Customer Reviews

In Defense of the Decalogue : A Critique of New Covenant Theology

5 star:		(1)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

New Covenant Theology is still growing and changing. It struggles to fill the space between Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology. The reason Barcellos' small book is so important NOW is that many of the errors being put forth by NCT need to be addressed before becoming entrenched. In order to avoid strawman arugments against minor opinions, Richard has tried to stick to published sources and not self-published, Internet-based missives.

What needs to happen next is for proponants of New Covenant Theology to formulate and PUBLISH a response. Publishing requires review and endorsement, not just a wordprocessor. I believe it will produce a more robust, and better thought out, reply.

In the end, Barcellos' book should start the discussion. Sure, more in-house debate is needed by NCT proponants, but hopefully Richard's work will point them to some foundational issues they need to wrestle with.

This book is for you if you are considering New Covenant Theology as an alternative to other theological systems. This book is for you if you are a Covenant Theologian and are interested in an honest, gracious critique of this new system. This book is for you if you are an ardent NCTian and want an outsider's look at your presuppositions.

Barcellos admits that NCT has not yet reached any sort of definitive form (which should raise red flags about Barcellos' book: is it premature? ). Indeed, NCTers continue to engage in vigorous debate with one another. As of yet, NCT is simply a movement united by an effort to answer the question: What is new about the New Covenant?

Dispensationalism has not answered the question: it denies that the NC was enacted by Christ. Covenantalism has not yet answered the question: it denies that the NC brought anything substantively new. Barcellos'book (written from a covenantal standpoint)does not even attempt to answer the question. He merely takes a few pop shots at only a few tenets of only a few NCTers. It is not anything like a definitive treatment. There is some thought provoking exegesis, but the logical incoherence of the work is a roadblock to reaching Barcellos' stated conclusion. Consider, for example, these (his) statements:

"In saying that Christ annuled the Law of Moses, what is meant is that He annulled it as Old Covenant law. The Old Covenant has been replaced by the New Covenant. The Law of Moses no longer functions as it once use to...Hence, the annulling of the law of the Old Covenant does not mean it is in no way binding on the Christian. The New Testament clearly abrogates the whole Old Covenant, including the Decalogue, as it functioned within the Old Covenant..."

It is telling that Barcellos would use such Buddhist logic to "defend the Decalogue." How can a book so titled speak of the Old Law\Old Covenant (and even the Decalogue itself!) as "abolished" and "no longer binding"? An increasing number of Reformed theologians have felt the need to resort to such confusing language; and such sophistic formulas betray, I think, the real force of NCT's arguments.

Hopefully Barcellos' critique will not mislead too many people away from considering the larger framework and more fundamental points of NCT.

In any case, it is encouraging to know that NCT has matured enough to generate such critical books. By helping NCT get under the radar, I suspect Barcellos' book will move probing Christians to fully consider the claims of NCT and, consequently, force them into rethinking the great question: What is new about the New Covenant?

I am new to the CT vs. NCT debate so I started with Reisinger's Tablets of Stone and then read this book. Both authors misrepresent each other and offer needless arguments, but I thought Barcellos was especially negligent in this area, reading Resinger in a way that was clearly not intended. Whatever you do, do not depend on this text to represent Reisinger's presentation of NCT.

That said, I commend Barcellos for his tone and I wish more authors would follow the example. Even though his reading of Reisinger is through an adversarial lense, and his labeling NCT as antinomian is inexcusable, his tone is at least inoffensive and peaceable, which is a great lesson for many other authors who love their own arguments more than the Christian brothers they are debating. The ARBCA crowd is embarrassing to themselves in this respect, but not Barcellos and that made me a more sympathetic reader even while the arguments were unconvincing.

I highly recommend this book to anyone that has read Reisinger's Tablets of Stone, and then I suggest you read Reisinger's response, In Defense of Jesus, to get the rest of the story. I have to admit, Barcellos had me half if not fully convinced on a couple points. Then I read In Defense of Jesus and the validity of Reisinger's position became clear. Come to think of it, this book deserves another star for helping me gain a deeper understanding of the issues, even if it was indirectly. And Barcellos argument for the complexity and ambiguity of Calvin's view of the Sabbath was totally convincing and I appreciate that.

http://home.twcny.rr.com/debate/nct.html

A great work and expose of the gangrene of NCT!