# "That which is done away" - 2 Cor. 3



## Pergamum (Feb 10, 2013)

Some New Covenant Theologians try to show that the law has been done away with by appealing to 2 Cor. 3. They try to say that those "tablets of stone" (the Ten Commandments) now are not the guiding rule of the Christians life, but the law of Christ, instead, is the rule of the Christian life.

They seem to widely contrast the law of Moses with the Law of Christ.

How do I respond to these assertions?


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 10, 2013)

> The biggest difference between classical Covenant Theology and New Covenant Theology is how they view the Mosaic Law. Covenant Theology sees the Mosaic Law as divided into civil, ceremonial, and moral, with only the moral law remaining in effect. New Covenant Theology sees the New Testament writers as referring to the Mosaic Law in its totality (in other words all 613 laws, not only the Ten Commandments). Therefore, when Paul says that "we are no longer under a tutor" (Gal 3:25) he is saying that the Mosaic Law en toto has passed away.
> 
> There is still a Law in the New Testament however. Paul says that he is "under the law of Christ" (1 Cor 9:21), and he is therefore still responsible to Law. The eternal, unchanging moral law is expressed in both the New and Old Law, but the Old Law doesn't itself carry over. The Law of Christ are the moral commands given by the writers of the New Testament (Jesus and his apostles). As Moses went to a mountain to get the Law, so Christ went up into a mountain to give the new Law (Mat 5-7; cf. 2 Cor 3).



Here is another statement of New Covenant Theology.

Has the Mosaic law en toto passed away.....yes or no...and what are your proofs?


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Feb 10, 2013)

It has always seemed to me another way (albeit extreme) of affirming a baptistic stance – primarily by asserting the "radical discontinuity" between the Old and New Testaments / Covenants. No continuity of the Old Testament covenants, no equivalence between baptism and circumcision. Other than that grievous wresting of Scripture, it has seemed to me as having the most impact on the "Christian Sabbath", which they deny as mandated in the NT as it is not explicitly stated, while the other 9 are.


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 11, 2013)

I tried to explain to my friend that a lens of radical discontinuity is the wrong way to view this issue, and wrote:



> In 2 Corinthians 3 we have "tablets of stone" contrasted with "tablets of the human heart" - the contrast being given is not two different sets of laws, but in a different placement of those laws. Just like in Jer. 31, the law was not changed but the placement of the law was changed.




he responded as follows:



> ...your comment concerning 2 Cor. 3 is startling. Would you read the passage again, read it like a skeptic, like an unconvinced man and see if you would come up with the same conclusion? Pretend that you have none of the books, that you are a serious student of scripture from, let's say, 1000 A.D., and all you have is scripture. Do you think that you would come to the conclusion that you articulated?




So, I think his point is that the WHOLE Mosaic law _en toto_ is done away with (and I am sure he assumes that the traditional 3-fold divsion of the law into moral, ceremonial and civil might not be valid. 

He also seems to assume that the most natural reading of the text is that Christ did away with the Ten Commandments.


----------



## Peairtach (Feb 11, 2013)

> And you show that you are a letter from Christ delivered by us, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts.(II Cor 3:3, ESV)



The ceremonial _form_ of the commandments as being written on tablets of stone has been done away with, but what is it that Christ is writing on human hearts in the New Covenant?



> For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people. (Jeremiah 31:33)



The very same law that once was written on stone.

There is less of an emphasis on additional externals in the New Covenant because the Church has moved beyond the picture book and childhood disciplinary stage, but that does not mean that there is _no_ emphasis on externals, otherwise we could somehow observe God's law internally but not be concerned about words or actions, not consider from God's Word how we should worship, or conduct the affairs of the Church.

I would hesitate to say that the OT was


> less internal


, than the NT because it is clear that althogh they were part of the childhood of the Church many of the OT saints were far more developed - in their own place and time - than some NT saints. But all of the saints in the Mosaic period were more dependent on "carnal" props.




> .your comment concerning 2 Cor. 3 is startling. Would you read the passage again, read it like a skeptic, like an unconvinced man and see if you would come up with the same conclusion? Pretend that you have none of the books, that you are a serious student of scripture from, let's say, 1000 A.D., and all you have is scripture. Do you think that you would come to the conclusion that you articulated?



This is all highly subjective, and a bit of digging could show him Christians from 1,000 A.D. that agree with you rather than him. What's so significant about A.D. 1,000 anyway? I think it's him that is startled by you giving him a good answer to think about that he had never considered before.

