Archive through August 26, 2009 Log Out | Topics | Search
Moderators | Edit Profile

Former Adventist Fellowship Forum » ARCHIVED DISCUSSIONS 8 » "Holy and Just and Good" » Archive through August 26, 2009 « Previous Next »

Author Message
Bskillet
Registered user
Username: Bskillet

Post Number: 537
Registered: 8-2008
Posted on Tuesday, August 25, 2009 - 8:32 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)


quote:

Thus, this view gives them comforting release from the shackles of the Law (including the aberrant notion that the Spirit's inward promptings somehow replace the need for written, ethical laws and therefore no biblical lists of conduct are ever needed as a moral compass in the Christian life).


Thank you once again for your opinion Dennis.

My problem is not so much that a Christian doesn't need guidance or instruction on living, which is found throughout the Epistles. The problem I have is the idea, prevalent in both Adventism and most of modern American Protestantism, that sees Christian life as primarily an exercise in ethics, or in your language, following a "moral compass." The NT describes it as an adoption as a child, or as a relationship of marriage. Both of these contain within themselves certain obvious implications for behavior, but it does not mean we can substitute in their place either ethics or some idea of living to a "moral compass." Ethics flows from adoption or marriage, but it cannot replace the essence of what it means to be adopted or married.

As for the idea that NCT is antinomianism, Reisinger argues the Sermon on the Mount is not an interpretation of Moses, but rather it is Jesus giving a higher ethical mandate to His born-again disciples than Moses could have given to unregenerate Israel. So one can't really say that NCT is antinomianism. Antinomianism is a very serious heresy, one that Paul wrote an entire epistle against (1 Cor), so I think you should be more careful before you charge others with it.

Dennis, you talk all the time about the "doctrines of grace," but sometimes I wonder if that is all grace is to you, a doctrine and not a reality of life. After all, it was particularly ungracious of you to call us antinomians. Seems to me someone who knows all about grace would not be setting himself up as another's spiritual superior.

(Message edited by bskillet on August 25, 2009)
Jeremy
Registered user
Username: Jeremy

Post Number: 2966
Registered: 10-2004


Posted on Tuesday, August 25, 2009 - 8:59 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Even the TMS link that you posted, Dennis, which opposes NCT, states the following:


quote:

On a positive note, NCT is not heterodox or cultic at any level.8 Mainstream NCT adherents and organizations must be viewed as fellow Christians operating within the larger sphere of evangelicalism.




Obviously, the author does not consider NCT to be antinomian, or it would certainly be heterodox.

It also says that the idea of the NT interpreting the OT actually comes from Covenant Theology!:


quote:

B. The Priority of the New Testament over the Old Testament
Even though NCT rejects the structure of Covenant Theology, it nonetheless retains the basic hermeneutical concept of the system. As previously quoted from Wells, this is 'the logical priority of the NT over OT.'42 This is the driving force in NCT’s interpretation of Scripture. According to Lehrer the OT is to be read and interpreted 'through the lens of the New Covenant Scriptures.'43




Jeremy

(Message edited by Jeremy on August 25, 2009)
Brian3
Registered user
Username: Brian3

Post Number: 232
Registered: 8-2005


Posted on Tuesday, August 25, 2009 - 9:08 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

"(including the aberrant notion that the Spirit's inward promptings somehow replace the need for written, ethical laws and therefore no biblical lists of conduct are ever needed as a moral compass in the Christian life)"

Again, Dennis, I'd like to know what NCT proponents you have read that espouse this because I haven't found them.

I am free from the shackles of the law.

I would suggest to all that finding definitions of NCT from NCT Proponents will probably give you a better idea of what NCT is all about then an "Introduction" written by an opponent of NCT.
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker

Post Number: 10292
Registered: 12-2003


Posted on Tuesday, August 25, 2009 - 9:17 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Again, I'm startled to discover that something many of us have said has been misunderstood. So, here goes a hopefully clearer statement.

