At the same time, personally (which means I could be entirely wrong... :-)),
I think this might be one of those issues where the audience may lose the
forest for the trees. I agree with JGR's position on *why* the OT can be
confusing and *why* it has been misused in the past. But the reality is
that NCT isn't going to change 500+ years of calling the OTS the OT (a
special thanks goes to King James)... and I wonder about the pragmatic
wisdom of attempting to do so. Most of the people in our own pews (at least
I think this is true at Clearcreek Chapel) don't or wouldn't get it. Many
still have one foot in mainstream evangelicalism. So while this is an issue
I might press in our own intramural discussions, I'm not sure we should be
pressing it on the pews anytime soon. The onus may be on us, but we must
also deal with the reality that the onus may be more than NCT can or should
handle.
And I don't just pick on the OT vs. OTS issue... I think this must be
something that must be a concern in the entire development of the NCT
apologetic. While NCT shouldn't allow CT or DISPY to define it, NCT must
still be aware that its apologetic is speaking precisely to those camps...
and it must be graspable by the all important pew in those camps. Sometimes
the attempt to transcend the debate by cutting *brand new* territory,
especially in the delineation of terminology, gets in the way of
communicating the message. And ironically, when that happens, there is no
transcendence of the debate.
On a related item, in order to define "old" in the NTS, we must exhaustively
(or nearly so) define the *content* of Christ's fulfillment. Christ (or the
gospel writers) never spoke of fulfilling the Old Covenant, but "the Law of
Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms" (Luke 24:44). Christ, in some
sense, didn't merely fulfill the Mosaic Covenant, but the entire "Old
Testament" (esp. since Luke is using "Law of Moses" in this instance to
describe the entire Penteteuch... Christ here is talking about "all the
Scriptures" being fulfilled; the issue is revelation). Or as Vos would say,
Christ has fulfilled the entire "old order" of things. In that sense, it
might be OK to speak of the "Old Testament" as the broad "Old Covenant"
because the entire pre-Christ event canon has been fulfilled in Christ.
IOW, the 2 Corinthians mention of the OC (which is the only time it is
mentioned explicitly as the OC in the NTS), or the Hebrews mention of the NC
does not exhaust all that can be said of the OC.
OK... just my two cents inserted... continue on gents... never mind me...
Chad Bresson
Xenia, OH
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Reisinger" <24jreisinger26@...>
To: <soundofgrace@...>
Sent: Friday, April 29, 2005 8:31 PM
Subject: Re: [soundofgrace] A start on NCT distinctives.
>I don't think the average Christian, including the average Reformed
> believer, is even aware of the problem. JGR
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Steve Fuchs" <SteveF_MS@...>
> To: <soundofgrace@...>
> Sent: Friday, April 29, 2005 7:25 PM
> Subject: Re: [soundofgrace] A start on NCT distinctives.
>
>
>> Ok, I understand.
>>
>> Is the distinction obvious enough for christians everywhere to see that
>> we
>> mean something different?
>>
>> Steve
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "John Reisinger" <24jreisinger26@...>
This is "off the top of my head." It is meant only as start to stimulate
thinking. and comment. JGR
I. The Bible, all 66 books. are equally inspired by God. II Tim. 3:15.
II. All 66 books of the Bible are profitable and authoritative for
“teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteous.” II Tim. 3:15
III. The “Scriptures which Timothy learned (II Tim. 3:15) and which are
both inspired by God and therefore profitable and authoritative for
“teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteous” are referring to
the OTS in Paul’s admonition in II Tim. 3:15-17. It is these Scriptures that
Paul said could “equip the man of God for every good work” (II Tim 3:17).
IV. The 39 books written before Christ (Genesis to Malachi - we will call
these 39 books the “Old Testament Scriptures.”) are just as must the
authoritative Word of God for the Christian today as they were for the
Israelite. Those 39 books are a vital part of the rule of life for a
Christian today. However, the OTS must be understood and interpreted through
the lens of the 27 books written after Christ (which we will call the “New
Testament Scriptures.”)
V. We total reject calling the 39 books written before Christ “the Old
Testament” and likewise reject calling the 27 books written after Christ
“the New Testament.” Using these labels to divide up our Bibles has caused
no end of confusion.
1. We clearly distinguish, and seek to maintain in our
teaching, the real and distinct difference between the phrase “Old
Testament” and “Old Covenant.” The phrase “Old Testament,” when used to
refer to the 39 books of the Bible written before Christ is purely a
literally division without any Scriptural authority. The phrase “Old
Covenant” is a Biblical term and should be used exclusively for the “Old
Covenant” that God made with Israel at Mount Sinai. The “Old Testament
Scriptures” have a historical beginning but no historical end. They will
remain forever a part of the inspired Word of God. The “Old Covenant” also
has a historical beginning, at Mount Sinai, and it also had an historical
end, at the coming of Christ. The New Covenant that Christ established
replaces, in its totality, the Old Covenant.”
