The Ten Commandments as God’s Moral Law
Feb 19th, 2009 by Nathan White
“For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.
But if you call yourself a Jew and rely on the law and boast in God and know his will and approve what is excellent, because you are instructed from the law; and if you are sure that you yourself are a guide to the blind, a light to those who are in darkness, an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of children, having in the law the embodiment of knowledge and truth— you then who teach others, do you not teach yourself? While you preach against stealing, do you steal? You who say that one must not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples? You who boast in the law dishonor God by breaking the law. For, as it is written, “The name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you.”
For circumcision indeed is of value if you obey the law, but if you break the law, your circumcision becomes uncircumcision. So, if a man who is uncircumcised keeps the precepts of the law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision? Then he who is physically uncircumcised but keeps the law will condemn you who have the written code and circumcision but break the law. For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God.” – Romans 2:12-29
There is a simplicity to this which even a babe in the faith can see from this text. Consider:
What ‘law’ is Paul talking about?
Because of the phrase “if you call yourself a Jew and rely on the law“, among other things, it is clear that ‘the law‘ refers to the Law given to the Jews, the Mosaic Law. In fact, from the beginning of this passage to the very end, ‘the law’ refers to the Old Testament, Jewish Law. There is no other exegetical reason to say otherwise.
What law will be used to judge men on the final day?
Because of the phrase “will be judged by the law“, we can see that anyone who has ever read this Old Testament, Jewish Law will be judged by it on the last day. James 2:12, among other passages, teach this as well.
What about those who never hear this ‘law’; what ‘law’ will they be judged by?
Because of the phrase, “They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts”, we see that those who never hear of this Jewish Law will nevertheless be judged by it, and this because they prove by their actions that this same Jewish Law is written on their hearts.
How is one found righteous before God?
Because of the phrase, “it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law“, we know that those who obey this same law are pleasing and righteous in God’s sight. We also know from the continuation of Paul’s argument here in Romans, that no man can perfectly obey this Law so as to be perfectly righteous. However, there is one who has, the Man Christ Jesus, who’s obedience becomes ours by faith. Thus, we still keep this law, imperfectly when we obey and are pleasing in God’s sight; and perfectly, for justification and complete righteousness, through the merits of Jesus Christ.
But doesn’t this Jewish ‘law’ contain all sorts of ceremonies and cleanliness laws that we Christians are released from?
Yes, the New Testament teaches that Christians are released from obeying ‘ceremonial’ laws which were only given to the Jews for a period. However, by the phrase “For circumcision indeed is of value if you obey the law, but if you break the law, your circumcision becomes uncircumcision“, we can see that Paul is not speaking of the outward ceremonies of the law. Instead, he makes a clear distinction between ‘obeying the law’ and simply performing it’s outward ceremonies (which have since passed away).
So how do we know what aspects of ‘the law’ Paul is talking about here?
Because of three phrases: 1) “While you preach against stealing, do you steal?“, 2) “You who say that one must not commit adultery, do you commit adultery?“, and 3) “You who abhor idols, do you rob temples?“, we see the 8th commandment, the 7th commandment, and the 10th commandment, respectively, alluded to by Paul.
Conclusion:
By the scripture here we conclude that ‘the law’ will be the standard judge on the last day, that this ‘law’ is written on the hearts of those who’ve never heard of it, that this ‘law’ details how one is righteous before God, that this ‘law’ doesn’t include the ceremonies clearly abolished by Jesus and the Apostles, and that this ‘law’ consists of precepts found in the Ten Commandments.
Given these plain facts, as well as other testimonies of scripture, we are bound to affirm that the Ten Commandments, not just 9 of the commandments as many try to argue in this day, are foundational to the ‘moral’ law of God that transcends time, covenants, culture, and even eternity. To allude to just one of the Ten Commandments is to allude to them all, as they are never divided in scripture, always being treated as a unit, and James 2:10, when referring to the Ten Commandments, confirms their unity by teaching us that breaking one of them is tantamount to breaking them all.
