NCT/CT Debate
Pastor Kevin Hartley

  1. NCT Defined (My portion: 20 Minutes)

Section I: Defining NCT

Introduction:

The Endeavor of NCT is neither to be new for the sake of novelty nor polemical for the gain of notoriety. NCT is simply an endeavor to affirm the truth as contained in the word of God. Therefore this debate is approached with first this as its governor: "Unless I am convinced by the testimony of the Scriptures or by clear reason…I am bound by the Scriptures…and my conscience is captive to the word of God (Luther’s Works Phil: Muhlenberg Press, 1958, v. 32, pp. 112-13)." Second with this as its allowance: reformata sed semper reformanda, as John Murray so gives such allowance, "Theology must always be undergoing reformation…However architectonic may be the systematic concstructions of any one generation or group of generations, there always remains the need for correction and reconstruction so that the structure may be brought into close approximation to the Scripture and the reproduction be a more faithful transcript or reflection of the heavenly exemplar (John Murray, The Covenant of Grace, London: Tyndale Press, 1953, 5.)." With this then we petition for not only proper governance of these proceedings but also due allowance for their conduct.

Scripture is the chief moderator of this debate. As scripture is the common ground for every true theological disputation and every true theology must find itself agreeable to it, we begin our debate by noting our union with our opponents upon this principle. Heinrich Zwingli would not have the church authorities…as judges; his sole judge and arbiter was the Holy Scriptures (Cited from the Baden and Berne Disputations). Neither will we permit any theologian, confession, or tradition as the final and definitive word in this debate. This is the true mark of Protestantism, and all here must agree. Just as Martin Bucer, while in England, would not blindly accept a doctrine simply because it was from Calvin, neither should we affirm any truth unless it answers solely to the standard of the word of God. Thus this is not a disputation over a confession, a system of theology, or certain theologians; it is a disputation over the true content of God’s word.

This present disputation over that called covenant theology and this termed new covenant theology, is no new discussion. Since the beginning of the Protestant Reformation dispute has arisen among Protestants that have endeavored to understand the more difficult issues of scripture; the covenants, law and grace, continuity and discontinuity. There were the early disputes between Zwingli, Luther, Calvin, against those called Libertines and Anabaptists. Not only was the Continent immersed in dispute, but the English Reformation was continually so engaged. There was Edward Fisher’s Marrow of Theology, penned during the Long Parliament, the Westminster Assembly, it would surface in Scotland in the 18th century and raise that called the Marrow Controversy. There were those called antinomians, men like Tobias Crisp and John Eaton, who questioned the place of the law in the Christian life. Such dispute found its way to the American colonies, which during the 1630’s was involved in the Antinomian Controversy. Wherever you follow the English Reformation you encounter this debate.

Historically those holding to covenant theology have been in the majority and those raising questions of its propriety have been the minority. Recently though the minority voice has met with more irenic entertainment. Oddly enough, neo-orthodoxy has proven instrumental in bringing hardened confessionalists to readdress their theology and reconsider its place in Christianity today. In Scotland the likes of the Torrance’s have leveled notable assaults upon the confession. The scholarship of R. T. Kendall in England and the late Perry Miller at Harvard, have necessitated the defense and investigation of the history and validity of covenant theology. Professor John Murray himself opened the door to the discussion of the revision or reconsideration of covenant theology, as best defined in the Westminster Confession of Faith. I say this to show our inquiry and proposal should not meet with undue discrimination and rejection, nor should it be unfairly labeled, rather it should be heard. The recent publication by Paternoster Press, The Weakness of the Law, by Professor Jonathan Bayes, is proof that the time has come where questions are not merely dismissed because they disagree with a certain confession or tradition, but they must be addressed. To summarize then: we argue that the validity for this discussion is the honest admission by men like Murray that our guiding principal is semper reformata, the government of this discussion is the word of God sola scriptura, and that the allowance for this discussion is an end to the monopoly over the dictates of this discussion by the firm grip of the reformed tradition. Today is a new day and the questions we raise shall be entertained.

