While Bill Watson and Adrian Davis doubled down on American politics, the Church of God International's Vance Stinson focused on trying to dissuade the membership of that organization from adopting what he considers to be a highly problematic New Covenant Theology. In their most recent sermons and programs, Watson and Davis have speculated about the assassination attempt on Donald Trump and have lauded the former president's courage and anti-leftist rhetoric. Stinson, however, has correctly discerned that New Covenant Theology offers a compelling alternative to the convoluted mess that is Armstrongism. As a consequence, in two of his most recent sermons, Stinson has sought to point out the Problems With New Covenant Theology, and how The Law of Christ is mostly synonymous with the Law of Moses. In other words, Vance Stinson has been busy defending the Armstrongist perspective on Christ and the Law.
As with Herbert Armstrong before him, Pastor Stinson characterizes this "new" theology as abrogating or doing away with God's Law. According to Mr. Stinson, Jesus Christ said that the Law would NEVER pass away, and that our Savior merely explained and elaborated on the intent of the Law of Moses. For him, the terms of the Old Covenant (minus the sacrifices, rituals, and temple) remain the standard for the people of the New Covenant. For him, New Covenant theology is just the latest attempt of sinners to get around obeying God, and/or an unsuccessful attempt to reconcile the Old Testament with the New. Sure, Mr. Stinson acknowledges that our salvation is dependent on Jesus Christ, but he seems to not understand that Christ's righteousness, Law, and Covenant exceeds the righteousness, law, and covenant of the Pharisees. For him, the New Covenant is Christ writing the Law of Moses on our hearts; and if we truly want to be a part of God's Kingdom, we'd better get busy internalizing that legislation. Sound familiar? For anyone who has had any experience inside of one of the Armstrong Churches of God, it should!
In reality, New Covenant Theology combines elements of Dispensational, Covenant, Catholic, and Orthodox Theology to arrive at a more coherent, comprehensive, and logical theology for the Christian Church (as Mr. Stinson acknowledged in his own remarks). For longtime readers of this blog and students of Christian Theology, New Covenant Theology is neither a "new" concept or an unfamiliar one. From this writer's perspective, New Covenant Theology makes Jesus of Nazareth the central theme of both Testaments (Old and New). In other words, NCT sees Christ as the fulfillment of the Torah, Prophets, and Writings of the Hebrew Scriptures and the focus of the message of the Greek Scriptures of the New Testament. In keeping with this perspective, NCT views the terms of the Old Covenant between God and Israel as having been fulfilled by Jesus Christ. Hence, this theology teaches that Jesus Christ has defined the terms of the New Covenant; and that those terms are different and superior to the terms of the Old one (as outlined in Torah). In short, New Covenant Theology believes and teaches that Jesus of Nazareth came to this earth to save Jews and Gentiles, and that he represented the most perfect manifestation of both Almighty God and "his" Law. From this author's perspective, this is eminently more consistent with what is revealed in the pages of the Bible than anything Herbert Armstrong or his spiritual descendants has/have ever offered.
Thus, although I believe that Vance Stinson is focused on more substantial ideas than his counterparts in CGI, I believe that his perspective is hopelessly flawed. In my view, whether theology or politics triumphs within CGI, I believe that their message fails. It is, in my humble opinion, evident that CGI is just as wrong and rudderless as the other current manifestations of Armstrongism.
"For him, the New Covenant is Christ writing the Law of Moses on our hearts; and if we truly want to be a part of God's Kingdom, we'd better get busy internalizing that legislation."
ReplyDeleteIf I said anything resembling that, I apologize. I must have been having a Biden moment, because that's certainly not the message I intended to convey! My position (as you have heard me state) is that the Law of Moses contains both universal and cultic features, and that the cultic features are time-bound, covenant-specific, and served as types and shadows of a higher and infinitely greater reality. The universal features, on the other hand, are not covenant-dependent at all, but exist apart from the covenant and are, in some measure, "written on the hearts" (Rom 1:15) of all human beings.
The Law of God written on the heart (by the Holy Spirit--the "finger of God") is the same Law that was written on tablets of stone. That IS the Moral Law. Its ten points represent ten moral categories--much more than just ten specific things we're to do or not do---that pertain to the most basic duties of life. My view is consistent with Catholic, Orthodox, and Reformed positions on the Decalogue, going back for centuries. The primary difference between their view and mine relates to how to best fulfill the requirement set forth in the Fourth Commandment (Third by Lutheran and Catholic reckoning). Catholics, along with many Protestants, separate what they believe to be the moral and ceremonial aspects of the commandment, so the moral requirement can be met by observing a different time than the one designated by the commandment. My position is that observing the seventh day is a more consistent approach.
Advocates of NCT, like advocates of the other views, do not agree on every point. Some of them think that a portion of the Decalogue came across from the OC to the NC, while others think that the Decalogue was replaced with the new Law of Christ. That's the view I targeted in my last sermon. My conclusion was that the Law of Christ is the same law that was written in tables of stone (with its ten points summarized by the two great love commandments), but now the same God has written His same Law on our hearts, and in so doing has enable and empowered us to obey it and produce the fruit of love in all areas of our lives.
Christ did not come to replace the old Law of Moses with a vastly higher and infinitely more spiritual law; He came to bring to light what the true intent and meaning of the Law had been all along. The Law, the Prophets, and the Writings all pointed to Christ. It was necessary, then, that all the misrepresentations, false traditions, and corruptions that distorted the written revelation of God be stripped away so that the True Light might shine through.
Forgot to put my name on the post: Vance Stinson
ReplyDeleteFirst, I appreciate you taking the time to respond to my remarks. You did make the distinction in your sermon between "universal" and "cultic" commands. Nevertheless, I want to make sure I understand what you are saying. You pointed out that God wrote the Ten Words on tablets of stone and claim that God writes the Ten on the hearts of Christ's disciples.
ReplyDeleteMy question is: Do you believe that God writes any of the other commandments in Torah on the heart of Christians?
In other words, do you believe that the Ten are the only commandments of the Old Covenant which are carried forward into the new? Moreover, you seem to have acknowledged in your remarks that the Two Great Commandments (which Christ drew from Torah) encompassed the Ten - Is that your position?
If so, aren't the Two enough? In other words, if we should be making all of our moral decisions as Christians based on love for God and each other, is it still necessary to delineate "Thou shalt not murder" or "Thou shalt not commit adultery"? Wasn't it prophesied that Christ would magnify the Law and make it honorable? What does that mean to you? And, isn't that exactly what Christ was doing in the "Sermon on the Mount"? Are you saying that the Law hasn't changed? Are you saying that those "universal" tenets of the Old Covenant have been carried forward into the New Covenant? Are clean and unclean meats "cultic" or "universal"? Are the festivals "cultic" or "universal"? And, how do we differentiate between the "cultic" and "universal" more generally?