Recently I wrote a post about the history of Antinomianism. That post led to a debate that I had with one who claims to be a New Covenant Theologian. As you can read in the comments from that post and several that followed it, there are some who believe that God’s covenants can be nullified, modified, or something like that. This has led some to believe that the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles somehow are a “new law” that has redefined, rewritten, or totally discarded the “old laws”. I struggle with the right terms because not everybody in that particular persuasion agrees on the terminology.
I believe that such confusion comes from the influence of the Dispensational system of theology that has basically caused the Bible to be broken up into different “stories” or different works of God. But I believe the Bible is one story of redemption and one progressive revelation of God that does not ever contradict itself or nullify itself because God comes up with better plans. (Yes, that wasn’t a fair way to say that, but I don’t take it back because that is ultimately what the Dispy system teaches.)
So for an example, lets talk about God’s relationship with Man in the Garden of Eden. Covenant Theology sees the Bible as one story of God’s Covenant of Redemption revealed through the Covenant of Works that Man broke and the Covenant of Grace that Jesus kept. Together these two covenants form the Covenant of Redemption which God covenanted with Himself in Eternity.
I think a clear understanding of the Covenant of Works goes a long ways in understanding the entire Bible. We can also learn a lot about how covenants work and how they continue based on this first one. The following is a portion of teaching from J. Ligon Duncan that he gave me permission to post. It comes from a series of lectures on CT at RTS and has been edited for this blog:
The Covenant of Works (also called Covenant of Life, Covenant of Nature, Covenant of Creation)
So the Covenant of Works refers to a pre-fall covenant relationship with Adam. In other words, it is a binding and blessed relationship initiated by God, in which he enters into fellowship with Adam, prior to the fall. This Covenant is asymmetrical. This is an asymmetrical covenant in the sense that there are not two equal parties entering into a relationship. This is God, out of His goodness, entering into fellowship with Adam, promising certain blessings and requiring certain responsibilities. God sovereignly imposes those conditions on Adam. In the ordinances given by God to Adam, Adam was not given the option to say, “Well Lord, I really like that procreation ordinance, but the labor ordinance, I am really going to have to think about that one.” There is no bargaining on Adam’s side in the relationship. So the elements of a covenant are there, according to Covenant Theologians, even though the term covenant is not used in Genesis 1 and 2. There are two partners, God and Adam, with Adam serving as the representative. There are responsibilities, there are stipulations and there are blessings.
Now Covenant Theology makes it clear that Adam is not a private individual. He is a public person. When he acts as covenant head he acts representatively for the entire race. Where do Covenant Theologians get this from? Not simply from what are clearly the implications of Adam’s sin in Genesis 4 and 5, but explicitly from Paul’s teaching in Romans 5, where he parallels Adam and Christ and says, “By one man’s unrighteousness sin came into the world, so also by one man’s righteousness all are justified.”
The Passing of the Covenant of Works: Is it still in force?
Now according to Federal Theology, according to Covenant Theology, the Covenant of Works no longer continues in its ability to bless. The stipulations of the Covenant of Works are still incumbent upon us, but it no longer continues in its ability to bless since the fall. Why? Because in the Covenant of Works, as formed in the garden between God and Adam, there is no stipulation for blessing in spite of demerit. There is no stipulation for forgiveness in the Covenant of Works, and we have already sinned. So the Covenant of Works can’t bless you if you have sinned. The condition of the Covenant of Works is perfect and personal obedience. So it remains in force as a binding obligation, but we are incapable of fulfilling it. We are born in sin, the Apostle Paul says, and are by nature children of wrath. But the fact that it is still in force explains why both Jesus and Paul argue against legalism, not by saying that it is wrong in principle for someone to think that they can earn their salvation.
Now, notice how Jesus and Paul will use the same polemic. When the Judaizers come to Paul and say you have got to get it by your works, Paul doesn’t say no, or you can’t do it, or even that you’ve got to do it by grace. That is not what Paul says. Paul’s response is always, “He who shall live by it shall do it.” In other words, he says, “do this and live.” He is saying, “Okay, you think you can stand before God righteously in your own merit. Fine. If you can, He will welcome you into the kingdom of heaven. Go ahead and do it.” The apostle Paul’s argument is not that it is illegitimate to think that perfect obedience is acceptable to God. The Apostle Paul’s argument is that you can’t do personal obedience. You cannot do perfect and personal obedience. You are fallen. You sin in thought and word and deed everyday. So if you think you are going to stand before God in righteousness that way, fine. Do it. That is Paul’s argument, and that is Jesus’ argument against legalism.