Historically the question has been regarding the role that the law has in the life of the believer. This is the narrower question of the debate. Antecedent to this question is one’s presumed understanding of biblical covenants, their relationship, one’s biblical hermeneutic, and presuppositions. Therefore, we shall not necessarily be immersing ourselves in the restricted confines of past debates, but shall endeavor to assume a broader approach to the dispute. We shall compare two systems of theology, two hermeneutics, and two distinctly different approaches to the word of God. One was codified by the Westminster Divines, having a long tradition, and is known as either covenant or federal theology. The other we term new covenant theology, which, to date, is neither codified nor authoritatively defined, but has been labeled by Jonathan Bayes as ‘doctrinal antinomianism.’ Whether or not this label is accurate, you judge; nevertheless, we shall turn our attention foremost to the word of God.

In this brief time, I shall seek to define NCT exegetically from Galatians 4. I will not engage CT until the next division, then addressing their system and its incongruity with the biblical text. Thus understand my narrow purpose is simply to draw from the text of Galatians a proper understanding of biblical redemptive history. The occasion for the epistle was a dispute over the imposition of old covenant legal practice upon gentile believers. In the epistle the nature, role, and place of the biblical covenants are defined.

 

Text: Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all. Galatians 4: 24-26

Observe:

    1. The irrefutable designation of two distinct covenants as indicated by the word two. Two does not make one, but one is one and two is two. Though two are similar they are not then one. Two books are not one because they are both books, but are two distinctly different books since they are separate entities.
    2. The irrefutable distinction of two separate covenants as indicated by the words two covenants. The nature of this division is that of disparity. Incongruity is found in:

1) Locale: one is heavenly, one is earthly.
2) Time: One was then, one is now.
3) Nature: The first was of law, the second of grace.
4) Feature: One was of bondage, the other of liberty.

It is from this plain and simple reading of the text that is draw a redemptive history divided by these two covenants, the old covenant and the new covenant, seen as distinctly different. We might then draw this definition of NCT:

Thesis: New covenant theology is that which declares the oldness of the old covenant and the newness of the new covenant.

Clearly this definition is neither exhaustive nor unpacked; time will not permit such an endeavor. Therefore I will briefly state the propositions of NCT that build from this thesis. That which we call NCT then has these two propositional distinctives:

Proposition I: The Oldness of the old covenant.

  1. Its historicity. It was a covenant made solely with the nation of Israel at Mount Sinai, ending with the inauguration of the New Covenant identified with the first advent of Christ.
  2. Its typological design. Just as the tabernacle served Israel briefly being of an inferior quality and design, so is the old covenant in relation to the new. Once the temple was built the tabernacle was of no use. It served its purpose. Thus the old covenant as a whole is typical, anticipatory, and temporary.
  3. Its legality/conditional nature. We might call the old covenant a covenant of works, or a legal covenant, a bilateral covenant, as summarized in Leviticus 18:5.
  4. Its imposition. We know of its inauguration at Mt. Sinai and we know of its end by the day of Pentecost. The days prior to Israel’s encampment at Mt. Sinai, we know were not days of the old covenant. They were days that preceded the old covenant. The days of the old covenant we know were not days of the new covenant, because it was prophesied that the new covenant would come.

Proof: For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. Hb. 8.7ff

Proposition II: The Newness of the new covenant.

  1. Its Historicity. As said we understand the new covenant not to be in existence prior to the first advent of Christ. The new covenant is enacted by Pentecost, with the church, and is eternal in nature and terminal in design. We look for no other covenant, no furthering of it, it is present, it is real, and it is in effect, made with the Church, the new, antitypical Israel of God.
  2. Its antitypical nature. There are great similarities between the old and new covenants. It is like looking at the shadow of a man and comparing it to the man. They measure up to a degree, but the shadow does not equate to the substance. The difference between the old and new covenants is not one of accident but substance. One anticipates the other. Thus we have Christ as the consummate end of all shadows, types, and images. Thus the Christocentric nature of NCT.
  3. Its gracious nature. The new covenant is substantially unlike the old covenant. The substance exists in Christ, being that this covenant is gracious. Therefore we might call the new covenant the covenant of grace and the old covenant a covenant of works.

