The Law of Christ: Part 2
When we say that the law of Christ is the New Covenant era version of the law of God we are saying that we are not under the Old Covenant era version of the law of God, the Mosaic Law. These two eras of law are also two different eras in terms of emphasis. In the Old Covenant era Israel was the temporary, unbelieving, picture of the people of God (Hebrews 8:7-8). When God gave them his law on Mount Sinai he gave it Israel so that their sin would increase (Romans 5:20, Romans 7:5). It was through their personal sin that Israel might see that they were in a hopeless position and that any true salvation must be all of God and by grace alone. In saying this it should be stated that God’s plan for Israel was that they would not believe, except for a remnant (Isaiah 6:9-13). In the Old Covenant the emphasis for all to see was law. The Mosaic law is given to us in rather neat lists (ex. Leviticus 19). This is due to the fact that Israel under the Old Covenant was unbelieving and the emphasis of law was the appropriate emphasis for a works covenant and an unbelieving people.
But when we come to the law of Christ in the New Covenant era we do not find the priority of law in the teaching passages. Why is this so? I would say that this is so because in the New Covenant era the issue of primary importance is not law but the new heart. The law of Christ has relevance in that it is in the keeping of the law that we show that we have a new heart (1 John 5:3). But it is the new heart that provides the motivation to keep the law of Christ (Romans 8:5-14, Romans 7:6). It is also the new heart which is the visible evidence that Jesus died for our sins and that we are the people of God (1 John 3:9-11. This is why the teaching passages of the New Covenant era have a different flavor than that of the Old Covenant era.
In the Old Covenant era the motivation was external, the Mosaic law, whereas in the New Covenant era the motivation is internal, it is the work of the Spirit in the life of the believer. The internal motivation is also called the “law in the heart” (Hebrews 8:10-11).
Category : 
Posts
” … God’s plan for Israel was that they would not believe, except for a remnant ( ).” How encouraging it is that such Truth is not stifled (quenched)!
Having now read Blake White’s THE LAW OF CHRIST: A THEOLOGICAL PROPOSAL — and having enjoyed and appreciated nearly every paragraph! — I ask you (Geoff), Dustin S., Dustin C., Kerry, Greg, Mike, Lionel, and anyone else who reads this whether you believe that Scripture reveals the following propositions of Truth (quotations of Blake White at indicated page (emphases sic unless othewise indicated); I — in case it’s not obvious — believe (and have for more than a year) that Scipture does indeed reveal the following propositions of Truth):
P. 75 “… Paul is not saying that believers are completely free from any and all types of ‘law’, … .”
P. 76 “It is also not the case that the Spirit has replaced all law (or commandments) and now one only needs to be led by the Spirit (left to subjectivism)”.
P. 77 “While believers are freed from the Mosaic law, one need not conclude that believers are free from all and any commandments. This is an over-realized eschatology.”
P. 83 “The law of Christ is not an exhaustive list of rules but principles centered on love, guided by the Spirit, and drawn from the example and teachings of Christ and ultimately drawn from the entire canon [of Scripture] viewed through the lens of Jesus Christ.”
P. 83 “So as we will see, the law of Christ contains specific commandments, but believers are to be led by the Spirit (Gal. 5:16, 18, 25) and be transformed by the renewal of our minds (Romans 12:2).”
NOTE: Hebrews 10:16 — “I will PUT my lawS on their HEARTs and I will WRITE THEM on their MINDs” (HCSB; emphases mine) should be appended to the references to Galatians 5 and Romans 12 immediately above!
P. 96 “… I am arguing that there are actual commands contained in the law of Christ. That the law of Christ is Christ himself is only part of the law of Christ.”
P. 115 “Believers are bound by every imperative in the New Testament.”
P. 138 ” The Spirit inspired Word [Hebrews 7:11-12] says there is a change of the law (not a change IN the law, as the ESVtranslates it). New Covenant Theology is not making this stuff up.We are seeking to do justisce to the inscripturated text.”
P. 141 “So, although new covenant believers are not under the Mosaic law, with Jesus and the new covenant Scriptures as our hermeneutical filter, EVERY command in Scripture remains applicable.”
P. 153 “We saw that new covenant believers are not under the Mosaic law. [ ] We are still under the law of God, which for us is the law of Christ.”
The foregoing is consistent with what I’ve read here and elsewhere, albeit more “fleshed out”. If any of the Truth propositions seem to be other than supported by Scripture, please read the book vis a’ vis the Book!
Surely it’s not coincidence that the concept of Christ as Covenant is not only not foundational to Blake’s book, it’s not even mentioned.. It’s no accident that Blake didn’t unduly focus on the OT “picture” (Isaiah 42:6, 49:8) and that he did “rightly divide” Scripture. He didn’t address the NT revelation wrt the plan of redemption — Hebrews 9:15 – 17; cf. Galatians 3:16, 29 — but his assertions pertaining to such were consistent with such.
If you haven’t read John Piper’s The Future of Justification: A Response to N.T. Wright and PIERCED FOR OUR TRANSGRESSIONS: Rediscovering the Glory of Penal Substitution, some of the “earlygoing” may be a bit challenging. Otherwise (I presume that you, as have I, have read many of Blake’s resources), you’ll find reading Blake’s book to be refreshing and affirming. Those who have advocated antinomianism-by-any-other-name during the past couple of years, however, may not appreciate the book.
A link to Blake’s site is included within one of my comments to Geoff’s “part one” (previous post) … should you want to encourage Blake, especially as he prepares to teach at the Bunyan Conference next week (!). I greatly appreciated his willingness to openly challenge well-known theologians whose teaching is contrary to Truth; I pray that Blake will be no less forthright next week and that those who have advocated antinomianism-by-any-other-name won’t stifle (quench) the Spirit.
Finally, Blake’s book may — should! — result in further scholarship pertaining to the law of Christ among those whose writing is already consistent with such Truth but, perhaps, still encumbered by system-driven theological notions. If so, NCT will not merely survive the attempted assisted suicide as a result of the mystical antinomianism-by-any-other-name advocated in its name during the past couple of years, it may again thrive.
May it be so — not for the sake of NCT, but for the sake of the Gospel. How can a Jesus who isn’t Lord (reigning Davidic King) be other than a “different Jesus” and the subject of “another gospel”?
I’m very encouraged to read Blake’s quotes and to see that SoG has invited him to speak.
Man,
I wrote a really long response but it kicked me off
(
In a nutshell it seems like we are saying we are changing one set of rules for another set of rules to defend NCT against the claims of antinomianism. I agree with Blake in some areas but I struggle with the list for list position he seems to be taking. If so we need to only go through the NT and write down all of the rules and make a new list; how would this be different from the Old Covenant. I guess we can say that the Old Covenant was never meant to give life neither were the laws associated with it, and that the New Covenant gives life by the giving of the Spirit that enables us to obey the New Covenant Ethic. But I just struggle with the list for list transition.
JIm, I thank you for your response, though it might be a bit easier to respond to your comments if you would limit them so that we could focus on them and respond to them in a way that gives them their full due.
With that in mind let me respond to a couple of points that Blake makes in his proposal.
P. 83 “The law of Christ is not an exhaustive list of rules but principles centered on love, guided by the Spirit, and drawn from the example and teachings of Christ and ultimately drawn from the entire canon [of Scripture] viewed through the lens of Jesus Christ.”
I would disagree with Blake. I do believe that principles exist in the New Covenant era. They are only laws. It is true that for the believer the penalty for breaking laws has been perfectly paid for by the cross of Jesus Christ. The definition of sin that is found in 1 John 3:4 defines sin as breaking God’s law.
P. 141 “So, although new covenant believers are not under the Mosaic law, with Jesus and the new covenant Scriptures as our hermeneutical filter, EVERY command in Scripture remains applicable.”
Here I would also disagree with Blake. The Mosaic Law does not apply to us unless it is brought over by the law of Christ. The Mosaic Law has come to an end with the end of the Old Covenant era (Eph 2:14-15, Galatians 3:25).
Geoff,
Yeah, I also wondered what he meant on p. 141. Since it starts with, “…So,” maybe Jim can provide the preceding context. (Sounds like he’s using Wells-Zaspel’s herm. which I find confusing.)
If he meant that OT commands are DIRECTLY applicable so that we obey them from the authority of the OT, then I disagree. But if he meant they’re INDIRECTLY applicable since we can learn from them and draw principles from them, then I agree.
Either way, I’m encouraged to see him include commands in the Law of Christ. I look forward to ordering and reading the book.
Just a brief comment for now (it’s been quite a day); during the weekend, I’ll attempt to concisely-but-adequately address some issues.
Blake expressly advocates the “draw[ing of] principles” from OT commands; that’s what he means by “with Jesus and the new covenant Scriptures as our hermeneutical filter”. I’ll find the portion of the book which best illustrates the point (Paul’s citation of old covenant law pertaining to muzzling an ox); ultimately, I’m confident that you’ll find that no substantial disagreement exists. Blake in no way advocates a “list for list transition”; indeed, I know of no one who does so (albeit such didn’t obviate straw-man argumentation last spring!). What I chose to quote merely gives a glimpse of Blake’s thesis; it’s truly a rich tapestry even though it’s only 150 pages.
Greg,
I can see how a law in the law of Moses might not apply to us yet it might illustrate a truth (ex. Leviticus 19 and planting mixed vegies in the garden and holiness). But the idea that it gives us a principle that in some sense we are obligated to follow seems to me to be creating a category that does not exist in Scripture.
Geoff, Greg, Lionel, …
Please consider two paragraphs from pp. 141 – 3, then comment to indicate your “take”; thanks.
“I think a legitmate application of Deuteronomy 22:8 (when you build a new house, you shall make a parapet for your roof, that you may not bring the guilt of blood upon your house, if anyone should fall from it) for the new covenant believer would be to ensure that their property is not a danger to their neighbors. The common example is to build a fence around your swimming pool. Exodus 22:25 calls Israel not to charge interest when lending money to fellow Israelites. For us, we can apply this by being generous and open-handed with fellow believers (and obviously not charge interest when lending). Doug Moo writes, “A Christian reading the laws about personal injury in Exodus 21 might well conclude — rightly, I think –that the killing of an unborn baby falls into the category of those takings of human life that are prohibited by both the Decalogue and the New Testament. The detailed stipulations of the Mosaic law often reveal principles that are part of God’s word to his people in both covenants, and believers continue to profit from what the law teaches in this respect.’ [footnote omitted] Most of us do not have a field and hence cannot leave fallen grapes for the poor and for the sojourner (Lev. 19:9-10), but we obey the principle behind this command: care for the poor and be hospitable to strangers, which is another way of saying we should love your neighbor ((Lev. 19:8). Examples such as these could go on and on.
