NCT distinctives

Status
Not open for further replies.

Scott Bushey

Puritanboard Commissioner
{I have split this thread since a theological discussion is worthy, but should not be done in the context of a family tragedy}


Hi Chris,
This is truly sad news. Ernie was originally from our neck of the woods. Unlike his brother, he has held firmly to orthodox ideas.

God is assuredly glorified this day through Mr. Reisinger.

[Edited on 6-2-2004 by fredtgreco]

[Edited on 6-2-2004 by Scott Bushey]
 
[quote:c320db4c58][i:c320db4c58]Originally posted by Scott Bushey[/i:c320db4c58]
Hi Chris,
This is truly sad news. Ernie was originally from our neck of the woods. [b:c320db4c58]Unlike his brother, he has held firmly to orthodox ideas. [/b:c320db4c58]

God is assuredly glorified this day through Mr. Reisinger. [/quote:c320db4c58]

Would you care to elaborate on this comment? Are you referring to John? Where are some of his unorthodox beliefs?

Inquiring minds want to know.
 
Tom,
Christopher has already rebuked me offline for taking a "stab" at Ernie's brother John. In all honesty, the comment was not meant as an ad hom against John as much as it was to distinguish between the two brothers; John R. and Ernie R. Many people know the name -Reisinger- because of John's NCT perspective.

You inquire of John R's. "unorthodoxy". Do you as an orthodox presbyterian regard NCT as "orthodox"?

I will add, I grieve along with John. I am sure our friend is grief stricken over the loss of his beloved brother. If anyone took my statement in the way Chris has noted, please, oh please forgive me.

Let us all pray for John, his ministry and close relatives in this time of grief.

[Edited on 6-2-2004 by Scott Bushey]
 
[quote:795bff6be8][i:795bff6be8]Originally posted by Scott Bushey[/i:795bff6be8]
You inquire of John R's. "unorthodoxy". Do you as an orthodox presbyterian regard NCT as "orthodox"?

[/quote:795bff6be8]

Scott,

I was just asking. I have read Ernie but I'm not familiar with John or his percular theological distinctives. We attended church many years ago with members of the extended Reisinger family. I think I met either John or Ernie at that time, but I can't recall which one. It was a presbyterian church with many baptist sympathizers.

BTW, aren't all reformed baptists NCT to a certain degree? Or is NCT just limted to its understanding and (non-)application of the law? Where do John and Ernie differ the most?
 
NCT is limited to it's distinctives. So, in this way, the reformed baptist is not in the same camp.
 
[quote:320da02e10][i:320da02e10]Originally posted by tcalbrecht[/i:320da02e10]
[quote:320da02e10][i:320da02e10]Originally posted by Scott Bushey[/i:320da02e10]
You inquire of John R's. "unorthodoxy". Do you as an orthodox presbyterian regard NCT as "orthodox"?

[/quote:320da02e10]

Scott,

I was just asking. I have read Ernie but I'm not familiar with John or his percular theological distinctives. We attended church many years ago with members of the extended Reisinger family. I think I met either John or Ernie at that time, but I can't recall which one. It was a presbyterian church with many baptist sympathizers.

BTW, aren't all reformed baptists NCT to a certain degree? Or is NCT just limted to its understanding and (non-)application of the law? Where do John and Ernie differ the most? [/quote:320da02e10]

Tom,

NCT would be much closer to radical Sonship advocates that RBs. The major disctinctives are a complete rejection of the 4th commandment, a complete rejection of the Covenant of Works/Covenant of Grace structure of the Scriptures, the belief that the Mosaic covenant was a legal covenant that was only a ministration of death, and hence the 10 commandments are bad, not good, and Israel was not the people of God.

It is basically a half-way house between covenant theology (of both the 1689 and WCF varieties and Dispensationalism).

