New Covenant Theology: Good Teaching gets a Bad Rap.

[Martin Marprelate]

Unfortunately you seem to have the wrong idea what liberty in Christ means. I see that all of our verses boosting your Sabbath position are either from the Old Testament or from the Gospels - all before the beginning of the New Covenant. You cannot find a single verse from New Testament writers suggesting, let alone mandating, that the Sabbath still needs to be observed.

Your Hyper-dispensationalism is showing again. You cannot salami-slice the word of God in such a way as to negate the words of Christ. Nor can you set Paul against Christ.

This is Christian liberty:
One person regards one day above another,
another regards every day alike.
Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind.
He who observes the day, observes it for the Lord,
and he who eats, does so for the Lord, for he gives thanks to God;
and he who eats not, for the Lord he does not eat, and gives thanks to God. - Rom. 14:5-6

This is Christian liberty:
Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: Col. 2:16

This is Christian liberty:
But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter. Rom. 7:6

Also:
But one who looks intently at the perfect law, the law of liberty, and abides by it, not having become a forgetful hearer but an effectual doer, this man will be blessed in what he does. James 1:25

No, this is Christian liberty. 'And I shall walk in liberty, for I seek Your precepts' (Psalms 119:45). It is the one who is saved by grace, who is no longer under the law as a covenant of works who can say, 'Oh how I love Your law! It is my meditation all the day!' It was the realisation that the writer of Psalm 119 was a man saved by grace that convinced me of the continuance of the moral law. Christian liberty is Paul describing himself as a bondservant or slave of Jesus Christ, whom to serve is perfect freedom. 'For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments, And His commandments are not burdensome' (1 John 5:3). Whether someone observes Good Friday or Christmas Day is a matter of freedom since there is no commandment to observe either. The Lord's Day is a command of God, placed almost in the middle of the Decalogue. It is no longer part of the Old Covenant which has long since passed away, for it pre-dates it. It remains part of God's eternal and abiding moral law.

I think I have said all I wish to say on this matter. I will give an exposition of 1 Timothy 1:8-11 tomorrow morning (DV), and then I'm finished on this thread.

 

[asterisktom]

Your Hyper-dispensationalism is showing again. You cannot salami-slice the word of God in such a way as to negate the words of Christ. Nor can you set Paul against Christ.

No, this is Christian liberty. 'And I shall walk in liberty, for I seek Your precepts' (Psalms 119:45). It is the one who is saved by grace, who is no longer under the law as a covenant of works who can say, 'Oh how I love Your law! It is my meditation all the day!' It was the realisation that the writer of Psalm 119 was a man saved by grace that convinced me of the continuance of the moral law. Christian liberty is Paul describing himself as a bondservant or slave of Jesus Christ, whom to serve is perfect freedom. 'For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments, And His commandments are not burdensome' (1 John 5:3). Whether someone observes Good Friday or Christmas Day is a matter of freedom since there is no commandment to observe either. The Lord's Day is a command of God, placed almost in the middle of the Decalogue. It is no longer part of the Old Covenant which has long since passed away, for it pre-dates it. It remains part of God's eternal and abiding moral law.

I think I have said all I wish to say on this matter. I will give an exposition of 1 Timothy 1:8-11 tomorrow morning (DV), and then I'm finished on this thread.

New wine will not sit well in old wineskins. You keep talking about Christ negating or arguing with the Father. The New Covenant is not a negation of the Old Covenant but an advance on it. God's revealed will is at a higher level in the New Testament, truths that were only shown in the Old by shadows and types. The reality is in Christ. But the saints of the Old Testament and those, even, of of the Gospel accounts were not yet able to receive this truth.

Once again you quote Old Testament verses to continue your misunderstanding of New Covenant truth. And your verse in 1 John is to the point, yes, but it requires an understanding of what he meant by "commandments". And that you get from the very context.

Yes, God rested on the seventh day. But the making of a Law out of it did not come about in the time of Moses. If it was such an overarching moral law for all time why did God not enjoin the observing of it on Noah? Or Abraham?

The answer is that it was tailored to the Jews. The Sabbath was a prophetical marker for them of the Messiah who would give them rest. And He did - to the Israel of God. They - and we - entered into that rest.

But, as Paul says, if we really want to keep the Sabbath we dare not change the details to fit our needs or culture. If we see our neighbor picking up sticks in his yard we are obligated to stone him to death.

