March Theology Lunch

What Is It? This is an informal, fun time for pastors and all those who enjoy discussing theology as well as fellowshipping with other Christians. Many of us stay longer than an hour to talk, encourage one another, and pray, but those who can only come in for a quick lunch are welcome to do so as well.

What Is This Month's Theme? Justin Childers, pastor of Christ Baptist Church, will be speaking on the theme:

"Can Christians Lose Their Salvation?"

Where Is It? Gardener's Barbecue on HWY 301 in Rocky Mount.

When Is It? Tuesday, March 11th, at 12:00 p.m.

How Much Is It? The cost for the buffet lunch, including drink and tip, is $10.

Driscoll, Mahaney, Piper

Watch them live here at 5pm, 7pm, and 10pm respectively.

Tomorrow: Piper at 1pm, Driscoll at 5:45pm, Piper again at 10pm with Q&A afterwards.

Considering Some Propositions of "New Covenant Theology"

These seven propositions come from the book “New Covenant Theology: Description, Definition, Defense” by Tom Wells and Fred Zaspel.

Prop 1: The New Testament is the apex of God’s revelation, therefore the Old Testament should be read and interpreted through the grid of the New.

Thoughts: This principle of interpretation is widely held by many. Since we live on this side of Christ’s coming, we can now look back at the Old Testament Scriptures with greater understanding than those who lived before Christ’s coming. They were dealing with shadows, but we can see both the shadows and the real thing. I certainly affirm the this proposition as true, but would like to add the caveat that there are in fact times when the Old Testament helps us make sense of the New.

Prop 2: Our slavery to Jesus Christ has far reaching implications.

Thoughts: Of course this is true. However, I’m not sure it has the implication Wells and Zaspel think it does. They seem to be arguing that our obedience to Christ as our Master trumps our duty to obey the Law and the Prophets of the Old Testament. They refer to the Transfiguration, where Peter is rebuked for wanting to honor Moses (representing the Law) and Elijah (representing the Prophets) along with Christ. God spoke and said, “This is my son, whom I love. Listen to him!” (Mark 9:7) But is God telling us to listen to Jesus as opposed to the Law and the Prophets? I don’t think so. After all, are not all the words of Scripture the words of Christ? God’s command for Peter to recognize the uniqueness and superiority of Jesus does not discard our obligation to listen to all Scripture.

Prop 3: We should follow the highest revelation of the moral character of God.

Thoughts: Wells and Zaspel ask which is the higher revelation of God’s character – the 10 Commandments or the person and work of Christ? Their argument is that we should follow the “higher” of these two. But isn’t this an unfair dichotomy? Must we choose between following the Ten Commandments and the Lord Jesus Christ, as if they present two opposing views of God’s character? I would suggest that the person and work of Christ is certainly the greatest and highest revelation there ever could be, but that the character of God revealed in Jesus is not incompatible bur rather perfectly aligned with the character of God revealed in the Law. Wells and Zaspel seem to be putting forth an either/or for I what I think should be a both/and.

Prop 4: “In the NT the word covenant is almost always used to assert discontinuity…this kind of inductive study cannot prove, but strongly suggests, that no such comprehensive covenant is referred to in the NT.” (p. 45-46)

Thoughts: The implicit claim here is that there is no comprehensive “Covenant of Grace” taught in the New Testament, a claim made more explicit on page 48. The Covenant of Grace is a feature of Covenant Theology, and most simplistically can be identified with God’s covenant with Abraham that CT adherents claim overarches both the Old Covenant and the New Covenant. The Covenant of Grace includes God’s promise to create a vast people for Himself as well as the promise that by faith sinners can be reckoned as righteous in the sight of God. According to CT, the Abrahamic Covenant was not revoked but remains in effect through both the ld Covenant (Mosaic Covenant) and the New Covenant. The New Covenant in particular is the coming to fruition of the Abrahamic Covenant. Some NCT adherents seem to view the Abrahamic Covenant as replaced by the Old Covenant (Mosaic Covenant), which was then replaced by the New Covenant. To be clearer, perhaps you can imagine the CT view as an umbrella (the Abrahamic Covenant) which covers both the Old and New Covenants, whereas the NCT view sees all three covenants as a successive chain in which each new covenant ends the earlier one. (Wellum’s chapter in Believer’s Baptism, as I recall, seems to describe this perspective of the covenants.)

