heart” refer? For many, it means a new kind of obedience, if not the actual indwelling Spirit himself. But if that were true, what would it say about the sanctifi cation of the OT saints? Was David or Abraham sanctifi ed by the fl esh, by mere response to an external word? What does the writer of Hebrews say? “Without faith it is impossible to please God” (Heb. 11:6), and “by faith Abraham obeyed” (Heb. 11:8).

We know from the immediate context that “the law written on the heart” is fi rst an issue of relationship; “‘Know the LORD,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest.” Did the OT saints know the Lord? This promise is not new individualistically but covenantally. This is

1 For every high priest taken from among men is ordained for men in things per-taining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifi ces for sins:

2 Who can have compassion on the ignorant, and on them that are out of the way; for that he himself also is compassed with infi rmity.

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

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

5 So also Christ glorifi ed not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, today have I begotten thee. Hebrews 5

Chapter 5 begins the longest section in the book of Hebrews and goes all the way through chapter 10, verse 39. The sub-

I s su e 19 8 Ju ne 2 013

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

Christ, Our New Covenant High Priest—Part 5John G. Reisinger

The Specifi c Characteristics of the “Grace Movement”: #1 – “New Obedience”

The fi rst characteristic is what has been referred to as the “New Obedience.” Consider the classic text announc-ing and defi ning the New Covenant, Jerem iah 31:31-34:

But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the LORD: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people. And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD, ‘for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

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

The New Heart, The New Covenant, and Not So New Controversies: A Critique of the Modern

“Grace Movement” Part 2 of 3Dr. J. David Gilliland

Reisinger—Continued on page 2

Gilliland—Continued on page 12

d f h h b h d b b

In This IssueChrist, Our New Covenant High Priest ― Part 5

John G. Reisinger

1

The New Heart, The New Covenant, and Not So New Controversies: A Critique of the Modern "Grace Movement" ―Part 2 of 3

Dr. J. David Gilliland

1

Doing/Fulfi lling the Law

A. Blake White3

The Bondage of the Will

Steve West5

A Study of New Covenant Theology, Part 1 of 4

Kevin P. McAloon

7

Under the Elemental Spirits of the World

A. Blake White

9

Page 2 June 2013 Issue 198Sound of Grace is a publication of Sovereign

Grace New Covenant Ministries, a tax exempt 501(c)3 corporation. Contributions to Sound of Grace are deductible under section 170 of the Code.

Sound of Grace is published 10 times a year. The subscription price is shown below. This is a paper unashamedly committed to the truth of God’s sovereign grace and New Covenant Theology. We invite all who love these same truths to pray for us and help us fi nancially.

We do not take any paid advertising. The use of an article by a particular person

is not an endorsement of all that person believes, but it merely means that we thought that a particular article was worthy of printing.

Sound of Grace Board: John G. Reisinger, David Leon, John Thorhauer, Bob VanWing-erden and Jacob Moseley.

Editor: John G. Reisinger; Phone: (585)396-3385; e-mail: reisingerjohn@gmail.com.

General Manager: Jacob Moseley:info@newcovenantmedia.com

Send all orders and all subscriptions to: Sound of Grace, 5317 Wye Creek Drive, Frederick, MD 21703-6938 – Phone 301-473-8781 Visit the bookstore: http://www.newcovenantmedia.com

Address all editorial material and questions to: John G. Reisinger, 3302 County Road 16, Canandaigua, NY 14424-2441.

Webpage: www.soundofgrace.org or SOGNCM.org

Scripture quotations marked (NIV) are taken from the HOLY BIBLE, NEW INTERNA-TIONAL VERSION® Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society. Used by Permission. All rights reserved.

Scripture quotations marked “NKJV” are taken from the New King James Version. Copyright © 1982 by Thomas Nelson, Inc. Used by Permission. All rights reserved.

Scripture quotations marked (ESV) are from The Holy Bible, English Standard Version, copyright © 2001 by Crossway Bibles, a division of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

ContributionsOrders

Discover, MasterCard or VISA

If you wish to make a tax-deductible contri-bution to Sound of Grace, please mail a check to: Sound of Grace, 5317 Wye Creek Drive, Frederick, MD 21703-6938.

Please check the mailing label to fi nd the expiration of your subscription. Please send payment if you want your subscription to continue—$20.00 for ten issues. Or if you would prefer to have a pdf fi le emailed, that is available for $10.00 for ten issues. If you are unable to subscribe at this time, please call or drop a note in the mail and we will be glad to continue Sound of Grace free of charge.

Reisinger—Continued from page 1

Reisinger—Continued on page 4

ject of this entire section is the high priestly work of Christ. From both a practical and doctrinal viewpoint, this section is one of the most important in the entire book of Hebrews. It is also one of the most misunderstood pas-sages among sincere Christians. The Roman Catholics and many Anglicans (Episcopalians) grossly ignore or con-fuse the wonder and glory of Christ’s work as high priest by having their leaders assume they are priests ca-pable of being mediators between God and sinners. Arminians falsely as-sume that the priestly work of Christ is equally on behalf of all men without exception. Most fundamentalists, in-cluding the Plymouth Brethren, insist the priestly work of Christ does not begin until his ascension. This limits the high priestly work to intercession, but it is quite clear that the primary work of the high priest in the Old Covenant was to offer sacrifi ce. It is just as clear in the New Testament that Christ’s high priestly work includes sacrifi ce as well as intercession.

The Arminian has no place to put the atoning work of Christ on the cross. All agree it was not his work as prophet or his work as king that made atonement for sin. However, if we put the sacrifi cial work of the atonement under the offi ce of priest we are well on our way to particular redemp-tion. In order to hold on to universal atonement, the Arminian reduces the priestly work of Christ to be limited to intercession. In this way, Christ’s priestly work does not begin until he ascends to heaven and is seated on his throne. However, to hold that view these people must fl at out deny the specifi c words of Christ when he said, “I pray not for the world” (John 17:9). It is abundantly clear that Christ does not act in the place of the non-elect in either his offi ce of prophet or his of-fi ce of priest. The writer to Hebrews has already mentioned the high priest-ly work of Christ three times. It is clear from these texts that the priestly

work of Christ included reconciliation as well as intercession just as it in-cluded both propitiation and expiation.

Wherefore in all things it behooved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be as a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. Hebrews 2:17

Wherefore, holy brethren, partak-ers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus … Hebrews 3:1

Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession. For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infi r-mities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and fi nd grace to help in time of need. Hebrews 4:14-16

Our Lord is glorious in both his person and in his work. It is the awe-some glory of his person that gives his redemptive work the honor and dig-nity that it deserves.

…let us note that the Lord Jesus is designed a “great High Priest.” This word at once emphasizes His excel-lency and pre-eminency. Never was there, never can there be another, pos-sessed of such dignity and glory. The “greatness” of our High Priest arises, First, from the dignity of His person: He is not only Son of man, but Son of God (Heb. 4:14). Second, from the purity of His nature: He is “without sin” (Heb. 4:15), “holy,” (Heb. 7:26). Third, from the eminency of His or-der: that of Melchizedek (Heb. 5:6). Fourth, from the solemnity of his ordination: “with an oath” (Heb. 7:20, 21)—none other was. Fifth, from the excellency of His sacrifi ce: “Himself, without spot” (Heb. 9:14). Sixth, from the perfection of His administration (Heb. 7:11, 25)—He has satisfi ed di-vine justice, procured Divine favor, given access to the Throne of Grace,

Issue 198 June 2013 Page 3

other hand, where specifi cally Chris-tian behavior is related positively to the Mosaic law, the verb plēroun or a cognate inevitably occurs (Rom. 8:4, 13:8, 10; Gal. 5:14); yet these terms are never used where the require-ments or achievements of those living “under the law” are in view. Given the occasional nature of Paul’s correspon-dence, such a consistent distinction in usage is striking indeed and demands some explanation.

In Galatians 5:14 the whole law is fulfi lled in one statement: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. In Ro-mans 8:4, the righteous requirement (to dikaiōma) of the law is fulfi lled in us. In Romans 13:8 we are told “the one who loves another has fulfi lled the law.” Verse ten says “love is the

If one wants to understand Paul’s mind on the Mosaic law, one must understand the way Paul carefully dis-tinguishes the verbs “do” and “fulfi ll.” Pauline scholar Stephen Westerholm writes,

It is worth noting, however, that in Paul, while Christians are never said to “do” (poiein) the law, those “un-der the law” are seen as obligated to “do” its commands (Rom. 10:5; Gal. 3:10, 12; 5:3); indeed, the law itself, Paul claims, rests on the principle of “doing” as opposed to “believing” (Gal. 3:12; Rom. 10:5-6). If, then, the essence of life “under the law” is the requirement to “do” its commands, it is not strange that Paul would avoid the term in contexts where he relates Christian behavior to the law. On the

fulfi lling of the law.” Only Christians, who have the Spirit of the new age, can fulfi ll the law. Paul, like Jesus in Matthew 5:17, is referring to eschato-logical fulfi llment. It should also not be overlooked that in these “fulfi ll-ment of the law” passages, Paul is not prescribing but describing Christian behavior. Jason Meyer states, “Paul does not prescribe Christian behavior with reference to the law; he describes the ‘fruit’ (karpos) of their behavior with a retroactive reference to the way that it conforms to the law and thus amounts to its ‘fulfi llment’ (plēroō). Ironically and paradoxically, those who live under the law bear fruit resulting in sinful passions, transgres-sion of the law, and death, while those who have died to the law bear fruit that amount to the law’s fulfi llment.” Only those under the law are required to do the law, while the result of the obedience of those not under the law fulfi lls the law.

Doing/Fulfi lling the LawA. Blake White

I would like to help support the ministry of Sound of Grace: A tax-deductible gift in the amount of ______________ is enclosed.I would like to receive Sound of Grace via the USPS: A check in the amount of $20.00 for a paper copy (payable to Sound of Grace) is enclosed.I would like to receive Sound of Grace via email: A check in the amount of $10.00 for a pdf fi le (payable to Sound of Grace) is enclosed.Please continue free of charge: Via email via USPS

PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY—THANK YOUName: Street Address: City: State/Providence: Zip/Postal: Email address: @ Phone number:

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

Did you know you don’t need a Kindle to read your book?

