This discussion has went much further than I thought and I now realize that the word Covenant especially with the adjective New and Old attached to them differ greatly amongst many who visit this site. So far I have been on my own (my good friend Tyris has pulled a disappearing act on me but that is okay) and hopefully will have some help soon. However due to the comments making the post long I will continue the conversation in a new post.
We have to start by defining what exactly a covenant means. If the word covenant means principle and not leagally binding then the word has been redefined from it’s original context. For example God made a covenant with Adam. He says “if you eat you will die”. Is this in principle or is it a literal legally binding contract between two parties. Adam ate and what happend. He died (though not immediately but we don’t have to go there I hope). So the next covenant was with Noah. God said “I will not destroy the world with water”. God has kept his covenant that he made with all mankind but which was conveyed to Noah. This covenant was unconditional in the sense that there was nothing man could do to break it. Next we have the Abrahamic Covenant. This is the big one and has split Reformed Christians on either two sides (three if you count New Covenant guys) This again is unconditional. No conditions are set as it relates to the promises of God to Abraham. Next we have something called the Old Covenant, then the New Covenant. This is where my focus will be today.
The Old Covenant
Just as the other covenants this is a legal binding Covenant between God and someone else. That someone else is Israel. God takes them out of Egypt and in one of the most dramatic events in the Bible. God gives the Tablets of Stone (Decalogue, 10 Commandments, Old Covenant or The Covenant and the Testimony). This happens at Mt Siani as Moses is called to the top of the mountain and given the Tablests. Read it here in Exodus 19:
4 You yourselves have seen what I did to the Egyptians, and how I bore you on eagles’ wings and brought you to myself. 5 Now therefore, if you will indeed obey my voice and keep my covenant, you shall be my treasured possession among all peoples, for all the earth is mine; 6 and you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation. These are the words that you shall speak to the people of Israel.”
Now God gives more than 10 Commandments He continues until chapter 24 with many additional laws of the Covenant (which no one ever mentions as governing the Christian way of life, wonder why only 10?). Then we get to Chapter 24:
3 Moses came and told the people all the words of the Lord and all the rules. And all the people answered with one voice and said, “All the words that the Lord has spoken we will do.” 4 And Moses wrote down all the words of the Lord. He rose early in the morning and built an altar at the foot of the mountain, and twelve pillars, according to the twelve tribes of Israel. 5 And he sent young men of the people of Israel, who offered burnt offerings and sacrificed peace offerings of oxen to the Lord. 6 And Moses took half of the blood and put it in basins, and half of the blood he threw against the altar. 7 Then he took the Book of the Covenant and read it in the hearing of the people. And they said, “All that the Lord has spoken we will do, and we will be obedient.” 8 And Moses took the blood and threw it on the people and said, “Behold the blood of the covenant that the Lord has made with you in accordance with all these words.” 9 Then Moses and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel went up, 10 and they saw the God of Israel. There was under his feet as it were a pavement of sapphire stone, like the very heaven for clearness. 11 And he did not lay his hand on the chief men of the people of Israel; they beheld God, and ate and drank.
12 The Lord said to Moses, “Come up to me on the mountain and wait there, that I may give you the tablets of stone, with the law and the commandment, which I have written for their instruction.”
We now have the clear inaguration of the Covenant by the sprinkling of blood. God also says in verse 12 “which I have written for their instruction”. Whose instruction and in Chapter 19 what was the blessings of the covenant? Correct, to be God’s treasured people in the Land of Cannan which was promised to Abraham. This is a clear indication that the Covenant is the Tablets of Stone which was a legal binding covenant with ISRAEL not Gentiles. No where are Gentiles in the picture as it relates to this covenant. No where.
