New Covenant Theology: Good Teaching gets a Bad Rap.

Martin Marprelate · Apr 5, 2019

asterisktom said:
True, it is not up to us to do this. But consider that the New Testament does just that. The other nine are repeated and enlarged upon by Jesus and the Apostle John. But not so the Sabbath commandment. Paul, in fact. does quite the opposite, speaking against observing days and seasons.

Firstly, the Lord Jesus is Lord of the Sabbath (Mark 2:28), not its executioner. It was His custom to attend the synagogue on the sabbath (Luke 4:16).
Secondly, Paul is talking about feast days and festivals which were part of the ceremonial law, fulfilled in Christ (Colossians 2:16). This includes special 'sabbaths' (eg. Leviticus 23:24). The weekly sabbath is firmly embedded in the Moral law (Decalogue) and it's not for us to take it out. It is found in the O.T. before the Sinaitic covenant (Genesis 2:3; Exodus 16).

rsr · Apr 5, 2019

What's interesting to me is that growing up I imbibed what would be NCT teaching on the law without even knowing it. And yes, there was a constant worry about antinomianism (though no one would have used that word.) As if the Law of Christ and the strictures of the New Testament made for lawlessness.

Unfortunately, this incipient NCT theology was mixed with dispensationalism, which made for a hot mess.

asterisktom · Apr 6, 2019

Martin Marprelate said:
Firstly, the Lord Jesus is Lord of the Sabbath (Mark 2:28), not its executioner. It was His custom to attend the synagogue on the sabbath (Luke 4:16).
Secondly, Paul is talking about feast days and festivals which were part of the ceremonial law, fulfilled in Christ (Colossians 2:16). This includes special 'sabbaths' (eg. Leviticus 23:24). The weekly sabbath is firmly embedded in the Moral law (Decalogue) and it's not for us to take it out. It is found in the O.T. before the Sinaitic covenant (Genesis 2:3; Exodus 16).

Please don't put words in my mouth. Christ was not the executioner but the fulfiller of the Sabbath. He is our Sabbath Rest.

And, no, Paul is not talking about just special feast days. He was referring to the entirety of ordinances. He singles out Sabbaths.

"13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; 14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; 15 And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.

16 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: 17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ."

And my point remains that the Sabbath Commandment is the only commandment of the Decalogue that is not amplified in scope in the New Testament. The reason is that, while the other commandments truly are moral and applicable to all humans, the Sabbath had a special restricted reference to the Jews alone. And it has been done away with.

In Exodus and Deuteronomy we are told how the Sabbath was to be observed. How and when. And not to take from or add to any of these ordinances. Yet many Christians blithely ignore this and innovate the concept of "Christian Sabbath", observing the commandment in a new way and on a new day. This s a great error.

Also, you make a distinction between moral and ceremonial laws. You wrote:

"The weekly sabbath is firmly embedded in the Moral law (Decalogue)"

So the stoning of adulterers is a ceremonial law? Do you not see that a great part of the Law, though abrogated now in its details of punishment, is moral?

asterisktom · Apr 6, 2019

rsr said:
What's interesting to me is that growing up I imbibed what would be NCT teaching on the law without even knowing it. And yes, there was a constant worry about antinomianism (though no one would have used that word.) As if the Law of Christ and the strictures of the New Testament made for lawlessness.

Unfortunately, this incipient NCT theology was mixed with dispensationalism, which made for a hot mess.

Agree totally. I believe that, unless one gets outside "guidance", a young Christian would come to a basically NCT view on the Law. The universal teachings of the NT should greatly overweigh much of the OT teachings, much of which had a special relevance to the Jews. One of the first things I noticed when I entered into my newly-discovered Reformed stage of belief was how much emphasis the WCF put on the Sabbath. The WCF was helpful in providing verses for all their points, OT ans NT, but I noticed that the NT references on the Sabbath - and the assumed Covenant of Adam - were few and unconvincing.

Martin Marprelate · Apr 6, 2019

asterisktom said:
Please don't put words in my mouth.

I didn't do that; I gave my view of what NCT does.

Christ was not the executioner but the fulfiller of the Sabbath. He is our Sabbath Rest.

