Shepherd the Flock

I am convinced that the methods of communicating the gospel are as chosen and explicit as the content of presenting the gospel. That is, the Bible not only spells out *what* we are to teach/preach to call men to Christ, but *how* we are to call men to Christ as well.

Being faithful to the Word of God and to Christ’s church not only entails a sound doctrinal statement, but it also necessitates a manner, attitude, and method of how that doctrinal statement is proclaimed (and ultimately practiced).

John MacArthur says it very succinctly below:

“The contemporary user-friendly movement…rather than arousing fear of God, attempts to portray Him as fun, jovial, easygoing, lenient, and even permissive. Haughty sinners who ought to approach God in terror are emboldened to presumed upon His grace. Sinners hear nothing of divine wrath. This is as wrong as preaching a rank heresy.” – Ashamed of the Gospel, P63

I ask a few relevant questions here: will our teens take the gospel seriously when their isolated from the rest of the body or taken to the beach on a ‘gospel retreat’? Will our kids take the gospel seriously when it’s chiefly communicated to them through Veggie Tales and coloring books?

Will our adults take the gospel seriously when our leaders live just as materialistically as other successful businessmen? Or when the music and means of the ‘worship’ service are geared specifically to meet their felt needs? What about when our leaders stand up and tell jokes and give practical tips for living? When the church is setup like the stage of the theater rather than a place avoiding anything to take the mind of the worshiper from doing just that, worshiping?

How are men going to lay their life on the line for the gospel when the message is communicated to them in such casual, culturally-saturated methods?

Oh how I agree with Arnold Dallimore, in that we need:

“Men mighty in the scriptures, their lives dominated by a sense of the greatness, the majesty and holiness of God, and their minds and hearts aglow with the great truths of the doctrines of grace…Men who have learned what it is to die to self, to human aims and personal ambitions; men who are willing to be ‘fools for Christ’s sake’, who will bear reproach and falsehood, who will labour and suffer, and whose supreme desire will be, not to gain earth’s accolades, but to win the Master’s approbation when they appear before His awesome judgment seat. They will be men who will preach with broken hearts and tear-filled eyes, and upon whose ministries God will grant an extraordinary effusion of the Holy Spirit, and who will witness ’signs and wonders following’ in the transformation of multitudes of human lives.” – Arnold Dallimore, Whitfield, V1, P16

The subject of miraculous spiritual gifts is certainly a controversial topic in the church today. Do the gifts of miraculous tongues, revelatory prophecy, and healing continue today as they did during the period when the New Testament was written?

I am under the firm persuasion that the miraculous gifts we read of in the book of Acts and 1 Corinthians are *not* normative for the church today, and that these gifts slowly ceased/died out with the completion of the canon of scripture.

There are many reasons why I am convinced that my ‘cessationist’ position is both biblical as well as consistent with experience, some of which I have written about on this blog before.

But there is one chief reason why I am a cessationist; there is one argument for the cessationist position that I consider to be insurmountable: the sovereignty of God.

Though the popular church has largely lost this doctrine in our day, God is absolutely sovereign over the affairs of men. Particularly, He is sovereign in dispensing His saving grace, and in regenerating, justifying, and sanctifying His chosen race. Within the Reformed tradition, which I myself align with, the sovereignty of God is never questioned –as scripture seems to be very clear and explicit in this area. But what baffles me is how some Calvinistic brethren (Wayne Grudem, for example) completely toss out this issue of sovereignty when it comes to the gifts of the Holy Spirit.

If the miraculous gifts were still being granted by the Holy Spirit, then we would not only see them active down through church history (which they weren’t), but we’d see them active in our churches today –and this *despite* the unwillingness of some to admit the gifts continue.

Let me illustrate by giving an example:

John MacArthur pastors a very large church. The gospel is clearly and consistently preached there as it has been for 40 years now. The church is full of thousands of real, solid, Christ-centered Christians who would never grieve the Holy Spirit willingly.

And yet, the gifts of tongues/prophecy/healings are absent from that assembly, as they have been for 40years (and more). Why, in a body of believers that large, would gifts critical to the building up of the church be completely absent?

Of course, non-cessationists will point to the fact that MacArthur is and always has been a firm cessationist, and thus the Spirit doesn’t move when He is ‘quenched’ by unbelief. But I fail to see from scripture where the sin, will, or unbelief of man has ever stopped the sovereignty of God from fulfilling His purposes. And since these gifts are absent from MacArthur’s church and thousands of bible-believing churches like them, we must come to one of two conclusions:

-The church is full of unbelievers devoid of the Spirit.
-The Holy Spirit is not sovereign over the sin/intellect/will of man.

