We have had some vigorous discussion regarding New Covenant Theology, and the Faculty Lectures thread which Dennis posted talked about the shortcomings of New Covenant theology.(NCT)
When I was processing out of Adventism, I was influenced by the version of NCT taught by Robert D. Brinsmead, as it seemed to make sense at the time. I was later blessed by Greg Taylor’s book on NCT. And I really love the website of NCT theologian John Reisinger http://www.soundofgrace.com, and I think that the emphases of NCT can be very helpful when transitioning SDAs are trying to break the superstitious hold that legalistic Sabbath keeping has on SDAs.
But as I have studied the Bible through the years, and have been exposed to great Reformed theologians and preachers, I have gradually been forced to reconsider my position on NCT, which I held for many years.
Covenant Theology (CT) is based on the fact that “all scripture is given by inspiration of God” (2 Timothy 3:16)
Here is an excellent overview article by J.I.Packer outlining the glorious themes of CT. I was really inspired by reading this this AM:
I came away from reading this article with a new appreciation of the fact that we serve a God who is totally faithful to His promises, regardless of the storms of life which attack us.
I still may not agree with how CT is applied by some churches especially with regard to tithing and Sunday Sabbatarianism, but one can be an adherent to CT without subscribing to these specifics.
Thank you for posting the link to the Covenant Theology article. I have casually looked over the article and found it to be well-written, informative, and biblical, and I have downloaded it for the close scrutiny of my favorite theologian, Sylvia (smile). She literally goes through theological expositions with a fine-tooth comb--sometimes even in the quietude of late night hours. I am anxious to hear her appraisal of this document. I will also examine it carefully as my time permits.
Here is a quote from JI Packer which gives a great overview of the concept of CT:
“What is covenant theology? The straightforward, if provocative answer to that question is that it is what is nowadays called a hermeneutic—that is, a way of reading the whole Bible that is itself part of the overall interpretation of the Bible that it undergirds. A successful hermeneutic is a consistent interpretative procedure yielding a consistent understanding of Scripture in turn confirms the propriety of the procedure itself. Covenant theology is a case in point. It is a hermeneutic that forces itself upon every thoughtful Bible-reader who gets to the place, first, of reading, hearing, and digesting Holy Scripture as didactic instruction given through human agents by God himself, in person; second, of recognizing that what the God who speaks the Scriptures tells us about in their pages is his own sustained sovereign action in creation, providence, and grace; third, of discerning that in our salvation by grace God stands revealed as Father, Son and Holy Spirit, executing in tripersonal unity a single cooperative enterprise of raising sinners from the gutter of spiritual destitution to share Christ’s glory for ever; and, fourth, of seeing that God-centered thought and life, springing responsively from a God-wrought change of heart that expresses itself spontaneously in grateful praise, is the essence of true knowledge of God. Once Christians have got this far, the covenant theology of the Scriptures is something that they can hardly miss.”
------------------------------------------------------
Wow, what a wonderful summary of what it means to be in Covenant relationship to God and His Holy Word!
“Thus, when God tells Abraham, “I will establish my covenant as an everlasting covenant between me and you and your descendants after you . . . to be your God . . . I will be their God” (Gen. 17:6-8), the personal pronouns are the key words: God is committing himself to Abraham and Abraham’s seed in a way in which he does not commit himself to others. God’s covenant commitment expresses eternal election; his covenant love to individuals sinners flows from his choice of them to be his for ever in the peace of justification and the joy of glorification. The verbal commitment in which electing sovereignty thus shows itself has the nature of a promise, the fulfillment of which is guaranteed by God’s absolute fidelity and trustworthiness—the quality that David Livingstone the explorer celebrated by describing God as “an honorable gentleman who never breaks his word.” The covenant promise itself, “I will be your God,” is an unconditional undertaking on God’s part to be “for us” (Rom. 8:31), “on our side” (Ps. 124:1-5), using all his resources for the furthering of the ultimate good of those ("us") to whom he thus pledges himself. “I will take you as my own people, and I will be your God” (Ex. 6:7), the covenant promise constantly repeated throughout both testaments (Gen. 17:6-8; Ex. 20:2, 29:45 f.;Lev. 11:45; Jer. 32:38; Ezk. 11:20, 34:30 f., 36:28; 2 Cor. 6:16-18; Rev. 21:2 f.; etc.), may fairly be called the pantechnicon promise, inasmuch as every particular promise that God makes is packed into it—fellowship and communion first ("I will be with you,” “I will dwell among them,” “I will live among you,” etc.), and then the supply of every real need, here and hereafter. Sovereignty and salvation, love and largesse, election and enjoyment, affirmation and assurance, fidelity and fulness thus appear as the spectrum of themes (the second of each pair being the fruit of the first as its root) that combine to form the white light, glowing and glorious, of the gracious self-giving of God to sinners that covenant theology proclaims.”
