7/30/2019 Sound of Grace, Issue 198, June 2013
1/20
heart refer? For many, it means a new kind of obedience,
if not the actual indwelling Spirit himself. But if that were
true, what would it say about the sanctification of the OT
saints? Was David or Abraham sanctified by the flesh, bymere response to an external word? What does the writer
of Hebrews say? Without faith it is impossible to please
God (Heb. 11:6), and by faith Abraham obeyed (Heb.
11:8).
We know from the immediate context that the law
written on the heart is first an issue of relationship;
Know the LORD, for they shall all know me, from the
least of them to the greatest. Did the OT saints know
the Lord? This promise is not new individualistically but
covenantally. This is
1 For every high priest taken from among men is ordained for men in things per-
taining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins:
2 Who can have compassion on the ignorant, and on them that are out of the
way; for that he himself also is compassed with infirmity.
3 And by reason hereof he ought, as for the people, so also for himself, to offer
for sins.
4 And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as
was Aaron.
5 So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said
unto him, Thou art my Son, today have I begotten thee. Hebrews 5
Chapter 5 begins the longest section in the book of Hebrews and goes all the
way through chapter 10, verse 39. The sub-
Is s ue 1 9 8 June 2 0 1 3
It is good for the heart to be strengthened by grace Hebrews 13:9
Christ, Our New Covenant High
PriestPart 5
John G. Reisinger
The Specific Characteristics of the
Grace Movement: #1 New Obedience
The first characteristic is what has been referred to as
the New Obedience. Consider the classic text announc-
ing and defining the New Covenant, Jerem iah 31:31-34:
But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of
Israel after those days, declares the LORD: I will put my law
within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be
their God, and they shall be my people. And no longer shall
each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying,
Know the LORD, for they shall all know me, from the least
of them to the greatest, declares the LORD. For I will forgive
their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.
To what, then, does the phrase, the law written on the
The New Heart, The New Covenant, and Not So New
Controversies: A Critique of the Modern
Grace Movement Part 2 of 3
Dr. J. David Gilliland
ReisingerContinued on page 2
Gilliland Continued on page 12
In Th is IssueChrist, Our New Covenant HighPriest Part 5
J ohn G. Reisinger
1
The New Heart, The NewCovenant, and Not So NewControversies: A Critique of theModern "Grace Movement"Part 2 of 3
Dr. J . David Gilliland
1
Doing/Fulfilling the Law
A. Blake White3
The Bondage of the Will
Steve West5
A Study of New CovenantTheology, Part 1 of 4
Kevin P. McAloon
7
Under the Elemental Spirits of theWorld
A. Blake White
9
7/30/2019 Sound of Grace, Issue 198, June 2013
2/20
Page 2 June 2013 Issue 198
Sound of Grace is a publication of Sovereign
Grace New Covenant Ministries, a tax exempt
501(c)3 corporation. Contributions to Sound
of Grace are deductible under section 170 of
the Code.
Sound of Grace is published 10 times a year.
The subscription price is shown below. This is
a paper unashamedly committed to the truth
of Gods sovereign grace and New Covenant
Theology. We invite all who love these sametruths to pray for us and help us financially.
We do not take any paid advertising.
The use of an article by a particular person
is not an endorsement of all that person
believes, but it merely means that we thought
that a particular article was worthy of printing.
Sound of Grace Board: J ohn G. Reisinger,
David Leon, J ohn Thorhauer, Bob VanWing-
erden and J acob Moseley.
Editor: J ohn G. Reisinger; Phone: (585)396-
3385; e-mail: [email protected].
General Manager: J acob Moseley:
Send all orders and all subscriptions to:
Sound of Grace, 5317 Wye Creek Drive,
Frederick, MD 21703-6938 Phone 301-
473-8781 Visit the bookstore: http://www.
newcovenantmedia.com
Address all editorial material and questions
to: J ohn G. Reisinger, 3302 County Road 16,
Canandaigua, NY 14424-2441.
Webpage: www.soundofgrace.org
or SOGNCM.org
Scripture quotations marked (NIV) are taken
from the HOLY BIBLE, NEW INTERNA-
TIONAL VERSIONCopyright 1973, 1978,
1984 by International Bible Society. Used by
Permission. All rights reserved.
Scripture quotations marked NKJ V are
taken from the New King J ames Version.
Copyright 1982 by Thomas Nelson, Inc.
Used by Permission. All rights reserved.
Scripture quotations marked (ESV) are from
The Holy Bible, English Standard Version,
copyright 2001 by Crossway Bibles, a
division of Good News Publishers. Used by
permission. All rights reserved.
Contributions
Orders
Discover, MasterCard or VISA
If you wish to make a tax-deductible contri-bution to Sound of Grace, please mail a check
to: Sound of Grace, 5317 Wye Creek Drive,
Frederick, MD 21703-6938.
Please check the mailing label tofind the
expiration of your subscription. Please send
payment if you want your subscription to
continue$20.00 for ten issues. Or if you
would prefer to have a pdffile emailed, that is
available for $10.00 for ten issues. If you are
unable to subscribe at this time, please call or
drop a note in the mail and we will be glad to
continue Sound of Grace free of charge.
ReisingerContinued from page 1
ReisingerContinued 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. TheRoman Catholics and many Anglicans
(Episcopalians) grossly ignore or con-
fuse the wonder and glory of Christs
work as high priest by having their
leaders assume they are priests ca-
pable of being mediators between God
and sinners. Arminians falsely as-
sume that the priestly work of Christ
is equally on behalf of all men without
exception. Most fundamentalists, in-
cluding the Plymouth Brethren, insist
the priestly work of Christ does not
begin until his ascension. This limits
the high priestly work to intercession,
but it is quite clear that the primary
work of the high priest in the Old
Covenant was to offer sacrifice. It is
just as clear in the New Testament that
Christs high priestly work includes
sacrifice as well as intercession.
The Arminian has no place to put
the atoning work of Christ on the
cross. All agree it was not his work asprophet or his work as king that made
atonement for sin. However, if we put
the sacrificial work of the atonement
under the office of priest we are well
on our way to particular redemp-
tion. In order to hold on to universal
atonement, the Arminian reduces the
priestly work of Christ to be limited
to intercession. In this way, Christs
priestly work does not begin until he
ascends to heaven and is seated on histhrone. However, to hold that view
these people must flat out deny the
specific words of Christ when he said,
I pray not for the world (John 17:9).
It is abundantly clear that Christ does
not act in the place of the non-elect in
either his office of prophet or his of-
fice of priest. The writer to Hebrews
has already mentioned the high priest-
ly work of Christ three times. It is
clear from these texts that the priestly
work of Christ included reconciliation
as well as intercession just as it in-
cluded both propitiation and expiation.
Wherefore in all things it behooved
him to be made like unto his brethren,
that he might be as a merciful and
faithful high priest in things pertaining
to God, to make reconciliation for thesins of the people. Hebrews 2:17
Wherefore, holy brethren, partak-
ers of the heavenly calling, consider
the Apostle and High Priest of our
profession, Christ Jesus Hebrews
3:1
Seeing then that we have a great
high priest, that is passed into the
heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us
hold fast our profession. For we have
not an high priest which cannot be
touched with the feeling of our infir-mities; but was in all points tempted
like as we are, yet without sin. Let us
therefore come boldly unto the throne
of grace, that we may obtain mercy,
andfind grace to help in time of need.
Hebrews 4:14-16
Our Lord is glorious in both his
person and in his work. It is the awe-
some glory of his person that gives his
redemptive work the honor and dig-
nity that it deserves.
let us note that the Lord Jesus is
designed a greatHigh Priest. This
word at once emphasizes His excel-
lency and pre-eminency. Never was
there, never can there be another, pos-
sessed of such dignity and glory. The
greatness of our High Priest arises,
First, from the dignity of His person:
He is not only Son of man, but Son
of God (Heb. 4:14). Second, from the
purity of His nature: He is without
sin (Heb. 4:15), holy, (Heb. 7:26).
Third, from the eminency of His or-der: that of Melchizedek (Heb. 5:6).
Fourth, from the solemnity of his
ordination: with an oath (Heb. 7:20,
21)none other was. Fifth, from the
excellency of His sacrifice: Himself,
without spot (Heb. 9:14). Sixth, from
the perfection of His administration
(Heb. 7:11, 25)He has satisfied di-
vine justice, procured Divine favor,
given access to the Throne of Grace,
7/30/2019 Sound of Grace, Issue 198, June 2013
3/20
Issue 198 June 2013 Page 3
other hand, where specifically Chris-
tian behavior is related positively tothe Mosaic law, the verb plroun or a
cognate inevitably occurs (Rom. 8:4,
13:8, 10; Gal. 5:14); yet these terms
are never used where the require-
ments or achievements of those living
under the law are in view. Given the
occasional nature of Pauls correspon-
dence, such a consistent distinction in
usage is striking indeed and demands
some explanation.