Here are some representative quotes from "in-depth Studies" one of the primary NCT sites (http://www.ids.org/):

[quote:320da02e10]
Thus, the Ten Commandments were the essence of the Old (or first) Covenant only and Not the essence of all of God's law in every era. As the essence of the Old Covenant, the Ten Commandments function as its representative:

In addition, the Old Covenant was a legal, conditional covenant with Israel that demanded perfect obedience in order to receive the promised blessings:

Then Moses went up to God, and the LORD called to him from the mountain and said, "This is what you are to say to the house of Jacob and what you are to tell the people of Israel: `You yourselves have seen what I did to Egypt, and how I carried you on eagles' wings and brought you to myself. Now if you obey me fully and keep my covenant, then out of all nations you will be my treasured possession. Although the whole earth is mine, you will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.' These are the words you are to speak to the Israelites."
(Exodus 19:3-6)

The primary function of the Old Covenant was a ministry of death.

He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant--not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. Now if the ministry that brought death, which was engraved in letters on stone, came with glory, so that the Israelites could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of its glory, fading though it was, will not the ministry of the Spirit be even more glorious? If the ministry that condemns men is glorious, how much more glorious is the ministry that brings righteousness! For what was glorious has no glory now in comparison with the surpassing glory. And if what was fading away came with glory, how much greater is the glory of that which lasts! (2 Corinthians 3:6-9)

...

NCT as seen above does differ from Covenant Theology and Historic Dispensationalism. In regards to Covenant Theology, the NCT view asserts that the "Covenant of Works" and "Covenant of Grace" cannot be found in Scripture. We would agree that God had a gracious purpose in placing the nation of Israel under the law as a covenant. However, this does not make the Old Covenant a covenant of grace. Scripture indicates that the purpose of the Mosaic Law was to bring deep conviction of sin to those under the Old Covenant:
...

In addition, NCT views the nation of Israel as a picture of the people of God but not the real people of God:

The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming--not the realities themselves. For this reason it can never, by the same sacrifices repeated endlessly year after year, make perfect those who draw near to worship. (Hebrews 10:1)

For I do not want you to be ignorant of the fact, brothers, that our forefathers were all under the cloud and that they all passed through the sea. They were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea. They all ate the same spiritual food and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ. Nevertheless, God was not pleased with most of them; their bodies were scattered over the desert. Now these things occurred as examples to keep us from setting our hearts on evil things as they did...These things happened to them as examples and were written down as warnings for us, on whom the fulfillment of the ages has come.
(1 Corinthians 10:1-6, 11)

Thus, the nation of Israel is mainly the Unbelieving people of God who are rejected by God as a covenant nation:[/quote:320da02e10]

And more specifically on the Covenant of Redemption

[quote:320da02e10]
Question: Does NCT hold to a covenant of redemption in eternity made between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit? We do not believe that it is wise to refer to God's plan to save a people in eternity past as a "covenant." But we do believe that our one God who is three co-equal and co-eternal persons did make a certain plan that He would save a people from their sins. But if this plan is not called a covenant by the authors of Scripture, we must think twice about describing it by that name ourselves. The reason using the word "covenant" to describe events in Scripture that are not called covenants should be rejected is because of the importance of the word "covenant" in Scripture and the place of prominence the concept has in our theological systems. The danger of calling something a covenant that Scripture does not refer to as a covenant increases the likelihood of making something a cornerstone of our theology that in fact is not an emphasis in Scripture. This of course would lead to an unbalanced and unbiblical theological system. We want to be very clear. We are not saying that you always have to use biblical terms to describe biblical concepts (even when those concepts are foundational to our theological systems). The Bible never uses the term 'person' when referring to the Holy Spirit. Nevertheless, Christians are justified in this application because the concept of the personhood of the Holy Spirit is clear in Scripture. We find that we are forced to acknowledge the personhood of the Holy Spirit from the clear teaching of Scripture. The evidence in Scripture does not allow us to believe that the Holy Spirit is simply an impersonal force. Some of these evidences are actions of the Holy Spirit that are driven by purpose and intelligence as well as the fact that the authors of Scripture referred to the Spirit by using personal pronouns like "him" and "his." So the concept of the "personhood" of the Holy Spirit is an important doctrine although the term is never used to describe Him in Scripture. Thus, I think it can be a valid practice to understand a person or event in Scripture by using a term that Scripture does not in fact use to describe that person or event. So, the fundamental problem is not in assigning the word "covenant" to events in Scripture that Scripture itself does not call covenants, but rather the problem is the place you give those events in your theological system precisely because you designate them "covenants." I think this happens very naturally because the term "covenant" in Scripture, unlike the term "person," is a high profile and extremely important term. Almost invariably covenant theologians use the concept of covenant, whether it is the covenant of redemption or the covenant of grace, to illustrate the continuity of Scripture and God's work in salvation. But Scripture uses the term, almost without exception, to illustrate discontinuity.8 In conclusion, while NCT does believe that the Bible teaches that our Trinitarian God has always had a sure plan to redeem His chosen people from their sins, we think that using the word covenant to describe that plan is a bad idea.[/quote:320da02e10]