Simply download one of Amazon’s free Kindle apps - available for every

major smartphone, tablet and computer.

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

Page 4 June 2013 Issue 198oncile us to God, because He is man (John Calvin, quoted by Pink).

If the Son of God had never be-come man, He could never have been a priest or performed any priestly functions. He could have taught us about his Father and instructed us in the just requirement of the Law, but he would never have been able to offer that sacrifi ce for the sins of His people which divine justice required. It was essential that “God became fl esh and dwelt among us” if an eternal salva-tion was to be secured for God’s elect.

The phrase, “Is ordained for men,” in verse one is important. It shows that the high priest was “ordained by God” for his offi ce. He did not take a series of psychological tests to see if he had certain talents and a correct psychological make up; he did not one day “feel led of the Lord” to make the high priestly work his calling. No, no, God personally chose, ordained, called and equipped the high priest for his work. The reason why, and the purpose for which, the high priest was taken “from among men” is so that he might transact on behalf of others, or more accurately, in the stead of others.

The application of the words, “Is ordained of God” to our New Cove-nant high priest demonstrates the per-son and work of Christ. He not only became man, he received appoint-ment from God to act on behalf of, in the stead of, men. He came to do the Father’s will, “Lo I come, to do Thy will, O God” (Heb. 10:9). This text not only announces the commission He received from God, it also asserts His readiness to discharge it. The will of God for Christ was the cross. He was born for the express purpose of dying. Our Lord was the only person who was ever born in order that he might die. We were born to live, but he was born to die. He came to do what needed to be done and no one but he could do it if there was to be a gospel to preach. He came to do what

Reisinger—Continued from page 2

secured eternal redemption. Seventh, from the perpetuity of His offi ce: it is untransferable and eternal (Heb. 7:24). From these we may the better perceive the blasphemous arrogance of the Ital-ian pope, who styles himself “pontifex maximus”—the greatest high priest.1

It is interesting to follow biblical arguments and note how logically they are framed. The Holy Spirit knows how to think and how to ex-press the truth. He does not begin his list of comparisons between the old and the new with Moses and Aaron. That would immediately have offend-ed the Jews. The writer starts with an-gels and talks about a mediator who is holy, acceptable to God, has a heart of compassion for sinners and is just the mediator we need in every way. The writer of Hebrews begins chapter 5 with a description of the high priest’s nature and work.

For every high priest taken from among men is ordained for men in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifi ces for sins: Who can have compassion on the ig-norant, and on them that are out of the way, for that he himself also is com-passed with infi rmity. And by reason hereof he ought, as for the people, so also for himself, to offer for sins. And no man taketh this honour unto him-self, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron. Hebrews 5:1-4

These verses give a summary of the qualifi cations of the Levitical high priests. Our Lord fulfi lled every one of these qualifi cations. First of all, the high priest had to be “taken from among men.” That means he had to be part of the human family, a true part of Adam’s race. An angel could not be a priest, let alone be the high priest. A high priest must partake of the nature of those on whose behalf he acts. He must be a kinsman of those he represents. Second, the high priest

1 A.W. Pink, An Exposition of Hebrews (Swengel, PA, Baker Book House, 1954) 225

did not act as a private individual, but as a public offi cial: “is ordained for men.” He acted as an appointed representative of sinners. Third, when he approached God he did not come empty handed. He brought “gifts and sacrifi ces for sins.” Fourth, the high priest must realize that he himself was a sinner and needed grace. He had to be able to give hope and comfort to those of his fellow sinners to whom he ministered (verses 2, 3). Our New Covenant high priest was not in any sense a sinner as was Aaron, and part of this particular requirement did not apply to him. The need to be able to sympathize did apply to Christ, and his ability to sympathize with us grew out of his becoming one with us in our humanity. He was tempted in the same way we are tempted but he never yielded to any temptation. Fifth, he did not presumptuously “decide to be a high priest” by his own choice, but was chosen and approved by God (verse 4). Let us look at each of these fi ve things more closely.

The fi rst thing is an emphasis on his humanity. “For every high priest taken from among men…”

An angel would be no fi tting priest to act on behalf of men, for he pos-sesses not their nature, is not subject to their temptations, and has no experi-mental acquaintance with their suffer-ings; therefore is he unsuited to act on their behalf: therefore is he incapable of having “compassion” upon them, for the motive-spring of all real inter-cession is heart-felt sympathy. Thus, the primary qualifi cation of a priest is that he must be personally related to, possess the same nature as, those for whose welfare he interposes.2

It was necessary for Christ to be-come a real man, for as we are very far from God, we stand in a manner before Him in the person of our Priest, which could not be were He not one of us. Hence, that the Son of God has a nature in common with us does not diminish His dignity, but commends it the more to us; for He is fi tted to rec-

2 Ibid, 227 Reisinger—Continued on page 6

Issue 198 June 2013 Page 5

the devil or, in Luther’s colorful lan-guage, the devil’s whore. Submissive human reason, on the contrary, served a necessary and vital ministerial—as opposed to magisterial—role.

Luther was not unaware of Eras-mus’s greater brilliance, but he saw it as hopelessly applied to a losing—because it was non-biblical—cause. Writing directly to Erasmus, Luther said that Erasmus’s book, for all of its eloquent expression: “struck me as so worthless and poor that my heart went out to you for having defi led your lovely, brilliant fl ow of language with such vile stuff. I thought it outra-geous to convey material of so low a quality in the trappings of such rare eloquence; it is like using gold or sil-ver dishes to carry garden rubbish or dung” (p. 63).1 Luther states repeat-edly in his introductory address to Erasmus that Erasmus has brilliance and eloquence, but it is all to no avail because he has neglected the teach-ings of the Scriptures. As a result Lu-ther has greater understanding even though he cannot express himself with the urbane wit and refi nement of Erasmus.

In bringing his reasoning powers into submission to God’s Word, Lu-ther is not abdicating his intellectual responsibility. On the contrary, he is using his mind in a manner befi t-ting one who is created. There are simply some things in the Bible that transcend our ability to comprehend; nevertheless, these same transcendent realities can still be clearly taught. For example, the Trinity is a clear biblical

1 All references will be to Martin Luther, The Bondage of the Will, trans. J. I. Packer and O. R. Johnston (Old Tap-pan, N. J.: Fleming Revell, 1957). West—Continued on page 10

The Bondage of the WillSteve West

If Jonathan Edwards’s The Free-dom of the Will is a deep well for Calvinists, Martin Luther’s The Bondage of the Will is a refreshing stream. This is not to say that it is shallow: I am more impressed by its depth now than I was when I fi rst read it. Whereas Edwards’s work is sys-tematic, careful, rigorous, and clear, Luther’s is fi ery, striving, and active. All Luther’s strengths and many of his weaknesses are displayed in the pages of The Bondage of the Will. The book’s importance from an histori-cal perspective alone can scarcely be exaggerated, yet it is still well worth reading on the merit of its content today. This article will sketch some of the contours of Luther’s argument but with particular attention to his attitude towards Scripture and human reason.

As it is well known, Luther wrote The Bondage of the Will (hereafter designated BW) in response to the writings of Erasmus of Rotterdam who maintained a position of libertar-ian free will. Erasmus was known as a scholarly gentleman (although, that is relative to his time: Erasmus uses insulting language in a way that scholars could never get away with today in academic discussions). He was refi ned and intelligent. To put it kindly, Luther was not quite as refi ned ,yet Luther had a lot more intellectual strength than many today give him credit for. Most importantly, however, Luther’s appeal was to the Scriptures and not to any other authority. He was not against reason (a fact that is not changed by the number of times contemporary detractors say he was), but he did believe that human reason needed to be a servant of Scripture rather than a master of Scripture. Au-tonomous human reason was a tool of

doctrine, and although we can demon-strate that it’s not logically contradic-tory, nobody truly understands in a deep way what that mode of existence is like. The same could also be said for the person of Christ: a fully divine and a fully human nature cohering in one person. The biblical data is clear, but the concept transcends our fi nite intellects. When it comes to free will, Luther believed the biblical data was not very complex. Even if philosophers and rationalists strug-gled to conceptualize how free will functioned in relationship to God’s sovereignty, that was irrelevant to the fact that the Bible spoke clearly on the subject (pp. 70-74).

In Luther’s judgment not only was the biblical teaching on the subject clear, it was tremendously important. How could Christians be unconcerned about the matter of the will when the will was such a vital part of salvation? Luther wrote: “So it is not irreligious, idle, or superfl uous, but in the highest degree wholesome and necessary, for a Christian to know whether or not his will has anything to do in matters pertaining to salvation. Indeed, let me tell you, this is the hinge on which our discussion turns, the crucial issue be-tween us; our aim is, simply, to inves-tigate what ability ‘free-will’ has, in what respect it is the subject of Divine action and how it stands related to the grace of God” (p. 78). This senti-ment is virtually repeated in Luther’s concluding remarks to Erasmus when he famously stated: “you alone, in contrast with all others, have attacked the real thing, that is, the essential is-sue. You have not wearied me with those extraneous issues about the Pa-pacy, purgatory, indulgences and such like—trifl es, rather than issues—in respect of which almost all to date have sought my blood (though without success); you, and you alone, have seen the hinge on which all turns, and aimed for the vital spot” (p. 319).

Page 6 June 2013 Issue 198

Reisinger—Continued on page 8

Christ has only one personality.

Christ’s humanity never had an independent existence.

Christ is not able to sin, any more than God can sin.

Christ’s humanity is not indepen-dent of His deity.