In Galatians 5:14 the whole law isfulfilled in one statement: You shall
love your neighbor as yourself. In Ro-
mans 8:4, the righteous requirement
(to dikaima) of the law is fulfilled in
us. In Romans 13:8 we are told the
one who loves another has fulfilled
the law. Verse ten says love is the
If one wants to understand Pauls
mind on the Mosaic law, one mustunderstand the way Paul carefully dis-
tinguishes the verbs do and fulfill.
Pauline scholar Stephen Westerholm
writes,
It is worth noting, however, that in
Paul, while Christians are never said
to do (poiein) the law, those un-
der the law are seen as obligated to
do its commands (Rom. 10:5; Gal.
3:10, 12; 5:3); indeed, the law itself,
Paul claims, rests on the principle ofdoing as opposed to believing
(Gal. 3:12; Rom. 10:5-6). If, then, the
essence of life under the law is the
requirement to do its commands, it
is not strange that Paul would avoid
the term in contexts where he relates
Christian behavior to the law. On the
fulfilling of the law. Only Christians,
who have the Spirit of the new age,
can fulfill the law. Paul, like Jesus in
Matthew 5:17, is referring to eschato-
logical fulfillment. It should also not
be overlooked that in these fulfill-
ment of the law passages, Paul is not
prescribing but describing Christianbehavior. Jason Meyer states, Paul
does not prescribe Christian behavior
with reference to the law; he describes
the fruit (karpos) of their behavior
with a retroactive reference to the way
that it conforms to the law and thus
amounts to its fulfillment (plro).
Ironically and paradoxically, those
who live under the law bear fruit
resulting in sinful passions, transgres-
sion of the law, and death, while those
who have died to the law bear fruitthat amount to the laws fulfillment.
Only those under the law are required
to do the law, while the result of the
obedience of those not under the law
fulfills the law.
Doing/Fulfilling the Law
A. Blake White
I would like to help support the ministry ofSound of Grace:
A tax-deductible gift in the amount of ______________ is enclosed.
I would like to receive Sound of Grace via the USPS:
A check in the amount of $20.00 for a paper copy (payable to Sound of Grace) is enclosed.
I would like to receive Sound of Grace via email:
A check in the amount of $10.00 for a pdffile (payable to Sound of Grace) is enclosed.
Please continue free of charge: Via email via USPS
PLEASE PRINT CLEARLYTHANK YOU
Name:
Street Address:
City: State/Providence: Zip/Postal:
Email address: @ Phone number:
Mail to: Sound of Grace, 5317 Wye Creek Drive, Frederick, MD 21703-6938
Did you know you dont need a Kindle to read your book?
Simply download one of Amazons free Kindle apps - available for every
major smartphone, tablet and computer.
http ://www.amazon.com/gp/feature.html/ref=sa_menu_karl?ie=UTF8&docId=1000493771
7/30/2019 Sound of Grace, Issue 198, June 2013
4/20
Page 4 June 2013 Issue 198
oncile us to God, because He is man
(John Calvin, quoted by Pink).
If the Son of God had never be-
come man, He could never have been
a priest or performed any priestly
functions. He could have taught us
about his Father and instructed us in
the just requirement of the Law, buthe would never have been able to offer
that sacrifice for the sins of His people
which divine justice required. It was
essential that God became flesh and
dwelt among us if an eternal salva-
tion was to be secured for Gods elect.
The phrase, Is ordained for men,
in verse one is important. It shows
that the high priest was ordained by
God for his office. He did not take a
series of psychological tests to see ifhe had certain talents and a correct
psychological make up; he did not one
day feel led of the Lord to make
the high priestly work his calling. No,
no, God personally chose, ordained,
called and equipped the high priest
for his work. The reason why, and the
purpose for which, the high priest was
taken from among men is so that he
might transact on behalf of others, or
more accurately, in the stead of others.
The application of the words, Is
ordained of God to our New Cove-
nant high priest demonstrates the per-
son and work of Christ. He not only
became man, he received appoint-
ment from God to act on behalf of, in
the stead of, men. He came to do the
Fathers will, Lo I come, to do Thy
will, O God (Heb. 10:9). This text
not only announces the commission
He received from God, it also asserts
His readiness to discharge it. The will
of God for Christ was the cross. He
was born for the express purpose of
dying. Our Lord was the only person
who was ever born in order that he
might die. We were born to live, but
he was born to die. He came to do
what needed to be done and no one
but he could do it if there was to be a
gospel to preach. He came to do what
ReisingerContinued from page 2
secured eternal redemption. Seventh,
from the perpetuity of His office: it is
untransferable and eternal (Heb. 7:24).
From these we may the better perceive
the blasphemous arrogance of the Ital-
ian pope, who styles himselfpontifex
maximusthe greatest high priest.1
It is interesting to follow biblical
arguments and note how logically
they are framed. The Holy Spirit
knows how to think and how to ex-
press the truth. He does not begin his
list of comparisons between the old
and the new with Moses and Aaron.
That would immediately have offend-
ed the Jews. The writer starts with an-
gels and talks about a mediator who is
holy, acceptable to God, has a heart of
compassion for sinners and is just themediator we need in every way. The
writer of Hebrews begins chapter 5
with a description of the high priests
nature and work.
For every high priest taken from
among men is ordained for men in
things pertaining to God, that he may
offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins:
Who can have compassion on the ig-
norant, and on them that are out of the
way, for that he himself also is com-
passed with infirmity. And by reason
hereof he ought, as for the people, so
also for himself, to offer for sins. And
no man taketh this honour unto him-
self, but he that is called of God, as
was Aaron. Hebrews 5:1-4
These verses give a summary of the
qualifications of the Levitical high
priests. Our Lord fulfilled every one
of these qualifications. First of all,
the high priest had to be taken from
among men. That means he had tobe part of the human family, a true
part of Adams race. An angel could
not be a priest, let alone be the high
priest. A high priest must partake of
the nature of those on whose behalf he
acts. He must be a kinsman of those
he represents. Second, the high priest
1 A.W. Pink,An Exposition of Hebrews
(Swengel, PA, Baker Book House,
1954) 225
did not act as a private individual,
but as a public official: is ordained
for men. He acted as an appointed
representative of sinners. Third, when
he approached God he did not come
empty handed. He brought gifts and
sacrifices for sins. Fourth, the high
priest must realize that he himself wasa sinner and needed grace. He had to
be able to give hope and comfort to
those of his fellow sinners to whom
he ministered (verses 2, 3). Our New
Covenant high priest was not in any
sense a sinner as was Aaron, and part
of this particular requirement did not
apply to him. The need to be able to
sympathize did apply to Christ, and
his ability to sympathize with us grew
out of his becoming one with us in
our humanity. He was tempted in thesame way we are tempted but he never
yielded to any temptation. Fifth, he
did not presumptuously decide to
be a high priest by his own choice,
but was chosen and approved by God
(verse 4). Let us look at each of these
five things more closely.
The first thing is an emphasis on
his humanity. For every high priest
taken from among men
An angel would be no fitting priest
to act on behalf of men, for he pos-
sesses not their nature, is not subject to
their temptations, and has no experi-
mental acquaintance with their suffer-
ings; therefore is he unsuited to act on
their behalf: therefore is he incapable
of having compassion upon them,
for the motive-spring of all real inter-
cession is heart-felt sympathy. Thus,
the primary qualification of a priest is
that he must be personally related to,
possess the same nature as, those forwhose welfare he interposes.2
It was necessary for Christ to be-
come a real man, for as we are very
far from God, we stand in a manner
before Him in the person of our Priest,
which could not be were He not one
of us. Hence, that the Son of God has
a nature in common with us does not
diminish His dignity, but commends it
the more to us; for He is fitted to rec-
2 Ibid, 227 ReisingerContinued on page 6
7/30/2019 Sound of Grace, Issue 198, June 2013
5/20
7/30/2019 Sound of Grace, Issue 198, June 2013
6/20
Page 6 June 2013 Issue 198
ReisingerContinued on page 8
Christ has only one personality.
Christs humanity never had an
independent existence.
Christ is not able to sin, any more
than God can sin.
Christs humanity is not indepen-
dent of His deity.Christ never does anything as
man or as God - He acts as Christ,
who is God manifest in flesh. After
coming to earth at Bethlehem, Christ
could no longer act solely as God.
Nor did He experience thirst and
weariness solely as man. He cannot
act as man without being God - He
cannot act as God without being man.
The Lord said I am thirsty not my
human nature is thirsty. He said I
forgive not my divine nature for-
gives you. It is vital never to divide
the Lord Jesus in a way that Scripture
does not allow.
That He may offer both gifts and
sacrifice for sins (Heb. 5:1). This
statement emphasizes an important
fact that is not emphasized enough
today. Christ offers himself to the Fa-
ther before he is presented to sinners.
This text shows that the sacrificial
death of Christ was a priestly act.
He offered something to God. He of-fered himself. He lay down his life in
a conscious act of sacrifice for sins.
