What is New Covenant Theology ?

BABerean2 said:

The following is a direct quote from the link to the London Baptist Confession of 1689.

"CHAPTER 19; OF THE LAW OF GOD
Paragraph 1. God gave to Adam a law of universal obedience written in his heart, and a particular precept of not eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil;1 by which he bound him and all his posterity to personal, entire, exact, and perpetual obedience;2 promised life upon the fulfilling, and threatened death upon the breach of it, and endued him with power and ability to keep it.3
1 Gen. 1:27; Eccles. 7:29
2 Rom. 10:5
3 Gal. 3:10,12
Paragraph 2. The same law that was first written in the heart of man continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness after the fall,4 and was delivered by God upon Mount Sinai, in ten commandments, and written in two tables, the four first containing our duty towards God, and the other six, our duty to man.5
4 Rom. 2:14,15
5 Deut. 10:4
Paragraph 3. Besides this law, commonly called moral, God was pleased to give to the people of Israel ceremonial laws, containing several typical ordinances, partly of worship, prefiguring Christ, his graces, actions, sufferings, and benefits;6 and partly holding forth divers instructions of moral duties,7 all which ceremonial laws being appointed only to the time of reformation, are, by Jesus Christ the true Messiah and only law-giver, who was furnished with power from the Father for that end abrogated and taken away.8
6 Heb. 10:1; Col. 2:17
7 1 Cor. 5:7
8 Col. 2:14,16,17; Eph. 2:14,16
Paragraph 4. To them also he gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the state of that people, not obliging any now by virtue of that institution; their general equity only being of modern use.9
9 1 Cor. 9:8-10
Paragraph 5. The moral law does for ever bind all, as well justified persons as others, to the obedience thereof,10 and that not only in regard of the matter contained in it, but also in respect of the authority of God the Creator, who gave it;11 neither does Christ in the Gospel any way dissolve, but much strengthen this obligation.12
10 Rom. 13:8-10; James 2:8,10-12
11 James 2:10,11
12 Matt. 5:17-19; Rom. 3:31 "




The confession states that the 10 commandments were the same laws given to Adam.
This is not based on scripture.

Then it attempts to redefine the Sinai covenant by dividing it into three parts, "moral", "ceremonial", and "judicial".

Then it claims we are still under the "moral law", which the confession says are the 10 commandments.
This division of the law into three parts is used to hold onto the 10 commandments.

The problem is that according to the Bible, the Sinai covenant is the 10 commandments written on the tablets of stone.

Also, Paul never divided it up into three parts.

Exo 34:28 So he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights. He neither ate bread nor drank water. And he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant, the Ten Commandments.

Deu 5:2 The LORD our God made a covenant with us in Horeb.
Deu 5:3 Not with our fathers did the LORD make this covenant, but with us, who are all of us here alive today.

The confession does not agree with the text above.

The claims of the confession above also differ from the words of the Apostle Paul in Galatians chapters 3 and 4.

Paul said in Galatians 3:16-29 that the law was "added" 430 years "after" the promise to Abraham, "until" the seed (Christ) could come to whom the promise was made.



In Galatians 4:24-31 Paul compels the Galatian believers to "cast out" the Sinai covenant.
He is not talking about just the ceremonial law and the judicial law, but the covenant, which is the 10 commandments written on stone.

The confession above also places us under the Sabbath commandment, even though Paul says otherwise.


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

Col 2:17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.

I will gladly admit that the 1689 London Baptist Confession is correct on the topic of baptism.

Brother JM is attempting to use "bait and switch" to change the conversation, by making our disagreement over baptism. I have no problem with the 1689 London Baptist Confession in regard to baptism.

The problem with his confession is not with baptism. It is with section 19 of the confession regarding the 10 commandments.


When will Brother JM admit that the 1689 London Baptist Confession does not agree with the text of scripture in section 19 found above?

.

Click to expand...

Good summary of the very real problems that conflict with the Bible.

BABerean2 said:

The confession states that the 10 commandments were the same laws given to Adam.

Click to expand...

