Some Differences of Covenant Theology with New Covenant Theology

Your description of NCT really only pertains to one group's view, one that many in the NCT camp would reject in part or in whole.

Four streams of thought have been identified within the umbrella of New Covenant Theology, with one of those quite actively working to correct the errors of the other streams.

Many who identify themselves as New Covenant theologians would disagree with what in a very generalized way you ascribe as the beliefs of NCT adherents. It would be akin to saying that all covenant theologians subscribe to the WCF.

Ed

Thanks for enlightening me. Could you tell me of a NCT adherant who embraces the covenant of works? I would be interested to know because this is conected to all the other points I mentioned. They stand or fall together.

I believe that Don Carson, Tom Schreiner and Doug Moo, John Reisinger, all reject the covenant of works (as it is traditionally taught) and therefore also reject the imputation of Christ's righteousness from his active obedience. This is because the active obediece of Christ is essentially fullfulling the COW. Instead I understand these men believe the imputation of his righteousness comes from Jesus ontologically, because he is righteousin himself as God. Though I could be wrong about some of them as I realize they are not monolithic.

I would absolutely agree with Ed on this point. Their is some reading that has not been done to draw the conclusion that has been posted here.

Joseph,

Its great that you agree with Ed, but could you provide evidence of anyone in NCT who would embrace the covenant of works, the active obedience of Christ and the imputation thereof? I know of none.

Solus Christus
John

John Reisinger believes in the active obedience of Christ, though he does not believe in an Adamic Covenant of Works (he believes Christ's active obedience is connected to the Mosaic Covenant of Works). He also believes that Christ obedience to the law does play a role in our salvation (though I think he would frame his view a bit differently from the classic "active obedience" view).

Carson and Schreiner (I'm not familiar with Moo's position) would not say they only believe in Christ's passive obedience. I believe Schreiner (in Law and Its Fulfillment) does tie Christ's obedience and subsequent righteousness to the law in some way. I would be shocked if Carson did not tie Christ's obedience to the law in some way.

I hold to the covenant of works, active obedience of Christ, and Christ's obedience to the law as necessary for our salvation. I am NCT, and I don't believe those folks you've been reading speak for all of us.

Along with my agreement to Ed Trefzger's reply I would also point out that the growing interest in things NCT has of late expanded beyond what NCT "is not", when compared to Covenant Theology or Dispensational Theology, to a more focused pursuit of "what is" this New Covenant as understood by Holy Scripture. It's a pursuit that owes its success to the failure of those who rigidly subscribe to the WCF and the 1689 LBC. If those who subscribe to the Standards had but taken upon themselves the task of correcting the Standards' awkward and imperfect definition of the Covenants and had given themselves to amplifying the present ministry of the Holy Spirit's administration of this new and present Covenant I would not be writing this reply.
Thank you for your online labors. We appreciate your love for Truth.

Hi Chad,

That's interesting and helpful. Thanks for the info. But it brings up the question... If your brand of NCT embraces the covenant of works, the active obedience of Christ, and Christ's obedience to the law as necessary for our salvation, then how is it any different than CT?

Also, can you show me evidence in writing that Carson and Schreiner embrace the active obedience of Christ and that Christ’s full obedience to all the prescriptions of the divine law make available a perfect righteousness before the law that is imputed or reckoned to those who put their trust in Him? I am more than happy to be proven wrong here. IN fact I hope I am wrong but I have only seen evidence to the contrary.

These ideas of the covenant of works and Christ's active obedience actually make up the heart of CT and traditionally are the main ideas that have set CT from Dispy and NCT. So where is the difference then, in your view? It sounds like some parts of NCT are coming full circle and now embracing the main elements of CT. Am I wrong?

I appreciate this post and the discussion. I am not NCT, but I don't agree with the covenant of works. I do, however, believe in active obedience. Also, I am premillenial and believe in a future for ethnic Israel but I don't believe in the Chafer/Ryrie dispensational distinctives.

I guess I don't know what I am!

:-)

Brain

You said you don't agree with the covenant of works but do, however, believe in Christ's active obedience.

Then you must have a different definition of the covenant of works because Christ's active obedience is fulfilling the law or covenant of works from our side. They are inseperable concepts. Where Adam failed Christ prevailed

"For Moses writes about the righteousness that is based on the law, that the person who does the commandments shall live by them." Romans 10:5.

"For as by the one man’s" disobedience [Adam] the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience [Christ] the many will be made righteous." - Rom. 5:19

"In the days of his flesh, Jesus offered up prayers and supplications, with loud cries and tears, to him who was able to save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverence. Although he was a son, he learned obedience through what he suffered. And being made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him, being designated by God a high priest after the order of Melchizedek." - Hebrews 5:7-9

Brian,

The covenant of works is not the old testament it is the idea that if someone were to obey the law perfectly they would live. i.e. have no need of a savior. We need a savior because of sin, but if we lived perfect lives, saving would be unnecessary. Jesus reiterates the covenant of works to the rich young ruler. What must I do to have eternal life, the ruler asked, Jesus answered 'obey the commandments and you will live.' Of course Jesus was only using the law to expose his sin.

"Do this and live" is the covenant of works... "For Moses writes about the righteousness that is based on the law, that the person who does the commandments shall live by them." Romans 10:5

But the law is not of faith, rather "The one who does them shall live by them." - Galatians 3:10-12 (quoting Deut 21:23, Deut 27:26, Hab 2:4, and Lev 18:5; also see Is 32:15, 44:3; Jer 11:3; Ezek 18:4; Joel 2:38; Matt 5:19; John 7:39; Acts 5:30; Gal 2:6, 4:5, 5:4; Rom 1:17, 4:9, 15-16, 10:5; Heb 10:38; 2 Peter 2:1; Rev 22:3)

John

The difference between our brand of NCT (check out Christ our Covenant: http://christourcovenant.blogspot.com) and CT is that we believe Christ fulfilled *all* of the law and that that fulfillment belongs in the already of the already/not yet. Thus, the main point of distinction between CT and NCT as we see it is that the Law is *not* morally binding on the believer. The law is no longer morally binding because Christ Himself, in obeying the law perfectly and filling up every measure of it, is the One who morally binds the believer. The law was merely a temporary shadow, completely and exhaustively fulfilled in Christ.