Notice that the proposition above asserts that the New Testament does not teach a comprehensive covenant. But is it appropriate to ignore the Old Testament? Is not all Scripture “breathed out by God and profitable” (2nd Tim. 3:16)?

I would suggest that Psalm 105:7-11 clearly teaches the enduring and comprehensive nature of the Abrahamic Covenant:

“He is the LORD our God;
his judgments are in all the earth.
He remembers his covenant forever,
the word that he commanded, for a thousand generations,
the covenant that he made with Abraham,
his sworn promise to Isaac,
which he confirmed to Jacob as a statute,
to Israel as an everlasting covenant,
saying ‘to you I will give the land of Canaan
as your portion for an inheritance.”

What does this passage teach about the covenant made with Abraham? God remembers this promise forever. It was given for a thousand generations. It is an everlasting covenant.

But what about the proposition above? Is it true that the New Testament does not teach this comprehensive covenant? Allow me to give a couple of examples where I believe the NT does use the word covenant in a comprehensive way:

1. Zechariah’s prophecy in Luke 1: “Blessed be the LORD God of Israel, for he has visited and redeemed his people…to show the mercy promised to our fathers and to remember his holy covenant, the oath that he swore to our father Abraham…”

This prophecy celebrates not only the birth of John the Baptist but also the coming birth of Christ, “a horn of salvation for us”. For Zechariah, the coming of Christ is not only issuing in the New Covenant but is also evidence of God’s keeping the Abrahamic Covenant.

2. Hebrews 13:20: “Now may the God of peace who brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, the great shepherd of the sheep, by the blood of the eternal covenant…”

There is a lot of debate about the phrase “the blood of the eternal covenant”. Which covenant is in view here? Since it is speaking of Christ’s blood, which we know is part of the New Covenant (“this cup is the new covenant in my blood”), the New Covenant must be in view. The New Covenant is an eternal covenant. But didn’t we already see in Psalm 105:7-11 that the Abrahamic Covenant is an eternal covenant? Yes. Which leaves us with two options: either there are two eternal yet completely distinct covenants (which leads us in the direction of Dispensationalism?), or these two eternal covenants are in fact one and the same (or better, the New is simply the coming to fruition of the Abrahamic.) This is why Covenant Theologians can speak of an overarching covenant of grace that stretches from Abraham to eternity, and it appears (contrary to NCT) that the NT supports this teaching.

Another point: Wells and Zaspel looked at verses that used the word “covenant” in the NT to determine that no comprehensive covenant is referred to in its pages. But could it be that passages which do not actually use the word “covenant” still make reference to the comprehensive nature of the Abrahamic Covenant? I would suggest that a case for this could be made from Romans 4 and Galatians 3.

Let me briefly note that the proposition made above does not appear to be held by all NCT adherents. Steven Lehrer, for example, is clear in his book “New Covenant Theology: Questions Answered” that he sees both the Old and New Covenants as part of the Abrahamic covenant. This clearly does not square with Wells and Zaspel’s assertion above.

Prop 5: The church began at Pentecost.

Thoughts: I am willing to say that the visible, institutionalized church began at Pentecost. However, the invisible church, the elect of God, began with Adam. Old Testament Israel was certainly not a part of the Church, but there was always a remnant within Israel that had saving faith and was (and is) a part of His people. This gets to the question of whether God has one people or two, a subject which I discussed in an earlier post.

Interestingly, Wells and Zaspel later acknowledge that “from the standpoint of eternity future, looking back, the church will prove to have been God’s elect individuals from every era.” From this statement I assume that their position then is at least similar to mine.

Prop 6: The Church is under the law of Christ, not the law of Moses.

