Powered By Blogger

Tuesday, October 7, 2014




It is written. Sola Scriptura.

“My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me” John 10:27.

The term “sola Scriptura” or “the Bible alone” is a short phrase that represents the simple truth that there is only one special revelation from God that man possesses today, the written Scriptures or the Bible. Scripture states this concept repeatedly and emphatically. The very phrase “It is written” means exclusively transcribed, and not hearsay. The command to believe what is written means to believe only the pure word of God. What is at stake before the All Holy God is His incorruptible truth.

In the very last commandment in the Bible God resolutely tells us not to add to nor take away from His Word.

“For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book: If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the Book of Life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book”
—Revelation 22:18-19

His Word is absolutely sufficient in itself (Psalm 119:160).

The Biblical message breathed out by God is revelation in written form. (2 Timothy 3:15-16). The Biblical claim is that what God has inspired was His written word (2 Peter 1:20-21). When the Lord Jesus Christ said, “the Scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:35), He was speaking of God’s written word. The events, actions, commandments, and truths from God are given to us in propositional form, i.e. logical, written sentences. God’s declaration in Scripture is that it and it alone, is this final authority in all matters of faith and morals.

Thus, there is only one written source from God, and there is only one basis of truth for the Lord’s people in the Church.

Affirmed by Jesus Christ

The Lord Jesus Christ, Himself, identified truth with the written Word. In His great, high priestly prayer, He said, “Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.” This was consistent with the declarations right through the Old Testament in which the Holy Spirit continually proclaims that the revelation from God is truth, as for example Psalm 119:142, “thy law is truth.” There is no source other than Scripture alone to which such a statement applies. That source alone, the Holy Scripture, is the believer’s standard of truth.

In the New Testament, it is the written word of God, and that alone, to which the Lord Jesus Christ and His apostles refer as the final authority. In the temptation, the Lord Jesus three times resisted Satan, saying, “It is written” as for example, in Matthew 4:4, “he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.” In stating “It is written,” the Lord used the exact same phrase that is used in the Holy Bible forty six times. The persistence of the repeated phrase underlines its importance. The Lord’s total acceptance of the authority of the Old Testament is evident in His words found in Matthew 5:17-18:

“Think not that I came to destroy the law or the prophets: I am not come to destroy but to fulfill. For verily, I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law till all be fulfilled.”

Other sources of authority condemned

People often attempt to give human traditions higher authority than God’s Word. This was true of the Jews of Jesus’ day. In refuting the errors of the Sadducees, the Scripture records the Lord saying, “Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God” (Matthew 22:29). Christ Jesus continually castigated and rebuked the Pharisees because they made their traditions on a par with the Word of God—corrupting the very basis of truth by equating their traditions with God’s Word. So He declared to them in Mark 7:13 “You are making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such things do ye.” Since Scripture alone is inspired, it alone is the ultimate authority, and it alone is the final judge of Tradition.

The Word of the Lord says as a commandment in Proverbs 30:5-6:

“Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.”

God commands that we are not to add to His Word: this command shows emphatically that it is God’s Word alone that is pure and uncontaminated.

Aligned with Proverbs, the Lord’s strong, clear declaration in Isaiah 8:20 is: “To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.” The truth is this: since God’s written word alone is inspired, it and it alone is the sole rule of faith. It cannot be otherwise.

How is Scripture to be accurately interpreted?

The principle of “sola Scriptura” is basic to accurate interpretation of Scripture. Psalm 36:9 explains, “For with thee is the fountain of life; in thy light we see light.” God’s truth is seen in the light of God’s truth. The Apostle Paul said the same thing, “Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth but which the Holy Ghost teacheth, comparing spiritual things with spiritual” (I Corinthians 2:13). It is precisely in the light which God’s truth sheds, that His truth is seen. (Cp. John 3:18-21, II Corinthians 4:3-7).

The Apostle Peter, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, declares, “knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation. For prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Ghost” (2 Peter 1:20-21). Logically then, Peter makes it very clear that in order to maintain the purity of Holy God’s written word, the source of interpretation must be from the same pure source as the origin of the Scripture itself.

Scripture can only be understood correctly in the light of Scripture, since it alone is uncorrupted. It is only with the Holy Spirit’s light that Scripture can be comprehended correctly. The Holy Spirit causes those who are the Lord’s to understand Scripture (John 14:16-17, 26). Since the Spirit does this by Scripture, obviously, it is in accord with the principle that Scripture itself is the infallible rule of interpretation of its own truth “it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth” (I John 5:6).

If you want to be true to God in this important matter, follow His instruction, “Turn you at my reproof: behold, I will pour out my spirit unto you, I will make known my words unto you” (Proverbs 1:23). If you are yearning for truth in the attitude of Psalm 51:17 “with a broken and a contrite heart”, the Lord God will not despise you. He will reveal to the basic foundation where the Lord Christ Jesus stood, as did the apostles.

Is Scripture alone adequate, or do we need more?

The total sufficiency of Scripture is declared by the Apostle Paul,

“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.”
—2 Timothy 3:16-17

For final truth and authority, all that we need is the Scripture.

What about the claim that sola Scriptura is not possible?

In an attempt to justify traditions as being of equal or higher authority than Scripture, an appeal is often made to the very last verse in John’s gospel,

“And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.”
—John 21:25

Of course, there were many deeds and sayings of the Lord not recorded in Scripture. Nonetheless, Scripture is the authoritative record that Holy God has given His people. We do not have a single sentence that is authoritatively from the Lord, outside of what is in the written word. To appeal to a tradition for authority, when Holy God did not give it, is futile. The idea that somehow sayings and events from the Lord have been recorded in tradition is simply not true.

Another attempt to justify tradition, is the statement that the early church did not have the New Testament. The Apostle Peter speaks about the writings of the Apostle Paul when he states,

“…even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.”
—2 Peter 3:15-16

Peter also declares that he was writing so that the believers could remember what he said. So he wrote, “Wherefore I will not be negligent to put you always in remembrance of these things, though ye know them, and be established in the present truth” (2 Peter 1:12).

From the earliest days of Christianity, a substantial part of the New Testament was available. Under the inspiration of the Lord, the Apostle Paul commands his letters to be read in other churches besides those to which they were sent. This clearly shows that the written word of God was being circulated even as the Apostles lived. The Lord’s command to believe what is written has always been something that the believers could obey and did obey. In this matter we must have the humility commanded in the Scripture not to think above what is written. “…that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another” (1 Corinthians 4:6).