So... most us would not see the distinction between CT and NCT lying in our understanding of the CoW with Adam and active obedience, but in the question of the binding nature of the law. But for myself (I can't speak for the others who have posted here), it's Christ's active obedience which fills up the fullest measure of the law. The question of active obedience is inherently tied to fulfillment... i.e. one cannot have fulfillment without obedience.

Again, I'll point you to Schreiner's "Law and Its Fulfillment" (I don't have it handy right now). I'd have to look up Carson. And btw... one person you forgot in your list... John Piper affirms at least 3 of the 4 (can't remember if he believes in a CoW with Adam or not... I do know he ties Christ's active obedience to Adam as a federal head).

I forgot... one other major distinction between CT and NCT... we believe that the New Covenant is *not* the Abrahamic Covenant. Again, Christ fulfilled the Abrahamic just as he fulfilled the Mosaic. Christ is the "yes" and "amen" for all things Old Testament. There isn't anything that Christ has not fulfilled... what is yet to come is not things that have been unfulfilled, but a consummation of things that have already been fulfilled.

The insistence that the Abrahamic has yet to be fulfilled or forms the essence of the NC are positions of CT that we don't share. There is something "new" about the "new covenant" that was not present in the OT (Jeremiah 31:31ff).

Thanks for the replies and clarification. My issue with the covenant of works is this: The Bible describes specific covenants by name (Abrahamic, Davidic, New) and therefore we let the scriptures provide the answer as to what we call a "covenant." There is no "covenant" of works explicitly describes in the scriptures, although I see the inference made in the WCF and LBC. But...I believe the Holy Spirit would have identified a covenant of works by name if He intended for us to use that term.

Brian

Then I guess we better stop using the term 'Trinity". :)

I appreciate your generosity in allowing us to post here. We merely meant to show that there's no monolicity to NCT.

If you think our hermeneutic is whatever is not repeated in the New is still binding you would not be accurate. That simply is a very flawed hermeneutic, a hermeneutic employed by the people you have been reading. The OT doesn't bind, the OC doesn't bind, the law doesn't bind... but it can and does inform. This is how the apostles understood the role of the OT in informing NC ethic.

And no, there's much more distinction than you write here. I applaud that you believe Christ fulfilled ALL of the law. That's more than some CTers will admit.

But we would argue that you really don't believe Christ fulfilled all of the law... in fact, I run into plenty of CTers here on the internet arguing that Christ fulfilled the civil and ceremonial, but not moral law. Otherwise you would understand that even the moral law has undergone abrogation. Christ fulfilled ALL of the law, and ALL of the law equally.

What you have articulated is what we in NCT call "enablement theology". The change in us between OC and NC isn't simply that we've been enabled to obey the law (insert long and drawn out debate over the interpretation of Romans 7 at which end we will agree to disagree). The problem isn't simply our ability to obey, but the law itself. We have not been freed from the law in order to obey it. We have been freed from the law, period. We are now enslaved to Christ, the New Torah, the Ultimate Standard by whom all holiness is measured. The highest expression of God's moral will is not the Decalogue, but Christ Himself. In actively obeying the law, he *became* the Law.

IMHO, the issue isn't the Sabbath. The issue is "third use of the Law" of which the Sabbath is an example. Christ himself is the "third use". And in that respect, I suppose the difference between Lee Irons and the late Meredith Kline and some of us is paedobaptism vs. credobaptism. We like to think of them as NCT presbies. :-)

John:

I anticipated that reply :-)

My reply to that is simple...the Bible already uses the term covenant...it doesn't use Trinity. We should stick with the biblical terms and not add a Covenant of Works that isn't clearly described already. Trinity is an extra-biblical word that describes biblical teaching. Covenant of Works is an hybrid biblical term that doesn't have explicit support.

In no way do I believe it is a heretical view...please understand.

Chad

If you all embrace COW and active obedience of Christ etc... then perhaps I have misrepresented you. However, I know of many in NCT who reject COW and Christ's active obedience.

However, your position and mine (CT) are not that far off if you embrace all these things.

you said >>>>Thus, the main point of distinction between CT and NCT as we see it is that the Law is *not* morally binding on the believer.

Well, not sure what you mean by 'morally binding' and how you would end up different in practice. Are you saying that being fulfilled in Christ you can live any way you want? I don't think you mean that. So I am not sure how this distinguishes you.

CT believes we are all on the other side of condemnation and the law can no longer condemn anyone in Christ because he fulfilled it ALL. In Christ's blood God remembers not to treat us as our sins justly deserve. But Christ having fulfiled the law from our side does not mean that God's moral character has changed. We are his children and though the law does not condemn us it reveals God's character and what pleases him. Thus the law cannot be seaerated from Christ and God still disciplines his children who disobey him.

What laws do you now not follow that you think persons who believe in CT do?

I have not met any CTers who would say that Christ did not fulfull the moral law. It is an impossible supposition because CT, by definition believes that Christ fulfillfed the covenant of works, and fullfilled the whole law of Moses from our side. The law of Moses being a republication of the covenant of works. This is a CT distinctive. For example, the book The LAw is Not of Faith that recently came out.

Chad

The Law if Not of Faith by Bryan D. Estelle, J.V. Fesko, and David VanDrunen (Editors)argues the classic CT position that the Mosiac Covenant is a republication of the covenant of works and that Christ had to fulfill all the stipulations of the law to fulfil the active obedience of Christ from our side.

http://www.monergismbooks.com/The-Law-Is-Not-of-Faith-p-18245.html

It would be inaccurate to say ANY classic covenant theologican would reject Christ fulfilling the moral law. Never heard this view anywhere.

But I am glad to see that some NCT embrace the covenant of works and the active obedience of Christ. This gives me optimism. The other differences are minor in comparison, imho.

AGAIN IF ANYONE CAN bring ME EVIDENCE that Tom Schreiner and Don Carson embrace the covenant of works and the active obedience of Christ that is imputed to the believer, I would be grateful.