This was not the work of a prophet or
a king; it was the work of a priest. At
Calvary the Lord Jesus was not only
the sacrifice, the Lamb of God bear-
ing judgment, but He was also the
priest officiating at the altar. Our Lord
offered his sinless life on the altar of
his absolute deity and accomplished
a perfect redemption for us poor sin-
ners. Later, the writer will emphasize
the necessity of Christ having an of-
fering to give to God. For every high
priest is ordained to offer gifts and
sacrifices: wherefore it is of necessity
that this Man have somewhat also to
offer (Heb. 8:3). Hebrews 9:14 tells
us that our Lord offered himself
without spot to God.
God gave his son up to the cross.
no man could dosatisfy the claims
of divine justice, procure the divine
favor. Pink correctly notes in passing
what the Holy Spirit specifically says,
ordained for men, not mankind in
general, but that people whom God
had given Himjust as Aaron, thetypical high priest, confessed not the
sins of the Canaanites or Amalekites
over the head of the goat, but those of
Israel only.
In things pertaining to God, that
is, in meeting the requirements of His
holiness. The activities of the priests
have God for their object: it is His
character, His claims, His glory which
are in view. In their application to
Christ these words, in things pertain-
ing to God distinguishes our Lordspriesthood from His other offices. As a
prophet, He reveals to us the mind and
will of God. As the King, He subdues
us to Himself, rules over and defends
us. But the object of His priesthood is
not us, but God.3
We must always remember the
difference between a prophet and a
priest. A prophet represents God to
men and a priest represents men to
God.
The truth of Christs humanity
is not stressed as much as it should
be. There is the tendency to get so
involved in defending the truth of the
deity of Christ that we neglect his hu-
manity. It is just as vital that Christ be
the son of Mary as it is that he be the
Son of God. The following is a short
excerpt from an excellent message on
the internet on the humanity of Christ.
See page 15 of issue 197 ofSound of
Grace for a longer quote and for theinternet address for the entire article.
The ramifications of this truth
[humanity of Christ] are many. For
example: Christs two natures can be
distinguished but not separated.
Christ became something He never
was before while never ceasing to be
what he always was.
3 Ibid, 229
It was the Father who put Christ on
the cross. It was the Fathers plan to
have Christ die and it was the Fathers
sovereign control that engineered
the cross from beginning to end. No
event was ever planned and executed
as carefully as the death of Christ was
planned and executed by the triuneGod. However, the Son of God readily
agreed to do the Fathers will. Pink
said it well:
Christ on the Cross was far more
than a willing victim passively endur-
ing the stroke of Divine judgment. He
was there performing a work, nor
did He cease until He cried in triumph,
It is finished. He loved the Church
and gave Himself for it (Eph. 5:25).
He laid down His life for the sheep
(John 10:11, 18)which is the predi-cate of an active agent. He poured out
His soul unto death (Isa. 53:12).4
Hebrews 5:2 emphasizes that com-
passion is one of the sure results that
will be evident in a true high priest.
This same mark of compassion will
be seen in anyone who has truly been
called and ordained by God to func-
tion as a church leader. Who can have
compassion on the ignorant, and on
them that are out of the way; for thathe himself is compassed with infirmity
(verse 2). The ignorant may be de-
scribed as those who sin because they
simply do not know any better. Their
problem is ignorance of the truth.
They may be new or untaught believ-
ers. Those who have gone out of the
way maybe those who know better
but deliberately choose to go their
own way. Regardless of which it is the
true minister of Christ feels compas-
sion. He never excuses sin in any waybut he feels true sympathy. If the only
feeling a leader feels when someone
under his care goes astray is anger,
that leader is a false shepherd.
I Samuel 1:9-14 records the miser-
able failure of Eli the priest. When
poor Hannah was in bitterness of
soul, and while she was in prayer,
4 Ibid, 231
ReisingerContinued from page 4
7/30/2019 Sound of Grace, Issue 198, June 2013
7/20
Issue 198 June 2013 Page 7
McAloonContinued on page 13
INTRODUCTION
There is perhaps no part of divin-
ity attended with so much intricacy,
and wherein orthodox divines do
so much differ, as the stating of the
precise agreement and difference be-
tween the two dispensations of Moses
and of Christ. - Jonathan Edwards1
This statement by one of the
churchs greatest thinkers is one thathas reigned true since the very con-
ception of the church. Even the very
idea of the conception of the church
is not without its array of theologi-
cal dilemmas and controversies: who
exactly constitutes this church; when
was it conceived; what is its nature;
what is its purpose in Gods plan
for humankind, etc. Although many
believers may look at these matters
as mere abstract theological theories,
the conclusions to these questionsand their consequences could not be
more important to the very life of the
church. So agrees Lints, who believes
that almost all major controversies in
evangelical theology could be reduced
in the end to a difference concerning
the relationship of the Testaments.2
1 1.Jonathan Edwards, A Humble
Inquiry, in The Works of Jonathan
Edwards Vol. 1 (Peabody, MA: Hen-
drickson Publishers, 2003), 44.2 Richard Lints, The Fabric of Theology:
A prolegomenon to Evangelical Theol-
ogy (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans,
1993), 301, n. 13; quoted in A. Blake
White, The Newness of the New Cov-
enant(Frederick, MD: New Covenant
Media, 2008), 55; also see John S.
Feinbergs article The Law of Moses
or the Law of Christ where he says,
Few issues are of greater significance
to biblical theology and, ultimately,
systematic theology as the relation
The dust of our contemporary superfi-
ciality and quest for temporal distrac-
tion and comfort must be cleared so
that the gravity of these matters may
be felt in our hearts. The amount
of blood that has been shed and the
brotherly unity that has been de-
stroyed between professors of Christ
over their interpretations of the Testa-
ments throughout the centuries is
unfathomable; therefore we owe it toboth our Lord and our forefathers to
follow in their footsteps towards dis-
covering and breaking from those old
corruptions that have been infecting
the body of Christ since the days of its
fall from New Testament purity. This
can only be done with humility as we
confess our need and wholly depend
upon the Spirit to teach us through the
Scriptures he has inspired, even if this
must be done so in light of many of
the creeds he did not.
This has been the cry of many
reformers throughout church his-
tory, and it is shared by many of us
who hold to a form of biblical theol-
ogy that has been dubbed the name,
New Covenant Theology.3 While
this title may be a bit misleading in
that it could suggest a theology that
between the Testaments. In Continu-
ity and Discontinuity: Perspectives onthe Relationship Between the Old and
New Testament(Wheaton, IL: Cross-
way Books, 1988).
3 See Tom Wells, Our Creeds and
How They Affect Our Understand-
ing, in Tom Wells and Fred Zaspel,
New Covenant Theology: Definition,
Description, Defense (Frederick, MD:
New Covenant Media, 2002); also
John G. Reisinger,Abrahams Four
Seeds (Frederick, MD: New Covenant
Media, 1998), iv.
deals only with the New Covenant in
perhaps a more systematic way, this
is not the case. On the contrary, likeCovenant Theology and Dispensation-
alism, it is a robust interpretation of
the relationships between the Testa-
ments and covenants found therein,
which seeks to enrich our under-
standing of salvation history so that
we learn to properly apply the truths
found in Gods Word. However, many
of us humbly believe that whereas the
former systems do so through presup-
positions that cannot be founded upon
Scripture, New Covenant Theology(hereafter NCT) attempts to con-
sistently put the biblical textsfirstand
derive its overall approach in light of
them.4 Much fine exegesis has been
done and many arguments have been
written for one to engage for himself
4 Wells and Zaspel, 22; also see Reising-
ers introduction inAbrahams Four
Seeds, i-iv.
A STUDY OF
NEW COVENANT THEOLOGY
Part 1 of 4
Kevin P. McAloonKevin recently graduated from
Southeastern Baptist TheologicalSeminary, and is currently meetingwith some believers seeking Godto raise a church in Carmel, NY.His heart is for the further reforma-tion of Christ's Church back to NewCovenant power and purity, andtruly believes that New Covenant
Theology and many of the churchesespousing it are God's blessing in
this generation towards that end.
While avoiding formal denomi-national affiliation, Kevin cravesand welcomes all open heartedfellowship with devout brothers andsisters in Christ. He and his groupcovet your prayers. You are invitedto contact him at [email protected]
7/30/2019 Sound of Grace, Issue 198, June 2013
8/20
Page 8 June 2013 Issue 198ReisingerContinued from page 6
weeping before the Lord, only her
lips moved, but her voice was heard
not, Eli thought that she was drunk-
en, and spoke roughly to her. Thus,
instead of sympathizing with her sor-
rows, instead of making intercession
for her, he cruelly misjudged her. It is
a strange anomaly, but it seems that
the more doctrinally orthodox people
become, the more they lose compas-
sion. They become more interested in
protecting the image of the institution
than they do in helping poor sinners.