I reject both of these premises, thus I am a cessationist. The Holy Spirit is not hindered from fulfilling His purposes. He is sovereign, man is not. He bestows gifts as He wills; man does not ‘decide’ whether he likes his gift, approves of the practice, or is open to the idea.

Consider this text as I conclude my point:

1 Sam 19:19-24: “Now David fled and escaped, and he came to Samuel at Ramah and told him all that Saul had done to him. And he and Samuel went and lived at Naioth. And it was told Saul, “Behold, David is at Naioth in Ramah.” Then Saul sent messengers to take David, and when they saw the company of the prophets prophesying, and Samuel standing as head over them, the Spirit of God came upon the messengers of Saul, and they also prophesied. When it was told Saul, he sent other messengers, and they also prophesied. And Saul sent messengers again the third time, and they also prophesied. Then he himself went to Ramah and came to the great well that is in Secu. And he asked, “Where are Samuel and David?” And one said, “Behold, they are at Naioth in Ramah.” And he went there to Naioth in Ramah. And the Spirit of God came upon him also, and as he went he prophesied until he came to Naioth in Ramah. And he too stripped off his clothes, and he too prophesied before Samuel and lay naked all that day and all that night. Thus it is said, “Is Saul also among the prophets?””

Here we have Saul, breathing threats and murders on his way to kill the Lord’s servant David, and he and all his messengers are overcome by the Holy Spirit when attempting to follow through with their evil deeds.

The the will/desires/inclinations/sin of man is no match for the sovereignty of God, chiefly, the sovereignty of God the Holy Spirit. If miraculous gifts were still active in the church today, God would be dispensing them broadly and equally throughout the church –despite the doctrinal persuasions or refusal of man to accept them.

That’s why I’m a cessationist.

I’m somewhat partial to the doctrine of church discipline. I see it as absolutely vital to the gospel of Jesus Christ.

I was not converted until the age of 21, but I had grow up all my life in several Baptist churches, one of them a very prominent SBC mega-church I attended 10 years. During these years I walked the aisle, I was baptized at 6, I made purity pledges, went to summer camps, served in various capacities, sang in the choir (oh yes!), faithfully tithed, even re-dedicated my life when I strayed into gross sin. But I was lost the whole time. I was a false convert.

When I was brought to Christ by a Calvinist minister of a tiny church, I began to study scripture in depth and began discovering things I had never heard before. And I still remember the shock I had when I came across Matthew chapter 18 in light of what I had just come out of.

So I became a little bitter. A little angry. Of course God is sovereign over providence and my conversion, but I was furious as to why my gross and at times blatant sin was never challenged in the 15 years I attended church as a professing believer. Maybe, just maybe, if I’d been kicked out of the church years earlier, I might have repented long ago. It took years before the bitterness and anger wore off, but needless to say I still consider church discipline to be one of the most important doctrines of a true church.

On this doctrine I found The Marrow of Theology to speak with wonderful clarity:

“Discipline is usually associated by the best theologians with the word and sacraments in the marks of the church.”

“This discipline is ordained and prescribed by Christ Himself, Matt 16:19; 18:15-17. It is, therefore, plainly of divine right and may not be taken away, diminished, or changed by men at their pleasure.”

“Indeed, he sins against Christ, the author and ordainer, who does not do all he can to establish and promote this discipline in the churches of God.”

“The true reason why the discipline of Christ is solidly constituted and exercised with doctrine in so few churches is because most of those who would seem to know Christ and to hope in Him refuse to receive the whole kingship of Christ and yield themselves completely to Him.”

“As discipline is part of the kingship of Christ, so it is also part of the gospel. For it is the holy manner of promoting the gospel ordained by the gospel itself. Therefore, those who reject discipline accept neither the whole kingship of Christ nor the whole gospel.“

Since my readers are well aware that I’ve spent a significant amount of time discussing the Sabbath Commandment here at Shepherd the Flock, I thought the following article was relevant in answering many of the questions that often come up. Namely: what does New Testament Sabbath keeping look like?

Tim Challies posted an excerpt from Don Whitney (Associate Professor of Biblical Spirituality and Senior Associate Dean at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky) that bears repeating here.