Brian Jonson

The concept of a covenant of works is what really matters, not the phrase. The issue is that Adam was created in God's image and was told to obey God and he did not. Even though after the fall we are not unable to obey, the requirement to do so remains. Adam's fall does not remove, even the pagans' (gentiles') responsibility in his conscience to obey God. Romans gives witness to this:

19For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened.

14For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them 16 on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.

So the covenant of works, (or whatever you want to call it) is binding on all unbelievers. All are called by God to obey him PERFECTLY or they will perish. Only Christ fulfilled that law and did for us what we cannot do for ourselves.

This is really what CTers means when they speak of the COW. All unbelievers even now are under this COW. Otherwise how could God judge people?

This is why those who have never heard will be condemend because God has put it in all men's conscience to obey him, but they will not.

Chad:

John's question as to what exactly is meant by not "morally binding" is the same question I've had over these last couple of years (Chad and I know each other).

I still think back to our discussion over Ephesians 6:1-3, where Paul tells children to obey their parents and then quotes from the decalogue in order to firm up his imperative. How are we to understand that passage if the entire law is abrogated? Why did Paul use the law in this way?

Brother,

I really do not believe your challenge, if anyone can bring you evidence that Schriener and Carson hold to the covenant of works and the active obedience of Christ, is fair. I would prefer to ask you to cite evidence that they have denied such.

Moe:

It is not a challenge. I actually prefer and hope that I am wrong on this point. But I have many close friends and associates who know these man personally and have explained to me their position. If they are wrong about this, that is a good thing.

I am really just asking for your help, not trying to prove a point. So if anyone has run into writings of these men which show they embrace the COW and Christ's active obedience and the imputation thereof, I would be thankful.

Solus Christus
John

John:

Thank you. Yes, I agree with your post as far as it goes. I agree that there can be a covenant of works implied because of passages such as the ones you have cited. However, the reformed confessions seem to take the concept a bit far. They take a handful of covenants and lump them under "works" and "grace". In doing so, they have actually created two extra-biblical, hybrid terms (Covenant of Works - Covenant of Grace). It is one thing to describe and define each of the biblical covenants as belonging to a particular part of God's unfolding of history, such as under law or after the cross, but to consolidate explicit biblical covenants under "works" and "grace" seems unnecessary to me.

John: I have several reactions to your post and responses above.
1. I believe that you have erred in reducing the issue between CT and NCT to the affirmation/denial of the COW. My exposure to NCT over many years has convinced me that while the COW may be denied by some (if not most) within NCT, there are those who agree that there was a covenant with Adam while denying its characterization in the CT confessions.
2. To assert, as you have, that NCT may be characterized as denying the active obedience of Christ, and the imputation of that earned righteousness to the believer, appears to be based on shallow research. A perusal of the New Covenant Media bookstore on the Sound of Grace website would have led you to Gregory A. VanCourt's paper, "The Obedience of Christ: A Response to Steve Lehrer and Geoff Volker". See http://www.newcovenantmedia.com/product.php?productid=11&cat=1&page=5.
May I humbly suggest that you study this paper, and revise your characterization of NCT accordingly? IDS is not the be all and end all of NCT.
3. Also, I think it is unfair to include D. A. Carson, Douglas Moo and Thoams Schreinger under the rubric of NCT when they themselves are not on record as affirming any allegiance to that label. They may easily be seen on a middle ground between CT and DT without necessarily falling within NCT. To place them there without their consent based on a disagreement on these issues seems to me to be unwarranted. Therefore, any positions they may or may not hold with reference to the COW and active obedience are not relevant to where NCT is at on these issues.
4. Your insistence that "They stand or fall together" in your response to Ed explains the burden of your post, but I would suggest that this is argumentative. I do understand that CT as traditionally understood teaches an inextricable relationship between the COW and the active obedience of Christ. While many may buy into that system's conclusions on this matter, the fact of the matter is that there are those who reject seeing the covenant with Adam as a COW while wholeheartedly affirming the active obedience of Christ and the imputation of that earned righteousness to the elect. In other words, while you may insist that "they stand or fall together", many would respond, "No they don't", and the debate will be engaged and continue. The bottom line is that the issue/issues are not as simple, or cut and dried as you have portrayed them.
John T. "Jack" Jeffery
Moderator
The Sound of Grace List
Pastor
Wayside Gospel Chapel
Greentown, PA

I apologize for allowing the misspelling of Dr. Schreiner's name get by me in my response above. It is certainly not "Thoams Schreinger"!

Jack

You said my post reduces the issue between CT and NCT to the affirmation/denial of the COW.

Notice the tile of my post: "Some Differences..." It is not exhaustive. Also please read the "note" at the end of my post.

But I thank you for the link. I will indeeed study further into it as my research is obviously quite shallow with regard to the whole gamut of the movement. . So thanks for the interaction. It is helpful. I understand that many of these men do not use lables and prefer not to but I have included Carson, Moo and Schreiner because of their consistent embracing of most of the points made therein by NCT.

Also, please understand, I am not trying to be combative. My understanding of the active obedience of Christ is the fulfullment of the covenant of works from our side. This is what it has traditionally meant so when I say "they stand fall together" I mean that this is the case when using the traditional definition of its meaning.

"For as by the one man’s" disobedience [Adam] the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience [Christ] the many will be made righteous." - Rom. 5:19

If another definition is used then sure they may stand seperately.

Shalom
John

Hmmm... speaking of "not speaking for the entire whole"... now it's my turn: I think you'd be hard pressed to find a majority of CTers today who would embrace the Sinaitic Covenant as a republication of the Covenant of Works. At this juncture of CT history (2009), Murray is carrying the day (the Mosaic is a covenant of grace).

As for having never heard a CTer suggest that Christ has fulfilled 2/3 of the law, you need to get out more. :-) Again, while many CTers may profess that the whole law has been fulfilled, the way they formulate their understanding of the third use of the law implicitly denies it.

For instance, in 2 Corinthians 3, Paul juxtaposes, in antithesis, the Decalogue and the Spirit. I think I speak for most NCTers who have posted here in suggesting that the "third use of the law" is an implicit denial of this juxtaposition... the Decalogue, in "third use" hasn't gone anywhere, and all one has done is simply added the Spirit.

