The Abrahamic Covenant, by Dr. George B. Fletcher, Ch. 1

       

The following is a book by Dr. George B. Fletcher. The copy I have was distributed many years ago at one of the churches he pastored in my area. I rediscovered this while cleaning out my attic recently. I would call it early New Covenant Theology (NCT). At the time I did not know it was called NCT. John G. Reisinger used to come to one of these churches for their week long Doctrines of Grace seminars. I enjoyed attending these years ago and looked forward to them each Spring. There are some interesting things to be gleaned from this book by Dr. Fletcher. I believe it sheds light on some of the issues with the covenant with Abraham and some of the errors arising from a misunderstanding of these things. I will post each of the 16 chapters. Here is the first chapter...

     

    

THE ABRAHAMIC COVENANT

      

     

      

       

or

      

      

       

Is the Israeli Nation in Palestine

a Fulfillment of Bible Prophecy?

        

        

       

Chapter I

    

     

       

      

INTRODUCTION

   

     There are three schools of interpretation in the field of Bible Prophecy - the Postmiliennial, Premillennial and Amillennial. Postmillennialism looks for the Lord's returri AFTER (post) the Millennium. It believes the Holy Spirit through the medium of the church will bring about in this world by the power of the gospel an era of righteousness among the nations of earth. Premillennialism holds that Christ will come personally BEFORE (pre) the Millennium, and that by the catastrophic judgments accompanying the Second Advent, Christ will exercise political sovereignty over all nations for a thousand years from the reestablished earthly throne of David in Jerusalem, which will then become the capitol of the world. Amillennialism means "no Millennium", that is, such as held by the postmillennialist and premillenialist, namely, neither a literal reign of Christ on earth before the final judgment as in premillennialism, nor a golden era of universal peace and prosperity in this world by a militant Church as in postmillennialism. Amillennialism holds to a spiritual reign of Christ in redeeming grace in the hearts of His people in this present life (Romans 5:21; l Cor. 15: 25,26), and continued in their reign WITH Christ in heaven (Rev. 20:4-6) during this Messianic age of grace between the two Advents of Christ.

      

     There are differences and likenesses between these respective views of eschatology. Amillennialism agrees with postrnillennialism in asserting that Christ's Second Advent is the end of all gospel probation (2 Cor.6:2). Amillennialism agrees with premillennialism in declaring that Christ's Second Advent will be preceded by a time of apostasy and a great falling away. It agrees with the "pre" view that the world will not be converted before the Lord's return by the preaching of the Gospel. Amillennialism disagrees vigorously with dispensational premillennialism in its Judaizing tendencies and influences. It repudiates modern Zionism and considers it a last day revival of Talmudic Judaism, which is nothing other than ancient Phariseeism. Amillennialism agrees with postmillennialism that the Second Advent of Christ ushers in eternity and disagrees with premillennialism which declares the Second Advent will be followed by a thousand years plus of time before the final end. Amillennialism asks "If the Second Advent of Christ glorifies all the redeemed of all ages and banishes with everlasting destruction those who know not God and obey not the Gospel, who will be left to enter any supposed millennium on earth (2 Thess. 1:7-10; Matt. 25:46)?" It believes that the offer of salvation after the Second Advent of Christ is as unscriptural as the offer of salvation after death (Luke 3:24-30; Heb. 9:27, 23). It finds support for its view in the words of Christ that as theflood took ALL of the world of the ungodly away: "so shall ALSO the coming of the Son of Man be (Matt. 24:39). Who then will be left to enter an earthly millennium, it asks? All three schools of thought in interpreting Bible prophecy are related in one way or another to the Abrahamic covenant, and resort to it to establish their respective views of prophetic truth.

       

     Likewise there are three great schools of thought with respect to Church truth, indicated by the terms Episcopacy, Presbyterianism, and Independency. Episcopacy recognizes the right of bishops to preside over districts of country, and one of its fundamental doctrines is that a bishop is officially superior to an elder and that the "ordaining power" and the "right to rule" belong to the episcopal office. Presbyterianism recognizes two classes of elders - PREACHING elders and RULING elders. the pastor and the ruling elders of a congregation constitute what is called the "Session of the church". The "Session" transacts the business of the church, receives, dismisses, and excludes members. From the decision of a Session there is an appeal to Presbytery, which is composed of preaching and ruling elders. From the action of a Presbytery there lies an appeal to Synod, and from the Synod there is an appeal to the General Assembly, whose decrees are final and irresistible. Independency holds to the sovereign autonomy of the local congregation of professedly regenerate, and scripturally baptized believers. They differ materially and fundamentally from Episcopal, Presbyterian, and Methodist churches. Independency holds that local churches are independent of the State, but in matters pertaining to government they are independent of one another. They are interdependent only in the sense involved in mutual fellowship; and their mutual fellowship is not to be lightly esteemed, for it answers valuable purposes. Independency declares that every local congregation of baptized believers united in church worship and work is as complete a church as ever existed, and is perfectly competent to do whatever a church can of' right do. It is as complete as if it were the only church in the world. Every Baptist church is an independent and a pure democracy. The idea of independence should be earnestly cherished while that of consolidation should be as earnestly deprecated. Churches, according to Independency, are executive democracies organized to carry out the sovereign will of their Lord and King. All three views of church truth stand related in one way or another to the Abraharnic covenant and as the three views of Bible prophecy, they likewise resort to it to establish their respective doctrines of ecclesiology.
    

          The question naturally arises how are we to interpret the Abrahamic covenant in relation to Bible prophecy and Church truth? Are all three views of prophecy and church truth correct; or does some one of them harmonize more perfectly with the whole counsel of God? We are persuaded that two great doctrinal errors stem from the Abrahamic covenant. The one has to do with Ecclesiology, the doctrine of the Church; and the other with Eschatology, the doctrine of Last Things. The Paedo-baptist will invariably go to the Abrahamic covenant of Genesis 17 to justify his infant sprinkling, and the dispensational prernillennialist will do the same to prove a future world power kingdom of Jewish supremacy to be brought in AFTER the Second Advent of Christ. But do we ever find either Christ or his apostles referring us to the Old Testament for an explanation of the ordinance of baptism? Is it not a positive institution peculiar to the New Testament, and therefore should we go back to Genesis 17 to establish the mode, subjects, and design of a New Testament ordinance? If Christ and His apostles have by command and example shown what the mode, subjects; and design of baptism are, that, it would seem to us, is the end of all controversy. On the other hand, do we ever find Christ or the apostles teaching that the Temple will be rebuilt, the Levitical sacrifices renewed, the Aaronic priesthood restored, the middle wall of partition reconstructed and Jerusalem become the center of the world's worship in a thousand years of Jewish supremacy? Nevertheless the Abrahamic covenant is frequently brought forward to prove that Israel was given the land for an everlasting possession, and it is claimed that inasmuch as they have never possessed it according to the boundary limitations of that covenant, an age to come AFTER the Second Advent of Christ is necessary to its complete fulfillment. If the millennium is all the dispensational premillennialist claims it is going to be, is it not reasonable to 'suppose that Christ and the inspired apostles would have had something explicit to say about it in the New Testament?
    
     These and similar questions in the fields of ecc1esiology and eschatology as they stand related to the Abrahamic covenant challenge the diligent study of the people of God we ourselves in seeking· the·truth ask the question: "What. saith the scripture?" and in the Chapters to follow shall declare what we believe they teach respecting these matters.

       

The Three Points of Common Grace

The Three Points of Common Grace by the CRC in 1924 is a good summary. It reads:
       
I. The First Point:
Relative to the first point which concerns the favorable attitude of God towards humanity in general and not only towards the elect, Synod declares it to be established according to Scripture and the Confessions that, apart from the saving grace of God shown only to those that are elect unto eternal life, there is also a certain favor or grace of God which He shows to His creatures in general. This is evident from the Scriptural passages quoted and from the Canons of Dordrecht II:5 and III-IV:8,9, which deal with the general offer of the Gospel, while it also appears from the citations made from Reformed writers of the most flourishing period of Reformed Theology that our Reformed writers from the past favored this view.
Scriptural proof: Psalm 145:9; Matt. 5:44, 45; Luke 6:35-36; Acts 14:16-17; I Tim. 4:10; Rom. 2:4; Ezekiel 33:11; Ezekiel 18:23.
       
II. The Second Point:
Relative to the second point, which is concerned with the restraint of sin in the life of the individual man and in the community, the Synod declares that there is such a restraint of sin according to Scripture and the Confession. This is evident from the citations from Scripture and from the Netherlands Confession, Arts. 13 and 36, which teach that God by the general operations of His Spirit, without renewing the heart of man, restrains the unimpeded breaking out of sin, by which human life in society remains possible; while it is also evident from the quotations from Reformed writers of the most flourishing period of Reformed Theology, that from ancient times our Reformed fathers were of the same opinion.
Scriptural proof: Ps. 81:11-12; Gen. 6:3; Acts 7:42; Rom. 1:24; Rom. 1:26, 28; II Thess. 2:6-7.
       
III. The Third Point:
Relative to the third point, which is concerned with the question of civil righteousness as performed by the unregenerate, Synod declares that according to Scripture and the Confessions the unregenerate, though incapable of doing any saving good, can do civil good. This is evident from the quotations from Scripture and from the Canons of Dordrecht, III-IV:4, and from the Netherlands Confession, Art. 36, which teach that God, without renewing the heart, so influences man that he is able to perform civil good; while it also appears from the citations from Reformed writers of the most flourishing period of Reformed Theology that our Reformed fathers from ancient times were of the same opinion.
Scriptural proof: II Kings 10:29-30; II Kings 12:2;14:3; Luke 6:33; Rom. 2:14.

Response to Jonathan Williams and the Admins of CFDD

I began the following response a few years ago and decided recently to finish. The administrators of the Facebook group Calvinism Fellowship Debate and Discussion (CFDD) banned me and other moderate Calvinists for defending our view of the atonement. The following letter was posted at CFDD after we were removed.

Dear Members,
       

We are aware that a divergent view of the atonement has been promoted in CFDD. While it might initially appear to only be a different position on the extent of the atonement and some deeper teachings about the atonement, please be aware that this disagreement is much more serious.

          

1. Firstly, this divergent view of the atonement that is being promoted as a Calvinistic understanding of the atonement, is in opposition to Calvinism.

           

Boettner explained the Reformed view, that "Christ's redemption secured everything necessary for their salvation, including faith which unites them to Him. The gift of faith is infallibly applied by the Spirit to all for whom Christ died, therefore guaranteeing their salvation." Whereas, one proponent of this divergent view said that "it goes beyond Scripture to say faith is purchased by the death of Christ. It is an extra biblical concept."

   
No Scripture is provided. Why not, Jonathan?

          

WRT the relationship between atonement and faith, it depends on how one sees the relationship. I do not deny the co-extension of the two; I simply do not agree with the direct method that high Calvinists seem to assume, as if Christ directly purchased faith by His death, as he purchased redemption. High Calvinists cannot explain this direct purchase much less provide Scriptural support for this.

          

George Smeaton acknowledges this distinction is regarded as Calvinist in his book The Apostles' Doctrine of the Atonement, pp. 542-543. Smeaton writes of Baxter's view: "These words of Baxter made it as plain as did the Synod of Dort that the atonement merited its own application: 'He whose sufferings were primarily satisfaction for sin, were secondarily meritorious of the means to bring men to the intended end; that is, of the Word and Spirit by which Christ causeth sinners to believe; so that faith is a fruit of the death of Christ in a remote or secondary sense.'

     
I would agree with Baxter, and Dort, that the special intent in the atonement to save the elect guarantees faith and all else necessary for the enjoyment of the benefits of Christ's atonement. The Scripture that I use to support my view is the a fortiori in Ro. 8:32,  "He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all, how shall He not with Him also freely give us all things?" It is an indirect result rather than directly purchased. There is no Scripture that teaches a direct purchase.

          

2. Secondly, this divergent view of the atonement is unbiblical to the extent that its very promotion is dangerous. To quote one proponent of this divergent view:

          

i) "the sin he bore was general, singular, any manner and type of sin; not specific individual sins."

ii) "The sin that Christ bore was any and all kinds of sin not individual sins."

          

Calvin, in your eyes, would also be 'dangerous' for his 'divergent' view: "'Who taketh away the sin of the world.' He uses the word sin in the singular number, for any kind of iniquity; as if he had said, that every kind of unrighteousness which alienates men from God is taken away by Christ." (Calvin, Commentary, John 1:29)

          

I suppose R.L. Dabney was also a proponent of this 'divergent' view and likewise 'dangerous': "The only New Testament sense the word atonement has is that of, reconciliation. But expiation is another idea. Katallagh, is personal.  Exilasmov, is impersonal. Katallagh is multiplied, being repeated as often as a sinner comes to the expiatory blood: exilasmov is single, unique, complete; and, in itself considered, has no more relation to one man's sins than another. As it is applied in effectual calling, it becomes personal, and receives a limitation. But in itself, limitation is irrelevant to it. Hence, when men use the word atonement, as they so often do, in the sense of expiation, the phrases, "limited atonement," "particular atonement," have no meaning. Redemption is limited, i.e., to true believers, and is particular. Expiation is not limited." (Dabney, Systematic Theology, 43, 7, pg. 528)

          

iii) For clarification, this proponent was asked, "So, Christ did not bear specific individual sins - he didn't bear Peter's denial of Jesus specifically, Thomas' doubting of Jesus specifically, Paul's persecutions of Christians specifically? Just ensuring I'm understanding you correctly." The proponent of the divergent view responded, "correct". While it is essential that the Person and Work of Christ be a specific quality (only the atonement of Christ could pay for any sin), His work also had to be a certain quantity (He had to really pay for each and all of my sins by His one sacrifice). As the Scriptures teach us:

          

i) "Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures" - 1 Corinthians 15:3

ii) "who gave Himself for our sins so that He might rescue us from this present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father" -Galatians 1:4

          

These texts do not say that He paid for each and every individual sin of yours quantitatively. The texts address intent behind His death - i.e. ~for~ our sins; they do not indicate the nature of the atonement for our sins. They do not say that His death paid for each and every individual sin of certain ones at Calvary.

          

iii) "He had to be made like His brethren in all things, so that He might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the

people." - Hebrews 2:17

iv) "who does not need daily, like those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the sins of the people, because this He did once for all when He offered

up Himself." - Hebrews 7:27

v) "He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed." - 1 Peter 2:24. 3. 

          

Nor do these texts say that He bore each and every individual sin of yours on the cross quantitatively. You have read that into the text.
          

There is no text of Scripture that teaches that the atonement was a certain quantity - i.e. that at Calvary He only paid for each and every sin of the elect quantitatively.
          
R.L. Dabney issued the same challenge in his day:

"He demands that we shall say Christ was only the elects’ substitute, and bore the guilt only of the elects sins. We reply, show us the place where either the Bible or the Confession of Faith says so." (Southern Presbyterian [Columbia, S.C.] New Series 2, no., 4 (1863) [no page numbers])

          

Conclusions:

i) From proponents of this divergent view, you will likely hear false dichotomies between a "qualitative" and a "quantitative" atonement, a "legal" and a "pecuniary" payment, and limited

expiation and justification by faith alone. While these arguments appear intellectual, please know that they are easily refuted.

               

If they were easy to refute, you would not have removed those making these arguments. The fact is that these are Scriptural distinctions. They are distinctions that Calvinists have made since the Reformation.

The atonement accomplished by Christ, is applied by faith, upholding the doctrine of justification by faith alone.
             
Faith would be moot in your view. Your sins were paid for at Calvary. A second payment cannot be demanded. What is applied upon faith given your view? You simply make these assertions without thinking them through.
             
Jesus Christ is the sacrifice of infinite value, Who [sic] the atonement is sufficient in virtue of. You require the same Savior and the same redemptive work as your neighbour, upholding the truth that you can say to all men, "I urge you to trust in Jesus Christ alone, who is able to forgive all of your sins".

          

If you have a quantitative view, or a pecuniary view of the atonement; you cannot say to all that there is forgiveness available to them without being inconsistent. If, as you say, "His work also had to be a certain quantity," then there is no additional quantity of payment for the sin of some men and they would not be able to be forgiven.

          

ii) As the Scriptures above demonstrate, the divergent view that includes the belief that "The sin that Christ bore was ... not individual sins" is very dangerous, especially when it is being promoted as a legitimate Calvinistic view. For these reasons, the admins have decided that we will no longer permit this divergent view of the atonement to be promoted in CFDD.

          

The Scriptures you provided above do not demonstrate anything of the sort; nor do the Canons of Dort. In fact, Scripture teaches that the sin Christ dealt with was qualitative - Jn. 1:29 & 2 Cor. 5:21. This was the view of notable Calvinists such as R.L. Dabney and C. Hodge. This view was also represented by delegates at the Synod at Dort.
       
You really should broaden your perspective of Calvinism beyond Boettner. He can be confusing. I could quote many things from him that would support the moderate Calvinist position. Here is one excerpt. After reading this you might be inclined to put Boettner in our camp. 

       
"While the value of the atonement was sufficient to save all mankind, it was efficient to save only the elect. It is indifferently well adapted to the salvation of one man to that of another, thus making the salvation of every man objectively possible; yet because of subjective difficulties, arising on account of the sinners own inability either to see or appreciate the things of God, only those are saved who are regenerated and sanctified by the Holy Spirit. The reason why God does not apply this grace to all men has not been fully revealed." (The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination, Limited Atonement, part 3)