Paul seems to be “principalizing” the law in 1 Corinthians 9:9-10a: ‘For it is written in the law of Moses, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain.” Is it for oxen that God is concerned? Does he not speak entirely for our own sake? Here Paul draws out a principle from Deuteronomy 25:4. Paul is not imposing the law on new covenant believers. In fact, he is remarkably free with his use of the passage. He is using it to summarize a principle: the worker should reap material benefit from his work.” [footnote omitted]
(now a brief comment by me)
The latter paragraph, of course, is a good example of a precept which in small part comprises the law of Christ. The principles within the previous paragraph are more clearly enjoined via express NT imperatives; of course, when the issue is the KANON (standard) against which we’re to be measured at the judgment seat of Christ (2 Cor. 5:10), it’s good to err on the side of caution. That said, what we deem to be a component of the law of Christ ought to be that which is “principalized” via the NT; after all, among that for which Jesus especially condemened the Scribes and Pharisees was their adding their chosen interpretations (”traditions of men”, as Jesus termed it) to the law.
Finally, the quotation of Doug Moo is an example of my previous mention of theologians who are absolutley on the right track — indeed, leading the way in pursuit of Truth — yet apparently encumbered by system-driven theological notions. YHVH’s “people in both covenants” referes only — of course — to those in Jesus’ will {DIATHEKE [testament (covenant)] Hebrews 9:15 – 17},”those who are called”. Prior to Jesus’ inauguration of the new covenant, they’re the “remnant” (Romans 9:27, quoting Isaiah); therafter, we’re (among) the ECCLESIA.
It’s remarkable that Truth can be discerned despite system-driven theological encumbrances / presuppositions; that said, bona fide NCT — contrary to system-driven theologies — entails no inherent inconsistencie. One need not be “leaky” (inconsistent with the system which s/he advocates) in order to pursue Truth. Of course, NCT has its “leaky” proponents who advocate “future Israel” and / or neo-mystery religion (antinomianism-by-any-other-name).
Old covenant law, of course, bound ONLY the Old Covenant people — ethnic, national Israel. They — the PICTURE people of God — were “vessels of wrath prepared for destruction” (Romans 9:22). The means of their destruction was the “ministry of death, chiseled in letters on stone” (2 Corinthians 3:7).
Jim,
Blake’s use of Leviticus 19:8 misses the mark since that law no longer applies to us. But, it may be illustrative of a law in the law of Christ that does apply to us today. The same would apply to 1 Corinthians 9:9-10a. Deuteronomy 25:4 has relevance for us since it is quoted in the law of Christ. If it was not quoted in the law of Christ it we would not be obligated to obey it. If a portion of the Mosaic law applies to us today it only applies because it is repeated in the law of Christ, not because it is found in the Mosaic law. The sum of the matter is that any law in the law of Moses is binding on us if it is brought over into the law of Christ.
Hi guys,
Great to see these channels of discussion open up again – they are much needed, especially here in England where the church has by and large ceased reforming.
Geoff thanks again for all the freely available resources, they are a constant source of consideration!
Blessings in the Lord.
Hi Geoff,
You said:
“If it was not quoted in the law of Christ it we would not be obligated to obey it. If a portion of the Mosaic law applies to us today it only applies because it is repeated in the law of Christ, not because it is found in the Mosaic law. The sum of the matter is that any law in the law of Moses is binding on us if it is brought over into the law of Christ.”
In light of that, how do you understand Matt. 5:19:
“Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”
What are the “least commandments” that Christ is referring to?
Thanks for your time,
Garrett
Garrett,
It says “until all is accomplished”, the fulfillment has been accomplished when Jesus said “it is finished”, thus we now listen to Christ not Moses as the Father Himself says “listen to Him”.
Geoff,
Maybe our question here is due to the word “applies,” which might be interpreted as if certain OC laws are still legally binding. But I don’t think that’s what Blake and Moo mean.
Perhaps a better word than “applies” is “useful” (2 Tim. 3:16) or “relevant.” I think what they’re saying is…
“All Scripture is God-breathed and useful”
“We do not void the law, we uphold it”
“I did not come to abolish the Law or Prophets”
The whole OT (Penteteuch and Prophets), including the commands, are still useful for revelation, doctrine, etc. Neither the OC nor NC define a comprehensive, exhaustive ethic. The OC although it was legally cancelled still informs our conscience and doctrine.
Garrett,
Jesus is making a criticism of the Pharisees who by their teaching are encouraging others to sin. The historical context would say that Jesus is referring to the Mosaic law. Jesus lived in the old covenant era under the mosaic law, unlike us who live in the new covenant era under the law of Christ.
Greg,
I agree with you, but this is how the law issue gets murky. A law is either binding or not binding. A mosaic law may illustrate a point but it is still not binding or not law for us today.
Geoff,
So are you agreeing with Lionel, when he said:
“It says “until all is accomplished”, the fulfillment has been accomplished when Jesus said “it is finished”, thus we now listen to Christ not Moses as the Father Himself says “listen to Him”.
Just want to make sure I understand your position.
Thanks,
gh
Agreed Geoff.
Two examples of how the OC still informs our conscience are beastiality and incest. They are cancelled from Lev. 18 in the OC. However, our consciences tell us they’re still sin. So, whoever commits them violates conscience law, not OC law from Lev. 18.
Garrett,
Yes, “until all is accomplished” is the cross.
Greg,
I do believe that bestiality is sin but not for that reason. The law of God must inform our conscience. A sense that something is sin can be misleading. The law of Christ sits in judgment on our conscience.
Guys,
I just want to take the time to thank all of you for a great time of iron sharpening iron. Thank you for taking the time to help sort out these issues. It is much appreciated. Geoff
Yes, the law of God informs our conscience, but only on some issues, not all. The heathen who do not have the law of God know that beastiality is wrong from their conscience alone.
Greg,
I hear your thoughts but conscience can be wrong (ex. false guilt). Regarding bestiality as sin under the law of Christ I would refer you to the excellent work of NCT by Steve Lehrer, “New Covenant Theology: Questions Answered.” I am very aware that Steve no longer sells the book. That doesn’t undermine his well thought out work. Check out chapter 16 where he addresses bestiality, only he addresses it in a way that has the objective law of Christ speaking to it. Bye for now, Geoff
Dishearteningly, antinomianism-by-any-other-name is not only still believed by a few NCT proponents, it is being advocated this week. May Blake heed Galatians 1:10 — Am I here to please men or God? — and counter such error with Truth.
Lionel Woods, via his A Better Covenant blog post today (Free to Think?) questioned an old saw: “Some things we won’t find out until eternity”. Of course, God’s thoughts are higher than ours (Isaiah 55:8, 9); yet, “His divine power has given us everything required for life and godliness, through knowledge of Him” [2 Peter 1:3). Confusion wrt such revelation is not inherent to the revelation; it's attributable to prideful stifling (quenching) of Truth.
John Reisinger essentially dismissed antinomianism as a "silly notion" see my first comment to the instant post; of course, John was branded "antinomian" by Covenant Theology adherents who deem the "moral law" aspects of Old Covenant law to be the "rule of life for the believer" [WCF and BCF (1689)]. Simultaneously, John correctly advocates, via his Studies in Galatians, against “mixing” law and grace.
Such “mixing” is eternally damning wrt justification. At the same time, “this is love: that we walk according to His [Jesus'] commands. 2 John 6 (HCSB).
“For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ so that each may be repaid for what he has done in the body, whether good or bad.” 2 Corinthians 5:10 (HCSB)
Lionel, via his April 22 Sanctification: Nothing in Ourselves, quotes Ed Ross at some length. Ed – perhaps unknowingly — followed Geoff and Steve in referring to the regenerate elect as “incurable God-lovers” and correctly advocated that “it is our hearts’ desire to DISPLAY HIM! (emphasis sic)
How does such occur? If we love Him, we keep His commands. John 14 (- 17).
If “it’s not either-or, it’s both-and” applies to any doctrine, it’s this one. Antinomianism-by-any-other-name effectively insists that it’s either-or and will in no wise tolerate advocacy of that which Scripture expressly and unequivocally teaches. “Silly notion” indeed. Arguably, the notion is as deadly as is legalism (”mixing” law and grace wrt justification). Again: How is a Jesus who is not Lord (reigning Davidic King) other than “a different Jesus” who is the subject of “another gospel”?!
In response to the question “What do you interpret [2 Cor. 5:10] to mean (see preceding comment vis a’ vis A Better Covenant):
The issue, of course, is not my interpretation, but, rather, what Truth is revealed via 2 Corinthians 5:10. Briefly: The broad context — analogia fide (interpretation of Scripture by Scripture — is the proposition that “we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ so that each may be repaid for what he has done in the body, whether good or bad” an issue wrt which Scripture “speaks” elsewhere? Yes; see Romans 14:10 – 12 (HCSB) ~
“For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God. For as it is written: As I live, says the Lord, every knee will bow to Me, and every tongue will give praise to God. So, then, each of us will give an account of himself to God.”
Much more can be and has been written regarding Scripture’s interpretation of Scriptrue vis a’ vis 2 Cor. 5:10; may it suffice for now that the Truth revealed thereby is not “stand-alone” or obscure. Having established such, what is the immediate context … to WHOm does the “we” (”we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each [WHO?] may be repaid for what he has done in the body, whether good or bad”) refer?
Consider, please, who is the “we” to whom the Holy Spirit (via Paul) refers via the immediately preceding verses … and whether even the most ardent Scripture stifler (quencher) / twister would even attempt to contend that “we” refers to any other than the same “we” of the verse at issue:
Now WE have this treasure in jars of clay, so that this extraordinary power may be from God and not from us. WE are pressured in every way but not crushed; WE are perplexed but not in despair; WE ar persecuted but not abandoned; WE are struck down but not destroyed. WE always carry the death of Jesus in our body, so that the life of Jesus may also be revealed in our body. For WE who live are always given over to death because of Jesus, so that Jesus’ life may also be revealed in our mortal flesh.
* * *
Therefore, WE do not give up, even though our outer person is being destroyed, our inner person is being renewed day by day. For our momentary light afflictino is producing for us an absolutely incomparable eternal weight of glory. So WE do not focus on what is seen, but on what is unseen; for what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal.
For WE know that if our earthly house, a tent, is destroyed, WE have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. And, in fact, WE groan in this one, longing to put on our house from heaven, … . Indeed, WE who are in this tent groan, burdened as WE are, … so that mortality may be swallowed up by life. And the One who prepared US for this very thing is God, who gave US the Spirit as a downpayment.
