# NCT distinctives



## Scott Bushey (Jun 1, 2004)

{I have split this thread since a theological discussion is worthy, but should not be done in the context of a family tragedy}


Hi Chris,
This is truly sad news. Ernie was originally from our neck of the woods. Unlike his brother, he has held firmly to orthodox ideas. 

God is assuredly glorified this day through Mr. Reisinger.

[Edited on 6-2-2004 by fredtgreco]

[Edited on 6-2-2004 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## tcalbrecht (Jun 2, 2004)

[quote:c320db4c58][i:c320db4c58]Originally posted by Scott Bushey[/i:c320db4c58]
Hi Chris,
This is truly sad news. Ernie was originally from our neck of the woods. [b:c320db4c58]Unlike his brother, he has held firmly to orthodox ideas. [/b:c320db4c58] 

God is assuredly glorified this day through Mr. Reisinger. [/quote:c320db4c58]

Would you care to elaborate on this comment? Are you referring to John? Where are some of his unorthodox beliefs?

Inquiring minds want to know.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jun 2, 2004)

Tom,
Christopher has already rebuked me offline for taking a &quot;stab&quot; at Ernie's brother John. In all honesty, the comment was not meant as an ad hom against John as much as it was to distinguish between the two brothers; John R. and Ernie R. Many people know the name -Reisinger- because of John's NCT perspective. 

You inquire of John R's. &quot;unorthodoxy&quot;. Do you as an orthodox presbyterian regard NCT as &quot;orthodox&quot;?

I will add, I grieve along with John. I am sure our friend is grief stricken over the loss of his beloved brother. If anyone took my statement in the way Chris has noted, please, oh please forgive me. 

Let us all pray for John, his ministry and close relatives in this time of grief.

[Edited on 6-2-2004 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## tcalbrecht (Jun 2, 2004)

[quote:795bff6be8][i:795bff6be8]Originally posted by Scott Bushey[/i:795bff6be8]
You inquire of John R's. &quot;unorthodoxy&quot;. Do you as an orthodox presbyterian regard NCT as &quot;orthodox&quot;?

[/quote:795bff6be8]

Scott,

I was just asking. I have read Ernie but I'm not familiar with John or his percular theological distinctives. We attended church many years ago with members of the extended Reisinger family. I think I met either John or Ernie at that time, but I can't recall which one. It was a presbyterian church with many baptist sympathizers.

BTW, aren't all reformed baptists NCT to a certain degree? Or is NCT just limted to its understanding and (non-)application of the law? Where do John and Ernie differ the most?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jun 2, 2004)

NCT is limited to it's distinctives. So, in this way, the reformed baptist is not in the same camp.


----------



## fredtgreco (Jun 2, 2004)

[quote:320da02e10][i:320da02e10]Originally posted by tcalbrecht[/i:320da02e10]
[quote:320da02e10][i:320da02e10]Originally posted by Scott Bushey[/i:320da02e10]
You inquire of John R's. &quot;unorthodoxy&quot;. Do you as an orthodox presbyterian regard NCT as &quot;orthodox&quot;?

[/quote:320da02e10]

Scott,

I was just asking. I have read Ernie but I'm not familiar with John or his percular theological distinctives. We attended church many years ago with members of the extended Reisinger family. I think I met either John or Ernie at that time, but I can't recall which one. It was a presbyterian church with many baptist sympathizers.

BTW, aren't all reformed baptists NCT to a certain degree? Or is NCT just limted to its understanding and (non-)application of the law? Where do John and Ernie differ the most? [/quote:320da02e10]

Tom,

NCT would be much closer to radical Sonship advocates that RBs. The major disctinctives are a complete rejection of the 4th commandment, a complete rejection of the Covenant of Works/Covenant of Grace structure of the Scriptures, the belief that the Mosaic covenant was a legal covenant that was only a ministration of death, and hence the 10 commandments are bad, not good, and Israel was not the people of God.

It is basically a half-way house between covenant theology (of both the 1689 and WCF varieties and Dispensationalism).

Here are some representative quotes from &quot;in-depth Studies&quot; one of the primary NCT sites (http://www.ids.org/):

[quote:320da02e10]
Thus, the Ten Commandments were the essence of the Old (or first) Covenant only and Not the essence of all of God's law in every era. As the essence of the Old Covenant, the Ten Commandments function as its representative: 

In addition, the Old Covenant was a legal, conditional covenant with Israel that demanded perfect obedience in order to receive the promised blessings: 

Then Moses went up to God, and the LORD called to him from the mountain and said, &quot;This is what you are to say to the house of Jacob and what you are to tell the people of Israel: `You yourselves have seen what I did to Egypt, and how I carried you on eagles' wings and brought you to myself. Now if you obey me fully and keep my covenant, then out of all nations you will be my treasured possession. Although the whole earth is mine, you will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.' These are the words you are to speak to the Israelites.&quot; 
(Exodus 19:3-6) 

The primary function of the Old Covenant was a ministry of death. 

He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant--not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. Now if the ministry that brought death, which was engraved in letters on stone, came with glory, so that the Israelites could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of its glory, fading though it was, will not the ministry of the Spirit be even more glorious? If the ministry that condemns men is glorious, how much more glorious is the ministry that brings righteousness! For what was glorious has no glory now in comparison with the surpassing glory. And if what was fading away came with glory, how much greater is the glory of that which lasts! (2 Corinthians 3:6-9) 

...

NCT as seen above does differ from Covenant Theology and Historic Dispensationalism. In regards to Covenant Theology, the NCT view asserts that the "Covenant of Works" and "Covenant of Grace" cannot be found in Scripture. We would agree that God had a gracious purpose in placing the nation of Israel under the law as a covenant. However, this does not make the Old Covenant a covenant of grace. Scripture indicates that the purpose of the Mosaic Law was to bring deep conviction of sin to those under the Old Covenant:
...

In addition, NCT views the nation of Israel as a picture of the people of God but not the real people of God: 

The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming--not the realities themselves. For this reason it can never, by the same sacrifices repeated endlessly year after year, make perfect those who draw near to worship. (Hebrews 10:1) 

For I do not want you to be ignorant of the fact, brothers, that our forefathers were all under the cloud and that they all passed through the sea. They were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea. They all ate the same spiritual food and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ. Nevertheless, God was not pleased with most of them; their bodies were scattered over the desert. Now these things occurred as examples to keep us from setting our hearts on evil things as they did...These things happened to them as examples and were written down as warnings for us, on whom the fulfillment of the ages has come. 
(1 Corinthians 10:1-6, 11) 

Thus, the nation of Israel is mainly the Unbelieving people of God who are rejected by God as a covenant nation:[/quote:320da02e10]

And more specifically on the Covenant of Redemption

[quote:320da02e10]
Question: Does NCT hold to a covenant of redemption in eternity made between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit? We do not believe that it is wise to refer to God's plan to save a people in eternity past as a "covenant." But we do believe that our one God who is three co-equal and co-eternal persons did make a certain plan that He would save a people from their sins. But if this plan is not called a covenant by the authors of Scripture, we must think twice about describing it by that name ourselves. The reason using the word "covenant" to describe events in Scripture that are not called covenants should be rejected is because of the importance of the word "covenant" in Scripture and the place of prominence the concept has in our theological systems. The danger of calling something a covenant that Scripture does not refer to as a covenant increases the likelihood of making something a cornerstone of our theology that in fact is not an emphasis in Scripture. This of course would lead to an unbalanced and unbiblical theological system. We want to be very clear. We are not saying that you always have to use biblical terms to describe biblical concepts (even when those concepts are foundational to our theological systems). The Bible never uses the term 'person' when referring to the Holy Spirit. Nevertheless, Christians are justified in this application because the concept of the personhood of the Holy Spirit is clear in Scripture. We find that we are forced to acknowledge the personhood of the Holy Spirit from the clear teaching of Scripture. The evidence in Scripture does not allow us to believe that the Holy Spirit is simply an impersonal force. Some of these evidences are actions of the Holy Spirit that are driven by purpose and intelligence as well as the fact that the authors of Scripture referred to the Spirit by using personal pronouns like "him" and "his." So the concept of the "personhood" of the Holy Spirit is an important doctrine although the term is never used to describe Him in Scripture. Thus, I think it can be a valid practice to understand a person or event in Scripture by using a term that Scripture does not in fact use to describe that person or event. So, the fundamental problem is not in assigning the word "covenant" to events in Scripture that Scripture itself does not call covenants, but rather the problem is the place you give those events in your theological system precisely because you designate them "covenants." I think this happens very naturally because the term "covenant" in Scripture, unlike the term "person," is a high profile and extremely important term. Almost invariably covenant theologians use the concept of covenant, whether it is the covenant of redemption or the covenant of grace, to illustrate the continuity of Scripture and God's work in salvation. But Scripture uses the term, almost without exception, to illustrate discontinuity.8 In conclusion, while NCT does believe that the Bible teaches that our Trinitarian God has always had a sure plan to redeem His chosen people from their sins, we think that using the word covenant to describe that plan is a bad idea.[/quote:320da02e10]

It should also not be surprising that since NCTers reject the Covenant of Works, they reject the imputation of Christ's active obedience as a &quot;sacred cow&quot; that cannot be found in the Bible (as a side note, I wonder how NCTers justify their belief in the doctrine of the Trinity, knowing that there is no specific &quot;text&quot; that teaches the doctrine: [i:320da02e10]Do you mean to say that you actually need a specific text from the bible to establish a biblical doctrine or practice? Yes. For if by "establish a biblical doctrine or practice" you are saying that this is something God wants me to believe or do, then you must have the clear and unambiguous witness of Scripture to back that up. If you don't have a text from scripture to establish your view, you have no word from God and therefore no view worth defending.[/i:320da02e10])

And so we end up with the ridiculous notion that the remission of sins is actually a positive righteousness. Even a young child knows that cancelling a sentence against a criminal does not make him a good man:

[quote:320da02e10]Do believers have to fulfill the righteous requirements of the law? Yes. But, according to Scripture, this can only be done through the death of Christ. The receiving of his payment for sins makes it just as if we had already perfectly obeyed the righteous requirements of the law. (from [i:320da02e10]Examining the Imputation of the Active Obedience of Christ A Study in Calvinistic Sacred Cow-ism[/i:320da02e10]  ) [/quote:320da02e10]

My prediction is that NCT will get more and more radical as years go on, as they move to logical conclusions of their hatred and disgust for the Covenant of Works and the Sabbath.


[Edited on 6-2-2004 by fredtgreco]

[Edited on 6-2-2004 by fredtgreco]


----------



## JohnV (Jun 2, 2004)

Fred:
Very nicely done. That representation of the NCT, in their own words, gets to the heart of the matter, it seems to me.

You state that it is your observation that NCT is a halfway theology between the orthodox faith and dispensationalism. Is it possible that it could also be a reaction against Reconstructionism? Do you see any actual relationship? Though some stances appear opposite, yet I see similar rectionary tendencies in these separate movements. I am not as familiar with NCT as I am with the outworkings of Reconstructionism, but there seems something familiar about NCT's methods.


----------



## fredtgreco (Jun 2, 2004)

[quote:21554add25][i:21554add25]Originally posted by JohnV[/i:21554add25]
Fred:
Very nicely done. That representation of the NCT, in their own words, gets to the heart of the matter, it seems to me.

You state that it is your observation that NCT is a halfway theology between the orthodox faith and dispensationalism. Is it possible that it could also be a reaction against Reconstructionism? Do you see any actual relationship? Though some stances appear opposite, yet I see similar rectionary tendencies in these separate movements. I am not as familiar with NCT as I am with the outworkings of Reconstructionism, but there seems something familiar about NCT's methods. [/quote:21554add25]

No John, I do not think so. NCT holds in disdain the notion that the 10 Commandments are the abiding moral law, and thus is contrary to vanilla Westminsterianism and Reformed Baptists of the 1689 variety as well as Reconstructionism. The issue here is not the civil law (which is the issue for Reconstructionism), but the moral law.


----------



## Ianterrell (Jun 2, 2004)

Piper I think leans towards this notion sadly.


----------



## fredtgreco (Jun 2, 2004)

[quote:9cf9752110][i:9cf9752110]Originally posted by Ianterrell[/i:9cf9752110]
Piper I think leans towards this notion sadly. [/quote:9cf9752110]

I don't think so Ian. Remember that Piper is a staunch advocate of the Covenant of Works/Covenant of Grace framework after his modifications of [i:9cf9752110]Future Grace[/i:9cf9752110]. And his [i:9cf9752110]Counted Righteous in Christ[/i:9cf9752110] is perhaps the best recent recitation of the imputation of Christ's active obedience.

Piper has his faults (as do we all), and he is no Westminster Presbyterian, but I don't think he is NCT in any shape.


----------



## Christopher (Jun 2, 2004)

Fred Said:
&quot;My prediction is that NCT will get more and more radical as years go on, as they move to logical conclusions of their hatred and disgust for the Covenant of Works and the Sabbath.&quot;

Radical in what way?

I don't think &quot;hatred and disgust&quot; is a fair term to use. they disaagree with that theological particular but hatred and disgust? Come on. 

NCT does not hate hate the Sabbath, because they believe that Jesus is their Sabbath. 


Folks, there seems to be a lot of missunderstanding of what NCT is about. I would encouragre you to have the courage to do a little study on your own about what the NCT advocates really believe. Check out Pastor Way's chart on the Four theo. Systems compared or go to a source like Wells and Zaspel's book &quot;New Covenant Theology.&quot; There are some here who feel that NCT is a threat to orthodoxy. Nothing could be further from the truth when you consider the Bible as the test for orthodoxy.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jun 2, 2004)

Christopher,
How old is NCT?


----------



## Christopher (Jun 2, 2004)

in my opinion, it began 2000 years ago.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jun 2, 2004)

Chris,
I am not looking for opinion. What I am looking for is when did this theology, this idea, come to the forefront?

[Edited on 6-2-2004 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## fredtgreco (Jun 2, 2004)

[quote:3a454d65c7][i:3a454d65c7]Originally posted by Christopher[/i:3a454d65c7]
Fred Said:
&quot;My prediction is that NCT will get more and more radical as years go on, as they move to logical conclusions of their hatred and disgust for the Covenant of Works and the Sabbath.&quot;

Radical in what way?

I don't think &quot;hatred and disgust&quot; is a fair term to use. they disaagree with that theological particular but hatred and disgust? Come on. 

NCT does not hate hate the Sabbath, because they believe that Jesus is their Sabbath. 


