You are not logged in.
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).
http://www.theopedia.com/New_Covenant_Theology
This thread will further explore what Christ's Law is. Paul obviously considered something other than the 10 Commandments.
Last edited by bob_2 (02-26-10 2:11 am)
Offline
This is important to understand why Covenant Theology does not properly interpret the Bible while New Covenant Theology, better reflects the Plan of Salvation with its many Covenants and Promises, continuity and discontinuity without a reflection on God's unchanging character but shows His Sovereignty more accurately.
NCT Characteristics
The following lists some of the major NCT characteristics.
NCT teaches that:
1. The discernment of the Holy Spirit is absolutely essential for accurately handling the Word of God (I Cor. 2:13-14; II Tim. 2:15) and that the most important principle of interpretation is “contextual exegesis.” Contextual biblical exegesis demands grammatical/historical/theological principles of interpretation.
2. The imputation of Adam’s first sin to all mankind (Rom. 5:12d, 18a-19a), the elects’ sins to Christ (II Cor. 5:21), and Christ’s righteousness to the elect (Rom. 5:18b-19b) are vital for the Christian faith. Without the doctrine of imputation the whole doctrine of the substitutionary atonement and justification by faith alone in Christ alone are undermined (Rom. 5:12-19).
3. God’s plan of salvation is revealed and administered through the unfolding of biblical covenants in the flow of redemptive history, not through the theologically deduced system of CT’s Covenant of Works/Covenant of Grace/Covenant of Redemption schema.
4. The Law of God is both absolute and covenantal (Matt. 5:17-20). God’s “absolute law” is innate, written on the heart of man created in the image of God. It is God’s unchanging standard of righteousness. God’s “covenantal law,” however, is written and changeable according to the covenant being administered.
5. The love of God and the love of neighbor are the two greatest commandments (Matt. 22:36-40) upon which the whole Law and the Prophets hang. This means that the Ten Commandments, the Decalogue, hang upon these two greatest commandments, not the reverse as CT teaches.
6. The Ten Commandments are a covenantal outworking of the two greatest commandments in redemptive history not the reverse. They were given through the hand of Moses to the nation of Israel first at Mount Sinai (Exod. 20).
7. The Fourth Commandment, the Sabbath commandment, being the sign of the Mosaic Covenant (Exod. 31:15-17), is not a creation ordinance as taught by CT.
8. The Ten Commandments are not eternal moral law first written in the heart of man at creation and forever binding upon all mankind as CT teaches in its confessions of faith e.g., the Westminster Confession of Faith (1647-1649) and the Second London Baptist Confession (1689). In fact, the term “moral law” does not occur in the Bible. Although under any given covenantal administration, man is morally obligated to obey all of God’s commandments, yet the Bible does not separate God’s law into three parts: moral, ceremonial and civil. Historically, this threefold separation was not substantially taught until the time of Thomas Aquinas in the 13 th century and in the 16 th century by Calvin.
9. The Decalogue is not “transcovenantal” and, therefore, does not function outside the Old Covenant as a unit as much of CT teaches.
10. Christ came not to destroy the OT Scriptures but to fulfill them, which includes the Decalogue. The New Covenant law is called the law of Christ which is distinguished from Mosaic law and from the Gentiles who do not have a written revelation of God’s law (I Cor. 9:20-21).
11. The law of Christ is not to be equated with the Decalogue. Although the law of Christ, the law of the NC people of God, is related to the Decalogue in that it incorporates nine of the Ten Commandments. The law of Christ is a better law than the law of Moses (Matt. 5:21-48; Heb. 7:19) in the sense that (1) it is a higher revelation of the righteousness of God (Matt: 5:20); (2) it is based upon a higher standard of love (Matt. 5:44); and, (3) Christ’s inauguration of the New Covenant brings in things that are qualitatively “newer,” expressed in developing the theological significance of such basic concepts as new wineskins, new teaching, new commandment, new creation, new man, new name, new song, new Jerusalem and all things new (Rev. 21:5).
12. The OC Sabbath commandment is typologically fulfilled by Christ for the people of God who rest in Him by faith (Heb. 4:9-10).
