What is New Covenant Theology ?

BABerean2

Newbie
Site Supporter
May 21, 2014
20,614
7,484
North Carolina
✟893,665.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Baptist Federalism states the promise is made before the giving of the Mosaic covenant and that all who are saved are saved by that covenant. It's all grace. What NCT does is view each covenant like a Dispensationalist would, limiting the work of salvation into different dispensations of time requiring many different things from God's people. That means God's law is arbitrary - the moral standard that Christ died to uphold and save us from is capricious, therefore laying the foundation for Universalism (each man judged according to a different law) and antinomianism (rejection of a universal law).

Yours in the Lord,

jm

Heb 7:12  For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is also a change of the law. 

.........................................................................

Gal 3:16  Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made. He does not say, "And to seeds," as of many, but as of one, "AND TO YOUR SEED," who is Christ. 
Gal 3:17  And this I say, that the law, which was four hundred and thirty years later, cannot annul the covenant that was confirmed before by God in Christ, that it should make the promise of no effect. 
Gal 3:18  For if the inheritance is of the law, it is no longer of promise; but God gave it to Abraham by promise. 
Gal 3:19  What purpose then does the law serve? It was added because of transgressions, till the Seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was appointed through angels by the hand of a mediator. 

.
 
Upvote 0

JM

Augsburg Catholic
Site Supporter
Jun 26, 2004
17,361
3,628
Canada
✟747,424.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Others
A sinner saved by grace.


The reader must realized that every NCT refutation of CT, it is and always is the pedobaptist view AND NOT the 1689 Federalism of the non conformers of the 17th century. It's left untouched.

Yours in the Lord,

jm
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

BABerean2

Newbie
Site Supporter
May 21, 2014
20,614
7,484
North Carolina
✟893,665.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
A sinner saved by grace.


I have seen it before.
Like some other people, he ignores the scripture text found below.


We have not come to Mount Sinai, but to the New Covenant of Mount Zion.

Heb 12:18  For you have not come to the mountain that may be touched and that burned with fire, and to blackness and darkness and tempest, 
Heb 12:19  and the sound of a trumpet and the voice of words, so that those who heard it begged that the word should not be spoken to them anymore. 
Heb 12:20  (For they could not endure what was commanded: "AND IF SO MUCH AS A BEAST TOUCHES THE MOUNTAIN, IT SHALL BE STONED OR SHOT WITH AN ARROW." 
Heb 12:21  And so terrifying was the sight that Moses said, "I AM EXCEEDINGLY AFRAID AND TREMBLING.") 


Heb 12:22  But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, to an innumerable company of angels, 
Heb 12:23  to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are registered in heaven, to God the Judge of all, to the spirits of just men made perfect, 
Heb 12:24  to Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling that speaks better things than that of Abel. 


The law was added 430 years after the promise made to Abraham, until the seed could come.
Here, Paul reveals the temporary nature of the Sinai Covenant.


Gal 3:16  Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made. He does not say, "And to seeds," as of many, but as of one, "AND TO YOUR SEED," who is Christ. 

Gal 3:17  And this I say, that the law, which was four hundred and thirty years later, cannot annul the covenant that was confirmed before by God in Christ, that it should make the promise of no effect. 

Gal 3:18  For if the inheritance is of the law, it is no longer of promise; but God gave it to Abraham by promise. 
Gal 3:19  What purpose then does the law serve? It was added because of transgressions, till the Seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was appointed through angels by the hand of a mediator. 


Some of us have failed to cast out the Bondwoman.

Gal 4:23  But he who was of the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and he of the freewoman through promise, 
Gal 4:24  which things are symbolic. For these are the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar— 
Gal 4:25  for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children— 

Gal 4:30  Nevertheless what does the Scripture say? "CAST OUT THE BONDWOMAN AND HER SON, FOR THE SON OF THE BONDWOMAN SHALL NOT BE HEIR WITH THE SON OF THE FREEWOMAN." 
Gal 4:31  So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman but of the free. 


Those who claim to keep the 4th commandment are deceiving themselves.
.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

JM

Augsburg Catholic
Site Supporter
Jun 26, 2004
17,361
3,628
Canada
✟747,424.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Others



The reader must realized that every NCT refutation of CT, it is and always is the pedobaptist view AND NOT the 1689 Federalism of the non conformers of the 17th century. It's left untouched.

Yours in the Lord,

jm
 
Upvote 0

BABerean2

Newbie
Site Supporter
May 21, 2014
20,614
7,484
North Carolina
✟893,665.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married



The reader must realized that every NCT refutation of CT, it is and always is the pedobaptist view AND NOT the 1689 Federalism of the non conformers of the 17th century. It's left untouched.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

No. Infant Baptism is not the problem, in this case.

