1689 Federalism compared to New Covenant Theology & Progressive Covenantalism
Вставка
- Опубліковано 6 чер 2013
- Discover how the covenant theology of the 2nd London Baptist Confession compares to New Covenant Theology and Progressive Covenantalism. www.1689federalism.com
NOTE: Samuel Renihan has published a lengthy review of Genry and Wellum's "Kingdom Through Covenant" in the 2014 issue of the Journal of the Institute of Reformed Baptist Studies. It is now available online for free: www.1689federalism.com/kingdom...
Thanks for the video. I appreciate the irenic tone and respectful dialogue. My only complaint is Dr. Renhan's insistence that NCT has no footsteps in church history. I believe the Zaspel & Wells have presented a thorough presentation for the historicity of NCT's view on the law in their book New Covenant Theology. Being one who is struggling with these issues, at present I land somewhere between 1689 federalism and progressive covenantalism. This video has stirred me to deeper study, thanks.
Right. The idea that NCT is without historical precedent is unfounded. David H. Gay has written much on this, and I recommend his work, "NCT: New Kid On The Block?"
Thank you, I hope to look into this more. Your comments below have also been helpful.
Thank you! Do you have recommended books for addressing these concerns?
Take a look at the "Reading List" on the site, as well as the "Additional Resources" section of the site, under the tag "Progressive Covenantalism" and "NCT"
Ok not trolling completely new to this channel and the men in the video.what is the mans name who’s speaking at time stamp 1:03?
James Renihan, Dean of IRBS twitter.com/IRBS_1689
Where can one see 1689 Federalism and Progressive covenantalism compared more exhaustively? (Preferably in book form)
Ryan, here are two essays interacting with PC: www.1689federalism.com/tag/progressive-covenantalism/
For book length, see Renihan's The Mystery of Christ, His Covenant, and His Kingdom. I don't believe it directly interacts at length with PC, but it does set forward the 1689 Fed system so you can compare to PC if you are familiar with PC.
Hi Jesus,
Thanks for watching. If the purpose was to provide an overview and introduction to NCT, then yes, it would be better to interview NCT theologians. But since the purpose is actually to explain 1689 Federalism in contrast to NCT, the chosen speakers worked very well. If you feel anything has been misrepresented, feel free to note it here.
Brandon,
I have dissociated myself from NCT in its most popular current form. There are two major departures from what we originally taught. Some are suggesting that there is no objective standard for the NC believer's conduct and others are teaching that there is no preceptive obedience of Christ that imputed to his believing people. I, of course, reject both those views and have told them so in somewhat strident terms.
Much of what you are calling 1689 Federalism is what I and others were writing and teaching 30 years ago under the title NCT, but our views were rejected out of hand.
The misrepresentations of our views occurs in the video on NCT. I would suggest that you have a proponent of the original NCT view explain that view and then show how that view differs from the view you hold.
Brandon,
This is what I wrote in a booklet titled, "The Cross- The Heart of NCT"
Continuity of Righteous Standard
God has only one standard of righteousness. The principles of righteousness that provide the foundation for every administration of God's sovereign purpose arise from the character of the law-giver Himself, not from the epochal, cultural, and geographical situations in which those principles are articulated. The law-giver demands that His creatures love Him supremely and reflect that love in their love for and just treatment of their neighbors. New Covenant believers are no longer expected to obey, in meticulous detail, all of the laws of the Old Covenant. Does this suggest that the character of the law-giver has changed in some way? Of course not! Such a thing is impossible.
Not every commandment of the Old Covenant was "moral" in the sense that it reflected the holy character of God. Some were ceremonial in nature; others were civil laws. Yet, there is a sense in which every commandment of that covenant was "moral." These injunctions were "moral" simply by virtue of the fact that it was God who gave them. In this sense, they were not merely cultural and national mandates; they were the commandments of the Holy One. Failure to obey these commandments reflected a lack of love for the law-giver.
The Old Covenant measured holiness in terms of law-keeping. Prior to the advent of the Messiah, the Israelite's love for God and neighbor was expressed in his obedience to every point of the law, not just the Decalogue. It was unholy to commit adultery. It was unholy to gather sticks on the Sabbath (Num 15:32-36). It was unholy to reap an entire field (Lev 19:9-10). It was unholy to eat certain kinds of food (Deut 14:7-8). It was not possible to omit any duty prescribed by the law or commit any transgression forbidden by the law and still be considered holy. How, then, can it be that New Covenant believers can walk in holiness and yet be free from all obligation to obey many of the commandments of the Old Covenant? Because they are under a New Covenant. Under the New Covenant, every truly "moral" principle (I would prefer to call them righteous principles) of the Old Covenant is repeated and becomes the "binding authority", under the Lord Christ, for the believer. Through the ministry of the indwelling Spirit, the "righteous requirements of the law are fully met in us" (Rom 8:4). Though the character of the law-giver does not change, the specific requirements of the Old and New Covenants are different. God demands that all his creatures love Him. Yet, He does not command people under different covenants to demonstrate that love in the same ways.
Under the Old Covenant, Sabbath-breakers were to be put to death. Why was the punishment for this sin so severe? What was so horrible about picking up sticks on the Sabbath? Was this an immoral act? Was the Sabbath rest a reflection of the holy character of God, so that Sabbath breaking rendered one ungodly (unlike God)? No! The fact that God rests from His labor does not tell us what God is; it tells us what God does. It was an immoral act, however, in the sense that it disregarded a commandment that God had given. In fact, it disregarded the entire covenant. Sabbath-breaking was treated so harshly under the Old Covenant because the sabbath was the sign of that covenant (Exo 31:13-17). To break the Sabbath was to break covenant with God. It was not only an insult to God; it was a clear demonstration of the perpetrator's lack of love for God.
There is discontinuity in standards of behavior between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant. Yet, the standard of righteousness remains the same. Daniel and his companions refused to eat food from a pagan king's table (Dan 1:8), because to have eaten such fare, under the Old Covenant, would have been an act of unfaithfulness to God. A New Covenant believer may now eat such a meal without fear of "being defiled" (Rom 14:3,17). What has changed? Does God expect less from believers under the New Covenant than He did from Israel? Of course not! In fact, the standard of behavior for New Covenant believers is higher than the standard imposed on Israel under the Old Covenant. The standard of behavior has changed because the covenant under which God demanded such behavior has been abrogated. God's standard of righteousness is summarily comprehended in Jesus' words, "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind," and "love your neighbor as yourself" (Matt 22:37-40). This is the standard of righteousness required under every covenant. The way in which love to God and neighbor is to be exhibited (the standard of behavior) depends on the demands of the particular covenant that is in force at the time. It is the New Testament Scriptures that define sanctified behavior for the New Covenant believer (1 Thess 4:1-3), not the Old Covenant written in tables of stone (the Ten Commandments). The New Covenant believer is under the covenantal authority of the New, not the Old Covenant.