Christ never does anything ‘as man’ or ‘as God’ - He acts as Christ, who is God manifest in fl esh. After coming to earth at Bethlehem, Christ could no longer act solely ‘as God.’ Nor did He experience thirst and weariness solely ‘as man.’ He cannot act as man without being God - He cannot act as God without being man. The Lord said “I am thirsty” not “my human nature is thirsty.” He said “I forgive” not “my divine nature for-gives you.” It is vital never to divide the Lord Jesus in a way that Scripture does not allow.

That He may offer both gifts and sacrifi ce for sins (Heb. 5:1). This statement emphasizes an important fact that is not emphasized enough today. Christ offers himself to the Fa-ther before he is presented to sinners. This text shows that the sacrifi cial death of Christ was a priestly act. He offered something to God. He of-fered himself. He lay down his life in a conscious act of sacrifi ce for sins. This was not the work of a prophet or a king; it was the work of a priest. At Calvary the Lord Jesus was not only the sacrifi ce, the Lamb of God bear-ing judgment, but He was also the priest offi ciating at the altar. Our Lord offered his sinless life on the altar of his absolute deity and accomplished a perfect redemption for us poor sin-ners. Later, the writer will emphasize the necessity of Christ having an of-fering to give to God. “For every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifi ces: wherefore it is of necessity that this Man have somewhat also to offer” (Heb. 8:3). Hebrews 9:14 tells us that our Lord “offered himself without spot to God.”

God “gave his son” up to the cross.

no man could do—satisfy the claims of divine justice, procure the divine favor. Pink correctly notes in passing what the Holy Spirit specifi cally says, “ordained for men, not mankind in general, but that people whom God had given Him—just as Aaron, the typical high priest, confessed not the sins of the Canaanites or Amalekites over the head of the goat, but those of Israel only.”

“In things pertaining to God,” that is, in meeting the requirements of His holiness. The activities of the priests have God for their object: it is His character, His claims, His glory which are in view. In their application to Christ these words, “in things pertain-ing to God” distinguishes our Lord’s priesthood from His other offi ces. As a prophet, He reveals to us the mind and will of God. As the King, He subdues us to Himself, rules over and defends us. But the object of His priesthood is not us, but God.3

We must always remember the difference between a prophet and a priest. A prophet represents God to men and a priest represents men to God.

The truth of Christ’s humanity is not stressed as much as it should be. There is the tendency to get so involved in defending the truth of the deity of Christ that we neglect his hu-manity. It is just as vital that Christ be the son of Mary as it is that he be the Son of God. The following is a short excerpt from an excellent message on the internet on the humanity of Christ. See page 15 of issue 197 of Sound of Grace for a longer quote and for the internet address for the entire article.

The ramifi cations of this truth [humanity of Christ] are many. For example: Christ’s two natures can be distinguished but not separated.

Christ became something He never was before while never ceasing to be what he always was.

3 Ibid, 229

It was the Father who put Christ on the cross. It was the Father’s plan to have Christ die and it was the Father’s sovereign control that engineered the cross from beginning to end. No event was ever planned and executed as carefully as the death of Christ was planned and executed by the triune God. However, the Son of God readily agreed to “do the Father’s will.” Pink said it well:

Christ on the Cross was far more than a willing victim passively endur-ing the stroke of Divine judgment. He was there performing a work, nor did He cease until He cried in triumph, “It is fi nished.” He “loved the Church and gave Himself for it” (Eph. 5:25). He “laid down His life” for the sheep (John 10:11, 18)—which is the predi-cate of an active agent. He “poured out His soul unto death” (Isa. 53:12).4

Hebrews 5:2 emphasizes that com-passion is one of the sure results that will be evident in a true high priest. This same mark of compassion will be seen in anyone who has truly been called and ordained by God to func-tion as a church leader. Who can have compassion on the ignorant, and on them that are out of the way; for that he himself is compassed with infi rmity (verse 2). The ignorant may be de-scribed as those who sin because they simply do not know any better. Their problem is ignorance of the truth. They may be new or untaught believ-ers. Those who have “gone out of the way” maybe those who know better but deliberately choose to go their own way. Regardless of which it is the true minister of Christ feels compas-sion. He never excuses sin in any way but he feels true sympathy. If the only feeling a leader feels when someone under his care goes astray is anger, that leader is a false shepherd.

I Samuel 1:9-14 records the miser-able failure of Eli the priest. When poor Hannah was “in bitterness of soul,” and while she was in prayer,

4 Ibid, 231

Reisinger—Continued from page 4

Issue 198 June 2013 Page 7

McAloon—Continued on page 13

INTRODUCTION

“There is perhaps no part of divin-ity attended with so much intricacy, and wherein orthodox divines do so much differ, as the stating of the precise agreement and difference be-tween the two dispensations of Moses and of Christ.” - Jonathan Edwards1

This statement by one of the church’s greatest thinkers is one that has reigned true since the very con-ception of the church. Even the very idea of “the conception of the church” is not without its array of theologi-cal dilemmas and controversies: who exactly constitutes this church; when was it “conceived”; what is its nature; what is its purpose in God’s plan for humankind, etc. Although many believers may look at these matters as mere abstract theological theories, the conclusions to these questions and their consequences could not be more important to the very life of the church. So agrees Lints, who believes that almost all major controversies in evangelical theology could be reduced in the end to a difference concerning the relationship of the Testaments.2

1 1. Jonathan Edwards, “A Humble Inquiry,” in The Works of Jonathan Edwards Vol. 1 (Peabody, MA: Hen-drickson Publishers, 2003), 44.

2 Richard Lints, The Fabric of Theology: A prolegomenon to Evangelical Theol-ogy (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1993), 301, n. 13; quoted in A. Blake White, The Newness of the New Cov-enant (Frederick, MD: New Covenant Media, 2008), 55; also see John S. Feinberg’s article “The Law of Moses or the Law of Christ” where he says, “Few issues are of greater signifi cance to biblical theology and, ultimately, systematic theology as the relation

The dust of our contemporary superfi -ciality and quest for temporal distrac-tion and comfort must be cleared so that the gravity of these matters may be felt in our hearts. The amount of blood that has been shed and the brotherly unity that has been de-stroyed between professors of Christ over their interpretations of the Testa-ments throughout the centuries is unfathomable; therefore we owe it to both our Lord and our forefathers to follow in their footsteps towards dis-covering and breaking from those old corruptions that have been infecting the body of Christ since the days of its fall from New Testament purity. This can only be done with humility as we confess our need and wholly depend upon the Spirit to teach us through the Scriptures he has inspired, even if this must be done so in light of many of the creeds he did not.

This has been the cry of many reformers throughout church his-tory, and it is shared by many of us who hold to a form of biblical theol-ogy that has been dubbed the name, “New Covenant Theology.”3 While this title may be a bit misleading in that it could suggest a theology that

between the Testaments.” In Continu-ity and Discontinuity: Perspectives on the Relationship Between the Old and New Testament (Wheaton, IL: Cross-way Books, 1988).

3 See Tom Wells, “Our Creeds and How They Affect Our Understand-ing,” in Tom Wells and Fred Zaspel, New Covenant Theology: Defi nition, Description, Defense (Frederick, MD: New Covenant Media, 2002); also John G. Reisinger, Abraham’s Four Seeds (Frederick, MD: New Covenant Media, 1998), iv.

deals only with the New Covenant in perhaps a more systematic way, this is not the case. On the contrary, like Covenant Theology and Dispensation-alism, it is a robust interpretation of the relationships between the Testa-ments and covenants found therein, which seeks to enrich our under-standing of salvation history so that we learn to properly apply the truths found in God’s Word. However, many of us humbly believe that whereas the former systems do so through presup-positions that cannot be founded upon Scripture, New Covenant Theology (hereafter “NCT”) attempts to con-sistently put the biblical texts fi rst and derive its overall approach in light of them.4 Much fi ne exegesis has been done and many arguments have been written for one to engage for himself

4 Wells and Zaspel, 22; also see Reising-er’s introduction in Abraham’s Four Seeds, i-iv.

A STUDY OFNEW COVENANT THEOLOGY

Part 1 of 4Kevin P. McAloon

Kevin recently graduated from Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, and is currently meeting with some believers seeking God to raise a church in Carmel, NY. His heart is for the further reforma-tion of Christ's Church back to New Covenant power and purity, and truly believes that New Covenant Theology and many of the churches espousing it are God's blessing in this generation towards that end.

While avoiding formal denomi-national affi liation, Kevin craves and welcomes all open hearted fellowship with devout brothers and sisters in Christ. He and his group covet your prayers. You are invited to contact him at kevin.mcaloon@gmail.com

Page 8 June 2013 Issue 198Reisinger—Continued from page 6

weeping before the Lord, “only her lips moved, but her voice was heard not,” Eli thought that she was drunk-en, and spoke roughly to her. Thus, instead of sympathizing with her sor-rows, instead of making intercession for her, he cruelly misjudged her. It is a strange anomaly, but it seems that the more doctrinally orthodox people become, the more they lose compas-sion. They become more interested in protecting the image of the institution than they do in helping poor sinners.

