The Covenant of Works

[DaveXR650]

Now you get it.

I'm starting too. I did tell you early on that I had no previous knowledge or training in this. When you have never even taken so much as a seminary course what you have to do is find out who is saying what and how do they preach and teach. And then you try to see where you fit in and which camp you would feel most comfortable in and who is it that you already listen to. So that's what I've been doing. And I'm looking into covenant theology more in general than I ever had before and it is interesting.

So, for now, I've said all that I know on it, (probably more than I know), but after looking at a couple of detailed articles, some videos, and some websites, including their take on it over at the Puritan board, I have come up with this so far.
It's not heresy, and some solid guys and solid churches embrace it at some level. My concern about it leading in a direction of antinomianism is valid and was brought up by some of the critics. I admit that is not necessarily a concern because as someone said, gospel preaching should always get an accusation of antinomianism or else it wasn't done right. But in the culture we live in it is still a concern. Also, my concern that it may discourage people from reading the Old Testament for it's own instructional value was brought up by some learned critics as well. And also, a concern was brought up that under NCT there may be a difficulty trying to explain guilt and sin to people if you cannot use the Decalogue. Also, NCT is still under development and is subject to change and different perceptions on the direction it should go. And last of all, some of the discussions are above my level of theological knowledge to the point where I don't feel able to really discuss it. So I'm not planning on saying much more on this but these are good threads so carry on.

 

[JonC]

When you have never even taken so much as a seminary course what you have to do is find out who is saying what and how do they preach and teach. And then you try to see where you fit in and which camp you would feel most comfortable in and who is it that you already listen to. So that's what I've been doing.

I understand this reasoning, but I would caution against this method. That often turns into indoctrination rather than understanding of Scripture.

Contrary to what we are often told, seminary is not necessary to understand Scripture. In fact, I would argue that God chose to reach out with His revelation specifically to "laymen".

Have you not noticed that everytime we see Jesus engage scholars He explains that they lack understand, but the ones who get it are everyday people?

I believe that the Bible makes sense, and has its true meaning, when read as recorded in the text of Scripture.

 

[DaveXR650]

I understand this reasoning, but I would caution against this method. That often turns into indoctrination rather than understanding of Scripture.

Yeah. I'm glad you put that on here. I'm only talking about doing that when a theological question comes up at a level that I have never even contemplated. I strongly believe that the gospel message is easily understandable by anyone with the intelligence to be accountable for their actions. You come as a child and if not you can end up like some of the theologians you read who you can tell, have no real part in any of this. But part of what I meant was that if I find out that a certain preacher who is doing a great work of teaching the gospel happens to embrace a particular theology - that means something to me. And I use that as a shortcut to figure out what to look into and what to discard. I read Puritans writings for over a year before I figured out they were mostly a bunch of Calvinists. I know that's astounding to anyone who's been to seminary but it is what it is. My first acquaintance with Spurgeon came from reading his sermons in "Sword of the Lord" which was the fundamentalist paper out of Tennessee. I had been taught to have complete contempt for anything Calvinist and imagine my surprise when I got a hold of more of Spurgeon's sermons on my own.

 

[JonC]

Yeah. I'm glad you put that on here. I'm only talking about doing that when a theological question comes up at a level that I have never even contemplated. I strongly believe that the gospel message is easily understandable by anyone with the intelligence to be accountable for their actions. You come as a child and if not you can end up like some of the theologians you read who you can tell, have no real part in any of this. But part of what I meant was that if I find out that a certain preacher who is doing a great work of teaching the gospel happens to embrace a particular theology - that means something to me. And I use that as a shortcut to figure out what to look into and what to discard. I read Puritans writings for over a year before I figured out they were mostly a bunch of Calvinists. I know that's astounding to anyone who's been to seminary but it is what it is. My first acquaintance with Spurgeon came from reading his sermons in "Sword of the Lord" which was the fundamentalist paper out of Tennessee. I had been taught to have complete contempt for anything Calvinist and imagine my surprise when I got a hold of more of Spurgeon's sermons on my own.

I've read just about every Spurgeon sermon (and was gifted a set of his sermon notes).

I understand what you mean.

My favorite are often pastors who were "moderates" in how they held their theology. Spurgeon was a Calvinist but Calvinism didn't define her s doctrine. Moody was not a Calvinist but was invited often to preach at Reformed churches (they assumed he was a Calvinist). Jonathan Edwards (a fairly poor pastor, but good theologian) was a moderate Calvinist by today's standard. George Müller was a Calvinist but like Spurgeon was not defined by Calvinism (he is another of my favorites).


