NCT distinctives

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
 
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.
 
Originally posted by fredtgreco
Originally posted by Christopher
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.

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

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.
 
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]
 
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.

:amen: John Reisinger made this exact point at a conference last Fall.
 
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.
:2cents:
 
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.



[Edited on 4-7-2005 by Mantis]

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.
 
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.
 
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]
 
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
 
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."

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

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.
 
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.
 
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 Him:(1) 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.
(3)Rev. 1:10.
(4)Exod. 20:8,10; Matt. 5:17,18.
 
"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.
 
Originally posted by fredtgreco
[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.

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.

In regards to his views on the Mosaic Law, he seems closer to new covenant theology than covenant theology, although once again it would not work to say that he precisely falls within that category.

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
 
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

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?
 
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?
 
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."

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?

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
 
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?
 
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 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?

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
 
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top