If New Covenant Theologians believe that 9 of the 10 Commandments are repeated in the New Testament, anyway, what do they mean by saying that God abolished them all? Do they mean God abolished nine of them and then changed his mind and brought them back almost immediately? Clearly, according to their own principles, He only abolished one of them. But maybe its an easier way of knowing what to do with the Sabbath Day, when the Sabbath Day gets in the way of our desires, to embrace the New Covenant hermeneutic?

What do New Covenant theologians do with OT ethical material beyond the Pentateuch e.g. Psalms, Proverbs, Prophets. They're gagging large areas of Scripture.

This New Covenant Theology isn't the Apostolic teaching:



> All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work. (II Tim 3:16, ESV)


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Feb 11, 2013)

I have three questions. Who was in the burning bush giving Moses the Law? Who wrote it with his very finger? Whose Law was it?


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 11, 2013)

My friend would say that it was also the same God who gave us the ceremonial law, which is passed away.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Feb 11, 2013)

> 2Co 2:14 Now thanks be unto God, which always causeth us to triumph in Christ, and maketh manifest the savour of his knowledge by us in every place.
> 2Co 2:15 For we are unto God a sweet savour of Christ, in them that are saved, and in them that perish:
> 2Co 2:16 To the one we are the savour of death unto death; and to the other the savour of life unto life. And who is sufficient for these things?
> 2Co 2:17 For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.



Pergy, It amazes me how many people read 2Cor. 3 without including the passages before it. 

Here is my conclusion on this passage....



> In light of the passage mentioned in 2 Corinthians 3, which calls the Old an administration of Death, one must also read the prior passages to understand what context St. Paul is referring to the Mosaic Covenant in.
> 
> (2Co 2:14) Now thanks be unto God, which always causeth us to triumph in Christ, and maketh manifest the savour of his knowledge by us in every place.
> (2Co 2:15) For we are unto God a sweet savour of Christ, in them that are saved, and in them that perish:
> ...



Also Pergy you might want to try to get a hold of Dr. Welty, Dr. Barcellos, or one of the Renihan's who has dealt with this issue more intently. I have corresponded with these guys and they are all more than helpful.


----------



## Peairtach (Feb 11, 2013)

When did He scrap the 9 of the 10 Commandments? 

Is your friend saying there is some point in the first century when they didn't apply because God had scrapped them? If not is He saying that God scrapped the 9 and then immediately brought them back?

Pretty whacky theology.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Feb 11, 2013)

Pergamum said:


> My friend would say that it was also the same God who gave us the ceremonial law, which is passed away.


The Ceremonial law didn't pass away Pergy. It was fulfilled. That isn't the same thing. The type was fulfilled by the anti-type. The shadow is consumed by the reality. The sign marker is not needful because the thing it pointed to has arrived.


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 11, 2013)

He says the whole 10 Commandments given to Israel was a type it seems, the anti-type being Christ.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Feb 11, 2013)

Pergamum said:


> He says the whole 10 Commandments given to Israel was a type it seems, the anti-type being Christ.



So? I know people who say Christ isn't God in the Flesh also. He doesn't have to believe the scriptures. He can say with the Devil also, "Hath God said?" Why do you even listen to these guys? They are very unstable and most likely doing what St. Paul mentioned in 2 Corinthians 2 that I quoted above. "_For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God:"_


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 11, 2013)

Randy,

These are respected and otherwise solid pastors. It is not like he is Arius or Pelagian. 

Also, a good number of my supporting churches and a good number of the men who enquire about coming to the mission field (I am attempting to recruit more) are from churches that advocate these doctrines known as "New Covenant Theology." Some of my closest friends deny the Sabbath and attend the Bunyan Conference and read Reisenger and Zaspel and Wells.


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 11, 2013)

He also quotes Matthew Henry for support:



> 2 Cor 3:6-11
> 3. The law is done away, but the gospel does and shall remain, v. 11. Not only did the glory of Moses' face go away, but the glory of Moses' law is done away also; yea, the law of Moses itself is now abolished. That dispensation was only to continue for a time, and then to vanish away; whereas the gospel shall remain to the end of the world, and is always fresh and flourishing and remains glorious. (from Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible: New Modern Edition, Electronic Database. Copyright (c) 1991 by Hendrickson Publishers, Inc.)


----------



## ShagVT (Feb 11, 2013)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> The Ceremonial law didn't pass away Pergy. It was fulfilled. That isn't the same thing. The type was fulfilled by the anti-type. The shadow is consumed by the reality. The sign marker is not needful because the thing it pointed to has arrived.



