Home   Bible Studies   Blog   About   Helpful Links   Contact

Posts Tagged ‘Covenant Theology’

Best Blogs Digest: For Busy Disciples (Oct. 2010)

Tuesday, November 2nd, 2010

By Greg Gibson

Distinctives-Centered or Gospel-Centered?
Bob Gonzales wrote my unauthorized biography. Looks like we were both distinctives-centered instead of gospel-centered: “I also had a tendency to be hypercritical of Christians and churches that didn’t share all my beliefs and convictions – while remaining to some degree blind to my own remaining sins and weaknesses (Matt 7:1-5). Instead of focusing primarily on the central truths of the gospel, I was overly preoccupied with beliefs and practices that distinguished me from all other Christians and exalted them to a place of unwarranted priority (Matt 23:23). (GG: Emphasis mine.) As a result, I so focused on minute orthodoxy that I lost sight of brotherly love (Rev 2:2-4) and humility (1 Cor 4:7).
Related to the tendency above, I esteemed my own ecclesiastical tradition so highly that at times I forced the teaching of Scripture into the mold of my tradition or failed to hear the teaching of Scripture because I too highly venerated my tradition. Instead of reading my tradition in the light of Scripture, I tended to read Scripture in the light of my tradition. As a result, I proudly thought myself superior to other Christians (Mark 9:38-40; 1 Cor 12:21) and that I had little if anything to learn from them – only much to teach them. Worse, my veneration of human tradition sometimes invalidated the teaching and mandates of God’s own Word (Matt 15:1-9).” Confessions of a Recovering Legalist by Bob Gonzales

Why Some Covenant Theologians Are Sectarian
“Evangelicals: We can and we must distinguish between essentials and non-essentials better. Draw our circles too tightly, and we slip into fundamentalism. Draw our circles too wide, and we slip into liberalism.”

There are 2 kinds of Covenant Theologians. Those who base their fellowship on…
1. The simple gospel alone: In Acts, the apostles preached what we must believe to be saved. And in the epistles, the apostles confessed the simple gospel that unites all Christians. (1 Cor. 15:3-7; Phil. 2:6-11; 1 Tim. 3:16; Heb. 6:1-2; and 1 Jn. 4:2).
2. The simple gospel + doctrinal distinctives (like Calvinism, the Covenant of Works, the imputation of Christ’s active obedience, or Sabbath-keeping). They reason (illogically) that denying any of those 4 doctrines undermines the gospel/justification. So they look at the majority of Christ’s Church with suspicion instead of love. And they fellowship with a few “sister churces” hours away, instead of dozens of gospel-centered churches nearby. Many of these brothers are divisive and sectarian, promoting men and a movement more than a Person.

However, Michael Patton suggests 4 tests to distinguish doctrinal essentials from non-essentials:
1. Historicity: When was it invented, and how many Christians believed it? (“that which was believed everywhere, always, by everyone.”)
2. Explicitly Historical: Did the Church confess it explicitly (not by implicit logic)?
3. Biblical Clarity (Perspicuity): Is the doctrine taught clearly in Scripture?
4. Explicitly Biblical: Does any Bible text teach it explicitly (not by implicit logic)?

Parts of the 5-points of Calvinism pass and fail each of the tests. But the other 3 alleged, gospel-related doctrines above (the Covenant of Works, the imputation of Christ’s active obedience, and Sabbath-keeping) fail ALL 4 tests. “Make every effor to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit” (Eph. 4:3-4). Evangelicals: We Can and Must Distinguish Between Essentials and Non-Essentials Better by C. Michael Patton

Did Anabaptist Leaders Teach Justification by Faith?
Several Anabaptist leaders, including Hubmaier, Philips, Sattler, and Simons, taught justification by faith. “Anabaptists seldom used ‘justification’ to describe their own views, for they approached the issues involved from a different angle. Like Protestants, they emphasized that God initiates the salvation process, and that individuals enter it through faith. Yet they often complained that Protestants, by emphasizing ‘faith alone’, minimized sanctification and encouraged sub-Christian behavior.”
Did Anabaptists Believe in Justification by Faith Alone? by Kent Brandenburg
Justification by the Global Anabaptist Mennonite Encyclopedia Online
The Hope of the Christian Believer According to Menno Simons by Menno Simons
Menno Simons on … justification by faith by Menno Simons

