This is simply not the case (to use no stronger term).
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
The Covenant of Works
- Thread starter JonC
- Start date
It is the case with NCT. That is a major point.
This is what NCT actually holds regarding God's moral law:
"For the New Covenant church, the law of God is no longer an external standard that demands compliance with the will of God. The Law of Christ as the indwelling Spirit is now an internal person who causes and inclines us to obey God from the heart."
The difference is not obeying vs obeying God's moral law.
It is not right to deny how NCT defines its own positions (I don't do that with Covenant Theology). You end up making strawman arguments trying to prevent others from actually considering NCT.
That is wrong because people should have the opportunity to consider each view. It is the same as gossip.
I need to point out something (again) because it is occurring (again)
Calvinists would rightly object to non-Calvinists referring to their view as making God the author of evil. Arminianism would rightly object to Calvinists referring to their view as making men their own savior.
Those types of arguments are strawman arguments. They ignore the true position in an attempt to discredit and prevent Christians from considering opposing view.
@Martin Marprelate is doing that with NCT (intentionally or unintentionally, I cannot know - he may not have read NCT statements - but I assume for now it was unintention).
When we deal with opposing views we need to treat those vires honestly. That is why I copied the "covenant of works" definition from a Covenant Theology affirming site.
Anything else is just gossip.
Calvinists would rightly object to non-Calvinists referring to their view as making God the author of evil. Arminianism would rightly object to Calvinists referring to their view as making men their own savior.
Those types of arguments are strawman arguments. They ignore the true position in an attempt to discredit and prevent Christians from considering opposing view.
@Martin Marprelate is doing that with NCT (intentionally or unintentionally, I cannot know - he may not have read NCT statements - but I assume for now it was unintention).
When we deal with opposing views we need to treat those vires honestly. That is why I copied the "covenant of works" definition from a Covenant Theology affirming site.
Anything else is just gossip.
My objection, as you very well know, is not to what you wrote about NCT. It is towards your slur upon covenant theology which is utterly false.
I was referencing this post
That said, this is a discussion. I am not casting slurs on Covenant Theology. I am saying I reject the method because the "covenants" they use are not covenants in the Bible. Instead they are "covenants" Presbyterian scholars developed from the Bible. Those are very different things.
Where many Christians offer hypothetical ideas (and recognize them as such) Covenant Theology takes a hypothetical as actual doctrine and builds upon it.
I do not fault you for taking up that method. I just believe it is wrong and as such obscures the biblical narrative.
Yes, I was referencing that as well. To claim that covenant theology tells us not to violate the Ten Commandments without also dealing with our Lord's teaching in the Sermon on the Mount is utterly false. C.T deals with the whole moral law of God, and summarized in the Decalogue and epitomized in the 'Royal Law.' You are casting slurs on covenant theology.
I never even mentioned the Sermon on the Mount.
This is what I mean by a few Reformed Christians trying to keep others ignorant of different positions by gossip and strawman arguments. It is simply wrong.
My point was that Covenant Theology AND NCT both recognize that God's moral law applies universally because it is rooted in the very nature of God. The difference between the two is it's focus.
I do not understand why you argue so strongly against what is not presented in NCT or so hatefully against what I never claimed.
My disagreement with Covenant Theology is that it assumes covenants not stated in Scripture as foundational covenants.
You are right that I said that I disagree with Covenant Theology because they view God's moral law as summarized in the Decalogue and the Royal law.
But you are wrong to call my statement that I believe Covenant Theology is incorrect to view God's moral law as summarized in the Decalogue and the Royal law a slur.
The difference....again....and reworded for your edification....is that Covenant Theology views God's moral law as summarized in the Decalogue and the Royal law while NCT views the Law of Christ as God's moral law establishing the Decalogue to include the Royal law.
Please try not to gossip about me (or anybody else, for that matter). If you have a question then ask. I will answer. Or read NCT through NCT theologians.
Nobody is slurring or slandering any position. Disagreements are just that - disagreements. You are more than welcome to disagree with any position here. That isn't slurring. It is expressing a different position.
Consider Covenant Theology, Dispensationalism, NCT. But consider them truly.
