Christ, Our New Covenant Prophet— Part 3 · 2015-10-23 · Reisinger—Continued on page 2 White—Continued on page 12 In This Issue Christ, Our New Covenant Prophet ― Part 3

but for him who died for them and was raised again. So from now on we regard no one from a worldly point of view. Though we once regarded Christ in this way, we do so no longer. Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come: The old has gone, the new is here! All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: that God was reconciling that world to himself in Christ, not counting people’s sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation. We are therefore Christ’s ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ’s behalf: Be reconciled to God. God made him who had no sin to be sin for

In our last article we started to talk about Christ, our new covenant Prophet, being a true Law-giver who replaces Moses in exactly the same way that he replaces Aaron as High Priest. We have noted how important Deuteronomy 18:15-19 is in any discussion of Christ as Prophet. Let us look carefully at a new covenant text with references back to Deuteronomy 18:15-19. In John 17:8 our Lord is speaking to his Father.

For I have given to them the words which You have given Me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came forth from You; and they have believed that You sent Me (NKJV).

How can responsible exegesis make this statement mean that Jesus never gives any new law, but merely gives the true interpretation of what Moses has already spoken? Jesus does not say or imply

I s su e 191 O c to b e r 2 012

… It is good for the heart to be strengthened by grace … Hebrews 13:9

Christ, Our New Covenant Prophet—Part 3

John G. Reisinger

Evangelical Christians claim to be cross-centered. This is right and good, for the Bible is cross-centered. God is Christ-centered, in the sense that he has made himself known through Christ crucifi ed. The cross means every-thing for our faith. I was recently reading Rob Bell’s book on heaven and hell, and he speaks of blood sacrifi ce as be-ing barbaric and primitive. Well, the cross may be that for the postmodern ear, but for those who have been granted ears to hear, the cross means everything.

For Christ’s love compels us, because we are convinced that one died for all, and therefore all died. And he died for all, that those who live should no longer live for themselves

The Cross Changes Everything2 Corinthians 5:14-21

A. Blake White

Reisinger—Continued on page 2

White—Continued on page 12

In This Issue

Christ, Our New Covenant Prophet ― Part 3

John G. Reisinger1

The Cross Changes Everything

A. Blake White1

Free Will and Determinism: Introduction

Steve West3

The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse - Part 2

Dr. J. David Gilliland5

Book Review: "Killing Calvinism"

John G. Reisinger7

"The Law of Christ" by Charles Leiter

John G. Reisinger18

Page 2 October 2012 Issue 191Sound of Grace is a publication of Sovereign Grace New Covenant Ministries, a tax exempt 501(c)3 corporation. Contributions to Sound of Grace are deductible under section 170 of the Code.

Sound of Grace is published 10 times a year. The subscription price is shown below. This is a paper unashamedly committed to the truth of God’s sovereign grace and New Covenant Theology. We invite all who love these same truths to pray for us and help us fi nancially.

We do not take any paid advertising.

The use of an article by a particular person is not an endorsement of all that person believes, but it merely means that we thought that a particular article was worthy of printing.

Sound of Grace Board: John G. Reisinger, David Leon, John Thorhauer, Bob VanWing-erden and Jacob Moseley.

Editor: John G. Reisinger; Phone: (585)396-3385; e-mail: [email protected].

General Manager: Jacob Moseley:[email protected]

Send all orders and all subscriptions to: Sound of Grace, 5317 Wye Creek Drive, Frederick, MD 21703-6938 – Phone 301-473-8781 Visit the bookstore: http://www.newcovenantmedia.com

Address all editorial material and questions to: John G. Reisinger, 3302 County Road 16, Canandaigua, NY 14424-2441.

Webpage: www.soundofgrace.org or SOGNCM.org

Scripture quotations marked (NIV) are taken from the HOLY BIBLE, NEW INTERNA-TIONAL VERSION® Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society. Used by Permission. All rights reserved.

Scripture quotations marked “NKJV” are taken from the New King James Version. Copyright © 1982 by Thomas Nelson, Inc. Used by Permission. All rights reserved.

Scripture quotations marked (ESV) are from The Holy Bible, English Standard Version, copyright © 2001 by Crossway Bibles, a division of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

ContributionsOrders

Discover, MasterCard or VISA

If you wish to make a tax-deductible contribu-tion to Sound of Grace, please mail a check to: Sound of Grace, 5317 Wye Creek Drive, Frederick, MD 21703-6938.

Please check the mailing label to fi nd the expiration of your subscription. Please send payment if you want your subscription to continue—$20.00 for ten issues. Or if you would prefer to have a pdf fi le emailed, that is available for $10.00 for ten issues. If you are unable to subscribe at this time, please call or drop a note in the mail and we will be glad to continue sending Sound of Grace free of charge.

Reisinger—Continued from page 1


that his work was merely to interpret Moses. He has manifested God’s name to the elect (v.6) by speaking “the words the Father gave him.” We cannot reduce such a statement to mean that the Father did no more than give his Son the true exegesis of the “eternal unchanging moral law of God” that he had given to Moses. The words in the prophecy of Deuteronomy 18:15-19 demand that a new Lawgiver1 will come who will give new revelation. If Christ merely interprets Moses without giving any new laws, he simply does not fulfi ll this prophecy in Deuteronomy 18. You cannot make “For I have given to them the words which You have given Me” to mean “I have given them the correct meaning of the words you gave to Moses.”

In order to understand why some theologians cannot allow Christ to be a new Lawgiver who replaces Moses as lawgiver in exactly the same way that he replaces Aaron as high priest, we must clearly understand the basic presuppositions of their system of theology. One very vital question helps to pinpoint those unstated warrants: With whom is Christ contrasting himself in the Sermon on the Mount when he says, “But I say unto you”? This is a key question. Is Christ here speaking merely as an exegete of Moses or is he speaking as a prophet and new lawgiver in his own right? In the context, it reads as though Christ is contrasting his teaching with that of Moses, but that exegesis is anathema to Covenant Theology. That system of theology insists Christ is not in any way contrasting his teaching with that of Moses. He is only refuting the false misunderstanding the Pharisees have of Moses.

We must be certain we understand

1 Genesis 49:10 clearly prophesies that Messiah will be the true Lawgiver in the linage of Judah.

what people actually believe before we can interact with them. Covenant Theology has three basic maxims upon which their theology of law rests. These maxims are not debatable.

ONE: There is one unchanging covenant of grace in all ages for all men (Westminster Confession of Faith 7:4-6). Do not confuse this statement with the doctrine that states there is only one way of salvation in all ages. We reject the fi rst, but believe and teach the second. The only gospel message in the whole of Scripture, both in the Old Testament and in the New Testament, is that salvation is “by grace through faith.” Abraham, and all other Old Testament saints, were all saved by through faith in the same gospel message as we are saved today. However, God’s one sovereign purpose of grace in all ages to save his one elect people and a purely theological temporal covenant of grace are not the same things.

TWO: There is one redeemed people of God in all ages under this one covenant of grace. By “redeemed people of God,” Covenant Theology means the one true church includes the entire physical nation of Israel, both adults and children along with the New Testament believers and their children. They view the “redeemed nation of Israel” as part of the one true church of God. The Christian church is the same church as Israel with Gentile believers and their children added to it.

THREE: There is one unchanging standard of moral conduct for the one redeemed people of God under the one covenant of grace. If the moral code for a Christian differs in any way from the moral code for an Israelite, then there are two codes of conduct and Covenant Theology’s view of law is destroyed. (See John Murray’s Principles of Conduct, pages 14-19.)

Let us again ask the key question:

Issue 191 Octobeer 2012 Page 3

West—Continued on page 8

That God exists in this mode is true: precisely how this can be goes beyond our ability to comprehend or explain. At the risk of oversimplifi cation, many of our discussions would be much more accurate and properly con-strained if we just took seriously the fact that God is God and we are not.

Such refl ections should engender a healthy amount of humility in us, and prepare us at the outset for arriving at limits beyond which we cannot go. Extrapolation, speculation, deduc-tion, and inference are all wonderful tools for intellectual discovery, but they are also dangerous if not properly controlled. When we are dealing with God, who even in principle is be-yond our ken, we need to be on guard against false steps. What makes sense to us about God may not be true of him. Conversely, how he has revealed himself to us may boggle our minds or even cause some cognitive disso-nance, but we are responsible to hum-bly submit ourselves to his revelation and authority, even if the picture does not make perfect sense to us. All those not prepared to have some loose ends, unanswered questions, and a less than perfect grasp of God’s sovereignty and human responsibility are advised not to begin the study.

As if the nature of God is not a suf-fi cient reason to feel inadequate, there is also the tremendous weight of the historical debate in the church. Issues involving Calvinism and Arminian-ism have been debated with those labels for centuries now, but the same discussions minus those labels fl ow right back to the earliest days of the church. This is not to say there has been no development at all in these debates, but merely to point out that

If you do not feel very, very small and very, very inadequate when you consider the issues involved in God’s sovereignty and the human will, you are disqualifi ed from discussing them. This does not mean that we need to abase ourselves in false humility, or pretend we are stupid and immoral. God’s children have been given the Holy Spirit, spiritual gifts, and access to the Scriptures—it is false and harm-ful to believe that we cannot grow in our knowledge of our heavenly Father’s character and ways. Never-theless, precisely because our Father is God, we are in over our heads. He is incomprehensible to us, which does not mean that he is a logical contra-diction or nonsensical, but rather that he is unfathomable. No matter how well we know him, how close we are to him, or how long we have walked with him, we have never and will never get to the bottom of him. We can know him truly, but we can never comprehend him exhaustively.

