The Seed of the Woman? The Surprising Logic of Redemptive History

[Arial]

That still doesn't follow, for me. As I understand it—and, again, this may be a difference between our perspectives—the pactum salutis was an eternal, intratrinitarian covenant, which means nothing of the covenant of redemption would be promised to man. It is strictly between the Godhead.

There is the covenant of redemption between the Godhead on the one hand, which grounds the covenant of grace between the triune God and the elect on the other hand. According to Berkhof, this distinct framing is followed by the majority of Reformed theologians, from Turretin to Witsius and Vos to Bavinck, and so on (i.e., even by us supralapsarians).

It is also worth highlighting the difference between the covenant of redemption and the plan of redemption. The covenant of redemption is the eternal, intratrinitarian agreement concerning the redemption of the elect (the foundation), while the plan of redemption is the historical unfolding of that agreement (the execution), which includes both the prelapsarian covenant of works and the postlapsarian covenant of grace.

Christ, as Mediator—whose office is not merely to redeem but to mediate the entire relationship between God and man according to the terms of the covenants—fulfills the covenant of redemption by accomplishing the redemption of the elect, satisfies the covenant of works on their behalf through his active and passive obedience, and administers the covenant of grace by granting to his people the benefits of his finished work through union with himself. And all of this is the plan of redemption unfolding in history.

I agree with what you say and I also agree that what appears to be a difference is just a difference of perspective.

It is just that I see the Bible from the point of cursing the serpent and making a covenant promise (the pactum salutis: pact of salvation) as marking the beginning of the story of redemption as it plays out in our history. Therefore, keeping the entire Bible one story, that story in all its parts.

So my perspective is related to keeping the entire Bible in all its parts the story of the intratrinitarian Covenant of Redemption playing out in our history, for interpretive purposes. Rather than chopping it up into separate units as Dispensationalism does.

 

[Josheb]

Yes, that is an old argument, but is it true? Is way lineage was reckoned by ancient Hebrews even relevant? Does it have anything to do with God's thinking at the time He first spoke those words to Adam and Eve?

The "Jewishness" of the child is reckoned through the mother (you know factually who she is) and headship and inheritance is reckoned through the father.

Yes, that is all old arguments but it has nothing to do with God's thinking when God first spoke those words.

This is why Mary's lineage was important to list in Scripture, Jesus' Jewish identity came legally from her, not Joseph. Jesus would be legally Joseph's adopted son, which gives Jesus full inheritance rights under Jewish law and all the patrilineal inheritance benefits from Joseph.

No, it is not. That's another old argument and the truth is no one knows for sure why the two lineages different are provided. The reason no one knows for sure is because the text itself does not explain it.

The question is not, "What did Hebrews or Jews think was the measure of descendancy?" They question is "What did God think was the measure?" Since enormous problems arise if we think God used an ovum of sinful Mary it is not exegetically rational to think God was speaking to a sinful woman about His begetting a sinless son from another sinful woman. Even if we consider the fact the Genesis 3 text was likely only oral tradition until Moses was inspired to put it to write it down (thereby precluding any and all oral variations that might have existed at the time) we cannot measure the words of God by Hebrew thought (the thinking of sinful Hebrews). There are definitely times when culture is important and necessary to understanding the text (such as when the Samaritans are mentioned, or ancient adages are used), but this is not one of them. There was no established Hebrew culture in Genesis 3.

 

[EarlyActs]

Including yours, then? Frankly, we can't help but categorize, systematize in one way or another. It's what we do. Just thinking and reading, we have presuppositions and habits of thinking that assume what it written necessarily accommodates, or operates according to, x or y or z or whatever.

For ex., the grammar of Acts 2:30,31 is that David foresaw the resurrection event as the enthronement (as Ps 2 and 110 and the speech climax are saying). That is fact. A "system" sees something entirely different. A non-system sees the grammatical fact.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

It is just that I see the Bible from the point of cursing the serpent and making a covenant promise (the pactum salutis: pact of salvation) …

And therein lies the difference between our perspectives. You see the pactum salutis being made in the garden of Eden, whereas on my view it is made long before (and grounds) the creation of the world (e.g., 2 Tim. 1:9). And, obviously, made in eternity and plays out in history are two categorically different things. Scripture indicates the fact that the plan of redemption was included in the covenant of redemption, the eternal decree or counsel of God. Louis Berkhof also said in his Systematic Theology, there are passages of scripture which "point to the fact that the plan of God for the salvation of sinners was eternal."

 

[makesends]

And therein lies the difference between our perspectives. You see the pactum salutis being made in the garden of Eden, whereas on my view it is made long before (and grounds) the creation of the world (e.g., 2 Tim. 1:9). And, obviously, made in eternity and plays out in history are two categorically different things. Scripture indicates the fact that the plan of redemption was included in the covenant of redemption, the eternal decree or counsel of God. Louis Berkhof also said in his Systematic Theology, there are passages of scripture which "point to the fact that the plan of God for the salvation of sinners was eternal."

