# New Covenant Theology form of Antinomianism?



## thistle93

Hi! Wondering if New Covenant Theology would qualify as a form of Antinomianism? Not NC theology as a whole but specifically their view that the moral law has no place or relevance in the life of the believer. 

While not the majority, there are quite a few really good reformed scholars who embrace NCT, does this keep you from reading and learning from them? 

Any links from those in NCT who deny this charge and why NCT is not a form of Antinomianism? 

Thank you! 

For His Glory-
Matthew


----------



## Contra_Mundum

There's such an animus toward law, generally, by NCT folk. They take certain antithetical-sounding statements by Paul, which then constitute their formal principle of theology. In practical terms, NCT folk will usually be found in conformity (after a fashion) with most of the moral law--the 4C excepted. I think they really do want to follow Jesus, but they also want to think of discipleship in terms that leave "obedience" almost out of sight.

The way they read Jer.31:34, the Christian doesn't need to "hear" the law, because it is already pre-formed and perfected on the heart. "Obedience" is more a matter of re-accustomization to the re-calibrated internal compass. The disjunct between the way faith and obedience operated in the OT and the way it happens in the NT age is total. Christianity is fundamentally a NEW religion.

I think NCT is basically dispensationalism that has been significantly purged of some distinctive elements, and reformulated through influences that include historic covenant-theology. NCT has gone further (in my view) than "progressive" dispensationalism, but I think they are both on a continuum of modification.

NCT really does pit Old Testament dealings of God with men--especially in the Mosaic administration--_against_ his New Testament dealings. So much so, that I think it is hard not to conclude (whatever protest may be made) that NCT believes the essential *nature* of revealed religion has changed. Not simply its presentation, but its _*nature*_. I don't think NCT admits that there is in any sense one Covenant of Grace, be it covenant-theology, baptist-covenantalism, or something else. Such would imply too much continuity; and I think NCT already thinks dispensationalism has too much (!) continuity; though I'm certainly willing to be corrected on that.

The hostility to anything that feels like a legal-principle leads to semantic games with regard to the commands of Jesus or apostolic imperatives. If you don't like law, then these can't be "laws." They are guidance to the Spirit within the Christian, or some such. They sound like directions, but really they are more like descriptions of "what Christians do when led by the Spirit." Only the flesh, in reaction to the law, still engages in disobedience--but it's not the new you.

If we ask the question, "what does _love to God and neighbor_ look like?" we should (in truth) end up with a picture of the moral law. NCT resists that definition with all its might and main. They say, "if you just love Jesus, if you just learn to admire who he is and what he did, then you will naturally be like him in practice without minding any directions. Whatever you do--if it doesn't appear to be opposed to God--must be spiritual. No rules; rules just encourage the flesh."


----------



## Hemustincrease

Links (below) to those who would deny the false charge of antinomianism; John Reisinger is a well known teacher of NCT and strongly refutes all accusations of antinomianism. Secondly, my former Pastor (Shane Kastler) would also strongly refute the same accusations and he just as strongly taught (teaches) NCT. (I mention him because I can vouch for his life and preaching personally. I know many of my brothers and sisters from Louisiana could and would do the same for John Reisinger (whom I have never personally met). 

NCT is Calvinistic and Reformed Baptist theology. It is not dispensational and it is not (obviously) covenant theology. 

John G. Reisinger | Sound Of Grace / New Covenant Media
An Open Letter to Dr. R.C. Sproul

(The second link is a letter from Reisinger to Sproul, answering the accusation of antinomianism.)

"The Narrow Road": Blogs By Shane Kastler




Contra_Mundum said:


> In practical terms, NCT folk will usually be found in conformity (after a fashion) with most of the moral law--the 4C excepted. I think they really do want to follow Jesus, but they also want to think of discipleship in terms that leave "obedience" almost out of sight.



With respect, this is most certainly *not* a true representation of NCT believers. It is a serious misunderstanding of what NCT teaches and also a serious misrepresentation of NCT believers to suggest that “obedience" is left almost out of sight. 