Finite minds like ours (even with-out the noetic effects of sin) cannot fully grasp an infi nite mind. Temporal creatures cannot understand what it is like to exist eternally. We may intel-lectually understand what the doctrine of aseity signifi es, but self-existence and self-suffi ciency run so far out of our experience we really cannot com-prehend how such an attribute works. Logical analyses of necessary and contingent beings aside, and leaving the branching family tree of ontologi-cal arguments alone, any theologian or philosopher who does not come to a full stop with a statement like “God exists on his own, necessarily, eter-nally, and in utter independence, just because he does and I can’t explain how” really should not be teaching.

the root issues Calvinists and Armin-ians debate today have theological roots that go way deeper than the sixteenth century. It is not just the hoary age of the debates that should give one pause (the way one can feel a sense of awe standing next to an ancient historical landmark, or on a plot of ground where something of immense importance happened in the deep past), but it is also the stature of the debaters. Without any exaggera-tion, many of the greatest minds in the history of the church have written on these issues. Whatever one thinks about Augustine, anyone who has taken the time to read even a fraction of his work must be struck by the bril-liance of his intellect. In fact, the more familiar the reader is with the his-tory of Western philosophy, the more brilliant Augustine is seen to be: so many ideas in philosophy are found in germ form in his works that is simply astounding to read him, bearing in mind the time at which he was writ-ing. Again, one may not like Calvin, but any fair-minded opponent must concede he had an enormous intel-lect. In a similar way to Augustine, the more familiar the reader is with con-temporary biblical commentaries, the more one is impressed with Calvin’s exegetical ability: so many points made in modern commentaries are already found in Calvin. There is no point in multiplying examples for and against—the simple point is that these issues have been debated throughout the history of the church, and debated by people who were literally geniuses. The combination of time and talent devoted to these issues in the history of the church should help us to not consider ourselves more highly than

Free Will & Determinism: IntroductionSteve West

Page 4 October 2012 Issue 191Dr. Richard Barcellos’s whole

book, In Defense of the Decalogue, agrees with the above quotations. Barcellos defends Covenant Theology’s view of the Ten Commandments as the “unchanging moral law of God.” I defend the authority of Christ to be a true Lawgiver. The following quotation from my review of Barcellos summarizes the discussion.

We would claim for our critique that it is a defense of the enduring laws of God contained in the Ten Commandments, and then expounded and expanded by our Lord Jesus Christ, the new Lawgiver, in his ministry and later through the inspired epistles of the new covenant Scriptures. Our basic disagreement with Barcellos has nothing to do with whether the revelation of God’s will for his people comes in clear and concrete commandments, or whether the Ten Commandments are a vital part of that revelation applicable to a child of God today. Our difference is (1) whether Moses is the greatest lawgiver that ever lived, including the Lord Jesus Christ himself, or (2) whether Jesus replaced Moses as the new Prophet and Lawgiver in the very same sense that he replaced Aaron as the new High Priest. These two things are the very heart of the two positions. We are defending Jesus Christ as the new, greater, full, and fi nal Lawgiver who replaces Moses. That is the bottom line! We are insisting that the laws of Christ that are given to the children of the kingdom of grace are higher laws than those given to Israel at Sinai. Barcellos is defending the belief that Moses is the greatest lawgiver that ever lived and the laws that God gave him at Sinai are the highest laws ever given.4

Walter Chantry, another contemporary writer, makes the Covenant Theology position clear.

110, 127, 129.4 John G. Reisinger, “Review of In Defense of the Decalogue-Part One –See Sound of Grace, V9, N6 April 2003


With whom is Christ contrasting himself in the Sermon on the Mount when he says, “But I say unto you”? I would answer, “He is contrasting himself with Moses and the old covenant.” However, remember we have kept insisting that contrasting is not contradicting! I would say that Christ is speaking as the new Lawgiver who replaces Moses in his role as “that Prophet” promised in Deuteronomy 18. Our Lord is laying out the rules for the new kingdom of grace and is contrasting those new laws, based on grace and redemption, with the laws of Moses, based on pure law, for the theocracy of Israel. The new laws make much higher demands because they are given to redeemed saints and not to hard-hearted sinners, as was the case with Israel. Covenant Theology, on the other hand, must insist that Christ is only contrasting himself with the rabbinical distortions of the law of Moses. To allow Christ to change in any way any of the “eternal unchanging moral law” of God, given to Moses at Sinai, would destroy the very foundation of Covenant Theology’s view of law.

I agree that Christ often refutes the Pharisee’s distortion of the law of Moses (Matt. 15:1-20; 23:1-36). However, he also clearly demonstrates the great difference between the law of Moses that established an earthly theocracy and the laws of grace that govern the body of Christ. Christ, in the Sermon on the Mount, is doing something other than just giving the “true interpretation” of Moses. All of the contrasts he makes are with specifi c statements recorded in the Old Testament. There is not a single mention in the Sermon on the Mount of any distortion of Moses by a Pharisee. Every statement of contrast is between specifi c statements by Moses with specifi c statements of contrast by Christ. There is no textual evidence to support the idea that Christ is correcting rabbinical

distortions of Moses. An unbiased reading of the text leads the reader to conclude that our Lord is giving new and higher laws based on grace.

Here are some examples of Covenant Theology’s view of Christ’s “But I say unto you” statements in the Sermon on the Mount. They are both clear and emphatic. Greg Bahnsen writes:

Christ’s primary concern at this point [Matt. 5:17-48] was the validity and meaning of the older Testamental law. From the antitheses listed in verse 21-48 we see that Christ was concerned to show how the meaning of the Law was being distorted (and thus its fi ne points overlooked).

These radical commands (vv. 21-48) do NOT supersede the older Testamental law; they illustrate and explain it … In six antitheses between His teaching and the scribal interpretations Christ demonstrates His confi rmation of the older Testamental law ….

So we see in Matthew 5:21-48 examples of how Christ confi rms the older Testamental law and reproves the Pharisaical use of it; the anti-theses are case law application of the principle enunciated in Matthew 5:17-20. Christ did not come to abrogate the law; far from it! He confi rmed it in full measure, thereby condemning scribal legalism and showing us the pattern of our Christian sanctifi cation2.

Bahnsen is not alone in this view. A.W. Pink agrees with Bahnsen.

Christ is not here [Mt 5:28-42] pitting Himself against the Mosaic law, nor is He inculcating a superior spirit uality Lord’s design in these verses has been misapprehended, the prevailing but erroneous idea being held that they set forth the vastly superior moral standard of the New Covenant over that which was obtained under Judaism.3

2 Greg L. Bahnsen, Theonomy in Chris-tian Ethics (Nutley, NJ: The Craig Press, 1979), 63, 90, 119 (emphasis added).3 Arthur W. Pink, An Exposition of the Sermon on the Mount (Bible Print Depot), Reisinger—Continued on page 6


his people to himself. The Church is yet incomplete. The imagery points to the end, but it is not here yet. It is similar to the picture we see in our world today. There are places where the reality of these seals is very real, yet there are some that have been spared to a great extent. In spite of the obvious chaos from man’s perspec-tive – the phrase “and authority was given to them” emphasizes again that God is in ultimate control. One might ask what events the saints of the fi rst century might have thought of after having read these words. Here is a list of examples that historians have recorded:

AD 60: Earthquakes

AD 62: Defeat of Roman army by Parthian Vologeses on eastern fron-tier.

AD 64: Persecution of Christians by Nero following the fi re of Rome.

AD 68: Suicide of Nero

AD 70: Four-year war of Jews and Romans ending with Jerusalem in ruins

AD 79: Eruption of Vesuvius

AD 92: Serious grain famine

AD 81-96: Reign of Domitian, insti-tutes emperor worship and resulting persecution.

AD 95: Writing of Revelation.

And yet these seals point to more than just the events of the fi rst cen-tury. No matter where these four horsemen have ridden in history, the results are always the same. For example, an excerpt from the history books describes one pastor’s view of the conditions in Germany during the Gilliland—Continued on page 9

The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse-Part 2Revelation Chapter 6

Dr. J. David GillilandDr. Gilliland is the Teacher of Historical Theology and Christian Ethics at Providence Theological Seminary

Rather than a theological preoc-cupation with the exhaustive details of future events, the main thrust of this book is pastoral, with a desire to encourage God’s people during times of trial and persecution. And unless we understand that we indeed are in the “last days” and that these events are part of our world, we tend to minimize the apostle’s admonitions to perseverance, and fail to adequately appreciate the message of consolation and encouragement. In part 2 of this paper we will continue our efforts to develop “eyes to see.”

“When the Lamb broke the fourth seal, I heard the voice of the fourth liv-ing creature saying, ‘Come.’ I looked, and behold, an ashen horse; and he who sat on it had the name Death; and Hades was following with him, and authority was given to them over a fourth of the earth, to kill with sword and with famine and with pestilence and by the wild beasts of the earth” (Rev. 6:7-8).

This is a summation of the prior seals, but there is an additional ele-ment as well – “Death and Hades.” The fi rst century saint would likely have recognized that this was a state far worse than physical violence, for it included the frightful dimension of moral and spiritual destitution. “Ha-des” is primarily a place reserved for Satan and his angels. This is not just a picture of economic destitution but of moral and spiritual poverty and all that is associated with it.

But note here again that the extent of the judgment in this seal is still restricted – in this case to a fourth of the earth. There is still time for repentance; God is not fi nished calling

‘Thirty Years War’ (1618-1648):A confusing struggle in which

foreign armies (led by someone’s rider on a white horse) criss-crossed German territories and tyrannized the population. Multitudes fl ed before the onslaught of the plundering soldiery and sustained themselves by begging, robbing, and destroying anything that stood in their way. Famine and disease followed in their wake and further decimated the population, so that whole villages were simply wiped out. One of the worst features of the war and its aftermath was the decline of moral sensitivity. One pastor com-plained, ‘one can no longer tell what is of God or the devil. Poor widows and orphans are counted for dung, like dogs they are pushed into the street and left there to perish of hunger and cold.