13. New Covenant believers are in-lawed to Christ; they are not under the OC law of Moses but under the grace of the NC (Rom. 6:14). NCT does not equate the law of Christ with the Decalogue as do many holding to CT.
14. The indwelling Holy Spirit is the norm for Christian living. NCT does not teach that the Ten Commandments are the only objective standard for evaluating the Christian life. Rather, NCT emphasizes that it is the Spirit who enables the Christian to have a godly walk (Rom. 8:4; Gal. 5:16-18).
15. Christ merited righteousness for the elect only and that it is imputed to them based upon His total obedience to the will of the Father in His life and death (Matt. 3:15; Rom. 5:19).
16. The Church, which is the body of Christ (Eph. 1:22-23; Col. 1:18), was first formed in history when the Spirit was poured out at Pentecost not in past history under the OC. Most holding to CT see the Church existing in the OT before Pentecost. NCT does not. Contrary to DT, NCT sees only one redemptive purpose for the people of God, which is the Church, the good olive tree (Rom. 11), the body of Christ (Eph. 2:13-22; 3:1-12).
17. The ordinance of water baptism is the pledge of membership in the New Covenant for believers alone and the sign of the New Covenant is not baptism, rather the sign is the cup, which memorializes the New Covenant in Christ’s blood (Luke 22:20; I Cor. 11:25).
18. The “now-not yet” principle of interpretation is essential to understand the teaching of the NT. The Christian experiences the commencement of “every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ” (Eph. 1:3), yet he stills awaits the consummation of these blessings at Christ’s return. The End has come! The End has not come! The whole theology of the NT is qualified by this tension: between the “already” or “now” and the “not yet” (I John 3:2).
19. The “recapitulation” principle is essential to understand the NT prophetic Scriptures (Matt. 24:4-14 and 24:15-31; Rev. 11:15—12).
20. The “blessed hope” will occur when Christ returns (Titus 2:13) to earth bodily and visibly (Acts 1:11) at the Second Advent to resurrect, judge and consign the saved to heaven and the lost to a Christless eternity (John 5:28-29).
Last edited by bob_2 (10-14-10 12:10 pm)
Offline
I hope the readers take time to look at the Scriptures referenced in most of these “characteristics”. It shows the sort of maneuvering and text contortions required to support most of these foolish and fundamentally flawed interpretation.
Such is the case in characteristic #7. Blinded by an irrational zeal to speak against the NC Sabbath, they make foolish assertions such as insisting the that the Sabbath is “the sign of the Mosaic Covenant”, all the while ignoring rest of all the Bible, especially the NT, as it refers to circumcision as the principal sign of the OC (both Abrahamic and that of the children of Israel). While the Sabbath has always been a sign between God and His people – thus Christ says it was made for “man” -, to limit its application to the OC is both deceptively calculated and straightly bogus.
Moreover, I find it funny that these NCTers (as they like to call themselves), would speak against terms as “moral law” – as in characteristic #8 - as not being in the bible, but would come up with their own terms such as “absolute law” and “covenantal law” to try and understand the will and commands of God.
The very thrust of these "characteristics" that speaks on the Decalogue, being spurious in nature, makes one wonder why it would even be posted on the internet.
Last edited by Dexter (02-26-10 1:08 pm)
Let every lamp be burning bright, the darkest hour is nearing...
Offline
Ephesians 2:13But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away [Gentiles] have been brought near through the blood of Christ.
14For he himself is our peace [SABBATH], who has made the two [Gentiles and Jews] one and has destroyed the barrier [exclusive Jewish law, all 613 laws], the dividing wall of hostility, 15by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace, 16and in this one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility.
Note: The Gentiles were never expected to keep the Sabbath or circumcise, Christ fulfilled those symbols so the Gentiles could be adopted into the family by the Gospel.
Last edited by bob_2 (02-26-10 3:30 pm)
Offline
Bob_2 said: Ephesians 2:13But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away [Gentiles] have been brought near through the blood of Christ.
14For he himself is our peace [SABBATH], who has made the two [Gentiles and Jews] one and has destroyed the barrier [exclusive Jewish law, all 613 laws], the dividing wall of hostility, 15by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace, 16and in this one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility.
Note: The Gentiles were never expected to keep the Sabbath or circumcise, Christ fulfilled those symbols so the Gentiles could be adopted into the family by the Gospel.