Hmmm... speaking of "not speaking for the entire whole"... now it's my turn: I think you'd be hard pressed to find a majority of CTers today who would embrace the Sinaitic Covenant as a republication of the Covenant of Works. At this juncture of CT history (2009), Murray is carrying the day (the Mosaic is a covenant of grace).

As for having never heard a CTer suggest that Christ has fulfilled 2/3 of the law, you need to get out more. :-) Again, while many CTers may profess that the whole law has been fulfilled, the way they formulate their understanding of the third use of the law implicitly denies it.

For instance, in 2 Corinthians 3, Paul juxtaposes, in antithesis, the Decalogue and the Spirit. I think I speak for most NCTers who have posted here in suggesting that the "third use of the law" is an implicit denial of this juxtaposition... the Decalogue, in "third use" hasn't gone anywhere, and all one has done is simply added the Spirit.

To answer the original question from your reader... here are some sites... and remember, NCT is not monolithic.

http://christourcovenant.blogspot.com/
http://fbceny.org/blog/
http://solochristo.com/_SC/SoloChristo.htm
http://blog.treasuringchrist.info/
http://www.soundofgrace.com/
http://www.soundofgrace.com/jgr/
http://www.moebergeron.com/
http://christmycovenant.com/
http://newcovenanttheology.org/
http://www.biblicalstudies.com/bstudy/index.htm
http://www.sermonaudio.com/source_detail.asp?sourceid=sgccdenver

On the IDS side of the equation...
http://www.jesussaidfollowme.org/
http://ids.org/
http://moseswroteaboutme.com/

Chad

you said, >>> I think you'd be hard pressed to find a majority of CTers today who would embrace the Sinaitic Covenant as a republication of the Covenant of Works. At this juncture of CT history (2009), Murray is carrying the day (the Mosaic is a covenant of grace).

First, you may run in different circles than I do because this guy as well as large numbers of CTers today embrace the Sinaitic Covenant as a republication of the Covenant of Works.

It is possible you misunderstand most in the CT camp because these same people (like me and many others) would also embrace the idea that the Mosaic law has many elements of the covenant of GRACE in it such as the priesthood, the temple sacrifices, and covenant declaration prior to the ten commandments " I am the Lord your God who brought you up..." Yet traditionally and now (as I showed you in the above book) covenant theology has embraced a repulication of the COW in the Mosaic Covenant.

A traditional example of the republication idea is found in the classic --- A Treatise on the Law and Gospel by John Colquhoun
http://www.monergismbooks.com/A-Treatise-on-the-Law-and-Gospel-p-18409.html

Second, as much as I appreciate his work, I would argue that John Murray is hardly a representative of traditional CT theology. His view certainly does not represent me and large numbers of others on this issue.

The Law is Not of Faith contains essays from some of the big names in CT this day including J.V. Fesko, DG Hart, Richard Belcher, Guy P Waters, T David Gordon, S.M. Baugh, Michael Horton, David VanDrunen and more...... all who embrace a republication of the COW in the Mosaic Covenant.

Here is a sample chapter from the Law is Not of Faith "Calvin and Witsius on the Mosaic Covenant" (.pdf) by JV Fesco http://www.prpbooks.com/samples/9781596381001.pdf

I do not misunderstand CT. I fully understand that you and the rest of the Westminster West guys affirm elements of the covenant of grace in the Mosaic. All covenants have elements of works and grace in them. I am fully aware of the back and forth between West and East, esp. in the discussions between Mark Garcia and Westminster-CA. I've read the books, listened to the songs, watched the fireworks, and drunk the "brew". You may claim that Murray does not represent "classic" CT in his formulation of the Mosaic Covenant... I happen to know there's a lot of people on your side of the CT fence who would disagree with you. CT is not monolithic just as NCT is not monolithic.

Personally, I land on the Westminster-CA side of the CoW debate, but part company @ the third use of the law.

Chad

you also said>>>>As for having never heard a CTer suggest that Christ has fulfilled 2/3 of the law, you need to get out more. :-) Again, while many CTers may profess that the whole law has been fulfilled, the way they formulate their understanding of the third use of the law implicitly denies it.

Chad, the imputation of Christ's righteousness because he fullfilled the covenant of works from our side, (that is, perfect obedience to God's moral law), precludes the idea that that only 2/3s has been fulfilled. An impossible supposition:

If only 2/3s had been fulfilled then Christ would not be able to impute the righteouness of his unblemished life as a human being to us. We would have no hope.

Any true obedience to the law springs from a new heart that loves God, with no hope that the law will ever attain or maintain a just standing before God. Christ has done that. It is finished and has given us a love for God and his law. CTers believe this. We obey Christ not in order to be saved but because we are.

Chad saidm >>>>I do not misunderstand CT. I fully understand that you and the rest of the Westminster West guys affirm elements of the covenant of grace in the Mosaic...Personally, I land on the Westminster-CA side of the CoW debate, but part company @ the third use of the law.

well I am glad to hear it. But you do acknowledge then that this clearly is the classic CT position? It is clear that republication litters the early writings on this.

Of course, there may be modern innovations to this position today and perhaps they are even right, but they are certainly not traditional CT. I think anyone would be hard pressed to find extensive amounts of Classic CT literature rejecting "republication".

John,

Let me point you back to this statement from Chad: "The law was merely a temporary shadow, completely and exhaustively fulfilled in Christ."

The Ten Commandments, while a standard unattainable by us, are only a representation of and not, contra the WCF and 1689, the "perfect rule" of righteousness.

Christ alone, as God's revelation of and exact representation of Himself, is the standard of righteousness. In His obedience, death and resurrection, Christ fulfills ALL of the legal and prophetic aspects of the Law, indeed of all of OT Scripture (cf. Mt. 5:17).

The view being espoused by most of the NCT brethren here does not hold to a republication nor exactly the same CoW definition as classical CT because it does not hold the Ten Words as being the ultimate revelation of righteousness. We would reject the extra-biblical division of the Mosaic law into three parts and would hold that Christ alone is the communication, the representation, the living Word, the living Torah of God. He alone is the righteousness of God.