The Berean Voice Thank you for your comment. A reformed baptist pastor who I know refuses to open his mind on this topic
No one has mentioned the great little volume by former Spurgeon's orphan and one time Principal of the Irish Baptist College David Kingdon called "Children of Abraham." It should definitely be reprinted. He lives in Wales.
I came to discover NCT last week after researching Dr John Walton’s propositions in his Last world of the Torah book. Not the same thing, but intriguing. Since I was a youngster in an Arminian Baptist school, I was beaten over the head by the moral law and the impossibly rigorous legalism of sanctification-by-law-keeping (see any catechism and its chapter on the value of the 10 commandments for the justified), such that I just eventually gave up and apostasized. Sanctification-by-law is so depressing to me. Now I am intrigued and searching for a second chance to find sanctification by grace through the Spirit and stumbled on this video and a different book by Fred Zaspel called How to read and understand the Psalms. That book is so good that I figure NCT must be good too!
NCT by Blake White. Also see John Reisenger and the books he wrote. Russ Kennedy at ClearCreek Chapel. John Bunyan Conference is on NCT, I believe yearly. D.A. Carson is a closet NCT guy in my opinion. Progressive Covenantalism is taught at Southern Seminary by Peter Gentry and Stephen Wellum. It is NCT but they use covenant as the structural backbone of all the Scriptures, similar to Covenant folks but they differ greatly on other points, more in line with NCT.
Thanks for this.
"Jesus the guarantor of a better covenant" Hebrews 7:22
Max, I can't reply to all of your voluminous comments, but I would encourage you to spend some more time understanding 1689 Federalism, as your comments are missing the mark. contrast2.wordpress.com/2015/07/24/response-to-wellums-progressive-covenantalism-and-the-doing-of-ethics/
What's the difference between 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith and 1689 Federalism?
Federalism is another word for "covenantalism" or "covenant theology." Thus 1689 Federalism is the covenant theology held by the majority of 17th century baptists who held to the 1689 Confession. www.1689federalism.com/faq/does-the-2nd-london-baptist-confession-only-permit-1689-federalism/
@@brandonadams07, I opened the link but it says 'Page Not Found.'
Anyhow, I saw a video of RC Sproul, and I think he believes in Covenant Theology. Also, I saw that Voddie Baucham hold on to 1689 Federalism (I am not 100% sure )
Does that mean that many Presbyterians and Baptists hold on to the same Covenant Theology?
What is the difference between the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith and the Westminster Confession of Faith?
@UCc-HRFlI66C8W7C3m_O-MUw If you go to www.1689federalism.com you can watch all of the videos, including one that explains the difference between Westminster's version and 1689's. If you click on the "FAQ" page at the top, you can find what I was trying to link to "Does the 2nd London Baptist Confession only permit 1689 Federalism?"
One cannot affirm the 1689 Confession and hold to New Covenant Theology. See more resources on the website under "Additional Resources" and click the "NCT" tag
I'm Reformed Baptist, and I hold to the 1689 LBCF. I still struggle to see what NCT teaches differently from 1689 Federalism...
There are many differences. NCT rejects the Covenant of Works, while 1689 Federalism affirms it. NCT rejects the Covenant of Grace, while 1689 Federalism affirms it. NCT denies that the moral law that binds all people is summarily comprehended in the decalogue, while 1689 Federalism affirms it. NCT denies that OT saints were indwelt by the Holy Spirit, while 1689 Federalism affirms it.
Brandon Adams
Ok, thanks. I think it's confusing because you mentioned elsewhere that some NCT say there is a covenant of works, right? It's a strange idea to have a new ST but then not all the proponents are on the same page for the distinctive core tenets.
I may have misspoken elsewhere. Some NCT affirm a covenant with Adam, but they all deny that it was a covenant of works (that Adam could earn the reward of eternal life). Yes, it is difficult to keep track of since none of them have published a consensus document. This is a good read (around page 18 I think) ptstn.org/Journal/PTSJ-1.4.pdf
Brandon,
Perhaps you would be profited by reading "Fifteen Tenets of Classic New Covenant Theology" on my blog. www.truthunchanging.wordpress.com.
The only reason we deny that Adam could earn eternal life is because the Scripture nowhere states that. Would he have continued to live as long as he continued in his integrity? Of course. Is that a promise that he would be confirmed in righteousness if he continued in his integrity through a probationary period? If you can show me such a promise, I will glady change my view.
"for the law made nothing perfect...a better hope is introduced, through which we draw near to God." Hebrews 7:19
Would it not be better to get New Covenant theologians tell you what NCT holds?
It's pretty clear they don't know what NCT is.
Based on the book "The Trail of Blood" by J.M. Carroll the old-time Baptists were never "Reformed". Most of those who call themselves "Reformed Baptist" today are really Presbyterians who have rejected infant baptism. Some of the errors found in the man-made Westminster Confession of Faith have been carried over into the 1689 LBCF. The term "The Moral Law" is not found in scripture. Both of the above confessions claim the 10 commandments were given to Adam before the fall. How could Adam have committed adultery, and who would he have committed it with? How could Adam honor his mother, since he did not have one? The "Reformed" ignore Paul's dealing with the Sabbath in Colossians 2:16-17. They ignore the contrast between "the ministry of death" engraved on stones, and the New Covenant, in 2 Corinthians 3:6-8. They ignore Paul compelling the Galatian believers to "cast out" the Sinai Covenant of "bondage" in Galatians 4:24-31. They ignore Paul's words in Galatians 3:16-29, which reveal the temporary nature of the Sinai Covenant. Paul said the law was "added" 430 years "after" the promise made to Abraham "until" the seed(Christ) could come, to whom the promise was made.
The claim that proponents of NCT are promoting antinomianism could not be further from the truth.
In the passage below we find that the New Covenant is a higher standard, not for our salvation, but for our conduct. In this passage Christ quotes the Old Covenant and then contrasts with the words "But I say...".
Mat 5:21 "You have heard that it was said to those of old, 'YOU SHALL NOT MURDER, and whoever murders will be in danger of the judgment.'
Mat 5:22 But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment. And whoever says to his brother, 'Raca!' shall be in danger of the council. But whoever says, 'You fool!' shall be in danger of hell fire.
Mat 5:23 Therefore if you bring your gift to the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you,
Mat 5:24 leave your gift there before the altar, and go your way. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift.