BTW, I mentioned Tozer previously. A W. Tozer (not a Calvinist) was born into poverty. He was self educated. His doctorates from Houghton and Wheaton were honorary. But is sermons are rich in theology he learned from the Bible.

 

[JonC]

Yeah. I'm glad you put that on here. I'm only talking about doing that when a theological question comes up at a level that I have never even contemplated. I strongly believe that the gospel message is easily understandable by anyone with the intelligence to be accountable for their actions. You come as a child and if not you can end up like some of the theologians you read who you can tell, have no real part in any of this. But part of what I meant was that if I find out that a certain preacher who is doing a great work of teaching the gospel happens to embrace a particular theology - that means something to me. And I use that as a shortcut to figure out what to look into and what to discard. I read Puritans writings for over a year before I figured out they were mostly a bunch of Calvinists. I know that's astounding to anyone who's been to seminary but it is what it is. My first acquaintance with Spurgeon came from reading his sermons in "Sword of the Lord" which was the fundamentalist paper out of Tennessee. I had been taught to have complete contempt for anything Calvinist and imagine my surprise when I got a hold of more of Spurgeon's sermons on my own.

@DaveXR650 ,

This is a part of a sermon that deals with our topic. I agree with this summary as it presents of the Law and the NC.

Where do you disagree?

The terms of the Mosaic covenant had been rendered null and void by the disobedience of the people; and so God speaks in a new covenant. And this covenant can’t be broken, because it’s going to ensure the spiritual response of those with whom it is made, and that by providing for the internal renovation of their character. See, Christianity is not about the imitation of Jesus Christ; it is about transformation by Jesus Christ . And that’s why many people who have embraced a “Christian” way of life still live in the guiltiness of their own sinful condition: because they have never come in repentance and in faith to the Lord and Master, Christ himself, the establisher of this new covenant, and trusted him to make real in their experience what he has made possible by his sacrifice.

You see, when the people of God could not rise to the heights of his standard, the Lord didn’t lower his standards to match their abilities; he determined to transform his people. In other words, he didn’t look out on them and say, “You know, I can see that you’re having a rough time with these Ten Commandments. Why don’t I just make it Five Commandments? And you’re sinning so much that this annual deal that we’re doing is really not covering it all. Why don’t we make it a biannual event? Or why don’t we extend the length of the warranty coverage, as it were? Well, what we’ll do is, we’ll just drop it all down, because clearly you’re not doing so well.”

No. He doesn’t do that. He instead institutes his plan from all of eternity, which is to transform his people. The previous covenant that was established at Sinai featured the promised blessings that were there in the land of Canaan, but the new covenant concerned blessings which were spiritual in nature and which were eternal in their duration. The old covenant couldn’t take away sin, couldn’t save, couldn’t justify, couldn’t make the people holy. Its obsolescence is clear for all to see.

(Alistair Begg)

 

[Martin Marprelate]

You see, when the people of God could not rise to the heights of his standard, the Lord didn’t lower his standards to match their abilities; he determined to transform his people. In other words, he didn’t look out on them and say, “You know, I can see that you’re having a rough time with these Ten Commandments. Why don’t I just make it Five Commandments?

Interesting. Doesn't NCT unilaterally reduce the number of commandments to nine?

 

[JonC]

Interesting. Doesn't NCT unilaterally reduce the number of commandments to nine?

No. NCT typically looks at the Ten Commandments as a part of a whole covenant. Normally the Sabbath is viewed as pointing to Christ Himself (as our Sabbath), if that is what you mean.

NCT holds that the Old Covenant (the Mosaic Law) cannot be divided. We can look at moral and ceremonial aspects, but it applied as a whole. (There was more than Ten Commandments). Some support is given by Christ here as when asked about the greatest command He pointed to Scripture that followed after the "Ten Commandments".

The idea is that God's moral law exists eternally because God is eternal (His moral standard therefore has to be eternal). So the Old Covenant Law reflected this moral law in an external way (and can still be used to show us sin). BUT the ultimate expression of God's moral law is in the Person of Jesus Christ.

When we sin we do not transgress the Mosaic Law because we were never under the Law, but we transgress the law of Christ - not only externally by our action but internally as that sin is a result of sinfulness or "walking in the flesh" rather than "in the Spirit".