The Holy Spirit in no way replaces Scripture. Scripture is our only rule of faith and practice, and Scripture is the objective ground of truth against which we measure all our experience.

New covenant theology does not replace Scripture with the Holy Spirit. But how else would God write the law on our hearts? This otherwise impossible phenomenon is accomplished by the Author of the law indwelling us and convicting us of truth. He makes the Bible come alive; He is the reason the Bible is a whole new book when we are born again.

Truth indwells us while we're still in our mortal flesh, and this Truth (a Person) teaches us through His word. He doesn't teach us through only part of His word—He teaches us through all of it.

Being born again does not release us from morality or from any part of God's word. Rather, His life in us makes the Bible make sense, all of it, and it fits together more seamlessly than I ever imagined it could. And by the way, the formalizing of new covenant theology does not make the reality of the new covenant "new". This reality is as old as the New Testament. It has been here since Jesus rose from the dead and ascended to the Father and sent His Spirit. There is nothing new about it—except that it succeeds the old covenant.

The new covenant and its implications have been here for over 2000 years, and Paul is the one selected by God to explain it (Ephesians 3:9).

Colleen
Bskillet
Registered user
Username: Bskillet

Post Number: 539
Registered: 8-2008
Posted on Tuesday, August 25, 2009 - 9:34 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)


quote:

While Lutherans and Reformed denominations both speak of "the third use of the Law", I do want to point out this has not been an issue for us as Lutherans. (We never even hear about the third use of the Law--I've come across it in deep theological writings, but that's about it.)


Thanks Raven. Having read much of Luther's commentary on Galatians, I can only argue that his position seems somewhere between CT and NCT, but actually in a sense much closer to NCT. This is not to say that Luther espoused NCT, but that he clearly believed the Law should not be allowed to reign supreme in the believer's mind because it would cause him to lose faith in the doctrine of justification. This would have put Luther far outside of the realm of CT. Luther's way of looking at it, at least in his commentary on Galatians, is to really deal with the issue of the Law on an existential/practical basis, rather than an abstract theological one.

quote:

I certainly did not "buy" new covenant theology because I read any new covenant theologian. While Dale Ratzlaff was the first person I read who taught the new covenant fulfilled the old and showed how, he did not get his understanding from new covenant theologians, either.


I agree Colleen. I didn't even know to call it "New Covenant Theology" until after I began reading Dale's book. Really, I find that when I simply let Paul say what Paul is clearly saying, then what comes out is what people now call NCT. Paul was Jesus' chosen Apostle to the Gentiles. I am a Gentile. Ergo, obedience to Jesus requires obedience to Pauline theology. Two-thousand years of church history should be enough to tell us the bad things that happen when Christians try to argue that Paul didn't really mean exactly what he said.

(Message edited by bskillet on August 25, 2009)
Brian3
Registered user
Username: Brian3

Post Number: 233
Registered: 8-2005


Posted on Wednesday, August 26, 2009 - 6:52 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Fair and Balanced, We Report You Decide!

Counterpoint:
http://moseswroteaboutme.com/the-masters-seminary-journal/the-masters-seminary-journal-on-new-covenant-theology-pt-2/

In Christ,
Brian
Dennis
Registered user
Username: Dennis

Post Number: 1777
Registered: 4-2000


Posted on Wednesday, August 26, 2009 - 6:52 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

The unique version that is espoused in former Adventist circles is NOT the true, official NCT as I indicated earlier. It still remains nameless as I also mentioned. However, its sharp covenantal distinctions between the the Old and New Covenants, supports the former SDA version to make it strongly antinomian. "Antinomianism" is not meant to be a cultish, derogatory term. It is simply the correct theological term to define a view that is "anti-law." Check out this excellent Sunday School audio presentation on the Fourth Commandment by Pastor Phil Johnson: http://gracelifepulpit.media.s3.amazonaws.com/GL-083-006-PJ.mp3

Dennis Fischer
Brian3
Registered user
Username: Brian3

Post Number: 234
Registered: 8-2005


Posted on Wednesday, August 26, 2009 - 7:00 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

If (as many NCT authors I have read espouse) 9 of the 10 "commandments" are reiterated in the NT, how does that make them "Anti-law"?