The problem with the 1689 London Baptist Confession is its adoption of chapter 19 of the Westminster Confession regarding the ten commandments.
It claims the ten commandments which it calls "the moral law" were given to Adam in the garden.
However Exodus 34:28 and Deuteronomy 5:1-3 say otherwise.
Chapter 19 below does not match the text of scripture. See the text I have underlined and bolded below.


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

Since the 4th commandment is revealed to be a "shadow" by Paul in Colossians 2:16-17, the idea that we are still under the "sign" of the Sinai Sabbath does not agree with the New Testament.

Paul also reveals the temporary nature of the Sinai Covenant in Galatians 3:16-29.
Therefore, chapter 19 of the confession above must be rejected as unscriptural.


We find in Hebrews 12:18-24 that we are not come to Mount Sinai, but to the New Covenant of Mount Zion, instead.

.
 
Upvote 0

JM

Augsburg Catholic
Site Supporter
Jun 26, 2004
17,361
3,628
Canada
✟747,424.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Others
No. Infant Baptism is not the problem, in this case.
.

No it is not but you continue to argue as if the covenantal theology I have put forth is the same as paedobaptist covenant theology.

WARNING TO THE READER:

The reader must realized that every NCT refutation of CT, it is and always is the pedobaptist view AND NOT the 1689 Federalism of the non conformers of the 17th century. It's left untouched.

Yours in the Lord,

jm
 
Upvote 0

BABerean2

Newbie
Site Supporter
May 21, 2014
20,614
7,484
North Carolina
✟893,665.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
No it is not but you continue to argue as if the covenantal theology I have put forth is the same as paedobaptist covenant theology.

WARNING TO THE READER:

The reader must realized that every NCT refutation of CT, it is and always is the pedobaptist view AND NOT the 1689 Federalism of the non conformers of the 17th century. It's left untouched.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

Others viewing our conversation here will clearly see that the problem is chapter 19 of your manmade confession, instead of infant baptism.

I do not have any problems with your ideas on baptism.

You seem to be trying the old bait-and-switch strategy of don't look here, look over there instead.
In this case...
"Do not look at chapter 19, look at how right we are on baptism."

You continue to talk about infant baptism, instead of dealing with the errors of chapter 19 of the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith, which is not about baptism.

Deal with chapter 19 of your confession and maybe we can make some progress.

.
 
Upvote 0

JM

Augsburg Catholic
Site Supporter
Jun 26, 2004
17,361
3,628
Canada
✟747,424.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Others
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
 
Upvote 0

JM

Augsburg Catholic
Site Supporter
Jun 26, 2004
17,361
3,628
Canada
✟747,424.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Others
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
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

BABerean2

Newbie
Site Supporter
May 21, 2014
20,614
7,484
North Carolina
✟893,665.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
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.

Gal 4:24  which things are symbolic. For these are the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar— 

What is the second covenant Paul is speaking of in the verse above?
Based on what you are saying, there is only one covenant.


Gal 4:30  Nevertheless what does the Scripture say? "CAST OUT THE BONDWOMAN AND HER SON, FOR THE SON OF THE BONDWOMAN SHALL NOT BE HEIR WITH THE SON OF THE FREEWOMAN." 

If "Hagar" is the Sinai covenant, why did Paul compel the Galatian believers to get rid of it, if it is our standard (which you call "the moral law" Exodus 34:28)?

2Co 3:7  But if the ministry of death, written and engraved on stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of the glory of his countenance, which glory was passing away, 

What is "the ministry of death" written on stones? (Exodus 34:28)

Does "the ministry of death" sound like our standard of life?

You need to read Hebrews 12:18-24 again.
We are not come to Mount Sinai, but to the New Covenant of Mount Zion, instead.



You have to ignore the Sabbath day, based on the words of Paul below.

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. 

The Sabbath day is the "sign" of the Sinai covenant. (Exodus 31:13)

.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

JM

Augsburg Catholic
Site Supporter
Jun 26, 2004
17,361
3,628
Canada
✟747,424.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Others
BA brings up points that Baptist covenant theology pretty much agrees upon. That's part of the problem with NCT. It has no root! It assumes all CT is the same when it isn't and even though I've posted numerous links explaining the CT found among Baptists before the NCT was invented, the info is ignored, and NCT folks just keep on plodding forward believing paedobaptist CT is the same as what I believe. Just start on page one and read forward. You will soon see the guys promoting Gay's theology are ignoring what I've posted.