It should also not be surprising that since NCTers reject the Covenant of Works, they reject the imputation of Christ's active obedience as a "sacred cow" that cannot be found in the Bible (as a side note, I wonder how NCTers justify their belief in the doctrine of the Trinity, knowing that there is no specific "text" that teaches the doctrine: [i:320da02e10]Do you mean to say that you actually need a specific text from the bible to establish a biblical doctrine or practice? Yes. For if by "establish a biblical doctrine or practice" you are saying that this is something God wants me to believe or do, then you must have the clear and unambiguous witness of Scripture to back that up. If you don't have a text from scripture to establish your view, you have no word from God and therefore no view worth defending.[/i:320da02e10])

And so we end up with the ridiculous notion that the remission of sins is actually a positive righteousness. Even a young child knows that cancelling a sentence against a criminal does not make him a good man:

[quote:320da02e10]Do believers have to fulfill the righteous requirements of the law? Yes. But, according to Scripture, this can only be done through the death of Christ. The receiving of his payment for sins makes it just as if we had already perfectly obeyed the righteous requirements of the law. (from [i:320da02e10]Examining the Imputation of the Active Obedience of Christ A Study in Calvinistic Sacred Cow-ism[/i:320da02e10] ) [/quote:320da02e10]

My prediction is that NCT will get more and more radical as years go on, as they move to logical conclusions of their hatred and disgust for the Covenant of Works and the Sabbath.


[Edited on 6-2-2004 by fredtgreco]

[Edited on 6-2-2004 by fredtgreco]
 
Fred:
Very nicely done. That representation of the NCT, in their own words, gets to the heart of the matter, it seems to me.

You state that it is your observation that NCT is a halfway theology between the orthodox faith and dispensationalism. Is it possible that it could also be a reaction against Reconstructionism? Do you see any actual relationship? Though some stances appear opposite, yet I see similar rectionary tendencies in these separate movements. I am not as familiar with NCT as I am with the outworkings of Reconstructionism, but there seems something familiar about NCT's methods.
 
[quote:21554add25][i:21554add25]Originally posted by JohnV[/i:21554add25]
Fred:
Very nicely done. That representation of the NCT, in their own words, gets to the heart of the matter, it seems to me.

You state that it is your observation that NCT is a halfway theology between the orthodox faith and dispensationalism. Is it possible that it could also be a reaction against Reconstructionism? Do you see any actual relationship? Though some stances appear opposite, yet I see similar rectionary tendencies in these separate movements. I am not as familiar with NCT as I am with the outworkings of Reconstructionism, but there seems something familiar about NCT's methods. [/quote:21554add25]

No John, I do not think so. NCT holds in disdain the notion that the 10 Commandments are the abiding moral law, and thus is contrary to vanilla Westminsterianism and Reformed Baptists of the 1689 variety as well as Reconstructionism. The issue here is not the civil law (which is the issue for Reconstructionism), but the moral law.
 