Folks, there seems to be a lot of missunderstanding of what NCT is about. I would encouragre you to have the courage to do a little study on your own about what the NCT advocates really believe. Check out Pastor Way's chart on the Four theo. Systems compared or go to a source like Wells and Zaspel's book &quot;New Covenant Theology.&quot; There are some here who feel that NCT is a threat to orthodoxy. Nothing could be further from the truth when you consider the Bible as the test for orthodoxy. [/quote:3a454d65c7]

Christopher,

Having read a great deal of NCT from its very beginnings (about a decade or so ago was when it first started publicly appearing), I would say that NCT in general is virulant toward the CoW and Sabbath. Until very recently (maybe the last 2 years), almost everything published, written or on the web by NCTers involved an attack on the 4th commandment.

It is a threat to orthodoxy. I have posted a link above to a paper drafted in which it denies the CoW and the imputed righteousness of Christ's obedience. Historically, each of these has led to either antinomianism or legalism. It is this that is at stake with NPP and Shepherd. I understand that NCT denies any link with NPP, but I would say it is only a matter of time until it goes one of the two courses of error (antinomianism or legalism).

And I do consider the Bible the test of orthodoxy. That is why I consider NCT a threat. Just because someone says, &quot;I don't see it in the Bible&quot; doesn't make it so. If it did, then the JWs would be right about the Trinity.

Aren't you concerned at all that the ENTIRE church, according to NCT, has had it wrong about the most fundamental principles of the Bible (how God relates to man, the manner of God's redemptive act, the place of the Law) for 2000 years? NCT is only a decade old. It by its own admission rejects both Dispensationalism and Covenant theology.

[Edited on 6-2-2004 by fredtgreco]


----------



## Christopher (Jun 2, 2004)

Well, Scott, since I consider it to be a Biblicaly based theology I consider it to be that old. However, the term NCT is new, very new and the thrust and growth to understand the Scriptures in this way is relatively new as well from what I know. &quot;Newness&quot; does not discredit it though. In the 1600 there were a lot of thisngs that were being considered new.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jun 2, 2004)

Thank you Fred. That was what I wanted to present; it is [i:75829acf53]something new[/i:75829acf53], as if, the church needed something [i:75829acf53]new[/i:75829acf53].

Chris, I will be honest. It is, to me, an assault on orthodoxy. Thats why, if you notice a benignness to my attitude, it is because I am so adamantly opposed to this stuff.

[Edited on 6-2-2004 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Christopher (Jun 2, 2004)

Again &quot;newnes&quot; does not mean error. If it is based upon the Scriptures it is correct. the Solas were considered &quot;new&quot; by those alive during the Reformation. That did not make it incorrect. If it is Biblical, no matter whether it was &quot;lost&quot; to the masses for a time or not, it is true and orthodox.

If you follow this line of reasoning you must pronounce every Baptist on this board as unorthodox because you understanding is that credo is new.


----------



## kceaster (Jun 2, 2004)

Having read the book Christopher mentioned by Zaspel and Wells, I have to say that they are a threat to orthodoxy.

The appendix of the book (never mind what comes before) basically states that confessionalism and creedalism is a sure source for error. In that alone, they speak against everyone on this board who has agreed to the standards of the WCF or LBCF. The fact that they vehemently deny that the Apostle's Creed is in error simply because it was written down and confessed, exposes them for their error.

They want to trash all the light that has been shining in lieu of the new light that they interject.

Couple this with the fact that they pit Jesus against Moses and inspired Scripture against inspired Scripture, they are sure to get a great many things wrong in their new light.

What they forget when they do this is that all Scripture is God breathed. No one is putting Moses up as a messiah. But the words he spoke by the Holy Spirit, are living words, sharper than any two edged sword. These very words were Christ in the OT. To say that Christ changes these words or abrogates them (as they say with the 4th commandment), is saying that Christ didn't know what He was talking about the 1st time He spoke.

They are setting up a straw man in the Moses vs. Christ comparison. What we have of Moses are his words recorded, infallibly. What we have from Christ are not only His own infallible words, which cannot contradict the Scriptures of the OT, but we also have His witnesses infallible words.

The point to be made is that all of God's Word stands together. There is no pitting the OT against the NT.

One thing that they will repeat to the man is that if it is not spoken of in the NT, then it is not for the believer. They can throw away the tithe and the Sabbath, among other things. What they do not realize is that a man may now uncover the nakedness of his father's wife or his sisters because the NT does not bring that forward. That is just silly.

They call this giving the NT priority over the old. That is what is scary about their approach. The other thing that is scary is that they claim that if anyone reads the Bible from front to back, they will inevitably err in some way, shape, or form. It has to be read NT first, then the OT.

These are but a few glaring examples of how they think. Their beliefs can only lead to weak ecclesiology, and antinomianism.

But Wells, Zens, Zaspel, and John Reisinger are not the ones we need to worry about. The 2nd generation to come after them are the ones that will need to be dealt with.

In Christ,

KC

[Edited on 6-2-2004 by kceaster]


----------



## Christopher (Jun 2, 2004)

Fred, I am sorry but I am having trouble finding the link. Are you refering to the typed out site for the 5solas? I have been to this site. Do you know which paper it is that denies the imputed rightiousness of Christ. To date I have never read any works of NCT writer say anything remotly like this.


----------



## fredtgreco (Jun 2, 2004)

[quote:5f7398dc9c][i:5f7398dc9c]Originally posted by Christopher[/i:5f7398dc9c]
Fred, I am sorry but I am having trouble finding the link. Are you refering to the typed out site for the 5solas? I have been to this site. Do you know which paper it is that denies the imputed rightiousness of Christ. To date I have never read any works of NCT writer say anything remotly like this. [/quote:5f7398dc9c]

Sorry. I think I used the weblink function that has a name. If you were to click on the Italicized title of the article in my original post, you wouod get there.

But to make it easier on all, click on this link:

http://www.ids.org/pdf/imputation.pdf

It is by Steve Lehrer and Geoff Volker


----------



## Christopher (Jun 2, 2004)

Thanks, I'll read it and get back to you.


----------



## JohnV (Jun 2, 2004)

I'd never heard of NCT until I was introduced to it on this Board. I was busy with Reconstructionism. I do not want to detract from the flow of this discussion so I won't press the point of where I see similarities. I do think it is important, though. 

Many years ago Van Baalen called such things, &quot;the unpaid bills of the church.&quot; He didn't, I believe, mean to throw the blame for schisms and disputes back solely on the churches. He wrote this in a book in which he opposed sects and cults. The thing to note in this is that we tend to be more objective about these things in the future, when we look back on them, and pass judgment on them, once they have passed.

So the question I have is whether there is any specific history to the NCT that they hold to? It their theology clearly spelled out at any time in history; and had the church ruled on it at any time?


----------



## pastorway (Jun 2, 2004)

[quote:02b37847bd][i:02b37847bd]Originally posted by fredtgreco[/i:02b37847bd]

It should also not be surprising that since NCTers reject the Covenant of Works, they reject the imputation of Christ's active obedience as a &quot;sacred cow&quot; that cannot be found in the Bible.....

[/quote:02b37847bd]

This is simply not true. You have just accused all NCT proponents of [i:02b37847bd]damnable heresy[/i:02b37847bd]. 

I do not know nor have I read one single NCT author who rejects the imputation of Christ's active obedience. 

I myself make no secret of the fact that I reject the Covenant of Works and yet you will not find a stronger advocate of the imputation of the active obedience of the Lord Jesus to us on this forum.

I have been studying NCT for several years now, and I am sorry, but you guys are either reading bad sources or your hatred for NCT has driven you to make false statement after false statement against Baptists who reject full blown CT and dispensationalism both, as if you have to be one or the other. If you disagree with a system of theology at least try to present it accurately. Isn't that what you CTers keep telling us Baptists?? 

Phillip


----------



## fredtgreco (Jun 2, 2004)

[quote:cb40a01105][i:cb40a01105]Originally posted by pastorway[/i:cb40a01105]
[quote:cb40a01105][i:cb40a01105]Originally posted by fredtgreco[/i:cb40a01105]

It should also not be surprising that since NCTers reject the Covenant of Works, they reject the imputation of Christ's active obedience as a &quot;sacred cow&quot; that cannot be found in the Bible.....

[/quote:cb40a01105]

This is simply not true. You have just accused all NCT proponents of [i:cb40a01105]damnable heresy[/i:cb40a01105]. 

I do not know nor have I read one single NCT author who rejects the imputation of Christ's active obedience. 

I myself make no secret of the fact that I reject the Covenant of Works and yet you will not find a stronger advocate of the imputation of the active obedience of the Lord Jesus to us on this forum.

I have been studying NCT for several years now, and I am sorry, but you guys are either reading bad sources or your hatred for NCT has driven you to make false statement after false statement against Baptists who reject full blown CT and dispensationalism both, as if you have to be one or the other. If you disagree with a system of theology at least try to present it accurately. Isn't that what you CTers keep telling us Baptists?? 

Phillip [/quote:cb40a01105]

Philip,

With all due respect, [b:cb40a01105]read the document at this link:[/b:cb40a01105]
http://www.ids.org/pdf/imputation.pdf 

The NCT authors do EXACTLY what you say none of them have done. I did not think it had gotten this bad until I read it. READ the article and then let me know what you think.

A few highlights:

[quote:cb40a01105]
An example of a sacred cow in Calvinistic theological circles is the imputation of the active obedience of Jesus Christ. It is a biblical "truth" that was assumed to be true from the beginning because it is a lynchpin of the system of theology known as Covenant Theology.2 It has been handed down from one generation to another without being questioned; after the passage of time it has come to be known as fact; and if you dare to question it you are labeled a troublemaker or a heretic.

We are only rejecting the imputation of the active obedience of Christ because we cannot find it in our Bibles. We wholeheartedly embrace the imputation of the passive obedience of Christ as absolutely essential and foundational for our acceptance with the Father-essential to being declared righteous in his sight. The imputation of Christ's cross work is the sine qua non of the Christian faith.

The sacrifice of Christ or the imputation of the passive obedience of Christ does two things for the believer. First, it makes the believer perfect-that is the believer is viewed as though he had obeyed the law perfectly (v. 14a). Second, it purchases a work of the Spirit in the life of the believer that guarantees that he will grow in holiness (v. 14b). Our concern here is for the perfect status the believer is given because of the imputation of the passive obedience of Christ. In the context of the book, "perfection" is referring to the state of moral innocence that allows one to be accepted by God-to stand in the presence of God and to approach Him boldly for grace and mercy in times of need.

Notice that there is no mention of the active obedience of Christ anywhere and yet the passive obedience of Christ is said to be the sum and substance of the New Covenant and a guarantee that those who get this passive obedience imputed into their account are right with God, perfect-justified. What more could you possibly need to have eternal life? If God loves you and welcomes you into His presence because of Christ's vicarious death and if no sin can ever be charged against you because of Christ's sacrifice, then what more is necessary for God to fully accept you and to give you eternal salvation?

In my experience, the sacred cow called the imputation of the active obedience of Christ is a litmus test for orthodoxy. If you deny this, it is as if you have denied the faith. This is making a mountain out of a molehill. We have just shown that in Scripture the passive obedience of Christ secures eternal life for the believer, allowing him direct access to the God of heaven and earth. Even if the imputation of the active obedience of Christ is biblical, since it gives you nothing that the imputation of the passive obedience of Christ does not give you-righteousness and eternal life-it would seem that it is not essential to the faith.

Before we even get to the exegetical portion of this paper, I would like you to consider whether the imputation of the active obedience of Christ even qualifies as a molehill. We have shown that righteousness is gained for the believer by the substitutionary death of Christ. Eternal life is the result of this amazing and merciful cross work. It would seem that the imputation of the active obedience of Christ is a theological redundancy. Theologians claim that it brings positive righteousness, but I have that with Christ's imputed death. They claim it secures eternal life, yet I have that as well through Christ's cross work on my behalf. Finally they claim that it brings me beyond any relationship Adam ever had with God so that there is no need to work to earn anything. Praise God, I have this too, through the blood of my Savior that He shed for me. If the imputation of the active obedience of Christ is biblical, I will embrace it. But since it is a theological redundancy at best, it should barely qualify as a theological molehill. Therefore it should never be used as a test for orthodoxy and should be left in the shadows of the mountains, where all molehills belong.

We do not believe that it is wise to refer to God's relationship with Adam as a "covenant." We do believe that God gave Adam a command with a promise of punishment if broken. But if this command and this promise is not called a covenant by the authors of Scripture, we must think twice about describing it by that name ourselves. The reason using the word "covenant" to describe events in Scripture that are not called covenants should be rejected is because of the importance of the word "covenant" in Scripture and the place of prominence the concept has in our theological systems. The danger of calling something a covenant that Scripture does not refer to as a covenant increases the likelihood of making something a cornerstone of our theology that in fact is not an emphasis in Scripture. This of course would lead to an unbalanced and unbiblical theological system.

The fear of many believers is that if you deny this Covenant of Works schema, you will have to abandon the crucial biblical understanding of the relationship of salvation and works as well as the seriousness of sin. But notice that establishing the biblical foundations of the relationship of salvation and works of the law, as we have done above, can be done without any reference to the Covenant of Works said to have been made by God with Adam in the Garden. Establishing the biblical truth concerning our accountability to God for keeping His commands in the New Covenant era can also be done without reference to God's relationship with Adam. Consider Romans 6:23: "For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." Paul is simply saying that when you break the commands that apply to you in the New Covenant era, what you earn from God is eternal wrath in hell or spiritual death. You get the curse of God unless the Son takes the curse on your behalf. Unlike the Covenant of Works, the biblical foundations of this doctrine can be examined and verified by reading and interpreting clear texts of Scripture.[/quote:cb40a01105]

[Edited on 6-2-2004 by fredtgreco]


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jun 2, 2004)

Fred,
I just finished the article. You are correct, they throw out Christs active obedience. The question remains however, is this the position of Zens, Resinger et. al.



[Edited on 6-2-2004 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## fredtgreco (Jun 2, 2004)

[quote:9db796fa68][i:9db796fa68]Originally posted by Scott Bushey[/i:9db796fa68]
Fred,
I just finished the article. You are correct, they throw out Christs active obedience. The question remains however, is this the position of Zens, Resinger et. al.



[Edited on 6-2-2004 by Scott Bushey] [/quote:9db796fa68]

I agree. It is possible that they would reject the article. But I have noticed that in-depth Studies is one of the major sites for NCT (the other being Solo Christo).

Is there any way we could find out? Christopher?


----------



## Christopher (Jun 2, 2004)

I think it might be good if one of you modorators move this thread to the Theology forum where it now belongs for the sake of organization.

I have a few pages yet. I have been changing diapers and feeding my boys.

I think pages 5 and 8 are good to refer back to since they hit what has been discussed.

The authors are not an anyway renouncing justification by grace through fatih in Christ alone. They are making the claim that the passive obediance of Christ is what the Bible teaches that we are justified by and that it is sufficiant enought to make us right and rightios in the eyes of God.