Ed

Hi again and thanks for your excellent comments. I do believe, however, that it is a stretch to make your VERY GOOD and TRUE comments about Christ and what he has accomplished for us once for all, to somehow contradict the third use of the law. I do not think it does and to try and make CT less-than-Christocentric here just does not ring true IMHO... though I respect you for reaching your conclusions. Your fellow NCT Chad from what I read above appears to embrace the CoW, the active obedience and imputation of Christ but simply disagrees with CT on the third use of the law only. I can live with that because practically I frankly don't see it working out in practice much differently.

Of course we affirm with you that "The law was merely a temporary shadow, completely and exhaustively fulfilled in Christ." And of course, Christ alone is the communication, the representation, the living Word, the living Torah of God. He alone is the righteousness of God.

But you say "He alone is the righteousness of God" is if to say that John and his CT buddies reject this. Yet we would hold to nothing else. Do you think we believe that something else can be the righteousness of God??? or even close? ON the contrary, "we worship by the Spirit of God, glory in Christ Jesus and have no confidence in the flesh." My obedience adds less-than-nothing to my just standing before God. There is no hope save in Jesus Christ ALONE.

John

John,

I agree with these other gents that you seem to have really tried to pigeon-hole NCT based on just a few of the plethora of points that divide CT from NCT.

Interesting also is how you say that NCT denies the active obedience of Christ, yet it is NCT that believes He "actively" fulfilled the entire law, as opposed to CT's view of fulfillment.

As far as NCT denying the CoW, I would simply guess that you're reading old material. Reisinger certainly denies it, and many did along with him in the 80's and 90's...

Carson, Shcreiner, and Moo can't really speak for NCT until they're willing to put themselves in the camp with us. I find it unfair when they're willing to take the pats on the back, but bail on the term when it gets controversial.

Just a few random thoughts while I roll out of bed (third shifter).

-Josh

John ... I'm not saying you would reject that, but I think my colleagues here would suggest that CT, by calling the Decalogue THE moral law is contrary to what Paul teaches in 2 Cor 3. It keeps Moses elevated contrary to the superiority of Christ, demonstrated by "Listen to Him!" (or "Hear Him") at the transfiguration.

It is also a view of Law -- and again CT in general, not you specifically -- that tends as a result to emphasize the imperatives over the indicative nature of Jesus' teaching (e.g. Sermon on the Mount) and Paul's exhortations in his letters.

The NT emphasizes the ontological nature of the new creature in Christ; third use -- and especially law-driven preaching -- drives us back to the letter that kills rather than the Spirit that gives life. Consider Paul's admonition that the battle is not the flesh vs. the law but the Spirit against the flesh.

Space here doesn't give justice, but among us there's a lot of work and writing that will be presented in July and we hope published not all that long thereafter.

Jesus -- and Paul as His Apostle -- are teaching us to be what He has made us.

John ... I'm not saying you would reject that, but I think my colleagues here would suggest that CT, by calling the Decalogue THE moral law is contrary to what Paul teaches in 2 Cor 3. It keeps Moses elevated contrary to the superiority of Christ, demonstrated by "Listen to Him!" (or "Hear Him") at the transfiguration.

It is also a view of Law -- and again CT in general, not you specifically -- that tends as a result to emphasize the imperatives over the indicative nature of Jesus' teaching (e.g. Sermon on the Mount) and Paul's exhortations in his letters.

The NT emphasizes the ontological nature of the new creature in Christ; third use -- and especially law-driven preaching -- drives us back to the letter that kills rather than the Spirit that gives life. Consider Paul's admonition that the battle is not the flesh vs. the law but the Spirit against the flesh.

Space here doesn't give justice, but among us there's a lot of work and writing that will be presented in July and we hope published not all that long thereafter.

Jesus -- and Paul as His Apostle -- are teaching us to be what He has made us.

Let me also add that "Christ is the hermeneutic" is a phrase we've often used. I think that as opposed to the other "streams" in NCT that ostensibly there's far more continuity because we are taking a far more biblical theology driven approach. The cross is the defining point of history; the covenants all point to it, the OT types and shadows reveal it, and all of redemptive history is fulfilled (but not all consummated) and finished at it.

So, it's probably not surprising that much of what has been posted here aligns with CT. We're not trying to force continuity where it doesn't (in our opinion) exist, nor force discontinuity where there is none.

John,
Thanks for engaging my NCT friends in this dialogue.

I noticed in one response you said:
" Any true obedience to the law springs from a new heart that loves God, with no hope that the law will ever attain or maintain a just standing before God. ...CTers believe this. We obey Christ not in order to be saved but because we are. "

I would point out that you started with *obeying the Law,* and ended it with *obeying Christ* - as if they are interchangeable and/or identical.

Where those of us NCTers who have posted here would differ is in recognizing that:
a) The Law was a *shadow* of Him and His perfection, but not the full expression of Him
b) HE is the full and incarnate expression of God's perfection
c) He fulfilled the Law in His perfect incarnate self and now indwells us with His own perfection - not just a shadowy description of Him.
d) Obeying Christ is His work done in us by way of indwelling as He transforms us into His full and perfect image, not the Law's shadowy image of Him.
d) Thus, obeying the Law is obeying an external and shadowy reflection of Him
e) Whereas His Spirit is causing us to walk according to His full image, by union with Him, not a shadowy reflection of Him.

It's important to remember that the promise was always the indwelling Spirit (Ezek 36) and the effect of the Spirit is transformation into HIS image, not the Law's shadow of righteousness.

If we say we obey Christ *by* obeying the Law, we make righteousness a shadowy standard external to Christ and in doing so diminish Christ. This is where we differ from CT most dramatically.

We are no longer under Law but under Grace - which means we are under the indwelling Spirit of Christ - the full and perfect image of God Himself to whom we are being conformed.

The Law (shadow) still informs, but only partially, and (contrary to 3rd use) it does not transform because it is a shadow and it is external.
The indwelling standard of perfection, Christ Himself, enlightens AND transforms.
His main purpose IS to transform, not to enable.