I've already asked but...so we can lie, murder, commit adultery, etc? lol If you say yes you are antinomian. If you say no you agree with me.

Bam.

ToBeLoved,

BA is reducing this discussion to a twitter war. His thoughts on are not deep but utterly surface. Please start at the beginning of the thread and work forward, taking time to watch the videos posted, and you'll see that BA is really using a Dispensational argument by claiming God has two peoples; one that must live according to a moral Law and the other that has a "new" Law (neonomianism). BA also refuses to deal with the material I've posted, instead, he ignores them and just repeats his posts...that's why I've been repeating my posts.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

NCT often critics Westminster/paedobaptist covenant theology and the criticisms are valid, however, the CT found in the London Baptist Confession (1689) offers another view.

I believe people are simply confused about what the Law actually is. Many good men will teach that we have nothing to do with the Law, at all, but those same folks would never tell you to;

1) worship other Gods
2) worship idols
3) take the name of the Lord in vain
4) skip church when the local assembly gathers
5) disrespect your parents
6) murder
7) commit adultery
8) steal
9) gossip or tell lies
10) covet

In a theological sense many will deny the continuing use of the Law in the life of a believer but will live, practically speaking, according to the Law. Protestantism has been pretty united in this area, that Christians should view the Law, not as a covenant by which we are saved, but see it as a way "to reveal what is pleasing to God. As born-again children of God, the law enlightens us as to what is pleasing to our Father, whom we seek to serve. The Christian delights in the law as God Himself delights in it. Jesus said, “If you love Me, keep My commandments” (John 14:15). This is the highest function of the law, to serve as an instrument for the people of God to give Him honor and glory." R.C. Sproul

Paul recognizes that Law was eternal when he wrote of its condemning effects.

“Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.”

That which condemns sin is the eternal, moral, and universal Law spoken of from Genesis to Revelation and that is how it condemned from Adam UNTIL Moses and now convicts sinners pointing them to Christ.

"But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe."

How are "all under sin," and by which standard is this judged? Is there more than one standard by which man is judged?

Paul wrote, "Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law." Gal. 3

So we can see the Gospel of free grace is not contrary to the Law at all and in fact, the Law has a lawful use for the believer.

"Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster."

We are no longer under the old covenant of works for our justification, but the lawful use remains, it points us to Christ "that we might be justified by faith."

Jeremiah 31:31-34King James Version (KJV)

31 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:

32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord:

33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

What Law is spoken of in the promise of the new covenant of grace? How would believers at that time understood "I will put my law in their inward parts?"

I think we take for granted that we know the Law, by the Spirit we know it and love it. It's just that many of us are theological antinomian. Every time Christ talked about Law he told reminded us of the old covenant summation which was love. Now, we have believers thinking "love" (without definiton or context) is the new law Christ gave when clearly, he was giving us a sum of the 10 Commandments.



The Fourth Commandment is the only one that I will not comment on.



Ernest Reisinger wrote, "The Law and the Gospel" and it was very useful in coming to an understanding of the Law and it's three fold division. It seems you are claiming all Law contained in the Decalogue is all ceremonial? The law of sacrifice was not moral but typical pointed to Christ. If the Law contain in the Decalogue was only ceremonial you are making a distinction, a division between the different Laws given. I agree with the division of the Law held by most Reformed folks. The moral Law declares how we should live, the ceremonial Law was given to national Israel and deals with worship and civil law was how national Israel was to be governed. In Galatians 4 Paul is telling us that accepting the Mosaic Covenant as a means of justification is bondage. Paul also tells us the moral law is still binding, it's evident in Romans 7. He desires, strongly, to keep the law but cannot. That doesn't mean his desire to keep the law evaporates, no, he strives lawfully to love the Lord with thought, word and deed. All of these are according to the moral law.

"For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous." The Law is not grievous to those who love God but it is a heavy burden if you try to earn your salvation with it.



NCT makes a false distinction between the "Law" and the "Law of Christ." I have already posted Jer. 31 above where it states the Law would be written on our hearts under the New Covenant of Grace. Are you suggesting the Law mentioned in Jer. 31 was a different Law and where in the context of the passage does it state that?