Next we have the building of the Tabernacle which houses the Ark which represents what? God prescence with them and what was in the Ark? Correct the Covenant, thus it is called the Ark of the Covenant. Look here in Chapter 25
17 “You shall make a mercy seat [3] of pure gold. Two cubits and a half shall be its length, and a cubit and a half its breadth. 18 And you shall make two cherubim of gold; of hammered work shall you make them, on the two ends of the mercy seat. 19 Make one cherub on the one end, and one cherub on the other end. Of one piece with the mercy seat shall you make the cherubim on its two ends. 20 The cherubim shall spread out their wings above, overshadowing the mercy seat with their wings, their faces one to another; toward the mercy seat shall the faces of the cherubim be. 21 And you shall put the mercy seat on the top of the ark, and in the ark you shall put the testimony that I shall give you. 22 There I will meet with you, and from above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubim that are on the ark of the testimony, I will speak with you about all that I will give you in commandment for the people of Israel.
Next we have the incident in which the Israelites build a Golden Calf, Moses breaks the Tablets of Stone, men and women are killed and then God does something in Chapter 34:
34:1 The Lord said to Moses, “Cut for yourself two tablets of stone like the first, and I will write on the tablets the words that were on the first tablets, which you broke. 2 Be ready by the morning, and come up in the morning to Mount Sinai, and present yourself there to me on the top of the mountain. 3 No one shall come up with you, and let no one be seen throughout all the mountain. Let no flocks or herds graze opposite that mountain.” 4 So Moses cut two tablets of stone like the first. And he rose early in the morning and went up on Mount Sinai, as the Lord had commanded him, and took in his hand two tablets of stone. 5 The Lord descended in the cloud and stood with him there, and proclaimed the name of the Lord. 6 The Lord passed before him and proclaimed, “The Lord, the Lord, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness, 7 keeping steadfast love for thousands, [1] forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, but who will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children and the children’s children, to the third and the fourth generation.” 8 And Moses quickly bowed his head toward the earth and worshiped. 9 And he said, “If now I have found favor in your sight, O Lord, please let the Lord go in the midst of us, for it is a stiff-necked people, and pardon our iniquity and our sin, and take us for your inheritance.” 10 And he said, “Behold, I am making a covenant. Before all your people I will do marvels, such as have not been created in all the earth or in any nation. And all the people among whom you are shall see the work of the Lord, for it is an awesome thing that I will do with you.
Once again God makes a New Covenant and writes them in stone with His own finger. This my friend is clear that this was a covenant with Israel not Christians and this Covenant is conditional. They violated the first one, sends a plague kills some of them and then makes a New Covenant.
More in part 3. Next we will discuss the promises in Deut and how it relates to the Covenant. Part 4 will sum it up by showing a New Covenant with better promises with no conditions which is given to all who God elects!
Yes it is true we are under a new and better covenant. But aren’t the Ten Commandments perpetual? Aren’t many of them affirmed by Christ?
If I am misunderstanding you, please let me know. You may not even be speaking to that. I am pretty late into this discussion.
I know it is not the law that saves us, and that we are saved by grace, but any help you answers you could give to the above questions would be helpful.
Hello LC,
Your question is one I am trying to clear up with this post. To answer your question, no. The 10 Commandments are not perpetual, something being repeated in the NT doesn’t mean that it is pereptual as a matter of fact Jesus said “the law said, but I say this”. As Paul states in 1 Corinthians 9 “though I am not under the law, not that I am without law, but I am under the law of Christ”. The Law of Christ is not the same as the 10 commandments. The 10 commandments are a legal covenant document which was a conditional contract between Israel and YAWEH. If they obeyed the commandments they would be blessed and possess the land, if not they would be cursed and removed from the land. Look at the post again and read Exodus 20-24 and chapter 34 with the renewal after their idol incident. Good question, keep them coming.
Lionel,
First of all let me say great discussion, it seems you have touched on a hotly debated subject based on some of the responses.
Let me also say, that I have not read all of the responses, so forgive me if I repeat anyone.
But I would have to respectfully disagree with you on two counts. I believe the law, specifically the summation of the moral law – the Ten Commandments (as stated by the Westminster Divines in Question #98), are still binding. And I believe that law is of use to the regenerate today.
To my first point let me quote Thomas Watson as he speaks about why the law was written on tablets of stone, “The stone could reflect upon the fact that the law of God is eternal. It was not abolished in the Old or New Testament.