Proof: I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers (Hb. 8.8ff).

  1. Its consummate character. Union with Christ is accomplished and applied. The new covenant is a real covenant. The ultimate redemptive goal of God’s elect is fulfilled in the new covenant. The promises to Abraham are fulfilled in it.

Section II: New Covenant Theology distinctives

Proposition I: Union with Christ is central to its theology. It possess a Christocentric motif, which is presuppositional to its understanding of redemptive history.

Proposition II: It possess a new testament hermeneutic, where the old testament is not abrogated in its usefulness, but serves as an illustration of the new; it is like looking at an antique; it tells a story, it served a purpose in a day, and it has a nostalgic effect. The new testament though is the covenant document of the church.

Proposition III: A graduated, surpassing reality in all aspects. Christ is a better lawgiver, priest, prophet, king, has brought a better kingdom, rest, etc….

Proposition IV: It possesses a unified, progressive, unequivocal advance in deistic administration. God’s design all along was the new covenant and union with Christ.

Proposition V: It is an orthodox, Calvinistic theology, which elevates and accentuates the new covenant era. It does not dissuade the use of means, law, nor the necessity of holy living.

Section III: Objections and Inquires Answered

Objection: New covenant theology is dispensationalism.

Answer: New covenant theology is not dispensationalism.

Proofs:

  1. Dispensationalism is not inherently progressive. Even progressive dispensationalism has a graduated eschatology, which relegates much of what NCT says is fulfilled to a latter day.
  2. Dispensationalism is not principally Christocentric. Israel overshadows Christ, the new covenant, and the church. Dispensationalism denies proposition III, as even in its mildest form it advances Israel to an improper place.
  3. Dispensationalism denies Proposition II. In all actuality it advocates an old testament to new testament hermeneutic.

Objection: New covenant theology is doctrinal antinomianism, dangerously giving way to practical antinomianism.

Answer: New covenant theology is not antinomian in doctrine or practice. The principal proof of this fact is its doctrine of sanctification, which affirms the place of written exhortations, commands, and reproofs. Where men like Jonathan Bayes fail to understand NCT is the fail to see how NCT uses the new testament as its covenant document. It advocates a higher law. While it is true the NCT stresses love and grace as its motivation for obedience, it does not absolutely remove the place for correction and discipline of conscience.

Objection: NCT is new and new is bad.

Answer: New covenant theology is no more new than covenant theology. We can show historically that the points we raise have been historically raised. What is new is the manner in which we systematize this theology. Case in point: Covenant theology would argue for its roots in Calvin and agreement with him, even though they admit that he did not use the same terms and designations. The newness of covenant theology does not invalidate its usefulness anymore then the newness of new covenant theology would invalidate its place.

  1. What is wrong with CT (My portion: 15 Minutes)

Introduction:

Allow me to begin by stating my own trepidation in this endeavor. Covenant theology has involved men of great religion. God has granted tremendous mercy to the men of covenant theology, as they clearly surpass us in their love for God, doxological dispositions, and attention to holiness. I am forever in debt to these men and therefore I do not take this task of criticism of their labors lightly. With great humility then I approach this portion of the debate. Nonetheless, despite my reverence for these men, they would be the first to remind us that they were just men, fallible, and that they should neither be immortalized, worshipped, revered, or idolized. Therefore by way of their allowance I shall seek to question their work and address my friends here that stand firm in their tradition.