Christ fulfills the whole law (Matthew 5:17), but that does not mean that the whole moral law is thrown out. He is our sabbath rest, but 'there remains therefore a Sabbath rest for the people of God.' And this is not some dreadful thing that we have to do in order to be right with God. 'His commandments are not grievous.' 'If you........call the Sabbath a delight, and the holy day of the LORD honourable, and shall honour Him, not finding your own pleasure, nor speaking your own words, then you shall delight yourself in the LORD, and cause you to ride on the high hills of the earth.......' (Isaiah 58:13-14).

And, no, Paul is not talking about just special feast days. He was referring to the entirety of ordinances. He singles out Sabbaths.

"13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; 14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; 15 And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.

16 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: 17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ."

Well obviously I deny that the Sabbath is an ordinance that is against us. It is a blessing, as indeed all the commandments are. 'Make me walk in the path of your commandments, for I delight in it' (Psalm 119:35). "If you love Me, keep My commandments" (John 14:15; cf. John 14:21). Psalm 119 is obviously written by someone saved by grace, and he loves God's righteous laws. As I pointed out earlier, there were other sabbaths which were part of the ceremonial law which have gone, but the moral law remains and the Sabbath is embedded within it.

And my point remains that the Sabbath Commandment is the only commandment of the Decalogue that is not amplified in scope in the New Testament. The reason is that, while the other commandments truly are moral and applicable to all humans, the Sabbath had a special restricted reference to the Jews alone. And it has been done away with.

I disagree. Again, as I pointed out, the Lord Jesus is Lord of the Sabbath. He has the right to move the day, and interpret its observance (see below) but I see no evidence that He has 'done away with' it, nor that it is restricted to the Jews.

In Exodus and Deuteronomy we are told how the Sabbath was to be observed. How and when. And not to take from or add to any of these ordinances. Yet many Christians blithely ignore this and innovate the concept of "Christian Sabbath", observing the commandment in a new way and on a new day. This s a great error.

What the Lord of the Sabbath did do was to show that works of mercy and necessity were permitted on the sabbath (Matthew 12:1ff; Mark 3:1-4), but He did not abolish the sabbath, taught that one should assemble for worship and teaching on that day (Luke 4:16) and His earliest followers did not feel that they should abandon it (cf. Mark 16:1). Clearly they did not interpret His teaching the way you do.

Also, you make a distinction between moral and ceremonial laws. You wrote:

"The weekly sabbath is firmly embedded in the Moral law (Decalogue)"

So the stoning of adulterers is a ceremonial law? Do you not see that a great part of the Law, though abrogated now in its details of punishment, is moral?

The stoning of adulterers is part of the Judicial law. Christians follow our Lord's example by no longer stoning adulterers but calling upon them to repent and sin no more (John 8:2-11). That does not mean, of course that those who break the Decalogue and do not repent will not face God's wrath in due course. If you are unfamiliar with the concept of the three-fold division of the law, have a browse through this https://www.christian.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/the-threefold-division-of-the-law.pdf There is also a much more detailed exposition of this: From the Finger of God by Philip Ross (Mentor Books. ISBN 978-184550601-8).

Of course, it is entirely possible to pervert the Christian Sabbath with legalism, asceticism and other self-centred practices which do not glorify God and which 'are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh' (Colossians 2:23), but in my experience, to observe the Lord's day is as Isaiah described it: 'a delight.' The commandment tells us to 'remember the day and keep it holy.' That should be a blessing, not a bind.

Dan Stevens · Apr 7, 2019

If a Saturday sabbath was MORAL for Moses, how is Saturday not moral for us today? Do morals change?

Where in scripture did Jesus change the Saturday sabbath to Sunday if He in fact did so? (I would prefer a verse not an inference)

The idea Jesus can or would change MORAL principles at whim is nonsensical.

If one day in seven is MORAL, and morals do not change (are eternal), then eternity future would also require one day in seven observance. I find that idea absurd.

How did Enoch obey the MORAL Saturday sabbath thousands of years before the sabbath command was given?

In my view the PERFECT place to assert a Saturday or Sunday sabbath for NEW GENTILE converts would have been Acts 15, yet it's not there!

Act 15:28 For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;
Act 15:29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.

In fact this would also have been the perfect place to reassert the continuing duty to observe the 10 commandments.

