Kevin DeYoung Blog

Here is a good post from a young, Reformed preacher. I do not read many blogs, but I will read this one from time to time. He argues against legalism, and thus promotes the grace of the Gospel. Its worth taking 5 to read it.

You can read the post in its entirety by clicking here.

Generational, Doctrinal Accountability

The thoughts expressed in this post were not the result of deep research per say (although no thoughts are truly "original" and devoid of the influence of prior study). Rather, they flow from a topic that has been swarming in my mind for about a year and a half. Take them for what they are worth....

In Titus 1:6-8 we read this, "Likewise urge the young men to be sensible; in all things show yourself to be an example of good deeds, with purity in doctrine, dignified, sound in speech which is beyond reproach, so that the opponent will be put to shame, having nothing bad to say about us."

There is much that could be said regarding these verses. Perhaps one of the things we overlook in this list of things required for young men is that they have "purity in doctrine". Most books written for men today focus on character qualities. Character qualities are important. Indeed, the Gospel will change the whole man. His character will be imbued with the very character of Christ because of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit if he has truly been given new life in Christ. In other words, the Gospel does affect character. However, the importance of young men possessing purity of doctrine should never be ignored. In fact, one could quite easily make the argument that doctrine is the most important quality mentioned in these verses because it is right doctrine that serves as the impetus for right character. We must first know what is true about God, and ourselves (doctrine) before we can (by the power of the Spirit) know how to demonstrate appropriate character. To put it simply, we must understand Scripture rightly before we can rightly demonstrate Biblical, Christ-like character. To put it yet another way, we must have the larger picture of who Christ is before we can understand the smaller ways that we manifest Christ in any given situation or circumstance.

Without giving a mini-sermon, allow me to offer some practical ways that a young man can ensure that his doctrine is pure:

1) Have the liberty to think freely, but always consider what orthodox Christian men in the history of the church have traditionally believed concerning any one particular doctrine before you come to a conclusion. This means that you are sensitive to any teaching that is so novel that it departs from what great Christians have generally believed down through the ages. On the other hand, this does not mean that you be bound to history. We must be bound to one thing- the authority of Scripture. In the final analysis, Scripture always holds final sway. In the same vein, we should never be quick to discount the general orthodox teaching of the church for over 2,ooo years.

2)Have the liberty to think freely, but always take seriously one of the slogans of the Protestant Reformation- semper reformanda. The notion behind this Latin phrase is that the church must "always be reforming" in order for its doctrine to remain pure. This might seem to contradict point one, but on second observation it does not! Rather, it complements and balances point one. It says that we are never ultimately called to be expert historians when we do theology. Rather, we are to be expert Biblicists! That is, we are ready, willing, and prepared to depart from historical teaching when it conflicts with Scripture. For example, I am personally indebted to John Calvin for his strong theological influence upon me. Calvin, more than any other theologian, has helped me understand Scripture better. Nevertheless, I would disagree with Calvin on the issue of baptism. I think he was dead wrong to allow babies to be sprinkled. I will gladly disagree with him and many of the other Reformers because I am convinced Scripture teaches the baptism of believers only!

3) Have liberty to think freely, but always seek counsel and advise from older Christian men in the church, particularly the local church that God has sovereingly placed you in. I am convinced that my generation (for the most part) despises authority. In fact, I would argue that my generation despises authority more than my parents generation. Unfortunately, this has affected the church, though I wish it weren't the case. This despising of authority tends toward a dismissal of the opinions and worldviews of the older generation. Young Christian men must understand the importance of having accountability with older Christian men in the church, if they truly desire purity of doctrine.

Throughout my life, and for whatever reason, God has sovereingly sent older men into my life with whom I have enjoyed great friendships. Most of these men are old enough to be my father (in fact one of them is my own father!). In a very real sense, many of them have taught me more than my seminary training could even do regarding what pure doctrine is. I have found it to be the case on more than one occasion that I will be "read up" on a certain doctrine- assuming I have all the answers- and a wise, older man will say something from his own life experiences that makes me go back and question my conclusions. This man may, or may not have known what he did. He may have studied the particular doctrine; he may only have vague ideas that the doctrine even exists. Nevertheless, God uses older men to instruct and encourage younger men on doctrine. As I see it, this boils down to the wisdom they possess. Older men "think through" issues much differently than younger men. They are more experienced, have seen more, and often have heard all of the "arguments". In other words, they possess veteran discernment. Older Christian men who sincerely love and follow Christ as their Lord are worth their weight in gold for younger Christian men. As I stated, they serve to aid younger men to remain pure in their doctrine through their wisdom, discernment, and life experiences. In fact, one sign of a healthy church (in this pastor's humble opinion) is younger men looking to the older men for accountability in the area of doctrine.

All three of these points shout forth one word- accountability. Young men must be pure in doctrine. This means that young men take seriously the opinions, beliefs, and advise of older Christian men (in history and in their own lives) regarding doctrine so long as these older men are Christ lovers indwelt by the Holy Spirit who are saturated with Scripture. The attitude of younger men deferring to older men for accountability, and older men gently admonishing younger men for the sake of pure doctrine will lead to a healthy, doctrinally pure, and Christ centered congregation. Of course, only God Himself preserves purity of doctrine in a church. I am simply arguing that God uses the older men in congregations as one of many instruments to retain this purity.

A Book You Can't Ignore!

The Jesus You Can't Ignore
What You Must Learn from the Bold Confrontations of Christ

Jacketed Hardcover

By John MacArthur

Best-selling author John MacArthur gives readers a fresh look at how Jesus addressed attacks against the truth.

Meek and mild. Politically correct. A great teacher. These are the popular depictions of Jesus. But they aren't the complete picture. Maybe because it's uncomfortable, or maybe because it's inconvenient, Christians and non-Christians alike are overlooking the fierceness of the Savior, His passionate mission to make the Gospel clear and bring people into the Kingdom of God. A mission that required he sometimes raise his voice and sometimes raise a whip.

In the much-needed message in The Jesus You Can't Ignore, renowned Bible teacher and best-selling author John MacArthur reintroduces the compelling and often unsettling passion of Jesus' ministry. MacArthur points to the picture of the real Jesus the world is so eager to gloss over. And he calls readers to emulate Jesus' commitment to further the kingdom by confronting lies and protecting the truth of God.

(This description was taken from Thomas Nelson Publishers here, or click here to buy it used.)

Apologies

I did not blog for sessions 5 and 6 due to my broken wrist while playing football. I might be out of commission for a while. This ought to be real fun. Going to get a cast this week. I am working on a website for the messages to be downloaded for free. Give me some time. I will announce when the website is ready.

