# A law is Binding until Fulfilled or Repealed



## ChristopherPaul (Jan 27, 2006)

I read in a defense for Paedobaptism that all the laws of the Old Testament are binding that have not ceased to be so. Most of the ceremonial laws were typical of Christ and his work, and were fulfilled by him, and therefore ceased.

Is this right? Is anyone prepared to show where any given law is fulfilled or repealed?

What are some of laws that are not fulfilled or repealed?

What are some that have either been fulfilled or repealed?


----------



## Henry from Canada (Jan 27, 2006)

Hi Chris,

I have struggled with this issue for many years.

Unfortunately, I do not have the energy or brainpower today to engage in a lengthy debate. I suffered nasty leg spasms last night.

But I would like to offer a few questions and comments.

Numbers 15:37
------------------
"The Lord said to Moses, 'Speak to the Israelites and say to them: Throughout the generations to come you are to make tassels on the corners of your garments, with a blue cord on each tassel. You will have these tassels to look at and so you will remember all the commands of the Lord."

I do not think this law has been fulfilled. There are many laws such as this one in the Old Testament that apparently have not been fulfilled. 

Must I buy blue tassels?

Hebrews 8:13
-----------------
"By calling this covenant 'new', he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear."

Did Jesus' death pay the penalty for our sin? Do we now have a new relationship with God in which the focus is not on obeying 600 or so laws, but in fact, is based on *loving and honouring God and loving our brother?*

Does this new relationship with God allow Christians to obey a higher law which is not premised on a detailed and inflexible set of regulations, but in fact is based on a loving attitude and loving actions?

Could it be that a Christian that loves God and his neighbour will have no problem fulfilling God's requirements, because he will generally hear God's voice and do good?

Could it be that a loving Christian will easily "outperform" a Pharisee that is focused on properly interpreting and obeying 600 or so legal regulations?

Could it be that a loving Christian will obey many OT laws, anyway, because it is not loving to covet your neighbour's donkey, or bear false witness?

Could it be that this new relationship frees Christians from many onerous OT laws and allows them to focus on love?

Could it be that when Jesus spoke he seemed more focused on heart issues such as humility, judgmental attitudes, mercy, love, compassion for the poor and lame, and less focused on reprimanding his disciplines for gathering food on the Sabbath?

Could it be that if the Pharisees were more loving and humble, history would be quite different?

These are some of the questions I have had.


----------



## TimeRedeemer (Jan 28, 2006)

This is a rat's nest Theonomists (I'm not saying you) joyfully -seemingly - jump into (I think though their 'joy' is more a chain-yanking desire more akin to what atheists like to do to Christians along the lines of "Does that shirt have mixed fibers there, Hezekiah? (har har har)" and with the Theonomists their arguments are as disingenuous and uninformed as the atheists (some of the follower-types in Theonomy may be genuine in their confusion though).

Prior to regeneration and conversion the law is a curse, whether you try to follow it or not. After regeneration and conversion the law is God's will which is what your own will is being conformed to in the by-degree process of sanctification. So the ten commandments and the two great commandments of Jesus will be your primary reference for God's will (because the Bible makes them primary and connects them and obviously directs your attention straight on to them). 

As for the other laws, they are seen by God's elect as direction and guidance and wisdom from God Himself, so obviously they are what God's elect will for themselves. It comes from the heart, though, not an external compunction or legal code. 

And there is also a sense where the burden is lightened, even. Jesus reduces the two tables of the law to the two great commandments for reasons along these lines.

(Side note: I realize there's a new fad among some to use an insight from Kline to see the 'two tables' of the law as being actually two different complete tables where the different parties to a treaty would have a copy, etc., yet I think we shouldn't abandon seeing the first four commandments and the last six as being 'two tables' as well since they do correspond with Jesus' two great commandments. End of side note.)

[Edited on 1-28-2006 by TimeRedeemer]


----------



## Henry from Canada (Jan 28, 2006)

I call myself a Calvinist because I agree with you people on the interpretation of Romans 3, Romans 9 and John 6.

These 3 chapters of the Bible contain the "gist" of theology in my opinion, and separate Reformers from many other denominations.

In the last few months, I have come across other people on this board who I thought were "brother Calvinists", but seem to have radically different views.

These differences often surround "theomony." 

I never realized until recently how bound many Calvinists are by OT regulations.

Example:
-----------
Numbers 15:37
"The Lord said to Moses, 'Speak to the Israelites and say to them: Throughout the generations to come you are to make tassels on the corners of your garments, with a blue cord on each tassel. You will have these tassels to look at and so you will remember all the commands of the Lord."

I do not think this law has been fulfilled. There are many laws such as this one in the Old Testament that apparently have not been fulfilled. 

Question #1:
----------------
Am I bound by these OT rules?


Question #2:
----------------
I do not feel bound by many of these OT regulations.

Example: I think it is perfectly acceptable for me to perform hard exercise on Sunday (if possible) because it is good to do good any day of the week. This is in direct opposition to the OT Sabbath rules.

Can I still call myself a Calvinist?

Questions #3:
-----------------
If the answer to Question #2 is No, I am now extremely hesitate to even call myself Reformed.

Should I then leave this board because I do not share the same faith?

If you see fit, please feel free to revoke my membership. I will understand.


----------



## JohnV (Jan 28, 2006)

> _Originally posted by ChristopherPaul_
> I read in a defense for Paedobaptism that all the laws of the Old Testament are binding that have not ceased to be so. Most of the ceremonial laws were typical of Christ and his work, and were fulfilled by him, and therefore ceased.
> 
> Is this right? Is anyone prepared to show where any given law is fulfilled or repealed?
> ...



Chris:

If I may, I will engage you on your questions. 