Excellent, excellent thoughts below on the Lord’s Day, taken from the book Simplify Your Spiritual Life:

What’s the first thing that comes to mind when you hear the biblical term Sabbath? Many people, including those familiar with the New Testament, may think first of legalism. That’s because nearly every mention of “Sabbath” in the Gospels has to do with the Pharisees accusing Jesus of violating their manmade rules. God’s original intention, however, was for the Jews to “call the Sabbath a delight” (Isaiah 58:13). He meant for each of them on that day to “delight [themselves] in the Lord” (verse 14). Far from being a day to dread because of its restrictions, God designed the Sabbath to be a delightful day, the best of the week.

If that was true in the Old Testament, how much more should those who know God through Christ and have His Holy Spirit find delight in “the Lord’s day” (Revelation 1:10)?

How do we do this? As I mentioned in the previous chapter, there are differing views on what the Bible teaches about the Lord’s Day. But those rooted deeply in Scripture would agree on at least these two principles (though some would argue for much more): First, our greatest privilege and most important responsibility on the Lord’s day is to worship Him with His people. Not only was the Old Testament Sabbath a day of worship, but we have the apostolic command about “not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together” (Hebrews 10:24). And the apostolic example associated with this command is worship “on the first day of the week” (see Acts 20:7; 1 Corinthians 16:2).

Second, all our activities on Sunday should reflect the fact that it is “the Lord’s day” (over and above the fact that, according to Psalm 118:24, every day is “the day which the Lord has made”). As you would expect, the practical aspects of what this means are very personal and intensely debated. In general, I think it means devoting ourselves to the pursuit of those things that promote the enjoyment of God. This also includes those activities that edify our church and family, extend the kingdom of God, and refresh our souls and bodies.

Years ago I began to delight in the Lord’s Day much more intentionally. One change was to redirect the time I spent watching sports on Sunday afternoons. It wasn’t because I don’t like viewing sports on TV anymore, for I enjoy that as much as ever. Rather, I stopped watching in order to turn to activities that would better restore my soul and recreate my body. People speak of “vegging” in front of the television. Staring at a screen for hours may not make us more tired, but neither does it invigorate us. Unlike taking a nap, a prayer-walk, reading the Bible or other good book alone or with family, or having a time of spiritual fellowship with other believers, we don’t feel refreshed after an afternoon of TV-watching.

Imagine living to age seventy and spending every Lord’s Day in the ways I’ve suggested. You’d experience ten years of worshiping the Lord with His people, reading great literature, playing with your children or grandchildren, taking walks, enjoying fellowship, and taking naps. Does this sound like a burden to you? Most people dream of a life like this. It’s the kind of life you can enjoy when you delight in the Lord’s Day.

Burk Parsons commented the other day that,

“In Chinese house churches a man is examined for the pastorate by investigating the theology, devotion, & life of those he’s discipled.”

I find this to be a very helpful summary of what qualifies a man for the office of pastor/elder, or even of a deacon in the local church.

First we have an examination of a man’s theology. There is nothing so important in the Christian life than what it is we believe. For all of our actions are undergirded and ultimately determined by what it is we believe, particularly in what we believe about the scriptures, the nature of God, and the nature of man.

Secondly, we examine a man’s devotion, that is, his way of living. Does how he live comport with what he professes? Does he walk in the fear of God, obediently? If his theology is sound, then his life will most certainly be sound –otherwise his theology errs, or he is immature in the faith (thus more time/patience is needed until his life comports with his theology).

Lastly, we look at the theology and devotion of those under his charge. Whether it be his wife, children, or those in the local church he teaches/disciples, we examine all of those he has an influence and authority over. Their theology will reveal to us ultimately what his theology is. Their devotion and obedience will demonstrate to us what his devotion and obedience will ultimately look like.

Do you remember the WWJD craze? What Would Jesus Do? Seems as though the fad has pretty much ridden off in the sunset now days (at least the marketing aspect; not the theological one). But I remember it vividly. All the cool Christians had the bracelets, T-shirts, and necklaces. In fact, in many ways it was a matter of pride in middle & high school circles to wear one as a ‘witness’.

But I often think about this saying. At its root, properly understood theologically, it can be a helpful analysis of things. The problem comes when we look at it through our own experience rather than through the record of Jesus in the scriptures. Thus, it is *much* more important to ask, What Did Jesus Say? than to ask what He actually did.

Nevertheless, we do have a record of what He DID. And if we’re to properly ask this question, we’d be wise not to ever go beyond what is written. So what did He do? Well, as I consider this question, I think it’s pretty obvious that He devoted His entire life to two things:

Preaching

&

Prayer

How many of your cool friends were sporting the WWJD stuff back in the day, but weren’t actually doing any preaching or any real praying?