I say: Your reasoning here is both hollow and misleading. Do you really suppose by injecting “SABBATH” into the text that it makes it so? Is this what NCT teaches? Disregard what the text says and fabricate it to suit your needs? This is neither honest nor mature handling the word of truth.
As for your suggesting that “abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations” as including the 10 principles of the Decalogue, you have only to look to your own outlined “characteristics” to prove this position wrong. #11…” Although the law of Christ, the law of the NC people of God, is related to the Decalogue in that it incorporates nine of the Ten Commandments…” How this can this be if the Ten Commandments have been abolished? You are very confused and need to stop pretending otherwise.
Moreover, while it is true that Gentiles were never to be circumcised as the Judaizers were trying to impose, it is NOT true that they were not expected to follow Christ’s example and teaching of the NC Gospel Sabbath. Why? Because both the Gospel and the Salvation it hails are both of Jewish heritage and belong to the God is Israel. In fact, so much is salvation a Jewish paradigm that Jesus unapologetically stated such to the Samaritan woman.
John 4:19 "Sir," the woman said, "I can see that you are a prophet.
John 4:20 Our fathers worshiped on this mountain, but you Jews claim that the place where we must worship is in Jerusalem."
John 4:21 Jesus declared, "Believe me, woman, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem.
John 4:22 You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews.”
Hence all who would associate themselves with the God of salvation must do so with the God is Israel. They must believe and have faith in a Jewish Christ and his Jewish Sabbath. The fact that the Gentiles, in revolt against some misguided Judaizers and wanting to distinguish themselves from them, formulated a Sunday Sabbath is both beside the point and doctrinally wrong.
All seeking salvation must go to the Christ of the Jews and learn of Him. The must come to faith and trust in a Jewish Gospel and in this way become “members of God’s household, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone.” (Eph. 2:19, 20)
Why is this all significant, and why place such emphasis on the Jewish roots of the Gospel and Salvation? It is because the Bible reveals that only Jews - spiritual Jews - are the true seed of Abraham and heir of the promise of Salvation. They alone, the one true spiritual Israel, are the children faith and of promise and of such the true children of God. (Rom.2:28, 29; Gal.3:26-29; Rom. 9:6-9)
This doctrinal and historical fact is not just good information. It is what shapes and forms the NC believer’s appropriation of the Gospel and its tenants – Jew and Gentile alike.
Therefore, when Paul asks the question, “What advantage, then, is there in being a Jew, or what value is there in circumcision”? (Rom. 3:1) We need to pay attention. And when he follows it up with such a bold statement as, “Much in every way! First of all, they have been entrusted with the very words of God.”(v2) We would do well to have the same sense of appreciation.
Moreover, when Paul continues on in the chapter and says,
“Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin.” (v19,20)
To understand what law it is Paul refers to, we must consult the “words of God” given to the Jews.
Elsewhere in this letter to the Romans, Paul give an unmistakable reference to what “law” it is that makes the “whole world” accountable to God and defines sin.
Rom. 7:7 What shall we say, then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! Indeed I would not have known what sin was except through the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, "Do not covet."
Rom 7:8 But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of covetous desire. For apart from law, sin is dead.
Rom. 7:9 Once I was alive apart from law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died.
Rom. 7:10 I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death.
While I generally do not make such distinctions between the ten precepts of the Decalogue and the two on which they hang. In as much as NCTers delight in such distinction, consider the following.
None other “law” but that of the ten precepts of the Decalogue does the Scripture show as a “law” that defines sins. While none can argue that these ten hangs on the greater two of love to God and love to our fellowmen, yet nowhere does the Bible say the transgression of these two great commands – specifically – constitutes sin. Notwithstanding it is hardly debatable that to transgress these to grand principles would in verity constitute sin, God specifically relegates that job to the ten principles of the Decalogue.
This is no whimsical observation of some ten commandment legalist on some fruitless quest to exalt the honor of the Decalogue above the Gospel of Christ, but an observation that deserves proper consideration, especially among those claiming to understand the purpose in the giving of the OC.