I am persuaded that these questions assume some things that may not be entirely accurate. Yes, it is true that Christ fulfilled the OT ritual or ceremonial laws. That to which they pointed, namely to Christ's atonement, is now the focus of our understanding of them. As ceremonial commandments they are repealed, but as to the meanings of them, they are fulfilled, and now are revealed to us in Christ. 

But also, the moral law has been fulfilled by Christ. He kept it perfectly, and His obedience is accounted to us as righteousness, just as our sins were accounted to Him on the death on the cross. He paid our debt of guilt. But these too remain in effect in their teaching of righteousness, that we may live thankful lives to Him who redeemed us. We wish to honour Him, and to serve Him as our King. Therefore we do His will to the best of our abilities. And if we fall, we have an advocate with the Father, for no condemnation will now overtake us if we are in Him. 

This is the Reformed view of the Law, as I understand it. It is not a matter of laws repealed, but of laws that no longer bind us in slavery to our sin. If we needed to be worthy, sinless, completely in compliance, in order to be saved, then we have no hope. We are no less sinners than those who are not saved; the difference is that we are forgiven, and that that has changed us so that we can begin to live more obediently than yesterday, deliberately improving our obedience each day. All God's law is for our instruction in righteousness. Nothing is repealed, but the atonement makes a world of difference in the application of the Law of God. 

The gospel is not that we are all merely lawful, but that we are reconciled to God the Father, and that we strive to be in communion with Him by the Spirit through Christ. So the law is our joy, our duty, our teacher. But Christ the mediator is our master, not just the law.


----------



## TimeRedeemer (Jan 28, 2006)

> Example:
> -----------
> Numbers 15:37
> "The Lord said to Moses, 'Speak to the Israelites and say to them: Throughout the generations to come you are to make tassels on the corners of your garments, with a blue cord on each tassel. You will have these tassels to look at and so you will remember all the commands of the Lord."
> ...



No. This is regarding national Israel which is no more. This was an example of a law to aid remembrance. One of the problems of God's people was simply maintaining the memory, through successive generations, of what had happened and what needed to happen and to be. It doesn't take many generations to separate a people collectively from their past. But this law was directed at the Israelites themselves and not towards Christians. 



> Question #2:
> ----------------
> I do not feel bound by many of these OT regulations.
> 
> ...



Calvin himself agrees with you. It's the Puritans who instituted sunday sabbath. The Puritans famously disagreed with Calvin on this issue. For myself I see the Israelites seventh day (saturday) Sabbath as pointing to Jesus, and I see Jesus, after the Incarnation, as our Sabbath itself. (Hence even the Puritans knew it should be changed from the seventh day to the first day of the week.) So if you are a believing Christian to begin with you are 'keeping the Sabbath'. Just in having your mind on Jesus as your salvation alone. But people can differ on this issue (as Calvin and the Puritans ended up doing) without it being a major issue to divide over. I think everybody enjoys having Sundays as a unique day of the week and a more contemplative day.



> Questions #3:
> -----------------
> If the answer to Question #2 is No, I am now extremely hesitate to even call myself Reformed.
> 
> ...



Obviously not being an owner or moderator of this board I can't answer this one, but based on my response to #2 you can see that at least some Calvinists don't consider those who do work on sundays as non-Calvinists...

[Edited on 1-28-2006 by TimeRedeemer]


----------



## TimeRedeemer (Jan 28, 2006)

>_the difference is that we are forgiven, and that that has changed us so that we can begin to live more obediently than yesterday, deliberately improving our obedience each day._

Though it may just be a different in style or semantics I prefer, for myself, to think of it in terms of _acting from God's will rather than from self-will_. Talk of obedience suggests adherence still to something external to us whereas with regeneration and conversion the law is written on our hearts and when we act from it (though imperfectly because sanctification is by degree and is a process) we are acting from our hearts, i.e. from our new selves. 

I'm not saying you're saying differently, I just think there is a better language to use when talking about post-regeneration as opposed to pre-regeneration.


----------



## Henry from Canada (Jan 28, 2006)

Michael said:
" It's the Puritans who instituted sunday sabbath. The Puritans famously disagreed with Calvin on this issue. "

I have read conflicting information about this. 

One of the problems I have is reading Calvin's works.

Many of these works, and Puritan works, are very difficult.

I even have trouble with some of the posters on this site. The big words, long sentences, complex sentence structures, and huge paragraphs are difficult for me.

I do not know if anyone has noticed, I try to write in a very simple, direct manner.

The one thing I like about the WCF is the simple basic question/answer format that directly targets basic issues.

Are there are simple Calvin translations for dummies like me?


----------



## TimeRedeemer (Jan 28, 2006)

>_I have read conflicting information about this._ 

Calvin is emphatic and clear in Book 2, Chapter 8, Section 31 of his _Insititutes of the Christian Religion_.

His concluding sentence: "Christians ought therefore to shun completely the superstitious observance of days."

Prior to that he writes: "But there is no doubt that by the Lord Christ's coming the ceremonial part of this commandment [4th Commandment] was abolished."

As for a more readable source for Calvin? Actually, Calvin's Insititutes was written to be a handbook for the common man (so to speak). It really isn't like reading, for instance, a John Owen. It's pretty straight forward. There are abridgements, but I don't think they make Calvin clearer, just abridged. But they may still be a way to go. Baker Books has a short abridgement available. You can find it searching John Calvin on amazon.

I'm sure others here would have recommendations I don't know of though.

There's a 'Calvin for Armchair Theologians' I think...


----------



## non dignus (Jan 28, 2006)

I don't think one can repeal OT laws like a line item veto. The entire Mosaic covenant is abrogated. The moral laws annunciated therein are still useful for understanding the character of God. The examples in it are essential for life and godliness, but as a covenant it was for Israel only, in that epoch only.