It is important to make theological adjustments when needed and I hope your toes are fine. NCT is attempting to bridge the gap between Dispensationalism rejection of the moral Law and Covenant theology unnecessary overemphasis on theological constructs. It's similar to Progressive Dispensationalism in this regard. I've never heard a NCT proponent claim we can covet, lie, gossip (9th), etc. and therefore affirm the eternal moral character of God expressed in the Law of the Old Covenant.


Yours in the Lord,

jm

For those who deny the continue validity and use of the Decalogue (10 Commandments) I must ask, what Law did Christ die to satisfy?

When we preach the Gospel to all men everywhere calling them to repentance what sins do I call them to repent of?

When Christ died on the cross to save His people what demands of justice did Christ satisfy?

"I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me."

What Law is Paul speaking about?

What is Paul calling evil?

Did Christ die for all of the ceremonial aspects of the Mosaic Law? All of the civil aspects of Mosaic Law? All of the moral aspects of the Mosaic Law? When the scripture tells us to repent what are we told to repent from?

You see, the moral Law existed before the 10 Commandments were given, they were restated as a covenant of works on Sinai and will continue to point us to the righteousness of Jesus Christ our Saviour. NCT is assuming the moral Law without acknowledging it. Christ died having fulfilled the moral Law in our stead. To deny the moral Law is the deny the need for Christ to die in our place fulfilling the covenant of works restated at Sinai. It’s a dangerous thing to deny the righteousness that caused Christ to suffering in our place.

Please consider what you have read, ponder what you know and think about how each biblical doctrine relates to each other.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

JM said:

ToBeLoved,

BA is reducing this discussion to a twitter war. His thoughts on are not deep but utterly surface. Please start at the beginning of the thread and work forward, taking time to watch the videos posted, and you'll see that BA is really using a Dispensational argument by claiming God has two peoples; one that must live according to a moral Law and the other that has a "new" Law (neonomianism). BA also refuses to deal with the material I've posted, instead, he ignores them and just repeats his posts...that's why I've been repeating my posts.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

Click to expand...

This is certainly a very time consuming thread. I will continue to watch the videos.

JM said:

Paul recognizes that Law was eternal when he wrote of its condemning effects.

“Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.”

That which condemns sin is the eternal, moral, and universal Law spoken of from Genesis to Revelation and that is how it condemned from Adam UNTIL Moses and now convicts sinners pointing them to Christ.

Click to expand...

Where is the rest of that verse in context?

Romans 5:13-15
13 For sin was in the world before the Law was given; but sin is not taken into account when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless, death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who did not sin in the way that Adam transgressed. He is a pattern of the One to come. 15But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many!

So there was not the Law between the time of Adam to Moses. The Law only came during Moses time.

JM said:

For those who deny the continue validity and use of the Decalogue (10 Commandments) I must ask, what Law did Christ die to satisfy?

When we preach the Gospel to all men everywhere calling them to repentance what sins do I call them to repent of?

When Christ died on the cross to save His people what demands of justice did Christ satisfy?

"I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me."

What Law is Paul speaking about?

What is Paul calling evil?

Did Christ die for all of the ceremonial aspects of the Mosaic Law? All of the civil aspects of Mosaic Law? All of the moral aspects of the Mosaic Law? When the scripture tells us to repent what are we told to repent from?

You see, the moral Law existed before the 10 Commandments were given, they were restated as a covenant of works on Sinai and will continue to point us to the righteousness of Jesus Christ our Saviour. NCT is assuming the moral Law without acknowledging it. Christ died having fulfilled the moral Law in our stead. To deny the moral Law is the deny the need for Christ to die in our place fulfilling the covenant of works restated at Sinai. It’s a dangerous thing to deny the righteousness that caused Christ to suffering in our place.

Please consider what you have read, ponder what you know and think about how each biblical doctrine relates to each other.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

Click to expand...

The Law is the Old Covenant. That is what the Law is a covenant God made with Israel.

