Randy Seiver’s colleague and countryman, the comedian Ken Hubbard, once said wisely that it is very difficult to become succesful without becoming unsympathetic. Seiver obviously wishes to aim at success by debunking orthodoxy and breaking a lance for his own, very personal, version of New Covent Theology. In response to my answer to his ill-spoken blog, he has retorted with a new attempt to appear as unsympathetic as possible after telling me personally that he would never again read anything I wrote. Notwithstanding, his new confrontation can be found on Seiver’s site dated 26th Sept. 2011.

     Once again, Seiver starts on the wrong foot by quoting me as saying‚ ‘The Church started at Pentecost, and there is therefore no “Church” as such in the Old Testament/Covenant.’ What he did not say was that he had taken this quote from two articles of mine dealing with NCT teaching as proclaimed in the web-site Theopedia. My first article dealt with their list of supposed agreements with orthodoxy and the second with their supposed disagreements. The first disagreement listed by the NCT was in the words Seiver quoted as ‘mine’, which, however, were the NCT’s and which I was refuting. As Seiver has seriously departed from the NCT himself, though professing to still be one of them, he appears to have forgotten what the NCT teaches. Then Seiver goes on to discuss what a church is not, i.e. not a mere ‘mixed congregation’ as if he is criticising my stance, though the whole context of my two articles Seiver complains of is dealing with the Church as the Bride of Christ and not in the sense of ‘assembly’ or ‘congregation’. This is why I object to those revisionists of the AV who would like to replace ‘church’ by ‘congregation’. Seiver then concludes:


‘Still, the church as we know it did not come into existence until Calvary and Pentecost.’


     This, of course, was the very point I was challenging. Seiver’s definition of ‘Church’ shuts out an Old Testament participation in it. One would have thought that Christ died for an existing entity, but the NCT teaches that however Abraham might have believed, he was not in Christ’s Bride during his life time because the Church was not in existence. Christ thus, for Seiver, died for a non-existing Church! Christ was thus not Abraham’s Mediator and Saviour when his foreseeing faith (faith in Christ, or better put, Christ’s faith) was accounted to him as righteousness. The means and wherewithal for Abraham to enter the Church were not there, then.

     Now Sevier develops his dualistic attitude to the Covenant, denying that it is a covenant of grace. This is typical of the NCT who split God’s one Covenant into several, listing the, to them, different covenantal dispensations of the Old Testament which were wrong and the dispensational covenants of the NT which were pre and post Pentecostal, only the latter being ‘right’. They see the OT as being a covenant of works and the NT, after the Beatitudes, as being a covenant of New Law. As Christ, to them, died after the establishing of the New Law, we must ask which covenant, for them, did Christ die under, the Old One or their new-fangled, Neonomian one? Obviously, the Covenant that slew Christ was the same Covenant and Law that slew Abraham, Paul and Seiver and slays all sinners until the Day of Judgment. In other words, that Covenant and that Law were in operation in post OT times and in NT times and still are in operation for all-time sinners. They are also in operation as fulfilled in all-time saints, Seiver included.

     It is here that we part company radically with the NCT. We believe that Christ did not abrogate the OT Law but fulfilled it by keeping it and not doing away with it. The latter, the NCT think, is the easier and correct solution to their problem with the Old Covenant. Seiver calls the Old Law and the Old Covenant wrong and says they were all done away with by Christ. The Covenant has no future in being completed in Christ. I refere here to Seiver’s translation of ‘amemptos’ in ‘amemptos ouk’ in Heb. 8:7 as ‘wrong’ so he concludes, because of his wrong translation that the Old Covenant was wrong. To argue that the unfulfilled Old Covenantal Law was wrong because it was not perfect outside of it’s being fulfilled in Christ in the fulfillment of time is not very good exegesis. Why would Christ fulfill a wrong thing? So, too, Seiver’s word ‘abrogate’ can only mean ‘do away with’. But how were Abraham, Paul and Seiver saved? They were saved by Christ’s fulfilling the very Law which slew Him and them. They were saved at the fulfillment of all time by Christ’s keeping of the Law which slew them and every sinner past, present and future. There is no new law in the gospel but the Old Law still does its condemning work and is fulfilled for Christ’s Bride, past present, future and eternal, by Christ Himself. Of that Law, not one jot or tittle shall disappear because that is the Law by which Christ’s Bride is eternally redeemed through Christ’s obedience and vicarious, penal and substitutionary death.