Great Conference...thank you Tom, Fred, and Mark W. for refocusing our hearts on Christ!

Laurelville- Session #4

Laurelville Family Conference
Fred Zaspel
Session #4: Selected Scriptures, “Eternal Life”

Began by reading John 17:1-3 and followed this by prayer. Salvation is an important term in our Christian vocabulary, but it is used little in the vocabulary of our Lord. The word Jesus used more than others to describe salvation is the expression “eternal life”.

Few statistics… 1) never uses it Mt. or Mk., 2) once in Lk., 3) once in John, 4) “save” is used a dozen times in the Synoptics. 1) eternal life used 53 times in Jn. (noun and verb), 2) 17 times in Revelation (total 97 times).
John 3:16 uses “eternal life”. At the end of John’s book (20:31), he tells us his purpose- that you may have eternal life. In John 17 Jesus says, “that I may give eternal life to those you have given me”.

This is not to say that “salvation” is a bad term- we have been rescued from sin. But Christ preferred to use “eternal life”, therefore Jesus communicating that our salvation is more than just rescue. Jesus is stressing the blessedness of salvation beyond “rescue”.

I. What is the significance of “eternal life”?
1) It’s a little too soon to be talking about it (eternal life). “Eternal life” is used to describe the age of the resurrection- the eschaton, the age to come (Dan. 12:2; Mt. 25:46; Mk. 10:17; Jn. 12:25, 5:28-29,10:10). In the day of resurrection we will experience the blessedness of heaven. That is our hope. Thus, it’s a little too soon to talk about this. Jesus also speaks about “eternal life” being now (Jn. 5:24-25)- that day has come, “crossed over from death to life”. The day “has now come”. So, there exists an “already/not yet tension. The blessedness of the eschaton becomes a present possession for us- “the future is brought to the present”. This is not abstract theology. We feel being pulled in two directions- “we’ve tasted glory and we are there, and, on the other hand, we are not there”. “We have entered into the glory of the age to come and begun to taste it already.”

2) This has implications to do with the security of the believer. We are secure being brought into eternal life ahead of time. That is why Paul can say that we are citizens of heaven.

II. What is it about the age to come (eternal life) that makes it such a blessed experience?

To know God in fellowship (Jn. 17:3). We are created with a capacity to know God and we find this in Adam until the separation of fellowship because of sin. Our whole problem because of sin is “that we don’t know God” (cf. Acts 17). Eternal life brings us into fellowship of God. Every man searches for this void to be filled naturally. Sin keeps us from experiencing the blessedness for which we were created. Thus, very early on God communicates His goal to restore this fellowship with man. Christ has come to fill the void- give eternal life…”that they may know God Himself through His Son Jesus Christ”.

Our life really began when we came to know Christ. People recognize us not, believing that we come from another planet. And that is true. We belong to the future. There is a joy unaffected by circumstances- this is eternal life. The first question of Westminster Catechism…”chief end of man is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever”…puts it well. This is what we are created for.
Fred closed his message with a plea to come to Christ- “you don’t have a clue and you don’t know what you are missing” by not coming to Christ.

Laurelville- Session #3

Laurelville Family Conference
Mark Webb
Grace Bible Church, Olive Branch Mississippi
Session #3: Mark Webb
“Paul the Theologian”, Galatians 4:21-31

Mark opened his sermon by reading his text. The expression “beating a dead horse” is often common in our culture. And the Apostle Paul proves to the Galatians that nobody will ever be justified by the works of the law over and over again. This is the Apostolic testimony of the true Gospel.

In Romans 4 Paul gives history of Abraham- he was justified before he was circumcised. In Galatians 3:10 Paul quotes Deuteronomy to express the impossibility of keeping the law. Then, he explained that in 4:21-31 Paul is giving and allegory. An allegory is usually a fictional story that has real meaning. But here Paul uses real history for this allegory. God sovereignly uses real people in history to reveal spiritual meaning for us today.

The allegory can only make sense unless we understand the history of Abraham (Genesis 11-21). Abraham was seventy-five years old when God began to deal with Abraham giving him a promise of a nation, a land, and to make him a blessing to all of the families of the earth. His name was Abram, which meant “high father” or the Mississippi version “big daddy”. Abraham was a nomad as he trusted in God’s promise and met different types of people in his journey across a foreign land. Abraham would have been asked, “What does your name mean?” “How many kids do you have?” Abraham would answer, “None”. This brought about Sara to influence Abraham to sleep with Hagar to bear a child. Sara did this because she was barren. Ishmael was born to Hagar. Usually, a child of a slave was a slave. But now “big daddy” has one son. At age ninety-nine God appears to him in Genesis 17 and 18 and promises him a son. God told him that Ishmael was not the promised son, but that he would bear a son from Sara’s womb. Abraham was impotent and Sara was barren. God said the child’s name would be Isaac. God then commanded Abraham and all the males in his household to be circumcised. This sign means you have no confidence in the flesh- that you have given up on fleshly means; God must bring about the promise. At this point, God changes Abram’s name to Abraham meaning “father of multitudes”. He was no longer “big daddy”, but “mega daddy”!

Sara sees Ishmael “picking on” Isaac, and she told Abraham to get rid of Hagar and Ishmael. God told Abraham to listen to Sara. So Abraham obeyed after giving money to Hagar. Sara did not want the “slave boy” (Ishmael) to split the inheritance with the “true heir” (Isaac).

This is the history, then, of the allegory Paul gives in Galatians 4:21-31. Paul says these two women represent two covenants- Mt. Sinai (Mosaic covenant of law) is represented by Hagar. The children of this covenant are “slaves”. On the other hand, Sara represents the covenant of promise- Jerusalem from above. Mosaic covenant was bilateral. The covenant of promise was unilateral. In other words, God’s covenant with Abraham is unilateral. The covenant of promise is realized in the new covenant.

There are two covenants, two mountains, and two different types of cities (both called Jerusalem). And each represents two methods of child bearing. Sara represents a supernatural child birth, and Hagar represents a fleshly, natural child. Ishmael is produced by the will of the flesh. Sara is produced by God.
Paul is giving this allegory to show us that Abraham’s family tree splits at the beginning with two lines of children coming from Abraham. Abraham is a father to two kinds of descendants. In essence, Paul is calling his fellow Jews “a bunch of Ishmaelite”. In verse 26 Paul says that the Galatians are from the Jerusalem of above. Those in Christ are in the line of Isaac. Paul is warning the ethnic Jews that Ishmael was kicked out not to be an heir.