This is the result of a society that separates itself from the principles of God’s word and attempts to re-create itself in the image of autonomous man. In spite of all our technology and twenty-fi rst century sophistication, we have never really moved beyond the fi rst century. And ultimately history will culminate in the fi nal famine, the fi nal war, and the fi nal generation whose life style might be character-ized as “hell on earth.”

“When the Lamb broke the fi fth seal, I saw underneath the altar the souls of those who had been slain because of the word of God, and because of the testimony which they had maintained; and they cried out with a loud voice, saying, “How long, O Lord, holy and true, will You refrain from judging and avenging our blood on those who dwell on the earth?” And there was given to each of them

Page 6 October 2012 Issue 191


in Covenant Theology. There must be a “Christian Sabbath” under the new covenant or Covenant Theology has lost one of its foundation stones. If there are two canons of conduct, one for Israel that includes a weekly Sabbath and another one for the church that sees Christ as the fulfi lling and abolishing the Sabbath, then Covenant Theology’s view of law is invalid. If we pull the Sabbath commandment out of “THE unchanging moral law,” or change in any way any other commandment, then the entire system collapses. This is why churches and preachers of this persuasion are not primarily interested in whether or not their church members watch football on Sunday as long as they acknowledge that the Sabbath is in force and it is their duty to be “holy.” Exactly how they demonstrate their holiness is entirely up to each individual and their personal “Christian liberty.”7

You will notice that in the quotation above, Bahnsen writes “older Testamental law” instead of Old Testament. Bahnsen does this to demonstrate as forcefully as possible that there are no such things as real, true, and radically different new and old covenants. There is only one covenant of grace, with an older and a newer version of that one and same covenant. We wonder why the writers

practices which are clearly contradictory of the elementary demands of the New Testament ethic. Monogamy is surely a principle of the Christian ethic. Old Tes-tament saints practiced polygamy. In like manner, under the Old Testament divorce was practiced on grounds that could not be tolerated in terms of the explicit provisions of the New Testament revela-tion. And polygamy and divorce were practiced without overt disapprobation in terms of the canons of behavior which were recognized as regulative in the Old Testament period. Principles of Conduct (Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, 1999) 14.7 See John G. Reisinger, The Believer’s Sabbath (Frederick, MD: New Covenant Media, 2002), to help clarify this issue.

Our Lord Jesus Christ himself did not give a condensed and defi nitive code of morality. In his great sermon on kingdom righteousness (Matt. 5), the greatest Prophet produced no new standard. He merely gave clear exposition of the old statutes. These were selected, not to make a complete list of duties, but to correct the prevailing misinterpretations of the hour.5

Are we justifi ed in asking this question: If Christ is indeed “the greatest Prophet” but he “produced no new standard” of moral duty for believers, then was he really a prophet or was he only a scribe or a rabbi? Why are the above-quoted writers, as well as all those committed to Covenant Theology, so adamant that Christ in no way changed or added to any of the laws of God given to Moses at Sinai? Why do they insist that we must raise Moses above Christ himself in the area of lawgiver? The answer is quite simple. They do it for the same reason they make an issue over the Sabbath. If there is even the slightest change in the “moral laws” given to Israel and the “moral laws” given to the church, then we have two different canons of conduct: one for Israel and a different one for the church,6 but that is impossible

5 Walter Chantry, God’s Righteous King-dom, (Banner of Truth Trust, Carlisle, PA,) p. 81.6 John Murray honestly faces and seeks to answer the problem. “Is there, in the sense defined, a biblical ethic? Is there one coherent and consistent ethic set forth in the Bible? Is there not diversity in the Bible, and diversity of a kind that embraces antithetical elements? Are there not in the Bible canons of conduct that are contrary to one another? To be specific: Is there not an antithesis between the canons of conduct sanctioned and approved of God in the Old Testament and those sanctioned and approved of God in the New in respect of certain central features of human behavior? It is a patent fact that the behavior of the most illustrious of Old Testament believers was characterized by

of both the Old Testament Scriptures and New Testament Scriptures never once use either the word “older” or the phrase “older Testamental law” when they write about the old and new covenants.

Why does Bahnsen reject the very words that the Holy Spirit used, “old covenant,” and instead use the words “older Testamental law” that the Holy Spirit never used even once? Does, or does not, the Word of God clearly state in plain words that there is indeed both a new and an old covenant, and further, that the new covenant has replaced and done away with the old covenant in its entirety (Heb. 8:6-13)? Where does the Word of God, even one time, refer to two (an older and a newer) administrations of one and the same “Testamental law”? Again, we must not confuse what Bahnsen, Pink, and Chantry teach about one unchanging covenant of grace with two administrations with the theological tenet that God has one unchanging purpose in sovereign grace that is administrated differently under different covenants in different ages. We believe the latter and reject the former. Covenant Theology confuses God’s single sovereign purpose in grace with a theological temporal covenant of grace that has no textual evidence in Scripture.

As I mentioned, Bahnsen, Pink, and Chantry are not alone in this “new version of the same covenant” idea. This is standard Covenant Theology. The following is from a theological note in The Reformation Study Bible (R.C. Sproul, General Editor) on Genesis 12:3, titled “God’s Covenant of Grace.”

As Hebrews 7-10 explains, through Christ God inaugurated a better version of His one eternal covenant with sinners (Heb. 13:20)—a better covenant with better promises (Heb. 8:6)…This better covenant guarantees a better hope than had ever been made



Someone sent a copy of the book Killing Calvinism, How to Destroy a Perfectly Good Theology from the Inside written by Greg Dutcher, to me. Reading the introduction and the fi rst few chapters made me extremely glad that the book had been brought to my attention. I thought, “This guy is say-ing some things that desperately need to be said.” I sincerely trust the book will be read by many present-day Cal-vinists and further hope they will heed the justifi ed criticism of the Calvinism that Dutcher so accurately describes. I wish I had read this book when I fi rst understood the Doctrines of Grace. Having said all that, I must add a few words of disagreement. By the time I was fi nished reading the entire book, I felt like the wrong person had said the right things. I hope that those who read this book will not follow all of the author’s advice even as they fol-low the main thrust of the book.

I have been preaching what is nicknamed Calvinism for 60 years. For the fi rst 20 of those years, I was guilty of making all the same mistakes that Dutcher made. I left behind deep pools of blood in a sincere but badly mistaken idea about what it meant to preach the “whole counsel of God.” I planted a garden of God’s truth that only had one fl ower, a tulip. For the last 40 years, I have preached the kind of Calvinism that Spurgeon preached. I never came within a million miles of preaching as well as he did, but I did preach the same gospel as he did.

Killing Calvinism has eight chap-ters, and the titles give an accurate description of their content.

Chapter One: By Loving Calvin-ism as an End in Itself

Chapter Two: By Becoming a Theologian Instead of a Disciple

Chapter Three: By Loving God’s

Sovereignty More than God Himself

Chapter Four: By Losing an Ur-gency in Evangelism

Chapter Five: By Learning Only from Other Calvinists

Chapter Six: By Tidying Up the Bible’s “Loose Ends”

Chapter Seven: By Being an Ar-rogant Know-It-All

Chapter Eight: By Scoffi ng at the Hang-Ups Others Have of Calvinism

I have never met Pastor Dutcher and know nothing more about him or his congregation than what is writ-ten in the book under discussion. As I mentioned, I am truly glad he pub-lished this book and just as happy that I was given a copy to read. I am really sincere when I so highly commend the book even though I raise a few ques-tions. I want to use this review as an opportunity to set forth some things that Killing Calvinism does not cover. My goal is the same as Pastor Dutch-er, and my target audience is also the same. If he is right about anything, the author is dead on that true Calvinism’s worst enemies are her strongest advo-cates. I echo Luther’s famous words, “Lord, deliver me from my friends; I can handle my enemies.”

In chapter eight, there are several statements that may easily be misun-derstood. For instance, the following quotation can mean two different things.

… I think the majority of my congre-gation doesn’t know what Calvinism is. At least by name.1

This may mean that we should not use the word Calvinism when we teach the Doctrines of Grace, or

1 Greg Dutcher, Killing Calvinism (Adelphi, Maryland: Cruciform Press, 2012), 93.

it may mean we should not use the words Irresistible Grace or Limited Atonement, etc. when we teach those biblical truths. This, of course, as-sumes that we do faithfully exposit the truth of the Doctrines of Grace when we come to them in our preaching. I totally agree that we should never use non-biblical terms without carefully exegeting from specifi c texts of Scrip-tures the theological truths we are teaching. However, this does not mean that we should not use terms like Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace, and Perseverance of the Saints. Our congregations should know precisely what those terms mean and the bibli-cal proof of their validity. I would not put the term Calvinism in the same category as Total Depravity, etc. with-out some clear clarifi cation. The fi ve so-called “Doctrines of Grace” are expressing biblical doctrines whereas Calvinism is expressing a whole sys-tem of theology named after a man. That word means ten different things to ten different people. A lady once asked my brother if he agreed with my theology. He asked what particular theology she meant. She said, “Do you believe missions are a waste of time because if God elects a person to be saved, they will be saved whether they believe the gospel or not?” My brother replied, “No, I do not believe that.” She then asked, “Do you believe all babies who die go to hell?” Again my brother said, “No.” The woman said, “I am so glad to know you don’t believe Calvinism like your brother.” That lady did not have a clue as to what biblical Calvinism was nor what I actually believed.

It is not my duty to use the word Calvinism when I teach, but it is my duty when teaching to avoid as much

Book Review: Killing CalvinismJohn G. Reisinger

Killing Calvinism—Continued on page 13

Page 8 October 2012 Issue 191West—Continued from page 3

we ought (cf. Rom. 12:3).