Paul doesn’t directly allude to Jesus and this so-called ‘law of Christ’; Paul doesn’t allude to the greatest commandments of Love to God and neighbor, even though both Jesus’ teaching and the greatest two commandments are certainly included in the ‘moral’ law. Rather, Paul clearly refers back to the Old Testament law, the law previously given and widely understood, and he clearly upholds the Ten Commandments as the foundational to all morality, ethics, and righteousness.
“Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God. For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin. But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith.” – 3:19-25
And I...
[...] Shepherd the Flock added an interesting post on The Ten Commandments as Godâ [...]
Great post, Nathan.
I would point out in the same vein Ephesians 6:1-3 wherein Paul quotes the Fifth Commandment as normative for the (mostly Gentile) Christians he is addressing. He could have (or, rather, should have, if NCT is correct) appealed to exclusively New Covenant directives to make this point to the children in his audience. (Tell them to love their parents as Christ loved us, sacrificially, etc.) But he evokes one of the Ten Words as normative for them.
Hey Gordan,
That’s an excellent passage. One that I will probably bring up next time I post on this issue (which is hopefully soon).
A few things must be noted about this passage:
1) Paul quotes it as a ‘commandment’. He doesn’t quote it as a suggestion, as a helpful principle which we derive our ethical standards off of. He quotes it as fully, 100% authoritative, in it’s OT giving.
2) By saying ‘the first commandment’, we can see the unity of the Ten. There were certainly other ‘commandments’ and promises, but Paul recognizes the special nature of the Ten, and the Ten as a unit. “This is the first commandment” in the list of Ten. Very important fact that NCT guys simply cannot explain away.
3) Paul changes the promise of the command to fit New Testament realities. No longer is it a ‘law’ of covenant that one must obey to stay in the Land of Canaan. Instead, it is applied to the New Testament/Gentile believer, in ‘long on the earth’. This, I believe, is important, for just because we see the Ten as authoritative doesn’t mean that some of the outward applications of them are the same. Of course, I see this as one reason why the Sabbath can change from Saturday to Sunday
But nevertheless, the Ten have a different role in the NT, even though they keep their morality and binding nature.
And one more thing…
Our NCT friends certainly say that OT scripture is ‘profitable’ in teaching us about sin, principles for living, etc. What exactly they mean by that when the OT law has no authority according to them, I’m not really sure.
But…. this verse debunks such thinking because it not only upholds the command, but it upholds the promise behind the command. Thus we see that, far from just building off of the ethical implications, Paul upholds the entirety of the command and the promise. A beautiful thing, IMO, and a verse that alone takes care of the basic premise of NCT.
Yeah, and I don’t know that we grasp the eschatological impact of that passage either. The “land of promise” is extended to include the whole earth. Which opens up a whole millennial can-o-worms.
Actually Paul didn’t clearly do any such thing. Your CT is obviously read into Paul’s words. I was also amused to a certain extent at the way you perceive NCTers and their beliefs. Eph 6:1 does nothing to weaken NCT. Wow, to think people think it does…
On the contrary, the 10 commandments are nothing more than the summary of the OC. They are not an eternal, unchanging law for all time and peoples. They are a specific law God gave to the jews.
When Jesus was asked what the greatest commandment was, he didn’t name a single 1 of the 10 commandments. In fact, he gave 2 that were not part of the 10 commandments. Further, he said that the entire law (including 10 commandments) and prophets hung on these 2 laws. Now, it is impossible for something to be foundational if it hangs from something else. If you still believe the 10 commandments are the moral law for all people and time, then reread the last statement.
If the 10 commandments are the unchanging, revealed law of God, then one cannot simply change its application with a new time. That would make the law changable, the very thing you are arguing that it isn’t. Further, the sabbath law would not have been set aside in the NT like it clearly is (Rom. 14, Heb 4, Col 2, Gal 4). Rich Barcellos wrote a book trying to defend the 10 commandments as the moral law but wound up backpeddling and restating and remaining ambiguous (if not intentionally misleading but I will give him the benefit of the doubt of ignorance over maliciousness).