The all-wise God assessed the race of mankind and prescribed a law He deemed as most suited to meet man’s fallen condition. Again, falling back on the words of Paul, these “given…words of God” are one instance in which it is truthfully said, there is “much” advantage in being a Jew. As such, if anyone, either in OC times or new were to ask the question, ‘has God given a law that defines sin, provides a standard or righteousness, acts as a definer of sin, and an expression of His will to His people?’ the answer must be Yes: the ten commandments – used as a guide and tutor under the OC and now exemplified and interpreted by the NT under the new.
It is common for the NCTers to assume that because “love” is the “fulfillment” of the law, then love replaces law (the 10 commandments more specifically). Yet the Scriptures are deathly silent on supporting such a view. Nowhere does the Bible teach that love replaces the principles of the Decalogue. Moreover, while love might be the motivation for doing God’s will, it does not say what that will is or tell us when we offend against it. This is where the ten precepts of the law, magnified in the life of Christ comes and instructs us on “how” to live pleasing to our Savior.
Your obstinate rejection of the 2nd and 3rd use of the Decalogue is both unbiblical and outside of the realm of Protestant Christianity. You need to cast of this foolishness of "New Covenant Theory" and see anew the truth of the Bible. Your presumptuous claim to have any handle on the covenants is both a false pretense and an easily exposed gimmick.
Let every lamp be burning bright, the darkest hour is nearing...
Offline
Dexter, while I believe in the expansion of the Law, you must remember that each Covenant is separate with separate tenets. If not repeated they are not part of Christ's Law. If 9 of 10 are repeated and expanded on, and one is expanded on by Jesus fulfilling it in His person, who are you to cling to the OC on this regard. The NT is clear that this one commandment is expanded, by fulfilling it in Christ's person. It was a shadow of better things, Christ himself. The 10 Commandments were the Covenant:
Ex 34 28 Moses was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights without eating bread or drinking water. And he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant—the Ten Commandments.
Nothing is missed here except on your end. When "it was finished" so was this. When a Covenant become obsolete and a new is in its place (Heb 8:13) We should study the tenets of the new, not assume they are the same. That is where your continuity argument is flawed. "Until the Seed shall come" was the time of the Law of the Ten Commandments. In the New Covenant, reiterating 9 out of 10 in an expanded way, does not make it the same Covenant. The Sabbath can hardly be looked at in the same light after reading the NT openly and honestly. "TODAY" is the new day set by God, as stated in Heb 4. I'll take God's word over Dexter's and John's anytime. Especially with evangelism, and you tell people they have to give up long held jobs, ones that support families, that to do other wise would make them an "infidel" or dependent on the church. I know for a fact the SDA church doesn't want that.
Last edited by bob_2 (02-27-10 11:05 am)
Offline
Bob_2 said: Dexter, while I believe in the expansion of the Law, you must remember that each Covenant is separate with separate tenets. If not repeated they are not part of Christ's Law. If 9 of 10 are repeated and expanded on, and one is expanded on by Jesus fulfilling it in His person, who are you to cling to the OC on this regard. The NT is clear that this one commandment is expanded, by fulfilling it in Christ's person. It was a shadow of better things, Christ himself. The 10 Commandments were the Covenant:
Ex 34 28 Moses was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights without eating bread or drinking water. And he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant—the Ten Commandments.
I say: Bob, I am beginning to wonder if you truly believe the things you post? Is this all a game to you? Are you being sarcastic in some way? You say you are not dull or limited, yet you leave room for no other conclusion.
How is it you fail to see that not only did Christ “repeat” and “expand” on the NC Sabbath, but He was also persecuted and eventually hung on the cross for doing so?
Jesus “repeating” and “expanding” on the Sabbath:
(Read Luke 13:10-16; 14:1-6)
Jew plotting to kill Jesus for His Sabbath reform:
(Read Matt. 12:1-13)
Matt. 12:14 But the Pharisees went out and plotted how they might kill Jesus.
(Read Luke 6:1-10)
Luke 6:11 But they were furious and began to discuss with one another what they might do to Jesus.
(Read John 5:1-17)
John 5:18 For this reason the Jews tried all the harder to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.