They are not compatible with one another (obviously), although they share the same passages and gospel.
It is fair to say we all fall under one of those methods, at least to a major degree.
Compare each them with the Bible.
Then decide what you are going to follow.
Your decision will not affect your status as a child of God, but it will have an impact on how you understand (and what you can understand) of God's Word.
They are not compatible with one another (obviously), although they share the same passages and gospel.
It is fair to say we all fall under one of those methods, at least to a major degree.
Compare each them with the Bible.
Then decide what you are going to follow.
Your decision will not affect your status as a child of God, but it will have an impact on how you understand (and what you can understand) of God's Word.
You are casting slurs on Covenant Theology. C.T. would be in full agreement with NCT when it tells us that any violation of God's moral law points to us not walking in the Spirit, commands us to constantly go before God in repentance.
Again, you are not being honest with my post.
What did I say?
I said that Covenant Theology views God's moral law as summarized in the Decalogue and the Royal law while NCT views the Law of Christ as God's moral law establishing the Decalogue to include the Royal law.
The difference is the focus.
Now, if you are denying that Covenant Theology views God's moral law as summarized in the Decalogue and the Royal law then we can discuss it.
But stop claiming anybody who disagrees with you are casting slurs on whatever ideas you hold.
You have disagreed with my views, and with the views of others. Unless you gossip about people who hold those views it is not casting slurs but simply disagreeing.
DaveXR650
Well-Known Member
Re the OP, I can easily see the logic in the idea that God had a covenant with Adam that his pristine life in the garden would be maintained with certain conditions, the main one being that they not eat from the one tree. The idea that you can't call something by a name that fits the definition of what you're calling it doesn't make any sense as we do that all the time in theology. Following the same logic, since the information is derived only from scripture the idea that it's not found in scripture is only valid in that scripture itself doesn't call it a covenant - although that is still what it is.
I have had time to read more of the NCT statement you provided. To be honest, I have to admit I probably have already sat under pastors at least influenced by NCT even if they don't formally announce that they adhere to it. In real life, they probably have read articles or have heard someone who influenced them in that way without their knowing it. I think that is the case with all of us in whatever church we join with nowadays - the previous influences flavor our current state, whether we know it or not.
This thread's on the Covenant of Works so I want to keep it on that. I bring this up because NCT is based on the idea that the older covenants have been fulfilled and it operates on the principle that they are now obsolete. But it does not say they were in any way untrue. My question to you @JonC , is in the other thread, on NCT do you actually like it or was that just for debate? Because if covenant theology is unbiblical and illogical then NCT is in the same boat. It simply says those older covenants, including the Adamic Covenant, which they obviously believe, has been fulfilled in Christ.
One other thing, in the debate on this thread, I want to state as clearly as possible that any attempt to paint the Puritans, who held to covenant theology in some way or another, as being deficient in an understanding in the proper relationship of the 10 commandments to the royal law, the Sermon on the Mount, or the Law of Christ or any hint that they tended to legalism in that they failed to understand the role of the Holy Spirit in sanctification as well as justification IS a slur. My biggest argument against NCT, if I even have one, would be that they are pretending to correct something that was already being done right.
NCT reminds me of the YRR music businesses that take an old hymn, tack on a lively chorus, and copyright the "new" music.
I have had time to read more of the NCT statement you provided. To be honest, I have to admit I probably have already sat under pastors at least influenced by NCT even if they don't formally announce that they adhere to it. In real life, they probably have read articles or have heard someone who influenced them in that way without their knowing it. I think that is the case with all of us in whatever church we join with nowadays - the previous influences flavor our current state, whether we know it or not.
This thread's on the Covenant of Works so I want to keep it on that. I bring this up because NCT is based on the idea that the older covenants have been fulfilled and it operates on the principle that they are now obsolete. But it does not say they were in any way untrue. My question to you @JonC , is in the other thread, on NCT do you actually like it or was that just for debate? Because if covenant theology is unbiblical and illogical then NCT is in the same boat. It simply says those older covenants, including the Adamic Covenant, which they obviously believe, has been fulfilled in Christ.