The moral law is unalterable; it remains still in force. Though the ceremonial and judicial laws are abrogated, the moral law delivered by God’s own mouth is of perpetual use in the church. It was written in tables of stone, to show its perpetuity.”
And then to my second point about the moral law, allow me if you will, to look to the Westminster Divines. They speak about the special use of the moral law to the regenerate,”Q. 97. What special use is there of the moral law to the regenerate?
A. Although they that are regenerate, and believe in Christ, be delivered from the moral law as a covenant of works, so as thereby they are neither justified nor condemned; yet, besides the general uses thereof common to them with all men, it is of special use, to show them how much they are bound to Christ for his fulfilling it, and enduring the curse thereof in their stead, and for their good; and thereby to provoke them to more thankfulness, and to express the same in their greater care to conform themselves thereunto as the rule of their obedience.
So to sum up what Watson said…The law is perpetual, and to sum up what the Divines say…we are to conform ourselves to the law as the rule of our obedience.
Let me know your thoughts on this. And as I said earlier, I appreciate this discussion and your responses.
I will say first I respect Thomas Watson (I actually read, though after about page 200 it became a bit redundant, A Godly Man’s Picture and will read The Doctrine of Repentance here shortly). However I will have to respectfully disagree with both the Westminster and Mr. Watson on this issue. Since I (and I know you do also) hold to Sola Scriptura, let me ask you a couple of questions.
1. Do you ever see anywhere, I do mean anywhere in the Bible where there is a distincition between Civil and Moral Law? If so can you show me where those distinctions are made.
2. Can you answer the questions I posed earlier. Was not the 10 Commandments a legal binding covenant document between Israel and God? When the 10 Commandments are administered are they administered to both Hebrews and Gentiles or just one party?
3. If the Law still binds us why does Paul makes such huge distinctions
Romans 6
12 Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, to make you obey its passions. 13 Do not present your members to sin as instruments for unrighteousness, but present yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life, and your members to God as instruments for righteousness. 14 For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace.
1 Corinthians 9
those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law
Finally Hebrews 10:15-16
15 And the Holy Spirit also bears witness to us; for after saying,
16 “This is the covenant that I will make with them
after those days, declares the Lord:
I will put my laws on their hearts,
and write them on their minds,”
Our conscience is not dictated by the Law but the Spirit. Why would I need a shadow of something when I have the fulfillment. Why would I need “a ministry of death” as Paul cals it in 2 Corinthians 3 to guide my conscience when I have God in the person of the Holy Spirit indwelling me. I don’t need to look up to Tablets to guide the way I live when I have the Spirit convicting me within. Here is what Christ says in John 16
I did not say these things to you from the beginning, because I was with you. 5 But now I am going to him who sent me, and none of you asks me, ‘Where are you going?’ 6 But because I have said these things to you, sorrow has filled your heart. 7 Nevertheless, I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you. But if I go, I will send him to you. 8 And when he comes, he will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment: 9 concerning sin, because they do not believe in me; 10 concerning righteousness, because I go to the Father, and you will see me no longer; 11 concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged.
12 “I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. 13 When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. 14 He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you. 15 All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you.
He will convict, guide and teach, not the Law. The Law brought death, the Spirit gives life. The Law was a yoke the Spirit liberates and sets free. Finally the Law as good as it was had no power. The Spirit gives us not only the awareness of sin but also the power to conquer it, this is something the law could never do.
Hope this helps. Lets keep it going.
Lionel,
Thanks again for your quick response. At this time I do not have the time to fully respond to you, I will definitely do that later tonight, but I did want to clarify one thing real quick. By binding I did not mean we are under the law, because as you so eloquently stated we are now under grace. I was not saying we are saved by the law.
That being said the law is perpetual, and I would have to agree with Thomas Watson on that issue.
Sorry for the short post as I said, I will definitely follow up and fully answer your questions later.
Lionel,
I’m back for a quick minute, so let me respond to a few more things.
“1. Do you ever see anywhere, I do mean anywhere in the Bible where there is a distincition between Civil and Moral Law? If so can you show me where those distinctions are made.”
