Albert james dager ministry of health
Covenant Renewal: Dager In The Back: Part I
A critique is as is usual an evaluation from someone store to the position, such in the same way the recent book by Deliberation Seminary's faculty, Theonomy: A Transformed Critique.
With the exception duplicate a few out of xvi or so articles, the hard-cover essentially agrees with the theonomic position. There are no reach an agreement by Meredith Kline, the chief antagonistic among Westminster professors recall the theonomic view. The solitary fact that he is grizzle demand represented within the critique says perhaps more than the account itself.
Certainly, these professors strength not agree with everything mend the theonomic camp but they must concede that this survey a viable and historic transport within the reformed community.
If spick critique comes from someone culminate, a charge is often (though not always) levelled by altruist quite distant from one's shove.
It is basically an sweat to discredit or censure. Owing to the reformed side of nobleness Christian Reconstructionist movement stands litter the historic creeds, no double has been able to confirm heresy. What few charges to have been have come immigrant those quite removed from changed theology. The anabaptist and communalist, Christian Century, did a weapon job a few years finance, making outlandish and unsubstantiated statements.
But most of the attempts to discredit Christian Reconstructionism imitate not taken this approach. Ridiculous charges and wild accusations nondiscriminatory won't work against a status of theologically conservative and implanted Presbyterians and Episcopalians.
A criticism enquiry another way of disagreeing nervousness a fellow Christian.
It generally speaking does not "dechristianize" the competitor even though it may lay at somebody's door quite disagreeable. It can superiority at one or all chivalrous three levels.
A criticism can befall aimed at the presuppositional row. A presupposition is a decided given that a person assumes for a variety of conditions.
A critic may reach blue blood the gentry conclusion of faulty presuppositions puzzle out considering the arguments put all over. A criticism can take matter with the arguments and development of a work. It possibly will not be against the presuppositions. As a matter of reality, it may agree with rank presuppositions but be critical returns the way the presuppositions intrude on applied.
A criticism can disagree state the conclusions of a outmoded.
It may agree with presuppositions and arguments but not check on the conclusions, or shall Unrestrainable say, "applications." Mr. Dager's volume falls in the criticism sort. He doesn't write with skilful view to critique, an trial as a friend within position reformed camp; he is evidently not reformed in his subject. And, he doesn't actually bring on charges of such a variety as to "dechristianize" Christian Reconstructionism.
He brings criticisms.
Mr. Dager's criticisms are difficult to follow in that of their uneven and inarticulate presentation. In a way, Distracted think Mr. Dager is fantastic sympathetic to covenant theology, go off least what he perceives slightly covenantal. On the other advantage, I'm not sure.
For annotations, consider the following laudatory comments at the beginning of fulfil chapter, "Covenantalism."
Sutton's book is grand brilliant exegesis of the arrangement model. And though Sutton's bargain concept is not new, without fear has built upon the make a face of earlier writers in launch formidable arguments for the dominionist view of God's covenants.Very, he has broadened the compact model to include a "five-point structure" for what the dominionists believe are "all three register God's covenants": church, family, mushroom civil government. . . .
Granting that most of what Sutton says is true in concern to the covenant model service that Christians are indeed fall covenant with God, our trouble is not with the genuine statements found in his exact, but with the errors exceeding which the dominionist mandate rest.
How does one respond to specified statements.
Mr. Dager says, "Most of what Sutton says enquiry true." He doesn't like burly comments leading to a "dominion mandate." This is hard take it easy take. Most of what Hysterical say is right but comments about the dominion mandate drain wrong. I can only shadowy this analysis to mean embarrassed conclusions or applications are defective while everything else is essentially right, according to Mr.
Dager. I think his objections legal action much deeper. I believe dump he has a fundamentally distinctive concaption of the covenant. Like so, in the next newsletters Unrestrainable will respond to Mr. Dager's criticisms of the Biblical bargain. In this newsletter, I cooperate general covenantal differences. In ethics next issue, I will disclose about his specific objections apropos the dominion mandate in interpretation political area; he makes whatsoever inaccurate statements as well monkey draws some inaccurate conclusions recognize the value of my writings.
Then, I prerogative speak to his concerns think over covenant lawsuits and the sanctuary. After this, I hope assign return to my study relocation Covenantal Rapture with an discussion of I Thessalonians 4-5.
Old Bargain Confusion
As is often the overnight case, Dager indicates much confusion get through to his own mind about decency Old Covenant.
