Yes, we are truly saved by the Law. Jesus came and fulfilled the Law. We are saved by HIS Works through His blood.
He lived his life in perfect obedience to the Law. He died and sacrificed HIs life that we might be saved.
Therefore .... those who accept His Name are no longer under the condemnation of the Law. But, those who do not accept Him ... They remain under the Law. It condemns them. Why? Because they are not able to live in obedience to the Law. And the law calls for death to those who do not keep all aspects of the Holy Law.
So, in summary ..... you are either saved by Christ’s doing and dying .... or you are left on your own to answer to the Law. And in that case ... you have failed and been found wanting. The result .... DEATH.
If we are judged by the Law ... which we are. How could one say that the Law has been done away with?
The only thing that has been done away with is the condemnation of the Law for those in Christ Jesus.
Yes, we are truly saved by the Law. Jesus came and fulfilled the Law. We are saved by HIS Works through His blood.
He lived his life in perfect obedience to the Law. He died and sacrificed HIs life that we might be saved.
Therefore .... those who accept His Name are no longer under the condemnation of the Law. But, those who do not accept Him ... They remain under the Law. It condemns them. Why? Because they are not able to live in obedience to the Law. And the law calls for death to those who do not keep all aspects of the Holy Law.
So, in summary ..... you are either saved by Christ’s doing and dying .... or you are left on your own to answer to the Law. And in that case ... you have failed and been found wanting. The result .... DEATH.
If we are judged by the Law ... which we are. How could one say that the Law has been done away with?
The only thing that has been done away with is the condemnation of the Law for those in Christ Jesus.
Thank you Jesus. You are ALL we need.
Thanks GH for an excellent statement of gospel truth. Yes we are saved by works, and they are Christ’s works.
The law has not been done away with. I would just differ on what the SDA interpretation of the law is with it’s emphasis on the Sabbath. The whole law including the Sabbath is fulfilled in Christ and not done away with. The Sabbath law in the OT is a perfect prefiguration of what it means to have our sabbath rest in Christ. The Sabbath command forbids ALL work on the Sabbath. This is a perfect picture of salvation in which none of our works will do,
All false gospels try to add something of man’s works--even some want to include our own decision making process as a necessary work--but true salvation comes only from God, and we are born of God. John 1:13
13 “who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.”
I don’t like the sound of this. Semantics, perhaps. I’m not in a place where I can look up texts, but didn’t Jesus say that the words He spoke will judge us? I think the OC law is entirely abolished, and that no law applies to us today simply because it was mentioned in the OC--murder included. All applicable laws were restated in the NT, including some general descriptions of the work of the spirit writing them in our hearts. In my rather concrete way of thinking, any other view leaves the door open for keeping feast days, the Sabbath, etc. It would seem to leave you no defense for not keeping every single command the Bible ever mentioned.
My views on this are not fully formed, but I think you are both expressing views that would put you in the camp of covenant theology, whereas I see a great contrast between the OC and NC--a la Paul, and I think that would put me in the camp of NCT. I say this kindly, and may be completely missing your points, but your position makes me uncomfortable.
I’m reading a lot into your words here, and I hope that I’m not presuming unfairly. I apologize in advance. Your position seems to have the advantage of fulfillment theology, though. But I’m suprised that more former adventists don’t resist your view, even while endorsing the fulfillment part.
I have hesitated to go after other posts that ring of NC theology vs NCT theology, but have usually refrained. Interestingly, we arrive at similar conclusions regarding the law, but I think your position seems risky as it leaves the door open for “law in grace” theology that we hear in Adventism.
I write this humbly. I’m not a skilled debater nor a theologian. But I’ll try to assemble my thoughts on this a bit more and come back to you if you don’t mind. It will take some time.
I mis-typed in the first line of the next to last paragraph. I meant to say that I have hesitated to go after other posts that ring of “CT” vs NCT. In plain English, Covenant Theology vs New Covenant Theology.
I see covenant theology as emphasizing the similarities between the two covenants, while Paul and new covenant theology folks would emphasize the differences.
There was a discussion on this before, and I don’t like the sound of this either.