As the sermon indicated - the Old Covenant promised land and a nation but it was broken by Israel. This covenant also points to the New Covenant (a greater covenant with greater promises) and to Christ Himself as He is its fulfillment.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

No. NCT typically looks at the Ten Commandments as a part of a whole covenant. Normally the Sabbath is viewed as pointing to Christ Himself (as our Sabbath), if that is what you mean.

I seem to recall that John Reisinger wrote that the Decalogue only applied as the commandments were repeated in the NT. Has this view changed?

NCT holds that the Old Covenant (the Mosaic Law) cannot be divided. We can look at moral and ceremonial aspects, but it applied as a whole. (There was more than Ten Commandments). Some support is given by Christ here as when asked about the greatest command He pointed to Scripture that followed after the "Ten Commandments".

This is quite wrong IMO. The Decalogue stood apart from the rest of the Mosaic law. I will post more fully on that tomorrow DV.

With regard to the 'Greatest Commandment,' the Decalogue was epitomized by our Lord in what is called the Golden Rule (Mark 12:19-31 etc.). So all those ‘Thou Shalt Nots’ which unconverted people find so restrictive are actually acts of love. For if I love God, how can I put other gods before Him, bow down to idols, use His name disrespectfully or fail to regard the special day He has decreed? And if I love my neighbour, how can I lie to him, steal from him, seduce his wife or covet his goods? It is my case, and it can be shown in the Bible, that the Moral Law existed before the rest of the Mosaic Law and that is still applies today.

The idea is that God's moral law exists eternally because God is eternal (His moral standard therefore has to be eternal). So the Old Covenant Law reflected this moral law in an external way (and can still be used to show us sin).

I can sort of agree with this. The law cannot save us because we cannot keep it. If we seek to be justified by it, it becomes a ministry of death to us.

BUT the ultimate expression of God's moral law is in the Person of Jesus Christ.

I'd like to know exactly what you mean by that. It sounds like a platitude.

When we sin we do not transgress the Mosaic Law because we were never under the Law, but we transgress the law of Christ - not only externally by our action but internally as that sin is a result of sinfulness or "walking in the flesh" rather than "in the Spirit".

I do not believe that the Lord Jesus has a different set of laws to those of the Father. The Mosaic covenant has indeed passed away, but God's moral law is everlasting as you have agreed in your post.

As the sermon indicated - the Old Covenant promised land and a nation but it was broken by Israel. This covenant also points to the New Covenant (a greater covenant with greater promises) and to Christ Himself as He is its fulfillment.

With this I agree, and there is no difference that I can see to proper covenant theology. Perhaps it is best to open a new thread on the Old Covenant, as we have drifted well away from the OP of this thread.

 

[JonC]

I seem to recall that John Reisinger wrote that the Decalogue only applied as the commandments were repeated in the NT. Has this view changed?
This is quite wrong IMO. The Decalogue stood apart from the rest of the Mosaic law. I will post more fully on that tomorrow DV.

With regard to the 'Greatest Commandment,' the Decalogue was epitomized by our Lord in what is called the Golden Rule (Mark 12:19-31 etc.). So all those ‘Thou Shalt Nots’ which unconverted people find so restrictive are actually acts of love. For if I love God, how can I put other gods before Him, bow down to idols, use His name disrespectfully or fail to regard the special day He has decreed? And if I love my neighbour, how can I lie to him, steal from him, seduce his wife or covet his goods? It is my case, and it can be shown in the Bible, that the Moral Law existed before the rest of the Mosaic Law and that is still applies today.

I can sort of agree with this. The law cannot save us because we cannot keep it. If we seek to be justified by it, it becomes a ministry of death to us.
I'd like to know exactly what you mean by that. It sounds like a platitude.
I do not believe that the Lord Jesus has a different set of laws to those of the Father. The Mosaic covenant has indeed passed away, but God's moral law is everlasting as you have agreed in your post.

With this I agree, and there is no difference that I can see to proper covenant theology. Perhaps it is best to open a new thread on the Old Covenant, as we have drifted well away from the OP of this thread.

Reisinger did not believe any of the Ten Commandments were given as a universal moral law but rather as a covenant arrangement with Israel.

NCT holds the same moral standard that Covenant Theology holds, only to a higher standard. But there is one exception for Reisinger -he believed that the Sabbath command was ceremonial rather than moral.

