sound of grace, issue 198, june 2013

7/30/2019 Sound of Grace, Issue 198, June 2013

1/20

heart refer? For many, it means a new kind of obedience,

if not the actual indwelling Spirit himself. But if that were

true, what would it say about the sanctification of the OT

saints? Was David or Abraham sanctified by the flesh, bymere response to an external word? What does the writer

of Hebrews say? Without faith it is impossible to please

God (Heb. 11:6), and by faith Abraham obeyed (Heb.

11:8).

We know from the immediate context that the law

written on the heart is first an issue of relationship;

Know the LORD, for they shall all know me, from the

least of them to the greatest. Did the OT saints know

the Lord? This promise is not new individualistically but

covenantally. This is

1 For every high priest taken from among men is ordained for men in things per-

taining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins:

2 Who can have compassion on the ignorant, and on them that are out of the

way; for that he himself also is compassed with infirmity.

3 And by reason hereof he ought, as for the people, so also for himself, to offer

for sins.

4 And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as

was Aaron.

5 So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said

unto him, Thou art my Son, today have I begotten thee. Hebrews 5

Chapter 5 begins the longest section in the book of Hebrews and goes all the

way through chapter 10, verse 39. The sub-

Is s ue 1 9 8 June 2 0 1 3

It is good for the heart to be strengthened by grace Hebrews 13:9

Christ, Our New Covenant High

PriestPart 5

John G. Reisinger

The Specific Characteristics of the

Grace Movement: #1 New Obedience

The first characteristic is what has been referred to as

the New Obedience. Consider the classic text announc-

ing and defining the New Covenant, Jerem iah 31:31-34:

But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of

Israel after those days, declares the LORD: I will put my law

within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be

their God, and they shall be my people. And no longer shall

each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying,

Know the LORD, for they shall all know me, from the least

of them to the greatest, declares the LORD. For I will forgive

their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

To what, then, does the phrase, the law written on the

The New Heart, The New Covenant, and Not So New

Controversies: A Critique of the Modern

Grace Movement Part 2 of 3

Dr. J. David Gilliland

ReisingerContinued on page 2

Gilliland Continued on page 12

In Th is IssueChrist, Our New Covenant HighPriest Part 5

J ohn G. Reisinger

1

The New Heart, The NewCovenant, and Not So NewControversies: A Critique of theModern "Grace Movement"Part 2 of 3

Dr. J . David Gilliland

1

Doing/Fulfilling the Law

A. Blake White3

The Bondage of the Will

Steve West5

A Study of New CovenantTheology, Part 1 of 4

Kevin P. McAloon

7

Under the Elemental Spirits of theWorld

A. Blake White

9


2/20

Page 2 June 2013 Issue 198

Sound of Grace is a publication of Sovereign

Grace New Covenant Ministries, a tax exempt

501(c)3 corporation. Contributions to Sound

of Grace are deductible under section 170 of

the Code.

Sound of Grace is published 10 times a year.

The subscription price is shown below. This is

a paper unashamedly committed to the truth

of Gods sovereign grace and New Covenant

Theology. We invite all who love these sametruths to pray for us and help us financially.

We do not take any paid advertising.

The use of an article by a particular person

is not an endorsement of all that person

believes, but it merely means that we thought

that a particular article was worthy of printing.

Sound of Grace Board: J ohn G. Reisinger,

David Leon, J ohn Thorhauer, Bob VanWing-

erden and J acob Moseley.

Editor: J ohn G. Reisinger; Phone: (585)396-

3385; e-mail: [email protected].

General Manager: J acob Moseley:

[email protected]

Send all orders and all subscriptions to:

Sound of Grace, 5317 Wye Creek Drive,

Frederick, MD 21703-6938 Phone 301-

473-8781 Visit the bookstore: http://www.

newcovenantmedia.com

Address all editorial material and questions

to: J ohn G. Reisinger, 3302 County Road 16,

Canandaigua, NY 14424-2441.

Webpage: www.soundofgrace.org

or SOGNCM.org

Scripture quotations marked (NIV) are taken

from the HOLY BIBLE, NEW INTERNA-

TIONAL VERSIONCopyright 1973, 1978,

1984 by International Bible Society. Used by

Permission. All rights reserved.

Scripture quotations marked NKJ V are

taken from the New King J ames Version.

Copyright 1982 by Thomas Nelson, Inc.

Used by Permission. All rights reserved.

Scripture quotations marked (ESV) are from

The Holy Bible, English Standard Version,

copyright 2001 by Crossway Bibles, a

division of Good News Publishers. Used by

permission. All rights reserved.

Contributions

Orders

Discover, MasterCard or VISA

If you wish to make a tax-deductible contri-bution to Sound of Grace, please mail a check

to: Sound of Grace, 5317 Wye Creek Drive,

Frederick, MD 21703-6938.

Please check the mailing label tofind the

expiration of your subscription. Please send

payment if you want your subscription to

continue$20.00 for ten issues. Or if you

would prefer to have a pdffile emailed, that is

available for $10.00 for ten issues. If you are

unable to subscribe at this time, please call or

drop a note in the mail and we will be glad to

continue Sound of Grace free of charge.

ReisingerContinued from page 1


ject of this entire section is the high

priestly work of Christ. From both a

practical and doctrinal viewpoint, this

section is one of the most important in

the entire book of Hebrews. It is also

one of the most misunderstood pas-

sages among sincere Christians. TheRoman Catholics and many Anglicans

(Episcopalians) grossly ignore or con-

fuse the wonder and glory of Christs

work as high priest by having their

leaders assume they are priests ca-

pable of being mediators between God

and sinners. Arminians falsely as-

sume that the priestly work of Christ

is equally on behalf of all men without

exception. Most fundamentalists, in-

cluding the Plymouth Brethren, insist

the priestly work of Christ does not

begin until his ascension. This limits

the high priestly work to intercession,

but it is quite clear that the primary

work of the high priest in the Old

Covenant was to offer sacrifice. It is

just as clear in the New Testament that

Christs high priestly work includes

sacrifice as well as intercession.

The Arminian has no place to put

the atoning work of Christ on the

cross. All agree it was not his work asprophet or his work as king that made

atonement for sin. However, if we put

the sacrificial work of the atonement

under the office of priest we are well

on our way to particular redemp-

tion. In order to hold on to universal

atonement, the Arminian reduces the

priestly work of Christ to be limited

to intercession. In this way, Christs

priestly work does not begin until he

ascends to heaven and is seated on histhrone. However, to hold that view

these people must flat out deny the

specific words of Christ when he said,

I pray not for the world (John 17:9).

It is abundantly clear that Christ does

not act in the place of the non-elect in

either his office of prophet or his of-

fice of priest. The writer to Hebrews

has already mentioned the high priest-

ly work of Christ three times. It is

clear from these texts that the priestly

work of Christ included reconciliation

as well as intercession just as it in-

cluded both propitiation and expiation.

Wherefore in all things it behooved

him to be made like unto his brethren,

that he might be as a merciful and

faithful high priest in things pertaining

to God, to make reconciliation for thesins of the people. Hebrews 2:17

Wherefore, holy brethren, partak-

ers of the heavenly calling, consider

the Apostle and High Priest of our

profession, Christ Jesus Hebrews

3:1

Seeing then that we have a great

high priest, that is passed into the

heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us

hold fast our profession. For we have

not an high priest which cannot be

touched with the feeling of our infir-mities; but was in all points tempted

like as we are, yet without sin. Let us

therefore come boldly unto the throne

of grace, that we may obtain mercy,

andfind grace to help in time of need.

Hebrews 4:14-16

Our Lord is glorious in both his

person and in his work. It is the awe-

some glory of his person that gives his

redemptive work the honor and dig-

nity that it deserves.

let us note that the Lord Jesus is

designed a greatHigh Priest. This

word at once emphasizes His excel-

lency and pre-eminency. Never was

there, never can there be another, pos-

sessed of such dignity and glory. The

greatness of our High Priest arises,

First, from the dignity of His person:

He is not only Son of man, but Son

of God (Heb. 4:14). Second, from the

purity of His nature: He is without

sin (Heb. 4:15), holy, (Heb. 7:26).

Third, from the eminency of His or-der: that of Melchizedek (Heb. 5:6).

Fourth, from the solemnity of his

ordination: with an oath (Heb. 7:20,

21)none other was. Fifth, from the

excellency of His sacrifice: Himself,

without spot (Heb. 9:14). Sixth, from

the perfection of His administration

(Heb. 7:11, 25)He has satisfied di-

vine justice, procured Divine favor,

given access to the Throne of Grace,


3/20

Issue 198 June 2013 Page 3

other hand, where specifically Chris-

tian behavior is related positively tothe Mosaic law, the verb plroun or a

cognate inevitably occurs (Rom. 8:4,

13:8, 10; Gal. 5:14); yet these terms

are never used where the require-

ments or achievements of those living

under the law are in view. Given the

occasional nature of Pauls correspon-

dence, such a consistent distinction in

usage is striking indeed and demands

some explanation.