Truth, God’s Word, and our love for Him

The Lord brings the topic of truth to bear on our love for Him. This again underscores its importance. “Jesus answered and said to him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him. He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings; and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father’s which sent Me” (John 14:23-24). And then again “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words shall not pass away” (Matthew 24:35).

The Lord himself looked to the authority of the Scriptures alone, as did His apostles after Him. They confirmed the very message of the Old Testament. “The law of the LORD is perfect” (Psalm 19:7). The believer is to be true to the way of the Lord, holding alone to what is written: “Thy Word is truth.”

Monday, October 6, 2014

Free Grace for Baptists


Free Grace for Baptists
By Shawn Lazar

Introduction
Some Baptists identify as Arminian, others as Calvinist, and a few as Calminian. But there are many more Baptists who avoid each of these labels without having a name for what they believe. I would suggest that some are Free Grace without knowing it.
Free Grace is a relatively new term but the theology behind it is not. It’s neither Calvinist nor Arminian. It’s conservative and Dispensational. It has a high view of Scripture and stresses expository preaching and evangelism. There are many Baptists who are openly Free Grace, like Dr. Earl Radmacher, but there many more who are essentially Free Grace in their doctrine without calling it that, like Dr. Charles Stanley.
I like to introduce people to Free Grace theology by going through John 3:16. It’s one of the most famous verses in the Bible and most Baptists know it by heart. However, I have found that few Christians actually believe what Jesus promises there. Here is John 3:16, subdivided into five sections, each of which contains a precious truth:
For God so loved the world / that He gave His only begotten Son / that whoever believes in Him / should not perish / but have everlasting life.
Let’s go through the verse, section by section. A Divine Motivation
First, the Lord tells us about God’s motivation: For God so loved the world. You would think that would be clear and uncontroversial. God loves all mankind without exception.
However, right off the bat we find that Calvinist Baptists reject this idea. They interpret the world (kosmos) as the world of the elect, and so take John 3:16 as teaching that God only loves the elect. But that interpretation has no basis in John’s Gospel, Epistles, or Revelation which use kosmos 106 times in 79 verses and never once means “individuals whom God has predestined to heaven.” Rather, kosmos can mean the sum total of created things (John 1:3), the world order (which is hostile to God, John 1:9, 10), or humanity in general, and that’s what it means here (cf. 3:19).
Free Grace Baptists unhesitatingly affirm that God loves all mankind. He is not always pleased with everyone or approves of how they live, but there is no doubt that God loves everyone in the world no matter who they are, what they believe, or what they’ve done.
A Divine Action
Second, the Lord tells us about God's act of love, which motivated Him to give His only begotten Son, Jesus. What was Jesus given to do? While all Baptists know that He was given to die on the cross as an atonement for sins, they don’t all agree on who Jesus died for.