Positive Thinking Church Files Bankruptcy
“Crystal Cathedral Ministries, an Orange County landmark and megachurch founded by television evangelist Robert H. Schuller, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy Monday morning. The cathedral owes about about $7.5 million to unsecured creditors. The bankruptcy filing seeks court protection from its creditors.” Crystal Cathedral Megachurch Files for Bankruptcy by MSNBC

How to Fight Fear by Believing God’s Promises
“When I am anxious about decisions I have to make about the future, I battle unbelief with the promise, ‘I will instruct you and teach you the way you should go; I will counsel you with my eye upon you’ (Psalm 32:8).” How to Battle Anxiety with the Promises of God

Pure Churches Protect Christ’s Reputation
11 reasons why churches should remove non-attending members. What is Gained by Removing Members from Church Rolls? by Doug Richey

Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Posted in best blogs digest | No Comments »

Reformed Covenant Theology’s Inconsistent Hermeneutic

Monday, March 1st, 2010

(Due to computer problems, I will not publish the Best Blogs Digest for Feb. Please check back in March.)

By Greg Gibson

Here’s some good news in Reformed Covenant Theology circles. Dr. Gary Crampton, seminary professor and author, has changed his view from paedobaptism to credobaptism. Praise God for Gary’s willingness to follow Christ wherever He leads, whatever the cost.

However, Crampton’s motive for changing is an inconsistently applied New Testament hermeneutic. Paedobaptist Covenant theology applies a New Testament hermeneutic to eschatology, but an Old Testament hermeneutic to ecclesiology and nomology. Reformed Baptist Covenant Theology applies a New Testament hermeneutic to eschatology and ecclessiology, but an Old Testament hermeneutic to nomology. New Covenant Theology is the only system that applies a consistent, New Testament hermeneutic to eschatology, ecclesiology, and nomology.

Here are some excerpts from Rich Barcellos’ interview with Crampton: Part I: Interview with Dr. Crampton (from paedobaptism to credobaptism)…

    Crampton: I am a Reformed Baptist, and an advocate of the teachings found in the London Baptist Confession of 1689 and the Reformed Baptist Shorter Catechism…I have been struggling with the matter of paedobaptism versus credobaptism for almost twenty years.

    Barcellos: What are some of the main problems you encountered with paedobaptism that caused you to keep studying?

    Crampton: There were several issues that bothered me about the doctrine of paedobaptism. I will mention only one, and that is…

GG: Crampton’s answers are continued on the left below, and my edited comments are in [brackets] on the right…

Reformed Baptist Covenant Theology:

…there is simply no text in the New Testament (NT) wherein there is any mention of the baptism of infants. This is admitted by some of the finest paedobaptist theologians that have written on the subject. This means, as admitted and taught by these same paedobaptist theologians, that we must go back to the Old Testament (OT) to establish the doctrine. When it comes to the other NT sacrament of the Lord’s supper, however, the paedobaptist theologians do not apply the same hermeneutic principle. That is, the recipients of the Lord’s supper are determined by the NT teaching rather than the OT teaching. The inconsistency here is glaring.
New Covenant Theology:


…there is simply no text in the New Testament (NT) wherein there is any mention of the [Sabbath changed from Saturday to Sunday, and the whole Decalogue binding on New Covenant Jewish and Gentile believers.] This is admitted by some of the finest [apostolic fathers] that have written on the subject. This means, as admitted and taught by these same [Covenant] theologians, that we must go back to the Old Testament (OT) to establish the doctrine. When it comes to the other NT [doctrine of eschatology], however, the [Covenant] theologians do not apply the same hermeneutic principle. That is, the recipients of the [promised blessing to Abraham] are determined by the NT teaching rather than the OT teaching. The inconsistency here is glaring.
Another problem here is that the OT does not mention baptism of infants at all. What this hermeneutic assumes is that the Abrahamic covenant, wherein the male infants were circumcised, is still binding on the NT church on virtually a one-to-one basis, and therefore the infants of believers should be baptized. Another problem here is that the OT does not mention [Adam - the patriarchs obeying the Sabbath, and the Sabbath given to Gentiles] at all. What this hermeneutic assumes is that the [whole Decalogue including the Sabbath] is still binding on the NT church on virtually a one-to-one basis, and therefore [Gentile believers should keep the Sabbath.]

Again, I’m thankful that Dr. Crampton has taken a small step in the right direction. Now I’d like to challenge him and Reformed Covenant Theologians to come all the way out of the Old Covenant and fully into the New Covenant. It’s a better covenant.