----------------------------------------------------------
What is there not to like about Covenant Theology as expressed by Packer?
Someone aptly stated, “Only a fool never changes his mind.” As I mentioned in another post, I have a new appreciation for Martin Luther these days. Luther once stated that he wished some of his earlier writings could be burned. As I recently reviewed some of my older writings in my steel file cabinet, I felt like Martin Luther did. It is a humbling and sobering experience to realize that I was wrong about the most important things in life. Even worse, I taught these errors to my children and preached them in my sermons to receptive audiences.
As we carefully and prayerfully study God’s Word, we are bound to learn new things continually. The Bible is God’s voice speaking to us. My present stance on Covenant Theology and New Covenant Theology is that they are both extreme views--being on the opposite ends of the scale. Admittedly, both of these theological systems make some sound biblical points. CT makes the New Covenant merely a warmed-over Old Covenant while NCT draws too sharp a distinction--ignoring the commonalities and progressive truth in the biblical covenants in redemptive history. My position on this is not very dogmatic (smile). I am anxious to learn more about God’s covenant relationship with His people throughout history.
“Nor is this all. Scripture is explicit on the fact that from eternity, in light of human sin foreseen, a specific agreement existed between the Father and the Son that they would exalt each other in the following way: the Father would honor the Son by sending him to save lost sinners through a penal self-sacrifice leading to a cosmic reign in which the central activity would be the imparting to sinners through the Holy Spirit of the redemption he won for them; and the Son would honor the Father by becoming the Father’s love-gift to sinners and by leading them through the Spirit to trust, love and glorify the Father on the model of his own obedience to the Father’s will. This covenant of Redemption, as it is commonly called, which underlies the Covenant of Grace, clarifies these three truths at least:
(1) The love of the Father and the Son, with the Holy Spirit, to lost sinners is shared, unanimous love. The tritheistic fantasy of a loving Son placating an unloving Father and commandeering an apathetic Holy Spirit in or save us is a distressing nonsense.
(2) As our salvation derives from God’s free and gracious initiative and is carried through, first to last, according to God’s eternal plan by God’s own sovereign power, so its ultimate purpose is to exalt and glorify the Father and the Son together. The man-centered distortion that pictures God as saving us more for our sake than for his is also a distressing nonsense.
(3) Jesus Christ is the focal figure, the proper center of our faith-full attention, throughout the redemptive economy. He, as Mediator of the Covenant of Grace and of the grace of that covenant, is as truly an object of divine predestination as are we whom he saves. With him as our sponsor and representative, the last Adam, the second “public person” through whom the Father deals with our race, the Covenant of Grace is archetypally and fundamentally made, in order that it may now be established and ratified with us in him. ("With whom was the covenant of grace made?” asks question 31 of the Westminster Larger Catechism, and the prescribed answer is: “The covenant of grace was made with Christ as the second Adam, and in him with all the elect as his seed.") From the vital union that we have with Christ through the Holy Spirit’s action flows all the aliveness to God, all the faith, hope and love God-ward, all the desire for him and urges to worship him and willingness to work for him, of which we ever were, are, or will be conscious; apart from Christ we should still be spiritually dead (objectively, lifeless; subjectively, unresponsive) in our trespasses and sins. Christ is therefore to be acknowledged, now and for ever, as our all in all, our Alpha and Omega, so far as our salvation is concerned—and that goes for salvation subjectively brought home to us, no less than for salvation objectively obtained for us. The legalistic, sub-spiritual Roman Catholic theology of Mass and merit, whereby Christians are required by the Father, and enabled by the Son, to take part in the achieving of their own salvation, is a further distressing nonsense.