----------



## TimeRedeemer (Jan 28, 2006)

You wrote 'epoch' instead of 'dispensation'. On purpose? (Just kidding.)'

Tell an unsaved sinner in hell God has abrogated His law. He'll ask you then why he is in hell (other than he wants to be there, but that's another thing).

If the law convicted me of my sin how was it abrogated? 

You write: "I don't think one can repeal OT laws like a line item veto."

Then you write: "The moral laws annunciated therein are still useful for understanding the character of God."

First regarding that, I'm not granting that anybody - any humans - repeals anything; they are either fulfilled by Christ or they end with national Israel. It's the New Testament that gives warrant for seeing the moral law as still in effect. Jesus' two great commandments sum up the ten commandments themselves. But, aside from that, why do you condemn blithe acts or pronouncements of humans regarding God's law ("line item veto') then turn around and commit one yourself, i.e. the moral laws are "still useful"...


----------



## TimeRedeemer (Jan 28, 2006)

David G. Cronkhite,

If I've misread you I apologise. The longer and deeper these theological threads go they can disintegrate into parts and hence lose focus, or lose their original subject matter, etc., and also people can get tired and write something horrendously theologically off-the-mark. Or just totally misread another post.


----------



## non dignus (Jan 29, 2006)

> _Originally posted by TimeRedeemer_
> You wrote 'epoch' instead of 'dispensation'. On purpose? (Just kidding.)'
> 
> Tell an unsaved sinner in hell God has abrogated His law. He'll ask you then why he is in hell (other than he wants to be there, but that's another thing).


 I would tell him his federal head, Adam, sinned against the original covenant of works.


> If the law convicted me of my sin how was it abrogated?
> 
> You write: "I don't think one can repeal OT laws like a line item veto."
> 
> ...





Of course God's requirement of moral perfection is not abrogated. I'm saying the whole Sinai covenant is abrogated. Let me explain by an illustration. 

An example might be a tenant/landlord contract wherein it is stipulated that the tenant has the right to assemble persons on the premises. If that contract is nullified, the rule still stands by the authority of the US constitution. The appeal is to another embodiment of authority. So while 'Moses' is nullified, the law still stands. 

I think this is more tidy than the line item fulfillment model.

Michael,
No apology is necessary. I express myself not well. ha! 
(btw I've taken up your idea of listing current reading on my signature. Who is Peter Golding?)


----------



## TimeRedeemer (Jan 29, 2006)

Peter Golding is a British pastor. He published his book _Covenant Theology_ in 2004. Apparently his PhD thesis was on covenant theology. He's currently semi-retired, I gather, but associated in some way with the London Theological Seminary. 

I guess when one see the unity of the Covenant of Grace, and the Mosaic Covenant as part of that overall covenant, one doesn't see it as being abrogated. As for the moral law being unique, that is what the New Testament gives rather full warrant for seeing. And you used the 'line item' line again, but humans don't repeal God's law. It was fulfilled by Christ. The ceremonial law certainly, but one can even see the civil laws of national Israel as being fulfilled in the Incarnation of Jesus, in the sense that national Israel existed to bring that eventuality about. The moral laws are universal. It is the law written on one's heart.


----------



## non dignus (Jan 29, 2006)

> _Originally posted by TimeRedeemer_
> Peter Golding is a British pastor. He published his book _Covenant Theology_ in 2004. Apparently his PhD thesis was on covenant theology. He's currently semi-retired, I gather, but associated in some way with the London Theological Seminary.
> 
> I guess when one sees the unity of the Covenant of Grace, and the Mosaic Covenant as part of that overall covenant, one doesn't see it as being abrogated. As for the moral law being unique, that is what the New Testament gives rather full warrant for seeing. And you used the 'line item' line again, but humans don't repeal God's law. It was fulfilled by Christ. The ceremonial law certainly, but one can even see the civil laws of national Israel as being fulfilled in the Incarnation of Jesus, in the sense that national Israel existed to bring that eventuality about. The moral laws are universal. It is the law written on one's heart.



Right. The 'line item' expression is imprecise. But what I see are men deciding which law is ceremonial and which law is moral (not unlike the Jesus seminar). Legally, that whole contract is done. The dispensationalists have it exactly backwards. They say the church is just a parenthesis in history. Actually, the Mosaic covenant is a parenthesis in the CoG connecting the functions of law and gospel.

The Sabbath debate is about whether or not the 4th commandment is ceremonial or moral. Whichever it is, we aren't necessarily going to react as the Jews did in their context. This is because that context was pedagogical. Why are men intent on staying in school when they have graduated?


----------



## TimeRedeemer (Jan 29, 2006)

>I would tell him his federal head, Adam, sinned against the original covenant of works.

So you admit God's law is not abrogated. 

The next thing we'll have to try to do is get you to see that God's law is not sliced sausage...

>I'm saying the whole Sinai covenant is abrogated.

It's still saving people.


----------



## TimeRedeemer (Jan 29, 2006)

If you're arguing for Christian liberty I'm there with you, but you have to do it without nuking God's plan of salvation.

[Edited on 1-29-2006 by TimeRedeemer]


----------



## JohnV (Jan 29, 2006)

> _Originally posted by TimeRedeemer_
> >_the difference is that we are forgiven, and that that has changed us so that we can begin to live more obediently than yesterday, deliberately improving our obedience each day._
> 
> Though it may just be a different in style or semantics I prefer, for myself, to think of it in terms of _acting from God's will rather than from self-will_. Talk of obedience suggests adherence still to something external to us whereas with regeneration and conversion the law is written on our hearts and when we act from it (though imperfectly because sanctification is by degree and is a process) we are acting from our hearts, i.e. from our new selves.
> ...