As for your fool-hearty insistence that Jesus fulfilled the Sabbath “in His person” and has now become the NC Sabbath, you have failed at proving this in either thread that addressed this in particular. No amount of pretense will change that.
http://www.atomorrow.net/forum/viewtopic.php?id=242
http://www.atomorrow.net/forum/viewtopic.php?id=228
Bob_2 said: Nothing is missed here except on your end. When "it was finished" so was this. When a Covenant become obsolete and a new is in its place (Heb 8:13) We should study the tenets of the new, not assume they are the same. That is where your continuity argument is flawed. "Until the Seed shall come" was the time of the Law of the Ten Commandments. In the New Covenant, reiterating 9 out of 10 in an expanded way, does not make it the same Covenant. The Sabbath can hardly be looked at in the same light after reading the NT openly and honestly. "TODAY" is the new day set by God, as stated in Heb 4. I'll take God's word over Dexter's and John's anytime. Especially with evangelism, and you tell people they have to give up long held jobs, ones that support families, that to do other wise would make them an "infidel" or dependent on the church. I know for a fact the SDA church doesn't want that.
I say: Sorry Bob, but you have “missed” A LOT here, as anyone casually observing these things you post can easily see. Your “9 out of 10” as well as “TODAY” theory has been smashed several times over and you have yet to repent and let go of this confused position. Notwithstanding this, you insist on reposting the same rubbish over and over again as though numerous posting of the same error makes it true. Is this how you reason? Yours is a twisted representation of Scripture and a confused hermeneutic. Why not do us all a favor and stop this foolish campaign, gather whatever dignity you have left and plot a new course of learning of Christ.
You say you are willing to “take God’s word over Dexter’s…anytime.” I call your bluff as you have yet to prove that you "take God's word" seriously. However, I do hope you would indeed find the courage and humility to study God’s word “openly and honestly.” Until then, there is not much hope for your theological confusion.
Let every lamp be burning bright, the darkest hour is nearing...
Offline
I have said before, I guess we will have to agree to disagree. You have only used your own reasoning, no citation from other sources. Are you the lone ranger on your view. That is a dangerous place to be. How about some citations, not just your own reasoning.
Offline
The indwelling Holy Spirit is the norm for Christian living. NCT does not teach that the Ten Commandments are the only objective standard for evaluating the Christian life. Rather, NCT emphasizes that it is the Spirit who enables the Christian to have a godly walk (Rom. 8:4; Gal. 5:16-18).
http://www.gracechurchatfranklin.org/ne … eology.htm
NCT teaches a discontinuity at the cross and Christ restates, He and His Apostles, Christ's Law, which is a more clear reflection of the character of God, a restating of tenets and expansion of the Decalogue. To rely on it is to get an incomplete picture of the Christian's obligation.
Offline
When discussing the Continuity or Discontinuity of the Old and New Covenant, keep in mind what God had naturally instilled in man's heart, before Sinai, at Creation. This is why the T in Reformed Theology's TULIP is absolutely wrong, that man is totally depraved to the extent that God has to make decisions for man, because sin has made him so DEPRAVED:
The Law In Man's Heart
Statement
It is clear that man in the image of God possesses an intuitive awareness of at least some of the requirements of God upon him. This is "what may be known of God [that is] manifested in them" (Rom. 1:19). This is how Paul can say of pagans that they "Do by nature the things contained in the law" and do good things according the "the law written in their hearts" or "conscience" (Rom. 2:14-15; cf. vv.26-27). This "law written in the hearts" constitutes a rule of life given to them by God.
Clarification
What is not so explicitly stated is the precise content of this law. What does it command? What does it forbid? Scripture never catalogues this law per se. It is necessary, therefore, to examine what were the responsibilities of men before Moses and to what standard they were held accountable.
As already mentioned, Paul declares that "the Gentiles who have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law" (Rom. 2:14).1 While, again, this statement is not specific, it does reveal that men were held accountable to a standard which was independent of but in some measure overlapping with the law of Moses which came later. An example of such culpability prior to Moses is seen in the inhabitants of Canaan whose iniquity "became full" (Gen. 15:16) by the time of the conquest; presumably, their guilt lay in their rejection of the law of God which was in their hearts, for no other code had been given them.