These three truths together shape the authentic biblical and Reformed mentality, whereby God the Father through Christ, and Christ himself in his saving ministry, are given all the glory and all the praise for having quickened us the dead, helped us the helpless, and saved us the lost. Writes Geehardus Vos: “Only when the believer understands how he has to receive and has received everything from the Mediator and how God in no way whatever deals with him except through Christ, only then does a picture of the glorious work that God wrought through Christ emerge in his consciousness and the magnificent idea of grace begin to dominate and form in his life. For the Reformed, therefore, the entire ordo salutis [order of salvation], beginning with regeneration as its first stage, is bound to the mystical union with Christ. There is no gift that has not been earned by him. Neither is there a gift that is not bestowed by him and that does not elevate God’s glory through his bestowal. Now the basis for this order lies in none other than in the covenant of salvation with Christ. In this covenant those chosen by the Father are given to Christ. In it he became the guarantor so that they would be planted into his body in the thought-world of grace through faith. As the application of salvation by Christ and by Christ’s initiative is a fundamental principle of Reformed theology, this theology has correctly viewed this application as a covenantal requirement which fell to the Mediator and for the fulfilling of which he became the guarantor” (Redemptive History and Biblical Interpretation, ed. Richard B. Gaffin, Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1980, p. 248). The full reality of God and God’s work are not adequately grasped till the Covenant of Redemption—the specific covenantal agreement between Father and Son on which the Covenant of Grace rests—occupies its proper place in our minds.
---------------------------------------------------------
And as a result of the truths as posted above, we can then examine the fruit of the devotion that results from the concepts embraced in Covenant Theology. Packer illustrates this so well in examining the hymnody of those believers:
“Thus it appears that, confessionally and doxologically, convenant theology brings needed enrichment of insight to our hearts; and devotionally the same is true. Older evangelicals wrote hymns celebrating the covenant of grace in which they voiced fortissimos of the triumphant assurance of a kind that we rarely hear today—so it will be worth our while to quote some of them. They merit memorizing, and meditating on, and making one’s own; ceaseless strength flows to those saints who allow these sentiments to take root in their souls. Here, first, is the eighteenth-century leader, Philip Doddridge:
‘Tis mine, the covenant of his grace,
And every promise mine;
All sprung from everlasting love,
And sealed by blood divine. On my unworthy favored head
Its blessings all unite;
Blessings more numerous than the stars, More lasting, and more bright.
And again:
My God! the covenant of thy love
Abides for ever sure;
And in its matchless grace I feel
My happiness secure.
Since thou, the everlasting God,
My Father art become
Jesus, my Guardian and my Friend,
And heaven my final home;
I welcome all thy sovereign will,
For all that will is love;
And, when I know not what thou dost, I wait the light above.
Also in the eighteenth century, Augustus Toplady wrote this:
A debtor to mercy alone,
Of covenant mercy I sing;
Nor fear, with thy righteousness on,
My person and offering to bring.
The terrors of law, and of God,
With me can have nothing to do:
My Savior’s obedience and blood
Hide all my transgressions from view.
The work which his goodness began
The arm of his strength will complete; His promise is Yea and Amen,
And never was forfeited yet.
Things future, nor things that are now Not all things below or above,
Can make him his purpose forego,
Or sever my soul from his love.
Then, a hundred years later, Frances Ridley Havergal gave us the following:
Jehovah’s covenant shall endure,
All ordered, everlasting, sure!
O child of God, rejoice to trace
Thy portion in its glorious grace.
‘Tis thine, for Christ is given to be
The covenant of God to thee;
In him, God’s golden scroll of light,
The darkest truths are clear and bright.
O sorrowing sinner, well he knew,
Ere time began, what he would do!
Then rest thy hope within the veil;
His covenant mercies shall not fail.
O doubting one, Eternal Three
Are pledged in faithfulness for thee
Claim every promise sweet and sure
By covenant oath of God secure.
O feeble one, look up and see
Strong consolation sworn for thee:
Jehovah’s glorious arm is shown
His covenant strength is all thine own.
O mourning one, each stroke of love
A covenant blessing yet shall prove;
His covenant love shall be thy stay;
His covenant grace be as thy day.
