign and for practical purposes as the Church establishes itself.

The 2G was Self-Supporting

(Actually I don't have a good heading title here)

The 2G had:

1. Deacons and Deaconesses (helpers)
2. Elders (PRESBYTEROI) (functional)
3. Overseers (moral)

The 2G did not have:

1. Priests
2. Rituals that require priests

1 Cor 11:18-22, 27-29.  Priests and consecration aren't front-and-center.  They aren't anywhere.  It's all on the congregation.  There is no Ex opere operato.

Jesus was a Prophet, by definition

• Harsh critic of ritual that was only ritual.
• Charismatic, not appointed.
• Used visible metaphors.
• Directly confronted the priests.
• Killed by the priests.

Atonement

God made atonement for man, because He loved us.

Rom 3:24-26

- sin, yes

- blood of Christ, yes

- atonement, yes

but NO:

- no priest

- no sacrifice offered

- no bargaining with God

Redemption

Based solely on Christ's completed work on the cross.