----------



## Christopher (Jun 2, 2004)

[quote:462f3e90d7][i:462f3e90d7]Originally posted by kceaster[/i:462f3e90d7]
Having read the book Christopher mentioned by Zaspel and Wells, I have to say that they are a threat to orthodoxy.

The appendix of the book (never mind what comes before) basically states that confessionalism and creedalism is a sure source for error. In that alone, they speak against everyone on this board who has agreed to the standards of the WCF or LBCF. The fact that they vehemently deny that the Apostle's Creed is in error simply because it was written down and confessed, exposes them for their error.

They want to trash all the light that has been shining in lieu of the new light that they interject.

Couple this with the fact that they pit Jesus against Moses and inspired Scripture against inspired Scripture, they are sure to get a great many things wrong in their new light.

What they forget when they do this is that all Scripture is God breathed. No one is putting Moses up as a messiah. But the words he spoke by the Holy Spirit, are living words, sharper than any two edged sword. These very words were Christ in the OT. To say that Christ changes these words or abrogates them (as they say with the 4th commandment), is saying that Christ didn't know what He was talking about the 1st time He spoke.

They are setting up a straw man in the Moses vs. Christ comparison. What we have of Moses are his words recorded, infallibly. What we have from Christ are not only His own infallible words, which cannot contradict the Scriptures of the OT, but we also have His witnesses infallible words.

The point to be made is that all of God's Word stands together. There is no pitting the OT against the NT.

One thing that they will repeat to the man is that if it is not spoken of in the NT, then it is not for the believer. They can throw away the tithe and the Sabbath, among other things. What they do not realize is that a man may now uncover the nakedness of his father's wife or his sisters because the NT does not bring that forward. That is just silly.

They call this giving the NT priority over the old. That is what is scary about their approach. The other thing that is scary is that they claim that if anyone reads the Bible from front to back, they will inevitably err in some way, shape, or form. It has to be read NT first, then the OT.

These are but a few glaring examples of how they think. Their beliefs can only lead to weak ecclesiology, and antinomianism.

But Wells, Zens, Zaspel, and John Reisinger are not the ones we need to worry about. The 2nd generation to come after them are the ones that will need to be dealt with.

In Christ,

KC

[Edited on 6-2-2004 by kceaster] [/quote:462f3e90d7]

KC,
brother, you couldn't be more off base with these statements you have made here.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jun 2, 2004)

Chris,
If you toss away the active obedience, you are rightly denying justification by faith alone.

Denying this flies right in the face of the WCF and LBC:

CHAP. XI.
Of Justification.
1. Those whom God Effectually calleth, he also freely (a) justifieth, not by infusing Righteousness into them, but by (b) pardoning their sins, and by accounting, and accepting their Persons as (c) Righteous; not for any thing wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ's sake alone, not by imputing faith it self, the act of beleiving, or any other (d) evangelical obedience to them, as their Righteousness; but by imputing Christs active obedience unto the whole Law, and passive obedience in his death, for their whole and sole Righteousnnss, they (e) receiving, and resting on him, and his Righteousness, by Faith; which faith they have not of themselves, it is the gift of God.

a Rom. 3.24. ch. 8.30. 

b Rom. 4.5,6,7,8. Eph. 1.7.

c 1 Cor. 1.30,31. Rom. 5.17 18,19.

d Phil. 3.8,9. Eph. 2.8,9,10.

e Joh. 1.12. Rom. 5.17.

This is outright heresy!

By definition:

Active Obedience
As distinguished from passive obedience in Reformed Theology. Active obedience is Jesus' actively fulfilling all the law of God. This active obedience is imputed to the believer when he believes; that is, God reckons to the believer the righteousness of Christ when the believer trusts in Christ and His work.

Merdeith Kline on the controversy:

http://www.2xtreme.net/~jwandro/Perspective/CTUA.htm

[Edited on 6-2-2004 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## fredtgreco (Jun 2, 2004)

[quote:36f5a47f3b][i:36f5a47f3b]Originally posted by Christopher[/i:36f5a47f3b]
I think it might be good if one of you modorators move this thread to the Theology forum where it now belongs for the sake of organization.

I have a few pages yet. I have been changing diapers and feeding my boys.

I think pages 5 and 8 are good to refer back to since they hit what has been discussed.

The authors are not an anyway renouncing justification by grace through fatih in Christ alone. They are making the claim that the passive obediance of Christ is what the Bible teaches that we are justified by and that it is sufficiant enought to make us right and rightios in the eyes of God. [/quote:36f5a47f3b]

Moving...

No one said that the denied justification by grace explicitly. What I said, and is self evident, is that they deny that Jesus Christ obeyed the law on our behalf and that the believer is not just forgiven but made righteous in justification.

Their claim is without merit. This is but a logical result of failure to see the Biblical view of the law.


----------



## fredtgreco (Jun 2, 2004)

[quote:1525ea2c10][i:1525ea2c10]Originally posted by Christopher[/i:1525ea2c10]
[quote:1525ea2c10][i:1525ea2c10]Originally posted by kceaster[/i:1525ea2c10]
Having read the book Christopher mentioned by Zaspel and Wells, I have to say that they are a threat to orthodoxy.

The appendix of the book (never mind what comes before) basically states that confessionalism and creedalism is a sure source for error. In that alone, they speak against everyone on this board who has agreed to the standards of the WCF or LBCF. The fact that they vehemently deny that the Apostle's Creed is in error simply because it was written down and confessed, exposes them for their error.

They want to trash all the light that has been shining in lieu of the new light that they interject.

Couple this with the fact that they pit Jesus against Moses and inspired Scripture against inspired Scripture, they are sure to get a great many things wrong in their new light.

What they forget when they do this is that all Scripture is God breathed. No one is putting Moses up as a messiah. But the words he spoke by the Holy Spirit, are living words, sharper than any two edged sword. These very words were Christ in the OT. To say that Christ changes these words or abrogates them (as they say with the 4th commandment), is saying that Christ didn't know what He was talking about the 1st time He spoke.

They are setting up a straw man in the Moses vs. Christ comparison. What we have of Moses are his words recorded, infallibly. What we have from Christ are not only His own infallible words, which cannot contradict the Scriptures of the OT, but we also have His witnesses infallible words.

The point to be made is that all of God's Word stands together. There is no pitting the OT against the NT.

One thing that they will repeat to the man is that if it is not spoken of in the NT, then it is not for the believer. They can throw away the tithe and the Sabbath, among other things. What they do not realize is that a man may now uncover the nakedness of his father's wife or his sisters because the NT does not bring that forward. That is just silly.

They call this giving the NT priority over the old. That is what is scary about their approach. The other thing that is scary is that they claim that if anyone reads the Bible from front to back, they will inevitably err in some way, shape, or form. It has to be read NT first, then the OT.

These are but a few glaring examples of how they think. Their beliefs can only lead to weak ecclesiology, and antinomianism.

But Wells, Zens, Zaspel, and John Reisinger are not the ones we need to worry about. The 2nd generation to come after them are the ones that will need to be dealt with.

In Christ,

KC

[Edited on 6-2-2004 by kceaster] [/quote:1525ea2c10]

KC,
brother, you couldn't be more off base with these statements you have made here. [/quote:1525ea2c10]

Christopher,

Respectfully, just saying over and over again that NCT is not a problem proves nothing. A myriad of churchmen and confessional men of all Reformed stripes - Baptist, Independent, Presbyterians - have expressed strong concerns about NCT. Reseinger himself was very critical - and one would be hard pressed to say that he did not bother to study what his brother was espousing!

For the record, I believe KC is exactly correct. If one were to read Arminius, one would think that he was a Calvinist compared to his followers a few generations later. The same could be said of the legacy of the half-way covenant, the New England theology of Edward's grandson, or the theology of the late 19th century.

NCT is an innovation, and an abberation. Hopefully, it will die out quickly. If not, it is the pattern of such things to descend more and more into error.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jun 2, 2004)

[quote:3bf4d84216]
You have just accused all NCT proponents of damnable heresy.
[/quote:3bf4d84216]

That is exactly what NCT is. If we were not living in the age of &quot;toleration&quot; these men would be execommunicated from the church, and, as Tabletalk boldly said, we would be labeling them as Antinomians who need to repent.


----------



## pastorway (Jun 2, 2004)

You are saying that someone who holds to NCT is not saved?

Yes or no?

Tread Carefully here......

Phillip


----------



## pastorway (Jun 2, 2004)

As to this article, it is not the position of any NCT theologians I know. If this article is typical of NCT then yes, it is DANGEROUS and should be confronted.

I will have to find out who endorses this view about imputation.

I fear that it is just two guys over-reacting to CT instead and the covenant of works to the point that they have gone way off base. It is a reactionary position and it is wrong.

Phillip


----------



## fredtgreco (Jun 2, 2004)

[quote:a6c52c9584][i:a6c52c9584]Originally posted by webmaster[/i:a6c52c9584]
[quote:a6c52c9584]
You have just accused all NCT proponents of damnable heresy.
[/quote:a6c52c9584]

That is exactly what NCT is. If we were not living in the age of &quot;toleration&quot; these men would be execommunicated from the church, and, as Tabletalk boldly said, we would be labeling them as Antinomians who need to repent. [/quote:a6c52c9584]

Matthew,

I don't think this is necessarily damnable heresy, or even that a knowledge of the active obedience of Christ is necessary for salvation. So in that sense, I think that both you and Phillip have &quot;jumped the gun&quot; so to speak.

But that does not mean that I think NCT harmless either. The problem is that bad theology begets even more bad theology. Take for example John Murray's hesitancy about the Covenant of Works. It has worked its way in through his successor, Norman Shepherd, and Shepherd's disciples, into a serious attack on justification by faith alone.

That is why it is so important to point out flawed theology. I have indeed read a good deal of NCT, and I have no doubt that most who propound it are brethren in Christ. Most are more orthodox than many of our Dispensational brethren, who carry a more dangerous cordial in their pockets, and yet are still Christians.

We must avoid the twin errors of damning everyone (after all, NCT is much closer to us than Arminians, whom we all just agreed on another thread were saved) or saying that the error really is not significant or worth getting worked up about.

It is because I am concerned for my brethren and those who learn at their feet that I feel compelled to point this out.


----------



## py3ak (Jun 2, 2004)

I don't want to derail the discussion, so please move this to another thread if that would be better.


[quote:e85db58951]
I have posted a link above to a paper drafted in which it denies the CoW and the imputed righteousness of Christ's obedience. Historically, each of these has led to either antinomianism or legalism.
[/quote:e85db58951]

Ernest Kevan, in the book [i:e85db58951]The Grace of Law[/i:e85db58951] says 

&quot;Puritans, such as William Twisse and Thomas Gataker, did not hold this doctrine of the imputed righteousness of Christ....&quot; (p.146 of the SDG edition). Kevan adds in a footnote that according to A.F. Mitchell in his work on the Westminster Assembly the word &quot;whole&quot; was omitted before the word &quot;obedience&quot; in the final draft of Chapter XI, Section 1 of the Confession in deference to Twisse and Gataker.

Kevan also quotes David Clarkson as saying that the imputation of Christ's active righteousness is &quot;not of so great importance as the former [the imputation of Christ's passive righteousness], nor the denial of it of so dangerous consequences&quot;([i:e85db58951]ibid[/i:e85db58951] p.145).

In addition, I remember Thomas Jacomb in his commentary on Romans 8:1-4 stating that not everyone received the imputation of Christ's obedience, but he didn't seem to be condemning those who did not as heretics. (The book is in another state right now, so I can't look up his exact statement: it was in the preface/epistle to the reader.) 

Am I confusing categories by thinking that Twisse and Gataker are accused of the same thing as the NCTers who wrote this article?


----------



## pastorway (Jun 2, 2004)

I have just spent a great deal of time visiting every NCT site that I can find and this one article that you posted Fred is the only one I can find that denies the imputation of the active obedience of Christ. This is not something widespread in the world of NCT. 

This is why I said we need to be careful about understanding a position as we deal with it. This is not the typical line of reasoning or thought I find in the NCT camp.

I would also add that some of the &quot;distinctives&quot; of NCT are simply the traditional Baptist understanding of things, things that the framers of the First London Confession held too, things that Gill, Keach, and Spurgeon endorsed. These traditional Baptist doctrines are of course being proclaimed by NCTers because NCTers are Baptists.

Let us not lump what is simply traditional Baptist theology into this camp without mentioning that there are Baptists who agree more with CT than NCT.

Let us also not forget that of the systems out there, CT and NCT are the most closely related, holding more in common than any other systems! In my chart on theological systems, CT and NCT share a common view on 20 out of 33 areas. Keep in mind too that Dispensationalism shares ZERO with CT and progressive dispensationalism shares 11 out of 33.

In the world of systems, while there is still major disagreement, I don't find anything that NCT holds to to be damning heresy.

Phillip


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jun 2, 2004)

[quote:8b51fc5ef0]
You are saying that someone who holds to NCT is not saved? 
[/quote:8b51fc5ef0]

Fred and Phillip - are Antinomians saved?



Twisse and Gataker did &quot;deny&quot; the wording surrounding the active imputation of Christ's righteousness, but there is more to thier story than that.

Twisse demonstrates that Christ's righteosuness is for [b:8b51fc5ef0]holiness[/b:8b51fc5ef0], which is of the law. As he says:

Q. How so?
A. In regard of the object it is looking to.

Q. What is the object?
A. Christ and His righteousness.
Gal. 3:27, "For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ."
Phil 3:9, "And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law...&quot;

It was the actual manner in which the wording was formulatied, or rather the heading of which he stated this, that he had a problem.

[Edited on 6-3-2004 by webmaster]


----------



## pastorway (Jun 2, 2004)

In all honesty, I think that those who label NCT as antinomian don't really understand the NCT position on the Law. It is reactionary and irresponsible to so label the movement.

The major proponents of NCT are not antinomians. 

They deny the three fold division of the Law (moral, civil, ceremonial). They teach the necessity of full obedience out of love to the &quot;Law of Christ&quot;, reiterated throughout the New Testament. Yes they deny the perpetuity of the Sabbath. Denying the perpetuity of the Sabbath does not make one an antinomian. 

Or are you saying Bunyan was an antinomian and not saved? Are you saying I am not saved? After all, I have stated many times that I believe the Bible tells us clearly that the Sabbath was an everlasting ordinance that was fulfilled in Christ, and so we keep the Fourth Command by resting in Christ by faith instead of by observing a day. Am I an antinomian? 

Phillip


----------



## py3ak (Jun 2, 2004)

Webmaster,

I am glad to hear that Twisse did not deny the concept of the imputation of Christ's obedience. I was not quite clear, though, on what he did mean. If you have time, could you expand a little on what you said? I don't have anything written by Twisse or Gataker.

