Derek Radney

PCA pastor @trinitychurchws | BA @WakeForest | MDiv @TEDS | ThM @DukeDivinity | biblical imagination @cateclesia | The Alliance @a4mrofficial

[Derek Radney @derekradney]

A misreading & misunderstanding Jer 31:31ff continues to be the primary obstacle for many to embracing covenant theology and the historic practice of baptizing the children of believers as covenant members.

In this chart, I aim to show how the promise of the New Covenant in the OT should be read, especially regarding the phrase "they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest."

[Particularly Modern @Modern1689]

Why I remain convinced of 1689 Federalism (related to quoted post below)

1) The text does not merely say the New Covenant will have more regenerate members than the old. It identifies its covenant people by universal covenant blessings: “they shall all know me,” God’s law written on their hearts, and sins remembered no more (Jer. 31:33–34). Hebrews 8 quotes this as the reason the New Covenant is not like the covenant made at the Exodus. An external New Covenant membership containing people who lack these blessings has to be demonstrated from elsewhere because it is not apparent in Jeremiah’s description.

2) Paul certainly teaches one saving promise culminating in Christ, but he explicitly distinguishes that promise from the later Mosaic covenant: “the law, which came 430 years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified” (Gal. 3:17). Then in chapter 4 he actually speaks of “two covenants” (4:24). Continuity of the promise is not identity of covenants. That distinction is basically the 1689 Federalist point.

3) Colossians 2 does not say baptism replaces circumcision. Paul connects baptism with the circumcision made without hands, defined as the putting off of the body of flesh “by the circumcision of Christ.” And the baptized are raised with Christ “through faith.” The correspondence is between physical circumcision and its Christological fulfillment, with baptism signifying participation in that fulfillment. To say that baptism simply replaces circumcision skips the reality Paul places between them: regeneration/union with Christ.

4) The Jerusalem Council argument is an argument from silence resting on the very continuity being disputed. Acts 15 asks whether Gentile believers must be circumcised and keep Moses. The apostolic answer is not, “your children retain the same covenant standing, but the sign has changed.” Rather, the controversy is resolved from the fulfillment of the promises in Christ and the inclusion of believing Gentiles. One cannot establish continuing infant covenant membership by saying the apostles never explicitly abolished it when whether that membership continues is precisely the question.

5) The proselyte-baptism argument is weakest for an even more fundamental reason. Even granting the historical reconstruction, an extrabiblical Jewish practice cannot establish the subjects of a sacrament instituted by Christ. Christian baptism receives its theological meaning from Christ’s institution, death and resurrection, union with Him, and the apostolic interpretation, not from an assumed continuation of later Jewish proselyte customs.

[Derek Radney @derekradney]

@JoshuaTorrey @WojoKen Not a great take, IMO, Torrey.

https://t.co/Mqj9oZYkLD

[Derek Radney @derekradney]

“The most powerful ‘given’ in our culture is that we are not bound by any givens at all, especially when it comes to spirituality. It is self-evident that we are free to build our own meaning.” - @timkellernyc and @michaelkellers in The Stories We Live By

[Derek Radney @derekradney]

@Chief_Doogie @presbydad 😂 I did not. Did you even read the post?

[Derek Radney @derekradney]

@PCAPolity

[Derek Radney @derekradney]

@JohnStSomething @jtkiv @revstover By "their church," do you mean "their worship service"?

[Derek Radney @derekradney]

@herbitter @presbydad Wild take. Who said anything about pragmatic factors?

[Derek Radney @derekradney]

I totally agree that the concern for evangelism must not become the dominant concern in corporate worship. Evangelism is something that can happen through worship services, and we should have an eye toward it, but corporate worship is a heavenly ascent to God by God's people to worship, experience transformation, renew the covenant, and be sent back into the world on mission.

That being said, this does not mean contextualization doesn't belong in corporate worship. We still have to make all sorts of decisions that relate to being attuned to the people who gather.

[Derek Radney @derekradney]

That's fine to make that assessment. I am not sure how one can find the data to make that assessment, though. My view, and I also lack all the necessary data on this, is that many PCA churches undercontextualize, which is why so many churches committed to good things don't seem to be reaching people very well.

[byFaith Online @PCAByFaith]

Smartt was a founding father of the PCA and a catalyst for evangelism. https://t.co/IfeRqbFbQ6

[Derek Radney @derekradney]

Advice: Don't argue on the internet w/ ppl who run anon accounts, demonstrate an inability to use basic logic, lack basic reading comprehension, converse in bad faith, fail to exercise charity, and/or read into everything with their own irrelevant agendas and concerns.

[Derek Radney @derekradney]

@techne____ Not what I am suggesting at all. It is fascinating how many people have taken what I said and concluded I am primarily or even exclusively talking about a worship service and its style.

[Derek Radney @derekradney]

The PCA must resist the ease and appeal of planting churches that primarily attract Christians looking for a Presbyterian and Reformed church as opposed to planting churches that reach non-Christians who are converted and formed to be P&R.

[Derek Radney @derekradney]

One simple example might be, if I speak Polish, I am more likely to reach Polish speakers than Spanish speakers, because I teach and evangelize in a language they understand. So, when in Poland…
A similar thing must happen with the topics I lead with and the arguments I make. We have to be attuned to the people we are trying to reach, and non-Christians are not focused on, aware of, or concerned about many debates regarding P&R distinctives. So those should not dominate early on. However, eventually, we teach the whole of Christian doctrine.

[Derek Radney @derekradney]

Practically, the main difference has to do with who and what you focus on with your time as a pastor, and how that shapes the sorts of topics you first address (I.e., Is Christianity true? versus Are P&R right about the sacraments?) what arguments and applications you make.
I am alluding to the need to faithfully contextualize.

https://t.co/D6M8ZLkBkX

[Derek Radney @derekradney]

Many in the PCA treat a desire to contextualize as a progressive drift that accommodates culture, forsaking fidelity to Scripture & our standards.

But what is contextualization?

A 🧵on what @timkellernyc says in his book on preaching & Center Church.

1/11

[Derek Radney @derekradney]

Based on some responses, this thread on contextualization is relevant.

https://t.co/eA1o6lbt9s

[Derek Radney @derekradney]

Many in the PCA treat a desire to contextualize as a progressive drift that accommodates culture, forsaking fidelity to Scripture & our standards.

But what is contextualization?

A 🧵on what @timkellernyc says in his book on preaching & Center Church.

1/11

[Derek Radney @derekradney]

John, Charles, and Thomas: I find each of your responses pretty strange because each of you, in various ways, seem to be suggesting that no contextualization is needed (and that you don’t do it, you just do Presbyterianism).
But if I understand you, then you are each misunderstanding what contextualization means. See 🧵.

https://t.co/D6M8ZLkBkX

[Derek Radney @derekradney]

Many in the PCA treat a desire to contextualize as a progressive drift that accommodates culture, forsaking fidelity to Scripture & our standards.

But what is contextualization?

A 🧵on what @timkellernyc says in his book on preaching & Center Church.

1/11

[Derek Radney @derekradney]

@RP_Carlson Ironically, my response was an argument (logically, the word *primary* necessarily requires one over the other) while your first reply was a mere assertion!

[Derek Radney @derekradney]

@HeathTaws I don’t think so. I wasn’t the only one to draw that conclusion. But I deleted my tweet. Peace.

[Derek Radney @derekradney]

@HeathTaws Ok. I’ll take your word for it and delete it. But please note I was not the only person to assume this was a subtweet.

[Derek Radney @derekradney]

@RP_Carlson They are. You cannot *primarily* attract/reach both groups.