As noted in my prior address, covenant theology has met with criticism in this past century. It was not without its critics in the previous centuries. As noted it had its disputes with the antinomians, the libertines, there were the Soccinians, the Arminianians, the Amyraldians, and the hyper-calvinists. From the enlightenment to this postmodern era and beyond, covenant theology has endeavored to maintain its relevance in an ever changing Christian context. Perhaps the greatest influence upon recent discussions of covenant theology outside of new covenant theology has been the work of Karl Barth. He proposed to present a gracious theology. Barthians have carried the torch of his gracious theology forward and have addressed concerns of legal tendencies in federal theology. There have been two principle thesis put forth of late against covenant theology: the first is that the covenant theology of the 17th and 18th century was a legal theology and break from the theology of the magisterial reformers. The motive behind this assault appears to be an attempt to show that federal theology is not Protestant theology. The second charge is that covenant theology is not Christocentric in nature. This assault is leveled against the doctrines of predestination and the extent of the atonement. Together both of these opponents of covenant theology have resulted in a scurried attempt among covenant theologians to show the gracious nature of their theology, its union with the early reformers of the 16th century, and its Christocentric nature. Questions of a revision of the Westminster Confession of Faith have even been entertained. Perhaps the single most influential person to raise these concerns among covenant theology has been John Murray. An early professor of Westminster Theological Seminary, he broke from the tradition by denying the covenant of works and sought a greater cohesion between the covenant tradition and John Calvin. This said, suffice it to say that now is perhaps the time for honest and probing questions to be asked and answered regarding a tradition of so great influence.

The purpose of this debate though is not to champion the causes of neo-orthodoxy, or that of men like T. F. Torrance, or R. T. Kendall. Nor is it to even put forth the covenant theology of John Murray as an alternative. Rather the purpose of this debate and this specific portion of it is for NCT to address its concerns over covenant theology. Therefore, while at times I may allude to the disputes of these other disciplines, it shall be my main endeavor to simply address the problems NCT has with CT.

Thesis: Covenant theology cannot be biblically proven and defended beyond a reasonable doubt. As Protestants we cannot categorically accept that which we are not convinced of by the testimony of scripture. CT cannot be convincingly proven from scripture alone. Protestants cannot categorically accept CT. Listed are the proofs behind this thesis and syllogism:

  1. It employs conjectural categories.

1)  First the Adamic covenant. In order to reach the conclusions drawn by CT, one must venture beyond the clear statements of scripture. Consider the WSC:

  1. 12. What special act of providence did God exercise toward man in the estate wherein he was created?
    A. When God had created man, he entered into a covenant of life with him, upon condition of perfect obedience; forbidding him to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, upon pain of death. Gen. 2:16-17; Jas. 2:10

Here the proof texts lend to viable proof to the supposition of this question, that God entered into a covenant of life with him. Notice the Westminster divines did not believe Hosea 6:7 a proof of this fact (But they like men have transgressed the covenant: there have they dealt treacherously against me).

    • John Murray writes of Calvin’s view of this text, "The interpretation of Hosea 6: 7 in which allusion might be found to an Adamic covenant he vigorously rejects, and he is insistent that there was no covenant answering to the requirements of justification and acceptance with God prior to the covenant with Abraham (John Murray, Collected Writings of John Murray, 4 [Carlisle, Pa.: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1977], 218, 19).
    • Charles Hodge in his Systematic Theology introduces the chapter on the Covenant of Works with this title: God entered into Covenant with Adam. He follows with this comment, "This statement does not rest upon any express declaration of the Scriptures. It is, however, a concise and correct mode of asserting a plain Scriptural fact, namely, that god made to Adam a promise suspended upon a condition, and attached to disobedience a certain penalty. This is what in Scriptural language is meant by a covenant, and this is all that is meant by the term as here used. Although the word covenant is not used in Genesis, and does not elsewhere, in any clear passage, occur in reference to the transaction here recorded, yet inasmuch as the plan of as the plan of salvation is constantly represented as a new Covenant, new, not merely in antithesis to that made at Sinai, but new in reference to all legal covenants whatever, it is plain that the Bible does represent the arrangement made with Adam as a truly federal transaction (Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, 2, Anthropology [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999], 117)."

What better proof than Murray’s admissions and Hodge’s logic to prove the point that CT cannot be convincingly proven from scripture alone, then the leaps Charles Hodge makes from the plain reading of scripture to the assumption of an Adamic covenant.