So the Covenant of Works stays in force in the sense that both Paul and Jesus can use that argument. Yeah, you can be perfect. You can stand before God and be accepted in heaven. That’s all you have to do: be perfect. “If anyone,” Macleod says, “If anyone could present himself at the bar of God and prove that he was free from sin, personal or imputed, actual or original, he would be acquitted.” That is all you have to do. I am free from sin, let me in Lord. Because the principle, “The soul that sins shall die” is still valid. So the opposite of that is also valid. The soul that does not sin, shall not die. So if you have not sinned, you are doing great.
Why is salvation by works impossible? Not because it is inconceivable but because we are morally corrupted and totally depraved. Salvation by works is not a metaphysical impossibility. It is a moral impossibility. We are rebellious human beings fallen in Adam. And we have no hope for moral capacity to obey fully the law of God.
Now I am aware for some that this is a lot to grasp. But once it is grasped one has a deeper understanding of the power of the penal, substitutionary atonement of Christ and a richer understanding of the link between The Book of Romans and the Garden of Eden.
But for this post, I wanted to point out that from the beginning God’s laws and covenants and rules and purposes behind those rules have had an eternal, unchanging meaning. Antinomianism in any form is an attack against the character of God and the authority of His Word. It is not only an attack against the Mosaic Law but against everything that God has ever said to Man. In fact, to believe that God’s laws are nullified is to rip the heart out of the sufferings of the Cross. The original Covenant of Works is what cast the full wrath of God upon the Second Adam... and even then that Covenant was not destroyed but fulfilled.
Tweet
Jason Robertson is a husband and a father and a pastor. He is dedicated to leading and equipping his the Church with God’s word and biblical theology for life ministry, using a combination of pastoral, church planting and evangelism experience. He holds a Master of Divinity from New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary. He is experienced in church planting, evangelism, missions, and the training of pastors and Bible teachers.
Jason has been preaching the gospel since 1985, serving the first ten years of ministry as a Southern Baptist itinerant evangelist out of Milldale Baptist Church in Zachary, LA which ordained him in 1993. He has preached in hundreds of churches in over 30 States and 4 countries. He planted churches in Siberia, Russia in the summers of 1993 and 1994. He founded Murrieta Valley Church in California, which he planted in cooperation with the SBC NAMB in 2001. He also teaches ministry students at California Baptist University.
You can hear his sermons and read his manuscripts on sermonaudio.com. Just follow the link to "sermons" at the top of this page.
Oh Jason your going to cause such a ruckus.
Somewhere in the blogosphere I can hear the hoofbeats of the horde. But keep preaching the truth man its sweet to see.
Seems to me that Americans would be antinomians to the Brits (even though our roots are British) because we drive on the right side of the road in utter defiance of the law that says we must drive on the left.
Now we could all plainly see that although the specific law is completly different – in fact diametrically opposed in its action required – the underlying morallity is exactly the same.
This would be my understanding of New Covenant Theology.
I do tend to lean in that direction at this point – though I have much study ahead.
Peter, thanks for the continued encouragement.
“dad”, the questions that you have in your mind I completely understand. I stopped off at NCT on my way to CT. I will be writing some posts on NCT soon because I think they are supporting a flawed view of the law of Christ.
To give you a preview, I would encourage you to think about whether you trully think that the Law of Christ is different from the Law of God.
Christ vs. God ?
Christ vs. the Word of God ?
Christ’s demands vs. God’s demands ?
No, friend that is just impossible for sooooo many reasons. There is a difference in our relationship to the Laws of God now because of the Cross. But the Law is the same, it is eternal, it is binding.
Our liberty now is not because the Law has been removed or changed but because Grace has entered our lives through redemption.
Our liberty is to worship God without the strictures of the ceremonies and sacrifices.
And finally, for now, I would encourage you to do a study on the phrase “law of Christ”. I think you will discover that it is not what you think. It is not equivalent to “law of Moses”. Rather, “law of Christ” is a reference to the authority of Christ = the Lordship of Christ. That is why Paul says in 1 Cor. that while under the law of Christ he is not out from under the law of God. Why? because that would be theologically impossible since Christ is the Law of God incarnate.
This will lead you to an understanding of Christ’s “fulfillment” of the law and what being a child of God means in relation to what has happened since Eden.