I am not sure if you mean, are the terms Civil and Moral Law in scripture or if you mean distinction between the two. I am sure those terms are not in scripture, but there are plenty of terms not in scripture that we believe in (i.e. trinity).
If you meant simply distinctions between the two, I am sure we can point to some distinctions. Dietary laws and sacrificial laws are no longer required under the new covenant. Yet we are told to keep several of the Ten Commandments in the New Testament. Jesus in Matt. 19:19 and Paul in Eph. 6:1 tell us to honor our Father and Mother. Why are we called to keep that law? That’s just one example, there are several others. Not to mention Jesus words in Matthew 5:17-18, not one iota of the law will pass to all is accomplished.
“2. Can you answer the questions I posed earlier. Was not the 10 Commandments a legal binding covenant document between Israel and God? When the 10 Commandments are administered are they administered to both Hebrews and Gentiles or just one party?”
It was administered to both parties. As you stated earlier it was administered to Israel in the Old Covenant, however the confirmations made of the law in the New Covenant would mean it was administered to Gentiles as well, right?
In Ephesians 6:1 who is Paul’s audience? Peep how he confirms the law. Honor your father and mother so that you will live long in the land. Does he mean promised land? If he does, why is he saying that to the Ephesian church? If this is just a good practice, why does he also mention a promise associated with it?
“3. If the Law still binds us why does Paul makes such huge distinctions”
Paul makes it clear we are not condemned by the Law, but that was never my argument. I know we are saved by grace though faith. Why does he even mention a law for us to keep if it is of no benefit to the regenerate? If it is of some benefit, how so?
Again see my response from earlier and see how the Westiminster Divines say the Law (Ten Commandments) is still beneficial to us.
I agree let’s keep this discussion going. I appreciate it very much. Let me know what other questions you may have, or if you don’t think I sufficiently answered yours, let me know that as well.
1. Okay can you split out the moral and Civil law for me then? What about this one in Leviticus
“19 “You shall not approach a woman to uncover her nakedness while she is in her menstrual uncleanness.”
Is that Moral or is it Civil and it is not restated in the New Testament so can I now sleep with my wife on her cycle? If you say I have liberty to do this because it is not restated in the New Testament, what about this law in a few versus previous to this one:
9 You shall not uncover the nakedness of your sister, your father’s daughter or your mother’s daughter, whether brought up in the family or in another home.
Can I sleep with my sister? Why not? Is it stated in the New Testament that I can’t? How do you pick and choose which one is civil and which is moral?
2. I still don’t understand how you say that this was administered to both Jews and Gentiles. You read Chapter 6 of Ephesians but lets go to Chapter 2 when Paul says this:
11 Therefore remember that at one time you Gentiles in the flesh, called “the uncircumcision” by what is called the circumcision, which is made in the flesh by hands— 12 remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world.
How is that Paul says that we were strangers to the “COVENANTS OF PROMISE” but you say we are under the same covenant using Chapter 6? Until Christ inagurated the New Covenant Paul says “we were without hope”! Secondly you use verse 6:1 isn’t Paul quoting the Old Testament and saying that we have the same promise because the promise was to live in the land! Which land? The land of milk and honey which Joshua brought the people of Israel in. Were Gentiles in the ranks when Israel possessed the Land? If this verse refers to Gentiles what land did we live in?
3. I never said we were not under “a” law, I said we are not under “The Law”. Which is the Old Covenant Law of Moses which was made “obsolete” as the writer of Hebrews proclaims in Chapter 8 and Paul says has passed away in 2 Corinthians 3.
Finally did Christ not fulfill the Law and the Prophets by being the promised Messiah that the prophets “longed to see” and completely fullfilling the law, thus we have the imputation of His righteousness that Paul proclaims in 2 Corinthians 5 “He mand him who knew no sin to become sin, that we may become the rightouesness of God”? Weren’t we vicariously represented in His righteousness and thus He becomes our new Adam through “Federal Headship”. Romans 5 says that “we all sinned” when Adam sinned, but we now live and Paul conveys that by saying this in Romans 5:
“much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.”
