R. Seiver once again in a new blog has denied writing the words he wrote in his book In These Last Days. This time, he rejects the idea that he wrote that the Old Covenant was ‘wrong’, though I gave him the page to look up. Up to now he has complained that he has not the opportunity to check what I say but does not believe that I am correct. But has he totally forgotten everything that he and his co-NCT-authors wrote? How is it that when I even give him the page in his own book, he cannot find the word he wrote? I can appreciate and welcome his change of mind, as the Old Covenant which Christ fulfilled cannot, at least by any Bible-believing person, be called ‘wrong’, or even partly wrong, but I cannot accept his denial of the fact that he wrote what he wrote. So what did I claim and how did Seiver react?

     I wrote, ‘Seiver calls the Old Covenant, which he confuses all the time with the Old Testament, a ‘wrong’ covenant (p.123), leaving us to believe that ‘right’ is only to be found in the New Covenant or New Testament. Seiver’s translation principle is to ignore negations so that ‘not perfect’ becomes ‘wrong’ and ‘without’ becomes ‘with’. With this simple rule, one can rewrite the Bible to make it agree with the NCT. For instance, ‘not perfect’ becomes ‘wrong’ or ‘obsolete’ and where we are told that the Gentiles cannot find salvation without the Jews, he claims that the Jews only find salvation with the Gentiles. What would be the difference in the latter, are not both translations logically the same? No, the first is a correct translation and the second is altered to give the impression that the Jews must wait until the Gentiles are saved to be saved themselves. The true meaning is that the OT saints were saved first and we, both NT Jews and Gentiles, have joined them. Seiver thus argues that the Old Covenant, alias Old Testament, knows no realised salvation which can only be found in the New Testament and in our present age.’ So much for my quote regarding Seiver’s use, or rather misuse, of the word ‘wrong’.

     This is all in keeping with the modern NCT teaching as witnessed by Ditzel and others that Abraham was not a ‘born again believer’.

     After reading the first part of my letter, but not my commentary on it, and forgetting what he had written on page 123 of his own book, Seiver put as a leader on his blog site the following statement:

‘Oh! By the way, George, why don’t we tell the folks what I actually did write about the Law (Old Covenant). Please notice I didn’t even use the word, ‘wrong.’

     It all has to do with Hebrews 8:7 where Seiver translates amemptos ouk as ‘wrong’, though it means ‘not perfect’ or ‘not complete’. Thus the author to the Hebrews speaks of the Old Testament having deficiencies in that it was not yet perfected, completed or filled with fulness, i.e. fulfilled. The Old Covenant was made perfect in Christ who kept it but did not abolish it as the NCT Antinomians tell us. Why would Christ abolish that which He keeps, especially as He keeps it for us, too? Only the NCT believe they have the answer to that question, though they have never spelt it out. In abolishing the Old Covenant, they abolish Christ’s keeping of it and thus abolish our salvation. Thus Seiver translated ‘not perfect’ of ‘faultless’ (not having faults) in Hebrews 8:7, on page 123 of his former NCT statement of his views, as ‘wrong’. A fact he now denies, indeed, he says he has not even used the word ‘wrong’ on page 123 of his In These Last Days. We notice, too, that here, the AV uses a conditional clause in the past perfect. The Old Covenant was imperfect then, but now it has been made perfect in its fulfilled continuation in the New. There is no break in the one Covenant and no discontinuation. God in Christ never does anything wrong. Nor does He do things by halves. Nor does He scrap plan A for Plan B. Besides, Seiver as a Greek scholar should know that the word kainos used for ‘new’ in the New Covenant and New Testament means ‘to renovate’, ‘freshen up’, ‘restore’, ‘to have been just accomplished’ and even ‘to arrive unexpectedly’. It is the second clause in the same Covenant. Clause One tells us what man has to do but cannot do, Clause Two tells us how the Man Christ Jesus solved man’s big problem by putting Himself under the Law but certainly not by abolishing it. This time again, my spelling checker stopped at ‘Seiver’ and suggested that I should use the word ‘sever’. How does my spelling checker know what Seiver loves to do in severing one crucial part of the gospel from the other?