I am so thankful for the New Covenant in Christ.
Christ is our Sabbath rest.
He has given us the New Covenant in His blood.
In fact, He was given to us as the New Covenant. Isaiah 49:8

 

[Martin Marprelate]

New wine will not sit well in old wineskins. Once again you quote Old Testament verses to continue your misunderstanding of New Covenant truth. And your verse in 1 John is to the point,yes, but it requires an understanding of what he meant by "commandments". And that you get from the very context.

Yes, God rested on the seventh day. But the making of a Law out of it did not come about in the time of Moses. If it was such an overarching moral law for all time why did God not enjoin the observing of it on Noah? Or Abraham?

The answer is that it was tailored to the Jews. The Sabbath was a prophetical marker for them of the Messiah who would give them rest. And He did - to the Israel of God. They - and we - entered into that rest.

But, as Paul says, if we really want to keep the Sabbath we dare not change the details to fit our needs or culture. If we see our neighbor picking up sticks in his yard we are obligated to stone him to death.

I am so thankful for the New Covenant in Christ.

Then Old Covenant has long since passed away, but the word of God abides forever. God still calls us to keep His commandments as I have pointed out to you several times..

I have shown you that the laws written on tablets of stone are the same ones that are written on the hearts of New Covenant believers. Since you have failed to reply to my post #57, here is the central part again.

Deuteronomy 5:22. 'These words [the Decalogue] the LORD spoke to all your assembly, in the mountain from the midst of the fire, the cloud and the thick darkness, with a loud voice; and He added no more. And He wrote them on two tablets of stone and gave them to me [Moses].'

Jeremiah 31:33; Hebrews 8:10; 10:16 . '"But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days," says the LORD. "I will put My Law in their minds and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they will be My people."'

So this verse, which is from the only O.T. pericope which speaks of the New Covenant, is repeated twice in the New Testament (Hebrews 8:10; 10:16), where 'There is neither Jew nor Greek.' But which law is being spoken of? Which laws are written on the hearts of all Christians in the New Covenant?

2 Corinthians 3:3. 'Clearly you are and epistle of Christ, ministered by us, written not with ink but by the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of flesh, that is, of the heart.'

Here the law written on the heart under the New Covenant is identified with the law written upon stone under the Old Covenant. The Fourth Commandment was written on stone; it is also written on the heart of Christians. 'Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven.' 'For whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble at one point, he is guilty of all' (James 2:10).

 

[Iconoclast]

From Aw.Pink on Hebrews
;

Here the apostle sets their minds at rest. A suitable point in his epistle had now been reached when this could be brought in: he was speaking of “rest,” so he informs them that under Christianity also, “there remaineth therefore a Sabbath-keeping for the people of God.”The specific reference in the “therefore” is to what he had said in verse 4: God did rest on the seventh day from all His works, there]ore as believers in Christ are the “people of God” they must rest too. “There remaineth therefore a Sabbath-keeping for the people of God.” The reference is not to something future, but to what is present. The Greek verb (in its passive form) is never rendered by any other Englishequivalent than “remaineth.” It occurs again in Hebrews 10:26. The word “remain” signifies “to be left after others have withdrawn, to continue unchanged.”

Here then is a plain, positive, unequivocal declaration by the Spirit of God: “There remaineth therefore a Sabbath-keeping.” Nothing could be simpler, nothing less ambiguous. The striking thing is that this statement occurs in the very epistle whose theme is the superiority of Christianity over Judaism; written to those addressed as “holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling.” Therefore, it cannot be gainsaid that Hebrews 4:9 refers directly to the Christian Sabbath. Hence we solemnly and emphatically declare that any man who says there is no Christian Sabbath takes direct issue with the New Testament scriptures. “For he that is entered into his rest he also hath ceased from his own works, as God from His” (verse 10).

Sabbath Rest by Sinclair Ferguson

 

[asterisktom]

2 Corinthians 3:3. 'Clearly you are and epistle of Christ, ministered by us, written not with ink but by the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of flesh, that is, of the heart.'

Here the law written on the heart under the New Covenant is identified with the law written upon stone under the Old Covenant. The Fourth Commandment was written on stone; it is also written on the heart of Christians. 'Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven.' 'For whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble at one point, he is guilty of all' (James 2:10).

I will get to the the paragraph before this later but for right now I just have to comment on this section of yours.

I am absolutely amazed that you would quote 2 Cor. 3 to prove your point. And then say that it proves that the two covenants are similar, the one "identified" with the other.

Really??