Randy, couldn't one say that the moral was just as completely fulfilled? Not trying to be difficult ... how would you answer that?


----------



## Afterthought (Feb 11, 2013)

More Matthew Henry on Romans 3....



> He obviates an objection (v. 31), as if this doctrine did nullify the law, which they knew came from God: "No," says he, "though we do say that the law will not justify us, yet we do not therefore say that it was given in vain, or is of no use to us; no, we establish the right use of the law, and secure its standing, by fixing it on the right basis. The law is still of use to convince us of what is past, and to direct us for the future; though we cannot be saved by it as a covenant, yet we own it, and submit to it, as a rule in the hand of the Mediator, subordinate to the law of grace; and so are so far from overthrowing that we establish the law." *Let those consider this who deny the obligation of the moral law on believers.*



At the very least, it appears that it is possible for Matthew Henry to say what he says in 2 Corinthians without denying that the moral law abides still. Hence, that understanding of 2 Corinthians expressed by Matthew Henry's commentary is probably not at odds with the old view. How? I do not know. Probably "Moses' law" does not include the moral law, and too much is being read into the the term. Wish I could be more helpful.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Feb 11, 2013)

Pergamum said:


> He also quotes Matthew Henry for support:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


They are taking him out of context so bad Pergy it is ridiculous. Most of the Puritans thought that the Gospel strengthened the law actually. It is even put in our Confession like that. And Jesus said if our Righteousness didn't surpass that of the Pharisee's we wouldn't enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Of Course Christ is our righteousness but without holiness no one shall see the Lord. I believe the passages I mention above prove that. I guess if they want to say the types are passed away because the substance is here that is okay. But the Decalogue is the will of God for living? Remember what Bavinck said? 



> The usus politicus and the usus paedagogicus of the law became necessary only accidentally because of sin; even with these uses aside, the most important usus remains, the usus didacticus or normativus. After all, *the law is an expression of God’s being. As a human being Christ was subject to the law for Himself. Before the fall Adam had the law written upon his heart. With the believer it is again written upon the tablets of his heart by the Holy Spirit. And all those in heaven will walk according to the law of the Lord.
> **
> The Gospel is temporary, but the law is eternal and is restored precisely through the Gospel. *_Freedom from the law consists, then, not in the fact that the Christian has nothing more to do with the law, but lies in the fact that the law demands nothing more from the Christian as a condition of salvation. The law can no longer judge and condemn him. Instead he delights in the law of God according to the inner man and yearns for it day and night._
> _Therefore, that law must always be preached to the congregation in connection with the Gospel. Law and Gospel, the whole Word, the full counsel of God, is the content of preaching. Among Reformed people, therefore, the law occupies a much larger place than in the teaching of sin, since it is also part of the teaching of gratitude. _


_

If anything the Decalogue is actually driven deeper when expounded by Christ. It isn't different. Remember Dr. Welty's response to D. A. Carson on the Matthew Passages? 

addition....

Pergy.... Part of my post didn't make it on the law being type. I will redo it. Give me a few moments. I thought it was up already. 


_


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 11, 2013)

Does Matthew Henry consider the Decalogue to be moral or ceremonial? Any quotes on that topic?


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 11, 2013)

Randy,

Yes, I have Welty's response available on my computer, but I doubt if some of these brothers would consider reading it uncritically.


----------



## Afterthought (Feb 11, 2013)

> The apostle is careful not to assume too much to himself, but to ascribe all the praise to God. Therefore, 1. He says they were the epistle of Christ,v. 3. The apostle and others were but instruments, Christ was the author of all the good that was in them. *The law of Christ was written in their hearts, and the love of Christ shed abroad in their hearts. This epistle was not written with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; nor was it written in tables of stone, as the law of God given to Moses, but on the heart; and that heart not a stony one, but a heart of flesh, upon the fleshy (not fleshly, as fleshliness denotes sensuality) tables of the heart*, that is, upon hearts that are softened and renewed by divine grace, according to that gracious promise, I will take away the stony heart, and I will give you a heart of flesh,Ezek. xxxvi. 26. *This was the good hope the apostle had concerning these Corinthians (v. 4) that their hearts were like the ark of the covenant, containing the tables of the law and the gospel, written with the finger, that is, by the Spirit, of the living God.*



From his commentary on the Shorter Catechism (I think it's his commentary; it says it is at the WSC Project website)...



