Featured The Covenant of Works

It is the case with NCT. That is a major point.

This is what NCT actually holds regarding God's moral law:

"For the New Covenant church, the law of God is no longer an external standard that demands compliance with the will of God. The Law of Christ as the indwelling Spirit is now an internal person who causes and inclines us to obey God from the heart."

The difference is not obeying vs obeying God's moral law.

It is not right to deny how NCT defines its own positions (I don't do that with Covenant Theology). You end up making strawman arguments trying to prevent others from actually considering NCT.

That is wrong because people should have the opportunity to consider each view. It is the same as gossip.

 

I need to point out something (again) because it is occurring (again)

Calvinists would rightly object to non-Calvinists referring to their view as making God the author of evil. Arminianism would rightly object to Calvinists referring to their view as making men their own savior.

Those types of arguments are strawman arguments. They ignore the true position in an attempt to discredit and prevent Christians from considering opposing view.

@Martin Marprelate is doing that with NCT (intentionally or unintentionally, I cannot know - he may not have read NCT statements - but I assume for now it was unintention).

When we deal with opposing views we need to treat those vires honestly. That is why I copied the "covenant of works" definition from a Covenant Theology affirming site.

Anything else is just gossip.

 

I was referencing this post

That said, this is a discussion. I am not casting slurs on Covenant Theology. I am saying I reject the method because the "covenants" they use are not covenants in the Bible. Instead they are "covenants" Presbyterian scholars developed from the Bible. Those are very different things.

Where many Christians offer hypothetical ideas (and recognize them as such) Covenant Theology takes a hypothetical as actual doctrine and builds upon it.

I do not fault you for taking up that method. I just believe it is wrong and as such obscures the biblical narrative.

 

I never even mentioned the Sermon on the Mount.

This is what I mean by a few Reformed Christians trying to keep others ignorant of different positions by gossip and strawman arguments. It is simply wrong.

My point was that Covenant Theology AND NCT both recognize that God's moral law applies universally because it is rooted in the very nature of God. The difference between the two is it's focus.

I do not understand why you argue so strongly against what is not presented in NCT or so hatefully against what I never claimed.

My disagreement with Covenant Theology is that it assumes covenants not stated in Scripture as foundational covenants.

You are right that I said that I disagree with Covenant Theology because they view God's moral law as summarized in the Decalogue and the Royal law.

But you are wrong to call my statement that I believe Covenant Theology is incorrect to view God's moral law as summarized in the Decalogue and the Royal law a slur.

The difference....again....and reworded for your edification....is that Covenant Theology views God's moral law as summarized in the Decalogue and the Royal law while NCT views the Law of Christ as God's moral law establishing the Decalogue to include the Royal law.

Please try not to gossip about me (or anybody else, for that matter). If you have a question then ask. I will answer. Or read NCT through NCT theologians.

Nobody is slurring or slandering any position. Disagreements are just that - disagreements. You are more than welcome to disagree with any position here. That isn't slurring. It is expressing a different position.

 

Consider Covenant Theology, Dispensationalism, NCT. But consider them truly.

They are not compatible with one another (obviously), although they share the same passages and gospel.

It is fair to say we all fall under one of those methods, at least to a major degree.

Compare each them with the Bible.

Then decide what you are going to follow.

Your decision will not affect your status as a child of God, but it will have an impact on how you understand (and what you can understand) of God's Word.

 

Again, you are not being honest with my post.

What did I say?

I said that Covenant Theology views God's moral law as summarized in the Decalogue and the Royal law while NCT views the Law of Christ as God's moral law establishing the Decalogue to include the Royal law.

The difference is the focus.

Now, if you are denying that Covenant Theology views God's moral law as summarized in the Decalogue and the Royal law then we can discuss it.

But stop claiming anybody who disagrees with you are casting slurs on whatever ideas you hold.

You have disagreed with my views, and with the views of others. Unless you gossip about people who hold those views it is not casting slurs but simply disagreeing.

 

Not off topic at all, brother. I think we need to look at this more carefully (both your concerns and NCT.

Ont thing I need to point out is that these are frameworks. Just like there are different views within Covenant Theology and Dispensationalism, there are disagreement within NCT. All I can do is point out what the NCT states.

Douglas Moo and John Piper are used of examples of NCT. I agree there. But mostly in certain points (NCT leanings). Piper, for example, said he is closest to NCT but does not place himself exactly there.

My issue with your post here is there is an error in your reading.

You indicate NCT, especially the section on the Law, seems that NCT says the Decalogue and God's moral law is obsolete and done away with.

The reason you read NCT in that way is because Covenant Theology equates God's Moral law with the Old Covenant Law. But they is wrong because NCT does not.

NCT equates God's moral law with God's own nature. The link I provided explained it well. The moral commandments of the Old Covenant apply because they are universal, but the Old Covenant ended with the New Covenant.