The Scriptures do, however, speak clearly of many specific sins for which men were held accountable prior to the giving of the Mosaic law. These include covetousness (Gen. 3:6), false worship (Gen. 4:5, whatever the exact nature of it), murder (4:8-11), adultery/sexual profligacy (6:1-7; 19:4ff), evil thinking (6:5), dishonor of parents (9:22-25), pride and selfishness (11:4ff), injustice (16:5ff), incest (19:31ff), lying deceit (ch. 27), false gods and idolatry (Ex. 12:12), etc. Since these things were sinful apart from formal legislation against them, it would seem evident that as sins they reflect an unwritten law--a law code written upon the heart.
http://www.biblicalstudies.com/bstudy/h … ibri-1.htm
Last edited by bob_2 (04-24-10 1:53 am)
Offline
The enormous flaw in Tom Norris' theory and Theology is he believes in the Continuity of the Covenants, but the rent curtain between the Most Holy Place and the Holy Place of the Temple demonstrate, DISCONTINUITY, between the Old and New Covenant. Hebrews 8:13.
Offline
The Law of Christ
March 4th, 2010 by Geoff Volker
Within the study of New Covenant Theology there is emerging a difference of opinion over exactly what is the Law of Christ. It is the opinion of this writer that the Law of Christ is the version of God’s law that we are to obey in this New Covenant era. We are not under the Mosaic Law, which was the version of God’s law that the Israelites were under during the Old Covenant era. The summary of the law of the Old Covenant era is found in the Ten Commandments which are called the “the words of the covenant” (Exodus 34:28). In the New Covenant era we are under a new version of God’s law that is suitable for what our Father in heaven is wanting to accomplish in this era (Ephesians 2:14-18, Hebrews 7:12, 1 Corinthians 9:19-21). A summary of the law of Christ would be “love as Jesus loved” (John 13:34-35). By this we do not mean that we are to just copy what Jesus did. He was God who became man and he lived in the Old Covenant era and was obligated to obey the Mosaic law (Matthew 23:23-24). He obeyed laws that we are not obligated to obey, such as the tithe and the keeping of the Sabbath day. We do not live under the Mosaic Law (1 Corinthians 9:19-21).
We, who live in the New Covenant era, are to do what Jesus would have us to do. This means that we are to obey those laws that apply to us in this era (from Pentecost to the 2nd Coming). So, when we are describing the law of Christ we first of all mean that we are to love as Jesus loved. But having said that, we also mean that we are to live out the details of the law of Christ which are found in the teaching passages of the New Covenant era. An obvious example of the details of the law of Christ would be found in Ephesians 3:25-32 where we are given detailed instructions on how we are to care for one another. Some teachers seem to be saying that the law of Christ is the new heart of the believer. By this they mean that the motivation to live for Jesus Christ, which comes from the work of the Holy Spirit (Romans 8:5-14). It is true that all believers are God lovers, but this motivation only drives us to live for our Lord. The way we show our love for our Lord is to keep his commandments (John 14:21) and therefore obey the law of Christ.
Offline
Why do Adventists straddle the Jewish Law and Christ's law? They not the same.
The Torah, containing the Covenant God made with the Israelites, contains more than 600 laws, and there is nothing in the entire Torah that differentiates between those that are "ceremonial" or "moral." It is the fictitious separating done in order to mandate only what is designated "moral" as everlasting, while the "ceremonial" laws are said to be done away with. This ignores that many of the so-called "ceremonial" laws are said to still be valid: certain foods that are unclean, priests set apart, orders to stone sabbath breakers or rebellious sons. The separation is an arbitrary division to confuse those not familiar with the Bible--which is why the third world converts are the fastest new members to Adventism today.
The typical SDA evangelistic series focuses on the D&R prophecies and Revelation's Third Angel's Message as showing that it is referring solely to Adventists, as they are the ONLY ones keeping all the commandments! Always, it is the Fourth (a ceremonial day) which is meant. They never mention the various texts in the NT that clearly show that these ceremonies, formerly practiced by the Jews were never imposed upon the Gentile Christians following Pentecost. Because they can find not one single text instructing Christians to observe ANY day, they claim such texts were only referring to annual and monthly events, and never sabbath day! This, in spite of the clear reading of the texts!
Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice shame on me!
Offline
"It is the fictitious separating done in order to mandate only what is designated "moral" as everlasting, while the "ceremonial" laws are said to be done away with."
