New Covenant Theology: Good Teaching gets a Bad Rap.

I agree with you. They only agreed to the terms of the covenant, which they had nothing to do with.

 

Call it the Covenant of Works or not [Open Bible calls it the Edenic Covenant] but I believe that Reisinger is incorrect when he states that there was no reward for Adam's obedience to God regarding the Garden. [ I admire Reisinger very much for his work in reestablishing the historical Baptist Doctrines of Grace.] The reward was continued life in the Garden. The penalty was physical and spiritual death and expulsion from the Garden. Of course the promise of the Redeemer [Genesis 3:15] also implied the promise of the New Birth. I believe that Genesis 3:15 was the initiation in time of the Covenant of Grace.

 

Reisinger states in

http://www.soundofgrace.com/jgr/index052.htm

"I repeat, the whole system of covenant theology is build on the absolute necessity of Adam being under a covenant of works wherein he was promised 'life' as a reward for obeying that covenant. But He already had life! He already had fellowship with God. The great tragedy of Eden was not that "an opportunity to earn life was lost." The tragedy was the life Adam already had was lost when he disobeyed. Where in Gen 2:17 is there the slightest inference that if Adam obeys a covenant for X number of months, or years, he will get a bigger and better garden or God would remove the tree. Genesis is a simple and straightforward narrative and covenant theologians superimpose a whole unproven system of theology on it.'

Frankly I do not understand his logic and frankly I believe he is wrong. I don't see that this has anything to do woth the disagreement between Covenant Theology and New Covenant theology. Perhaps you can enlighten me.

 

If anyone is interested, we had three men come into our church and give a talk on Dispensationalism, New Covenant theology, and Covenant theology. They each gave a talk each week. In my opinion, the dispensationalist was not worth listening too. I'm friends with the NC guy (his name is RK McGregor Wright..we call him Bob) and he wrote the book some of you may have heard of called "No Place for Sovereignty". He was present for the CT speaker and he asked some good questions during the Q&A time.....that I believe were thoroughly answered. I came in knowing that I was probably furthest from dispensationalism (which was confirmed) but undecided between CT and NCT. I came the conclusion that I adhere to CT with a few NCT distinctives. Most interesting was the discussion involving the covenant of works. Since the NCT spoke first, he briefly persuaded me against it, but when the CT spoke in favor of and then discussed it with the NCT, I ended up agreeing with the CT concerning this. Anyway, here is the link. You'll have to go back to August and September to find the talks.

http://www.hbcjc.org/sermons/]

 

I see him all the time....in fact, he's been in my home on several occasions. He's a character.

 

I agree that the word covenant is not used in Genesis 3:15. However, it is the initial promise, however veiled, of the Redeemer to come. Does that really differ with the covenant following the Flood, simply a promise not to destroy the earth with water. Nothing required on the part of man.

It seems to come down to a matter of semant:tongue3:ics!

 

As I noted in my remarks concerning Reisinger I really don't see that it matters. I do not believe that Covenant Theology hangs on whether there was a Covenant of Works prior to the fall.

 

I see it's an old discussion however my google found it and after I read it I see one important point regarding Covenant Theology is missing from the discussion. CT asserts that the 10 commandments are a required rule of life for NT believers in order for us to avoid living lawless wicked debauched lives. In fact they say anyone rejecting the 10 commandments as a continuing obligation or rule of life is by definition an antinomian (this is pretty much how the late R.C. Sproul summed it up). My question to them however is, how did Enoch, who lived thousands of years before God gave the 10 commandments to Moses, manage to live a life that "pleased" God (Hebrews 11:5)? And not just Enoch, but Abel, Noah, Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph and Moses (for the first 80 years of his life), all of whom received a "good report" by faith (Hebrews 11:2)? The point should be obvious, if they, prior to the issuance of the 10 commandments, could live a life pleasing to God and receive a good report by faith, then why couldn't a New Testament believer do the same? I think the answer is obvious... we can.

 

So is NCT antinomian?

 

NCT rejects the idea the 10 commandments are a "rule of life" as found in confessions like the WCF. Some like to call that antinomian. NCT also rejects the tripartite view of the law as being an artificial theological invention of man.

 

I think you are confusing John Riesinger with his elder brother Ernest who was a real Reformed Baptist.

 

I am not aware of this article, but I have Barcellos' book In Defense of the Decalogue, which I strongly recommend.
I also recommend this teaching video concerning NCT.

For myself, I believe that God gave ten commandments, and that it is not for us to reduce them to nine.

 

Beware of folks long on charges and short on explanations. Is the New Covenant in effect now, since the death of Christ and the giving of the "Helper?" Or, will the New Covenant be inaugurated at Christ's second coming?

What is the CT answer?
What is the NCT answer?
Traditional and Revised Dispensations say the New Covenant is future, and will begin with the Second Coming.
Progress Dispensationalists say the New Covenant was inaugurated at Christ's death, and is in effect now.