2) Second its Adamic eschatology. Here I refer to the positive aspect that developed late in federal theology, which went beyond the earlier estimations of the Adamic administration. It was present in the Westminster Confession [II. The first covenant made with man was a covenant of works, wherein life was promised to Adam; and in him to his posterity, upon condition of perfect and personal obedience (WCF: VII:2)], yet not developed as later accomplished. The idea of a bilateral covenant, wherein Adam was promised eternal life by way of some time of obedience is a late development in covenant theology. This comes from Geerhardius Vos’s emphasis upon kingdom and eschatology (in its historic sense, not as we think of it today). Jeong Koo Jeon wrote, "Lutherans do not have the eschatological goal for man before the fall while Reformed covenantal thought places an emphasis on the eschatological heavenly life and realization as the goal of the covenant of works (Jeong Koo Jeon, Covenant Theology: John Murray’s and Merideth G. Kline’s Response to the Historical Development of Federal Theology in Reformed Thought, [Oxford: University Press, 1999], 81." The word of God is silent regarding any expectation of Adam’s obedience, thus any conclusion as CT draws is built on pure speculation.

3) Third, the covenant of grace. The whole concept of an overarching covenant of grace made first with Adam in his postlapsarian state and renewed through biblical history is assumed. CT produces a categorical understanding of covenants that are gracious and therefore removes the distinctions between the historical covenants, by way of this category. A covenant is gracious or legal, not historical first. This itself produces within the intramural debates of covenant theology disagreement regarding the nature of covenants themselves. There is a clear division among federal theologians in their understanding of the Sinaitic covenant. John Murray, like John Calvin, saw it as a gracious covenant. Merideth G. Kline along the lines of 17th and 18th century federal thought saw it as an admixture of a gracious and legal covenant. Thus covenant theology, despite its categorization, has not met with full resolution of understanding. In other words, questions still remain, their category is not the foolproof. How can we accept this category when even they cannot agree?

4) Fourth, the covenant of works. There is greater reason to reject to category of a covenant of works for several reasons: It was only introduced into Protestant thought in the early 17th century. It is absent from early confessions and early covenant theologians. Also John Murray has rejected it altogether, showing that Calvin would have as well. Thus its validity is in even greater doubt. Murray argues solely for an Adamic administration of representation. If one of covenant theology’s greatest modern minds honestly rejected this category, how can we then entertain its validity?

5) Fifth, the covenant of redemption. This category is even more tenuous. It was a development of late federal thought which sought to define the eternal relationship between the father and son by way of covenant. This is consistent with federal thought and the WCF Ch 7 Sect I:I.

The distance between God and the creature is go great, that although reasonable creatures do owe obedience unto Him as their Creator, yet they could never have any fruition of Him as their blessedness and reward, but by some voluntary condescension on God's part, which He has been pleased to express by way of covenant.

Yet it is pure speculation. Again, a brain-child of Vos, Jeong Koo Jeon notes, "Geerhadus Vos adopts and develops the crucial importance of the inter-trinitarian counsel in his exposition on the Pactum Salutis following the pattern of classic covenant hermeneutics (Jeong Koo Jeon, Ibid, 213)." What Jeon admits in the words following the pattern of classic covenant hermeneutics is that it is reasonably assumed. We stand, and I say this again with caution, upon that which Calvin himself would wince at: indiscretion and mere sophistry. There has been a movement afoot to identify federal theology as scholasticism in a pejorative sense, and one cannot help but see the validity in such assertions when confronted with the lengths of reason employed to reach Vos’ conclusion. Again the minor premise of the syllogism is proven, CT cannot be convincingly proven from scripture alone. CT must take liberty with reason.

6) Three uses of the law. Much of the disagreement between CT and NCT is found in the understanding of the law. Covenant theology divides the law into three categories; judicial, civil, and moral. These are categories which scripture does not plainly define. Just as there is a blurring of the lines between covenants in CT so is there a blurring of the lines in biblical law. CT would have us see the commandment of Adam as an expression of the Ten Commandments. They would then have the law of Sinai be the fullest expression and unchanging moral law. In so doing the category of law loses any historical place, division, and designation.

  1. It employs conjectural terms. None of the following terms can be found in scripture. If the major tenants of a theology is built upon terms that are neither biblically stated or explicitly defined, how then can we affirm their existence:
  1. Adamic covenant.
  2. Covenant of works.
  3. Covenant of grace.
  4. Covenant of redemption.
  5. Moral law.