One other thing, in the debate on this thread, I want to state as clearly as possible that any attempt to paint the Puritans, who held to covenant theology in some way or another, as being deficient in an understanding in the proper relationship of the 10 commandments to the royal law, the Sermon on the Mount, or the Law of Christ or any hint that they tended to legalism in that they failed to understand the role of the Holy Spirit in sanctification as well as justification IS a slur. My biggest argument against NCT, if I even have one, would be that they are pretending to correct something that was already being done right.
NCT reminds me of the YRR music businesses that take an old hymn, tack on a lively chorus, and copyright the "new" music.
DaveXR650
Well-Known Member
From reading the document on NCT, especially the section on the Law, it seems that NCT says the Decalogue and God's moral law is obsolete and done away with. I know the wording is ambiguous and I also agree that it is possible to honestly look at the moral teachings just of Christ and those found in the Epistles and fully cover any moral obligation to holy living. You could do that. But the fact that Lutheran theologians were arguing with Puritan reformers long ago about how calls to repentance based on failure of obedience to God's moral laws were not technically part of the gospel - and the fact that a few years ago there was a move in reformed circles to do away with all these "imperatives" and disconnect attempting to follow them with sanctification; well, I can see how a Reformed Baptist preacher might be a little skeptical of NCT and especially of where it might go. This is especially true when you see that Dr. Moo's modified Lutheran theology is considered by the NCT folks as a good explanation of NCT.
I didn't mean to get off topic but what I'm trying to say is that you may not appreciate just how much the NCT folks really do want to break from any connection to the Old Testament laws. I think they mean it when they say it.
Not off topic at all, brother. I think we need to look at this more carefully (both your concerns and NCT.
Ont thing I need to point out is that these are frameworks. Just like there are different views within Covenant Theology and Dispensationalism, there are disagreement within NCT. All I can do is point out what the NCT states.
Douglas Moo and John Piper are used of examples of NCT. I agree there. But mostly in certain points (NCT leanings). Piper, for example, said he is closest to NCT but does not place himself exactly there.
My issue with your post here is there is an error in your reading.
You indicate NCT, especially the section on the Law, seems that NCT says the Decalogue and God's moral law is obsolete and done away with.
The reason you read NCT in that way is because Covenant Theology equates God's Moral law with the Old Covenant Law. But they is wrong because NCT does not.
NCT equates God's moral law with God's own nature. The link I provided explained it well. The moral commandments of the Old Covenant apply because they are universal, but the Old Covenant ended with the New Covenant.
NCT holds that the Old Covenant Law did not become void but is fulfilled in Christ. The New Covenant established the Old Covenant Law.
Another way to look at this is the Old Covenant Law foreshadowed the fuller expression of God's moral law in Christ Himself.
None of the moral commandments are obsolete. They were carried over (NOT from the Old Covenant to the Law of Christ but from the Law of Christ to the Old Covenant).
I do understand just how much a break NCT folks considers to have occurred between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant. I am a NCT folk. We do believe the Old Covenant Law was "nailed to the tree". BUT not God's moral law. That is based in the Law of Christ and merely expressed to an extent in the Old Covenant Law.
I apologize for not pointing out that distinction earlier. Your misunderstood is definitely logical as you and I look at God's moral law from different standpoints.
DaveXR650
Well-Known Member
I was just going by point 45 in the NCT statement where it says the Decalogue and moral law is no longer binding on believers. Then it goes on to say the moral law still "informs" the behavior of believers.
That I consider obscure in both directions. If "binding" means still under the law for justification or sanctification then I agree but if they mean as a rule of life then how is that different from informs behavior? All the statements on the Law from 40 - 50 do about the same thing and I think are confusing. Especially when you consider that Bunyan himself said " The knowledge and faith of this redemption prepareth man to a holy life. By a holy life, I mean a life according to the moral law, flowing from a spirit of thankfulness to God for giving of his Son to be my Redeemer. This I call a holy life, because it is according to the rule of holiness, the law, and ..."