Most Calvinist Baptists deny that Jesus died for the sins of the world, reasoning that since God only loves the elect, they are the only people for whom Jesus died. This is the famous doctrine of Limited Atonement. Moderate Calvinists (3 and 4 pointers) are willing to live with the contradiction of believing that God only elected some to salvation, but sent Christ to die for all.
By contrast, Free Grace Baptists affirm that God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son to die for the world. Jesus’ death was meant for all humanity. The atonement is as universal as God’s love.
A Condition
Third, the Lord Jesus tells us of a human condition that must be met: whoever believes in Him. All Jesus requires is belief in His promise. We are all free to come to Him in faith. You would think this emphasis on simple belief would be uncontroversial among Baptists, but you would be wrong because they disagree over the nature of faith.
Jesus says that faith alone is required for eternal salvation. There are plenty of Calvinist and Arminian Baptists who would agree, at least on the surface. They publicly teach that we are justified by faith apart from our works. However, when you ask them what faith is, they redefine it to include works. For example, you’ll often hear preachers say something like this:
You can’t be saved by doing good works. You have to believe in Jesus. Of course, if you truly believe then you’ll do good works. If you aren’t turning away from your sins and reforming your life, you don’t actually believe. We’re saved by faith alone but never by a faith that is alone.
Don’t be fooled. This is a form of salvation by works.
To see why, imagine if the Judaizers had tried that reasoning on Paul. They claimed that Christians couldn’t be saved without being circumcised (Acts 15:1). Paul accused them of compromising justification and abandoning the gospel. Do you think Paul would have been at all impressed if the Judaizers had replied:
Oh Paul, we absolutely agree that salvation is not by faith and circumcision. But that’s not what we’re saying. We’re saying that salvation is by a faith that circumcises. We are saved by faith alone, that’s true, but if you aren’t circumcising, you don’t really believe.
Paul would have rejected such sophistry and so do Free Grace Baptists. There is no difference between teaching that salvation is by faith plus works and teaching that salvation is by a faith that works. Both make works a condition of salvation and both are contrary to the freeness of the gospel promise.
The bottom line is that faith is faith and works are works. Hence, according to John 3:16, Jesus requires belief, not behavior.
But what about works? They have an important role to play in helping our neighbors and in Christian growth, maturity, and rewards in the coming Kingdom. But eternal life and eternal rewards are two separate matters. Rewards are earned (Rev 22:12), while eternal life is a gift, received by faith apart from works (Eph 2:8-9).
The Consequence
Fourth, the Lord presents the wonderful consequence of believing in Jesus. John 3:16 promises that believers have everlasting life. We don’t get it in the future. We don’t have to earn it or keep it. We have it. Everlasting life is a present possession. Just as the Israelites were healed the moment they saw the bronze serpent (John 3:14-15), we have eternal life the moment we believe in Jesus for it.
Calvinist and Arminian Baptists typically reject this. They don’t believe that eternal life is a present possession. Instead, they will speak about something called “final salvation.” They’ll say the salvation we have is provisional, temporary, and can be lost. Or they’ll say we can’t be sure we are truly saved until something called the “final judgment.” They fail to recognize that when someone believes in Christ for eternal life, they’re no longer subject to the Great White Throne Judgment (John 5:24). They will be rewarded for their works at the Bema (2 Cor 5:10), but they will not be gathered with the unbelieving nations to determine their eternal destiny (Rev 20:11-15).
Other Baptists would heartily agree that eternal life is a present possession. The difference is, they’re relatively unfamiliar with John’s language of eternal life. They normally think in terms of Paul's language of justification.
Free Grace Baptists would agree that preaching forensic justification is essential wherever people think they can be saved by works. However, forensic justification is only one aspect of eternal salvation. God wants to do more than just declare us “not-guilty.” He wants to adopt us as sons and daughters (John 1:12), give us a new birth (John 3:3), make us new creations (2 Cor 5:17), and allow us to become partakers of the divine nature (2 Pet 1:4). Justification doesn’t capture that big picture and was never meant to. But John’s simple language of eternal life does. Moreover, while the mechanics of justification can be fairly complicated, the idea of eternal life is easy enough for a child to understand. Hence, Free Grace Baptists tend to prefer the Johannine language of everlasting life when doing evangelism.
A Guarantee
Fifth and finally, in John 3:16, Jesus gives believers a wonderful guarantee. Not only are they given everlasting life as a present possession, Jesus also promises we will never perish thereafter. Notice He doesn’t say, probably won’t perish or hopefully won’t perish. Jesus guarantees our eternal security. This is the famous doctrine of “once saved always saved.”
Against this plain teaching, Arminian Baptists say that believers can perish, either by committing a major sin or by ceasing to believe. You can have salvation one day and lose it the next. But if that was true, then Jesus shouldn’t have made any promises about believers not perishing, because it’s possible they might.
Calvinist Baptists don’t quite believe Jesus’ promise of eternal security either. What they actually believe in is the perseverance of the elect, which isn’t the same thing at all. They think that everyone whom God has predestined to heaven will go there because that is what God has sovereignly chosen to do, and there’s no power on earth that can thwart His will. However, mere belief is not a sign that one is among the elect since it’s possible for a reprobate person to believe in Jesus for a while, only to stop believing later on, proving they were never elect in the first place. This creates a terrible dilemma for the Calvinist. How can he know he is one of the elect? Not through faith. The result is a lack of assurance. For example, this has proven to be a recurring problem in Calvinist John Piper’s church:
I deal with this as much as anything, probably, in the people that I’m preaching to. Fears and doubts...not about objective ‘Did He rise from the dead’—very few people are wrestling with that—but ‘Am I in? Am I saved?’ That’s very common for people to wrestle with. (See “Justification and the Diminishing Work of Christ”)
Since the Calvinist doesn’t know if he’s elect, and can’t look to his faith for evidence (since he might fall away in the future), his only recourse will be to look to his works for assurance. Following the Puritans, he will look for signs of the Spirit’s work in his life in order to ascertain if he’s elect. But this introspective search can only end in failure. For every good work he might take as evidence of his election, the Calvinist will find just as many sins that suggest he’s reprobate, leaving him with nagging doubts. At least, that was Piper’s experience: “why I sin against my wife the same at age sixty-two that I did at age forty-two causes me sometimes to doubt my salvation” (See “Why God is Not a Megalomaniac in Demanding to be Worshipped”).
By contrast, Free Grace Baptists take John 3:16 on its face and affirm Jesus’ promise of eternal security. The moment you believe in Jesus for everlasting life you have it and are eternally secure thereafter. As Jesus says, believers shall never perish.
However, some Baptists think the promise security demands a continuous faith. Believers shall never perish, but the moment someone loses their faith, they also lose their eternal life. But that interpretation would contradict what Jesus told the woman at the well. He assured her that normal water would leave her thirsty, no matter how much she drank. But one drink from His living water (i.e., one act of faith) and she would never thirst again (have eternal security) (John 4:10-14).
Jesus made the same point to Nicodemus. The Israelites weren’t saved by continuously gazing at the bronze serpent. One look and they were healed (John 3:14-15, cf. Nu 21:9).
It is the same with faith. You don’t need to believe in Jesus again and again in order to maintain your salvation. All it takes is one drink, one look, one act of faith, and you become regenerate in that moment, and will have eternal life forever.
Knowing this is essential to Christian well-being, because Jesus’ promise of eternal security forms the basis of our assurance. God does not want us to live in doubt about our salvation. Believers can and should know they have eternal life and are eternally secure. It’s not an advanced doctrine for mature believers, but a basic part of Jesus’ offer of salvation, and so, a part of saving faith.
Conclusion
There is more to John 3:16 than meets the eye. Although many Baptists know it by heart, they just as often openly deny what it teaches. Either they deny that God loves all men, or that Jesus died for all, or that simple faith is all that God requires of us to be saved, or that everlasting life is a present possession, or that believers are eternally secure.
Free Grace Baptists affirm every one of those precious truths.
I began this essay by suggesting that many Baptists are Free Grace without knowing it. Maybe that describes you and your church. No doubt you have many questions and objections and particular verses that need explaining. If you would like to learn more about Free Grace theology, I would suggest visiting our website (faithalone.org) where you can find thousands of pages of Biblical resources exploring key verses and themes. There is a worldwide movement among Evangelicals seeking to restore the radical freeness of the gospel promise of everlasting life through faith in Jesus. Won’t you help us spread the message of God’s free grace in Christ?

Sunday, October 5, 2014

Baptist Churches and Leadership: Where Are We Headed?