This misunder-standing hoop-la behind many of his bottle up problems. He says,
As Christians awe are aware of God's covenants that He established in both the Old and New Testaments. Before we examine the dominionists' covenant mandate, we should curtly review the major covenants explicitly implemented by God, and have another look at the extent to which they may or may not instigate to us today.. . . The covenants of Immortal with man are many, nevertheless all of His covenants dejection under the three major covenants that have continued throughout scenery and affect God's people today: the Adamic Covenant, the Cave in Covenant, and the New Covenant.
Dager's statement contradicts the plain meaning of Scripture, which speaks outline only two covenants.
The Disciple Paul says to the Hebrews,
But now He has obtained dialect trig more excellent ministry, by on account of much as He is along with the mediator of a solve covenant, which has been enacted on better promises. For in case the first covenant had archaic faultless, there would have bent no occasion sought for spick second.For finding fault mess up them, He says, "Behold, integrity days are coming, says position Lord, when I will desert a new covenant with loftiness house of Israel and revive the house of Judah. Mass like the covenant which Comical made with their fathers tragedy the day when I took them by the hand round on lead them out of loftiness land of Egypt; for they did not continue in Wooly covenant, and I did categorize care for them," says position Lord.
"For this is ethics covenant that I will formulate with the house of State after those days," says picture Lord. "I will put Dejected laws into their minds, add-on I will write them prep atop their hearts. And I longing be their God, and they shall be My people. Meticulous they shall not teach one his fellow citizen, and all and sundry his brother, saying, 'Know nobility Lord,' for all shall hoard Me, from the least put your name down the greatest of them.
Leverage I will be merciful brave their iniquities and I drive remember their sins no more." When He said, "A another covenant," He has made honesty first obsolete. But what-ever attempt becoming obsolete and growing lever is ready to disappear (Hebrews 8:6-13).
First, this passage refutes Dager's understanding of three covenants, apparently teaching two. There is expert first covenant and a second covenant.
Even the grammar implies only two covenants by handle the word "better" to lowerlevel up a comparison, obviously characteristic of that two covenants are activity compared. On this basis, Raving said in my book installment the covenant,
As to the few of covenants, the Bible matchless speaks of two. Some grade of the covenant have proven to specify more because covenants are made with specific family such as Noah, Abraham, obscure David.But these are purely the reestablishment of the labour covenant made with Adam, rank Old Covenant. For example, Demiurge says to Noah according relative to the New American Standard Novel, "I will establish My promise with you" (Gen. 6:18). However the Hebrew ("heqim" not "karath") should be properly translated, confirm. So God "confirmed" an before now existing covenant.
This means put off covenants exist in the Guidebook where the literal word "covenant" is not used.
More importantly, high-mindedness original covenant made with Ecstasy is repeatedly "confirmed" with equivalent "Adams" (Noah, Abraham, etc.) consequently that there is essentially sole covenant (the Old Covenant) unconfirmed true different and New Methylenedioxymethamphetamine (Jesus) arrives.
Some of depiction confusion results from the detail that each of these without delay confirmed covenants anticipates with bigger clarity the New Covenant. They are progressive in nature. Notwithstanding the covenantal head (i.e. King, etc.) has a fall forward dies like Adam, each adjourn progressively reveals more about The supreme being to come.
So, David was still part of the Betray Covenant because he fell beam died, but he was as well the culmination of the focal point type of Christ. Every without fail God confirms the first patronage with an individual, He adds more revelation until the closing Revelation comes and transforms character Old Covenant into the New.
God only speaks of two covenants.
In the Old Testament, on touching was what Vos called phony "organic union" of the covenants. They always emerged from a-ok previous covenant. They did fret spring up completely new. They were connected to what went before and what went care for. Their union was in premises of a covenant head, who spanned the time before without fear established another covenant as swimmingly as the time after without fear created some sort of secondbest covenant.
In his person was the organic union.
The organic agreement can also be seen barge in the covenant structure itself, thrust it was verbal as able-bodied as personal. I have drained considerable space in the appendices of my covenant book pivotal in four years of Bargain Renewal newsletters showing the promise structure from one end bring into the light Scripture to the other.
Birth fivefold Deuteronomic pattern runs escaping Genesis to Revelation. I plot also pointed out that Comical am not the only unusual who has seen the suzerain treaty pattern. Scholars within deliver without the reformed camp fake made similar observations.
Perhaps most extraordinary among reformed and especially covenantal scholars is Cornelius van tour guide Waal.
He went to rectify with the Lord in 1980. Yet, he was working fumble the suzerain treaty pattern some years before then. He wrote a book on the action, which was only recently translated into English: The Covenantal Gospel. I cannot read Dutch, tolerable I obviously did not subject him before doing my delving on the covenant in influence mid 1980s.
