Basis of Unity

[Robert R. Higby]

This thread will be a discussion of what I had hoped would be generated in the "New Covenant Heretics" thread in the Predestinarian Doctrine forum. I have moved it to Ecclesiology because maybe (?) it more appropriately belongs here.

When I introduced the issue in the other thread, I quoted Dr. George Ella's apparent accusations of heresy against those who would subscribe to a 'New Covenant' position on matters such as the Christian Sabbath Day.

As a background to this, let me re-state my own 'modified' convictions on this issue of Covenant:

1. I subscribe to the implications of Covenant Theology and its view on the unity of the covenants--when it comes to the EVERLASTING nature of the Covenant of Grace ratified and made complete historically in the institution of the New Covenant prophesied by Jeremiah and inagurated by Christ's words.

2. In contrast, I subsribe to New Covenant Theology and its view on the discontinuity of the covenants--when it comes to understanding the nature of the Sinai covenant. The Old Covenant referred to in the New Testament is not the Old Testament or any of the covenants administered in grace with Adam (Gen. 3:15 AFTER the great sin), Noah, Abraham, or David. It is strictly the covenant of works bilaterally ratified at Sinai. The covenant of works with Adam in the garden was UNILATERAL and in that sense different from Sinai.

Ella's comment would condemn those with my view of the covenants, along with those of hundreds of denominations, including many who subscribe to (at least in theory) pure grace and predestination (1644 confession Reformed Baptists, many congregationalists including the Evangelical Free church, Lutherans of all types, etc.).

My point is this: scholars of well-published 'authority' have been in this game of condemning each other for many years. Each one of them has his hobby-horse of dogma that condemns others who do not agree with it as 'rejecting the gospel' (for example, the view of 'Christ made sin' promoted by those separatist Baptists who are convicted of it).

I'm asking for interaction on THIS topic! Responses that stray off-topic will be deleted.

[MCoving]

This thread will be a discussion of what I had hoped would be generated in the "New Covenant Heretics" thread in the Predestinarian Doctrine forum. I have moved it to Ecclesiology because maybe (?) it more appropriately belongs here.

When I introduced the issue in the other thread, I quoted Dr. George Ella's apparent accusations of heresy against those who would subscribe to a 'New Covenant' position on matters such as the Christian Sabbath Day.

As a background to this, let me re-state my own 'modified' convictions on this issue of Covenant:

1. I subscribe to the implications of Covenant Theology and its view on the unity of the covenants--when it comes to the EVERLASTING nature of the Covenant of Grace ratified and made complete historically in the institution of the New Covenant prophesied by Jeremiah and inagurated by Christ's words.

2. In contrast, I subsribe to New Covenant Theology and its view on the discontinuity of the covenants--when it comes to understanding the nature of the Sinai covenant. The Old Covenant referred to in the New Testament is not the Old Testament or any of the covenants administered in grace with Adam (Gen. 3:15 AFTER the great sin), Noah, Abraham, or David. It is strictly the covenant of works bilaterally ratified at Sinai. The covenant of works with Adam in the garden was UNILATERAL and in that sense different from Sinai.

Ella's comment would condemn those with my view of the covenants, along with those of hundreds of denominations, including many who subscribe to (at least in theory) pure grace and predestination (1644 confession Reformed Baptists, many congregationalists including the Evangelical Free church, Lutherans of all types, etc.).

My point is this: scholars of well-published 'authority' have been in this game of condemning each other for many years. Each one of them has his hobby-horse of dogma that condemns others who do not agree with it as 'rejecting the gospel' (for example, the view of 'Christ made sin' promoted by those separatist Baptists who are convicted of it).

I'm asking for interaction on THIS topic! Responses that stray off-topic will be deleted.

Well I see a lot of interesting points, course I just like to interact and think on these things... I like you bringing up points because it makes me grow and think. Are you interested in feedback on CT, NCT ,and Modified? Or more so interaction on this new article where Ella a reformed theologian condemns those who believe in any part of New Covenant Theology?