One more reason to approach these issues in due humility is their mas-sive bulk and importance. Our view of God’s sovereignty and the human will reorders and shifts our entire theological structure. Obviously our view of God’s sovereignty immedi-ately affects our doctrine of God. Our view of the human will directly affects our anthropology. Putting the two together, however, produces two radi-cally different soteriologies. Now we have questions about depravity and the atonement. Now we have issues involving God’s love, perseverance of the saints, assurance, and the very nature of moral responsibility. The list could go on and on. Whatever deci-sions we make at one juncture send powerful shockwaves throughout our entire systematic theology. Although both Calvinists and Arminians are Christians (I say this in spite of hav-ing been told otherwise by people in both camps), the resulting theologies are extremely different at important, multiple points.

Given the current status of these is-sues in the church, and the current av-alanche of material concerning them, why add more work? I must confess, it does seem like hubris to even con-template making a contribution (being published does not, regrettably, mean you actually contributed anything valuable), but I think there are one or two areas where the discussion can be prodded along. In my judgment, there is one extraordinarily weak area in much of the current debate, both at the scholarly and popular levels. Many of the arguments deployed in the Calvinist vs. Arminian debate are nothing more than philosophical. Now that is not really problematic provided that people recognize when their arguments are purely philosophical. A huge danger arises, however, when we think we are arguing theologically or biblically, but we are really simply

smuggling in contentious philosophi-cal concerns. Here is where many dis-cussions run aground: the argumenta-tion is proceeding along philosophical lines, where neither side recognizes the philosophy, and where neither side recognizes that philosophers are entirely divided on the very point that is being leaned on most heavily.

To cite one example (without passing judgment on its truth value), it is common to hear Arminians say that if God ordains all things, then no one is responsible for what they do, since God ordained it and they therefore had no choice but to do his will. This is a philosophical argument (i.e., there is no verse or passage in Scripture which articulates anything like that argument). But when we turn to philosophy, do we fi nd philosophers well agreed on the point made by the Arminian? No, we don’t. We fi nd ev-ery single point stated and implied in that argument the subject of rigorous analysis and debate. Perhaps the Ar-minian is, in fact, correct in his asser-tion, but if so he needs to demonstrate the validity of each one of his points. In other words, a statement like the one above is just too facile to stand alone. Too much of the contemporary discussion throws highly debated philosophical conclusions around in utter ignorance of the premises, or even the fact that the conclusions are not universally accepted.

One sad result of this debat-ing method is that people are being stumped by, and stumping others by, really poor arguments. What could prove very helpful to the church is a better awareness and grasp of the con-tours of the free will debate as it exists in contemporary philosophy. We need to reexamine our view of God’s sovereignty and human responsibility to see where we rely on philosophi-cal arguments, and at those places, we need to make sure our philosophy is good. Accidentally leaning on second or third-rate philosophy is not likely to

produce fi rst-rate theology.

Ultimately theology needs to fl ow from responsible, careful, and Spirit-guided biblical exegesis. Exegeting God’s word is what is most signifi -cant, and we must bind ourselves to the fi nal authority of what God has revealed. Much more work has been done in the evangelical world on ex-egesis than philosophical study, how-ever, and biblical studies is not an area where I have tremendous competence, particularly compared with the many fi ne scholars at work in those fi elds. So I heartily acknowledge that these articles cannot be the fi nal word, since they are not focusing primarily on Scriptural texts. But I also believe that Calvinists and Arminians have enough published exegesis on their own posi-tions to justify not focusing directly on exegesis in this work. What I will try to do, however, is show some instances where philosophical presup-positions slip into exegesis unawares.

The fi rst task, then, is to set out a sketch of contemporary philosophy. Philosophers discuss the nature of freedom, determinism, the human will, moral responsibility, and all sorts of other related issues. Far from re-maining ignorant of these discussions, evangelicals should become more familiar with them. One of the great-est benefi ts to an increased familiarity with these writings would come from a higher precision in the defi nition of terms.

In fact, one of the glaring defi -ciencies in many popular exchanges about Calvinism and Arminianism is the total lack of defi nition regard-ing the key word free. If you doubt this assertion, the next time you are involved in such a discussion, simply ask everyone what they mean by “free will,” or what it means for a “will” to be “free.” In my experience, this has the effect of letting air out of a balloon (sometimes hot air, at that). Again,

West—Continued on page 18

Issue 191 Octobeer 2012 Page 9Gilliland—Continued from page 5

Gilliland—Continued on page 10

a white robe; and they were told that they should rest for a little while longer, until the number of their fellow servants and their brethren who were to be killed even as they had been, would be completed also” (Rev.6:9-11).

It seems that throughout history, when war, famine, and moral deg-radation come – it is the Christians who stand for truth and have the real answers that are singled out for the greatest persecution. They are not seeking martyrdom but simply to live lives of faithful obedience. It hap-pened in the fi rst century when Nero blamed the Christians for the unrest in society. Who was blamed for much of the problems during the Middle Ages? Who is blamed for being “intolerant” and the greatest source of confl ict around the world today? Who is blamed for the problems in the Middle East? It is still the Christians, and there is no end in sight. Yet the message comes from God that says, “I know that this is happening. It will continue to happen, but it is happen-ing for a purpose.” Most importantly, they are given a view of their ultimate destiny – the throne room of heaven in the presence of God. One can only imagine the kind of impact this would have had on those believers in the fi rst century. There was always a tendency for them to see Caesar as the one with the sword, the one with the power, and the one in control of their lives – in the throne room of Rome. If you wanted to prosper, or even just survive, you had to obey Caesar. Obedience to Jesus, on the other hand, meant hardship or death. In fact the Greek word for witness is marturia from which we get our English word martyr, which sadly often was the case. Yet this letter from John says that it is only for a little while. The end will come – whether it means the end of your life, of Rome, or ulti-mately of the world’s system – and those who “overcome” (an admoni-

tion to which is mentioned in each of the letters to the seven churches) and who are “faithful to the end” will rule with God in heaven. That is what much of the rest of the book has to do with. Can you imagine what encouragement that would have been to those saints, or for that matter, the persecuted saints throughout history? That is why it is so critical to see this book as applicable to today – not just the end of history (although there will be a heightening of persecution in that day).

Another important aspect of this fi fth seal is the location of these souls. Our hope is not to be found in a perfect political system, a unifi ed confl ict-free global community, or even an earthly paradise. Our hope is nothing short of being in the presence of God in heaven. Those that promise in man’s system (Augustine’s “City of Man” or “Babylon the Great”) an ultimate or fi nal peace and prosper-ity on this earth now – or anytime in the future – are selling a spiritual fool’s gold. We saw in the fi rst four seals where an unsanctifi ed desire for temporal prosperity leads. No, what we long for is what Abraham longed for, “he was looking for the city which has foundations, whose architect and builder is God” (Heb. 11:10). And what is God’s response to the plight and prayers of his people? It is far more than just a vision of the life to come.

“I looked when He broke the sixth seal, and there was a great earth-quake; and the sun became black as sackcloth made of hair, and the whole moon became like blood; and the stars of the sky fell to the earth, as a fi g tree casts its unripe fi gs when shaken by a great wind. 14The sky was split apart like a scroll when it is rolled up, and every mountain and island were moved out of their places. 15Then the kings of the earth and the great men and the commanders and the rich and the strong and every slave and free man hid themselves in the caves and among the rocks of the mountains;

16and they said to the mountains and to the rocks, “Fall on us and hide us from the presence of Him who sits on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb; 17for the great day of their wrath has come, and who is able to stand” (Rev. 6:12-17)?

The diffi culty encountered in at-tempting to interpret this passage − as is the case with apocalyptic language in general − is trying to determine what specifi c historical event (past or future) is being described. One of the most important considerations is the frame of reference of the reader. This style of language or “genre” was not new to John’s audience. Consider the following passages from the Old Tes-tament dealing with the judgment of God on Israel and the gentile nations: “And all the host of heaven will wear away, And the sky will be rolled up like a scroll; All their hosts will also wither away As a leaf withers from the vine, Or as one withers from the fi g tree” (Isa. 34:4), “…the earth will shake at My presence; the mountains also will be thrown down, the steep pathways will collapse and every wall will fall to the ground” (Ezek. 38:20), and “Before them the earth quakes, The heavens tremble, The sun and the moon grow dark And the stars lose their brightness” (Joel 2:10). This is the language of divine judg-ment, and the saint of the fi rst century would have put the events described in the sixth seal in the same category. They would have remembered God’s judgment of Israel, Babylon, and Egypt as they analyzed the events of their day. In fact, some of the judg-ments that will be described in the chapters to follow sound very much like the Egyptian plagues in the book of Exodus. John wanted his read-ers to recognize that the God who judged these cities and nations had not changed or forgotten His promises − “either for blessing or for cursing.” But a detailed look at verse 15 and the following verses suggests that the


judgment being referred to is certainly applicable (Rome), but not confi ned to the fi rst century or any specifi c city or nation.

Then the kings of the earth and the great men and the commanders and the rich and the strong and every slave and free man hid themselves in the caves and among the rocks of the mountains; and they said to the moun-tains and to the rocks, “Fall on us and hide us from the presence of Him who sits on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb; for the great day of their wrath has come, and who is able to stand” (Rev.6:15-17)?