Jason, pitting the law of Christ vs the law of God isn’t anything I have ever seen a NCT person do. Do you have examples?
Mr. Kime:
I suggest you take a moment and read this: http://www.ccir.ed.ac.uk/~jad/welty/
adams.htm
I believe you’ll benefit greatly.
Peter, I agree those essays are have great benefits for those who wish to learn about the fallacies of NCT.
I strongly recommend:
http://www.ccir.ed.ac.uk/~jad/welty/adams.htm
which is Welty’s rebuttal of Mike Adams’ In Defense of the New Covenant.
Here is just a portion of that rebuttal:
Adams cites Heb 8:7 “For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another,” and then tells us that what was “wrong with the Old Covenant” was that “the Law of that [Old] Covenant was powerless to produce a believing community.” In other words, in contrasting the Old and New Covenants, Adams lays primary emphasis upon the impotence of the law associated with the Old covenant to effect spiritual salvation. There are two things wrong with this.
First, Adams fails to cite the very next verse: “Because finding fault with them, He says: ‘Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah’” (Heb 8:8, my emphasis). In other words, what was “wrong with that first covenant” (v. 7) is that God found fault with the people (v. 8). This perfectly accords with the text of Jeremiah which the author of Hebrews is quoting, for God makes plain through the prophet that it was the people who broke his covenant (Jer 31:32).
Second, while it is true that the law of the Old Covenant was powerless to produce a believing community, why think it is any different with the law of the New Covenant, the law of Christ? For instance, is it the case that the various commands that Christ lays down for his people in the Gospels, and which his apostles lay down in their epistles, are able to produce a believing community? Of course not. Only the Holy Spirit can do that.
The fact of the matter is that the covenantal contrast in the book of Hebrews is explicitly in terms of promise, not law. Such is said to be the case in the verse immediately preceding the one Adams cites: “But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, inasmuch as He is also Mediator of a better covenant, which was established on better promises” (Heb 8:6, emphasis mine). Consider the various promises laid out in Jer 31:33-34, which are then cited in Heb 8:10-12. God never promised to fulfil his law, grant knowledge of himself, and forgive the sins of every covenant member in the Old Covenant, but that is precisely the promise of the New: every single one of the conditions for fellowship with God, laid down in the Old, is fulfilled in the New. Thus, the New Covenant is better because it is founded on better promises, not because it is founded on a better law. There is no evidence for the latter in the text of Heb 8. What Adams has done here is inexplicable: quote Heb 8:7, and then ignore the verses immediately preceding and succeeding, even though these verses answer the precise question Adams raises from v. 7! God never promised to unconditionally and graciously fulfil the covenant law in the life of every Old Covenant member (v. 6), and as a result they became covenant-breakers and God found fault with them (v. 8). This is what was distinctively wrong with that first covenant (v. 7), its promises, not its law.
BTW, I would encourage you to not feed the troll called irenaeusii. He doesn’t come here to actually debate, discuss, or learn. He comes only to talk about his own opinions which we really don’t care about if you know what I mean.
Good advice Jason I’ll take it.
Irenaeus,
One doesn’t have to “pit them” against each other for Jason’s point to stand. All you have to do is say that they are not the same. To say that the “Law of Christ” is not identical in every way to the “law of God” is just silly.
Jason, Did you listen to my most recent sermon on Hebrews 8? It can be found on my home page.
Gene
It really isn’t Gene. The law of God (for Israel) required many things that we are not required to do today. Even you concede that point. CT people DO NOT understand NCT at all or all these baseless, moronic posts by you CT wouldn’t be on here.
Iren,
Would you like to come on The Narrow Mind webcast and explain to ne what NCT really teaches?
Actually, I would. I am not familiar with what “the narrow mind” is though. Do you have a link?
CT people DO NOT understand NCT at all or all these baseless, moronic posts by you CT wouldn’t be on here.
Ah yes, now comes the “nobody understands NCT post.” This is obligatory from the NCT crowd. Notice also the replacement of reasoned argument for ad homineum invective.
On the contrary, it is quite the opposite. NCT works from the principle that what is stated by Christ and the Apostles applies because they reiterated it. But this is not what Scripture itself assumes. When Paul quotes from the OT, he is assuming it is already authoritative, not that its validity derives from his authority as an Apostle and thus Christ. Christ’s authority already underwrites both covenants.
