-
Question: Do you deny God's moral law?
-
Charles: There's no possibly way
-
if you put Christ as your standard,
-
there's no way you could be
-
denying the moral law,
-
because He is the highest revelation
-
of the moral law that there is.
-
The only explanation that I could have
-
for why that would be misunderstood
-
is that people so revere
-
their reformed tradition
-
and the things that they've been taught
-
that they don't listen to
what's actually being said.
-
In fact, a lot of times,
-
they're not even willing to listen at all
-
because they have in their mind:
-
this must be heresy.
-
I've had similar things in my own life
-
whenever I was a new Christian.
-
I'd hear some term and I'd think
-
that must be the worst heresy around.
-
I'd find out ten years
later that it was true.
-
I think that's probably the reason.
-
People don't allow themselves to listen.
-
Interview of Charles Leiter on
"The Law of Christ."
-
Question: Why is the
topic of the law of Christ
-
important to understand?
-
Charles: Well, first of all,
-
Paul says in 1 Corinthians 9,
-
he says speaking of the Jews,
-
he says to the Jews I became as a Jew,
-
to those who under
the law as under the law.
-
And then he immediately says
-
though not being myself under the law.
-
So he's saying that he's not under
-
the Law of Moses.
-
And then he goes on and he says
-
concerning the Gentiles,
-
to those who are without law -
-
that is, those without the Bible,
-
without the law of Moses,
-
I became as one without law.
-
So immediately you have the thought,
-
well, he became as one without law.
-
Did he just become totally lawless?
-
Immoral?
-
And he immediately corrects that.
-
He says though not without the law of God,
-
but under the law or in law to Christ.
-
So he mentions that his standard there
-
is the law of Christ.
-
Another question comes up for Christians.
-
You'd have the question
of what is my standard?
-
What is my rule of duty?
-
And Paul immediately
says it's the law of Christ.
-
And so the question comes up,
-
what is the law of Christ?
-
And why haven't we been taught
-
about the law of Christ?
-
Can I articulate what's
the really big things
-
for me to keep in mind as a Christian?
-
What is the standard
-
that the Lord Jesus Himself put forth
-
as being the ultimate thing
for me to remember?
-
The guideposts?
-
So, immediately we're faced
with that question -
-
the law of Christ.
-
This works itself out in many areas.
-
He said to those who are under the law,
-
I became like one under the law.
-
(incomplete thought)
-
We even find him in the book of Acts
-
taking a vow and shaving his head,
-
so he's trying to reach the Jews
-
who are under the law,
-
but he says though not being myself
-
under the law.
-
So that was something he voluntarily did,
-
but it was not required of him.
-
So, a lot of questions begin to come up.
-
And as soon as you become a Christian,
-
you face this question of:
-
how do I understand the Old Testament?
-
I see these verses about homosexuality
-
as an abomination to God,
-
but then there's another verse that says
-
eating pork is an abomination to God.
-
And how am I to sort through all this?
-
Tattoos - tattoos are mentioned.
-
But right next to the verse about tattoos
-
is "you shall not harm
the edges of your beard."
-
So shaving your beard...
-
So it's a very practical thing.
-
How do Christians relate
to the law of Moses?
-
How do we sort through all that?
-
So these are things that
the book deals with.
-
What is the law of Christ?
-
What is the Christian's relationship
-
to the law of Moses?
-
How are we to understand all that?
-
They're very practical issues.
-
I might just say a little bit more.
-
Some people, they have the idea
-
that the ceremonial
laws as they're called,
-
as we call them now as Christians,
-
they have the idea that those
-
are sort of like health food laws from God
-
or health laws from God.
-
And they kind of have
in the back of their mind,
-
well, it's bad for you to
eat pork, for example.
-
And some people don't eat pork.
-
And they kind of have in
their mind that that's biblical.
-
That's more biblical if I
don't eat pork than if I do.
-
So there's divisions that
come up between Christians.
