# Covenantal Nomism Rejects..



## PuritanCovenanter (Dec 16, 2004)

In my estimation the most problematic new doctrine is the New Paul Perspective. It has recently claimed two of my friends behind my back because the language of grace is used so often. I just didn't understand what was being said. This grace they believe in is suppose to bring you in to the New Covenant. It is also suppose to keep you faithful. Sounds good so far, doesn't it? It is problematic though because it can't keep you. You can become apostate. You can forsake the New Covenant by some heinous sin. It is a faith-works righteousness that is suppose to be non-meritorious. But if you don't keep the law you will become apostate. This law keeping sounds Meritorious to me. 

What disturbs me the most is that this New Theology (or rediscovered theology of Jewish Rabbi's) negates the Covenant of Redemption. It makes our redemption dependant upon our keeping of the Law of Christ. That law is defined by many in different ways. It has a doctrine of eschatological justification (a justification you receive after you have finished the race) instead of forensic justification (a justification by faith alone, once for all time Romans 5:1,2).

What ever happened to the Covenant of Redemption between the Father and the Son? What happened to the Covenant where God gave us to Christ when he purchased the Elect? It seems to be lost in this New Perspective. In Fact IT IS LOST to these guys. These poor souls just throw away whole portions of scripture because they don't understand the continuity between Law and Grace. Sounds like the makings of another cult. If you don't understand it throw it out and start your own new beliefs.

For Christ's Crown and Covenant, Randy


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Dec 16, 2004)

Randy,

In thinking about that, thieer histoical theology is a great part of thier misguidedness and error. What you said is really a big part of the problem.


----------



## Ianterrell (Dec 16, 2004)

The NPP guys say that under the New Covenant, God softens the requirements of the law based on the work of Christ. Blech.


----------



## wsw201 (Dec 16, 2004)

To me the key to NPP and FV for that matter, is "COVENANT!!". The common thread that I find in both of these heresies is that both love to use the word covenant. Just put the word covenant in there somewhere and then everything is okay. The main reason that you don't hear anything about the CoR, CoW or CoG as you would understand it is because they redefine covenant. Covenant is no longer an agreement but a "relationship".


----------



## AdamM (Dec 16, 2004)

Well said Randy!

The thread that ties all the various "œnew" perspectives together is Covenantal Nomism. The surface trappings change, but the basic idea that a person enters into the Covenant by grace (at baptism for most,) but remains in the Covenant by non-meritorious obedience (works) is present in some form in all the "œnew" systems. 



> It is a faith-works righteousness that is suppose to be non-meritorious. But if you don't keep the law you will become apostate. This law keeping sounds Meritorious to me.



Yep, if it walks like a duck"¦..



> To me the key to NPP and FV for that matter, is "COVENANT!!". The common thread that I find in both of these heresies is that both love to use the word covenant. Just put the word covenant in there somewhere and then everything is okay. The main reason that you don't hear anything about the CoR, CoW or CoG as you would understand it is because they redefine covenant. Covenant is no longer an agreement but a "relationship".



Thank you Wayne! Equivocation is indeed endemic to these "œnew" approaches.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Dec 16, 2004)

It seems that these Jewish Rabbi's have taken it upon themselves to redefine the covenant made at Sinai. It is a covenant that doesn't give life. It only condemns. (And the commandment which was to bring life, I found to bring death. Romans 7:10) These NPP guys don't even read James in the full sense. (For whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is guilty of all. James 2:10) The Sinai Covenant shadows of sacrifice were to point to Christ's atoning work. They didn't take away sin. (For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sin. Hebrew 10:4) Where is imputed righteousness? These guys must want to be justified by their own works. This is crazy stuff. Sounds like the Jews in Jesus time to me. They think they can keep the law and be okay. They have lost the knowledge and awefulness of a Holy Righteous God. They need to see Isaiah's vision of Jesus Christ on His Throne. Isaiah 6. 

I am sorry for making blanket generalizations at this point. I am just frustrated. 