> Q. 41.Where is the moral law summarily comprehended ?
> A. The moral law is summarily comprehended in the ten commandments.
> 
> 1. Was the moral law in force before the ten commandments were given? Yes: for Abraham commanded his children to keep the way of the Lord, Gen. 18:19. Was it at last summed up in these commandments? Yes: for the law was given by Moses, John 1:17. Was the law of the ten commandments given first to Israel? Yes: He made known his ways unto Moses, his acts to the children of Israel, Ps. 103:7. But are they binding to us now? Yes: for Christ came not to destroy the law but to fulfil, Matt. 5:17.
> ...


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Feb 11, 2013)

Types? 

How are these types?
St. Paul’s Words…

There is one God and Mediator (Saviour)
Flee Idolatry
Name of God Blasphemed..
There remaineth a Sabbath(rest) Forsake not the assembling of yourselves together
Honor your Mother and Father that you may live long
Flee fornication thou shalt not commit adultery
Thou who sayest thou shalt not Kill, dost thou kill?
Let him who stole steal no more
Put away lying and speak the truth
The flesh lusts (covets) against the spirit….

Rom 13:8 Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law. 
Rom 13:9 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if _there be_ any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 
Rom 13:10 Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love _is_ the fulfilling of the law. 
Rom 13:11 And that, knowing the time, that now _it is_ high time to awake out of sleep: for now _is_ our salvation nearer than when we believed. 
Rom 13:12 The night is far spent, the day is at hand: let us therefore cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armour of light. 
Rom 13:13 Let us walk honestly, as in the day; not in rioting and drunkenness, not in chambering and wantonness, not in strife and envying. 
Rom 13:14 But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh, to _fulfil_ the lusts _thereof._ 

1Th 4:2 For ye know what commandments we gave you by the Lord Jesus. 
1Th 4:3 For this is the will of God, _even_ your sanctification, that ye should abstain from fornication: 
1Th 4:4 That every one of you should know how to possess his vessel in sanctification and honour; 
1Th 4:5 Not in the lust of concupiscence, even as the Gentiles which know not God: 
1Th 4:6 That no _man_ go beyond and defraud his brother in _any_ matter: because that the Lord _is_ the avenger of all such, as we also have forewarned you and testified. 
1Th 4:7 For God hath not called us unto uncleanness, but unto holiness. 
1Th 4:8 He therefore that despiseth, despiseth not man, but God, who hath also given unto us his holy Spirit. 

Gal 5:16 _This_ I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh. 
Gal 5:17 For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would. 
Gal 5:18 But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law. 
Gal 5:19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are _these;_ Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, 
Gal 5:20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, 
Gal 5:21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told _you_ in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. 


I don’t get how these are types…..

Yes, Christ performed these for our Justification. But they come from the Character of God. He completely fulfilled the Law for our justification. But we should be careful not to cross that up and say God doesn’t command our performance of them. God is making us in His image. If He isn’t then we are bastards and not his children. Gal 6:7 Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. Rom_8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate _to be_ conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. 

Concerning Welty's response. I would hope they would read it critically. Minds and hearts don't always change over night. Sometimes they never change. But If God is working on a man and conforming him into His image the word will do what it is supposed to. Good exegesis will also. Plus, you can use what he says and put it in words they can understand.


----------



## py3ak (Feb 11, 2013)

Pergamum said:


> He also quotes Matthew Henry for support:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You obviously have a legitimate occasion and need to be interacting with NCT, but I am glad it is you and not me - this kind of error is based on a method and reading and interpreting which is rather irritating to me. And when someone adopts such a hermeneutical strategy it is difficult to know how to engage, because how can I prevent the same wrong procedure being applied to my words which is applied to Matthew Henry, or to the Bible itself?

For instance, that someone would quote Matthew Henry in support of the abrogation or expiration of the 10 Commandments shows either ignorance or cherry-picking. Naturally you're going to find Henry and his continuators using language similar to that of the text being expounded - but the question is what is meant by those words in any particular context. But attending to what is said in the rest of the commentary on that same passage should suffice to show that there is no support for NCT in the Matthew Henry commentary:


> 2 CORINTHIANS 3:611
> LAW AND GOSPEL COMPARED
> *Here the apostle makes a comparison between the Old Testament and the New, the law of Moses and the gospel of Jesus Christ*, and values himself and his fellow-labourers by this, that they were able ministers of the New Testament, that God had made them so, v. 6. This he does in answer to the accusations of false teachers, who magnify greatly the law of Moses.
> 
> ...



The points which are bolded and underlined serve to show that "law of Moses" is understood as standing in for Old Testament, and indeed, for covenant of works, and that the gospel does not take away but rather enables obedience to God's commandments - not least to the famous 10.


