The Preterist Blog ~ 100% Hyperpreterist Free|we can haz rezurekshun?

Someone apparently accused a moderator on SGP of being Antinomian!  Michael Bennett in rushing to the defense of this person, assures us that this person is not antinomian! However at the same time MB cannot resist making some rash statements which again says more about his lack of Spiritual discernment and his embrace of “a New Covenant Theology!”

In support of “a New Covenant Theology,” MB cites an article, Here, 

 An Open Letter to Dr. R.C. Sproul
John G. Reisinger

“Let me clearly spell out my view of the Ten Commandments. I ask you to show me what I believe that deserves your condemnation of me as an ‘antinomian’ heretic. Please show me where I am anti-law in any sense whatever in my understanding of the Ten Commandments. Apart from viewing the Sabbath as a ceremonial law, I hold to the same set of ethical standards, raised to an even higher level, than Covenant Theology holds. At the end of the day, I think the most that can be consistently claimed is that New Covenant Theology, as I understand it, is antinomian only because it presents the Sabbath as a ceremonial and not a moral law. The nature of the Sabbath commandment is the crux of the entire case. To be consistent with the basic charge against me, you would also have to charge Luther, Calvin, James Montgomery Boice and John MacArthur with antinomianism since none of them were or are Sabbatarians.”

Please note first of all that “a New Covenant Theology,” is offered as something new and different from Covenant Theology. Different in what way though? Different in that they hold to a higher ethical standard than does Covenant Theology? Then Reisinger goes ahead, and explains how that he maintains that he keeps the Law, the Ten Commandments, except for the 4th about keeping the Sabbath. 

First, I would ask how is this a higher ethical standard? Higher than what other ethical standard, since Reisinger has already established that the Ten Commandments are his ethical standard?  Is there no other group who maintains they hold to exactly the same standard, or is this some sort of arrogance on the part of Reisinger?

Secondly, supposedly this lack of keeping the 4th is what instigated the charge of antinomianism against Reisinger and “a New Covenant Theology!” Per the first question, how would not obeying the 4th be a higher ethical standard?

Third, how is it that Reisinger can claim that he can obey even the remaining nine of the Ten Commandments? I think I have understood, that all have sinned, and come short of the Glory of God, that includes Reisinger!

Fourth, how is supposedly keeping the Ten Commandments an antidote for the charge of antinomianism?

Now let us hear from Martin Luther regarding the Law, in Romans 7, (Thank you Sharon!) Here,

“St. Paul concludes here that, if we understand the law properly and comprehend it in the best possible way, then we will see that its sole function is to remind us of our sins, to kill us by our sins, and to make us deserving of eternal wrath. Conscience learns and experiences all this in detail when it comes face to face with the law. It follows, then, that we must have something else, over and above the law, which can make a person virtuous and cause him to be saved. Those, however, who do not understand the law rightly are blind; they go their way boldly and think they are satisfying the law with works.”

It appears to me that Reisinger does not understand the law properly and in the best possible way, for it appears that he is blind, going about his way boldly claiming that he is not only subjecting himself to the law, but is satisfying the law with works! According to M.Luther, the purpose of the law, is to remind us of our sins, to kill us by our sins, and to make us deserving of eternal wrath. We learn these things when we come face to face with the law.  Reisinger does not seem to be aware of these things at all, which leaves me to wonder if he has indeed come face to face with the law, or is it really just that part of the law which Reisinger feels he can manage to keep, excluding the 4th! He claims that he has a higher ethical standard, but he has yet to offer us “something else, over and above the law, which can make a person virtuous and cause him to be saved.” I have heard no message of hope and the Gospel in anything which Reisinger has offered!

Antinomianism, is denial of the requirements of law in our lives, either as a primary influence, or a resulting effect! Misuse of the law, is just as much a violation of the law, as denying the true purpose and requirement of the law. That Reisinger would shelter himself in his supposed liberty from the Sabbath while maintaining that he keeps the rest of the Ten Commandements, is misuse and abuse of the law, and is indeed antinomian!  Legalism is a form of antinomianism of which Reisinger is complicit! 

Reisinger then tries to indict other non-sabbatarians on the grounds that they are as guilty as he.  What sort of defense is that?  Any judge may need to consider whether there is legitimate reason to consider the crimes of other supposed criminals, and he may determine they are, or are not guilty, but certainly that will not relieve you of your crimes!

Now what does this have to do with Michael B, except that he is using this as a defense of his co-moderator, and friend, who apparently has some issues with the law.  I would suggest that friend get his legal advice from someone other than MB. It appears that MB, does not understand the issues critical to the Spiritual Christian, and the law, and there is a very big hole which is gapping open, and willing to swallow those who think they can be 9/10 in agreement with the law, and there by satisfy a Holy God who requires absolute perfect obediance to the law!  (9/10 will not satisfy God, though Ron may be satisfied!)

I would also go back to the term “a New Covenant Theology,” which I also heard of recently in the previous mentioned websites associated with the Forerunner Commentary, the True Gospel, and “The Church of the Great God.”  Apparently MB is sipping more at this particular source of error, than was first imagined regarding Docetism!  Though strangely, it seems that Reisinger says he does not maintain the 4th Commandment and this website states that they believe in keeping the Sabbath.  So this consistent inconsistancy is in step with what we hear from the F&HPs elsewhere! Or there is more than one “New Covenant Theology,” which would probably be bad news for Reisinger! However, I don’t think that this ” New Covenant Theology,” is anything more “New” than the same old lie of Satan who would offer a substitute for the true Covenant of God’s Love and Grace shown to us in Jesus Christ!

I would again hope that Michael Bennett would reconsider his source of spiritual understanding and Truth!  The “New Covenant Theology,” is poison Kool-Aid! Although I suppose it could come in different colors and flavors!

The Eastgate is open, the King is in Residence!

Whosoever will, may come in!

Gatekeeper