Thererfore, though WE are always confident and know that while WE are at home in the body, WE are away from the Lord — for WE walk by faith, not by sight — yet WE are confident and satisfied to be out of the body and at home with the Lord. Therefore, whetehr WE are at home
or away, WE make it our aim to be pleasing to Him. For WE must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each may be repaid for what he has done in the body, whether good or bad.
[2 Cor. 4:7 - 5:10 (HCSB; emphases added)]
Blake’s excellent book notwithstanding, regardless whether he heeds Galatians 1:10 (Am I here to pelase God or men?), it appears that the JBC — and, more importantly, the representation of NCT thereby — has “jumped the shark”. Any ostensible NCT which denies Jesus Lordship is dangerous and misleading. May Blake proclaim Truth; may the number of those deceived be minimized; may the propagation of antinomianism-by-any-other-name with seeming impunity be recognized for the egregious abhorrence it is; and may the JBC (and NCT) not be irreparably damaged.
The Holy Spirit, via Paul’s letter to Titus and via Jude’s letter to the ecclesia, teaches us how our Lord expects us to respond to such neo-mystery religion. I endeavor to follow such lead; I take Galatians 1:10 quite seriously. Unlike the “churches” (as distinguished from the Church) of Revelation 2 and 3, I can not and will not compromise Truth in order to please men.
If I may ask, what is being refereed to here:
“May Blake heed Galatians 1:10 — Am I here to please men or God? — and counter such error with Truth.”
Thanks
Hi Gabe,
When some “NCTs” are asked, “Which commands do we obey?” they dodge, squirm, and refuse to define any objecitve commands. This is contrary both to Christ’s teaching and historic NCT which agrees that we obey Christ and His apostles’ commands.
P.S. For everyone here: http://associate.com/groups/soundofgrace/0::27094read.html
Thanks, Greg; if you’d like further elaboration / elucidation, Gabe, much more may be said. I presume that Greg’s response is deliberately limited for the same reason my comments have been deliberately cryptic: For the sake of the event and its representation of NCT. Thanks be to our Lord that yesterday, it seems, was incomparably better than was Monday; may Monday be an all-time nadir in the history of the event and in the history of NCT*. Important note: The posted speaker schedule was significantly changed.
* Even if it is an all-time nadir, it appears that — like a dog with a bone — the lead advocate of the neo-mystery religion to which I’ve referred as antonomianism-by-any-other-name is not only undeterred, he is apparently encouraged that corroboration of his grievously lamentable view merely awaits further enlightenment … of those sent by our Lord to exterminate it(!).
Jim,
Please be a bit more clear in your comments. What were you referring to in your recent comment? Looking forward to hearing from you and please remember to make your words count by being concise. Geoff
In a hypothetical scenario, if someone became a believer outside the realm of biblical revelation (whilst incarcerated or living under an oppressive regime – there must have been countless such people through the history of the post apostolic world) what would be the extent of their altered life I wonder?
Our emphasis on the Holy Spirit as the source of divine motivation precludes content (although I think that the self-same content to an unbeliever has no power, for it has to be spiritually discerned [1 Corinthians 2:14]. Carl B. Hoch has some interesting things to say regarding the spiritual renewal of the mind, will and affections in All Things New). We advocate the view that the content by which the believer lives his/her life to please the Lord, is content which is only available by written revelation.
If this be the case, then to what extent does the Christian without this revelation grow/get sanctified/know what to do to please the Lord?
If Christians who are unable to refer to scripture are progressively sanctified – albeit at perhaps a slower rate – by what means does that process occur?
I’d be interested to hear any thoughts.
Fifty-eight weeks ago tomorrow, the neo-mystery religion to which I’ve referred as antinomianism-by-any-other-name, reached the bottom of the slippery slope. The slippery slope is the undue focus on the OT “picture” of Christ as covenant (Isaiah 42:6, 49:8); the unintended consequence / probably inevitable result of such was this egregious proclamation:
“This is the New Covenant. Things are not the same. We’re not in Kansas anymore (and all praise to Him who is our Covenant that we are not). Is it any wonder that one of the disciples who was at the foot of the mount would later write, ‘In the beginning was the Torah (Logos / Wisdom), and the Torah was with God, and the Torah was God.?”
I addressed the Sabellianism, eisegesis, and mutilation of Truth at length at that time. At this time (indeed, to the minute), an event [which you (Geoff) and I happened to each attend two-and-a-half years ago] is about to end. During the event which is about to end, Blake White, Steve Wellum, and John Reisinger were among those teaching Truth. Alas, an unduly large percentage [two men (!)] of the small minority of ostensible NCT proponents also taught during the event which is about to end. At least one of the other proponents advocated (attempted to advocate?) the mystical concept that Jesus IS the New Covenant law.
The mystical concept that Jesus IS the New Covenant law is, of course, incompatible with revealed Truth that Jesus is the New Covenant Lawgiver. As Kerry Kinchen contends (and laments), the “handful” of proponents of the neo-mystery religion have (attempted to) “hijack(ed)” New Covenant Theology. Bona fide NCT is Scripture-driven and — in stark contrast with Covenant Theology and Dispensational Theology — consistent with the sovereignty of God and Lordship of Jesus.
The “hijackers” (Kervorkianites, in my estimation, as their advocacy ultimately may assist the suicide of NCT) continue to promote as NCT “silly notion[s]” which are diametrically opposed to bona fide NCT. May the result of the past few days be the eventual demise of mystical antinomianism-by-any-other-name in the guise of NCT and may the proponents of such neo-mystery religion repent and cease-and-desist advocacy of such.
Jim,
I certainly am in your camp but I do think that it may be a bit more helpful to avoid your colorful adjectives in describing those believers who differ with us on the law of Christ. Help me out in this. Much love, Geoff
Thanks / sorry / okay, Geoff; as I repeatedly emphasized last spring, I’ve met three (a majority!) of those guys (on the same occasions when you and I have met) and begrudge none of them personally. As my April 23 comment hereinabove indicates, I “differ” with Blake White (whom I haven’t had the pleasure of meeting) “on the law of Christ” (as such comment indicates, his proposal goes farther than Scripture fully supports). Nevertheless, I wholeheartedly endorse his book and believe that he is absolutely on the right track.
Derailment, I hope, is not too colorful to describe what has happened to the doctrine which has been so zealously advocated by those few guys (and a couple of other guys whom I have not met). In deference and respect to you, I’ll leave it at this: I’m (obviously) greatly concerned that where (you and) I differ from them is not limited to the issue of what is the law of Christ; such issue is merely the tip of the iceberg.
For their sakes and that of the event and that which the event represents (NCT), I — as I’ve repeatedly expressed — hope and pray that the past few days mark the end of the line for antinomianism-by-any-other-name. The three men I’ve met were — even a couple of years ago — prime assets for Truth / NCT; may each of them abandon the error and resume pursuit of Truth.
Again: Thanks, Geoff!
I have a general understanding of NCT and I’d like to read the specific differences regarding the Law of Christ being discussed here. Is there posts or a site someone could direct me to so that I could look at the views being contrasted here.
Thanks.
Gabe ~
While the law of Christ may not prohibit it, my conscience does prohibit me from being any more specific than I’ve been (for the sakes of the half-dozen guys to whom I’ve referred as broadly as possible and for the sake of Truth / NCT). Blake White’s The Law Of Christ: A Theological Proposal is an excellent resource, inexpensive*, and only 150 pages. You’re best course of study would begin there; indeed, upon reading it, you should then study the Scripture cited throughout the book.
* http://www.newcovenantmedia.com
I certainly appreciate your discretion and I am certainly not wanting to cause division and will understand if you, or anyone else, is not willing to provide any further details regarding this debate.
But from my understanding, the proponents of these views are actively teaching them publicly and, therefore, have no issue with their names being associated with their teaching. I’m truly not interested in names, I’m sure I don’t know who any of these people are. I am however interested in this issue and in seeking to better understand it.
I’ve been studying, as time permits me, the Covenants, the Law, the Law of Christ, Covenant Theology, Dispensationalism, New Covenant Theology, Theonomy, Dominionism, Christian Reconstruction, Federal Vision, NPP ect. (each to one degree or another) for the past couple years. I in no way consider myself an expert on any of these topics, but have found that NCT seems to fit most closely with what I see in scripture regarding the covenants. Because of the studying I’ve done on some of these other areas, understanding the Law and especially the Law of Christ is important to me.
When studying a view it seems most fair to read both sides, and not just what one side says about the other. This is my motivation for asking. Again, if you or anyone else is not willing to respond I understand.
Thanks
As an attorney, Gabe, I fully appreciate and commend your desire to “read both sides, … .” Less discerning readers, however, truly ought not be “steered” anywhere near the heterodoxy. So, if you and Geoff are willing, I’ll send a link to him and he can forward it to you. Given your apparent appetite for Truth (thanks be to our Lord!), your time will be best allocated to reading the following quite “manageable” books and inexpensive (NOTE: NCT gets the covenants right because it gets Israel right; each of these books is extraordinarily helpful to that end):
Navigating the Book of Revelation and Revelation Made Easy by Dr. Ken Gentry (precursors to his forthcoming Revelation commentary; he explains that his exegetical and historical (context) study has resulted in his change of doctrinal viewpoint wrt particular issues.
The Apocolypse Code by Hank Hannegraaf
The Israel of God by Dr. O.Palmer Robertson (another which is, thankfully, inconsistent with elsewhere advocated doctrine).
In Defense of Jesus, The New Lawgiver, Tablets of Stone, and But I Say Unto You by John Reisinger and The Priority of Jesus Christ by Tom Wells (see New Covenant Media link above)
Pierced For Our Transgressions: Rediscovering the Glory of Penal Substitution (Fwd. by John Piper)
The Future of Justification: A Response to N.T. Wright by John Piper
There are, of course, plenty more; those should keep you busy — and enthralled — for the Summer (!).
Jim,
Thanks for your consideration, I would appreciate a response. And thanks for the recommendations, I’ve not yet read any of these works.
I began studying Eschatology a few years prior to my study of the covenants, and ended up with a amill leaning (although, I should say my study was not comprehensive). In my studies I did not read any authors with a modern/Theonomic post-mill stance. If I may, what is it about Gentry’s books that you found specifically helpful? I’m particularly curious about what you mention in relation to changes in his doctrinal viewpoint.