-
And those can be more or
less extreme depending.
-
All of those things are
very practical issues.
-
It keeps on going clear into areas
-
of Christians being involved in war
-
and there's all kinds of
questions that come up
-
about God commanding Samuel
-
to hew Agag to pieces.
-
And commanding the children of Israel
-
to spare neither man, woman, or child.
-
All of those things we have to try
-
to begin to work through
-
when you become a Christian.
-
So it's a very practical area.
-
Question: What would your response be
-
to those who might accuse you
-
based upon the teachings in the book
-
that you deny God's moral law?
-
Charles: Well, of course, the statement
-
that you've denied God's moral law,
-
that comes from the idea
-
that the Ten Commandments
-
are the moral law of God.
-
And of course, in the book
-
what I'm presenting is that Christ
-
is our standard;
-
that He represents a much higher standard
-
than the Ten Commandments.
-
We can see that in several areas.
-
For example, the Ten Commandments say,
-
"you shall not commit adultery,"
-
but yet men were allowed
to marry multiple wives.
-
King David had multiple wives.
-
Solomon not only had multiple
wives but concubines.
-
And that was not considered adultery,
-
but when David committed
adultery with Bathsheba,
-
that was treated in an
entirely different way.
-
It was totally different than
him taking multiple wives.
-
So, what that means is that the definition
-
even of adultery under
the Ten Commandments
-
was a looser definition - more permissive,
-
not as high of a standard
-
as we have in the New Testament.
-
Also, the Ten Commandments acknowledged
-
or recognized the validity of slavery.
-
And if we look at the kind of slavery,
-
the standards of slavery;
-
that God gave those different
regulations of slavery
-
in the Mosaic law,
-
one of the examples is that you could
-
beat your slave.
-
If he lived longer than 3 days,
-
then there wasn't guilt
associated with that.
-
Well, that's a much lower standard
-
than to love others as Christ loved us.
-
And so, it's not to say
-
that the law of Moses was imperfect
-
in any way.
-
There was not one dot in the law of Moses
-
that was not perfect.
-
It was exactly right for the
situation that it was in.
-
But it's the same way with the commandment
-
about divorce.
-
Jesus said because of the
hardness of your heart,
-
Moses permitted that.
-
The law of Moses had that written in,
-
and it was basically a
protection of women.
-
There were many things like that
-
where God in giving these laws,
-
they were wonderful laws.
-
No other nation had such laws
-
as the nation of Israel.
-
And God says they'll look at you
-
and they'll see what a wise
-
and discerning people
-
and what great laws God has given you.
-
And that was true.
-
And all you have to do is compare
-
the law of Moses with
the code of Hammurabi
-
and you can see how superior it was.
-
But God was dealing with them
-
on the level that they were in some way.
-
And He's pulling people
up out of a culture
-
that's totally corrupt
-
and preparing them more and more
-
for the coming of the Messiah.
-
(Incomplete thought)
-
If you say the Ten Commandments
-
are the moral law,
-
then what that means is
-
there's nothing higher than this.
-
This is the highest thing there is.
-
So what it means is there can be
-
no greater revelation of man's duty
-
than what we see in the Ten Commandments.
-
And the life of the Lord Jesus
-
and His commandments
-
and the commandments of the apostles -
-
all those things are simply viewed
-
as footnotes to the Ten Commandments.
-
And so if you read a
lot of reformed theology,
-
there's hundreds of pages
-
written on the Ten Commandments
-
trying to show that all the commandments
-
of the New Testament
-
are really there in the Ten Commandments.
-
But if you look at, for example,
-
"you shall not commit adultery,"
-
that's a much lower standard
-
than, "husbands, love your wives
-
as Christ loved the church."
-
We have a much higher revelation
-
of duty and of law.
-
Law in an expression of
the character of God.
-
And so it spells out for us
-
what our standard is to be.