Regarding the Decalogue, I think we actually agree in practice. The difference is where you (if I understand you correctly) view the moral commandments being repeated in the New Covenant, I view the presence of the moral law in the Decalogue as pointing forward to the New Covenant (we are going different directions, but coming to similar conclusions).

Are there any points in the sermon I posted that you find overly problematic?

 

[JonC]

With this I agree, and there is no difference that I can see to proper covenant theology.

The primary difference is where the covenant that are listed in Scripture fall in with the overall narrative.

Looking at individual covenants (mentioned as covenants in Scripture), I'm not sure there is much of a difference.

I have thought about looking at the five main biblical covenants individually. The "Old Covenant" was the covenant that God made with Israel (as opposed to the Noahic, Abrahamic, and Davidic covenants). So I considered beginning with the Noahic, but have not decided to jump in yet.

 

[JonC]

What do you think, @DaveXR650 ? Is this something that we can agree on regarding the Law and NC?

The terms of the Mosaic covenant had been rendered null and void by the disobedience of the people; and so God speaks in a new covenant. And this covenant can’t be broken, because it’s going to ensure the spiritual response of those with whom it is made, and that by providing for the internal renovation of their character. See, Christianity is not about the imitation of Jesus Christ; it is about transformation by Jesus Christ . And that’s why many people who have embraced a “Christian” way of life still live in the guiltiness of their own sinful condition: because they have never come in repentance and in faith to the Lord and Master, Christ himself, the establisher of this new covenant, and trusted him to make real in their experience what he has made possible by his sacrifice.

You see, when the people of God could not rise to the heights of his standard, the Lord didn’t lower his standards to match their abilities; he determined to transform his people. In other words, he didn’t look out on them and say, “You know, I can see that you’re having a rough time with these Ten Commandments. Why don’t I just make it Five Commandments? And you’re sinning so much that this annual deal that we’re doing is really not covering it all. Why don’t we make it a biannual event? Or why don’t we extend the length of the warranty coverage, as it were? Well, what we’ll do is, we’ll just drop it all down, because clearly you’re not doing so well.”

No. He doesn’t do that. He instead institutes his plan from all of eternity, which is to transform his people. The previous covenant that was established at Sinai featured the promised blessings that were there in the land of Canaan, but the new covenant concerned blessings which were spiritual in nature and which were eternal in their duration. The old covenant couldn’t take away sin, couldn’t save, couldn’t justify, couldn’t make the people holy. Its obsolescence is clear for all to see. (Alistair Begg)

 

[DaveXR650]

The terms of the Mosaic covenant had been rendered null and void by the disobedience of the people; and so God speaks in a new covenant. And this covenant can’t be broken, because it’s going to ensure the spiritual response of those with whom it is made, and that by providing for the internal renovation of their character. See, Christianity is not about the imitation of Jesus Christ; it is about transformation by Jesus Christ . And that’s why many people who have embraced a “Christian” way of life still live in the guiltiness of their own sinful condition: because they have never come in repentance and in faith to the Lord and Master, Christ himself, the establisher of this new covenant, and trusted him to make real in their experience what he has made possible by his sacrifice.

I don't disagree with the above as a specific sermon. You can take any liberties you want when the Spirit leads you to make the point you need to make. For instance I might say "Forget everything you know about covenants or theology. God is offering you a pardon right now if you will accept His offer". Great for making a point, a disaster as an explanation of Christianity.

Christianity is about the imitation of Christ but after the transformation by Christ. You enter by the strait gate, and then you must walk the narrow way. But I would never jump all over someone who preached the above if all they were trying to do was to help people make sure they had come by faith and been born again before trying to jump onto the way and start down the path as described in Pilgrims Progress. The imitation of Christ could be taught fairly well by Jordan Peterson. It was taught very well by Thomas Kempis. But even Kempis was criticized for lack of conversion teaching. John Owen, in his classic work "On the Mortification of Sin", made it clear that this was a work for believers and no one else.

And there is the classic "trust him to make real in their experience what he has made possible by his sacrifice". That's a possible error. You always walk by faith but YOU walk, you don't trust that Christ will walk for you. Practical sanctification is participated in by the believer and it's one of the most important things we do if we live for a time after being saved. And the idea that sanctification is done totally in a mystical, or spiritual way, without you being engaged in learning and doing actual things that Christ wants you to do is the classic error of that modified Lutheranism that Tullian got into. It is a form of antinomianism. There again, if you were doing a sermon for a bunch of legalists they may need a dose of such preaching so I'm not judging but that would be my concern. "If you love me keep my commandments" is not something you ask to be done for you. You ask for power and wisdom to do it, but you do it.