Gabe,
My favorite commentary of the book of Revelation is “The Triumph of the Lamb” by Dennis Johnson. It comes from an amil point of view. Enjoy your time of study. If you should want to discuss any issue I would be happy to do that with you. My phone number is 480-924-4290. Bye for now, Geoff
Consider, Gabe / all: Eschatology began with the plan of redemption (which benefits those in Jesus’ will {diatheke / testament / covenant ["those who are called" (Hebrews 9:15-17, cf. Galatians 3:16, 29)]}, but which is not about the redeemed … it’s all about Jesus. Eschatology is first overtly manifest via Scripture via Genesis 3:15 ~
I will put enmity between you [Satan] and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he [Jesus] shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.
The “code” in Hannegraaf’s THE APOCOLYPSE CODE is the Old Testament. Hannegraaf, along with Ken Gentry and NCT proponents such as Geoff and others who have commented to this post and its predecessor (part one, if you will), understand(s) the role of ethnic, national Israel in the plan of redemtion. Except for a “remnant” (Romans 9:27, Isaiah 10:22), ethnic, national Israelites were “vessels of wrath prepared for destruction (Romans 9:22). The means of destruction was “the ministry of death chiseled in letters on stone” (2 Corinthians 3:7) — the Law (of Moses — in its entirety).
Triumph of the Lamb is helpful, as is G.K. Beale’s New International Greek Text Commentary on Revelation. “Idealism” is the perspective of each; Idealism, however, won’t (can’t) recognize A.D. 70 for what it was: The stoning of the Harlot (Ezekiel 16:38, inter alia; the exile was the divorce of the Harlot, btw).
Historical-Redemptive preterism is Dr. Gentry’s term for what is more widely known as “partial preterism”. Idealism is helpful only in conjuction with and never in lieu of Historical-Redemptive preterism.
Dispensationalism — “leaky” or not — is patently untenable for a myriad of reasons, starting with its being Judeocentric and inherently inconsistent with God’s sovereignty (a “parenthesis” — a “plan B” — because Israel was stiff-necked?! How audacious!). Covenant Theology’s root error is that it considers the Church to be / have replaced Israel; it cannot (must not) acknowledge the divorce and stoning of the Harlot any more than can futuristic premillennialism (DT).
Dr. Gentry has advocated CT positions (eg. infant baptism) along with corrollary (erroneous) doctrines such as theonomy and postmillennialsim (dominion theology). I don’t know to what extent his “views” have changed, but here’s an example which corroborates what is self-evident via his teaching via REVELATION MADE EASY and NAVIGATING THE BOOK OF REVELATION* — that his uber-diligent exegetical research (of the Greek) and historical (context) research has resulted in Revelation commentary which reflects wholehearted and truly God-blessed pursuit of Truth, come what may:
“My three changes (in his previously advocated understanding of Revelation 20) appear in two places in the text. Though seemingly small, they carry radical implications. In my view, the eschatalogical debate (the “millennial” views) does not need to come to Revelation 20 at all. It is better waged elsewhere in Scripture — ALMOST everywhere else in Scripture, … . Postmillennialism and amillennialism certainly do not depend on Revelation 20, though premillennialism and dispensationalism absolutely do. In fact, Revelation 20, though serving as THE foundational passage for premillennialism and dispensationalism, actually creates irresoluble problems that actually undermine those systems.
* * *
Though my understanding of Revelation 20 has been considerably altered, this alteration arose from purely exegetical and contextual considerations.” NAVIGATING THE BOOK OF REVELATION, pp. 160, 165.
The “purely exegetical and contextual considerations” at issue are briefly considered via the preceding and intervening pages. Dr. Gentry may well continue to advocate Covenant Theology and corrollary doctrines … we’ll see. Regardless, his study in preparation for his magnum opus to-be (as of now, it’s BEFORE JERUSALEM FELL: DATING THE BOOK OF REVELATION) has driven him to teach incomparably unequivocally that A.D. 70 is the primary subject of Revelation and that understanding A.D. 70 is indispensable to understanding Israel and the plan of redemption.
I’m about to forward the link to Geoff, btw.
* http://www.kennethgentry.com
Geoff,
Thanks, I just moved today and still have a lot of work to do but I would like to talk and will try to give you a ring in the next week or two.
Jim,
Agreed, Revelation, and Eschatology, is and should be about Christ, the first phrase of the book makes it clear. I need to do more study and have recently been re-kindled in the area after reading Philip Mauro’s “The Hope of Israel, What Is It?”. I enjoyed it very much and liked his approach in interpreting prophesy and how they relate to the covenants. If you’re not familiar with him many of his works can be found on preterist.com.
Thanks guys, for the interaction, hope have more of it in the near future.
I meant preteristarchive.com
Thanks, Gabe; that site includes Dr. Gentry’s work and other “good stuff”; of course, not everything included there is edifying (some is not Truth) … so, it’s good that you appear to have not only the appetite but also the discernment which ultimately (invariably) is concomitant to regeneration.
Glaring omission:
Abraham’s Four Seeds by John Reisinger ( www. newcovenantmedia.com ) should have been the first book I listed (above). Were Steve Lehrer’s New Covenant Theology: Questions Answered available*, it would be next.
* You may be able to find it USED … perhaps online [Steve, via IDS, ultimately made it available online; perhaps it and his equally excelent Appendix [What I Should Have Written (pertaing to his illustration / test case -- incest)]} remain(s) “in cyberspace”.
Once more for emphasis: NCT — bona fide NCT — teaches Truth because it genuinely reckons the sovereignty of God and, concomitantly, understands Israel according to Scripture (thanks be to our Lord for men like Geoff, Steve, John Reisinger, Jon Zens, Tom Wells … right up to Blake White today); concomitant to such understanding is (bona fide) NCT’s understanding that Jesus is Lord (reigning Davidic King) and Lawgiver for those in His will {testament [covenant (Hebrews 9:15-17, cf. Galatians 3:16, 29)]}. It shouldn’t need to be asserted, but — contrary to the modalism (Sabellianism) inherent to the erroneous (note: “colorful adjectives” avoided!) proclamation that “In the beginning was the Torah, … ” [i.e., that Jesus IS the law and He (NOT the Spirit) mystically (NOT via commands and imperatives to which those in His will are driven to learn and obey) effectuates good thoughts and behavior — bona fide NCT is Trinitarian.
I will PUT my lawS on their HEARTs and WRITE them on their MINDs.
~ Hebrews 10:16
How does the believer without God’s written revelation understand the will of his/her new Lord and Saviour? The moral will of God for the believer is what will define the way that the believers life is lived out to the Glory of God – but what is the content of that moral will outside of scripture?
The lord has left plenty of believers down through the centuries without the benefit of his revealed will, so what can we say about their walk with God, their growth, their Christ-likeness?
“Be imitators of God, therefore, as dearly loved children and live a life of love, just as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us as a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God. ” Ephesians 5:1-2
Also, in light of the view that the Holy Spirit provides the motivational aspect of obedience to the objective imperatives of the Law of Christ and not the content itself, how do you interpret the words of Jesus in John 16:5-16?
Another inadvertent omission (not that I’d intended an exhaustive list):
Mike Adams ~ He, of course, worked “shoulder-to-shoulder” with Geoff and Steve and produced important and edifying articles.
Blake White, via The Law Of Christ: A Theological Proposal, Ch. 10 The Law Of Christ is the Teachin of Christ’s Apostles (see partial chapter list via my first comment above), immediately following quotation of the John “passage”, referred to D.A. Carson. The footnote:
“John’s purpose in including this theme and this verse [John 14:25-26 * John 16:7] is not to explain how readers at the end of the first century may be taught by the Spirit but to explain to his readers at the end of the first century how the first witnesses, the first disciples, came to an accurate and full understanding of the truth of Jesus Christ. The Spirit’s ministry in this respect was not to bring qualitatively new revelation, but to complete, to fill out, the revelation brought by Jesus himself.”
It’s surely a fair question, Tim; does Don Carson [via Blake White, reflecting what I'd considered to be obvious but which is apparently not-so-obvious (you, Tim, are not the first, nor will you be the last, to ask that sort of question)]?
Despite Blake’s understanding of such Truth, he, as I’ve noted (see my April 23 comment above), his proposal goes farther than Scripture fully allows. Geoff quite rightly cautions against getting anywhere near deeming one’s “promptings” by the Spirit with our Lord’s actual revelation. Revelation 20:18 is as ominous as is any admonition in Scripture. The Spirit will illuminate revelation; “private revelation” is not of Him. Gary Gilley’s IS THAT YOU, LORD? is excellent and brief; it ought to be read immediately by any who don’t understand the foregoing.
I thought that would be your interpretation of the verses in John 16 and I think that makes perfect sense. With regard to the earlier part of my question, perhaps I can throw out an hypothesis without any particular text to base it on (well maybe one).
We know from Romans 2 that in some sense the conscience of man (made in God’s image) condemns man. Where the scriptures are absent, there is ample supply of God’s moral will within a man to convict him of his sin. Obviously a revelation of Christ’s work is needed for a man to understand how he can deal with his sin, but the issue of sin is not foreign to him because of his conscience.
As Geoff and others have asserted, this sense of right and wrong is fuzzy and gets dulled easily, nevertheless it is present. Whilst this law of the conscience is prone to derailment, yet in it’s inception (taking into account that all of man is born into to sin) it is in some sense true truth. It seems it has to be in order for the Holy Spirit to be able to say that thoughts which spring from this law are able to both accuse and defend.
Is it possible that the Holy Spirit far from bringing content, brings a motivation which may act on any God given law. For the man without revelation, the Holy Spirit acts upon the law of his conscience, moving the individual believer to obey the Lord in accordance with the renewal of his conscience, this would not occur via ‘promptings’ but by a renewal of the mind.
A believer in such circumstances would not grow as rapidly as the believer who had the benefit of complete revelation, but they would grow nevertheless. They wouldn’t fail to please the Lord any the less for the Lord would be working via the Holy Spirit on the Law which was normative to man’s conscience. That man by obedience would fulfill the law of love with regard to both God and man perhaps?
It’s a difficult question, but a pertinent one if this theology is to be comprehensive.
I’d substitute “pertinent” for “fair” in my previous comment if I could, Tim; difficult? Unnecessarily so!
It’ remarkable that, with a few execptions, even the most reliable exegetes and Truth-tellers neglect Genesis 5:3 and (/or) proclaim as Truth that which patently isn’t.
Genesis 1:26 ~ “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; … .”
Genesis 5:1 ~ “In the day that God created man, He made him in the likeness of God.”
