A couple of notable authors who would lean toward NCT thought are DA Carson and Doug Moo. Moo's essay in the book Continuity and Discontinuity: Essay's in a continuing debate, does a good job of highlighting NCTs essential understanding of OT and NT ethics. Also, two pastors, Tom Wells and Fred Zaspel, have co-authored a book called New Covenant Theology and can be purchased at the sound of grace site. It is a fine introduction to the issues and what NCTers are thinking. They even have a rejoinder to Richard Barcellos book giving a negative critique against NCT.
Fred
"Ah, sitting - the great leveler of men. From the mightest of pharaohs to the lowest of peasants, who doesn't enjoy a good sit?" M. Burns
Fred has given you the sites that support NCT. He is right that both Carson and Moo have bent in that direction [I believe the same goes for New testament exegete Peter O'Brien]. I like all these authors, especially Carson [and I highly respect Fred, whom I PM frequently], though here I disagree with them. One passages that is debated in this issue is Matthew 5:17-48.
Here is an article by Greg Welty that, IHMO, provides a fair assesment of Carson's commentary on Matthew 5:17-48 (also some critique of Fred Zaspel's NCT). I have not been to the IDS website in a bit, so I don't know if Zaspel or others responded to Welty.
It's funny how some people judge one's "fair" assessment of a subject, by whether one agrees with said subject or doesn't, isn't it?
(Fred) Yes it is funny, but generally true, because those who are opposed to a particular subject may not represent it properly. That is why it is much, much better to allow the proponent of a subject speak for himself. For instance, I wouldn't turn to Charles Ryrie to give me a fair assessment of Covenant Theology, or Tim LaHaye for a fair assessment of Amillennialism. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />
Fred
"Ah, sitting - the great leveler of men. From the mightest of pharaohs to the lowest of peasants, who doesn't enjoy a good sit?" M. Burns
For a better understanding of the WCF, especially regarding the issue of the Law of God and the covenant of works, I would point you to A.A Hodge's fine commentary (See chapters 7 and 19).
BookMark, I should remember this because we had this in our Sunday school class, but I didn't take notes and have a bad memory! Our pastor gave us the verses that are used to support the idea that there was a Covenant with Adam. (He is a Presbyterian not a Baptist). Also this was over on the Puritan Board posted by Bryan and answered by a student at the Baptist Seminary in Louisville KY, Ben who is known there as SolaScriptura.
Quote
Covenant Of Works
I've been discussing this with a freind. To me Hosea 6:7 and Genesis 2:16-17 offer all the evidance needed to support such a covenant. However my freind disagrees that it is not enough evidance to place a doctrine this important on. The following is his opinion, and I'm wondering if, since this is still new to me, anyone would be willing to direct me toward some things I may have missed:
"In your own opinion, for my benefit, would you say that the covenant of works is necessary for the remainder of the covenant theology? I am sincere in my doubt that Hosea 6:7 demands any such covenant, and I am equally doubtful that Gen. 2:16,17 constitutes a solemn agreement, much less the details of the solemn agreement. So unless you can give some credible scripture to support it, I will likely not accept it. But that won't mean that I will have to disregard all covenant theology, will it?"
jsut in regards to his question concering if a covenant of works is nesscary to understand the rest of Covenant Theology. To me it seems yes because if there wasn't a covenant of works then Adam was under a covenant of grace and then the verses in Genesis 2 don't make sense. Why would he be said to die if he sinned?
Thanks,
Bryan SDG
Quote
I would ask him why he doesn't believe that Hosea 6:7 indicates a covenant with Adam. Even my baptist OT professors - who are NOT covenant theologians! - agree that this points to some type of covenant. So since the text clearly states that Adam broke "the covenant," I would say the burden of proof is on him to explain how there wasn't a covenant to break! Admittedly, though, if Genesis 2: 17-18 were all we had, I wouldn't argue for a full blown covenant (though in the light of Hosea 6, I will!!!) because Gen 2 could be interpreted simply as a command... and there are lots of times where God gives a command and it isn't the establishment of a covenant.
I would also argue from Rom 5: 12- 21 on the basis that Paul is drawing a comparison with Adam and Christ. Since Christ is clearly the mediator of the New Covenant, then it would seem for the logic of Paul's thought to remain intact then Adam would also have to be the "mediator" of a covenant.
But at the end of the day I really do think the buck stops at Hosea 6:7 and the burden of proof rests on those who would deny the face of the text.
Adam was not under The same laws delivered at Horeb as the WCF chap XIX : 1 and 2 states (see Deuteronomy 5:2,3)
Ahh Mark I can see where you are getting confused let me show you dear brother where your going astray here.
[color:"FF0000"]And Moses called all Israel, and said unto them, Hear, O Israel, the statutes and judgments which I speak in your ears this day, that ye may learn them, and keep, and do them. The LORD our God made a covenant with us in Horeb. The LORD made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us, even us, who are all of us here alive this day. (Deuteronomy 5:1-3)[/color]
Moses, Paul and Christ Himself, say NOTHING about a so-called moral law. Nor should they, for it is unscriptural heathen philosophy.
Mark,
Seriously, you should learn to curb your pejorative judgments against such well established doctrines. 95% (my estimation) of all Calvinists have held to an immutable and perpetual "moral law", which God established long before He even created Adam. For if there was no "moral law", then it would be illogical that angels could have rebelled and thrust out of God's presence. For, what would there be to rebel against, if there was no "moral law"? That the angels sinned against God is indisputable. And Scripture says that "sin is the transgression of the law"!