[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.
 
Fred Said:
"My prediction is that NCT will get more and more radical as years go on, as they move to logical conclusions of their hatred and disgust for the Covenant of Works and the Sabbath."

Radical in what way?

I don't think "hatred and disgust" is a fair term to use. they disaagree with that theological particular but hatred and disgust? Come on.

NCT does not hate hate the Sabbath, because they believe that Jesus is their Sabbath.


Folks, there seems to be a lot of missunderstanding of what NCT is about. I would encouragre you to have the courage to do a little study on your own about what the NCT advocates really believe. Check out Pastor Way's chart on the Four theo. Systems compared or go to a source like Wells and Zaspel's book "New Covenant Theology." There are some here who feel that NCT is a threat to orthodoxy. Nothing could be further from the truth when you consider the Bible as the test for orthodoxy.
 
Chris,
I am not looking for opinion. What I am looking for is when did this theology, this idea, come to the forefront?

[Edited on 6-2-2004 by Scott Bushey]
 
[quote:3a454d65c7][i:3a454d65c7]Originally posted by Christopher[/i:3a454d65c7]
Fred Said:
"My prediction is that NCT will get more and more radical as years go on, as they move to logical conclusions of their hatred and disgust for the Covenant of Works and the Sabbath."

Radical in what way?

I don't think "hatred and disgust" is a fair term to use. they disaagree with that theological particular but hatred and disgust? Come on.

NCT does not hate hate the Sabbath, because they believe that Jesus is their Sabbath.


Folks, there seems to be a lot of missunderstanding of what NCT is about. I would encouragre you to have the courage to do a little study on your own about what the NCT advocates really believe. Check out Pastor Way's chart on the Four theo. Systems compared or go to a source like Wells and Zaspel's book "New Covenant Theology." There are some here who feel that NCT is a threat to orthodoxy. Nothing could be further from the truth when you consider the Bible as the test for orthodoxy. [/quote:3a454d65c7]

Christopher,

Having read a great deal of NCT from its very beginnings (about a decade or so ago was when it first started publicly appearing), I would say that NCT in general is virulant toward the CoW and Sabbath. Until very recently (maybe the last 2 years), almost everything published, written or on the web by NCTers involved an attack on the 4th commandment.

It is a threat to orthodoxy. I have posted a link above to a paper drafted in which it denies the CoW and the imputed righteousness of Christ's obedience. Historically, each of these has led to either antinomianism or legalism. It is this that is at stake with NPP and Shepherd. I understand that NCT denies any link with NPP, but I would say it is only a matter of time until it goes one of the two courses of error (antinomianism or legalism).

And I do consider the Bible the test of orthodoxy. That is why I consider NCT a threat. Just because someone says, "I don't see it in the Bible" doesn't make it so. If it did, then the JWs would be right about the Trinity.

Aren't you concerned at all that the ENTIRE church, according to NCT, has had it wrong about the most fundamental principles of the Bible (how God relates to man, the manner of God's redemptive act, the place of the Law) for 2000 years? NCT is only a decade old. It by its own admission rejects both Dispensationalism and Covenant theology.

[Edited on 6-2-2004 by fredtgreco]
 
Well, Scott, since I consider it to be a Biblicaly based theology I consider it to be that old. However, the term NCT is new, very new and the thrust and growth to understand the Scriptures in this way is relatively new as well from what I know. "Newness" does not discredit it though. In the 1600 there were a lot of thisngs that were being considered new.
 
Thank you Fred. That was what I wanted to present; it is [i:75829acf53]something new[/i:75829acf53], as if, the church needed something [i:75829acf53]new[/i:75829acf53].

Chris, I will be honest. It is, to me, an assault on orthodoxy. Thats why, if you notice a benignness to my attitude, it is because I am so adamantly opposed to this stuff.