Mat 5:25 Agree with your adversary quickly, while you are on the way with him, lest your adversary deliver you to the judge, the judge hand you over to the officer, and you be thrown into prison.
Mat 5:26 Assuredly, I say to you, you will by no means get out of there till you have paid the last penny.
Mat 5:27 "You have heard that it was said to those of old, 'YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY.'
Mat 5:28 But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
Mat 5:29 If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and cast it from you; for it is more profitable for you that one of your members perish, than for your whole body to be cast into hell.
Mat 5:30 And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and cast it from you; for it is more profitable for you that one of your members perish, than for your whole body to be cast into hell.
Mat 5:31 "Furthermore it has been said, 'Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.'
Mat 5:32 But I say to you that whoever divorces his wife for any reason except sexual immorality causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery.
Mat 5:33 "Again you have heard that it was said to those of old, 'You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform your oaths to the Lord.'
Mat 5:34 But I say to you, do not swear at all: neither by heaven, for it is God's throne;
Mat 5:35 nor by the earth, for it is His footstool; nor by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King.
Mat 5:36 Nor shall you swear by your head, because you cannot make one hair white or black.
Mat 5:37 But let your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,' 'No.' For whatever is more than these is from the evil one.
Mat 5:38 "You have heard that it was said, 'AN EYE FOR AN EYE AND A TOOTH FOR A TOOTH.'
Mat 5:39 But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.
Mat 5:40 If anyone wants to sue you and take away your tunic, let him have your cloak also.
Mat 5:41 And whoever compels you to go one mile, go with him two.
Mat 5:42 Give to him who asks you, and from him who wants to borrow from you do not turn away.
Mat 5:43 "You have heard that it was said, 'YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR and hate your enemy.'
Mat 5:44 But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you,
Mat 5:45 that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust.
Mat 5:46 For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same?
Mat 5:47 And if you greet your brethren only, what do you do more than others? Do not even the tax collectors do so?
Mat 5:48 Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect.
There are two separate sets of commandments in John 15:10.
If you want to understand NCT watch the UA-cam videos "The New Covenant" by Bob George, and "New Covenant Theology Made Simple" by former Reformed Baptist David H. J. Gay, and "The Prophecy of Daniel 9" by Dr. Kelly Varner.
.
@@1689solas to be fair NCT is extremely diverse now and trying to overview it is not going to satisfy everyone in NCT.
Dylan Exactly. They lie so that their stolen covenant theology is highlighted
Why would we be interested in a heretics' view on their heresy?
"But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control, against such things there is no law." Galatians 5:23
Kingdom through Covenant, the book which outlines Progressive Covenanalsim, isn't outlining Progressive Dispensationalism. To understand Wellum and Gentry here it helps to read their book, which I don't think the video, especially the speaker who absurdly challenges the relation of their doctrine of the trinity to their outline of the historical covenants, does a great job articulating. Their can't be reduced to half a UA-cam video, like all things worth learning. The best way to evaluate it is to take it up and read it.
Sean, perhaps you are confused. Nowhere does this video say Wellum and Genry are promoting Progressive Dispensationalism. The speaker, Samuel Renihan, has published a lengthy review of Wellum and Genry's book in the latest issue of the Journal for the Institute of Reformed Baptist Studies: www.amazon.com/Journal-Institute-Reformed-Baptist-Studies-ebook/dp/B00KC8MJ3Q/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1401807227&sr=8-1&keywords=jirbs
So like you said, take up and read.
I see the confusion, I simply mis-typed in the UA-cam description and accidentally said "progressive dispensationalism" instead of "progressive covenantalism" (The title within the actual video is correct)
I was replying to a comment that didn’t understand what Progressive Covenantalism was. I didn't mean to say that the thinkers in the video were talking about Progressive Dispensationalism, but that the person who wrote the comment should read Gentry and Wellum to understand their position. It strikes me that if the thinkers in this video seriously mean to imply that Wellum has a framework that can't support the Trinity, as one clearly implied, then their understanding of Wellum's approach is deeply flawed. I see how you misunderstood though, I should have been more clear and indexed the comment. KTC is a great book, I recommend anyone who has questions about it read the primary source, rather than relying on a review of the book. It is bad form to deal exclusively with secondary and tertiary sources.
Sean Richmond ?
My comments were directed towards Richard Lucas previous comments about Progressive Dispensationalism
I sense this video lumps together NCT and PC in an unhelpful way. There is very little criticism to PC and a lot of (what I would say, warranted) criticism to NCT. I think PC has corrected so many of the weaknesses of NCT. I think Dr. Renihan (Sr.) especially does this.
I really appreciate the video, though.
Lucas, thanks for your comment. Please note the date of the video (2013). I believe Kingdom Through Covenant had just barely come out at the time. Since then Samuel Renihan has written a lengthy review of KtC, which you can find on the site, along with a few other resources directed specifically at PC.
www.1689federalism.com/tag/progressive-covenantalism/
Note also this concern with PC twitter.com/brandon_adams/status/1381626075399090176
Thanks Richard! I mistyped the title. Should be progressive covenantalism
No such thing as "hyper-calvinist". It's all evil... John Calvin: “First, it is plain enough that Christ does not speak with strict accuracy when he calls faith a work.” (comment on John 6:29 in Institutes)
The new covenant, IS the ten commandments written on the heart, as they DIDN'T come from, nor through Moses. Moses was only there to document God speaking to the great crowd of Israelites. Thus, Jesus declared Mt. 4:4 from the very beginning.
The Law is lived out now by Love as a believer walks in the Spirit. "For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: "You shall love your neighbor as yourself...But I say, walk by the Spirit..." Galatians 5:14-16
New Covenant theology has made a lot of progress over the last 30 years, but this is compared to the hundreds of years which baptists have defined and defended 1689 federalism. To say that NCT/PC theologians haven't "thought through the issues" is not a slight at their exegetical work, but an acknowledgement of the developing theology which is still being developed.
I challenge any of you to debate any of our NCT scholars
There is no discussion in this video of Progressive Dispensationalism. I think what is meant in the title description should be "Progressive Covenantalism", which is explicitly discussed.
Some of the speakers show an ignorance of NCT understanding by saying that dismissing the concept of a tripartite division of the law of Moses, means they don’t believe in the moral law.
In fact they do. They only say that the moral law for the new covenant is explained by Jesus & the Apostles, who themselves reiterated every one of the 10 commandments, except 1; sabbath keeping.
In NCT, it’s understood that Christ is our sabbath, & every day we rest in Him, so there’s no 1 day of rest more special than any other day that we should rest in Him.
That’s part of why Christians began gathering on the first day of the week (Sunday) which was a work day for everyone. There are other drivers for that, like it being resurrection day, & pragmatism because venues for gathering were open that day, but the fundamental understanding is that, now, no one day is esteemed higher than the rest.