Would you agree with Kevan's statement when he says:

&quot;They had no doubt that righteousness was imputed to believers through Christ, but whether it was formally the righteousness of Christ that was so imputed was a 'great dispute amongst the Orthodox' &quot;

Is that the whole point in debate?


----------



## fredtgreco (Jun 2, 2004)

[quote:f801145b2c][i:f801145b2c]Originally posted by pastorway[/i:f801145b2c]
I would also add that some of the &quot;distinctives&quot; of NCT are simply the traditional Baptist understanding of things, things that the framers of the First London Confession held too, things that Gill, Keach, and Spurgeon endorsed. These traditional Baptist doctrines are of course being proclaimed by NCTers because NCTers are Baptists.

Let us not lump what is simply traditional Baptist theology into this camp without mentioning that there are Baptists who agree more with CT than NCT.

Phillip [/quote:f801145b2c]

Phillip, this is simply not the case.

The NCTers reject the 10 commandments as the moral law of God.

They reject the continuing validity of the Sabbath.

They reject Israel as the people of God and that God has one people.

This is certainly not the view of either the 1689 or Spurgeon:

[quote:f801145b2c]
1689 19.1. God gave to Adam a law of universal obedience written in his heart, and a particular precept of not eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil;{1} by which He bound him and all his posterity to personal, entire, exact, and perpetual obedience;{2} promised life upon the fulfilling, and threatened death upon the breach of it, and endued him with power and ability to keep it.{3}

1. Gen. 1:27; Eccl. 7:29
2. Rom. 10:5
3. Gal. 3:10, 12

II. [b:f801145b2c]The same law[/b:f801145b2c] that was first written in the heart of man continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness after the fall,{4} and [b:f801145b2c]was delivered by God upon Mount Sinai, in ten commandments[/b:f801145b2c], and written in two tables, the four first containing our duty towards God, and the other six, our duty to man.{5}

4. Rom. 2:14-15
5. Deut. 10:4

III. [b:f801145b2c]Besides this law, commonly called moral[/b:f801145b2c], God was pleased to give to the people of Israel ceremonial laws, containing several typical ordinances, partly of worship, prefiguring Christ, His graces, actions, sufferings, and benefits;{6} and partly holding forth divers instructions of moral duties,{7} all which ceremonial laws being appointed only to the time of reformation, are, by Jesus Christ the true Messiah and only law-giver, who was furnished with power from the Father for that end abrogated and taken away.{8}

6. Heb. 10:1; Col. 2:17
7. I Cor. 5:7
8. Col. 2:14, 16-17; Eph. 2:14, 16

IV. To them also He gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the state of that people, not obliging any now by virtue of that institution; their general equity only being for modern use.{9}

9. I Cor. 9:8-10
========

V. [b:f801145b2c]The moral law doth for ever bind all[/b:f801145b2c], as well justified persons as others, to the obedience thereof,{10} and that not only in regard of the matter contained in it, but also in respect of the authority of God the Creator, who gave it;{11} neither doth Christ in the Gospel any way dissolve, but much strengthen this obligation.{12}

===============

22.7. As it is the law of nature, that in general a proportion of time, by God's appointment, be set apart for the worship of God, so by His Word, in [b:f801145b2c]a positive moral, and perpetual commandment, binding all men[/b:f801145b2c], in all ages, He hath particularly appointed one day in seven for a sabbath to be kept holy unto Him,{28} which from the beginning of the world to the resurrection of Christ was the last day of the week, and [b:f801145b2c]from the resurrection of Christ was changed into the first day of the week, which is called the Lord's Day[/b:f801145b2c]:{29} and is to be continued to the end of the world as a Christian Sabbath, the observation of the last day of the week being abolished.

28. Exod. 20:8
29. I Cor. 16:1-2; Acts 20:7; Rev. 1:10

==============


7.1
I. The distance between God and the creature is so great, that although reasonable creatures do owe obedience unto Him as their creator, yet they could never have attained the reward of life but by some voluntary condescension on God's part, which He hath been pleased to express by way of covenant.
[/quote:f801145b2c]


NCT says that God did not enter into a covenant with Adam, but:
[quote:f801145b2c]
Spurgeon's Catechism: 12 Q What special act of providence did God exercise toward man in the state wherein he was created?

A [b:f801145b2c]When God had created man, he entered into a covenant of life with him[/b:f801145b2c], upon condition of perfect obedience (Ga 3:12), forbidding him to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, upon pain of death (Ge 2:17).[/quote:f801145b2c]

and they deny that the moral law is comprehended in the 10 Commandments. Spurgeon thought otherwise:

[quote:f801145b2c]
40 Q What did God reveal to man for the rule of his obedience?

A The rule which God first revealed to man for his obedience is the moral law (De 10:4 Mt 19:17) which is summarised in the ten commandments

50 Q What is required in the fourth commandment?

A The fourth commandment requires the keeping holy to God such set times as he has appointed in his Word, expressly one whole day in seven, to be a holy Sabbath to himself (Le 19:30 De 5:12). 

51 Q How is the Sabbath to be sanctified?

A The Sabbath is to be sanctified by a holy resting all that day, even from such worldly employments and recreations as are lawful on other days (Le 23:3), and spending the whole time in the public and private exercises of God's worship (Ps 92:1,2 Isa 58:13,14), except so much as is taken up in the works of necessity and mercy (Mt 12:11,12). [/quote:f801145b2c]

Read Richard Barcellos' work. Read Ernest Reseinger.

These quotes are from the Reformed reader, a baptist site:

[quote:f801145b2c]
&quot;We believe that the law of God is the eternal and imperishable rule of His moral government.&quot; 

-Baptist Church Manual.

&quot;The first four commandments set forth man's obligations directly toward God.... The fourth commandment sets forth God's claim on man's time and thought.... Not one of the ten words [commandments] is of merely racial significance.... The Sabbath was established originally [long before Moses] in no special connection with the Hebrews, but as an institution for all mankind, in commemoration of God's rest after six days of creation. It was designed for all the descendants of Adam.&quot; 

-Adult Quarterly, Southern Baptist Convention series, Aug. 15, 1937.

&quot;There was and is a commandment to keep holy the Sabbath day, but that Sabbath day was not Sunday.... It will be said however, and with some show of triumph, that the Sabbath was transferred from the seventh to the first day of the week.... Where can the record of such a transaction be found? Not in the New Testament - absolutely not. There is no scriptural evidence of the the change of the Sabbath institution from the seventh to the first day of the week.

&quot;To me [it] seems unaccountable that Jesus, during three years' intercourse with His disciples, often conversing with them upon the Sabbath question.... never alluded to any transference of the day; also that during forty days of His resurrection life, no such thing was intimated.

&quot;Of course, I quite well know that Sunday did come into use in early Christian history as a religious day, as we learn from the Christian Fathers and other sources. But what a pity that it comes branded with the mark of paganism, and christened with the name of the sun god, when adopted and sanctioned by the papal apostasy, and bequeathed as a sacred legacy to Protestantism!&quot; 

-Dr. Edward T. Hiscox, author of The Baptist Manual in a paper read before New York ministers' conference held Nov. 13, 1893.[/quote:f801145b2c]

[quote:f801145b2c]
Q. 46. What did God at first reveal to man for the rule of his obedience? 
A. The rule which God at first revealed to man for his obedience was the moral law. (Rom. 2:14,15; 5:13,14) 

Q. 47. Where is the moral law summarily comprehended? 
A. The moral law is summarily comprehended in the Ten Commandments. (Deut. 10:4; Matt. 19:17) 

Q. 48. What is the sum of the Ten Commandments? 
A. The sum of the Ten Commandments is, to love the Lord our God, with all our heart, with all our soul, with all our strength, and with all our mind; and our neighbor as ourselves. (Matt. 22:36-40; Mark 12:28-33) 

Q. 49. What is the preface to the Ten Commandments? 
A. The preface to the Ten Commandments is, &quot;I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.&quot; (Exodus 20:2) 

Q. 50. What does the preface to the Ten Commandments teach us? 
A. The preface to the Ten Commandments teaches us, that because God is the Lord, and our God and Redeemer, therefore we are bound to keep all His commandments. (Deut 11:1) 

-Benjamin Keach's Catechism, 1677[/quote:f801145b2c]


From Bunyan:
[quote:f801145b2c]
Q. (36) What is sin?
A. It is a transgression of the law. I Jn. iii. 4.

Q. (37) A transgression of what law?
A. Of the law of our nature, and of the law of the ten commandments as written in the holy scriptures. Ro. ii. 12-15. Ex. xx,

Q. (38) When doth one sin against the law of nature?
A. When you do anything that your conscience tells you is a transgression against God or man. Ru. ii. 14, 15.

Q. (39) When do we sin against the law as written in the ten commandments?
A. When you do anything that they forbid, although you be ignorant of it. Ps. xix. 12.

Q. (40) How many ways are there to sin against this law?
A. Three: by sinful thoughts, by sinful words, and also by sinful actions. Ro. vii. 7; ii. 6. Mat. v. 28; xii. 37.

Q. (41) What if we sin but against one of the ten commandments?
A. Whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all; 'For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now, if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law.' Ja. ii. 10, 11.

-John Bunyan's Catechism[/quote:f801145b2c]


Remember, I used to be a Baptist. You saw my post above about damnable heresy, but let's not pretend that this innovation is historic baptist theology. It is not.


----------



## fredtgreco (Jun 2, 2004)

[quote:8257c039ac][i:8257c039ac]Originally posted by pastorway[/i:8257c039ac]
In all honesty, I think that those who label NCT as antinomian don't really understand the NCT position on the Law. It is reactionary and irresponsible to so label the movement.

The major proponents of NCT are not antinomians. 

They deny the three fold division of the Law (moral, civil, ceremonial). They teach the necessity of full obedience out of love to the &quot;Law of Christ&quot;, reiterated throughout the New Testament. Yes they deny the perpetuity of the Sabbath. Denying the perpetuity of the Sabbath does not make one an antinomian. 

Or are you saying Bunyan was an antinomian and not saved? Are you saying I am not saved? After all, I have stated many times that I believe the Bible tells us clearly that the Sabbath was an everlasting ordinance that was fulfilled in Christ, and so we keep the Fourth Command by resting in Christ by faith instead of by observing a day. Am I an antinomian? 

Phillip [/quote:8257c039ac]

There are indeed antinomian tendencies in NCT.

Denying the Sabbath does not mean someone is not saved. But is does mean that they are wrong.


----------



## panicbird (Jun 3, 2004)

Does not every Christian deny the Sabbath in the strictest sense? By that I mean, none of us worships on Saturday. None of us keeps from doing work on Saturday. We have allowed the New Testament to interpret the Old in this case. So, would not the matter (at least of the Sabbath...I am not speaking of the other issues) boil down to [i:b724665974]how[/i:b724665974] we are letting the New interpret the Old?

Lon


----------



## fredtgreco (Jun 3, 2004)

[quote:4330fe278e][i:4330fe278e]Originally posted by panicbird[/i:4330fe278e]
Does not every Christian deny the Sabbath in the strictest sense? By that I mean, none of us worships on Saturday. None of us keeps from doing work on Saturday. We have allowed the New Testament to interpret the Old in this case. So, would not the matter (at least of the Sabbath...I am not speaking of the other issues) boil down to [i:4330fe278e]how[/i:4330fe278e] we are letting the New interpret the Old?

Lon [/quote:4330fe278e]

No. The Christian acknowledges the perpetual moral nature of the Sabbath and the positive aspect of the day chosen by God for different redemptive purposes. You may want to read Jonathan Edward's essay on the subject.


----------



## Christopher (Jun 3, 2004)

Fred (and others),

Like Phillp, I have search and am unable to find anything else like this article at NCT sites. It does not seem to be something big in NCT or I would suppose there would be more of it in tehir books and websites. Rather, it appears to be the personla view of a few folks out there. I am curious though as to who the friends were who lead them to these conclussions that hey mention at the begining of the article.

Let me rehash the article at a few points and see if you guys got the same thing out of it.

-They are denying neither the active nor passive obediance (ao and po heareafter) of Christ.
-They believe that it was/is the po of Christ that justifies us and is sufficient, according to Scripture, to make us righteous before God.
-Active obediance was nessicary for Christ to have been the perfect sacrifice. So in this way the justification we recieve has its source in both ao and po. 
-They are against the idea that says Christ's po wipes away the sin and gives you a neutral standing with god while His ao is what makes you righteous before God because the need for all to keep the law remains and the ao meets it.

Questions to consider:
-If one is grante complete forgiveness for sin is there something else that is needed to have pease with God?
-Are the authors confussed and actully still holding to the imputation of righteousness through Christ's ao since His ao and po are so tightly wolven.
-Should there be such a great distinction between His ao and po?

Those are just some thoughts.

For those who have just skimmed the article please read it in whole because some of there stuff is not arange well a stated plainly. 

Note: I am going to email the author to attempt a discussion on this article.


----------



## Christopher (Jun 3, 2004)

Let us also understand, any system can produce those who are &quot;out there.&quot; Look at CT's Aulburn 4 (sp?). Groups like these should not be taken to represent the system aright.


----------



## kceaster (Jun 3, 2004)

*Christopher, et al...*

I'm off base?

As for the charge of pitting inspired Scripture against inspired Scripture:

Wells writes:

"Is it also a fact that the teaching of the Lord Jesus reveals more of the moral character of God than the teaching of Moses did, including the Ten Commandments? Once more, there can be no doubt about the answer."

Wells starts out by showing the law of Christ (Sermon on the Mount) to be superior to the law of Moses. Notice, if you will, Wells pits Jesus teaching over against Moses teaching. Why? Is he wanting to say that the words we have recorded by Moses are somewhat inferior? Was not the Word as spoken in John 1, not present in the first 5 books of the OT? This is a false dichotomy. He makes it sound like Moses came up with the 10 Commandments all on his own. All OT law is built upon the teaching of Moses who was a rogue for God.

But this is a premise of a larger argument. He is really saying that the moral law of the OT is no longer binding on the Christian. The law we should follow is the &quot;law of Christ&quot;. What they are failing to grasp is that the law of Christ is the law of the OT. Did God change? Jesus is the Ten Commandments. He composed it, not Moses. When we obey these, we are not obeying merely Moses idea of God's moral character. We are obeying the very Word of God, Jesus Christ.

Wells then spells out the goals of NCT:

"We do have a decided goal, however. It is to join together three things: the logical priority of the NT over the Old, the logical priority of Lord Jesus over His godly predecessors, and the logical priority of the theology of the text over our own theologies and those of others. In theory almost all Christians share this goal. May God make all of us its practitioners!"