-
The standard of loving your wife
-
as Christ loved the church
-
is a much higher standard,
-
and it gives us a clearer picture
-
of God's character than what you would see
-
in the negative commandment:
-
"you shall not commit adultery."
-
I don't know, maybe there's more
-
that I could say on this.
-
Here's another problem.
-
First of all, the Bible does not
-
divide the law into parts.
-
It doesn't divide it into the civil,
-
the ceremonial, and the moral.
-
That's something that basically
-
the reformers followed Aquinas in that.
-
And it's a helpful
distinction for Christians
-
because as Christians,
-
we can look back and we can
-
pretty much sort out,
-
this is ceremonial,
-
this is civil.
-
For example, a civil commandment
-
would be what type of penalty
-
is attached to adultery.
-
Well, the death penalty
was attached to it.
-
That's a civil thing.
-
Ceremonial - well, circumcision.
-
But the problem is,
-
how is that I know that circumcision
-
is a ceremonial law?
-
Well, I know it because Paul says
-
in the New Testament
-
circumcision is nothing.
-
And no Jew would have ever said
-
circumcision is nothing.
-
In fact, if you wouldn't be circumcised,
-
you'd be cut off from Israel.
-
And Moses just about died
-
because he delayed circumcision.
-
His wife didn't like that idea.
-
And you can see why.
-
It's a bloody thing.
-
But this was the sign of the
covenant with Abraham.
-
And to break that commandment
-
was very serious.
-
They would never have said
-
this is just a light thing; it's nothing.
-
And Paul says it's nothing.
-
So when you say, well,
-
why does a civil/ceremonial/
moral distinction
-
work as well as it does?
-
Well, the reason it works
as well as it does
-
is that as Christians,
-
we have that perspective
-
and we can look back
-
and look at those things through the lens
-
of the New Testament.
-
That's the first point.
-
Those distinctions are not made.
-
So when Paul talks about the law,
-
for example, he almost always has in mind
-
the Mosaic covenant;
-
the old covenant.
-
For example, he says,
-
the law entered that sin might increase.
-
Or he says until the law,
-
sin was in the world.
-
Death reigned from Adam to Moses.
-
That's when he's talking about
-
the giving of the law on Mt. Sinai.
-
So, law is viewed as a unit -
-
the Mosaic law, the Mosaic covenant.
-
So when Paul says we're not under law,
-
he means that whole thing.
-
And when you get the
civil/ceremonial/moral
-
distinction in your mind
-
and you practice it a little bit,
-
you find yourself unconsciously
-
reading into it.
-
For example, "sin shall not
have dominion over you,
-
for you're not under
the law, but under grace."
-
And people read into it
immediately in their mind.
-
Well, I'm not under the
condemnation of the law.
-
I'm not under the ceremonial law.
-
They'll read something like that into it,
-
but Paul does not do that.
-
In fact, he immediately says, what then?
-
Shall we sin because we're
not under the law?
-
So he's thinking of moral things there.
-
And he's thinking of the whole thing.
-
So there's never this
division that we make.
-
All the law is viewed as a unit.
-
So, there's all kinds of things wrong
-
with the idea that you divide it all up.
-
And the biggest thing wrong with it
-
is that some commandments,
-
we can't figure out whether they're
-
partly moral or partly ceremonial
-
or partly civil.
-
There's a mixture.
-
And back on the Ten Commandments,
-
if you say they are the moral law,
-
then what you're saying is
-
these are the ten greatest,
-
most important things for all mankind.
-
They're binding on the
Gentiles as well as the Jews
-
for all time.
-
So these are the big things.
-
Well, concerning Sabbath keeping,
-
right now, for example, I myself
-
do not believe that the 4th commandment
-
is enjoined upon Christians
-
and somehow now we keep the Sabbath
-
on a different day even though
-
there's no commandment to do that,
-
and that we don't keep it
-
the same way that the Jews did
-
even though there's no
commandment about that.
-
You know, all these things
have to be added in.