So Christ did fulfill the Law by obeying every single stroke of the Law thus being our representative. We don’t have to obey the Law because Christ did it for us. He is the fulfillment of the Law and the Prophets. Correct indeed brother.
By the way if a man sees benefit in the Law I say go for it, but I used the analogy in the first blog, it is about as useful as a Lamborgini that was built to not accept an engine. Beautiful but useless.
Also who are you by the way? I don’t know your name or your location. There is no blog attached to your comments so I don’t know how you found me or who I am dialouging with. Thanks.
Lionel,
I see where you are coming from, but there is still a bit of problem Bro.
Taking much of what you have said at face value, it seems your are arguing that since we are not “under the Law”, we do not have to abide by it. I don’t think that is at all what you are saying, but it is what just about everyone is getting from what you have said thus far.
Because of Christ’s fulfillment, we are free from sin, not free to sin. Right? Of course. The point that seems to be getting missed is that sin is sin. Jew, gentile, whatever, the same thing that disgust God disgust him everywhere, although He does show patience and long suffering.
The Jews were given “The Law”, and the gentiles were not. That did not mean that the same standard does not apply to all for communion and fellowship with God and Christ. As I said before, He has ALWAYS judged the heart.
The problem that all of us are having Bro is that you sound like you’re saying the standard of God’s Holiness is, being fulfilled in Christ, completely negated.
It has been faith of the heart (Hebrews 11) that has saved men from beginning to end. But we are all still expected to be Holy, as He is Holy.
I know you don’t preach license to sin under grace, as Paul said, “May it never be!” But I know what I am seeing is just that implication. The Law is alive and well in the sense that it is still what condemns souls to hell, and we have been given the good news of freedom from it through Christ.
It is still wrong in Holy terms to:
Lie
Disrespect parents
Fornicate
Murder
Lust
Worship false god in all their various shapes, sizes, and so on
etc, etc etc,
And if we do not show people this standard accurately in some way, we are NOT giving them the whole truth. A lost soul is under the Law and condemned to hell. We tell him so, lovingly, but unwaveringly. Otherwise, what are we being saved from?
It’s like in Esther. The decree proclaiming the death of the Jews was never revoked. But there were sent messengers with the new decree saying they could defend themselves. The old one was still “binding”, but made void along side the new one. But not until the new one was given and sent.
P.S.
Remember the friendlies in here Bro.
Take care man, give me a call some time.
Love in Christ
Bro. Lionel,
I’m reading the exchange between you and LC and it’s a very good one, although it seems to be a repeat of the last one. Also, you keep calling the law useless based on Paul refering to it as obsolete. This is a bad equivocation on your part. Obsolete and useless do not mean the same thing. Here’s an example, I know that the keyboard that I am using to type this post is an older model by about 2 years. It’s even got a cord to it. Now in computer terms my whole system is obsolete. But if that meant useless, then… you get the point. This is why I am so confused over what point you are trying to make. I’m sure you’re not looking for justification to “uncover your sister’s nakedness” so then what is it? What is the point that you are trying to make? Are you pushing for everyone to be antinomian? (did I spell that right?) Jesus said that he did not come to destroy the law but to fulfill the law. Paul said that the only problem with the law is that it did not have the power alone to make anyone alive. He anticipated being used by those who would misconstrue what he was saying about the law in order to defend their licentious behavior, or their condemnation of God Himself for establishing something that Paul was now refering to as “passing away”. He met all those assumptions with a serious “God forbid!”
Give me in plain language, without any equivocating of terms, what the point of these post are so that I can properly respond whether in agreement or disagreement. Thus far I’m unable to pin you down.
Lionel, I think I see where you are coming from. You recognize that God gave “the Law.” However, it was specifically given to the Jews. When Christ came (to the Jew first) He fulfilled the Law (ie completed every requirement of God that was required from it). Because it was specifically completed in Christ and Christ is the end of the Law, we as Gentiles come into that completion. Since we come into the completion of the cross through faith in Christ and because of that reside in His grace, we are outside of the Law- of the Jews (however, we are NOT outside of the Law of Christ). Now the things that bring about sin as noted in the Law are also noted under grace. Specifically, we are commanded to walk in the Spirit. Everything that is not of the Spirit is of the flesh and is noted in Gal 5:19-22, Eph 5:3-4, 1 Cor 6:9-10. When Paul speaks of these sins being committed he is in essence reinstituting the Law, but under Christ.