Ella certainly would be making quite a statement to go against anyone who believes in part of the NCT. It is interesting that many theologians are set in their doctrines and condemn each other. I'm sure NCT people who hold strongly would condemn CT believers. I wonder what the implications of Ellas article will have on the reformed community? Do most reformed churches believe in CT or NCT? Also my friend today brought up a good point we all seem to interpret Scriptures differently how does one know which view is right? (maybe thought for another thread.. haha) Or in this case what covenant idea is truth and which is false?

When I went to CBU I was taught alot about I think pry Old Covenant, or something mixed.. they still did a lot of the old rituals and stuff, more so than Southern Baptists. They showed evidence or what they thought was about how the Law wasn't abolished by God but it was dying off.. but still there. Then I grew up in a conservative church believing a New Covenant outlook. I think the hardest thing is people not seeing the Bible as a whole... how the OT connects with the New. How Jesus fulfilled everything. You're article here is good to read over: http://www.5solas.org/media.php?id=573.

I for one have had a hard time understanding the covenants. But as I read over the article again for pry 5th time this part interested me:
View of the different Covenants
CT: The covenant of grace can be found in all the covenants (excluding the covenant of works) because they are derived from the covenant of redemption.
NCT: Since there is no covenant of redemption, all covenants are related and culminate in the new covenant.
MCT: The covenant of grace is best understood as the new covenant which is an overarching covenant and represented in all other covenants excluding administrations of the covenant of works (eg. Sinai).

The covenant of grace is represented in all other covents. So much like the NCT believes.. that all covenants are related. But it excludes the administration of the covenant of works (Sinai) but not the convent of works with Adam which was in the garden. Right? So we have a lot of covenents I Didn't realize that. Whats the convenant of redemption referring to? The covenent of grace is that which the elect believe, and those who did in the OT are saved. But the covenant of works wasnt about eternal life but well being on earth right?

So why does Ella condemn anyone who believes in NCT again? Because they believe that the old law is not to be what we live by anymore but by grace? Reminds me of the book I reading on The Believers Rule of Life. So Ella says anyone who believes NCT on this matter is a heretic? So Ella would say that the OC law is a rule for living? What is the OC law that they refer to again? The moral parts are which now besides the 10 commandments?
The law as a rule of living
CT: The OC law is a rule for living, but only the “moral law”. The ceremonial and civil laws were abolished.
NCT: All of the OC law was abolished and only the laws of the NT apply to the believer.
MCT: The OC was a covenant of works. The believer’s rule of living has always been Christ regardless of what age in which they lived. The OC law was given to drive the elect to Christ and cause them to rest in His vicarious obedience to the Father, including the fulfillment of the revealed law because this truly defines righteousness in terms of His life. Commandments involving timeless principles (from all covenants) are good as a rule of conduct, but the law of God is written on the heart of every believer and thus every believer is motivated to obey the law to Christ out of love and gratitude instead of obligation.


Hmm I dont know if this is on the right track.. it may be a little whats the word too milky? haha I am new to all of this so maybe I'm not on the right track. If so just ignore my post.. it actually was helpful for me to study these things and reply to them and think them over. I may have digressed some in topic I wasn't sure if wanted to talk about unity amoungst theologians or about the covenants... either way theres a little of both here. Thanks!

Take care,
Mary

[Eileen]

Bob,

I was a bit confused in trying to sort through the article written (it can be found online) because I didn’t have the full understanding of what the authors of the book believe that he was critiquing. Some of what Ella said they believe is absolutely not true.

For instance, the one author, Wells, doesn’t believe in faith as a gift of God in all ages, and doesn’t believe that there was full redemption in the OT, etc. and Ella claims that this is dispensationalism to the extreme. Would you agree with that assessment of Ella’s?

Also in the book, the author’s exegesis of 2 Timothy 3: 15-17 states that no one believes that scripture, that Timothy, his grandmother and mother could not possibly have been saved because all they had was OT scripture.

I wonder if their representation of NCT is so jaded that it would cause anyone to take a second look at what they are saying and be leery of it. Is Ella’s reaction to THEIR teaching way off the wall? Doesn’t the belief in a unilateral covenant differ from theirs also and I wonder what type of Covenant teaching Ella holds to?

And like Mary, maybe I do not fully understand the purpose of this thread sorry if that is the case. I’m just wondering if Ella is condemning these authors as ‘rejecting the gospel’ because they reject Christ in the OT? Interestingly Ella is going to continue to critique so there should be more food for thought and discussion.