[Edited on 6-2-2004 by Scott Bushey]
 
Again "newnes" does not mean error. If it is based upon the Scriptures it is correct. the Solas were considered "new" by those alive during the Reformation. That did not make it incorrect. If it is Biblical, no matter whether it was "lost" to the masses for a time or not, it is true and orthodox.

If you follow this line of reasoning you must pronounce every Baptist on this board as unorthodox because you understanding is that credo is new.
 
Having read the book Christopher mentioned by Zaspel and Wells, I have to say that they are a threat to orthodoxy.

The appendix of the book (never mind what comes before) basically states that confessionalism and creedalism is a sure source for error. In that alone, they speak against everyone on this board who has agreed to the standards of the WCF or LBCF. The fact that they vehemently deny that the Apostle's Creed is in error simply because it was written down and confessed, exposes them for their error.

They want to trash all the light that has been shining in lieu of the new light that they interject.

Couple this with the fact that they pit Jesus against Moses and inspired Scripture against inspired Scripture, they are sure to get a great many things wrong in their new light.

What they forget when they do this is that all Scripture is God breathed. No one is putting Moses up as a messiah. But the words he spoke by the Holy Spirit, are living words, sharper than any two edged sword. These very words were Christ in the OT. To say that Christ changes these words or abrogates them (as they say with the 4th commandment), is saying that Christ didn't know what He was talking about the 1st time He spoke.

They are setting up a straw man in the Moses vs. Christ comparison. What we have of Moses are his words recorded, infallibly. What we have from Christ are not only His own infallible words, which cannot contradict the Scriptures of the OT, but we also have His witnesses infallible words.

The point to be made is that all of God's Word stands together. There is no pitting the OT against the NT.

One thing that they will repeat to the man is that if it is not spoken of in the NT, then it is not for the believer. They can throw away the tithe and the Sabbath, among other things. What they do not realize is that a man may now uncover the nakedness of his father's wife or his sisters because the NT does not bring that forward. That is just silly.

They call this giving the NT priority over the old. That is what is scary about their approach. The other thing that is scary is that they claim that if anyone reads the Bible from front to back, they will inevitably err in some way, shape, or form. It has to be read NT first, then the OT.

These are but a few glaring examples of how they think. Their beliefs can only lead to weak ecclesiology, and antinomianism.

But Wells, Zens, Zaspel, and John Reisinger are not the ones we need to worry about. The 2nd generation to come after them are the ones that will need to be dealt with.

In Christ,

KC

[Edited on 6-2-2004 by kceaster]
 
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.
 
[quote:5f7398dc9c][i:5f7398dc9c]Originally posted by Christopher[/i:5f7398dc9c]
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. [/quote:5f7398dc9c]

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'd never heard of NCT until I was introduced to it on this Board. I was busy with Reconstructionism. I do not want to detract from the flow of this discussion so I won't press the point of where I see similarities. I do think it is important, though.

Many years ago Van Baalen called such things, "the unpaid bills of the church." He didn't, I believe, mean to throw the blame for schisms and disputes back solely on the churches. He wrote this in a book in which he opposed sects and cults. The thing to note in this is that we tend to be more objective about these things in the future, when we look back on them, and pass judgment on them, once they have passed.

So the question I have is whether there is any specific history to the NCT that they hold to? It their theology clearly spelled out at any time in history; and had the church ruled on it at any time?
 
[quote:02b37847bd][i:02b37847bd]Originally posted by fredtgreco[/i:02b37847bd]

It should also not be surprising that since NCTers reject the Covenant of Works, they reject the imputation of Christ's active obedience as a "sacred cow" that cannot be found in the Bible.....

[/quote:02b37847bd]

This is simply not true. You have just accused all NCT proponents of [i:02b37847bd]damnable heresy[/i:02b37847bd].

I do not know nor have I read one single NCT author who rejects the imputation of Christ's active obedience.