Bro Lionel,
hm. When I was on here last, it said my comment was awaiting moderation. I hope it didn’t get lost in the ether.
I won’t bother reposting the same thought right now, maybe you haven’t had a chance to check it yet. Also, I’ve been working until 8:00 or 9:00 every night, have three lessons to prepare, and we leave for the True Church Conference next week (woohoo!) If it got lost, I’ll try and reconstruct it tomorrow.
But I will say this. You really should re-think how you are communicating your thoughts. All these people that usually agree with you may have a point.
In Christ my friend,
Thanks
Hey SJ,
Thanks for you input and I want to systematically answer each.
1. I am saying that we don’t have to abide by the Old Covenant. We have a New Covenant with higher standards.
2. I think Romans 6 answers your next point about being free from sin. No where am I giving liscence. Don’t forget I hold to a Lordship position as it relates to true regeneration.
3. God judging the heart has nothing to do with the Old Covenant. You can’t make that case biblically.
4. I agree that we are to be Holy, but the power for such holiness only comes under the Spirit and not the letter.
5. You keep saying that if we don’t show people this accurately. Why do you make such huge leaps that the bible doesn’t. The Holy Spirit will convict, and yes we address Sin and we hold people accountable, but it only happens through Grace. We don’t appeal to the law but to grace for such obedience.
6. SJ come on for your last point bro. LOL!!!! That has no bearing on what we are talking about.
Hey Lawerence,
Thanks for the constant edification brother. This has been fun indeed. Let me be more clear with this verse. I think you are thinking of obselete in the American sense of the term. I think the Greek will help us both understand better where I am coming from and paint a clearer picture.
In Hebrews 8:13 Paul uses three key words. The First, Obsolete and disapper or vanish. Let see how these words would have been used in Paul’s (or the writer of Hebrews) day.
1. First: “Protos” where we get our word prototype
2. Obsolete: “palaioo” to become old, to be worn out, or to declare a thing to be old and so about to be abrogated
3. Vanish Away: “aphanismos” which means to disapperance and or destruction.
So what the writer is saying is the first covenant is worn out and is destroyed. That would be a better rendering of the text Lawerence. This isn’t obscelecence in the sense of a CD player versus a MP3 player, but as in snake that sheds it skin. The snakes previous skin is shed and never goes back to it, ever!
So the point of the post is that the 10 commandements are not the governing life of the believer. The Spirit of Grace is. Believers don’t have to follow any Lord’s Day (sabbath), nor is their salvation based on any types of works. People keep saying that they don’t believe this, but this is not what I read in blogs. They preach “justification” but they demand that a Christian should have a certain amount of outward works to prove it. The problem with that is that it marginalizes the Gospel. A Christian should have works, but things such as bad doctrine (that has no implications on the Gospel), adultrey, fornication, and other such sins are not the standard of how we judge who is Christian or not. Christianity is based on a promise by faith. I guess that is all I am saying. Holiness is to be preached through the Gospel of Grace not the Letter of the Law.
Hey JOG,
I disagree that Paul is restating the Law. The Law is a deceased covenant. Paul is setting a new standard under the New Covenant. He isn’t going back to Law to decide what to take forward. He is giving Christians a whole NEW LAW.
SJ,
I hear what you are saying, but I will respectfully and lovingly disagree. We have to go to the scriptures as our final authority. I appreciate everyones insight, but I disagree that the Old Covenant is not dead or passed away and a New Covenant is issued. It is like a contract with a new team. You can’t demand that the old team pay you any dividends from your previous contract and the team can’t expect you to fulfill the terms of the old contract. New Team, New Contract. New Covenant, New Law.
Bro. Lionel,
If this:
“So the point of the post is that the 10 commandements are not the governing life of the believer. The Spirit of Grace is”
is what you meant all along, then why didn’t you just say so? LOL!!!!!