I'm not pursing contention here, and not trying to hijack the OP, to ask if this is why some hold to supralapsarianism and others to infralapsarianism. I hear you describe @Arial 's POV as beginning with the fall, and yours with before creation. I agree with you completely that the pactum salutis began before creation. But maybe this gives me a reason to understand (though not agree with) the notion of '"decrees"' as being logically included as according to order'. The definitions of the two lapsarianisms —do they have to do with when the ONE decree was made? If your perspective and Arial's are put as you seem to here, as— "These are the two places in 'history' that the decrees could have been made", then I could happily go with Supra.

But I don't see lapsarianism there at all, but for man's need to order things in his own mind. That God did all —election, creation, the fall, redemption— is within the one decree: A people unlike any other, for his own glory, to be their God and they his people. WE speak of election as one decree, creation as another, and so on. To me, they are not, though they are most definitely all decreed. They are not separate decrees. They are all within the one decree.

Does that help you understand why I, and maybe @Josheb —I probably shouldn't try to speak for him on this— kept saying we don't see lapsarianism at all?

 

[Hazelelponi]

They question is "What did God think was the measure?" Since enormous problems arise if we think God used an ovum of sinful Mary it is not exegetically rational to think

I have no idea how I missed this but I did miss the note on your response here, so I'll just briefly touch on it here.

I don't just disagree with you - I vehemently disagree with you so we will simply leave it at vehement disagreement unless you want to have another argument - which is pointless because you talk about stuff and gross me out so I think we can settle upon vehement disagreement.

Does this cover it you think ?

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

I'm not pursuing contention here, [nor] trying to hijack the OP, [but I want] to ask if this is why some hold to supralapsarianism and others to infralapsarianism.

Essentially, yes.

I hear you describe Arial's POV as beginning with the fall and yours with before creation. I agree with you completely that the pactum salutis began before creation. But maybe this gives me a reason to understand (though not agree with) the notion of "‘decrees’ as being logically included as according to order." The definitions of the two lapsarianisms, do they have to do with when the ONE decree was made? If your perspective and Arial's are put as you seem to here—as "these are the two places in 'history' that the decrees could have been made"—then I could happily go with supra.

To be fair, the infralapsarian and supralapsarian views regard the ordo salutis (the logical ordering of salvation), and specifically whether the decree of election and reprobation was made with regard to man as fallen. Necessarily, the purpose or reason for creation is logically prior to the act of creation (i.e., in the act of creation God was executing an existing purpose), and, necessarily, God's purposes are logically ordered (i.e., not random or chaotic). Also, as I have said elsewhere, the pactum salutis contextualizes God's eternal decree and the ordo salutis is the logical ordering thereof, and all of this occurs in the eternity of God.

But I don't see lapsarianism there at all, but for man's need to order things in his own mind. That God did all —election, creation, the fall, redemption— is within the one decree […] We speak of election as one decree, creation as another, and so on. To me, they are not. Although they are most definitely all decreed, they are not separate decrees. They are all within the one decree.

Does that help you understand why I and maybe Josheb […] kept saying we don't see lapsarianism at all?

No, it does not help me understand—because that is something already admitted by theologians discussing this issue. I had quoted Geerhardus Vos to you before (link) as clearly saying (emphasis mine),

[Any idea that] the differing parts of God's decree arise by stages of his observation must be rejected as incompatible with this eternity. That there would have first been a decree of creation, then of the fall, and then of predestination, or that these parts would have followed one another in reverse temporal order—both are in conflict with scripture. It may be impossible for our thinking, bound by time, to grasp this eternity of divine life; nevertheless we must acknowledge it and may maintain nothing that is in conflict with it. To express it as briefly as possible: There are in God not many decrees, but it is one, single, completely present decree.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

I don't just disagree with you [Josheb] - I vehemently disagree with you, so we will simply leave it at vehement disagreement …

I am with you. I likewise disagree with him, for there are no "enormous problems" inherent in the idea that God used one of Mary's eggs in the conception of Jesus. Sin is not something we can identify and isolate biologically, as if there is something in the human genome to which we could point and say, "Here is the sin gene and the nucleotide sequence that codes for it." And if sin is not a gene, then it's not a component of the reproductive cells (gametes) involved in procreation, something passed along through biological continuity.