In Galatians 5:14 the whole law isfulfilled in one statement: You shall

love your neighbor as yourself. In Ro-

mans 8:4, the righteous requirement

(to dikaima) of the law is fulfilled in

us. In Romans 13:8 we are told the

one who loves another has fulfilled

the law. Verse ten says love is the

If one wants to understand Pauls

mind on the Mosaic law, one mustunderstand the way Paul carefully dis-

tinguishes the verbs do and fulfill.

Pauline scholar Stephen Westerholm

writes,

It is worth noting, however, that in

Paul, while Christians are never said

to do (poiein) the law, those un-

der the law are seen as obligated to

do its commands (Rom. 10:5; Gal.

3:10, 12; 5:3); indeed, the law itself,

Paul claims, rests on the principle ofdoing as opposed to believing

(Gal. 3:12; Rom. 10:5-6). If, then, the

essence of life under the law is the

requirement to do its commands, it

is not strange that Paul would avoid

the term in contexts where he relates

Christian behavior to the law. On the

fulfilling of the law. Only Christians,

who have the Spirit of the new age,

can fulfill the law. Paul, like Jesus in

Matthew 5:17, is referring to eschato-

logical fulfillment. It should also not

be overlooked that in these fulfill-

ment of the law passages, Paul is not

prescribing but describing Christianbehavior. Jason Meyer states, Paul

does not prescribe Christian behavior

with reference to the law; he describes

the fruit (karpos) of their behavior

with a retroactive reference to the way

that it conforms to the law and thus

amounts to its fulfillment (plro).

Ironically and paradoxically, those

who live under the law bear fruit

resulting in sinful passions, transgres-

sion of the law, and death, while those

who have died to the law bear fruitthat amount to the laws fulfillment.

Only those under the law are required

to do the law, while the result of the

obedience of those not under the law

fulfills the law.

Doing/Fulfilling the Law

A. Blake White

I would like to help support the ministry ofSound of Grace:

A tax-deductible gift in the amount of ______________ is enclosed.

I would like to receive Sound of Grace via the USPS:

A check in the amount of $20.00 for a paper copy (payable to Sound of Grace) is enclosed.

I would like to receive Sound of Grace via email:

A check in the amount of $10.00 for a pdffile (payable to Sound of Grace) is enclosed.

Please continue free of charge: Via email via USPS

PLEASE PRINT CLEARLYTHANK YOU

Name:

Street Address:

City: State/Providence: Zip/Postal:

Email address: @ Phone number:

Mail to: Sound of Grace, 5317 Wye Creek Drive, Frederick, MD 21703-6938

Did you know you dont need a Kindle to read your book?

Simply download one of Amazons free Kindle apps - available for every

major smartphone, tablet and computer.

http ://www.amazon.com/gp/feature.html/ref=sa_menu_karl?ie=UTF8&docId=1000493771


4/20


oncile us to God, because He is man

(John Calvin, quoted by Pink).

If the Son of God had never be-

come man, He could never have been

a priest or performed any priestly

functions. He could have taught us

about his Father and instructed us in

the just requirement of the Law, buthe would never have been able to offer

that sacrifice for the sins of His people

which divine justice required. It was

essential that God became flesh and

dwelt among us if an eternal salva-

tion was to be secured for Gods elect.

The phrase, Is ordained for men,

in verse one is important. It shows

that the high priest was ordained by

God for his office. He did not take a

series of psychological tests to see ifhe had certain talents and a correct

psychological make up; he did not one

day feel led of the Lord to make

the high priestly work his calling. No,

no, God personally chose, ordained,

called and equipped the high priest

for his work. The reason why, and the

purpose for which, the high priest was

taken from among men is so that he

might transact on behalf of others, or

more accurately, in the stead of others.

The application of the words, Is

ordained of God to our New Cove-

nant high priest demonstrates the per-

son and work of Christ. He not only

became man, he received appoint-

ment from God to act on behalf of, in

the stead of, men. He came to do the

Fathers will, Lo I come, to do Thy

will, O God (Heb. 10:9). This text

not only announces the commission

He received from God, it also asserts

His readiness to discharge it. The will

of God for Christ was the cross. He

was born for the express purpose of

dying. Our Lord was the only person

who was ever born in order that he

might die. We were born to live, but

he was born to die. He came to do

what needed to be done and no one

but he could do it if there was to be a

gospel to preach. He came to do what


secured eternal redemption. Seventh,

from the perpetuity of His office: it is

untransferable and eternal (Heb. 7:24).

From these we may the better perceive

the blasphemous arrogance of the Ital-

ian pope, who styles himselfpontifex

maximusthe greatest high priest.1

It is interesting to follow biblical

arguments and note how logically

they are framed. The Holy Spirit

knows how to think and how to ex-

press the truth. He does not begin his

list of comparisons between the old

and the new with Moses and Aaron.

That would immediately have offend-

ed the Jews. The writer starts with an-

gels and talks about a mediator who is

holy, acceptable to God, has a heart of

compassion for sinners and is just themediator we need in every way. The

writer of Hebrews begins chapter 5

with a description of the high priests

nature and work.

For every high priest taken from

among men is ordained for men in

things pertaining to God, that he may

offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins:

Who can have compassion on the ig-

norant, and on them that are out of the

way, for that he himself also is com-

passed with infirmity. And by reason

hereof he ought, as for the people, so

also for himself, to offer for sins. And

no man taketh this honour unto him-

self, but he that is called of God, as

was Aaron. Hebrews 5:1-4

These verses give a summary of the

qualifications of the Levitical high

priests. Our Lord fulfilled every one

of these qualifications. First of all,

the high priest had to be taken from

among men. That means he had tobe part of the human family, a true

part of Adams race. An angel could

not be a priest, let alone be the high

priest. A high priest must partake of

the nature of those on whose behalf he

acts. He must be a kinsman of those

he represents. Second, the high priest

1 A.W. Pink,An Exposition of Hebrews

(Swengel, PA, Baker Book House,

1954) 225

did not act as a private individual,

but as a public official: is ordained

for men. He acted as an appointed

representative of sinners. Third, when

he approached God he did not come

empty handed. He brought gifts and

sacrifices for sins. Fourth, the high

priest must realize that he himself wasa sinner and needed grace. He had to

be able to give hope and comfort to

those of his fellow sinners to whom

he ministered (verses 2, 3). Our New

Covenant high priest was not in any

sense a sinner as was Aaron, and part

of this particular requirement did not

apply to him. The need to be able to

sympathize did apply to Christ, and

his ability to sympathize with us grew

out of his becoming one with us in

our humanity. He was tempted in thesame way we are tempted but he never

yielded to any temptation. Fifth, he

did not presumptuously decide to

be a high priest by his own choice,

but was chosen and approved by God

(verse 4). Let us look at each of these

five things more closely.

The first thing is an emphasis on

his humanity. For every high priest

taken from among men

An angel would be no fitting priest

to act on behalf of men, for he pos-

sesses not their nature, is not subject to

their temptations, and has no experi-

mental acquaintance with their suffer-

ings; therefore is he unsuited to act on

their behalf: therefore is he incapable

of having compassion upon them,

for the motive-spring of all real inter-

cession is heart-felt sympathy. Thus,

the primary qualification of a priest is

that he must be personally related to,

possess the same nature as, those forwhose welfare he interposes.2

It was necessary for Christ to be-

come a real man, for as we are very

far from God, we stand in a manner

before Him in the person of our Priest,

which could not be were He not one

of us. Hence, that the Son of God has

a nature in common with us does not

diminish His dignity, but commends it

the more to us; for He is fitted to rec-

2 Ibid, 227 ReisingerContinued on page 6


5/20


6/20



Christ has only one personality.

Christs humanity never had an

independent existence.

Christ is not able to sin, any more

than God can sin.

Christs humanity is not indepen-

dent of His deity.Christ never does anything as

man or as God - He acts as Christ,

who is God manifest in flesh. After

coming to earth at Bethlehem, Christ

could no longer act solely as God.

Nor did He experience thirst and

weariness solely as man. He cannot

act as man without being God - He

cannot act as God without being man.

The Lord said I am thirsty not my

human nature is thirsty. He said I

forgive not my divine nature for-

gives you. It is vital never to divide

the Lord Jesus in a way that Scripture

does not allow.

That He may offer both gifts and

sacrifice for sins (Heb. 5:1). This

statement emphasizes an important

fact that is not emphasized enough

today. Christ offers himself to the Fa-

ther before he is presented to sinners.

This text shows that the sacrificial

death of Christ was a priestly act.

He offered something to God. He of-fered himself. He lay down his life in

a conscious act of sacrifice for sins.