I think there is little doubt a Sunday sabbath is a contrived idea, if covenant theology was consistent they would bite the bullet and observe a Saturday sabbath.

Martin Marprelate · Apr 7, 2019

Dan Stevens said:
If a Saturday sabbath was MORAL for Moses, how is Saturday not moral for us today? Do morals change?

Where in scripture did Jesus change the Saturday sabbath to Sunday if He in fact did so? (I would prefer a verse not an inference)

The idea Jesus can or would change MORAL principles at whim is nonsensical.

If one day in seven is MORAL, and morals do not change (are eternal), then eternity future would also require one day in seven observance. I find that idea absurd.

How did Enoch obey the MORAL Saturday sabbath thousands of years before the sabbath command was given?

In my view the PERFECT place to assert a Saturday or Sunday sabbath for NEW GENTILE converts would have been Acts 15, yet it's not there!

Act 15:28 For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;
Act 15:29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.

In fact this would also have been the perfect place to reassert the continuing duty to observe the 10 commandments.

I think there is little doubt a Sunday sabbath is a contrived idea, if covenant theology was consistent they would bite the bullet and observe a Saturday sabbath.

Welcome to the BB, Dan. It's good to have you here.

Just to take Acts 15:28-29 first: there are only two commandments mentioned here -- idolatry (sort of) and adultery (porneia). If the apostles weren't worried about the Lord's day, then also they weren't worried about honouring parents, murder, lying etc. In fact, the rules laid down seem to have been those necessary for table fellowship between Jewish and Gentile Christians, not as a code of righteous living.

Now, in the book of Acts, we see on the one hand, Paul going into synagogues and witnessing to Lydia on the Jewish sabbath (Acts 13:14,42; 16:13; 17:2; 18:4), but on the other hand we see the Christians assembling for worship on the 'first day of the week' (Acts 20 20:7; 1 Corinthians 16:2; cf. also Revelation 1:10). The seventh day was not their preferred day of meeting. So even with their high regard for the Fourth Commandment, the disciples had no problem in re-arranging their week so as to place their day of rest and worship at the beginning of the week rather than at the end. It is still, for the early church, a case of labouring six days and resting one. The commandment remains in force, but now the day has been changed.

The first day (or the 'eighth day') has a pedigree in the Mosaic law. The sheaf of the firstfruits of the harvest were waved before the Lord on 'the day after the sabbath' (Leviticus 23:11-12). And of course, Christ 'the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep' (1 Corinthians 15:20; cf. Acts 26:23) rose on the first day of the week. Likewise, the 'Festival of Weeks,' aka Pentecost, occurred 50 days later (Leviticus 23:16), on the first day of the week. See also 2 Chronicles 7:9; Nehemiah 8:18 when sacred assemblies were held 'on the eighth day.'

How did Enoch obey the MORAL Saturday sabbath thousands of years before the sabbath command was given?

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here, but without a doubt Adam was placed under God's moral law. Imagine if he had built an altar to the sun in the garden, or strangled Eve; do you suppose that God would have said, "Oh, that's alright, Adam. just so long as you don't eat that apple!" The idea is ridiculous. Some exegetes see a sabbath observance in Genesis 4:3. the phrase 'in the fulness of time' is literally 'at the end of days' and could refer to the sabbath at the end of the week. At all events, the sabbath, like all the commandments, is found in Scripture before the Law was given (Exodus 16:23ff).

The Archangel · Apr 7, 2019

I haven't read the entire thread, so this may have been stated beforehand. If so, I apologize for bringing it up again.

The Sabbath--as part of the Law given at Sinai--was the sign of that covenant, as the rainbow was the sign of the Noahic covenant and as circumcision was the sign of the Abrahamic covenant. So, it follows, that the Old Covenant now being obsolete, the Sabbath itself--as the sign--is no longer binding.

Of course, the argument will be made that the Sabbath precedes the Law, which is, of course, true. However, though I may be mistaken, I'm not aware of any penalty for not observing the Sabbath before Sinai. So the enforcement of the Sabbath day as a day of mandated rest was a part of the now-fulfilled Old Covenant. The remaining nine of the Ten Commandments were not designated as a sign of the Sinai Covenant.