In this seal, not only are we given a reminder of God’s judgment in the past but also a warning that similar judgments are yet to come. In other words, the judgment infl icted on Bab-ylon, Egypt, and Israel will come on Rome and any other nation throughout the church age that exalts itself over God and persecutes his people. And yet there are aspects of this text that point to still a more distant future. First of all, there is no mention of a restricted geographic scope. Secondly, we see that it is not only the poor that bear the brunt of the judgment but also kings and rulers − all classes of men. Finally, how many times have you read in the history books − whether it was after the fall of Jerusalem, Rome, Germany, Japan, or USSR − that

the people have collectively recog-nized that it was God’s judgment that destroyed their nations? Instead, they blamed it on bad economics, foolish politics, weak military, acts of nature − and the list goes on. These verses describe a different response, a public, ubiquitous, and pervasive awareness of divine judgment − “the wrath of the Lamb.” What we see in this pas-sage is not only temporary or local-ized judgment but also a vivid picture of universal and fi nal judgment. This is the same perspective that you will see at the end of every set of seven judgments − each with a slightly dif-ferent perspective (Chapters 6, 11, 16). Each cycle of seven starts with events that are recognizable as oc-curring in the fi rst century yet clearly relate to the entire church age. Each ends in judgment that could apply in part to many events in history, yet points more uniquely to the fi nal judg-ment. Each cycle of seven becomes more severe and more focused on the fi nal judgment.

After thousands of years of bibli-cal history and thousands of messages preached by his ministers, it is sober-ing to realize that nothing has changed with respect to the natural man’s reac-tion to God’s authority. When Adam and Eve sinned and God came looking for them, their response was to look for a place to hide. Should we be sur-

prised to see the same result at the end of history: “hide us from the presence of Him who sits on the throne” (Rev. 6:16)? But in that day the opportunity for repentance will be gone. Everyone will recognize that the end has come, but there will be nowhere to hide.

How then do we apply these principles in the twenty-fi rst century? They can be applied in the same way they were in the fi rst century. When we see wars, famine, and persecution, it reminds us that God still judges “in history.” It may only mean the end of a city or nation, but for those with “eyes to see” it is yet another warn-ing of the fi nal judgment that is yet to come. And in spite of all the nationali-ties, cultures, languages, and religions, there are − in the only analysis that really matters − only two groups of people and only two destinations. That, my friends, is the “big idea” of the book of Revelation. In Revelation 20:11-15 we see the destination of one of these groups:

”Then I saw a great white throne and Him who sat upon it, from whose presence earth and heaven fl ed away, and no place was found for them. And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne, and books were opened; and another book was opened, which is the book of life; and the dead were judged from the things which were written in the

Gilliland—Continued from page 9

I would like to help support the ministry of Sound of Grace: A tax-deductible gift in the amount of ______________ is enclosed.I would like to receive Sound of Grace via the USPS: A check in the amount of $20.00 for a paper copy (payable to Sound of Grace) is enclosed.I would like to receive Sound of Grace via email: A check in the amount of $10.00 for a pdf fi le (payable to Sound of Grace) is enclosed.Please continue free of charge: Via email via USPS

PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY—THANK YOUName: Street Address: City: State/Providence: Zip/Postal: Email address: @ Phone number:

Mail to: Sound of Grace, 5317 Wye Creek Drive, Frederick, MD 21703-6938

Issue 191 Octobeer 2012 Page 11books, according to their deeds. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead which were in them; and they were judged, every one of them according to their deeds. Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fi re. This is the second death, the lake of fi re. And if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fi re.”

If that doesn’t motivate us to speak clearly and candidly to a lost culture then nothing will. The end is not yet; there is time for repentance and God is also a God of mercy as Habak-kuk prayed, “O LORD, I have heard the report of you, and your work, O LORD, do I fear. In the midst of the years revive it; in the midst of the years make it known; in wrath re-member mercy. (Hab. 3:2). There is judgment in history, but we are still in the gospel age and God continues to call a people for his name, a people “from every tribe and language and people and nation.” And Revelation 7:13-17 gives us the destination of this group. Whether it is the martyrs of the fi rst century, the martyrs in Indone-sia, or any of God’s witnesses who struggle to maintain the “testimony of Jesus,” – this is the destiny to which they look:

”Then one of the elders answered, saying to me, “These who are clothed in the white robes, who are they, and where have they come from?” I said to him, “My lord, you know.” And he said to me, “These are the ones who come out of the great tribulation, and they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. “For this reason, they are be-fore the throne of God; and they serve Him day and night in His temple; and He who sits on the throne will spread His tabernacle over them. “They will hunger no longer, no r thirst anymore; nor will the sun beat down on them, nor any heat; for the Lamb in the center of the throne will be their shep-herd, and will guide them to springs of the water of life; and God will wipe every tear from their eyes.” m

And may you have the power to understand, as all God’s people should—how wide, how long, how high, and how deep His love is. May you experience the love of Christ, though it is too great to understand fully! Ephesians 3:18-19

The love of Christ is an infi nite love—its heights and depths, its breadths and lengths—surpass our knowledge! The whole of His nature and perfections are thrown into His love, therefore He is said to BE LOVE. He cannot love His people more than He does—nor will He love them less! Until we can comprehend infi n-ity and measure eternity—we cannot know the love of Christ to perfection.

Love in us—rules us; just so, the infi nite love of Jesus, rules Him. All that He has ever purposed, promised, or performed for His people—has fl owed from this ocean of divine love! He is a globe of love—with-out beginning or end! He is a sea of love—without fault of defect! Only an infi nite intellect can grasp Christ’s love—only eternity is suffi cient to reveal it to our minds. Christ’s love will be always unfolding—but never be fully unfolded. It will be always displaying—but never be fully dis-played. We may stand in the center and endeavor to follow its lines—but Christ’s love defi es our powers, and drowns our thoughts in its immensity!

Christ’s love can never be di-verted from its objects; it is immutably fi xed upon them—and remains fi xed forever! Had it been possible to have turned its current, it would have been done long ago; but it is still the river, the streams whereof make glad the city of God.

Having loved His own—He loves

them unto the very end. Nothing pres-ent or future, above or below—can ever separate believers from the love of Jesus!

On this rock they rest—amidst all the storms of life! In this fortress they hide—when dangers of every kind surround them! At this fountain they live—when every creature-stream is dried up!

No love is unchangeable—but the love of Jesus! His love is like the great mountains, and abides forever fi rm!

O believer, admire and adore! Je-sus continues to love you—amidst all your coldness, darkness, and prone-ness to wander; therefore He restores your soul and causes you to walk in the paths of righteousness. Satan may harass and accuse you, the world may frown upon and persecute you—but Jesus rests in His love, and rejoices over you with singing!

And amidst all the changes which we feel within and without, we ask with holy Paul, “Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall trouble or hardship or persecution or famine or nakedness or danger or sword?” And with him we reply, “No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through Him who loved us. I am convinced that nothing can ever separate us from God’s love. Nei-ther death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither our fears for today nor our worries about tomorrow—not even the powers of Hell, can separate us from God’s love! No power in the sky above or in the earth below—in-deed, nothing in all creation—will ever be able to separate us from the love of God that is revealed in Christ Jesus our Lord!” mCourtesy of Grace Gems, www.GraceGems.org

An Infi nite Love!James Smith

Love rules his kingdom without a sword.

Robert Herrick

Page 12 October 2012 Issue 191White—Continued from page 1

us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. (2 Cor. 5:14-21)

I want to ask fi ve questions from this passage:

First, how does the cross change our purpose in life? Verses 14-15 say, “For Christ’s love compels us, be-cause we are convinced that one died for all, and therefore all died. And he died for all, that those who live should no longer live for themselves but for him who died for them and was raised again.” First notice that one died for all.1 He died in our place, as our rep-resentative. This is how Paul can say all died. At fi rst, this statement seems dead wrong. We aren’t dead. Parts of our bodies may not be working how we’d like them to, but we wouldn’t go so far as to say we are dead. We begin to understand what Paul means when we see that Christ died as our repre-sentative. We died when Jesus died. In Galatians 2:20, Paul said he’d been crucifi ed with Christ. Romans 6:2-4 similarly says, “We are those who have died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.” Verse 6 goes on to say that our old self was crucifi ed. Who we used to be, who we were in Adam, died with Christ. Jesus died for all; therefore all those whom he died for died with him.

But that does not answer the ques-tion. From various parts of the New Testament, we could give a number of reasons why Jesus died. John Piper has a little book that gives 50 reasons why Jesus died. But according to this passage, why did Jesus die? Verse 15

1 From context we see that this is not an all-inclusive “all.” Not all live for him who died for them and was raised. Paul is referring to Christians here.

says that the purpose was so that we would no longer live for ourselves but for Jesus. This is amazing. The son of God entered this messed up world and was spit upon with the very saliva he created. He was mocked by soldiers who were dependent upon him for their next breath. Jesus sustained their vocal cords by his powerful word. Why? So that we would not live for ourselves but for him.

From this verse, we see that Christ’s death has major implications for how we live here and now. It is not mere “fi re insurance” but the power and pattern for life transformation. I think Bonhoeffer is right when he wrote, “The word of cheap grace has been the ruin of more Christians than any commandment of works.”2

I am not a big fan of Rick Warren’s book The Purpose Driven Life, but I really like the fi rst paragraph. There he writes, “It’s not about you. The purpose of your life is far greater than your own personal fulfi llment, your peace of mind, or even your happi-ness. It’s far greater than your fam-ily, your career, or even your wildest dreams and ambitions. If you want to know why you were placed on this planet, you must begin with God. You were born by his purpose and for his purpose.”3

Life is not about us. Christ died for all of us so that we would not live for ourselves but for him! A good way to determine if we are walking in the Spirit is to ask if we live for ourselves. Our culture is all about self-promo-tion, self-fulfi llment, and self-indul-gence so the question we must ask is “Are we swimming against stream?”4 How much of your life consists of

2 Dietrich Bonhoeffer, The Cost of Dis-cipleship (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1995), 51, 55.3 Rick Warren, The Purpose Driven Life (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2002), 17.4 David E. Garland, 2 Corinthians, NAC (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1999), 280.

building and maintaining your king-dom of comfort?