This was not the work of a prophet or

a king; it was the work of a priest. At

Calvary the Lord Jesus was not only

the sacrifice, the Lamb of God bear-

ing judgment, but He was also the

priest officiating at the altar. Our Lord

offered his sinless life on the altar of

his absolute deity and accomplished

a perfect redemption for us poor sin-

ners. Later, the writer will emphasize

the necessity of Christ having an of-

fering to give to God. For every high

priest is ordained to offer gifts and

sacrifices: wherefore it is of necessity

that this Man have somewhat also to

offer (Heb. 8:3). Hebrews 9:14 tells

us that our Lord offered himself

without spot to God.

God gave his son up to the cross.

no man could dosatisfy the claims

of divine justice, procure the divine

favor. Pink correctly notes in passing

what the Holy Spirit specifically says,

ordained for men, not mankind in

general, but that people whom God

had given Himjust as Aaron, thetypical high priest, confessed not the

sins of the Canaanites or Amalekites

over the head of the goat, but those of

Israel only.

In things pertaining to God, that

is, in meeting the requirements of His

holiness. The activities of the priests

have God for their object: it is His

character, His claims, His glory which

are in view. In their application to

Christ these words, in things pertain-

ing to God distinguishes our Lordspriesthood from His other offices. As a

prophet, He reveals to us the mind and

will of God. As the King, He subdues

us to Himself, rules over and defends

us. But the object of His priesthood is

not us, but God.3

We must always remember the

difference between a prophet and a

priest. A prophet represents God to

men and a priest represents men to

God.

The truth of Christs humanity

is not stressed as much as it should

be. There is the tendency to get so

involved in defending the truth of the

deity of Christ that we neglect his hu-

manity. It is just as vital that Christ be

the son of Mary as it is that he be the

Son of God. The following is a short

excerpt from an excellent message on

the internet on the humanity of Christ.

See page 15 of issue 197 ofSound of

Grace for a longer quote and for theinternet address for the entire article.

The ramifications of this truth

[humanity of Christ] are many. For

example: Christs two natures can be

distinguished but not separated.

Christ became something He never

was before while never ceasing to be

what he always was.

3 Ibid, 229

It was the Father who put Christ on

the cross. It was the Fathers plan to

have Christ die and it was the Fathers

sovereign control that engineered

the cross from beginning to end. No

event was ever planned and executed

as carefully as the death of Christ was

planned and executed by the triuneGod. However, the Son of God readily

agreed to do the Fathers will. Pink

said it well:

Christ on the Cross was far more

than a willing victim passively endur-

ing the stroke of Divine judgment. He

was there performing a work, nor

did He cease until He cried in triumph,

It is finished. He loved the Church

and gave Himself for it (Eph. 5:25).

He laid down His life for the sheep

(John 10:11, 18)which is the predi-cate of an active agent. He poured out

His soul unto death (Isa. 53:12).4

Hebrews 5:2 emphasizes that com-

passion is one of the sure results that

will be evident in a true high priest.

This same mark of compassion will

be seen in anyone who has truly been

called and ordained by God to func-

tion as a church leader. Who can have

compassion on the ignorant, and on

them that are out of the way; for thathe himself is compassed with infirmity

(verse 2). The ignorant may be de-

scribed as those who sin because they

simply do not know any better. Their

problem is ignorance of the truth.

They may be new or untaught believ-

ers. Those who have gone out of the

way maybe those who know better

but deliberately choose to go their

own way. Regardless of which it is the

true minister of Christ feels compas-

sion. He never excuses sin in any waybut he feels true sympathy. If the only

feeling a leader feels when someone

under his care goes astray is anger,

that leader is a false shepherd.

I Samuel 1:9-14 records the miser-

able failure of Eli the priest. When

poor Hannah was in bitterness of

soul, and while she was in prayer,

4 Ibid, 231



7/20


McAloonContinued on page 13

INTRODUCTION

There is perhaps no part of divin-

ity attended with so much intricacy,

and wherein orthodox divines do

so much differ, as the stating of the

precise agreement and difference be-

tween the two dispensations of Moses

and of Christ. - Jonathan Edwards1

This statement by one of the

churchs greatest thinkers is one thathas reigned true since the very con-

ception of the church. Even the very

idea of the conception of the church

is not without its array of theologi-

cal dilemmas and controversies: who

exactly constitutes this church; when

was it conceived; what is its nature;

what is its purpose in Gods plan

for humankind, etc. Although many

believers may look at these matters

as mere abstract theological theories,

the conclusions to these questionsand their consequences could not be

more important to the very life of the

church. So agrees Lints, who believes

that almost all major controversies in

evangelical theology could be reduced

in the end to a difference concerning

the relationship of the Testaments.2

1 1.Jonathan Edwards, A Humble

Inquiry, in The Works of Jonathan

Edwards Vol. 1 (Peabody, MA: Hen-

drickson Publishers, 2003), 44.2 Richard Lints, The Fabric of Theology:

A prolegomenon to Evangelical Theol-

ogy (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans,

1993), 301, n. 13; quoted in A. Blake

White, The Newness of the New Cov-

enant(Frederick, MD: New Covenant

Media, 2008), 55; also see John S.

Feinbergs article The Law of Moses

or the Law of Christ where he says,

Few issues are of greater significance

to biblical theology and, ultimately,

systematic theology as the relation

The dust of our contemporary superfi-

ciality and quest for temporal distrac-

tion and comfort must be cleared so

that the gravity of these matters may

be felt in our hearts. The amount

of blood that has been shed and the

brotherly unity that has been de-

stroyed between professors of Christ

over their interpretations of the Testa-

ments throughout the centuries is

unfathomable; therefore we owe it toboth our Lord and our forefathers to

follow in their footsteps towards dis-

covering and breaking from those old

corruptions that have been infecting

the body of Christ since the days of its

fall from New Testament purity. This

can only be done with humility as we

confess our need and wholly depend

upon the Spirit to teach us through the

Scriptures he has inspired, even if this

must be done so in light of many of

the creeds he did not.

This has been the cry of many

reformers throughout church his-

tory, and it is shared by many of us

who hold to a form of biblical theol-

ogy that has been dubbed the name,

New Covenant Theology.3 While

this title may be a bit misleading in

that it could suggest a theology that

between the Testaments. In Continu-

ity and Discontinuity: Perspectives onthe Relationship Between the Old and

New Testament(Wheaton, IL: Cross-

way Books, 1988).

3 See Tom Wells, Our Creeds and

How They Affect Our Understand-

ing, in Tom Wells and Fred Zaspel,

New Covenant Theology: Definition,

Description, Defense (Frederick, MD:

New Covenant Media, 2002); also

John G. Reisinger,Abrahams Four

Seeds (Frederick, MD: New Covenant

Media, 1998), iv.

deals only with the New Covenant in

perhaps a more systematic way, this

is not the case. On the contrary, likeCovenant Theology and Dispensation-

alism, it is a robust interpretation of

the relationships between the Testa-

ments and covenants found therein,

which seeks to enrich our under-

standing of salvation history so that

we learn to properly apply the truths

found in Gods Word. However, many

of us humbly believe that whereas the

former systems do so through presup-

positions that cannot be founded upon

Scripture, New Covenant Theology(hereafter NCT) attempts to con-

sistently put the biblical textsfirstand

derive its overall approach in light of

them.4 Much fine exegesis has been

done and many arguments have been

written for one to engage for himself

4 Wells and Zaspel, 22; also see Reising-

ers introduction inAbrahams Four

Seeds, i-iv.

A STUDY OF

NEW COVENANT THEOLOGY

Part 1 of 4

Kevin P. McAloonKevin recently graduated from

Southeastern Baptist TheologicalSeminary, and is currently meetingwith some believers seeking Godto raise a church in Carmel, NY.His heart is for the further reforma-tion of Christ's Church back to NewCovenant power and purity, andtruly believes that New Covenant

Theology and many of the churchesespousing it are God's blessing in

this generation towards that end.

While avoiding formal denomi-national affiliation, Kevin cravesand welcomes all open heartedfellowship with devout brothers andsisters in Christ. He and his groupcovet your prayers. You are invitedto contact him at [email protected]


8/20

Page 8 June 2013 Issue 198ReisingerContinued from page 6

weeping before the Lord, only her

lips moved, but her voice was heard

not, Eli thought that she was drunk-

en, and spoke roughly to her. Thus,

instead of sympathizing with her sor-

rows, instead of making intercession

for her, he cruelly misjudged her. It is

a strange anomaly, but it seems that

the more doctrinally orthodox people

become, the more they lose compas-

sion. They become more interested in

protecting the image of the institution

than they do in helping poor sinners.