This compassionate, loving, gentle,
all-considerate and tender regard for
the sinner can exist in perfection only
in a sinless one. This appears at first
sight paradoxical; for we expect the
perfect man to be the severest judge.And with regard to sin, this is doubt-
less true. God charges even His angels
with folly. He beholds sin where we
do not discover it. And Jesus, the Holy
One of Israel, like the Father, has
eyes like a flame offire, and discerns
everything that is contrary to Gods
mind and will. But with regard to the
sinner, Jesus, by virtue of His perfect
holiness, is the most merciful, com-
passionate, and considerate Judge. For
we, not taking a deep and keen view
of sin, that central essential evil whichexists in all men, and manifests itself
in various ways and degrees, are not
able to form a just estimate of mens
comparative guilt and blameworthi-
ness. Nay, our very sins make us more
impatient and severe with regard to
the sins of others. Our vanity finds the
vanity of others intolerable, our pride
finds the pride of others excessive.
Blind to the guilt of our own peculiar
sins, we are shocked with anothers
sins, different indeed from ours, but
not less offensive to God, or perni-
cious in its tendencies. Again, the
greater the knowledge of Divine love
and pardon, the stronger faith in the
Divine mercy and renewing grace, the
more hopeful and the more lenient will
be our view of sinners. And finally the
more we possess of the spirit and heart
of the Shepherd, the Physician, theFather, the deeper will be our compas-
sion on the ignorant and wayward.5
One of the inconsistencies that
amazes me is how clearly the Scrip-
tures teach that Christ loved the sin-
ner and hated his sin. I am aware this
truth has been greatly misused, and it
usually winds up in a distorted half-
truth form, but it is none the less a
biblical fact that Jesus was perfectly
clear in his hatred of sin and at thesame time was tender and compas-
sionate to the sinner. If you cant fit
that into your theology, you need to
revise your theology. Despite how
holy he was Jesus still often revealed
less shock toward the drunkard and
profligate than the respectable, self-
ish, and ungodly religionists. I hate
to say it, but I have met many truly
Reformed elders who exhibit most
of the characteristics of the Pharisees
in the New Testament. They viewbiblical compassion as a form of com-
promise. Jesus looked upon sin as the
greatest and most fearful evil, and at
the same time he saw the sinner as
poor, lost, and helpless. He saw the
just destruction of Jerusalem at the
door, but still wept over its coming
destruction. Hyper-Calvinism is al-
ways stingy with the love of God. It is
5 Ibid, 231, 232
far better at condemning than it is at
reconciliation. It knows how to preach
wrath but stumbles and gets tongue-
tied with the love of God.
Hymn writer Frank Graeff got it
pretty close.
Does Jesus care when my heart ispainedToo deeply for mirth or song;As the burdens press, and the cares
distress,And the way grows weary and long?
Refrain:Oh, yes, He cares, I know He cares!His heart is touched with my grief;When the days are weary, the long
nights dreary,I know my Savior cares.
Does Jesus care when my way isdarkWith a nameless dread and fear?As the daylight fades into deep night
shades,Does He care enough to be near?
Does Jesus care when Ive tried
and failedTo resist some temptation strong;When for my deep grief there is no
relief,Though my tears flow all the night
long?Does Jesus care when Ive said
goodbyeTo the dearest on earth to me,And my sad heart aches till it nearly
breaksIs it aught to Him? Does He see?
Our great matters are little to God's infinite power,and our little matters are great to his Father love.
Donald Grey Barnhouse
7/30/2019 Sound of Grace, Issue 198, June 2013
9/20
Issue 198 June 2013 Page 9
WhiteContinued on page 11
The word under (hypo) is used
frequently in Galatians to refer tothe old age. It designates the old
era when the Mosaic covenant was
in force.1 In Galatians, to be under
law (3:23) = under sin (3:22) = under
a babysitter (3:25) = under guard-
ians and managers (4:2) = under the
elemental spirits (stoicheia) of the
world (4:3). This last one is the most
shocking. The phrase I have translated
elemental spirits is much disputed.
Many commentators take it to mean
the physical building blocks of the
world, so that to return to the law is to
return to live under the basic prin-
ciples of the world (most likely the
case in 2 Peter 3:10, 12). This may be
a correct interpretation, but in the end,
spiritual forces cant be excluded. For,
unlike the mindset of Enlightenment
rationalism, in the mindset of the New
Testament the whole world is under
the control of the evil one (1 John
5:19 NIV). Satan is the god of thisage (2 Cor 4:4). He is the prince of
this world (John 12:31). Unbelievers
follow the ruler of the kingdom of
the air (Eph 2:2). There are cosmic
powers, spiritual forces of evil over
this present darkness (Eph 6:12). So
even if the word does refer to the ele-
mentary building blocks of the world,
demonic forces are still involved.
Some object to this interpreta-
tion (i.e., elemental sprits or spiritualforces) due to the claim that this ter-
minology is not used outside the Bible
until after the second century AD.
Although, looking at the usage outside
of the New Testament is helpful, it
is not decisive. Usage in context is
key.2 In Galatians, Paul uses the word
1 Thomas R. Schreiner,Paul, 321.
2 D.G. Reid, Elements/Elemental Spirits
of the World, inDictionary of Paul
in 4:3 and 4:9. In 4:8-10, he writes,
Formerly, when you did not knowGod, you were slaves to those who by
nature are not gods. But now that you
know Godor rather are known by
Godhow is it that you are turning
back to those weak and miserable
forces? Do you wish to be enslaved by
them all over again? You are observ-
ing special days and months and
seasons and years! This is a shocking
statement. Here, Paul lumps together
Judaism and paganism. To observe the
Jewish Sabbath and festival practices
(certainly this is whats in view) is to
return to the elemental spirits of the
world.3 The genitive of the world
(tou kosmou) is important as well.
These elemental spirits are character-
istic of this world, this age, which he
already wrote is evil (Gal 1:4). This
present world order belongs to Satan
(2 Cor 4:4).
We are helped in our understand-
ing of this truth by looking at thebook of 1 Corinthians. There, refer-
ring to idols, Paul says For even if
there are so-called gods, whether in
heaven or on earth (as indeed there are
many gods and many lords) (8:5).
Then in 10:20 he says that these idols
are demons: No, but the sacrifices of
pagans are offered to demons, not to
God. So for the Galatians to return
to the Jewish calendar is to return to
being enslaved to those that are bynature not gods, which is another way
of saying being enslaved by the el-
emental spirits of this present evil age.
Clinton Arnold writes, The passage
and His Letters, ed. Gerald F. Haw-
thorne, et al. (Downers Grove, IL:
InterVarsity Press, 1993), 229.
3 Steve Westerholm,Perspectives, 367;
Schreiner, Galatians, 245; Longeneck-
er, Galatians, 182; Meyer, The End of
the Law, 174.
is best explained if one interprets the
stoicheia as demonic powers, equiva-lent to the expression principalities
and powers.4 It is important to note
that Paul is not calling the law demon-
ic. However, it is demonic to return to
the law afterChrists death and resur-
rection. Christ is the culmination of
the law (Rom 10:4). Its sacrifices are
no longer effective. To turn back the
clock of redemptive history is to turn
to slavery to the powers.
If my interpretation is correct, itjust reinforces the fact that getting
the gospel right is crucial. The indica-
tive must undergird the imperative.
Sanctification flows from justification.
It is fundamentally demonic to trust
in anything but Christ crucified for
salvation. This is why John can call
those who falsely claim to be Jews the
synagogue of Satan (Rev 2:9, 3:9).
In this regard the principalities and
powers, those lords that cannot liber-
ate, can equally plunder the RomanCatholic Church or the overly strict
fundamentalist Baptist congrega-
tion. The do this and live principle
(Gal 3:12; Rom 10:5) is everywhere
because the main evangelist of this
religion is the prince of the power of
the air. Only pagans trust in self. In
Acts 21:24, the verbal form (stoiche)
is used as living in obedience to the
law. It refers to leading a closely
regulated life, to living accord-
4 Clinton E. Arnold, Returning to the
Domain of the Powers:stoicheia as
Evil Spirits in Galatians 4:3, 9,No-
vum Testamentum 38, no. 1 (January
1996): 57; idem,Powers of Darkness:
Principalities and Powers in Pauls
Letters (Downers Grove, IL: InterVar-
sity Press, 1992), 53, 131-32.
Under the Elemental Spirits of the World
A. Blake White
7/30/2019 Sound of Grace, Issue 198, June 2013
10/20
Page 10 June 2013 Issue 198
WestContinued f rom page 5
Turning aside from introductory
matters, I want to sketch out several
important theological arguments that
Luther uses in BW. Some of the posi-
tions he takes are far more philosophi-
cally nuanced than many people real-
ize. In fact, in my estimation Lutherroutinely moves from Scripture to
theological reflection to philosophi-
cal/logical refinement in a way which
is truly extraordinary. Frankly, as a
reader living in the twenty-first cen-
tury, it is easy to get so swept up in
his rhetoric that the depths of his re-
flection are missed (not to mention its
altogether too easy to get distracted
by his cringe-worthy expressions, or
alternatively to be laughing so hard at
some of his comments that the train of
his argument is lost).
