Jon, I'm not much of a Presbyterian but I reject this argument in this setting when you are following the writings of a few guys who got together to come up with NCT. So much of the confusion on this site comes from people who have determined that no one who ever came before them had the insight they did in actually reading scripture.
Here's a good example. This is not what is meant here. Most primitive cultures lived by the feud. You do something to me and I'll wipe out you and your whole family. The Law came up with the idea of proportional justice, which was one of the greatest moments in human history. We still do it today. If my gun goes off accidently or if a child drowns in my pool I am not now in a blood feud but my life is ruined. The Old Testament even makes a difference between someone coming into your house at night vs the daylight. That's a misrepresentation to suggest that the law stated that society had to kill someone over an accidental death.
The whole point they make is that the chief difference in NCT is regarding the law. They believe that the moral law IS ended. Like I said, if they are replacing it with the teachings of Christ and the teachings in the Epistles then that is fine but if they are insisting on it being a matter of your inner light or if it involves everything somehow being found in Christ and put in you in some unexplained way the there might be big problems. Walking by the Spirit does not mean walking by the law, but it also does not mean you have gotten beyond the need to look at specific scriptural principles and apply them to your life using your rational mind (now renewed) and experimentally seeing how this works.
The Covenant of Works
Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by JonC, May 10, 2023.
Page 3 of 7
-
We don't have, and don't pretend to have any connection to the semi-feudal world the Puritans lived under, where church attendance was mandatory and most of the congregation was thus unsaved. We have no concept of the way they were involved in government (they were almost all paid by the government) or the way church and state were intertwined. And personally, I have seen a marked cooling of interest in Puritan writings in just the last 15 years. They are still drug out when making a point but they are indeed considered too fanatical for modern tastes, and way too introspective for modern sensitive people so prone to mental problems. They don't do anything for your self esteem. -
(I don't mean you, but I mean that as a general observation).
The two easiest and most shallow approaches to Scripture I have witnessed are emotional approaches that are focused on internal emotions or feelings and legalistic approaches that are focused on external behavior. -
NCT, Covenant Theology, and Dispensationalism all look to those who came before (Dispensationalism has the oldest references).
But applied theology is always contemporary or it is obsolete. There is a place for historical theology, but it is not extracting historical ideas and placing them into the modern church. When that is done you end up with a new version of an old system that died out for a reason.
It appears to me that you have not yet understood the point NCT makes when it quotes Scripture by insisting we are no longer under the Law.
You have not come to terms with the fact that NCT holds that God's moral law (not the "so called moral law" of Covenant Theology) is eternal because it is an expression of God's moral nature.
You are arguing by using a type of shell game. The NCT point is that God's moral law is the Law of Christ and that this law ESTABLISHED the Old Covenant Law. -
I will try to go back and read Dr. Moo's article. It's fairly long. But even with him, what he does is basically go on and on about this theology which is some kind of modified Lutheran view and then in his conclusion he says he would have no trouble with a Reformed colleague who took the approach of going by the Old Testament Law. -
John Piper is the same. He says that his view is closest to NCT, but he also says that is not exactly his view
I'm probably the same, too. NCT is the traditional position of Reformed Baptists and I am not a Reformed Baptist (I would certainly not agree with many NCT adherents).
Why do you believe Paul said that we are not under the Law? Do you agree or disagree with his claim? -
Now there are two conclusions. One is that if you really mean that in your mind you choose to read the commandments from the New Testament only, I guess that is fine. But why the problem with saying, as the Puritan's and the Covenant theologians said, that this can be done by using the 10 commandments as a rule of life? If it's the same thing. Moo actually says he doesn't mind so maybe that is the answer and if so I withdraw my complaints against NCT.
Not Subject to the Law - a sermon from Dr. Martyn Lloyd Jones -
This is an issue with Covenant Theology. They are so indoctrinated in the use of non-biblical covenants that there seems to be confusion on the biblical ones.
The Old Covenant Law was a covenant between God and Israel. That, not God's moral law, is what Paul refers to as the Law which ended. And that is what NCT refers to as the Law which ended. -
This sounds an awful lot like the book Tullian Tchividjian wrote using rehashed Lutheran theology. It had a lot of antinomianism in it and he quickly went on to show how it works in real life. (I think it was "Jesus Plus Nothing Equals Everything" or something like that.)
We just disagree about what NCT says. I think that the NCT teaches that the use of the 10 commandments as a "rule of life" is over and done and it would be wrong, according to them to teach that. From there there seems to be a division among themselves. Some think in practice that this means since between Jesus teaching and that of the Epistles ALL the Decalogue is restated except the Sabbath rules then all they are doing in my opinion is messing up someone's chance to read a passage of the Old Testament and just directly meditate on it and use it to their benefit. But the other group is actually trying to teach a more inner light type of philosophy, where you develop an ability to short circuit any rational discovery of God's will for you in specific terms because you now have these written on your heart. You are free an even obligated to come up with this spirit led plan for your behavior based on your personal belief of what the law written on your heart tells you to do.