Genesis 5:3 ~ “And ADAM lived one hundred and thirty years, and begot a son in HIS OWN LIKENESS, after HIS IMAGE, and named him Seth.” (NKJV; emphases added)
Beginning with Seth, each of us has been created in fallen Adam’s image — Truth which is indispensable to understanding soteriology, inter alia. Indeed, the Holy Spirit, via Paul via the first five chapters of Romans — especially 5:12 ff. (cf. 1 Cor. 15:22) — elaborates upon such cornerstone Truth to such extent that it’s beyond remarkable that such Truth is resisted and avoided like a plague (indeed, it is a plague to the unregenerate).
By-the-way, Tim, I write in expectation that your response will be along the lines of “oy veh … how did I miss that?!” [rather than a(n ultimately futile) attempt to resist and avoid].
Romans 12:2 ~ “… be transformed by the renewing of your mind, … .”
Transformed to what (HOW we’re transformed is, of course, is the question, I realize)?
Romans 8:29 ~ “For those He foreknew He also predestined to be conformed to the IMAGE of His SON, … .”
I’ll not elaborate as I doubt that elaboration is necessary: Since Jesus is God and those in His will (Hebrews 9:15-17, cf. Galatians 3:16, 20) are predestined to be conformed to His image, isn’t such redundant (at best) if we’re already “imago Deo” (as those who at least fancy themselves Reformed seem to love to express it)?!
Romans 1:14-16 ~ “So when Gentiles, who do not have the [Mosaic] law, instinctively do what the [Mosaic] law demands, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the [Mosaic] law. They show that the WORK of the law is written on their hearts. Their consciences testify in support of this, and their competing thoughts either accuse or excuse them on the day when God judges what people have kept secret, according to my gospel through Jesus Christ.” [HCSB; emphasis added ("WORK of the law" is also how ESV and NKJV translate the Greek)]
Via this site, you may read excellent articles by Geoff (et al.) regarding the reality that, contrary to WCF and BCF (1689), SCRIPTURE nowhere expressly teaches that what the confessions term “active obedience of Christ” is imputed to those in his will. It is not denied that “the life Jesus lived qualified Him for the death He died” — 2 Cor. 5:21 corroborates such; rather, Geoff, et al., demonstrated that what Scripture expressly teaches is that “the death He died qualifies me for the life He lived”.
If the One who knew no sin were not made to be sin for those in His will, no one could become the righteousness of God in Him. The KANON (rule, standard of measure) — perfection — was met by Jesus; those in His will are reckoned to be perfect and excape the Great White Throne judgment (Rev. 20 11, ff.).
For those in Jesus will, the judgment seat of Christ awaits (2 Cor. 5:10). What is the KANON by which we will be “repaid for the deeds done in the body, whether good or bad”? The law of Christ is the KANON … “cutting to the chase” … “[a]nd this is love: that we walk according to His comands”. 2 John 5. “For this is what love for God is: to keep His commands.” Ah, … the greatest commandment and the second one like unto it — albeit in reverse order.
Whether / to what degree one may “walk according to His commands” and / or “be conformed to the image of [Jesus]” via “transfom[ation] via the renewal of [the] mind” is a hypothesis which will be of no more use to any before the judgment seat of Christ for whom God sovereignly made what He’s revealed (Scripture) available than will the hypothesis pertaining to one before the Great White Throne judgment for whom neither written nor oral Scripture was made available will be for one for whom Scriptrue was made available.
I realize that much more may and ought to be said … and that — obviously — arguably complex (NOT “difficult”) Truth must be delineated. That said, I must leave it at that for now (I’m “late for the door”).
My question does not in any sense pertain to the forensic nature of the believers position in relation to God. A position of complete justification is assumed.
Geoff and others have asserted, quite rightly in accordance with scripture “For this is what love for God is: to keep His commands”, that works/obedience is the evidence that a believer has a new heart.
The new heart which the believer has (indwelt by the Holy Spirit) yearns not merely to obey, but to obey what is true. The content of the ‘commands’ is crucial and moreover absolute.
What I am driving at, is that without the kanon of Christ how will the believer know what is imperative and therefore absolute?
If God has at any point in the history of the church age left believers without the kanon of Christ (which He blatantly has seen fit to do), and we are asserting that the Holy Spirit brings the motivational factor with regard to obedience (Ezekiel 36 and Jeremiah 31), then how do the aforementioned believers know what is the moral will of God for their lives?
The spirit moves them in the same way he moves those who have access to the kanon of Christ, but they are without the content of that kanon. Do we observe such people living lives which have the mark of a believer who has access to the kanon of Christ (i.e. obedience to the objective content of God moral will? If so by what means is this possible?
If the answer to the above question is yes, then there seem to be only a couple of conclusions which can be drawn. Either the Holy Spirit brings content – in which case we are dealing with undefinable ‘promptings’ and extra biblical revelation (propositions which seem untenable) or the Holy Spirit motivates according to an innate law, the content of which we are not sure of and which can be railroaded easily (not to mention that it was conceived in sin).
Neither option sits particularly comfortably. If you have another suggestion I’d be pleased to hear it.
The reason I raise this question is because I have come across believers who have had little or no exposure to scripture throughout their lives, the Holy Spirit has convicted of sin, a gospel word as come to them from the mouth of a saint and they have believed and been saved by God’s grace. From that day they have had little or no contact with believers and no bible at their disposal and yet they claim a walk with the Lord during this time which was commensurate with the walk which they assumed once they had a bible placed in their hands.
So the question is where did the basis for this straight and narrow walk come from? We know how they were justified, but how did they begin to walk in a manner which was in accordance with the moral will of God?
Again, Tim: You’re raising pertinent issues which warrant attention. As I’ve just returned from a family gathering and must prepare for a morning hearing, I’ll — for now — merely suggest that the question at issue — as it is currently framed — is a logical fallacy (false alternative) and one which, if asked during a trial, would bring an objection (which would be sustained) that the question assumes facts not in evidence (indeed, which could not be in evidence)
You’ve noticably omitted reference to / relilance upon Romans 2; that’s good, as the end of that erroneous line is undeniably that Jesus is superfluous if the Gentiles (which, contrary to John MacArthur, does not refer to believers in Romans 2; rather, Paul meant by “Gentiles” what would have readily been understood by his audience: Non-Israelites and pagans or heathens) were already living according to the KANON against which believers will be measured at the bema seat.
Believers without Scripture probably do indeed live according the the WORK of the law written on their hearts; do they live according to Romans 12:9-21 (part of the law of Christ)?! Indeed, what percentage of professing Christians who have plentiful access to Scripture live according to Romans 12:9-21?!
Have you read Geoff’s accounts of his mission work in Belarus? Note carefully the nature of the work which he does there. How about those who may not consider themselves to be “teachers” who risk their lives to smuggle Scripture to people in places where Scripture is forbidden on pain and penalty of death? Then there’s the heir to the Borden fortune (Wm.?) who, decades ago, turned his back on that fortune and his just-completed university education (not really) and died in Africa while learning to translate Scripture into A frican languages? Famously, he wrote in his Bible (upon departure from USA, then arrival in Africa, then learning that he would soon die of malaria):
No return.
No reserves.
No regrets.
Another missionary martyr, Jim Elliot, may not have needed (to read and / or be taught) Scripture to understand that “[h]e is no fool who gives up what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose”; I doubt that we would know his name but for the impact of Scripture on him.
God, being sovereign, ensures that each of those in Jesus’ will is “given as much light” as is necessary to be conformed to Jesus’ image. That “[n]either option sits particularly comfortably” is for good reason: Ultimately, if the Holy Spirit brings content, Scripture is superfluous (and those who give / gave their lives in seeking to disseminate Scripture were foolish) or, as I’ve just contended, Jesus if superfluous*.
* Ultimately, believing that ethnic, national Israel will ultimately be saved BECAUSE of their “race” or that individuals will be saved BECAUSE their heredity includes them in the “covenant community” renders Jesus superfluous …. but that’s, of course, another matter entirely.
Jim, thanks for your time and thoughts. I completely agree with the opening comments in your last comment. The question is not one which springs from scripture, but from experience which is always subjective and difficult to pin down.
The role of the Holy Spirit in the life of the believer – the translation form being in flesh to in spirit – is one which needs this kind of discussion. Perhaps the spot light needs to be focused a little tighter yet. Carl B. Hoch suggests 4 key realms in which the Holy Spirit works in the life of the believer. Sailing close to the wind in his revelational suggestion, nevertheless he certainly seems to make some apt assertions regarding the work of the Holy Spirit beyond the motivational – that is not in any way to undermine the Holy Spirit’s motivational role!
He also points up the role of the Spirit in renewing the mind, will and affections and making them sensible to the newness of life in Christ. With regard to the mind, he refers to enlightenment, softening and comprehension of revelation. With regard to the affections/emotions a new yearning for those which are righteous and points out that the New Covenant scripture’s lists contain many emotive imperatives. With regard to the will, a new desire to submit to the sovereign will of God – “offering themselves as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God”.
These observations provide more meat which is valuable. The role of the Holy Spirit has been underplayed here in England, in my view, in fear of kowtowing to the Charismatic phenomenon. A realignment with the truth on this subject seems long overdue and is much needed.
Likewise, Tim; my pleasure (may it be that of our Lord as well!). I have a copy of Hoch’s ALL THINGS NEW; I learned of it via my first study of NCT — a paper by Pastor Ron Shinkle. Pat Rauh is a “mix” of you and Gabe in that he came to an understanding which is consistent with bona fide NCT without having heard of NCT, let alone read about it. That is, he — without the Truth-obscuring presuppositions of DT or CT — discerned Truth (as, of course, has bona fide NCT) to a remarkable degree. Pat is the first to challenge me wrt the meaning of Hebrews 10:16 (I will PUT my lawS on their HEARTs and WRITE them on their MINDs; we’ve sharpened each other in pursuit of such Truth, inter alia.
I mention Pat because he — unlike me — read All Things New shortly after receiving his copy; his review was “mixed” at best. Ultimately, he found it to be worth reading, but with numerous caveats.
Hoch’s DT “baggage”, as I recall, was a concern for Pat. Two days ago, I recommended Gary Gilley’s IS THAT YOU, LORD? Pastor Gilley is a “Friend[] of Israel; such doesn’t obscure Truth pertaining to so-called private revelation. Truth to which “all things new” pertains, however, is another matter. All that said, on your recommendation of the book vis a’ vis the instant issue(s), I plan to read it after I receive (tomorrow?) and read the first chapters of Edgar Andrews’ Galatians commentary and Moises Silva’s book which uses Galatians to teach exegetical method.
Man’s attempts to diminish the Holy Spirit has not, of course, been limited to England; to my knowledge, however, the Sabellian (modalistic) proclamation “In the beginning was the Torah, … and the Torah was God” (in ostensible support of the “silly notion” that Jesus — NOT His commandments — IS the law) is a unique (unwitting) attempt to diminish the Holy Spirit.