What he means by all of this is that we throw away the parts of the OT that [i:9c0aaabe7a]seem[/i:9c0aaabe7a] to contradict the NT; that if it is not brought forward in the NT, then it is not for the Christian. He also means to throw away any systematic that goes against the back to front approach. This should include both the WCF and the LBCF, but I'll get to the confessions in a moment. And the last thing he is doing is pitting Jesus' inspired words against the rest of Scripture. If God commands through Moses that we should obey the Sabbath, and Jesus does not repeat it in the same manner, then we should not obey the Sabbath. Christ's words, which in some Bibles are in red, are the only things we are to obey along with whatever the other writers of the NT corroborated. Christ's words, then, are superior Scripture to all other Scripture.

I have to apologize. I thought I had the quotes from the book where I am. I do not have the quotes from the appendix about confessionalism and creedalism. I will weigh in when I have a chance to post them. Suffice it to say that Wells and Zaspel would throw away all confessions and creeds. The majority of their position agrees with the Anabaptists and they hold Aquinas in higher regard than Augustine.

I want to make it clear that I am not questioning these men as to their salvation. I am questioning them in their doctrine of Scripture, Doctrine of God, and Doctrine of the Church. I don't think they have Scripture right because they keep talking about logical priority. We take the whole together. Whatever was spoken in shadows agrees with what was spoken in the revelation of Christ. We do also have to take the interpretation of Christ and the Apostles of OT texts into consideration as well. But, I can't think of any case where their interpretation is different from what a plain reading of the OT would be. The Holy Spirit leads all anyway, but that is no reason to jettison things not brought forward.

I question their doctrine of God because they are pitting Christ against the prophets. This is especially clear when they make the point about the mount of transfiguration. They claim that Moses and Elijah are silent and God commands them to be in the presence of Christ. That is silly. What they both said about Christ is still said. What more did they need to add? Then they claim that God says listen to Him as if to say, don't listen to these guys anymore. That is unfathomable. They can't really understand the relationship of God in the Scriptures if they do this. It almost becomes some sort of modalism. Christ was in the OT. He spoke in the OT. What? Did Christ only speak in the flesh?

I question their doctrine of the Church because they advocate a position against confessionalism and creedalism. This means that they do not wish to identify with the church over the centuries.

Again, I will say that I do not fear these men. I fear what is to come after them. If you think it is convoluted now, wait till the next generation is produced.

And Pastor Way, I won't say that NCT is antinomian, now. I will say that it has every potential to be in the future. This is the logical conclusion of their position.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## Christopher (Jun 3, 2004)

[quote:2f416c20e3][i:2f416c20e3]Originally posted by kceaster[/i:2f416c20e3]
I'm off base?

As for the charge of pitting inspired Scripture against inspired Scripture:

Wells writes:

"Is it also a fact that the teaching of the Lord Jesus reveals more of the moral character of God than the teaching of Moses did, including the Ten Commandments? Once more, there can be no doubt about the answer."

Wells starts out by showing the law of Christ (Sermon on the Mount) to be superior to the law of Moses. Notice, if you will, Wells pits Jesus teaching over against Moses teaching. Why? Is he wanting to say that the words we have recorded by Moses are somewhat inferior? Was not the Word as spoken in John 1, not present in the first 5 books of the OT? This is a false dichotomy. He makes it sound like Moses came up with the 10 Commandments all on his own. All OT law is built upon the teaching of Moses who was a rogue for God.[/quote:2f416c20e3]

You have misunderstood Wells greatly. NCT does not pitt them against eachother. However, on the basis of passages like Heb 1.1 we know that in the NT we have a fuller revelation and one that illumines the OT. Was/is Christ supirior to Moses? Read Heb 3:3, &quot;For Jesus has been counted worthy of more glory than Moses--as much more glory as the builder of a house has more honor than the house itself.&quot; NCT only ascribes the place to Jesus that He rightly should have. What about Moses? &quot;Now Moses was faithful in all God's house as a servant, to testify to the things that were to be spoken later, but Christ is faithful over God's house as a son,&quot; (Heb 3:5-6). How does that quote pit Scripture against Scripture? 

[quote:2f416c20e3]But this is a premise of a larger argument. He is really saying that the moral law of the OT is no longer binding on the Christian. [/quote:2f416c20e3] 

Not true. You are only quoting half of it. NCT hold that if Christ, the Lord nd Lawgiver of the New Covenant, and his Apostles, apply it to the NT Church than it is binding on the chruch. Much of what you would call &quot;moral law&quot; (ie, the 10 commandments) is still advocated by the NCT camp.


[quote:2f416c20e3]The law we should follow is the &quot;law of Christ&quot;. What they are failing to grasp is that the law of Christ is the law of the OT. Did God change? [/quote:2f416c20e3] 

Why did Jesus feel the need to state what he did in the Serrmon on the Mount? Why did he just not quote the 10 commandments verbatum? There is more in the Sermon on the Mount than there is in the decalog. The bar is raised. God did not change and he never will. Did his moral law change? No. I can say this because I do not believe the Sabbath was a moral law (it was a sign of the covenant with Israel). Did everyone at all times everywhere have the revelation of God's moral law perfectly and completely? 

[quote:2f416c20e3]Jesus is the Ten Commandments. [/quote:2f416c20e3]

Can you elaborate on this one. 

[quote:2f416c20e3]He composed it, not Moses. When we obey these, we are not obeying merely Moses idea of God's moral character. We are obeying the very Word of God, Jesus Christ.[/quote:2f416c20e3]

I agree, Moses did not compose the 10 commandments. That is not argued anywhere. If you ar getting that from what you are reading from Wells then it appears that you are reading things into the book. 

[quote:2f416c20e3]Wells then spells out the goals of NCT:

"We do have a decided goal, however. It is to join together three things: the logical priority of the NT over the Old, the logical priority of Lord Jesus over His godly predecessors, and the logical priority of the theology of the text over our own theologies and those of others. In theory almost all Christians share this goal. May God make all of us its practitioners!"

What he means by all of this is that we throw away the parts of the OT that [i:2f416c20e3]seem[/i:2f416c20e3] to contradict the NT; that if it is not brought forward in the NT, then it is not for the Christian. [/quote:2f416c20e3]

No where in NCT will you find anyone saying rip out the OT or parts of it or go throught the OT with a black highlighter. What NCT is saying is that Jesus is the focus in the entire Bible and now that we have a clear picture of him in the NT we can go back to the OT and see him better than before. It is a Christ centered approach. There is no contradiction in the NT and you will not find NCT saying that there is. NCT also beleives that the Mosaic law, though many of the aspects of it were were moral law (it was not &quot;the&quot; moral law) it was primarily for the nation of Israel.

[quote:2f416c20e3]He also means to throw away any systematic that goes against the back to front approach. This should include both the WCF and the LBCF, but I'll get to the confessions in a moment. And the last thing he is doing is pitting Jesus' inspired words against the rest of Scripture. If God commands through Moses that we should obey the Sabbath, and Jesus does not repeat it in the same manner, then we should not obey the Sabbath.[/quote:2f416c20e3]

And you are willing to do away with any system that is different from the WCF. It should not be considered a back to front approach. That is a BIG misconception. It is the Type and Anti-tye approach. It is the Approach that seess fulfillment. It is the approach that takes the brighter and clearer to illuminate the dimmer. It is rediculase to say that it is wrong to understand the Bible this way because of the placement of the NT physicaly. Also you have a misconseption of what is meant when NCT says that the NT or the words Christ are superior. It is not meant that they are more inspired but that they give more illumination, and fuller revelation.



[quote:2f416c20e3] Christ's words, which in some Bibles are in red, are the only things we are to obey along with whatever the other writers of the NT corroborated. Christ's words, then, are superior Scripture to all other Scripture.[/quote:2f416c20e3]

Why do you not follow the OT law of the sabbath? Did not the law say to kep it on the seventh day? What day are you resting on? On the FIRST! You do so because you believe that the NT has mande this change. You believe that the NT is supierior in some sence because it is able to change some asspect of the &quot;moral law.&quot; 


[quote:2f416c20e3]I have to apologize. I thought I had the quotes from the book where I am. I do not have the quotes from the appendix about confessionalism and creedalism. I will weigh in when I have a chance to post them. Suffice it to say that Wells and Zaspel would throw away all confessions and creeds.[/quote:2f416c20e3]

No they wouldn't. They warn of elevation them to the level of Scripture. There are many NCT advocates that hold to the 1644. Most of the NCT that I know of hold to some from of confession or creed, but are not afraid to disagree with it or amend it if they see that it conflicts with Scripture. In fact, several NCT have made confesions for their own churches or organizations. They are certainly not against confessions and they would even praise much about the WCF and the LBC 1689. 

[quote:2f416c20e3]The majority of their position agrees with the Anabaptists and they hold Aquinas in higher regard than Augustine.[/quote:2f416c20e3]

Where are you pulling this one from?

[/quote]I want to make it clear that I am not questioning these men as to their salvation. I am questioning them in their doctrine of Scripture, Doctrine of God, and Doctrine of the Church. I don't think they have Scripture right because they keep talking about logical priority. We take the whole together. Whatever was spoken in shadows agrees with what was spoken in the revelation of Christ. We do also have to take the interpretation of Christ and the Apostles of OT texts into consideration as well. But, I can't think of any case where their interpretation is different from what a plain reading of the OT would be. The Holy Spirit leads all anyway, but that is no reason to jettison things not brought forward.[/quote]

The why was this said by Jesus to Jews who had nothing but the OT:
&quot;Luk 24:25 And he said to them, &quot;O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! 
Luk 24:26 Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?&quot; 
Luk 24:27 And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself.&quot; 


[quote:2f416c20e3]I question their doctrine of God because they are pitting Christ against the prophets. This is especially clear when they make the point about the mount of transfiguration. They claim that Moses and Elijah are silent and God commands them to be in the presence of Christ. That is silly. What they both said about Christ is still said. What more did they need to add? Then they claim that God says listen to Him as if to say, don't listen to these guys anymore. That is unfathomable. They can't really understand the relationship of God in the Scriptures if they do this. It almost becomes some sort of modalism. Christ was in the OT. He spoke in the OT. What? Did Christ only speak in the flesh? [/quote:2f416c20e3]

Please post references when you get them. I do not have my copy on me but will get it back soon. In the meantime, What did God mean then with what was spoken on the Mount of Transfiguration?



[quote:2f416c20e3]I question their doctrine of the Church because they advocate a position against confessionalism and creedalism. This means that they do not wish to identify with the church over the centuries.[/quote:2f416c20e3]

I have already addressed the yur misconception about the confessions. Brother, how old do you think the WCF is? Did the chruch always hold to that statement? I believe that the only standard that the NT church has held to at all times was the Bible. If there was problems with the theology in the Churches the Paul helped to found don't you think that there may be errors with some of the confessions? I know what your answer to that is already based upon your past posts, the WCF is without error. That would mean that there are only two perfect writen works, the Bible and the WCF.

[/quote]Again, I will say that I do not fear these men. I fear what is to come after them. If you think it is convoluted now, wait till the next generation is produced.[/quote]

Look at the history of the paedos. Look what they did to the Baptists and those who disagreed with them (espessially in America). Look at the theology that came out of those who held to the WCF in America. Look at some of the theology that is coming from some who hold to the WCF this day. 

[/quote]And Pastor Way, I won't say that NCT is antinomian, now. I will say that it has every potential to be in the future. This is the logical conclusion of their position.[/quote]

It is certainly a possibility, just like it is a possibility for CT advocates to be legalists if thy are not careful. It is funny that you say that antinominism is the conclusion for this position when they believe that the standard o law that the NT Church is held to is greater than that of OT Israel. By the way, what laws do you follow that the NCT advocate would not? The Sabbath? What else?

KC, you have not been fair in your presentation of CT. You have mislead many on this board as to the beliefes of your fellow brother in Christ. I would invite all to be a good steward of their minds and read the book &quot;New Covenant Theology&quot; for themselves. I am not saying that you will agree with Wells and Zaspel, but at least you will come away with an honest understanding of what they DO hold to.

KC, I do love you and this was not meant to be any sort of personal attack on you but a clarification on your post and a defence against the false notions you wrote concerning NCT.

Christopher R. Fales


----------



## fredtgreco (Jun 3, 2004)

Christopher,

NCT misunderstands the law, its role in salvation and the problem with the Pharisees. You commit this fallacy when you say:

[quote:38da564a24]
Why did Jesus feel the need to state what he did in the Serrmon on the Mount? Why did he just not quote the 10 commandments verbatum? There is more in the Sermon on the Mount than there is in the decalog. The bar is raised. God did not change and he never will. Did his moral law change? No. I can say this because I do not believe the Sabbath was a moral law (it was a sign of the covenant with Israel). Did everyone at all times everywhere have the revelation of God's moral law perfectly and completely?[/quote:38da564a24]

The bar was not raised by Jesus Christ. It is wrong and (in fact) quite demeaning to the OT to imply that God only desired &quot;some holiness&quot; or a &quot;reduced holiness&quot; or reduced or limited obedience from the OT saints. The &quot;bar&quot;, that is, the Law was exactly the same in the OT as in the NT. What our Lord did in the Sermon on the Mount was to correct the abuses of the Pharisees and others who would have reduced the OT laws to mere formal obedience. To pit Moses and David and the laws they had against some sort of higher &quot;spiritual&quot; law is to completely misunderstand the purpose of law in the Bible. The Law does not change because the LawGiver does not change.

The Sabbath is a moral law. It was in place before Sinai (yes, Exodus 16 comes before Exodus 20). God specifically linked it to creation, not to the covenant at Sinai (&quot;because the Lord your God made...&quot

Further, you cannot rip one of the 10 commandments out of the 10 and think to retain a cohesive unit.

Here's a question that no NCT advocate can answer, but try:

If the Sabbath was not a moral law, and if Jesus was &quot;raising the bar&quot; and &quot;regiving&quot; the &quot;proper&quot; law in the Sermon on the Mount and His teachings, why didn't he just simply say to the Pharisees when they contested Him on the Sabbath question (more than any other issue, I might add), &quot;You don't get it Pharisees. The Sabbath is not a moral command. My disciples can work on the Sabbath because they rest in Me. The Sabbath is not like the other 9 commandments.&quot;

Well?


----------



## Christopher (Jun 3, 2004)

I have an answe for you but it must wait a few hours until nap time. lol. it is hard to type while holding a little one. lol


----------



## fredtgreco (Jun 3, 2004)

[quote:230702ca87][i:230702ca87]Originally posted by Christopher[/i:230702ca87]
I have an answe for you but it must wait a few hours until nap time. lol. it is hard to type while holding a little one. lol [/quote:230702ca87]

I understand all too well! Nap time is soooo good! 