Now elsewhere, where Bunyan wrote on the Law and the Gospel, the editor of the works commented that many prefer the law of Christ to the Decalogue which Bunyan himself goes into great detail explaining immediately following in the above quote. In other words it is not a new concept by any means that the New Testament teachings of Christ and the Epistles can indeed cover any teaching that is present in the Decalogue. No problem there.
Another thing I found on the Desiring God website is an article by Douglas Moo, fairly recent, 2020, where he addresses my complaint again, and frankly, it does satisfy my objections. Point no. 58 " The indwelling Holy Spirit, the law written on the heart, is the norm for Christian living". This sounds good, and is true, but it must be understood that actual precepts are still necessary for us to have. Dr. Moo addressed this, and at least satisfied my concerns.
He says that "Paul makes it clear that believers should be trying to remold their very way of thinking so that it is oriented by the Spirit to the things of God. But we are not there yet. Our imperfectly renewed minds require external guidance: hence the quite specific and clear commands that Paul sprinkles throughout his letters." So no problem there.
So I guess in summary I would just say once again, that when I see someone who wants to "unbind" themselves from the Decalogue my question is why. If the reason is to follow the teachings of Jesus and Paul in the epistles because they are more rigorous and get down to motive and the heart then fine. But if it's just to be released from some perceived over exactness of living the Christian life then that may indicate deep problems as several recent popular teachers have shown by their lives.
The issue is you are putting that point in an entirely different context.
Here is the point you are speaking of:
45. Because the Old Covenant law, including the Decalogue, has been fulfilled in Jesus Christ, New Covenant Theology denies that the Old Covenant law, including the Decalogue and its so-called “moral law”, is binding on New Covenant believers today. Yet, as the special revelation of God as fulfilled in Christ, the Old Covenant law, including the Decalogue, continues to inform behavior in the New Covenant.
But the statement goes on: All behavioral norms, including those detailed in the Decalogue, are ultimately defined by and expressed in the person and work of Jesus Christ. . . . The Holy Spirit is the indwelling Law of Christ, causing New Covenant members to obey Christ the Law in conformity to His image.. Covenant Theology emphasizes that it is the Spirit, the indwelling “law” who both causes (Ezekiel 36:27) and enables the Christian to be conformed to and transformed into Christ’s image, Who is the Imago Dei, the perfect image of God.
You are missing the point. The point here is that Covenant Theology misunderstands God's moral law (that is why in your reference it says "so called moral law).
NCT believes Paul's words that the Old Covenant Law is established in Christ (in the New Covenant). It sees the Old Covenant as an expression of God's moral law but not God's moral law itself.
DaveXR650
Well-Known Member
My point is that the Holy Spirit is not the indwelling Law of Christ. The Holy Spirit does indeed cause and enable the Christian to be conformed and transformed into Christ's image, but one of the means is the written precepts, the commandments of God found in the Old Testament, and/or the teachings of Christs, along with the teachings of Paul as found in the Epistles. There is a danger of moving into this ethereal area where you somehow rise above the need for any actual precepts to guide your behavior. It's a beautiful thought but we are not there yet and still need concrete moral teachings.
This is what Moo was saying but it's not new. Bunyan, Owen, and Watson were saying it too. While except for the vagueness of some of the precepts in the NCT document, I don't have any problems with it but what I don't understand is how you can act like traditional covenant theology has it so wrong and then embrace NCT which if given the benefit of the doubt is simply preferring Christ's interpretation of the Law instead of looking at the Decalogue itself.
Once again, in your opinion, do you think NCT would have a problem with this statement from Thomas Watson?
"Though a Christian is not under the condemning power of the law, yet he is under it's commanding power". He then goes on and explains the meaning of the 10 commandments and I think covers all concerns any advocate of NCT would have regarding any chance that the use of the Decalogue falls short of the New Testament teaching. But still:
Maybe I'm reading it wrong but I think the NCT adherent would indeed have problems with the statement by Watson above. And the reason is I suspect that they are thinking of a progression by direct action of the Holy Spirit or by the concept of the indwelling law of Christ that can short circuit or avoid the idea of listening to any type of "imperative" teaching. And I don't think that really is the way it was intended to work. It's also possible with the vagueness of this being all internally driven, to have the freedom now to elevate almost anything to become a "gospel issue".