Baptist Churches and Leadership: Where Are We Headed?
Jerry L. Fought II

A church or a denomination goes the way of its leadership. Historically, Baptist churches have been led by both pastors and laypersons without making much distinction between the two. Congregational polity undergirds this arrangement as a local church chooses its own pastor and then the pastor serves alongside the members of the congregation. Typically, the pastor has motivated, mobilized, and given direction to a church but not commanded its allegiance. The superlative Baptist pastor encourages or admonishes but does not dominate and dictate.
Ideally, the pastor and the layperson should work together in harmony for the cause of Christ. Although congregational polity arguably keeps the relationship between pastors and laypersons in tension, in recent years the tension between clergy and laity has intensified. One reason for the conflict has to do with the new models of leadership that surfaced in uncommon ways in Baptist life in the late twentieth century and still remain vital.
With the emergence of the mega-church in Baptist life, a type of pastoral leadership arose that could aptly be described as the executive minister model. This chief executive officer (CEO) uses the latest techniques in church growth and manages the operations of the church with the assistance of a professional staff and at times a board of elders, all of whom support the pastor’s agenda. Then the pastor’s status sometimes becomes that of a celebrity in a subservient congregation.
With the mega-church being held up as the standard of success, ministers at less “prestigious” congregations often try to imitate the executive minister model hoping someday to move from Second Street to Superdome. The executive’s “how to” books, bearing such titles as “The Little Church That Could,” lay scattered about on the desks of many pastors along with commentaries and word study helps. Pastors at Toadsuck #9 Baptist Church and Flippin Baptist Church frequently become frustrated when church members resist their autocratic style of leadership and when the surefire church growth principles prove to be unreliable in a bucolic context. Bitter conflict often erupts. Terminations or resignations abound.
While the executive minister model entices Baptists with its promise to revitalize a swooning denomination that may very well be beating its head against a post-denominational wall, embracing this model could prove to be an empty victory. Baptists stand to lose far more than they gain. The CEO model of pastoral leadership, buttressed by the Southern Baptist Convention’s adoption of a 1988 resolution that defined the pastor as the ruler of the church,
dilutes the historic commitment of Baptists to the cherished concepts of the competency of the soul before God and the priesthood of all believers and their corollaries—namely, the treasured idea that all believers have equal standing in Christ’s church.1 When the ministry becomes exclusively a professional affair, laypersons no longer minister alongside the pastor as partners. The layperson, who has traditionally played a leading role in Baptist churches, moves off stage and is relegated to the rank of spectator. Such is the case especially when a board of elders becomes the decision-making body for a congregation.
Theoretically, a board of elders consists of a small group of informed persons who make better decisions than a large uninformed congregation. The elder system avoids the messiness that is often associated with democratic polity. Customarily, however, Baptists have accepted the prospect of an unpleasant business meeting because they value the involvement of the entire congregation in decision making.
Are Baptists now willing to embrace a seemingly “neat and tidy” Presbyterian or Episcopal style of church government? Are rank-and-file Baptists ready to give up their privilege to vote on important issues that affect the future direction of the church? Do Baptists really want decisions made by one man or a small group of men who may or may not understand or even appreciate the desires of the congregation? Oh, yes, the Baptist version of the elder system, not to mention the ruling pastor model, is unequivocally patriarchal limiting the role of women in leadership positions. What kind of polity do you want? “Be careful what you wish for. History starts now.”2
Jerry L. Faught II is the Dickinson Associate Professor of Religion, Oklahoma Baptist University, Shawnee, Oklahoma.

Saturday, October 4, 2014

BAPTIST DISTINCTIVES


BAPTIST DISTINCTIVES
The name Baptist suggests a definite doctrinal position. What distinguishes Baptists from other denominations are their beliefs. Baptists believe that certain doctrines known as Baptist Distinctives are clearly taught in the Bible; whereas, non-Baptists do not believe at least one ofthese doctrines. Regardless if people call themselves Baptists and do not believe each of these Baptist distinctives, they are not really Baptists. Baptist Distinctives form the acrostic BAPTISTS.

B Biblical authority

A Autonomy of the local church

P Priesthood of the believer

T Two Ordinances: believer's baptism and the Lord's supper

I Individual Soul Liberty

S Saved church membership

T Two offices: pastor and deacon

S Separation of church and state

Friday, October 3, 2014

Question: "What does the Bible say about foot-washing?"


Question: "What does the Bible say about foot-washing?"

Answer: In Bible times, the dusty and dirty conditions of the region and the wearing of sandals necessitated foot-washing. Although the disciples most likely would have been happy to wash Jesus' feet, they could not conceive of washing each other's feet. This was because in the society of the time, foot-washing was reserved for the lowliest of menial servants. Peers did not wash one another's feet, except very rarely and as a mark of great love. Luke points out (22:24) that the disciples were arguing about who was the greatest among them, an attitude that precludes a willingness to stoop to wash feet. When Jesus moved to wash their feet (see also John 13:1-16), they were shocked. His actions serve also as symbolic of spiritual cleansing (vs. 6-9) and a model of Christian humility (vs. 12-17). By washing His disciples’ feet, Jesus taught the lesson of selfless service that was supremely exemplified by His death on the cross.

The foot-washing was an example, a pattern. Many groups throughout church history have practiced literal foot-washing as a church ordinance. However, present culture in many lands does not call for washing dust from the feet of one's guests. Although the Lord's Supper was practiced, the early church apparently did not practice foot-washing as an ordinance in church gatherings.

This passage emphasizes inner humility, not a physical rite. A Christian widow's practice of "washing the feet of the saints" (1 Timothy 5:10) speaks not of her involvement in a church ordinance but of her humble, slave-like service to other believers. To refuse to follow the example of Jesus is to exalt oneself above Him and to live in pride. “No servant is greater than his master” (John 12:26).


Thursday, October 2, 2014

Church Membership: Some Biblical Answers


Church Membership: Some Biblical Answers

BY Wayde I. Goodall


Many Christians ask, "Is joining a local church necessary?" The New Testament has ample evidence that when a person trusts Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins and takes on new identity in Christ, that person immediately attaches to a local band of believers.

10 REASONS FOR CHURCH MEMBERSHIP

1.It was an apostolic precedent (Acts 2:42–47).

In the Early Church believers met with the apostles daily for teaching, fellowship, breaking bread, and prayer. No indication is given that any believers remained separated from the local church. For example, the apostle Paul tried to "join the local disciples" when he relocated to a new community (Acts 9:26*).

2.The first-century believers kept track of each other (Acts 2:42–47).

Several times in the Book of Acts the phrase, "The Lord added to their number daily," is recorded. The church kept track of who was becoming a part of the body of Christ. Numbers represented believers, and they added those believers to themselves. Other places in Acts reaffirm the first-century church practice of "adding to their number" (Acts 2:47; 4:4; 5:14; 6:1,7; 9:31; 11:21; 16:5).

3. Ekklesia is the original Greek word for "church."

Ekklesia means "the called-out ones." The word itself denotes being called out of something (the world) and into something else (the church). This includes both the Church universal and the local church. Spiritually speaking, we become a part of the Church (the body of Christ) worldwide. Practically speaking, however, we become a part of the local church in our own communities and spheres of influence. We cannot be called out of one thing without being called into another. The Book of Acts does not mention an "invisible church."

4.Church membership is an expression of commitment.

In a world where commitment is diluted and loyalty is nonexistent, the church serves as a standard of commitment. Jesus is looking for those who will not look back, have counted the cost, and are willing to give up everything to follow Him (Luke 9:62; 14:33). Church membership is a commitment to the Body through the times of blessing as well as times of trial.

5.Church membership models caring.

Church members exist to accomplish many functions, including devotion to each other, honoring one another, sharing with each other, and practicing hospitality (Romans 12; 1 Corinthians 12). The apostle Paul went so far as to say that the members belong to each other. This model of a caring community can best take place when the individual members of the Body make a commitment to one another. In the Assemblies of God church membership is considered the best means to accomplish these standards of caring in our pursuit of becoming a Romans 12 church.

6.Church membership shares the burden.