Michael:
Your way of saying it is somewhat confusing, if I may say. It seems to convey that we may be guided by our own hearts as much as by God's Word, instead of having our hearts guided by that Word. The whole Bible, both OT and NT are for our teaching. And we need teaching. We cannot just let our hearts guide us without having that beacon for our hearts to follow.


----------



## TimeRedeemer (Jan 29, 2006)

God's will vs. self-will
God-centered vs. man-centered
New heart vs. ---- (see below)

Ezekiel 36:26 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.

27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.

Really, the difference in one's relation to the law when regenerate is the subject. It's the difference between having the law as an external penal code (with external police) that you are obedient to; vs. having the law within your heart (your new heart) and acting from it because it is now natural for you to act from it [necessary caveat that sanctification is by degree, etc.]). 

The difference between having self-will that is controlled by police and having God's will as your very will and volition. Made in the image of God means, among other things, that God's will is our natural will. When regenerated this becomes reality. By degree because sanctification is by degree, but...as I prefaced: it's just a difference in words and approach and ways of thinking about it. Not unimportant by any means, but as I said I wasn't stating you meant anything different, I was just commenting on language.

[Edited on 1-29-2006 by TimeRedeemer]


----------



## non dignus (Jan 29, 2006)

> _non dignus said,_
> "I'm saying the whole Sinai covenant is abrogated.
> 
> _TimeRedeemer said,_
> "It's still saving people."



You mean the works covenant framework in which Christ proved Himself facilitated saving people. Am I correct? 

The perfect law of God can never be begun nor ended. The Mosaic' was an administration that has passed. Only the gospel saves.

Forgive me for being dense. I'm not gathering the subtleties of your argument.


----------



## TimeRedeemer (Jan 29, 2006)

Basically what I'm saying (and what classical covenant theology teaches, i.e. what the Bible itself teaches) is the Covenant of Grace as it unfolds in time is a unity. 

You have to see the Mosaic Covenant as a continuation of the Covenant of Grace. When you see this you could never write "the whole Sinai covenant is abrogated." 

Packer: "God's covenant with Israel was preparation for the coming of God himself, in the person of his Son , to fulfill all his promises and to give substance to the shadows cast by the types. Jesus Christ, the mediator of the new covenant, offered himself as the true and final sacrifice for sin. He obeyed the law perfectly..."

>_Only the gospel saves._

No, there are two ways to salvation. Following the law, and faith in Christ. Just because we can't follow the law doesn't negate it as a way of salvation. Ultimately it's the following of the law that only saves us because being united to Jesus Christ who is the only person who can (could) follow the law is the source of our free grace and salvation. 

Really, what this subject needs is the statement that law and grace are not mutually exclusive. But here's the thing about Covenant Theology: you need to be able to see and accept five solas, doctrines of grace biblical doctrine itself _because that is covenant theology doctrine_. Then you have to realize that when a person says the Mosaic covenant saves, just as the Covenant of Grace overall saves, it's not saying an obvious, non-Reformed understanding statement about works salvation. 

It's difficult to write about covenant theology when at every step you have to pronounce that you know you can't save yourself by following the law...


----------



## non dignus (Jan 29, 2006)

> _Originally posted by TimeRedeemer_
> 
> You have to see the Mosaic Covenant as a continuation of the Covenant of Grace. When you see this you could never write "the whole Sinai covenant is abrogated."



Our salvation is posited in the CoW. We cannot perform the requirement, so Christ stands in the gap fulfilling the requirement on our behalf, hence the CoG.

Likewise, the Mosaic covenant is a vehicle for joining (standing in the gap) the CoW with the CoG. It was temporary in the sense that it is no longer binding on the Israel of God. It is permanent in the sense that it is fulfilled and vindicates Christ in His perfect work. 

Hebrews 8:7; _"For if that first covenant had been faultless, then would no place have been sought for a second."_

When Christ died, the old covenant died. It is fulfilled and therefore repealed. The jots and tittles have passed away. 

Now the third use of the law: We strive to attain to the character of God as revealed in a non-binding document.


----------



## TimeRedeemer (Jan 29, 2006)

When you write that the "*whole* Sinai covenant is abrogated.", which you wrote, and I say it's still saving people, referring to the fact that the Mosaic Covenant is part of the Covenant of Grace as it works out in time, then from that point one can write about the law aspect of the Mosaic Covenant or one can discourse on the grace aspect of the Mosaic Covenant (and then switch back and forth, and even make valid points - which the other person never was in disagreement regarding), but the initial exchange and subject is lost. 

Covenant Theology is not complex. It's elegantly simple and beautiful; but it can be made a tangled ball of yarn if people want to make of it that. One of the points that can be exploited for this purpose is the Mosaic Covenant. I'm just saying let's see it first as part of the Covenant of Grace, then see it's unique law element in regards to the Second Adam and the needs of the Covenant of Grace at that point in time in redemptive history associated with the Second Adam.

God's law is not complicated for man. For sinful, fallen man God's law is a curse regarding justification and a schoolmaster and policeman otherwise. For regenerate man God's law is our very will. (The matrix of the confusion regarding law occurs when you don't distinguish between unregenerate and regenerate man in regards to God's law.)

But the Mosaic Covenant is most certainly not abrogated. The moral law is not abrogated. The law that convicts man is not abrogated. The Mosaic Covenant as grace is not abrogated. Even the ceremonial laws that generated faith in God's elect in their time are not abrogated in any needful way. I.e. they exist in time for those souls in time. (And no I'm not making some weird statement regarding time.) They also enable us to understand more clearly the New Testament. 

The law given at Sinai wasn't even ever a means for justification of the Israelites. 

I've had to learn Covenant Theology on my own, as I assume everybody does. I've debated Federal Vision people on these subjects (and I won't go into that, but...man...) But even when you get into an environment that is sympathetic to classical covenant theology you get contention and parsing and interrogations and etc. 