Practical application: we are sons by God’s doing only! “There is nothing normal about salvation- it is nothing less than a miracle.”
End……………………………………………………………………………………………………

I did not take notes for the last 15-20 minutes. It was too good to try and type through. Sorry. Also, Mark’s lapel mica turned off at this point. I am not sure that the last 15-20 was recorded. There was nothing for me to do. Maybe it picked up a “little”. We shall see….sorry. (I hate the demons of microphones!)

Session #2- Fred Zaspel

Laurelville Family Conference
Fred Zaspel
Session #2: 2 Corinthians 4-5, “ Paul’s Motivations in Ministry”

Fred began by expressing thanks for being invited back to the conference to speak. He then gave an update regarding his family (particularly his daughter Gina who has Lime Disease). He expresses his thanks for our prayers, and added his father to the list who was diagnosed with terminal cancer. He also gave an update regarding his school in Texas that he is teaching at.

Fred read chapters four and five from 2 Corinthians 4, and then prayed.
Fred says that one of the great themes of Scripture is the free offer of the Gospel by grace. Paul stresses that salvation is a work of God done through Christ to reconcile the world to Himself. And then comes this unfettered offer- be reconciled (2 Corinthians 5:19-20).

On one level we must say that salvation costs us absolutely nothing. On the other hand, salvation costs you everything (Luke 14:33). You put your hand to the plow and you don’t look back. We are saved to serve. That is part of His reason for bringing us to Him. We are willing bondslaves of Christ. This is to define us.
Paul tells us what His service to Christ is like, and what it costs him on many occasions in his epistles (I Corinthians 4)- and then he says “be imitators of me”. He is communicating that his level of commitment to Christ is a model for us in our following of Christ. Paul was able to say “follow me” in the way I have followed Christ. Service to Christ is not exceptional. We are to model Paul’s service to Christ- its not reserved for special saints.

2 Corinthians 4 is another example. Notice the contrasts in these verses (“struck down, but not destroyed”, etc.) In broad description is what Paul has done in his service for the Lord Jesus. Verse 17 describes this as “light and momentary afflictions”. “Paul had weighed and measured his difficulties and then said, ‘It is just a little thing’”.

The question becomes, “How can Paul say that?” In these two chapters Paul answers this question.

4:8 -10, Supernaturally the Spirit of God gives Paul the energy to continue in the Gospel ministry. Through all of this there is a “mysterious renewal” that keeps Paul from wearing out.

4:13-18, Paul’s thoughts are a matter of perspective as he looks to things that are not seen (eternal). A perspective from this life to another. Why? Verse 14- we will be raised from the dead. Verse 17- our momentary afflictions do not compare to what glory awaits us in the future. “Death will not have the final word, we will be raised.”

Paul’s first perspective is “this life is not all there is”. Paul views the sacrifices he has made for Christ as “a kind of investment for heaven” (vs. 17). These afflictions achieve something for us. He is not saying that he can achieve his salvation. He is speaking about “reward theology”. Paul is not saying this is his only motivation for ministry, but it is a motivation. Jesus did the same thing through parables and speaking about rewards. Whatever these rewards are, we will not be disappointed with them. Afflictions achieve an “eternal glory”. “Paul says, ‘I am simply doing the math’.” “You get more back in return than you ever put into it.” It is a sort of spiritual investments. “Every time I endure one of those cainings and slandering, I put a penny in the bank.”
Our faithfulness is not what it should be, it was our duty to be faithful, and it was because of God’s grace- yet Scripture teaches that God views it as a matter of justice to repay us.

We will stand before God’s judgement seat to “receive praise from God” (5:9-10). This was Paul’s perspective “that drives him”. We fix our eyes on what is unseen (4:18). “Striving for eternity” is a true Christian slogan. Every abuse, slander, and cup of cold water given to one of His little ones for the sake of Christ achieves a weighty glory for us to come”.

Christians throughout history have had this perspective- “kissing the stake that they would be burned on”. We must be reminded of this lesson over and over again. “We are so earthly minded….that we think this life is all there is”.
It is this thinking that brought Jim Elliot to write, “He is no fool who gives up what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose.”

4:15 speaks of a coming glory (not just for us), but of Christ specifically- “a cumulative, climactic type of praise service at the end of history”. This collective praise will give glory to Christ. It is not simply one’s own glory, “but a greater consideration of Christ’s glory” to sing His praises. This consideration drives us even greater- “climactic, cumulative, corporate glory to Christ”.
This is the kind of perspective that must shape our perspective in our service for Christ. This is what Christ prays in John 17- that His people will be with Him in glory.

A second motivation….5:14- the love of Christ compels us. Christ’s love for us is in view here. “Not some vague notion of good will. Paul means the cross. He says that (5:14-15). At the cross a “great exchange” occurred at the cross between our sin and Christ’s righteousness. God, through Christ, has done all for us. This also compels us in our service to Christ.

Several affects of Christ’s love for us:
5:14-17, A Great Change. Those for whom Christ died for also died, and these now live for Him. We have been brought into the new creation.
5:18 ff., Reconciliation. Our relation to God Himself has been changed-“every obstacle removed because of Christ”.

Fred concludes with a practical exhortation-The man or woman who has truly been gripped by Christ’s love does not need to be cajoled to serve Him- “it is reflective”. We do not get people to serve Christ by “beating them over the head with the law. We show them the Gospel!”
This is why we have a retreat like this- to re-focus our hearts to the Gospel.

Laurelville Sermon Session #1- Mark Webb

Laurelville Family Conference
Mark Webb
Grace Bible Church, Olive Branch Mississippi
Session #1: “Paul the Apostle”, Galatians 1-2

Mark began by giving church and family background and the joy of learning how to make “Pepsi bombs” from Mike.

Mark announces what his plan is for three separate sermons. He will give to us three “looks” at the Apostle Paul:
I. Paul the Apostle (chapters 1 and 2)
II. Paul the Theologian
III. Paul the Pastor

Tonight we looked at “Paul the Apostle”. Mark spoke about the importance of the letter to the Galatians in the Protestant Reformation and especially Martin Luther. The book of Galatians tells us what the Gospel is not. The book of Romans tells us what the Gospel is. Romans and Galatians are the “ham and eggs” of Scripture. He gave some background information regarding who Paul’s recipients were. Paul wrote to the churches in the region of Galatia (Asia Minor). Mark poses the question, “Did Paul write to the churches in Northern Galatia or Southern Galatia?” Theologians are in disagreement as to which section Paul wrote to. Historical records indicate that Paul did missionary work in Southern Galatia. Therefore, Mark confirmed that he held to the “Southern Galatia” theory.