I myself make no secret of the fact that I reject the Covenant of Works and yet you will not find a stronger advocate of the imputation of the active obedience of the Lord Jesus to us on this forum.

I have been studying NCT for several years now, and I am sorry, but you guys are either reading bad sources or your hatred for NCT has driven you to make false statement after false statement against Baptists who reject full blown CT and dispensationalism both, as if you have to be one or the other. If you disagree with a system of theology at least try to present it accurately. Isn't that what you CTers keep telling us Baptists??

Phillip
 
[quote:cb40a01105][i:cb40a01105]Originally posted by pastorway[/i:cb40a01105]
[quote:cb40a01105][i:cb40a01105]Originally posted by fredtgreco[/i:cb40a01105]

It should also not be surprising that since NCTers reject the Covenant of Works, they reject the imputation of Christ's active obedience as a "sacred cow" that cannot be found in the Bible.....

[/quote:cb40a01105]

This is simply not true. You have just accused all NCT proponents of [i:cb40a01105]damnable heresy[/i:cb40a01105].

I do not know nor have I read one single NCT author who rejects the imputation of Christ's active obedience.

I myself make no secret of the fact that I reject the Covenant of Works and yet you will not find a stronger advocate of the imputation of the active obedience of the Lord Jesus to us on this forum.

I have been studying NCT for several years now, and I am sorry, but you guys are either reading bad sources or your hatred for NCT has driven you to make false statement after false statement against Baptists who reject full blown CT and dispensationalism both, as if you have to be one or the other. If you disagree with a system of theology at least try to present it accurately. Isn't that what you CTers keep telling us Baptists??

Phillip [/quote:cb40a01105]

Philip,

With all due respect, [b:cb40a01105]read the document at this link:[/b:cb40a01105]
http://www.ids.org/pdf/imputation.pdf

The NCT authors do EXACTLY what you say none of them have done. I did not think it had gotten this bad until I read it. READ the article and then let me know what you think.

A few highlights:

[quote:cb40a01105]
An example of a sacred cow in Calvinistic theological circles is the imputation of the active obedience of Jesus Christ. It is a biblical "truth" that was assumed to be true from the beginning because it is a lynchpin of the system of theology known as Covenant Theology.2 It has been handed down from one generation to another without being questioned; after the passage of time it has come to be known as fact; and if you dare to question it you are labeled a troublemaker or a heretic.

We are only rejecting the imputation of the active obedience of Christ because we cannot find it in our Bibles. We wholeheartedly embrace the imputation of the passive obedience of Christ as absolutely essential and foundational for our acceptance with the Father-essential to being declared righteous in his sight. The imputation of Christ's cross work is the sine qua non of the Christian faith.

The sacrifice of Christ or the imputation of the passive obedience of Christ does two things for the believer. First, it makes the believer perfect-that is the believer is viewed as though he had obeyed the law perfectly (v. 14a). Second, it purchases a work of the Spirit in the life of the believer that guarantees that he will grow in holiness (v. 14b). Our concern here is for the perfect status the believer is given because of the imputation of the passive obedience of Christ. In the context of the book, "perfection" is referring to the state of moral innocence that allows one to be accepted by God-to stand in the presence of God and to approach Him boldly for grace and mercy in times of need.

Notice that there is no mention of the active obedience of Christ anywhere and yet the passive obedience of Christ is said to be the sum and substance of the New Covenant and a guarantee that those who get this passive obedience imputed into their account are right with God, perfect-justified. What more could you possibly need to have eternal life? If God loves you and welcomes you into His presence because of Christ's vicarious death and if no sin can ever be charged against you because of Christ's sacrifice, then what more is necessary for God to fully accept you and to give you eternal salvation?