Many have suggested over and over that the commands were restated in the New Testament, and somehow this gives creedence to the application of certain ones to people who are not christians and such. I have also heard stated by a few, that they are a reflection of God’s character.
That sentence alone, makes me recoil, and smacks of Adventism. If those represent God’s character, we are most miserable, since the bible calls them the ministration of death, given to Moses after 430 years in Egypt.
I read Jesus’ encounter with the Scribes and Pharasees in Matthew 15, and Mark 7, and is seems to me that Jesus made a good point when he said, “ Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition? For God commanded , saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.
It hit me that Jesus was saying in other words, You cannot just keep one part of the commandmnet and not the punishment phase. The person who does not obey father or mother was put to death. All the commandments had a death penalty attached, and if we want to “keep” any of them, we have to apply the full weight of the command. Just as disobedience to the sabbath commandment was punishable by death, so all the others were as well.
I stand corrected if I am wrong in this as well, but this is what I got out of reading this again.
We are just like the SDA church, if we want to pick and choose which commandments we emphasize, because we read them “restated” in the New Testament. It is all or nothing, and if we believe Jesus has completely paid the penalty, we are putting ourselves back under the law, all 613.
I agree that if you disobey one commandment you disobey them all. They are all equal and they all have death as the result if you disobey.
Praise God ... He knew that we could not answer the curse of the Law. He came and fulfilled the Law. So, now there is NO condemnation for those in Christ Jesus. The condemnation is on those who do not accept the sacrifice of Jesus. For them ... The death penalty of the Law is valid.
I do appreciate the way you have expressed this.
God Be Praised. Jesus IS our Saviour. He is all we need.
I’m uncomfortable with your statement that the law is not done away with. I cannot help but agree with almost everything that has been written in the posts above, but that one point is the area of my concern. I see the NC as coming into effect during the life of Christ, at the Last Supper, and the OC as being finished, abolished, at the cross. So Jesus lived under the OC law. When he said that he established the law, he meant that he was not ending the reign of that law until he said it is finished on the cross. So I tend to see that as the transition between the OC and NC. I am in hearty agreement that we cannot bear the law (either the OC or NC laws) in our fallen condition, even though the Holy Spirit is working in our lives.
I guess the point is that we are now under the law of liberty, and I see that law as being what is expressed in the pages of the NT in the teachings of Jesus and AFTER the cross.
It seems so legalistic of me to worry about this! I don’t want to make a big deal out of this, but I don’t like the idea that the OC law has not been done away with. Whether it is fair or not, I read into your statement that the requirements of the OC law could still be in effect, and that is what makes me uncomfortable.
So I see the law, even those portions which are restated in the NC, as being abolished at the cross, and then restated (minus the Sabbath and ceremonial, civil laws, etc.) I see them all lumped together, with no distinction being imposed as to whether moral or ceremonial. All were abolished, then certain ones were restated, and new ones added, such as stand fast in the freedom, do not forsake the assembling of your selves together, etc.
I’ve been reluctant to get into this because of I Timothy 1. It isn’t really an essential conversation, but for former or currently struggling adventists, the difference may seem more important.
I’d just like to say a big THANKS, Stan, to you for your friendship both online and in person. I’ve been greatly blessed by listening to you and reading your posts here, and especially by whitehorseinn!
I don’t mean to hurt your feelings BobJ ... but it would appear legalistic of you to be so concerned about all this.
Our actions or works should not be a concern. If you keep the Sabbath or don’t feel convicted to keep the Sabbath or if you feel convicted to murder or not to murder ... or any of the Commandments .... it still will not take away from your Saved status with Christ.
I reallly think there is far to much focus on the issue of our works. Some may feel the Ten are still in force some may not. But we all do agree that there is now no condemnation for those IN Christ. That should be our focus. To focus on the Ten or Not the Ten ... would only seem to be legalistic and divisive in my opinion.
I’m not saying you are legalistic or divisive .... I’m just saying it is dangerous to have that focus. Our salvation is not based on whether we believe in the Ten or Not.
All we need is His love and forgiveness. Through His Blood yes ... Through his Blood.