O Love that chose, O Love that died,
O Love that sealed and sanctified,
All glory, glory, glory be,
O covenant Triune God, to thee!
One way of judging the quality of theologies is to see what sort of devotion they produce. The devotional perspective that covenant theology generates is accurately reflected in these lyrics. Readers will make up their own minds as to whether such devotion could significantly enrich the church today, and form their judgment on covenant theology accordingly.”
--------------------------------------------------------
Do you agree with Packer’s conclusions?
Those hymns are so rich with Biblical truth, that after reading them my heart wants to leap out in praise to our all powerful Covenant God.
Covenant Theology (CT) is based on the fact that “all scripture is given by inspiration of God” (2 Timothy 3:16)
I noticed that one of the reasons you were initially attracted to Covenant Theology was 2 Tim. 3:16. This is one of their favorite proof texts. However, can I suggest that when interpreted more carefully, not only is not a proof text for CT, it is actually a disproof text for CT.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this thread and for linking to your PDF on New Covenant Theology. I’m sure Stan will have a response to what you wrote, but I hope you don’t mind if I jump in here too.
To facilitate looking at what you wrote in the PDF you linked, I made a screen capture of the relevant section where you discuss 2 Timothy 3:16.
What puzzles me about your argument is your belief that the O.T. is profitable for teaching, reproof, correction and training in righteousness, but not for obedience. For example, if you saw a Christian brother in sin and used the O.T. to correct him, under your interpretation, he’d be free to disregard you and move on in disobedience. Perhaps I’ve mischaracterized your argument, so please let me know what you think about this.
One other point I believe you may not have been clear about is that not everybody in the Covenant Theology camp believes the Ten Commandments are the only source for moral law. It is true the Westminster Confession states that the moral law is “commonly called” the 10 commandments, but I believe the idea is more of a summary rather than a “beginning and end” of the moral law. I believe the wording of the Larger Catechism better captures the essence of this:
Question 93: What is the moral law?
Answer: The moral law is the declaration of the will of God to mankind, directing and binding everyone to personal, perfect, and perpetual conformity and obedience thereunto, in the frame and disposition of the whole man, soul and body, and in performance of all those duties of holiness and righteousness which he owes to God and man: promising life upon the fulfilling, and threatening death upon the breach of it.
You might want to look at John Murray’s article entitled, The Sanctity of the Moral Law, as he recognizes the presence of moral law found throughout Scripture. Murray, who was formerly a professor of systematic theology at Westminster Seminary (Philadelphia), says this about the moral law:
What is moral law? The word “law” frequently arouses antipathy. It may be associated in our thinking with externalism and even with what is primitive and arbitrary. Antinomian bias resides in our sinful hearts and, sadly enough, what is native to the mind of the flesh is often promoted by what is alleged to be Christian teaching. The perversity of this attitude becomes apparent when we reflect on what the law of God is. The moral law is, in the last analysis, the transcript or expression of the character of God. God is holy, just and good, and the law which is also holy, just and good is simply the correlate of the holiness and justice and goodness of God. Man is created in the image of God and the demand, the inescapable postulate of that relation that man sustains to God as responsible and dependent creature is that he be conformed in the inmost fibre of his moral being and in all the conditions and activities of his person to the moral perfection of God. “Ye shall be holy; for I am holy” (Lev. 11:44), “Ye shall be perfect, even as your Father in heaven is perfect” (Matt. 5 :48). No rational being can ever be relieved from the obligation to love the Lord our God with all the heart and soul and strength and mind and his neighbor as himself. Moral law is the moral perfection of God coming to expression for the regulation of life and conduct.
But if this is what moral law essentially is, where is it to be found? What is its content?
It is true that the sense of obligation is engraven upon the moral constitution of man. It is the apostle Paul who says that the Gentiles who have not the law do by nature the things of the law, in that they show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness and their thoughts accusing or else excusing them. Man has a conscience and that means that in some vague sense at least he recognizes that there is a distinction between right and wrong.
...
This is a very comprehensive proposition. It would be disastrous to tone it down in any way. It is holy Scripture in all its manifoldness and richness, extent and detail, yet in its compact organic unity, that sets before us the sum of human obligation and the rule of duty. His word is a lamp to our feet and a light to our path. There is no circumstance or situation of life in all its variety and detail for which the revelation of God’s will in inspired Scripture is not a sufficient guide. We must do nothing to prejudice the principle that the rule of life as well as the rule of faith is the whole of Scripture.
