Angus Harley

It is tiring for NCTers to read old comments on Reisinger that misrepresent his position on something. I’m equally exasperated by those old comments misrepresenting NCT as antinomian. I wrote an article just the other day that challenged the Evangelical (me!) to let the Scripture’s wording stand, even when it did not suit ‘my’ theology. Misrepresentation of Scripture is a real thing.  All textual misrepresentation is very bad!

If the Scripture says it, let it speak. Reisinger made a big deal- and rightly so- about keeping to Scriptural language. Yet, he is sometimes grossly misrepresented as arguing for a kind of biblical and wooden literalism that is tied merely to Scriptural words. Reisinger did not think we should bypass theological terms. How could he? New Covenant “Theology”! “Trinity”! But the critics read only a wooden literalism, or as it is sometimes disparagingly called, ‘biblicism’. Reisinger did believe that we ought to use biblical terminology first and foremost, and put forward a theological ‘lingo’ that was clearly derived from Scripture. He wasn’t saying we must use ‘only’ bible terms to explain everything in theology. These critics are not allowing the text of Reisinger’s to stand. This is one of many examples of what he says:

The basic presuppositions of any system of theology must be established with specific texts of Scripture and not with theological terms. Otherwise, our basic building blocks will be the product of logic and not of the Word of God itself. We must not produce a theological lingo derived only by “good and necessary consequences” deduced from our system, and then force those theological terms into the Scripture, refusing to allow the words used by the Holy Spirit to mean what they actually say. Human logic must never become a tool more valuable than texts of Scripture in either establishing or teaching truth. Logic is a good mistress, but a bad master.[1]

He is saying, here, ‘Don’t force the biblical text to conform to your own view; let that text speak; use its own terminology and logic. Build all of your theology upon the text and its implications.’ He is not saying: ‘You must never, ever use non-biblical language’.

If NCTers write that they are not antinomian, why is this textual assertion constantly ignored? Do their words mean nothing? Do their texts not qualify to be exegeted like any other text? There are some rare occasions when a non-NCTer will acknowledge that the NCT position does believe in the law of Christ, and that this is the basis for the claim by the NCTer that he is not antinomian. But the standard reply to the NCT comments is to ignore what they write, and to condemn NCT to antinomianism because it rejects the ongoing relevance of the Ten Commandments given to Israel.[2]

Believe it or not, reader, the reason why I put up this article is to challenge myself mainly. For there is the thinnest of lines between ignoring what a text actually states, and false accusations and misrepresentation. I am ashamed that I have done this way too often. We lose nothing if we allow the other guy to speak and use his own lingo, if we allow the biblical text to do its own thing. I need to listen better. If the other guy is wrong, I can point out where he is inconsistent and his conflicting views do not harmonize. No need to force the text to conform to my position.

[1] John G. Reisinger, “Background and Reason for Writing”, John G. Reisinger Online Library, accessed June 17, 2023, https://crosstocrown.org/books/fourseeds/front-matter/introduction/.

[2] E.g., Kevin Bidwell, a review of  “New Covenant Theology Weighed and Found Wanting”,  Evangelical Times, March 25, 2019, https://www.evangelical-times.org/new-covenant-theology-weighed-and-found-wanting/.