John Reisinger has made the argument that the difference between the term Trinity and these terms is that Trinity has an explicit statement of its fact: viz, the Father, the Son, and Holy Spirit are all mentioned in the word of God. CT however, uses inference to determine its terms. Take this example, again the WCF, VII, 2:

"The first covenant made with man was a covenant of works, wherein life was promised to Adam; and in him to his posterity, upon condition of perfect and personal obedience."

Notice though that no scriptural reference can be found that demonstrates God promising Adam life. This is built upon a form of logic, which assumes a dichotomy: that is, if God promised death for disobedience then the necessary consequence for obedience must be life. Again the minor premise of the syllogism is affirmed.

III.  It employs questionable methods of determination. Noting the Ramist method involved in the construction of the theology, and making this point cautiously, being one found of the Ramist method, there is the undeniable question of supposition based upon inference that plagues covenant theology.

  1. It presents an untenable presupposition built upon questionable proofs. The fundamental presupposition of CT is:
  2. The distance between God and the creature is go great, that although reasonable creatures do owe obedience unto Him as their Creator, yet they could never have any fruition of Him as their blessedness and reward, but by some voluntary condescension on God's part, which He has been pleased to express by way of covenant. [WCF, VII, 1]

The prevailing presupposition of CT is that God does and only does relate to man by way of covenant. Here are the proof texts given by the divines: Is. 40: 13-17; Job 9: 32-33; 1 Sm. 2: 25; Ps. 113: 5-6; 100:2-3; Job 22: 2-3; 35: 7-8; Lk 17.10; Acts. 17:24-25. What is found in these proof texts is the idea presented in the first proposition of this statement by the WCF, but never is the last which He has been pleased to express by way of covenant found. These texts prove the distance between God and men, that Creatures owe him reasonable obedience, and the need for God’s condescension, but there is no mention of covenant being that means or expression. What are we to think when their most fundamental presupposition which He has been pleased to express by way of covenant cannot be proofed? We must believe that they arrived at there expression by way of another means.

  1. It tends towards legalism. Now lest I do nothing more but prove myself an effront no more so than those that say that doctrinal antinomianism leads to practical antinomianism, let me make this point with this addendum. Historically there have extreme expressions of this theology that can be termed legal.We might think of the American extreme cases of conscience and casuistry, where there have been stories told like the one of the woman, who, unable to gain assurance because of legal preaching, slew her own children, and was noted to say, ‘at least now I know I am damned.’ These though are extremes. In general most covenant theologians, as the vast majority of covenant theologians through history, have had a humble, pious, and honestly God glorifying motive behind their theology. I make this point simply to say that abused, this theology can be most legal.
  2. It rejects the plain categories of scripture. It rejects the clear distinctions between the covenants found in Galatians. It denies the very etymological terms of new and old. It stands in stark disagreement with the teaching of Hebrews on the newness of the new covenant and its supremacy. It imposes upon scripture a framework that just simply is not proven to be persuasively defensible. Covenant is given an unwarranted status, which undermines the Christocentric design of NCT. Moses achieves a higher place then is warranted. In the end the person that accepts CT as the true approach to understanding the word of God does so with full awareness of the fact that it is built upon questionable grounds. CT stands on shaky ground. This is not to say that we do not have much to learn from it, nor that we can simply ignore it, since it is a champion of Protestant reformed theology. It is a prominent voice that today is speaking on behalf of those doctrines of grace which we hold so dear. Thus let us never assume ourselves not brethren, rather, let us be willing to examine our presuppositions, honestly assess them, and be willing to revise, replace, and redefine them when we are convinced that the word of God would have us do so.