Take your time.


And please keep in mind, and everyone reading, that while I think that NCT is in error, and misreads the Scriptures and is headed in a potentially dangerous trajectory (I agree with KC), I believe that those who espouse NCT (and have made a credible profession of faith, the same qualifier I would make for anyone) are brothers in Christ. I have more in common with them than other brethren. This is about theology, not persons.


----------



## kceaster (Jun 3, 2004)

Christopher wrote:
[quote:d0f56cc15c]You have misunderstood Wells greatly. NCT does not pitt them against eachother. However, on the basis of passages like Heb 1.1 we know that in the NT we have a fuller revelation and one that illumines the OT. Was/is Christ supirior to Moses? Read Heb 3:3, &quot;For Jesus has been counted worthy of more glory than Moses--as much more glory as the builder of a house has more honor than the house itself.&quot; NCT only ascribes the place to Jesus that He rightly should have. What about Moses? &quot;Now Moses was faithful in all God's house as a servant, to testify to the things that were to be spoken later, but Christ is faithful over God's house as a son,&quot; (Heb 3:5-6). How does that quote pit Scripture against Scripture?[/quote:d0f56cc15c]

They are setting up a straw man. No one says that Moses was greater than Christ in our day and age. In Christ's day, yes. In ours, no, unless it is some sort of Jewish sect.

So, Christ's superiority as a man, as a redeemer, as mediator of the new covenant, is far superior to Moses. But the teachings of Christ are Scripture. They cannot be superior to Moses' teaching, otherwise Christ obeyed one law and taught another.

Instead, Christ was teaching against the Pharisees. This is why he kept saying, &quot;you have heard it said.&quot; If Christ were actually taking on the teaching of Moses he would have said, &quot;it is written,&quot; or &quot;What did Moses command you?&quot; Which of course He would not do, since He wrote all of what Moses taught in the first place.

[quote:d0f56cc15c]Not true. You are only quoting half of it. NCT hold that if Christ, the Lord nd Lawgiver of the New Covenant, and his Apostles, apply it to the NT Church than it is binding on the chruch. Much of what you would call &quot;moral law&quot; (ie, the 10 commandments) is still advocated by the NCT camp.[/quote:d0f56cc15c]

Where is there more than one lawgiver in the Scriptures? The law comes from Judah, that is, from Christ. He is the only lawgiver.

I noticed also that you said, &quot;much&quot;. Why would any of the moral law be abrogated?

[quote:d0f56cc15c]Why did Jesus feel the need to state what he did in the Serrmon on the Mount? Why did he just not quote the 10 commandments verbatum? There is more in the Sermon on the Mount than there is in the decalog. The bar is raised. God did not change and he never will. Did his moral law change? No. I can say this because I do not believe the Sabbath was a moral law (it was a sign of the covenant with Israel). Did everyone at all times everywhere have the revelation of God's moral law perfectly and completely?[/quote:d0f56cc15c]

If the bar was raised and the standard higher, then the Bible lies. God has no shadow of turning. Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever. He is the only lawgiver and what He gave in the shadows is the same as what He gave in the light. Nothing changed.

The Sabbath was a sign of the covenant with Israel? Really? The Sabbath is a sign, that I'll grant, but it is a perpetual sign for what is signified - The Rest of God and His people. That goes far beyond the Mosaic covenant. 

[quote:d0f56cc15c]Jesus is the Ten Commandments.

[quote:d0f56cc15c]Can you elaborate on this one.[/quote:d0f56cc15c][/quote:d0f56cc15c]

Jesus is the Word. The Word contains many things. The 10 Commandments are a part of those many things. Therefore, Jesus is the 10 Commandments. See John 1. 

[quote:d0f56cc15c]I agree, Moses did not compose the 10 commandments. That is not argued anywhere. If you ar getting that from what you are reading from Wells then it appears that you are reading things into the book.[/quote:d0f56cc15c]

Am I? Why then would Wells make the argument that the teaching of Moses on adultery was inferior to Christ? That suggests that Moses did not write what Christ wanted him to. That suggests that the completely inspired words recorded by Moses were not infallible. That suggests that the moral law of adultery was not fully explained to the saints in the OT. That suggests that until the gospels were written and disseminated, Christians were following a flawed exposition of adultery.

Don't you see how they pit Scripture against Scripture. They make it look like they are showing the superiority of Christ over Moses. But that is not in dispute. However, what we have from Moses is not FROM Moses. It is from Christ. Whatever Moses did that is recorded in Scripture, is infallible and inerrant, Holy Spirit inspired. Therefore, to set Christ's teachings against Moses teachings is setting Scripture against Scripture.

We could make those distinctions if we were comparing Billy Graham to Charles Spurgeon. But these men's sermons aren't placed in an infallible and inspired context. Christ's and Moses' were. How do you compare the two recorded sermons? Deut - Matthew 5-7? They are both the Word of God and true in every way. To say that one trumps the other in conflicting ways, i.e., raising the bar, then you are pitting Scripture against Scripture. 

[quote:d0f56cc15c]No where in NCT will you find anyone saying rip out the OT or parts of it or go throught the OT with a black highlighter. What NCT is saying is that Jesus is the focus in the entire Bible and now that we have a clear picture of him in the NT we can go back to the OT and see him better than before. It is a Christ centered approach. There is no contradiction in the NT and you will not find NCT saying that there is. NCT also beleives that the Mosaic law, though many of the aspects of it were were moral law (it was not &quot;the&quot; moral law) it was primarily for the nation of Israel.[/quote:d0f56cc15c]

No indeed. Wells writes: "Read it all we must! But which testament controls our thinking and which we use for fine tuning is the all-important consideration." This means that the NT is our sole authority unless it happens to be silent on something we think is important. Then we should reference the OT. They also say, "But if we are working from the premise of the priority of the OT, we are certain to go astray." This does not attack anyone in the Reformed faith because I know of no one who holds the OT as a logical priority over the NT. However, what they are implying by this is that what we need from the Scriptures is primarily in the NT. This blows II Tim. 3:16-17 right out of the water.

[quote:d0f56cc15c]And you are willing to do away with any system that is different from the WCF. It should not be considered a back to front approach. That is a BIG misconception. It is the Type and Anti-tye approach. It is the Approach that seess fulfillment. It is the approach that takes the brighter and clearer to illuminate the dimmer. It is rediculase to say that it is wrong to understand the Bible this way because of the placement of the NT physicaly. Also you have a misconseption of what is meant when NCT says that the NT or the words Christ are superior. It is not meant that they are more inspired but that they give more illumination, and fuller revelation.[/quote:d0f56cc15c]

Why did God not convince men to start the Bible with the NT? They could have ordered the canon any way they wanted to. Why start from the beginning?

Where did Paul start? Where did Peter? What about Luke? James? John? What about the Bereans? Did they check Paul's words with Paul's words? If they did not reach the conclusion of making the NT have logical priority over the OT, primarily because the NT was not yet canonized, then why should we? If they started from the beginning, why should we start from the end?

[quote:d0f56cc15c]Why do you not follow the OT law of the sabbath? Did not the law say to kep it on the seventh day? What day are you resting on? On the FIRST! You do so because you believe that the NT has mande this change. You believe that the NT is supierior in some sence because it is able to change some asspect of the &quot;moral law.&quot;[/quote:d0f56cc15c]

This is a straw man basically because we aren't claiming that nothing changed. Did Christ change what was written in the OT? No. Did the faith and practice change? Yes. Did the underlying principle change? No. We still need a mediator, we still need a sacrifice, we still worship God using different symbols, but the worship is the same.

The one day in seven is a principle that will remain until Christ returns. That God wants His people to keep the Sabbath Holy is not changed. The day has, but the precept hasn't. The law didn't change at all. In this way, the Bible as a whole stays in tact without pitting one testament against another. 

[quote:d0f56cc15c]No they wouldn't. They warn of elevation them to the level of Scripture. There are many NCT advocates that hold to the 1644. Most of the NCT that I know of hold to some from of confession or creed, but are not afraid to disagree with it or amend it if they see that it conflicts with Scripture. In fact, several NCT have made confesions for their own churches or organizations. They are certainly not against confessions and they would even praise much about the WCF and the LBC 1689.[/quote:d0f56cc15c]

I'll post the appendix tonight. I assure you that Wells and Zaspel are against confessionalism.

[quote:d0f56cc15c]The majority of their position agrees with the Anabaptists and they hold Aquinas in higher regard than Augustine.[quote:d0f56cc15c]Where are you pulling this one from?[/quote:d0f56cc15c][/quote:d0f56cc15c]

In the section entitled &quot;NCT and History&quot;. They are clearly trying to show where NCT has historically been held to. They cannot claim Augustine, so they claim Aquinas. They even go so far as to say, &quot;Precisely for this reason, the preoccupation with the differences between the Old and New Covenants that we have seen prior to the Reformation failed to bear fruit. Instead, a theology that minimized this distinction was developed and cast a shadow over the priority of the NT and New Covenant that has lasted to our day.&quot;

[quote:d0f56cc15c]The why was this said by Jesus to Jews who had nothing but the OT:
&quot;Luk 24:25 And he said to them, &quot;O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! 
Luk 24:26 Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?&quot; 
Luk 24:27 And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself.&quot;[/quote:d0f56cc15c]

Do you actually think that once a person was regenerated and illumined by the Holy Spirit that the words of the prophets were still veiled? Obviously the Bereans wasted their time. They would not have been able to rightly discern what the OT was saying until they compared it with what Paul told them. 

[quote:d0f56cc15c]Please post references when you get them. I do not have my copy on me but will get it back soon. In the meantime, What did God mean then with what was spoken on the Mount of Transfiguration?[/quote:d0f56cc15c]

Of course we should listen to God as He has spoken in these last days through His Son. That goes without saying. But in this section, Wells is trying to make a point of master/servant relationship. In doing so, he makes the point that we are now to follow Christ our master, instead of his other servants Moses and Elijah. Peter, who was there at the mount, later writes, &quot;Beloved, I now write to you this second epistle (in both of which I stir up your pure minds by way of reminder), that you may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us, the apostles of the Lord and Savior,&quot; II Peter 3:1.

[quote:d0f56cc15c]I have already addressed the yur misconception about the confessions. Brother, how old do you think the WCF is? Did the chruch always hold to that statement?[/quote:d0f56cc15c]

Yes, not in form and exact wording. But obviously what is defined in the WCF is what many who came before it believed that the Scriptures teach. You act as if believing the WCF to be a correct definition is not becoming a Christian. I really don't know what to say to that, except that we need to have a summary statement of what we believe the Bible teaches. Obviously, these men do not think this is necessary, or if they do, they mean to get rid of the WCF as one of the possibilities.

[quote:d0f56cc15c]I believe that the only standard that the NT church has held to at all times was the Bible.[/quote:d0f56cc15c]

Unfortunately you are forgetting that the Bible of the NT church was the OT. What they believed about that and the events of Christ's life, death, and resurrection, formed the NT. And how they practiced their faith is left for us in a regula fidei that is clearly written in their records. If you think that the Bible alone is what you believe, you're mistaken. The reason you know anything about the what the Bible teaches is because the Holy Spirit has illumined you through not only direct illumination, but illumination from countless souls across the NT era.

[quote:d0f56cc15c]If there was problems with the theology in the Churches the Paul helped to found don't you think that there may be errors with some of the confessions? I know what your answer to that is already based upon your past posts, the WCF is without error. That would mean that there are only two perfect writen works, the Bible and the WCF.[/quote:d0f56cc15c]

Resulting to this kind of red herring will not get me off track. I do not believe that the WCF is without error nor do I believe that it is on the same level as Scripture. The WCF is my dictionary for what I believe the Scriptures teach. I am not alone, nor do I stand merely because of my own prowess. 

[quote:d0f56cc15c]Look at the history of the paedos. Look what they did to the Baptists and those who disagreed with them (espessially in America). Look at the theology that came out of those who held to the WCF in America. Look at some of the theology that is coming from some who hold to the WCF this day.[/quote:d0f56cc15c]

The problem is, the errant theology coming from those who &quot;held&quot; to the WCF in America is that they did not truly hold to the WCF. They followed Arminianism, they weren't strict subscriptionist nor were they calvinists.

And, I am sorry Baptists were oppressed, but I did not oppress them and neither did the vehicle that we call confessional Presbyterianism. Men did. Sinful men did. Don't blame the system, blame the sinners.

The logical end of the WCF does not lead to bloodshed nor does it lead to heresy.

The logical end of NCT is antinomian, unconfessional, and low-churchism. 

[quote:d0f56cc15c]It is certainly a possibility, just like it is a possibility for CT advocates to be legalists if thy are not careful.[/quote:d0f56cc15c]

How? Do you actually know enough about Covenant Theology to make such a claim? Calvin was not a legalist, Witsius was not, Hodge was not.

[quote:d0f56cc15c]It is funny that you say that antinominism is the conclusion for this position when they believe that the standard o law that the NT Church is held to is greater than that of OT Israel.[/quote:d0f56cc15c]

That is the danger. They follow a different law. This would fall into the category of antinomianism. They are against the established law and wish to follow one that they deem is higher.

[quote:d0f56cc15c]By the way, what laws do you follow that the NCT advocate would not? The Sabbath? What else?[/quote:d0f56cc15c]

As I said, I do not fear this generation. I fear the next one. They will be the ones to truly define what laws are for the Christian and what laws are not.

[quote:d0f56cc15c]KC, you have not been fair in your presentation of CT. You have mislead many on this board as to the beliefes of your fellow brother in Christ. I would invite all to be a good steward of their minds and read the book &quot;New Covenant Theology&quot; for themselves. I am not saying that you will agree with Wells and Zaspel, but at least you will come away with an honest understanding of what they DO hold to.[/quote:d0f56cc15c]

Christopher, I have misled no one. I have given my assessment. I have not quoted out of context. I have refuted the points. I, too, would encourage anyone to read this book. See if you come to the same conclusions. I am not an authority. I was merely giving my opinion. 

[quote:d0f56cc15c]KC, I do love you and this was not meant to be any sort of personal attack on you but a clarification on your post and a defence against the false notions you wrote concerning NCT.[/quote:d0f56cc15c]

Unfortunately, they are not false notions. I wish they were. If you deem them false, you've a right to your opinion. But just because you say they are false, does not mean they are.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## JohnV (Jun 3, 2004)

[quote:6397bb2d04]This is about theology, not persons[/quote:6397bb2d04]
Fred:
I was going to post something, but this took the wind out my sails. I was going to post a lengthier piece as one who is not familiar with NCT, but is familiar with controversy over personal views. I think I may try to start another thread instead. 