John Reisinger has demonstrated the folly of the position advocated by CTers.
and also in a book that was a response to Barcellos named “In defense of Jesus, the new lawgiver.”
Paul did clearly say in 2 Cor 3 though that the 10 commandments have no glory and are part of the ministry of death that has been replaced by the ministry of the Spirit.
If you notice, the NT never divides the Mosaic law. That can only be found in the system of CT. I will also state that CTers cannot even agree amongst themselves what is civil, ceremonial and sacrificial. The impossibility of such a task is due to the fact that every law in the OC was each of the three and not just one.
Nathan, it is apparent you do not understand NCT at all. I strongly urge you to study the scriptures and not the system.
The link didn’t work, you will have to cut and paste this:
http://www.soundofgrace.com/jgr/index013.htm
Hi James–
I’m going to briefly address your comment, but let me at least begin by saying that I did not write this post to combat/answer or get into a discussion regarding NCT.
If you’d like to offer your own exegesis of *this text* and how the ‘law’ spoken of in verses 12, 17, etc., is something different than the law spoken of in verse 15, then please do so. For me, however, I strive to allow the text to speak, not my system of theology read back into the text.
Are you arguing that Paul really has these greatest two commandments in mind here? Of course, I agree that these greatest two are the substance of the 10, but I do note here that Paul mentions three of the Ten in this passage, but he does not mention the greatest two here in Romans 2.
I agree with this statement in a sense, in that the greatest two are the utter foundation. However, there is no OT or NT exegetical warrant for separating the greatest two from the Ten. For in Matthew 19, Romans 13, and in James 2, the greatest two are inextricably tied to the Ten Commandments. They cannot be separated without exegetical warrant from scripture. And let me state boldly: I see no exegetical warrant for doing so; I see the opposite.
Better put, they are the best summary of the moral law for all people and time. That is what I believe the scriptures clearly teach.
As I said above, the Ten are the best summary of the moral law of God. Cultures change and thus applications of the commandments slightly differ, not to mention the inaguration of the New Covenant brings about a slight change in how we percieve the commandments, though the substance remains the same. But I’m not going to get into another Sabbath discussion with you. I have already dealt with all of those passages you mentioned, including ‘there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God’. Instead of hashing all of that out again, believing that 9 of the 10 commandments carry over into the New Covenant, which I’m sure and which I hope you do, is enough for the reader to decide who is being theologically and exegetically consistent.
Would you mind if I forwarded this comment to Mr. Barcellos for clarification, and for proof of this claim?
So then can we break any and all of the Ten Commandments, freely and with the approval of God? Your answer to this will show that your position essentially comes down to Paul making an argument in 2 Cor 3 so that one of the 10, a full 10%, is brought to ‘no glory’ and ‘the ministry of death’. Again, let the reader decide who is making sense here.
“I desire mercy and not sacrifice.”
“Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping the commandments of God.”
As we see, Divine scripture, both OT and NT here, divide up the law of God. The system of CT isn’t needed as proof.
James, I freely admit that I do not understand NCT. I say this because there is no confessional history of NCT, there is no denominational structure of NCT (to speak of, yet), and there is no renown publisher of NCT (like Banner of Truth or Reformation Heritage, for example) where the books are widely available and out there for all the world to critique. NCT is an internet and chat room movement, which makes knowing and understanding the variety of positions near impossible.
However, though I admit that I do not fully understand NCT, I am tired of this accusation. For all we know, you don’t know NCT either, because you’ve never quoted any NCT men in our discussions. Next time you lob this grenade at me, please do us all the kindness of actually quoting an NCT teacher so as to prove that there is substance to this accusation.
Again, I didn’t write this post to get into a discussion with the NCT folk…I simply wrote it to point out how Paul uses this same word ‘law’, and how it will judge all men on the last day (CR James 2, which says the same thing).