To live for him is bound up with living for his body. Recall when the risen Jesus appears to Saul. The Lord did not say, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting my people?” No, he asked, “Why are you persecut-ing me?” This is because the head is bound up with the body. One cannot live for Jesus without also living for his people. To love God, you must love his people. First John 4:20 says, “For whoever does not love their brother and sister, whom they have seen, cannot love God, whom they have not seen.” This sounds similar to the great commandment Jesus gave to love God and neighbor.

To live for him is also to live like him. Philippians 2 comes to mind. Jesus is the perfect example of self-giving love. Jesus did not look out for his own interests but for the interests of others, and we are called to do the same. We must ask how we relate to our siblings, spouses, and employees. Do we have Christ-like love for these people?

Second, how does the cross change our view of people? Verse 16 says, “So from now on we regard no one from a worldly point of view. Though we once regarded Christ in this way, we do so no longer.” We no longer look at people from the old age point of view. As Scott Hafemann says, “That is, in accordance with the stan-dards and values that derive from liv-ing as if physical life in this world is all that exists.”5 As we will see in the next verse, a new world has been born through the death and resurrection of Jesus, and we must live accordingly. To know someone from a worldly point of view is the opposite of know-ing that person from the point of view of the Spirit, which is the mark of the

5 Hafemann, 2 Corinthians, NIVAC (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000), 242.

White—Continued on page 14

Issue 191 Octobeer 2012 Page 13Killing Calvinism—Cont, from page 7as possible people getting the wrong impression of what I mean by any term I use. I must presuppose as much as possible their objections, due to misconceptions, and answer them before they raise them. I must state clearly what I do not mean as well as stating what I do mean. This means I dare not use labels of any kind without clearly defi ning what they mean and what they do not mean. I must draw a picture of a cow and then state, “This is a cow.” With some other people, I must add a picture of a horse and say, “This is a horse, and it is not a cow.” There is nothing wrong with saying, “This is what Calvinistic theologians call Limited Atonement” when we teach that all for whom Christ effi ca-ciously died must and will be saved.

When Pastor Dutcher says, “I think the majority of my congrega-tion doesn’t know what Calvinism is; at least by name,” I get the impres-sion he means his congregation does not know what Total Depravity, etc. means. The following quotation seems to be saying, “I think the majority of my congregation doesn’t know what Total Depravity means in contrast to the [Arminian] doctrine of free will.”

The majority of my people are Bible trusting, Christ-centered dis-ciples who want to glorify God in their individual lives and in the church. Yet when they hear about Calvinism, many become suspicious. More often than not, they say something like, “Isn’t that about God creating some people for heaven and some people for hell.” Others will shake their heads and pro-test, “God doesn’t make robots. Love is real only when we can choose it.” (Ibid, p. 94)

I can easily imagine a visitor to a Calvinistic church saying something like that just quoted, but I cannot imagine a church member who went through a membership class, or had

been a regular attendee of the ser-vices, making statements like those just quoted. Either the Doctrines of Grace were not clearly being taught, or someone was not listening.

The problem is not basically in terminology. I remember going to a Calvinistic Bible conference where one of the speakers advocated using “softer” terms that were “easier” to accept. One individual was thrilled and thought he had found the answer to teaching the Doctrines of Grace without upsetting anyone. I told him that was not the case. I agreed the speaker’s idea was a good one; how-ever, when an individual says, “Do you mean that Christ did not die and pay for every person’s sin,” it does not matter what label you put on it–they will rebel apart from God opening their heart. It is one thing to say, “My people do not know what the term Limited Atonement means”; it is an-other thing to say, “My people do not know the difference between Limited and Universal Atonement.”

Our Lord assured us that his sheep will hear the truth in God’s time when it is preached in love (John 10:27). No true child of God will fi ght the Bible. He may reject what I say because he sincerely believes I am wrongly in-terpreting Scripture, but he will never say, “I know what the text says, but I refuse to believe it.” To say to such a person, “You do not believe the Bible” is wrong. Such a person often sin-cerely rejects what I am saying simply because he does believe the Bible. He believes in universal atonement because that is all he has ever heard even if he never heard the term Uni-versal Atonement. He believes John 3:16 says “world,” and to him that means “everyone without exception in the whole world.” He is positive I am somehow twisting Scripture; he just does not know how I am doing

it. We should clearly teach the gospel and should be able to respond to such a person by saying, “Do I faithfully plead with sinners to trust Christ and assure them that every person without exception who trusts Christ will be saved?” Our preaching should force him to say, “Yes.”

I am not at all concerned with whether those who sit under my min-istry understand every theological term, but I am concerned that they know the clear difference between “free will” and “free moral choice.” I want them to not have a view of man’s will that makes it impossible for them to understand Unconditional Election. I personally think it good for them to also know the history of why some sincere Christians called “Arminians” believe in “free will,” and other sin-cere Christians reject “free will” and believe in “free moral choice,” and what the difference is between those two things. There is nothing wrong with saying, “This difference in inter-pretation among sincere Christians is over the extent of the man’s depravity, and the question is whether man’s de-pravity is total (meaning it extends to his will) or whether it is partial (mean-ing man’s will is still free). I see noth-ing wrong with adding, “This church believes in Total Depravity.”

If we say the above, we must quickly add in the same breath, “You do not have to agree with us on the doctrine of Total Depravity to be a Christian, nor must you agree with the so-called Doctrines of Grace to be a member of this congregation.” You will go a long way in establishing, instead of killing, biblical Calvinism if you do that.

Buy this excellent book and spread it around, but when you teach the Doctrines of Grace, draw clear pic-tures of 'horses' and 'cows' and explain the difference. m

My entire theology can be condensed into four words: "Jesus died for me"

C.H. Spurgeon

Page 14 October 2012 Issue 191White—Continued from page 12age of the new covenant (cf. chapter 3).6

We tend to look at people with the wrong set of eyes. In our culture, outward appearance has become so important. Paul was dealing with this as well. Verse 12 of our chapter says, “So that you can answer those who take pride in what is seen rather than in what is in the heart.” We tend to elevate ourselves above others for superfi cial reasons. This is worldly thinking, though, and has no place among the people of Christ.

First Corinthians 1:26-27 says, “Brothers and sisters, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were infl uential; not many were of noble birth. But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong.” All of us are foolish and weak. This reality should keep us from getting too puffed up and look-ing down on others. That’s just the way our God works. We should see people in two categories: in Christ or in Adam. We are to view everyone in light of the gospel, through the lens of the gospel. We do not regard one another from a worldly point of view; we see what God sees through the gospel.

Paul used to look at Jesus in an en-

6 Ibid.

tirely different way than he does now. We used to think Jesus was boring, but we do so no longer. Now, if you are a Christian, he means everything to you.

Third, how does the cross change our view of history? Verse 17 says, “Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come: The old has gone, the new is here!” Christians should love to study history. When we study history, we are studying God at work. Because of the cross, history has been split in two. Everything is different. Becoming a Christian makes us see the world in a new way. This verse literally says, “Therefore if any-one is in Christ, new creation” (kaine ktisis). Some translations add “he is” before “a new creation,” but Paul never uses the word creation (ktisis) to refer to individual people.7 The NIV’s “the new creation has come” is more accurate.

Jews believed in two ages: this age which is characterized by sin, death, and the fl esh, and the age to come, which is characterized by grace, life, and the Holy Spirit. They looked forward to this new age, this new creation when God would restore the fortunes of his people. Paul probably has Isaiah 43:18-19 in mind here. That passage says, “Forget the former things; do not dwell on the past [LXX - archaia]. See, I am doing a new thing [LXX - kaina]! Now it springs up; do you not perceive it? I am making a way in the wilderness and

7 Garland, 2 Corinthians, 286.

streams in the wasteland.” Paul says, “The old [ta archaia] is gone, the new [kaina] is here!” Isaiah goes on to say, “See, I will create new [kainos] heavens and a new [kaine] earth. The former things will not be remembered, nor will they come to mind.” (65:17, cf. 66:22). They expected resurrection, the pouring out of the Spirit, and the new creation to come at the end of the age when Messiah came. What they did not expect was for the Messiah to come, die, and be raised in the middle of history. The death and resurrec-tion of Jesus brought the age to come into the here and now. The kingdom of God has come. God’s future has invaded the present evil age. The promises of Isaiah have begun to be fulfi lled by the death and resurrection of Christ.

With the death of Jesus, the new creation has come in the midst of the old. We see this truth all throughout the New Testament. Often scholars will speak of this reality as the al-ready/not yet or inaugurated escha-tology. First Corinthians 7:31 says, “For this world in its present form is passing away.” First Corinthians 10:11 says, “These things happened to them as examples and were written down as warnings for us, on whom the culmination of the ages has come.” If anyone is in Christ, which is another way of saying Christians, the new creation has come. We already partici-pate in the passing away of the old age and the arrival of the new! God has

VISIT THE SOUND OF GRACE WEBSITEwww.soundofgrace.org

For articles, features, audio and video presentations, information regarding the John Bunyan Conference, and announcements.Back issues of Sound of Grace and chapters from

John G. Reisinger's and A. Blake White's books are available as well.

Issue 191 Octobeer 2012 Page 15kept his promises and is at work in our world. The cross changes our view of history.

The fourth question I want to ask is how does the cross change your view of self? Verses 17-19a say, “There-fore, if anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come: The old has gone, the new is here! All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: that God was reconcil-ing the world to himself in Christ, not counting people’s sins against them.” Verse 21 says, “God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteous-ness of God.” All this is from God; he is the initiator, he acted through Christ’s death for reconciliation, and he continues to act through those who have been reconciled.8

Reconciliation assumes ruptured relationships. God is loving, but he is also holy. He will punish all sin. For those who entrust their lives to Jesus, our sin is paid for at the cross. For those who disobey Jesus, they will pay for their own sin for eternity in hell. So the cross tells us that we are sinners in need of reconciliation and that grace is available through Jesus.