Sadly, we’re probably all right there with them. Not all of us are called to be preachers, but we’re all called to pray without ceasing –something Jesus was always finding time for.

I think, in regards to prayer, this is one time where the ‘WWJD’ question is worth contemplating.

I am currently reading the classic puritan work, The Marrow of Theology, and will be posting little excerpts from it here over the next few weeks. Part 1 can be found here. Feel free to ask for further clarification if needed, for the argumentation in this treatise is all based upon a long, interlinked line of reasoning.

“An idea is man, who attains knowledge by analysis, is brought in from things themselves. Things exist first in themselves and then come into the senses of men and finally to the understanding, where they can form an idea to direct a subsequent operation. But God knows all things by genesis and does not require knowledge through analysis of things; therefore all things are first in His mind before they are in themselves.” -i,vii,15

“In us the things themselves are the pattern and our knowledge is the image of them. But in God the divine knowledge is the pattern and the things themselves are the image or express likeness of it.” -i,vii,16

“An idea in man is first impressed upon him and afterwards expressed in things, but in God it is only expressed, not impressed, because it does not come from anywhere else.” -i,vii,17

“From this one foundation all errors of merit and forseen faith can be sufficiently refuted. For if a particular decree of God depended upon any foresight then an idea of God would have come to Him from somewhere else, which hardly agrees with His nature.” -i,vii,18

“A Middle Knowledge by which God is imagined by some to know by hypothesis before the decree of His will that certain things will be, if such and such free causes meet such and such conditions –knowledge of this kind cannot stand with the absolute perfection of God. For it both supposes that events will happen independently of the will of God and also makes some knowledge of God depend on the object.” -i,vii,28

“Therefore the opinion which holds that God will something antecedent to the acts of a creature and consequent to the acts…is not to be allowed. This makes the will of God mutable and dependent upon the act of the creature, so that as often as the act of the creature is changed God’s will itself is changed.” -i,vii,43

“According to the same opinion, that form of speech prescribed in the word of God whereby we commit ourselves and all of ours to God –I will do this or that, if God wills– is not always to be used: it should be turned around to state that God will do this or that, if man wills.” -i,vii,44

{Here is a brief synopsis of this book for those interested}

I am currently reading the classic puritan work, The Marrow of Theology, and will be posting little excerpts from it here over the next few weeks. Feel free to ask for further clarification if needed, for the argumentation in this treatise is all based upon a long, interlinked line of reasoning.

“[There is nothing] in theology which does not refer to the final end or to the means related to that end -all of which refer directly to practice.” – I, i, 11, P78

“This practice of life is so perfectly reflected in theology that there is no precept or universal truth relevant to living well in domestic economy, morality, political life, or lawmaking which does not rightly pertain to theology.” – I, i, 12, P78

{Here is a brief synopsis of this book for those interested}

“If one is looking primarily for a book of stories designed to teach a moral lesson, the Bible may not be as good as Aesops’ fables. All of the biblical heroes represent sinfulness, disobedience, half-heartedness and pride as well as faith and obedience. The real hero is God, who remains faithful to His promise in spite of human sin. No, moral instruction comes easily to us, but the gospel is not in us by nature; it must be revealed from heaven. This is chiefly why we have the word of God.

“To preach the Bible as ‘the handbook for life’, or as the answer to every question, rather than as revelation of Christ, is to turn the Bible into an entirely different book. This is how the Pharisees approached scripture; however, as we can see clearly from the questions they asked of Jesus, all of them amounting to something akin to Trivial Pursuits: ‘What happens if a person divorces and remarries?’ ‘Why do your disciples pick grain on the Sabbath?’ ‘Who sinned -this man or his parents- that he was born blind?’ For the Pharisees, the scriptures were a source of trivia for life’s dilemmas. To be sure, scripture provides God-centered and divinely-revealed wisdom for life, but if this were its primary objective, Christianity would be a religion of self-improvement by following examples and exhortations, not a religion of the cross.” – Michael Horton: Repentance, Recovery, and Confession, The Formal Papers of The Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals’ Summit, quoted in Spirit Empowered Preaching, by Arturo Azurdia

Although it’s been a few months since I posted some initial thoughts and review of the book, Five Views on Law and Gospel, I’d like to pick the topic back up and, in time, give a full review of this book. Because of the length and depth of the book, my intention is to post a separate review of each author’s position on the subject of Law and Gospel. This is the second of what I hope to be six total sections of reviewing this book.

Thus, in order to properly understand the context of this post, please start with Post 1 before continuing below, as I anticipate that each post to build upon each other.