Well, Elaine, what the ceremonial law typifies is not done away with. It was simply a sign of the atonement and ministry of Christ. Why would you want to keep participating in the ceremonial law, when Christ has come?
You say, no, no. Not only do we not observe the ceremonial law, we also abandon the moral law. And you say there are not two laws.
OK, you can call it one law divided into two parts, moral and ceremonial. Or....as most scholars do, including SDA's, call it two laws that make up a complete whole.
It doesn't matter which way you want to explain it. If it is one law, divided into two parts, then we still say the ceremonial aspects of "the law" have be done away with in favor of the ministry of Christ.
Or, if it is two laws that make up the complete whole, then we simply say the ceremonial law is done away with.
But you can not say the moral aspects of "the law" have been done away with since the ceremonial aspects of "the law" have been abandon.
Christ did away with no part of the law. What the ceremonial typifies, He fulfilled in such a way, the earthly has no application or value. None the less, He did not "do away" with the law of intercession just because we no longer participate by way of the ceremonies.
In Rom. 3:31, this is Paul's point. For he askes, "Do we then make void the law through faith?, God forbid, we establish the law."
Thus, the moral law and law of intercession are continued with neither aspect being abandon. Both are valid and applicable. SDA's generally point to this vs. to affirm the moral law, but in fact, Paul affirms both aspects of the law in this verse.
So, you can call it one law with two aspects, or, you can call it two laws that make up the complete whole. Either way, your view is faulty and non-biblical.
Bill Sorensen
Offline
If non-biblical, please provide texts that separate Law into two categories: Moral and Ceremonial.
Offline
"Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God." Paul
Offline
"For, on the one hand, thre is a setting side of a former commandment because of its weakness and uselessness (for the Law made nothing perfect)....Jesus has become the guarantee of a better covenant....For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion sought for a second....When He said, A new covenant, He has made the first obosolete." Letter to the Hebrews
"But now in Christ Jesus you who formerly were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one, and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall."
What were the barriers preventing the two groups (Jews and pagans) from being one before Pentecost? Circumcision (a requisite before observing the Jewish law), Sabbath, and Kosher rules, all prevented the two groups for centuries from the Middle Eastern hospitality which began first, with eating and drinking together: something still observed today.
As yet, no one has given a single NT text telling the new Christians, formerly pagan who had not observed the Jewish law, must obey the Jewish law. This was the entire reason for the controversy at Jerusalem which separated the two groups: Peter and James staying with the Jewish church, and Paul ministering to the Gentile Christians.
After the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D., history loses all mention of Jewish Christians and the Christian church became, de facto, a Gentile church. There is also no record of the new Christian church enforcing, or requiring any day to be observed. It was a non-issue with Christians. Before the end of the first century, Christians began meeting on the first day in honor of the Resurrection. Had there been no Resurrection there would have been no Christianity.
The Jews, mostly, rejected Jesus, and still observed the seventh day as a memorial of creation and their freedom from slavery (Ex. 20, Deut. 5). The high point for Christians is, and always has been, the Resurrection, and the central tenet of Christianity. Adventists through most of their history, almost ignored the Resurrection, ignoring Easter as a symbol of Catholicism. Yet without the Resurrection, there would never have been a Christian church!
Letter to the Hebrews
Offline
I see no reason for the debate and acrimony. As Paul said "let no man judge you..................." The Sabbath was not mandatory for the Gentile Christians and things like feast days, circumcism, were not either. However neither were they forbidden and if one is convinced in ones own mind to keep a Sabbath or a feast day or practice circumcism for health reasons or culture there is no harm spiritually in doing so.
The problem comes when one tries to make what one sincerely believes as applies to oneself also apply to others. We can not be anothers conscience or judge.
Offline
Old Abe,
Too bad that all Christians don't obey that teaching: Let everyone be persuaded in his own mind. Trying to convince others of their error, as the SDA church has done for more than 100 years is disobedient in judging others. Some have gone so far as claiming that those who do
not observe Sabbath at some future time, will have the mark of the beast. Clever eisegesis!
Offline
Like I said, people patronize these liberal forums and get massive affirmations in their errors and mis-interpretations.