1 John 3:4 (KJV) "Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law."
Further, on what basis did the Fall occur, if there was no "moral law" for Adam to break? And what was the warrant for God condemning Cain when he killed Abel? What would you call what God told Noah in Genesis 9:6 if murder was not sin; the transgression of a "moral law"?
That the recognition and holding fast to the "moral law" of God is incontrovertibly part and parcel of the Christian faith, how is it you can say that it is a "heathen philosophy"? The fact is, the world at large, soundly rejects any such notion that men are accountable to God to keep His "moral law" and/or that they shall be judged on the basis of that "moral law" and consigned to everlasting punishment for its transgression.
Lastly, what was the vicarious atonement all about, if the Lord Christ wasn't punished for the sins of the elect? To deny that there is a universal, perpetual and binding "moral law" of God is to deny the entire Christian faith. I adjure you to reconsider this matter with all earnestness, or at least temper the manner in which you choose to reject it.
12Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned-- 13for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. 14Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come. 15But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man's trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many. 16And the free gift is not like the result of that one man's sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification. 17If, because of one man's trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ. 18Therefore, as one trespass[5] led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness[6] leads to justification and life for all men. 19For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous. 20Now the law came in to increase the trespass, but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, 21so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
If you disagree, then please explain what is "trespass", "Disobedience, "sin", etc., especially in light of Pilgrim's post. Here is a great discussion from Charles Hodge's Romans commentary on this passage.
Quote
Until the law. The law here mentioned is evidently the law of Moses. The word acri is properly rendered until, and not during the continuance of, a sense which the particle has in some passages. Until the law is immediately explained by the words from Adam to Moses. Sin was in the world, i.e. men were sinners, and were so regarded and treated. Sin is not imputed, that is, it is not laid to one's account, and punished. See 4:8, "Blessed is the man to whom the Lord imputeth not iniquity;" and the familiar equivalent expressions. "His iniquity shall be upon him," Numbers 15:31; and, "He shall bear his iniquity." The word (ellogeitai) here used, occurs nowhere else in any Greek writer, except in Philemon 18. The common word for impute is logizomai. When there is no law, mh ontoV nomou, there not being law. Sin is correlative of law. If there is no law, there can be no sin, as Paul had already taught, 4:15. But if there is no sin without law, there can be no imputation of sin. As, however, sin was imputed, as sin was in the world, as men were sinners, and were so regarded and treated before the law of Moses, it follows that there must be some more comprehensive law in relation to which men were sinners, and in virtue of which they were so regarded and treated. The principle here advanced, and on which the apostle's argument rests is, that the infliction of penal evil implies the violation of law. If men were sinners, and were treated as such before the law of Moses, it is certain that there is some other law, for the violation of which sin was imputed to them.
Mark, here are great lectures on covenant theology by Proffessor/pastor Dr. Ligon Duncan. Please read and consider carefully. We are not inventing human philosophy!
The revelation of God's will to Adam, as recorded in the book of Genesis, is not there called a covenant; and some have doubted the propriety of using this term to denote it. If the word, in the Scripture use of it, signified, as it does in human transactions, a bargain made between equals, who are independent of each other, we might well reject the application of it to this subject. But in the sacred Scripture, it is used in a more extended signification. It denotes, 1. An immutable ordinance. Under this sense may be included an irrevocable will or testament. 2. A sure and stable promise. 3. A precept. 4. A mutual agreement. With this latitude of meaning, the word must be considered applicable in the present case; yet there would be no necessity to insist on its use, were it not that the Scriptures have used it in this application. See Hosea vi. 7, which may be more properly rendered than in the common version, "They, like Adam, have transgressed the covenant." So the same Hebrew phrase may be understood in Job xxxi. 33; Ps. lxxxii. 6,7. As the term covenant is sometimes applied to a free promise, in which no condition is stipulated; it is proper to characterize that which was made with Adam as a covenant of works. It was a law, with a penalty affixed. J. L. Dagg, D.D.
BookMark said: WCF XIX :1,2 says Adam was under the so-called moral law. The bible says no such thing.
Paul is not talking about "moral" law. He is talking about THE LAW.
Gods Law is ONE. This Law , in its entirety, has been nailed to The Cross.
Okay Mark so let me get this straight your beef is with the concept that revealed Law of God can be broken down to three distinct categories ie: Moral, Civil, Ceremonial.
So when Paul writes this: "ROM 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves" Your saying that Paul means that the gentiles are keeping the entire law, the civil statutes, the ceremonial statutes, and the moral statutes. Mark how can this be, since the gentiles unless exposed to the teaching of the Law by the Jews would have no concept of the ceremonial laws so defined or the civil laws so defined? It is more reasonable to assert that Paul here was talking about the decalogue which is the basis of the "moral laws". And since every man is made in the image of God and that means that God's character would have been imprinted so to speak upon man then so would the moral law too would have been placed into man. This is the only way that the gentiles would even have an idea of right and wrong.
Mark do you not recognize that there is a difference between the civil and ceremonial laws of the theocracy of Israel and the moral or ethical laws?
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/pilgrim/pil_sig2.gif)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/Smileys/pencil.gif)