I agree with you entirely. And I mean no bad will toward my friend, Stan. But I do carry a burden on this because I think it causes a lot of grief for folks in my family and work environment, many of whom I think are less than clear on the gospel.
I’m uncomfortable with your statement that the law is not done away with. I cannot help but agree with almost everything that has been written in the posts above, but that one point is the area of my concern. I see the NC as coming into effect during the life of Christ, at the Last Supper, and the OC as being finished, abolished, at the cross. So Jesus lived under the OC law. When he said that he established the law, he meant that he was not ending the reign of that law until he said it is finished on the cross. So I tend to see that as the transition between the OC and NC. I am in hearty agreement that we cannot bear the law (either the OC or NC laws) in our fallen condition, even though the Holy Spirit is working in our lives.
I guess the point is that we are now under the law of liberty, and I see that law as being what is expressed in the pages of the NT in the teachings of Jesus and AFTER the cross.
It seems so legalistic of me to worry about this! I don’t want to make a big deal out of this, but I don’t like the idea that the OC law has not been done away with. Whether it is fair or not, I read into your statement that the requirements of the OC law could still be in effect, and that is what makes me uncomfortable.
So I see the law, even those portions which are restated in the NC, as being abolished at the cross, and then restated (minus the Sabbath and ceremonial, civil laws, etc.) I see them all lumped together, with no distinction being imposed as to whether moral or ceremonial. All were abolished, then certain ones were restated, and new ones added, such as stand fast in the freedom, do not forsake the assembling of your selves together, etc.
I’ve been reluctant to get into this because of I Timothy 1. It isn’t really an essential conversation, but for former or currently struggling adventists, the difference may seem more important.
I’d just like to say a big THANKS, Stan, to you for your friendship both online and in person. I’ve been greatly blessed by listening to you and reading your posts here, and especially by whitehorseinn!
Bob
Hi Bob,
Thanks so much for coming on here and expressing your concerns. I don’t pretend to have all the answers. Bob, we have all been on a marvelous journey out of SDA and our theological views have evolved over the last few years. I used to be firmly in the NCT camp, and I love elements of the Covenant theology. I think both camps have elements of truth, and I respect the theologians in both camps.
I want to discuss this some more. So bear with me Bob, as I have started another week on at work, before I get another week off. But I have run across some excellent material recently that reconciles fulfillment theology in a credible way.
BTW, did you notice how the Sabbath is a beautiful ceremonial picture of salvation? One way to look at it is Christ fulfilled the law, and He is the Sabbath rest 24/7, and since He paid the full penalty for our sins, the law can never condemn the believer. We know from Colossians 2 that the literal keeping of days cannot be imposed on a Christian. So I think we can relax and discuss this further. I have gone back and forth on NCT and CT, but the truth lies somewhere in between.
I’ll read the article. I’d like to say here that you were the one who spoke the magic words that got me to take a serious look at reformation theology, and it has been an incredible blessing. As you say, it has been a marvelous journey.
Stan and GH
I posted a bit on FAF a day or two ago about protestant’s view of scripture. While I agree with your assessment of my concern about this, it is because although we are free as Chrisitans I still see us as under the authority of the NT canon.
I think the NT has to be allowed to speak to the Chrisitan without interference from the OT. The protestant view of scripture differs from the catholic view in that we view church as a product of scripture, whereas the catholic view is that scripture is the product of the church. Protestants say that when the word is preached, a church is the result. Catholics would say that when the church wishes, the word is created.
Hence the need for an infallible human voice for catholics (and adventists who also do not abide by sola scriptura), and hence the great concern by protestants whenever any question arises about the canon of scripture.
So my concern is that we have clean and clear scriptural authorith for living under the NC. Please don’t take this as an attack--it was a minor point--but the way you happened to phrase a few words in your post above is what triggered my response.
To get myself into even deeper water here, I know of others who clearly agree with your statement exactly as you wrote it, and they are very worthy students of the scripture. So I expect to learn a lot here. This could take some time.
I’ll take a fresh look at an article I think I have somewhere on fulfillment theology, since I think your comment was written in the context of that understanding. It’s possible that I missed a vital piece to this puzzle.