Aim of this Review
Please understand that I have no intention of fully presenting each author’s point of view. Instead, my aim is to present a basic overview of each man’s position, as I understood it, and then provide some quotes to highlight the strength and weaknesses of each author.

Overview of Willem A. Van Gemeren’s “Reformed” Essay on Law and Gospel
Though I myself adhere to the ‘Reformed’ view on Law and Gospel, I found this essay by Willem A. Van Gemeren to be the weakest in the book. Though I agree with his view on just about every point, I did not find his essay convincing or properly presented for the format of this discussion (which was debate-style, apologetic type book). The essay simply seemed unorganized, broad, with no real progression of argument, and written as if the reading audience was one that was already convinced of his position.

Summary of the Reformed position:
The Reformed position is one that believes there to be continuity between the Old Testament and New Testament Law, with discontinuity only being identified by NT texts. This is in contrast to total discontinuity argued for by Dispensationalism/New Covenant Theology (NCT). The Reformed position divides the Law of God into 3 categories: Moral, Civil, and Ceremonial Law. Moral Law in the Old Testament is not repealed for Christians in the NT. Civil Law, in contrast to Bahnsen’s Theonomic view, has (largely) been repealed by the New Testament/New Covenant. And Ceremonial Law was fulfilled in the appearing, Person, and work of Jesus Christ. These categories are helpful in helping us understand the OT Law in relation to the NT law, but are not categories explicitly used in scripture. In addition to this, the Reformed position sees the 10 commandments as the summary of the ‘moral’ law, and from texts like Romans 2, would argue that this same moral law has been written on the hearts of all men.

Here are some choice quotes to help you understand for yourself what the author presents: [My comments here will be preceded by '--NW']

P15: “…Law and Gospel are not in opposition to each other because Law contains Gospel and the Gospel contains Law. Both Law and Gospel affirm the place of the moral law as a “perfect rule of righteousness.”

p16: “The total witness of the Old and the New Testament has a “basic unity and continuity of the biblical ethic.”

P16: “…the Reformed view of the law of God is the result of integration of exegesis” P16 –NW: On this point I believe the author makes a very important point. Throughout the book it becomes clear that Strickland and Moo, and to some extent Bahnsen, rely on arguments that are largely theology and structurally driven. However, I also saw Van Gemeren’s essay as severely lacking in exegesis as well, but I believe his overall position (which is almost identical to Kaiser’s) is the only one explicitly driven by exegesis of the text rather than an overarching system of theology ruling the interpretation.

P20-21: he argues from the Hebrew that the nouns and verbs that describe Noah being ‘righteous’ and Abraham who “obeyed Me and kept My requirements”, anticipated the revelation at Mount Sinai. In other words, the obedience of these men is described as synonyms of obedience to the Mosaic (moral) Law –thus the moral portion of the Law given to Moses was not something new, a very important point.

P20-21: he argues that the moral law revealed in the Creation order is the same law that Noah and Abraham had ‘internalized’, though unwritten, and that “the written law became necessary because of human sin and hardness of heart.” But “Since the will of God does not change, the law remains virtually the same throughout redemptive history.”

P25: after quoting Psalm 147 and Psalm 19: “Far from looking at the law as a negative experience, saints in the Old Testament rejoiced in this revelation…” Many similar passages/comments are made.

P27: “Moses’ ministry prepared the people for the coming of Christ. Hebrews portrays him as a witness to the coming of Jesus Christ (Heb 3:5)…Moses witnessed through the Torah to the spirituality of the covenant and to the need of a redeemer whose atonement would remove the burden of the law.” –NW: Here is a great section identifying the Christocentric nature of the OT Law, culminating in the following statements, which show that the Law has never been an end or focus itself, but has always had Christ at its center.

P28: “The Mosaic covenant is a development of God’s covenant with creation…and with Abraham…In other words, the Mosaic covenant is a sovereign administration of grace and promise by which the Lord consecrated a people to Himself under the sanctions of His holy law…The Law was never intended to be the focus or the end in itself.”

P29: “The Decalogue…opening provides a constant reminder that the context of law is God’s work of redemption: “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery” (Ex. 20:2)”. Obedience to the commandments is in response to God’s grace in being Israel’s deliverer.” –NW: A good point when we consider all the NT texts which refer to our salvation as ‘redemption’, and other phrases drawing from the imagery of the Exodus from the bondage of Egypt. The people of Israel and their Exodus is a picture of the People of God and the Exodus found through faith in Christ. And the giving of the Law has always been an act of God’s grace; and our obedience has always been first and foremost out of love in response to what God has done for us.