That is a difference between Covenant Theology and NCT.
Obeying God's moral law is not (both believe we must obey God's moral law). Covenant Theology views this moral law as being the Old Covenant Law. NCT believes this moral law is now written in the hearts of believers (that God has removed our old heart, our old spirit, put His Spirit in us, causes us to obey His commandments do that when we do not it is of us and not "Christ in us", and has written His Law in our hearts).
Insofar as the Bible goes, NCT has more support (in addition to the scripture references in the last paragraph, Paul tells us that the Old Covenant ended with the New Covenant, that we are no longer under the Law, and that we are now under the Law of Christ).
How do you interpret the passage that the Old Covenant Law is established by the New?
DaveXR650
Well-Known Member
I think you have to keep in mind that all the passages about the law being a ministration of death, the law being nailed to the cross, the law being a schoolmaster designed to bring us to despair do NOT and were never in any way to lessen the fact that the law was and is the revealed will of God for us. The typical Puritan view was that since Christ fulfilled the laws demands for us and imputed the righteousness that we need to stand before God to us - now we are free to truly love God's law because it still retains the perfection and beauty and good that it was intended to give us as humans but what has changed is that we are no longer condemned by it, like we were. And that is truly how we should feel about it if we have been born again. We are still imperfect and in various stages of immaturity so actual precepts are still useful but they no longer just remind us how we fail and come short because we are in Christ.
I'm speaking as a laymen but one thing I enjoyed when I joined a reformed church was that I began to look at the Old Testament in a more integrated way with the New Testament. The teachings and God's interactions with the characters really come alive if you feel that there is some commonality with your life and these Old Testament people. You feel that God is talking to you also when you read the stories. I think a system that makes the Old Testament obsolete takes some of that away just like Andy Stanley and some of the non Calvinist Baptists do, although from a different direction, when they focus only on the New Testament. I'm sure you can tell, and most people get tired of me saying it, but the Puritan writings really opened up the Old Testament to me in a way that I had not seen before. So I too get a little sensitive if I sense a "new" system is trying to deemphasize that aspect.
Again, you point out differences between Covenant Theology and NCT in terms of viewing the Mosaic Law and the New Covenant but no differences in our obligation to observe and obey God's moral law.
Like we ALREADY discussed, NCT values the Old Testament and insists God's moral law is absolute and applicable. But they believe the Old Covenant has ended.
The Bible tells us a few things about the Old Covenant Law:
1. While it came in glory it came with lesser glory than the New Covenant. While it brought death the New Covenant brings life (2 Cor 3:7-18).
2. Christians are not under the Law (Galatians 3)
3. The Law dis not apply to those before Moses or to Gentiles (Deuteronomy 5:3)
Please don't take this wrong as it's also a sensitive subject for me, but at some point (if you have not already) you are going to have to decide whether God's Word is your authority or Presbyterian writers and theology. Either way is fine with me (both contain the gospel). But you cannot follow both.
I appreciate past theologies and believe we can learn from how theology was developed throughout history in dealing with their circumstances. I enjoy reading Puritan theology (more so Puritan poetry), but we have to make sure we realize the errors in their doctrines lest we repeat them.
There is a reason Puritanism ended in the early 18th Century. Before reading Puritan writings it is probably a good idea to understand Puritan errors. Then go for it, knowing there are obstacles ahead.
But I am not sure I know why neo-retro theologies have developed, particularly within Reformed Churches.
I need to add this :
I appreciate that NCT integrates the Old Testament with the New Testament. So we do have that in common.
Our difference is which direction we travel. NCT insists that Christ Himself is the fullest revelation of God (even fuller than the Old Testament).
So NCT interprets the Old Testament through the lens of Christ. That is why NCT holds that God's moral law is everlasting but the covenant expression in the Old Covenant ended with the fuller (Paul says more glorious) New Covenant.
Does that mean that we must put to death a man who accidentally runs over and kills another person (as required under the Old Covenant)? I don't believe so because I do not understand that to be showing love to the offender or the family of the victim. But that man did violate one of the Ten Commandments, and under the Law he is required to die or live as a prisoner for the remainder of his life.