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 11, 2013)

Thanks!


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell (Feb 11, 2013)

I'm no proponent of NCT, but I thought I'd throw this out there.

I was perusing a website that offers "refutation" of a lot of Worldwide Church of God/Armstrongism heresy, and I found this:

Gadsby's Questions About the Law by William Gadsby

Apparently it's a series of questions that William Gadsby raised concerning the function of "the law" in light of the New Covenant.

Anyone care to take a crack at this?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Feb 11, 2013)

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> I'm no proponent of NCT, but I thought I'd throw this out there.
> 
> I was perusing a website that offers "refutation" of a lot of Worldwide Church of God/Armstrongism heresy, and I found this:
> 
> ...




I don't have to take a crack at it. Good exegesis will answer this antinomians questions. Reading the texts in context would help him out also. Since you brought it up can you take a crack at it? You brought it up. You spend the time doing it. You will gain a lot from it I imagine. Let's see where you end up.


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell (Feb 11, 2013)

I'll give it a go. I don't have a lot of time NOW, but I suppose I can get to it sooner or later.


----------



## JoannaV (Feb 11, 2013)

I suppose everybody has a different focus, and every preacher has a different focus in their preaching, and I dare to say _no-one_ has a perfect balance and all are slightly askew. And then there is also something that was discussed in another thread once, that some people will need to hear more of one kind of preaching, and others will need another.

It seems that the Sabbath is often the actual point of contention in practice. Because in practice the other 9 commandments are generally agreed upon. The moral standards are the same, it's just not a moral "law" :-s 

Hmm I can consider the "law of Moses" _en toto_ as not being what I am under. I have been saved from the "law of Moses"; it condemned me and was only death to me. I now live in Christ and can freely follow His law, which is not some law Christ got up a mountain  (I've never heard that before) but is God's perfect law that has never changed. The Decalogue to me is _not_ the law of Moses but the law of Christ.


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 11, 2013)

> The Decalogue to me is not the law of Moses but the law of Christ.



Can you explain that further? How do you define "law" and how do you define "under"?

I view the Decalogue as a summary of God's moral nature (the same moral nature which Christ later summarized in 2 points rather than 10 when He spoke of loving God and others). Since Christ came as the Anti-type, we should no longer look to the ceremonial laws, the types. Since Israel is no longer a nation (a body politik) we should not expect the same civil punishments for Sabbath-breaking, yet the moral core remains the same. The Decalogue was given as a unit, how can we break it apart?

Also, some say that Jesus broke the Sabbath. Yet, he only broke the Pharisees' misrepresentations of the Sabbath. Others have said within our circles (Sovereign Grace Baptist) that Jesus abrogates the law in Matthew 5, whereas the traditional view is that Christ undoes the Pharisaical misinterpretations of the law and restores it to its spiritual core.

Joanna, 

Within our circles, Reisenger (with Sounds of Grace), Zaspel, Zens, and Tom Wells and Gary Long (not the Springfield, MO one but the one who writes on New Covenant Theology) are very influential. Charles Leiter just wrote a new book on the "Law of Christ" as well. 

Many conferences and meetings, such as our Sovereign Grace Baptist Fellowship meeting, are beginning to be used to invite men who are given the explicit task of explaining the New Covenant (from a New Covenant Theology Perspective) and it seems that some are beginning to ride this hobby-horse or emphasize this issue out of proportion to other issues facing Sovereign Grace Baptists. There are dozens of other things to discuss, but several times over the past 2 or 3 years, the proponents of New Covenant Theology within our ranks have seemed to desire to set the agenda/speakers/topics in such a way as to promote this strain of theology. 

Probably 60% of my supporting churches might label themselves as "New Covenant Theology" proponents, and several pastors have asked me, while I was circulating among the churches on furlough, "You aren't one of those Sabbatarians, are you?" I usually am at a loss for words (because I don't think I am one of THOSE Sabbatarians and I like to run and play on the Sabbath, but I do believe in the abiding perpetuity of a Sabbath).


----------



## JoannaV (Feb 12, 2013)

Pergamum said:


> I view the Decalogue as a summary of God's moral nature (the same moral nature which Christ later summarized in 2 points rather than 10 when He spoke of loving God and others).



People forget this. God's moral nature does not change! Therefore anything that teaches us of God's moral nature is just as relevant to us today as it ever was!