I guess I'm expecting too much, but it's such a shame that Covenant Theology is not part of the foundation of faith and understanding of God's people today. It's the complete whole, and it enables one to see the parts in relation to the whole, which is understanding itself.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jan 29, 2006)

Some observations from Galatians:



> (Galatians 3:7) Know then that it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham.
> 
> *(Galatians 3:8) And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, "In you shall all the nations be blessed."*


A promise is made to Abraham, by God, before the Law is given.



> (Galatians 3:9) So then, those who are of faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.
> 
> (Galatians 3:10) For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, "Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them."
> 
> ...


No one is justfied by the law. Not even by the Jews. God did not annul the Abrahamic promise or add to it. If man-made promises cannot be broken, how much more are God's promises involiable?


> (Galatians 3:17) This is what I mean: the law, which came 430 years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to make the promise void.


In other words, the promise made to Abraham and His offspring was not abrogated by the Law. That would be breaking the promise made to Abraham before he was circumcised.



> (Galatians 3:18) For if the inheritance comes by the law, it no longer comes by promise; but God gave it to Abraham by a promise.


And He doesn't break His promises.

Why then the law?


> (Galatians 3:19) Why then the law? *It was added because of transgressions, until the offspring should come to whom the promise had been made, and it was put in place through angels by an intermediary.*
> 
> (Galatians 3:20) Now an intermediary implies more than one, but God is one.
> 
> ...


I'm not sure I understand all of it and do it full justice but it seems that Paul says elsewhere that I did not know sin until the Law condemned me. We cannot know we need to be saved by the Cross until we know that we are under the curse of the Law.

I don't mean to imply that this is the only use of the Law but is one of the places where we get our understanding of the Law's function to "kill us". I do believe in the third use of the Law as what the Elect do out of love for their Redeemer. I love the Law, not as a body of works through which I might justify myself and approach God but, rather, because it reflects the character of God, I love to do the things that reflect His holiness. Because I love Christ, I obey His commands and NOT I obey Christ's commands so I might love Him. The heart has already been put into me to love Him and the *desire and joy* in obedience flow from that love. When I pray with my children for the forgiveness of our sins, I constantly ask God for the Grace to love Him more and hate our sin. That which is done out of Love is not Law in a certain sense.

I think the problem, as I see it with my underdeveloped theological mind, is that some expressions of theonomy begin to blur the use of the 3rd Law so that it becomes something that Paul is condemning in Galatians 3. I can agree with a theonomist, for instance, that there are still some Laws in effect that have not been abrogated. Murder is at least one of them. Nevertheless, at what point does my concern that a set of rules are still "binding" upon people and my insistence that God's people and everyone else obey them become something I'm doing not out of a redeemed heart but because I want to justify myself by them? 

Certainly not all theonomists fall into this trap but it is a potential pitfall. I believe we're all Pelagian by default and we need the Gospel to constantly remind us that we are not justified by the Law. I remember a fellow congregant complaining that our Preacher was not active enough in local and global issues and that He focused too much on the Gospel. I explained to him that I needed to hear the imperatives of Scripture (which the Pastor preached) but I also needed the Gospel every Sunday because I tend to "forget" that salvation is by Grace. He looked me right in the eye and told me: "I don't forget the Gospel." That man doesn't regularly attend Church any more because he can't find a Reformed Church that focuses enough on social issues. Whether he'd say it out loud or even believes it, he is looking at the Law as a corpus that needs to be kept for Justification.

To caveat the above discussion, I have met some very solid postmil preachers that some would classify as theonomists and they do not fall into the pitfall of the above. I'm just using the above as an example of what I've seen the 3rd use of the Law turn into. I don't claim to have everything figured out but I'm just wary of certain dangers.

Finally, I found the OP very interesting in that the thread started that some proponents of paedobaptism use the idea that Laws that have not been repealed are still in effect. This whole discussion about the Mosaic Covenant is quite independent of that issue as the command to Abraham to circumcise his children was given 430 years BEFORE the Mosaic Covenant. The Mosaic Covenant did not replace or abrogate that promise either as Paul labors to show.

[Edited on 1-30-2006 by SemperFideles]


----------



## TimeRedeemer (Jan 29, 2006)

I've been on forums where anytime a discussion got going regarding classical covenant theology theonomists would jump in, cause strife, and put an end to it. I regard the leaders of Theonomy and Reconstruction as snakes (if that insults anybody, sorry, it's my experience) and I regard their followers as confused. What is interesting is they can confuse otherwise very intelligent Christians. 

There is something devilish in the theonomy (and related) movement. They spawn the usual suspects in things like Auburn Avenue and Federal Vision. They corrupt biblical doctrine at points where you really have to know biblical doctrine to be able to do what they do which exposes them. I.e. when you know enough to corrupt biblical doctrine in the places they do it you are willfully attempting to deceive believers because you obviously know enough to know better. 

They pour over Reformed influences looking for alledged or real weak points they can exploit. And along those lines they associate themselves with Reformed, Calvinist doctrine solely because that is where the truth is. They'd just be another group of people with bad theology if they didn't dishonestly self-identify as Reformed or Calvinist, and nobody would give them attention. 

The devil never makes it easy for Christians to get on the same page with the truth.


----------



## non dignus (Jan 29, 2006)

> _Originally posted by TimeRedeemer_
> 
> But the Mosaic Covenant is most certainly not abrogated. The moral law is not abrogated. The law that convicts man is not abrogated. The Mosaic Covenant as grace is not abrogated. Even the ceremonial laws that generated faith in God's elect in their time are not abrogated in any needful way. I.e. they exist in time for those souls in time. (And no I'm not making some weird statement regarding time.) They also enable us to understand more clearly the New Testament.



