Featured What do you think of NCT/PD theolgy?

My pagan ancestors (no Jewish people that I know of) have never been under the Law given through Moses to Abraham's spiritual descendants. However, I am a spiritual descendant of Abraham - sharing his faith - and I can fulfill the moral calling of the Law in Christ. One day I will be completely perfected in it in Christ.

 

Spot on BB, and btw, Yeshua1, can you support that progressive dispensationalism teaches no rapture? Or did you just make that up?

1) Yes all mankind is under the New Covenant.
2) Yes, born anew Gentiles are children of the promise, see Galatians 3.

 

Who are Genyiles and epeople?

 

This is merely an FYI and not being snarky...but only baptists can post in here. I noticed you are non-demoninational. Just a heads up my friend.

 

Jesus said. If you live me keep my commandments

 

Who teaches this?
Who are you speaking about?
Who teaches we are under Mosaic law?
Which progressive dispensationalists teach this?
What is the law of Christ?

 

What do you mean by the moral law of Moses?
Did the ten commandments exist before Exodus?
Did the ten commandments disappear?
Are we under the ten commandments as Christians?

 

file:///C:/Users/Tonyd85/OneDrive/Documents/CovenantTheologyAndDispensationalism.pdf

Rather than hold to the relevance and perpetuity of the Moral Law, Dispensationalism, which is antinomian by nature and necessity, views the Law as a legal document given only to Israel, and confined to the “Dispensation of Law” [from Sinai to the Cross




is absolutely disassociated from the daily life, so experimental sanctification is absolutely unrelated to position in [union with] Christ.5 NOTE: The Scripture makes our union with Christ the very foundation of our definitive and practical, progressive sanctification, as manifest in our daily lives (Rom. 6:1–23; 1 Cor. 6:14–20; 2 Cor. 3:17–18; 5:13–17; Gal. 2:20; Eph. 1:3–6; 2:4– 10). [Lewis Sperry Chafer]: ...Those believers who are dominated by the flesh respond to the flesh and those that are dominated by the Spirit respond to the Spirit (Rom. 8:5). In any case the carnal or fleshly mind functions in the realm of spiritual death and the spiritual mind in the realm of spiritual life and peace (Rom. 8:6)...Too much emphasis can hardly be given to the fact that the Christian may function in his life either in the realm of spiritual death—separation from God—or the realm of things related to the Holy Spirit...The Christian is saved and safe in Christ, yet in his manner of life he may prove sarkiko,j or penumatiko,j.6 NOTE: The Apostle Paul called some of the Corinthians “carnal” because they were looking to men rather than to our Lord, not because they were living unconverted or sinful lives (1 Cor. 3:1– 4). Further, Rom. 8:5–11 is clearly a contrast between the converted and unconverted, not between “carnal” and “spiritual” Christians. Thus, contrary to Dispensational teaching, regenerating grace must be expressed in the life through a biblical conversion experience and a subsequently converted and sanctified lifestyle as necessitated by the New or Gospel Covenant (Jer. 31:31–34; Ezk. 11:19–20; 36:25–27; Jn. 3:3–7; 5:24; Heb. 8:6–13; 12:14; 1 Pet. 1:15–16; 2:97 It is also unavoidably antinomian, in that it relegates the “Mosaic Law,” including the Moral Law, as epitomized in the Decalogue, to an alleged “Dispensation of Law” from Sinai to the Cross. Thus the Moral Law has been abrogated by the redemptive work of our Lord and does not apply to this “Dispensation of Grace.” The result is that the very nature of conversion [replaced by “decisionism”] and Christian experience have been severely modified and the reality of personal sanctification made optional through the necessarily antinomian doctrine of the “carnal Christian” error, which makes the believer’s union with Christ ineffectual, contrary to Scripture (Rom. 5:11–6:23; Col. 3:1–5ff). Note the comments of Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer (1871–1952), a leading proponent of Dispensationalism: ...every believer is now said to be sanctified positionally, holy, and by so much a saint before God. This position [union with Christ] bears no relationship to the believer’s daily experience more than that it should inspire him to holy living....As positional sanctification 4 Robert Haldane, Exposition of the Epistle to the Romans, pp. 478–479.