Paul was amazed that these Galatians had so quickly moved from the Gospel (1:1). Paul writes this letter to counter a “false gospel” that had been introduced into the churches in Galatia. Mark points out that this false gospel stemmed from a sect of the Pharisees- the same group in the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15). This sect was identified as the “Judaizers”. The Judaizers taught that obedience to Mosaic law brought the blessings of the Gospel (salvation). This is the identity of Paul’s opposition, and their tactic is to destroy the Apostle Paul. “You can attack the message by attacking the man. And that is what the Judaizers do- attack Paul”. For this reason, Paul defends himself in the first two chapters of this letter.

In 1:6-9 Paul affirms that there is only one Gospel and nobody, including an angel or Paul himself, is authorized to teach any other Gospel than the one that the Galatians had already received. Paul is following in the steps of Jesus. On one hand, Jesus was gentle with the sheep who were being led astray. On the other hand, Jesus was harsh with the false teachers who were leading them astray. In verse one Paul indicates that he is an “Apostle (not sent from men nor through the agency of man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father)”. Paul is making it clear that he is a hand-picked “sent one” by Jesus Himself. Paul is affirming himself as an authorized one who gives the true and only Gospel. Paul’s opponents were affirming that Paul was an “apostle”, but not an Apostle. He was not like Peter and John- “not up to the standards of the big boys in Jerusalem”. They accused Paul of not preaching the “full gospel”. To this accusation Paul replies that he was made an Apostle by Jesus Christ Himself, not by man in 1:1.
Why is it important for Paul to do this? “If this is not true of Paul, then why are we reading and studying Paul’s letter? If he is not an Apostle, then we have no reason to believe that this letter is an inspired book.”

The first time we see Paul is in Acts 7 and the stoning of Stephen. This was a long time of Christ’s resurrection and Pentecost. He was not an eyewitness of Jesus’ ministry. He met the risen Jesus on the road to Damascus, but 500 people saw the risen Christ as well. So does this qualify them as Apostles? Paul claims he was taught the Gospel directly by Jesus Himself. He affirmed this in verses 11-12, “for I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ”. He was given a thorn in the flesh because of the “abundance of revelation that he had been given”. So Paul argues that He was taught the Gospel by direct revelation.

Paul gives proof his claim by pointing to the history of his own life. In verse 15-16, Paul said that when God called Paul, he did not confer with other men. Rather, he went to the deserts of Arabia. “This was Paul’s seminary. Rather than conferring with man, Paul conferred with Christ in Arabia”.

In verse 18, Paul is saying that three years after this he went up to Jerusalem and stayed with Peter. And in 2:1, Paul went up to Jerusalem with Barnabas fourteen years after this. “This was his first visit with the big ones- Peter, John, James and the others. He says look fellows, this is the Gospel that I am preaching. What are you preaching?” 2:9 indicates that Peter, John, and James agreed that Paul preached the right Gospel by the giving of the “right hand of fellowship”. “The only division here was one of labor”. The “big” Apostles agreed that Paul be sent to the Gentiles to preach the Gospel (Acts 15:8 ff.).

Acts 15:8 ff. manifests the sovereignty of God as we see the Apostles choosing to minister to the Gentiles. God did this by hand picking the Apostle Paul. The verses in Acts indicate that the “big Apostles” agreed with Paul that the Gentiles did not need to obey the Mosaic law to be saved. Thus, Mark effectively showed us that all the other true Apostles were in agreement with Paul against the opposition he faced in the churches of Galatia. In short, the other Apostles agreed with Paul’s understanding of the Gospel- salvation not by works, but by grace.
In 2:11 ff. Paul recounts his public opposition of Peter who was “living” contrary to the Gospel by ceasing to eat with Gentiles when certain men from James came. Paul opposed him by explaining that the law has nothing to do with salvation in Christ. Simply put, Peter was being a hypocrite. “Once union with Christ takes place, His history becomes our history- his death and resurrection becomes ours.” We have died to the law through our union with Christ. It makes no difference whether we are Jew or Gentile. The law has nothing to do with salvation.
Mark gave an insightful illustration of being grafted into a tree to explain our union with Christ (get CD of sermon to hear illustration).

Mark closed his message by explaining his overall message… “the error that Paul faced is still present today- the idea of co-mingling law and grace, faith and works- the idea of a blended Gospel. Man’s heart is so wicked that we just can’t have it God’s way”. Mark was saying God’s way is only by grace. The Judaizers wanted the ability to brag about what they did in the flesh. The true Apostles message must be believed, thus Paul’s “testimony” is special because the church’s very origin stems from the Apostles teaching- “having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone” (Ephesians 2:20). Mark emphasizes that this is important because it upholds sola Scriptura. In this sense, the Apostles still speak today, and they tell us what the Gospel is (through the written revelation of Scripture). And the Gospel is “Christ, all about Christ, and nothing but Christ!”
He, of course, closed in prayer. It was a joy to finally here Mark preach.

Laurelville Family Conference Blog Updates

Due to the fact that some of you cannot make it to the Laurelville Family Conference until sometime Friday evening, I have chosen to publish posts that will give summaries of each sermon. There are two sermons on each day (except Thursday and Sunday), so I will try to post one summary Thursday night, and two on Friday and Saturday (for those who cannot make it until Sunday morning). These will not be expansive posts in any sense of the word. Rather, they will serve as a way for you to read (rather quickly) what has been spoken on so that when you arrive at the conference you will be "up to speed". Also, there will be CD's available for each sermon following the Conference (barring some sort of "recording disaster").

Blessings,
Andy

Current Reading List

Here is a current list of books that I am reading. I have suggested some of these to many of you already, so some of them will be of no surprise. I will reference a couple of these books in the weeks to come as I continue to preach through the book of Colossians. Others will probably be referenced to one degree or another at the next Reformed Men's Fellowship. I have tried to make it a goal that 50% of my overall reading consist of "cover to cover reading". These books, therefore, are those in which I slow down and take my time with. If any of them interest you let me know, and I will show you where to get them at a discount price.

I read this book a few years ago while taking the author’s class on systematic theology. I am currently re-reading it now. It perceptively deals with the practical implications regarding the doctrine of the Trinity. Dr. Ware is a humble, and Biblical theologian. You will hear more about this book later.

Good practical work on the “nitty gritty” of sharing the Gospel. It is written by a Reformed, Southern Baptist minister that pastors in Washington D.C. Dever also went to Southern seminary.