-
Well, if I don't believe that way;
-
if I don't "keep" the Sabbath,
-
and this is on par with adultery
-
or stealing or murder,
-
then you can't say this
is a Romans 14 issue
-
or you're welcome to be in our church
-
or whatever even though
we don't believe that.
-
What you have to say is
is that you're not a Christian.
-
Just as we would say if a man
-
was an adulterer or a murderer,
-
and he continued on in that
-
in an unrepentant state.
-
So, it's a very inconsistent position
-
to say this is the moral law,
-
and then to say, well, we differ on this,
-
but you can be part of our church.
-
It's one way or the other.
-
You can't have it be sort of a moral law.
-
So the problem with that is that
-
there are many inconsistencies in that.
-
Question: So as far as those who say
-
that you deny God's moral law?
-
Charles: There's no possible way.
-
If you put Christ as your standard,
-
there's no way you could be denying
-
the moral law.
-
Because He is the highest revelation
-
of moral law that there is.
-
Usually what they're thinking there
-
is that you don't believe
-
that the Christian is under
the 4th commandment
-
of the Decalogue.
-
And I would say that the Christian
-
is not under any of the commandments
-
of the Decalogue.
-
We fulfill all those and far beyond.
-
If you love your wife as
Christ loved the church,
-
you're doing far more than:
-
"Thou shalt not commit adultery."
-
All those things - even the
Sabbath commandment
-
the Christian fulfills in
its deepest meaning
-
which had to do with resting in Christ
-
and ceasing from our own works and so on.
-
We don't deny any of the moral law.
-
That's never an issue.
-
If you had a group of people
-
that were just like Christ,
-
you wouldn't have to worry about
-
any of them denying the moral law.
-
They would be perfect fulfillments of it.
-
But even in the Lord's life,
-
He broke the Sabbath on some occasions.
-
So, I can talk about a little if you want.
-
I don't know if you had
another question on that,
-
or if I've said enough on this.
-
Question: So what is the most
-
misunderstood aspect of your position
-
and could you clarify on it
-
and why is it misunderstood?
-
Charles: I think probably
-
the most misunderstood aspect
-
would be for people to have in their head
-
that somehow I'm saying that holiness
-
is not necessary for a Christian;
-
that a Christian shouldn't be concerned
-
about holiness.
-
And of course, I'm saying
the opposite throughout,
-
that Christ is the higher standard,
-
and that the Christian
should be like Christ.
-
The only explanation that I could have
-
for why that would be misunderstood
-
is that people so revere
-
their reformed tradition
-
and the things that they've been taught
-
that they don't listen to
what's actually being said.
-
In fact, a lot of times, they're not even
-
willing to listen at all
-
because they have in their mind:
-
this must be heresy.
-
I've had similar things in my own life
-
whenever I was a new Christian,
-
I'd hear some term and I'd think
-
that must be the worst heresy around.
-
I'd find out ten years
later that it was true.
-
And so I think that's probably the reason
-
that people don't allow
themselves to listen.
-
In fact, they either would not
make it through a sermon,
-
really give it an opportunity to hear
-
what's being said,
-
or they wouldn't make it through the book.
-
They'd put it down.
-
They didn't like to even
think about that possibility.
-
In my own testimony,
-
I'd been a Christian for over 20 years.
-
I look back at this as to the time
-
where the transition really took place,
-
and it had been over 20 years
that I'd been a Christian,
-
and a lot of the things
-
that began to make me change my mind
-
were things that I already knew,
-
but it was like they hadn't
-
had their full impact in my life.
-
(Incomplete thought)
-
The situation where
things began to change,
-
I was speaking through the Gospel of John
-
in a series and I got to John 5
-
and the verses about how Jesus
-
was breaking the Sabbath
-
and how He defended His position:
-
"My Father works until now and I work."
-
And in the course of that,
-
I began teaching the people
-
the different views and so on
-
and it began to dawn on me
-
that the early church specifically said
-
we do not keep the Sabbath.