Dennis, I think I understand that you don't see the 4th commandment as required anymore either so that would make you 1/10th antinomian would it not?

In Christ,
Brian
Bskillet
Registered user
Username: Bskillet

Post Number: 542
Registered: 8-2008
Posted on Wednesday, August 26, 2009 - 7:55 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)


quote:

However, its sharp covenantal distinctions between the the Old and New Covenants, supports the former SDA version to make it strongly antinomian. "Antinomianism" is not meant to be a cultish, derogatory term. It is simply the correct theological term to define a view that is "anti-law."


Yeah, sure. Charging someone with a major heresy because they aren't enlightened enough to share your views was not meant to be derogatory. Right.

Antinomianism is the contention that Gospel has no ethical implications for a believer's life. I find no one on here who has ever espoused such a view. Saying we are not under the jurisdiction of the Sinai Law does not make us antinomian. We are under the greater Law of Christ.
Seekinglight
Registered user
Username: Seekinglight

Post Number: 355
Registered: 3-2009
Posted on Wednesday, August 26, 2009 - 11:21 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)


quote:

We are under the greater Law of Christ.




I just want to add that even following this law does not earn us our salvation. And the only way "I" can follow that law is if Christ does it in me as I submit to Him out of gratitude for His mercy.
Pegg
Registered user
Username: Pegg

Post Number: 254
Registered: 2-2006
Posted on Wednesday, August 26, 2009 - 11:41 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)


quote:

I just want to add that even following this law does not earn us our salvation. And the only way "I" can follow that law is if Christ does it in me as I submit to Him out of gratitude for His mercy.


Praise God!
:-):-):-)
Dennis
Registered user
Username: Dennis

Post Number: 1778
Registered: 4-2000


Posted on Wednesday, August 26, 2009 - 12:56 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Brian,

You are correct about my being also antinomian. However, my antinomianism doesn't include the moral directives of God like I previously believed. Indeed, the OT ethics are the ethics of the NT gospel. For example, I am not a legalist for honoring and respecting my parents.

Dennis Fischer
Dennis
Registered user
Username: Dennis

Post Number: 1779
Registered: 4-2000


Posted on Wednesday, August 26, 2009 - 1:34 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Brian,

The Fourth Commandment not only has several ceremonial aspects but it also has about three moral ones. So, it is unbiblical to say that only NINE of the Ten Commandments are reiterated in the New Testament like I used to believe.

Dennis Fischer
Brian3
Registered user
Username: Brian3

Post Number: 235
Registered: 8-2005


Posted on Wednesday, August 26, 2009 - 2:31 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Dennis,

I don't put much stock in the whole "x many commandments are reiterated" line of thought anyway. I fail to understand how the first several commandments are even relevant to a Holy Spirit indwelt believer.

You've peaked my curiosity though. What "about three moral" aspects do you see in the 4th commandment?

In Christ,
Brian
Pegg
Registered user
Username: Pegg

Post Number: 256
Registered: 2-2006
Posted on Wednesday, August 26, 2009 - 4:13 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Here's the way I see it...

Either the righteousness of Jesus is CREDITED to us or it's not.

If it is, then ALL requirements other than belief (which is also a gift) are what Paul calls WAGES.
Romans 4:4 - Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation.
You don't need NCT for this.
What you need is THE GOSPEL!:-)

If this is the case, then the changes that are clearly spoken of by the writers of the NC must be effected by some means outside of ourselves.

Hebrews 10:14 Makes Perfect Sense...
...By One Sacrifice He Has Made Perfect Forever Those Who Are Being Made Holy.

Praise God!

