| Author | Message | ||
| Bskillet Registered user Username: Bskillet Post Number: 526 Registered: 8-2008 |
Then shame on those theological liberals like Paul of Tarsus and the author of Hebrews, who dare to offer their letters as an interpretation of the Old Testament! Funny, I don't see them in Genesis 1. In fact, I don't see them in Genesis 41. I don't see them until Exodus 20. Are you arguing God gave them to Adam? If so, where in the Bible do you find this? Do you mean to tell me that human slavery, protected by the 10th commandment, was part of the order God created in Eden? (Message edited by bskillet on August 24, 2009) | ||
| Bskillet Registered user Username: Bskillet Post Number: 527 Registered: 8-2008 |
I agree. My problem with some of the older traditions like the Lutheran and Reformed traditions that Colleen speaks of, is that their goal 400 years ago was not only advancing the Gospel, but also creating theocratic societies to rival that of Roman Catholicism (Geneva, for instance). As such, they had to look back to the Old Testament for guidance on such a system. They thus re-married in a Christian's daily life what they tried to divorce in justification, namely the Law of Moses and the Gospel of Jesus. Paul speaks of going back to living by the Old Covenant Law as going back into slavery to the stoicheion of the world. Once the Law has condemned you and thus put you to death in the Cross, you are raised up married to Another. | ||
| Bskillet Registered user Username: Bskillet Post Number: 528 Registered: 8-2008 |
The fact is this: If Jesus did not come and die and rise from the grave, the Old Testament has no meaning. It points forward to a hope that would never materialize. It merely condemns men in their sins, but lets human reality continue on for eternity in living in that condemnation, with no cure and no hope. Without the New Testament, the Old would become meaningless:
| ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 10278 Registered: 12-2003  |
That's how I understand it, Bskillet. I want to point out I did not say the entire OT must be interpreted by the NT. Only the PROPHECIES and shadows are interpreted by the NT. The NT is actually quite clear about which parts of the OT were shadows. But I don't need the NT to interpret creation, or the history of the OT, or the poetry of the OT, etc. etc. There is no contradiction between the OT and the NT. There are different covenants, but there is no contradiction; only fulfillment. If one actually reads Paul at face value, the relationship between the old covenant and the new covenant is very clear, and we don't have to find ways to "re-marry" (to borrow Brent's word) the old and new covenants. Jesus even specifically implied the introduction of a new covenant when he told the disciples on their way down the Mt of Transfiguration not to tell anyone what they had seen and heard until after He rose from the dead. Until that event, the Law and the Prophets were the latest revelation and command of God to His people. When Jesus would rise from the dead, the law and prophets would yield to Jesus alone as the one of whom God said, "This is my Son listen to HIM." Goodness, accepting the biblical revelation that Jesus fulfilled the law and the prophets doesn't make the law and prophets unnecessary! How would we know God's will and His purposes at all if we didn't have the law and the prophets? Jesus Himself is recognizable because we have the law and the prophets. Colleen | ||
| Dennis Registered user Username: Dennis Post Number: 1770 Registered: 4-2000  |
Bskillet, The Ten Commandments were given BEFORE the book of Genesis was written by Moses. Dennis Fischer | ||
| Dennis Registered user Username: Dennis Post Number: 1771 Registered: 4-2000 |
Bskillet, The "anachronisms" in the writings of Moses repeatedly reveal that the events he wrote about occurred long before. Clearly, Moses was not alive at the creation of the world. Dennis Fischer | ||
| Bskillet Registered user Username: Bskillet Post Number: 529 Registered: 8-2008 |
Which is entirely different than saying they were given in Eden, as Adventism and Covenant Theology assert. Moses is quite clear on when the Ten Commandments were given, at Sinai after the Israelites were delivered from Egypt(Ex. 20:2, Deut. 5:3). Collen, I agree entirely. The Law and the Prophets gives the context of Jesus Messianic claims. That is why, when Paul speaks of the righteousness that was revealed in Jesus Christ "apart from the Law," he adds that it was "attested by the Law and the Prophets." Paul speaks of Jesus' mission as being born under the Law in order to deliver man from the basic [religious] principles of this world. If we had no idea what the Law said, we would have no idea what His mission was. (Message edited by bskillet on August 24, 2009) (Message edited by bskillet on August 24, 2009) | ||
| Pegg Registered user Username: Pegg Post Number: 244 Registered: 2-2006 |
Dennis - I appreciate you speaking out clearly from the perspective of CT. Colleen - I appreciate your initial synopsis. It is clear and concise. In my trek, I have found finding a clear, usable definition of CT to be difficult indeed. This led me to some serious confusion when first attempting to evaluate denominations using this approach. To me, I have noticed that foundationaly SDA seems to have a great deal in common with CT. (Please - No disrespect intended.) I agree with Dennis, that it would be most unwise to discard any doctrine/belief out of hand because of it's association with SDA, so I'm not suggesting that... Rather, I'm trying to express the frustration of my search and my appreciation for your answers. For now I'll just say that, after study, CTs insistence on the continuity of the Law nixed my further investigation of some denominations. I simply don't see this in the writings of the NC. I hope, as the discussion continues, that I may ask questions that will clarify my understanding. Please Understand That I Mean No Person Or Group Of People Any Disrespect. Pegg  (Message edited by pegg on August 24, 2009) | ||