I agree with you. Keep it coming!
Lionel, that’s what I was saying (even though I used the term ‘reinstating’)! Nevertheless, God directed Paul, and because it was the Lord (not so much Paul) that what things the LORD considers sin is what is addressed in the “works of the flesh.” So it is God that gives the similarities (as far as what is considered sin) from The Law of Moses in what is the Law of Christ. But there are similarities because it is the same God over both. I guess we could look at the Old Law as a picture. It was a beautiful work but then the artist (being the LORD) creates something that far surpasses what was done. The artwork that now exists is the best ever done and can never be surpassed by its brilliance and beauty. The old painting, while it was nice does not hang in preiminence (sp?), but is set to the side- not to be compared with the glory of the new painting- but it is not forgotten. Such is the Law comapred to the New Covenant in Christ!
Lawrence,
Amen. Thanks for that. I think we have been dancing around the same issue, all of us, for a while now.
Lionel,
My struggle has been not that I really think you, Lionel, are flat out wrong, but that if I didn’t know you, I would think so and very strongly.
I think we all agree on these:
1) “The Law” was given to the Jews, not the gentiles.
2) The Law, looked upon as the standard of Heaven, had to be met.
3) The Jews couldn’t meet it, the gentiles certainly could not.
4) Christ came and made complete the Law and the prophets by His perfect life and sacrifice.
5) It is by that Grace, through faith in the One Who performed the Law perfectly in His Grace, that we, Jew or gentile, slave or free come to fellowship with Christ and the Father.
6) As believers, we are no longer condemned under the Law, bound by our inability to match it’s Christ-like (perfect) standard. This is the New Covenant.
7) Some parts of the old covenants were completely revoked by this New One. All things are clean to eat; there is neither Jew nor Greek. “Ands so on, and so fifth” (as Victor Borge would say).
9) The unbeliever, is by nature a child of wrath, dead in sins. These sins are the inherited and rebellious crookedness all have been born into. They are, as we were, under the Law of sin until Christ indwells and they are made whole as the Law is made whole in Christ, justified by the miraculous work of the Holy Spirit solely on His own perfect heavenly merit.
10) Any believer who CONTINUES in sin such as fornication, adultery, theft, lying, etc. must “examine themselves”.
So no, we cannot say with 100% total accuracy who is saved and who is not. We are told not to because of that. That is only God’s prerogative. We do not judge based an individual act, for we know that we are all still awaiting complete perfection in body and are therefore under Grace in Christ. But a life truly under grace will NOT CONTINUE in sin. We cannot dismiss what James says outright and the other apostles back up 100%: “faith without works is dead (meaningless)”–non-existent. A good tree will not bare bad fruit and a bad tree will not bare good fruit. So it might be contendible that we cannot call into question the salvation of someone no matter how much proof there is otherwise, such as a pattern of sin. But we have the responsibility to tell them to examine themselves as Paul said in Corinthians. This, we can only do once we have done so ourselves.
When the Pharisees were going to stone the woman caught in adultery, Jesus did not allow them to take eternal matters into their own hands. This is because He brought the New Covenant. He still called it sin and commanded her to do it no more–to live in honor of the Grace He gave.
I think we are all in much more agreement than we think. Lionel, my biggest problem has only been that, as I see it now, your point could be articulated better and more clearly. You know I am not a legalist or Judaizer. I know you don’t preach license to sin under Grace. I don’t say it is still wrong to eat pork; you don’t think it is okay to sleep with one’s sister.
We are, as Christians, called to Holiness. Our Gracious state does not, (because Jesus Himself preached on this in Matthew 5), make the 10 Comandments obsolete. It amplifies them, makes them stronger, and fulfills them. He said: ” I have not come to abolish the law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of the pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the Law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.”
He then proceeds to magnify, amplify, build upon the ten commandments. He does not negate them, he makes them better. He applies the to the, guess what, heart.
Be edified,
SW
Lionel,
I have been away from the PC from some time, and I come back and full blown discussion has broke out. That’s what I like to see. Iron sharpens iron, and it’s always good to see brothers trying to edify one another.