When I first moved to the USA I sat under the ministry of Don McKinney. He was a good friend and mentor of John Reisinger. He was in his 80’s when I first knew him and continued to Pastor the church he himself had founded (having left the Pastorate of an assemblies of God church upon coming to the knowledge of Sovereign Grace 40 Years Ago | SermonAudio.com) until his death. Brother McKinney suffered a good deal in his life and ministry for the sake of true obedience to Christ. Neither his preaching nor his life gave so much as the slightest notion of a discipleship which left “obedience” almost out of sight. 

The three men I have spoken of are (I believe) representative of those who hold to NCT. Godly, obedient, lovers of the Lord and of His law, passionate for the truth in doctrine and practice and very often misrepresented by fellow believers.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Well, Jo,
The PuritanBoard has representation from Baptists who take issue with NCTs deviations from Baptist Covenant Theology, as represented in the 1689 Confession.
see: 1689 Federalism | The distinctive biblical theology of confessional particular baptists 
1689 Federalism compared to New Covenant Theology & Progressive Covenantalism - YouTube (this video is found on the above page; it's gracious, but critical)

From what I've seen, most NCT stake their claim to a place in English Baptist history with the 1646 Confession, as if it were somehow more amenable. NCT is frankly _new,_ and so in some ways it is defined in its particulars by as many who claim the name. There is, as yet, no creedally defining statement. So we have to go to a number of sources, friend and foe, to get a general idea about the movement. Below are some quick returns from a Google search. Here are advocates, covenant-critiques, dispensational critiques, etc. 

http://www.theopedia.com/New_Covenant_Theology

What is new covenant theology? "The old covenant is obsolete (including the moral aspect of the Mosaic Law) and replaced by the new covenant with the law of Christ to govern its morality."
"The law of Christ would be those prescriptions that Christ specifically stated in the Gospels (e.g., the Sermon on the Mount)."​
http://www.sbts.edu/documents/tschreiner/review_WellsZaspel.pdf"Wells and Zaspel maintain that many of the moral norms of the OT (nine of the ten commandments of the Decalogue) continue to be normative. They are normative, however, because they are part of Christ's law, not because they hail from the Mosaic law. The Sabbath, on the other hand, is no longer binding upon believers. The Sabbath points to the eschatological rest believers have in Christ, and there is no need for believers to observe it today, for it was the sign of the Mosaic Covenant that is no longer in force."​
New Covenant Theology: Covenant Theology"Covenant Theology and Law People misuse the law of Moses because they do not understand grace. Virtually all covenant theologians believe in law preaching as a means of bringing men to saving conviction. Virtually all covenant theologians are Augustinians. Martin Luther was an Augustinian monk. John Calvin quotes Augustine extensively in his Institutes of the Christian Religion in his defense of Covenant Theology. Augustine rose up as the apologist for the Constantinian sacral church/state movement in the 4th century.Augustine was the preeminent sacralist theologian of his time and for all time. Covenant Theology by definition is a major systematic misuse of the law of Moses....
"If you reject a false system you must reject it in its entirety. Law preaching is the foundational misuse of the law of Moses in the Covenant Theology system. It is foundational because it bypasses God's prescribed method of salvation, the preaching of the gospel to savingly convict. (Acts ch 2) True believers are cut to the heart by the gospel, not by the law."​
What Is New Covenant Theology? - audio by Tim Little"Several of its proponents come out of a Reformed Baptist position, abandoning the tripartite division of the law (moral, civil, and ceremonial), infant baptism, and the historic covenants of works and grace. While they abandon these aspects of Reformed theology, most also reject dispensational distinctives, such as the distinction between Israel and the church and dispensational hermeneutics."​
http://www.trinitybaptistreformed.o...ant Theology Versus New Covenant Theology.pdf"III. New Covenant Theology risks antinomianism"​
Now, if for example, one NCT representative wants to say that the blog above called "New Covenant Theology" doesn't represent him, or the better part (whether better is a majority or a minority) of the movement, fine. Who is going to arbitrate? 