This compassionate, loving, gentle, all-considerate and tender regard for the sinner can exist in perfection only in a sinless one. This appears at fi rst sight paradoxical; for we expect the perfect man to be the severest judge. And with regard to sin, this is doubt-less true. God charges even His angels with folly. He beholds sin where we do not discover it. And Jesus, the Holy One of Israel, like the Father, has eyes like a fl ame of fi re, and discerns everything that is contrary to God’s mind and will. But with regard to the sinner, Jesus, by virtue of His perfect holiness, is the most merciful, com-passionate, and considerate Judge. For we, not taking a deep and keen view of sin, that central essential evil which exists in all men, and manifests itself in various ways and degrees, are not able to form a just estimate of men’s comparative guilt and blameworthi-ness. Nay, our very sins make us more impatient and severe with regard to the sins of others. Our vanity fi nds the vanity of others intolerable, our pride fi nds the pride of others excessive. Blind to the guilt of our own peculiar sins, we are shocked with another’s sins, different indeed from ours, but

not less offensive to God, or perni-cious in its tendencies. Again, the greater the knowledge of Divine love and pardon, the stronger faith in the Divine mercy and renewing grace, the more hopeful and the more lenient will be our view of sinners. And fi nally the more we possess of the spirit and heart of the Shepherd, the Physician, the Father, the deeper will be our compas-sion on the ignorant and wayward.5

One of the inconsistencies that amazes me is how clearly the Scrip-tures teach that Christ “loved the sin-ner and hated his sin.” I am aware this truth has been greatly misused, and it usually winds up in a distorted “half-truth” form, but it is none the less a biblical fact that Jesus was perfectly clear in his hatred of sin and at the same time was tender and compas-sionate to the sinner. If you can’t fi t that into your theology, you need to revise your theology. Despite how holy he was Jesus still often revealed less shock toward the drunkard and profl igate than the respectable, self-ish, and ungodly religionists. I hate to say it, but I have met many “truly Reformed elders” who exhibit most of the characteristics of the Pharisees in the New Testament. They view biblical compassion as a form of com-promise. Jesus looked upon sin as the greatest and most fearful evil, and at the same time he saw the sinner as poor, lost, and helpless. He saw the just destruction of Jerusalem at the door, but still wept over its coming destruction. Hyper-Calvinism is al-ways stingy with the love of God. It is

5 Ibid, 231, 232

far better at condemning than it is at reconciliation. It knows how to preach wrath but stumbles and gets tongue-tied with the love of God.

Hymn writer Frank Graeff got it pretty close.

Does Jesus care when my heart is painedToo deeply for mirth or song;As the burdens press, and the cares distress,And the way grows weary and long?

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

Does Jesus care when my way is darkWith a nameless dread and fear?As the daylight fades into deep night shades,Does He care enough to be near?

Does Jesus care when I’ve tried and failedTo resist some temptation strong;When for my deep grief there is no relief,Though my tears fl ow all the night long?

Does Jesus care when I’ve said “goodbye”To the dearest on earth to me,And my sad heart aches till it nearly breaks—Is it aught to Him? Does He see?

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

Donald Grey Barnhouse

Issue 198 June 2013 Page 9

White—Continued on page 11

The word “under” (hypo) is used frequently in Galatians to refer to the old age. It designates “the old era when the Mosaic covenan t was in force.”1 In Galatians, to be under law (3:23) = under sin (3:22) = under a babysitter (3:25) = under guard-ians and managers (4:2) = under the elemental spirits (stoicheia) of the world (4:3). This last one is the most shocking. The phrase I have translated “elemental spirits” is much disputed. Many commentators take it to mean the physical building blocks of the world, so that to return to the law is to return to live under the basic prin-ciples of the world (most likely the case in 2 Peter 3:10, 12). This may be a correct interpretation, but in the end, spiritual forces can’t be excluded. For, unlike the mindset of Enlightenment rationalism, in the mindset of the New Testament the “whole world is under the control of the evil one” (1 John 5:19 NIV). Satan is the “god of this age” (2 Cor 4:4). He is the “prince of this world” (John 12:31). Unbelievers follow “the ruler of the kingdom of the air” (Eph 2:2). There are cosmic powers, spiritual forces of evil over this present darkness (Eph 6:12). So even if the word does refer to the ele-mentary building blocks of the world, demonic forces are still involved.

Some object to this interpreta-tion (i.e., elemental sprits or spiritual forces) due to the claim that this ter-minology is not used outside the Bible until after the second century AD. Although, looking at the usage outside of the New Testament is helpful, it is not decisive. Usage in context is key.2 In Galatians, Paul uses the word

1 Thomas R. Schreiner, Paul, 321.2 D.G. Reid, “Elements/Elemental Spirits

of the World,” in Dictionary of Paul

in 4:3 and 4:9. In 4:8-10, he writes, “Formerly, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those who by nature are not gods. But now that you know God—or rather are known by God—how is it that you are turning back to those weak and miserable forces? Do you wish to be enslaved by them all over again? You are observ-ing special days and months and seasons and years!” This is a shocking statement. Here, Paul lumps together Judaism and paganism. To observe the Jewish Sabbath and festival practices (certainly this is what’s in view) is to return to the elemental spirits of the world.3 The genitive “of the world” (tou kosmou) is important as well. These elemental spirits are character-istic of this world, this age, which he already wrote is evil (Gal 1:4). This present world order belongs to Satan (2 Cor 4:4).

We are helped in our understand-ing of this truth by looking at the book of 1 Corinthians. There, refer-ring to idols, Paul says “For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many ‘gods’ and many ‘lords’)” (8:5). Then in 10:20 he says that these idols are demons: “No, but the sacrifi ces of pagans are offered to demons, not to God.” So for the Galatians to return to the Jewish calendar is to return to being enslaved to those that are by nature not gods, which is another way of saying being enslaved by the el-emental spirits of this present evil age. Clinton Arnold writes, “The passage

and His Letters, ed. Gerald F. Haw-thorne, et al. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993), 229.

3 Steve Westerholm, Perspectives, 367; Schreiner, Galatians, 245; Longeneck-er, Galatians, 182; Meyer, The End of the Law, 174.

is best explained if one interprets the stoicheia as demonic powers, equiva-lent to the expression ‘principalities and powers.’4 It is important to note that Paul is not calling the law demon-ic. However, it is demonic to return to the law after Christ’s death and resur-rection. Christ is the culmination of the law (Rom 10:4). Its sacrifi ces are no longer effective. To turn back the clock of redemptive history is to turn to slavery to the powers.

If my interpretation is correct, it just reinforces the fact that getting the gospel right is crucial. The indica-tive must undergird the imperative. Sanctifi cation fl ows from justifi cation. It is fundamentally demonic to trust in anything but Christ crucifi ed for salvation. This is why John can call those who falsely claim to be Jews the “synagogue of Satan” (Rev 2:9, 3:9). In this regard the principalities and powers, those lords that cannot liber-ate, can equally plunder the Roman Catholic Church or the overly strict fundamentalist Baptist congrega-tion. The “do this and live” principle (Gal 3:12; Rom 10:5) is everywhere because the main evangelist of this religion is the prince of the power of the air. Only pagans trust in self. In Acts 21:24, the verbal form (stoicheō) is used as “living in obedience to the law.” It refers to “leading a closely regulated life, to living accord-

4 Clinton E. Arnold, “Returning to the Domain of the Powers: stoicheia as Evil Spirits in Galatians 4:3, 9,” No-vum Testamentum 38, no. 1 (January 1996): 57; idem, Powers of Darkness: Principalities and Powers in Paul’s Letters (Downers Grove, IL: InterVar-sity Press, 1992), 53, 131-32.

Under the Elemental Spirits of the WorldA. Blake White

Page 10 June 2013 Issue 198West—Continued from page 5

Turning aside from introductory matters, I want to sketch out several important theological arguments that Luther uses in BW. Some of the posi-tions he takes are far more philosophi-cally nuanced than many people real-ize. In fact, in my estimation Luther routinely moves from Scripture to theological refl ection to philosophi-cal/logical refi nement in a way which is truly extraordinary. Frankly, as a reader living in the twenty-fi rst cen-tury, it is easy to get so swept up in his rhetoric that the depths of his re-fl ection are missed (not to mention it’s altogether too easy to get distracted by his cringe-worthy expressions, or alternatively to be laughing so hard at some of his comments that the train of his argument is lost).

The fi rst element to note in Lu-ther’s argument concerns the relation-ship between God’s foreknowledge and human free will. Although there are lengthy discussions and academic debates about the possibility of lib-ertarian freedom given God’s knowl-edge of the future, Luther cuts to the chase and argues that according to the Bible God’s foreknowledge of future events is grounded in his sovereign purposes. God knows the future be-cause he decrees the future, not be-cause he sees what contingent beings do as autonomous agents.

Luther believes this point is so weighty that he states: “It is, then, fundamentally necessary and whole-some for Christians to know that God foreknows nothing contingently, but he foresees, purposes, and does all things according to His own immu-table, eternal and infallible will. This bombshell knocks ‘free-will’ fl at and utterly shatters it; so that those who want to assert it must either deny my bombshell, or pretend not to notice it, or fi nd some other way of dodging it” (p. 80). If all things are ultimately done on the basis of God’s will, then they are not done out of libertarian

freedom. Luther’s implicit logical argument is this: 1. God’s foreknowl-edge of future events is incompatible with libertarian freedom; 2. God’s foreknowledge is clearly taught in Scripture; 3. Therefore libertarian freedom does not exist.

This does not mean, however, that God forces people to act against their will. On the contrary, “The will, whether it be God’s or man’s does what it does, good or bad, under no compulsion, but just as it wants or pleases, as if totally free” (p. 81). Luther’s observation here is critical. He never denies that people act as they please out of the nature of their wills. But the one thing a will cannot do—and this is essential to all free will discussions—is change itself. It is what it is. Luther refers to this as the “necessity of immutability” (p. 102). People with an evil will (i.e. the whole human race) do evil naturally. When they sin apart from the restraining of the Holy Spirit of God, they do so in accordance with their fallen nature. In the mercy of God’s sovereign grace, however, sinners are regenerated and given new inclinations and desires. The individual continues to will, but the direction of their will is funda-mentally altered by grace. Luther expresses this change in the following way: “On the other hand: when God works in us, the will is changed under the sweet infl uence of the Spirit of God. Once more it desires and acts, not of compulsion, but of its own de-sire and spontaneous inclination” (p. 103). In biblical language, this is what happens when God removes the heart of stone and puts in its place the heart of fl esh; when God takes out the old spirit and gives the new spirit; when we are born again.

Luther is aware that some people will respond that if God ordains all that comes to pass and if he knows the future on the basis of his decreed pur-poses, then we are not responsible for what we do. To this he replies that sin-

ners are like horses with two or three good feet; they stumble and fall but are still serviceable for accomplishing God’s purposes. Their infi rmity is in their nature, so it is not God’s fault. All God does is use their capabilities to bring about his good ends (p. 204). In fact this sets forth in a startling way God’s greatness and goodness. Evil people will do evil; part of the glory of God is that he can take their naturally evil deeds (without making the person evil or adding evil to their nature) and work them together for good (p. 206).