Be Encouraged the Doctrine of Justification by Faith alone is once again being pronounced to the Church again. The gates of Hell shall not prevail. Aye!

For Christ's Crown and Covenant, Randy

[Edited on 12-16-2004 by puritancovenanter]


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Dec 25, 2004)

Anyone else read Mark A. Seifrid's book _Christ, Our Righteousness_? It is horrible, and speaks much of this eschatological justification and how Paul refers to justification in a sense of God's judgment against the world, not a forensic justification of men in the sight of God. He's not quite on the same page as N.T. Wright and others, but definitely on the wrong track and denying imputation. I'm pretty pissed that Southern hasn't done anything about it (he is a professor there), other than issue a total BS statement about how he agreed with the Abstract of Principles on the issue of Justification, when, if you read his book, he obviously does not. James White has had a LOT to say about him on his blog.


----------



## turmeric (Dec 26, 2004)

I think even Paul was aware of the New Perspective - which isn't new. He said that if he was still teaching circumcision, why was he being persecuted? Can these NPP folks explain exactly WHAT the "offense of the Cross" was? By the time they're done, there isn't any!


----------



## Coram_Deo (Jan 8, 2005)

So I realize this was posted on quite a while ago; for that I apologize. I'm doing some catch up reading, I've been off this site for some time now. 

I did some research on the New Perspective on Paul for an inter-testamental class I took this last semester. I read Sanders "Paul and Palestinian Judaism" and Carson's "Justification and Varigated Nomism" for a comparision study. Carson & c. come to virtually the same conclusion that Sanders did, that in attempting to find a "religious pattern" throughout 2nd Temple Judaism it seemed that one was grafted into the covenant by grace but remained in through works. They go back to the primary sources of the apocrypha to go about proving this. They say that the religious pattern that Paul was working under was not a religion of self-righteousness, but he was reacting against a "Jewish" (exclusive) religion; and thus our way of viewing the gospel should be drastically different. Maybe I've misunderstood them and what they are getting at; but for a newly Reformed guy like myself (not to mention one that goes to Bethel University) how does one go about proving that Luther's medevial ideololgy didn't creep too much into his theology of justification?

Michael


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jan 13, 2005)

Coram

You could just start by sticking to what the Scripture says. It speaks of Christ being a propitiation for our sins and that the just shall live by faith. Can obedience to the law bring righteousness. Can being circumcised or not being circumcised bring righteousness. Trying to obtain your status of righteousness by any standard that involves anything outside of faith alone will fall short..
Galatians 3:1,3


> (Gal 3:1) O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? It was before your eyes that Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified.
> 
> (Gal 3:2) Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith?
> 
> ...


 They just ignore the truth of justification by faith. The law was more than circumcision. That just happened to be the hot point he had to address here.. Plus the problem of sin and justification was bigger than circumcision. In fact Paul mentions that Abraham was justified even before Circumcision. What was was he justified for? What was his justification about. Why was it so important? 

Plus they don't cover Romans adequately.

(Rom 4:3) For what does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness."

(Rom 4:4) Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due.

(Rom 4:5) And to the one who does not work but trusts him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness,

(Rom 4:6) just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works:

(Rom 4:7) "Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, and whose sins are covered;

(Rom 4:8) blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not count his sin."

(Rom 4:9) Is this blessing then only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? We say that faith was counted to Abraham as righteousness.

(Rom 4:10) How then was it counted to him? Was it before or after he had been circumcised? It was not after, but before he was circumcised.

These NPP guys distort the doctrine of imputed righteousness. 

I'm not even sure their historical argument stands in the face of truth. 

I would agree with the Perspective that God brought the Isrealites into the Sinai Covenant without works but they would have to obey and work at keeping their salvation. It is called the Sinai Covenant. I know that they couldn't keep the law though. They can not be justified by keeping the law. That is why this NPP is so screwed up. You can't keep the law. That is why the New Covenant is the Promise that God will put his law in our heart and that we can't fall away because we are justified by faith and not by works. It is almost like they want to live under the law again. They need to remember the truth of the New Covenant.