-
And the fact was that they worshiped
-
early in the morning -
-
the Gentile converts worshiped
early in the morning.
-
And of course, when they said,
-
we don't keep the Sabbath,
they meant Saturday.
-
We're not resting on Saturday.
-
But the Lord's Day - they said
The Lord's Day we give to joy.
-
So they worshiped early in the morning,
-
and then they went to work all day.
-
And sometimes they met again at night.
-
So what other commandment would there be
-
where we would say, well, you know,
-
a man's got to do what a man's got to do?
-
You've got to break one of the ten
-
greatest moral laws of God
-
because otherwise you'll get in trouble
-
with your boss or whatever.
-
No one would ever say that,
-
and yet they went to
work on the Lord's Day.
-
And so that began to dawn on me.
-
John 5 there also where it says
-
for this cause, the Jews were seeking
-
all the more to kill Him
-
because He not only
was breaking the Sabbath,
-
but was calling God His own Father
-
making Himself equal with God.
-
One time I had a discussion
-
with some Jehovah's Witnesses.
-
And I brought up that passage.
-
He was calling God His own Father,
-
making Himself equal with God.
-
They said well that was
what the Jews said;
-
that's not what He was actually doing.
-
And I pointed out, no, this is
what John said He was doing.
-
That He was calling God His own Father,
-
making Himself equal with God.
-
And later it dawned on me
-
that it was also John who was saying
-
He was breaking the Sabbath.
-
So what about this thing of Jesus
-
breaking the Sabbath?
-
That was very difficult for me to accept
-
because I always had in my mind
-
that He kept the Mosaic law
-
in the letter of the Mosaic law.
-
And I began to see that
actually He broke it a lot.
-
But He broke it in a way -
-
not of someone who is less than,
-
but someone who is sailing over it;
-
He's magisterial in His approach.
-
So He's touching lepers.
-
You're not supposed to touch a leper.
-
He touches them and instead
of Him becoming unclean,
-
they become clean.
-
And it's just glorious stuff.
-
They come and they say
-
why are Your disciples
doing what's not lawful
-
on the Sabbath?
-
And He doesn't say it is lawful.
-
He says don't you see the priests
-
in the temple, they break the Sabbath
-
in order to serve the temple.
-
What's that mean?
-
Well, they're in there working
-
and slaving away on the Sabbath.
-
But then He says,
-
something greater than the temple is here.
-
So He's saying My disciples
-
are breaking the Sabbath
in their service to Me,
-
but I'm so much higher than the temple
-
that the Sabbath takes subservience to Me.
-
And then He goes and says the Son of Man
-
is Lord even of the Sabbath.
-
And so, He was breaking the Sabbath.
-
They were breaking the Sabbath.
-
But He was keeping on the highest level,
-
He was keeping love to God
-
and love to your fellow man.
-
And those two commandments
-
are sufficient to totally fulfill
-
man's obligation to God.
-
A certain scribe came to Jesus and said
-
what must I do to have eternal life?
-
If you want to lay out the highest,
-
if you want to talk about moral law,
-
and the highest standard imaginable,
-
(Incomplete thought).
-
Jesus said what do you read in the law?
-
What's it say? How does it read to you?
-
And this guy must have been brilliant.
-
He said well, two things -
-
love God with all your heart,
soul, mind, and strength,
-
and love your neighbor as yourself.
-
And Jesus didn't say, well, no,
-
there's a lot more than that.
-
You've got 613 commandments.
-
He said you've answered correctly.
-
You do those two things
-
and you'll have eternal life.
-
"Do this and you shall live,"
-
and He quotes from Leviticus.
-
And that's what Jesus did.
-
And that's how He earned,
-
merited righteousness for us.
-
And Romans 5, we receive
-
the gift of righteousness.
-
It's His righteousness.
-
Our sins are imputed to Him.
-
He gets the curse that we deserve.