This compassionate, loving, gentle,

all-considerate and tender regard for

the sinner can exist in perfection only

in a sinless one. This appears at first

sight paradoxical; for we expect the

perfect man to be the severest judge.And with regard to sin, this is doubt-

less true. God charges even His angels

with folly. He beholds sin where we

do not discover it. And Jesus, the Holy

One of Israel, like the Father, has

eyes like a flame offire, and discerns

everything that is contrary to Gods

mind and will. But with regard to the

sinner, Jesus, by virtue of His perfect

holiness, is the most merciful, com-

passionate, and considerate Judge. For

we, not taking a deep and keen view

of sin, that central essential evil whichexists in all men, and manifests itself

in various ways and degrees, are not

able to form a just estimate of mens

comparative guilt and blameworthi-

ness. Nay, our very sins make us more

impatient and severe with regard to

the sins of others. Our vanity finds the

vanity of others intolerable, our pride

finds the pride of others excessive.

Blind to the guilt of our own peculiar

sins, we are shocked with anothers

sins, different indeed from ours, but

not less offensive to God, or perni-

cious in its tendencies. Again, the

greater the knowledge of Divine love

and pardon, the stronger faith in the

Divine mercy and renewing grace, the

more hopeful and the more lenient will

be our view of sinners. And finally the

more we possess of the spirit and heart

of the Shepherd, the Physician, theFather, the deeper will be our compas-

sion on the ignorant and wayward.5

One of the inconsistencies that

amazes me is how clearly the Scrip-

tures teach that Christ loved the sin-

ner and hated his sin. I am aware this

truth has been greatly misused, and it

usually winds up in a distorted half-

truth form, but it is none the less a

biblical fact that Jesus was perfectly

clear in his hatred of sin and at thesame time was tender and compas-

sionate to the sinner. If you cant fit

that into your theology, you need to

revise your theology. Despite how

holy he was Jesus still often revealed

less shock toward the drunkard and

profligate than the respectable, self-

ish, and ungodly religionists. I hate

to say it, but I have met many truly

Reformed elders who exhibit most

of the characteristics of the Pharisees

in the New Testament. They viewbiblical compassion as a form of com-

promise. Jesus looked upon sin as the

greatest and most fearful evil, and at

the same time he saw the sinner as

poor, lost, and helpless. He saw the

just destruction of Jerusalem at the

door, but still wept over its coming

destruction. Hyper-Calvinism is al-

ways stingy with the love of God. It is

5 Ibid, 231, 232

far better at condemning than it is at

reconciliation. It knows how to preach

wrath but stumbles and gets tongue-

tied with the love of God.

Hymn writer Frank Graeff got it

pretty close.

Does Jesus care when my heart ispainedToo deeply for mirth or song;As the burdens press, and the cares

distress,And the way grows weary and long?

Refrain:Oh, yes, He cares, I know He cares!His heart is touched with my grief;When the days are weary, the long

nights dreary,I know my Savior cares.

Does Jesus care when my way isdarkWith a nameless dread and fear?As the daylight fades into deep night

shades,Does He care enough to be near?

Does Jesus care when Ive tried

and failedTo resist some temptation strong;When for my deep grief there is no

relief,Though my tears flow all the night

long?Does Jesus care when Ive said

goodbyeTo the dearest on earth to me,And my sad heart aches till it nearly

breaksIs it aught to Him? Does He see?

Our great matters are little to God's infinite power,and our little matters are great to his Father love.

Donald Grey Barnhouse


9/20


WhiteContinued on page 11

The word under (hypo) is used

frequently in Galatians to refer tothe old age. It designates the old

era when the Mosaic covenant was

in force.1 In Galatians, to be under

law (3:23) = under sin (3:22) = under

a babysitter (3:25) = under guard-

ians and managers (4:2) = under the

elemental spirits (stoicheia) of the

world (4:3). This last one is the most

shocking. The phrase I have translated

elemental spirits is much disputed.

Many commentators take it to mean

the physical building blocks of the

world, so that to return to the law is to

return to live under the basic prin-

ciples of the world (most likely the

case in 2 Peter 3:10, 12). This may be

a correct interpretation, but in the end,

spiritual forces cant be excluded. For,

unlike the mindset of Enlightenment

rationalism, in the mindset of the New

Testament the whole world is under

the control of the evil one (1 John

5:19 NIV). Satan is the god of thisage (2 Cor 4:4). He is the prince of

this world (John 12:31). Unbelievers

follow the ruler of the kingdom of

the air (Eph 2:2). There are cosmic

powers, spiritual forces of evil over

this present darkness (Eph 6:12). So

even if the word does refer to the ele-

mentary building blocks of the world,

demonic forces are still involved.

Some object to this interpreta-

tion (i.e., elemental sprits or spiritualforces) due to the claim that this ter-

minology is not used outside the Bible

until after the second century AD.

Although, looking at the usage outside

of the New Testament is helpful, it

is not decisive. Usage in context is

key.2 In Galatians, Paul uses the word

1 Thomas R. Schreiner,Paul, 321.

2 D.G. Reid, Elements/Elemental Spirits

of the World, inDictionary of Paul

in 4:3 and 4:9. In 4:8-10, he writes,

Formerly, when you did not knowGod, you were slaves to those who by

nature are not gods. But now that you

know Godor rather are known by

Godhow is it that you are turning

back to those weak and miserable

forces? Do you wish to be enslaved by

them all over again? You are observ-

ing special days and months and

seasons and years! This is a shocking

statement. Here, Paul lumps together

Judaism and paganism. To observe the

Jewish Sabbath and festival practices

(certainly this is whats in view) is to

return to the elemental spirits of the

world.3 The genitive of the world

(tou kosmou) is important as well.

These elemental spirits are character-

istic of this world, this age, which he

already wrote is evil (Gal 1:4). This

present world order belongs to Satan

(2 Cor 4:4).

We are helped in our understand-

ing of this truth by looking at thebook of 1 Corinthians. There, refer-

ring to idols, Paul says For even if

there are so-called gods, whether in

heaven or on earth (as indeed there are

many gods and many lords) (8:5).

Then in 10:20 he says that these idols

are demons: No, but the sacrifices of

pagans are offered to demons, not to

God. So for the Galatians to return

to the Jewish calendar is to return to

being enslaved to those that are bynature not gods, which is another way

of saying being enslaved by the el-

emental spirits of this present evil age.

Clinton Arnold writes, The passage

and His Letters, ed. Gerald F. Haw-

thorne, et al. (Downers Grove, IL:

InterVarsity Press, 1993), 229.

3 Steve Westerholm,Perspectives, 367;

Schreiner, Galatians, 245; Longeneck-

er, Galatians, 182; Meyer, The End of

the Law, 174.

is best explained if one interprets the

stoicheia as demonic powers, equiva-lent to the expression principalities

and powers.4 It is important to note

that Paul is not calling the law demon-

ic. However, it is demonic to return to

the law afterChrists death and resur-

rection. Christ is the culmination of

the law (Rom 10:4). Its sacrifices are

no longer effective. To turn back the

clock of redemptive history is to turn

to slavery to the powers.

If my interpretation is correct, itjust reinforces the fact that getting

the gospel right is crucial. The indica-

tive must undergird the imperative.

Sanctification flows from justification.

It is fundamentally demonic to trust

in anything but Christ crucified for

salvation. This is why John can call

those who falsely claim to be Jews the

synagogue of Satan (Rev 2:9, 3:9).

In this regard the principalities and

powers, those lords that cannot liber-

ate, can equally plunder the RomanCatholic Church or the overly strict

fundamentalist Baptist congrega-

tion. The do this and live principle

(Gal 3:12; Rom 10:5) is everywhere

because the main evangelist of this

religion is the prince of the power of

the air. Only pagans trust in self. In

Acts 21:24, the verbal form (stoiche)

is used as living in obedience to the

law. It refers to leading a closely

regulated life, to living accord-

4 Clinton E. Arnold, Returning to the

Domain of the Powers:stoicheia as

Evil Spirits in Galatians 4:3, 9,No-

vum Testamentum 38, no. 1 (January

1996): 57; idem,Powers of Darkness:

Principalities and Powers in Pauls

Letters (Downers Grove, IL: InterVar-

sity Press, 1992), 53, 131-32.

Under the Elemental Spirits of the World

A. Blake White


10/20


WestContinued f rom page 5

Turning aside from introductory

matters, I want to sketch out several

important theological arguments that

Luther uses in BW. Some of the posi-

tions he takes are far more philosophi-

cally nuanced than many people real-

ize. In fact, in my estimation Lutherroutinely moves from Scripture to

theological reflection to philosophi-

cal/logical refinement in a way which

is truly extraordinary. Frankly, as a

reader living in the twenty-first cen-

tury, it is easy to get so swept up in

his rhetoric that the depths of his re-

flection are missed (not to mention its

altogether too easy to get distracted

by his cringe-worthy expressions, or

alternatively to be laughing so hard at

some of his comments that the train of

his argument is lost).