But again, people will either keep the bible Sabbath or reject the bible. Which shows in the end, the bible is clear enough and is of "no private interpretation."
God gives people up eventually to "strong delusion to believe a lie, that they may be damned, because when they knew the truth, they did not love it."
In which case, it is not necessary to "bicker" with unbelievers, but to simply witness with the intent to be redemptive. Paul knew he could not save everybody, so he "became all things to all men, that he might by all means, save some."
We need not "judge". For judgment comes at the end of the world and God will surely "judge" by the scriptures. The bible is God's judgment book. Christians "judge" on a limited scale of present actions and confessions. And act and witness accordingly.
Thus, people were put out of church (historically at least) for various infractions deemed by the church to be contrary to God's word. And rightly so. Any denomination has a right and duty to "police" itself to determine loyalty to the common confession of faith.
The new liberal idea that no one can "judge" is so wrested from its biblical perspective it has no affinity to the truth of the bible. But, quite frankly, is typical of how liberals "do" theology in todays world. It is all part of their false view of the gospel and its application both in the world and in the church.
And to claim "the whole law" has been done away with and not just the ceremonial aspects of the law is the foundation of the spirituality of this false movement in the church and the world. In the end, it teaches us Jesus died and did away with the law.
So, what else is new? This false theory has been advocated again and again over many years and refuted again and again by solid bible scholars who have opposed this antinomian spirit so tempting to sinful human nature.
This theory is also the foundation of Universalism and spiritual delusions so common in the world today. It is the final deception and very appealing to those who would like to abandon human accountability to God and deny a judgment according to works.
In the end, it would have us believe God is solely responsible to get sinners to heaven and sinful humanity has no part nor plays any part in their own individual salvation. This of course, is labeled "legalism", simply because they do not discern what the ceremonial law typifies as opposed to what the moral law teaches and demands.
While the ceremonial law typifies merit and the work of Christ, this in no way negates the dynamic function of the moral law and human accountability as the requirement and condition of eternal life. Just because you can not merit heaven by keeping the moral law, does not mean the moral law has no dynamic function in determining salvation.
Even the SDA church today shows woeful ignorance concerning this issue and is weakening the moral law by denying the moral law is salvational. Every jot and tittle of it is salvational. But to avoid the charge of legalism, the church has "dumb down" the law to far less than its true biblical function in a person's relationship to God and the issues of salvation.
Very soon, a "new" John the Baptist and Elijah will come forth and all the game playing will cease. Until then, all we can do is wait. When God has had enough, He will loose the winds of strife and few will stand the "terrible ordeal" as they have no prepared for it nor understood the foundation of evil so rampant in the church and the world today.
"He that hath and ear, let him hear."
Bill Sorensen
Offline
Bill, you are being overly dramatic, the Sabbath or the Word of God. Sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeshh as J.R. use to say. If we want to dramatize this, try this, a denomination that puts more import on a 24 hour period than on their Savior that the Word of God said fulfilled it and is our Peace.
1. One more important than the Temple (and the Sabbath)was here. Matthew 12:6
2. The reality is in Christ. Col 2:16-17
3. For He Himself is our peace, His purpose to .... make peace
Eph 2:14For he himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, 15by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace, 16and in this one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility. 17He came and preached peace to you who were far away and peace to those who were near. 18For through him we both have access to the Father by one Spirit.
Offline
A reformed Sabbath, is no where to be held up by scholars or the Scriptures. What Christ did was give the right way for Old Covenant people, of whom He was one until He died, the right way to "keep" Sabbath,and declared Himself Lord of the Sabbath, not the SDA church or Bill Sorensen. Then, marvel of marvel, He became the reality of the Sabbath shadow. Col 2:16-17. Let's give our best positions without damning each other to hell, eh, Bill??? Debates usually go better. Don't you think????
Last edited by bob_2 (10-14-10 12:04 pm)
Offline
The 10 Commandments did not refrain anyone from healing or being healed. Dexter, you and Tom are reading more into this than is there. Christ was crucified because he claimed to be the Son of God and King of the Jews:
Mark 15: 2"Are you the king of the Jews?" asked Pilate.
"Yes, it is as you say," Jesus replied.
Last edited by bob_2 (10-14-10 12:30 pm)
Offline