I'll simply say that I'm with the baptist-covenantalist critics. And to state my position in short: willingness to deny the moral authority of even one part (i.e. the 4th commandment) of the moral law--to say nothing of denying an eternal moral law bearing weight in every age--is _*antinomian*_ by definition.


----------



## Hemustincrease

Contra_Mundum said:


> Well, Jo,
> The PuritanBoard has representation from Baptists who take issue with NCTs deviations from Baptist Covenant Theology, as represented in the 1689 Confession.
> see: 1689 Federalism | The distinctive biblical theology of confessional particular baptists
> 1689 Federalism compared to New Covenant Theology & Progressive Covenantalism - YouTube (this video is found on the above page; it's gracious, but critical)
> 
> From what I've seen, most NCT stake their claim to a place in English Baptist history with the 1646 Confession, as if it were somehow more amenable. NCT is frankly _new,_ and so in some ways it is defined in its particulars by as many who claim the name. There is, as yet, no creedally defining statement. So we have to go to a number of sources, friend and foe, to get a general idea about the movement. Below are some quick returns from a Google search. Here are advocates, covenant-critiques, dispensational critiques, etc.
> 
> http://www.theopedia.com/New_Covenant_Theology
> 
> What is new covenant theology? "The old covenant is obsolete (including the moral aspect of the Mosaic Law) and replaced by the new covenant with the law of Christ to govern its morality."
> "The law of Christ would be those prescriptions that Christ specifically stated in the Gospels (e.g., the Sermon on the Mount).​
> http://www.sbts.edu/documents/tschreiner/review_WellsZaspel.pdfWells and Zaspel maintain that many of the moral norms of the OT (nine of the ten commandments of the Decalogue) continue to be normative. They are normative, however, because they are part of Christ's law, not because they hail from the Mosaic law. The Sabbath, on the other hand, is no longer binding upon believers. The Sabbath points to the eschatological rest believers have in Christ, and there is no need for believers to observe it today, for it was the sign of the Mosaic Covenant that is no longer in force.​
> New Covenant Theology: Covenant Theology"Covenant Theology and Law People misuse the law of Moses because they do not understand grace. Virtually all covenant theologians believe in law preaching as a means of bringing men to saving conviction. Virtually all covenant theologians are Augustinians. Martin Luther was an Augustinian monk. John Calvin quotes Augustine extensively in his Institutes of the Christian Religion in his defense of Covenant Theology. Augustine rose up as the apologist for the Constantinian sacral church/state movement in the 4th century.Augustine was the preeminent sacralist theologian of his time and for all time. Covenant Theology by definition is a major systematic misuse of the law of Moses....
> If you reject a false system you must reject it in its entirety. Law preaching is the foundational misuse of the law of Moses in the Covenant Theology system. It is foundational because it bypasses God's prescribed method of salvation, the preaching of the gospel to savingly convict. (Acts ch 2) True believers are cut to the heart by the gospel, not by the law.​
> What Is New Covenant Theology? - audio by Tim Little"Several of its proponents come out of a Reformed Baptist position, abandoning the tripartite division of the law (moral, civil, and ceremonial), infant baptism, and the historic covenants of works and grace. While they abandon these aspects of Reformed theology, most also reject dispensational distinctives, such as the distinction between Israel and the church and dispensational hermeneutics."​
> Now, if for example, one NCT representative wants to say that the blog above called "New Covenant Theology" doesn't represent him, or the better part (majority/minority) of the movement, fine. Who is going to arbitrate?
> 
> I'll simply say that I'm with the baptist-covenantalist critics. And to state my position in short: willingness to deny the moral authority of even one part (4th commandment) of the moral law--to say nothing of denying an eternal moral law bearing weight in every age--is _*antinomian*_ by definition.



If you read John Reisingers open letter to Sproul as linked to above, you will discover exactly what a NCT has to say in reply to that. That was, after all, the point of this thread.......to hear from a NCT himself. 

My purpose in entering this thread was twofold. 
1. To provide the links which the O.P had asked for. 
2. To respond to what you had said about NCT believers. 