The first element to note in Lu-

thers argument concerns the relation-

ship between Gods foreknowledge

and human free will. Although there

are lengthy discussions and academic

debates about the possibility of lib-

ertarian freedom given Gods knowl-

edge of the future, Luther cuts to the

chase and argues that according to the

Bible Gods foreknowledge of futureevents is grounded in his sovereign

purposes. God knows the future be-

cause he decrees the future, not be-

cause he sees what contingent beings

do as autonomous agents.

Luther believes this point is so

weighty that he states: It is, then,

fundamentally necessary and whole-

some for Christians to know that God

foreknows nothing contingently, but

he foresees, purposes, and does allthings according to His own immu-

table, eternal and infallible will. This

bombshell knocks free-will flat and

utterly shatters it; so that those who

want to assert it must either deny my

bombshell, or pretend not to notice

it, orfind some other way of dodging

it (p. 80). If all things are ultimately

done on the basis of Gods will, then

they are not done out of libertarian

freedom. Luthers implicit logical

argument is this: 1. Gods foreknowl-

edge of future events is incompatible

with libertarian freedom; 2. Gods

foreknowledge is clearly taught in

Scripture; 3. Therefore libertarian

freedom does not exist.

This does not mean, however,that God forces people to act against

their will. On the contrary, The will,

whether it be Gods or mans does

what it does, good or bad, under no

compulsion, but just as it wants or

pleases, as if totally free (p. 81).

Luthers observation here is critical.

He never denies that people act as

they please out of the nature of their

wills. But the one thing a will cannot

doand this is essential to all freewill discussionsis change itself. It is

what it is. Luther refers to this as the

necessity of immutability (p. 102).

People with an evil will (i.e. the whole

human race) do evil naturally. When

they sin apart from the restraining of

the Holy Spirit of God, they do so in

accordance with their fallen nature. In

the mercy of Gods sovereign grace,

however, sinners are regenerated and

given new inclinations and desires.

The individual continues to will, butthe direction of their will is funda-

mentally altered by grace. Luther

expresses this change in the following

way: On the other hand: when God

works in us, the will is changed under

the sweet influence of the Spirit of

God. Once more it desires and acts,

not of compulsion, but of its own de-

sire and spontaneous inclination (p.

103). In biblical language, this is what

happens when God removes the heartof stone and puts in its place the heart

offlesh; when God takes out the old

spirit and gives the new spirit; when

we are born again.

Luther is aware that some people

will respond that if God ordains all

that comes to pass and if he knows the

future on the basis of his decreed pur-

poses, then we are not responsible for

what we do. To this he replies that sin-

ners are like horses with two or three

good feet; they stumble and fall but

are still serviceable for accomplishing

Gods purposes. Their infirmity is in

their nature, so it is not Gods fault.

All God does is use their capabilities

to bring about his good ends (p. 204).

In fact this sets forth in a startlingway Gods greatness and goodness.

Evil people will do evil; part of the

glory of God is that he can take their

naturally evil deeds (without making

the person evil or adding evil to their

nature) and work them together for

good (p. 206).

Furthermore Luther is also aware

that this theological stance will evoke

the same objections Paul rhetorically

poses in Romans 9. Again at this pointLuthers insistence on placing reason

at the service of clear biblical teaching

guides his analysis: Is it not an auda-

cious way of searching, to try and har-

monize the wholly free foreknowledge

of God with our own freedom, and to

be ready to deny the foreknowledge

of God if it does not allow us freedom

and if it imposes necessity on us, to

say with the blasphemous complain-

ers: Why doth He yet find fault? For

who shall resist His will? Where isthe God Whose nature is kindness

itself? Where is He that willeth not

the death of the sinner? Has He cre-

ated us merely to delight Himself in

mens torments?and the like; which

sentiments the damned in hell will be

howling out to all eternity! (p. 216).

This is strong language but no

less strong than Pauls language in

Romans 9, yet it just seems strik-

ingly hard to swallow. In a candid,personal moment Luther bears his

heart and says, it is this that has

been the great stumbling block to so

many great men down the ages. And

who would not stumble at it? I have

stumbled at it myself more than once,

down to the deepest pit of despair, so

that I wished I had never been made

a man. (That was before I knew how

health-giving that despair was, and


11/20


WhiteContinued from page 9how close to grace.) (p. 217) For Lu-

ther (as for Calvin) the secret decrees

of God are beyond our ken. We do

not understand them, norcan we un-

derstand thembut we are told about

them in Scripture and are expected to

receive the biblical teaching on them

as Gods truth. Full comprehension isnot necessary but humble acceptance

is.

There was for Luther the assurance

that a day was coming when all of

Gods wisdom in these issues would

be revealed. His great justice would

emerge unsullied with every eye see-

ing it and every mouth stopped (pp.

314-315). What at the present time the

human mind cannot comprehend and

what the human heart cannot encom-pass will on that future day be made

plain. Even if we still fail to perfectly

understand all things, our difficulties

and problems will melt away in the

light of glory (p. 316).

Using contemporary categories,

Luthers BW would fit comfortably

into the compatibilist camp. This is

true not only theologically but also

in terms of his philosophical assess-

ments. His view of foreknowledgeruling out libertarianism coupled with

his view of moral responsibility is

compatibilistic. His view of God using

the evil nature of sinners to accom-

plish his good purposes is likewise

compatibilistic (although his expres-

sion of it trades more on ultimate and

efficient causes, a distinction Im not

perfectly comfortable with when used

in theodicies). Furthermore his assess-

ment that people act freely when they

do what they want, even though they

cannot change their natures or will,again blends determinism and respon-

sibility in a compatibilist mold.

Beyond his actual biblical, theo-

logical, and philosophical arguments

lie his Christian presuppositions. It

is asserted more than argued that

Scripture is the final court of appeal.

Luther assumes God knows real-

ity exhaustively and is an infallible

and authoritative guide. When God

speaks, the issue is settled. Althoughthere is room to quibble with some of

the cogency of some of his arguments

(even when one is in general agree-

ment with his overall conclusion),

his attitude towards human reason

and Gods Word is exemplary. All of

our theological reflection needs to be

guided and controlled by the param-

eters set forth in Gods Word. For all

of his personal and intellectual imper-

fections, this is one area where Luther

shines as a bright example centuriesafter his life and work. May God give

us the grace to approach all biblical

issues in this same spirit.

ing to definite rules.5 In Colossae,

there were intruders trying to force

the Colossians to live a certain way

with regard to food, drink, festivals

and Sabbaths (Col 2:16). They were

insisting on asceticism (Col 2:18). But

we have died to the law (Rom 7:4)and have died to the elemental spirits

of the world (Col 2:20), and are no

longer required to submit to its rules:

Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not

touch! (2:20-21). Verlyn Verbrugge

writes, Thus the basic principles

of the world cover all the things in

which humans place trust apart from

the living God revealed in Christ.6

This perspective is also clear from

Philippians 3:2. The Judaizers werevery concerned about being cer-

emonially clean, doing good works,

and being circumcised and Paul

provocatively calls them dogs (un-

clean), evil doers (opposite of good),

and those who mutilate the flesh (tn

katatmn). There is a word play at

work here on the word circumcision

(peritm). He is saying that those

who cut themselves thinking this will

gain salvation are like the frenzied

prophets of Baal who were frustratedthat their god would not answer their

pleas (see 1 Kin 18:28; Lev 19:28,

21:5 LXX).7 Paul tells those who

would force Christians to be circum-

cised that they should go ahead and

lop the whole thing off (apokopt)

(Gal 5:12), with the result that they

will not be able to enter the church

of the Lord (Deut 23:1, 23:2 LXX -

apokopt)!

5 Verlyn D. Verbrugge, ed.,New Inter-

national Dictionary of New Testament

Theology: Abridged Edition (Grand

Rapids: Zondervan, 2000), 541.

6 Ibid.

7 Thielman, Theology of the New Testa-

ment, 318.

The law requires work of human achievement;the gospel requires faith in Christs achievement.

The law makes demands and bids us obey;the gospel brings promises and bids us believe.

So the law and the gospel are contrary to one another.They are not two aspects of the same thing,or interpretations of the same Christianity.

At least in the sphere of justification, as Luther says,The establishing of the law is the

abolishing of the Gospel.