-
His righteousness,
-
His perfect fulfillment of the law,
-
His merit is imputed to us
-
and we get the blessing that He deserves.
-
I kind of like to think
of it like a time card.
-
You know Paul says not having
-
a righteousness of my own
derived from the law.
-
Well, there's the idea that
if you keep the law,
-
it will be righteousness unto you,
-
and you'll live because
of that righteousness.
-
In other words, you fulfill it perfectly,
-
you get its reward.
-
He that does those things shall live.
-
And Paul says I don't have
any righteousness of my own.
-
But Christ did have righteousness.
-
He perfectly fulfilled everything.
-
And so He made Him to be sin for us
-
who knew no sin,
-
that we might be made the
righteousness of God in Him.
-
And when you think of a time card,
-
you go in every day,
-
you punch your card.
-
At the end of the week,
you've got this card
-
that has all these times on there.
-
You fulfill your time.
-
You put in your time.
-
You're entitled to a reward.
-
And that's what Christ
gives us is His time card;
-
His righteousness that He's earned;
-
that title to eternal life.
-
Question: So as you study
John 5 and these things,
-
is that when your position
started to change?
-
Charles: Yeah, what happened was
-
I actually left that series
and I've told people
-
that I didn't come
back until a year later,
-
but it was actually over two years later.
-
And I came back to John 5
-
a couple years later and took up again.
-
And I had already prepared
a standard message
-
on the Sabbath.
-
It was already ready,
and I couldn't give it.
-
And so the next morning,
-
I don't remember what I gave,
-
but I gave something entirely different.
-
And another thing, I began to realize
-
that all of my studies -
-
all the theology and everything
-
that I had read
-
was from a couple
centuries of church history.
-
And I'm sometimes asked,
-
this new covenant theology,
-
it's a new thing and that's dangerous,
-
which I agree with totally.
-
But my response to that is that
-
covenant theology is the new thing
-
in terms of church history.
-
You look at that and John Murray
-
has a history of covenant theology
-
and goes into where it really
began to be developed.
-
It's not the idea that covenant theology
-
is some thing that's existed
since the 1st century.
-
A lot of people have that in their mind
-
because that's all they've ever heard.
-
And I had the standard view.
-
I had those books about how
-
the day has been changed
-
and the Sabbath has been preserved
-
and all of those things to try to explain
-
how you could have the 4th
commandment shift over.
-
The early church, in church history,
-
they never viewed the Lord's Day
-
as fulfilling the 4th commandment
-
until much later, like 700 years later.
-
And so, the idea that we're under
-
the Ten Commandments
-
and the Ten Commandments -
-
the 4th commandment we
fulfill on the Lord's Day,
-
even when they began
resting on the Lord's Day,
-
when Constantine made it a legal holiday,
-
he called it the Venerable Day of the Sun
-
(S, U, N.)
-
And made that a legal holiday
-
when Christianity became
-
the official religion of the Roman Empire.
-
And so they began having the day off,
-
but even then, it wasn't thought of
-
as we're fulfilling the 4th commandment.
-
Those are things that came later.
-
Question: When you changed your views,
-
did anyone cut their
relationship off with you?
-
Charles: No, not at that time.
-
A lot of these things were things
-
that under the surface bother you
-
as to how does this fit?
How does that fit?
-
But it never came down
-
with real weight on me where I really saw
-
that this is so inconsistent.
-
It's like it kind of fell apart.
-
Question: Did you at any point
-
have a shift to where the Scriptures
-
had a greater emphasis on your life
-
in comparison with church
history and confessions?
-
Charles: I never was affected a lot
-
by the confessions
-
as much as I was affected by men
-
that I admired theologically.
-
And covenant theology has a lot
-
of really good things.
-
One of the dangers -
-
and I don't want to identify myself
-
with new covenant theology either,
-
because I feel like there's extremes
-
and errors - I may talk about that.
-
James: That would be good to hear
-
what some of those errors are.