Gabe,
Steve Lehrer’s book is no longer available as he is no longer selling it. It is not available online. The only way that you could get a copy is through the used route. Geoff
Jim,
Thanks again for your interaction, but it might make your arguments more powerful if you would shorten your comments and smooth things out a bit.
Tim,
I agree with your assessment of the work of the Spirit. A believer without special revelation would grow slower, just look at Abraham. He had little doctrinal revelation on how to live before his Lord. All believers grow, but the rate of growth does seem commensurate with biblical tools for growth that is at their disposal (scripture, other believers, healthy church, etc.). Keep thinking the good thoughts. Geoff
Gabe,
Here is the link that Jim wanted me to pass it on to you. I would have given it to you sooner but I was out of town teaching.
http://www.christourcovenant.blogspot.com
Although I do disagree with some NCT brothers on the nature of the law of Christ I am not aware of any of them that are truly antinomian. I may view them as biblically inconsistent or I may say that they are describing their views in a way that gives the wrong impression, but I am not saying that they believe that we are under no objective moral obligation in the new covenant era. Let’s not overstate the case.
Res ipsa loquitur (”the thing speaks for itself)”, alas; that said, thanks, again, Geoff — sincerely.
Pastor Dustin Seegers* has begun to read and “blog” THE LAW OF CHRIST: A THEOLOGICAL PROPOSAL via his Grace in the Triad blog.
* http://www.graceinthetriad.blogspot.com (or, see his comment to previous post (”part one”) and click his name.
Geoff, just a heads up in case this hasn’t reached you yet, a chap called Jeremy Walker here in England has written a sketch view of what he calls neo-calvinism. He has 21 observations to make and it has received quite a bit of readership. You can find the post at this link:
http://eardstapa.wordpress.com/2010/05/25/neo-calvinism-considered/
Tim, much thanks for the link. Keep up your pursuit of biblical truth. Bye for now, Geoff
Tim ~
I did read ALL THINGS NEW last month; despite Prof. Hoch’s dispensational baggage, he got so much right! Anyone who understands that ethnic / national Israel was God’s “picture” people, vessels of wrath prepared for destruction (via the ministry of condemnation carved in letters on stone) and that the harlot was divorced (the exile) and stoned (A.D. 70, as delineated via Revelation) will benefit from reading ALL THINGS NEW.
Advocates of antinomianism-by-any-other-name may (surely, should) benefit especially from reading Prof. Hoch’s analysis of legalism and antinomianism and the essential role of the Holy Spirit in directing those who don’t quench Him. I’ve — of course — marked several of Prof. Hoch’s statements; I won’t quote them now … except for one:
“Whille the New Testament may reflect diversity, having variant theologies competing with one another is incongruent with the inerrancy of Scripture and unacceptable to this Writer.” (p.31)
Amen; despite Prof. Hoch’s desire that his work would lead to further pu;rsuit of the issues which he thereby raised, the ensuing decade-and-a-half was marked (marred) by system-driven theologians seeking to besmirch the likes of John Reisinger as antinomian because he rightly recognizes that the Ten Commandments are not the “rule of life” for Christians (JGR did and does recognize that nine of the ten partly comprise the law of Christ). Twisting Scripture to ostensibly teach that “In the beginning was the Torah, … ” so that one can claim to be indwelt by “Jesus, the new Torah” (the “indicative”) and concomitantly disavow NT imperatives is no less specious, spurious, and / or egregious.
How did you “find” the linked site, btw?
Jim, I’m glad you read the book. I don’t hold a dispensational position whatsoever, but like you I found the book (minus the baggage) really insightful. He has much good to say. I checked out Grace in the Triad and the post in question. I’m looking forward to getting my hands on Blake’s book and reading it for myself. One thing is for sure, there is some good conversation/debate reemerging. Thanks be to God. The subjects in question need refinement yet, at least in my understanding they do.
Thanks to Geoff and the like there are ever present forums. God willing they will continue.
Just picking up on something in your last comment. Until a short while back I was still using the language of 9 of the 10 commandments comprising part of the law of Christ, but I have recently reconsidered. A number of the nine in question in their original context contain clauses which are so explicitly Israel dependent that I don’t think there is room to say they form part of the law of Christ, (5 would be a good example with it’s land based promise). In wider discussions with people I have found that it confuses matters to introduce this concept.
I now speak of the imperatives within the law of Christ which resemble decalogue law. In other words it is not so much transplantation which has taken place, as it is a brand new law which happens to look like something we’ve seen before. I’d be intrigued to know what you (and others) think. The benefit is that is helps to retain the distinctiveness of the NC.
God has actually totally annulled the OC; in terms of substance, nothing gets brought over into the NC. When we see laws which look similar to those we’ve seen before, we shouldn’t be thinking, God has brought that over. We should be thinking, here is a law which God has seen fit to make in a similar vein to something we’ve seen before. This is brand new imperative.
Perhaps I’m overstating, but I hope you kind of get what I’m driving at.
As I commented wrt Blake White’s THE LAW OF CHRIST: A THEOLOGICAL PROPOSAL, there is reason to eagerly anticipate pursuit of Truth on a broader and more significant basis ~ ~
~ ~ oops …. first: I should have written “THE ESSENCE OF nine of the ten [commandments] partly comprise the law of Christ”; Amen to your “spot on” comments! ~~
~~ as I began reading this afternoon* Jason C. Meyer’s THE END OF THE LAW: MOSAIC COVENANT IN PAULINE THEOLOGY. The reason for such eager anticipation is that what we recognize as NCT is the subject of significant focus by increasing numbers of increasingly highly regarded theologians (many, of course, “connected” in some way to Southern Seminary in Louisville, KY). I expect to learn soon what Prof. Meyer means by “eschatological intervention” wrt the new covenant (eschatological intention is much better!); regardless, based on my limited reading this afternoon, the book is quite promising.
Alas, eager anticipation aside, Truth-stifling will, of course, continue. As much as I hope to learn that some of those who branded JGR as antinomian and who to this day insist that they have never sought to impose any aspect of the Old Covenant on Christians will confess their Truth-stifling, I hope even more that proponents of antinomianism-by-any-other-name as NCT will confess their Truth-stifling.
* I must mention: This afternoon, I finished reading THE BLUEPRINT: OBAMA’S PLAN TO SUBVERT THE CONSTITUTION AND BUILD AN IMPERIAL PRESIDENCY by former Amb. Ken Blackwell and Constitutional Lawyer Ken Klukowski; those who want to understand what is happening to USA — ultimately, the plan is international in scope — would do well to obtain and read the book post haste.
Excellent stuff…I’m glad to see people talking about Law in categories other than those given to us by Theonomic Reconstructionism.
I understand the issues of Law that are being debated here…. what has been the response of the Lee Irons controversy in NCT circles? Do you hold something similar to the Klinean view of Law and also of Culture? I’m getting beat up on another website by some Calvinistic Baptists who can’t seem to understand that I’m arguing against both the transformationalist Neo-Kuyperian view of Culture and Pietistic Separatism. The one leads to worldliness….the other to legalism. Both misunderstand the nature of law in the Christian life….no, the Christian Life in general and the nature of Culture. I’m arguing the Klinean view that Culture is the domain of Common Grace. Christ REIGNS over the universe but not everything is part of His HOLY REALM. Are those categories NCT is familiar with or is that foreign?
Is anyone here familiar with Douglas Moo’s Essay in the Point/Counterpoint series? I found it excellent….I would think???? some here would agree?
Sorry for all the questions. I read some NCT stuff several years ago and basically figured the movement to be a credobaptist version of the Vosian/Klinean Redemptive Historical Hermeneutic….in other words a shining light in the Baptist world!
If anyone could help me…you don’t have to give long answers if you don’t want, that would be great. I’m hoping to find some ‘baptist’ sources that maybe I could point these other folks to…and NCT is my only hope. Otherwise it would seem most Reformed Baptists are basically holding to the Westminster 3-fold division echoed in the 1689…at the very least, if not outright embracing Theonomy.
Great website.
God Bless,
Protoprotestant
http://proto-protestantism.blogspot.com/
Hi Proto,
You mentioned a topic that interests me: Kline.
what has been the response of the Lee Irons controversy in NCT circles?
None that I’m aware of. Can you briefly explain his view?
Do you hold something similar to the Klinean view of Law and also of Culture?
I’m not aware of many NCT’s who reference Kline (although I agree with his view that 2 covenants = 2 canons. Can you briefly explain his view of law? And how does he justify paedobaptism?
I’m arguing the Klinean view that Culture is the domain of Common Grace. Christ REIGNS over the universe but not everything is part of His HOLY REALM. Are those categories NCT is familiar with or is that foreign?
I’m not aware of an NCT view on culture. Is it relevant to NCT, which focuses on redemptive history, and the change from the OC to the NC?
Is anyone here familiar with Douglas Moo’s Essay in the Point/Counterpoint series? I found it excellent….I would think???? some here would agree?
Good essay. Also in that book, the Disp. essay on law was helpful, especially his distinction between the Law abolished for regulation, but not revelation.
I read some NCT stuff several years ago and basically figured the movement to be a credobaptist version of the Vosian/Klinean Redemptive Historical Hermeneutic
IMO, NCT’s primary herm. is that the NT CONSISTENTLY interprets the OT. NCT, CT, and Disp. are systems for structuring redemptive history from Gen. – Rev.
Hello Greg,
The Irons affair turned into a mess. He gives a full account of it at his website http://www.upper-register.com..
Basically he made some comments regarding how we, the church ought to view Homosexuals (in the cultural context, and in light of the so-called culture wars) and the whole thing got blown out of proportion and they ran him out. I don’t agree 100% with what he said, but I understand where he was coming from. It sounds strange to modern American Christian ears, but when you’re not thinking in terms of Holy Nation/Holy Culture….our identity as the church becomes a bit more clear and we look at culture differently…and the church certainly is freed from Nationalism and being a propaganda arm for the Republican Party. Anyway, that’s another issue…….
The issue with Irons was honed to his view of the law which he understands Redemptive-Historically. As you say, when you understand the canon principle and that the covenant forms cannot be divided up, keeping some portions and discarding others…you understand the Mosaic law has been fulfilled and in the New Covenant we are under the Melchizedekan priesthood. What’s that mean?
Well, Westminster has always argued the 3-fold division of the law, moral, civil, and ceremonial. The moral law is defined as the Decalogue. But the Klinean view argues the Decalogue is part of Moses and thus has actually been fulfilled. Moo does an excellent job demonstrating the Law of Christ is not the Decalogue. No one’s trying to say, we can’t read and benefit from the Decalogue….it is the Bible. But the common way it is looked at is an incoherent and inconsistent way of understanding the flow of the Bible and the relationship between old and new.