And, you mention studying a system… well, my friend, this is why I posted this article. You have an opportunity to show from Romans chapter 2 where I am wrong. Because from my standpoint, the text itself and its use of the term ‘the law’, fortify my position, without having to run to other passages to support a system. Thus I would argue that this passage proves that you interpret through a system rather than through solid exegesis.
Hi there –
I came across your post as I was searching for resources on the Mosaic Law, for a day of teaching I am giving on the question of how the Law relates to the Christian.
It really is a very important topic to study and work on. I am encouraged that so many people are doing so!! I was not convinced by your comment that Paul’s allusion to a few of the ten commandments indicates that he affirms them all. That looks like a leap to me….
Anyway, I am still wrestling with the topic, it is extraordinarily complex. I think Id still stand by the paper I wrote on it a few years ago, but I have more questions now…. Check it out at:
http://www.beginningwithmoses.org/articles/sanlon_curseofthelaw.htm
Hi Peter,
Thanks for your comment.
You said:
“I was not convinced by your comment that Paul’s allusion to a few of the ten commandments indicates that he affirms them all. That looks like a leap to me…”
Well, again, the text say what it says, and it says ‘the work of THE LAW’, underlying that at least the substance of the moral OT law is written on the heart. And the ‘leap’ you speak of is simply my observance that we have no warrant in scripture for dividing up the Ten Commandments, God’s covenant law which was engraved on stone in the OT, and on the heart of the believer in the NT.
Thanks for your comments.
Well Nathan, I am not stalking you on here. I just happened to notice the title and thought I would contribute. As for Rich Barcellos, feel free to pass it on. I tried to engage him on his own blog to no avail though. His own misrepresentations and misunderstandings of NCT are legion.
I also realize that your post was not intended to be a back and forth with NCT. Your comments though along with another opened the door for it, so I responded.
I will try to be concise here with my responses.
No, I am not arguing that. You are arguing that the 10 words are the moral law for all people and time. My point was that Jesus did not share the same thought. In fact, he went to 2 commands outside of the 10 and said that they were the greatest. So if anything, Jesus thinks that the moral law for all time and all people are the 2 he said, not the 10 written in stone.
That rules out the 10 from being the foundation then. They are not both foundational when the 10 hang from the 2.
This statement requires a longer response than either of us probably want to deal with at the moment. There is no exegetical warrant for separating the 10 from any of the OC commands. The 10 are just the summary of the OC.
Just so there is no confusion, can you point out exactly which verses you are talking about?
Okay, now we have a different statement from you. Rich Barcellos and other CT thought would say that the 10 ARE the moral law, not just a summary. If they are just a summary, where can we find the entire moral law at?
This goes to show the tension within CT in trying to have it both ways. This is also somewhat comedic to me. You want the law to be the same yet different. The Jews had no such freedom. They had to very strickly obey the covenant in its entire form. They ignored the 7th year rest for the land and it got them in captivity. Hebrews tells us that a change in priesthood requires a change in law. Not a change in the application of it, but a wholesale change in the law itself. So with the introduction of the NC, we have with it a new law.
I do believe that 9 of the 10 have been brought over into the NT. However, I don’t believe they are here for the same reason you do.
Really, this is the only conclusion then? The only conclusion you can think of to Paul calling the 10 words as a ministry of death and having no glory is that you can sin all you want? Come on Nathan, surely you can’t be serious. Paul really did say that and really did advocate holiness. What you need to figure out is how you are to be holy apart from the 10 commandments. Once you learn that, you will understand 2 Cor 3. Until then, you won’t.
Actually, Paul doesn’t limit it to 1 of the words, or 10% as you say. He groups the entire 10 words together as the ministry of death and having no glory. So again, if the 10 words are the greatest expression of God’s law, why does Paul use such language against them? I know the answer, do you?
Nope. In the first example, are you saying that God didn’t want sacrifice? In fact, that verse shows the unity of the law and not its division. It was the Jews who divided the law. They were keeping the sacrifices without the other aspects.