The sabbath didn’t switch days. The sabbath is every day, as we rest in Christ’s finished work.
All other commandments of the 10 are held to as binding by the teachings of the NT to the church.
The law of Moses wasn’t 10 commandments. It was hundreds of laws, given to structure a temporal nation, which the Church isn’t.
So either a couple of the commentators haven’t really studied NCT, & how they hold to 9 of the 10 commands of moral law, & why, & why there’s a distinction of covenants, or they are being disingenuous.
I prefer to assume the first point, & not the second, in the same spirit of grace they are showing in tone & argumentation.
Or perhaps they have been studying and interacting with the position much longer than you and understand the breadth of NCT beliefs regarding the law. There are definitely NCT advocates who do not believe in the moral law.
As stated, they would not ascribe to a tripartite division of the Mosaic law into moral, national/civil, & ceremonial, saying we are under the moral aspects of the Mosaic law, but not the other two.
They would say the moral law we are under is given in the NT, which in actuality mirrors the CT understanding of the Mosaic moral law in all points but 1.
It’s seems like a distinction without a difference, until you try explaining to some atheist why we pick & choose what Mosaic laws to follow & the ones we won’t, & why.
That’s a much easier discussion when you don’t have to jump through insane loops of circular logic to uphold a CT understanding of a divided law that partially applies.
At the end of the day, both do ascribe to the moral law in almost all points. The primary difference is in how you get to that point, why, & the implications for consistency.
What is The Moral Law?
The ten commandments, constantly trashed by professing Christianity, while Christ himself said to keep them. Mt. 19:17. It's astonishing and practically unbelievable that Christianity would defy it.
4:4, 22:36-40. Astonishing.
As a believer in NCT since the early 1980's, I view Christ's active obedience to the Mosaic Law the righteousness imputed to Christians. The gentiles were under the Natural Law as noted in Romans 1 and 2 and elsewhere. The Natural Law that the gentiles were under would have been fulfilled by Christ as well, so that it also would be imputed to the gentiles, since they never were under the Mosaic Law. The Bible does not spell out the Natural Law clearly, but I have no problem with it closely aligning with the 10 Commandments. The problem is making that jump is an argument from silence. Since all the covenants and messianic prophecies were fullfilled in Christ, He becomes the new Prophet,Priest and King and His law, as contained in the pages of the New Testament are the Law for Christians and this would also be the "Law" that one would evangelize with. However, men go to hell because they do not believe in Christ and that is a sufficient demand in evangelism...to believe the Gospel. As far as the claim that NCT presents potential problems with the Righteousness of God in Himself or the Trinity I am not quite sure where the problem lay. I believe all the Ecumenical Creeds through the 6th Ecumenical Council. I have never read Zaspel's book, but read all of the works of Zens and many of Reisenger.
Thanks for watching and commenting Lauren. However, I don't believe you are correct that it is simply the commands contained in the New Testament that are the law for Christians. That is not how the authors of the New Testament talk about the law as it relates to Christians. They assume a level of continuity with law in the Old Testament such that they can appeal to it as authoritative over Christians. It is not simply "Follow these new laws that we are writing for you." See here for further comments contrast2.wordpress.com/2017/04/30/cftp-podcast-nct-1689-federalism/
"this would also be the "Law" that one would evangelize with"
Does this law that binds all men at all times change throughout time? If not, then are you arguing that the commands the authors of the New Testament wrote are themselves natural law that have bound all men at all times?
It's pretty condescending to say that NCT/PC theologians have not "thought through" the issues (like what Jesus died for or what law we hold people to today), over the last 30 years. Really? Those are MAJOR issues. Of course they have thought through them. There are answers to those questions from NCT and PC alike and that is documented in their written works. Now, if you had said, "So far, there is disagreement on these major issues--some NCT people say "this" and some NCT people say "that," some NCT say "this" while PC says "that,"--I would fully agree with you if this is how you phrased it. The fact that there is not agreement about a couple of major issues, like IAO, is somewhat to be expected but also (to me), alarming. I do not want to be associated with NCT if a nonIAO position wins the day. At that point, I'll use the PC label exclusively. HOWEVER, disagreement about issues, whether amongst themselves, or simply a disagreement with what YOU believe, is NOT the same thing as not having thought it through. You sound to me like you are accusing them of being serious theological lightweights who don't even recognize the major implications of their own view. Truthfully, this video needs to be redone to account for the exaggerations contained therein, including the insinuation that "newness" is suspect, especially when the same could be said of RBCT, even if you trace it to the 1600's. New Covenant Guy has done a video using many quotes from the early church, like Tertullian and Justin Martyr, who had a view of the law, including the abrogation of the Sabbath, in their writings, such as "A Letter to Trypho." Frankly, RB theology should stand firm in the substance of their own beliefs rather than try to put down others through untrue insults and insinuations. You're better than this. It came off like you were worried that a competitor was stealing your thunder, and that's just not necessary.
It seems condescending because these guys are condescending and clearly don't mind playing fast and loose with their statements about what NCT teaches. I guess bearing false witness against their neighbors is not high on their priority list. I guess they think it is fine to misrepresent what others believe as long as they are not in a court of law.
@Margie de Navarre what does IAO stand for?
Is the basis for which we will be judged the Law or Christ? Are we judged by the shadow or the reality of the Law (Christ Jesus)? "on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus." Romans 2:16
Romans 3:19-20 would disagree with you. We will also be judged by the Law, not just Christ.
1689 Federalism here misunderstands the NCT view of the moral law- which we do subscribe-better use the term of "universal categorical imperative" -where all men are under obligation to which is a Thomist term. We don't use the term the 'Covenant of Works' because the term covenant always refers to a historical redemptive intrusion by God and not to the original relationship between Adam and God. NCT is NOT 'Anti-All-Law'; just the Mosaic Law for Christians. Since Christians are under the Law of Christ. Jesus died in behalf of Adam and man to fulfill the terms of the original relationship -maybe "Creational Relationship" instead of the historical covenants. That is why we also emphasizes the work of the Holy Spirit and the New Creation -instead of the theological construct -'Covenant of Grace'. And NCT always refers to the 1644 Baptist Confession instead of the 1689 which was more indebted to the Westmnster Confession.
www.reformedreader.org/ctf.htm
Brandon Adams Thanks for the long article answer for a fairly short comment- The 1644 Confession does not have a "Covenant of Works' theology -though the word Covenant was used. and the 1644 does not mentioned the word Sabbath. the 1644 mentions the Law of Christ -not the moral law or the 10 commandments as the rule of life for the Christian. Clearly there is a difference and it can be found in historically older Baptist document than otherwise mentioned in the video above.