Now, here is where things really get interesting. The argument being made is that the Mosaic Law governed national Israel in the Old Covenant, but the law of Christ now governs the Church in the New Covenant. Christ is the new and higher Moses. His laws and those given through Moses are not unrelated - both reflect the character of the same God. But in the New Testament Christ is free to reiterate, modify, or even rescind the commands given to Moses. According to the adherents of NCT, if a command isn’t issued by Christ or His apostles, the Church is not bound by it.

Thoughts: Some of what is being argued here is what first attracted me to NCT, and much of it I still find appealing. I agree, for example, that the law of Moses was given to govern national Israel under the Old Covenant. I also recognize that the New Testament speaks of something called “the law of Christ.” Hebrews is clear that Christ is greater than Moses and much of the New Testament reminds us that we are no longer under “the law”. However…

1. I do not agree that the law of Moses was given only to govern national Israel under the Old Covenant. Like all of Scripture, the Mosaic Law is for us as well, in the sense that it reveals to us the moral character of God that we are to imitate. In particular, I find it difficult to say that the Ten Commandments were meant only for Israel and not for us. I would suggest that the principles given in the Ten Commandments were known as a standard of morality to be upheld long before they were written on the stone tablets at Sinai. So, for example, in Genesis 26:5, God tells Isaac that through his offspring all the nations of the earth will be blessed “because Abraham obeyed my voice and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.” What commandments, statutes, and laws did Abraham keep? Clearly before the Mosaic law was ever given God’s people knew of a divine law. I would suggest that this is the law written on every person’s heart, the law summed up in the Ten Commandments.

2. I do not agree that “the law of Christ” can be identified as only those commands found in the New Testament, or as simply the command to love God and others. The law of Christ is the same as the law of God – it is those moral principles that express their character. The Old Testament Scriptures are no less the words of Christ than the New, and the commands within them reveal that same character. The commands to love God and love others do sum up the law of Christ (and the law of God, since they are one and the same), but they are not the sum total of the law’s content. We learn the moral character of Christ that we are to imitate in both the Old and New Testaments, and we should not neglect one or the other.

3. I do agree that Christ fulfilled the Law for us in His person and work, but that does not mean the law passes away. We are still obligated to obey the moral aspects of the law, and failure to do so will bring judgment. Yet this is what it means when we read in the NT that Christ has set us free from the law – Christ has so perfectly fulfilled the law for us that there is no more condemnation for those who are in Him. We have been set from from the bondage of having to obey the Law out of fear, and now have the freedom to live out the law (which is now written on our hearts) in joy.

4. All that said, I do agree with Wells and Zaspel on this point: that as the ultimate Law Giver, Christ has the right to reiterate, modify, or rescind any law He chooses. But I must add the caveat that Christ will never in anyway rescind the moral aspect of any law previously issued (since God cannot deny Himself). So, for example, in the Sermon on the Mount, Christ does seem to modify some of the Mosaic commandments, but in doing so never contradicts the moral obligations of the original commands. For example, the Mosaic Law allowed people to take an oath, but insisted that they keep it. At its root, the law forbade dishonesty – saying you’ll do something and then not doing it. Christ clearly modifies this command when He says that we should not take an oath at all. And since He is greater than Moses, surely His command trumps the original. But the point of His command is the same as the original – that His people not be dishonest.

Prop 7. The Sabbath was a command given to national Israel, but not to the New Testament Church. It has been fulfilled in Christ and we are under no obligation to keep it.

Thoughts: Since I posted my position on this earlier, I won’t stretch this post any further.

I would very much appreciate any thoughts or critiques. I have spent the last several months contemplating Dispensationalism, Covenant Theology, and New Covenant Theology, and can now say with more understanding that I believe Covenant Theology to best fit the Bible’s teaching.

Storms on the Spirit

I've had a few questions/thoughts since the Sam Storms conference on the Spirit. One question comes from Justin C's notes on the Friday night session (that I missed).