The ministry of "condemnation" (v. 9) and "death" (v. 7) on par with the ministry of "life" (v. 6) and "righteousness" (v. 11).

The old covenant kept the Jews in blindness (v. 14 - 15) but the New Covenant, in the Spirit of the Lord of Liberty changes us from "glory to glory". Your old covenant cannot do any of this.

Do you not see that Paul is contrasting these covenants, not equating them??

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Do you not see that Paul is contrasting these covenants, not equating them??

Of course he is making a contrast!! In the Old Covenant, the moral law was written on tablets of stone; in the New Covenant, it is written on the heart. This is exactly what the writer to the Hebrews says. The point is that it's the same law. It has not been eviscerated by having one part of it excised.
I need to crack on with my exposition of 1 Timothy 1, but I want to make just another couple of points.:
'All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking .......etc.' A gnostic mouse seems to have nibbled your Bible away and left you without the O.T. and the Gospels. Marcion would be proud of you.
'For whatever things were written in the past were written for our learning......' (Romans 15:4). The O.T. was written especially for New Testament Christians! Peter tells us that the O.T. writers came to realise that they were not ministering to their own day, but to us (1 Peter 1:12). Paul tells us that 'All these things happened to [the Israelites] as examples [better 'patterns'] and they werev written for our admonition' (1 Corinthians 10:11)

Now to 1 Timothy..

 

[asterisktom]

Of course he is making a contrast!! In the Old Covenant, the moral law was written on tablets of stone; in the New Covenant, it is written on the heart. This is exactly what the writer to the Hebrews says. The point is that it's the same law. It has not been eviscerated by having one part of it excised.
I need to crack on with my exposition of 1 Timothy 1, but I want to make just another couple of points.:
'All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking .......etc.' A gnostic mouse seems to have nibbled your Bible away and left you without the O.T. and the Gospels. Marcion would be proud of you.
'For whatever things were written in the past were written for our learning......' (Romans 15:4). The O.T. was written especially for New Testament Christians! Peter tells us that the O.T. writers came to realise that they were not ministering to their own day, but to us (1 Peter 1:12). Paul tells us that 'All these things happened to [the Israelites] as examples [better 'patterns'] and they werev written for our admonition' (1 Corinthians 10:11)

Now to 1 Timothy..

First you agree that there is a contrast. Then you say that they are the same. Forget it. conversing with you is like nailing jello to the wall.

I'm done with this. You are too much steeped in your tradition.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

1 Timothy 8-11.

Verse 8. 'But we know the [definite article. An identifiable body of] law is good if one uses it lawfully.' So the law, which as we shall see shortly, is the whole O.T., and also specifically the moral law, the Decalogue, is good, and was good when Paul penned the letter in around 61 AD. But it is possible to use it 'unlawfully.' How might one do that? Paul has told us in vs. 4-6. The false teachers have constructed 'fables' about the O.T. and made up stories about the genealogies in Genesis and elsewhere, causing disputes rather than 'godly edification. Paul now proceeds to give the proper use of the law.

Verse 9a. 'Knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person........' Who is this 'righteous person'? Some have suggested that it means a Christian, someone who is justified without qualification. This is untenable because it is contradicted by several N.T, texts, e.g. Romans 7:14-25; 2 Timothy 3:16-17; James 2:8-11, and of course Matthew 5:17-18.
There are two possibilities for what Paul means: firstly it could mean the non-existent totally righteous person who has 'no need of repentance' (Luke 15:7). Secondly, it could mean someone who is already seeking to be conformed to the law; rather the law is given to deal with people who are presently violating its commands to warn them that 'The unrighteous will not enter the kingdom of God' (1 Corinthians 6:9). 'According to this understanding, Paul is not referring to the law in a soteriological sense, as it would point to Christ, but in an ethical sense, as it defines proper behaviour for man..........the [moral] law is the standard for proper conduct as defined by God for all mankind, Christian or non-Christian, This lawful use of the law points out sin and defines that conduct which is "contrary to sound doctrine, according to the glorious Gospel of the blessed God."' [Richard Barcellos, In Defense of the Decalogue] The Gospel does not replace the law; rather, it establishes it and upholds it (Romans 3:31).