Jesus brought the New Covenant and with it He brought new laws. A new High Priest a New Covenant, new law.

BABerean2 said:

And there it is. The 1689 London Baptist Confession claims that the Sabbath commandment is still in place.
Yet, you are trying to ignore this problem by saying you will not comment on it.

Click to expand...

Actually, that's not true. I didn't comment on the Fourth Commandment because, at the time, I wasn't sure if it was a moral obligation for every single person who ever lived like the rest of the Decalogue is.

So let's get the run down.

JM agreeing with the God's top ten...
1) you cannot have gods before the God of the Bible

BA, ToBeLoved and New Covenant Theology
1) there is no law saying you can't have gods before the God of the Bible, it's not immoral to do so

JM
2) no idols

BA, ToBeLoved and New Covenant Theology
2) there is no law saying you can't have graven images of God to be used in worship and if you want to use a statue to represent God it's not immoral to do so

JM
3) don't take the name of the Lord in vain

BA, ToBeLoved and New Covenant Theology
3) there is no law that states we can't use God's name as a cuss word and it's no longer immoral to do so

JM
4) no comment because I'm studying the issue but I would say you should set aside a day for worshiping God and that day is usually set by a local congregation

BA, ToBeLoved and New Covenant Theology
4) no sabbath law, you don't have to attend church when they set worship times, just do your own thing(?)

JM
5) honour your father and mother

BA, ToBeLoved and New Covenant Theology
5) there is no law saying you have to honour your parents and to dishonour them would not be immoral

JM
6) you shall not murder

BA, ToBeLoved and New Covenant Theology
6) it is not immoral to murder

JM
7) adultery is immoral, God's law clearly states it

BA, ToBeLoved and New Covenant Theology
8) the law has been done away with, adultery is not immoral

JM
9) don't steal, it's immoral

BA, ToBeLoved and New Covenant Theology
9) there is no law saying we can't steal...it's no longer immoral, it's done away

JM
10) thou shall not covet (yearn to possess something that belongs to someone else)

BA, ToBeLoved and New Covenant Theology
10) yearn, long and desire whatever you wish! it's no longer immoral to do so...no law, remember...

As you can see NCT quickly falls apart when fleshed out. BA WOULD NEVER say we could get away with any of the above. Even the dreaded fourth commandment, I bet BA would even say it was "best to attend church faithfully, regularly" even if he doesn't see it as a sabbath. ToBeLoved made a point about Romans 5 that actually backfires, for the passage teaches that EVEN BEFORE Moses Law existed, which is why "death reigned from Adam to Moses..." before the giving of the Law on Sinai. That is my whole point, that moral Law was given and existed before Moses delivered it.

For those who deny the continue validity and use of the Decalogue (10 Commandments) I must ask, what Law did Christ die to satisfy?

When we preach the Gospel to all men everywhere calling them to repentance what sins do I call them to repent of?

When Christ died on the cross to save His people what demands of justice did Christ satisfy?

"I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me."

What Law is Paul speaking about?

What is Paul calling evil?

Did Christ die for all of the ceremonial aspects of the Mosaic Law? All of the civil aspects of Mosaic Law? All of the moral aspects of the Mosaic Law? When the scripture tells us to repent what are we told to repent from?

You see, the moral Law existed before the 10 Commandments were given, they were restated as a covenant of works on Sinai and will continue to point us to the righteousness of Jesus Christ our Saviour. NCT is assuming the moral Law without acknowledging it. Christ died having fulfilled the moral Law in our stead. To deny the moral Law is the deny the need for Christ to die in our place fulfilling the covenant of works restated at Sinai. It’s a dangerous thing to deny the righteousness that caused Christ to suffering in our place.