What could possibly go wrong there? Well we see it. It could be an amicable divorce, as long as all parties end up with greater happiness, it could be that "love is love" so let's not look to specific rules on this. It could mean that elimination of poverty, or Critical Race Theory is elevated to a "gospel issue" because I have been guided in that by the law in my heart. It could mean that the worship of God can be transformed to a '80's soft rock concert if your new heart gives you the go ahead. -
Also, @JonC . If you like NCT, and if you believe it like the one branch, where everything in the Old Testament is just taught better and more completely in the New - you still are going to have to reconcile something in your own mind. If you read their section on the covenants in that paper it is clear that although they believe the covenants to be fulfilled, they do not think they were not Biblical or logical. They seem to have no problem with any of the covenants as to their truth or importance in their proper context.
-
Paul even teaches us this when he explains sin before the Old Covenant Law was given.
Cain sinned when he murdered Able even though this occurred before the Old Covenant Law was given. Noah sinned when he became drunk. Moses sinned when he murdered the Egyptian.
NCT bases God's moral law on God Himself - on His nature - rather than on a covenant given to Israel through Moses.
The problem with your limiting God:s moral law to a specific period and people group in history is that you are ignoring God's sovereignty and immutable nature.
God's moral law is and always was, per NCT, applicable to all mankind for all times. It applied before the Old Covenant Law was given. And it applies universally (not just to those people under the Old Covenant).
All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. This applies even before the Old Covenant Law, and to people Scripture says we're not under the Old Covenant Law. -
NCT views the biblical covenants to be pointing to Christ. This does not mean they did not have additional immediate significance. NCT holds that the four redemptive covenants in the text of Scripture (Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, and Davidic) point to the Promise (Christ, the New Covenant).
The Old Covenant is the Mosaic Law (it is called the "Old Covenant" because it is God's covenant with Israel as His elect nation).
The difference is where NCT interprets the Old Covenant as pointing to the New Covenant and being fulfilled in Christ, Covenant Theology interprets biblical covenants as different administrations of "covenants" that are not even in the Bible. They ignore all biblical covenants in that sense (they make the covenants in the Bible less actual covenants and more expressions of their own theoretical "covenants").
Why do you believe God had no moral law before the Old Covenant was given? How do you interpret Paul's insistence that those who lived before Moses still sinned, just apart from the Law? -
40. The Ten Commandments are not "God's eternal moral law" first written on the heart of man at creation and forever binding upon all mankind.
41. The Decalogue is not "transcovenantal".
I'm not the one limiting God's moral law to a specific period, they are, and you too, if you agree with them. -
I have to be honest with you. I could easily be all wet on this New Covenant Theology stuff. But when I read the stuff @Martin Marprelate wrote explaining covenant theology in general and when I listen to Lloyd-Jones explain the proper role of the law for a Christian I find that what we call Reformed theology seems more linear and clear and easier to follow. There is something slightly off with NCT as expressed in their paper but I just don't have the ability to explain it well. But I think there is a reason that it is not really a "thing" as of yet. The fact that Piper somewhat endorses it doesn't surprise me. He somewhat endorsed Mark Driscoll, Critical Race Theory, and sometimes comes up with outrageous comments on certain issues.
So right now, in my opinion, NCT may have a few problems. But if not, then it's so close to what's already being taught that I don't see the need for it. To me, if you have problems with using a covenantal overlay for studying theology then just go with some form of dispensationalism like MacArthur does. -
NCT says that the Mosaic Law is not God's moral law.
That was where you drew a line, insisting that NCT was wrong to view the Mosaic Covenant as not over us today.
But with your last two posts, you sound closer to NCT than you previously indicated. -
Yes, NCT holds that we are not under the Old Covenant Law (which they define as the Law of Moses). That was a covenant between God and Israel starting at a particular stage in Israels development.
Yes, NCT believes we are not to live under the Law of Moses but the Law of Christ.
You got that part right.
Where you seem to struggle is in the fact you constantly equate God's moral law with the Law of Moses in dealing with NCT.
NCT believes the moral aspects of the Law of Moses are based on God's moral law BUT are not that law itself.
In other words, people who sinned before the Mosaic Covenant was given to Israel (those forefathers to whom God said the Covenant did not apply) were still under God's moral law.
Gentiles who Paul says are not under the Old Covenant Law were still under God's moral law. -
-
NCT does not say ANY of God's moral laws are obsolete.
The only difference here is you view God as restating moral parts of the Mosaic Law where NCT views the Mosaic Law as being established by Christ (by God, His moral law).