In the second example, Paul is speaking on this side of the cross. Circumcision is nothing because the law had been done away with. By the way, was circumcision moral, civil or ceremonial?
You are correct that there is no confessional history of NCT, unless you include the 2nd LBCF, which NCTers gladly use.
There is no publisher unless you mean Sound of Grace or New Covenant Media.
There are no real known authors unless you mean Don Carson, Douglas Moo, many noncovenantalist but still sovereign grace baptists, John Bunyan, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, and others.
Mmmm, nope. Your familiarity with it is limited to that perhaps.
Right, right. You mean like my first comment in this thread? Where I said:
John Reisinger has demonstrated the folly of the position advocated by CTers.
http://www.soundofgrace.com/jgr/index013.htm
and also in a book that was a response to Barcellos named “In defense of Jesus, the new lawgiver.”
Of course, I don’t sit at Reisinger’s feet, but I do think he gets law/grace right.
This last part, that the 10 words are on the heart of the believer in the NT is what has not been shown to be true.
James—
You are welcome to comment, and I don’t think you are stalking. Rather, I had just hoped that comments would be restricted to the actual content of the post, and maybe some helpful interaction as to what the text actually says.
I don’t have much faith in continued dialogue with you on this subject. You have misunderstood me and misrepresented me just as much or more than you believe I have done the same for your position. My only comments will be to clarify…
That’s actually a good point, but it does not alter what I said. Furthermore, this is also why this argument is ultimately fought in Jeremiah 31 and Hebrews 8 and 10. The beauty of the New Covenant is that this same law, the Covenant Law, is written on our hearts, according to these passages.
CT affirms that additional revelation/enlightenment/teaching is given in the New Testament regarding the law. Remember, as Paul said, “the law is spiritual”, thus we cannot exhaust exposition of it. The Ten words are the foundation and summary of God’s moral law, with both testaments emphasize. Also remember that just as the law is spiritual, we are ‘carnal’, in that our understanding of the law is sinful and finite, compared to God’s understanding/application of it. Needless to say, if you’re looking for the entire ‘moral’ law of God completely exhausted, you cannot capture it all in the NT either.
You confuse a completely new law versus a building up/progression of the old law. And of course, not NCT scholar has even begun to do justice to Jeremiah 31/Heb 8, that I’ve seen. The best they can say is that Jeremiah was using ‘old testament language’, when in fact there is nothing in either text to suggest or warrant such a conclusion. The audience of Jeremiah and the audience of Hebrews would have clearly and immediately understood the 10 commandments when hearing this passage about God writing His covenant law on our hearts. This ‘new law’ you speak of, rather than being new, is simply old testament law applied without the types/figures/ceremonies and Jewish-physical-nation distinction.
So I guess 2 Cor 3 is only speaking of 10% of the law that was ‘a ministry of death’.
The issue in this discussion is answering the question, ‘what is sin for the NT Christian?’, and/or ‘what law is moral?’, and ‘what law is written on the heart of a NT Christian that he will obey?’ I look to the NT and I see in several places, Romans 3, Romans 7, James 2, 1 John 3:4, 1 Tim 1, etc., and we see that the Law defines what is sin. If the 10 are ‘a ministry of death’, like you say, then we are released from any obligation to obey any of them. If we have not been released from the obligation to obey even just one of them, then all 10 of them define sin in this covenant and help guide us in obedience to our gracious God.
Because as a covenant, they certainly are ‘death’, as Paul says in Romans 7. And again, I pose to you, if they are such a ‘ministry of death’, why do you affirm that we have to keep 9 of them, 90% of them? Thus shows that your use of this passage in this argument is irrelevant.
I could give countless examples. No need in doing so here. The point is that we use the terms ‘civil’, ‘ceremonial’, etc., to distinguish between laws given in a particular covenant and laws that are eternal.