-
Charles: Well, covenant theology
-
is founded on the idea that there are
-
two basic covenants:
-
a covenant of works and
a covenant of grace.
-
And the covenant of grace
-
is this super-historical or a-historical
-
thing that unifies this overarching
-
covenant of grace.
-
The Bible never talks about
"the covenant of grace."
-
And when the Bible talks about covenants,
-
it's covenants that are made in time
-
with specific people.
-
And so this is a theological construction.
-
And what happens when you bring in
-
"the covenant of grace," -
-
the theological construction -
-
then you say, well, the Mosaic covenant
-
was one administration
-
of the covenant of grace.
-
The new covenant is a
different administration
-
of the covenant of grace.
-
And so you end up saying
-
that the Mosaic covenant
was a gracious covenant
-
and basically similar to the new covenant.
-
Rather than, contrasting.
-
Paul says the opposite.
-
He says the law was not of faith.
-
He says the law has to do with works.
-
The principle of law is:
do this and you shall live.
-
And so the Mosaic covenant
was very gracious
-
in that it had a gracious purpose
-
and it was part of God bringing them
-
toward the Messiah.
-
But to say that the covenant itself
was gracious misrepresents.
-
It's not at all what Paul said about it.
-
The Mosaic covenant represents
-
this principle of blessing and curse.
-
You have those there in Deuteronomy.
-
Verse after verse after verse
-
about all these curses:
-
If you don't do...
If you disobey...
-
Curse, cursed, cursed, cursed.
-
If you obey, blessed, blessed, blessed.
-
And those things had to do
with temporal blessings -
-
life in the land,
-
living along in the land
and being blessed,
-
having rain from heaven
and all those things,
-
victory over your enemies.
-
But that represented a legal principle
-
that is true in the realm of eternal life.
-
And the way we know that for sure
-
is whenever they ask Jesus
-
what must I do to have eternal life?
-
He went back and talked about things
-
out of the law.
-
And those were representative,
-
like loving God with all your heart,
soul, mind, and strength;
-
loving your neighbor as yourself.
-
That was a principle there
that if you did that,
-
you would have eternal life.
-
Do this and you will live.
-
And Paul does the same thing.
-
He talks about this curse of the law.
-
Well, the curse of the law
-
ultimately it was not being
kicked out of the land,
-
but it was eternal punishment.
-
And Christ redeemed us
from the curse of the law.
-
The Mosaic covenant is a
legal covenant of works.
-
Initially of works that they could do
-
to remain in the land or not do.
-
But then representing a deeper meaning
-
of works in terms of
meriting eternal life or not,
-
and of course, no one ever
did that for a moment.
-
Except for the Lord Jesus Christ.
-
That's covenant theology.
-
Let me say a little more.
-
(Incomplete thought)
-
Covenant theology makes
-
too little of a discontinuity
-
between the Old and New Testaments.
-
It sees too little of a shift.
-
And so you have men like B.B. Warfield
-
saying God put children in the church
-
in the days of Abraham.
-
It's a total anachronism -
it's from back here.
-
And a lot of covenant people
-
view Old Testament Israel
-
as basically the same as the church.
-
And you have John Stott getting up
-
and rebuking Martyn Lloyd-Jones in 1966.
-
Rebuking him basically.
-
Lloyd-Jones was calling people
-
to come out of these apostate churches.
-
And he said, "Dr. Lloyd-Jones,
-
both history and the
Bible are against you.
-
The remnant is not outside the church.
-
The remnant is within the church."
-
In other words, this remnant is believers.
-
And "the church" is this big apostate mass
-
like Anglicanism is
-
where you can have an archbishop
-
that denies the Bible
and the virgin birth.
-
So that's what he views as the church.
-
And the remnant is inside -
-
this little group of believers
-
and they're supposed to stay in.
-
Well, of course, the logic of that
-
is that the reformation should
never have happened.