But we nevertheless do find in Scripture itself a summing up of the moral standard of which Scripture as a whole is the representation. It should not strike us as strange that it does so. It does very much the same thing in the realm of faith. The inspired writers sometimes with a conciseness that simply overwhelms us express in a few pregnant sentences the cardinal basic truths of the scheme of redemption. When we appreciate such brief statements and try to drink them in we have no sense of confinement; we are not conscious of any prejudice to the principle that the rule of faith is the whole of Scripture from which we are to take nothing and to which we are to add nothing. That summary statement only leads us to a high eminence from which we get a new appreciation of the whole of God’s special revelation in the length of it and in the breadth of it.
It is similar with the moral law. It also has its central, cardinal, basic principles and our Westminster divines were right when they asked the question: “Where is the moral law summarily comprehended?” and answered, “The moral law is summarily comprehended in the ten commandments.”
While some would take exception to Murray’s final statement, I think it is much more in harmony with God’s overarching plan of redemption to conclude that His moral qualities (and commands) are found throughout Scripture in both the Old and New Testaments. This allows for a high view of the entirety of Scripture without minimizing or isolating any portion of it as containing less of God’s will for today. It should be noted that every time Jesus quoted the Scriptures, he was quoting from the Old Testament (consider his response to the rich young ruler, for example–Luke 18:18-23). As such, Christ-followers should certainly be comfortable learning and living by the will of God contained in the Old Testament Scriptures.
Greg, thanks again for stopping by and I appreciate the effort you’ve gone to on your website. We may disagree on some of the finer points of theology, but we hopefully agree that we owe everything to the Author and Finisher of our faith.
I was strongly in the New Covenant theology camp until rethinking this about 18 months ago. While Covenant theology is not perfect, I believe it comes closest to the Biblical model.
My growing understanding of these subjects spot lights a question which seems to focus on one primary point: Where does the Christian find his or her final authority for morality? One views a Christian’s morality beginning and ending with the cross and the New Covenant Scirptures; the other insisting that biblical morality begins and ends with Moses and the Tables of the Covenant. I believe the first view must (and does from my understanding) include all moral requirements found in the Old Covenant document. This, the first view, simply regards Christ as the new lawgiver who takes some of the laws of Moses to a higher level while adding some of the laws to those Moses gave and changing others.
The second view regards the Decalogue, or Tables of the Covenant, as THE unchanging moral law of God.
I think all would agree that the law functions to reveal the character of God, and since God does not change in His character, the law in its essence does not change. However, the partial revelation of God’s character that Scripture calls the law of Moses is canceled completely as a covenant.
Christ contrasts His teaching with Moses. But one can contrast and not contradict. For if Christ contradicts Moses then we have lost the unity of Scripture. But anyone whose theology leaves Moses as the final ruler in the consncience of a believer today has not heard correctly or understood the Father when He says, “This is My beloved Son, listen to Him.“ Mt 17:5.
Christ never says or implies that one single law given by Moses was wrong in and of itself. All nine of the Ten Commandments are taught in the New Testament plus many more which lift morality much higher than nine laws in the Ten Commandments. This is a NCT position. So how can their belief in a higher law that replaces a lower law in any sense be anti-law or the charge of antinomian I see frequently charged against NCT?
The contrasting nature of Israel and the church are part of the conditions changed by Christ’s redemptive work. The church comprises only regenerate believers; the nation of Israel consisted mostly, but not entirely, of unrighteous, self-righteous rebels. Laws designed to govern lost sinners cannot be, in their very nature, identical to laws designed to govern believers indwelt by the Holy Spirit.
The term “moral law” comes from the Westminster Confession, Art. 19, Sec. 3,5. It states, “Besides this law (Ten Commandments), commonly called moral...”
I agree with Reisinger. I have not found any biblical evidence for calling the Ten Commandments the moral law of God. The Ten Commandments are a covenant document given to Israel alone; they are not an unchanging moral code for all people in all ages.