From the link I've already quoted:


The Gospel of Faith Obeyed and Disobeyed in Romans


Romans and 1 Peter are tied as the books that make the most use of this language of obeying the gospel. But it is Paul's letter to the Romans that contains the two main verses in this matter and will therefore be the first ones we look at. When Paul writes of bringing about the "obedience of faith" among the nations as the aim of his apostleship (RRom 1:5; 16:26, he does not have in mind obedience as part of faith, making obedience to Christ's commands and faith in Christ synonymous. 2 Nor does Paul write of obedience that springs from faith as fruit giving evidence to the genuineness of faith. 3 Though both mistaken, there is an enormous difference between these two interpretations. The former is another gospel that denies grace alone while the latter is an orthodox interpretation that does not pay close enough attention to the context.

The obedience Paul has in view here is in believing the gospel; that is how the gospel is obeyed, by believing it. As an epexegetical phrase, the obedience of faith is faith itself. 4 But by no means whatsoever is this to deny that Christians obey Christ and that Paul calls them to this � that is patently clear and undeniable � but what Paul is interested in communicating here with this phrase is purely justification by faith. As John Preston affirmed, "Our Doctrine is, you see, that faith only is required� the rest will follow upon it." 5 Preston and the Westminster Divines could say this because they understood that not only justification but sanctification is by grace through faith (see Westminster Shorter Catechism, Q.35).

Paul's apostolic ministry of the word, then, applies to both those outside the church and believers. It is Paul's intent for not only those who have not heard the gospel to take Christ by faith for their justification (15:26-21), but for those already united to Christ to continue walking by faith in him for their righteousness before God. As he writes in v.17 of this chapter, "The righteous shall live by faith." This was Martin Luther's (1483-1546) revolutionizing discovery that began to restore the church and freed his own soul from the threat of God's just wrath. When we are faced with the law of God and its perfect demands coming from the holy Judge, we are naturally burdened and grieved by our sin because we know we sin against him in thought, word, and deed throughout each day of our life. But we who are in Christ by faith are called by the gospel to rest in the righteousness of Christ with which we have been clothed. This is our assurance of standing in God's presence without blame (Col 1:22; 1 Th 3:13; 5:23; Jd 24). This is what it means for a Christian to fulfill the obedience of faith. To live by faith means to walk before God by looking to the Righteous One (Acts 3:14; 7:52), his Son, for our righteousness. 6 We are saints in God's sight by imputation, not by works of merit in either justification or sanctification.

The meaning of "obedience of faith" is not arrived at by discerning the genitive and whether it is subjective or objective, 7 but is determined in light of Paul's soteriology as a whole which categorically assures us that no one will be justified by works of the law in God's sight (Rom 3:20-21, 28 Gal 2:16). Because the command of the gospel is to believe the gospel (Acts 16:31; 1 Jn 3:23), obeying the gospel is through faith in the gospel, not some additional form of obedience on par with faith. This is why Matthew Poole could say in his commentary on Rom 1:5 that faith "is the great command of the gospel." 8

We come now to Rom 10:16. "But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, �Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?'" The use of parallelism introduced in the second sentence by �for' supplies the reason of the first sentence. Paul demonstrates that to not receive and believe the gospel is to disobey the Lord. Thus, �believe' in the citation from Isa 53:1 serves to define the way in which Israel did not obey.

In Rom 15:18 Paul again speaks of his apostolic ministry. "For I will not venture to speak of anything except what Christ has accomplished through me to bring the gentiles to obedience � by word and deed." The obedience of the gentiles is spelled out in the following two verses: "by the power of signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God � so that from Jerusalem and all the way around to Illyricum I have fulfilled the ministry of the gospel of Christ; and thus I make it my ambition to preach the gospel�" (emphasis mine). The goal of Paul's preaching was for gentiles to believe his gospel which was attested to by signs and wonders. Therefore, Paul glories in Christ for having brought the gentiles to himself through his labors. That is to say, by Paul's ministry in word and deed the gentiles were made obedient, that is, embraced Christ by faith. 9

Also relevant is what Paul says about Israel in Rom 11:30-32.