_" In that he saith, A new covenant he hath made the first old. But that which is becoming old and waxeth aged is nigh unto vanishing away." _ Heb 8:13

This verse seems to indicate to me that the old has vanished.

Michael, you seem to be saying that the Mosaic Covenant was a grace covenant and I must take issue. If it was simply a continuation of the CoG why did they get vomited out of the land? 

I'm not getting feedback from you on how I understand the MoCo to connect the CoW with the CoG. 

It was a school master and school masters are temporary.


----------



## TimeRedeemer (Jan 29, 2006)

Getting vomited out of the land didn't have to do with justification. Justification was for them by faith in the coming Messiah. 

If you are effectually called, and you are in God's covenant, and you begin to act in a way so as to turn your back on God, God will vomit you about as well...

As for Hebrews: 

Hebrews 13:20 - Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the *everlasting covenant*...

This:

>_I'm not getting feedback from you on how I understand the MoCo to connect the CoW with the CoG._

Could you rephrase?


----------



## TimeRedeemer (Jan 29, 2006)

If all you're talking about is the fact that there are various dispensations of the one covenant then...

WCF 7.6 "There are not therefore two covenants of grace, differing in substance, but one and the same, under various dispensations."

Could you tell me if you are a dispensationalist, or if you hold to something other than what the WCF describes? I only ask so as to know where you're coming from.


----------



## non dignus (Jan 29, 2006)

> _Originally posted by TimeRedeemer_
> Getting vomited out of the land didn't have to do with justification. Justification was for them by faith in the coming Messiah.


 I agree.


> If you are effectually called, and you are in God's covenant, and you begin to act in a way so as to turn your back on God, God will vomit you about as well...


 Now we are talking apples and oranges. You're talking about justification; I'm talking about the conditions for living in the land. Israel failed meeting the requirement making manifest the overarching principle was a works framework.


> As for Hebrews:
> 
> Hebrews 13:20 - Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the *everlasting covenant*...


 Are you intimating that the inspired author is teaching that the* everlasting covenant* is _near to vanishing away_?


> >_I'm not getting feedback from you on how I understand the MoCo to connect the CoW with the CoG._
> 
> Could you rephrase?



The moco has elements of grace but is primarily a two-sided covenant, and thus a works covenant. It was given so Christ could keep it perfectly fulfilling the CoW in our place. In this way it became a conduit for us to fulfill the CoW through Christ. It connects the CoW to the CoG while not confusing the two. 

You need to show me more scripture for evidence that,
1. the moco is a grace covenant and,
2. that it has not vanished.

[Edited on 1-30-2006 by non dignus]


----------



## non dignus (Jan 29, 2006)

> _Originally posted by TimeRedeemer_
> If all you're talking about is the fact that there are various dispensations of the one covenant then...
> 
> WCF 7.6 "There are not therefore two covenants of grace, differing in substance, but one and the same, under various dispensations."
> ...



I am not well versed in the WCF. I am not well versed in CT! It's funny that you think I'm a dispie and I think you are a latent theonomist.! I'm in the URCNA and am amil.

The moco was added, or _superimposed_. It served it's purpose and now has passed away. There are no more blood rites. And scripture simply doesn't teach that the moco is only partially fulfilled, vanished, repealed. No. It has wholly vanished. It was faulty afterall.

The moral law however exists outside of covenants; to say it has or has not passed away is a category mistake.


----------



## TimeRedeemer (Jan 30, 2006)

Well, that explains alot. Thank you for saying you are not well-versed in CT. I might add if that is the case your line and style of corresponding is a little strange. The way you're speaking and making pronouncements doesn't suggest you are giving your own lack of understanding of Covenant Theology much importance. It's a bit irresponsible. 

You're also learning things in this thread and then repeating them as if you didn't just learn them. And what's more you're repeating them as if the very person you learned them from doesn't agree with what he just presented to you.

Saying I sound like a theonomist is absurd. 

Basically, David, you have to approach subjects with more humility to learn. 

If I sound upset it's just that I spent alot of time responding to a person I assumed had some background in the subject and a real position regarding it, and now I feel like I've been spending that time and effort with a person merely doing this: 

Still, there are positives to be gained, but continuing with it is not mandatory...


----------



## TimeRedeemer (Jan 30, 2006)

David, I have no problem talking with anybody. But you have to show a basic, at least, level of respect to a person. If I havn't put in time and effort to study a subject I'm not going to go onto a forum and make pronouncements and challenge a person and question this and that in a manner as if I know what I'm talking about, and so on. That is showing zero respect for that person. 

Make some effort to learn Covenant Theology. It's not a crime to not know about something, but it's 'sort' of a crime to talk about something you havn't shown enough interest in to learn about and to talk as if you know about it and further to talk arrogantly.

Not only that but your default position is one of bad will towards me. You have no idea what you're talking about and yet you want to see me as someone who believes a ridiculous position (that we can be justified by doing the law, etc, etc,) and you call me a theonomist. Rather strangely right after I wrote a post criticising theonomists (which makes me think it was your first exposure to that very word and you googled it and then accused me of sounding like one based on your quick and shallow reading). 

Make some effort to learn the subject. I don't know anything about 'game theory' and guess what: you don't see me on a game theory forum telling people what's what.


----------



## non dignus (Jan 30, 2006)

> _Originally posted by TimeRedeemer_
> Well, that explains alot. Thank you for saying you are not well-versed in CT. I might add if that is the case your line and style of corresponding is a little strange. The way you're speaking and making pronouncements doesn't suggest you are giving your own lack of understanding of Covenant Theology much importance. It's a bit irresponsible.


 Well, so much for my post-regenerational will being God's will! 