Clearly the 1689 Confession is paying some respects to the Presbyterians' WCF in their wording and emphasis.
ray anthony Rodriguez yup
I am new to this, but I am not new to rhetoric. In this video, I see 3 or 4 ways that NCT is being swiped at in very subtle ways, whether through a one sided presentation that does not allow a response, or a straw man argument or the anonymous bogey man fallacy or the guilty by newness argument that Rome used against the reformers. It seems to me that the early London Baptists put all of their trust in Jesus Christ in humility and faith, whereas the later generation hitched their wagon to the WCF which is jam packed with the most soul crushing legalism that I have ever beheld, as if sanctification and maturity come through Sinai and not from Calvary.
The historic view seems to be replacement theology, which is the view I hold to as being biblical. The woman (the Church) was before New Testament time barren but was prophesied to have more children than the other woman.
Does 1689 Federalism believes that the Christian is bound to the Saturday Sabbath ? know you do not -but then instead uses this confusing term -'Christian Sabbath' - which is the Lord's Day in the New Testament.
Just to answer your question about what law Jesus died to satisfy, he obviously satisfied the covenant law under which he was born and under which he lived his life. If you had read what we have written, you would have known the answer to the question. That law was an expression of the two laws [laws that have obtained in every age and on which all the Law and the Prophets depend] concerning our duty to God and neighbor. At that time, the Mosaic Law was the hightest and most intricate expression of God's law that had been given and Jesus fulfilled every bit of it. The righteousness required by that law is now imputed to his NC people because he has fulfilled all the conditions of the covenant. What NCT maintains is not that there is no righteous standard, but that grace under the New Covenant enables an obedience to the righteousness required by the law [which was in the hightest sense love to God and neighbor], which the law could only demand but could not produce. A comparison of Exo 19:5-6 and 1 Pet. 2:9-10 demonstrates that NC believers are now heirs, in union with Christ, of the conditional promises of the Old Covenant because he has fulfilled all the condititions of that covenant.
Additionally, we have maintained that the commandments of the Mosaic code are indeed profitable to show us what God loves and what God hates. This is usually in terms of principles (e.g. the principle of separation from sin). What was true of Israel physically as a type of the NC people of God can now be applied to us an a spiritual sense.
John,
The difference is that those of the "Reformed" pursuasion insist on seeing "Decalogue" everytime the word "Law" occurs. We are not under the Decalogue since that was "the words of the Covenant" God made with Israel, not with Gentiles and not with the Church. There is nothing of a moral nature that is lacking in the law of Christ as revealed in the New Testament Scriptures. The OT Scriptures are profitable in teaching what God loves and what he hates and we gain instruction from the principles set forth in various civil and even ceremonial laws. Still, though we may be bound to obey the same laws that are set forth in the Mosaic Covenant, we do not obey them as Mosaic laws but as the Law of Christ. Jesus wasn't simply a rubber stamp of Moses. The writer to the Hebrews makes a clear distinction in chapter two between responsibilities under both covenants and which carries the greater responsibility because bathed in greater light. "For if the word spoken through angels [Mosaic covenant] proved steadfast and every transgression and disobedience received a just reward, how shall we excape if we neglect so great salvation which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord and was confirmed to us by those who heard him. . ."
Even if the same righteous requirements occur under the New Covenant as the law of Christ, that doesn't seem to be good enough for our brothers who lean toward Presbyterianism. NCT is "antinomian" in their view, even though we insist that though the NC believer is not under the law as covenant, we are not without law to God but under law to Christ.
I think the word "antinomian" must just feel good in their mouths, and it gives them a feeling of superiority to accuse others of it. It is truly dissimulation.
And Sproul is one of the ones I was speaking of when I wrote about people using the term "antinomian" illegitimately.
This statement is precisely what we were saying-- "Christians are not under the old covenant and its stipulations. Yet, at the same time, we are called to imitate Christ and to live as people who seek to please the living God (Eph. 5:10; Col. 1:9-12)." Makes one wonder why we were called "antinomians" when Sproul can say the same thing and do so with approval.
Even your buddy on the video wrote a book against us and if memory serves, he too called us antinomians. I think it is time for people to start asking forgiveness.
"Now, the distinction between moral, civil, and ceremonial laws is helpful, but for the old covenant Jew, it was somewhat artificial. That’s because it was a matter of the utmost moral consequences whether they kept the ceremonial laws. It was a moral issue for Daniel and his friends not to eat as the Babylonians did (Dan. 1). " This is almost word for word what I wrote 30 years ago.
Just in case anyone is wondering, New Covenant believers are not antinomian (against the law). They believe the Law is good, holy, and righteous and reveals the nature of God. They just do not think the Law, as given to Israel, is needed for Christian sanctification. Christians, in Christ, are are under a new Law, "The Law of Christ" (Galatians 6:2). The Law of Christ is the outworking of the gospel, by the indwelling Spirit, to obey the commandments (imperatives) found in the Scriptures, as they modeled and lived-out by Jesus Christ and the Apostles. The codified Law is now a person. Jesus is the fulfillment of the Tabernacle, the Bread, the Priesthood, the Law, etc. He sums it all up and Tabernacles with us and we have seen His glory.
Do you honestly believe this "law of Christ" is the same law that is written on believers' hearts in the new covenant? Or do you recognize that it's the moral Law of the mosaic covenant that's written on our hearts?
@@joshpeterson2451Which verse says that it is the mosaic law written on our hearts?
"But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so we serve in the new way of the Spirit and NOT in the old way of the written code (Decalogue)" Romans 7:6
Read the second half of the chapter XD
Seriously though, the second half the chapter is blatantly against NCT. Paul sure seemed to want to obey the Law.
As for the idea that New Covenant Theology being novel, I'm sure the Catholics had a similar view of the reformation as "Why is it that Christian theologians for all these years haven't been able to come up with this doctrine." (1min. mark) As far as being "a radical form of dispensationalism" it is actually a very conservative form of dispensationalism in that it has much more in common with covenant theology.
NCT does not deny a moral law for man for all of history, it just maintains that the Ten Commandments are not the embodiment of that moral law, e.g., the fourth commandment (Exodus 31:16,17 the sign of the Mosaic Covenant). Christ is the new lawgiver, (Deuteronomy 18:15-19) not just for Israel but, for all mankind. Any moral law that Christ requires was active in the garden and in the old covenant, and now even more. The law was the old pedagogue, but now that the Helper (Holy Spirit) has come, He is our new pedagogue (Jer. 31:31-34).