We are instructed to carry each other’s burdens (Galatians 6:2). The picture here is of a beast of burden (the mule) who can carry 10 times more baggage than one man can bear. It is the same with the church. Sometimes we need each other to carry the heavy burdens life hands out. A commitment to church membership says, "I’m willing to share the load and help carry someone else’s burdens. I’ll be available when needed." This also allows the individual members to rest assured that someday they’ll need help carrying a burden, and someone will be there to help—much as a healthy family functions (1 Corinthians 12:26).

7.Church membership breeds encouragement.

"And let us consider how we may spur one another on toward love and good deeds. Let us not give up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but let us encourage one another—and all the more as you see the Day approaching" (Hebrews 10:24,25). Being spurred on (motivated, energized) and encouraged are just two of the blessings we receive and are called to give out as a result of being committed to the local church.

8.Church membership says, "I’ll serve."

As one must join the military to have the privilege and duty of serving one’s country, so it is with the church. We must join the ranks of the committed to receive the full benefit of serving God. Someone has said, "You are either a spectator on the sidelines or a participant in the trenches." God is looking for participants in His army. Ephesians 4:12 declares that the members of the church are to be equipped for service. Only true members are issued equipment to carry out the Great Commission (Matthew 28:18–20). All spiritual gifts are intended to operate within the context of the local church (1 Corinthians 12:7; 1 Peter 4:10).

9.Church membership is an attitude of submission.

Church members submit first to each other and then to Christ (Ephesians 5:21–24), for Christ is the head of the Church, His body, of which He is the Savior. Scripture is clear that the church is not an organization with a ladder of hierarchy, encouraging its members to climb the ladder. In sharp contrast, the church is like a body with Christ as the head—at the controls. All members are to submit to the head, her one and only leader. The result should be mutual submission to one another and to Christ. This allows accountability with each other and enables others to add counsel and correction to our lives if necessary (Matthew 18:15–17).

10.Church membership is symbolic of our heavenly citizenship.

"Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God’s people and members of God’s household…" (Ephesians 2:19). Being committed to the family of God grants us citizenship and eliminates our alien status. When foreigners want to become official citizens and gain access to the rights and privileges of a different country, they must make a commitment to and take responsibility for the safety of, defense of, constitution of, and authorities of that country. Christians are God’s people through faith in Jesus Christ (John 14:6) and are added to God’s household.

CONCLUSION

Making a commitment to the local church means much more than adding your name to a roll book. It means taking the responsibilities that come along with the privileges, being blessed and blessing others, and saying "No" to the world’s standard of commitment and "Yes" to God’s. These are good reasons to encourage people to join the local church.

*Scripture quotations are from the New International Version.

Wednesday, October 1, 2014

What is the Difference Between Covenant Theology, and New Covenant Theology?



What is the Difference Between Covenant
Theology, and New Covenant Theology?

-by Tony Warren


In truth, there really is only one correct theological view of the Covenant, which is the "Biblical" view. That is to say, the view of Covenant Theology as it is defined by the Bible. However, man typically chooses to make things more complicated and confusing than they should be, and so accordingly, labels are required to separate the three basic schools of thought. Though the specifics of the theology of the Covenant may be defined in one way by one group, and in another way by an opposing group, in general there are just three major views. These views fit somewhere into the systems known as "Covenant Theology," "New Covenant Theology," and "Dispensational Theology." Following is a general and brief synopsis of these three theologies.

Dispensational Theology
It is difficult to briefly summarize the dispensational view because it has so many outgrowths and diverse branches. In general, the core of this system is their untenable insistence on the oxymoron that they take the Bible very literally, even when it is figurative. And thus they believe that Old Covenant believers were under an epochal of Mosaic law. These theologians teach that there is a great degree of discontinuity between the old and new Covenants, and that there are diverse ways in which God has dealt with man in different dispensations or epochs of time. This system is built upon the idea that God's plan for dealing with man has been changing throughout these seven dispensations of history.

These diverse economies include the time of the Mosaic Law, the present age we live in, and the future one thousand year reign of Christ on earth. Those who hold this theological viewpoint do not believe that there is only one people of God, but rather that the Bible contains two distinctly different paths for certain people. This includes one plan for those who are of Jewish heritage, and a separate plan for all the Gentile people. The New Covenant is viewed in a sense of law being replaced by Grace, rather than law and Grace coexisting throughout time. Although it is believed that both Jews and Gentiles are saved by Christ through faith now, they also hold that the nation of Israel will receive additional earthly promises and honors. Some even declare that the Jewish people are saved by the grace of God during this present dispensation, but that the Jewish people of the past (and indeed Jewish people of the future) are somehow to be justified by Jewish heritage or lineage, in a divine establishment of obedience to the law.

It is this view of God having separate plans for those who are of Jewish heritage, and the belief in this series of divine dispensations, that distinguishes this form of theology from both "Covenant Theology," and "New Covenant Theology." Note that the eschatology of Dispensationalism is beyond the scope of this particular publication, and so this paper will focus on the differences between "Covenant Theology" and "New Covenant Theology."

Covenant
To better understand the theologies, we should first understand the word. The word that is translated Covenant in the Hebrew is [beriyth], and in the Greek it is the word [diatheke] (often translated Testament). They both very literally mean "a promise or solemn oath" (Genesis 26:3). For example, if you produced a written agreement certifying that your land should go to your son after your death, that would be a Covenant. Because it is literally a written Promise, oath, or Testament certifying that something must be done. Moreover, a Covenant can made out as conditional or unconditional. For example, a Covenant can be a mutual agreement that if certain requirements are met, then and only then will the oath or promise be enforceable. Thus, any breaking of that Covenant by not meeting the requirements is a violation of law. That is an example of a conditional Covenant. It is like what we would call today, a contract. On the other hand, an Oath or Promise to give something, with no requirements or stipulations, is an unconditional Covenant. In other words, it is a solemn Promise or Oath to do something, with no conditions or stipulations attached. Thus, that Covenant cannot be broken, you shall receive whatever is Promised regardless of anything you do or don't do. In these two ways, God has made many solemn promises or Covenants in scripture, which careful study of scripture will reveal all point to some aspect of the gospel. e.g.:

Jeremiah 33:25-36

"Thus saith the LORD; If my covenant be not with day and night, and if I have not appointed the ordinances of heaven and earth, then will I cast away the seed of Jacob..."
God will never forsake His people Israel, and this promise is equated to His oath of keeping the time keepers working in the heavens. In other words, this is God's promise or "oath" that there will be day and night "until He come." And if this promise or Covenant cannot be broken, then neither will His promise never to forsake Jacob. It is an unconditional Covenant to the sons of God, the children of Israel.
Genesis 9:15