Thus, in our view, obeying the Law and obeying Christ are not the same thing, nor do we obey Christ *by* obeying the Law.
Rather, we obey Him because of His Spirit within us.

"I will put MY SPIRIT within you and CAUSE you to walk in my ways."

The Spirit of Christ achieves and unites us to Christ (who is Righteousness incarnate) whereas the Law only described/reflected Him dimly and externally.

I hope that helps you see the distinction more clearly, even though CTers could probably find much in common with NCT especially if CT abandoned third use.

Blessings,
Steve

John: Thank you for your gracious response. It is appreciated, and understood. I hope you understand that there are those who may not connect the dots the way some CTers do, and yet affirm without hesitation that: 1) Christ as our substitute earned our righteousness in his active obedience to the Law Scripture explicitly asserts He submitted to (OC, "made under the Law"), and 2) that in justifying the elect the Father imputed that earned righteousness to them via their union with Christ. Also, in my humble opinion the real crux between CT and NCT is CT's understanding and appplication of the unity of the covenant of Grace, rather than their teaching on the COW. This plays out most sharply in the disagreements over the relationship between the Old and New Covenants when NCT asserts discontinutity between them.

Time to answer some of John's specifics….

>Are you saying that being >fulfilled in Christ you can live any way you want?

Of course not. What I, and others are saying here, is that the highest expression of God's moral will, the pattern of living to which we are being conformed and to which we are held accountable is *not* the law. It is Christ. Sin, in the New Covenant, isn't simply breaking God's law… the highest expression of sin, so to speak, is failing to conform to Christ's image. It is Christ, not the law, against whom we are measured. He functions as the New Torah.

>But Christ having fulfiled the >law from our side does not mean that God's moral >>character has >changed.

While God's moral character has not changed, the form that expresses God's moral character *has* changed. This is the point of Hebrews 1:1-2… Christ is the fullest and final expression of God's moral character and its corresponding obligations.

>We are his children and though >the law does not condemn us it >reveals God's >character and what >pleases him.

That was the function of the law in the OC. That is not its function in the New Covenant. The law now takes a back seat, so to speak, in revealing God's character to men and what pleases him. This is the impact of the Incarnation and Christ's active obedience on the question of the law's binding nature. When it comes to revealing God's character and what pleases him, we look to Jesus Christ, not the law. The law may help inform those things that please God, but if we look to the law as the *primary* means of revealing God's character, we have allowed the law to eclipse Jesus Christ… the shadow has eclipsed the reality.

>What laws do you now not follow >that you think persons who >believe in CT do?

IMHO, this is the wrong question. See my above answer. Again, the question presumes that the law is something we look to *first* for the fullest and highest expression of God's moral nature and will. In the abrogation of the whole law (Ephesians 2:15), every single one of the moral principles sitting behind the code of stone has undergone a Christological transformation in the New Covenant. All of them are contextualized by the Christ event. I don't have time to go through all of them, but some of the more obvious… the second commandment is abrogated in the Incarnation itself. We don't have Sabbath, because Christ himself is our Sabbath in whom we (already) have found rest. The heart issues in the backdrop of words 1 and 10 have taken their place front and center in the New Covenant (see the dramatic "inversion" of the antitheses in Matthew 5:21-48).

Brian asks:
>How are we to understand that >passage if the entire law is >abrogated? Why did Paul >use the >law in this way?

Again, (and we've been over this before on my blog, and my answer hasn't changed)you are bringing a presumption to the text that isn't warranted in the text cited. Paul uses the "honor parents" commandment as support for his point. He is not bringing the law to bear in the situation… he has already told us that the 10 commandments have been abolished (2:15), and in chapter 6, he has already given his New Covenant imperative: "children obey your parents *in the Lord*". "Honor father and mother" becomes the grounds for the imperative he has given, but it is not equivalent. In fact, "children obey your parents *in the Lord*" underscores the radical transformation the principles behind the original code have undergone in the New Covenant. The original code was given to national Israel. Obedience to the code was not characterized by "in the Lord"… the code was universally binding on disobedient and remnant alike. But that's not true in the New Covenant. All three house tables here are contextualized as life as the "one new man", life in the "household of God", life in the temple being built up as a dwelling place for God. The imperative of Ephesians 6:1 is not equivalent to the original code simply because the New Covenant imperative is for those who have been adopted in Jesus Christ (1:5).

>the imputation of Christ's >righteousness because he fullfilled the covenant of works >from our side, (that is, perfect >obedience to God's moral law), >precludes the idea that >that only 2/3s has been fulfilled. An impossible supposition:

I agree it's impossible. However, 1) I would not have said it if it had not been argued in like fashion, and 2) even the Westminster's use of the 3 categories of law lends itself to someone interpreting a 2/3 fulfillment. The New Testament, even implicitly, does not divide the law into 3 categories. We've done that in systematic theology, but it does not exist in the text, even implicitly. Thus, when Ephesians 2:15 speaks of the commandments having been abolished, it means the entire law. Leave the so-called "moral law" out of the Ephesians 2:15 exegesis, and it's not much of a leap to believe that Christ fulfilled 2/3 of the law. Why? Because abolishment and fulfillment are inseparably bound up with each other. Christ says he didn't come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it… but at by the end of his death, resurrection, and ascension, the law's abolishment is precisely what happened (so says Ephesians 2:15).

>If only 2/3s had been fulfilled >then Christ would not be able to >impute the righteouness >of his >unblemished life as a human being to us. We would have no hope.

I wholeheartedly agree.

>has given us a love for God and >his law.

Again, insert long and drawn out discussion over Romans 7 and 2 Corinthians 3, which tell us that the law is bent, even as believers, on our destruction. The law, even for a believer, is a ministry of death.

Ed

You said>>>> and again CT in general, not you specifically -- that tends as a result to emphasize the imperatives over the indicative nature of Jesus' teaching (e.g. Sermon on the Mount) and Paul's exhortations in his letters.