I am ashamed to say that I did not read this book until last week. It stands as the second best book on evangelism behind Tom Well’s work, Come to Me.

When I was at Southern I would go into the book store between classes and read selected chapters of this great work. My dad just purchased me a copy, so now I can read without “stealing”. It was authored by my former professor at Southern, Dr. Tom Nettles. The premise of the book lays down the historical foundation and legacy for Calvinism in the baptist heritage.

Began reading it several months ago, and just picked it up again with the intention of finishing it. It is an intriguing book, which deals with present day implications of the ancient heresy known as Gnosticism. I will mention more about this book at a later time.

If you are desiring a clear, Biblical argument for believer’s baptism, and a robust argument against infant baptism, then this is a must read. I read it several years ago, but my dad just purchased it for me, so I am going to read it again.

I am always referring to this classic work, but chose to read through it again from cover to cover. Calvin has influenced me much. His picture hangs in my study at home, and every Sunday morning before I preach he says to me very sternly, “Smith, you better get this message right.”

A Bird's Eye View of New Covenant Theology (Part 5)

DEDUCTIONS OF NCT

Allow me to close this series of posts on the three systems of theology (Dispensationalism, Covenant Theology, New Covenant Theology) by making some deductions regarding NCT. I made certain deductions with both DT and CT, so it is only fair that I do the same with NCT.

First, NCT takes "more seriously" what Scripture says, and is less driven by human logic. It takes its lead from what the Spirit reveals in His Word- reads the text at face value. This does not mean that NCT detests logic, or ignores it! Rather, it seeks to be driven more by what the text says than by what a previous church confession might say. This is primarily seen in the manner in which NCT argues very reasonably for Scripture's constant emphasis on the contrast between the Old and New Covenants (Hebrews 8:6-13). They point to the many features that make up the Old Covenant. The Old Covenant was a works, conditional, and law based covenant. Furthermore, the Spirit of God functioned quite differently in the Old Covenant compared to His function in the New Covenant. In addition, the Old Covenant under God was composed of a mixed bag of true believers (the remnant) and unbelievers. God's people in the Old Testament found their identity in a nation state driven by ethnicity whose ultimate purpose was to "picture" the true people of God- the church of the New Covenant. One was considered to be in the Old Covenant by means of circumcision.

On the other hand, the New Covenant is entirely unconditional for the elect. It is not law based, but Spirit driven. Furthermore, the Spirit of God indwells every member of this covenant, which means that there is greater power to obey God as one is led by the Spirit. Thus, the New Covenant cannot be composed of both believers and unbelievers. It is composed of only believers. This does not mean that there exists no room for the common categories "invisible church" (true believers), and the "visible church" (professed believers- the church as we see it). However, in reality, there is only "one people", thus "one church" in God's eyes. But we cannot see people's hearts, only God can (Deuteronomy 29:29). Therefore, NCT affirms that only true believers are actually members of the New Covenant, while at the same time admitting that there exists both wheat and chaff in the current state of Christ's Kingdom. The chaff will be separated from the wheat, however, to be burned up. That is not our job, but Christ's, and it will take place in the future (Matthew 3:12). In addition to all of this, God's people in the New Covenant do not find their identity in a nation state, and it is not primarily composed of any ethnic group (Galatians 3:28). And finally, one becomes a member in the New Covenant through "circumcision of the heart" (regeneration/new birth by the Spirit), not physical circumcision (Colossians 2:11).

I say all of the above to affirm that NCT seeks to be faithful to the message of Scripture. It is not afraidto depart from "sacred" confessions. It, therefore, holds more firmly to the authority and inerrancy of Scripture than the other two systems. Now, I am not saying that the other two systems deny the authority and inerrancy of Scripture. Again, the issue is one of precision and consistency. NCT is most precise and consistent.

Second, this view of the Mosaic (Old) Covenant does not mean that NCT purports that salvation was by "works" in the Old Covenant. NCT does not "break up" Scripture unecceasrily. It recognizes (very firmly) the unity of salvation in both Testaments. The Mosaic law does not "cancel out" the grace of God! NCT does a nice job of showing that the whole purpose of the Old Covenant was to show the exceeding sinfulness of sin to lead us to Christ (Galatians 3:19-29). Therefore, in that sense it was actually gracious. NCT emphasizes that God's covenant with Abraham, which came four hundred and thirty years before God's covenant with Israel on Mt. Sinai, is the basic pattern for salvation in both the Old and New Covenants (Galatians 3:16-17). In other words, salvation has been, and always will be by grace through faith. This is Paul's whole argument in Romans 4. Abraham believed God, and because of his belief (not obedience to God's law at the time), he was counted as righteous- right before God. In short, he was justified by faith. In Galatians 2:16, Paul says "a man is not justified by the works of the law but through faith". The clear implication here is that even faith itself is a gift from God; it is not considered a work. That's what Paul means. He uses the word "but" to show the complete contrast of "works" from "faith". They are not the same. Even the demonstration of faith is a gift from God (Ephesians 2:8-9).

The Psalmist expresses salvation by grace when he says, "If You, LORD, should mark iniquities, O Lord, who could stand? But there is forgiveness with You, That You may be feared" (Psalm 130:3-4). And Paul quotes David from Psalm 32:2 in Romans, "just as David also speaks of the blessing on the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works: "BLESSED ARE THOSE WHOSE LAWLESS DEEDS HAVE BEEN FORGIVEN, AND WHOSE SINS HAVE BEEN COVERED. "BLESSED IS THE MAN WHOSE SIN THE LORD WILL NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT" (Romans 4:6-8).

Thus, I conclude that NCT faithfully supports the Gospel without compromising with logic. In other words, it is honest about the function of the Old Covenant, yet does not go to the extreme of denying that salvation has always been by grace through faith. In this area it does better than classic dispensationalism (which is really dead).

Third, NCT has a more logical and reasonable understanding regarding the identity of ethnic Israel and the church. To understand (as the dispensationalist does) that God has primarily made promises to an ethnic nation as His ultimate goal seems to go against everything the New Testament Scriptures teach (Acts 2; Ephesians 2:11-22; Galatians 3:28, etc.). There is no distinction between Jew and Gentile, Paul says, but both groups have become one new man! Furthermore, to understand (as the covenant theologian does) that those in the New Covenant join together with the church of the Old Covenant does not seem to be precisely accurate either. For does this not ignore Peter's great sermon in Acts 2:14 ff? Peter argues that the prophesy which Joel made was fulfilled that very day. That day marked the establishment of a new people- a new entity indwelt by the Spirit. As pointed out above, this new people look nothing like the nation of Israel in most respects. Although, it is still true that national Israel pictured them in a qualified sense.