 

[JonC]

You can take any liberties you want when the Spirit leads you to make the point you need to make.

I'm not sure about this. I've heard preachers use illustrations presented as facts to support a sermon. It always bothered me when I discover the "fact" isn't true.

Anyway, that sermon points out the NCT position on the Old Covenant.

Sometimes we discover views are not so far apart when we discuss them.

 

[JonC]

Here is another to consider:

So here is the fundamental thing that needs to be grasped: When Jesus Christ came into the world, he was the fulfillment of the entire Old Testament. The Old Testament had looked forward and pointed to the coming Messiah who would bring his kingdom — his new kingly rule. And when he did, they knew things would change. There was a new-covenant promise where God’s law would be written on the heart. The old covenant would pass away. And that was already there in the prophetic writings of the Old Testament.

And now Jesus the Messiah has come, and everything has changed. And he himself gave the pointers to how they changed. The key statement that he made is in Matthew 5:17: “Do not think I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.” In other words, all the precious history and forms and structures and offices in the Old Testament aren’t merely thrown away; they are consummated. They are filled up in Jesus. (John Piper)

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Matthew 5:19. '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.'

 

[JonC]

Matthew 5:19. '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.'

Amen.

As you probably know the issue is not the commandments (God's moral law), especially since viewing the Ten Commandments as the "commandments" is a product of the English language.

Here is the difference -

Matthew 5:21–22 You have heard that the ancients were told, ‘You shall not commit murder’ and ‘Whoever commits murder shall be liable to the court.’
22 “But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever says to his brother, ‘You good-for-nothing,’ shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever says, ‘You fool,’ shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell.

NCT holds a stricter idea of God's moral law than Covenant Theologians could imagine.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Amen.

As you probably know the issue is not the commandments (God's moral law), especially since viewing the Ten Commandments as the "commandments" is a product of the English language.

Here is the difference -

Matthew 5:21–22 You have heard that the ancients were told, ‘You shall not commit murder’ and ‘Whoever commits murder shall be liable to the court.’
22 “But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever says to his brother, ‘You good-for-nothing,’ shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever says, ‘You fool,’ shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell.

NCT holds a stricter idea of God's moral law than Covenant Theologians could imagine.

Not at all. All covenant theologians understand that the Lord Jesus gave the proper interpretation of the commandments.
If you really think that C.T. somehow believes in salvation by works you could scarcely be more mistaken. I preached on this very topic several years ago and transcribed it on my blog:
A Greater Righteousness

 

[JonC]

Not at all. All covenant theologians understand that the Lord Jesus gave the proper interpretation of the commandments.
If you really think that C.T. somehow believes in salvation by works you could scarcely be more mistaken. I preached on this very topic several years ago and transcribed it on my blog:
A Greater Righteousness

?? I never said anything about Covenant Theology holding that salvation is by works. What are you talking about?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

?? I never said anything about Covenant Theology holding that salvation is by works. What are you talking about?

Here is the difference -

Matthew 5:21–22 You have heard that the ancients were told, ‘You shall not commit murder’ and ‘Whoever commits murder shall be liable to the court.’
22 “But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever says to his brother, ‘You good-for-nothing,’ shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever says, ‘You fool,’ shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell.

NCT holds a stricter idea of God's moral law than Covenant Theologians could imagine.

Perhaps I have misunderstood you. What are you talking about?

 

[JonC]

Perhaps I have misunderstood you. What are you talking about?

I was agreeing with the verse you posted:

Matthew 5:19. '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.'

But saying that NCT holds to a deeper idea of God's moral law than Covenant Theology:

Matthew 5:21–22 You have heard that the ancients were told, ‘You shall not commit murder’ and ‘Whoever commits murder shall be liable to the court.’
22 “But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever says to his brother, ‘You good-for-nothing,’ shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever says, ‘You fool,’ shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell.

Not that CT denies that verse (just as NCT does not reject that God's moral law applies universally). But that CT holds that we are under the Ten Commandments while NCT holds we are no longer under the Old Covenant Law.