We are not afraid to put things on the line, because we have a personal friendship that transecends our differences. That is as it should be. These things required hammering out, and that hammering sometimes seems unchristian, but it is not, when it is done with the mutual concern and friendship in Christ that we have for each other. Terms need to sharply put, and lines need to drawn in the sand; yet we need to keep a right perspective. You have stated it well. I admire you all.


----------



## panicbird (Jun 3, 2004)

KC, Fred, Christopher, and Others,

Do you believe in progressive revelation? If so, then do you interpret the earlier revelation in light of the later? It seems to me (as someone who knows very little about this particular subject) that this is what NCT is trying to do, though one may disagree as to their conclusions. It seems that they are trying to work out the implications of texts like Luke 24:27, 44 (that the Old Testament is written about and points to Christ) and Matthew 5:17 (that Christ fulfills the law). Again, one may disagree with how they do it, but it seems that that is what they are trying to do.

On a related note, it is pleasing to see that people can maintain some level of Christian love even when strenuously disagreeing with one another. On another board I frequent (yes, I at times cheat on the PB), this debate would have long ago devolved into name-calling and childish bickering. Everyone would have called everyone else a heretic and gone home.

Keep up the good work and Christian love, guys (and gals too, if they want to join in).

Lon


----------



## fredtgreco (Jun 3, 2004)

[quote:a744becc64][i:a744becc64]Originally posted by panicbird[/i:a744becc64]
KC, Fred, Christopher, and Others,

Do you believe in progressive revelation? If so, then do you interpret the earlier revelation in light of the later? It seems to me (as someone who knows very little about this particular subject) that this is what NCT is trying to do, though one may disagree as to their conclusions. It seems that they are trying to work out the implications of texts like Luke 24:27, 44 (that the Old Testament is written about and points to Christ) and Matthew 5:17 (that Christ fulfills the law). Again, one may disagree with how they do it, but it seems that that is what they are trying to do.

On a related note, it is pleasing to see that people can maintain some level of Christian love even when strenuously disagreeing with one another. On another board I frequent (yes, I at times cheat on the PB), this debate would have long ago devolved into name-calling and childish bickering. Everyone would have called everyone else a heretic and gone home.

Keep up the good work and Christian love, guys (and gals too, if they want to join in).

Lon [/quote:a744becc64]

Lon,

It is true that the NT does effect the way we view the OT.

Here is a WAY too simplified version - like Christopher, I have the kids right now:

Reformed/Covenant theology operates on the principle that the OT law is in force unless repealed or completely fulfilled in the NT.

NCT operates (I believe) on the principle that if the OT law is not specifically recapitulated in the NT it is no longer in force.

That is what we are discussing, I believe.


----------



## Christopher (Jun 3, 2004)

[quote:7308274b80][i:7308274b80]Originally posted by fredtgreco[/i:7308274b80]
[quote:7308274b80][i:7308274b80]Originally posted by Christopher[/i:7308274b80]
I have an answe for you but it must wait a few hours until nap time. lol. it is hard to type while holding a little one. lol [/quote:7308274b80]

I understand all too well! Nap time is soooo good! 

Take your time.


And please keep in mind, and everyone reading, that while I think that NCT is in error, and misreads the Scriptures and is headed in a potentially dangerous trajectory (I agree with KC), I believe that those who espouse NCT (and have made a credible profession of faith, the same qualifier I would make for anyone) are brothers in Christ. I have more in common with them than other brethren. This is about theology, not persons. [/quote:7308274b80]

Thanks Fred.


----------



## Christopher (Jun 3, 2004)

Lon, you are correct.

KC and Fred,

I will try hard tonight or sometime today to write a responce to your posts. It took me forever to write that last one to KC while fixing meals and such for the boys. the responce will probably combine your points so as to not be repeditive.


----------



## fredtgreco (Jun 3, 2004)

[quote:30e78bbe90][i:30e78bbe90]Originally posted by Christopher[/i:30e78bbe90]
Lon, you are correct.

KC and Fred,

I will try hard tonight or sometime today to write a responce to your posts. It took me forever to write that last one to KC while fixing meals and such for the boys. the responce will probably combine your points so as to not be repeditive. [/quote:30e78bbe90]

No problem Chris. Whenever you get to it. It might be helpful to have the points to each of us in different colors for ease of sight (say, black and blue)


----------



## kceaster (Jun 3, 2004)

*Wells quotes on confessionalism and creedalism...*

"In this chapter I would like to discuss a single barrier to unity. What I want to say may be summarized in two short sentences:

1. Our creeds and confessions are one immense barrier to unity.
2. There is no easy or obvious way to cross this divide.

If my first sentence sounds to you like an indictment against treasured historical and doctrinal landmarks, I would simply remind you that one function of creeds is to exclude; no one should be surprised at this. If the second seems pessimistic, keep in mind that there can be no solution without a frank recognition of the problem created by the documents for which some among us are prepared to die."

"...it seems to me that most Christian groups have not given sufficient thought to the magnitude of the difficulties created by our creeds and confessions."

"Christians of all persuasions must seek to take this seriously. What has developed in church history is the claim that Scripture alone is our standard, joined to the quiet and often unrecognized co-principle that our confessions are the traditions by which we must read God's word."

"While the confessions have tended to control our understanding of Scripture, something even less frequently recognized has added to our difficulty. At least until the present century, our conservative systematic theologies have tended to be expositions of the confessions even when that was not immediately apparent. The reason for this is not far to seek: the systematic theologian doing the writing was usually already bound to a confession by being a member or theologian of a confessional church. He could keep neither his credentials as a minister nor his post as a theological professor if he varied appreciably from the confession of his church.

This does not mean - and I do not want to be understood as saying - that such men compromised their convictions for the sake of their positions. I have no way of knowing their motives and, more than that, I am an admirer of the men in my theological tradition. It does mean, however, that they were producing theological works that did very little to question confessional stances, however pure their motives may have been.

Now you will see immediately how all of this bears on unity among believers. Surely we must unite on truth, but as I wrote earlier, the confessions and creeds are a barrier between us."

"Each side - and every other side that may reasonably be called Christian - has had the responsibility before God to strive for unity in a Scriptural way. Can anyone doubt that the large measure of failure can be traced, humanly speaking, to strict subscription to creeds?"

"What can we do? The central matter is that those who study the Scriptures must have the liberty to follow them wherever they may lead. How can we obtain such liberty in a creedal world?"

He then gives five possibilities that I will summarize:

1. A major simplification of our creeds
2. A looser subscription to creedal statements
3. Encouragement for change within the confessions themselves
4. To be creative let's invent something on the spur of the moment
5. Some combination of the above

"Certainly 'loose' subscription is preferable to swearing never to change one's mind in one's whole life."

"The presence of strict subscription to creeds fosters fear - fear of being ostracized - in men who might otherwise tackle this problem."

"Yet experience suggests that, humanly speaking, the fear inspired by our creedal stances keeps us from pursuing unity both in love and in truth."

I will post my comments once everyone has had a chance to read these quotes.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## Pete Richert (Jun 4, 2004)

*Imputation and NCT*

I thought I would chime in here since no one has quite settled the issue on NCT and their general belief in the imputation of Christ's active obedience to the law. Quick qualifications on my part, of have done some reading on NCT, including Wells/Zaspel and Reisenger (sp) and attend a Reformed Baptist Church committed to NCT and which at this very moment is founding the first seminary whose major hermeneutic will be NCT. I can assure you that NCT is committed to Christ's active obedience to the law, my pastor, Wells, Zaspel, and Reisenger included. I, like Pastor Way, thought Fred was completely off base when he was claiming NCT denied this, since I have never heard anything like this in NCT circles. But if this article does stem from within the NCT camp then either the NCT leaders are not aware or do not find in conflicting with the general NCT distinctives; I opt for the former.

Strangely enough, the only person within my church who is still unsettled on this doctrine is the one also not sure about NCT . . . namely myself. I do not find it a denial of justification by faith but as Fred hinted, a disagreement about the nature of the law and its purpose as well as a disagreement about the nature of true saving faith. I accept the imputation of Christ's righteous for the simple reason of looking to the great cloud of witnesses around me but I have come to a point in my life where I am not settled on an issue until the Bible becomes ultimately clear and this issue has proved illusive on that.


----------



## Christopher (Jun 4, 2004)

Sorry guys. It does not look like I will have time anytime soon to post anything in detail. I am a little busy with the boys and getting things set for the Autism Walk tomorrow. Maybe sometime next week when I cannot sleep. Anyway, I do not think I can add more than what is already published out there.


----------



## doulosChristou (Apr 5, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Christopher_
> ...



I've written a response to this Lehrer & Volker article. It is titled "The Obedience of Christ," has been published by New Covenant Media in booklet form, and may be obtained here:

http://www.newcovenantmedia.com/list_book.php?browse=true

Their denial of the imputation of Christ's active obedience to the believer is not a tenet of NCT just in the same way that the Auburnites' teaching is not a tenet of CT.


----------



## Mantis (Apr 7, 2005)

While studying at a baptist college in South Carolina I met a a few people who held to NCT. (Over time the number of NCTers increased. This was due to a number of factors: First, a bible study group formed, and the leader was a huge proponent of NCT. Second, two churches in the area hold to NCT.) Since I was very good friends with many of these fellow believers (and we are still good friends), I have had many opportunities to discuss NCT with them. Although this may not be true for many people who hold to NCT, my friends seemed to largely ignore the OT. One day, while walking through our school building, one proponent saw a wall where a large copy of the 10 commandments hung, and he said, "They should take those down and put up a sign that says, "Follow Christ." I think that the largest problem with the NCT system is their hermeneutic principle that says a command must be repeated in the NT in order for it to be binding. I believe we must press them on this issue. For instance, if this principle is true, then is it permissible to have sex with animals? By their standard, the answer must be, "no." We need all of Scripture, not just the NT.



[Edited on 4-7-2005 by Mantis]


----------



## doulosChristou (Apr 7, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Mantis_
> I think that the largest problem with the NCT system is their hermeneutic principle that says a command must be repeated in the NT in order for it to be binding. I believe we must press them on this issue.



If ever you hear an NCT proponent putting forth such a dispensational hermeneutic, please do press them on it. As for me, I don't know of any such proponents who make this error, and I know a lot of NCT proponents. If you look at pages 158-160 in Tom Wells and Fred Zaspel's book _New Covenant Theology_, you'll see that they twice renounce the hermeneutic principle you just described as too simplictic. 



> We need all of Scripture, not just the NT.



 John Reisinger made this exact point at a conference last Fall.


----------



## lwadkins (Apr 7, 2005)

This was originally posted by Rev. Kok in another thread but I think it is good to be reminded of it here.



> "œWhen heresy rises in an evangelical body, it is never frank and open. It always begins by skulking, and assuming a disguise. Its advocates, when together, boast of great improvements, and congratulate one another on having gone greatly beyond the "œold dead orthodoxy," and on having left behind many of its antiquated errors: but when taxed with deviations from the received faith, they complain of the unreasonableness of their accusers, as they "œdiffer from it only in words." This has been the standing course of errorists ever since the apostolic age. They are almost never honest and candid as a party, until they gain strength enough to be sure of some degree of popularity. Thus it was with Arius in the fourth century, with Pelagius in the fifth, with Arminius and his companions in the seventeenth, with Amyraut and his associates in France soon afterwards, and with the Unitarians in Massachusetts, toward the close of the eighteenth and the beginning of the nineteenth centuries. They denied their real tenets, evaded examination or inquiry, declaimed against their accusers as merciless bigots and heresy-hunters, and strove as long as they could to appear to agree with the most orthodox of their neighbours; until the time came when, partly from inability any longer to cover up their sentiments, and partly because they felt strong enough to come out, they at length avowed their real opinions."
> 
> -Samuel Miller, 1841



Then I would say that advocates of certain positions are attractive allies to some because they staunchly defend specific nuances of doctrine that are important to our own traditions. I would say that it is imperative that we use caution in choosing our theological allies, as we may later regret having embraced them.


----------



## seansgame (Apr 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Mantis_
> While studying at a baptist college in South Carolina I met a a few people who held to NCT. (Over time the number of NCTers increased. This was due to a number of factors: First, a bible study group formed, and the leader was a huge proponent of NCT. Second, two churches in the area hold to NCT.) Since I was very good friends with many of these fellow believers (and we are still good friends), I have had many opportunities to discuss NCT with them. Although this may not be true for many people who hold to NCT, my friends seemed to largely ignore the OT. One day, while walking through our school building, one proponent saw a wall where a large copy of the 10 commandments hung, and he said, "They should take those down and put up a sign that says, "Follow Christ." I think that the largest problem with the NCT system is their hermeneutic principle that says a command must be repeated in the NT in order for it to be binding. I believe we must press them on this issue. For instance, if this principle is true, then is it permissible to have sex with animals? By their standard, the answer must be, "no." We need all of Scripture, not just the NT.
> 
> 
> ...



This is a strawman argument, I'm not NCT, but if I were, I would simply tell you that the "light of nature" informs me that having sex with animals is wrong, (unnatural). Rom 2 tells us that the gentiles while not having the law, have the WORK of the law on their conscience accussing or acquiting. That some deny that work by the hardness of their heart only serves to highlight it's innate existence. If the ten comm. merely summarize the moral will of God given to all men, (sans it's "typical" aspects) then I don't need the scriptures to instruct me ethically, I principally need scripture to reveal to me Jesus Christ. Certainly, scripture can buttress and add specificity to my conscience, but my conscience is a ready-guide in terms of my ethics. My obligation now is to listen to my conscience and have my conscience informed by the imperatives of the didactic epistles and follow the example of Christ - John 13. Living in light of the grace shown to me in Jesus Christ. We don't want to let the unbeliever off the hook by agreeing with his lie that he just didn't know, all men are without excuse.


----------



## doulosChristou (Apr 14, 2005)

Yes, all men are without excuse, having supressed the truth in unrighteousness. But Sean, you wouldn't say that the conscience is an infallible guide to the will of God, right? A sanctified conscience is cleansed by Christ and informed by the word of God. A conscience can also be misinformed, seared, malfunctioning.


----------



## seansgame (Apr 15, 2005)

> _Originally posted by doulosChristou_
> Yes, all men are without excuse, having supressed the truth in unrighteousness. But Sean, you wouldn't say that the conscience is an infallible guide to the will of God, right? A sanctified conscience is cleansed by Christ and informed by the word of God. A conscience can also be misinformed, seared, malfunctioning.