Just as you were at one time disobedient to God but now have received mercy because of their disobedience, so they too have now been disobedient in order that by the mercy shown to you they also may now receive mercy. For God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all.
From this passage we can make the following conclusions:

  • Gentiles were disobedient to God
  • God showed mercy to gentiles because of Israel's disobedience
  • Israel became disobedient so that the mercy bestowed upon the gentiles would eventually lead to mercy for Israel
  • Jews and gentiles have been given to disobedience so God would have mercy upon all
Israel's trespass (11:11-12) as illustrated in 11:2-4 was for worshipping Baal which was a result of not knowing the true and living God. Israel was therefore cut off from the covenant (11:15,17,19) on account of their unbelief. "They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand fast through faith" (11:20). Therefore, "even they [Israel], if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God has the power to graft them in again" (11:23). Jews can be "grafted back into their own olive tree" by faith in the Messiah (11:24) and in this way, together with gentiles brought into the new covenant by faith, "all Israel will be saved" (11:25-26). Therefore, the disobedience in view at 11:30-32 is unbelief. Like the gentiles, unbelieving Jews were shown mercy to believe and come into covenant with God as his chosen people (9:18, 23-26). We apostasize if we rely on works through disbelief in the gospel (11:21-22 cf. Gal 5:4).

In Rom 10:3 Paul writes of Israel's unbelief as an unwillingness to "submit to God's righteousness," thus seeing faith as a form of submission. We are found righteous not by attaining to the standard of God's law (9:30), but by submitting to God's righteousness based on faith (10:6 cf. 4:13). This is a fitting imagery for believing since both are passive. This is entirely different from saying obedience is part of faith. By faith we are counted righteous as we rest in Christ's active obedience and by faith we take hold of him as our Substitute (Rom 1:17; 4:13, 23-25). This does not mean faith and obedience are routinely the same; they are distinct in their typical usage throughout the epistles and are just as far apart as are law and gospel. 10

One final consideration before leaving Romans. After providing an introduction in 5:12-21 to the two ages which began with the fall of Adam, Paul answers the potential objection that his gospel is licentious in chapter 6 � those who believe in Christ have been united to him in his death so that they have died to sin and live in his resurrection life (vv.4-11). In the second half of this section, he writes, "But thanks be to God, that you who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed" (v.17). Is Paul's reference to the Romans' obedience from the heart speaking of their faith in the gospel? Does commitment "to the standard of teaching" mean a commitment to Paul's doctrine of faith alone? In 10:9-10 Paul does link faith with our heart: "if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved." But as stated, in Rom 6 Paul is expounding our new life in Christ in the already/not—yet where we have become slaves of righteousness (vv.16,18). In a word, the context concerns sanctification, not justification (vv.19-22). The gift of eternal life includes the fruit of righteousness in this age (v.23). Yet might it not be that Paul is grounding our new life in our faith in Christ? For instance, in v.18 Paul writes of us "having been set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness." We were born enslaved to sin (5:12) and walked in it with our unbelief being at the root (1:18; 3:11,18). How were we set free from sin? By faith. How did we become slaves of righteousness? By faith when we were united to Christ. We would not be freed from sin and slaves of righteousness if we did not believe the gospel. Despite the truthfulness of these observations, the obedience in v.17 is not their faith and the standard of teaching is not the gospel; it is the exhortations that flow out of the indicative of the gospel as seen in vv.11-14 (cf. what would appear to be Paul's same thought in Eph 4:20-24). That this is the case is made even more evident in Paul's unusual construction in v.17 which literally reads, "the pattern of teaching to which you were handed over." 11God himself, whom Paul thanks, has given us to the ethics of baptism into Christ (vv.3-4). As God gave over those in Adam to sin (1:24,26,28), so he has given over those in Christ to new covenant obedience. Romans 6:17, then, does not express "the obedience of faith" from 1:5.

(end quote)

Yours in the Lord,

jm
 
Upvote 0

BABerean2

Newbie
Site Supporter
May 21, 2014
20,614
7,484
North Carolina
✟893,665.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
BA brings up points that Baptist covenant theology pretty much agrees upon. That's part of the problem with NCT. It has no root!

Mat 26:28  For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. 


2Co 3:6  who also made us sufficient as ministers of the new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. 
2Co 3:7  But if the ministry of death, written and engraved on stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of the glory of his countenance, which glory was passing away, 
2Co 3:8  how will the ministry of the Spirit not be more glorious? 