The first element to note in Lu-
thers argument concerns the relation-
ship between Gods foreknowledge
and human free will. Although there
are lengthy discussions and academic
debates about the possibility of lib-
ertarian freedom given Gods knowl-
edge of the future, Luther cuts to the
chase and argues that according to the
Bible Gods foreknowledge of futureevents is grounded in his sovereign
purposes. God knows the future be-
cause he decrees the future, not be-
cause he sees what contingent beings
do as autonomous agents.
Luther believes this point is so
weighty that he states: It is, then,
fundamentally necessary and whole-
some for Christians to know that God
foreknows nothing contingently, but
he foresees, purposes, and does allthings according to His own immu-
table, eternal and infallible will. This
bombshell knocks free-will flat and
utterly shatters it; so that those who
want to assert it must either deny my
bombshell, or pretend not to notice
it, orfind some other way of dodging
it (p. 80). If all things are ultimately
done on the basis of Gods will, then
they are not done out of libertarian
freedom. Luthers implicit logical
argument is this: 1. Gods foreknowl-
edge of future events is incompatible
with libertarian freedom; 2. Gods
foreknowledge is clearly taught in
Scripture; 3. Therefore libertarian
freedom does not exist.
This does not mean, however,that God forces people to act against
their will. On the contrary, The will,
whether it be Gods or mans does
what it does, good or bad, under no
compulsion, but just as it wants or
pleases, as if totally free (p. 81).
Luthers observation here is critical.
He never denies that people act as
they please out of the nature of their
wills. But the one thing a will cannot
doand this is essential to all freewill discussionsis change itself. It is
what it is. Luther refers to this as the
necessity of immutability (p. 102).
People with an evil will (i.e. the whole
human race) do evil naturally. When
they sin apart from the restraining of
the Holy Spirit of God, they do so in
accordance with their fallen nature. In
the mercy of Gods sovereign grace,
however, sinners are regenerated and
given new inclinations and desires.
The individual continues to will, butthe direction of their will is funda-
mentally altered by grace. Luther
expresses this change in the following
way: On the other hand: when God
works in us, the will is changed under
the sweet influence of the Spirit of
God. Once more it desires and acts,
not of compulsion, but of its own de-
sire and spontaneous inclination (p.
103). In biblical language, this is what
happens when God removes the heartof stone and puts in its place the heart
offlesh; when God takes out the old
spirit and gives the new spirit; when
we are born again.
Luther is aware that some people
will respond that if God ordains all
that comes to pass and if he knows the
future on the basis of his decreed pur-
poses, then we are not responsible for
what we do. To this he replies that sin-
ners are like horses with two or three
good feet; they stumble and fall but
are still serviceable for accomplishing
Gods purposes. Their infirmity is in
their nature, so it is not Gods fault.
All God does is use their capabilities
to bring about his good ends (p. 204).
In fact this sets forth in a startlingway Gods greatness and goodness.
Evil people will do evil; part of the
glory of God is that he can take their
naturally evil deeds (without making
the person evil or adding evil to their
nature) and work them together for
good (p. 206).
Furthermore Luther is also aware
that this theological stance will evoke
the same objections Paul rhetorically
poses in Romans 9. Again at this pointLuthers insistence on placing reason
at the service of clear biblical teaching
guides his analysis: Is it not an auda-
cious way of searching, to try and har-
monize the wholly free foreknowledge
of God with our own freedom, and to
be ready to deny the foreknowledge
of God if it does not allow us freedom
and if it imposes necessity on us, to
say with the blasphemous complain-
ers: Why doth He yet find fault? For
who shall resist His will? Where isthe God Whose nature is kindness
itself? Where is He that willeth not
the death of the sinner? Has He cre-
ated us merely to delight Himself in
mens torments?and the like; which
sentiments the damned in hell will be
howling out to all eternity! (p. 216).
This is strong language but no
less strong than Pauls language in
Romans 9, yet it just seems strik-
ingly hard to swallow. In a candid,personal moment Luther bears his
heart and says, it is this that has
been the great stumbling block to so
many great men down the ages. And
who would not stumble at it? I have
stumbled at it myself more than once,
down to the deepest pit of despair, so
that I wished I had never been made
a man. (That was before I knew how
health-giving that despair was, and
7/30/2019 Sound of Grace, Issue 198, June 2013
11/20
Issue 198 June 2013 Page 11
WhiteContinued from page 9how close to grace.) (p. 217) For Lu-
ther (as for Calvin) the secret decrees
of God are beyond our ken. We do
not understand them, norcan we un-
derstand thembut we are told about
them in Scripture and are expected to
receive the biblical teaching on them
as Gods truth. Full comprehension isnot necessary but humble acceptance
is.
There was for Luther the assurance
that a day was coming when all of
Gods wisdom in these issues would
be revealed. His great justice would
emerge unsullied with every eye see-
ing it and every mouth stopped (pp.
314-315). What at the present time the
human mind cannot comprehend and
what the human heart cannot encom-pass will on that future day be made
plain. Even if we still fail to perfectly
understand all things, our difficulties
and problems will melt away in the
light of glory (p. 316).
Using contemporary categories,
Luthers BW would fit comfortably
into the compatibilist camp. This is
true not only theologically but also
in terms of his philosophical assess-
ments. His view of foreknowledgeruling out libertarianism coupled with
his view of moral responsibility is
compatibilistic. His view of God using
the evil nature of sinners to accom-
plish his good purposes is likewise
compatibilistic (although his expres-
sion of it trades more on ultimate and
efficient causes, a distinction Im not
perfectly comfortable with when used
in theodicies). Furthermore his assess-
ment that people act freely when they
do what they want, even though they
cannot change their natures or will,again blends determinism and respon-
sibility in a compatibilist mold.
Beyond his actual biblical, theo-
logical, and philosophical arguments
lie his Christian presuppositions. It
is asserted more than argued that
Scripture is the final court of appeal.
Luther assumes God knows real-
ity exhaustively and is an infallible
and authoritative guide. When God
speaks, the issue is settled. Althoughthere is room to quibble with some of
the cogency of some of his arguments
(even when one is in general agree-
ment with his overall conclusion),
his attitude towards human reason
and Gods Word is exemplary. All of
our theological reflection needs to be
guided and controlled by the param-
eters set forth in Gods Word. For all
of his personal and intellectual imper-
fections, this is one area where Luther
shines as a bright example centuriesafter his life and work. May God give
us the grace to approach all biblical
issues in this same spirit.
ing to definite rules.5 In Colossae,
there were intruders trying to force
the Colossians to live a certain way
with regard to food, drink, festivals
and Sabbaths (Col 2:16). They were
insisting on asceticism (Col 2:18). But
we have died to the law (Rom 7:4)and have died to the elemental spirits
of the world (Col 2:20), and are no
longer required to submit to its rules:
Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not
touch! (2:20-21). Verlyn Verbrugge
writes, Thus the basic principles
of the world cover all the things in
which humans place trust apart from
the living God revealed in Christ.6
This perspective is also clear from
Philippians 3:2. The Judaizers werevery concerned about being cer-
emonially clean, doing good works,
and being circumcised and Paul
provocatively calls them dogs (un-
clean), evil doers (opposite of good),
and those who mutilate the flesh (tn
katatmn). There is a word play at
work here on the word circumcision
(peritm). He is saying that those
who cut themselves thinking this will
gain salvation are like the frenzied
prophets of Baal who were frustratedthat their god would not answer their
pleas (see 1 Kin 18:28; Lev 19:28,
21:5 LXX).7 Paul tells those who
would force Christians to be circum-
cised that they should go ahead and
lop the whole thing off (apokopt)
(Gal 5:12), with the result that they
will not be able to enter the church
of the Lord (Deut 23:1, 23:2 LXX -
apokopt)!
5 Verlyn D. Verbrugge, ed.,New Inter-
national Dictionary of New Testament
Theology: Abridged Edition (Grand
Rapids: Zondervan, 2000), 541.
6 Ibid.
7 Thielman, Theology of the New Testa-
ment, 318.
The law requires work of human achievement;the gospel requires faith in Christs achievement.
The law makes demands and bids us obey;the gospel brings promises and bids us believe.
So the law and the gospel are contrary to one another.They are not two aspects of the same thing,or interpretations of the same Christianity.
At least in the sphere of justification, as Luther says,The establishing of the law is the
abolishing of the Gospel.