P34: Regarding the concept of love that underlies the Law: “C. Craigie sees rightly law and covenant in the context of love: “The Decalogue was representative of God’s love in that its injunctions, both negative and positive, led not to a restriction of life, but to fullness of life.”

P34: “Obedience to the law always begins with a heart that fears the Lord…” And he goes on to examine several Old Testament texts such as Prov 3:5-7, Psalm 15 and 24, Isa. 57:15 and 66:1-2, Mic. 6:8, Hos 6:6 and Zech 8:16-17, to demonstrate that obedience to God’s law, even OT law, always entails heart obedience rather than just outward obedience.

P36: “The Ten commandments, as a summary of the moral law, are a guide in the imitation of God. By the Spirit the letter becomes alive and powerful within the hearts of the godly.”

P38: “Jesus gave a stricter observance of external concerns than the rabbis. He rejected the mere observance of external concerns and complacency with tradition…He abrogated not one commandment but instead intensified them all.” –NW: Furthermore, the entire New Testament intensifies the commandments. The New Testament opens them up, expands them in revealing their true nature, builds principles/inferences upon them, and presses them home at the root level of the heart. This is much different than the replacement idea of a ‘new’ law that is argued for by Dispensationalism/NCT.

P38: quoting John Murray: “…Jesus came to realize the full measure of the intent and purpose of the law and the prophets…to bring to full fruition and perfect fulfillment the law and the prophets.”p39: “…Jesus simplified the complexity of the Mosaic law by focusing on one word (“love”)…Because He is greater than Moses…He authoritatively summarized the moral law of God in two commandments…”

P42: “…I agree with Ladd when he says, “more than once he [the apostle Paul] asserts that it is the new life of the Spirit that enables the Christian truly to fulfill the Law (Rom. 8:3-4; 13:10; Gal. 5:14).

P45: Quoting E.F. Kevan: “Any change in relation to Law that occurs in Christianity is not in the Law but in the believer…To say that Christian conduct is now governed by holy principles is…incorrect…if it meant that any withdrawal or modification of the Law.”

P45: Discussing the need and relevance of the Law: “Sin and rebelliousness keep humans from reflecting the divine perfections and from understanding the moral law as revealed in creation….The Law at Mount Sinai made much more explicit the moral law and supplemented the moral law with ceremonial and judicial regulations.”

P48: “The Mosaic administration by itself is incomplete but has an eschatological and Christological focus.”

P51: “The law is “the heart and core of Scripture” (quoting Hesselink on Calvin). “…the prophets and psalmists, apostles and Christ Himself are all nothing but expounders and interpreters of the law.” –NW: Again, Christ and the NT authors expound and interpret the Law; they never replace it.

P51: The law…”used to be a pedagogue…but now that Christ has come, He is the focus, the perfection, the complement, the fulfillment of the law…whatever perfections the law has, they reveal Christ.” –NW: Again, the Christocentric nature of the OT Law clearly continues on, as Christ continues on. To replace the OT Law is to annul its Christocentric nature.

P51: Quoting Hesselink, “The whole of the law then -not only the covenant but also its promises, threats, rules and regulations, sacrifices and ceremonies- finds its meaning in Christ who is its life, soul, spirit, substance, fulfillment and goal.”

P52: “What then is the power of the moral law since the outpouring of the Holy Spirit? Negatively, it no longer has the power to bind (Rom 7:6; Matt 5:17) or condemn us…by its teachings, admonishments, reproofs, and corrections, the law is the instrument of growth in faith and sanctification (2 Tim 3:16-17).

P53: “The moral law is summarized in the Ten Commandments and was supplemented by the ceremonial and judicial laws.”

P53: “The moral law is the rule of perfect righteousness.” –NW: This is supplemented by Jesus and the Apostles as well (Matt 19:16).

P54: “These commandments (Ten) put our love for God to the test, because it is all too easy to assume to one’s relationship with God is good.”

P55: “Berkouwer express it pointedly, “There is no difference between Christian liberty and being ‘under the law of Christ.’”

Here are some excerpts of Greg Bahnsen’s reply to this essay:

P59: “Our hearts surely beat in tune with the recurring and tender not throughout Dr. VanGemeren’s essay that Sprit-given understanding of the Law of God serves to magnify our need and love for the gospel of God’s grace in Christ.”