Paedobaptist Reformed Covenant Theology applies an inconsistent, Old Testament - New Testament hermeneutic resulting in a new covenant, new priest, new sacrifice, new temple, new king, new kingdom, new land, but a partially old and new people of God, and partially old and new law.

Reformed Baptist Covenant Theology applies an inconsistent, Old Testament - New Testament hermeneutic resulting in a new covenant, new priest, new sacrifice, new temple, new king, new kingdom, new land, new people of God, but a partially old and new law.

New Covenant Theology applies a consistent, New Testament hermeneutic resulting in a new covenant, new priest, new sacrifice, new temple, new king, new kingdom, new land, new people of God, and new law: “…teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you” (Mt. 28:20). New Covenant Theology is the only system where the New Testament consistently inteprets the Old Testament.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in reformed covenant theology | 1 Comment »

New Covenant Theology Book Excerpts

Friday, September 19th, 2008

By Greg Gibson

How would you like to read 3, free chapters from my new book:

“ALL Old Testament Laws Cancelled”
24 Reasons Why All Old Testament Laws Are Cancelled
And All New Testament Laws Are for Our Obedience

(BTW, I’ve edited and expanded this book from the previous e-book by adding 7 new charts and 8349 more words. Now, it’s far clearer than before.)

Here is the book’s Table of Contents:

And, here are the 3, free chapters…

Preface and Introduction (with 1 chart and 3 diagrams)

But the Ten Commandments Are the Moral Law of God

But Christ Did Not Come to Abolish the Law

Please don’t order the book yet, since we are waiting for the printer’s approval. When the book is ready for shipping next week, I’ll announce it here…

P.S. Notice to Email Subscribers:

In order to continue receiving future updates about new Bible studies, blogs, and book excerpts, you must resubscribe to our new email service Feedburner (owned by Google).

To resubscribe, please…
1. Click on JesusSaidFollowMe.org
2. Look in the upper left corner of the page for JesusSaidFollowMe News.
3. Type your email address.
4. Click “Send Me News.”

If you don’t resubscribe, then you will not receive any more emails when I post new, book excerpts here.

See you next week…

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in new covenant theology | No Comments »

“Does New Covenant Theology Allow Beastiality and Incest?”

Thursday, August 30th, 2007

By Greg Gibson

One of the hottest arguments against New Covenant Theology (NCT) in blogs/forums goes something like this:

    “Since the New Testament doesn’t explicitly state that beastiality and incest are sins, therefore New Covenant Theology can’t be true.” (Just try to follow the “logic” behind that one!)

(Covenant Theologians might hurl that kind of argument against the New Covenant Theology in “22 Reasons Why All Old Testament Commands Are Cancelled and We Must Obey All New Testament Commands.”)

However, the same type of argument could easily be made against the Old Testament. Where does the Old Testament explicitly state that the following are sins:

    1. Abortion?
    2. Po-rn?
    3. Pedophilia?
    4. Being a pimp?
    5. Oral s-e-x before marriage?
    6. Buying an idol?
    7. Trying to buy the power of the Holy Spirit? (Acts 8:20)
    8. Lovers of themselves? (2 Tim. 3:2)
    9. Lovers of money? (2 Tim. 3:2)
    10. Etc.

(If you want to reply with the above words, please use the hyphens to avoid the spam filter.)

And, if you put your mind to it, I’m sure you could think of many more examples of so-called “moral sins” that aren’t stated explicitly in the Old Testament.

Two Assumptions: Explicit and Exhaustive

The problem with the above objection is that it’s dependent on 2 unexamined assumptions:

    1. The Old Covenant contains an explicit and exhaustive revelation of “moral law” (I prefer the phrase “law of conscience.”)

    2. The New Testament must contain an explicit and exhaustive revelation of “moral law” for New Covenant Theology to be true.

However, I don’t believe that either the Old Testament or New Testament explicitly reveal ALL the laws of conscience. (If they did, the Bible would have to be a lot longer!) We know some things are wrong because “we know that we know” (conscience.)

Although the objections about beastiality and incest are irrelevant to NCT because of the 2 assumptions above, let’s discuss them anyway…

All Christians agree that humans have consciences convicting them of certain “sins.” But, God never defines those sins for us in Scripture. However, He does tell us in certain sin lists the standards by which He will judge men for heaven or hell.