John Stott
7/30/2019 Sound of Grace, Issue 198, June 2013
12/20
Page 12 June 2013 Issue 198Gilliland Continued from page 1
Gilliland Continued on page 18
not a new reality for the individual be-
liever, but a new kind of covenant that
would be characterized by all of its
members knowing the Lord. Although
a result of the Spirits work in regen-
eration, the internalization of Gods
law is not to be equated with the NTgift of the indwelling Spirit as it has
always defined the child of God. And
of course, the indwelling Spirit is not
a new reality spatially, for the Spirit
is omnipresent and has always been
intimately related to us as the apostle
Paul records, He is not far from each
of us; for in him we live and have
our being (Acts 17:29). And while
the reality of the indwelling Spirit is a
new reality experientially in the lives
of Gods New Covenant people, hehas always been the ultimate source of
obedience in Gods saints. Note these
key OT texts:
The righteous shall inherit the land
and dwell upon it forever. The mouth
of the righteous utters wisdom, and his
tongue speaks justice. The law of his
God is in his heart; his steps do not
slip. (Psalm 37:29-31)
In sacrifice and offering you have
not delighted, but you have given mean open ear. Burnt offering and sin
offering you have not required. Then
I said, Behold, I have come; in the
scroll of the book it is written of me:
I delight to do your will, O my God;
your law is within my heart. (Psalm
40:6-8)
Listen to me, you who know righ-
teousness, the people in whose heart
is my lawmy righteousness will be
forever, and my salvation to all gen-
erations.(Isaiah 51:7-8)
The law written on the heartdoes
not refer to a specific codified content,
although I wouldnt entirely disagree
with those that suggest it is a gen-
eral love for God and neighbor the
two greatest commandments. The
law written on the heartis simply
the disposition of every regenerate
soul that longs for the relationship of
covenantal obedience to their Lord
and Savior the desire to do the will
of God. Psalm 86:11-13 is a good
summary: Teach me your way, O
LORD, that I may walk in your truth;
unite my heart to fear your name. I
give thanks to you, O Lord my God,
with my whole heart, and I will glorify
your name forever. For great is yoursteadfast love toward me; you have
delivered my soul from the depths of
Sheol. And what Jeremiah 31:31-34
points to is a day when every cov-
enant member will know the Lord,
and share not only the experience of
David that is reflected in these psalms,
but the experience and reality that is
perfectly reflected in his greater Son
and our covenant head, the Lord Jesus
Christ.
The Specific Characteristics of
the Grace Movement: #2 His-
torical-Redemptive Reductionism
What is the result if we posit a
different kind of obedience, an obedi-
ence that transcends or excludes an
intentional or volitional response
to the written word? It results in a
Historical-Redemptive reduction-
ism. Within the Grace Movement in
general, including some who use theterm NCT, there is an increasing ten-
dency toward a Barthian type theol-
ogy, one that promotes unbiblical im-
plications and applications regarding
the legitimate distinction between the
Word of God and the Incarnate Word,
as well as the increasing exclusivity
of the redemptive story or Historical-
Redemptive paradigm.
One Internet participant posted,
Christ in me is all I need to be led in
the paths of righteousness. No impera-
tives required. He IS sufficient for all
righteousness! Now certainly, as a
basic statement regarding ultimate
authority and significance, there is
no denying the truth of the statement,
Christ in me is all I need. It would
be similar to Pauls reference to the
preeminence of Christ in Colossians
1:15-17, All things are by him
through himand for him, or his
statement in Romans 11:36, For from
him and through him and to him are
all things. But while these state-
ments provide a doxological summary
of true religion, they are not at the
same time the whole counsel of God
and can and are being used in a way
that minimizes or ignores the God-ordained means of the Word of God,
prayer, and the fellowship of the local
church.
Allow me to interact with an
author (in italics) that puts it this
way: The Bible is inspired by the
Holy Ghost. I want to get that out of
the way right off the bat. That said,
I have established over and over
again in this blog that Jesus redefined
the phrase word of God to be thegospel, or himself, the living walking
gospel and gave Scripture a solely re-
demptive focus. Paul also reinforced
the redemptive focus of Scripture in
2 Timothy 3:15. He told Timothythat
the Scripture would make one wise
for salvation and thereby established
the solely redemptive focus. Verses 16
and 17 of the same passage must be
viewed within the redemptive purpose.
In other words, it is only profitable
from a redemptive point of view.Is that what 2 Timothy 3:16, 17 says?
This in my opinion is biblical eisoge-
sis, not exegesis. He continues, The
unbelieving Pharisees are examples
of it not being profitable.But I would
answer, Of course they are, they
were unregenerate men! The author
concludes, It will enable us to take
the Scripture for what it is rather than
turn it into an idol that we in reality
place above God. Removing biblio-idolatry would give us the opportunity
to ask the question; how would love
react to this or that?1
Biblio-idolatry? Really? Was Paul
pitting Sola Scriptura against Solo
Christo in 2 Timothy 3:16, 17?Com-
menting on John Frames The Doc-
1 http://paradigmshift-jmac.blogspot.
com.
7/30/2019 Sound of Grace, Issue 198, June 2013
13/20
Issue 198 June 2013 Page 13
McAloonContinued on page 14
McAloonCont. from page 7
and determine whether or not this is
actually the case, and I would highly
recommend reading these primary
sources and meditating over the
Scriptures NCT theologians discuss.5
To adequately do so in this brief study
would go beyond the course of thispaper; therefore my purpose here is to
faithfully set forth the central tenets
of NCT and its distinctions, with the
hope of arousing the interests of those
who have been thus far unsatisfied
with tradition and have a heart to bet-
ter handle the Scriptures in order to
love Christ and appreciate the salva-
tion he has purchased more deeply.
A Brief Comparison of Biblical-
theological SystemsBefore diving into the details of
NCT, it is important to first briefly
summarize the primary systems
within evangelical theology that it
finds wanting in many areas. Al-
though not entirely monolithic, and
with many intricate variations within
their respective schools of thought, the
two general theological categories are
Covenant Theology and Dispensation-
alism. What must be kept in mind is
that although these approaches differ
in many important interpretations of
Scripture, they have all been held by
5 Some good starting points are: Wells
and Zaspel,New Covenant Theol-
ogy; and Steve Lehrer,New Covenant
Theology: Questions Answered, (Steve
Lehrer, 2006), also available for free
here: http://www.ids.org/pdf/nctbook.
pdf. It must be noted that although
there will be references to Lehrers
work throughout this discussionbecause of its clarity and accuracy
regarding the central tenets of NCT,
most NCT theologians distance them-
selves from him because of his par-
ticular views concerning incest and the
salvific merits of the active obedience
of Christ. Like any theological discus-
sion, references within this paper are
not meant to endorse all views and
opinions of their authors, but rather to
cite relevant and true statements where
there is common ground.
many devout and godly Christians
who, although they have nuanced their
views in slightly different ways, have
generally had fundamental agree-
ments on the central issues of God
and salvation.6
Covenant Theology: Continuity
Covenant Theology is an interpre-
tative framework that revolves around
the continuity of Gods covenants with
his people. Pertinent to this discussion
are the systems interpretations of the
covenants God has personally made
with man in time.7The basic founda-
tions around which the whole system
revolves are as follows:8
Man is always in covenant rela-
tionship with God. The reason being
is that God is transcendent, and the
distance is so great between Him and
His creatures that man could not enjoy
any blessings from Him unless He first
decided to condescend to them by way
of covenant (See Westminster Confes-
sion of Faith [hereafterWCF], VII.I).
The whole of Scripture is covered
by two covenants. Rather than the
Old and New, these covenants are the
Covenant of Works and Covenant of
Grace. The Covenant of Works was
made with Adam prior to the Fall,which promised him eternal life upon
his perfect obedience (WCFVII.II).
The Covenant of Grace was made
with man after the Fall, whereby God
6 An exception may be taken with some
of the earlier Dispensationalists, but
generally this is the case. See John S.
Feinberg, ed., Continuity and Discon-
tinuity: Perspectives on the Relation-
ship Between the Old and New Testa-
ments(Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books,
1988), 310.
7 I have not yet come across any NCT
material that touches on Covenanta-
lisms concept of an eternal covenant
made between the Father and Son to
redeem the elect before creation, nor
do I think that an affirmation or denial
of such a covenant would affect any of
its positions.
8 Much of what follows is taken from
Reisingers summary in Abrahams
Four Seeds, 121-124.
freely offered sinners life and salva-
tion by Jesus Christ, requiring only
faith in Him(WCFVII.III). This one
Covenant of Grace was given two ad-
ministrations: one under the law and
Old Covenant, and another under the
gospel and New Covenant[emphasis
mine] (WCFVII.V).
Woven within these two broad and
general summary points are many
presuppositions and implications that
must be addressed. To begin with,
there are three primary presupposi-
tions which many theologians in dif-
fering camps take issue with: 1. There
is one unchanging Covenant of Grace
that has two administrations under
the Old and New Covenants; 2. There
is one redeemed people of God in all
ages under one unchanging covenant;3. There is one unchanging moral law
for the one redeemed people under the
one covenant, viz. the Ten Command-
ments.9 Some implications of their
postulations are that, like Israel, both
believers and unbelievers are under
the physical New Covenant admin-
istration; like infants born under the
Old Covenant, infants born to families
under the New Covenant are to re-
ceive the sign of that covenant which
has changed from circumcision to
baptism; Moses Ten Commandments
are the law and rule for New Testa-
ment believers; and a church state is
something to be sought after.