It was not my purpose to argue either for or against NCT (that would not be permitted on this forum anyway) but to let NCT’s speak for themselves in answer to the accusations against them (via the links) and to also raise a particular defense for them (having known and loved some of these Godly people personally) in response to your comments, which I consider to be rather unjust and certainly unsubstantiated. 



Contra_Mundum said:


> They say, "if you just love Jesus, if you just learn to admire who he is and what he did, then you will naturally be like him in practice without minding any directions. Whatever you do--if it doesn't appear to be opposed to God--must be spiritual. No rules; rules just encourage the flesh."



It would be impossible for anybody who has taken the time to listen to NCT’s themselves and find out straight from the horse’s mouth, what it is they believe along with what they most certainly do not believe, to conclude that NCT is a theology which does not ‘mind directions’ and which teaches a life of 'no rules’ etc.


----------



## TylerRay

Hemustincrease said:


> Links (below) to those who would deny the false charge of antinomianism; John Reisinger is a well known teacher of NCT and strongly refutes all accusations of antinomianism. Secondly, my former Pastor (Shane Kastler) would also strongly refute the same accusations and he just as strongly taught (teaches) NCT. (I mention him because I can vouch for his life and preaching personally. I know many of my brothers and sisters from Louisiana could and would do the same for John Reisinger (whom I have never personally met).
> 
> NCT is Calvinistic and Reformed Baptist theology. It is not dispensational and it is not (obviously) covenant theology.
> 
> John G. Reisinger | Sound Of Grace / New Covenant Media
> An Open Letter to Dr. R.C. Sproul
> 
> (The second link is a letter from Reisinger to Sproul, answering the accusation of antinomianism.)
> 
> "The Narrow Road": Blogs By Shane Kastler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contra_Mundum said:
> 
> 
> 
> In practical terms, NCT folk will usually be found in conformity (after a fashion) with most of the moral law--the 4C excepted. I think they really do want to follow Jesus, but they also want to think of discipleship in terms that leave "obedience" almost out of sight.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With respect, this is most certainly *not* a true representation of NCT believers. It is a serious misunderstanding of what NCT teaches and also a serious misrepresentation of NCT believers to suggest that “obedience" is left almost out of sight.
> 
> When I first moved to the USA I sat under the ministry of Don McKinney. He was a good friend and mentor of John Reisinger. He was in his 80’s when I first knew him and continued to Pastor the church he himself had founded (having left the Pastorate of an assemblies of God church upon coming to the knowledge of Sovereign Grace 40 Years Ago | SermonAudio.com) until his death. Brother McKinney suffered a good deal in his life and ministry for the sake of true obedience to Christ. Neither his preaching nor his life gave so much as the slightest notion of a discipleship which left “obedience” almost out of sight.
> 
> The three men I have spoken of are (I believe) representative of those who hold to NCT. Godly, obedient, lovers of the Lord and of His law, passionate for the truth in doctrine and practice and very often misrepresented by fellow believers.
Click to expand...


Jo,

Don McKinney's son, Ron, is a pastor in my town who teaches NCT as well, and I have sat in his office while he explained it to my wife (at the time my girlfriend) and me. Pastor McKinney is a man of God--I do not doubt it. But his teachings deny the moral duties which God requires of us. His teaching was that the the two Great Commandments are binding in every age, and that the Ten Commandments were a kind of application of those Great Commandments under the old dispensation, rather than a kind of exposition of what it means to love God and to love our neighbor. In this way, Pastor McKinney obscures God's moral requirements, and teaches a form of soft antinomianism.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Jo,
I did not link to the most vociferous opponents of NCT that I could find. My link-references (all the indented) are, except for one late addition, either statements *by* self-styled NCT proponents themselves, or reviews by persons with some sympathy for NCT. So, between the two of us, people have quite a bit of review material.

You may think my rude characterization of the "soft end" of the movement is uncharitable, unjust, and non-representative. OK, but there is that New-Covenant-Theology-blog guy in the middle of my listing... He's out there, representing, just like your fave, J.Reisinger. What makes either one of them a more accurate indicator of the direction of the movement?