I love the attitude of 'Once they figure out their theological mistakes they'll be back or I fear they will be led into some greater errors.' Non-Baptist Covenant theologians and Dispensationalist already think you are the one in error. They both think each other is in error. You think they are in error. We all agree on universal sin (i.e., moral law) and salvation through faith in Christ alone. The difference is how did we get there (revelation throughout history) and how does it all fit in with the nation of Israel? I'm am glad to reason with anyone from the scripture apart from any allusion to confessional language, which so often clouds the issues. Come, let us reason together, "what sayeth the Lord?"
Except the reformers were more than capable of demonstrating that their views had ample precedent, famously saying “Augustine is wholly ours”.
That was kind of the whole point of the reformation - not to do something totally novel. It’s a bit strange that you’re tacitly accepting the RC charge of novelty, presumably to shore up the NCT case?
Also notice what you’re doing, re denying the validity of confessional language - this is common with NCT proponents. You believe in the trinity; you *already* assume confessional / creedal categories that don’t have explicit warrant in scripture. And that’s fine, because it’s entirely theologically acceptable to deal in terms of ‘good and necessary consequence’. The way in which NCT proponents handwave away confessional / systematic language is incredibly disturbing. They don’t even realise what trajectory they’re on, re a naked biblicism without any coherent doctrine of the communion of saints.
As for your other points:
(A) so you concede that NCT is dispensational, then. You say it’s ‘conservative’; fine. But the video was entirely right to say that NCT is dispensational.
(B) As for the moral law and the 10 commandments - the problem for the NCT proponents is that Paul himself tells us that the precepts of the mosaic law constitute the universal moral law, engraved in minds (Rom 2:15).
"In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one OBSOLETE. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away." Hebrews 8:13
If "obsolete" means the Law is "irrelevant" to believers' morality, then why did God go to all that trouble writing the Law on their hearts so that they'll obey it under the new covenant?
@@joshpeterson2451 love that question. Everything in the O.T. Was GOD. Pointing to His SALVATION. JESUS CHRIST. IT CAN GET CONVOLUTED. ESPECIALLY IN TH 21ST CENTURY. THINK FOR A MOMENT. IS GOD ETERNAL,. THEN HE IS . IS HE SOVRIEGN. YES HE IS. CAN ANY MAN CHANGE ANY THING ABOUT GOD BY USING HIS OR HER IMAGINATION. ANSWER IS NO. NOT FINISHED. GOT TO GO. I WILL FINISH THIS. I'm sorry Josh. I will come back to this. Look for it at a later time
@@raybo632 Jesus fulfilled, he did not make obsolete. Covenant theology shows us that the 'new' covenant is a continuation and addition to the old covenant. if the old covenant is obsolete then God is a liar where he says his covenant will be eternal. The OT law was designed to show us our need for a savior, but as Paul reminds us even Abraham was made righteous by faith. The covenant of grace is an old testament covenant.
@@joshpeterson2451to model case law to show us abiding patterns in the concerns of Gods dealing with humanity
@@joshpeterson2451 Tell me what obsolete means? I'm not the one who came up with that word. Paul did by the Spirit.
The reality is that you people should be ashamed of yourselves. I was one of the original writers and speakers in the NCT movement. Not one of us ever suggested that there is no "moral law" [I preferred to call it God's righteous standard since the Scriptures never use the term "moral law"]. We all consistently maintained that law that reflected God's holy and righteous character has existed and will exist as long as God is the sovereign ruler of his creation. For you to suggest otherwise is shameful. The reality is that there is very little of what you have said about Federalism that is different from what we have written under the title of NCT. Please try to be more responsible with you accusations in the future.
"You have heard it said...but I say to you" Jesus enlarges the law and shows the true nature of it. If I go back to the law, then it might as well read, "You have heard it said...but what I am about to say to you is irrelevant." Jesus amplifies and enlarges and embodies the Law itself and shows the true intent of the Law. If anyone looks at a woman with lust is far stronger and far more condemning than, "Do not commit adultery." Yet, our Covenant brothers want us to go back to Moses and hold on to shadows when the reality has already come, namely Jesus.
C'mon. You're smarter than that. Jesus did replace the Law. He explained the Law. Every moral command is an implication of the Ten Commandments, and the Ten Commandments are implications of the commands to love God and to love your neighbor. Jesus most definitely was not opposed to the Law. He explained its implications perfectly.
@@joshpeterson2451 He didn't just explain it, He embodied it. He was the Law incarnate. Also, this isn't about being smart or dumb. This is about knowing God and His Word and our attempts to reason together without belittling one another in the process, right?
New Covenant believers, no longer under the law but in-lawed to Christ, are under the grace personified by, expressed in, and given through Jesus Christ. This means that New Covenant believers are no longer under the covenant of Moses and its terms. Since New Covenant believers are no longer under the covenant of Moses, they are no longer under its covenantal law
No
True NCT teachings can be found early church pre and post reformation
"Christ has obtained a ministry that is as much more excellent than the old as the covenant he mediates is better, since it is enacted on better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second." Hebrews 8: 6-7
Yes, Christ's ministry under the new covenant is better than the priests under the old, but that doesn't mean there's something wrong with the Law. Notice: the author says God really finds fault with "them," because the Law was powerless to save them. That's where the Law was at fault. It couldn't save. That doesn't mean it's useless in all of its moral imperatives to new covenant believers, however. I'm preaching that passage this weekend, and you're taking it too far.
Here’s my take. As a New Covenantalist, I observe Sola Scriptura as above tradition, church history and other secondary sources. I find it interesting that many use the term “moral law” and yet are unable to provide a single verse in the entire canon of scripture where the term “moral law”, or “ceremonial law”, or “civil law” is used. This is why I am a New Covenantalist. Because I believe the entirety of the Old Covenant was moral, which we are no longer under (Hebrews 8:13, Galatians 3:25).
Can someone provide for me Biblical evidence that we are only under 1/3 of the Old Covenant? Can you also provide Biblical evidence that the Old Covenant should be divided into 3 sections? Just as the Reformers were skeptical of the Catholic Tradition, I am also skeptical of this “man made” (in my opinion) form of dividing the law into three sections.
Thanks for the comment. I also observe Sola Scriptura as above tradition, church history and other secondary sources.
Your objection regarding the term "moral law" is odd. Theology has never been bound to only use the language explicit in Scripture. Theology has always used extra-biblical language to articulate one's understanding of what the Bible says. This is particularly necessary when people do not agree as to what Biblical words mean. "Trinity" is a good example of this.
On this particular issue, you have misunderstood what is meant by the term "moral" law. I encourage you to read more deeply to better understand the topic.
Furthermore, 1689 Federalism does not believe that we are under 1/3 of the Old Covenant. We are not under Mosaic law.