"And I will remember my covenant, which is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh."
Again, this Covenant is a solemn oath or promise that was made by God, that He would not destroy all flesh by the flood waters anymore. These are all God's unconditional Covenants or Promises. But in like manner, a Covenant of God may also be conditional, where it is predicated upon some action of man.
Psalms 132:12

"If thy children will keep my Covenant and my testimony that I shall teach them, their children shall also sit upon thy throne for evermore."
In other words, the promise (Covenant) is conditioned upon if they would obey. Only then would they sit upon thrones in the Kingdom. When we see a conditional Covenant in scripture, it is often called a "Covenant of works." This simply means that the Promise is dependant or conditioned upon some action (work) of man. By the same token, an unconditional Covenant is known as a "Covenant of Grace," meaning it is not a Promise that is conditioned by any works of men. It is a Covenant received strictly by the unmerited favor of God. All Promises or Covenants of God throughout scripture, fall into one of these two categories.
Galatians 3:17

"And this I say, that the Covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make The Promise of none effect."
Again, we see that Covenant and the Promise are synonymous. When God made a Covenant with Abraham that his seed (Christ) would inherit the kingdom, that was "The Promise," which was unconditional. And it is a promise that all of us also have part in, if we have part in Christ Jesus.
Galatians 3:29

"And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to The Promise."
To Biblically define the word Covenant, we need not look to anyone's explanation, but to the scriptures as our interpreter and dictionary. And doing this, we can see that the word most nearly means a promise or oath. There are many theologians who define a Covenant as an agreement. However, while a Covenant "can" be an agreement (mutual promise), it is not always. It can be a singular promise from God (or man) to do, or to not do something. Just as a last will and Testament is a singular promise of possession after someone dies. The word Testament in the Greek is the exact same word translated Covenant. It is a solemn oath made by that person. Which, not coincidentally, God Himself uses to define the Promise of inheritance (Hebrews 9:16-17) which He has secured for His people. The Covenant!
Covenant Theology
Which brings us to this word as it is used in the context of the issue before us. Covenant Theology (for example, as understood in the Westminster Confession of Faith) is the understanding that the promise supports a great degree of continuity between the Old Covenant (represented by works) and the New Covenant (representing grace). The Old Covenant is actually a synonym for the law, and the New Covenant a synonym for Grace. There were no saints ever saved by the Old Covenant law, as all who were saved before the time of Christ, were saved under the only Covenant that can save. And that is the New Covenant that was confirmed in the shed blood of Christ. From the very beginning, every single person that was elect, was saved the exact same way. By faith in the redemptive work of Christ, the Old Covenant of works (conditional) is passed away (Hebrews 8:12-13) for both Old and New Covenant saints, that we no longer fall under its sentence of death (Romans 6:23). We can say the Old was the example, which the New brought to light and consummated.

Hebrews 9:15

"And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance."
Keep in mind Testament and Covenant is the same Greek word. For what cause was He mediator of a New Covenant? Well, the reason is that "the ritual examples" of blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkled upon the unclean, pointed to the sacrifice and shed blood of Christ. The Old system was merely a shadow foretelling the true blood, which truly would purify the man. By means of the death of Christ, we receive the ratification of Old Covenant law by the washing away of our sins or transgressions, by which that Old Conditional Covenant condemned us. The Promise or 'Covenant of redemption' (Ephesians 1:4-7; 1:11; 1st Peter 1:19-20; Revelation 13:8) is what undergirds the Covenant of grace in Covenant Theology.
Moreover, in Covenant Theology scripture is seen as illustrating that the Promise or Covenant of God is also external or corporate in nature. Where, just as the nation Israel was externally under God's protection, the Church is a family under this same external corporate Covenant. The external nature of the Covenant applies not only to those adults who come to believe, but also in a non-salvific way (1st Corinthians 7:14), to their children. In like manner, water baptism is an external outward 'sign' or token of incorporation into the Covenant family of God. But it doesn't guarantee anyone's salvation.

The biblical hermeneutic of the law establishes that whatever is not abolished in Christ, continues. Therefore, there is a certain unity or continuity in God's Covenants. i.e., though there is the Covenant of works and the Covenant of grace, they are intimately related for the true believer. In other words, Christ fulfilled the conditions of the Old Covenant of law or works, that it may no longer condemn us. Once truly saved, we are looked upon by God as clean, holy and unblamable. That is how the Old Covenant is passed away for us, as we have in this sense become as dead to the law (Romans 7:4) through the death of the body of Christ.

Romans 4:15-16

"Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.
Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the Promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,"
The Old Covenant neither brought, nor brings justification to anyone. Justification and salvation could be obtained only by way of faith. So Abraham and all Old Covenant saints were justified by faith, and the Old Covenant was merely a portrait to illustrate that law. Covenant Theology looks upon all history as a progressive revealing of the Covenant of Grace, and that includes the Old Covenant. It carries over the old order into the new in the sense that it is understood that the Old Covenant laws are not done away with (made null and void), rather they are fulfilled or completed (for the believer only) in Christ. In this way, the old conditional Promise has become new and unconditional for those of faith. The true Israel of God has always been the remnant of the congregation (individuals rather than a nation), and the Old Covenant saints have always been upheld by the work of Christ, rather than their own works. There was not one single Old Covenant Israelite that was saved by works, except it was the work of the spirit of Christ in him (1st Peter 1:10-11). The scriptures also teach that the Old Covenant laws are still binding (the wicked are still guilty under them), but we can only fully keep them in Christ Jesus. In Him alone we keep them all perfectly. In other words, He is our righteousness, Our obedience, our Sabbath of rest that we will keep forever, and our daily or continual sacrifice. He is our Lamb of atonement that the Old Covenant ritual pointed to. Jesus taught that what He came to do in His life, and the work that He accomplished, was the fulfillment and true substance of all the Old Covenant 'shadows or types' that prefigured Him. Those laws are all still kept in Him. No one in the Old Covenant was ever saved by keeping the law of shedding the blood of literal animals (Hebrews 10:4), likewise no one ever refrained from sin and lived righteously in a way that could save him. They were only righteous by the work of Christ, through the faith. And they only kept the law perfectly through Him. They were saved retroactively by faith, looking forward to the coming of Christ through these shadows and types. We are saved by faith, looking backward to the coming of Christ. The Old Covenant laws were everlasting (Numbers 18:19; Joshua 4:7; Leviticus 16:31), because they were merely a shadow representing the New (or true) that was coming. Just as a shadow cast on the ground would prefigure or announce that someone was coming. In this way we see the continuity of the Old Covenants, which were shadows of things to come.
Hebrews 8:4-5

