Generational Belief

A week ago I wrote "Dual Covenant IS Replacement Theology" and the principles of that post have a tremendous bearing on how we read the entire Old Testament.  If we hold to a 'Dual Covenant' understanding, then the promises of the OT can be simply relegated to Israel and the Church can be placed under a different paradigm.  However if their is one covenant people, and has always been one covenant people then the OT promises to Israel have some bearing on the NT Church.  (If you have no idea what I am talking about, read that post.)

Throughout the Old Testament we see generational promises made to the Old Testament saints.  For instance:

Genesis 17:7-10 ESV  And I will establish my covenant between me and you and your offspring after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your offspring after you.  (8)  And I will give to you and to your offspring after you the land of your sojournings, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession, and I will be their God."  (9)  And God said to Abraham, "As for you, you shall keep my covenant, you and your offspring after you throughout their generations.  (10)  This is my covenant, which you shall keep, between me and you and your offspring after you: Every male among you shall be circumcised.

Clearly the OT covenant of circumcision was generational, intended not only for Abraham, but for his sons.  This is not something that was dependent on the faithfulness of his sons, they were to be circumcised prior to their ability to believe.  It was a covenant that was independent of the will of those who entered into it.

Throughout the Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy we see an emphasis on generational blessing and cursing, and a generational expectation.  The faith has always been expected to be handed down parent to child, one generation to the next.  The very curse in the garden was generational.  There are countless examples like Genesis 17:7-10 that we could draw on.

Deuteronomy 7:9 ESV  Know therefore that the LORD your God is God, the faithful God who keeps covenant and steadfast love with those who love him and keep his commandments, to a thousand generations

 The idea of generational blessing and cursing is an integral component of our faith.  So what does this have to do with Dual Covenants and Replacement Theology?  It has everything to do with it.  If we affirm (which I do not) Dual Covenants, one for the Church one for Israel, then we will presume the generational blessings belong entirely to Israel whereas the Church enters the covenant individually based on their moment of conversion.  I contend that the lack of understanding of the generational nature of God's work on our behalf has given revivalism a foothold and has caused the church to be incredibly individualistic.

If someone asks you, 'How did you come to believe?' it is perfectly acceptable to answer because my parents did and I was raised to believe.  That doesn't sit well with most conservative Evangelicals but it sits very well with the scriptural norm.  I do not deny that everyone must be converted, and that we all 'generationally' inherit Adam's sinful nature, nonetheless in a very real sense parents are a means of grace to their children and many children are converted well before they are aware that they were lost.  Again, I know this will not sit well with many, but why not?

The idea that the Church is blessed in an entirely different way than 'ethnic' Israel is an idea that has destroyed generational Christianity.  In the dual covenant scheme, the generational promises apply only to Israel, and Christan's 'get in' one at a time.  How does this play out practically?  Well for one, kids who have believed and loved the Lord their entire lives are told they aren't 'born-again' and are led down to an altar to be saved... even though they were already redeemed.  This happens more than you think.  It leaves people looking to their moment of conversion as a source of hope, and not to God's faithfulness to them through their parents, grandparents, and so on.  It leaves us feeling helpless as we raise our own children, and even questioning how we are going to manage to get them to have a 'salvation experience' when they have seemed to believe for so long already.  People end up looking at the back of their pocket testament to see their date of conversion, instead of celebrating the faithfulness of their parents in bestowing the faith to them from an early age.  It even leads to generational disrespect towards those who went before us.  Can you see the implications, I am sure there are more.  If you can ditch the bogus Dual Covenant notion, and begin applying the generational nature of our faith to the church, many of these problems go away.

I do not believe someone is saved just because their parents are!  I believe people are saved because Christ atoned for them on the cross.  The reality is that this truth, and the application of this truth to the individual happens through generational means, and through evangelism... not evangelism only.

Salvation Experience!?

I am not a big fan of personal testimonies.  One of the big ideas in modern evangelism is to share your personal testimony with people.  Most of the time when you hear people tell their testimonies it is an embellishment to make them appear worse than they were before they were saved, and better than they are now, but that is beside the point.  When people want to talk about their moment of salvation it usually comes back to some time when they heard the word preached, were at a revival, in a conversation with another believer, in the backseat of a car, or whatever.  I have heard testimony after testimony like these, and I think that every one of them is wrong about their moment of salvation.  I can think of a few significant moments that I can remember when I became acutely aware of the work Christ did for me, but those were not the moments I was 'saved', and the reality is that memories change, and I probably do not even remember those moments exactly as they were.  Moreover, at my baptism I was inaugurated into the covenant community that professes belief in the work Christ did for us, so in some sense that was a salvific experience because in that moment I was identified with my salvation experience (please I am not saying baptismal regeneration here, but I most certainly am not rendering baptism a simple rite of passage either).  Nonetheless I was not 'saved' at my baptism.

There is a huge misunderstanding in Christian testimony, and the sharing of testimonies often misses the Gospel altogether.  I am not against the community of faith sharing various personal testimonies, but I am against the sharing of 'salvation testimonies', I will explain why, after I share my salvation testimony.

So here is my testimony:

Jesus, the son of God, 2000 years ago in real history lived a legally, ethically, morally perfect life which led Him eventually to a garden.  Jesus knelt in that garden called Gethsemane in prayer and agreed to the eternal plan of the Father to drink 'the cup'.  The cup was indeed the cup of wrath against all sin (Psalm 75:8).  After Jesus prayed he was led out of the garden, put on trial and sentenced to die on a Roman cross.  On the cross Jesus endured the punishment for the sin of the world and drank down that cup of wrath.  As he consumed the last of that cup the rocks tore into pieces (because the world is held together in Christ) and the veil temple was torn (because Christ is our protection/mediator in the holy of holies).  When done, he proclaimed 'It [the cup] is finished'.  Jesus died, the wrath of God was consumed by Him.  On the third day after his death Jesus rose again, validating that He is Son of God, and that He was victorious over sin.

The question that will be asked is "how can you share your testimony without mentioning yourself?"  I guess what I wonder is why other people's testimonies contain so much about themselves.  I only contributed one thing to my salvation, and that was the sin that necessitated it.

Jesus' life, death, and resurrection is my salvation experience.  It is my experience because my sin was in Christ as he was enduring the wrath of God.  It is my experience because Christ rose victoriously over sin on my behalf.  It is my experience, because his perfect righteousness has been given to me.  It is my story because it was His body, given FOR ME.  It was His blood, shed FOR ME.  That is my experience.

Here is why I do not like 'personal testimonies', because the historical salvation experience I shared above is the salvation experience of everyone who has ever believed whether they know it or not.  Personal testimony should give way to corporate testimony!  We all share the same testimony which is why we are united.  We have all been adopted by the same Father, through the same means.

Now, is there a place to celebrate the effects that the Gospel has had on our lives?  Absolutely!  If personal testimony is the sharing of Gospel fruit, the edifying of one another because of what Christ has done for us, and celebrating how that has affected our families, our lives, our peace, then great!  However when it comes to salvation experience, we all have the same one, that happened at the same time, through the same person.

If someone asks you to point to your moment of conversion, point them to the true historical narrative of your salvation.... which occurred nearly 2000 years ago.