So, I conclude that while we may choose to observe a Sabbath (usually on a Sunday, or Lord's Day) it is by no means enforceable on other individuals or congregations--unless we intend to say Sinai is still in effect.

That's my $.02.

Blessings,

The Archangel

asterisktom · Apr 8, 2019

Martin Marprelate said:
If you are unfamiliar with the concept of the three-fold division of the law, have a browse through this

I am quite familiar with that construct. But the Bible does not at all countenance this threefold division of the Law. Yes, there are greater and lesser laws, of course. But the Law of the Mosaic Covenant (not speaking of the Law of Liberty in Christ) was one unit, as indivisible as Christ's garment. It was either all in effect or not at all in effect. This is shown several places in the New Testament but none more explicitly than in Matthew 5:17-18:

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets. I have not come to abolish them, but to fulfill them. For I tell you truly, until heaven and earth pass away, not a single jot, not a stroke of a pen, will disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished."

This passage is more familiar than understood. When one really studies it one should see that either all of the Law is in force (every " jot and tittle": circumcision, lesser sacrifices, etc.) or none of it - including the Sabbath law that Reformed believers love so much.

Martin Marprelate · Apr 8, 2019

The Archangel said:
The Sabbath--as part of the Law given at Sinai--was the sign of that covenant, as the rainbow was the sign of the Noahic covenant and as circumcision was the sign of the Abrahamic covenant. So, it follows, that the Old Covenant now being obsolete, the Sabbath itself--as the sign--is no longer binding.

The Decalogue is as much a sign of the Sinaitic covenant as the sabbath (Exodus 34:27-28; Deuteronomy 5:2; 9:11) --all of it (especially idolatry -- Deuteronomy 29:25-26), not just the sabbath -- and it is clear that the moral law as a whole remains binding upon Christians (Romans 13:8-10; 1 Corinthians 9:21; James 2:8-12), not indeed as something that we are pardoned or condemned by, but out of love (John 14:15) for our Saviour and respect for the One who gave the commandments (Matthew 5:17-19).

Of course, the argument will be made that the Sabbath precedes the Law, which is, of course, true. However, though I may be mistaken, I'm not aware of any penalty for not observing the Sabbath before Sinai. So the enforcement of the Sabbath day as a day of mandated rest was a part of the now-fulfilled Old Covenant. The remaining nine of the Ten Commandments were not designated as a sign of the Sinai Covenant.

The judicial law came after the Moral Law. I am not aware of any penalty for lying or not honouring one's parents before Sinai, but you find them afterwards.

So, I conclude that while we may choose to observe a Sabbath (usually on a Sunday, or Lord's Day) it is by no means enforceable on other individuals or congregations--unless we intend to say Sinai is still in effect.

I do not believe that Sinai is still in effect, but I do believe that the Decalogue is. I believe in the independence of the local church, so I would not enforce the sabbath even if I could, but I will commend it as both the command and the blessing of God.

Yeshua1 · Apr 9, 2019

asterisktom said:
New Covenant Theology

A few years ago, after becoming Reformed in my thinking, I finally have realized what my belief system is called - New Covenant Theology.

The final paradigm lurch came courtesy of none other than R.C. Sproul! Or at least from his Tabletalk magazine. For quite a while I had been dissuaded from looking more closely into NCT because of charges from people I had respected (and still do somewhat) that this position is "Antinomian". I thought, "Boy howdy, I don't want to be an Antinomian! I guess I'll just back away from this here New Covenant stuff real careful like."

But two or three weeks ago I read a curiously titled web page, "An open letter to RC' Sproul", by John Reisinger, which concerns an issue of Tabletalk that dealt with Antinomianism in general, and New Covenant Theology as an extension of that. The author who used up most of Reisinger's ink was Richard Barcello. A quote from Reisinger follows. After rightly praising RC Sproul for much of the good that he has done for Christianity, he goes on to say...