 

[Arial]

You see the pactum salutis being made in the garden of Eden, whereas on my view it is made long before (and grounds) the creation of the world (e.g., 2 Tim. 1:9). And, obviously, made in eternity and plays out in history are two categorically different things. Scripture indicates the fact that the plan of redemption was included in the covenant of redemption, the eternal decree or counsel of God. Louis Berkhof also said in his Systematic Theology, there are passages of scripture which "point to the fact that the plan of God for the salvation of sinners was eternal."

It is just that I see the Bible from the point of cursing the serpent and making a covenant promise (the pactum salutis: pact of salvation) as marking the beginning of the story of redemption as it plays out in our history. Therefore, keeping the entire Bible one story, that story in all its parts.

So my perspective is related to keeping the entire Bible in all its parts the story of the intratrinitarian Covenant of Redemption playing out in our history, for interpretive purposes. Rather than chopping it up into separate units as Dispensationalism does.

 

[Hazelelponi]

Rather than chopping it up into separate units as Dispensationalism does.

Does @DialecticSkeptic "chop it up?"

Nothing feels broken when he talks... It seems more broken when you talk sometimes, but I just assume particulars I don't understand...

 

[Josheb]

And therein lies the difference between our perspectives. You see the pactum salutis being made in the garden of Eden, whereas on my view it is made long before (and grounds) the creation of the world (e.g., 2 Tim. 1:9). And, obviously, made in eternity and plays out in history are two categorically different things. Scripture indicates the fact that the plan of redemption was included in the covenant of redemption, the eternal decree or counsel of God. Louis Berkhof also said in his Systematic Theology, there are passages of scripture which "point to the fact that the plan of God for the salvation of sinners was eternal."

Perfect. Well said. Well done.

 

[Arial]

Does @DialecticSkeptic "chop it up?"

Nothing feels broken when he talks... It seems more broken when you talk sometimes, but I just assume particulars I don't understand...

I wasn't saying that he chops it up.

I have no idea why you get the impression that it is broken when I talk. It is not broken in my mind in the least. So what have I said in this thread that you are taking that way?

What I mean by "chopped up" in Dispensationalism, is in my conversations with any of them. they do not recognize Gen 3:15 as the beginning announcement, declaration, by God OF the Covenant of Redemption. Or that everything that follows in the historic account of the PLAN of redemption as being connected to or unified with, Gen 3:15. They do not consider that as running through the covenant with Israel, and the covenant with Israel, serving the progression of the covenant of redemption. They divide the two Testaments and two covenants, as being one for Israel and the other for Gentiles. And the promises of the covenant with Israel as being fulfilled in a literal thousand year reign of Jesus in Jerusalem, before the Gentile believers "get their share". They follow as to interpretation, national Israel, rather than the Seed of Gen 3. All that occurred prior to the Exodus becomes just another way in which God deals with humanity, pretty much cast aside.

And that is the difference between covenant as an interpretive framework and dispensations as an interpretive framework. In covenant theology, there is never a break of dispensations, but a continence of covenant relationship and covenant purpose.

The Covenant of Redemption existed within the Godhead in all its fullness and plan, was announced verbally in Gen 3:15, and the plan played out historically and perfectly, even to the revealing of its end achievement and purpose, step by step through all its parts, given to us in the pages of his word. And the Covenant of Redemption is a covenant of grace.

I do not think @DialecticSkeptic and I, or you and I, disagree at all. It is just a matter of wordage and paying attention to what the other says. Asking questions if something is not clear as to what a person means.

 

[Hazelelponi]

I wasn't saying that he chops it up.

I have no idea why you get the impression that it is broken when I talk. It is not broken in my mind in the least. So what have I said in this thread that you are taking that way?

What I mean by "chopped up" in Dispensationalism, is in my conversations with any of them. they do not recognize Gen 3:15 as the beginning announcement, declaration, by God OF the Covenant of Redemption. Or that everything that follows in the historic account of the PLAN of redemption as being connected to or unified with, Gen 3:15. They do not consider that as running through the covenant with Israel, and the covenant with Israel, serving the progression of the covenant of redemption. They divide the two Testaments and two covenants, as being one for Israel and the other for Gentiles. And the promises of the covenant with Israel as being fulfilled in a literal thousand year reign of Jesus in Jerusalem, before the Gentile believers "get their share". They follow as to interpretation, national Israel, rather than the Seed of Gen 3. All that occurred prior to the Exodus becomes just another way in which God deals with humanity, pretty much cast aside.

And that is the difference between covenant as an interpretive framework and dispensations as an interpretive framework. In covenant theology, there is never a break of dispensations, but a continence of covenant relationship and covenant purpose.

The Covenant of Redemption existed within the Godhead in all its fullness and plan, was announced verbally in Gen 3:15, and the plan played out historically and perfectly, even to the revealing of its end achievement and purpose, step by step through all its parts, given to us in the pages of his word. And the Covenant of Redemption is a covenant of grace.