"For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law:
Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount."
A shadow is dark, obscure, not well defined, not showing the clear picture of what it represents. God set those Old Covenant laws so that they look forward to Christ. In Him only can we keep them perfectly (as required). Thus Covenant theology embodies the belief that the law is not destroyed or abrogated, and is "passed away" only in the sense that it is fulfilled in Christ. In this way we are considered dead to the law that it cannot condemn us. Not that we are exempt from abiding by the law, because of the Spirit that is our desire. But that when we fail, the law cannot condemn us.
When our Lord established the New Covenant, that is proof that there is no merit in the Dispensational system or view of the Covenants. For Christ Himself was not establishing something radically different, rather, 'by Himself,' He was establishing the true or real fulfillment of the Old Covenant shadows.

Hebrews 10:1

"For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect."
These were not the "true images," but merely shadows or figures of things that were coming. The law was our educator or tutor (Galatians 3:23-25), teaching us that we always fall well short of the glory of God and thus need a Savior. The law taught that we couldn't get to heaven by our own works. The Old Testament saints couldn't keep the law by their blood sacrifices, nor did any of these acts that were commanded by God make them perfect (keeping perfectly God's laws). The real work of keeping the law falls upon Christ's shoulders. And so in the system of Covenant Theology, it is understood that the law has not ended, and that we are still obligated observe it. But we keep it in Christ, that it cannot condemn us. The wages of sin is still death, and we keep the law of sinlessness perfectly (which is required) in the death of Christ Jesus. We obey God and keep the law only because God is now working within us to both will and to do His good works.
Hebrews 13:21

"Make you perfect in every good work to do his will, working in you that which is wellpleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen."
In other words, our keeping the law is by the work of Christ, and the good that we see worked out in ourselves is the evidence of salvation, not the reason (lest any man should boast) for it. Keeping the law is a product of Christ working within us. Moreover, God has an external federal family relationship with us, His visible Church. The same external Covenant family relationship God had with the Old Testament saints. These truths of a 'certain' continuity of Old and New Covenants constitute the true essence of sound, justifiable, Biblical 'Covenant Theology.'
New Covenant Theology
By contrast, 'New Covenant Theology' is a phrase that people use to identify the system purporting that the administration in the New Testament has a distinctively 'new character' to it. It has been un-flatteringly equated to being a compromise between Dispensational Theology and Covenant Theology. This is partly due to it being a doctrine held by many theologians who were former Dispensationalists, Reformed Baptists or former Baptists who come from this background.

In this teaching, it is generally held that Christ has actually Changed God's laws. This view stems from their conclusion that because we live under the provisions of the New Covenant believed to be a New Dispensation inaugurated by Christ, that the law of Christ is 'not' the same as the law of Moses. However, it is my belief that this view is indefensible on may different levels. Primarily because Christ did nothing but support the law of Moses all throughout His ministry. Indeed, it is quite evident that 'the law of Moses' is used synonymously with 'The word of God.' In other words, the ten commandments and all other commandments of God, were not Moses' law, it was God's law. It is only called the law of Moses to distinguish it from Grace.

John 1:17

"For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ."
In other words, the law given Moses by God could not make men righteous because it could not be kept perfectly, and it is thus contrasted with the system of grace that came only through Christ Jesus. All of God's word is a perfect word, and though it may appear Christ contradicts the law, careful consideration of all texts reveal that He does not. For example, when our Lord says that he that is angry with his brother without a cause (Matthew 5:21-22) is guilty of murder, He is not contradicting the law of murder. Rather He is explaining that in God's economy, the sin of murder goes well beyond the literal or physical taking of a human life. This is not a 'new' law, nor a corruption of the old, but an deeper explanation of it. This was always the case, and thus the continuation from old to new. Christ is in no wise abrogating the old law, but illuminating it to show that without Christ, we could never keep the Old Covenant law's far reaching implications. Thus the only way to keep it, is in Christ.
Matthew 5:17-18

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."
So contrary to New Covenant Theology views, Christ actually confirmed that the law of moses was indeed the law fulfilled and kept in Christ. Not one word or single letter of it is invalid, because it's God's law. Not one little detail will pass away from it in this idea that something new has come. It all has to be kept, and that is why Christ had to come to fulfill the Promise or Covenant of salvation in righteousness. For there was no one else who could. He didn't come to change the law, transform it into something new or to make it null and void. The law of Moses for murder is still the law of God, and thus murder is still a sin. Idolatry is still a sin. Adultery is still a sin. The law has not changed for man.
Likewise the law of the Passover was commanded of God to be kept 'forever,' and it will be kept forever. But not in the "shadow" of slaughtering literal lambs, but it is "continued" in Christ by the communion service. In this feast fulfilled in Christ we indeed eat of the Passover and keep the law of this sacrifice forever. It illustrates that salvation "never" came through the literal sacrifice of animals, it was always by the shed blood of Christ, the antitype. The law of animal sacrifice merely prefigured His coming.

New Covenant theologians may look at the fact that we no longer celebrate the Passover in the style they did in the Old Covenant as proof that the law has changed. But in truth, what it proves is that the Passover celebration is kept in our festival of eating of Christ. He is the "real" passover Lamb, and not a animal that is burned in the flame. Why would the children of God today eat of the shadow when they have the real which the shadow merely forecast? Christians do still keep the Passover eternally, but in the real rather than the shadow.

John 6:54-55

"Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed."
Truly Christ is declaring that whosoever partakes in eating of this sacrifice Lamb (John 1:29), is eternally keeping the law of God concerning the only Lamb's blood that could take away sin. It is not a New Covenant in the sense that Old Covenant saints were not saved in this exact way, or had no access to Christ in their day. It is New only in the sense that it is the perfect administration of the Covenant of Grace that the Mosaic law forecast would save. It is new in the sense of it being superior to works, since it is the only way man came find his way into the Kingdom.
Like "Covenant Theology," the "New Covenant Theology" system also declares that the New Testament characterizes the New Covenant as superior to the old, it goes beyond by placing a disconnect between the two. Therefore it is surmised that this perceived discontinuity means the law of Christ stands in contrast to the law of Moses. However, that would make two separate and distinct bodies, which is an un-biblical concept concerning the children of God. The Old Testament saints were saved by Grace exactly as the New Testament saints were. Not by works, but by the Covenant of Grace, retroactively. In the Old Covenant times, by faith they looked forward to the coming of the Messiah Christ and his finished work on the cross. In the New Covenant era, by faith we look backward at the coming of Christ and His finished work on the cross. Faith is the same and the Grace is the same. The only difference is the saint's directional view of Christ. In other words, We (Old Testament as well as New Testament saints) are all part of this very same continual eternal Covenant of Grace. Just because before the cross of Christ, the Covenant was not yet given strength by the death of Christ, doesn't mean that its efficacy does not reach back to Abraham or Abel. And if it did, then there is obviously continuity rather than discontinuity.