See if this helps. contrast2.wordpress.com/2015/07/24/response-to-wellums-progressive-covenantalism-and-the-doing-of-ethics/
@@brandonadams07 I appreciate this dialogue. I would definitely agree that certain terms don't necessarily need to be explicit in the Canon. One example is I hold to Limited Atonement. Where you and I may agree, I do believe that many Covenantalists do hold to how I have defined the term "Moral Law" and that Christians are under 1/3 of the Old Covenant. My main concern for many Covenantalists is that it seems like they are using this tripartite distinction and telling Christians they are under the moral law including the Sabbath which I believe Colossians and Romans make it very clear that we are no longer under.
It sounds like you are saying I am misunderstanding how the 1689 Federalism defines it differently. How would you define it in your own words? I have found though that many Covenantalists would argue that Christians are under 1/3 of the Old Covenant. It is this that I reject.
@@vesselsofmercypodcast6655 "I do believe that many Covenantalists do hold to how I have defined the term "Moral Law" and that Christians are under 1/3 of the Old Covenant."
Note that you are specifically interacting with 1689 Federalism here. This is a distinct difference between Westminster and 1689 Federalism. Note Barcellos:
"Hearty agreement must be given when New Covenant theologians argue for the abolition of the Old Covenant. This is clearly the teaching of the Old and New Testaments (see Jeremiah 31:31-32; Second Corinthians 3; Galatians 3, 4; Ephesians 2:14-15; Hebrews 8-10). The whole law of Moses, as it functioned under the Old Covenant, has been abolished, including the Ten Commandments. Not one jot or tittle of the law of Moses functions as Old Covenant law anymore and to act as if it does constitutes redemptive-historical retreat and neo- Judaizing. However, to acknowledge that the law of Moses no longer functions as Old Covenant law is not to accept that it no longer functions; it simply no longer functions as Old Covenant law. This can be seen by the fact that the New Testament teaches both the abrogation of the law of the Old Covenant and its abiding moral validity under the New Covenant." fn 43 here www.1689federalism.com/john-owen-and-new-covenant-theology/
"How would you define it in your own words?"
Please see the link in the previous comment (which is a post I wrote on the topic).
There is only ONE division of the old covenant. The laws through Moses, and the ten commandments. The new covenant, is the ten commandments MINUS the 600 plus laws through Moses.
God gave the Israelites the ten commandments with his voice, and they HEARD him. Thus, Mt. 4:4
Don't believe it?
Deut. 4:9-15
Deut. 5:4, 20
Revelation 22:14 verifies the validity of the commandments, also
1 John 2:3-4
All the law, is again, the ten commandments. MT. 22:36-40. If Isaiah 66:23 is true, the ten commandments are all the law. I don't understand how Christianity is unable to believe the word of their own savior concerning law.
I also am astonished they legalize away what should be a desire.
@@eltonron1558 I believe we are under the New Testament commandments. But the New Testament states we are no longer under the Old Covenant, that would include the OT Law (Hebrews 8:13). I believe the only commandment we are not under is the Sabbath because Colossians 2:16 states we are no longer under the Sabbath.
If you believe that you know what the Eternal moral law is, please explain how God commanded incest. Whom did Seth marry? Was not Abraham's marriage to his half sister and also Isaac's to his first cousin Rebecca not blessed? How did God command polygyny in levirate marriage? Are commands to genocide Canaanites which were never repealed in the newest covenant still in force? I can see the Gaza being relevant to Canaanites genocide.
I've read some stupid stuff out of the new covenant theology. Christ died to satisfy ALL previous Covenants, from Adam through Moses. Thus they're FULFILLED, thus no longer binding. I believe there is a moral Law BUT we don't know what it is. Shabbat is part of the 10 and starts Friday sundown. NEVER does "the Lord's day" an early TRADITION of men replace it, neither does the Jerusalem council enjoin it.
I've been a Christian 47 years when as an agnostic I tried to scientifically disprove the Bible. I am a young earth creationist because of science now. I am poly STEM, very poly, and I am used to the precision of math, physics, chemistry and biochemistry. Both Covenant and dispensationalist hermeneutics are sloppy, incoherent and from my first exposure to them I rejected both. However, what I have read from the new covenant people is little to no better.
I think it would behoove theologians to dump their man made systems and look at the Bible again.
If Jesus fulfills the Law (Civil, Ceremonial, Moral), how come Christians still cling to the Moral Law (Decalogue, 10 Commandments)? Why do Christians want to adhere still to the Moral? New Covenant Christians believe that Christ has fulfilled all 3 in totality. Really, Christians have far more continuity with the Abrahamic Covenant than with the Mosaic Covenant.
The better question is, why does Christianity that claims to cling to the moral law, reject it outright in practice? The vast majority of Christianity is busy trashing the ten commandments in complete defiance to the DIRECT word of Christ to KEEP them, Mt 19;17
From the beginning 4:4
All the law 22:36-40
There is NO WAY loving God is anything other than the first 4 of the commandments.
There is no way for professing Christianity to get around 1 John 2:3-4, or Revelation 22:14. They may get their forgiveness as the non believers, but not a higher place in the kingdom.
Holy cow. Makes me glad to be a catholic. The Magesterium was established by the apostles & subsists to this day, like it or not, able to theologize it or not. I used to wish I had a broader perspective on religion, but I can see that this is a never-ending rabbit hole. It's made me realize that the One Objective Truth has one perpetual human authority. The popes have erred plenty, but they have never changed the official teaching of the Catholic Church (although Francis is trying his hardest at present).
"For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do..." Romans 8:3
Yep, the Law was weak to save anyone, so Jesus fulfilled it and saved His people. What does that have to do with CT vs NCT?
It is hard-wired to want a list "Tell me what to do." However, the New Testament does not speak to us this way. All imperatives (commands) are tied to the Gospel (indicatives), who God is and what He has done. The N.T. commands are lived-out by the Spirit, coupled with our obedience in love. The Old Testament foreshadowed this dynamic and typified it in the Exodus. The LORD said, "I saved you out of Egypt.." (indicatives) and then gave them commands (imperatives). Nevertheless, Exodus 20 is NOT the gospel. It anticipates the gospel reality. The gospel is the accomplished work of Jesus Christ. Every N.T. command is TIED and BOUND to the Cross of Christ. This dynamic, obeying by an inward compulsion by the Spirit of God in relation to the Word through the gospel, propels obedience. Obedience in the New is far different and superior than the Jews with the Law, in the wilderness, and without the Spirit.