" I was, therefore, greatly disappointed, but given your unreserved commitment to Covenant Theology, not at all surprised by your unjustified attack on New Covenant Theology in general and two other men and me in particular. Your magazine, Tabletalk, of September 2002 carried five articles against 'antinomianism.' One of those articles, "The Death of the Decalogue," by Richard Barcellos, applied the odious label of theological antinomian to Tom Wells and Fred Zaspel, co-authors of the book New Covenant Theology (page 55), and to me (page 16). "

The link for the whole letter is here:
http://soundofgrace.com/jgr/index074.htm
http://soundofgrace.com/jgr/index074.htm
I thought that this would be a good chance to see in capsule form what NCT stands for. I was surprised by two things:

1. The basic points of belief are the same as mine.

2. The rebuttal of the NCT - as quoted in this article - cast Tabletalk magazine in a less-than-noble light. That is, it seemed that Reisinger (and Tom Wells and Fred Zaspel) were being summarily and unfairly cast as Antinomian.

I say "seemed" because I felt that perhaps Reisinger was doing some selective quoting of his own in his comments on the Tabletalk articles. Luckily for me I had that copy of Table talk (September 2002) and read all of the pertinent articles, five of them. I was surprised and saddened to see that there was not much substance (nor fairness) in their opposition to NCT.

What is the main point of contention, and the main cause for Barcello to call NCT Antinomian? It is for saying that Christ is our Sabbath rest, that we are not obligated to observe the Sabbath. Of all the commandments of the Decalogue this one has not been enlarged upon by Christ. Also the accusation is made that NCT does away with the Old Testament law (Decalogue), when in fact it teaches that Christ gave a newer, richer law in the New Testament (Matt. 5- 7 and elsewhere). Part of the controversy, perhaps, is due to that old bugbear of semantic misunderstanding. But another part - an important and unfortunate misunderstanding - is a failure to fully believe and appreciate the sheer gratuity of God's grace in Christ Jesus.

The NCT denies that we are under the moral obligations of the Law of God, and deny the principle of the Sabbath Day rest to us, so not really something to be that commended!

Martin Marprelate · Apr 10, 2019

asterisktom said:
I am quite familiar with that construct. But the Bible does not at all countenance this threefold division of the Law.

I think you'll find it does.

Yes, there are greater and lesser laws, of course. But the Law of the Mosaic Covenant (not speaking of the Law of Liberty in Christ) was one unit, as indivisible as Christ's garment. It was either all in effect or not at all in effect.

This is not so. Right at the very start there was a difference between the Decalogue and the rest of the law.
Deuteronomy 5:22. 'These words the 10 Commandments] 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.'
The summary of the Moral law which is the Ten Commandments was spoken by God Himself in the hearing of the Israelites and written by Him on tablets of stone. The rest of the law was given to Moses and mediated by angels (Acts of the Apostles 7:53; Galatians 3:19; Hebrews 2:2). In addition, there are several places where the ceremonial law is described as worthless in the absence of moral rectitude (eg. 1 Samuel 25:22; Proverbs 21:3; Isaiah 1:10-17; Hosea 6:6; Amos 5:21-27). I hope people who are in doubt about this issue will click on these verses so that they will understand.

This is shown several places in the New Testament but none more explicitly than in Matthew 5:17-18:

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets. I have not come to abolish them, but to fulfill them. For I tell you truly, until heaven and earth pass away, not a single jot, not a stroke of a pen, will disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished."

This passage is more familiar than understood. When one really studies it one should see that either all of the Law is in force (every " jot and tittle": circumcision, lesser sacrifices, etc.) or none of it - including the Sabbath law that Reformed believers love so much.

If this is so then the other nine commandments are also abolished, for they would then be part of the Law, which, whether you admit it or not, you have abolished. But in fact it is not so. Matthew 9:13, referencing Hosea 6:6 is one place, but in fact your whole premise is faulty. The word 'law' is used in different ways in the NT, and the job of the exegete is to distinguish between them. When the Lord Jesus says in John 10:34, "Is it not written in your law, 'I said, "You are gods?"'" He is quoting from the Psalms and speaking of the law as the whole O.T. In Romans 2:25-27, Paul contrasts circumcision and the law, even though, to the Jews circumcision was the very essence of the law (Acts of the Apostles 15:5; 21:20-21). When Paul says in Romans 7:22, 'For I delight in the law of God according the inward man,' he is not saying he delights in God forbidding the eating of shellfish! No, he delights in the righteousness of God's moral law and wishes that he could keep it better (especially the 10th Commandment).