And there is a difference in authority. You objected to NCT saying we are not under the Mosaic Law but instead under the Law of Christ. NCT views our obedience to the moral laws as obedience to Christ (if you love Him you will obey His commandments).
Granted, either way one will refrain from sinful actions. But the NCT places the reason we obey in the person of Christ - we are to be holy because He is holy - rather than obedience to a covenant God gave to a specific people at a specific time in the Old Testament.
What does NCT add? Nothing. That is the point. Rather than developing a system of extra-biblical covenants NCT relies on Christ.
Covenant Theology uses "covenants" that are forced into the biblical narrative. The covenant of works is unbiblical and based on a logical fallacy. The covenant of redemption is extra-biblical and tries to establish theology by going around Christ. The covenant of grace is unbiblical and extracts all significance from the covenants that are actually in the Bible.
Whether right or wrong NCT takes its authority from Scripture and it's view literally from what is written in the text of God's Word.
Whether right or wrong Covenant Theology takes its authority from men who were wrestling with Roman Catholicism and imposed a way of viewing Scripture that supported their understanding.
Why criticize NCT, even if you think it incorrect, when Covenant Theology is complete extra-biblical in its framework? -
Martin Marprelate Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
The covenant of works is very clearly found in Scripture. God has appointed a covenant with the day and the night (Jeremiah 33:25). He has not asked for the agreement of day and night, but simply appointed it.
As I have shown, Genesis 2:15-17 contains all the aspects of a Biblical covenant. God makes a gracious provision for the man, give, both for his pleasure and sustenance, gives him simple tasks to do and sets a condition for the continuance of the covenant. To cavil that the word 'covenant' does not appear is to adopt the same attitude that Jehovah's Witnesses take against the Trinity. The word does not appear; therefore the doctrine must be false.
But in fact the covenant of works clearly appears in Hosea 6:7. 'But like Adam they transgressed the covenant; there they dealt treacherously with Me.' The Hebrew word keadam can also be translated as 'like men' as it is in the KJV and elsewhere, but that is a tautology. Of course they acted like men - they were men! To translate keadam as 'like Adam' is far more revealing.
The Hebrew word only occurs twice more in the O.T. SFAIK: in Job 31:33, we read, 'If I have covered my transgressions as Adam, by hiding my iniquity in my bosom,' speaks of Adams hiding from the Lord after the Fall into sin (Genesis 3:8-10). In Psalms 82:7, 'But you shall die like men' is again a tautology; of course they will die like men - they are men! To translate as 'You shall all die like Adam' is much more powerful. -
Martin Marprelate Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Jeremiah 31:31-34. Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: 32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: 33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD; for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.
So in what way does the text say that new covenant differs from the covenant made with the Israelites when they came out of Egypt? It differs in respect of where the law was written. Under the old covenant, the law was written on tablets of stone; under the new, it is written on the hearts of its people. This is seen very clearly in the conditional nature of the Sinaitic covenant as opposed to the unconditional nature of verse 34 and also of the covenants of promise.
Gen 9:11(Noahic). Thus I establish My covenant with you: Never again shall all flesh be cut off by the waters of the flood.”
Gen 12:2 (Abrahamic). “I will make you a great nation; I will bless you and make your name great; and you shall be a blessing……….And in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.”
1Chron 17:11 (Davidic). “And it shall be, when your days are fulfilled, when you must go to be with your fathers, that I will set up your seed after you, who will be one of your sons; and I will establish his kingdom.”
Exod 19:5 (Sinaitic). “Now therefore if you will indeed obey My voice and keep My covenant, then you shall be a special treasure to Me above all people.”
The “I will” of the covenants of promise contrasts with the “if you will” of the Sinaitic. Note also the “He will” when the New Covenant is announced.
Matt 1:21. “…..And you shall call His name Jesus for He will save His people from their sins.”
Luke 1:32. “He will be great and will be called the Son of the Highest; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father, David.”
‘For all the promises of God In Him are Yes, and in Him, Amen, to the glory of God’ (2Cor 1:20). The covenants of promise are fulfilled in Christ.
Compare also Exodus 19:5-6 with 1 Peter 2:9-10. The old covenant was broken by Israel because God's law was written on stone tablets. The new covenant will not be broken because that same law is written on the hearts His new covenant people.
That it is the same law that was written on stone tablets which is now written on the hearts of believers is shown in 2 Corinthians 3:1-8. Here Paul uses the very same words to speak of the stone tablets in the LXX in Exodus 31:18 and 34:4. The ceremonial and judicial laws of Israel were not written on stone, but in a book (Exodus 24:3-7; compare with verse 12). These laws are not written on the hearts of believers; only that which was written on the stone tablets is now written on believers' hearts.
Page 3 of 7