I frankly cannot relate this this statement Ed. While preaching the imperatives is always a temptation among human beings who are naturally inclined to be self-justifying, my experience in Reformed & Presbyterian circles has been the opposite. The indicatives are often overemphasized at the expense of imperatives because it is so grace centered. My guess is that this is why NCT seems to be more exclusively a babtist phenomena - a reaction against some kind of legalism ... mistakenly, in my view, thinking that it is because of the third use of the law rather than other elements.

In my analysis, you are are right that some NCTs (a minority) do believe in imputation of Christ's active obedience without the CoW. Reisinger and Gary Long would be 2 examples. But through investigation it still would appear that the vast majority of historic NCT reject it.

Honestly how large is the group of people that believe like Chad, Ed, Moe, Joseph, Josh and Steve is unknown. It seems relatively small. I mean, do you guys know each other? How many embrace these ideas as you do?.

I found some interesting links on the web which show that NCT and what you guys are speaking about have some significant differences. Recognizing that no group is monolithic yet the differences are quite vast.

Here's is some documentations...
http://freegroups.net/groups/soundofgrace/0::24293read.html

http://associate.com/groups/soundofgrace/0::24176read.html

Steve

you said, >>>I would point out that you started with *obeying the Law,* and ended it with *obeying Christ* - as if they are interchangeable and/or identical.

They are identical because you cannot separate the person from what he says. Iin Christ we are no longer under condemnation and are set free from the laws' bondage. Our justification is behind us. In Christ we love God's law. And the NT speaks often of obeying commands. Frankly the fact that you guys cannot figure out which commands must we obey gives me trouble because it does not sound like the New Testament. Since these words are emphasized over and over in the NT as well your beliefs on this issue give me serious pause.

Chad Bresson

I guess we are going to have to disagree on this. IMHO, with all due respect to you, I believe you are making an wholly unbiblical bifurcation on this issue. while you claim to be Christ-centered, your NCT beliefs, are frankly, not Christocentric enough believing that Christ can be separate from his law, as if Christ does not give us commands as his children. There is something seriously amiss here. The Person of Christ and what He commands us cannot be separated.

ok There has been plenty on this topic. Lets move on to something else. I do not have more time to respond to further posts on this.

Thanks for all your participation.
Shalom
John

Just so there is no misunderstanding here... if you take from what I've said that Christ has not given us commands then you really haven't been listening to what we've been saying. But Kline's intrusion ethic has everything to do with how we understand the category of "law" in the New Covenant.

Thanks for allowing us to participate.

John, if I might ask a question of Chad?

"Chad", you wrote above:::>

"....The law is no longer morally binding because Christ Himself, in obeying the law perfectly and filling up every measure of it, is the One who morally binds the believer....".

Can you cite one place in the Bible that you read where Scripture supports that claim?

thanks

I've already given passages which I believe teach that the law is no longer binding (2 Cor. 3, Rom. 7, and Eph. 2). I won't revisit those per John's wishes.

As for Christ as the New Standard to which we conform and obey:

Matthew 5:22a,26a,28a,32a,34a,39a, 7:24,26 (via Matt.5:17-20), 11:29, 17:5d (Christ as Torah is the *point* of the imagery of the Transfiguration), 28:18; John 3:36, 14:15 (*not* a reference to the OT law), Romans 8:29, 1Corinthians 15:49, 2 Cor. 3:18, Colossians 3:10 (via 2 Cor. 4:4, Col. 1:15).

Chad,

with all do respect, you haven't provided a Scripture that establishes your claim.

Would you point to one verse or one Book of the Bible that teaches what you claimed?

John,

Since you addressed me in your last post I'm hoping it's ok to reply briefly.

You speak as though Christ fills the NT with commandments, but I challenge you to do a search and investigate what is called a command(ment) in the NT.
At best there are 2. Believe on Christ, and Love each other 'As I HAVE loved you'.

Christ Himself says that IS His command.

In contrast, the OT is loaded with constant references to: "Obey - as IT IS WRITTEN".

There's a shift in the NC when the father says: "Listen to HIM." as opposed to "as it is written in this book of the Law," and likewise when Christ says "As I have" and never refers to "As it is written,", nor do Paul or the other NT authors.

We obey Him, and that *includes* obeying all that He is recorded as saying in the NT, but written or recorded words are not equivalent to nor as complete as a person, even if they are helpful.
If you have children, you know that when they're most concerned about obeying your words as if that is equivalent to obeying you, they will miss obeying you properly. BC they know you they know your words are not the full expression of your values.

Even-so, Jesus does command us to Believe and Love as He Loved, but He did not utter the Decalogue to us as His commands nor a whole bunch of new commands to follow as it is written.

So, to answer your concern: We obey His command to Believe and Love as He loved, plus we obey everything else he instructs us in the text bc we obey HIM, but He is not the Decalogue. He indwells us with Himself, not His shadow. He conforms us to Himself, not His shadow.
And yes, a person is distinct from his shadow, and the shadow is abrogated because it is subservient to Him. It was a reflection, but He is the real McCoy.

Thanks for indulging us a bit.
Steve

Chad,

let me narrow the assertion you made? Maybe this will bring into focus what I am after:::>

"Christ....is the One who morally binds the believer....".

Can you cite one verse where "Christ does this, "binds" the believer"?

thanks

I gave you the passages. In the interest of keeping things brief, I suggest that you do the biblical theology and see where it leads you. CT claims that the law morally binds the believer. These verses, had they occurred in the OT, would have been speaking about the law.. in fact, the law is in the back drop of most of them (esp. the Sermon on the Mount). When Christ says "but I say unto you", he is making a redemptive-historically loaded claim to superiority over the Mosaic law. When God says "listen to him" on the mount of transfiguration, the antithesis is obvious... standing just a few feet away is Moses.

CT wants to take us back to Moses for our sanctification (which is what it is de facto doing in suggesting that the law is morally binding). And NCT says "no, that fails to take into account the Christ event". Christ has fulfilled and become the law (Christ as Torah language and imagery is all over the Sermon on the Mount, John 1 and John 14ff, and the Mount of Transfiguration.)