Furthermore Luther is also aware that this theological stance will evoke the same objections Paul rhetorically poses in Romans 9. Again at this point Luther’s insistence on placing reason at the service of clear biblical teaching guides his analysis: “Is it not an auda-cious way of searching, to try and har-monize the wholly free foreknowledge of God with our own freedom, and to be ready to deny the foreknowledge of God if it does not allow us freedom and if it imposes necessity on us, to say with the blasphemous complain-ers: ‘Why doth He yet fi nd fault? For who shall resist His will? Where is the God Whose nature is kindness itself? Where is He that willeth not the death of the sinner? Has He cre-ated us merely to delight Himself in men’s torments?’—and the like; which sentiments the damned in hell will be howling out to all eternity!” (p. 216).

This is strong language but no less strong than Paul’s language in Romans 9, yet it just seems strik-ingly hard to swallow. In a candid, personal moment Luther bears his heart and says, “…it is this that has been the great stumbling block to so many great men down the ages. And who would not stumble at it? I have stumbled at it myself more than once, down to the deepest pit of despair, so that I wished I had never been made a man. (That was before I knew how health-giving that despair was, and

Issue 198 June 2013 Page 11White—Continued from page 9how close to grace.)” (p. 217) For Lu-

ther (as for Calvin) the secret decrees of God are beyond our ken. We do not understand them, nor can we un-derstand them—but we are told about them in Scripture and are expected to receive the biblical teaching on them as God’s truth. Full comprehension is not necessary but humble acceptance is.

There was for Luther the assurance that a day was coming when all of God’s wisdom in these issues would be revealed. His great justice would emerge unsullied with every eye see-ing it and every mouth stopped (pp. 314-315). What at the present time the human mind cannot comprehend and what the human heart cannot encom-pass will on that future day be made plain. Even if we still fail to perfectly understand all things, our diffi culties and problems will melt away in the light of glory (p. 316).

Using contemporary categories, Luther’s BW would fi t comfortably into the compatibilist camp. This is true not only theologically but also in terms of his philosophical assess-ments. His view of foreknowledge ruling out libertarianism coupled with his view of moral responsibility is compatibilistic. His view of God using the evil nature of sinners to accom-plish his good purposes is likewise

compatibilistic (although his expres-sion of it trades more on ultimate and effi cient causes, a distinction I’m not perfectly comfortable with when used in theodicies). Furthermore his assess-ment that people act freely when they do what they want, even though they cannot change their natures or will, again blends determinism and respon-sibility in a compatibilist mold.

Beyond his actual biblical, theo-logical, and philosophical arguments lie his Christian presuppositions. It is asserted more than argued that Scripture is the fi nal court of appeal. Luther assumes God knows real-ity exhaustively and is an infallible and authoritative guide. When God speaks, the issue is settled. Although there is room to quibble with some of the cogency of some of his arguments (even when one is in general agree-ment with his overall conclusion), his attitude towards human reason and God’s Word is exemplary. All of our theological refl ection needs to be guided and controlled by the param-eters set forth in God’s Word. For all of his personal and intellectual imper-fections, this is one area where Luther shines as a bright example centuries after his life and work. May God give us the grace to approach all biblical issues in this same spirit.

ing to defi nite rules.”5 In Colossae, there were intruders trying to force the Colossians to live a certain way with regard to food, drink, festivals and Sabbaths (Col 2:16). They were insisting on asceticism (Col 2:18). But we have died to the law (Rom 7:4) and have died to the elemental spirits of the world (Col 2:20), and are no longer required to “submit to its rules: Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!” (2:20-21). Verlyn Verbrugge writes, “Thus ‘the basic principles of the world’ cover all the things in which humans place trust apart from the living God revealed in Christ.”6

This perspective is also clear from Philippians 3:2. The Judaizers were very concerned about being cer-emonially clean, doing good works, and being circumcised and Paul provocatively calls them dogs (un-clean), evil doers (opposite of good), and those who mutilate the fl esh (tēn katatōmēn). There is a word play at work here on the word circumcision (peritōmē). He is saying that those who cut themselves thinking this will gain salvation are “like the frenzied prophets of Baal who were frustrated that their god would not answer their pleas” (see 1 Kin 18:28; Lev 19:28, 21:5 LXX).7 Paul tells those who would force Christians to be circum-cised that they should go ahead and lop the whole thing off (apokoptō) (Gal 5:12), with the result that they will not be able to enter the church of the Lord (Deut 23:1, 23:2 LXX - apokoptō)!

5 Verlyn D. Verbrugge, ed., New Inter-national Dictionary of New Testament Theology: Abridged Edition (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000), 541.

6 Ibid. 7 Thielman, Theology of the New Testa-

ment, 318.

The law requires work of human achievement; the gospel requires faith in Christ’s achievement.

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

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

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

abolishing of the Gospel.”

John Stott

Page 12 June 2013 Issue 198Gilliland—Continued from page 1

Gilliland—Continued on page 18

not a new reality for the individual be-liever, but a new kind of covenant that would be characterized by all of its members knowing the Lord. Although a result of the Spirit’s work in regen-eration, the internalization of God’s law is not to be equated with the NT gift of the indwelling Spirit as it has always defi ned the child of God. And of course, the indwelling Spirit is not a new reality spatially, for the Spirit is omnipresent and has always been intimately related to us as the apostle Paul records, “He is not far from each of us; for ‘in him we live and have our being’” (Acts 17:29). And while the reality of the indwelling Spirit is a new reality experientially in the lives of God’s New Covenant people, he has always been the ultimate source of obedience in God’s saints. Note these key OT texts:

The righteous shall inherit the land and dwell upon it forever. The mouth of the righteous utters wisdom, and his tongue speaks justice. The law of his God is in his heart; his steps do not slip. (Psalm 37:29-31)

In sacrifi ce and offering you have not delighted, but you have given me an open ear. Burnt offering and sin offering you have not required. Then I said, “Behold, I have come; in the scroll of the book it is written of me: I delight to do your will, O my God; your law is within my heart. (Psalm 40:6-8)

Listen to me, you who know righ-teousness, the people in whose heart is my law…my righteousness will be forever, and my salvation to all gen-erations.” (Isaiah 51:7-8)

The law written on the heart does not refer to a specifi c codifi ed content, although I wouldn’t entirely disagree with those that suggest it is a gen-eral love for God and neighbor – the two greatest commandments. The law written on the heart is simply the disposition of every regenerate soul that longs for the relationship of covenantal obedience to their Lord

and Savior – the desire to do the will of God. Psalm 86:11-13 is a good summary: “Teach me your way, O LORD, that I may walk in your truth; unite my heart to fear your name. I give thanks to you, O Lord my God, with my whole heart, and I will glorify your name forever. For great is your steadfast love toward me; you have delivered my soul from the depths of Sheol.” And what Jeremiah 31:31-34 points to is a day when every cov-enant member will “know the Lord,” and share not only the experience of David that is refl ected in these psalms, but the experience and reality that is perfectly refl ected in his greater Son and our covenant head, the Lord Jesus Christ.

The Specifi c Characteristics of the “Grace Movement”: #2 – “His-torical-Redemptive Reductionism”

What is the result if we posit a different kind of obedience, an obedi-ence that transcends or excludes an intentional or volitional response to the written word? It results in a “Historical-Redemptive” reduction-ism. Within the “Grace Movement” in general, including some who use the term NCT, there is an increasing ten-dency toward a Barthian type theol-ogy, one that promotes unbiblical im-plications and applications regarding the legitimate distinction between the Word of God and the Incarnate Word, as well as the increasing exclusivity of the redemptive story or “Historical-Redemptive” paradigm.

One Internet participant posted, “Christ in me is all I need to be led in the paths of righteousness. No impera-tives required. He IS suffi cient for all righteousness!” Now certainly, as a basic statement regarding ultimate authority and signifi cance, there is no denying the truth of the statement, “Christ in me is all I need.” It would be similar to Paul’s reference to the preeminence of Christ in Colossians 1:15-17, “All things are by him…through him…and for him,” or his

statement in Romans 11:36, “For from him and through him and to him are all things.” But while these state-ments provide a doxological summary of true religion, they are not at the same time the whole counsel of God and can and are being used in a way that minimizes or ignores the God-ordained means of the Word of God, prayer, and the fellowship of the local church.

Allow me to interact with an author (in italics) that puts it this way: “The Bible is inspired by the Holy Ghost. I want to get that out of the way right off the bat. That said, I have established over and over again in this blog that Jesus redefi ned the phrase ‘word of God’ to be the gospel, or himself, the living walking gospel and gave Scripture a solely re-demptive focus. Paul also reinforced the redemptive focus of Scripture in 2 Timothy 3:15. He told Timothy that the Scripture would make one wise for salvation and thereby established the solely redemptive focus. Verses 16 and 17 of the same passage must be viewed within the redemptive purpose. In other words, it is only profi table from a redemptive point of view.” Is that what 2 Timothy 3:16, 17 says? This in my opinion is biblical eisoge-sis, not exegesis. He continues, “The unbelieving Pharisees are examples of it not being profi table.” But I would answer, “Of course they are, they were unregenerate men!” The author concludes, “It will enable us to take the Scripture for what it is rather than turn it into an idol that we in reality place above God…. Removing biblio-idolatry would give us the opportunity to ask the question; how would love react to this or that?”1

Biblio-idolatry? Really? Was Paul pitting Sola Scriptura against Solo Christo in 2 Timothy 3:16, 17? Com-menting on John Frame’s “The Doc-

1 http://paradigmshift-jmac.blogspot.com.