Please consider what you have read, ponder what you know and think about how each biblical doctrine relates to each other.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

I believe people are simply confused about what the Law actually is. Many good men will teach that we have nothing to do with the Law, at all, but those same folks would never tell you to;

1) worship other Gods
2) worship idols
3) take the name of the Lord in vain
4) skip church when the local assembly gathers
5) disrespect your parents
6) murder
7) commit adultery
8) steal
9) gossip or tell lies
10) covet

In a theological sense many will deny the continuing use of the Law in the life of a believer but will live, practically speaking, according to the Law. Protestantism has been pretty united in this area, that Christians should view the Law, not as a covenant by which we are saved, but see it as a way "to reveal what is pleasing to God. As born-again children of God, the law enlightens us as to what is pleasing to our Father, whom we seek to serve. The Christian delights in the law as God Himself delights in it. Jesus said, “If you love Me, keep My commandments” (John 14:15). This is the highest function of the law, to serve as an instrument for the people of God to give Him honor and glory." R.C. Sproul

Paul recognizes that Law was eternal when he wrote of its condemning effects.

“Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.”

That which condemns sin is the eternal, moral, and universal Law spoken of from Genesis to Revelation and that is how it condemned from Adam UNTIL Moses and now convicts sinners pointing them to Christ.

"But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe."

How are "all under sin," and by which standard is this judged? Is there more than one standard by which man is judged?

Paul wrote, "Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law." Gal. 3

So we can see the Gospel of free grace is not contrary to the Law at all and in fact, the Law has a lawful use for the believer.

"Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster."

We are no longer under the old covenant of works for our justification, but the lawful use remains, it points us to Christ "that we might be justified by faith."

Jeremiah 31:31-34King James Version (KJV)

31 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:

32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord:

33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

What Law is spoken of in the promise of the new covenant of grace? How would believers at that time understood "I will put my law in their inward parts?"

I think we take for granted that we know the Law, by the Spirit we know it and love it. It's just that many of us are theological antinomian. Every time Christ talked about Law he told reminded us of the old covenant summation which was love. Now, we have believers thinking "love" (without definiton or context) is the new law Christ gave when clearly, he was giving us a sum of the 10 Commandments.



The Fourth Commandment is the only one that I will not comment on.



Ernest Reisinger wrote, "The Law and the Gospel" and it was very useful in coming to an understanding of the Law and it's three fold division. It seems you are claiming all Law contained in the Decalogue is all ceremonial? The law of sacrifice was not moral but typical pointed to Christ. If the Law contain in the Decalogue was only ceremonial you are making a distinction, a division between the different Laws given. I agree with the division of the Law held by most Reformed folks. The moral Law declares how we should live, the ceremonial Law was given to national Israel and deals with worship and civil law was how national Israel was to be governed. In Galatians 4 Paul is telling us that accepting the Mosaic Covenant as a means of justification is bondage. Paul also tells us the moral law is still binding, it's evident in Romans 7. He desires, strongly, to keep the law but cannot. That doesn't mean his desire to keep the law evaporates, no, he strives lawfully to love the Lord with thought, word and deed. All of these are according to the moral law.

"For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous." The Law is not grievous to those who love God but it is a heavy burden if you try to earn your salvation with it.



NCT makes a false distinction between the "Law" and the "Law of Christ." I have already posted Jer. 31 above where it states the Law would be written on our hearts under the New Covenant of Grace. Are you suggesting the Law mentioned in Jer. 31 was a different Law and where in the context of the passage does it state that?



It is important to make theological adjustments when needed and I hope your toes are fine. NCT is attempting to bridge the gap between Dispensationalism rejection of the moral Law and Covenant theology unnecessary overemphasis on theological constructs. It's similar to Progressive Dispensationalism in this regard. I've never heard a NCT proponent claim we can covet, lie, gossip (9th), etc. and therefore affirm the eternal moral character of God expressed in the Law of the Old Covenant.


Yours in the Lord,

jm

JM said:

Actually, that's not true. I didn't comment on the Fourth Commandment because, at the time, I wasn't sure if it was a moral obligation for every single person who ever lived like the rest of the Decalogue is.

So let's get the run down.