John Stott


12/20

Page 12 June 2013 Issue 198Gilliland Continued from page 1

Gilliland Continued on page 18

not a new reality for the individual be-

liever, but a new kind of covenant that

would be characterized by all of its

members knowing the Lord. Although

a result of the Spirits work in regen-

eration, the internalization of Gods

law is not to be equated with the NTgift of the indwelling Spirit as it has

always defined the child of God. And

of course, the indwelling Spirit is not

a new reality spatially, for the Spirit

is omnipresent and has always been

intimately related to us as the apostle

Paul records, He is not far from each

of us; for in him we live and have

our being (Acts 17:29). And while

the reality of the indwelling Spirit is a

new reality experientially in the lives

of Gods New Covenant people, hehas always been the ultimate source of

obedience in Gods saints. Note these

key OT texts:

The righteous shall inherit the land

and dwell upon it forever. The mouth

of the righteous utters wisdom, and his

tongue speaks justice. The law of his

God is in his heart; his steps do not

slip. (Psalm 37:29-31)

In sacrifice and offering you have

not delighted, but you have given mean open ear. Burnt offering and sin

offering you have not required. Then

I said, Behold, I have come; in the

scroll of the book it is written of me:

I delight to do your will, O my God;

your law is within my heart. (Psalm

40:6-8)

Listen to me, you who know righ-

teousness, the people in whose heart

is my lawmy righteousness will be

forever, and my salvation to all gen-

erations.(Isaiah 51:7-8)

The law written on the heartdoes

not refer to a specific codified content,

although I wouldnt entirely disagree

with those that suggest it is a gen-

eral love for God and neighbor the

two greatest commandments. The

law written on the heartis simply

the disposition of every regenerate

soul that longs for the relationship of

covenantal obedience to their Lord

and Savior the desire to do the will

of God. Psalm 86:11-13 is a good

summary: Teach me your way, O

LORD, that I may walk in your truth;

unite my heart to fear your name. I

give thanks to you, O Lord my God,

with my whole heart, and I will glorify

your name forever. For great is yoursteadfast love toward me; you have

delivered my soul from the depths of

Sheol. And what Jeremiah 31:31-34

points to is a day when every cov-

enant member will know the Lord,

and share not only the experience of

David that is reflected in these psalms,

but the experience and reality that is

perfectly reflected in his greater Son

and our covenant head, the Lord Jesus

Christ.

The Specific Characteristics of

the Grace Movement: #2 His-

torical-Redemptive Reductionism

What is the result if we posit a

different kind of obedience, an obedi-

ence that transcends or excludes an

intentional or volitional response

to the written word? It results in a

Historical-Redemptive reduction-

ism. Within the Grace Movement in

general, including some who use theterm NCT, there is an increasing ten-

dency toward a Barthian type theol-

ogy, one that promotes unbiblical im-

plications and applications regarding

the legitimate distinction between the

Word of God and the Incarnate Word,

as well as the increasing exclusivity

of the redemptive story or Historical-

Redemptive paradigm.

One Internet participant posted,

Christ in me is all I need to be led in

the paths of righteousness. No impera-

tives required. He IS sufficient for all

righteousness! Now certainly, as a

basic statement regarding ultimate

authority and significance, there is

no denying the truth of the statement,

Christ in me is all I need. It would

be similar to Pauls reference to the

preeminence of Christ in Colossians

1:15-17, All things are by him

through himand for him, or his

statement in Romans 11:36, For from

him and through him and to him are

all things. But while these state-

ments provide a doxological summary

of true religion, they are not at the

same time the whole counsel of God

and can and are being used in a way

that minimizes or ignores the God-ordained means of the Word of God,

prayer, and the fellowship of the local

church.

Allow me to interact with an

author (in italics) that puts it this

way: The Bible is inspired by the

Holy Ghost. I want to get that out of

the way right off the bat. That said,

I have established over and over

again in this blog that Jesus redefined

the phrase word of God to be thegospel, or himself, the living walking

gospel and gave Scripture a solely re-

demptive focus. Paul also reinforced

the redemptive focus of Scripture in

2 Timothy 3:15. He told Timothythat

the Scripture would make one wise

for salvation and thereby established

the solely redemptive focus. Verses 16

and 17 of the same passage must be

viewed within the redemptive purpose.

In other words, it is only profitable

from a redemptive point of view.Is that what 2 Timothy 3:16, 17 says?

This in my opinion is biblical eisoge-

sis, not exegesis. He continues, The

unbelieving Pharisees are examples

of it not being profitable.But I would

answer, Of course they are, they

were unregenerate men! The author

concludes, It will enable us to take

the Scripture for what it is rather than

turn it into an idol that we in reality

place above God. Removing biblio-idolatry would give us the opportunity

to ask the question; how would love

react to this or that?1

Biblio-idolatry? Really? Was Paul

pitting Sola Scriptura against Solo

Christo in 2 Timothy 3:16, 17?Com-

menting on John Frames The Doc-

1 http://paradigmshift-jmac.blogspot.

com.


13/20


McAloonContinued on page 14

McAloonCont. from page 7

and determine whether or not this is

actually the case, and I would highly

recommend reading these primary

sources and meditating over the

Scriptures NCT theologians discuss.5

To adequately do so in this brief study

would go beyond the course of thispaper; therefore my purpose here is to

faithfully set forth the central tenets

of NCT and its distinctions, with the

hope of arousing the interests of those

who have been thus far unsatisfied

with tradition and have a heart to bet-

ter handle the Scriptures in order to

love Christ and appreciate the salva-

tion he has purchased more deeply.

A Brief Comparison of Biblical-

theological SystemsBefore diving into the details of

NCT, it is important to first briefly

summarize the primary systems

within evangelical theology that it

finds wanting in many areas. Al-

though not entirely monolithic, and

with many intricate variations within

their respective schools of thought, the

two general theological categories are

Covenant Theology and Dispensation-

alism. What must be kept in mind is

that although these approaches differ

in many important interpretations of

Scripture, they have all been held by

5 Some good starting points are: Wells

and Zaspel,New Covenant Theol-

ogy; and Steve Lehrer,New Covenant

Theology: Questions Answered, (Steve

Lehrer, 2006), also available for free

here: http://www.ids.org/pdf/nctbook.

pdf. It must be noted that although

there will be references to Lehrers

work throughout this discussionbecause of its clarity and accuracy

regarding the central tenets of NCT,

most NCT theologians distance them-

selves from him because of his par-

ticular views concerning incest and the

salvific merits of the active obedience

of Christ. Like any theological discus-

sion, references within this paper are

not meant to endorse all views and

opinions of their authors, but rather to

cite relevant and true statements where

there is common ground.

many devout and godly Christians

who, although they have nuanced their

views in slightly different ways, have

generally had fundamental agree-

ments on the central issues of God

and salvation.6

Covenant Theology: Continuity

Covenant Theology is an interpre-

tative framework that revolves around

the continuity of Gods covenants with

his people. Pertinent to this discussion

are the systems interpretations of the

covenants God has personally made

with man in time.7The basic founda-

tions around which the whole system

revolves are as follows:8

Man is always in covenant rela-

tionship with God. The reason being

is that God is transcendent, and the

distance is so great between Him and

His creatures that man could not enjoy

any blessings from Him unless He first

decided to condescend to them by way

of covenant (See Westminster Confes-

sion of Faith [hereafterWCF], VII.I).

The whole of Scripture is covered

by two covenants. Rather than the

Old and New, these covenants are the

Covenant of Works and Covenant of

Grace. The Covenant of Works was

made with Adam prior to the Fall,which promised him eternal life upon

his perfect obedience (WCFVII.II).

The Covenant of Grace was made

with man after the Fall, whereby God

6 An exception may be taken with some

of the earlier Dispensationalists, but

generally this is the case. See John S.

Feinberg, ed., Continuity and Discon-

tinuity: Perspectives on the Relation-

ship Between the Old and New Testa-

ments(Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books,

1988), 310.

7 I have not yet come across any NCT

material that touches on Covenanta-

lisms concept of an eternal covenant

made between the Father and Son to

redeem the elect before creation, nor

do I think that an affirmation or denial

of such a covenant would affect any of

its positions.

8 Much of what follows is taken from

Reisingers summary in Abrahams

Four Seeds, 121-124.

freely offered sinners life and salva-

tion by Jesus Christ, requiring only

faith in Him(WCFVII.III). This one

Covenant of Grace was given two ad-

ministrations: one under the law and

Old Covenant, and another under the

gospel and New Covenant[emphasis

mine] (WCFVII.V).

Woven within these two broad and

general summary points are many

presuppositions and implications that

must be addressed. To begin with,

there are three primary presupposi-

tions which many theologians in dif-

fering camps take issue with: 1. There

is one unchanging Covenant of Grace

that has two administrations under

the Old and New Covenants; 2. There

is one redeemed people of God in all

ages under one unchanging covenant;3. There is one unchanging moral law

for the one redeemed people under the

one covenant, viz. the Ten Command-

ments.9 Some implications of their

postulations are that, like Israel, both

believers and unbelievers are under

the physical New Covenant admin-

istration; like infants born under the

Old Covenant, infants born to families

under the New Covenant are to re-

ceive the sign of that covenant which

has changed from circumcision to

baptism; Moses Ten Commandments

are the law and rule for New Testa-

ment believers; and a church state is

something to be sought after.