Now then,
Matthew 5:17-19:

"Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I have not come to destroy, but to fulfill [Gk. 'pleroo']. For assuredly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, one jot, or one tittle will by no means pass from the Law until all is fulfilled [Gk. 'ginomai']. Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

The law of which not one jot nor tittle will disappear is the one summarized by the 'commandments.' It must be so because soon afterwards our Lord abolished the dietary laws (Mark 7:18-19) and abrogated the judicial laws (John 8:3-11).

asterisktom · Apr 10, 2019

Yeshua1 said:
The NCT denies that we are under the moral obligations of the Law of God, and deny the principle of the Sabbath Day rest to us, so not really something to be that commended!

NCT understands better than CT

Martin Marprelate said:
...

Now then,
Matthew 5:17-19:

"Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I have not come to destroy, but to fulfill [Gk. 'pleroo']. For assuredly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, one jot, or one tittle will by no means pass from the Law until all is fulfilled [Gk. 'ginomai']. Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

The law of which not one jot nor tittle will disappear is the one summarized by the 'commandments.' It must be so because soon afterwards our Lord abolished the dietary laws (Mark 7:18-19) and abrogated the judicial laws (John 8:3-11).

Characteristically you underline "commandments" when you should have underlined Law. That is what Christ fulfilled.

Yes, the Decalogue was spoken by God Himself. Clearly of much higher importance . But you still overlook the fact that these were for the Jews, not Gentiles. The Sabbath commandment is nowhere laid upon the Gentiles. The other 9 commandments are, as I wrote earlier, enlarged upon in the NT. We are taught these by the Law of Liberty in Christ.

Observing the Sabbath has no part in this. It has never been an obligation for Christians. Those who do make an obligation for all Christians of this Jewish commandment are forced to make illegal changes to the commandment, changing the day, greatly modifying what constitutes work and rest. And then claim it all as an ever-binding principle on the consciences of Christians who ought to know better.

Martin Marprelate · Apr 10, 2019

asterisktom said:
NCT understands better than CT
Characteristically you underline "commandments" when you should have underlined Law. That is what Christ fulfilled.

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.

Yes, the Decalogue was spoken by God Himself. Clearly of much higher importance . But you still overlook the fact that these were for the Jews, not Gentiles.

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.' [/QUOTE]

The Sabbath commandment is nowhere laid upon the Gentiles.

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).

The other 9 commandments are, as I wrote earlier, enlarged upon in the NT. We are taught these by the Law of Liberty in Christ.

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.

Observing the Sabbath has no part in this. It has never been an obligation for Christians. Those who do make an obligation for all Christians of this Jewish commandment are forced to make illegal changes to the commandment, changing the day, greatly modifying what constitutes work and rest. And then claim it all as an ever-binding principle on the consciences of Christians who ought to know better.

'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.

asterisktom · Apr 11, 2019

Martin Marprelate said:
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).

If the some of the hardcore Reformed had their way in this country - or you country - it probably would be an imposition. But let's take a look at your verses:

"If ye love me, keep my commandments."

This, of course, begs the question; Which commandments? Jesus, after all, in John 13:34 gave a "new commandment", that we love one another. So we cannot automatically assume that 14:15 refers to the Ten Commandments of the old covenant, as you want them to. In fact, if they did, the ones who are not obeying these commandments would no longer be abiding in the love of God, John 15:10. Do you seriously believe that not observing the Sabbath puts us out of the love of God? I hope not.

So clearly this verse has nothing to do with the Sabbath. Next verse:

"To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law."

I am surprised that you offered a verse that actually goes contrary to your position and supports mine. reading the previous context (20) you see that Paul dealt differently with Jews than with Gentiles. He clearly does not say that he is teaching the same Law that the Jews were under. Quite the opposite. He specifies the "law of Christ" as being most important. This is the Law of liberty in Christ referenced earlier. This Law is written on hearts, not stone.

Your last passage is of no help either, I Tim. 1:8-11:

"8 But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully; 9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, 10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine; 11 According to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust."

Perhaps you were focusing on the first phrase and not enough on what follows. No one is arguing that the Law is good. But in Christ we have a new law written in our hearts.

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.