It is an utter straw man to say, as NCT advocates have, that CT leads to the keeping of the law in its particular applications, because CT also recognizes that the Law is adapted to the context in which it was given and the context in which it was applied. This not some arbitrary hermeneutic, rather it is derived from Scripture itself. The Law itself recognizes those conditions may change over time and allows the prophets and priests to apply the Law’s principles if not its letter with continuity. If you’d avail yourself of a study of the rabbinics, you’d know that. They wrote of the changing of the covenant internally and what would happen when the New came, and much of what they wrote actually shows up in the NT itself. They emphasized continuity, not discontinuity.
Jason, pitting the law of Christ vs the law of God isn’t anything I have ever seen a NCT person do. Do you have examples?.
I do.
It is NCT that is stating absurd things like Galatians was written only to Jews so Gentiles were not under the Law of Moses and then using this as part of an argument to deny the imputation of the active obedience of Christ. It is NCT that has stated that the only 9 of the 10 commandments has carried into the New Covenant. It is NCT that is stating that since the NT does not prohibit a man from marrying his sister it would not be sinful in a culture that did not prohibit it. (and, yes, I can prove that last one). This is the logical end of NCT, and none of these statements come from just any old NCT writers, but from the folks at IDS themselves. I respectfully submit you don’t understand NCT.
Gene, I think you might be misunderstanding NCT with a form of dispensationalism. NCT is not equal to DT.
So that you know, I have been posting very specific points of disagreement with CT and explaining the NCT position. Unfortunately, someone keeps deleting entire messages. Perhaps you can carry on a debate without backing down. So far Jason and Scott have not been able to debate anything. Anyway, none of what you say above is what I think is representative of NCT.
Jason and Scott have both threatened to delete posts that have to do with NCT, so we will see how long this lasts. If you really want a debate/explanation on your webcast, I would love to. You might have to e-mail me about it though.
James, everybody knows that the reason you have been deleted is for lying… just like you have done in your shameless comment above. And your playground tactics do not cause us any pertubation. You may play games elsewhere, but at Fide-O we just don’t have the time or the desire.
Gene, this is why we don’t feed the trolls. They never get full. Besides, James Kline is not even a good representative of NCT, that is the real reason the debates haven’t really went anywhere. He basically has one axe to grind, and even other NCTers have forsaken him.
So Gene, if you are through (I will wait and see) then I will rid Fide-O of this troll — consider it Quality Control. But if you want to amuse yourself futher we will let it go for now, although his childishness is unbecoming of Fide-O.
Yeah, I’m done.
James can contact me through my website if he would like to come on The Narrow Mind and dicuss his version of NCT. http://www.unchainedradio.com
hi
Heb 7:12 For when the priesthood changes, A CHANGE IN THE LAW MUST COME AS WELL.
Heb 7:13 Yet the one these things are spoken about belongs to a different tribe, and no one from that tribe has ever officiated at the altar.
Heb 7:14 For it is clear that our Lord is descended from Judah, yet Moses said nothing about priests in connection with that tribe.
I’m still seeing:
New Covenant, New Law, Same Morality.
Change the priesthood, you must change the law. That doesn’t mean we change from being moral to being immoral. From being law keepers to law breakers. But many specifics have changed – radically. We eat pork and shellfish and ostrich. We don’t wear blue tassles on the corners of our shirts. We wear some very comfortable mixed fiber clothing. We allow people who are born out of wedlock, the crippled, lame and otherwise deformed into our assemblies. We do no rituals after sex or a nocturnal emission.
But we do see that: “…the works of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity, depravity,
idolatry, sorcery, hostilities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, selfish rivalries, dissensions, factions, envying, murder, drunkenness, carousing, and similar things. I am warning you, as I had warned you before: Those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God!” (Gal 5:20, 21)
The above is indeed the EXACT SAME MORALITY. There are even SOME of the exact same specifics – but not ALL.
If fault is only found with the people not the system, then why are we not still responsible and indeed passionate about and willingly able to keep THAT whole Law in it’s every detail?
The New Covenant is not about keeping laws – it’s about living out the Righteousness of God through Christ living in me “…work[ing] out your own salvation with fear and trembling,
for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.”(Phil 2:12,13)
I find the New Covenant, Spirit motivated and produced righteousness of God truly a new and better way.