Eileen~

[rlhuckle]

It sounds to me as if Ella is accepting the authors' teachings as normative of NCT even though some of what they are promoting is clearly in error. Again, it appears as if there is clearly a definition of terms confusion. I say this not to agree with or justify Ella's universal condemnation--nor do I agree with the errors that Wells and his co-author(s) promote.

Ella seems more interested in condemning the persons than clearly defining the terms, discussing his take on the errors, and then refuting them biblically.

[Robert R. Higby]

I think that you have it right Roger.

Eileen & Mary: The issue for me with this is that NCT has been condemned by CT in the last 20 years PRIMARILY on its difference with CT on the nature of the Sinai covenant and the perpetuity of the Sabbath law in the 4th commandment--not by the faulty views of Wells & others denying justification from eternity & the perpetual nature of God's covenant of grace (both OT and NT).

I can see how someone like Ella might perceive it advantageous to point out the errors of Wells denying the perpetuity of Grace and call such a group 'New Covenant theologians.' This makes it easy to condemn non-Sabbatarians and low-grace infralapsarians all with one label. But I personally find it disburbing and, to be frank, dishonest.

--Bob

[Whammer]

I think that you have it right Roger.

Eileen & Mary: The issue for me with this is that NCT has been condemned by CT in the last 20 years PRIMARILY on its difference with CT on the nature of the Sinai covenant and the perpetuity of the Sabbath law in the 4th commandment--not by the faulty views of Wells & others denying justification from eternity & the perpetual nature of God's covenant of grace (both OT and NT).

I can see how someone like Ella might perceive it advantageous to point out the errors of Wells denying the perpetuity of Grace and call such a group 'New Covenant theologians.' This makes it easy to condemn non-Sabbatarians and low-grace infralapsarians all with one label. But I personally find it disburbing and, to be frank, dishonest.

--Bob

I've had a couple days to mull it over, my personal favorite teacher of NCT is John Reisenger, there was a little discussion on the forum about his book, "The Four Seeds". Ella's comments seemed dishonest to me as well but the 2 things that bother me also about many that bear the label "NCT" is that they do deny EJ and I also see "the well meant offer"....too often.
The label, if one picks one, seems to fit me the closest though in my own Theology. One other thought that bothers me from Wells and Zaspel is their handling of texts like Eph. 2:20 where in their thinking, the word "prophet" only means NT prophets......I personally think this is a reach and actually has tended to discredit the postion further with some.

[Robert R. Higby]

Thanks Brian!

My agreement with NCT is limited to their position on the Sinai Covenant and the Sabbath (& associated Old Covenant rules that CT teachers try to bind the conscience with--tithing, etc.). That is it. The rest of the stuff that a good number of the NCT teachers promote: infralapsarianism, free offer, common grace, denial of a perpetual grace-covenant, works-based assurance, process theism, etc. I hate with a perfect, invincible hatred just like the Psalmist.

[Whammer]

Thanks Brian!

My agreement with NCT is limited to their position on the Sinai Covenant and the Sabbath (& associated Old Covenant rules that CT teachers try to bind the conscience with--tithing, etc.). That is it. The rest of the stuff that a good number of the NCT teachers promote: infralapsarianism, free offer, common grace, denial of a perpetual grace-covenant, works-based assurance, process theism, etc. I hate with a perfect, invincible hatred just like the Psalmist.

I agree brother, and any group/denomination/label that teaches these things is teaching false docrine at the very least! I think in trying to steer clear of the attending heresies in CT and DISPEN is why I more and less link with NCT, and definately for the reasons you list above.....those are big points.

[MCoving]

So I was just curious why people believe in the convental position they do. I was just looking through the profiles and there's an array of differences. From NCT, CT, and MCT. For example Bryan what do you like about the NCT position and what do you not? I am just curious I think from least just reading the article on 5solas I agree with MCT, it makes the most sense from that article at least. But there's so much more information out there.. like you said Reisgner is a good one to read. And also what is the important of a covenental position for the believer? Like what are the implications in a believers life in knowing this. I hope that makes sense..