P61: “The task of critically analyzing VanGemeren’s essay…however, is made almost impossible by his manner of presentation. To go right to the point: there is simply nothing like an argument here -no discursive and systematic unfolding of a particular and clearly defined conclusion (or interrelated set of conclusions)…It is sometimes not easy to find natural transitions, logical connections or subordination between points, interfacing of of interpretations of texts, conceptual synthesis, or precision.”

P64: “…the judicial code is simply the application of the Decalogue (and thus an unpacking of its meaning).” –NW: With this I agree, though I do not see how his argument for Theonomy then follows from this premise. (More on this when we get to Bahnsen’s essay.)

P65: “…when God’s people get embroiled in moral dilemmas, they desire more inspired law (guidance), not less. It is surely no blessing to be left only with broad generalities: e.g., see how many people are blessed and happy by trying to play a basketball game under the single rule of ‘play fair’.” –NW: A very poignant reminder that all forms of antinomianism down through history have lead to eventual shipwreck.

P65: “In the teaching of Jesus (as well as of Paul), love does not replace the law (or its complexity then), but provides a summary statement. A summary does not abrogate that which it summarizes.”

P67: “The judicial law was not…’abrogated’…what was binding in the judicial laws was not their specific cultural form, but their underlying principle or purpose.” –NW: Here Bahnsen simply disagrees with the statements made by VanGermeren that the judicial laws have been abrogated. I think Bahnsen makes a great point, but again, I do not see how his position then follows; this is something I will expand upon when we get to his presentation.

Here are some excerpts of Walter Kaiser’s reply to this essay:

P70: “The covenant of Grace is divided into two ‘administrations’: Law and Gospel, even though neither administration is devoid of either Law or Gospel, since Law contains the Gospel and Gospel contains the Law.”

P70: “The focus of biblical ethics remains very much the same for both Old and New Testaments…It is the call for holiness of life. Since God is holy, His moral law is holy.”

P71: “Following the lead of Calvin, VanGemeren argues for the existence of a moral order in creation prior to the publication of the will of God in the Mosaic covenant…This natural law reveals both the will of God and His attributes. It is for this reason that the human race was accountable to the same standard of righteousness even prior to the publication of the law of God under Moses…I find this to be an especially strong argument.”

P72: Discussing apparent contradictions in statements of the Apostle Paul, “…the Christian belongs to the new creation of God and therefore may use the law of God only as it is internalized by the Holy Spirit in producing righteousness and in creating a new community that fulfills the law of love. This is not to argue for some new replacement theology wherein the Spirit now replaces the law, but it is to recognize the key role that the Holy Spirit plays in transforming us to apply the moral law of God.”

P75: Discussing the third use of the law, Kaiser says, “This third use of the law guides believers in righteousness, provides a basis for obedience, yet does so without enslaving any who are so bound to this, which may now also be called the “law of Christ”.

P75: “God’s law can only be kept by His grace. Moreover, as VanGemeren concludes, it may only be appreciated in light of the gospel of Jesus Christ and kept by the power of the Holy Spirit –all this is true for either Testament!”

Here are some excerpts of Wayne Strickland’s reply to this essay:

Strickland focuses on some details like some NT commands that aren’t found in the Old, or that contradict the Old, like marriage to non-Jews (P79).

P80: commenting on Heb 8:6, “…there has been an abrogation of the entire Mosaic law with the coming of Christ…”

P80: “…it is not the moral law of the Mosaic code that the Holy Spirit employs to supervise the believer; rather, it is the law of Christ that is made imperative by the Spirit.” –NW: Note, throughout the book, neither Strickland nor Moo ever really define this ‘law of Christ’, other than implying that it only contains what is repeated in the New Testament alone. Very ambiguous.

P81: Strickland mentions that the Sabbath commandment ‘provides a mechanism for testing the accuracy and coherency of the Reformed paradigm with regard to the applicability of the law in ethics.” –NW: This is an fairly accurate observation, but it fails to recognize the greater implications of the differences between the Reformed and Dispensational/NCT position. The Sabbath is often seen as the crux, but it is the overall hermenutic that has greater (often unseen on the surface) and more serious implications.

P81: Strickland then goes on to argue that the Sabbath was never a creation ordinance, that it has been abrogated in the NT, that it has not changed to Sunday, thus the authority of the entire Decalogue is undermined. –NW: Weak arguments that fail to account for the development and support of the Sabbath in the New Testament, not to mention the explicit upholding of the Decalogue in the New Testament. But this is surprisingly one of the only times in the book the Sabbath comes up, so I will not deal with it here.