You can call me Tom. I’ve been following this blog for about six months and this particular discussion is very interesting to me. I grew up in a very legalistic non-calvinistic home. A lot of the theology I encountered at my church and friends was just so mixed and confused. It is taking me a lot to sort it all out.
dad,
The “change in the law” is a direct reference to the priesthood. But notice it is a change “IN” the law and not a change “OF” the law. My point? The law itself anticipated this “change” and that is why the author of Hebrews quotes the “law” (ie the Psalms)
Psalms 110:4
4 The LORD has sworn and will not change His mind, “You are a priest forever According to the order of Melchizedek.” NASU
This is the change that the author is referring to. Lest anyone complains that I am referring to the Psalms as “the law” I think I am in good company. Paul quoted from Psalms and Isaiah in Romans 3:10-18, yet he said that it was the Law that said these things (Romans 3:19).
Furthermore even if you disagree we know that a “change in the law” does NOT mean that the law is abolished.
I think you are right – a change in the law does not mean the law is abolished. But the fact still stands that the specifics of the law HAVE CHANGED. Not just the priesthood but MANY changes as in the sampling listed in my first post. SOME specifics have remained the same as in the passage from Galatians. The underlying morality of both “laws” remains always and forever unchanged. For me the question is in how do we know what now are the specifics for the church – both in the listing and in the living out. I am coming to believe that we must read the OC through the lens of the NC – kind of like those prize cards printed in blue and red design and when a red lense is put over it you see the message clearly. The red in the printing disapears and the blue shows strong and dark. Paul did indeed quote the OC authoritatively in giving specifics for the NC. But I see that as continuing the underlying morality (“law” if you will) which will never change while revealing and clarifying the righteousness which is by faith regardless of which covenant you are under. Otherwise it seems we run the risk of stoning people for picking up sticks on Sunday – or for adultery or blasphemy for that is the due penalty if indeed the 10-c’s are still in force.
Also reading the rest of Heb 7 and on through 8 we see much more than the priesthood being changed according to the text and the writer concludes with, what is to me, sweeping all inclusive language:
“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.”
In Heb 9:4 the writer specifies “the covenant” as that which is written on the stone tablets.
Duet 4:13 identifies those words as the ten commandments.
Is it still sin to steal? Bear False witness? Commit Adultery? Murder? Yes, yes, yes. Why? because the 10 commandments are still in force? No – because those are the desires, the works, the fruit of the flesh which ars against the Spirit in utter unrighteousness. Not because of an external law written in stone – but because of the internal law of the living Christ.
I find immense refreshment and real freedom to live in more and more righteous ways when I look at the scripture in this way. I wrestle with what it means for me to be sanctified in the same way I began in being justified in Christ – His work in me which I then work out. Anything else has just led to more bondage.
Tom, you are so close, but here is the flaw in NCT. NCT believes that because the cerimonial and sacrificial aspects of the Mosaic law have ceased that they are nullified. Actually those aspects were Messianic typologys anticipating the Cross — they have been fulfilled in Christ but not nullified. Ceased and nullified are two theologically different things.
Secondly, NCT misunderstands the eternality of God’s moral law. The Jews in Jesus’ day misunderstood the spirituality of God’s law. Today, in Christ, we actually live by faith the “spirituality” of the law. We call it sanctification.
The NCT version of Christian living is very mystical and subjective. They do not understand that Paul and Jesus (and the other NT writers) affirmed all of the OT morality and recast it in its original light = Love God with all your being and love your neighbor.
Thus to understand the OT one must read the NT AND VISE VERSA!! We must learn and live the way God teaches us according to His commandments.
You mention bondage. NCTers believe that it is putting people in bondage to teach the moral principles of the OT. But it is not bondage. Paul said it would be bondage if you taught people that they must do those things in order to be saved. That’s bondage; that’s what the Judaizers were doing.
Paul’s argument with the Galatians was about justification. So don’t mix up justification with sanctification. The law can’t save. The law wasn’t even given to the “lost” but to the Jews who had been set free through the passover! The law is for believers. The law is not for justification but for sanctification.
I will point out once again that Jason or someone deleted my post because it once again pointed out his errors.
Tom, you are right on. The law was changed. Christ himself changed it. Forcefeeding the NT into the OT is all that CT people can do. They have no ability to defend this position, they merely appeal to each other.
Iranaeus, before Jason erases this comment. You originally said that Jesus abolished and replaced the OT law now you say He changed it. Are you schizophrenic or can you just not remember what your last cut and paste said.
Scott, he fulfilled the law and subsequently changed it by instituting his own law in its place.
I don’t find it really that hard a concept to follow.
So when God wrote the Law it wasn’t Jesus’ law. Mmmm. Classic NCT error.
That sounds a bit modalistic.