2. Likewise we insist that we do the same thing with the phrase
“New Testament Scriptures” and “New Covenant.” The New Testament Scriptures,
the 27 books of the Bible written after Christ came, do not replace the Old
Testament Scriptures; they are added to the 39 books and become part of our
one equally inspired Bible. On the other hand, the “New Covenant” totally
replaces and does away with the “Old Covenant.”
3. When NCT insists that the “Old Covenant” in its entirety has
been done away, we do not mean the “Old Testament Scriptures” have been done
away in any sense whatever. Not one single verse in the entire Old Testament
Scriptures has been done away even though the Old Covenant” in its entirety
has been done away.
VI. The center of the Bible and the key to understanding its message and
its unity is the Person and Work of the Lord Jesus Christ. Covenants and
Dispensations are important and understanding them both are essential to
understanding the message of the Bible but the redemptive work of Christ as
planned, purposed and brought about by God’s sovereign providence is the key
to the Bible. The Bible is a HIM-book.
See Heb. 10:5 and Luke 24.
VII. The bulk of the Bible is built around two major covenants. They are
described in Scripture as the “Old and New Covenants.” See Gal. 4:24-26.
Jer. 31:31-34 cf. Heb. 8:6-10; 10:15,16.
VIII. Both of these covenants are clearly identified in Scripture as the
covenant made with Israel at Sinai and the New Covenant in Christ that
replaces the Old Covenant made with Israel at Sinai. See Gal 4:24-26 and
Heb. 8:6-13.
IX. Exactly what is “the Old Covenant”? When, and with whom, was it made?
What are its specific terms? Why was it so essential that the Old Covenant
must be done away and replaced with the New Covenant? These questions will
be answered in detail later. We are only concerned with an outline at this
point.
(1) The basic summary document of the Old Covenant was the
“Tablets of the Covenant” or Ten Commandments given to Israel at Sinai as
the terms of their national covenant relationship with God.. See Exodus
34:27-29; Deut. 5:1-4; 9:9-11. This is why the box that was built for the
express purpose of housing the stone tablets containing the Ten Commandments
is called the “Ark of the Covenant,” it housed the summary document of the
covenant or Tablets of the Covenant. See Deut: 9:9-11. For a detailed study
of the place and function of the Ten Commandments in Scripture see our book,
“The Tablets of Stone & the History of Redemption.”
(2) “The Book of the Covenant”was added and made a part of
the Old Covenant. See Exodus 24:6-8. This book was laid along side of the
Ark of the Covenant (Deut. 31:26).At different times in history the Book of
Law was revised. The Tablets of the Covenant was never changed. In actual
fact, the Tablets of the Covenant, or Ten Commandments, were only seen by
human eyes one time after being put in that box and that one look cost
50,070 lives (1 Sam. 6:19). Paul calls the Book of the Covenant “the Book of
the Law” in Gal. 3:10.
(3) Finally the entire system of laws and ceremonies became
part of the”Old Covenant.” See Jer. 34:13,14 and 2 Kings 23:21 for proof
that the so-called ceremonial law was considered part of the Old Covenant.1
The Old Covenant equals Judaism. The phrase “the Law of Moses” is synonymous
the “Old Covenant.”
One of the basic problems New Covenant Theology must deal
with concerns the relationship of the Old to the New. Notice I did not say
what “Old” and “New” I was talking about. That fact is part of the real
problem that we face. If I am asking what the relationship is between the
Old and New Covenants that is one thing. If I am asking what is the
relationship between the Old and New Testaments I asking an entirely
different question. If I am asking what is the relationship between the Old
Covenant and the New Testament then I am really confusing the issue.
The problem we are discussing is called “Continuity versus
Discontinuity.” What part of the Old is brought over into the New and what
is fulfilled and done away? Again, the question is confusing and impossible
to answer until we ask and answer “What specific old and new thing are you
talking about?” My answer will make some people angry and others will quit
reading and say, “Reisinger’s simplistic answer shows that he does not
understand how complex the problem is.” In my defense, let me say that I do
understand how complex the question is if the questions are framed within
current systematic theologies. However, the complexity grows out of not
carefully defining exactly what we talking about. That requires carefully
defining the terms we are using.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 At one point I held that the Old Covenant and the Ten Commandments were
one on one the same thing. I changed my mind and now hold to the above. My
detailed reasons for changning are set forth in my book “Tablets of Stone.”
--