I'm pretty sure I affirmed that our conscience is informed by Christ and the imperatives of the didactic epistles as our minds are illumined by the Holy Spirit. An inffallible guide to the will of God? Depends on what you're referring to, there are many things, probably most things, about God's designs which He has seen fit not to reveal through either natural or special revelation. Specifically however, special revelation reveals to me Jesus Christ. Most of the ethical dictums I know by the light of nature, but my specific covenantal obligations may extend and in some instances do extend beyond natural revelation i.e. Love as I have loved you (the example of Christ), baptism, the lord's day, etc. I however, do not need scripture to tell me; "not to have sex with animals." Ethically, Rom.2 affirms that even unregenerate man has been given sufficient light to inform him of what is right and wrong. Natural revelation however is insufficient to reveal to him Jesus Christ and how he might be saved fm his violation of the righteous standards of God.

[Edited on 4-15-2005 by seansgame]

[Edited on 4-15-2005 by seansgame]


----------



## Peters (Apr 21, 2005)

Lon wrote: "Does not every christian deny the Sabbath in the stricktest sense?"

To which Fred Replied: "No. The christian acknowledges the perpetual moral nature of the Sabbath and the positive aspect of the day chosen by God for different redemptive purposes."

I don't quite understand how this is an explanation for your disagreement, Fred. Would not the "sticktest sense" of the Sabbath be more than the acknowledgement of the "moral nature of the Sabbath"?

Thanks


----------



## seansgame (Apr 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Peters_
> Lon wrote: "Does not every christian deny the Sabbath in the stricktest sense?"
> 
> To which Fred Replied: "No. The christian acknowledges the perpetual moral nature of the Sabbath and the positive aspect of the day chosen by God for different redemptive purposes."
> ...



Fred acknowledged more than the moral nature of the sabbath when he argued for it's "positive"' aspect chosen by God for different redemptive purposes. The sabbath is primarily NOT of a "moral" nature(in terms of how the reformed used the term "moral" when discussing the law) but rather the sabbath is primarily of an eschatological nature, an anticipation of that final sabbath rest in glory. In the "already-not yet" tension of the NT believers have both entered that sabbath rest(through faith in Christ) and look forward to it's consummation in glory. The sabbath places continuing "moral" obligation upon the BELIEVER to observe it NOT as the JEWS observed it, but in anticipation of being removed from sin and being joined with Christ in glory. Arguing for the "moral" obligation of the "Lord's day" is a bit akin to arguing for the "moral" obligation of receiving the Lord's supper or being baptized, it's not so much that you must, but rather WHY WOULDN'T YOU, IT'S FOR YOU. You are free in Christ, His yoke is easy and His burden light. The perpetual moral obligation is NOT "one in seven" but rather a looking forward to that glorious seventh day consummation. Will the unbeliever be held accountable for his failure to keep the sabbath? Certainly, but it would not do him much good to practice it apart fm Christ and unto his eschatological doom. As far as practicing a saturday sabbath, the NT informs our take on the OT practices and based on the authority of apostolic practice and theological progression, the day was changed. We no longer anticipate our rest at the end of our working, but rather live in that rest apart fm our works.


----------



## Peters (Apr 27, 2005)

Thanks for your response, brother. Here are a few things:

*"Arguing for the "moral" obligation of the "Lord's day" is a bit akin to arguing for the "moral" obligation of receiving the Lord's supper or being baptized, it's not so much that you must, but rather WHY WOULDN'T YOU, IT'S FOR YOU. " * 

I think that they would say it is a must, an imperitive. 

*"You are free in Christ, His yoke is easy and His burden light. The perpetual moral obligation is NOT "one in seven" but rather a looking forward to that glorious seventh day consummation."*

I will "amen" this till the cows come home.

*"Will the unbeliever be held accountable for his failure to keep the sabbath? Certainly, but it would not do him much good to practice it apart from Christ unto his eschatological doom."*

This is a bit confusing. 

In what sense can an unbeliever keep the sabbath _apart_ from Christ?

Given the way you have just argued for the anticipatory nature of the sabbath (which i agree with), how can a believer who is joined to Christ, _not_ keep the sabbath?

Are you not reverting backwards and forwards in you application of the sabbath to believer and unbeliever?

Thanks again.


----------



## fredtgreco (Apr 27, 2005)

This is what I meant:

1. The Sabbath is a perpetual moral command (to cease from work one day in seven)

2. To that moral command God has attached a positive command (i.e. which day it is)

3. God is free to change the positive aspect of the command (i.e. the day) without changing or relieving the moral command.

That is the Confession's position:



> WCF 21.7 As it is the law of nature, that, in general, a due proportion of time be set apart for the worship of God; so, in His Word, by a positive, moral, and perpetual commandment binding all men in all ages, He hath particularly appointed one day in seven, for a Sabbath, to be kept holy unto Him1) which, from the beginning of the world to the resurrection of Christ, was the last day of the week; and, from the resurrection of Christ, was changed into the first day of the week,(2) which, in Scripture, is called the Lord's Day,(3) and is to be continued to the end of the world, as the Christian Sabbath.(4)
> 
> (1)Exod. 20:8,10,11; Isa. 56:2,4,6,7.
> (2)Gen. 2:2,3; 1 Cor. 16:1,2; Acts 20:7.
> ...


----------



## seansgame (Apr 28, 2005)

"This is a bit confusing.

In what sense can an unbeliever keep the sabbath apart from Christ?

"Given the way you have just argued for the anticipatory nature of the sabbath (which i agree with), how can a believer who is joined to Christ, not keep the sabbath?

Are you not reverting backwards and forwards in you application of the sabbath to believer and unbeliever?""

Didn't mean to, I just wanted to maintain the unbeliever's guilt in Adam. In a pre-fall situation, all humanity were covenant members and therefore all were duty-bound. Since the duty is inextricably tied to promise, in a post-fall situation the eschatological promise has been removed from the non- covenant member, therefore the obligation falls away as well.

Believers could not fulfill their sabbath obligations by forsaking the assembling of the community and not availng themselves to the means of grace (lord's supper, preaching of the word) by which we partake of our heavenly inheritance through faith. The corporate gathering of individuals is sacramental in this way. A formal means to the formal means of grace if you will. Believers do not forsake their covenant membership by their failure, necessarily(visible, invisible church distinction), but covenant members are exhorted to the obligations of their covenant inclusion. Again, this is NOT done under a "do this & live" paradigm, but rather "come, feed and be nourished."

By the way I take exception to the non-eschatological rendering of sabbath observance argued for in the confession, and the OPC, in it's sabbath committee, has also faulted the WCF for it's non-eschatological rendering of sabbath obligation. The "one day in seven" principle is not the moral principle of the covenant of works, but rather a " work first than rest" principle is the underlying moral principle communicated in the edenic covenant. As for the post-fall situation, not one OT text argues for a "one day in seven" obligation but rather a "seventh day" obligation. The seventh-day sabbatarians are more exegetically faithful as it regards the OT texts, but they fail to comprehend the redemptive historical change in day brought about in the new covenant through Christ's fulfillment. We no longer work than rest, but rather, we now rest in Christ and work in gratitude, hope and longing all our days.


----------



## biblelighthouse (Apr 28, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> [quote:9cf9752110][i:9cf9752110]Originally posted by Ianterrell[/i:9cf9752110]
> Piper I think leans towards this notion sadly. [/quote:9cf9752110]
> 
> ...



Officially, on John Piper's website, here is his position on Disp, CT, and NCT:



> *John Piper's position*
> John Piper has some things in common with each of these views, but does not classify himself within any of these three camps. He is probably the furthest away from dispensationalism, although he does agree with dispensationalism that there will be a millennium.
> 
> Many of his theological heroes have been covenant theologians (for example, many of the Puritans), and he does see some merit in the concept of a pre-fall covenant of works, but he has not taken a position on their specific conception of the covenant of grace.
> ...



Here is the source for this quote, which goes into more detail:
http://www.desiringgod.org/library/theological_qa/law_gospel/disp_cov_ncov.html


In Christ,
Joseph


----------



## doulosChristou (Apr 28, 2005)

Piper sounds a lot like me, minus the premillennialism. Thanks for posting that, Joseph.


----------



## Peters (Apr 29, 2005)

> This is what I meant
> 
> 1. The Sabbath is a perpetual moral command (to cease from work one day in seven)
> 
> ...



Thanks for clarifying, Fred

So there is no temporal theological/eschatological structure set in place with the institution of the Sabbath except for "œthe day" upon which it is observed, correct?


----------



## Peters (Apr 29, 2005)

> Believers do not forsake their covenant membership by their failure, necessarily (visible, invisible church distinction), but covenant members are exhorted to the obligations of their covenant inclusion. Again, this is NOT done under a "do this & live" paradigm, but rather "come, feed and be nourished."



Thanks for unpacking, Sean.

I agree that the Lord's Day does not come to us as: "Come and meet with the saints, worship the living God through Christ, behold His glory by faith and rejoice in the foretastes of Heaven, or you will be cursed beyond your wildest nightmare". 

So I guess my query is with the "œobligation" language that surrounds the discussion of the Sabbath. If there is no obligation then there can be no transgression. If there is obligation then we loose the anticipatory _purpose_ for which the Sabbath was designed and are back to threats of condemnation. 

Let me ask this question: Is Jesus still under _any_ obligation to the Ten Commandments?


----------



## Peters (May 9, 2005)

*bump*


----------



## seansgame (May 10, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Peters_
> 
> 
> > Believers do not forsake their covenant membership by their failure, necessarily (visible, invisible church distinction), but covenant members are exhorted to the obligations of their covenant inclusion. Again, this is NOT done under a "do this & live" paradigm, but rather "come, feed and be nourished."
> ...



Of course there is obligation, I fail to see how obligation negates the eschatological aspect of the Lord's day. We may no longer be under curse, in Christ, but we are not beyond the discipline of the Lord. Though being under grace, we obligate ourselves to our brothers and sisters in Christ. There are imperatives linked to all the indicatives in the NT, the order is what's important, the indicatives always proceed the imperatives. But, the imperatives are just as applicable as the indicatives. The Law of the Harvest still applies, our sins bear with them consequences. God does not deal with us, according to our sins, yet we still bear the real and temporal consequences of our actions. God is not mocked. From a covenantal perspective, there are spurious confessors in our ranks who will bear a greater judgment for their covenant infidelity, than those outside our covenant community. This is no negation of Grace, you can disprove your baptism as well as prove it. Look at those who abused the Lord's table. As the God/man Christ has already fulfilled his covenantal obligations including the ten commandments. Yet his behavior is still consistent with those commandments, the law was/is righteous, I am wicked sold into sin. Christ is no longer obligated to the ten commandments as a covenant of works. That mission is finished.

Sean


----------



## Peters (May 13, 2005)

I should have lifted the word "language" instead of the word "obligation", i suppose. I hear what you're saying, but is there not a tendency to apply the language of obligation to the believer in the same way that it is used in the Covenant of Works, thus blurring the lines a bit? It's fine to say that "indicatives precede imperatives" in the New Testament, but the consequences always seem to be intimated as the same as if we were under a kind of works covenant.

Perhaps the issue is distinguishing between the instruction of the command and the "or else" of the command; the discipline of the Lord and the punishment of the Lord, as it relates to "the law". The Law comes in a covenant which is fulfilled by Jesus, the righteousness of which is imputed to us by grace through faith. So at the very least, then, we cannot say that the nature of obligation surrounding the Law can be applied to the christian any more than it can be applied to Christ who has fulfilled all the obligations of the Law! 

I cannot see how the nature of the command "you shall not murder" can be directed towards Christ after He has obeyed it finally, fully and completely, in the same way that it was directed to Him before His great work of fulfillment, death and resurrection and then link it to sanctification. 

I find it strange to say: "It's good and pleasing to God to meet with the saints and worship Christ on this particular day in this eschatalogical way." And then follow it up with: "But if you go out to the store afterwards and by a coat and a coke you have sinned, transgressed the law". 

I dunno. What do you think, Sean?


----------



## seansgame (May 13, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Peters_
> I should have lifted the word "language" instead of the word "obligation", i suppose. I hear what you're saying, but is there not a tendency to apply the language of obligation to the believer in the same way that it is used in the Covenant of Works, thus blurring the lines a bit? It's fine to say that "indicatives precede imperatives" in the New Testament, but the consequences always seem to be intimated as the same as if we were under a kind of works covenant.
> 
> Perhaps the issue is distinguishing between the instruction of the command and the "or else" of the command; the discipline of the Lord and the punishment of the Lord, as it relates to "the law". The Law comes in a covenant which is fulfilled by Jesus, the righteousness of which is imputed to us by grace through faith. So at the very least, then, we cannot say that the nature of obligation surrounding the Law can be applied to the christian any more than it can be applied to Christ who has fulfilled all the obligations of the Law!
> ...



I don't think there is any question that the law does NOT apply to us in the same manner it did under the old covenant. Calvin speaks of the "defanging" of the law in it's application to believers. I prefer to think of the law as mediated to us in Christ. In other words, I receive the law not as law, with threats and cursing, but from the hand of my redeemer. I have no relation to the law sans Christ, I always encounter the law as fulfilled and it's punitive measures satisfied. I am not a Jew in Israel under the old covenant, therefore, I have no relation to the law in that manner. To apply the law in this way is to decovenantalize the law and negate Jesus Christ. I don't relate to God through the Law, but through my redeemer. As Luther said; "I have no need to be told what to do", but instead I do it as a response of faith in Jesus Christ. This is Luther's "spontaneity of faith". Still, we are a sinful lot and if God deems it necessary He will discipline us with a "rod", in order to turn us fm our sin and Idols. This isn't a function of His avenging wrath, but of His loving care. God no longer relates to us according to the law, I don't know why we insist on trying to relate to Him by it. I personally believe the reformed community is terribly confused over this issue, and generally ends up on the wrong side of it.

Sean


----------



## Peters (May 16, 2005)

> I don't think there is any question that the law does NOT apply to us in the same manner it did under the old covenant. Calvin speaks of the "defanging" of the law in it's application to believers. I prefer to think of the law as mediated to us in Christ. In other words, I receive the law not as law, with threats and cursing, but from the hand of my redeemer. I have no relation to the law sans Christ, I always encounter the law as fulfilled and it's punitive measures satisfied. I am not a Jew in Israel under the old covenant, therefore, I have no relation to the law in that manner. To apply the law in this way is to decovenantalize the law and negate Jesus Christ. I don't relate to God through the Law, but through my redeemer. As Luther said; "I have no need to be told what to do", but instead I do it as a response of faith in Jesus Christ. This is Luther's "spontaneity of faith". Still, we are a sinful lot and if God deems it necessary He will discipline us with a "rod", in order to turn us fm our sin and Idols. This isn't a function of His avenging wrath, but of His loving care. God no longer relates to us according to the law, I don't know why we insist on trying to relate to Him by it. I personally believe the reformed community is terribly confused over this issue, and generally ends up on the wrong side of it.



Splendid! I agree. Thanks for your time, brother, it has been grand.


----------