Pegg:-):-)

(Message edited by pegg on August 26, 2009)

(Message edited by pegg on August 26, 2009)
Bskillet
Registered user
Username: Bskillet

Post Number: 547
Registered: 8-2008
Posted on Wednesday, August 26, 2009 - 4:29 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)


quote:

I don't put much stock in the whole "x many commandments are reiterated" line of thought anyway.


It is a simplistic answer. The commands that are allegedly "reiterated" are also very much changed:

In the New Covenant, the tenth commandment is stripped of its implication that woman and slaves are a man's property.

The promise of the fifth command is extended from the Haaretz land promise to a general truism about life.

The sixth command is much enlarged to dealing even with the existential nature of how one person values another. As such, it is put so deep within the heart that it cannot be kept by outward behavior or even trying to think the right thoughts, but by the transformation of the heart.

Likewise, the seventh command is enlarged and placed within the heart. To get rid of lust is not merely to get rid of thinking bad thoughts. It has to do, again, with something fundamental within the person's heart: Do you value this person as child of God or is she merely a piece of meat to you?

Other commands in the Law, but outside the Decalogue, are totally done away with in the Sermon on the Mount.
Animal
Registered user
Username: Animal

Post Number: 642
Registered: 7-2008


Posted on Wednesday, August 26, 2009 - 4:44 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

There are only 2 commandments I need to be concerned with as a child of God...

Love the Lord with all my heart

Love my neighbor as myself

Simple as that !!!..Keep your theories about the covenants to yourself. Only covenant that matters is your covenant of love with the Father.

Animal
Seekinglight
Registered user
Username: Seekinglight

Post Number: 357
Registered: 3-2009
Posted on Wednesday, August 26, 2009 - 5:53 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Haha, Animal, I was wondering when you'd break into this discussion to simplify matters for us. Truly, all the nuances surrounding the CT and the NCT are very confusing. Theologians have been arguing about these things for hundreds of years. Surely understanding the Gospel and enjoying Jesus cannot be this difficult!
Pegg
Registered user
Username: Pegg

Post Number: 258
Registered: 2-2006
Posted on Wednesday, August 26, 2009 - 6:29 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)


quote:

Seekinglight - Surely understanding the Gospel and enjoying Jesus cannot be this difficult!


This is my rule of thumb, as well.

Even when I was SDA I used to say it about IJ.
I refused to try to wrap my mind around their convoluted logic.
This greatly annoyed my parents and teachers, BTW.

My Grandpa used to have a saying that he loved to use on me when I would get to expounding profoundly on a pet subject (nothing to do with religion, we didn't talk about that). When I would go off into great explanations about something, Grandpa would listen patiently for awhile, then he would say..."Pegg you have to remember, at most half of the people in the world aren't even average. --> The Rest Of Them Are Dumber Than That!"

I think it's a very wise saying when it comes to understanding the Gospel. Trying to figure out the things of God is heady stuff, but when I or someone else tries to make out that it's somewhere akin to brain surgery...

That's When I Hear My Grandpa's Voice.

Pegg:-):-)
Animal
Registered user
Username: Animal

Post Number: 643
Registered: 7-2008


Posted on Wednesday, August 26, 2009 - 6:32 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Seekinglight

The Gospel really is simple. We humans make it complicated.

Gospel>>>wages of sin is death but the gift of God is life eternal thru the atoning sacrifice of Christ.

Why their are so many books written on the subject is a mystery to me.

The problem with Theologians is that they think they are smarter than God. Theology is an invention of man that falls way short of the beauty of the Gospel.

If you encounter a person who is not saved, what does that person need to hear ? The difference between old and new covenant?.Lets get serious here. They need to know that they are a sinner and that Christ is their savior.This talk about covenants is a waste of time. Ask the thief on the cross. Did Christ talk about covenants while He hung upon the Cross of Calvary? Christ spoke words of encouragement to the man. I like the method of Christ better than"high Theology". If ya keep it simple, then the heart can be touched and a soul won for the Kingdom.


Animal

Topics | Last Day | Last Week | Tree View | Search | Help/Instructions | Program Credits Administration