ignorance of historic covenant theology. By historic or classical covenant theology, I mean the bi-covenantal theology exhibited in, for instance, the Westminster Confession of Faith (but with a pedigree stretching back to Zurich and Geneva…systems that deny the covenant of works/covenant of grace framework of biblical history, whether they are Barthian or Hoeksemanian or Schilderian) exists only because of a widespread lack of familiarity with the more robust historic Reformed tradition on this subject. Furthermore, a serious effort at historical theological reacquaintance with classical bi-covenantal Reformed theology

Interestingly, Ligon jumps from the WCF back to Reformed history, as though the 2 are one and the same. Not exactly…

John Murray observed,

the early covenant theologians did not construe this Adamic administration as a covenant, far less as a covenant of works. Reformed creeds of the 16th century such as the French Confession (1559), the Scottish Confession (1560), the Belgic Confession (1561), the Thirty-Nine Articles (1562), the Heidelberg Catechism (1563), and the Second Helvetic (1566) do not exhibit any such construction of the Edenic institution.

http://www.berith.org/essays/litmus/

The CoW was not a standard in Reformed history.

I need to apologize to you all for being condescending in my comments above. My comments, specifically to James, but encompassing NCT as a whole (example: ‘it is an Internet movement’), were unnecessary, and at times supercilious. I am certainly no example of Christ-like love in this, and I hope you will forgive me.

Honestly, I didn’t engage James and others on specific points because, A) it’s not the topic of this post, and B) I’m just a little tired of the CT vs NCT discussion. I’m convinced that a form of CT with law perpetuity is consistent with the scriptures and edifying to the gospel and the Christian life. Thus, I’m also convinced that most forms of NCT that stress discontinuity, a new or higher law, or entailing the ambiguity of ‘it’s all about love’, are inconsistent with scripture and ultimately harmful to the gospel and the Christian life. It should be no secret that my posts are going to reflect my convictions, and I’d appreciate it if you folks would engage me on specific points in my post rather than letting it rabbit-trail into a broader discussion on the law. I hope that’ll help keep things civil, and help me from venting things in frustration that shouldn’t be said in such an arena.

But thank you all for reading and commenting.
Grace and peace my friends,
Nathan

http://www.fpcjackson.org/resources/apologetics/Covenant%20Theology%20&%20Justification/ligon_ctheology.htm

Wonderful exegesis of Ezekiel. I do think your statements bring out the mindset of the author. I wish more Bible students would read the NT with this frame of reference. (ie It is within this covenantal context and assumption that Paul makes most of His statements about Law, Love, Covenant, etc…) I would suspect that much of this confusion over the covenants would melt away if this were done.

Thanks for your thoughts.

Nevertheless, my comment above about CT being the essence of Orthodox Protestantism, at least with the perpetuity of the Decalogue, shouldn’t really come at a shock. Here Ligon Duncan says something similar:

http://www.fpcjackson.org/resources/apologetics/Covenant Theology & Justification/ligon_ctheology.htm

Nevertheless, my comment above about CT being the essence of Orthodox Protestantism, at least with the perpetuity of the Decalogue, shouldn’t really come at a shock. Here Ligon Duncan says something similar:

http://www.fpcjackson.org/resources/apologetics/Covenant%20Theology%20&%20Justification/ligon_ctheology.htm

The reason people will not engage you is because you misrepresent Covenantalism and you rehash the same, tired lines again and again.

I brought up how you criticize others for changing what you believe was set permanently in stone because you change it also. How is that misrepresenting covenantalism?

In addition, your quote of Ireneus sounds like you approve of abolishing adultery altogether. That is, per his quote, and since the Ten Commandments themselves are a ‘ministry of death’, why should I care about being faithful to my wife? It is laughable to us that you guys claim the Ten are a ‘ministry of death’ and yet you uphold 7,8, and sometimes 9 of them because they are repeated in the NT.

I do approve of what Irenaeus said. You would too if you just took the time to understand him. You still fail to grasp what NCT is about.

You talk about historic protestand christianity. You covenantalists all treat the scriptures though as if everything was figured out when the WCF was written, or the baptist version, the LBCF. All tests of doctrine for you covenantalists is the confessions, not the Scripture. How does that capture the spirit of “reformed, always reforming”? What a joke that is. It would be more accurate to say: Reformed, never to be reformed again.

And finally, the mere notion that you think of NCT as an internet movement betrays your ignorance or smugness. D.A. Carson, Douglas Moo, Thomas Schreiner, John Piper, John Reisinger, Tom Wells, etc. Those guys seems to be in pretty prominent churches and seminaries. Also, I can give you quote after quote (like from Irenaeus) from the fathers where there is no chance they would have been Old Covenantalists. However, I doubt you would be interested since the bible wasn’t figured out for anyone till the 16th century.

Forgive me if I misspoke. I certainly didn’t mean to say that the Decalogue has always been understood as the moral law and/or the 3 fold division has been around forever. My point was that the Decalogue has always been understood as binding on Christians, with the obvious exception that many have interpreted the 4th commandment in a variety of ways.

Your problems with Barcellos:

1. That’s irrelevant to the point and to the exegesis. Without a doubt Jeremiah means the entire law. But with the language of ‘I will write’ alluding to God writing the Decalogue, the understanding that the Decalogue IS the law (is the foundation of which all of it builds off of), and with the light of what the New Testament reveals about the New Covenant and this prophecy, the Decalogue is the *substance* of what is written on the heart.

2. Great point that again demonstrates your replacement theology. The Covenant is made with the house of Israel/Judah; they are the foundation, they are the substance. The Gentiles, however, are grafted into this covenant, and build upon it to complete the spiritual household of God. The same with the law. The foundation of all the law of God is the Decalogue, with the revelation of the NT/the Spirit building on top of it that reveals it for what it truly is (just like the inclusion of the nations is really what the Covenant of Grace has always truly been).

Friends- I am frankly tired of discussing this subject with you. Every time I post something even hinting on this subject you guys jump on me like a pack of dogs on a three-legged cat. I see now why NCT is an Internet movement that is little respected by both Dispensationals and CT theologians alike. You guys just need to chill out. You’re fighting the very essence of historic, Protestant Christianity here. Let’s end the discussion here unless a comment is needed for clarification.

This is the Davidic covenant here. Jesus spoke of one flock in John 10.

”They shall walk in my rules and be careful to obey my statutes”

This is an obvious reference to the New Covenant, in which God’s law will be inward because of the Spirit. The Old Covenant and specifically Moses spoke of a new law that would take the place of what God limited to Israel.

“They shall dwell in the land that I gave to my servant Jacob, where your fathers lived”

Zech 12-14 also say the same thing. God will bring the jews back into their land because he keeps his promises.

“I will make a covenant of peace with them. It shall be an everlasting covenant with them”

Again, the New covenant is in mind here.