Heb 8:6  But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, inasmuch as He is also Mediator of a better covenant, which was established on better promises. 
Heb 8:7  For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second. 
Heb 8:8  Because finding fault with them, He says: "BEHOLD, THE DAYS ARE COMING, SAYS THE LORD, WHEN I WILL MAKE A NEW COVENANT WITH THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL AND WITH THE HOUSE OF JUDAH— 
Heb 8:9  NOT ACCORDING TO THE COVENANT THAT I MADE WITH THEIR FATHERS IN THE DAY WHEN I TOOK THEM BY THE HAND TO LEAD THEM OUT OF THE LAND OF EGYPT; BECAUSE THEY DID NOT CONTINUE IN MY COVENANT, AND I DISREGARDED THEM, SAYS THE LORD. 
Heb 8:10  FOR THIS IS THE COVENANT THAT I WILL MAKE WITH THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL AFTER THOSE DAYS, SAYS THE LORD: I WILL PUT MY LAWS IN THEIR MIND AND WRITE THEM ON THEIR HEARTS; AND I WILL BE THEIR GOD, AND THEY SHALL BE MY PEOPLE. 
Heb 8:11  NONE OF THEM SHALL TEACH HIS NEIGHBOR, AND NONE HIS BROTHER, SAYING, 'KNOW THE LORD,' FOR ALL SHALL KNOW ME, FROM THE LEAST OF THEM TO THE GREATEST OF THEM. 
Heb 8:12  FOR I WILL BE MERCIFUL TO THEIR UNRIGHTEOUSNESS, AND THEIR SINS AND THEIR LAWLESS DEEDS I WILL REMEMBER NO MORE." 
Heb 8:13  In that He says, "A NEW COVENANT," He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away. 


Heb 10:16  "THIS IS THE COVENANT THAT I WILL MAKE WITH THEM AFTER THOSE DAYS, SAYS THE LORD: I WILL PUT MY LAWS INTO THEIR HEARTS, AND IN THEIR MINDS I WILL WRITE THEM," 
Heb 10:17  then He adds, "THEIR SINS AND THEIR LAWLESS DEEDS I WILL REMEMBER NO MORE." 
Heb 10:18  Now where there is remission of these, there is no longer an offering for sin. 


Heb 12:22  But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, to an innumerable company of angels, 
Heb 12:23  to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are registered in heaven, to God the Judge of all, to the spirits of just men made perfect, 
Heb 12:24  to Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling that speaks better things than that of Abel. 

Words from almost 2,000 years ago vs. a manmade confession from 1689...

Which one has deeper roots?

.
 
Upvote 0

JM

Augsburg Catholic
Site Supporter
Jun 26, 2004
17,361
3,628
Canada
✟747,424.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Others
This is only true IF I believed the covenant theology express in the Westminster Confession of Faith. I do not. Shame on you BA for ignoring my definitions of covenant theology for a straw man. You should know better by now. Shame on you brother for claiming to love me and misrepresenting my views even when I took the time to post more than one definition, link and article.

For those of you that are interested in comparing theological viewpoints and don't want to scroll back I'll re-post the videos I have already posted.



Yours in the Lord,

jm
 
Upvote 0

JM

Augsburg Catholic
Site Supporter
Jun 26, 2004
17,361
3,628
Canada
✟747,424.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Others
BA is antinomian.

He denies the Law Christ died to satisfy.

That Law Christ died to satisfy is a universal Law and is therefore the reason why people who were not under the Mosaic Covenant can be saved by Christ.

_________________________________________

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
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

BABerean2

Newbie
Site Supporter
May 21, 2014
20,614
7,484
North Carolina
✟893,665.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
BA is antinomian.

He denies the Law Christ died to satisfy.

That Law Christ died to satisfy is a universal Law and is therefore the reason why people who were not under the Mosaic Covenant can be saved by Christ.

I am a little surprised that you would stoop to the low level of labeling me as "antinomian" in order to defend your manmade confession of 1689, when you know it is not the truth.

If you have to become an accuser of the Brethren to defend Reformed Covenant Theology, you may want to rethink your doctrine.

My confession is found below.


1Jn 3:22  And whatever we ask we receive from Him, because we keep His commandments and do those things that are pleasing in His sight. 
1Jn 3:23  And this is His commandment: that we should believe on the name of His Son Jesus Christ and love one another, as He gave us commandment. 
1Jn 3:24  Now he who keeps His commandments abides in Him, and He in him. And by this we know that He abides in us, by the Spirit whom He has given us. 


 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

BABerean2

Newbie
Site Supporter
May 21, 2014
20,614
7,484
North Carolina
✟893,665.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Upvote 0

JM

Augsburg Catholic
Site Supporter
Jun 26, 2004
17,361
3,628
Canada
✟747,424.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Others
I have posted plenty of scripture proving my point.
images


BA can't seem to separate the different forms of covenant theology...still.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

BABerean2

Newbie
Site Supporter
May 21, 2014
20,614
7,484
North Carolina
✟893,665.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I have posted plenty of scripture proving my point.
images


BA can't seem to separate the different forms of covenant theology...still.

Who took your picture while your head was buried in the sand?
You must have been looking for "the moral law"?


.
 
Upvote 0