-
They should have stayed in the Catholic -
-
"the church" - the Catholic church.
-
And the remnant should
have stayed inside there.
-
And lo and behold, that's what happened.
-
There was this shift and those
men that believed that way
-
there was a shift back
towards Catholicism,
-
both by John Stott and by J.I. Packer.
-
So, in covenant theology,
-
there tends to be this
too little distinction
-
made between the two covenants
-
and too little of a contrast
-
and too little of a break.
-
In dispensationalism, it's
the opposite problem.
-
There's too many breaks
-
and there's no continuity.
-
And in the old dispensationalism,
-
like with the original Scofield Bible,
-
basically almost taught that they were
-
saved by lawkeeping in the old covenant.
-
And many wrong views there.
-
Not enough continuity particularly between
-
true believers in the Old and in the New.
-
New covenant theology
-
is closer to the truth on all of it,
-
and of course, that's what my position
-
would be categorized as.
-
But the problems with it
-
if you just identify yourself with that,
-
there's a lot of things
-
that I feel like sometimes they tend to
-
react too much to covenant theology.
-
There's many wonderful
things in covenant theology
-
and wonderful theologians
-
that have taken those positions.
-
If we study through in
our men's theology time
-
on Saturday mornings,
-
if we study through a systematic theology,
-
we're going to get one of these guys
-
that is a really good covenant theologian
-
because they're just better.
-
But that doesn't make them infallible.
-
And there are certain areas
-
where you get into certain
areas of their teaching,
-
and they're floundering
-
and pulling things out of the air.
-
But other areas, they're very, very good.
-
It's possible to overreact.
-
That's the biggest danger I would say
-
about new covenant theology.
-
All of these things,
-
we say that we're always reforming,
-
but as long as you don't change anything.
-
You're always reforming as long as you
-
stick to whatever's accepted.
-
And there's always a danger
-
in trying to come up with a
better definition of something
-
or a little closer to the Bible.
-
There's always danger there.
-
That's what happened when Luther
-
stood before the emperor.
-
And the emperor said,
-
"a thousand years of church
history can not be wrong
-
and one monk be right."
-
Well, he had a great argument.
-
The only trouble is he was wrong.
-
A thousand years of
church history was wrong.
-
He had a wrong view of the church.
-
That was the problem.
-
Question: So in regards to those
-
who would label themselves
as new covenant theology,
-
where do they take things
too far to an extreme?
-
Charles: Well, one example is
-
that some have denied the idea
-
of Christ's righteousness being imputed.
-
Some have denied that Christ merited
-
eternal life by His positive obedience
-
to God's law.
-
They say that the Bible only talks about
-
the death of Christ and not about His life
-
and not about what's
called His active obedience.
-
I think those things go too far.
-
In that area for example,
-
we have Paul specifically talks about
-
through the obedience of the one,
the many are made righteous.
-
And I think he's talking about
-
more than just the cross.
-
It's this whole righteous life
-
viewed as a unit.
-
And it says that we receive
-
abundance of grace
-
and of the gift of righteousness.
-
That's very clear there.
-
We receive a gift of righteousness.
-
That would be one area.
-
Question: If they hold to that position,
-
what does that lead to?
-
Charles: Well, if you lose
-
the imputation of righteousness,
-
to me, that's a very big thing.
-
If you lose the fact that we're saved
-
not only by Christ's death,
-
but by His obedience.
-
I had one dear brother say to me
-
Jesus could have died
when He was an infant
-
and it would have put away our sins.
-
I don't think we see
that at all in Scripture.
-
Righteousness and testedness
-
is something that cannot be concreated,
-
that is, you cannot be
created with testedness.
-
That'd be like faking it.
-
That's like God creating a tree
-
that's already old and has rings.
-
And it has a fake history.
-
He had to pass through,
He had to go through;
-
He learned obedience through
the things which He suffered.
-
For futher study on this topic,
-
you can listen to Charles' series
-
on the Law of Christ.