New Covenant Theology: Good Teaching gets a Bad Rap.

[kyredneck]

Please quote the Scripture where they were given a choice. The above simply states that they promise to obey!

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

As far the terms of the covenant, no, they never had any say so in that. They agreed to keep it. Adam had no say so either.

 

[OldRegular]

The big sticking point between Covenant Theology & New Covenant Theology is both the nature and extent of the Covenant. CT sees the covenant as extending in the past from the time of Adam. They believe - wrongly, I would maintain - that God gave to Adam a Covenant of Works (see Berkhof for a concise statement of this teaching). NCT says that the relation between God and Adam was not a covenant of works. If the Bible does not label it as such who are we to do so? See this article for a good refutation of this Covenant of Works assumed for Adam:
http://www.soundofgrace.com/jgr/index052.htm

I like the answer A.H. Strong gave to the question of when the Covenant of Works did begin.

"In Amsterdam in 1468",he answered.

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.

 

[OldRegular]

The big sticking point between Covenant Theology & New Covenant Theology is both the nature and extent of the Covenant. CT sees the covenant as extending in the past from the time of Adam. They believe - wrongly, I would maintain - that God gave to Adam a Covenant of Works (see Berkhof for a concise statement of this teaching). NCT says that the relation between God and Adam was not a covenant of works. If the Bible does not label it as such who are we to do so? See this article for a good refutation of this Covenant of Works assumed for Adam:
http://www.soundofgrace.com/jgr/index052.htm

I like the answer A.H. Strong gave to the question of when the Covenant of Works did begin.

"In Amsterdam in 1468",he answered.

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.

 

[asterisktom]

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.

Personally, I would be hesitant in seeing covenants where God does not explicitly describe them as such.

As far as Adam's reward goes, I don't believe "reward" would be the proper term. We reward someone with what they don't have at the time. If someone says to me, "I am going to reward you, Tom." I am led to expect something new. If the same person says my reward is a purple, rusty, 1998 Geo Metro I would answer, "Aw! I already have one of those."

So what reward would Adam have had - that he didn't already have?

 

[asterisktom]

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 with the disagreement between Covenant Theology and New Covenant theology. Perhaps you can enlighten me.

I am not sure what you are not seeing. (Boy, that sounds strange!)

Just for my understanding of your position: Do you believe that the Covenant of Works was already in Eden? Not a trick question, I just want to understand where you are coming from on this issue.

 

[jcjordan]

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/]

 

[asterisktom]

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/]

Thanks for the link. BTW, RK McGregor Wright (aka Bob) was one of those most responsible for me finally becoming a 5-pointer. His writing on limited atonement, and his appeal to Owen's argument, was the clincher for me. I have just uploaded that article here:
http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=1504369#post1504369

If you see Bob again tell him thanks for a great book!

 

[jcjordan]

Thanks for the link. BTW, RK McGregor Wright (aka Bob) was one of those most responsible for me finally becoming a 5-pointer. His writing on limited atonement, and his appeal to Owen's argument, was the clincher for me. I have just uploaded that article here:
http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=1504369#post1504369

If you see Bob again tell him thanks for a great book!

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

 

[OldRegular]

Personally, I would be hesitant in seeing covenants where God does not explicitly describe them as such.

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.

As far as Adam's reward goes, I don't believe "reward" would be the proper term. We reward someone with what they don't have at the time. If someone says to me, "I am going to reward you, Tom." I am led to expect something new. If the same person says my reward is a purple, rusty, 1998 Geo Metro I would answer, "Aw! I already have one of those."

So what reward would Adam have had - that he didn't already have?

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

 

[OldRegular]

Originally Posted by OldRegular
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 with the disagreement between Covenant Theology and New Covenant theology. Perhaps you can enlighten me.

I am not sure what you are not seeing. (Boy, that sounds strange!)

Just for my understanding of your position: Do you believe that the Covenant of Works was already in Eden? Not a trick question, I just want to understand where you are coming from on this issue.

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.

 

[asterisktom]

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.

Oh well, maybe we can just stick a fork in this and call it "done".:thumbsup:

 

[Dan Stevens]

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.

 

[asterisktom]

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.

Yes, a Christian today is not under obligation to the Decalogue. He is informed and infilled by the Spirit who teaches the much more glorious Law of Liberty. This is the position of NCT (New Covenant Theology) but not Covenant Theology. CT lays great stress, for instance, on keeping the Sabbath. NCT certainly does not.

My OP was about NCT, not CT.

 

[Reformed1689]

Yes, a Christian today is not under obligation to the Decalogue. He is informed and infilled by the Spirit who teaches the much more glorious Law of Liberty. This is the position of NCT (New Covenant Theology) but not Covenant Theology. CT lays great stress, for instance, on keeping the Sabbath. NCT certainly does not.

My OP was about NCT, not CT.

So is NCT antinomian?

 

[Dan Stevens]

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.

 

[asterisktom]

So is NCT antinomian?

Not in my book. I don't necessarily consider myself NCT anymore, mainly because of their eschatology, but I certainly agree with them on this.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

[ I admire Reisinger very much for his work in reestablishing the historical Baptist Doctrines of Grace.]

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

 

[Martin Marprelate]

One of those articles, "The Death of the Decalogue," by Richard Barcellos, applied the odious label of theological antinomian to Tom Wells and Fred Zaspel, co-authors of the book New Covenant Theology (page 55), and to me (page 16). "

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.

 

[asterisktom]

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

True, it is not up to us to do this. But consider that the New Testament does just that. The other nine are repeated and enlarged upon by Jesus and the Apostle John. But not so the Sabbath commandment. Paul, in fact. does quite the opposite, speaking against observing days and seasons.

 

[Van]

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.