In my experience, the sacred cow called the imputation of the active obedience of Christ is a litmus test for orthodoxy. If you deny this, it is as if you have denied the faith. This is making a mountain out of a molehill. We have just shown that in Scripture the passive obedience of Christ secures eternal life for the believer, allowing him direct access to the God of heaven and earth. Even if the imputation of the active obedience of Christ is biblical, since it gives you nothing that the imputation of the passive obedience of Christ does not give you-righteousness and eternal life-it would seem that it is not essential to the faith.

Before we even get to the exegetical portion of this paper, I would like you to consider whether the imputation of the active obedience of Christ even qualifies as a molehill. We have shown that righteousness is gained for the believer by the substitutionary death of Christ. Eternal life is the result of this amazing and merciful cross work. It would seem that the imputation of the active obedience of Christ is a theological redundancy. Theologians claim that it brings positive righteousness, but I have that with Christ's imputed death. They claim it secures eternal life, yet I have that as well through Christ's cross work on my behalf. Finally they claim that it brings me beyond any relationship Adam ever had with God so that there is no need to work to earn anything. Praise God, I have this too, through the blood of my Savior that He shed for me. If the imputation of the active obedience of Christ is biblical, I will embrace it. But since it is a theological redundancy at best, it should barely qualify as a theological molehill. Therefore it should never be used as a test for orthodoxy and should be left in the shadows of the mountains, where all molehills belong.

We do not believe that it is wise to refer to God's relationship with Adam as a "covenant." We do believe that God gave Adam a command with a promise of punishment if broken. But if this command and this promise is not called a covenant by the authors of Scripture, we must think twice about describing it by that name ourselves. The reason using the word "covenant" to describe events in Scripture that are not called covenants should be rejected is because of the importance of the word "covenant" in Scripture and the place of prominence the concept has in our theological systems. The danger of calling something a covenant that Scripture does not refer to as a covenant increases the likelihood of making something a cornerstone of our theology that in fact is not an emphasis in Scripture. This of course would lead to an unbalanced and unbiblical theological system.

The fear of many believers is that if you deny this Covenant of Works schema, you will have to abandon the crucial biblical understanding of the relationship of salvation and works as well as the seriousness of sin. But notice that establishing the biblical foundations of the relationship of salvation and works of the law, as we have done above, can be done without any reference to the Covenant of Works said to have been made by God with Adam in the Garden. Establishing the biblical truth concerning our accountability to God for keeping His commands in the New Covenant era can also be done without reference to God's relationship with Adam. Consider Romans 6:23: "For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." Paul is simply saying that when you break the commands that apply to you in the New Covenant era, what you earn from God is eternal wrath in hell or spiritual death. You get the curse of God unless the Son takes the curse on your behalf. Unlike the Covenant of Works, the biblical foundations of this doctrine can be examined and verified by reading and interpreting clear texts of Scripture.[/quote:cb40a01105]

[Edited on 6-2-2004 by fredtgreco]
 
Fred,
I just finished the article. You are correct, they throw out Christs active obedience. The question remains however, is this the position of Zens, Resinger et. al.



[Edited on 6-2-2004 by Scott Bushey]
 
[quote:9db796fa68][i:9db796fa68]Originally posted by Scott Bushey[/i:9db796fa68]
Fred,
I just finished the article. You are correct, they throw out Christs active obedience. The question remains however, is this the position of Zens, Resinger et. al.



[Edited on 6-2-2004 by Scott Bushey] [/quote:9db796fa68]

I agree. It is possible that they would reject the article. But I have noticed that in-depth Studies is one of the major sites for NCT (the other being Solo Christo).

Is there any way we could find out? Christopher?
 
I think it might be good if one of you modorators move this thread to the Theology forum where it now belongs for the sake of organization.

I have a few pages yet. I have been changing diapers and feeding my boys.

I think pages 5 and 8 are good to refer back to since they hit what has been discussed.

The authors are not an anyway renouncing justification by grace through fatih in Christ alone. They are making the claim that the passive obediance of Christ is what the Bible teaches that we are justified by and that it is sufficiant enought to make us right and rightios in the eyes of God.
 