NCT holds that the Old Covenant Law did not become void but is fulfilled in Christ. The New Covenant established the Old Covenant Law.

Another way to look at this is the Old Covenant Law foreshadowed the fuller expression of God's moral law in Christ Himself.

None of the moral commandments are obsolete. They were carried over (NOT from the Old Covenant to the Law of Christ but from the Law of Christ to the Old Covenant).

I do understand just how much a break NCT folks considers to have occurred between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant. I am a NCT folk. We do believe the Old Covenant Law was "nailed to the tree". BUT not God's moral law. That is based in the Law of Christ and merely expressed to an extent in the Old Covenant Law.

I apologize for not pointing out that distinction earlier. Your misunderstood is definitely logical as you and I look at God's moral law from different standpoints.

 

The issue is you are putting that point in an entirely different context.

Here is the point you are speaking of:

45. Because the Old Covenant law, including the Decalogue, has been fulfilled in Jesus Christ, New Covenant Theology denies that the Old Covenant law, including the Decalogue and its so-called “moral law”, is binding on New Covenant believers today. Yet, as the special revelation of God as fulfilled in Christ, the Old Covenant law, including the Decalogue, continues to inform behavior in the New Covenant.

But the statement goes on: All behavioral norms, including those detailed in the Decalogue, are ultimately defined by and expressed in the person and work of Jesus Christ. . . . The Holy Spirit is the indwelling Law of Christ, causing New Covenant members to obey Christ the Law in conformity to His image.. Covenant Theology emphasizes that it is the Spirit, the indwelling “law” who both causes (Ezekiel 36:27) and enables the Christian to be conformed to and transformed into Christ’s image, Who is the Imago Dei, the perfect image of God.

You are missing the point. The point here is that Covenant Theology misunderstands God's moral law (that is why in your reference it says "so called moral law).

NCT believes Paul's words that the Old Covenant Law is established in Christ (in the New Covenant). It sees the Old Covenant as an expression of God's moral law but not God's moral law itself.

 

That is a difference between Covenant Theology and NCT.


Obeying God's moral law is not (both believe we must obey God's moral law). Covenant Theology views this moral law as being the Old Covenant Law. NCT believes this moral law is now written in the hearts of believers (that God has removed our old heart, our old spirit, put His Spirit in us, causes us to obey His commandments do that when we do not it is of us and not "Christ in us", and has written His Law in our hearts).

Insofar as the Bible goes, NCT has more support (in addition to the scripture references in the last paragraph, Paul tells us that the Old Covenant ended with the New Covenant, that we are no longer under the Law, and that we are now under the Law of Christ).

How do you interpret the passage that the Old Covenant Law is established by the New?

 

Again, you point out differences between Covenant Theology and NCT in terms of viewing the Mosaic Law and the New Covenant but no differences in our obligation to observe and obey God's moral law.

Like we ALREADY discussed, NCT values the Old Testament and insists God's moral law is absolute and applicable. But they believe the Old Covenant has ended.

The Bible tells us a few things about the Old Covenant Law:

1. While it came in glory it came with lesser glory than the New Covenant. While it brought death the New Covenant brings life (2 Cor 3:7-18).

2. Christians are not under the Law (Galatians 3)

3. The Law dis not apply to those before Moses or to Gentiles (Deuteronomy 5:3)

Please don't take this wrong as it's also a sensitive subject for me, but at some point (if you have not already) you are going to have to decide whether God's Word is your authority or Presbyterian writers and theology. Either way is fine with me (both contain the gospel). But you cannot follow both.

I appreciate past theologies and believe we can learn from how theology was developed throughout history in dealing with their circumstances. I enjoy reading Puritan theology (more so Puritan poetry), but we have to make sure we realize the errors in their doctrines lest we repeat them.

There is a reason Puritanism ended in the early 18th Century. Before reading Puritan writings it is probably a good idea to understand Puritan errors. Then go for it, knowing there are obstacles ahead.

But I am not sure I know why neo-retro theologies have developed, particularly within Reformed Churches.

 

I need to add this :

I appreciate that NCT integrates the Old Testament with the New Testament. So we do have that in common.

Our difference is which direction we travel. NCT insists that Christ Himself is the fullest revelation of God (even fuller than the Old Testament).

So NCT interprets the Old Testament through the lens of Christ. That is why NCT holds that God's moral law is everlasting but the covenant expression in the Old Covenant ended with the fuller (Paul says more glorious) New Covenant.

Does that mean that we must put to death a man who accidentally runs over and kills another person (as required under the Old Covenant)? I don't believe so because I do not understand that to be showing love to the offender or the family of the victim. But that man did violate one of the Ten Commandments, and under the Law he is required to die or live as a prisoner for the remainder of his life.