III.  What it is to be not under law but grace (My portion: 10 Minutes)

At the heart of our dispute is our understanding of what importance our theology has upon practical religion. This appears to be the concern of all those men in the past that have disputed with the likes of Agricola, Crips, and Hutchinson. The license of conscience, the liberty of licentiousness, that called practical antinomianism, is the fear of every expositor of scripture. This is Paul’s concern when he writes to the Romans:

Text: Romans 6: 15 What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid. In this text Paul appears to be addressing the mere supposition that his theology might raise, where some might say, ‘let us sin that grace might abound!’ Paul here raises the question and answers it with vehemence, followed by the sheer rhetorical dismissal of such a thought, when he says, But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you. Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness (Rm. 6: 17,18). Notice that Paul’s answer does not say, as Jonathan Bayes notes Samuel Bolton would have us say, "that a function of the law is to send sinners to the Gospel for justification, but that the Gospel then returns believers to the law for sanctification (Bayes, Ibid, 13)." Paul does not lead us from condemnation to Christ only to lead us to Moses. Once in Christ we are left there.

Observations from verse 16:

    1. The interrogative, viz. that Paul speaks to lawlessness. The question is begged, might we live licentiously being freed from the law? Paul would not ask the question if it were not logically asked by the conscience. The question of sin’s inconsequence is anticipated in light of what Paul has taught.
    2. The clear supposition, viz. that we are no longer under the law’s dominion, nor simply its mere pedagogical function. ‘Do and live’ is no more.
    3. The mayhem leading to this supposition, viz. the teaching by Paul that grace is our realm and not law. The question is asked regarding how a man is to behave without threat, merit, or demand. Perhaps the precursor to this question is the reminder that law never led to obedience, but only greater sinfulness. Grace says done, not do, how then shall we do if it is done, this is what raises the question.
    4. The answer, viz. that the realm of grace is not without righteous living:
    5. It is absurd for the Christian to think otherwise, thus the phrase ‘God forbid.’
    6. To do so would not demonstrate that we are under grace, but rather that we are still under law (v. 16). When under the law we serve sin, when under grace we serve righteousness.
    7. Grace has a different motive (thanksgiving, repentance, desire), seat (heart and mind), law (form of doctrine), consequence (righteousness is obeyed). Paul speaks of a new nature which consequently serves unlike the old.

Thesis: It is the clear teaching of this text that being under grace is distinctly different than being under the law.

Proposition I: The motivation is different.

Proof: But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you. Rm.6.17

Proof: If ye love me, keep my commandments. Jn. 14.15

Proof: Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you.

Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends; for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you. Jn. 15. 14ff

          Proposition II:   The fruits are different.

Proof: Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness. Rm. 6.18

Proof: For when ye were the servants of sin, ye were free from righteousness. What fruit had ye then in those things whereof ye are now ashamed? for the end of those things is death. But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life. Rm. 6.20ff

Proof: Therefore, my brethren, you also were made to die to the Law through the body of Christ, that you might be joined to another, to Him who was raised from the dead, that we might bear fruit for God. Rm. 7.4

Proposition III: The man is different.

Proof: But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him. 1 Jn. 2.27

Proof: You are our letter, written in our hearts, known and read by all men; being manifested that you are a letter of Christ, cared for by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone, but on tablets of human hearts. 2 Cor. 3.2ff

Proposition IV: The covenant efficacy is different.

1). Christ vs. Moses.

2). External vs. Internal.

3). Flesh vs. Spirit.

Proof: For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. Hb. 8.7ff

 

Objection: Paul does not abandon the law in chapter 7 but declares its continuing relevance to the believer in v. 12.

Answer: Paul is not talking about its continual use of the law in this verse, but its (the law) exoneration from its apparent failure and culpability. The law served to increase sin, not because it was an sinful instrument but it was an instrument of sin.

Objection: Paul calls the law spiritual and thus it is the same law and continues to have relevance to the Christian life.

Answer: Spiritual means ‘good.’ This is a mere reiteration of v. 12, an exoneration of the law, and not an advance in Paul’s elaboration upon the Christian life.

    1. NCT and the Sabbath (My portion: 5 Minutes)

Closely associated with covenant theology through the centuries has been the practice of Sabbatarianism. Its practice is not always present in reformed theology nor is in evident in its every expression. The early Church separated the Lord’s Day and the Sabbath. The Continental Reformation resulted in no notable practice of Sabbatarianism. Even the practice in England, Scotland, and America, varied. The mere subjectivity of practice and observance makes it suspect to the common observer. It can simply be stated that a difference exists between CT and NCT as it addresses Christian practice on the Lord’s Day. Sabbatarianism is one way in which the importance of these theologies is clearly seen. CT has its view of the Sabbath rooted in its view of the law. NCT the same. It shall then be supposed:

Thesis: New covenant theology has a higher Christological view thus it has a higher view of both covenant and Sabbath.