I do not question that there are men of good-will promoting the NCT cause. But if the final result is incoherence, then other sorts are bound to take the movement (or bits and pieces of it) in poor--but more consistent-directions. Gravitation is a fact of life for every social organization.

To repeat myself, the best critics in my view are the 1689 Federalism guys, and their video. They are Baptists, Confessional, exegetical, and being real scholars of their own legacy they know the history very well.


----------



## rbcbob

Hemustincrease said:


> Links (below) to those who would deny the false charge of antinomianism; John Reisinger is a well known teacher of NCT and strongly refutes all accusations of antinomianism. Secondly, my former Pastor (Shane Kastler) would also strongly refute the same accusations and he just as strongly taught (teaches) NCT. (I mention him because I can vouch for his life and preaching personally. I know many of my brothers and sisters from Louisiana could and would do the same for John Reisinger (whom I have never personally met).
> 
> NCT is Calvinistic and Reformed Baptist theology. It is not dispensational and it is not (obviously) covenant theology.
> 
> John G. Reisinger | Sound Of Grace / New Covenant Media
> An Open Letter to Dr. R.C. Sproul
> 
> (The second link is a letter from Reisinger to Sproul, answering the accusation of antinomianism.)
> 
> "The Narrow Road": Blogs By Shane Kastler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contra_Mundum said:
> 
> 
> 
> In practical terms, NCT folk will usually be found in conformity (after a fashion) with most of the moral law--the 4C excepted. I think they really do want to follow Jesus, but they also want to think of discipleship in terms that leave "obedience" almost out of sight.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With respect, this is most certainly *not* a true representation of NCT believers. It is a serious misunderstanding of what NCT teaches and also a serious misrepresentation of NCT believers to suggest that “obedience" is left almost out of sight.
> 
> When I first moved to the USA I sat under the ministry of Don McKinney. He was a good friend and mentor of John Reisinger. He was in his 80’s when I first knew him and continued to Pastor the church he himself had founded (having left the Pastorate of an assemblies of God church upon coming to the knowledge of Sovereign Grace 40 Years Ago | SermonAudio.com) until his death. Brother McKinney suffered a good deal in his life and ministry for the sake of true obedience to Christ. Neither his preaching nor his life gave so much as the slightest notion of a discipleship which left “obedience” almost out of sight.
> 
> The three men I have spoken of are (I believe) representative of those who hold to NCT. Godly, obedient, lovers of the Lord and of His law, passionate for the truth in doctrine and practice and very often misrepresented by fellow believers.
Click to expand...



Jo, your representation of John Reisinger and of NCT will not stand the test of scrutiny. See Reformed Baptist pastor and theologian Richard Barcellos' fair and accurate refutation of leading NCT doctrine here: In Defense of the Decalogue : A Critique of New Covenant Theology: Richard Barcellos: 9780965495592: Amazon.com: Books


----------



## Hemustincrease

TylerRay said:


> But his teachings deny the moral duties which God requires of us.



If you believe this (about NCT......I have no personal knowledge of Ron) then I think you have greatly misunderstood any teaching offered you on it. NCT’s are most certainly not ‘against’ the law or without law anymore than Calvin or Luther were. NCT does not deny any of the moral duties which God requires of us, but rather instructs believers in them to a far greater degree than CT would do so.


----------



## Hemustincrease

Contra_Mundum said:


> Jo,
> I did not link to the most vociferous opponents of NCT that I could find. My link-references (all the indented) are, except for one late addition, either statements *by* self-styled NCT proponents themselves, or reviews by persons with some sympathy for NCT. So, between the two of us, people have quite a bit of review material.
> 
> You may think my rude characterization of the "soft end" of the movement is uncharitable, unjust, and non-representative. OK, but there is that New-Covenant-Theology-blog guy in the middle of my listing... He's out there, representing, just like your fave, J.Reisinger. What makes either one of them a more accurate indicator of the direction of the movement?
> 
> I do not question that there are men of good-will promoting the NCT cause. But if the final result is incoherence, then other sorts are bound to take the movement (or bits and pieces of it) in poor--but more consistent-directions. Gravitation is a fact of life for every social organization.
> 
> To repeat myself, the best critics in my view are the 1689 Federalism guys, and their video. They are Baptists, Confessional, exegetical, and being real scholars of their own legacy they know the history very well.