I always fail at that.


> You're also learning things in this thread and then repeating them as if you didn't just learn them. And what's more you're repeating them as if the very person you learned them from doesn't agree with what he just presented to you.
> 
> Saying I sound like a theonomist is absurd.
> 
> ...


I'm sorry you feel that way. I certainly don't want to waste anyone's time and have enjoyed our discussion very much. How many times did I say I was too dense to catch the subtleties of your argument? Two. Me thinks you are not listening.

I've used scripture to bolster my argument and when you've replied in kind it only served to make the text contradict itself. I have to assume that it's not the scripture that is against itself but rather your argumentation. I take it your ad hominem finish rests your case? 

If so, I look forward to another thread where we can agree whole heartedly together for His glory.


----------



## non dignus (Jan 30, 2006)

> _Originally posted by TimeRedeemer_
> David, I have no problem talking with anybody. But you have to show a basic, at least, level of respect to a person. If I havn't put in time and effort to study a subject I'm not going to go onto a forum and make pronouncements and challenge a person and question this and that in a manner as if I know what I'm talking about, and so on. That is showing zero respect for that person.
> 
> Make some effort to learn Covenant Theology. It's not a crime to not know about something, but it's 'sort' of a crime to talk about something you havn't shown enough interest in to learn about and to talk as if you know about it and further to talk arrogantly.
> ...



I googled 'game theory'. 

Just kidding. 

You remind me of a certain locksmith I contracted for services. To make me a key for my car ignition he spent an entire hour essentially destroying the lock because he couldn't pick it in order to get the core out to make a key. You know what he told me?

It was a cheap lock!



[Edited on 1-30-2006 by non dignus]


----------



## TimeRedeemer (Jan 30, 2006)

Make the effort to learn the subject to some basic degree (we all have to  ). At least make a start. Then you'll be in a better position to see if somebody's arguments or statements line up with Scripture or not. Prior to that you'll be able to see what is being said to begin with. 

Covenant Theology is not something you are born knowing. It takes actual effort and time to learn. 

It's also serious matter. I take it seriously. That's why I look probably somewhat amusing when I get upset if I run into someone who seems to not take is so seriously... To me, the Spirit doesn't lead one into such territory promiscuously. Fear God, it is the beginning of wisdom... 

[Edited on 1-30-2006 by TimeRedeemer]

[Edited on 1-30-2006 by TimeRedeemer]


----------



## Puritanhead (Jan 30, 2006)

Gentleman, I have to be reminded of this sometimes myself, but let the passions dampen, and remember you're both in Christ:

And be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ's sake hath forgiven you.
Ephesians 4:32

Let your speech always be with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer each one. 
-Colossians 4:6

I'm a covenant theologian myself... I'm still learning a lot and simply amazed at the Bible when we delve deeper and get more depth of understanding.


----------



## non dignus (Jan 30, 2006)

Thank you Ryan. I receive your good counsel.


----------



## TimeRedeemer (Jan 31, 2006)

Ditto, Ryan. And apologies, David. I sometimes freak out regarding the reality that it is difficult to be on the same page with others on these subjects. It's not just understanding, but everybody also is on their own natural schedule for learning it all. Sometimes too the "confusion of tongues" that is natural for this fallen world is something I don't take into enough consideration of. It's not an indictment of others, we all have the same limitations of language that we work with in communicating with others...


----------



## cupotea (Jan 31, 2006)

> Saying I sound like a theonomist is absurd.



I'm finding this discussion to be very educational, even if things have gotten a bit passionate. 

One of the things that I think would be very good for me to learn would be the basic - very basic! - difference between theonomy and Covenant theology. This might also help me understand where the Covenanters stand on these issues. 

Is it possible to do that here, or is there a place to be referred to that would be helpful?


----------



## non dignus (Jan 31, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Globachio_
> 
> I'm finding this discussion to be very educational, even if things have gotten a bit passionate.
> 
> One of the things that I think would be very good for me to learn would be the basic - very basic! - difference between theonomy and Covenant theology. This might also help me understand where the Covenanters stand on these issues.



That is a great idea, Kevin. Please start a topic!


----------



## TimeRedeemer (Jan 31, 2006)

One problem (this is my experience anyway) is theonomists tend to take as many positions when you try to define them as Auburn Avenue or Federal Vision types. As a general observation that may very well be an overstatement, but it isn't for many of them.

Here is a good, short, to-the-point page describing theonomy, and also a little bit in contradistinction to covenant theology:

http://www.angelfire.com/nt/theology/theonomy.html


----------



## cupotea (Jan 31, 2006)

> Here is a good, short, to-the-point page describing theonomy, and also a little bit in contradistinction to covenant theology:
> 
> http://www.angelfire.com/nt/theology/theonomy.html



Thanks! I just had a brief glimpse at it. But one question: Is it possible to hold to Covenant theology and be postmil instead of amil? Or is Covenant theology and postmil mutually exclusive?


----------



## non dignus (Jan 31, 2006)

Michael,
Thanks for that link, I look forward to it.

Kevin, 
Different shades of eschatology would modify one's view of the consummation of the covenants. Reconstructionism would modify it greatly. But I think the historical aspect would be untouched.


----------



## TimeRedeemer (Jan 31, 2006)

No, Covenant Theology and post-mill are not mutually exclusive (see link below and scroll down to "Eschatological Options Available To Covenant Theology"). Personally I've always been amill. I could see how groups and movements would exploit post-mill approaches to push bad doctrine. Not that all post-mill individuals were doing that of course, it has a rather stellar history based on famous individuals in history alone. But also, knowing history somewhat, and the link below touches on this, I could see that post-mill sentiments occured at times in history when progress and visions of a 'gleaming future' were currents of the times. I.e., I associated it with a bit of worldly and historic naivete. In Jonathan Edwards case it would be due to the revival atmosphere and the new America vibes in the air; on the other hand with a Loraine Boettner case it was, in the early 20th century, more the atmosphere of new invention and so forth. 

