Peter found this:

In his treatise “Meditations and Discourses on the Glory of Christ,” John Owen offers five “directions” for stirring up the minds of believers to contemplate the glory of Christ (chapter 4):

1. Let us get it fixed on our souls and minds, that this glory of Christ in the divine constitution of his person is the best, the most noble, useful, beneficial object that we can be conversant about in our thoughts, or cleave unto in our affections.
2. Our second direction unto the same end is, that we diligently study the Scripture, and the revelations that are made of this glory of Christ therein.
3. Another direction to this same end is, that having attained the light of the knowledge of the glory of Christ from the Scripture, or by the dispensation of the truth in the preaching of the gospel, we would esteem it our duty frequently to meditate thereon.
4. Let your occasional thoughts of Christ be many, and multiplied every day.
5. The next direction is, that all our thoughts concerning Christ should be accompanied with admiration, adoration, and thanksgiving.

There is a beautiful progression in these five directions. Owen begins by holding out the beauty of Christ as the highest end we could possibly pursue (1), and then directs us where to find that vision of Christ—the Scriptures (2). But he is not content to allow such a vision of Christ to remain in our times in the Word (whether through personal reading or hearing the Word preached and taught); he exhorts us to frequently reflect/meditate on the beauty of Christ that we have seen in the Word (3). Such meditation and reflection should not be limited to devoted time in the Word and prayer, but should spill over into our “occasional thoughts” throughout the day (4). He then concludes with the reminder that such reflections should not be merely an intellectual exercise, but should be joined with our affections (5).

Dispensationalism is a theological system that teaches biblical history is best understood in light of a number of successive administrations of God’s dealings with mankind, which it calls “dispensations.” It maintains fundamental distinctions between God’s plans for national Israel and for the New Testament Church, and emphasizes prophecy of the end-times and a pre-tribulation rapture of the church prior to Christ’s Second Coming. Its beginnings are usually associated with the Plymouth Brethren movement in the UK and the teachings of John Nelson Darby.

The dispensations

1. the dispensation of innocence (or freedom), (Genesis 1:1 – 3:7), prior to Adam’s fall,
2. of conscience, (Genesis 3:8 – 8:22), Adam to Noah,
3. of government, (Genesis 9:1 – 11:32), Noah to Abraham,
4. of patriarchal rule (or promise), (Genesis 12:1 – Exodus 19:25), Abraham to Moses,
5. of the Mosaic Law, (Exodus 20:1 – Acts 2:4), Moses to Christ,
6. of grace, (Acts 2:4 – Revelation 20:3), the current church age, and
7. of a literal earthly 1,000 year Millennial Kingdom that has yet to come but soon will, (Revelation 20:4 – 20:6).

Each one of these dispensations is said to represent a different way in which God deals with man, specifically a different testing for man. “These periods are marked off in Scripture by some change in God’s method of dealing with mankind, in respect to two questions: of sin, and of man’s responsibility,” explained C. I. Scofield. “Each of the dispensations may be regarded as a new test of the natural man, and each ends in judgment – marking his utter failure in every dispensation.”

My friend Kyle is in a band. They are called IVES. Right now IVES is wrapping up a new record. Check out this preview. It’s worth your time.

My friend is releasing his own line of ties. They are sweet, and they come with matching cuff links. You should buy the set. I am going to.

CHECK IT.

From the Reformation Theology Site:

NCT is pretty much an in-house debate among (reformed) baptists and, the idea or system, I believe, has its roots in a reaction to legalism in some Reformed Baptist circles. Here are a couple of views they hold in contrast to Covenant Theology:

1) NCT rejects the covenant of works,

2) NCT rejects the active obedience of Christ. That is Christ’s full obedience to all the prescriptions of the divine law…making available a perfect righteousness before the law that is imputed or reckoned to those who put their trust in him.

3) NCT embraces only the passive obedience of Christ: Christ’s willing obedience in bearing all the sanctions imposed by that law against his people because of their transgression being the ground of God’s justification of sinners (Rom. 5:9), by which divine act they are pardoned.

4) So they (NCT) rejects the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to sinners being related to his having fulfilled the law. Rather the righteouenss he imputes to sinners is simply from the fact that he is God. So the emphasis is on his death and not on his life.

Wheras a covenant theologian would affirm Christ lived the life we should have lived and died the death we deserve, the NCT theologican would only subscribe the the second half of that statement. They would reject the idea that Christ fulfilled the covenant of works from our side. In our view (CT) this significantly downplays the necessity and importance of the incarnation.

Note: Whlie the above represent many within the NCT camp, I understand that it does not describe all streams of thought in NCT. Apparently some have moved closer to CT in these areas and differ only in that Christ having fulfilled the law makes the moral law no longer binding on the believer.

HT: Matt

JP:

Before the fall of Adam sinless man was able to sin. For God said, “In the day that you eat of it you shall surely die” (Genesis 2:17).

As soon as Adam fell, sinful man was not able not to sin, since we were unbelieving,and “whatever is not from faith is sin” (Romans 14:23).

When we are born again, by the power of the Holy Spirit we are able to not sin, for “sin will have no dominion over you” (Romans 6:14).

This means that what Paul calls “the natural man” or “the mind of the flesh” is not able not to sin. Paul says this in Romans 8:7-9

The mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God. (See also 1Corinthians 2:14).

How then shall we think of free will?

It is not a saving power. In his freedom to will, fallen man cannot on his own do anything but sin. Such “free will” is a devastating reality. Without some power to overcome it’s bent, our free will only damns us.

We could stop here and turn with joy to the gospel truth that God overcomes our resistance, gives us life, wakens our dead inclination for Christ, and freely and irresistibly draws us to himself (John 6:44, 65; Acts 13:48; Ephesians 2:5; 2 Timothy 2:25-26).

But it sometimes helps to answer objections. One common objection is that, if we “cannot” do what is right, and “can only” do what is sin, then we are not acting voluntarily and cannot be praised or blamed.

Here is part of John Calvin’s answer to this objection:

The goodness of God is so connected with his Godhead that it is not more necessary to be God than to be good; whereas the devil, by his fall, was so estranged from goodness that he can do nothing but evil.

Should anyone give utterance to the profane jeer that little praise is due to God for a goodness to which he is forced, is it not obvious to every man to reply, “It is owing not to violent impulse, but to his boundless goodness, that he cannot do evil?”

Therefore, if the free will of God in doing good is not impeded, because he necessarily must do good; if the devil, who can do nothing but evil, nevertheless sins voluntarily; can it be said that man sins less voluntarily because he is under a necessity of sinning? (Institutes, II.3.5)

JT writes:

Peter Leithart some “partial, exploratory, perhaps incoherent thoughts on imputation”–which I think are pretty intriguing. The argument is that biblically there is never any space for “legal fiction.” For those who have thought about such things, feel free to offer any comments about his proposal.

Scott posted about this HERE, and now I want one.

“The biblical redemption aims at a new creation and nothing less than that. Therefore, all the threads of purposeful finality are made to run together in the redemptive revelation of grace; all the rays of original eschatological light and splendor are refocused in it. The dignity of God as Redeemer postulates it and the truly pious soul will not, cannot, conceive of it otherwise. The promise reminds God of and, as it were, confronts him with the fact that he cannot abandon the works of his hands, that he must perfect what he has begun. This is but another way of saying that eschatology is the crown of redemption both from God’s and man’s side.”

“The Eschatology of the Old Testament,” page 7