Depending on context, "law" can refer to different things. It can include various aspects of its administration and implications. It can sometimes refer to only one use of the law. In some cases law of Moses may = salvation by works (aka condemnation) and law of Christ = salvation by grace + 3rd use of the law.

The Sabbath in particular is often misunderstood. Statements that apply to aspects of it are treated as applying to it in entirety. Sometimes in reaction to other over-generalisations. 
Hmm, just some thoughts. The unregenerate can never love God or neighbour. They can never keep the Sabbath. They can strive to adhere to certain enumerations of what it means to love God. They can "not do" certain things, and refrain from all kinds of activities on the Sabbath. Yet no matter how ardent their following of the law of Moses they utterly fail to love God or neighbour or to truly remember the Sabbath day. All their activity does is condemn them.
Whereas the regenerate have the law of Christ written on their hearts. They _do_ love God. Meditating on parts of the law of Moses may be a means that God uses to sanctify them, but their primary obedience is to the whole of the law of God not to a specific codification of it, does that make sense?


I grew up in a Sabbatarian cult which turned to NCT. It is far better to know grace and worship God on the Lord's Day and reject the Sabbath in word than to "keep the Sabbath" and believe that Sabbath-keeping = salvation. But the latter is not a problem in the SGBF so it is sad if so much focus is being given to it. Perhaps there is low awareness of what the actual problems are within the churches today...


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 12, 2013)

Sabbatarian cult? Please tell me more...


----------



## JoannaV (Feb 12, 2013)

Worldwide Church of God. Denial of Trinity = cult. Seventh day Sabbath keeping. NCT was essentially what they changed to, although now I think they identify with "Trinitarian theology", Barth, etc.

I'm thinking it sounds like the person you are talking to essentially views the "law of Moses" as being only for physical Israel and the "law of Christ" as being for spiritual Israel, and is only considering one use of the law? They called the moral law "eternal, unchanging" so you'd think they'd at least be open to learning a bit more about it from the OT and not just focusing on the Sermon on the Mount.


----------



## Peairtach (Feb 12, 2013)

> for physical Israel and the "law of Christ" as being for spiritual Israel,



Remember that both the Church and the Jews are both physical and spiritual, and that some of the Jews ("physical Israel") are in the Church ("spiritual Israel").


----------



## Peairtach (Feb 12, 2013)

Pergy, there are one or two pdf booklets on the law on this page from the "Christian Institute" website, a British lobby group, including one on the threefold division of the law: 
Theology Publications | Resources | The Christian Institute


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell (Feb 12, 2013)

JoannaV said:


> Worldwide Church of God. Denial of Trinity = cult. Seventh day Sabbath keeping. NCT was essentially what they changed to, although now I think they identify with "Trinitarian theology", Barth, etc.
> 
> I'm thinking it sounds like the person you are talking to essentially views the "law of Moses" as being only for physical Israel and the "law of Christ" as being for spiritual Israel, and is only considering one use of the law? They called the moral law "eternal, unchanging" so you'd think they'd at least be open to learning a bit more about it from the OT and not just focusing on the Sermon on the Mount.



Joanna, I "grew up" with the WCG also!

Small world.


----------



## J.Paton24May1824 (Feb 12, 2013)

The 10 commandments are reflective of God's righteousness. They are a manifestation of God's character. Since God does not change. If God hates murder, He always hates murder. The only one of the 10 commandments that is not a moral commandment is the one regarding the Sabbath day. Half of the commandments deal with our relationship to God and the other half deal with our relationship with man.
"Remember the Sabbath Day to keep it holy" was a Old Testament standard, and that is why in the NT all the other 9 commandments are repeated. The one about the Sabbath is not repeated, as we know. 

The Sabbath has been fulfilled in Christ. There is no longer an obligation to keep the Sabbath. We worship on the Lord's Day (the day Jesus rose from the dead). 
We have entered into God's rest. We have the reality and do not need the symbol. The other 9 commandments are still reflective of Godly virtues that should be manifest in the life of a true Christian. So the other 9 still become the obligation of the believer even though we are under the New Covenant.