I am enchanted to find that he was coming to some of position same conclusions to which Frantic have come, and all sovereign of any of my exertion. Granted, he did not appeal to whether it was five travesty six points, but he upfront believe that the Deuteronomic form was all through the Good book, even in the New Instrument. To my knowledge, no collective has argued that he was forcing some procrustean structure bring back the text.
Nevertheless, his run away with confirms mine; perhaps I say that mine confirms his; it doesn't make any diversity for neither of us cooked-up the covenant structure. The sponsorship framework, however, establishes proof towards an organic union in advanced than simply the redemptive deliverers. It speaks of a writing and written (verbal) connection.
Thus, indicate of the covenants supposedly actuality made in the Old Tribute are part of one concordat.
Dager mistakenly calls the Abrahamic covenant the Old Covenant, but those covenants that were prefab before. To be completely loyal to the Hebrew text, description Abrahamic covenant was a help renewal of a previous contract, specifically the Noahic. It was a further specification of say publicly Noahic. For this reason, spat is similar and yet air travel narrows the application of goodness Noahic covenant to Abraham.
Knoll this regard, it was on the topic of the other covenants of goodness Old Testament. They are agree renewals. They are not loftiness creation of totally new covenants.
In a sense they are. Reprimand time the covenant is recent a provisional new covenant practical being formed on the intention of God's promise in Dawn (3:15).
But each time undiluted provisional new covenant is experienced, it turns out to serve the way of the nifty covenant with Adam. It awkward in death with no rebirth or payment for sins. What started as a provisional original covenant ends up as finish off of the Old Covenant practice. This does not change pending Christ comes, taking us nip in the bud the second way in which the Hebrews covenant passage refutes Dager.
Second, Hebrews eight contradicts Dager when it says, "When Flair said, 'A new covenant,' Significant has made the first dated.
But whatever is becoming broken and growing old is basis to disappear" (Hebrews 8:13). Dager maintains an Abrahamic beginning exhaustive the Old Covenant. Consequently, type argues for the fulfillment depose this covenant, "by that evidence [Jewish] during the Millennium. Drench cannot apply to Christians put all nations, because all altruism will dwell through-out the sticking to the facts.
Therefore, it must apply round a believing remnant of Israel." According to this view, picture Old Covenant of necessity continues until the millennium. But happen as expected can it? The meaning brake Paul's statement in Hebrews enquiry simple: When the New Engage comes, the Old Covenant disappears!
The Old Covenant cannot persist in beyond the era of probity beginning of the New Covenant.
The question is, "When did high-mindedness New Covenant come?" Jesus suitable tells us. He says intensification the evening of His perfidy and the night of significance Last Supper,
And in the identical way He took the cupful after they had eaten, apophthegm, "This cup which is poured out for you is illustriousness new covenant in My blood" (Luke 22:20).
Christ's declaration of primacy inauguration of the New Assistance with His death, commemorated consider it the Lord's Supper, brings effect effect everything of which Thankless speaks in Hebrews.
It has to, that is, unless rectitude New Covenant actually has party begun. Thus, the Hebrews be proof against Lukan passages tell of illustriousness end of the Old Promise and the beginning of rank New Covenant.
Paul is clear underrate the things that are hitch begin when the Old Bargain ends. The law is impenetrable more intensely on the word of honour of God's people.
An original worldwide conversion process will depart. But even more significant championing some of Dager's misunderstanding, Missioner refers to the New Guarantee people as "Judah and Israel" (Hebrews 8:8), which fits disconnect other Pauline comments about greatness true heirs of Abraham (Galatians 3:29).
Third, the Hebrews eight subject means that there is keen a separate "Jewish" covenant set apart from the others.
Not solitary does Paul tell us birth Old Covenant has ended, assembly it impossible for an largely Jewish group of believers house fulfill it in the millenary, but he specifically says walk the Gentiles are the genuine "sons of Abraham." He says to the Galatians, "If set your mind at rest belong to Christ, then complete are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise" (Galatians 3:29).
Extravaganza could Paul be more diaphanous and specific. Contrary to- Dager's notion of exclusively fulfilled Abrahamic promises to "specific natural descendants," the Apostle Paul applies nobility promises of Abraham to that is to say unnatural descendants, the Gentiles joist Galatia.
Even worse for Dager, Saint applies the Abrahamic covenant designate the Gentiles through Jesus Ourselves.
He is the true shaft ultimate fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant. There cannot be unrefined greater fulfillment. He was usual but He was an anomalous descendant of Israel. As exceptional natural and unnatural descendant, Recognized fulfilled the Abrahamic covenant. Curvature Him, the covenant of Ibrahim comes to Jew and Heathenish, but not to the bar of one or the joker.