To answer one of your questions, let me give you a little info on myself (so you know who you’re talking to). My name is Louie Chism, and I live in Illinois, 30 minutes north of Chicago. I have no idea how I found your blog, other than I am a regular blog reader from many of the blogs you have listed. So I am sure I found it through one of them, which one, I am not sure. I do not have a blog of my own. To that end I am a regular blog reader, but I rarely ever post any comments. Forgive me if I did not follow proper etiquette. I really truly appreciate this blog, because all comments whether for or against are being made in love…I wished all blogs followed this pattern.
That’s a little on myself. I appreciate SJ Walker and Bro. Lawrence jumping in, they have eloquently said some of the same things I was thinking. Thank you brothers. That being said I did have a couple things I wanted to respond to.
You said, “So the point of the post is that the 10 commandements are not the governing life of the believer. The Spirit of Grace is.” I also thought your post was speaking to why use the “The Law” in sharing the gospel. We should use grace primarily. I may be wrong in that, correct me if I am. To that end though, the law must be used. How else will the unbeliever see their sin. If they don’t see their sin, they will not recognize their need for a savior. We know this happens through the effectual call in their lives, and that’s when the grace shines forth to them…like the lamborghini (sp?) but this time with engine and fully gased – ready to roll. So the law is essential to show them they have transgressed it, and are need of a savior.
“So the point of the post is that the 10 commandements are not the governing life of the believer. The Spirit of Grace is.” I think I understand this, but my question still remains…isn’t the law still beneficial to the believer?
You said earlier you disagreed with the Westminster Divines, that’s a strong stance, but one that I appreciate. You are right, I’ve come across a number of things in blogs, that would give the implication that we are saved by works. We know that is not the case, but we are saved by grace unto good works. I don’t think you are arguing against that though, right?
Yes it would be extremely hard to count works to see if someone is saved, plus that is completely nonsense. That being said if you are a believer there should be some fruit!
Anyway, that’s my 2 cents. I’ll say it again, like everyone has said, I appreciate the discussion as well as the spirit of brotherliness. Thanks for the post.
Your Brother in Christ.
SJ Walker,
Amen, first and foremost. I was typing my response, when I should have been waiting for yours. I think you about summed up what I was saying.
Especially with these words, “We are, as Christians, called to Holiness. Our Gracious state does not, (because Jesus Himself preached on this in Matthew 5), make the 10 Comandments obsolete. It amplifies them, makes them stronger, and fulfills them…He then proceeds to magnify, amplify, build upon the ten commandments. He does not negate them, he makes them better. He applies the to the, guess what, heart.”
Amen and Amen.
Oh, and one last thing guys. Say I am talking to someone who is not a believer.
Me: “Have you heard of Christ?”
Him: “Yeah, kinda.”
Me: “Are you saved?”
Him: “What from?”
That is my point. One can only be under the Law of Christ, of Grace, if he believes, if he has repented, and all that. He has to know as the Holy Spirit speaks through us, what it is he is yet enslaved to, what it is he must be saved from for God to find pleasure in him. Yes, the Law is fulfilled. Yes, we are under Grace. But not individually until we heard the Word of Truth.
“How shall they hear without a preacher?”
We don’t tell people the lie that if they trust in the Law and obey it, they will be saved. We tell them they have already broken the Law and must repent and turn from it to the Grace of Christ. The Holy Spirit is the only one Who can do this. But he uses US to do it!
Louie,
Welcome. And thanks for answering Lionel’s inquiry as to your identity. I also appreciate the respectful air that can be breathed here. You can drop by the Lion’s den any time.
Linoel,
As always, it is good to talk with you. Take care Bro.
And Louie, also, you could have at least fixed my typos for me before you quoted me!
LOL
SJ Walker,
Thank you to you and everyone for the warm welcome. I will definitely be checking out this site on a much more frequent basis.
Next time I’ll be sure to catch those typos too (yours and mine). LOL
Good stuff, brother. I plan to share it with my peeps.
Good background music as well, Lionel.
Thanks Pastor Gunny, a pleasure hearing from you!