----------



## MightyManfred (Feb 13, 2013)

I am noodling the 2nd LBC and wondering about its content on the Christian Sabbath (which is a term never used in Scripture - Christian worship is never said to have been on a sabbath, but on the first day of the week, until John declared that to be The Lord's Day) and the Law of God known as the 10 Commandments. To worship God on the Lord's Day is not revealed in nature or general revelation yet the 2nd LBC (and Westminster) declare that it is part of what God wrote on the heart of every man. The 4th Commandment is explicitly addressed to the Hebrews and taught to them for the first time when they were in the Exodus feeding on manna. Where is the observance or penalty for lack thereof before Exodus 16? Wouldn't there be if it was part of the universal moral law of God? Is it not possible that God's moral or natural law, written on the souls of all men, is contained - but not defined - in the Law of Moses? Many moral laws (murder, marriage, envy, etc.) are seen in Scripture before enforcement of the Sabbath - which is only revealed by God to the Hebrews. I know our Presbyterian brothers have a different view of the covenants than some of us reformed Baptists and I think the foundation for our differences is in God's dealing with Abraham and Moses. Galatians 4 makes it very clear that what Moses was given on Sinai was law, not grace. In His sermon on the mount, Christ expounded the moral law - not touching on the sabbath. Claiming to have fulfilled Moses and the Prophets - much more than the 10 Commandments. And Hebrews 8 shows me the new covenant is not the same as the old one - same as how Paul described them in Gal 4. 

If we are serious about Sempre Reformanda, we should be willing to ask serious questions about our confessions - they are not the rule, merely good and useful aids.


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 13, 2013)

He he..... the above quote is representative of 60-70% of my supporting churches. 

Somehow, only 9 of the Ten Commandments of the Decalogue (which were given as one unit) squeezed their way past (_"Hold it right there, Sabbath.... I see you trying to sneak past...we don't want your kind around here any more!_") 

Despite Jesus obeying the Sabbath perfectly, and even correcting the Pharisees' false use of it, He nonetheless cancels it out?


----------



## Mushroom (Feb 13, 2013)

J.Paton24May1824 said:


> The only one of the 10 commandments that is not a moral commandment is the one regarding the Sabbath day.


It sure is a relief to have one who is evidently in a place of appropriate authority clear that one up for us.


----------



## py3ak (Feb 13, 2013)

[Moderator]*Gentlemen, let's remember where we are, and keep all posts within the boundaries set out previously.*




Prufrock said:


> Sabbath -- Again, our standards are clear: arguments against the abiding command to observe the Sabbath are not allowed.


[/Moderator]


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Feb 13, 2013)

Just an FYI. I feel the need to post this ever so once in a while. Here is a Reformed Baptist working out the Sabbath for the Christian from the Old and New Testatment passages that also include the Colossians and Hebrews passages. Rich Barcellos does a great job with a lot of Old Testament passages also. 

Some Reformed Baptists on the Sabbath Concerning Colossians and Hebrews « RPCNA Covenanter


----------



## MightyManfred (Feb 13, 2013)

py3ak said:


> [Moderator]*Gentlemen, let's remember where we are, and keep all posts within the boundaries set out previously.*
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Is a serious question about the veracity of that statement permitted?


----------



## Peairtach (Feb 13, 2013)

J.Paton24May1824 said:


> The 10 commandments are reflective of God's righteousness. They are a manifestation of God's character. Since God does not change. If God hates murder, He always hates murder. The only one of the 10 commandments that is not a moral commandment is the one regarding the Sabbath day. Half of the commandments deal with our relationship to God and the other half deal with our relationship with man.
> "Remember the Sabbath Day to keep it holy" was a Old Testament standard, and that is why in the NT all the other 9 commandments are repeated. The one about the Sabbath is not repeated, as we know.
> 
> The Sabbath has been fulfilled in Christ. There is no longer an obligation to keep the Sabbath. We worship on the Lord's Day (the day Jesus rose from the dead).
> We have entered into God's rest. We have the reality and do not need the symbol. The other 9 commandments are still reflective of Godly virtues that should be manifest in the life of a true Christian. So the other 9 still become the obligation of the believer even though we are under the New Covenant.



The Sabbath _is a moral command_, that we set aside time for rest and formal worship, positively one seventh of the week, and in the NT on the first day of the week.

The Sabbath command _is _ repeated in the NT e.g. 



> And he said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. (Mark 2:27)



We have not entered into God's rest, in the way that Christ has already done, until we enter into God's rest at death. We are still in a warfare as Joshua and the Israelites were when they entered the Land. Johua and the Israelites had not entered God's rest, and neither have we. Their rest in the Land was only relative and not ultimate, as is ours. Even by the time of David, who had given them rest from their enemies all around, the Israelites had not entered God's rest, and so there still was a weekly Sabbath for them, called in Psalm 95, "Today".



> Since therefore it remains for some to enter it (God's rest), and those who formerly received the good news failed to enter because of disobedience, *again He appoints a certain day*, *“Today,”* saying *through David *so long afterward, in the words already quoted,
> 
> “Today, if you hear his voice,
> do not harden your hearts.”
> ...