There are thousands of ‘Calvinists’ around today who appear to me to be living lawless, undisciplined lives ignoring Scripture on some foundational matters and teaching others to do the same, but their very poor (in my estimation) witness to a theology which is true to Scripture does not make me rush to presume that all Calvinists must be antinomian or that Calvinism teaches antinomianism. I think we should show the same reasonableness to our study of NCT. To dismiss it and all who adhere to it as antinomians who teach heresy, without having taken the time to study thoroughly what is being taught (and I don’t mean reading a few blogs from any old Tom, Dick or Harry) is short sighted at best. 

John Reisinger is very worthy of being my ‘fave’.  His response to Sproul is also worthy of being read (and I believe those who have and do accuse him of antinomianism have a duty to read it carefully and with all due consideration and prayer before rendering any further accusation against him or against NCT.)


----------



## Hemustincrease

rbcbob said:


> Jo, your representation of John Reisinger and of NCT will not stand the test of scrutiny. See Reformed Baptist pastor and theologian Richard Barcellos' fair and accurate refutation of leading NCT doctrine here: In Defense of the Decalogue : A Critique of New Covenant Theology: Richard Barcellos: 9780965495592: Amazon.com: Books



It isn’t my purpose to represent John Reisinger, but to let him represent himself as the O.P requested. 
However, as you raised Barcellos; did you read Reisinger’s open letter to Sproul which I linked to in the first post? In it, he answers the accusations which Barcellos has aimed at him.


----------



## rbcbob

Hemustincrease said:


> rbcbob said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jo, your representation of John Reisinger and of NCT will not stand the test of scrutiny. See Reformed Baptist pastor and theologian Richard Barcellos' fair and accurate refutation of leading NCT doctrine here: In Defense of the Decalogue : A Critique of New Covenant Theology: Richard Barcellos: 9780965495592: Amazon.com: Books
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It isn’t my purpose to represent John Reisinger, but to let him represent himself as the O.P requested.
> However, as you raised Barcellos; did you read Reisinger’s open letter to Sproul which I linked to in the first post? In it, he answers the accusations which Barcellos has aimed at him.
Click to expand...


Yes I have read that. I have also read Barcellos' honorable acknowledgement of attributing certain views to NCT proponents which they have brought to his attention. That is what we expect of men with integrity. It still remains the case that the consensous views of leading NCT proponents are irreconcilable with the New Testament emphasis on the abiding authority of the TEN commandments. The apostle James makes it clear that they are an indivisible unit. NCT proponents are invariably non Sabbatarians.


----------



## TylerRay

Hemustincrease said:


> TylerRay said:
> 
> 
> 
> But his teachings deny the moral duties which God requires of us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you believe this (about NCT......I have no personal knowledge of Ron) then I think you have greatly misunderstood any teaching offered you on it. NCT’s are most certainly not ‘against’ the law or without law anymore than Calvin or Luther were. NCT does not deny any of the moral duties which God requires of us, but rather instructs believers in them to a far greater degree than CT would do so.
Click to expand...


Pastor McKinney specifically said that he does not believe the Sabbath laws are binding today. That's a moral duty which God requires of us, which Pastor McKinney denies.


----------



## Hemustincrease

TylerRay said:


> Hemustincrease said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TylerRay said:
> 
> 
> 
> But his teachings deny the moral duties which God requires of us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you believe this (about NCT......I have no personal knowledge of Ron) then I think you have greatly misunderstood any teaching offered you on it. NCT’s are most certainly not ‘against’ the law or without law anymore than Calvin or Luther were. NCT does not deny any of the moral duties which God requires of us, but rather instructs believers in them to a far greater degree than CT would do so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pastor McKinney specifically said that he does not believe the Sabbath laws are binding today. That's a moral duty which God requires of us, which Pastor McKinney denies.
Click to expand...