Thanks,
Mary

[Whammer]

So I was just curious why people believe in the convental position they do. I was just looking through the profiles and there's an array of differences. From NCT, CT, and MCT. For example Bryan what do you like about the NCT position and what do you not? I am just curious I think from least just reading the article on 5solas I agree with MCT, it makes the most sense from that article at least. But there's so much more information out there.. like you said Reisgner is a good one to read. And also what is the important of a covenental position for the believer? Like what are the implications in a believers life in knowing this. I hope that makes sense..

Thanks,
Mary

I guess I really should change my profile again in this area, the closest doctrinal position for me would be MCT. I am still looking forward to Brandan finishing his book (I know he has other things on his plate ) I have changed several things a couple times as I continue to grow in grace. Bob listed some of the things in his last post, the really bad doctrines that are taught in various stands of NCT by different men.
The website I learned alot off of (I dont think it is up anymore, I cant find it) was "The Sovereign Potter"......I found this site several years ago and that is where I read Reisinger's book "Abrahams 4 Seeds"...maybe I will re-read it and see what things I may see differently now......but 1 thing that dissappointed me (IMHO) was that he taught "the free offer" which then to me calls into question many other good things that he said.
The infralapsarianism (that Bob also mentioned) is glaring in almost all NCT authors. Along with that goes the traducian heresy which is so prevelant in almost 99% of churchianity.
I will have to go with Bob's "etc" here as this post could go on for a long time.
One other comment I will make about NCT......a leading proponent, Steve Lehrer, is one of the best to date that I know of. He is someone that in my opinion, is a brother growing in grace like the rest of us and I really like him alot. I am a regular "reader" on his blog.

[Dorcas]

Ella's comment would condemn those with my view of the covenants, along with those of hundreds of denominations, including many who subscribe to (at least in theory) pure grace and predestination (1644 confession Reformed Baptists, many congregationalists including the Evangelical Free church, Lutherans of all types, etc.).

My point is this: scholars of well-published 'authority' have been in this game of condemning each other for many years. Each one of them has his hobby-horse of dogma that condemns others who do not agree with it as 'rejecting the gospel' (for example, the view of 'Christ made sin' promoted by those separatist Baptists who are convicted of it).

I am always grieved by the fact that scholars who have the strength and clarity to go against the tide on one point of doctrine often condemn the same trait in others. George Ella has done some excellent, lucid writing on justification and the atonement, as well as lovely biographical work. As one of only a few defenders of eternal justification, he has bucked the traditions of many theologians and institutions. I remembered reading a while back this autobiographical statement:

I am not a denominational man and deplore the commonly held conception that 'the right' church organisation and succession are essential to salvation. The church of which I am a member is, for me, the Body of Christ, though it has a denominational tag and is ‘mixed’ to a happily limited extent, in its membership. This church affords me the sweetest of fellowship, so I am content and do not grumble about its externals. I am thus free in my writings to praise where I can and criticise where I feel the need. I would thus ask my readers to bear with me. I may, at times, tread on their denominational toes, but at other times, they might even find me patting their denominational back! http://www.evangelica.de/

I don't think that its an accident that Ella selected one of the poorest examples of NCT writing to review. Its like shooting at a lame duck. I've looked at the book myself, and agree that some of the points range from just plain silly to gross error. However, Ella doesn't qualify his statements -- he is clearly attacking their position on the covenants at least as much as their positions on justification or grace. His failure to separate out the issues betrays his true beliefs. Though he states to not believe in the "right" succession, its clear that this succession is, for him, that of Covenant Theology. While he is able to find grace for the happily limited "mixed" beliefs of his local CT congregation, there is none for those outside of CT, regardless of their beliefs about the Gospel. I wonder why he is so afraid of any thinking that might undermine the very institutions he claims to have disregarded?

I don't think that a true basis of fellowship will exist until all believers find a way to separate their allegiance to beloved traditions from allegiance to the Gospel. A good measure of grace will be required for this, because we are all flawed, and we all have different strengths and weaknesses in our thinking. This basic principle, essential to understanding the very Gospel we love, seems to escape us when we are evaluating others. The same person who can be very lucid in describing the Gospel as it applies to himself, seems to have no idea how it applies to others. How can we experience "the sweetest of fellowship" without this?