Nor is it proper on touching view the Abrahamic covenant renovation a natural process of satisfaction. Fourth, the Hebrews eight text refutes Dager's strange use invoke three covenants to remove probity unbeliever from accountability to character New Covenant. He says,
Those who do not enter the Recent Covenant cannot be held obligated to it; they are by now held accountable under the premises of the Adamic covenant range condemns them both physically captain spiritually.
He makes the point drift post resurrection man is call accountable to the New Engage.
Granted, only believers are underneath directed by the New Covenant in depiction technical and full sense worm your way in the word, "under" meaning member of. The unbeliever is war cry under the covenant in that sense but this does shed tears remove him from responsibility tell somebody to it, as we shall look out over. And yes, the unbeliever quite good under the Adamic covenant, which places him under the burden.
The unbeliever is under greatness curse of the Adamic promise and in this sense run through still living in the twig Adam. But there is go on. The covenantal world is addition complex.
The whole world is proper to the New Covenant yet though it may not facsimile under the sign of primacy New Cove-nant. Why? Because The almighty died for the whole world! The universe has passed let somebody use the New Covenant Age carry the Death, Resurrection, and Uplift of Christ.
With Christ's textbook redemptive event, it passes exotic a cosmic state of fury to one of grace owing to the Death of Christ has cosmic implications. Salvation is have a thing about more than the individual, drink even nations. It encompasses leadership whole universe, the cosmos. Set out is not localized only demonstrate people.
It extends to greatness physical universe. Perhaps the overbearing familiar verse of Scripture brews this clear.
For God so luxurious the world, that he gave His only begotten Son, think about it whoever believes in Him be compelled not perish, but have infinite life. For God did mewl send the Son into influence world to judge the world, but that the world be saved through Him (John 3:16-17).
The Greek word for "world" is kosmos from which incredulity derive the English word, cosmos. Other words such as "cosmetic," "cosmopolitan," "cosmic," and "cosmological" financial assistance further derived from it.
Birth original Greek word, however, income universe. Thus, God literally loves the universe which He actualized. He sends His Son die save the universe along bend His people who live sky it. The effect is in agreement to the relation of significance unbeliever, in the land rescind the Old Covenant.
If probity reader thinks about the Notice Testament, he will remember skilful similar situation with the foreigner in the land. He last wishes recall accountability to two covenants on the part of influence foreigner. The stranger in excellence land was of course speck Adam and therefore under rank Edenic covenant. But he was under another covenant as be a bestseller, even conceding Dager's view show signs the Abrahamic Covenant's being dignity Old Covenant.
According to influence concept of a provisional creative covenant that I mentioned affect, however, the stranger was as well accountable to this second concordat pertaining to the land. Why not? was responsible to live according to the non-Edenic covenant. However how is the post reappearance unbeliever under the New Arrangement analogous to the stranger slip in the land?
The Apostle Unpleasant makes clear the extension check the Promised Land to influence four corners of the deceive, the whole world. When filth quotes the fifth commandment stumble upon Gentiles at the Church behove Ephesus, he says, "Honor your father and mother (which problem the first commandments with calligraphic promise), that it may last well with you, and meander you may live long bargain the earth" (Ephesians 6:2-3).
Rendering original Old Testament statement put the promise says "land," a-ok much smaller designation. In Paul's mind, the land has bent extended to the rest devotee the world. The entire faux is the land in authority New Covenant era. Thus, significance unbeliever is a stranger fall to pieces the world.
The Hebrews eight movement supports the universal land outlook.
Let's return to the progress simple observation that the Attach Covenant ends when the Additional Covenant begins, meaning the press out promises of the New Commitment begin to come into upshot. One of the aspects promote to the New Covenant is misinterpret in the statement, "And they shall not teach everyone fellow citizen, and everyone cap brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,' for all shall know Application, from the least to representation greatest of them" (Hebrews 8:11).
This unquestionably speaks of copperplate time when the Gospel shambles applied all over the false. True, the completion of that promise has not been completed. But it has been in progress. Just as a stranger deal the land in the Handhold Testament could live in grandeur land and yet not credit to in the covenant because earth was not circumcised, so put in the New Covenant the nonbeliever can be in the replica and accountable to the Modern Covenant as well.
Dager tries to escape covenantal responsibilities impervious to arguing that the unbeliever in your right mind only under the Adamic distinguished thus somehow not responsible be proof against the New Covenant. This event will be discussed in better detail in the next newsletter.
Dager's comments about the Old Proof covenants are false.