Pastor McKinney apparently (and not surprisingly) teaches what all NCT’s teach, that the 4th commandment was ceremonial, not moral. This is not equal to being antinomian.


----------



## TylerRay

Hemustincrease said:


> TylerRay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hemustincrease said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TylerRay said:
> 
> 
> 
> But his teachings deny the moral duties which God requires of us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you believe this (about NCT......I have no personal knowledge of Ron) then I think you have greatly misunderstood any teaching offered you on it. NCT’s are most certainly not ‘against’ the law or without law anymore than Calvin or Luther were. NCT does not deny any of the moral duties which God requires of us, but rather instructs believers in them to a far greater degree than CT would do so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pastor McKinney specifically said that he does not believe the Sabbath laws are binding today. That's a moral duty which God requires of us, which Pastor McKinney denies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pastor McKinney apparently (and not surprisingly) teaches what all NCT’s teach, that the 4th commandment was ceremonial, not moral. This is not equal to being antinomian.
Click to expand...


Sure it is. It's teaching against God's law. It doesn't matter if he believes that the fourth commandment is ceremonial; he's wrong. To teach against God's sabbath laws is antinomian, insomuch as it is denying the moral duties which God requires of us.


----------



## Loopie

I am not trying to jump into any side of this discussion, but am merely trying to point out that some of those involved in this discussion seem to be slightly talking passed each other. Certainly if you hold that the Sabbath Laws are binding upon believers today, then any movement away from them would necessarily appear antinomian. On the other hand, if someone thinks that Scripture, when looked at consistently, does not make Sabbath Laws binding under the New Covenant, then in their eyes they are not being antinomian, but are simply being true to Scripture. 

In other words, the Judaizers in Galatia would have probably called Paul 'antinomian'. From their perspective he was, because he was moving away from maintaining certain aspects of the law that the Judaizers felt was still binding. From Paul's perspective, not only was he inspired by God in the writing of Scripture, but he also had a perfectly consistent theology, which the Judaizers did not have. Their traditions were influencing their theology, and so they would have wrongfully viewed Paul as antinomian.

I am not saying that any side in this debate is the Judaizers or that any side is antinomian. I am only saying that calling someone or something antinomian does not really solve the problem, since that is a matter of perspective based on one's systematic theology. The issue is whether one's theology, and theological conclusions, are correct and in harmony with a proper exegesis of Scripture.


----------



## rbcbob

Loopie said:


> I am only saying that calling someone or something antinomian does not really solve the problem, since that is a matter of perspective based on one's systematic theology. The issue is whether one's theology, and theological conclusions, are correct and in harmony with a proper exegesis of Scripture.



Eric, your position seems to leave us no room for either identifying errors and those who espouse them on the one hand, and calling them to repentance on the other hand. If I am engaging an abortionist I am on solid ground to charge him with violating the sixth commandment, and by extension (via James) breaking the whole law. Breaking, and promoting the breaking of the seventh commandment is likewise a breaking of the whole and liable to the charge of antinomianism. His disagreement with me on the abiding validity of the sixth commandment is of no consequence.


----------



## Hemustincrease

rbcbob said:


> Loopie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am only saying that calling someone or something antinomian does not really solve the problem, since that is a matter of perspective based on one's systematic theology. The issue is whether one's theology, and theological conclusions, are correct and in harmony with a proper exegesis of Scripture.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric, your position seems to leave us no room for either identifying errors and those who espouse them on the one hand, and calling them to repentance on the other hand. If I am engaging an abortionist I am on solid ground to charge him with violating the sixth commandment, and by extension (via James) breaking the whole law. Breaking, and promoting the breaking of the seventh commandment is likewise a breaking of the whole and liable to the charge of antinomianism. His disagreement with me on the abiding validity of the sixth commandment is of no consequence.
Click to expand...


It would be very difficult (impossible in fact) to convict somebody not yet tainted by fallible theology that working on the 1st day of the week was a violation of the 4th commandment which plainly commands a 7th day Sabbath. 