Most Reformed Baptists essentially follow the Westminster construct and are paedobaptists minus the sign. Although I would argue most paedobaptists in practice are Baptists…they give the sign, but then they don’t believe it. Their children are still in a provisional status and so later they do a dry-baptism called confirmation. Another issue…..
Of course as you probably know, the Theonomists collapse the Moral and Civil into one category and say if the Decalogue abides, so do the civil/penal sanctions.
Irons was arguing the whole Westminster construct is wrong and the denomination threw him out….basically over the Decalogue issue.
Obviously if the Decalogue isn’t upheld, you also lose the Sabbath, although most Klineans actually don’t seem to go quite as far as I would. They still hold to a Lord’s Day, but specify it is not the Sabbath. I know NCT doesn’t believe in the abiding validity of the Sabbath….but is it because the Decalogue is considered a fulfilled form? I used to be a sabbatarian but the argument for the eternality and immutability of the Decalogue and identifying it as the moral law didn’t make sense when the first thing they do is change it….moving the day. It led me to reconsider the whole question.
It sounds very strange to those who are unfamiliar with Klinean thought. But basically Redemptive-History is the core of the hermeneutic and so great emphasis is placed on development and the changes in form between the Old and New while also retaining the substance. That would be the difference I think between NCT and RH Covenant Theology……we see a more radicalized continuity/discontinuity understood by an RH hermeneutic. Most Covenant Theological systems see continuity and very little discontinuity…while if I understand NCT correctly you definitely get the discontinuity (which is good!) but don’t see any substantial continuity.
Dispensationalism has actually done much to Covenant Theology…..with Murray and others you see a big shift over to the Continuity side of things….do the point that Kline’s CT, especially his view of Moses is viewed as novel, which is odd because he’s actually, at least on the Covenant Theology part, arguing the historical position. The Puritans talk about the Mosaic covenant being a republication of the Covenant of Works…on a typological level. Modern Reformed Monism can’t grasp that.
Dispensationalists place the church into a parenthesis category…when Israel rejected Christ as Messiah, we went to a sort of plan B, a parenthesis called the church age which ended by the Rapture. Then once that happens, the parenthesis ends and we go back to plan A, the physical nation of Israel.
Kline argues the parenthesis concept is valid but it’s not the church, it’s Moses. In the OT, we have Abrahamic Covenant, which is proto-typical of the New…the New in substance as a gracious covenant, chronologically anticipatory and under different administrative forms. Moses is a parenthetical epoch, a temporary provisional period that is meant to bridge the chronology gap (as the Cross was yet, 14-15 centuries future), serve as tutor etc… He also argues on a typological level it was a republication of the Edenic Covenant of Works…a provisional order. Israel as a people were typologically Adam, the land of Israel is in the Biblical typology, Eden. As a corporate nation, they were given a conditional covenant that overlays, runs parallel to, but does not cancel the Abrahamic. As a nation they had to keep covenant…works. As individuals they lived under both regimes, but salvation was of grace…the Abrahamic.
Of course in the NT sometimes Moses is treated as gospel in shadow….pre-Christ. Sometimes when it’s taken alone as a covenant itself not in light of Christ…it’s set against Christ and called a yoke, an administration of death etc….
Paedobaptism comes from the fact that Moses is removed but the substance of the Abrahamic promise continues modified in form by the New Covenant era. However, the substance and form-core is reiterated in the New Testament. The debate then ends up being over what Paul means in Galatians about how we are children of Abraham…and how one reads Jeremiah 31. What is the unity principle at work in places live Ephesians 2 where it is stated we are members of Israel no longer strangers from the Covenants (plural) of Promise (singular)……issues like that. They ( and me too) would argue there’s a strong continuity but also a radical discontinuity.
Sorry for all that…but it’s complicated. I don’t agree with Kline on everything but in terms of the RH structure and the huge principle which you mention…..the NT interprets the OT….that’s huge. Your absolutely right, the other camps start with OT shadow, form, idiom, etc… and then impose it on the NT.
I was just curious about the culture issue because most people with the inverted hermeneutic are thinking in terms of Israel as a social model for nations like America rather than a true Theocracy serving a redemptive-historical purpose at a certain place and time. I guess what I’m saying is….they’re misunderstanding the relationship between Old and New and then viewing culture as a holy kingdom building institutional structure….which it was in OT Israel. But the Holy nation today is the church, not America or any other nation. Is culture building….art, music etc….Holy Kingdom activity? Or part of the Common Grace order. That’s not say we don’t still have to live like Christians and glorify God as we interact with culture. But we don’t have to conquer it (turning the City of Man into the City of God)…nor do we flee from it (degrees of monasticism).
Maybe NCT hasn’t spent as much time focusing on it….just curious. I think all these issues play out in what happens culturally….look at the culture-war stuff over the Decalogue, the ‘Christian Nation’ discussions…or even issues surrounding war. You start hearing arguments like…hey, in the Canaanite conquest, Israel was told to wipe everyone out…ergo, America can do that in Iraq! Yikes.
Kline deals with issues like this in his discussions of Intrusion Ethics. It seems like all these issues come together….hermeneutics, OT/NT relationship, the Law, Culture, Kingdom. I saw a good Law discussion happening….and, I just had to jump in.
While Kline gets attacked the most over the Framework Hypothesis (which I understand but don’t agree with), it would seem the greatest hostility is generated over the Two Kingdoms issue. It just makes most Evangelicals hyperventilate. What’s really odd is that almost the entire Evangelical world has shifted in the last 30 or so years….Dispensationalists are talking in Kuyperian terms and though it makes no sense at all in light of their eschatology….they act like Post-mil Dominionists! Instead of the Christendom of the medieval order…it’s America.
Great stuff here. I think you’re right, the NCT is basically something of the Baptist version of Redemptive Historically Theology. While we differ over the forms, whether there’s any continuity between Old and New, the hermeneutics concerning Jer. 31 etc…overall, the theology here is a breath of fresh air. The Sacralism and Monism of the American Protestant scene is rather stifling.
What do NCT churches do with paedobaptists who might attend? Just curious…..I know there aren’t too many around. Is the movement growing?
Proto
http://proto-protestantism.blogspot.com/
Proto, please use your name in future blogs. Thanks for your comments. NCT has no view on culture because God’s law in the New Covenant era does not speak to transforming culture. We are to be salt and light to an unbelieving world but there is no biblical agenda regarding the transformation of culture. You would have to go to the Mosaic Law of the Old Covenant era to gain a biblical agenda on culture. But, since the Mosaic Law came to an end with the end of the Old Covenant we have no marching orders from our heavenly father regarding this issue. Bye for now, Geoff
Geoff,
I completely agree with what you wrote.
But what does that look like in the NCT movement? Generally speaking, do most go for the Christian America-type thinking…maybe without working that all out in light of what you said in your post?
Default Conservative Politics? Just wondering. I see a little bit of that here.
From my standpoint…this is just me mind you….I actually see a president like George Bush as being much worse than Obama because of the Sacralist language he employed…using Biblical redemptive language and applying it to the United States….helping to foster the Holy War type imagery in the middle eastern wars. I don’t know if anyone here knows what I mean? Maybe a discussion of Klinean Intrusion Ethics is in store (smile)
With Obama…believe me I’m no supporter of him either….well, I’m a pretty zealous reader and I don’t see him being Marxist….actually the leftist writers that I read (I read a bit of everything)…they actually see him as center-right. He’s a politician, and I think he’s probably more of a pragmatist, than an idealist.
None of this really matters…I guess what I’m saying is with him, nobody’s fooled by the Christian part with him. So for America…well his policies or Bush’s policies may be one thing…
But for the church….he’s actually perferrable to Bush.
I realize that will probably upset some folks…but I’m curious to see if anyone here knows what I’m saying.
Thanks,
John A.
Protoprotestant
if I understand NCT correctly you definitely get the discontinuity (which is good!) but don’t see any substantial continuity.
We believe in continuity in 2 areas…
1. Pre-history: God’s one eternal purpose in Christ
2. Redemptive history: One saving gospel of Christ
Paedobaptism comes from the fact that Moses is removed but the substance of the Abrahamic promise continues modified in form by the New Covenant era.
But isn’t that inconsistent with Kline’s view that the Church’s authority comes from the NC canon, not the OC canon?
Redemptive-History is the core of the hermeneutic
I ask this question of everyone here: How would you define the primary herm. of the 4 major systems we’ve discussed…
1. Covenant Theology: The unity of the covenant of grace?
2. Klinian RH-CT: ?
3. Disp: Literal, grammatical-historical , author’s intent?
4. NCT: The NT consistently interprets the OT?
How would everyone here (including Geoff) define those herm’s?
P.S. When we consistently apply the herm. “The NT interprets the OT,” it will result in NT ecclesiolgy, NT nomology, and NT eschatology.
I think the older forms of Covenant Theology saw Unity/Disunity…but since Turretin—> to Princeton—->to especially 20th century Covenant Theology there has been a progressive Monocovenantalism.
Obviously those who I say are holding to that….well, they disagree!
But I would say despite some of Kline’s shall we say novel constructions?….on Covenant Theology he’s old school. The Covenant of Works framework he espouses with the Mosaic law being understood typologically as a republication of the Covenant of Works…the Puritans taught that.
But to answer your question…I would say…..
Modern Cov. Theology…….Monistic hermeneutics
Varying degrees of course, depending on who you talk to. Actually most Presbyterians are really pretty much Baptists that sprinkle babies. Most of them find no meaning at all in it….won’t even speak of terms of them being ‘in covenant’. They speak of Covenant only in the eternal sense. If I’m not mistaken, isn’t that also what NCT does? Covenant is only an eternal category? That’s not an accusation…just wanting a clarification.
Klinian……Unity/Disunity Same substance….different forms…
the gospel stays the same….the visible covenant promises stay the same……the forms overlaying the substance change with the dispensational shift. Melchizedec not Aaron….etc…
Dispensational…..rests on the Israel plan A, Church plan B distinction
They don’t put it that way very willingly…but if you read the old guys, they admit it. It’s the core of their system. Take that away and it all crashes.
They read the NT in light of the OT with the Israel Plan A presupposition in mind. After that…it’s an almost juvenile (sorry) way of reading and interpreting Bible prophecy.
The Postmils have the same inverted hermeneutic. I think I can say that here??? There shouldn’t be any NCT postmills…..
