Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'The Law of God' started by JM, Feb 15, 2008.
Is New Covenant Theology antinomian for denying the fourth commandment?
Antinomian would be agianst "law" or "lawless", NCT is not antinomian just says that the Law of Christ has succeeded the Law given by Moses.
This is really an old debate between 1689 subscribing Reformed Baptists and what used to be called "Sovereign Grace" Baptists, the latter of which denied that we are obligated to observe the sabbath. Many of the Sovereign Grace people have now adopted some form of NCT.
What I find curious is the number of those Baptists who say they hold to CT but are non Sabbatarian.
Isn't Baptist CT and Presbyterian CT different with Baptism being one demonstration of that difference? I'll have to go back to my Peter Masters sermons on this subject but I always thought they were different.
Are you simply disagreeing with your church or do you also disagree that there is as much disagreement with the Continental and British views as many suppose? If I'm not mistaken, I think there are a good many on this board and elsewhere who will argue that there is no essential difference between the Continental and British (WCF) views, although the Continental confessions do not spell things out quite as clearly as do the Westminster Standards.
They are, but they are agreed on one covenant of grace, two administrations and the continuance of the Moral Law. The London Confession is just as Sabbatarian as the WCF is. Reformed Baptists routinely denounce NCT and similar views as antinomian, and typically it comes down to an argument over the 4th Commandment since there is generally no argument about the others unless it is argued that there is a New Covenant legal code, as some NCTers have claimed.
Calvin in the Hands of the Philistines: or, Did Calvin Bowl on the Sabbath? by Chris Coldwell
Do most Continental Reformed Churches hold to the spiritual view or have they imported the mostly imported the idea from Presbyterianism? Is the Continental view closer to Calvin's view then the Presbyterian view?
Would that be Baxter's view as well?
See the link I posted above.
I don't think there is as much of a difference between the Continental view and the WCF, especially on a practical and historical level, as some want to think. I have known of people who claimed to take the Continental view but were practically as anti-sabbatarian as the average dispensationalist.
Waldron has a good message explaining where he would depart with NCT.
SermonAudio.com - New Covenant Theology
Neonomianism is the technical term for advocates of a 'New Law.' Baxter was neo-nomian. If he is in heaven, he knows better, now.
There are implications for the Christian life, as well. The third use of the Law is thrown out. They believe (generalization alert) that the Spirit guides believers to know intuitively what they ought to or ought not to do. As regards relationships, love is to govern.
However, the standard of love is the Law--towards God and towards neighbor. Anything in its place is 'anti' nomian. Anti means in the place of as well as against a thing.
Would it follow that Sabbatarian Baptists should give up their credo position and Baptist children of believers?
That's probably a thought for another thread.
What I was referring to is those who say they hold to the Covenant Theology found in the 2nd London Baptist Confession and other similar statements yet are not sabbatarian. But you have those like some Klineans in Confessional Presbyterian churches that have similar views on the sabbath and who disagree with the WCF.
Ok, I better step out and take a day or two to view the links/sermons posted.
I'll have to remember to ask that in about a week or so.
A former pastor of mine basically identifies with NCT but yet says there is no New Testament legal code and says others go too far in trying to get rid of the Ten Commandments. It's all very confusing, really. NCT is by no means monolithic.
What I'm interested in finding out is how they get to that point. The people I had in mind when I posted that may now be sabbatarian for all I know.
Of course you have different flavors of sabbatarianism as well. Many will agree with the WCF that there is a continuing sabbath obligation but will differ on some of the particulars.
What are some of the flavours of sabbaterianism?
For example, R.C. Sproul has written that he believes that recreation is permissible on the Sabbath. Some who are sabbatarians don't necessarily agree with every jot and tittle of what the Westminster Larger Catechism has to say about it.
Ahhhh, I remember reading about that.
Quote from Dr. Sproul: This group of Christians who believe the Sabbath should be observed actually splits into two groups. One holds what we call the Continental view: Recreation is permitted on the Sabbath. The other holds the Puritan view: Recreation is forbidden on the Sabbath. I take the position that recreation is a legitimate form of rest on the Sabbath.
Ligonier Ministries | Questions Answered
I attend a college which is heavily influenced by the Carsonesque NCT. I'm looking forward to grappling with it over the next few years.
I would say no John Reisinger wrote an open letter to R.C. Sproul on this subject and Tom Wells wrote another good article called Is John G. Reisinger an Antinomian?
here's links to both
An Open Letter to R.C. Sproul: openletterrc
Is John G. Reisinger an Antinomian?: jgr_tomwells
The recreation exception is not to some jot and tittle; it is a distinguishing mark of Puritan Sabbatarianism.
The distinction is but a dream. As far as I can discern there was no major difference between the Continental and British view.
If it were only that easy, to dismiss it as a dream...
See previous threads (the first is the longest):
Thank you Chris, I understand there to be "doctrinal differences in Calvin's (the real continental view) and that of the Puritans..." and "Theologians such as Voetius and Cocceius had argued for quite some time about the nature of the Sabbath, and thus the Reformed churches were still divided."