Matthew 5:22a,26a,28a,32a,34a,39a, 7:24,26 (via Matt.5:17-20), 11:29, 17:5d (Christ as Torah is the *point* of the imagery of the Transfiguration), 28:18; John 3:36, 14:15 (*not* a reference to the OT law), Romans 8:29, 1Corinthians 15:49, 2 Cor. 3:18, Colossians 3:10 (via 2 Cor. 4:4, Col. 1:15).

Further, being a slave to the law in Romans 6-7 is juxtaposed over against being a slave to Christ.

Of course, I could just as easily ask you: where in the NC does it either explicitly state or implicitly state that the moral law is binding on the believer?

You should actually try reading some NCT rather than just take what R. Scott Clark and others say about it. Many would deny believing what you have outlined.

Well Chad,

apparently you cannot put forth one Scripture, as I suggested, to base the claim I highlighted that you made.

You are not addressing the issue.

You claim and cite various Scriptures, "that" Christ binds us morally to the law or to the Gospel or to the Covenant.

My point is nowhere in Scripture does it say that. You have obviously missed the point.

It is a very important point and making claims as you have above, it seems to me a bit amiss in not understanding "Who" is doing "What".

I would like to go into it further if John permits?

Michael,

Chad has suggested you look at those verses and do the biblical-theology, but fwiw here's one that prophesied about the NC which might inspire you to start looking at those NT verses:

Ezek 36:27 "I *will* put My Spirit withing you; and *cause* you to walk in My ways and be careful to observe my just decrees."

Who is this Spirit that was prophesied to bind the child of God in the NC?
Is this the same Spirit that is set over-against the Law in:
Rom 7:6 "But now we are released from the *law*, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the *Spirit* and not in the old way of the *written code*?

And is that Spirit the same one who is set over-against the Law in:
Gal 5:18 "But if you are led by the *Spirit*, you are not under the *law*?"

I hope we're not abusing John's graciousness with this fruitful discussion.

Steve

...and is that Spirit the same one who is set over-against the Law in Rom 8:2 "For the law of the life-giving Spirit, in Christ Jesus has set you free from the Law of sin and death?"

Is that Spirit not the indwelling Christ?
Yes it is, and He is prophesied in Ezek and revealed in the NT as the thing - rather the indwelling person - to whom we are bound and who binds us to righteousness in place of the Law.

Chad,

I am not in any hurry, you may be?

And to cite again another point you are making that I would differ on is this one:::>

Chad: "....Christ has fulfilled and become the law....".

Let me ask a series of questions that might hopefully open up the difference?

One, Jesus is an "Eternal" Being, an Essence, one of Three, without a beginning or ending, is He not?

How then does He "become" the "law" when He is the Law?

Did He not "become" our Savior? So, I agree with the first part of the citation, He fulfilled our "Salvation" becoming Our Savior because He is the Eternal Law.

When you cited above Matthew 11:29, I believe you misplaced it in an improper context. Had you cited 11:27 and only one portion of it, the "work" of Our Heavenly Father, you would have found it, the point I am taking issue with you on. Christ indeed fulfilled our salvation and so was given a "New Name", that of Savior. And by so fulfilling His, [Our Heavenly Father's] mandate, the Holy Ghost could vindicate Him before Himself, that is the Holy Ghost Himself and before Our Heavenly Father, thus Jesus returns to His Rightful Place as the Law of Righteousness. Why? Because They too are of the "same" Essence as Christ. He alone became something uniquely, the "firstborn" of many brethren. Sin produces death and separates from God. Christ never sinned so after His appointed sufferings He took His place in Glory, returning as the Savior of God's Elect.

Christ does nothing of Himself or by Himself so He cannot bind believers to Himself. He can and only does Our Father's Will.

He builds the dwelling places of the Most High. The Most High dwells in them through Christ alone. It is Our Father's rich mercy, because of Our Father's Great Love that He loves us with that makes us alive in Christ. Our Heavenly Father binds us to Christ. The Holy Ghost sanctifies us through the blood of Christ and being conjoined to and reanimated to Christ, we now, as "New Creatures" one with Christ, serve God in the Holy Spirit and Truth Who Christ became Our Savior through:::>

Heb 9:11 But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater and more perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation)
Heb 9:12 he entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption.
Heb 9:13 For if the blood of goats and bulls, and the sprinkling of defiled persons with the ashes of a heifer, sanctify for the purification of the flesh,
Heb 9:14 how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God.

Thanks Steve,

however, I view differently this part of your assertion and complicity with Chad:

You wrote to me: ".... who binds us to righteousness in place of the Law....".

Christ does not do any binding, Our Gracious, Loving, Exceedingly Loving Heavenly Father does that part. "To each His Own" part in the deal, the covenant, the New Covenant. Each has a part to play in our being "made alive in Christ".

Michael,

I wish to pursue this here no longer. In fact, John has asked us to shut this down. I have given you plenty of verses. All of them have to do with the idea of "being bound to", even if the word doesn't appear (things need not be explicit in order to be true... John already made that valid point about the Trinity).

I reject your argument for the plain and simple fact that just because the word "bound" is not found there does not mean the thought is not there. To be a slave to is to be bound to (hence, Romans 6-7 answers your question). To obey is to be bound to (hence, John 3:36 answers your question).

Further, Christ became righteous even though he was righteous. He "learned obedience"... that's not merely a manner of speaking. It's a reality. He wasn't simply perfect, He was *made perfect*. IMHO, the rejection that Christ *became* righteous is borne by a Docetic argument that fails to do justice to Christ's humanity. He left his essence in the heavens according to Phil. 2. He "became obedient". Christ becoming law is bound up in his active obedience.

If Christ is the Law, then we are bound to him de facto.

Finally, the scriptures don't teach a "to each his own" view of the trinity. In fact, such views have been rejected historically as Tritheism. The Father's will is accomplished *through* the son; therefore, to be bound to the Father is to be bound to the Son. Period.

If you wish to pursue this further, raise the issue @ my blog or http://christourcovenant.blogspot.com

Chad,

you miss my point.

And I respect your view. I just do not stand in it.

And Chad, it just might be me, but if I have offended you in any way, please accept my apology?

2Co 13:14 The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all.