Covenant Theology as a formal

system really began with Ulrich

Zwingli and was retained in the

Reformed and Puritan churches. An

honest reading of history may lead

one to see that many inherited presup-

positions subconsciously led some of

the early Protestants to develop and

hold such a view. Zwingli and others

were born into a culture where the

establishment of infant baptism and

the propriety of a magisterial church

state was simply assumed; thus these

9 John Reisinger,In Defense of Jesus, the

New Lawgiver(Frederick, MD: New

Covenant Media, 2008), 185.


14/20


theologians were forced to adopt a

new hermeneutical approach to Scrip-

ture that would serve to justify these

practices under the New Covenant,

and eventually the idea of the unity of

a Covenant of Grace was born.10 Sa-

cralism is the logical conclusion andapplication of this theology, and it was

this view that resulted in the justifica-

tion of the persecution of groups like

the Anabaptists and kept the major-

ity of Puritans from fully reforming

and establishing churches that could

truly live and worship consistently

in the spirit of the New Covenant.11

Apart from many objections based

solely upon exegesis, these are some

of the negative aspects of this system

of thought which has led many to turnaway and seek for a better way for un-

derstanding Scripture and the nature

of the New Covenant.

Dispensationalism: Discontinuity

Dispensationalism is a relatively

more modern method of reading

Scripture, although considering the

timeline of church history, so is

Covenant Theology. Whereas the

latter believes that covenants arethe keys to understanding Scripture,

the former holds that dispensations

are the answer. The basic tenet of

most Dispensationalists is that mans

relationship to God is not the same in

every age. Throughout history it has

been necessary to bring fallen man

into divine testing. In separate and

distinct dispensations, or periods of

testing, God has demonstrated every

possible means of dealing with man.12

10 See Wells and Zaspel, 2-3; also Jack

Cottrell, Baptism in the Reformed

Tradition, in David W. Fletcher, ed.,

Baptism and the Remission of Sins (Jo-

plin, Missouri: College Press, 1990),

50.

11 Reisinger,Abrahams Four Seeds, ii.

12 Lewis Sperry Chafer, revised by John

F. Walvoord,Major Bible Themes

(Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing

House, 1974), 127; referenced in Reis-

inger,Abrahams Four Seeds, 126.

Generally, traditional Dispensational-

ists have held to seven distinct dispen-

sations of this type: 1. Dispensation

of Innocence (Age of Liberty) from

Gen. 1:26-3:6; 2. Conscience (Age

of Human Determination) from Gen.

3:7-8:19; 3. Human Government

(Covenant with Noah) from Gen.8:20-11:9; 4. Promise (Covenant with

Abraham) from Gen. 11:10-Ex. 19:2;

5. Law (the Nation of Israel) from Ex.

19:3-Acts 2; 6. Grace (the Church)

from Acts 2 until the rapture; 7.

Kingdom (The Millennium) from the

Second Coming until the final destruc-

tion of the present world.13 Again, this

system is not monolithic, and there are

many derivations within its camp such

as Progressive Dispensationalism;

however, many of the same principleshold true for each.

Dispensationalists are devout

defenders of Scripture who dedicate

themselves to strict and literal

interpretations of biblical texts, and

are known to be adamantly against

spiritualizing Scripture.14 In a sense,

all conservatives make such a claim;

however, Dispensationalists are said to

isolate texts and take them on the sur-

face in their most basic forms, whichmany theologians see a problem with.

For instance, Reisinger points out the

fact that the Scofield Reference Bible

never cross-references Peters state-

ments recorded in Acts 3:24-26 which

refer to the promise made to Abraham

in Gen. 12:1-3, and believes that this

is because Dispensationalists cannot

fit Peters spiritualized interpreta-

tion of the simple and literal promises

made to Abraham consistently into

their system.15 He also points out that

the NT Scriptures go against their

13 Ibid., 129-136; in Reisinger,Abra-

hams Four Seeds, 127-128.

14 John Feinberg, Systems of Disconti-

nuity in Continuity and Discontinu-

ity: Perspectives on the Relationship

Between the Old and New Testaments

(Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books,

1988), 73.

15 Reisinger,Abrahams Four Seeds, 41.

hermeneutic by spiritualizing the

OT land promise in passages where

one would expect to see it reiterated

(i.e., in the sermons recorded in the

book of Acts, the book of Hebrews,

and in passages like Luke 1:68-79).16

In addition to their literalistic her-

meneutic, some distinctions withintheir system are that they believe that

there is a sharp and definite distinc-

tion between the church and Israel,

and God has always had a different

plan for both; the church did not

begin until Pentecost, thus spiritual

realities within the body of Christ

such as baptism of the Spirit and

indwelling of Christ were differ-

ent than the experience of any OT

saint; believers under the law ofChrist are under a different code

than the Mosaic law (including the

Ten Commandments); there will be

a literal fulfillment of a millennium

with a special emphasis on Israel;

and many see the church as a sort

of parenthesis in Gods overall

plan of redemption.17 Many of

these points have much in common

with NCT, while others do not.

New Covenant theologians and

many other critics do not feel com-

fortable with Dispensationalisms

strict literalism and pronounced

separation of Israel and the church,

and believe that their system over-

looks many biblical texts that seem

to go against its rigorous emphasis

on discontinuity.18

16 Ibid., 92-93.

17 See John Feinberg, Systems of Dis-

continuity, 71-85; O. Palmer Robert-

son, Hermeneutics of Continuity,

107; and Robert L. Saucy, Israel and

the Church: A Case for Discontinuity,

249-250; in Feinberg, ed., Continuity

and Discontinuity.

18 For further analysis, see the opposing

authors comments at the end of John

Feinberg, Systems of Discontinuity;

Paul D. Feinberg, Hermeneutics of

Discontinuity; and Saucy, Israel and

McAloonContinued fr om page 13


15/20


clear-cut view of the Doctrines of

Grace and the unity of the Scriptures

aligns us with the Reformers and the

Puritans.... Our view of the unity of

the Scriptures makes it impossible for

us to accept the Dispensationalism set

forth in the Scofield Reference Bible.

On the other hand, our Baptistic view

that the New Covenant in Jesus Christhas replaced the Old Covenant at Si-

nai makes it just as impossible for us

to accept the Covenant Theology set

forth in the Westminster Confession of

Faith.21

Now that we have a background

for the topic at hand, it is necessary to

provide a brief summary of the cen-

tral tenets of NCT before discussing

some of its intricacies. Although not

entirely comprehensive, below is ahelpful list that helps sum up the posi-

tions that will be discussed through-

out the course of this study:

Abrahamic Covenant

The Abrahamic Covenant reveals

Gods plan to save a people and take

them into his land. The Old Covenant

with the nation of Israel and the

Promised Land is a temporary picture

of what is accomplished by the New

Covenant, by which Jesus actuallypurchased a people and will take

them to be with him forever in the

new heavens and new earth.

Old Covenant

The Old or Mosaic Covenant is

a legal or works covenant that God

made with Israel on Mount Sinai.

This covenant is brought to an end

and is fulfilled at the cross. It was

never intended to save people, but

instead its purpose was to increasesin and guilt until the coming of the

Savior. Israel, under the Mosaic Cov-

21 Reisinger,Abrahams Four Seeds, iii.

enant, was the physical fulfillment of

the Abrahamic Covenant.

New Covenant

The New Covenant is a gracious

covenant. Those included in the cov-

enant are reconciled to God by grace

alone apart from anything they do.Jesus purchased a people by his death

on the cross so that all those for whom

he died receive full forgiveness of sins

and become incurable God-lovers by

the Holy Spirit. The New Covenant is

the spiritual fulfillment of the Abraha-

mic Covenant.

Law

The version of law in the Old Cov-

enant era was the Mosaic law, which

included the Ten Commandments.The Mosaic law has passed away with

the coming of Christ and the New

Covenant. God no longer requires

people to follow the Mosaic law. The

version of law in the New Covenant

era is the law of Christ, which in-

cludes the commands of Christ that

pertain to the New Covenant era and

the commands of his apostles.

Israel and the Church

Israel in the Old Covenant era was

a temporary, unbelieving picture of

the true people of God: the church.

There always existed a small remnant

of believers within unbelieving Israel.

When Jesus Christ came, thepicture

of the people of God gave way to the

true people of God consisting of both

Jews and Gentiles.