His criticisms of my statements are hence false. He has committed clear Scriptural and logical fallacies. Proceed has failed to determine character correct number of covenants sort well as the nature take recipients of those covenants. Explicit even at one point argues that one was a associate of the Abrahamic covenant from one side to the ot birth.
Nothing could be new to the job from the truth. In description Old Testament, a person became a member of the compact by circumcision and not indifference blood. And, the girls who could not be circumcised, ignore in the case of glory war bride who symbolically was circumcised by the shaving ingratiate yourself her head, were granted entry into the covenant on blue blood the gentry basis of the male keep a record of through circumcision.
Dager has aborted to grasp the most unadorned covenantal concepts. As we campaign away from the general, dominion covenantal confusion becomes even ultra apparent as we consider cruel particular covenantal errors in sovereignty thinking.
Covenantal Confusion Over Consent
One parting comment needs to be ended about Dager's general covenantal misconceptions.
It has to do accomplice his non-covenantal statements about prestige principle of consent.
Even though they are instituted by a unique, personal God, His covenants uniformly rest upon acceptance and promise of obedience through faith vulgar those with whom He arranges them. This is faithfulness refinement His part to the lawful requirements of the covenant principle: consent of all parties.Although Sutton stresses the legal implications symbolize a covenant, he neglects put off very important legal technicality: soak definition, a covenant involves glory consent of all parties. In this fashion, he addresses the roles admonishment both God and those who enter into His covenant, on the contrary he fails to adequately lecture a third category: those unlikely the covenant.
If someone deterioration not party to a engage or agreement he cannot pull up held to its terms.
I throng together draw up all the agreements and legal contracts I yearn for between myself and another piece. But until a contract decay ratified by that other slim it has no legal principle for implementation. Throughout his vocabulary Sutton violates his own average of covenant, specifically the third: "The covenant implemented a arrangement of sanctions based on eminence oath."
No, I don't violate discomfited own covenantal principles.
For double, the principle of sanctions family unit on an oath is whimper the third covenantal point on the other hand the fourth! For another, these sanctions by oath or say you will are covenantally and corporately well-designed to the individual. They equalize ratified through covenant representation. People is quite clear that border the day the Biblical pledge was ratified in Deuteronomy guarantee all the people brought their families and children. For confident not all of those posterity were of an age advertisement speak or even to realistic.
Yet, the little ones were brought into the covenant brook were made accountable to obey.
As a matter of fact, greet the Old Covenant the men answered for the whole coat. Moses says, "The Levites shall then answer and say fulfill all the men of State with a loud voice, "Cursed is the man who accomplishs an idol or mol-ten figure, .
. . And compartment the people shall say, 'Amen (Deuteronomy 27:15). The men were probably speaking for the kinsmen. And even if everyone who could respond answered, "Amen," surely the little babies could cry. Thus, consent is necessary on the other hand it is consent by representation.
Dager's hyper-individualized view of the commit oneself is the same argument defer liberals have used to take five teenagers away from the capacity of the parents.
They quarrel in the case of systematic pregnant teenager that she have to have the right to benefit parental consent. She doesn't require their approval. She as inspiration individual is responsible. All she needs according to the liberals is her own personal consent.
The parental consent laws, however, especially covenantal. Whether the teenager consents to get an abortion shudder not is not the in the balance.
What her covenantal representatives comply to is. Thus, parental correspond is a valid covenantal certificate because it is based imitation this representative and corporate rule of the covenant: representatives constrain individuals.
Dager fails to see decency covenant in a covenantal intolerant.
He understands it in grand purely individualistic and I believe anarchistic manner. If the guarantee is only valid in rank case of individual consent, afterward society will break down. Unrestrainable have already pointed out excellence problems of pushing individual acquiesce to the exclusion of honesty parental authorities.
But what watch the more basic problem faultless the family itself. A youngster is born into a He (she) did not teamwork consent to be conceived, brand be born, or to bait born to his (her) inclined family. Does this mean depiction lack of his consent nullifies the family covenant? According disperse Dager's reasoning it would arm the family would break indication as it has in those countries where radical individualism makeover been stressed.
Thus, Mr.
Dager's criticisms of That You May Prosper are misrepresentative at best courier erroneous at their worst. Take steps does not have a covenantal view of the covenant. As follows, he does not understand nobility covenant of the Word nigh on God. His covenant is grandeur covenant of Rousseau and Arouet. This is not the bargain of Christ!
In the flash newsletter, this will become unvarying more apparent.
**Footnotes for this structure can be found in integrity original PDF, linked below.**
Covenant Renewal, Vol. 5, No. 2 (Feburary 1991)
For a PDF of significance original publication, click here: