This is also, I think, a practically good question, because you've already mentioned somebody that is somewhat representative of this school of thought, and it comes up. Are New Covenant theology and Progressive Covenantalism compatible with the 1689? Yeah, well it's interesting because
New Covenant Theology's Internal Diversity
New Covenant theology doesn't have a monolithic statement, the same statement among all of them. And before Gary, I almost said Gary North, Gary Long died, he articulated a covenant of I don't think he liked the word works. Yeah, we're in, we're doing, you're getting the garden book on Saturday morning. I note that in there, which is a move in the right direction, I think.
And the reason why Dr. Long did it, who I think was the best writing New Covenant theology guy. and atonement was really good. He's got another book on law or something that's not very good. But this book, this last book, was his most mature thinking.
And
Gary Long and the Adamic Covenant
he concludes there was a covenant enacted by God with Adam in the garden. And how does he do it? Romans 5 and Hosea 6. So he's got a hermeneutic going.
He's going, I'm not just going to read the garden. isolated from the rest of scripture. It's not a biblicist reading. Yes. So I really appreciated that.
He allowed subsequent revelation to make explicit what is implicit in antecedent revelation. A covenant in the garden, using that language, requires the rest of the Bible to help us interpret what's going on. And when you do that, there was somebody I read that said the garden should be read through the lens of the Apostle Paul. And I want to extend that and say
Hermeneutics of Canonical Reading
the garden should be read through the lens of Genesis 3 through Revelation 22. I thought it was intriguing, though, because we are in that book, your book, Getting the Garden Right, and I haven't read long. I'm reading what you've provided. I didn't either.
I got it off AI. I'm kidding. I'm kidding. I read the entire book.
He affirms Romans 5, affirms Hosea 6. He affirms some sort of a covenant with Adam in the garden pre-fall, but not the covenant of works as it's been historically taught. Yes. Not as a pro-firament.
Yeah, there's not an eschatological pro-ferment in it. Long is who you're talking about. Gary Long. When did he die?
I don't know, within five years or so, but I really appreciated and applauded and tried to do that in the book and say, this is what New Covenant theology and progressive covenantalists need to do, not just on this covenant, but the divine rest as well. You guys aren't to that point yet. You're going to see, I'm going to take basically the hermeneutical the operations of hermeneutical principles that were going on in Gary Long's mind. And I'm going to challenge, and the progressive covenantalists, because they have a creation covenant now.
I disagree with how it's articulated in the basis for it, but I'm writing a chapter for a book on that too. But I'm going to say, you take the same hermeneutical grid, allow the scripture itself to shed light on the scripture, especially in light of its fulfillment, and that which was in black and white becomes clearer, becomes not full colors, the new covenant, you know, inaugurated new covenant. But we use the language of fulfillment to help us with the language of promise. And I'm going to say, take that to Genesis 2, 1 through 3, the divine rest.
What is that? God's tired? No, Isaiah tells us he never sleeps or slumbers. He can't be tired.
So whatever rest is signifying, It has to be something that's worthy of God, but something instructive for man. It's the divine exemplar thing. Do as I've done. Work unto an exalted end.
Work to an end. And so when you do that and you put it all together, they won't call themselves a progressive covenantalist anymore. They'll come over to the fuller confessional expression of covenant theology. But, you know, they're not going to hell because they don't yet, but some of them are, slowly but surely, and I think their hermeneutics gonna help them.
So Pastor Butler just used the word biblicalism, and you certainly have dealt with New Covenant theology for a long time, right? Would you say that that's part of their problem, that they're not cognizant, that they're approaching the Bible from a My reading trumps all these yeah, so some of them seem to Revel in that yeah in the few quotations that are provided. I think the older some but even dr. Long You know who says?
He doesn't like covenant works. Oh Yeah, they all seem to have was not in the Bible. No he talked about He's dealing with threefold division, and he doesn't like it because moral, ceremonial, and civil aren't used in either the Hebrew or Greek text. But he calls it moral and something else.
He's got a twofold division of it, but neither of those words are in the Hebrew or Greek. And you have other ones saying New Covenant theology attempts to use Bible words to explain Bible doctrines. And you've got to appreciate that. It's not a bad thing.
But you can't do that with a Jehovah's Witness at your front door. They'll quote John 1 and all you can do is use Bible words. So I think probably the quick answer, because
Chapters 7, 19, and 22 as the Test
there was a no. Yeah, I agree. And I think it would come down to, you know, certain key chapters in the Confessions. So 19 and 7, 1922.
Yeah. And you see the connection back to the Calvinism and Reformed thing. You know, everybody wants to be... I've seen this.
Calvinistic vs. Confessionally Reformed
Calvinistic Baptists call themselves Reformed Baptists. You push a little bit. No, they're not Reformed. They're Calvinistic.
And there's a lot of guys that love the 1689, but they don't... There's certain... Not exceptions. You remember...
A little here and there. They're talking whole chapters. Big ones. Remember the Philip Ross.
He was picking on, who was he? Who was the guy in New York City, the PCA? Schlissel? Keller?
Tim Keller. Oh, Keller, okay. Was it Tim Keller? Somebody who was, he calls it a precision strike,
The Fourth Commandment and Confessional Cloth
extracting the perpetuity of the fourth commandment out of the confession. He says it's of a cloth. You pull that string, and a lot of other doctrines fall flat, and you've got to rebuild the whole system. And I think that's the way to look at it on some of these Law Sabbath issues.
Well, OK, so can we apply in this conversation, which I think is really helpful,
The Covenant of Redemption
can we apply the same thing when we talk about the covenant of redemption? the inner Trinitarian, if you deny that, can you say that you're... Well, the Confession sets it forth. Yeah, I think it depends on how you parse it out. Yeah, that to me is a big...
If you just say it's... we go to text,
Pactum Salutis: Decree or Covenant?
like Luke 22, there's a covenant, the Father covenanted a kingdom to the Son. then there's something pre-temporal about the divine will. If you just put it in the decree, and you say, well, it's the Bible's way of speaking about the decree in redemptive historical language, but it's not like the father striking hands with the son, yeah, you know. Because you read John Flavel, he uses that language. Then it's glorious.
It's glorious when you read it. But it's anthropomorphic. My son hears a lot of miserable things. Would you take them to be yours?
Would they be your bride? Oh, that's fantastic. Yes. You know, once again, it's one of those things we were discussing earlier is allowing our theology to also inform how we read our Bible, that there's analogy, right?
There's not. We don't think that we're speaking univocally about the eternal relations, but we're saying there's like the relationships that are covenantal relationships. And it sure seems that way in John's Gospel.
The Son's Mission and the Incarnation
Jesus is conscientiously sent from the Father to do a specific task. Yeah. When the sun comes on the earth, he says, Thou hast prepared a body for me. The Incarnation was a prepared thing.
And with that flable quote, there's Theological parsing? No. Devotional warming? Oh yeah, that's right.
Doxological praising? Yeah, that's just beautiful stuff.
Analogical Language and Creature-Creator Speech
It's using our experience as creatures. It's using creatures to teach creatures something about the Creator, but not on a one-to-one kind of a... It's Deuteronomy 1, God reflecting through Moses on the wilderness. I carried you through the wilderness just like a father carries his son.
Really? Carried? Beautiful. If you will look the word carried up in Hebrew lexicons that were put together by dead Germans who were liberal and probably in hell.
Hell suffering. Carry means carry. Therefore, God has arms. The Mormons are right.
No, we're not going to do that. We're running... I'm gonna probably be more selective here. Lightning round.
So... Yeah, put a timer. You got 30 seconds.