The 6th commandment plainly says (as God wrote it with His own finger) ‘thou shalt not murder’. As such we certainly are on solid ground when we go to a person who supports murder (you gave the example of abortion) and direct them to the plain words of God on the matter. However, we are not on solid ground when we go to a brother or sister in the Lord (or a lost soul) point them to the 4th commandment and then seek to convict them about Sunday Sabbath keeping, because the command which God wrote with His own finger says absolutely nothing about the first day of the week. In order to convict a brother or sister that non adherence to a Sunday Sabbath was ‘immoral’ we instead have to move away from the plain command of God and first convince them of our theology.

NCT’s leave the commands of God exactly as He wrote them. They do not add to them or take away from them. (Deut 12:32) Sunday Sabbath keepers change the 4th commandment, bind their brethren to this change (nowhere prescribed by God) and then call those who choose to obey God rather than man ‘antinomian’.



TylerRay said:


> It doesn't matter if he believes that the fourth commandment is ceremonial; he's wrong.



Perhaps you are wrong and he is right.  Either way, I agree with Eric,


Loopie said:


> The issue is whether one's theology, and theological conclusions, are correct and in harmony with a proper exegesis of Scripture.


----------



## TylerRay

Eric, we aren't Biblicists here on the Puritan Board. We're confessional Reformed folk. According to confessional Reformed theology, to deny the Sabbath is to be antinomian.

Jo, the sixth commandment requires of us a lot more than just not committing murder. Jesus plainly taught as much. The fourth commandment, as well, commands a lot more than keeping a sixth day Sabbath. The sixth commandment is essentially about keeping holy the times God sets apart as holy. The first day of the week is set aside by God as holy, thus we must keep it holy. That's pretty solid ground.


----------



## Hemustincrease

TylerRay said:


> Eric, we aren't Biblicists here on the Puritan Board. We're confessional Reformed folk. According to confessional Reformed theology, to deny the Sabbath is to be antinomian.
> 
> Jo, the sixth commandment requires of us a lot more than just not committing murder. Jesus plainly taught as much. The fourth commandment, as well, commands a lot more than keeping a sixth day Sabbath. The sixth commandment is essentially about keeping holy the times God sets apart as holy. The first day of the week is set aside by God as holy, thus we must keep it holy. That's pretty solid ground.



I wasn’t attempting to flesh out the 6th commandment, but to demonstrate that in convicting others of it we have no need to move away from it. The command itself is sufficient. We don’t need to give a few theology lessons first in order for a person, presently a stranger to the Bible, to understand that (even if they don’t believe it) God, in forbidding murder, means exactly what He has said, that murder is forbidden. 

If the 4th commandment includes a holy day or days in addition to the 7th day, should we not at least do exactly what it says first (which is a 7th day of rest) before adding other days to it? (You said the 4th commandment was essentially about keeping holy the times God sets apart as holy, so do you keep the 7th day holy as He set it apart?) Or is it OK to take out and therefore disregard the ‘7th day’ and add in whatever other holy day we believe God has set aside as holy? 

Or, if the 4th commandment is now changed from 7th day to 1st day, can we honestly say that the ten commandments are the ‘eternal, unchangeable, moral law of God’? Can non adherence to a 7th Day Sabbath be ‘immoral’ under the Old Covenant but moral under the new, if the ten commandments represent an eternal and unchanging standard of morality?


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Moderating: _closed._

Thread is done. Tried to let it go as long as reasonably possible.

I think we're over the line of advocacy for views that overthrow _settled_ doctrinal questions, i.e. things Reformed churches (and their sisters) unanimously confess with one heart and mouth is taught in Holy Scripture.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Maybe that is sufficient.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

For anyone interested in the Confessional Reformed Baptist position concerning the Lord's Day (ie. Christian Sabbath) I will post a link to Dr. Richard Barcellos' thoughts and exegesis on the matter. He did an excellent job defending the position. I hope it helps.

Some Reformed Baptists on the Sabbath Concerning Colossians and Hebrews | RPCNA Covenanter


----------

