The G3N3S1S Debate: A Minor Point Which Was A Missed Opportunity

I finished reading The Genesis Debate edited by David G. Hagopian and published in 2001 by Crux Press. I actually bought this book probably almost ten years ago, but didn't read it until now because I didn't necessarily like the context under which I bought it. However, a few years ago, when I started working for Wal-Mart I decided that one good use of my hour long lunch break would be to read the books I have purchased before buying new ones. It has resulted into a pretty good use of my time. Furthermore, at some point I decided that some of my books fall into similar topical categories, so I decided that would make more sense than just randomly picking a book the night that I need to have a new book. My current category is books that are edited by a general editor. I have worked through books that are collection of essays written "In honor of ..." usually a retired theologian or some other reason. The essays typically on very different topics that may be related to the person's professional career, or something else. The best collected writings volume, from an editing standpoint, that I've read so far has been Always Reformed: Essays in Honor of W. Robert Godfrey. The reason why I enjoyed in was because each author told the reader why he wrote the essay in relation to Dr. Godfrey. I did, however, also enjoy The Faith Once Delivered: Essays in Honor of Wayne R. Spear because of particularly the RP contributions to the volume.

Back to the book pictured. It was on my "books with an editor" list and once I noticed that it was on Westminster Philadelphia's reading list, I decided I should get to my debate books. I wouldn't call what follows a review as much as one or two observations. I may write more about the book later, but I wanted to put the idea's that follow out there and then add if I feel like adding.

The first point is, how do you read a debate book? In the case of this book it has the following structure:

• Forward
• Introduction
• Position 1
• Position 1's main paper
• Position 2's response
• Position 3's response
• Position 1's reply
• Position 2
• Position 2's main paper
• Position 1's response
• Position 3's response
• Position 2's reply
• Position 3
• Position 3's main paper
• Position 1's response
• Position 2's response
• Position 3's reply
• Conclusion
• Index

How do you go about reading it? Do you just plow through one view's entire section and then do it again for two more times; or, do you try to read the main papers of the three views then all the responses then all the replies?

The later approach is what I largely tried to do, because the main papers are ideally written at the same time by the different groups without any kind of input from the other groups about what they are actually writing for this particular volume. I figured it would be safe to read the response papers along with the replies, but I found out after reading Position 1's reply that the reply papers actually are each group's final word after all the responses have been shared.

The second point is actually where the title came from of this post. The Lee Irons with Meredith G. Kline team represent The Framework View and are Reformed theologians. In addition, the J. Ligon Duncan III and David W. Hall team represent the 24-Hour View and are also Reformed theologians. Dr. Kline is now dead, but when he was alive he was very groundbreaking, to say the least, in some of his writings about Covenant Theology in addition to introducing the English speaking world to the Framework View. What was interesting, for me, was how the Framework team explained their view of Genesis 1 in opposition to both the 24-Hour View and the Day-Age View. On page 218, the team says,

Consequently, adherents of those views lose sight of the covenantal and theological burden of the [Creation] narrative.

What's so interesting about this quote is the idea of a covenantal narrative to Genesis 1. Then, on pages 181 and 182 the Framework View in responding to the Day-Age View and their Science-Driven Approach to the Text says the following on page 181:

The Bible was given, rather, as the covenant revelation of God to His people that they might be made wise unto salvation through faith in Christ Jesus (2 Tim. 3:15). The creation account functions as a prologue to the book of Genesis, indeed to all the canonical Scriptures, laying the presuppositional foundations concerning the doctrine of creation and God's eschtological purpose for the cosmos with man as central to that purpose.

They go on page 182 to say,

Unbridled concordism, on the other hand, errs by obscuring the covenantal and eschatological thrust of the text in the process of treating it as a series of anticipations of future scientific discoveries.

Finally on page 117, in a footnote the 24-Hour View team in their reply says the following,

We reiterate, however, our disagreement with framework interpreters who view Genesis as primarily eschatological and covenantal. Genesis has long been correctly understood as protological and covenantal. To illustrate the point, consider Revelation. Merely asserting or citing a few journal articles claiming that Revelation is protological instead of eschatological (as the Church has read for years) does not make it so.