Covenant Theology as a formal
system really began with Ulrich
Zwingli and was retained in the
Reformed and Puritan churches. An
honest reading of history may lead
one to see that many inherited presup-
positions subconsciously led some of
the early Protestants to develop and
hold such a view. Zwingli and others
were born into a culture where the
establishment of infant baptism and
the propriety of a magisterial church
state was simply assumed; thus these
9 John Reisinger,In Defense of Jesus, the
New Lawgiver(Frederick, MD: New
Covenant Media, 2008), 185.
7/30/2019 Sound of Grace, Issue 198, June 2013
14/20
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 andapplication of this theology, and it was
this view that resulted in the justifica-
tion of the persecution of groups like
the Anabaptists and kept the major-
ity of Puritans from fully reforming
and establishing churches that could
truly live and worship consistently
in the spirit of the New Covenant.11
Apart from many objections based
solely upon exegesis, these are some
of the negative aspects of this system
of thought which has led many to turnaway and seek for a better way for un-
derstanding Scripture and the nature
of the New Covenant.
Dispensationalism: Discontinuity
Dispensationalism is a relatively
more modern method of reading
Scripture, although considering the
timeline of church history, so is
Covenant Theology. Whereas the
latter believes that covenants arethe keys to understanding Scripture,
the former holds that dispensations
are the answer. The basic tenet of
most Dispensationalists is that mans
relationship to God is not the same in
every age. Throughout history it has
been necessary to bring fallen man
into divine testing. In separate and
distinct dispensations, or periods of
testing, God has demonstrated every
possible means of dealing with man.12
10 See Wells and Zaspel, 2-3; also Jack
Cottrell, Baptism in the Reformed
Tradition, in David W. Fletcher, ed.,
Baptism and the Remission of Sins (Jo-
plin, Missouri: College Press, 1990),
50.
11 Reisinger,Abrahams Four Seeds, ii.
12 Lewis Sperry Chafer, revised by John
F. Walvoord,Major Bible Themes
(Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing
House, 1974), 127; referenced in Reis-
inger,Abrahams Four Seeds, 126.
Generally, traditional Dispensational-
ists have held to seven distinct dispen-
sations of this type: 1. Dispensation
of Innocence (Age of Liberty) from
Gen. 1:26-3:6; 2. Conscience (Age
of Human Determination) from Gen.
3:7-8:19; 3. Human Government
(Covenant with Noah) from Gen.8:20-11:9; 4. Promise (Covenant with
Abraham) from Gen. 11:10-Ex. 19:2;
5. Law (the Nation of Israel) from Ex.
19:3-Acts 2; 6. Grace (the Church)
from Acts 2 until the rapture; 7.
Kingdom (The Millennium) from the
Second Coming until the final destruc-
tion of the present world.13 Again, this
system is not monolithic, and there are
many derivations within its camp such
as Progressive Dispensationalism;
however, many of the same principleshold true for each.
Dispensationalists are devout
defenders of Scripture who dedicate
themselves to strict and literal
interpretations of biblical texts, and
are known to be adamantly against
spiritualizing Scripture.14 In a sense,
all conservatives make such a claim;
however, Dispensationalists are said to
isolate texts and take them on the sur-
face in their most basic forms, whichmany theologians see a problem with.
For instance, Reisinger points out the
fact that the Scofield Reference Bible
never cross-references Peters state-
ments recorded in Acts 3:24-26 which
refer to the promise made to Abraham
in Gen. 12:1-3, and believes that this
is because Dispensationalists cannot
fit Peters spiritualized interpreta-
tion of the simple and literal promises
made to Abraham consistently into
their system.15 He also points out that
the NT Scriptures go against their
13 Ibid., 129-136; in Reisinger,Abra-
hams Four Seeds, 127-128.
14 John Feinberg, Systems of Disconti-
nuity in Continuity and Discontinu-
ity: Perspectives on the Relationship
Between the Old and New Testaments
(Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books,
1988), 73.
15 Reisinger,Abrahams Four Seeds, 41.
hermeneutic by spiritualizing the
OT land promise in passages where
one would expect to see it reiterated
(i.e., in the sermons recorded in the
book of Acts, the book of Hebrews,
and in passages like Luke 1:68-79).16
In addition to their literalistic her-
meneutic, some distinctions withintheir system are that they believe that
there is a sharp and definite distinc-
tion between the church and Israel,
and God has always had a different
plan for both; the church did not
begin until Pentecost, thus spiritual
realities within the body of Christ
such as baptism of the Spirit and
indwelling of Christ were differ-
ent than the experience of any OT
saint; believers under the law ofChrist are under a different code
than the Mosaic law (including the
Ten Commandments); there will be
a literal fulfillment of a millennium
with a special emphasis on Israel;
and many see the church as a sort
of parenthesis in Gods overall
plan of redemption.17 Many of
these points have much in common
with NCT, while others do not.
New Covenant theologians and
many other critics do not feel com-
fortable with Dispensationalisms
strict literalism and pronounced
separation of Israel and the church,
and believe that their system over-
looks many biblical texts that seem
to go against its rigorous emphasis
on discontinuity.18
16 Ibid., 92-93.
17 See John Feinberg, Systems of Dis-
continuity, 71-85; O. Palmer Robert-
son, Hermeneutics of Continuity,
107; and Robert L. Saucy, Israel and
the Church: A Case for Discontinuity,
249-250; in Feinberg, ed., Continuity
and Discontinuity.
18 For further analysis, see the opposing
authors comments at the end of John
Feinberg, Systems of Discontinuity;
Paul D. Feinberg, Hermeneutics of
Discontinuity; and Saucy, Israel and
McAloonContinued fr om page 13
7/30/2019 Sound of Grace, Issue 198, June 2013
15/20
Issue 198 June 2013 Page 15
clear-cut view of the Doctrines of
Grace and the unity of the Scriptures
aligns us with the Reformers and the
Puritans.... Our view of the unity of
the Scriptures makes it impossible for
us to accept the Dispensationalism set
forth in the Scofield Reference Bible.
On the other hand, our Baptistic view
that the New Covenant in Jesus Christhas replaced the Old Covenant at Si-
nai makes it just as impossible for us
to accept the Covenant Theology set
forth in the Westminster Confession of
Faith.21
Now that we have a background
for the topic at hand, it is necessary to
provide a brief summary of the cen-
tral tenets of NCT before discussing
some of its intricacies. Although not
entirely comprehensive, below is ahelpful list that helps sum up the posi-
tions that will be discussed through-
out the course of this study:
Abrahamic Covenant
The Abrahamic Covenant reveals
Gods plan to save a people and take
them into his land. The Old Covenant
with the nation of Israel and the
Promised Land is a temporary picture
of what is accomplished by the New
Covenant, by which Jesus actuallypurchased a people and will take
them to be with him forever in the
new heavens and new earth.
Old Covenant
The Old or Mosaic Covenant is
a legal or works covenant that God
made with Israel on Mount Sinai.
This covenant is brought to an end
and is fulfilled at the cross. It was
never intended to save people, but
instead its purpose was to increasesin and guilt until the coming of the
Savior. Israel, under the Mosaic Cov-
21 Reisinger,Abrahams Four Seeds, iii.
enant, was the physical fulfillment of
the Abrahamic Covenant.
New Covenant
The New Covenant is a gracious
covenant. Those included in the cov-
enant are reconciled to God by grace
alone apart from anything they do.Jesus purchased a people by his death
on the cross so that all those for whom
he died receive full forgiveness of sins
and become incurable God-lovers by
the Holy Spirit. The New Covenant is
the spiritual fulfillment of the Abraha-
mic Covenant.
Law
The version of law in the Old Cov-
enant era was the Mosaic law, which
included the Ten Commandments.The Mosaic law has passed away with
the coming of Christ and the New
Covenant. God no longer requires
people to follow the Mosaic law. The
version of law in the New Covenant
era is the law of Christ, which in-
cludes the commands of Christ that
pertain to the New Covenant era and
the commands of his apostles.
Israel and the Church
Israel in the Old Covenant era was
a temporary, unbelieving picture of
the true people of God: the church.
There always existed a small remnant
of believers within unbelieving Israel.
When Jesus Christ came, thepicture
of the people of God gave way to the
true people of God consisting of both
Jews and Gentiles.
The Cross
By his death on the cross, Jesuspurchased both complete forgiveness
of sins past, present, and future as
well as a changed life or new heart for
all those for whom he died. Believ-
ers love Christ more than sin and are
characterized by repentance when
they sin. Christs work on the cross is
the New Covenant.22
22 Taken from Lehrer, 19.
New Covenant Theology
NCT is not an intentional middle
ground or blending of these two sys-
tems; however, through many con-
clusions derived from biblical texts,
it does hold various aspects in com-
mon with both. Some disagreements
we and others have with the abovesystems are that, like most traditions,
they allow their presuppositions to
drive their exegesis of some texts at
the expense of others; neither system
understands the biblical doctrine of
the church as the body of Christ in the
redemptive purposes of God; neither
really has a true New Covenant re-
placing an Old Covenant where both
relate to the same redemptive pur-
poses of God for his one true people,thus both are unable to fit Hebrews
8 in either system; and neither sees
the true relationship of Israel and the
church, in that both insist on bring-
ing the physical aspect of Israel as a
nation into the New Testament either
directly or indirectly.19 Through our
study and weighing of Scriptures, we
have come to many conclusions in
these matters that line up with those
of the early Anabaptists and a chorus
of many Christians throughout churchhistory.20 To define our position in
the spectrum of Christian Theology,
Reisinger says the following:
We find ourselves in the odd
position of being stepchildren of both
the Reformers and the Anabaptists,
but the true heirs of neither. Our
the Church: A Case for Discontinu-
ity; in Ibid.