If there indeed was no continuation of the Covenants with Israel, it is contradictory for God to declare He grafts New Covenant era branches into the same Old Covenant Olive Tree Israel representing that Covenant. The Olive tree of Romans chapter eleven is the representation or symbol of this external Covenant that God has with His people Israel. And this tree clearly existed both before the cross and remains standing and alive after the cross. That is the very essence of continuity. This Covenant with Israel stood strong even as some branches were broken off in blindness, and others grafted in.

Romans 11:17

"And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree;"
We Gentiles are grafted into the Covenant tree of Israel "among those" Jewish branches who were not broken off. Clearly, it's not a new tree, not a different tree, but the very same Covenant with Israel. Consequently, the Covenant is new "only" in that Christ has come, being the real substance and the real Root of it, and He has fulfilled the shadow. He has given the Covenant with Israel it's real STRENGTH, and this is what 'New Covenant Theology' fails to address effectively. The truths of continuity, which are so effectively stated in Hebrews:
Hebrews 9:17

"For a Covenant is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the Covenantor liveth."
The Covenant/Testament was there. But it was of no force if Christ remained alive because He had to fulfill its requirement of death (like a Last will and Testament) for the regeneration and inheritance of God's people. When Christ shed His blood on the cross, He undergirded it or put real strength to the Promise or Covenant with Israel. Again, it's not a different Covenant of salvation, it's a Covenant made New by being made strong by being fulfilled. Remember, Daniel chapter nine prophesied that a Messiah was to come who would strengthen [gabar] the Covenant with many. He was to come and confirm or ratify what was already a Covenant promise. It is thus superior to the old law in that the Old was a Promise without strength (Hebrews 9:17-18) without the death of Christ. The works required in the Old Covenant are fulfilled in the work of Christ. Thus the Covenant of works is completed/accomplished, and the Covenant of Grace brought to fruition. As Christ Himself said, He came not to do away with the law, but to fulfill it. The law is now written on our hearts, because Christ has gone to the cross to establish its new birth for us, and indeed retroactively for all those elect who came before us. He dwells within us, therefore is the law always in our thoughts and heart.
Hebrew 10:16

"This is the Covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;"
The Old Promise we were under was to keep God's law or be condemned. The New Promise is not that the old is tossed out the window, for God's condemnation of sinners for violating His laws obviously stand. But that in Christ, we keep the Old Covenant law of works perfectly. New Covenant Theology cannot effectively address how those of both the Old and New Covenant, who were unsaved, will have to answer to every jot and tittle of the law (thou shalt not kill, commit adultery, etc.) if it is supposedly done away with. If someone has to answer to the law, then obviously, it was not done away with for them. But to those in Christ, they are established on better Promises (Grace) where there is no condemnation by the law that clearly still stand as accuser. But not for us.
So though many New Covenant Theologians are fond of claiming that the Old Covenant law of Moses is somehow not in effect today, at the same time they use Old Covenant laws of moses (thou shalt not kill, commit adultery, covet, etc.) as valid today. As they see it, if it's repeated in the New Covenant, then it's still in effect. But the question is, how then is the Old Covenant law still in effect and repeated in the New Covenant, if it was done away with in the New Covenant? That's not a law being done away with, that is the law being reiterated! So their views are inconsistent at best, and presents a very shaky foundation on which to build a theology of the Covenant.

The New Covenant Theology system suggests that it is a totally different Covenant, when in fact it is different and new only in that the continuity of the Old is seen fulfilled in a new and glorious way. That is to say, we who are under that Covenant law, are made the righteousness of Christ and thus not condemned by it. It's not new in the sense that the law is now abrogated. It's new in that we are under Grace in that the law doesn't condemn us because of our unrighteous acts or our lack of perfect works. However, this same law still condemns those not in Christ, which in itself is proof that nothing has changed concerning the Old Covenant law of works. Moreover, those who know the law, and yet don't keep the law, will be judged more severely. Thus the words of the law must be seen to stand.

James 2:8-11

"If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well:
But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors.
For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.
For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law."
Clearly, and without ambiguity, in the New Testament era the law of Moses stands. It is not done away with for the reprobate. The only people who are not condemned by it are those dead to the law in Christ Jesus. So while New Covenant Theologians believe that Christ gives the Church "new" and "higher standards of conduct" than Moses gave under a Covenant of law, it is self evident that the law of Christ, in fact 'is' the law of Moses. And we are under no more higher standards than they were. The law under which Abraham, Isaac and Jacob toiled is the same law under which we toil. And as they were saved not by fulfilling the Covenant of works, but Christ fulfilling it for them--so we have that very same Grace. Even those who argue that there is no 'Covenant of Grace' must confess that this is the most accurate title to represent the one single plan of redemption, which God has instituted for the saints from the very beginning. Even as Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord, and He and his 7 family members were saved and made heirs of the Promise. In a phrase, He fell under "the Covenant of Grace."
In conclusion, it is my belief that Dispensational Theology is not only biblically untenable, but disjointed and fundamentally flawed at the very core. New Covenant Theology is in part inconsistent and places an artificial abrogation of Old Covenant law. But Covenant Theology is the scripturally consistent view of how God has always dealt with His people. Indeed, Biblical Theology is the 'Covenant Theology' of one continuity between the Old Covenant and the New. Like two parallel lines that work in conjunction with each other. The Covenant of works and the Covenant of Grace, both in agreement and continuity. One path in which we uphold our "obligations" to the conditional promises of God in the Grace of Christ Jesus alone. Because He has finished the works 'required' to keep the law, as our substitute.

The difference between the two Christian theologies of "Covenant Theology" and "New Covenant Theology," basically boils down to the distinction that Covenant Theology believes in the continuity between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant, and New Covenant Theology believes that the New Covenant law of Christ stands 'in contrast' to the Old Covenant law of Moses. There are many flavors of these Theologies, but generally speaking, this is the basic difference.