Physical circumcision was ceremonial, while spiritual circumcision was and continues to be moral (circumcision of the heart). All of God’s law grounds in a moral foundation, that foundation being the greatest two which are expounded upon (love defined) in the Ten words.
There’s so much more we could both say, but nobody’s going to change their mind here. I will be happy to explain my beliefs, and I invite you to explain yours, but no sense in arguing any more.
And this demonstrates why you cannot divide the law up into categories. The entire law is moral. If we must obey the moral laws, which according to CT are carried over from the OC, and the entire law was moral, then we must still be under the entire law. That the NT treats the law as one unit is obvious from the writings of both James and Paul.
Thus, when I ask you where the rest of the moral law is, since according to you the 10 words are the summary, I get a very vague answer. I actually applaud you from breaking from the traditional reformed baptist position that the 10 word = the moral law, like Rich Barcellos and Sam Waldron try to say. This is progress.
I would like to engage your interpretation of the text in a little bit if you don’t mind and maybe actually talk about that, haha.
James–
I am not aware of any disagreement between myself and Waldron/Barcellos. Maybe it’s just that I’m explaining things differently.
The Law of God equals love, which is defined and expounded in the Ten Words, which are then elaborated further by Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount and then by the Apostles. The righteous requirement has always been -and continues to be- ‘Be holy for I am holy’.
I don’t know of any Reformed Theologian who would argue that we look at the Ten words from a Jewish perspective/OT perspective only. We look at all of God’s law through the lens of the gospel and the New Testament revelation.
Another way of putting it is that the Ten words are the complete and final moral law of God, from God’s perspective, but because of sin and our inability to understand it (rather, our ability to actually think we have the ability to obey them), they are further elaborated on and explained by the New Testament.
And yes, there is plenty warrant for ‘dividing’ up God’s law, as you say. We see this in many places, but first of all with the teaching of the apostles. They abolish the ceremonies but clearly quote the Ten words as authoritative. It’s not that the ceremonies were never ‘moral’, but that they were temporary, and that the righteousness behind them was ultimately rooted in the Ten.
Just read this webpage; thanks to all for the insight, brothers. God will bring our feeble understanding up to speed in His time.
Just a few other verses to us as a blessing from the Holy Spirit:
First up, one straight from Jesus (Matthew 5:17 – 5:20) – “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach THEM, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed THE RIGHTEOUSNESS of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.”
That was from the Author and Finisher of our Faith who then started speaking about most of the 10 commandments – all in one sermon.
Then, Paul, full of the Holy Spirit, says in Romans 3:31, “Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.”
Paul goes on to say in Romans 8:3 and 8:4, “For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.”
In Romans 13:8-10, Paul then says, “Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth one another hath fulfilled the law. For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if THERE BE any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love IS the fulfilling of the law.”
Humble opinion: Denouncing the ten Commandments as the comprehendible basis of a Christian’s relationship to God is a slippery slope. (Of course, THE BASIS of a Christian’s relationship to God is incomprehensible: HIS MERCIFUL LOVE.) We could have only been justified by Christ if He did hold up the Law while on earth; the Law that Jesus spoke of seems, from a commonsensical point-of view, summarized by the ten Commandments. So, if it weren’t for the Law, atonement, as revealed by the Gospel, could not logically exist.
Also, it seems that the ten commandments which are summarized into the two commandments ARE etched on the heart of every human possessing basic cognition. I think one is just in denial if they say they don’t feel guilty for wronging another. And atheists only exist when they can continue running (once in a foxhole, they come around to acknowledging an almighty Creator); therefore, it seems a human recognition of an almighty Creator is innate in the way God created us.
And Matthew Henry cautions from a practical point-of-view, “But even the New Testament will be a killing letter, if shown as a mere system or form, and without dependence on God the Holy Spirit, to give it a quickening power.”
Another borrowed phrase: Just because someone gives you a car does not mean you throw away your bike:)
God – according to you Will – help us love You more!
What makes you believe you happen to be part of the New Covenant? Was that not promised to the house of Israel and the house of Judah? Which house do you belong to?