It also tells us that our old self has died and because the new creation is here, we are new creatures. We have a new identity. We are in Christ. We have a new standing. We are counted righteous in Christ (v. 21). Christ took our place. He suffered the penalty we deserved! What do you think God thinks about you? The biblical gos-pel tells us that he thinks about Jesus

8 Ibid., 288.

we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers and sisters.”

God has reconciled us and given us the ministry of reconciliation. This new world has a new king, and this new king has ambassadors. An ambas-sador is an authorized representative of a ruler or king. The ambassador speaks not on his own authority but on behalf of the ruler whose deputy he is, and his whole duty and respon-sibility is to interpret that ruler’s mind faithfully to those to whom he is sent. What an amazing privilege. We plead with people on Christ’s behalf, and it is as though God were making his ap-peal through us!

We must be faithful ambassadors. This means we are faithful to his mes-sage. “All this is from God.” Salva-tion is from the Lord. We just have to be faithful in sharing the gospel. God does not use our persuasiveness or ability to answer every objection. He uses his gospel (Rom. 1:16). Do you view yourselves as missionaries everywhere you go? Do you live like Jesus is king? Brothers and sisters, ev-erywhere you go, represent your king.

The cross changes everything. It changes our purpose in life; we no longer live for self but for King Jesus. It changes our view of people; we no longer look at people in a worldly way. We use new creation lenses. It changes our view of history; the new creation has come. It changes our view of self. We are sinners, but God has reconciled us to himself and given us a new status. It changes our calling. We are ministers of reconciliation. We are ambassadors of our king. m

when he thinks about you. He doesn’t even see you. Colossians 3:3 says, “For you died, and your life is now hidden with Christ in God.” Praise God for that!

Fifth, what is our calling in light of the cross? Verse 18b says God “gave us the ministry of reconcili-ation.” Verses 19b-20 say, “And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation. We are therefore Christ’s ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ’s behalf: be reconciled to God.” When is the last time you shared the gospel with a lost person? Sadly, it is very easy to make Christians feel guilty about not being evangelistic enough. Should this be the case though? Why do we so often keep our mouths shut? Perhaps it is because we fear people. We are afraid of looking strange or of not having all the right answers. In verse 11 of this chapter, Paul wrote, “Since, then, we know what it is to fear the Lord, we try to persuade others.” When we fear God, the opinions of people fall into their proper perspective. Perhaps it is because we have not grasped the depth of God’s love for us in Christ. Verse 14 says that Christ’s love compels us. The love of the Messiah makes us press on. It impels us; it urges us on to go on. As one transla-tion puts it, “Christ’s love leaves us no choice” (NEB). In Galatians 2:20, Paul said that he lived “by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and give himself for me.” He loved us by giving himself for us. He died that we might live. First John 3:16 says, “This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And

It is our contenton that a proper understanding of the biblical covenants has massive implications for the debate over the extent of the atonement. A major problem with general atonement advocates, whether they are Arminian or modified Calvin-

ists, is that they fail to locate the priestly work of our Lord in it covenantal context. If they did, they would defend a particular view of the cross. They would not break the crucial link between Christ and his people. They would rightly see that Christ, as the great high priest of the new covenant, acts as represenative, substitute, instructor, guardian, and intercessor of and for his people, not only paying for their sins but securing everything necessary, including the work of the Spirit, to apply his work to them and to bring them to their eternal rest.

Peter J Gentry and Stephen J Wellum, Kingdom through Covenant (Wheaton, Ill, Crossway, 2012) pp 682, 683


explicit by the former version of the covenant …8

A careful reading of that statement reveals the confusion involved.

First, we read, “Hebrews 7–10 explains, through Christ God inaugurated a better version of His one eternal covenant with sinners.” It should be self-evident that God’s one eternal covenant with sinners cannot possible have a “better” version. The text in Hebrews 7-10 nowhere mentions or intimates anything about a better “version” of “the covenant.” It specifi cally speaks of a new, different, and better covenant that replaces an old, different and obsolete covenant. Using the word version to modify covenant adds to the Word of God and literally changes its meaning.

The Reformation Study Bible immediately follows its “better version” statement by explaining what it means—there is “a better covenant with better promises.” Now which is it? Is it a better version of a former covenant or is it a totally new, different and better covenant than the one it replaces? It cannot be both. Version is not a synonym for covenant. Is this

8 The Reformation Study Bible (Ligonier Ministries, Lake Mary, FL, 2005) 30.

new covenant better than the old one because the new covenant is based on different and better promises? That is exactly what Hebrews 8:6 states. The foundation of the old covenant was based on law and said “do or die.” The new covenant is based on grace and says, “It is fi nished, only believe.” That is not a better version of the same covenant; that is a radical and new covenant based on different and better promises.

The same confusion occurs in the next statement—“This better covenant guarantees a better hope than had ever been made explicit by the former version of the covenant.” Is there a real new covenant or is there only a newer version of a former covenant? The writer cannot seem to make up his mind. Are we not justifi ed in asking, “Where is this ‘former version of the covenant’ ever mentioned in Scripture?” I challenge anyone to fi nd where either the Old Testament or Hebrews 7-10 mentions a “better version” of any covenant. The Word of God explicitly says new covenant! It never says new “version” or new “administration” of “one eternal covenant.” Textually, a specifi cally new and radically different covenant totally replaces an old and obsolete covenant. It is that simple! If that is



true, then the “one covenant with two administrations or versions” reading of the text is incorrect.

The words “versions” or “administrations” are theological terms, not biblical terms. They are theological necessities produced by logic not Bible facts obtained from exegeting Scripture verses. Covenant Theology will pay lip service to a new covenant, but in reality, they do not actually mean a new “covenant” but only a “better version” of one eternal covenant. To keep their theological system intact, they play word games. The Geneva Bible quote demonstrates this fact quite clearly. Covenant Theology will speak of a new covenant and in the very same breath deny that it really is a new covenant. It is only a better version, or administration, of that one eternal covenant. There is no true new and different covenant in Covenant Theology!

The blurring of “covenant” into “version” is standard Covenant Theology practice because that is precisely what the WCF teaches in Chapter 7, “God’s Covenant with Man.” The Confession states that the new covenant that replaces the

Postage & Handling RatesUnited States

Up to $20.00 $3.95

$20.01—$50.00 $6.00

$50.01 and Up 12%

Postage & Handling RatesOverseas—Discover, VISA or

MasterCardPlease call or e-mail for rates

Postage & Handling RatesCanada—Discover, VISA or

MasterCard

Up to $30.00 $7.50

$30.01 and Up 25%

Ship to: ________________________________

Street address: __________________________

City: _______________ State: ______Zip: ____

Country: _______________________________

□ My check (payable to New Covenant Media) is enclosed□ Charge to my: □ Discover □ VISA □ MasterCard Expires _______/_______Account Number: ______/______/______/______Signature: ________________________________

S h i p p i n g R a t e C h a r t f o r B o o k s


Defi nite Atonement —Long $10.95 $8.76The Doctrine of Baptism—Sasser $3.50 $2.80Full Bellies and Empty Hearts—Autio $14.99 $12.00Galatians: A Theological Interpretation—White $15.95 $12.76Grace—Reisinger $13.95 $11.16The Grace of Our Sovereign God—Reisinger $19.99 $16.00Hermeneutical Flaws of Dispensationalism—George $10.75 $8.60In Defense of Jesus, the New Lawgiver—Reisinger $23.95 $15.95Is John G. Reisinger an Antinomian?—Wells $4.25 $3.40John Bunyan on the Sabbath—Reisinger $3.00 $2.80Jonathan Edwards on Biblical Hermeneutics and the “Covenant of Grace”—Gilliland

$3.95 $3.16

La Soberanía de Dios en la Providencia—John G. Reisinger $7.50 $6.00The Law of Christ: A Theological Proposal—White $14.95 $11.96Limited Atonement—Reisinger $7.00 $5.60Ministry of Grace Essays in Honor of John G. Reisinger—Steve West, Editor $14.85 $11.88The New Birth— Reisinger $5.50 $4.40The New Covenant and New Covenant Theology—Zaspel $11.99 $9.60New Covenant Theology—Wells & Zaspel $19.95 $15.96The Newness of the New Covenant—White $12.99 $10.39The New Perspective on Justifi cation —West $9.99 $8.00The Obedience of Christ—Van Court $2.50 $2.00Our Sovereign God— Reisinger $4.45 $3.56Perseverance of the Saints— Reisinger $6.00 $4.80The Priority of Jesus Christ—Wells $11.95 $9.56A Prisoner’s Christianity—Woodrow $12.99 $10.39Saving the Saving Gospel—West $12.99 $10.39Sinners, Jesus Will Receive—Payne $9.99 $8.00Studies in Galatians—Reisinger $19.99 $15.96Studies in Ecclesiastes—Reisinger $19.99 $15.96Tablets of Stone—Reisinger $10.95 $8.75The Sovereignty of God and Prayer—Reisinger $5.75 $4.60The Sovereignty of God in Providence— Reisinger $4.45 $3.56Total Depravity— Reisinger $5.00 $4.00Union with Christ: Last Adam and Seed of Abraham—White $11.95 $9.56What is the Christian Faith?— Reisinger $2.50 $2.00What is New Covenant Theology? An Introduction—White $12.99 10.39When Should a Christian Leave a Church?—Reisinger $3.75 $3.00

Total PriceSee Shipping Rate Charts on Page 16 Shipping

Total

TITLE LIST SALE QTY COSTAbide in Him: A Theological Interpretation of John's First Letter — White $13.95 $11.16Abraham’s Four Seeds—Reisinger $10.95 $8.76The Believer’s Sabbath—Reisinger $3.75 $3.00Biblical Law and Ethics: Absolute and Covenantal—Long $15.75 $12.60But I Say Unto You—Reisinger $10.95 $8.68Chosen in Eternity—Reisinger $5.50 $4.40Christ, Lord and Lawgiver Over the Church—Reisinger $2.50 $2.00The Christian and The Sabbath—Wells $11.99 $9.59Continuity and Discontinuity—Reisinger $12.95 10.36

B O O K S F R O M N E W C O V E N A N T M E D I A

Page 18 October 2012 Issue 191Reisinger—Continued from page 16

old covenant does not “differ in substance,” because there is only one covenant of grace. “There are not therefore two covenants of grace, differing in substance, but one and the same, under various dispensations.”9

Here again we would point out that we whole-heartedly agree that God’s one sovereign purpose in grace has been administered differently under different covenants. Likewise, we agree there are not two covenants of grace. However, unlike Covenant Theology, we believe that Israel never was under any covenant of grace. If the nation of Israel had been under a covenant of grace, what grounds would God have had for casting her off? Israel was not under the same covenant that the church is.10 If we are under the same covenant that Israel was under, how can we be sure that God will not cast us off as he did Israel?

