Chad, I agree about the average pew sitter not getting it. O may God be gracious to bring reformation and revival and a desire for all to truly study and be hungry for truth. This is a sad commentary on where "evangelicalism" as a whole is going. I agree that intramural discussions for the" leaders and teachers" are very important. What we see as truth should first be taught contextually from the Scripture as biblical truth. The" language" of our theology can be introduced in various ways in secondary teaching: sunday school classes, seminars, small groups, conferences, whatever. It is much the same when introducing "reformed theology" in general to any who have not had exposure to the frame work in theological terms. As much as it is an undoing it is more of a patient pressing on with what we believe to be the most coherent approach to understanding ALL of Scripture, is it not? Joe Krygier .Buffalo NY. On Apr 29, 2005, at 10:28 PM, Chad Richard Bresson wrote: > 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.” > > -- > > -- > Read the Sound of Grace pages at > http://www.soundofgrace.com > > To unsubscribe, send ANY message to: > soundofgrace-unsubscribe@... > > To view our online archive go to our web page at > http://www.associate.com/groups/soundofgrace > > >