JM agreeing with the God's top ten...
1) you cannot have gods before the God of the Bible

BA, ToBeLoved and New Covenant Theology
1) there is no law saying you can't have gods before the God of the Bible, it's not immoral to do so

JM
2) no idols

BA, ToBeLoved and New Covenant Theology
2) there is no law saying you can't have graven images of God to be used in worship and if you want to use a statue to represent God it's not immoral to do so

JM
3) don't take the name of the Lord in vain

BA, ToBeLoved and New Covenant Theology
3) there is no law that states we can't use God's name as a cuss word and it's no longer immoral to do so

JM
4) no comment because I'm studying the issue but I would say you should set aside a day for worshiping God and that day is usually set by a local congregation

BA, ToBeLoved and New Covenant Theology
4) no sabbath law, you don't have to attend church when they set worship times, just do your own thing(?)

JM
5) honour your father and mother

BA, ToBeLoved and New Covenant Theology
5) there is no law saying you have to honour your parents and to dishonour them would not be immoral

JM
6) you shall not murder

BA, ToBeLoved and New Covenant Theology
6) it is not immoral to murder

JM
7) adultery is immoral, God's law clearly states it

BA, ToBeLoved and New Covenant Theology
8) the law has been done away with, adultery is not immoral

JM
9) don't steal, it's immoral

BA, ToBeLoved and New Covenant Theology
9) there is no law saying we can't steal...it's no longer immoral, it's done away

JM
10) thou shall not covet (yearn to possess something that belongs to someone else)

BA, ToBeLoved and New Covenant Theology
10) yearn, long and desire whatever you wish! it's no longer immoral to do so...no law, remember...

As you can see NCT quickly falls apart when fleshed out. BA WOULD NEVER say we could get away with any of the above. Even the dreaded fourth commandment, I bet BA would even say it was "best to attend church faithfully, regularly" even if he doesn't see it as a sabbath. ToBeLoved made a point about Romans 5 that actually backfires, for the passage teaches that EVEN BEFORE Moses Law existed, which is why "death reigned from Adam to Moses..." before the giving of the Law on Sinai. That is my whole point, that moral Law was given and existed before Moses delivered it.

Click to expand...

I hope one day that you grow into a mature Christian that can have a conversation with others.

JM said:

For those who deny the continue validity and use of the Decalogue (10 Commandments) I must ask, what Law did Christ die to satisfy?

When we preach the Gospel to all men everywhere calling them to repentance what sins do I call them to repent of?

Click to expand...

What does our knowledge of what is sin have to do with being under the Old Covenant law? You do know that under the Old Covenant Law, if you broke one law, you broke them all. And God's Word tells us NO ONE could keep all of the Law.

All the Patriarch's were imputed righteousness by God, not according to the Law.

BA quoted the LBCF for me belong. Notice that not once is the Law to be used as a covenant by which one is saved...not once.


The following is a direct quote from your link to the London Baptist Confession of 1689.

"CHAPTER 19; OF THE LAW OF GOD
Paragraph 1. God gave to Adam a law of universal obedience written in his heart, and a particular precept of not eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil;1 by which he bound him and all his posterity to personal, entire, exact, and perpetual obedience;2 promised life upon the fulfilling, and threatened death upon the breach of it, and endued him with power and ability to keep it.3
1 Gen. 1:27; Eccles. 7:29
2 Rom. 10:5
3 Gal. 3:10,12
Paragraph 2. The same law that was first written in the heart of man continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness after the fall,4 and was delivered by God upon Mount Sinai, in ten commandments, and written in two tables, the four first containing our duty towards God, and the other six, our duty to man.5
4 Rom. 2:14,15
5 Deut. 10:4
Paragraph 3. Besides this law, commonly called moral, God was pleased to give to the people of Israel ceremonial laws, containing several typical ordinances, partly of worship, prefiguring Christ, his graces, actions, sufferings, and benefits;6 and partly holding forth divers instructions of moral duties,7 all which ceremonial laws being appointed only to the time of reformation, are, by Jesus Christ the true Messiah and only law-giver, who was furnished with power from the Father for that end abrogated and taken away.8
6 Heb. 10:1; Col. 2:17
7 1 Cor. 5:7
8 Col. 2:14,16,17; Eph. 2:14,16
Paragraph 4. To them also he gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the state of that people, not obliging any now by virtue of that institution; their general equity only being of modern use.9
9 1 Cor. 9:8-10
Paragraph 5. The moral law does for ever bind all, as well justified persons as others, to the obedience thereof,10 and that not only in regard of the matter contained in it, but also in respect of the authority of God the Creator, who gave it;11 neither does Christ in the Gospel any way dissolve, but much strengthen this obligation.12
10 Rom. 13:8-10; James 2:8,10-12
11 James 2:10,11
12 Matt. 5:17-19; Rom. 3:31 "