     In his new blog, Seiver denies that there is an ‘over-arching covenant’ in which God chooses out a people for Himself throughout the times of both Testaments and beyond which we may call a Covenant of Grace, though he admits that God is gracious! Well, Seiver might like to call it a Covenant of Mercy instead, the Biblical words often bearing both meanings. As long as the Bible tells us, that we are saved by a Grace that over-arches all time and eternity, I believe we are thinking quite Biblically when we say that the Covenant within which we are saved is one of grace. Certainly it is not one of condemnation any more. Besides, Seiver’s use of the terms ‘pre-temporal’ and ‘temporal’ to explain himself shows that he has not got the message. He accuses me of using non-Biblical words, but where are such words in Scripture? He cannot accept the fact that we are saved from eternity for eternity and, besides that, the fact that there is no such thing as ‘pre-temporal’.

     Now Seiver says that the NCT books from which I quote concerning NCT teaching on Christ receiving a reward for earning his position, are not available to him and adds, ‘but I would probably bet the rent money they don’t teach what Ella says they teach.’ First he complains that I do not pay due attention to NCT literature, then he confesses he is not in a position to do so, himself. I find it odd that Seiver has no NCT books, though he tells others that they should inform themselves of NCT ideas. I have been collecting NCT books from their start, though now they seem to deal more with online material as we all do. I also think it odd that Seiver is a betting man and that his church does not provide him with rent-free accommodation. Nevertheless, he will find references to Christ’s gaining or earning his posts and offices throughout NCT literature. Reisinger does indeed make several references to Christ’s ‘newly earned throne’ promotion as a reward for His finished work of redemption, which is exactly what I was talking about, but if Seiver had still Reisinger’s book in his head as I have, he would see how often he disagrees with that author, as well as Zaspel and others, including, if we are to believe his confession of confusion in his present blog, what he has said formerly himself. How can one debate with a person who always retreats from what he has said when confronted with it? The answer is, of course, to be found in the NCT Newspeak in which they use their own theological language and nomenclature meaning quite different things. This is the reason why they cannot understand us. I thus sympathise with Seiver when he says of me ‘I don’t even have a clue what he is talking about’. We speak the same language but Seiver’s is codified, like the Jehovah’s Witnesses. They know what they mean (or do they?) when they are exchanging stories in their own NCT club. A further reason for us to be more clear in our definitions of words like ‘covenant’, ‘grace and ‘saving faith’.

     Seiver is rather annoyed that I once misspelt his name ‘Siever’, thinking it worth mentioning. Mea culpa. I had not paid attention to the fact that ‘Seiver’ breaks the common spelling rule of ‘i’ before e except after ‘c’. My English spelling checker which I use automatically in my German programme, throws ‘Seiver’ out as ‘un-English’ thinking it must be German like ‘Leid’, ‘Pein’ and ‘weifen’. I must then correct ‘by hand’. Anyway, I was not so much concerned with spelling mistakes, or I would have majored on Seiver’s own, but my aim was to correct his bad manners and faulty theology. Seiver has asked me several times for evidence that he teaches that believing OT characters whether Jews or not did not experience salvation there and then in the OT and I have given him it several times. He now tells me that he does not read my answers. Is this why, when he replies, he quite confuses the issue and confesses honestly that he does not know what I am talking about? I confess that I now throw Seiver’s abusive e-mails into the wastepaper basket without reading them and send him none. However, I do not now hypocritically pretend to others that I have asked him a question and he has not answered.