[quote:462f3e90d7][i:462f3e90d7]Originally posted by kceaster[/i:462f3e90d7]
Having read the book Christopher mentioned by Zaspel and Wells, I have to say that they are a threat to orthodoxy.

The appendix of the book (never mind what comes before) basically states that confessionalism and creedalism is a sure source for error. In that alone, they speak against everyone on this board who has agreed to the standards of the WCF or LBCF. The fact that they vehemently deny that the Apostle's Creed is in error simply because it was written down and confessed, exposes them for their error.

They want to trash all the light that has been shining in lieu of the new light that they interject.

Couple this with the fact that they pit Jesus against Moses and inspired Scripture against inspired Scripture, they are sure to get a great many things wrong in their new light.

What they forget when they do this is that all Scripture is God breathed. No one is putting Moses up as a messiah. But the words he spoke by the Holy Spirit, are living words, sharper than any two edged sword. These very words were Christ in the OT. To say that Christ changes these words or abrogates them (as they say with the 4th commandment), is saying that Christ didn't know what He was talking about the 1st time He spoke.

They are setting up a straw man in the Moses vs. Christ comparison. What we have of Moses are his words recorded, infallibly. What we have from Christ are not only His own infallible words, which cannot contradict the Scriptures of the OT, but we also have His witnesses infallible words.

The point to be made is that all of God's Word stands together. There is no pitting the OT against the NT.

One thing that they will repeat to the man is that if it is not spoken of in the NT, then it is not for the believer. They can throw away the tithe and the Sabbath, among other things. What they do not realize is that a man may now uncover the nakedness of his father's wife or his sisters because the NT does not bring that forward. That is just silly.

They call this giving the NT priority over the old. That is what is scary about their approach. The other thing that is scary is that they claim that if anyone reads the Bible from front to back, they will inevitably err in some way, shape, or form. It has to be read NT first, then the OT.

These are but a few glaring examples of how they think. Their beliefs can only lead to weak ecclesiology, and antinomianism.

But Wells, Zens, Zaspel, and John Reisinger are not the ones we need to worry about. The 2nd generation to come after them are the ones that will need to be dealt with.

In Christ,

KC

[Edited on 6-2-2004 by kceaster] [/quote:462f3e90d7]

KC,
brother, you couldn't be more off base with these statements you have made here.
 
Chris,
If you toss away the active obedience, you are rightly denying justification by faith alone.

Denying this flies right in the face of the WCF and LBC:

CHAP. XI.
Of Justification.
1. Those whom God Effectually calleth, he also freely (a) justifieth, not by infusing Righteousness into them, but by (b) pardoning their sins, and by accounting, and accepting their Persons as (c) Righteous; not for any thing wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ's sake alone, not by imputing faith it self, the act of beleiving, or any other (d) evangelical obedience to them, as their Righteousness; but by imputing Christs active obedience unto the whole Law, and passive obedience in his death, for their whole and sole Righteousnnss, they (e) receiving, and resting on him, and his Righteousness, by Faith; which faith they have not of themselves, it is the gift of God.

a Rom. 3.24. ch. 8.30.

b Rom. 4.5,6,7,8. Eph. 1.7.

c 1 Cor. 1.30,31. Rom. 5.17 18,19.

d Phil. 3.8,9. Eph. 2.8,9,10.

e Joh. 1.12. Rom. 5.17.

This is outright heresy!

By definition:

Active Obedience
As distinguished from passive obedience in Reformed Theology. Active obedience is Jesus' actively fulfilling all the law of God. This active obedience is imputed to the believer when he believes; that is, God reckons to the believer the righteousness of Christ when the believer trusts in Christ and His work.

Merdeith Kline on the controversy:

http://www.2xtreme.net/~jwandro/Perspective/CTUA.htm

[Edited on 6-2-2004 by Scott Bushey]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top