I found texts that Paul spoke against observing days. It is your ingrained indoctrination that makes you exclude regular Sabbaths from those verses. I get tired of repeating myself on this topic. Either you see it or you don't.

'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.

"One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind." Rom. 14:5

If what you quote from Exodus 20 is binding on Christians in the 1st century - or now - then Paul is teaching something contrary to God's will in Rom. 14:5.

But the fault is with your interpretation.

I'm OK with you observing your Sabbath however you want, and that it is your delight, as you say. But I don't want your delight be an imposition on young Christians who have an opportunity for a better understanding of what liberty in Christ can mean.

asterisktom · Apr 11, 2019

Martin Marprelate said:
For myself, I believe that God gave ten commandments, and that it is not for us to reduce them to nine.

Are you Jewish? Did God rescue you, Jeff, from Egypt by parting the Red Sea? If not, then, the ten commandments were not given to you.

Audience relevance please. To whom was Exodus 20 addressed? See verse 3:

"I am the LORD your God, who has brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage."

So, who is this "you"? Clearly Israel. This "you" inverse 3 is followed by several "you's" all the way down to verse 23. It does not make sense that the later pronouns would suddenly refer to someone else.

Bottom line: The Ten Commandments were given to the Jews, not us.

Martin Marprelate · Apr 12, 2019

asterisktom said:
Are you Jewish?

In the New Covenant, 'There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus,' who just happens to be Lord of the Sabbath. :Biggrin

Did God rescue you, Jeff, from Egypt by parting the Red Sea?

Who on earth is Jeff? If you call me Jeff, can I call you Mutt? But the Exodus is a type of our redemption in Christ (1 Corinthians 10:1-13).

If not, then, the ten commandments were not given to you.

First of all, the ten Commandments all precede the giving of the Law in Exodus 20. Secondly the Decalogue is for Christians.

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 where 'There is neither Jew nor Greek.' But which law is being spoken of? Which laws are written on the hearts of all Christians?

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.'

I am aware of not having answered your post #55. I will do so as I have time, but it may not be until Monday; I have a busy time this weekend.

Martin Marprelate · Apr 14, 2019

asterisktom said:
If the some of the hardcore Reformed had their way in this country - or you country - it probably would be an imposition.

This is an pretty obvious smear since you do not give any proof or documentation for your comment. I draw your attention to what I wrote in post #50.

Martin Marprelate said:
I do not believe that Sinai is still in effect, but I do believe that the Decalogue is. I believe in the independence of the local church, so I would not enforce the sabbath even if I could, but I will commend it as both the command and the blessing of God.

Asterisktom said:
But let's take a look at your verses:

"If ye love me, keep my commandments."

This, of course, begs the question; Which commandments? Jesus, after all, in John 13:34 gave a "new commandment", that we love one another. So we cannot automatically assume that 14:15 refers to the Ten Commandments of the old covenant, as you want them to. In fact, if they did, the ones who are not obeying these commandments would no longer be abiding in the love of God, John 15:10.

The question is, has the Lord Jesus had a disagreement with His Father and changed the Commandments? I don't believe He has. The Lord Jesus gave one new commandment to His disciples in John 13:34, and in John 14:15 he tells them to obey His commandments, plural. Where do you see that He gives any others, which are not those given in Exodus 20? To be sure, in Mark 12:29-31 He quotes Deuteronomy 6:4 and Leviticus 19:18, but they are simply an epitome of the Decalogue.
If we love God with all our heart etc., how can we
Have other gods before Him,
Bow down to idols,
Take His name in vain or
Desecrate the day which He has given us to keep?
If we love our neighbour as ourselves, how can we
Dishonour our parents,
Kill or hate our neighbour,
Seduce his wife,
Steal from him,
Bear false witness against him or
Covet his possessions?
No wonder the scribe came to see that keeping the moral law was 'more than all the whole burnt offerings and sacrifices' (v.33).

Do you seriously believe that not observing the Sabbath puts us out of the love of God? I hope not.

That is not a call I get to make. I just give you the Scriptures. We are not saved by observing the law, but that does not mean that we can play fast and loose with the Commandments of God.

"To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law."