----------



## py3ak (Feb 13, 2013)

MightyManfred said:


> py3ak said:
> 
> 
> > [Moderator]*Gentlemen, let's remember where we are, and keep all posts within the boundaries set out previously.*
> ...



Of course. This is not the thread for it, however, as this thread is about the NCT misinterpretation of 2 Corinthians 3. Please ask your question in the FAQ forum: FAQ & Rules
Indeed, it's possible that you may already find your question answered in one of the previous threads in that area.


----------



## JoannaV (Feb 13, 2013)

The kingdom of heaven is come! Christ reigns! And yet, we pray that the kingdom may come quickly. We rest in Christ! And yet, we are still living in the world and struggling with it. Once we worked 6 days in order to then rest and worship God. Now we rest before going out into the world. There came a Sabbath day that Jesus did not observe, a Sabbath when his body lay in the tomb...then the next day he rose and was worshipped. There were aspects of the Sabbath that were ceremonial, that were specifically for Israel, that involved sacrifices. There is another aspect of it that existed from the very first week.


----------



## MightyManfred (Feb 13, 2013)

Jesus kept the Sabbath before He was crucified because He was born under the Law and had to keep it to earn His standing as the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of His people. There is no evidence that Christians kept the Sabbath nor called the first day of the week a sabbath. I'll not say more so as to avoid getting another warning


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Feb 13, 2013)

> Perhaps the most valuable, because the most important and explicit, as well as the most learned, witness, is Eusebius of Cæsarea, who was in his prime about A. D. 325. In a commentary on the ninety-second Psalm, which, the reader will remember, is entitled, "A psalm or song for the Sabbath day," he says: "The Word" (Christ) "by the new covenant translated and transferred the feast of the Sabbath to the morning light, and gave us the symbol of the true rest, the saving Lord's day, the first of light, in which the Saviour gained the victory over death. On this day, which is the first of the Light and the true Sun, we assemble after the interval of six days, and celebrate holy and spiritual Sabbath; even all nations redeemed by him throughout the world assemble, and do those things according to the spiritual law which were decreed for the priests to do on the Sabbath. All things which it was duty to do on the Sabbath, these we have transferred to the Lord's day, as more appropriately belonging unto it, because it has the precedence, and is first in rank, and more honorable than the Jewish Sabbath. It hath been enjoined on us that we should meet together on this day, and it is evidence that we should do these things announced in this psalm.''pp. 537,8
> R. L. Dabney Discussions Vol. 1



Maybe you might be incorrect Stuart.


----------



## MightyManfred (Feb 13, 2013)

Not to put too fine a point on it, Randy, but my point - not properly phrased, for sure - was intended to seek biblical evidence of Christians calling the Lord's Day a sabbath. By 325 A.D. the heresy meter was routinely pegged in the red.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Feb 13, 2013)

MightyManfred said:


> Not to put too fine a point on it, Randy, but my point - not properly phrased, for sure - was intended to seek biblical evidence of Christians calling the Lord's Day a sabbath. By 325 A.D. the heresy meter was routinely pegged in the red.


Just let me clarify something. Are you calling the Christian Sabbath a heretical aberration?


----------



## MightyManfred (Feb 13, 2013)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Just let me clarify something. Are you calling the Christian Sabbath a heretical aberration?



Not at all. I am merely pointing out that calling it such is an extra-biblical tradition that has lots of Jewish baggage. We Baptists do not see the relationship with national Israel or the covenant of works the same way as you, our Presbyterian brothers, do. My interest is in lining up with the Word of God, even if that does not line up with one of the great confessions of the faith.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Feb 13, 2013)

MightyManfred said:


> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> > Just let me clarify something. Are you calling the Christian Sabbath a heretical aberration?
> ...


Stuart, I was a Particular (Reformed) Baptist for 30 years. You are gravely mistaken.


----------



## MightyManfred (Feb 13, 2013)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Stuart, I was a Particular (Reformed) Baptist for 30 years. You are gravely mistaken.



In what am I gravely mistaken? I take no offense at being corrected.


----------



## py3ak (Feb 13, 2013)

[Moderator]*Thread closed. It is perfectly possible to be a Baptist and hold to the confessional view of the first day of the week as being the Christian sabbath, called in Scripture "the Lord's day."

May I remind everyone that this is a confessional board. There's a reason you are asked to indicate to which confession you subscribe when you join. Subscription is a condition of membership.*[/Moderator]


----------