Covenant Theology writers often will refer to the old and new covenants as the “Older Covenant of Grace” and the “Newer Covenant of Grace.” J. Barton Payne published a book on the Old Testament and titled it The Older Covenant of Grace. In reality, in Covenant Theology there is no real new covenant that is different in substance and nature from the old covenant. I repeat; it seems to us that Covenant Theology confuses God’s one unchanging purpose in grace, which clearly shows there is only one way of saving sinners in all ages, with a non-textual temporal covenant of

9 Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 7, Section 5.10 The individual Israelite who had sav-ing faith was just as much “under grace” for the basis of his salvation as a believer in the church age is. However, the nation, as a nation, was not in any sense “un-der grace” as the church is. One of the primary differences between Israel and the church is that all of the members of the New Covenant community are true believers (Heb. 9:9-11).

grace.

Statements like those just quoted from the New Geneva Study Bible amaze me. More amazing yet is that Reformed Covenantal Baptists (Dr. Fred Malone’s term) are ready to defend vehemently the “one covenant with two administrations” theology so essential to the Covenant Theology of the Westminster Confession of Faith and so contrary to historic theology. It is this covenant concept that Reformed Baptist Dr. Richard Barcellos is trying to protect in his book In Defense of the Decalogue.

Covenant Theology cannot have a new prophet who replaces Moses as a lawgiver. Christ, as that new Prophet, merely interprets the law that Moses already gave at Sinai, but he does not bring any new revelation about what constitutes true holiness. The Covenant Theology mantra is “Moses will drive you to Christ to be justifi ed and Christ will lead you back to Moses to be sanctifi ed.” This clearly runs contrary to the text of Deuteronomy 18:15-18, which demands that someone bring new revelation. Mere interpretation of existing revelation will not fulfi ll the prophecy in this text. m

West—Continued from page 8

with full recognition that my experi-ence is not the same as a statistical study, it is often stated that we all just know what free will means. But that is simply not true. We do not all know what free will means; many of us have never even thought about it; far fewer have bothered to analyze and study the concept in any detail. Sadly, we often end up fi ghting in churches about free will when we literally don’t even know what it is—and if we don’t know what it is, how can we know whether it is biblical? m

“The Law of Christ” by

Charles LeitherReview by

John G. Reisinger The Law of Christ is the latest

in a growing number of books on the rule of life for Christians. The author, Pastor Charles Leiter, has written a treatment of a vital subject which is a clear and easy to read, but more im-portantly, it is thoroughly biblical. I strongly urge every Christian to get a copy of this book.

The Law of Christ is 346 pages of careful biblical exegesis. Many of the Scriptures are printed out in the text instead of just giving a reference. This is extremely helpful. I was reminded of hearing a preacher read an excep-tionally long section of Scripture prior to his sermon. He then remarked, “I make no apology for such a long Scripture reading. The Scripture is what God said and my sermon will be what I think he meant. What God said is more important than what I think he meant.” Brother Leiter is obviously concerned with what God said and not with the logical deductions essential to propping up a theological system. If you are looking for answers produced only by the logically deductions of a brilliant systematic theologian, you will be disappointed with this book. If you want real biblical help in under-standing what the specifi c biblical standard God has given to help you walk well pleasing in your relation-ship with your Father in heaven, then you will love this book. If you want NCT’s answer to what is the rule of life for a Christian, you must read this book.

Paul Washer says it well in the preface:

In his present work, The Law of

Issue 191 Octobeer 2012 Page 19Christ, Pastor Lieter carries on in the same tradition of making much of Christ and directing us to Him, not only for our justifi cation, but also for our ultimate rule of ethics and our lim-itless source of life. From the preface to the fi nal page, he draws our atten-tion to Christ as the great revelation of the nature and will of God. Follow-ing the example of God the Father on the Mount of Transfi guration, Pastor Leiter points us to Christ and declares, “This is God’s beloved Son, hear ye him.”

What constitutes the rule of life for a Christian today is a subject of con-troversy, especially between new cov-enant and covenant theology people. Leiter does what a biblical theologian is supposed to do. He starts and fi n-ishes with Scripture. He fi rst proves the particular point he is discussing from specifi c texts of Scriptures and then gives biblical examples of how both Christ and the Apostles applied the established points.

The author and the publisher have graciously given us permission to publish two chapters from the book, which will appear in future issues of Sound of Grace.

Each chapter has a one page sum-mary that gives a clear review of what was covered in that chapter. Chap-ter 10, “The New Commandment,” begins with a discussion of the law of Christ and covers the new covenant, the new example, the new creation and the law of love. Here is a sample of the chapter reviews:

Chapter Ten Review

Christians are said to “fulfi ll” the law of Christ whenever they show love to one another. We can learn how love came to be known as the “law of Christ” by considering the one “new commandment” that Christ gave His disciples in the Upper Room: “A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you, that you also love one another.”

Christ’s new commandment is “new” because it is given with the

inauguration of the “new” covenant. Instead of 613 commandments, Christians have one guidepost to keep central in their thinking.

Christ’s new commandment is also “new” because it gives an entirely new depth of meaning to the word “love.” As Christians, we are to love one other “even as Christ loved us.” This is indeed a new commandment, because it presents the highest, clearest, and brightest revelation of man’s duty that ever has been or ever could be given to the human race.

Christ’s new commandment is also “new” because of what Christ has done in the hearts of all believers. Christians belong to a new realm−a realm where “the darkness is pass-ing away, and the true light is already shining.” The new commandment is new “in Christ and in us” because we are new. We now have new hearts with God’s new commandment of love written upon them. (p 126)

There is an appendix describing the difference between legalism and antinomianism that is worth the price of the book.

The blurb on the back cover gives a good description of The Law of Christ.

What does it mean to “serve in newness of the Spirit and not in the oldness of the letter”? What is the

Christian’s relationship to the Law of Moses? What is the “Law of Christ”? How are love and law related? Are the commandments of the Old Testament still relevant in the Christian life? What does it mean to be “free from the Law”? How does love “fulfi ll the whole law”?

Too often Christians have looked to something other than Christ for their supreme rule of duty. They have centered their lives around a “list of rules” rather than His “new com-mandment” to love. Not realizing that the goal of all Christian instruction is love, they have too often valued Bible knowledge, preaching ability, “ministry,” and “gifts” above the one thing that matters most in the Chris-tina life. Yet, according to the New Testament, love is the fulfi llment of the “whole law,” and no amount of sacrifi ce, knowledge, or even faith means anything apart from it. The goal of this book is to point believers to their perfect Savior and standard, the Lord Jesus Christ, who is Himself love incarnate and who alone can enable them in some measure to love as He has loved.

This excellent work combined with Blake White’s The Law of Christ: A Theological Proposal cover the sub-ject with little overlap. I highly rec-ommend these two works.m

Special Offer―$2.00 Discount

The Law of Christ by Charles Leiter is available from Granted Min-istries, 120 N. Third St., Hannibal, MO 63401, Phone: (573) 231-0919

Granted Ministries has a special offer for Sound of Grace readers. Order from www.grantedministries.org and from now through Novem-ber 30, 2012 receive $2.00 off each copy by entering the coupon code "soundofgrace" in the green box during checkout.

SOVEREIGN GRACE NEW COVENANT MINISTRIES5317 WYE CREEK DRIVEFREDERICK, MARYLAND 21703-6938

FORWARDING SERVICE REQUESTED

Check your label for expiration.This is Issue 191. Please renew your

subscription promptly. NON-PROFIT

ORGANIZATIONU.S. POSTAGE PAID

PER MIT NO. 45FR EDER ICK, MD 21701

Mark your calendar2013 John Bunyan Conference

April 22-24, Reformed Baptist Church, Lewisburg, PA

Les Clemens, PastorScheduled speakers:

Gary George - Pastor of Sovereign Grace Chapel in Southbridge, MA; author of Hermeneutical Flaws of Dispensationalism

James M. Hamilton Jr – (Ph.D. Southern Baptist Theological Seminary) is Associate Professor of Biblical Theology at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.

John Reisinger - evangelist, theologian, and confer-ence speaker. John has authored twenty-three books.

David Robinson - (M.Div Mid America Reformed Seminary) Pastor of Grace Bible Church, Cambridge, Ontario.

Kirk Wellum - Principal, Professor of Biblical Studies, Systematic Theology Toronto Baptist Seminary

Blake White - (M.Div, SBTS) is currently a doctoral candidate in Biblical and System-atic Theology at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. He has written six books including What is New Covenant Theology, An Introduction.

Christ, Our New Covenant Prophet— Part 3 · 2015-10-23 · Reisinger—Continued on page 2 White—Continued on page 12 In This Issue Christ, Our New Covenant Prophet ― Part 3

Documents