P82: “…submission and obedience must be to the law of Christ rather than to the law of Moses.” –NW: A very misleading statement, for Reformed theologians would agree that Moses is not our head or our teacher. We would argue that the ‘law of Christ’ has the Law of Moses as its foundation and support. Just like the ‘Israel of God’ is not an entirely new creation, but a starting with ethnic Isreal and then expanding to all the nations, the Law of God starts with Israel as its foundation and is opened up by Jesus and the Apostles to reach its true meanining/intention.

Here are some excerpts of Doug Moo’s reply to this essay:

P83: “I commend VanGemeren for insisting on the clear and unchanging standards of God’s moral law.”

P85: “I want to make clear that I am not denying that the Mosaic law, especially the Ten Commandments, contains principles and requirements that reflect God’s eternal moral will. My point, rather, is that the Mosaic law is not identical with this eternal moral law.” –NW: Reformed theologians would agree that the 10 are not exhaustive of the moral law, but is rather how God/scripture summarizes the essence of the moral law, but would disagree that the Ten are (ultimately) subjective/optional principles, retaining instead their status as commands.

P85: “What is the evidence for treating the Ten Commandments as eternal moral law in distinction from the rest of the Mosaic Law? VanGemeren provides little. He notes that these ‘ten words’ are apodictic in form, expressing therefore principles upon which the rest of the law is built.” –NW: He is right in that Van Gemeren provides little justification of this, but he would be wrong in assuming that this Biblical justification does not exist.

P85: Commenting on Col. 2:14: “Clearly…Paul would not be thinking only of sins committed against the ceremonial law; he must be thinking of the Mosaic law as a whole.” –NW: Of course, but this fails to grasp the Reformed position, and deal properly with the issue of obedience/sanctification of the law, rather than simply justification only. This error by Moo and Strickland can be seen throughout.

P86: “Paul claims explicitly that Christians, led by the Spirit and subject to the ‘law of Christ’…are not ‘under law’ (the Mosaic law).” –NW: A shallow dealing with Paul’s argument, what Paul means by ‘law of Christ’, and how not being ‘under law’ means the Mosaic law only. Too many questions/contradictions not dealt with here.

P87: “There is no evidence that Jesus isolated the Ten Commandments from the rest of the Mosaic law and put them in a separate category.” –NW: One wonders how Moo can say this considering the most famous and far-reaching sermon of all time, the Sermon on the Mount, not to mention Matthew 19…etc.

P87: commenting on Mark 7 where Jesus declares all foods clean, “…Mark is telling us that Jesus teaches that His followers need no longer obey large sections of the Mosaic law. I am not necessarily claiming that this means that we, as new covenant believers, no longer obey the law in the form it was originally given; we are not directly under its authority.” –NW: We are not under the Old Covenant, but the Old Covenant Law is the foundation upon which the New Covenant is built and sustained.

P87: “It is only as we look at the way that Jesus and the writers of the New Testament treat the commandments of the Mosaic law that we can know which ones continue to apply directly to us and which ones no longer do.” –NW: This is as close as he gets to defining this ‘law of Christ’. However, Moo makes a great point here; the NT and the Spirit teach us how to interpret, apply, and divide the OT Law.

P88: “…(Christ) is the ‘filter’ through which the whole law must go…”

P88: “…worshiping on the first day of the week is not what the fourth commandment requires: It explicitly requires cessation of work on the seventh day.” –NW: Clearly Moo misses the point of the command, and fails to account for the full, biblical development of the 4th commandment (which continues on into eternity…thus it is a moral issue; a baffling oversight on his part), particularly in what we see in Isaiah 58, etc.

P88: Just like Strickland, Moo argues that the Sabbath commandment is the “crucial ‘test case’, suggesting that the Ten Commandments, in their Mosaic form, were not intended by God to be eternally binding on all people everywhere.” –NW: This, like Strickland, fails to see the greater implications of the disagreement.

P89: Speaking of the other 9 commandments (minus the Sabbath), “They are binding on us not because they are in the Ten Commandments but because the New Testament makes clear that they are expressions of God’s eternal moral law.” –NW: One is left wondering how such a position can be consistently maintained and applied. This example shows why Moo is repeatedly the most ambiguous and subjective of all the participants in the book.

P89: “…Christians live under the ‘law of Christ’ and not under the Mosaic law.” –NW: The crux of the matter here is that Moo (as we will see) argues for a form of Replacement theology that exegesis simply cannot support.

That is certainly more than enough for this portion. Next I will attempt to review Greg Bahnsen’s Theonomic position, which I hope will be a much shorter post.