Issue 198 June 2013 Page 13

McAloon—Continued on page 14

McAloon—Cont. from page 7and determine whether or not this is actually the case, and I would highly recommend reading these primary sources and meditating over the Scriptures NCT theologians discuss.5 To adequately do so in this brief study would go beyond the course of this paper; therefore my purpose here is to faithfully set forth the central tenets of NCT and its distinctions, with the hope of arousing the interests of those who have been thus far unsatisfi ed with tradition and have a heart to bet-ter handle the Scriptures in order to love Christ and appreciate the salva-tion he has purchased more deeply.

A Brief Comparison of Biblical-theological Systems

Before diving into the details of NCT, it is important to fi rst briefl y summarize the primary systems within evangelical theology that it fi nds wanting in many areas. Al-though not entirely monolithic, and with many intricate variations within their respective schools of thought, the two general theological categories are Covenant Theology and Dispensation-alism. What must be kept in mind is that although these approaches differ in many important interpretations of Scripture, they have all been held by

5 Some good starting points are: Wells and Zaspel, New Covenant Theol-ogy; and Steve Lehrer, New Covenant Theology: Questions Answered, (Steve Lehrer, 2006), also available for free here: http://www.ids.org/pdf/nctbook.pdf. It must be noted that although there will be references to Lehrer’s work throughout this discussion because of its clarity and accuracy regarding the central tenets of NCT, most NCT theologians distance them-selves from him because of his par-ticular views concerning incest and the salvifi c merits of the active obedience of Christ. Like any theological discus-sion, references within this paper are not meant to endorse all views and opinions of their authors, but rather to cite relevant and true statements where there is common ground.

many devout and godly Christians who, although they have nuanced their views in slightly different ways, have generally had fundamental agree-ments on the central issues of God and salvation.6

Covenant Theology: Continuity

Covenant Theology is an interpre-tative framework that revolves around the continuity of God’s covenants with his people. Pertinent to this discussion are the system’s interpretations of the covenants God has personally made with man in time.7 The basic founda-tions around which the whole system revolves are as follows:8

Man is always in covenant rela-tionship with God. The reason being is that God is transcendent, and the distance is so great between Him and His creatures that man could not enjoy any blessings from Him unless He fi rst decided to condescend to them by way of covenant (See Westminster Confes-sion of Faith [hereafter WCF], VII.I).

The whole of Scripture is covered by two covenants. Rather than the Old and New, these covenants are the Covenant of Works and Covenant of Grace. The Covenant of Works was made with Adam prior to the Fall, which promised him eternal life upon his perfect obedience (WCF VII.II). The Covenant of Grace was made with man after the Fall, whereby God

6 An exception may be taken with some of the earlier Dispensationalists, but generally this is the case. See John S. Feinberg, ed., Continuity and Discon-tinuity: Perspectives on the Relation-ship Between the Old and New Testa-ments (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1988), 310.

7 I have not yet come across any NCT material that touches on Covenanta-lism’s concept of an eternal covenant made between the Father and Son to redeem the elect before creation, nor do I think that an affi rmation or denial of such a covenant would affect any of its positions.

8 Much of what follows is taken from Reisinger’s summary in Abraham’s Four Seeds, 121-124.

freely offered sinners life and salva-tion by Jesus Christ, requiring only faith in Him (WCF VII.III). This one Covenant of Grace was given two ad-ministrations: one under the law and Old Covenant, and another under the gospel and New Covenant [emphasis mine] (WCF VII.V).

Woven within these two broad and general summary points are many presuppositions and implications that must be addressed. To begin with, there are three primary presupposi-tions which many theologians in dif-fering camps take issue with: 1. There is one unchanging Covenant of Grace that has two administrations under the Old and New Covenants; 2. There is one redeemed people of God in all ages under one unchanging covenant; 3. There is one unchanging moral law for the one redeemed people under the one covenant, viz. the Ten Command-ments.9 Some implications of their postulations are that, like Israel, both believers and unbelievers are under the physical New Covenant admin-istration; like infants born under the Old Covenant, infants born to families under the New Covenant are to re-ceive the sign of that covenant which has changed from circumcision to baptism; Moses’ Ten Commandments are the law and rule for New Testa-ment believers; and a church state is something to be sought after.

Covenant Theology as a formal system really began with Ulrich Zwingli and was retained in the Reformed and Puritan churches. An honest reading of history may lead one to see that many inherited presup-positions subconsciously led some of the early Protestants to develop and hold such a view. Zwingli and others were born into a culture where the establishment of infant baptism and the propriety of a magisterial church state was simply assumed; thus these

9 John Reisinger, In Defense of Jesus, the New Lawgiver (Frederick, MD: New Covenant Media, 2008), 185.

Page 14 June 2013 Issue 198

theologians were forced to adopt a new hermeneutical approach to Scrip-ture that would serve to justify these practices under the New Covenant, and eventually the idea of the unity of a Covenant of Grace was born.10 Sa-cralism is the logical conclusion and application of this theology, and it was this view that resulted in the justifi ca-tion of the persecution of groups like the Anabaptists and kept the major-ity of Puritans from fully reforming and establishing churches that could truly live and worship consistently in the spirit of the New Covenant.11

Apart from many objections based solely upon exegesis, these are some of the negative aspects of this system of thought which has led many to turn away and seek for a better way for un-derstanding Scripture and the nature of the New Covenant.

Dispensationalism: Discontinuity

Dispensationalism is a relatively more modern method of reading Scripture, although considering the timeline of church history, so is Covenant Theology. Whereas the latter believes that covenants are the keys to understanding Scripture, the former holds that dispensations are the answer. The basic tenet of most Dispensationalists is that man’s relationship to God is not the same in every age. Throughout history it has been necessary to bring fallen man into divine testing. In separate and distinct dispensations, or periods of testing, God has demonstrated every possible means of dealing with man.12

10 See Wells and Zaspel, 2-3; also Jack Cottrell, “Baptism in the Reformed Tradition,” in David W. Fletcher, ed., Baptism and the Remission of Sins (Jo-plin, Missouri: College Press, 1990), 50.

11 Reisinger, Abraham’s Four Seeds, ii.12 Lewis Sperry Chafer, revised by John

F. Walvoord, Major Bible Themes (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1974), 127; referenced in Reis-inger, Abraham’s Four Seeds, 126.

Generally, traditional Dispensational-ists have held to seven distinct dispen-sations of this type: 1. Dispensation of Innocence (Age of Liberty) from Gen. 1:26-3:6; 2. Conscience (Age of Human Determination) from Gen. 3:7-8:19; 3. Human Government (Covenant with Noah) from Gen. 8:20-11:9; 4. Promise (Covenant with Abraham) from Gen. 11:10-Ex. 19:2; 5. Law (the Nation of Israel) from Ex. 19:3-Acts 2; 6. Grace (the Church) from Acts 2 until the rapture; 7. Kingdom (The Millennium) from the Second Coming until the fi nal destruc-tion of the present world.13 Again, this system is not monolithic, and there are many derivations within its camp such as Progressive Dispensationalism; however, many of the same principles hold true for each.

Dispensationalists are devout defenders of Scripture who dedicate themselves to strict and “literal” interpretations of biblical texts, and are known to be adamantly against “spiritualizing” Scripture.14 In a sense, all conservatives make such a claim; however, Dispensationalists are said to isolate texts and take them on the sur-face in their most basic forms, which many theologians see a problem with. For instance, Reisinger points out the fact that the Scofi eld Reference Bible never cross-references Peter’s state-ments recorded in Acts 3:24-26 which refer to the promise made to Abraham in Gen. 12:1-3, and believes that this is because Dispensationalists cannot fi t Peter’s “spiritualized” interpreta-tion of the simple and literal promises made to Abraham consistently into their system.15 He also points out that the NT Scriptures go against their

13 Ibid., 129-136; in Reisinger, Abra-ham’s Four Seeds, 127-128.

14 John Feinberg, “Systems of Disconti-nuity” in Continuity and Discontinu-ity: Perspectives on the Relationship Between the Old and New Testaments (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1988), 73.

15 Reisinger, Abraham’s Four Seeds, 41.

hermeneutic by “spiritualizing” the OT land promise in passages where one would expect to see it reiterated (i.e., in the sermons recorded in the book of Acts, the book of Hebrews, and in passages like Luke 1:68-79).16 In addition to their literalistic her-meneutic, some distinctions within their system are that they believe that there is a sharp and defi nite distinc-tion between the church and Israel, and God has always had a different plan for both; the church did not begin until Pentecost, thus spiritual realities within the body of Christ such as baptism of the Spirit and indwelling of Christ were differ-ent than the experience of any OT saint; believers under the law of Christ are under a different code than the Mosaic law (including the Ten Commandments); there will be a literal fulfi llment of a millennium with a special emphasis on Israel; and many see the church as a sort of “parenthesis” in God’s overall plan of redemption.17 Many of these points have much in common with NCT, while others do not. New Covenant theologians and many other critics do not feel com-fortable with Dispensationalism’s strict literalism and pronounced separation of Israel and the church, and believe that their system over-looks many biblical texts that seem to go against its rigorous emphasis on discontinuity.18

16 Ibid., 92-93.17 See John Feinberg, “Systems of Dis-

continuity,” 71-85; O. Palmer Robert-son, “Hermeneutics of Continuity,” 107; and Robert L. Saucy, “Israel and the Church: A Case for Discontinuity,” 249-250; in Feinberg, ed., Continuity and Discontinuity.

18 For further analysis, see the opposing authors’ comments at the end of John Feinberg, “Systems of Discontinuity”; Paul D. Feinberg, “Hermeneutics of Discontinuity”; and Saucy, “Israel and

McAloon—Continued from page 13

Issue 198 June 2013 Page 15clear-cut view of the Doctrines of Grace and the unity of the Scriptures aligns us with the Reformers and the Puritans.... Our view of the unity of the Scriptures makes it impossible for us to accept the Dispensationalism set forth in the Scofi eld Reference Bible. On the other hand, our Baptistic view that the New Covenant in Jesus Christ has replaced the Old Covenant at Si-nai makes it just as impossible for us to accept the Covenant Theology set forth in the Westminster Confession of Faith.”21

Now that we have a background for the topic at hand, it is necessary to provide a brief summary of the cen-tral tenets of NCT before discussing some of its intricacies. Although not entirely comprehensive, below is a helpful list that helps sum up the posi-tions that will be discussed through-out the course of this study:

Abrahamic Covenant

The Abrahamic Covenant reveals God’s plan to save a people and take them into his land. The Old Covenant with the nation of Israel and the Promised Land is a temporary picture of what is accomplished by the New Covenant, by which Jesus actually purchased a people and will take them to be with him forever in the new heavens and new earth.