To me the view from a higher perspective on time shows the amill view to be on-the-mark (aside from seeing it biblically of course). 

http://www.conservativeonline.org/articles/EschatologyOfCovenantTheology.htm


----------



## non dignus (Feb 1, 2006)

Postmillenialists may want to take a second look at the Mosaic economy in terms of it's typological aspect. If the example there shows the ease of corruptibility in the covenant people, it would, in my opinion, militate against a rosy future for the church in the last days.

Michael,
That chart ( angelfire) helped me clarify the distinctions of those three categories. I had thought that Theonomy was only an aberrant covenant theology. I'm certain that Theonomists would claim to have a Reformed covenant theology. 

Wouldn't Theonomy, however problematic, subsist in CT?

PS I don't want to divert the thread too much, but it would be helpful for me to really nail this down so I don't make the same mistake twice. I have a friend at church that seems to be Bahnsenized and I want to get a handle on it.


----------



## JohnV (Feb 1, 2006)

As far as my experience and study have shown me, you need to keep some terms distinct. It is true that a Reconstructionist framework makes much of both Postmillennialism and Presuppositionalism. As well, Reconstructionism is Theonomy-oriented. However, it is not alway true that Postmillennialists or Presuppositionalists or Theonomists are all Reconstructionists. So you ought to divide between these views as formal and informal when analyzing Theonomy as either Reconstructionist Theonomy or anti-antinominian theonomy. There is a difference. 

I would also suggest that the "Bahsenizing" you are talking about falls within another distinction you need to make in each category, and that is the "rational" vs. the "irrational" proponents. This does not refer to _whether_ or not they appeal to reason, but _how_ they appeal to reason. More precisely, the latter appeal to authority wrongly, while the former do so rightly. 

So if you're interested in studying Theonomy, you need to keep the two types quite distinct. There are commonalities and overlaps, but you will see that a lot better if you distinguish the two clearly from the start, and then see where they mesh. 

I hope this helps.


----------



## TimeRedeemer (Feb 1, 2006)

> Michael,
> That chart ( angelfire) helped me clarify the distinctions of those three categories. I had thought that Theonomy was only an aberrant covenant theology. I'm certain that Theonomists would claim to have a Reformed covenant theology.
> 
> Wouldn't Theonomy, however problematic, subsist in CT?



It does, but in a most perverted way. They are sophists who use Calvinist doctrine - Covenant Theology - to hide and sow garbage. They say, "Yes, we're Calvinist, but...we are _real_ Calvinists, bold Calvinists, you see, because..." then they proceed to push their disingenous beliefs regarding the law vis a vis the new covenant. 

I used the analogy of communists in America calling themselves liberals and democrats. Same thing at work. Same desire to defile names and institutions and ideas and, in the case of Christianity, doctrine.

My frank position on theonomy is they are confusion sowers as well as fifth columnists within Reformed, Calvinist camps to make Calvinism look bad. Sort of like, in the political realm, calling yourself a Republican and then wearing swastikas. 

I go by discernment, and to be honest I just had to literally see the names of Rushdoony and Bahnsen and North and just get a mere taste of their writings and the impressions were overwhelmingly: CRANK. They all remind me of typical cranks you see in the political and religious spheres. The guys telling you not to pay your taxes; the guys trying to recruit you into militias; the guys with the conspiracy theories and crank economic interests; the guys who base doctrine on theories of lost tribes, etc., etc. 

I'm not saying theonomists themselves espouse all those things, but that that is their intellectual realm, or elevation or atmostphere.

I think people get drawn into their world in two ways: 1. because they don't encounter sound Reformed doctrrine and sources first, i.e. the theonomy is their intitial introduction to Reformed doctrine; and 2. people who are looking for something more active to do with their faith, but instead of looking inward and taking a spiritual approach they look to the world and end up doing worldly things.

Theonomists are poison, frankly. They love it when the media talks about them as if they are evangelical Christianity (and the media has done this). 

The element in all this nonsense that makes them more than a nuissance whether theonomy or Auburn Avenue or Federal Vision or New Perspective on Paul is they all self-identify as Calvinists or Reformed. This is because they know this is where the truth of the Gospel is. They are out to defile the truth of the Gospel, and since Reformed doctrine is the gold standard this is where they infiltrate and release their poison.

I have a zeal for my faith, and I desire and thirst for putting my faith into practice, both regarding myself and in the world, but this doesn't involve worldly movements that misuse the laws of Moses and pursue all manner of heated crank activity. I tend to direct my zeal and will for action regarding my faith into evangelization and the active element of sanctification, which when done biblically is what serious Chrsitians actually do. To change the world, or to keep it save for the propogation of the Gospel, I vote for the political party and candidates that will best fight for positions and ideas that will get this done [*Update:* I.e. the political party and candidates that espouse the best program that provides the best environment for Christians to do what we do, i.e. liberty, freedom of speech, etc.]. In my time as a voter that is (dare I get political?) Republican. No party's perfect, but...

[Edited on 2-2-2006 by TimeRedeemer]

[Edited on 2-2-2006 by TimeRedeemer]


----------



## Scott Bushey (Feb 1, 2006)

Make your final comments here guys; I will close this tonight. The thread is outliving it's benefit in my opinion.


----------



## TimeRedeemer (Feb 1, 2006)

Be bold against bad doctrine.


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 1, 2006)

be bold, but not arrogant.


----------



## TimeRedeemer (Feb 1, 2006)

If it stings learn from it.


----------



## fredtgreco (Feb 1, 2006)

This one is done.


----------