According to NCT (and there are several different forms of it) which Laws have been done away?

So let's get the run down.

JM agreeing with the God's top ten...
1) you cannot have gods before the God of the Bible

BA, ToBeLoved and New Covenant Theology
1) there is no law saying you can't have gods before the God of the Bible, it's not immoral to do so

JM
2) no idols

BA, ToBeLoved and New Covenant Theology
2) there is no law saying you can't have graven images of God to be used in worship and if you want to use a statue to represent God it's not immoral to do so

JM
3) don't take the name of the Lord in vain

BA, ToBeLoved and New Covenant Theology
3) there is no law that states we can't use God's name as a cuss word and it's no longer immoral to do so

JM
4) no comment because I'm studying the issue but I would say you should set aside a day for worshiping God and that day is usually set by a local congregation

BA, ToBeLoved and New Covenant Theology
4) no sabbath law, you don't have to attend church when they set worship times, just do your own thing(?)

JM
5) honour your father and mother

BA, ToBeLoved and New Covenant Theology
5) there is no law saying you have to honour your parents and to dishonour them would not be immoral

JM
6) you shall not murder

BA, ToBeLoved and New Covenant Theology
6) it is not immoral to murder

JM
7) adultery is immoral, God's law clearly states it

BA, ToBeLoved and New Covenant Theology
8) the law has been done away with, adultery is not immoral

JM
9) don't steal, it's immoral

BA, ToBeLoved and New Covenant Theology
9) there is no law saying we can't steal...it's no longer immoral, it's done away

JM
10) thou shall not covet (yearn to possess something that belongs to someone else)

BA, ToBeLoved and New Covenant Theology
10) yearn, long and desire whatever you wish! it's no longer immoral to do so...no law, remember...

As you can see NCT quickly falls apart when fleshed out. BA WOULD NEVER say we could get away with any of the above. Even the dreaded fourth commandment, I bet BA would even say it was "best to attend church faithfully, regularly" even if he doesn't see it as a sabbath. ToBeLoved made a point about Romans 5 that actually backfires, for the passage teaches that EVEN BEFORE Moses Law existed, which is why "death reigned from Adam to Moses..." before the giving of the Law on Sinai. That is my whole point, that moral Law was given and existed before Moses delivered it.

I quoted before, "true believers be not under the law as a covenant of works, to be thereby justified or condemned, yet it is of great use to them as well as to others, in that as a rule of life, informing them of the will of God and their duty" but BA, ToBeLoved and New Covenant Theology would have you believed that all law is done away with.

How is the Law of Christ different from the moral Law?

It's not.

You are creating a false dichotomy by claiming Christ brings a new law which is false and has been condemned a long time ago when it was called Neonomianism.

This so-called "higher law" isn't scriptural for Christ fulfilled "the Law" and since we are to follow His example we must do the same. Not for salvation, never, but "to fuflill all righteousness."

Neonomianism lives between Moralism and Antinomianism, both are unscriptural. Moralism is dictated by culture (don't drink, smoke or chew...or go with girls that do) and antinomianism claims their is no eternal moral law therefore I can live that way in which I deem moral. Both are cultural and not scriptural.

ToBeLoved said:

I hope one day that you grow into a mature Christian that can have a conversation with others.

Click to expand...

Maybe demonstrate your maturity by dealing with what I've posted instead of restoring to gutter-snipping? I did post a lot of material that has been ignored, I know you want a "like" for pulling one of my quotes from it's context, but you have to do better my friend.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

ToBeLoved said:

All the Patriarch's were imputed righteousness by God, not according to the Law.