Verse 9b-10. '.......But for the lawless, and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for muderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, , and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine.' Now if we allow that the 'any other thing.....' comprehends covetousness, and then proceed backwards, we shall find that Paul's list is based on the Decalogue, and that he is giving the very worst examples of the sins listed.
'......For liars, for perjurers....' Here is the ninth commandment very clearly.
'......For kidnappers.....' the very worst example of stealing from someone would be to steal the person himself.
'......For fornicators, for sodomites.....' Here is the seventh commandment.
'......For manslayers.....' the sixth Commandment.
'.....For murderers of fathers and ......mothers.....' The worst possible way to dishonour one's parents would be to kill them!
'......For the unholy and profane......' The Greek word bebelos, 'profane,' can refer simply to someone who despises the good things of God, like Esau (Hebrews 12:16), but in Matthew 12:5, the verb form means specifically to profane the sabbath, and in Acts 24:6 it speaks of profaning the Temple. In the LXX, it is used in Nehemiah 13:17; Ezekiel 20:13; Isaiah 56:2 and elsewhere to describe desecrating or profaning the sabbath.

Therefore Paul's 'lawful' use of the 'good' law includes the instruction and rebuking those who despise God's good gift of the sabbath.

Just to finish off verse 10, the remaining words are more generic, but 'lawless and insubordinate' would certainly cover those who have other gods before the one, true God; 'ungodly' would do for idolaters, which leaves us with 'sinners' to cover those who misuse God's name.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

First you agree that there is a contrast. Then you say that they are the same. Forget it. conversing with you is like nailing jello to the wall.

Oops! Toys out of pram!
Just read Hebrews 8:8-12. The New Covenant is not like the 'First' or Old Covenant. We both agree on that. So what makes the New Covenant new and different? It is that the law, the same law that was written on stone tablets, but which the Old Covenant people could not keep is now written on the hearts of New Covenant believers so that it is their delight to keep it (Romans 7:22), and it distresses them when they fail to do so (Romans 7:24).

I'm done with this.

Me too. I've said everything I need to say.

You are too much steeped in your tradition.

Not that it matters, but you could not be more wrong. For the first ten years or so of my life as a 'Reformed' Christian, I did not like the idea of believers being 'under' the law, and I preferred the 1646 Baptist Confession to the 1689.
That is not any reason for anyone to think that I'm right. The fact that one changes one's mind is no indication that one has changed it in the right direction. I only mention it to tell you that you should not make judgements of other people out of ignorance.

 

[asterisktom]

From Aw.Pink on Hebrews
;

Here the apostle sets their minds at rest. A suitable point in his epistle had now been reached when this could be brought in: he was speaking of “rest,” so he informs them that under Christianity also, “there remaineth therefore a Sabbath-keeping for the people of God.”The specific reference in the “therefore” is to what he had said in verse 4: God did rest on the seventh day from all His works, there]ore as believers in Christ are the “people of God” they must rest too. “There remaineth therefore a Sabbath-keeping for the people of God.” The reference is not to something future, but to what is present. The Greek verb (in its passive form) is never rendered by any other Englishequivalent than “remaineth.” It occurs again in Hebrews 10:26. The word “remain” signifies “to be left after others have withdrawn, to continue unchanged.”

I don't usually respond to posts that are mostly just quotes. That would not be a discussion. But anyways let's take Pink first. I have benefited much from his writing in the past, but on this topic I disagree.

First, he overlooks both the audience and the time. Paul (I assume he is the author) is writing to a mixed group of Jews, saved and unsaved. He is writing this pre-AD 70, speaking of the old covenant as still present but "fading away".

First major mistake is Pink's (and your?) equating of Sabbath rest with Sabbath keeping. They are quite different, both as to recipients and to time. Our rest in Christ is in eternal. Sabbath keeping was never enjoined on Christians.

You will never find a passage from New Testament writers - nothing this side of the confirmation of the New Covenant - where we are told to observe the Sabbath.

Yes, the rest is not future. It was a present promise, In the same way as "Now is the day of salvation". When Paul said there remains a rest for the people of God he had in mind that many had come into that rest. But now, this side of the Parousia, we have that rest.

 

[asterisktom]

Here then is a plain, positive, unequivocal declaration by the Spirit of God: “There remaineth therefore a Sabbath-keeping.” Nothing could be simpler, nothing less ambiguous. The striking thing is that this statement occurs in the very epistle whose theme is the superiority of Christianity over Judaism; written to those addressed as “holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling.” Therefore, it cannot be gainsaid that Hebrews 4:9 refers directly to the Christian Sabbath. Hence we solemnly and emphatically declare that any man who says there is no Christian Sabbath takes direct issue with the New Testament scriptures. “For he that is entered into his rest he also hath ceased from his own works, as God from His” (verse 10).