As far as NCT…..I’m not qualified to really answer that, but I’ll take a stab. The NT interprets the OT (like Kline) but interprets the Covenants in only visible/temporal terms???? What I as a paedo- might call forms? There’s no…visible form/eternal reality kind of category is there, or am I misunderstanding? If that’s true…well, yes, then I would say there’s no continuity.
As far as the canon…..hmmm., that’s a good point. I think it goes back to the issue of forms. The canon is the visible/temporal form….some people just simply say Covenant and then speak of the invisible eternal category as Election. I don’t like that because I think the terms Covenant and Election can be applied visibly or invisibly….but, I think if the canon is understood as Covenant Form Document….and the substance of the gospel promise is understood as trans-covenantal…you can span the gap.
For example in one sense…Abraham was in the Old Covenant.
In another sense the Old Covenant is used to refer to the exclusive Mosaic Order which as we know per Galatians was the parenthetical period if I may call it that. In this sense, it’s almost like Abraham wasn’t part of it. He was pre-.
And in another sense Abraham was in his own Covenant.
And in another sense the Abrahamic Covenant is viewed as a sort of proto-type of the new and yet the same in substance.
What is the substance? Well, the gospel.
A paedobaptist simply adds a promisory element to the Form…which includes the to you and your children.
I know everybody doesn’t agree with that….I’m just trying to kind of explain where the thinking comes from.
I don’t know….well, I do know, the average Reformed guy isn’t thinking in quite that multi-layered fashion. They’re usually thinking in terms of oh…about 85% of the OT is still valid….but then they won’t admit Ishmael or Esau were visibly in the Covenant which doesn’t make any sense. Most of the time Baptists can make them look pretty inconsistent and foolish.
If you don’t allow a visible/invisible…form/substance distinction then I certainly understand why you would say Ishmael wasn’t in the covenant…but it doesn’t make sense for a Presbyterian to say that.
Have I confused anyone? Please feel free to contradict me…it’s a profitable exercise…for all I hope.
Protoprotestant
John A.
John,
NCT sees the covenants in terms of picture and fulfillment. The old covenant is the picture covenant, the new covenant is the fulfilment covenant. The Abrahamic covenant is an overarching covenant and is fulfilled twice, once in the old covenant (language of the picture) and once in the New Covenant (the real deal). I think, although others may disagree, that NCT is by and large baptistic and amil in it’s escatology. However, there are plenty who have other persuasians too. I suggest you take some time and have a read/listen to the resources made available on this site.
Tim,
Thanks for the note….
I basically agree with what you’re saying…..I guess the difference would be…though I also see the New Covenant as ‘the real deal’…I also see the need for a visible form of the Covenant. We’re are indeed Already but we’re still not-yet. By disallowing a visible adminstration of the covenant I would be concerned with having an over-triumphalist view of the church.
I’ll get my head bit off here…but I think that’s the issue with Jer. 31. I think that’s too often being read in a Triumphalist manner.
It’s just like the Isaiah 65 passage. We see that fulfilled provisionally now…but ultimately that’s a picture of heaven. Or I could even say…it’s actually fulfilled rather than provisionally…but there’s a tension between this age and the age to come.
I would see something of the same thing with the Abrahamic arrangement. On the one hand in a comparitive sense Abraham had salvation just as we do and thus despite the anachronism was in the New Covenant.
On the other hand, in a chronological sense he was 2000 years before Christ and not in the New Covenant.
So the substantial reality due to the chronological delay had to be administered through a visible administration.
That’s where it get tough…is the visible administration just an abstraction? I would say no. Visibly Ishmael and Esau were in the covenant….invisibly, of course not. But we don’t have the invisible perspective for individuals today (and only for a few in the Bible)…we have only the revealed will, the administrative sense.
So, on the one hand yes, I agree we can speak of fulfilment…we can speak in terms of a sort of actualized eschatology. All has been fulfilled…but we’re still in the not-yet.
Despite all that….we’re still largely on the same page because almost everyone else has compressed the two covenants into one.
I greatly appreciate this site…..
When you say by and large baptistic……isn’t it all baptistic? What I mean is…..Isn’t NCT by definition a baptist theology?
Thanks.
John A.
Protoprotestant
John,
Regarding your comments above on Abraham. NCT, as far as I am aware universally considers the New Covenant a distinctly new entity at the cross. Christ’s words at the last supper – “this is the new covenant in my blood” – nail it down as a brand new covenant. Indeed the future tense language of Jeremiah 31 gives us at least a sense that the new covenant had not yet been inaugurated. It was yet to come.
The ‘visible’/'invisible’ language is unnessasary and more confusing – especialy because it is non biblical. Abraham was a believer, but in order to be a believer he did not need the new covenant to be active in an invisible sense. The work of the cross need only be applied retroactively in order for Abraham to receive his full forgiveness of sins.
The bible speaks nowhere of the New covenant opperating in administrations or invisibly. Abraham was a believer with whom God entered into covenant. David, for example was a believer under the old covenant. Paul, a believer under the new covenant. All of them have saving faith in common and the work of Christ imputed to their account either retroactively or in advance of their faith. Hence we read in Hebrews at the end of the passage on faith in chapter 11, “These were all commended for their faith, yet none of them received what had been promised. God had planned something better for us so that only together with us would they be made perfect.”
The acomplishement of their perfection and our perfection was a simultaneous event which occurred in Christ at the cross, however our lives were/are not [being] lived out under the same covenant.
True believers pre the cross were new covenant believers in the sense that they were the recipients of the same new covenant work that we are the recipients of, but they lived as either old covenant saints or no-covenant saints.
Covenant Theology has big problems with the idea that people could be saved outside of the new covenant because it recognises the new covenant as being inherantly gracious. In order to harmonise the newness of the new covenant with the perpetuity of salvation throughout the history of mankind, it introduces a phony covenant (covenant of grace) with administrations. Thus it allows for people saved by grace throughout all time, whilst maintaining the evident discontinuity in the bible. The problem is that this discontinuity is only a token gesture. It is expressed only in terms of two administrations and not in terms of the two covenants which Hebrews is at pains to make clear.
Hope this helps.
Thanks for the comments.
You’ve hit the core issue here that separates the camps so to speak.
It’s a question of how we read the Bible and how our logic interacts with the text. I contend starting the Incarnation we see continually an interplay between categories like eternal/substance/invisible and temporal/form/visible. If we don’t recognize this we’re going to pick one side of the scale and filter all of our theology though it.
Standard Covenant Theology focuses on Unity….which is the substantial relationship between the Covenants.
NCT and Dispensationalism focus on the Disunity or Development which focuses on the shift in forms.
Paul says in Romans they’re not all Israel who are of Israel.
or to re-phrase that if I may…they’re not all the covenant people who are of the covenant people.
You he says those who are not True Israel are not actually in covenant right?
…in some form. They are still Israel (covenant people). Ishmael and Esau were circumcised….they were in covenant, but also not in covenant. Two fold application….dynamic tensions between visible forms and eternal realities. It’s everywhere in the Bible.
But they’re not actually IN the covenant.
You would be right to say that…..but again Paul says both. They’re both true. In time as the covenants are administered by form…the status is real….even though it might not be real at the eschaton.
Is that contradiction? Well, if you’re going to employ Rationalist hermeneutics.
It’s supra-logical, because it deals with metaphysical eternal categories interacting with time. Why is it supra logical and not illogical? Because we’re fallen…we can’t understand Metaphysics. We have to be regenerated to do begin to understand it…and only then with God’s Revelation to us. Our fallen nature uses two-dimensional logic which is fine for building bridges, governments, medicine, and things like that. But when we employ it is the standard in interpreting the Bible…we can get into trouble. If we don’t use it we can get into trouble too….mysticism.
If we read all of the Bible through the lens of the Eternal/invisible perspective…then all externals are basically meaningless or as you put it…a token gesture. On one level that’s true…..at the eschaton the visible forms won’t mean much anymore…everything will be reconciled and integrated. But we’re not there yet.
We have to hold both sides…and understand Christ was Human and Divine…we live in the Already and the Not yet….we are definitively sanctified, we are being progressive sanctified, some can be in the covenant and yet not be in the covenant. We can be in God’s will and yet out of His will. Baptism saves, it doesn’t save at all. We are eternally secure, our salvation is condition, This world is God’s Kingdom, it’s not His Kingdom..The Scriptures speak in all these terms. I don’t want to explain away portions to fit my grid. I know you don’t want to either.
A point of the Abraham argument in Romans is that he was saved just like us. The Holy Spirit regenerated him…even though the Holy Spirit chronologically had not yet been given. The New Covenant is mediated by the Prophet-Priest-King Jesus Christ…and the Old was mediated by Moses…but all those who were saved including Moses were in the New Covenant…even though they were also in the Old.
These dynamics are everywhere in Scripture. If we don’t see them we end up either focusing on the visible/administrative side of things….and end up Roman Catholics or Anglicans who are sacerdotalists, or a nuanced way of applying it gives you Arminianism.
Or we focus exclusively on the invisible/eternal side of the things and end up often Hyper-Calvinists… and mono-covenantal….and Baptist.
Arminian Baptists are the most inconsistent. Soteriology is all constructed in visible terms and yet their ecclesiology is all invisible.
NCT is very interesting because as a theology it is grasping a little of the interplay I think….you certainly see the disunity…the two kingdoms, the already-not yet.
It’s all in Romans and Hebrews my friends and I used to say. They both deal with the OT/NT and Invisible/Visible interplays. I’m sorry you don’t like the terms but the concepts are very much there.
I find most arguments between Credos and Paedos end up being something of a waste of time. They usually don’t address these fundamental issues. Most Paedos today are not thinking in categories like I just laid out and thus do indeed come across looking pretty bad when they’re debating Baptists. They see something of the visible/forms in the Scripture, but they won’t ascribe them any meaning and thus their system doesn’t make much sense.
I don’t expect to change your mind. But I do hope maybe some will benefit from the exchanges and recognize some of the larger issues.
It’s about the place of logic in our hermeneutics. Do we allow the Bible to speak…and leave the tensions or are we required to synthesize and systematize? Are the contradictions real or apparent?
I’m immediately suspicious of systems that have lots of problem texts…
Great discussions……
John the Protoprotestant
The law of Christ is that which he gave on the mount in Matthew 5 through 7.
Wounded Ego, Thank you for participating but I need you to give your real name for this blog. I would see the law of Christ as everything that we are to do or not do in this era (New Covenant era). I would certainly agree with you that the sermon on the mount is part of the law of Christ. Thanks again for writing. Geoff
As to the new covenant, like the law of the Jews, it is only relevant to the Jews. See Jeremiah 31 (the whole chapter) and you will see that you gentiles have no part of that covenant.