I do not think @DialecticSkeptic and I, or you and I, disagree at all. It is just a matter of wordage and paying attention to what the other says. Asking questions if something is not clear as to what a person means.

I mean feels.. I assure you I never thought you “broke” the Covenant of Redemption—our unity in Christ shines!

My supralapsarian view holds that God’s decree to election precedes even the Fall, with Genesis 3:15 simply revealing this eternal pactum salutis (Eph. 1:4), whereas your emphasis on its post-Fall announcement suggests an infralapsarian lean.

It shows sometimes when you talk and as my lean is different I notice a slight difference.

 

[Arial]

I mean feels.. I assure you I never thought you “broke” the Covenant of Redemption—our unity in Christ shines!

My supralapsarian view holds that God’s decree to election precedes even the Fall, with Genesis 3:15 simply revealing this eternal pactum salutis (Eph. 1:4), whereas your emphasis on its post-Fall announcement suggests an infralapsarian lean.

It shows sometimes when you talk and as my lean is different I notice a slight difference.

I agree that election precedes the fall. I am simply speaking from a different perspective about a different thing. Which in this case is not infralapsarianism and supralapsarianism but

The Seed of the Woman? The Surprising Logic of Redemptive History

My first response was to a particular statement made in the OP.

I have seen the things you put forth here, though I could never have articulated it so well and so completely. I take exception to only one thing and that is where you say Gen3: 15 was the inauguration of the Covenant of Grace. I see it as the inauguration of the Covenant of Redemption that existed within the Godhead before creation. And that Covenant of Redemption flows like a river, steady and true, through every word, every historical event, every Psalm, wisdom, prophecy from cover to cover of the Bible. It never diverges or bends but flows straight and true and strong, the River of Life, towards the new creation and the new creature in Christ.

The purpose of the virgin birth and the seed of the woman, is central to redemption, and I have of late, been flabbergasted with its perfection. The perfection of God in all he does. You articulated that perfection very well. Thanks.

So the difference between what I said and what @DialecticSkeptic said was not a different theological perspective, as was suggested, but a difference in perspective, period. My perspective was from the playing out of redemption historically and progressively, through the Bible. As to the Covenant of Grace, I do not differentiate between that and the eternal Covenant of Redemption within the Godhead. Every covenant is a covenant of grace---some have works attached also. Nevertheless, I do not quibble over that as I fully understand and agree with the distinctions made.

 

[makesends]

Essentially, yes.




To be fair, the infralapsarian and supralapsarian views regard the ordo salutis (the logical ordering of salvation), and specifically whether the decree of election and reprobation was made with regard to man as fallen. Necessarily, the purpose or reason for creation is logically prior to the act of creation (i.e., in the act of creation God was executing an existing purpose), and, necessarily, God's purposes are logically ordered (i.e., not random or chaotic). Also, as I have said elsewhere, the pactum salutis contextualizes God's eternal decree and the ordo salutis is the logical ordering thereof, and all of this occurs in the eternity of God.




No, it does not help me understand—because that is something already admitted by theologians discussing this issue. I had quoted Geerhardus Vos to you before (link) as clearly saying (emphasis mine),

[Any idea that] the differing parts of God's decree arise by stages of his observation must be rejected as incompatible with this eternity. That there would have first been a decree of creation, then of the fall, and then of predestination, or that these parts would have followed one another in reverse temporal order—both are in conflict with scripture. It may be impossible for our thinking, bound by time, to grasp this eternity of divine life; nevertheless we must acknowledge it and may maintain nothing that is in conflict with it. To express it as briefly as possible: There are in God not many decrees, but it is one, single, completely present decree.

Ok, I'll leave it alone, then.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

As to the covenant of grace, I do not differentiate between that and the eternal covenant of redemption within the Godhead.

Whereas I see a differentiation between them, as the covenant of grace is between God and man while the covenant of redemption is intratrinitarian (and does not include man). On my view, it was the covenant of grace that was inaugurated and announced in Eden. But it was in the context of the pre-existing covenant of redemption (pactum salutis) within the Godhead. This, perhaps, accounts for our disagreement.

 

[Arial]

Whereas I see a differentiation between them, as the covenant of grace is between God and man while the covenant of redemption is intratrinitarian (and does not include man). On my view, it was the covenant of grace that was inaugurated and announced in Eden. But it was in the context of the pre-existing covenant of redemption (pactum salutis) within the Godhead. This, perhaps, accounts for our disagreement.

Fair enough.

 

[EarlyActs]

The fact which the OP made clear is consistent with, for ex, ‘not of a husbands will…’ of Jn 1. Ie, a person is not a son of God there by human decision, most often thought of by men, but by union with/faith in the Seed of a woman.

That is what I mean by historical and etymological facts , handled properly one at a time, rather than systems.