| Bskillet Registered user Username: Bskillet Post Number: 531 Registered: 8-2008 |
The truth hurts. If CT is correct that the Big 10 are the "eternal moral law," then there is no choice but to be a Sabbatarian. CT also ignores 2 Cor. 3. Personally, I do not believe in denominations (that doesn't mean I won't work with people in Christian denominations, though). Denominations divide the body of Christ based on secondary, and sometimes minute, points of doctrine. When a given denomination is in error on one of its core doctrines, it will never be able to admit it because of the institutional inertia against it. Adventism is not alone in this. | ||
| Bskillet Registered user Username: Bskillet Post Number: 532 Registered: 8-2008 |
Then he would not have been around to give his law to Adam and Eve... | ||
| Raven Registered user Username: Raven Post Number: 1068 Registered: 7-2004  |
While Lutherans and Reformed denominations both speak of "the third use of the Law", I do want to point out this has not been an issue for us as Lutherans. (We never even hear about the third use of the Law--I've come across it in deep theological writings, but that's about it.) I can't say for sure what the Reformed perspective is, though I suspect it would be vastly different based on what I've read in their Westminster Confession. For Lutherans, "the Law" they speak of in the "third use of the Law" is not just the 10 C's - it is every command given by God that is still in effect. Also, Lutherans are clear, both in the Lutheran catechism and in the Augsburg Confession, that the Sabbath is no longer binding, and was never for Gentiles. In contrast, the Westminster Confession comes right out and says the seventh day was transferred to the first day, and the 4th commandment is still in effect exactly as before, just a different day. Interestingly, in the sermon at our church this past Sunday, the pastor asked if worshipping at church on Sunday morning was a command or a tradition. There was mixed response, but the pastor clarified (thankfully) that it is a tradition and not a command. He further said the only way to know the difference between a command and a tradition is to regularly be in God's Word and to know God's Word well. This part is off topic for this thread, but it was a neat sermon that reminded me of the children's program thread. He used the "Five Love Languages" book as a springboard to talk about God's Love Language, which he says is none of those five, but instead is the language of Grace: no strings attached and no scorekeeping, and that we're called to operate in that same love language of grace with those around us. | ||
| Dennis Registered user Username: Dennis Post Number: 1772 Registered: 4-2000 |
John Calvin, like Martin Luther, never taught Sunday Sabbatarianism. It was the later Puritans who developed that idea. Dennis Fischer | ||
| Dennis Registered user Username: Dennis Post Number: 1773 Registered: 4-2000 |
Bskillet, The Ten Commandments were historically-conditioned for the Hebrew people. The tablets of stone were not given in Eden. Dennis Fischer | ||
| Seekinglight Registered user Username: Seekinglight Post Number: 351 Registered: 3-2009 |
Gotta make resting into a work somehow! It's human nature... | ||
| Dennis Registered user Username: Dennis Post Number: 1774 Registered: 4-2000 |
Pegg, It is my conclusion that Covenant Theology and New Covenant Theology are on the opposite ends of the theological spectrum. I endorse neither one of these extreme views. While CT makes the New Covenant into a warmed-over Old Covenant, NCT makes such sharp covenantal distinctions that it impinges upon the inspiration of the OT canon. This is not to say that both views do not have some good points. They clearly do. Dennis Fischer | ||
| Brian3 Registered user Username: Brian3 Post Number: 231 Registered: 8-2005  |
"NCT makes such sharp covenantal distinctions that it impinges upon the inspiration of the OT canon." Dennis, I'd be interested in who you've read on NCT to come to this conclusion. Only, because I've not understood any NCT proponent this way. While I would agree that between the old and new covenant there is more discontinuity than continuity. I think there is complete continuity between the old and new testament canon. Together they form a completed picture of the history/plan of redemption. Most of what we now understand about the shadows in the OT wouldn't be possible without the NT, which is why I agree with the basic NCT position of interpreting the OT through the lens of the NT. In Christ, Brian | ||
| Bskillet Registered user Username: Bskillet Post Number: 536 Registered: 8-2008 |