The Law (10 commandments) is still useful for the unbeliever...it shows him his sin. "The Law came to increase the trespass..." Romans 5:20
Betcha $100 Dr. Renihan has never engaged a PC in his life
At some point, Covenant and Dispensational Theology were new in Christian history. Therefore, New Covenant Theology, though newer in formulation, does not negate whether or not it is invalid or unbiblical. Why do Christians want to create a theological monopoly on frameworks? Is not the Spirit able to shed MORE LIGHT upon His own Word and progressively unfold it to the churches, not as new revelation but as revelation with more clarity?
Except, Clement of Rome and Barnabas and other very early church fathers clearly taught covenant theology. Need quotes? NCT is incredibly new.
Yeah, dispensationalism is a heresy that was born in the 19th century.
That's probably why dispensationalism is heresy.
Accept the God-man (Jesus Christ) instead a god-man (John Calvin). John Calvin: “First, it is plain enough that Christ does not speak with strict accuracy when he calls faith a work.” (comment on John 6:29 in Institutes)
No
Such thing as moral law
The law is a unit
The Law has now been enfleshed in a Person, the Lord Jesus Christ. Jesus fulfilled the Law in Himself. "If you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law." Galatians 5:18
Why do you see the Spirit and the Law as antithetical? The Spirit is put within believers to motivate them to obey the Law according to the new covenant.
Do these scholars know what the "new covenant" is?
Do they know that the "new covenant" prophesied by Jeremiah will be "with the people of Israel and with the people of Judah" (Jer 31:31)?
Do they know that Hebrews misquoted Jeremiah and based all his argument on a wrong premise? Hebrews says that Jeremiah says: "and I turned away from them" but Jeremiah says "though I was a husband to them".
Do they know that all the covenants God made are eternal?
Do they know that this new covenant prophesied by Jeremiah has not yet happened?
"...I will put my law in their minds
and write it on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people.
No longer will they teach their neighbor,
or say to one another, ‘Know the Lord,
because they will all know me,
from the least of them to the greatest..." (Jer 31:33-34)
Well they both reject the literal reading of the word.
One does not have to have a "Covenant of Works" framework for Adam in the Garden. You also do not need a Covenant to disobey God's prohibitions (as Adam did in the Garden). Sinners disobey all the time outside of God's covenant. It is simply disobedience/sin. Again, Jesus obeyed where all others failed. God's Word progressive unfolds throughout redemptive history. Genesis chapters 1-3 do not contain all the elements of a Covenant. Do they anticipate that God would act in Covenant (Noahic Covenant, Abraham, etc...) in the future, absolutely. Yet, if all the elements of Covenant are not present, we simply do not have to impose the Covenant framework on the text where is doesn't belong. This does not interrupt or cause problems for the future work of Christ, the 2nd Adam.
Except, Hosea 6:7 says those who violate the Mosaic Covenant are breaking the covenant, just like Adam broke his covenant. How are they related? Both sinned against the covenant of works.
Fox News says 'fair and balanced." Usually that means objective reporting. In the case of this video it means that Reformed Baptists are the only objective voices in the world. Poor representation of NCT.
The Law is part of the Mosaic Covenant. New Covenant Christians are not under law but grace. This means, I do not need the "Law," as it is inscribed in tablets of stone as part of my sanctification as a believer. I now look to Jesus Christ, who is the embodiment of the Law itself. The Law is actually "lived-out" in a Person in greater reality and color than tablets of stone. That old dispensation was even "fading" away as the glory faded from Moses' veiled face.
If that's the case, then why did Paul cite the Law multiple times as the basis for his moral imperatives? Why can't I apply the Law to myself the same way that Paul applied it to me?
The ten commandments are the ONLY law NOT from, nor through Moses. That's why, Mt. 4:4. From Christ himself "keep the commandments ", 19:17
If 22:36-40 isn't the ten commandments, I'll eat my hat. Don't be the subject of
1 John 2:3-4.
@@eltonron1558 Matt 4:4 prior to Christ's fulfillment . Also, is 1 John 2 saying that we must keep all of the OT commandments? Dietary? Ceremonial? Which ones?
@@eltonron1558 BTW, I am not being antagonistic nor am I angry or trying to win an argument. I am a New Covenant guy but I know I do not know everything.
@@eltonron1558 Also, there are imperatives all throughout the New Testament that are stricter than the OT Law. They have us look more deeply into the heart's intent. Adultery is more than the act. Greed is more than acquiring objects, etc. Christ has amplifies the OT Law and amplifies even it's intention. The Law was shadow and Christ brings the substance.
The Law is useful and good and holy and righteous, yet it had a specific purpose, to know what sin is (Rom. 7:7). However, the Law in and of itself, is weakened by the flesh. Sin seizes an opportunity through our flesh and it causes within us the desire to rebel against the commandment. The sign says, "65 mph." Our hearts say, "I will go as fast as I want." Therefore, a new nature is needed by the Spirit to obey the Law, written in the heart, and now codified in the life and work of Jesus Christ. The moral law is lived-out in a Person, in real flesh and blood, not on tablets of stone. The New Testament authors wrote in such a way as to live in the New Covenant, in a fuller and richer way than the Mosaic dispensation ever could, by the indwelling Spirit, through the indicatives/imperatives found in the N.T. as they relate to the gospel.
If the NT authors wrote in such a way as to live under the new covenant, then why did Paul cite the Law of Moses over and over again when he issued commands to new covenant believers?
@joshpeterson2451 If you're talking ten commandments, they DIDN'T come from, nor through Moses. Moses only documented God speaking the ten commandments to the great crowd of Israelites.
Thus Mt. 4:4.
The ten commandments is NOT mosaic dispensation. It is dispensation from God himself the ten commandments, with his voice, and the Israelites heard him. Moses only wrote about it.
@@eltonron1558 The 10 commandments was a covenant summation of a covenant that he entered with a specific people, those who were brought out of Egypt, right?
"You have heard it was said, but I say to you..." Christ amplifies the Old and does not merely quote the Old, nor do the NT authors. All imperatives in the New have a shadowy foundation from the Old but become new in Kind as they are given in light of Christ Jesus' life, death, resurrection, ascension. No imperative is merely tied to the OT Law. No NT commandment is given merely with Moses in mind. It just is not. We do not have to go back to Moses to live by the Law. Isn't this Paul's argument? We have been freed from the curse of the Law to marry another. The Law could never sanctify so why go back to it?
Covenant is not the primary lens in which to see the Scriptures. It is Christ.
That's a false dichotomy. After all, all the covenants find their "yes" in Christ. Therefore, every covenant is about Christ. The covenants reveal to us who Christ is. Without them, you're a ship adrift at sea.
and if you don't understand the covenants then you can't understand Christ.
Ur view has no biblical grounds
Get outta here with that