19 See Reisinger,Abrahams Four Seeds,
i-iv, 117-119; and Wells and Zaspel,259-270.
20 See Wells and Zaspel, 22-32; and
John Reisinger,In Defense of Jesus,
41.
By saying, a new covenant, He has declared that the first is old. And what is old and
aging is about to disappear. Hebrews 8:13
(from Holman Christian Standard Bible Copyright 1999, 2000, 2002, 2003, 2005 by Holman Bible
Publishers.)
7/30/2019 Sound of Grace, Issue 198, June 2013
16/20
Page 16 June 2013 Issue 198
Postage & Handling Rates
United States
Up to $20.00 $3.95
$20.01$50.00 $6.00
$50.01 and Up 12%
Postage & Handling Rates
OverseasDiscover, VISA or
MasterCard
Please call or e-mail for rates
Postage & Handling Rates
CanadaDiscover, VISA or
MasterCard
Up to $30.00 $7.50
$30.01 and Up 25%
Ship to: _________ ______ ______ ______ _____
Street address: __________________________
City: _______________ State: ______Zip: ___ _
Country: ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ _
My check (payable to New Covenant Media) is enclosed
Charge to my: Discover VISA MasterCard
Expires _______/_______
Account Number: ______/______/______/______
Signature: ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ __
S h i p p i n g R a t e C h a r t f o r B o o k s
TITLE LIST SALE QTY COST
Warfield on the Christian LifeFred G. Zaspel $17.99 $14.39
The Theology of B.B. WarfieldFred G. Zaspel $40.00 $29.95
Philosophical Dialgoues on the Christian FaithSteve West $12.00 $9.50
What Jesus Demands from the WorldJohn Piper $19.99 $13.25
The First London Confession of Faith-1646 Edition
Preface by Gary D. Long
$7.99 $6.50
All Things NewCarl Hoch $19.98 $15.95
Context! Evangelical Views on the Millenium ExaminedGary D. Long $25.00 $17.50
The Doctrine of ChristWilliam Sasser $4.75 $3.75
The Doctrine of SalvationWilliam Sasser $4.75 $3.75
The Doctrine of ManWilliam Sasser $4.75 $3.75
The Doctrine of GodWilliam Sasser $4.00 $3.00
The Atoning Work of Jesus ChristWilliam Sasser $5.00 $4.00
The New Covenant and the Law of ChristChris Scarborough $10.95 $9.50
Should Christians Fear God Today?John Korsgaard $6.95 $3.50
Justification by FaithJames White $6.95 $2.75
Answers to Catholic ClaimsJames White $9.95 $2.00
The Fatal FlawJames White $11.95 $2.50
Gods Sovereign GraceJames White $8.95 $3.50
Behind the Watchtower CurtainDavid A. Reed $10.95 $2.00
How to Share Christ with a Jehovahs WitnessPatrick J. Campbell $5.95 $2.50
The Reformers and Their StepchildrenLeonard Verduin $9.95 $9.50
The Pilgrims Progress (The Accurate Revised Text by Barry E. Horner) $12.00 $9.75
Biblical EldershipAlexander Strauch $14.99 $9.30
Biblical Eldership Study GuideAlexander Strauch $19.99 $12.50
Biblical Eldership Mentors GuideAlexander Strauch $19.99 $12.50
Total Price
See Rate Charts Below Shipping
Canadian ordersDiscover, Visa or MasterCard onlyplease. Total Order
7/30/2019 Sound of Grace, Issue 198, June 2013
17/20
Issue 198 June 2013 Page 17
Definite AtonementLong $10.95 $8.76
The Doctrine of BaptismSasser $3.50 $2.80
Full Bellies and Empty HeartsAutio $14.99 $12.00
Galatians: A Theological InterpretationWhite $15.95 $12.76
GraceReisinger $13.95 $11.16
The Grace of Our Sovereign GodReisinger $19.99 $16.00
Hermeneutical Flaws of DispensationalismGeorge $10.75 $8.60
In Defense of Jesus, the New LawgiverReisinger $23.95 $15.95Is John G. Reisinger an Antinomian?Wells $4.25 $3.40
John Bunyan on the SabbathReisinger $3.00 $2.80
Jonathan Edwards on Biblical Hermeneutics and the
Covenant of GraceGilliland
$3.95 $3.16
La Soberana de Dios en la ProvidenciaJohn G. Reisinger $7.50 $6.00
The Law of Christ: A Theological ProposalWhite $14.95 $11.96
Limited AtonementReisinger $7.00 $5.60
Ministry of Grace Essays in Honor of John G. ReisingerSteve West, Editor $14.85 $11.88
The New Birth Reisinger $5.50 $4.40
The New Covenant and New Covenant TheologyZaspel $11.99 $9.60
New Covenant TheologyWells & Zaspel $19.95 $15.96
New Covenant Theology & ProphecyReisinger $12.99 $10.39The Newness of the New CovenantWhite $12.99 $10.39
The New Perspective on Justification West $9.99 $8.00
The Obedience of ChristVan Court $2.50 $2.00
Our Sovereign God Reisinger $4.45 $3.56
Perseverance of the Saints Reisinger $6.00 $4.80
The Priority of Jesus ChristWells $11.95 $9.56
A Prisoners ChristianityWoodrow $12.99 $10.39
Saving the Saving GospelWest $12.99 $10.39
Sinners, Jesus Will ReceivePayne $9.99 $8.00
Studies in GalatiansReisinger $19.99 $15.96
Studies in EcclesiastesReisinger $19.99 $15.96
Tablets of StoneReisinger $10.95 $8.75
Theological Foundations for New Covenant EthicsWhite $14.99 $12.00
The Sovereignty of God and PrayerReisinger $5.75 $4.60
The Sovereignty of God in Providence Reisinger $4.45 $3.56
Total Depravity Reisinger $5.00 $4.00
Union with Christ: Last Adam and Seed of AbrahamWhite $11.95 $9.56
What is the Christian Faith? Reisinger $2.50 $2.00
What is New Covenant Theology? An IntroductionWhite $12.99 10.39
When Should a Christian Leave a Church?Reisinger $3.75 $3.00
Total Pr ice
See Shipping Rate Charts on Page 16 Shipping
Total
TITLE LIST SALE QTY COST
Abide in Him: A Theological Interpretation of John's First LetterWhite $13.95 $11.16
Abrahams Four SeedsReisinger $10.95 $8.76
The Believers SabbathReisinger $3.75 $3.00
Biblical Law and Ethics: Absolute and CovenantalLong $15.75 $12.60
But I Say Unto YouReisinger $10.95 $8.68
Chosen in EternityReisinger $5.50 $4.40
Christ, Lord and Lawgiver Over the ChurchReisinger $2.50 $2.00
The Christian and The SabbathWells $11.99 $9.59
Continuity and DiscontinuityReisinger $12.95 10.36
B O O K S F R O M N E W C O V E N A N T M E D I A
7/30/2019 Sound of Grace, Issue 198, June 2013
18/20
Page 18 June 2013 Issue 198
Gilliland Continued from page 12
trine of the Christian Life, Douglas
Moos insights are worthy of note:
The tendency toward subjectiv-
ity invades the Christian church as
well. In a chapter dealing with
redemptive history as an aspect of
the situational perspectiveFramesuggests that the fascination with
redemptive history in the contempo-
rary academy has created an imbal-
ance in preaching, in which preachers
avoid holding up biblical characters
as moral examples out of a concern
to avoid moralism. I share what
seems to be Frames concern that a
renewed emphasis on the redemptive-
historical and narrative dimension in
Scripture can go too far and push out
other important dimensions of the
text. He rightly recognizes the factthat Scripture confronts believers with
authoritative demands from God, de-
mands that cannot be relativized away
with a vague appeal to love or to the
difficulties of situations that we find
ourselves in.2
In one blog interaction I was
asked, Is the living Christ of greater
value to his saints than the written
Word? First of all, the question il-
lustrates another characteristic of this
movement: the fallacy of the either-
or. My answer was and is, In the
believer they are never separated.
Christ never separated them in his
relationship with his Father; the desire
to do the Fathers will was his contin-
ual focus. And although strengthened
and nurtured by the Spirit, he would
still say, Man shall not live by bread
alone, but by every word that pro-
ceeds from the mouth of God (Matt.
Top Related