Dennis, thanks for clarifying. The Ten Commandments indeed assume sin had already entered the world. Depends on whom you read. John Reisinger bases his theology on a very high view of the OT canon, specifically showing that the Law was not given to anyone but the Israelites. The bulk of his argument in Tablets of Stone is based on the text of the OT canon, essentially arguing that the Ten Commandments = the foundational document of the Old Covenant because the OT says so, and the NT agrees. Paul used the OT canon--particularly Abraham's story--as an argument for his theology of the believer's freedom from the Old Covenant Law. The Apostles in Acts 15 used OT prophecies to demonstrate that Gentile believers were not required to keep the Law of Moses. The OT prophets said Gentiles would come to God's Temple, the Apostles interpreted this, in the new revelation of Jesus Christ, to be a reference to the creation of the church (sorry, dispensationalists, but facts are facts). Gentiles were not circumcised, did not keep the Sabbath, did not wear tassels on their garments, did not keep kosher, could NOT do good stand-up comedy. They knew what "Gentile" meant and used the OT canon to determine the Acts 15 question. More, throughout the OT, especially in the OT prophets, we find God seeming to say that the Law wasn't truly His eternal desire. This is the importance of understanding the Old and New Testament and the covenants. The Bible is presented mostly in story form because it is meant to give us a narrative theology. In contrast, many people have throughout history tried to create a systematic theology of their own making, which requires them, like Aquinas, to bring their own human classification schemes to the text and then shoe-horn concepts into those schemes. A narrative theology is much simpler and cleaner. God does not present a system to us. He presents His Son, the culmination of His story. The culmination of history. (Message edited by bskillet on August 25, 2009) (Message edited by bskillet on August 25, 2009) | ||
| Dennis Registered user Username: Dennis Post Number: 1775 Registered: 4-2000 |
Bskillet, Dr. Wayne Grudem, in his excellent 1,290-page textbook entitled "Systematic Theology," gives an understandable definition of systematic theology as follows:
Therefore, systematic theology is a significant help to avoid misinterpreting Scripture (i.e., using merely proof-texts and/or isolated, obscure passages to establish doctrine, etc.). Dr. Grudem adds:
Dennis Fischer (Message edited by Dennis on August 25, 2009) | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 10289 Registered: 12-2003 |
Like Brian3 above, I don't know which theologians might articulate their theology this way. I certainly did not "buy" new covenant theology because I read any new covenant theologian. While Dale Ratzlaff was the first person I read who taught the new covenant fulfilled the old and showed how, he did not get his understanding from new covenant theologians, either. My conclusions have actually been based upon my own studying the Bible in an effort to reconcile all my dissonance about Adventist doctrine. Only after I became aware of arguments about "theologies" (primarily through this forum) did I begin searching for and reading people who teach certain theologies. It's entirely possible that there are people who question the inspiration of the OT who call themselves new covenant theologians. I haven't read them. My understanding of "new covenant theology" is that there is complete relationship between God's promises from beginning to end, that the new covenant is directly linked to and fulfills the Abrahamic covenant. The Mosaic covenant was clearly given 430 years after Abraham (see Exodus and Galatians 3) and lasted until the Seed (Again, Galatians, 2 Cor 3; Romans, Ephesians, Hebrews, Jesus, etc.) I love Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology. I studied an abridged version of it called Bible Doctrine before I became aware of these arguments, and I found his comprehensive treatment of biblical sources to be extremely insightful. I did not come away from it with a sense of needing to "line up" with any system of theology. I had a sense that the Bible addressed all the theological questions I would ever encounter. Grudem "gave" me a biblical foundation on which to build my new worldview that has God the sovereign, central Person of all reality. We need two things: rebirth by the Holy Spirit grounded in our trust in the Lord Jesus as our Savior, and the Scriptures. These two things provide us with all we need for life and godliness. Colleen | ||
| Dennis Registered user Username: Dennis Post Number: 1776 Registered: 4-2000 |
The archives of the scholarly The Master's Seminary Journal features an exposition by Dennis M. Swanson entitled, "An Introduction to New Covenant Theology." This relatively new theology (NCT) can be studied further by logging unto: http://www.tms.edu/tmsj/tmsj18f.pdf . It is my assessment that the reason NCT is popular in some former Adventist circles is largely due to the spiritual abuse they suffered in Adventism. Truly, it would be difficult to overstate the crushing weight of legalism in SDA dogma. Thus, this view gives them comforting release from the shackles of the Law (including the aberrant notion that the Spirit's inward promptings somehow replace the need for written, ethical laws and therefore no biblical lists of conduct are ever needed as a moral compass in the Christian life). Regrettably, since leaving Adventism, my wife and I have also gone through this antinomian phase as well. This overreactive view, although similar, is merely a related version of NCT (not the real thing). Some lesser known versions of new theologies don't have a specific name--at least not yet. Apart from the Internet, they have very limited exposure due to lack of publishing houses, media outlets, seminaries, etc. Dennis Fischer |
