Clearing Up Confusion Over Distinctions #4

Jim or Pat,

Just a few things in the attempt to try to focus the discussion a bit (forgive me but I still feel like you are dodging the essence of my questions:

1. Several times I think Jim has quoted others or made statements himself that seem to indicate that you think NCT is not a system and if one would simple read the bible without any other external influence, then he would just come up with what is referred to as NCT. Though my understanding of NCT is surface, I must say that this line of thinking (assuming that it is your own) would be naive at best. Forgive me for saying so, but EVERYONE’S hermeneutic is colored by his presuppositions…yours included. I’m sure you would not deny the inherent importance of “systems”…the doctrines of grace are such a system.
2. I must say that the words that you write have a tone of arrogance and most of your assertions against CT could simply be turned around and made to point at your own system because they are, for the most part, without proof and stand alone as vain assertions. Even if they were true, you have provided no substance to back them, thus this “dialogue” has been largely without edification.
3. You still maintain that, “CT and RT are interchangeable” with yet any historical proof to back such an assertion. You must know that history is not on your side to make such an assertion without ever providing the references to substantiate it. I will try to read Reisinger’s “Abraham’s Four Seeds”.
4. I’m sure you have thoroughly reviewed the arguments for the separation of the moral Law away from the ceremonial and civic (being the expressed illustration of God’s very character while the later two are typological of Christ) so I won’t expound that here; the division is one of theological inference and the search for NT proof texts is thus a futile and unnecessary one. How can the expression of the very character and otherness of God be annulled and set aside; I beg to differ that this is not the point of the Hebrews 7 passage. Likewise, the Law of Christ is no NEW law but is the correct and theologically amplified interpretation of the OC Law.
5. I must state that CT certainly does not “deny the NC” as you submit, but affirms it in the fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant. How do you think CT denies the CofG?
6. Pat, please forgive me for not reading further in your posted comments where you asked forgiveness for the tone of your written comments, but the pattern seems to be a perennial one, thus maybe you guys should step back and re-evaluate the way you put things in your comments. Jim has claimed that CTs “doggedly adhere to system-driven theology despite ignorance as to what such theology actually teaches” and this not only illustrates just what I have called you two out on, but I find it very difficult to so quickly apply to such men as Waldron and Barcelous and others who have likely invested countless more hours in the study of such topics and deserve (as Christian brothers) the benefit of the doubt as we dialogue to search out the truth of scripture; making bold assertions that another isn’t even interested in seeking the truth simply because he differs from me in his thoughts is prideful and ungracious. Jim said this, “Go ahead an close your mind to pursuit of Truth if your pride causes you to prefer to believe what you would quickly discover to be absurd were you to sincerely pursue Truth. Otherwise (I believe that you may sincerely desire to pursue Truth), get to work…You may find -- if you look for -- reasons to quench the Spirit and dismiss them, but it won't be failure on their part to be irenic. By-the-way, most of those men were seminary-trained in Covenant Theology; their pursuit of Truth was literally as well as figuratively costly and worthy of admiration and emulation.” This type of rhetoric is a primary example of what I am talking about. Your parenthetical phrases of denigration make your stated desires to present yourselves as irenic seem vain. I have had many discussions and debates, with persons I count as brothers and sisters, over Calvinism and CT vs. DT and not a few have resembled the type of argumentation you present above; Jim, it is you who are “thumping your chest”, so check yourself brother, you have NOT avoided to do that which you accuse others of.
7. Pat said this, “Similarly, covenant theology that holds to a "replacement" theology is consistent with itself. The Church replaces Israel and thus it’s children are inherently "children of the covenant" and baptized as such. They are subject to the same 10 commandments or God's "Moral law" including the statute concerning the "Lord's day" or Christian sabbath. This "replacement" is consistent with CT's insistence on a (manufactured) "covenant of grace" with "2 administrations.” Again, I will ask for quotes from CTs that state that they believe that the Church Visible (I assume) has replaced ethnic/national Israel. I’m aware that there may be those who have said that, but to claim that the idea is essential to CT seems to be a stretch. Thus far all I have heard is that it is a theological implication of the practice of baptizing persons who are not yet members of the NC. Surely you would not hold CTs to a monolithic representation, especially in the implications that are wrought out by the system? Your own system cannot be so logically and biblically infallible as to have no latitudinal differences.

For now, those are the issues I believe need addressing. As for the following quotes, I will address in a later post.

“Let me ask you: If a CT guy (rightly) sees the flaw of infant baptism (antithetical to election and numerous passages about a man's enemies being members of his own household) why would he then doggedly hold onto a manufactured “covenant of grace” with “2 administrations?” I ask because it seems there is simply no point in maintaining it anymore. It is unscriptural, but necessary to maintain a “replacement” theology. It is easy to scripturally prove that OT Israel were never a believing people and that the Mosaic Covenant was a covenant of works not grace.” and this “amillennialism which is indeed "replacement theology" is false and worthy of denigration. Ethnic/national Israel wasn't "replaced" by the Church; the Israel of God is and always has been the focus of God's plan of redemption ... ethnic/national Israel NEVER WAS such. Getting that wrong results in Premillennial Dispensationalism or Covenant Theology's errant amillennialism.”