NCT does better than CT in this area. NCT argues that it is uneccesary to place the church and Israel so close together that there is no difference whatsover. It rightly sees that there is one, true people of God for all time, while at the same time affirming the distinct funciton of national Israel in the Old Testament era. Quite frankly, it is the only system that makes sense on this point. It relieves all confusion- confusion that both DT and CT bring into the equation.

I could go on, but as I stated before it is sometimes better to be concise. I fear that I might weary you. And I do not want to do that. I have tried to be as honest and straightforward as possible regarding the differing views of these three theological systems. It does matter what one believes. All three systems have practical implications for the church- God's people. It does matter that we are precise. As Mike said Sunday, "little things do matter". A little leaven can leaven the whole lump! We must get Scripture right. We must understand it. And we must apply it- all for the glory of God. I have not arrived to a perfect mind yet. The day that I profess to have all the answers is the day that you should never listen to my sermons, or read this blog again. No matter how old we get, we must understand that we can grow each time we read Scripture. The "doctrines" which we think ourselves to understand entirely show up in different places throughout Scripture. And if we are faithfully studying Scripture, we will repent when we see a new facet of that same old doctrine that we thought we understood perfectly. It is my prayer that we would never study Scripture (and studying these three systems is studying Scripture!) to appear intelligent and spiritual. It is my prayer for all of us that we study Scripture: 1) to be approved of God as a workmen who does not need to be ashamed because we have handled God's word rightly (2 Timothy 2:15), and 2) to grow in grace as the Spirit of the living God works in us for His glory. Church's are not to have "seminary environments" where everyone tries to impress others with the "knowledge" they possess. Rather, the church must be captivated with Christ, and seek to understand His word so they can fall more in love with Him. To borrow the theme from the youth retreat this year- it's all about Jesus: only, always, and forever! I would like to leave you with a verse from Isaiah that reminds us why God chose to save sinners like us:

"I, even I, am the One who wipes out your transgressions for My own sake" (Isaiah 43:25).

May we understand that we are saved for His sake and glory. Thus, we study Scripture for His sake and glory that we might know Him better. I hope these posts have been helpful. I take blame where I have misspoken, and I take no credit where I have spoken rightly.

Not Professing to be Wise,

Pastor Andy

A Bird's Eye View of New Covenant Theology (Part 4)

DISTINCTIVES OF NCT (continued)

Let me offer one more distinction regarding NCT. This will be the fourth and final distinctive that I will mention. There has been much overlap already between the many posts on NCT. Therefore, my comments about this fourth distinctive will be brief and to the point. Here's the distinctive- NCT does not view Mosaic law as the unchanging, final, moral law of God. Now let me clarify what this does not mean.

First, when Mosaic law was given, it was the highest expression of God's law that had been communicated by God to man up to that point. Remember, NCT believes that God's revelation is progressive. Thus, NCT argues that the revealing of God's law is progressive as well.

Second, for those residing under the Mosaic law, it was moral law- the whole thing. Sometimes it can be helpful to divide the law up into three parts: civil, ceremonial, and moral. However, this categorization is utterly unhelpful if we demand that a Jew would have viewed these various aspects of the law as mutually exclusive. In other words, a Jew under Mosaic law would view himself as morally obligated to obey the ceremonial and civil injunctions of the law. In his mind, there would have been no great distinction. He viewed the law as a whole.

Third, the law in the New Covenant (law of the Spirit/law of Christ) is not the same thing as the Mosaic law. The law of Christ is God's final expression of His law. In fact, it is superior to Mosaic law, has higher demands (Matthew 5:20,44), and the New Covenant believer is given power to heed it.

Let me close this post with a quote from Fred Zaspel on the law. I told you that I would give it to you again because it is important. Here it is.

“The law of God is always binding and could never be anything else. Before Moses there was no formal codification of it. Since Moses there have been differing codifications of it in accordance with covenantal relationships. The Old and New Covenants entail varying responsibilities, some of which are identical to each other (because of a common basis) and some exclusive of each other (because of fulfillment and further revelation). But the standard of conduct for today’s believers is found in the framework of New Covenant teaching, not that of the Old Covenant. To this rule of life He is bound as to law, and this law, like that of Moses, is sufficient to bring men ‘to an acknowledgement of their sins’”.- Fred Zaspel

Next we will consider some deductions of NCT.

Wish I Knew More,

Andy

A Few Rambling Thoughts About Marriage on the Occasion of My Fifth Wedding Anniversary

On July 24, Corie and I celebrated our 5th wedding anniversary. So we decided to watch the DVD of our wedding ceremony. Memories flooded my mind about that day. I still remember telling people the wedding was at 3 p.m. instead of the right time- 2 p.m. even up to the day before. For some reason, I just couldn't get the time straight. I remember my mom crying the moment she saw me dressed in my tux for the first time that afternoon. I remember our embrace and me telling her that I loved her. I remember the honor of having my father stand by my side as my best man. I will never forget what happened after the reception. My father-in-law walked in on me changing clothes, frantically asking me where I had placed the keys to the car that Corie and I were to depart in. I reminded him that he was in charge of guarding the keys from the groomsmen, and that he needed to secure a car quickly because my honeymoon would not be postponed! Later he found them in his coat pocket, so we were able to go on our honeymoon (thank goodness!). And, most of all, I remember seeing my beautiful bride walk down the aisle toward me. It was surreal. She was gorgeous. The joy of having Corie's father place her hand into mine was awesome as well. The first time we heard, "Mr. and Mrs. Andrew Smith" was a reality check too. Watching our wedding made me even more thankful for my best friend, my wife.

I am reminded of Paul’s words to the church in Ephesians 5:25-27, “Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her, so that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she would be holy and blameless.”

I did not marry Corie because she was ugly, both inside and out. I did not marry her in order to make her life better. She was doing fine without me. She had a great family, friends, and a passion for the glory of Christ. I did not sacrifice that much either. In fact, it would have been a sacrifice for me if I could not live the rest of my life with her. In many ways, I married her for selfish reasons. I knew she would be a great mother, a good asset in the ministry, and a wonderful companion. This is completely contrary to why Christ chose to marry the church, is it not? He chose us in spite of our ugliness. He died so that we might live. We were not doing fine without Him. We needed Him, or we would go to hell and be separated from His glorious presence forever. He sacrificed much, so that we might be presented to Him as a spotless bride. In spite of our many imperfections, He loves us more than imperfect, human husbands love their imperfect wives. That is why Paul must tell husbands to love their wives. The command implies man’s propensity to live for self. The command implies the husband’s tendency to value “things”- even good things- above his wife.