The Cross

By his death on the cross, Jesuspurchased both complete forgiveness

of sins past, present, and future as

well as a changed life or new heart for

all those for whom he died. Believ-

ers love Christ more than sin and are

characterized by repentance when

they sin. Christs work on the cross is

the New Covenant.22

22 Taken from Lehrer, 19.

New Covenant Theology

NCT is not an intentional middle

ground or blending of these two sys-

tems; however, through many con-

clusions derived from biblical texts,

it does hold various aspects in com-

mon with both. Some disagreements

we and others have with the abovesystems are that, like most traditions,

they allow their presuppositions to

drive their exegesis of some texts at

the expense of others; neither system

understands the biblical doctrine of

the church as the body of Christ in the

redemptive purposes of God; neither

really has a true New Covenant re-

placing an Old Covenant where both

relate to the same redemptive pur-

poses of God for his one true people,thus both are unable to fit Hebrews

8 in either system; and neither sees

the true relationship of Israel and the

church, in that both insist on bring-

ing the physical aspect of Israel as a

nation into the New Testament either

directly or indirectly.19 Through our

study and weighing of Scriptures, we

have come to many conclusions in

these matters that line up with those

of the early Anabaptists and a chorus

of many Christians throughout churchhistory.20 To define our position in

the spectrum of Christian Theology,

Reisinger says the following:

We find ourselves in the odd

position of being stepchildren of both

the Reformers and the Anabaptists,

but the true heirs of neither. Our

the Church: A Case for Discontinu-

ity; in Ibid.

19 See Reisinger,Abrahams Four Seeds,

i-iv, 117-119; and Wells and Zaspel,259-270.

20 See Wells and Zaspel, 22-32; and

John Reisinger,In Defense of Jesus,

41.

By saying, a new covenant, He has declared that the first is old. And what is old and

aging is about to disappear. Hebrews 8:13

(from Holman Christian Standard Bible Copyright 1999, 2000, 2002, 2003, 2005 by Holman Bible

Publishers.)


16/20


Postage & Handling Rates

United States

Up to $20.00 $3.95

$20.01$50.00 $6.00

$50.01 and Up 12%


OverseasDiscover, VISA or

MasterCard

Please call or e-mail for rates


CanadaDiscover, VISA or

MasterCard

Up to $30.00 $7.50

$30.01 and Up 25%

Ship to: _________ ______ ______ ______ _____

Street address: __________________________

City: _______________ State: ______Zip: ___ _

Country: ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ _

My check (payable to New Covenant Media) is enclosed

Charge to my: Discover VISA MasterCard

Expires _______/_______

Account Number: ______/______/______/______

Signature: ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ __

S h i p p i n g R a t e C h a r t f o r B o o k s

TITLE LIST SALE QTY COST

Warfield on the Christian LifeFred G. Zaspel $17.99 $14.39

The Theology of B.B. WarfieldFred G. Zaspel $40.00 $29.95

Philosophical Dialgoues on the Christian FaithSteve West $12.00 $9.50

What Jesus Demands from the WorldJohn Piper $19.99 $13.25

The First London Confession of Faith-1646 Edition

Preface by Gary D. Long

$7.99 $6.50

All Things NewCarl Hoch $19.98 $15.95

Context! Evangelical Views on the Millenium ExaminedGary D. Long $25.00 $17.50

The Doctrine of ChristWilliam Sasser $4.75 $3.75

The Doctrine of SalvationWilliam Sasser $4.75 $3.75

The Doctrine of ManWilliam Sasser $4.75 $3.75

The Doctrine of GodWilliam Sasser $4.00 $3.00

The Atoning Work of Jesus ChristWilliam Sasser $5.00 $4.00

The New Covenant and the Law of ChristChris Scarborough $10.95 $9.50

Should Christians Fear God Today?John Korsgaard $6.95 $3.50

Justification by FaithJames White $6.95 $2.75

Answers to Catholic ClaimsJames White $9.95 $2.00

The Fatal FlawJames White $11.95 $2.50

Gods Sovereign GraceJames White $8.95 $3.50

Behind the Watchtower CurtainDavid A. Reed $10.95 $2.00

How to Share Christ with a Jehovahs WitnessPatrick J. Campbell $5.95 $2.50

The Reformers and Their StepchildrenLeonard Verduin $9.95 $9.50

The Pilgrims Progress (The Accurate Revised Text by Barry E. Horner) $12.00 $9.75

Biblical EldershipAlexander Strauch $14.99 $9.30

Biblical Eldership Study GuideAlexander Strauch $19.99 $12.50

Biblical Eldership Mentors GuideAlexander Strauch $19.99 $12.50

Total Price

See Rate Charts Below Shipping

Canadian ordersDiscover, Visa or MasterCard onlyplease. Total Order


17/20


Definite AtonementLong $10.95 $8.76

The Doctrine of BaptismSasser $3.50 $2.80

Full Bellies and Empty HeartsAutio $14.99 $12.00

Galatians: A Theological InterpretationWhite $15.95 $12.76

GraceReisinger $13.95 $11.16

The Grace of Our Sovereign GodReisinger $19.99 $16.00

Hermeneutical Flaws of DispensationalismGeorge $10.75 $8.60

In Defense of Jesus, the New LawgiverReisinger $23.95 $15.95Is John G. Reisinger an Antinomian?Wells $4.25 $3.40

John Bunyan on the SabbathReisinger $3.00 $2.80

Jonathan Edwards on Biblical Hermeneutics and the

Covenant of GraceGilliland

$3.95 $3.16

La Soberana de Dios en la ProvidenciaJohn G. Reisinger $7.50 $6.00

The Law of Christ: A Theological ProposalWhite $14.95 $11.96

Limited AtonementReisinger $7.00 $5.60

Ministry of Grace Essays in Honor of John G. ReisingerSteve West, Editor $14.85 $11.88

The New Birth Reisinger $5.50 $4.40

The New Covenant and New Covenant TheologyZaspel $11.99 $9.60

New Covenant TheologyWells & Zaspel $19.95 $15.96

New Covenant Theology & ProphecyReisinger $12.99 $10.39The Newness of the New CovenantWhite $12.99 $10.39

The New Perspective on Justification West $9.99 $8.00

The Obedience of ChristVan Court $2.50 $2.00

Our Sovereign God Reisinger $4.45 $3.56

Perseverance of the Saints Reisinger $6.00 $4.80

The Priority of Jesus ChristWells $11.95 $9.56

A Prisoners ChristianityWoodrow $12.99 $10.39

Saving the Saving GospelWest $12.99 $10.39

Sinners, Jesus Will ReceivePayne $9.99 $8.00

Studies in GalatiansReisinger $19.99 $15.96

Studies in EcclesiastesReisinger $19.99 $15.96

Tablets of StoneReisinger $10.95 $8.75

Theological Foundations for New Covenant EthicsWhite $14.99 $12.00

The Sovereignty of God and PrayerReisinger $5.75 $4.60

The Sovereignty of God in Providence Reisinger $4.45 $3.56

Total Depravity Reisinger $5.00 $4.00

Union with Christ: Last Adam and Seed of AbrahamWhite $11.95 $9.56

What is the Christian Faith? Reisinger $2.50 $2.00

What is New Covenant Theology? An IntroductionWhite $12.99 10.39

When Should a Christian Leave a Church?Reisinger $3.75 $3.00

Total Pr ice

See Shipping Rate Charts on Page 16 Shipping

Total

TITLE LIST SALE QTY COST

Abide in Him: A Theological Interpretation of John's First LetterWhite $13.95 $11.16

Abrahams Four SeedsReisinger $10.95 $8.76

The Believers SabbathReisinger $3.75 $3.00

Biblical Law and Ethics: Absolute and CovenantalLong $15.75 $12.60

But I Say Unto YouReisinger $10.95 $8.68

Chosen in EternityReisinger $5.50 $4.40

Christ, Lord and Lawgiver Over the ChurchReisinger $2.50 $2.00

The Christian and The SabbathWells $11.99 $9.59

Continuity and DiscontinuityReisinger $12.95 10.36

B O O K S F R O M N E W C O V E N A N T M E D I A


18/20


Gilliland Continued from page 12

trine of the Christian Life, Douglas

Moos insights are worthy of note:

The tendency toward subjectiv-

ity invades the Christian church as

well. In a chapter dealing with

redemptive history as an aspect of

the situational perspectiveFramesuggests that the fascination with

redemptive history in the contempo-

rary academy has created an imbal-

ance in preaching, in which preachers

avoid holding up biblical characters

as moral examples out of a concern

to avoid moralism. I share what

seems to be Frames concern that a

renewed emphasis on the redemptive-

historical and narrative dimension in

Scripture can go too far and push out

other important dimensions of the

text. He rightly recognizes the factthat Scripture confronts believers with

authoritative demands from God, de-

mands that cannot be relativized away

with a vague appeal to love or to the

difficulties of situations that we find

ourselves in.2

In one blog interaction I was

asked, Is the living Christ of greater

value to his saints than the written

Word? First of all, the question il-

lustrates another characteristic of this

movement: the fallacy of the either-

or. My answer was and is, In the

believer they are never separated.

Christ never separated them in his

relationship with his Father; the desire

to do the Fathers will was his contin-

ual focus. And although strengthened

and nurtured by the Spirit, he would

still say, Man shall not live by bread

alone, but by every word that pro-

ceeds from the mouth of God (Matt.

sound of grace, issue 198, june 2013

Documents