Old Covenant

The Old or Mosaic Covenant is a legal or works covenant that God made with Israel on Mount Sinai. This covenant is brought to an end and is fulfi lled at the cross. It was never intended to save people, but instead its purpose was to increase sin and guilt until the coming of the Savior. Israel, under the Mosaic Cov-21 Reisinger, Abraham’s Four Seeds, iii.

enant, was the physical fulfi llment of the Abrahamic Covenant.

New Covenant

The New Covenant is a gracious covenant. Those included in the cov-enant are reconciled to God by grace alone apart from anything they do. Jesus purchased a people by his death on the cross so that all those for whom he died receive full forgiveness of sins and become incurable God-lovers by the Holy Spirit. The New Covenant is the spiritual fulfi llment of the Abraha-mic Covenant.

Law

The version of law in the Old Cov-enant era was the Mosaic law, which included the Ten Commandments. The Mosaic law has passed away with the coming of Christ and the New Covenant. God no longer requires people to follow the Mosaic law. The version of law in the New Covenant era is the law of Christ, which in-cludes the commands of Christ that pertain to the New Covenant era and the commands of his apostles.

Israel and the Church

Israel in the Old Covenant era was a temporary, unbelieving picture of the true people of God: the church. There always existed a small remnant of believers within unbelieving Israel. When Jesus Christ came, the picture of the people of God gave way to the true people of God consisting of both Jews and Gentiles.

The Cross

By his death on the cross, Jesus purchased both complete forgiveness of sins past, present, and future as well as a changed life or new heart for all those for whom he died. Believ-ers love Christ more than sin and are characterized by repentance when they sin. Christ’s work on the cross is the New Covenant.22

22 Taken from Lehrer, 19.

New Covenant Theology

NCT is not an intentional middle ground or blending of these two sys-tems; however, through many con-clusions derived from biblical texts, it does hold various aspects in com-mon with both. Some disagreements we and others have with the above systems are that, like most traditions, they allow their presuppositions to drive their exegesis of some texts at the expense of others; neither system understands the biblical doctrine of the church as the body of Christ in the redemptive purposes of God; neither really has a true New Covenant re-placing an Old Covenant where both relate to the same redemptive pur-poses of God for his one true people, thus both are unable to fi t Hebrews 8 in either system; and neither sees the true relationship of Israel and the church, in that both insist on bring-ing the physical aspect of Israel as a nation into the New Testament either directly or indirectly.19 Through our study and weighing of Scriptures, we have come to many conclusions in these matters that line up with those of the early Anabaptists and a chorus of many Christians throughout church history.20 To defi ne our position in the spectrum of Christian Theology, Reisinger says the following:

“We fi nd ourselves in the odd position of being stepchildren of both the Reformers and the Anabaptists, but the true heirs of neither…. Our

the Church: A Case for Discontinu-ity”; in Ibid.

19 See Reisinger, Abraham’s Four Seeds, i-iv, 117-119; and Wells and Zaspel, 259-270.

20 See Wells and Zaspel, 22-32; and John Reisinger, In Defense of Jesus, 41.

By saying, a new covenant, He has declared that the fi rst is old. And what is old and aging is about to disappear. Hebrews 8:13

(from Holman Christian Standard Bible® Copyright © 1999, 2000, 2002, 2003, 2005 by Holman Bible Publishers.)

Page 16 June 2013 Issue 198

Postage & Handling RatesUnited States

Up to $20.00 $3.95$20.01—$50.00 $6.00$50.01 and Up 12%

Postage & Handling RatesOverseas—Discover, VISA or

MasterCardPlease call or e-mail for rates

Postage & Handling RatesCanada—Discover, VISA or

MasterCard

Up to $30.00 $7.50$30.01 and Up 25%

Ship to: ________________________________Street address: __________________________City: _______________ State: ______Zip: ____Country: _______________________________

□ My check (payable to New Covenant Media) is enclosed□ Charge to my: □ Discover □ VISA □ MasterCard Expires _______/_______Account Number: ______/______/______/______Signature: ________________________________

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

TITLE LIST SALE QTY COSTWarfi eld on the Christian Life—Fred G. Zaspel $17.99 $14.39The Theology of B.B. Warfi eld—Fred G. Zaspel $40.00 $29.95Philosophical Dialgoues on the Christian Faith—Steve West $12.00 $9.50What Jesus Demands from the World—John Piper $19.99 $13.25The First London Confession of Faith-1646 Edition—Preface by Gary D. Long

$7.99 $6.50

All Things New—Carl Hoch $19.98 $15.95Context! Evangelical Views on the Millenium Examined—Gary D. Long $25.00 $17.50The Doctrine of Christ—William Sasser $4.75 $3.75The Doctrine of Salvation—William Sasser $4.75 $3.75The Doctrine of Man—William Sasser $4.75 $3.75

The Doctrine of God—William Sasser $4.00 $3.00The Atoning Work of Jesus Christ—William Sasser $5.00 $4.00The New Covenant and the Law of Christ—Chris Scarborough $10.95 $9.50Should Christians Fear God Today?—John Korsgaard $6.95 $3.50Justifi cation by Faith—James White $6.95 $2.75Answers to Catholic Claims—James White $9.95 $2.00The Fatal Flaw—James White $11.95 $2.50God’s Sovereign Grace—James White $8.95 $3.50Behind the Watchtower Curtain—David A. Reed $10.95 $2.00How to Share Christ with a Jehovah’s Witness—Patrick J. Campbell $5.95 $2.50The Reformers and Their Stepchildren—Leonard Verduin $9.95 $9.50The Pilgrim’s Progress (The Accurate Revised Text by Barry E. Horner) $12.00 $9.75Biblical Eldership—Alexander Strauch $14.99 $9.30Biblical Eldership Study Guide—Alexander Strauch $19.99 $12.50Biblical Eldership Mentor’s Guide—Alexander Strauch $19.99 $12.50

Total PriceSee Rate Charts Below Shipping

Canadian orders—Discover, Visa or MasterCard only—please. Total Order

Issue 198 June 2013 Page 17

Defi nite Atonement —Long $10.95 $8.76The Doctrine of Baptism—Sasser $3.50 $2.80Full Bellies and Empty Hearts—Autio $14.99 $12.00Galatians: A Theological Interpretation—White $15.95 $12.76Grace—Reisinger $13.95 $11.16The Grace of Our Sovereign God—Reisinger $19.99 $16.00Hermeneutical Flaws of Dispensationalism—George $10.75 $8.60In Defense of Jesus, the New Lawgiver—Reisinger $23.95 $15.95Is John G. Reisinger an Antinomian?—Wells $4.25 $3.40John Bunyan on the Sabbath—Reisinger $3.00 $2.80Jonathan Edwards on Biblical Hermeneutics and the “Covenant of Grace”—Gilliland

$3.95 $3.16

La Soberanía de Dios en la Providencia—John G. Reisinger $7.50 $6.00The Law of Christ: A Theological Proposal—White $14.95 $11.96Limited Atonement—Reisinger $7.00 $5.60Ministry of Grace Essays in Honor of John G. Reisinger—Steve West, Editor $14.85 $11.88The New Birth— Reisinger $5.50 $4.40The New Covenant and New Covenant Theology—Zaspel $11.99 $9.60New Covenant Theology—Wells & Zaspel $19.95 $15.96New Covenant Theology & Prophecy—Reisinger $12.99 $10.39The Newness of the New Covenant—White $12.99 $10.39The New Perspective on Justifi cation —West $9.99 $8.00The Obedience of Christ—Van Court $2.50 $2.00Our Sovereign God— Reisinger $4.45 $3.56Perseverance of the Saints— Reisinger $6.00 $4.80The Priority of Jesus Christ—Wells $11.95 $9.56A Prisoner’s Christianity—Woodrow $12.99 $10.39Saving the Saving Gospel—West $12.99 $10.39Sinners, Jesus Will Receive—Payne $9.99 $8.00Studies in Galatians—Reisinger $19.99 $15.96Studies in Ecclesiastes—Reisinger $19.99 $15.96Tablets of Stone—Reisinger $10.95 $8.75Theological Foundations for New Covenant Ethics—White $14.99 $12.00The Sovereignty of God and Prayer—Reisinger $5.75 $4.60The Sovereignty of God in Providence— Reisinger $4.45 $3.56Total Depravity— Reisinger $5.00 $4.00Union with Christ: Last Adam and Seed of Abraham—White $11.95 $9.56What is the Christian Faith?— Reisinger $2.50 $2.00What is New Covenant Theology? An Introduction—White $12.99 10.39When Should a Christian Leave a Church?—Reisinger $3.75 $3.00

Total PriceSee Shipping Rate Charts on Page 16 Shipping

Total

TITLE LIST SALE QTY COSTAbide in Him: A Theological Interpretation of John's First Letter — White $13.95 $11.16Abraham’s Four Seeds—Reisinger $10.95 $8.76The Believer’s Sabbath—Reisinger $3.75 $3.00Biblical Law and Ethics: Absolute and Covenantal—Long $15.75 $12.60But I Say Unto You—Reisinger $10.95 $8.68Chosen in Eternity—Reisinger $5.50 $4.40Christ, Lord and Lawgiver Over the Church—Reisinger $2.50 $2.00The Christian and The Sabbath—Wells $11.99 $9.59Continuity and Discontinuity—Reisinger $12.95 10.36

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

Page 18 June 2013 Issue 198Gilliland—Continued from page 12

trine of the Christian Life,” Douglas Moo’s insights are worthy of note:

The tendency toward subjectiv-ity invades the Christian church as well…. In a chapter dealing with redemptive history as an aspect of the situational perspective…Frame suggests that the fascination with redemptive history in the contempo-rary academy has created an imbal-ance in preaching, in which preachers avoid holding up biblical characters as moral examples out of a concern to avoid “moralism”.… I share what seems to be Frame’s concern that a renewed emphasis on the redemptive-historical and narrative dimension in Scripture can go too far and push out other important dimensions of the text.… He rightly recognizes the fact that Scripture confronts believers with authoritative demands from God, de-mands that cannot be relativized away with a vague appeal to love or to the diffi culties of situations that we fi nd ourselves in.2

In one blog interaction I was asked, “Is the living Christ of greater value to his saints than the written Word?” First of all, the question il-lustrates another characteristic of this movement: the fallacy of the “either-or.” My answer was and is, “In the believer they are never separated.” Christ never separated them in his relationship with his Father; the desire to do the Father’s will was his contin-ual focus. And although strengthened and nurtured by the Spirit, he would still say, “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that pro-ceeds from the mouth of God” (Matt. 4:4). The authors of Scripture never separated them when referring to the walk of the believer with God. The written Word of God is the vital tool of the Spirit, one that in his hand is 2 Douglas J. Moo, Review of John M.