Click to expand...

This is a good example of what happens when one fails to understand their opponents argument. I've stated numerous times on this forum that LAW DOESN'T SAVE, NEVER HAS...NOT EVEN THE JEW!

The confession BA posted stated, "true believers be not under the law as a covenant of works, to be thereby justified or condemned, yet it is of great use to them as well as to others, in that as a rule of life, informing them of the will of God and their duty"

I quoted it before BA! True believers, blood bought believers are saved by Christ and Christ alone in every era, New or Old Testament.

Amen.

JM said:

Actually, that's not true. I didn't comment on the Fourth Commandment because, at the time, I wasn't sure if it was a moral obligation for every single person who ever lived like the rest of the Decalogue is.

So let's get the run down.

JM agreeing with the God's top ten...
1) you cannot have gods before the God of the Bible

BA, ToBeLoved and New Covenant Theology
1) there is no law saying you can't have gods before the God of the Bible, it's not immoral to do so

JM
2) no idols

BA, ToBeLoved and New Covenant Theology
2) there is no law saying you can't have graven images of God to be used in worship and if you want to use a statue to represent God it's not immoral to do so

JM
3) don't take the name of the Lord in vain

BA, ToBeLoved and New Covenant Theology
3) there is no law that states we can't use God's name as a cuss word and it's no longer immoral to do so

JM
4) no comment because I'm studying the issue but I would say you should set aside a day for worshiping God and that day is usually set by a local congregation

BA, ToBeLoved and New Covenant Theology
4) no sabbath law, you don't have to attend church when they set worship times, just do your own thing(?)

JM
5) honour your father and mother

BA, ToBeLoved and New Covenant Theology
5) there is no law saying you have to honour your parents and to dishonour them would not be immoral

JM
6) you shall not murder

BA, ToBeLoved and New Covenant Theology
6) it is not immoral to murder

JM
7) adultery is immoral, God's law clearly states it

BA, ToBeLoved and New Covenant Theology
8) the law has been done away with, adultery is not immoral

JM
9) don't steal, it's immoral

BA, ToBeLoved and New Covenant Theology
9) there is no law saying we can't steal...it's no longer immoral, it's done away

JM
10) thou shall not covet (yearn to possess something that belongs to someone else)

BA, ToBeLoved and New Covenant Theology
10) yearn, long and desire whatever you wish! it's no longer immoral to do so...no law, remember...

As you can see NCT quickly falls apart when fleshed out. BA WOULD NEVER say we could get away with any of the above. Even the dreaded fourth commandment, I bet BA would even say it was "best to attend church faithfully, regularly" even if he doesn't see it as a sabbath. ToBeLoved made a point about Romans 5 that actually backfires, for the passage teaches that EVEN BEFORE Moses Law existed, which is why "death reigned from Adam to Moses..." before the giving of the Law on Sinai. That is my whole point, that moral Law was given and existed before Moses delivered it.

Click to expand...

Are you seriously trying to hold a conversation with this kind of response? I think you need more scripture to support your point and less labeling of others.

JM said:

This is a good example of what happens when one fails to understand their opponents argument. I've stated numerous times on this forum that LAW DOESN'T SAVE, NEVER HAS...NOT EVEN THE JEW!

The confession BA posted stated, "true believers be not under the law as a covenant of works, to be thereby justified or condemned, yet it is of great use to them as well as to others, in that as a rule of life, informing them of the will of God and their duty"

I quoted it before BA! True believers, blood bought believers are saved by Christ and Christ alone in every era, New or Old Testament.

Amen.

Click to expand...

Well in theory one might say that, but there is more to the story.

Since Jesus was not born yet, the Old Covenant people's were not under the blood of Christ, by faith.

God did choose to 'impute' righteousness to certain patriarch's in the Old Testament. Each of the patriarch's were imputed righteousness because of their faith. There was no grace in the Old Covenant, that is why the New Covenant is a NEW and BETTER Covenant.