This point of covenantal aspects to creation, protological and eschatological discussions are a big deal to people who agree with the Framework View. Therefore, I would have like to have seen more dialog on this issue between the various views besides a few scattered references that only vaguely address the issues of covenant and creation; protology and creation; and eschatology and creation.

It's not just the second noun in either phrase that interests me - either "protological", or "eschatological". It's the idea of "covenantal". What do the Irons with Kline team mean by "covenantal"? What bearing might that have on the WCF 7.1 in relation to 7.2? What does the Duncan and Hall team mean by "covenantal"? Do they mean the same thing or something different?

Here's my point, within the Reformed world we are currently having a debate about a doctrine called Republication. An aspect of this debate seems to center around if  WCF 7.1 and 7.2 must mean that God only speaks to His creatures through a covenant; or, if covenant is the primary way, but not the exclusive way God communicates with His creature. The text of WCF 7.1 and 7.2 is,

The distance between God and the creature is so great, that although reasonable creatures do owe obedience unto Him as their Creator, yet they could never have any fruition of Him as their blessedness and reward, but by some voluntary condescension on God's part, which He has been pleased to express by way of covenant.

The first covenant made with man was a covenant of works, wherein life was promised to Adam; and in him to his posterity, upon condition of perfect and personal obedience.

The question is, what is the relationship between the "voluntary condescension" of 7.1 with "The first covenant made with man was a covenant of works"? It seems that one side of the debate is arguing that the "voluntary condescension" has to be exclusively the covenant of works. Whereas, on the other side, they are saying that God's "voluntary condescension" includes the moral law which was communicated to humanity before he was given the first covenant which was the covenant of works. The covenant of works was the "Besides this law written in their hearts, they received a command, not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil; ..." of WCF 4.2.

The wrong question in this debate is "Was anything republished on Sinai?" The correct question is, "What was republished on Sinai?" Was "it", the Covenant of Works (CoW) "in some sense", which is what one side wants to contend. Or, was "it", the moral law, which was written in their hearts before the CoW?

Another place in the WCF that we need to consider is chapter 19 section 1 - 3, which says,

God gave to Adam a law, as a covenant of works, by which He bound him and all his posterity, to personal, entire, exact, and perpetual obedience, promised life upon the fulfilling, and threatened death upon the breach of it, and endued him with power and ability to keep it. This law, after his fall, continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness; and, as such, was delivered by God upon Mount Sinai, in ten commandments, and written in two tables: the first four commandments containing our duty towards God; and the other six, our duty to man. Besides this law, commonly called moral, God was pleased to give to the people of Israel, as a church under age, ceremonial laws, containing several typical ordinances, partly of worship, prefiguring Christ, His graces, actions, sufferings, and benefits; and partly, holding forth divers instructions of moral duties. All which ceremonial laws are now abrogated, under the New Testament.

The side that contends that the CoW was republished in some sense, makes the argument that the law given to Adam was the CoW, and since according to 7.2 the first covenant made with man was the CoW it must therefore, be the case that the CoW was republished on Mt. Sinai in some sense. This carries the meaning of saying, first covenant is identical to the law given by God that is written about in 19.1.

However, the side that says it was the pre-CoW moral law points to the fact that 19.1 says "God gave to Adam a law, as a covenant of works, ..." and then the rest of section 1 describes the law - which hasn't been named yet - as a CoW. The beginning section II resumes describing how "this [still unnamed] law" functions after the fall and talks about how it "was delivered by God upon Mount Sinai, in ten commandments, ...". At the beginning of section 3 the unnamed law finally receives a name which is " ... commonly called moral ...." The moral law was also referred to in 4.2 as the "... law written in their hearts ...." So, the Confession is teaching, under this interpretation, that the law given to man by God is similar but not identical with CoW and it is named the moral law.

Now you maybe wondering what is has to do with the book and the four quotes from the book under consideration. I'm going to speculate that the Irons with Kline team are arguing in the Genesis debate book for the same particular understanding of WCF 7.1 - 7.2 and 19.1 - 19.2 that the Republication of the CoW people are arguing for in today's Republication debate.

I'm still gathering information. Oh well, another topic for another day.

On a related note, it seems Dr. J.V. Fesko's Last Things First book gets into this Eschatology and the book of Genesis relationship from a Framework perspective. However, the book is not a debate book so the dialogue still goes without comment.

Now, on to Three Views on the Millennium and Beyond!