(Jer 31:31) "Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah,

(Jer 31:32) not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the LORD.

(Jer 31:33) But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the LORD: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

(Jer 31:34) And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more."


He forgives our iniquity AND REMEMBERS OUR SIN NO MORE!

[Edited on 1-14-2005 by puritancovenanter]


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jan 13, 2005)

Coram,
Another thing. It is funny that you go to Bethel. A guy I discipled is getting his Degree from there. He is now a full blown NPP theologian. I just found out about this false teaching just recently. N. T. Wright also holds a poor view of scripture as Sanders does. Beware of the Leaven of the Pharisees. Again I say Beware of the Leaven of the Pharisees who seek their own justification. It is a works oriented salvation. It is not Biblical. Read your Pastor Pipers book 'Counted Righteous in Christ'. It is written about this stuff.

[Edited on 1-14-2005 by puritancovenanter]


----------



## wsw201 (Jan 14, 2005)

> Carson & c. come to virtually the same conclusion that Sanders did, that in attempting to find a "religious pattern" throughout 2nd Temple Judaism it seemed that one was grafted into the covenant by grace but remained in through works. They go back to the primary sources of the apocrypha to go about proving this. They say that the religious pattern that Paul was working under was not a religion of self-righteousness, but he was reacting against a "Jewish" (exclusive) religion; and thus our way of viewing the gospel should be drastically different. Maybe I've misunderstood them and what they are getting at; but for a newly Reformed guy like myself (not to mention one that goes to Bethel University) how does one go about proving that Luther's medevial ideololgy didn't creep too much into his theology of justification?



I think one of the keys that you have found is when you noted that one remained in "covenant" through works. This points to one of the false allegations against Luther in that he believed Paul argued that the Jews (along with the RC's) were pelagians, which is false (they were pretty much semi-pelagians). Plus you have to remember that NPP has a totally different definition of covenant than what is described in the Westminster Standards. 

I would recommend a good book by James Buchanan titled "The Doctrine of Justification". He starts out with a history of the doctrine from the early church fathers and shows that the doctrine as we know it hasn't changed. Plus I'm sure Matt has some good stuff on this over at A Puritans Mind.


----------



## AdamM (Jan 14, 2005)

> I think one of the keys that you have found is when you noted that one remained in "covenant" through works. This points to one of the false allegations against Luther in that he believed Paul argued that the Jews (along with the RC's) were pelagians, which is false (they were pretty much semi-pelagians). Plus you have to remember that NPP has a totally different definition of covenant than what is described in the Westminster Standards.



Well said Wayne!

The article linked by Richard Gaffin on the NPP makes the same point:

http://www.modernreformation.org/rg02newp.htm

For a more broader critique of the NPP, the following articles written for the World Reformed Fellowhip Journal by Dr. Cornel Venema, President of Mid-America Reformed Seminary are MUST reading for all:

http://www.wrfnet.org/articles/article.asp?id=733
http://www.wrfnet.org/articles/article.asp?id=763 
http://www.wrfnet.org/articles/article.asp?id=792
http://www.wrfnet.org/articles/article.asp?id=847
http://www.wrfnet.org/articles/article.asp?id=857
http://www.wrfnet.org/articles/article.asp?id=885
http://www.wrfnet.org/articles/article.asp?ID=921
http://www.wrfnet.org/articles/printarticle.asp?ID=999
http://www.wrfnet.org/articles/article.asp?id=810

Michael, you will find no better source for clear thinking in these current controversies then Dr. Venema.


----------



## Coram_Deo (Jan 19, 2005)

Thank you for your responses. Sorry I have been off the forum for awhile, and just got around to reading these posts. And Randy worry not, until they prove to me with the Holy Scriptures and to my conscience I will not, by God's grace, allow them to work through me. My aim, along with some commrades, is to transform this school as best we can.
Blessings
Michael


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jan 19, 2005)

God grant you a sound mind and pure heart for the task. 

For Christ's Crown and Covenant, Randy


----------