 

Historically, this movement began in the latter part of the Twentieth century with a conflict between Reformed and Sovereign Grace Baptists over the issue of the relevance and observance of the Fourth Commandment, i.e. concerning the unity of the Decalogue, then of the entire Decalogue or the Moral Law as a rule for the believer’s life. Both Covenant Theology and Dispensational influences colored the early debates. New Covenant Theology holds with Covenant Theology to the unity of God’s people, both Jews and Gentiles as believers. “The Church” is spiritual Israel. With Dispensationalism it denies the existence of both the Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Grace, and maintains that the Ten Commandments, as part of the Mosaic Covenant, have been abrogated by the redemptive work of the Lord Jesus Christ. The Law, therefore, has no relationship to either believers or unbelievers. Thus, in common with Dispensationalism, New Covenant Theology is necessarily antinomian—although such terminology is denied—holding that believers are no longer under the Ten Commandments, but under “the Law of Christ,” as though these
were different. Their stand is that “everything that God commands is ‘moral law’ to the individual commanded.”17 They further hold “that God has not written his Law on the hearts of all men,” contrary to the teaching of the Apostle Paul concerning every man as the image–bearer of God (Rom. 2:11–16) and both the promise and the fulfillment of the New Covenant, and (Jer. 31:31–34; Ezk. 11:19–20; Ezk. 36:25–27; Heb. 8:6–13). Several other statements made by proponents of this view also seem self–contradictory in the light of Scripture.18 15 Historically, this movement began in the latter part of the Twentieth century with a conflict between Reformed and Sovereign Grace Baptists over the issue of the relevance and observance of the Fourth Commandment, i.e. concerning the unity of the Decalogue, then of the entire Decalogue or the Moral Law as a rule for the believer’s life. Both Covenant Theology and Dispensational influences colored the early debates. New Covenant Theology holds with Covenant Theology to the unity of God’s people, both Jews and Gentiles as believers. “The Church” is spiritual Israel. With Dispensationalism it denies the existence of both the Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Grace, and maintains that the Ten Commandments, as part of the Mosaic Covenant, have been abrogated by the redemptive work of the Lord Jesus Christ. The Law, therefore, has no relationship to either believers or unbelievers. Thus, in common with Dispensationalism, New Covenant Theology is necessarily antinomian—although such terminology is denied—holding that believers are no longer under the Ten Commandments, but under “the Law of Christ,” as though thesewere different. Their stand is that “everything that God commands is ‘moral law’ to the individual commanded.”17 They further hold “that God has not written his Law on the hearts of all men,” contrary to the teaching of the Apostle Paul concerning every man as the image–bearer of God (Rom. 2:11–16) and both the promise and the fulfillment of the New Covenant, and (Jer. 31:31–34; Ezk. 11:19–20; Ezk. 36:25–27; Heb. 8:6–13). Several other statements made by proponents of this view also seem self–contradictory in the light of Scripture.18 15

 

I consider NCT to be antinomian......BTW I also see Dispensational Theology antinomian. But you know, up here in NW NJ there are almost no Baptists that are also reformed so you begin to compromise in-order to have a church. this compromise however bothers me (probably more deep down than I wish to admit).

 

Did you see Al Mohler hired prominent New Covenant Theology advocate Fred Zaspel to teach systematic theology at SBTS?:

https://www.crossway.org/authors/fred-g-zaspel/

 

he must have lost his senses or Fred repented.

 

forget that. I aint buying that.......error is error.

 

All the descendants of Adam have the moral law written on their hearts (Romans 2:14-15), though smudged and defaced by the fall (Genesis 5:3; Romans 5:19).

Christians have the moral law re-written on their hearts (Hebrews 10:16 etc.). This is a wonderful fulfilment of the figure of Moses bringing a second pair of stone tablets down the mountain to replace the ones that were broken (Exodus 34:1-4). However, I do not see that those second tablets had one commandment missing. I can't believe in the Nine Commandments; I could more easily believe in none at all. The Lord Jesus did not abolish the Sabbath; He is Lord of the Sabbath (Mark 2:28).

 

But the moral law is not the same thing as the Ten Commandments given as part of a special covenant relationship that God made with the physical descendants of Abraham.

I have no idea what point you are trying to make.

Jesus fulfilled the Sabbath and we fulfill the Sabbath in Christ, even thought we may not follow Levitical Law regarding the Sabbath.