We had a love song sang at our wedding. It was not a particularly “rich” song theologically speaking. It was written by a Christian, and sung by a Christian, but it was more of a love song. There have been times that I have questioned why we did not choose a more “spiritual and theological” song. But I no longer question using that song. I think, if we are not careful, as Christians we can try and be “too spiritual” in wedding ceremonies, and in our marriages in general. Yes, marriage points to Christ’s love for the church. Yes, the husband sacrifices for His wife. Yes, the wife submits herself to her husband. However, as much as human marriage is like the church’s union with Christ, there is still a sense in which it is different. I married Corie for the reasons I listed above. She married me, I presume, for similar reasons. We fell in love. And we are still in love. We did not marry one another because I was the “ultimate picture of Christ”, and she was the “ultimate picture of the church”. In fact, our understanding of Christ has grown immensely since our wedding day. And the more it grows, the more we both realize our utter inability to be and do what Paul calls husbands and wives to be and do in Ephesians 5. We simply married one another because we loved one another. And now, as we grow spiritually, we attempt to reflect the union Christ has with His church.

But human marriage ultimately points to a final day- a day in which we will serve our glorious husband in full submission and delight. We will be as He is. It will be a perfect, wondrous union that can never be broken. We will live in His presence forever.

Yet, I am still thankful for my earthly spouse. She is the best thing that ever happened to me, apart from salvation. I pray that God will enable me to love her more for the glory of Christ. This is what Paul calls husbands to in Ephesians 5.

A BIrd's Eye View of New Covenant Theology (Part 3)

DISTINCTIVES OF NCT (continued)

Allow me to mention a third distinctive of NCT. NCT places a strong emphasis on the type/anti-type dimensions of Scripture. The nation of Israel in the Old Testament is seen as a type and picture (promise). The church in the New Testament is seen as the anti-type and fulfillment. There is much that could be said here, but for sake of simplicity let me make a statement that will hopefully clarify things- "The church is what the nation of Israel never was, could be, or ever was intended to be by God Himself."

Let's deal with each segment of my statement. First, the church is what the nation of Israel never was. This is simply a statement based upon reality. Anyone who honestly studies the Old Testament will observe that the nation of Israel was anything but faithful to the covenant. In fact, they collectively broke the covenant before it was ratified with blood when the children of Israel, under the direction of Aaron, formed and worshipped the golden calf. They had one bad king after another, and God placed them in captivity several times as well. In addition, even those who we would consider to be true believers- David, Moses, etc.- committed pretty heinous sins- sins I would argue would not be tolerated in most Bible based churches without some serious investigation!

Second, the church is what the nation of Israel never could be. Why is this? One answer- the Holy Spirit had yet indwelt God's people to enable them to obey. This, beloved, is the promise of the New Covenant (Ezekiel 36:26-27; Jeremiah 31:33-34, cf. Hebrews 8:6-13; Joel 2:28-29). The Spirit enables believers in the New Covenant (the church) to obey and delight in obedience. Now, I am not saying that true believers in the Old Covenant possessed no power whatsoever to obey. No, no! They had God's word, and the Spirit functioned to empower them in varying degrees (particularly prophets, priests, and kings), but not in the same way that He would in the New Covenant. This is the glory of the New Covenant- a more radical functioning of the Spirit of God in the life of the believer! On the other hand, I am not affirming a perfectionist, Wesleyan understanding of sanctification (or Pentecostal either!). Believers in the New Covenant are not perfect, but their hearts (the very essence of their human makeup) has been changed God-ward forevermore.

Third, the church is what the nation of Israel was never intended to be. I realize that this is a bold statement. But let me say from the beginning it is not a denial of God's sovereignty! The nation of Israel was never meant to be like the church according to the wisdom of God in a manner that we cannot entirely understand. The pictured the church, but they were not the church. How did they picture the church? They pictured the church not because they had a history of faithfully obeying God (which is characteristic of the church). In fact, they pictured the church in a sense that had absolutely nothing to do with their end of the covenant (they broke their end). Rather, they pictured the church when we observe God's faithfulness to them, which was demonstrated over and over again beginning with their (undeserved) deliverance from Egyptian bondage. He loved them in spite of their unfaithfulness. He was faithful, and showed His mighty power and grace in their nation, though they defied Him time and again. He opposed nation after nation that rose up against Israel. And, at times, He rose other nations against Israel to teach them a lesson or two. But He was faithful to them. So in essence, the nation of Israel pictured the ideal- God loving a people who do not deserve it, and who do not always act in accordance with the statutes of a loving God- but Israel's actual relationship with God was not ideal.

Now, this does not mean that every man, woman, boy, and girl in Israel were God-haters. On the contrary, God always preserved a remnant of people who were faithful back to God (Psalm 73;1; Romans 9:6-8; I Kings 19:18). There were always "Elijah's" and thousands who did not bow the knee to some foreign deity. But even this remnant did not bear the final trappings of the ideal relationship between God and His people. That would have to wait until the inauguration of the New Covenant.

So, NCT affirms a robust understanding of type/anti-type theology. This must be grasped. There is so much I did not say. But I will leave this post realizing I can never reveal the depths of God's mind and purposes. Sometimes its better to admit this, and opt for concise explanations. I have chosen to do this here. (Now most of you are hoping that I make that same decision when I preach.)

Still Growing in My Understanding,

Andy

A Bird's Eye View of New Covenant Theology (Part 2)

DISTINCTIVES OF NCT

When we looked at the "six principles" of NCT we laid down a good understanding of a few of its distinctions. However, let me use the next couple of posts to emphasize and clarify its most significant features. First, NCT differs from CT in its understanding of a supposed "covenant of grace" in Genesis 3. NCT is related to CT in one important sense. NCT does affirm that the "covenant" motif (or theme) seems to be emphasized in Scripture. However, NCT departs from CT on this very point at the same time. Allow me to explain. Rather than seeing a "covenant of grace" in Genesis 3 serving as the "father" of the covenants with many children following (Noahic, Abrahamic, Davidic covenants, etc.), NCT prefers to see (as stated before) the unfolding of God's revelation through biblical covenants progressively and gradually. In other words, NCT denies an over arching "covenant of grace" made in Genesis 3. Instead, NCT emphasizes the Abrahamic covenant. Indeed, one could almost call this covenant the true "covenant of grace" according to NCT proponents! In this covenant, Abraham believed God's gracious promise, and he was counted as righteous in God's eyes.