Sabbath Rest by Sinclair Ferguson

Spoken like a true Presbyterian . My fellow-elder was especially enamored with Sinclair Ferguson.

He makes the first mistake of assuming that just because something is spoken of as present at the time of writing (or spoken of as future, for that matter) it is not necessarily the same situation now. Audience-relevance as well as time-relevance must be kept in mind. Yes, he is speaking to Christians - Jewish Christians - but also to those who are still hesitating between two opinions, still susceptible to apostatizing from the the faith. For them rest is still something they have not entered into.

BTW, how many rests in Christ do you think there are? When He said "Come unto Me and I will give you rest" do you really think that it was a different rest?

" Therefore, it cannot be gainsaid that Hebrews 4:9 refers directly to the Christian Sabbath. "

This is just plain wrong, misunderstanding what rest in Christ is. All the rest of what Ferguson writes gets "wronger and wronger". Except for his last sentence.- - the Bible verse.

I could write more on this but would rather, if you have not done so, have you look at what I wrote to MM.

 

[asterisktom]

I only mention it to tell you that you should not make judgements of other people out of ignorance.

Not out of ignorance. My judgments of you, correctly or not, were just from what you write here on this board. And, perhaps, a little bit on your choice of a monicker. And occasionally looking at your blog. One doesn't need many years to be "steeped in tradition", One can quickly accept the whole baggage. When I became Reformed (for want of a better word) I immersed myself greatly in a lot of Puritan writings like John Owen and several of the other Johns. Some of that baggage I have since ditched, of course.

 

[Iconoclast]

I don't usually respond to posts that are mostly just quotes. That would not be a discussion. But anyways let's take Pink first. I have benefited much from his writing in the past, but on this topic I disagree.

First, he overlooks both the audience and the time. Paul (I assume he is the author) is writing to a mixed group of Jews, saved and unsaved. He is writing this pre-AD 70, speaking of the old covenant as still present but "fading away".

First major mistake is Pink's (and your?) equating of Sabbath rest with Sabbath keeping. They are quite different, both as to recipients and to time. Our rest in Christ is in eternal. Sabbath keeping was never enjoined on Christians.

You will never find a passage from New Testament writers - nothing this side of the confirmation of the New Covenant - where we are told to observe the Sabbath.

Yes, the rest is not future. It was a present promise, In the same way as "Now is the day of salvation". When Paul said there remains a rest for the people of God he had in mind that many had come into that rest. But now, this side of the Parousia, we have that rest.

Hello Tom, thanks for considering what I offered and responding

 

[Yeshua1]

The point is that 'commandments' in verse 19 explains the meaning of 'law' in verse 18. BTW, 'Law and/or prophets' in the N.T. always means the whole of the O.T.
You sound like a hyper-dispensationalist. Romans 15:4. 'For whatever things were written before were written for our learning, that we through the learning and comfort of the Scriptures might have hope.'

You make it sound like some sort of imposition! 'The sabbath was made for man......' by a heavenly Father eager to pour blessings on His people. But if you want a text, try John 14:15; 1 Corinthians 9:21 & 1 Timothy 1:8-11 (understood properly).
I am surprised that, having said that one cannot divide the law, you have decided that you can divide the Commandments. God didn't give nine commandments, He gave ten. The idea that there has been some sort of falling out between Father and Son over the number is not something I want to countenance. But we are told that Jesus Christ is Lord of the Sabbath. He is my Lord and Lord of my sabbath. And you can find no text that abolishes the fourth commandment.

'Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labour and do all your work, but the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD your God......................For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day......' God made the heavens and the earth for everybody, not just Jews. As for binding consciences, I bind no one's conscience with anything but Scripture.[/QUOTE]
The basic problem with NCT is that it tries to be the compromise position between CT and Dispy, and just does not do justice to the scriptures themselves.

 

[Yeshua1]

Not out of ignorance. My judgments of you, correctly or not, were just from what you write here on this board. And, perhaps, a little bit on your choice of a monicker. And occasionally looking at your blog. One doesn't need many years to be "steeped in tradition", One can quickly accept the whole baggage. When I became Reformed (for want of a better word) I immersed myself greatly in a lot of Puritan writings like John Owen and several of the other Johns. Some of that baggage I have since ditched, of course.

Do we live by the Moral Law of God?

 

[asterisktom]

Do we live by the Moral Law of God?

I am tired of repeating myself. See my other comments in this thread.