Proposition I: Regarding its higher Christology:

1). Its supremacy (Hb 1. 1-3).

2) Its finality (Hb. 1.3).

3) Its glory (Hb. 1.2)

Proposition II: Regarding its higher covenant theology and understanding of Israel’s place:

1) It has a higher view of law: Moses/Christ as lawgiver.
2) It has a higher view of the declaration of the covenant: angels/Christ as messenger of the covenant.
3) It has a higher view of rest: the day/sabbath/Christ our sabbath rest.
4) It has a higher view of the priesthood: Aaron/Christ.
5) It has a higher view of union; Tabernacle/’In Christ’.
6) It has a higher view justice: OC sacrifice/Christ.
7) It has a higher view of covenant: OC/NC.

Proposition III: Christ is our Sabbath, more supreme, final, consummate. He is the other day, the eternal day of our rest.

Objection: Though Christ has fulfilled it spiritually, it does not necessarily abrogate its use.

Answer: Each day not one day would then be its consequence. This is in direct agreement with Calvin, as noted by Dr. Richard Gaffin in the text, Calvin and the Sabbath. There he summarizes Calvin’s position as:

"Christians, strictly speaking, are no longer obliged to keep a weekly day of rest; the relaxation of that demand, however, should not be understood as abrogating the fourth commandment but as intensifying and elevating its demands…For Christians, keeping the Sabbath means, in the final analysis, experiencing the spiritual rest (freedom from sin, newness of life) they have by virtue of being buried and raised with Christ. Such spiritual rest cannot be limited to one day of the week but must be practiced daily, perpetually." (Richard Gaffin, Calvin and the Sabbath [Bristol, U.K.: Mentor, 1998,] 142.)

We would conclude then by stating that Sabbatarian practice in its practical expression is a step back from where we should be in Christ. It is a reconstruction of an institution, no different then if we were to reconstruct a tabernacle in which to worship God. If it is argued that it is a moral command then we find its antithesis in practical, personal piety, not in external legislation of a particular day. 

  • The Practical importance of NCT for the church today (My portion: 2 Minutes)

The practical importance of NCT for the church today comes in the way in which it effects practical religion. Practical religion being defined as not mere gathering, singing, and conducting ourselves in external acts of religion, but in the practical religion of the heart. It addresses the motivation of the soul. It involves our understanding of our relationship to Christ. It is intimately tied to our assurance. NCT is an endeavor to balance the practice of religion between legalism and licentiousness. It is the same concern of every true Christian who ever wonders in the state of his salvation how he might conduct himself. As every theology is studied for the design of practice, so must NCT be necessarily designed. CT has had its historical manifestation of religious thought resonating in religious practice. It was manifested in every area of life; in personal piety, in the family, in the home, in the state, in the church, and in society. Religion is not separated from life and life is not separated from religion. Therefore we must express that NCT, when embraced, will manifest itself in practice.

The true goal of NCT in practice then is that we will walk in holiness, that we will grow in godliness and true sanctification. It is the same goal of CT. The difference is that we see the means to this goal and the pathway to it to be one bound up in gracious motivation, over and above any legal motivation. Our desire is not liberty for the design of sin. It is not to undo the importance of holy practice, it is to further our understanding of the greatness of God’s grace and Christ and to make us a more obedient and godly people. Since then we have the same goal in mind and shun the same foolish thoughts of licentiousness and that practice of the Libertines, should we not then find common ground in God’s word to find our religion meet with practice. Which ever theology you chose, chose that theology which best serves that starting point of the Westminster divines, the chief end of man, to glorify God and enjoy him forever.

eMail Kevin Hartley
Return to Kevin's Sermon Index
Return to Index of New Covenant Theology Articles and Sermons
Go to the Sound of Grace Home Page

Copyright 2001 Kevin Hartley