But it was the covenant document summarized in the Ten Commandments that was done away with, NOT the nine laws, which have universal application, which Christ and the apostles supported. Christ replaced Moses in the same way that Paul and the other apostles replaced John the Baptist and the other OT prophets. That did not do away with the truths they proclaimed, but it shifted the higher and final authority over to Christ and the apostles, through the authority Christ gave them. Christ gives new laws of behavior based on grace that Moses could not have given under his covenant.
“The Bible always connects the Ten Commandments with Israel at Mount Sinai. The Ten Commandments were the ‘words of the covenant’ that were written on the tables of sone and put in the ark of the covenant (it is not called the ark of the moral law - but ‘the covenant.’) The terms the Ten Commandments, the tables of stone, the tables of testimony, the tables of the covenant, and the words of the covenant all refer to the same thing in the Scriptures. They are interchangeable terms.
“We are never told or encouraged to think of ‘unchanging moral law’ when we read the words ‘Ten Commandments’ or any of its synonymous terms. We are to think ‘covenant document.’
“The individual duties ordered in the various commandments are a different story. The Ten Commandments, considered as a covenant document, have been replaced by the New Covenant. The individual commandments stand, fall, or are changed according to Christ’s treatment of them.” Nine of those commands are clearly repeated with some changes, under laws given to the New Covenant people in the New Testament Scriptures and therefore are just as binding today as when given at Sinai. (Quoting John Reisinger)
I personally must be missing something. For I do not see what all the hub-bub is over! Not really! My understanding is that CT and NCT both believe in all the laws given in Scripture, (not including the ceremonial laws for Israel obviously.) But when it comes to Who has the greater authority for defining moral life in believers, I simply cannot see Jesus taking me by the hand and leading me back to Moses and saying to me, “Here are the rules to guide you in your Christian walk of faith by grace alone.”
What puzzles me about your argument is your belief that the O.T. is profitable for teaching, reproof, correction and training in righteousness, but not for obedience.
Actually, I believe that all CT’s agree with me (yet inconsistently) that at least part of the OT is profitable for faith, but not practice. Let me explain…
Does CT believe the theocracy laws, sacrificial laws, dietary laws, and holiness laws are profitable for teaching, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness, but not obedience? Then, NCT believes the same, including the decalogue. Does that make sense?
You’re right that covenant theology makes the distinction between moral, ceremonial and judicial laws in the Old Testament and I believe these are good distinctions to make, even though they are not spelled out in these terms in the Bible. Many will object to the term “moral law” (and I did for a long time), but this is simply a way of systemetizing a truth found in Scripture rather than reading into it something that isn’t there. For example, consider that Christians believe the doctrines of the Trinity and imputation without these precise terms being found in the Bible.
Israel was a theocracy, and as such, needed judicial laws to preserve civil order. Ceremonial laws were given by God to reveal characteristics of the coming Messiah. The theocracy of Israel no longer exists and Christ has already come, so neither category of law is still binding for Christians. The moral qualities of God’s law remain and are indeed expanded, as Jess pointed out.
I don’t believe it is inconsistent to say that the entirety of the Old Testament is profitable for reproof, correction training in righteousness and obedience because rightly seen, the distinctions between moral, ceremonial and judicial laws are readily apparent. I agree with Jess who pointed out that the covenant document of the Decalogue is not in force, however, the moral laws contained therein continue. Where we have disagreements with our Adventist friends (and even many covenant theologians) is over the fourth commandment, but I’ve seen some covenant theology folks identify this commandment as ceremonial based on Leviticus 23:1-3 and Colossians 2:16-17 (among other Scriptures). This is my position as well.
If the position of new covenant theology is that Christians do not need to obey the Decalogue, I have a disagreement, because clearly the moral laws it contains are still binding even though the covenant is not. Furthermore, I hope we agree that the two greatest commandments given to the Israelites are also still binding (Deuteronomy 6:5, Leviticus 19:18, cf. Mark 12:28-31).
[quote author="Greg Gibson"] Does CT believe the theocracy laws, sacrificial laws, dietary laws, and holiness laws are profitable for teaching, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness, but not obedience? Then, NCT believes the same, including the decalogue. Does that make sense?
What do you mean by theocracy laws and holiness laws?
Were the dietary laws and sacrificial laws basically one and the same or do you understand them to be different in some way?