Frame, The Doctrine of the Chris-tian Life, 61st Annual Meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society (New Orleans, November 2009), http://andynaselli.com/wp-content/uploads/Moo_reviews_Frame.pdf.

part of the indispensable whole armor of God (Eph. 6). Our relationship with God is exactly the same; we interact with the Word just as if the Lord Jesus were sitting in front of us. When the woman said to Jesus, “Blessed is the womb that bore you, and the breasts at which you nursed,” some would expect Jesus to say, “But I am sitting right in front of you, you have me, you need nothing else.” But what was his answer? “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it!” (Luke 11:27-28). It is no wonder that this characteristic defi nes the true saint throughout this age. How does John characterize the believer in these last days? “Then the dragon became furious with the woman and went off to make war on the rest of her offspring, on those who keep the commandments of God and hold to the testimony of Jesus.” (Rev. 12:17). And this echoes the fi rst blessing in Revelation: “Blessed is the one who reads aloud the words of this proph-ecy, and blessed are those who hear, and who keep what is written in it, for the time is near” (Rev. 1:3).

And for some in the broader “Grace Movement” as it is gener-ally used, it has come to a point of

not only reducing the Christian life to “who Jesus is” or “what He has done” – to the exclusion of what he has commanded or instructed – but to simply the “cross event.” Peter Mead, an English author, in his blog on biblical preaching recently gives this example, “So what does this [new approach] mean for preachers? Well, for one, perhaps we need to put more preaching effort into present-ing Christ and him crucifi ed, and less effort into pressing Christians to copy Christ and his character exemplifi ed.”3

And some will go even further in reducing the signifi cance of the cross to just sacrifi ce and forgiveness. While not minimizing those realities and blessings in any sense, the cross is also about redemption or life under new ownership, as well as recon-ciliation or restoration of intended relationship and function. The bibli-cal doctrine of sanctifi cation is about learning to refl ect the reality of our redemption and reconciliation. Reduc-ing the Christian life to simply a re-

3 Peter Mead, New Covenant and Heart Transformation, http://biblicalpreach-ing.net/2012/07/06/preaching-new-covenant-and-heart-transformation.

Approval junkies live as hostages to other people’s opinions and judgments regarding their thoughts, motives, feelings, or behaviors. Approval seekers look good; they have to... But people-pleasing isn’t godly, nor is it healthy. Appeasers usually end up

feeling used, unappreciated, and driven to become all things to all people in order to maintain their

image and receive continued approval. They appear giving but in fact they are enslaved to their

insatiable need to be admired.

Nancy Groom

From Bondage to Bonding: Escaping Codependency, Embracing Biblical

Love, NavPress, 1991, p. 35

Issue 198 June 2013 Page 19fl ection on the cross undermines a sig-nifi cant part of its purpose. We can’t forget or in any way minimize the centrality of the cross-work of Christ as the motivation for everything that we do on Christ’s behalf, but we also can’t ignore all the Scriptures tell us regarding the practical implications and responsibilities associated with it – “all Scripture” in its covenantal context (2 Tim. 3:16, 17).

The Specifi c Characteristics of the “Grace Movement”: #3 – “Love vs. Commandment Reductionism”

One writer made this statement, “The risen and exalted Christ now issues the new eschatological ‘law’ of the Spirit of Life, through which we love with his love.” While certainly love is and has always been the only legitimate motivation for biblical obe-dience, the important question then is, “Does love now replace all specifi c commandment, precept, or principle?” Tom Schreiner’s comments are espe-cially worthy of note:

The Beatles wrote a popular song titled, “All you need is love.” On fi rst glance Paul appears to be saying the same thing in Rom. 13:8-10, for he says that the only thing we owe one another is love and that love fulfi lls the law. What we need to do in each situ-ation of life, then, is to ask ourselves, what is the most loving thing to do in this circumstance?… The fi rst mistake is to say that since love fulfi lls the law we no longer have any need for commandments…. Those who believe this way bristle against imposing any commands upon believers. They think this is a form of legalism…. Certainly love involves more than the keeping of commandments, but it never involves anything less than keeping them. Love goes beyond the keeping of God’s law, but it never goes around the keeping of God’s law…. The second error is the opposite of the fi rst one…. It is also a mistake to say that keeping commandments is the sum and totality of love…. No one can be loving who violates the commandments, but we may not be acting in genuine love

while keeping the commandments because we may be keeping them to bring honor and praise to ourselves instead of to God (Rom. 1:21). True love involves the motivation of the heart and thus it is deeper than the practicing of certain command-ments. Keeping God’s commands is crucial, but love must retain pri-macy…. The commandments God gives us are like the banks of a river that control the fl ow of the river; when we violate God’s command-ments we cause the river to run over the banks, and thus it loses its power and beauty. If we add command-ments not found in the Scriptures, we widen the banks of the river so that it becomes slow and stagnant and loses its life and vitality.4

In his book, Keeping in Step with the Spirit, J.I. Packer gives a similar perspective:

Love looks (not away from, but) beyond rules and principles (which is the only thing that the natural man can see, I might add) to persons and seeks their welfare and glory. Love is not essentially a feeling of affec-tion, but a way of behaving, and if it starts as a feeling, it must become more than a feeling if it is truly to be love…. There have always been those on the one hand who have claimed that if the Spirit indwells you and the motive of love is strong within you, you do not need to study God’s law in Scripture in order to learn his will, for you will always be made immediately aware in every situation what it is that he wants.5

And how often in our counsel-ing ministries are we faced with someone who believes they are do-ing what is most loving – even led

4 Tom Schreiner, Sermon: Loving One Another Fulfi lls The Law, Romans 13:8-10, Southern Baptist Theologi-cal Seminary, http://www.sbts.edu/documents/tschreiner/Rom_13.8-10.pdf, 104-107.

5 J.I. Packer, Keeping in Step With the Spirit: Finding Fullness in Our Walk with God, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2005), 94.

by the Spirit – in a given situation, when in reality they are contrary to the Word of God? And I am not re-ferring here to issues of conscience, but actions and choices with con-scious disregard for acknowledged biblical principles or command-ments. A very common example in marital counseling relates to the issue of a professing believer know-ingly becoming unequally yoked with a nonbeliever. How common is it for a young person to argue that marrying their unbelieving girl/boyfriend is the most loving thing to do? If we reduce the biblical imperatives to the life of Christ, what events in the life of Jesus or specifi c statements in his teach-ing would lead one to unequivo-cally conclude that voluntary union between a believer and nonbeliever is sinful? If anything, one might conclude by Jesus’ public associa-tion with nonbelievers that marriage outside of Christ is permissible; at least that is the assertion of many in our day. But if there is any question, it is the specifi c commandment by the apostle Paul in 2 Corinthians 6:14 that gives us God’s will on the issue. As Schreiner and Packer noted, what is loving in every situ-ation cannot be reduced to specifi c commandments. And for that mat-ter, it is a theological straw man to suggest that anyone in the current NCT debate believes that the law of Christ can be reduced to a defi ned list of rules. What it means to “love our neighbor” cannot be defi ned by specifi c commandments in every possible scenario; that must include the general principles of the Word of God as well as the Spirit-guided conscience. But when we do have a specifi c commandment, as in the scenario of being unequally yoked, we do know unequivocally what is the right and most loving thing to do in that scenario.

SOVEREIGN GRACE NEW COVENANT MINISTRIES5317 WYE CREEK DRIVEFREDERICK, MARYLAND 21703-6938

FORWARDING SERVICE REQUESTED

Check your label for expiration.This is Issue 198 Please renew your

subscription promptly. NON-PROFIT

ORGANIZATIONU.S. POSTAGE PAID

PER MIT NO. 45FR EDER ICK, MD 21701

Salvation is of Grace, from First to Last!(James Smith, "Salvation, for WHOM is it Provided?" 1859)

"For those He foreknew—He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son.

And those He predestined—He also called;

and those He called—He also justifi ed;

and those He justifi ed—He also glorifi ed."

Romans 8:29-30

The Father chose His people to salvation before time, and gave them to His beloved Son.

The Son came into the world to be the atoning sacrifi ce for their sins—that they might live through Him.

The Holy Spirit accompanies the preaching of His Word with power—and as many as are ordained to eternal life, believe.

Thus, all whom He predestined, or eternally loved—He effectually calls;

all whom He effectually calls—He justifi es;

and all whom He justifi es—He glorifi es.

The Father in His love chose them to be a peculiar people unto Himself, above all people that dwell on the face of the earth.

The Son redeemed them by His blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation.

The Spirit quickens, sanctifi es, and seals them.

Yes, "Salvation is of the Lord!"

Salvation is of grace, from fi rst to last!Courtesy of Grace Gems: www.GraceGems.org