I believe that the sin lists for all humans (including Gentiles) are the most likely definition of the “law of conscience” (Rom. 1:18-32; 1 Cor. 6:9-10; Gal. 5:19-21; Rev. 21:8, 22:15.) Notice that Lev. 18:23 (beastiality) and Lev. 18:9 (incest) are part of a list of the sins of the Gentiles (18:3, 24-30.)

Even though the whole law of Moses (including Lev. 18) was cancelled as Old Covenant (but not Old Testament,) the same sins in Lev. 18 may also be recorded in Gentiles’ consciences. So, if a heathen living in a rainforest commits incest, he violates the law of conscience, not Lev. 18:9.

Majoring on the Minors

Again, questions about beastiality, incest, etc. are peripheral to NCT because of the 2 assumptions above. Such questions major on the minors. They’re really rabbit trails diverting from the main issues:

1. Are Jer. 31:31-33; Matt. 5:17-18; Rom. 3:31; 2 Tim. 3:16-17 really proof texts for Covenant Theology against New Covenant Theology? (Or, are some of them actually proof texts for New Covenant Theology against Covenant Theology?)

2. Does the Bible teach one Covenant of Grace, or 2 major covenants (structured by one purpose of grace?)

3. How can the law of Moses be divided into 3 parts when it’s one indivisible whole (Gal. 3:10, 5:3; Jas.2:10?)

4. How can the whole Decalogue still be binding when God calls it “the covenant” (which was cancelled?)

5. How can the Sabbath be changed to the first day of the week when the first day is called “one/first from the Sabbath?” (Gk.)

“The 30-Second, Law-Hermeneutic Test”

Here’s a simple test to identify anyone’s law hermeneutic in less than 30 seconds. If a Christian child dishonors his parents, which command did he violate?

    1. Both Ex. 20:12 and Eph. 6:1 (Covenant Theology)
    2. Neither Ex. 20:12 or Eph. 6:1 (Antinomianism)
    3. Only Eph. 6:1, not Ex. 20:12 (New Covenant Theology)

That test will clearly and instantly define anyone’s nomology.

Many Covenant Theologians, Seventh Day Adventists, and others are reading the Bible study “22 Reasons Why All Old Testament Commands Are Canceled and We Must Obey All New Testament Commands.” If you have a question about it, please post it publicly here on this blog (rather than privately by email.)

P.S. Here are the next 6 blog posts coming soon…

1. “12 Questions to Ask When Searching for a Church”

2. “How Much of the Bible Should We Preach, Part or All of it?”

3. Book Review of “God’s Big Picture” by Vaughn Roberts

4. “3 Advantages to Preaching From Long Passages Instead of Short Passages”

5. Book Review of “The Reformers and Their Stepchildren” by Leonard Verduin

P.S. See more Bible studies, blogs, and books at JesusSaidFollowMe.org

Tags: , ,
Posted in new covenant theology | 2 Comments »

Old Testament Commands Quoted in the New Testament Have Been Transferred

Monday, December 4th, 2006

By Greg Gibson

Perhaps someone will raise the objection to New Covenant Theology, “How can all Old Testament commands be cancelled, when some of them are quoted in the New Testament?” But, their assumption is that quotation = continuation. There’s another possibility…

Old Testament commands quoted in the New Testament have been transferred, reinstated, and canonized into the New Covenant canon. (To simplify it, let’s just say they’ve been “transferred.” Maybe an analogy from contract law will help to illustrate this…

Suppose your home has a mortgage containing the clause “Borrower may not paint the house with polka dots or stripes.” Then, suppose you refinance the mortgage for a lower interest rate with the same lender. And, the lender transfers the above clause to your new mortgage like this, “As the old mortgage stated, borrower may not paint the house with polka dots or stripes.”

Now, suppose you’re feeling rebellious, and you decide to paint the house with pink polka dots. Which mortgage did you violate, the old mortgage or the new mortgage? Obviously, you violated the new mortgage, since the old mortgage was cancelled, and the painting clause was transferred to the new mortgage.

And, it’s the same way with the old and new covenants. If a new covenant saint commits adultery, he has violated Romans 13:9, not Exodus 20:14.

To sum it up, the new covenant is not a postscript (P.S.), addendum, or codicil to the old covenant. The new covenant is a new and separate contract.

If this leaves some questions in your mind, I’ll explain in more detail in the book:

“ALL Old Testament Laws Cancelled”
24 Reasons Why All Old Testament Laws Are Cancelled
And All New Testament Laws Are for Our Obedience
New Covenant Theology

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in new covenant theology | No Comments »