On the same note (I hope you don’t mind), something that often bothers me: the texts you relate to is translated (old and new testimony). If the mere words were so important, one would surely need a direct approach to the text. As it is, I think that belief is firstly a matter of content and temporary autonomous zones.

I understand why people would prefer not to word things as I did in the first one, but I am convinced that Jesus and Paul both employed these same explicit terms in presenting the gospel –though certainly not every time. There is a different emphasis depending on the audience. Not everybody is from Galatia, or Corinth, or Rome…

In the same way, you write off NCT as novel (when I can point out the language of Irenaeus’ view of the law, which would be NCT) as though that has any merit at all.

NCT predates CT by more than a millenium at the very least.

I was just correcting you for calling NCT novel when it isn’t. I was also further pointing out that you don’t even reject theology that is deemed “novel” since you agree with Luthor.

So again, it was a correction and pointing out how you do not consistently follow your own objection. That was all.

His one act (as Paul says) is his death on the cross.

This cannot be supported logically or exegetically, as Gordan pointed out above. His one ‘act’, as Piper details in the book I referenced above, cannot be separated into categories such as His death on the cross versus His life of obedience to God’s law. His entire life was an act of humility/submission to fulfill what His Father had commissioned Him to do. Ps 40:8/Heb 10 – I come to do your will, O my God; your law is within my heart.”

James said:

You mean vicarious lawkeeping, something that is born out of covenantalism. I embrace the vicarious nature of the atonement, but not lawkeeping…Consider carefully Romans 3 though. The righteousness of God was revealed apart from the law, being witnessed by the law.

Your problem here is that lawkeeping cannot be separated from righteousness or His obedient act. That is, in scripture, righteousness is always defined by the law. Sure, Christ was righteous far more exhaustively than what is detailed in the letter of the Law; but again, it is impossible to distinguish the two.
James said:

You don’t strike me as one who cowers from an honest theological discussion.

Of course I don’t; but I also recognize that we have such differing presuppositions that a discussion on this topic would be fruitless. We have deeper disagreements that would have to be dealt with first. And I don’t want to get into it all. We interpret scripture must differently. I would say you use more of a wooden-literal and/or proof-texting method; I tend to look at it more systematically, with themes and implications playing an important role in things.

James said (a few times):

Your theology dates back a few hundred years.

I find this funny because you first appealed to Luther’s ideas on Justification as being novel to the Catholics, but then you appealed to the church fathers to support your disdain for CT. Which is it? Did the church fathers preach justification by faith just as Luther did? Or was Luther’s doctrine novel? If Luther was novel then the church fathers you appealed to were wrong on the most important issues. If Luther was not novel then you cannot claim him as an example that novel theologies are sometimes accurate.
But CT dates back to the late 1500s if not before (which is more than just a few hundred years). It has stood the test of time, and the test of the best exegetes the world has ever seen. CT’s view on the law is and always has been the by far dominant view of protestant Christianity. Modern dispensationalism (it all its forms, including NCT) has done nothing to unearth any substantial objections to CT, nothing that hasn’t been used (failing to convince) time and time again.

But ultimately, these issues must be determined by exegesis, not church history. And it is because of exegesis –instead of proof texts taken out of context—that I believe CT to be most faithful to scripture.

But, if I may, you are the one above who keeps bringing up the term “covenant of works.” We don’t need to use that label if you’re bothered by it. The Law was given with the promise that the one who does the whole Law would live by it. And then, in Christ’s conversation with the rich young ruler, about what he needed to do to find eternal life, their discussion of the law included Jesus affirming that if the man kept all these, he would live. I think it’s pretty clear that if a man perfectly kept the whole law, there would be no need of salvation by grace, and that man would never die. Only Jesus ever did this, of course. By perfectly keeping His Father’s will in all things, Christ succeeded where Adam failed. Isn’t that kinda the whole thrust of Romans 5, or how do you read it? Adam’s one sin doomed us all: Christ’s perfect obedience conversely saves us.

I beg your forgiveness, then. I thought from what you have written above that you were advancing a New Covenant Theology understanding, in which it is strenuously objected that Christ’s obedience to the Law of God is not counted as our righteousness, but only the “passive” obedience of His sacrifice is. I’ll slink back into obscurity then.