I am surprised that you offered a verse that actually goes contrary to your position and supports mine. reading the previous context (20) you see that Paul dealt differently with Jews than with Gentiles. He clearly does not say that he is teaching the same Law that the Jews were under. Quite the opposite. He specifies the "law of Christ" as being most important. This is the Law of liberty in Christ referenced earlier. This Law is written on hearts, not stone.

You misunderstand Paul's meaning.
When Paul was witnessing to Jews, he acted like a Jew, observing the dietary and other laws. He was prepared to undergo a purification ritual in the Temple (Acts 21:24). But when he was witnessing to Gentiles, he put aside all that, and ate whatever they were eating, so long as he was not told that it was meat offered to idols; in short, he would not act like a Jew. But obviously he would not go to a pagan temple and offer sacrifices, or involve himself in religious orgies. He still kept the Decalogue.

Your last passage is of no help either, I Tim. 1:8-11:

"8 But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully; 9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, 10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine; 11 According to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust."

Perhaps you were focusing on the first phrase and not enough on what follows. No one is arguing that the Law is good. But in Christ we have a new law written in our hearts.

I found texts that Paul spoke against observing days. It is your ingrained indoctrination that makes you exclude regular Sabbaths from those verses. I get tired of repeating myself on this topic. Either you see it or you don't.

"One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind." Rom. 14:5

If what you quote from Exodus 20 is binding on Christians in the 1st century - or now - then Paul is teaching something contrary to God's will in Rom. 14:5.

But the fault is with your interpretation.

! Tim. 1:8ff I will deal with in a day or two. Now, I'll just deal again with Romans 14:5. I pointed out in post #57 by linking Deuteronomy 5:22, Jeremiah 31:33 and 2 Corinthians 3:3 that it is the whole Decalogue that is written on the hearts of believers. So what does Rom. 14:5 mean? It means that some, especially Jewish, believers were still observing the various Jewish festivals. While Paul was dead against Gentile believers observing such days (Galatians 4:9-11), he was far more relaxed about Jewish Christians doing so. What he's doing in Romans 14:5 is trying to promote harmony between Jew and Gentile within the church at Rome.

I'm OK with you observing your Sabbath however you want, and that it is your delight, as you say. But I don't want your delight be an imposition on young Christians who have an opportunity for a better understanding of what liberty in Christ can mean.

Unfortunately you seem to have no idea what liberty in Christ means. It means, amongst other things, calling the Sabbath a delight (cf. Psalms 40:8; Isaiah 58:13-14).

asterisktom · Apr 14, 2019

Martin Marprelate said:
This is an pretty obvious smear since you do not give any proof or documentation for your comment. I draw your attention to what I wrote in post #50.

Internet is really bad in this backwoods hotel, but I do want to answer this for now. I said "some hardcore Reformed" folks. Not necessarily you. If the shoe doesn't fit, don't wear it.

And yes, I am speaking from personal experience. My fellow elder at a Reformed church I partnered with about ten years ago would fit the definition. Also, as I think you know, there are a number of Theonomists who also fit the bill.

The rest will have to wait until the next town (tomorrow). Hopefully.

asterisktom · Apr 15, 2019

Martin Marprelate said:
Unfortunately you seem to have no idea what liberty in Christ means. It means, amongst other things, calling the Sabbath a delight (cf. Psalms 40:8; Isaiah 58:13-14).

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.

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

This last verse shows that the Law of Liberty is still a law. Those who believe in it, like the NCT do, do not espouse antinomianism, as some slanderous say. I don't know how many times I also have been told I was antinomian because I believe the Ten Commandments are not for Christians today. It betrays a profound misunderstanding on their part of several tenets of Christianity.

I am still waiting on a verse from you from a New Testament writer saying the we should observe the Sabbath. If such an injunction would be anywhere in the New Testament you would think it would be found in Acts 15, where the Jerusalem Council didn't mention it all as something needful.

I am also still waiting for a verse from you allowing you to disregard several verses in changing a commandment of God to suit your theology, changing Sabbath observance both in time and substance.

If you truly want to call the Sabbath your delight, like the Jews did, you need to observe it on the day that they did - Saturday. And the way they did.

New Covenant Theology: Good Teaching gets a Bad Rap.

Well-Known Member

<b> 7,000 posts club</b>

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member