Alistair Begg comments, “The way to understand the Bible is to keep your eyes on Jesus. Because in the Old Testament, he is expected. In the gospels, he is revealed. In the Acts of the apostles, he is preached. In the Epistles, he is explained and in the book of Revelation, heis anticipated. So, when we come to an understanding of who Jesus is, the Law is part and parcel of that process. The Law reveals our need for a Savior and Substitute. The Law was never meant to be salvific in itself. The apostle Paul declares, “Do we then overthrow the Law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law” (Romans 3:31 ESV).”
Here is another insightful commentary on Matthew 5:17 & 18:
”5:17Do not think that I came todestroy the Law or the Prophets. We are not to think that Jesus’ teaching in the verses that follow intends to alter, abrogate, or replace the moral content of the OT law. He neither gives a new law nor modifies the old but rather explains the true significance of the moral content of Moses’ law and the rest of the OT Scriptures, not the rabbinical interpretation of them. fulfill. This speaks of fulfillment in the same sense that prophecy is fulfilled. Christ indicates that He fulfills the law in all its aspects. He fulfills the ceremonial law by being the embodiment of everything to which the law’s types and symbols pointed. And He fulfills the judicial law by personifying God’s perfect justice (cf.12:18,20).
5:18 till heaven and earth pass away...till all is fulfilled. Here Christ emphasizes both the inspiration and the enduring authority of all Scripture. He specifically affirms the utter inerranancy and absolute authority of the OT as the Word of God--down to the least jot and tittle---we should not think that the NT supplants or completely abrogates the OT butinstead fulfills and explicates it. For example, all the ceremonial requirements of the Mosaic Law are fulfilled in Christ (Colossians 2:16,17). Yet not one jot or tittle is thereby erased; the underlying truths of those Scriptures remain--and, in fact, the mysteries behind them are now revealed in the brighter light of the gospel. These--from the smallest letter to the deepest mystery--have not passed from the law, Jesus teaches. one jot or one tittle. A “jot” refers to the smallest Hebrew letter, the yohd, which is a meager stroke of the pen, like an accent mark or an apostrophe. The “tittle” is a tiny extension on a Hebrew letter like the serif in modern typefaces.” [The MacArthur Bible Commentary, page 1130; Emphasis supplied]
The Israelites were smart enough to know that not all 613 laws of the Torah carried the same weight, purpose, and importance. Therefore, it should not surprise us to find a ritual or ceremonial law among the Ten Commandments. The moral, ceremonial, judicial,and civil laws are all mixed together throughout the Torah. For example, the Jews never considered the weekly Sabbath as a moral law with its extra sacrificing and shewbread requirements (see Lev. 23 where the Sabbath is listed as one of the festal convocations given to “the sons of Israel").
It is a grave and serious error to throw out the entire moral laws of the OT because of the fourth commandment. This clearly violates the injunction of Paul: ”All Scripture is inspired of God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness “ (2 Timothy 3:16 NASB). After all, not only NINE of the Ten Commandments are repeatedly reiterated in the NT, but the extended moral laws of the Torah are likewise reiterated (i.e., prohibition against homosexuality, incest, etc.). Without the law there is no sin, and without the law there is no gospel. Importantly, the entire Bible, from Genesis to Revelation, is God’s voice speaking to us. The Spirit-led life always upholds God’s revealed will for our lives. The primary purpose of the Holy Spirit is to lead us into righteousness. It is His revealed will that is our business, indeed, the chief business of our lives.
I have to work outside today, but I will check in as I can. I am especially glad that you are here, Dennis, because you are the friend whom I think speaks so eloquently for the CT position.
When I get a chance, I’d like to post a few paragraphs here for your comments. This is not a debate at all. I am sincerely wishing to find a better understanding of these things, and I’d appreciate your feedback.
Meanwhile, Dennis, I’ll read your post again a couple more times to make sure I grasp all you have put into it.
Thanks to both of you for your patience on this. And thanks, Stan, for hosting this discussion. I wish you well in your medical practice and that Marti will continue to recover.