At the same time, let me be loud and clear in affirming that no NCT adherent would deny that salvation was by grace through faith before the Abrahamic covenant. In fact, I have made an argument elsewhere that Adam and Eve are certainly in heaven today. And how did they get to heaven? The same way Abraham, all other Old Testament believers, New Testament believers, and even yourself will get to heaven- by grace through faith. This leads us to a second important distinction that flows from this first one.

Second, NCT prefers the phrase "God's one eternal purpose", rather than the classic "covenant of redemption" to speak of God's electing grace determined before the foundation of the world (Ephesians 1). As the last statement made clear (I think), this does not mean that NCT denies God's role as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in "covenanting", or agreeing together as a unit to accomplish redemption for sinners. Again, this seems to be an issue of Biblical precision on the part of NCT, though in my study it seems that conceptually speaking NCT does not differ from CT at all on this point. In fact, I believe CT has an orthodox understanding of the Trinity in their affirmation of a covenant of redemption. I just believe they would do better to use the Biblical language such as "God's one eternal purpose", which is used in Ephesians 1 to describe the agreement among the members of the Godhead.

Here is a statement of faith according to NCT doctrine that expresses the idea of God determining to redeem man by use of the covenant format:

We believe that God has maintained one eternal purpose in Christ which has been expressed through a multiplicity of distinct historical covenants" (Solo Christo's Statement of Faith).

The above statement affirms the predetermined action of God to redeem sinners. In addition, it affirms that the revelation of this predetermined plan will take place through various covenants in the course of redemptive history.

That is enough for today. Next time we will look at some more distinctives.

Aiming to be Biblically Accurate,

Andy

A Bird's Eye View of New Covenant Theology

DEFINITIONS OF NCT
Allow me to give you a handful of definitions for NCT. Interestingly, these are not really technical definitions. One can search high and low and he will not find a technical definition of NCT given by NCT adherents. Nevertheless, the statements below are quotes from various sources that I believe give to us a broad definition of NCT.

The first one comes from our friend and speaker for the Laurelville Conference, Fred Zaspel. Here is what Fred says about NCT:

“New Covenant Theology (NCT) is a less settled theology than a movement still in the shaping by men who agree that the question has not yet been finally answered by either of the major competing schools of interpretation- dispensational theology and covenant theology…NCT claims simply to have middle ground between these two (DT and CT). We are not satisfied with the simple ‘one covenant’- ‘two administrations’ idea of CT. In our judgement this results in a rather ‘flat’ reading of Scripture which fails to appreciate the advance, the distinctively new character of the Messianic age. Nor are we satisfied with the over-compartmentalizing tendency of Dispensational theology. In our judgement its ‘no law’ and ‘two equal peoples’ notions failed to appreciate the unity of God’s nature and purpose. And so we find ourselves somewhere between the two traditional answers”.( Fred Zaspel, A Brief Explanation of New Covenant Theology).

If I can, allow me to point out a couple of features in Fred’s explanation of NCT. First, Fred speaks of NCT as more of a movement than a defined or settled system. This is important to grasp. I have found that there are many “streams”, if you will, of NCT. And not all of these “streams” converge into the same body of water. In fact, I recently asked Tom Wells (the foremost New Covenant Theologian) about this very topic. He was clear that all “streams” of NCT are not in complete agreement with one another. Quite frankly, it is even difficult to identify these streams. Suffice it to say, however, NCT is not as sharply defined as either DT or CT. This is not a criticism; it is a fact. It must be stated that this is also true with both DT and CT as well. There are many “streams” within each one of these systems. Nevertheless, it seems that with NCT the streams are more diverse, and are greater in number. However, it is difficult to know for sure. I do not know every dispensationalist, covenant theologian, and new covenant theologian. This is another reason why neither what others believe, nor logic itself should ever serve as the foundation to our belief systems. Scripture is the basis. And by the way, Scripture is logical (that is not to say that there are not mysteries found in paradox form), and Biblical truth will generally show itself in the majority positions of the church throughout church history.

Second, Fred speaks of NCT as holding a “middle ground” position between DT and CT. This is an important clarification. NCT does not take attributes of DT and place them in their system and then turn around and take elements of CT and store these in their system. Rather, NCT bases its arguments on Scripture. It is not a hodge-podge of DT and CT. Fred’s point is simply that in the final analysis NCT ends up somewhere between these other two systems of theology. Fred’s explanation serves in truly clarifying what we are facing with NCT.

Another way to define NCT is rooted in a short, pithy statement by a man I have yet to meet (but long to someday), John Reisinger. He once made the remark that, “Dispensationalism cannot get Israel and the church together in any sense whatsoever, and covenant theology cannot get them apart”. Essentially, Reisinger is affirming the failure of both DT and CT. Their failure is found in different aspects of the same topic- the identity of the church and national Israel. DT affirms that there are two peoples of God. Thus, they fail to define any unity in God’s elect people of all time. And CT, on the other hand, fails to separate Israel from the church. They view these two people as one entity. Reisinger’s point is that both positions are wrong. And the implication is that NCT holds the right answer. I agree with him and will seek to prove that in the remaining posts on NCT.

The next definition is take from Gary Long. He says, “NCT is a developing system of theology that provides a more biblical way to interpret the Scriptures by questioning key theological presuppositions which undergird the hermeneutics (principles of interpretation) of CT and DT” (Gary Long, New Covenant Theology Disnitctives). Gary Long is a strong NCT proponent. However, he refuses to “throw the baby out with the bath water” (sorry to use such a routine cliché). I appreciate his intellectual perceptiveness, and honesty of character to admit that not everything DT and CT teach is heretical and Satanic. Notice he says that NCT promotes " a more Biblical way" than either DT and CT. This is NCT being worked out practically- the demonstration of love toward others. He does not compromise truth. No, no! But he is also not condescending in his attitude.

One final way to understand NCT can be seen in the following statement:
“New Covenant Theology (NCT) describes how the unfolding plan of salvation in Scripture is to be understood. It focuses on the relationship between the Old and New Covenants. It views the nation of Israel as a picture of the people of God but not the believing people of God. It understands the Mosaic Covenant to be a legal covenant that demands perfect obedience in order to receive the promised blessings. It views the Ten Commandments as the essence of the Mosaic law and not the essence of all of God’s law. It views the New Covenant as a new and better covenant that replaces the Old Covenant. New Covenant Theology differs from both Covenant Theology and Dispensationalism” (Defining New Covenant Theology, Geoff Volker and Mike Adams from In Depth Studies).

Lord willing, we will look at some distinctives of NCT later.