Here is JC's note on Storms' third point:

3. We quench the Spirit when we suppress or legislate the gifts He gives. Cessationism is quenching the Spirit. We need all of the gifts of the Spirit and not just a select few. (emphasis mine)

My questions concerning this are, Did he address the supposed gift of Apostleship? and if so, What did he say about its legitimacy for today?

Other questions I had were about his view of Jesus' "laying aside" of his divine attributes while on earth. I wasn't exactly comfortable with everything he said in that session. Did Jesus lay aside the divine character as well as his attributes? Does Storms' view open up the possibility of Jesus disobeying the Father? What are your thoughts about what Storms said concerning this?

Those are two areas where I had questions. Do you have any insight into them? Do you have any questions/comments of your own about the conference?

The Sabbath: A Preliminary Position Statement

I would definitely like your input and critique of these statements.

I. The Sabbath is a creation ordinance. The Sabbath was not given first to Moses, but to Adam. God blessed the Sabbath and made it holy not only for the benefit of ancient Israel, but originally for the man in the Garden (Genesis 2:1-3, Mark 2:27). Adam was to follow the pattern of His creator, working six days and resting one. The Sabbath was a gift for Adam, and for all his descendents, including you and I.[1]

II. The 4th Commandment has both moral and ceremonial elements. The Ten Commandments functions in two different ways: first, as the centerpiece of the constitution for the theocracy of Israel; second, as a comprehensive statement of the moral law of God. The Sabbath’s inclusion in the Ten Commandments should not make us less inclined but rather more inclined to view it as a moral imperative for all people. Obeying this command reminds us that we need rest, for we are not God. We are the creature, not the Creator. Moreover, the commandment teaches us God’s sovereignty over our time. That said, there is little doubt in my mind that the kind of Sabbath observance put forward in the Law given at Sinai was a Jewish Sabbath. The rules concerning how the Israelites were to observe the Sabbath were unique to them and were shadows pointing to the Messiah who was to come.

III. Romans 14:5-6 and Colossians 2:16 do refer to the Jewish Sabbath. I am not at all certain that Galatians 4:10 has reference to the Old Covenant Sabbath, but it does seem evident to me that such a reference is in view on the most plain reading of Romans 14:5-6 and Colossians 2:16. It appears that some Jewish Christians still felt the need to gather with their fellow Jews at the synagogue on the Old Covenant Sabbath. Paul makes clear that this is okay, but certainly not required. The Jewish Sabbath along with the other elements of Old Covenant ceremony are now fulfilled in Christ. However, this does not change the fact that the Sabbath was made for man, and that we still need a day of rest. Paul is not saying that the Sabbath principle is abolished, only the form of Old Covenant observance.

IV. Hebrews 4 does not negate the Sabbath principle. Certainly the ceremonial nature of the Old Covenant Sabbath is fulfilled in Christ. Certainly our ultimate rest is found in Christ. Yet even as Hebrews 4 reminds us of our present rest in Christ, it also reminds us of the perfect, future rest that we have not yet attained. We continue to need a day of physical rest and spiritual refreshment as we seek to enter that eschatological rest.

V. The Lord’s Day is the New Covenant Sabbath. The Sabbath principal is universal and was given to all of Adam’s descendents. Yet its observance has taken on different forms throughout history. There are important differences between Old Covenant and New Covenant observance. One of these differences is the day which we set aside. Another is the way in which we keep the day holy. Certainly it should still be a day of rest, for that is why it was given to us. Yet we also see in the New Covenant that it is primarily to be a day of assembling for worship and edification. Questions of how to keep the day holy should be left to conscience.

VI. The early church continued to observe the Sabbath principle. However, they did so in a way that encouraged Christians not to observe the Old Covenant Sabbath but the Lord’s Day (the New Covenant Sabbath). In the first few generations after the Apostles the distinction was often made between the “Sabbath” and the Lord’s Day. But it is clear that the “Sabbath” that was being prohibited by these early church fathers was the Old Covenant Sabbath – not observance of the Sabbath principle. Within a few decades the Lord’s Day was being called the “Christian Sabbath” and was recognized as a continuation of the Sabbath principle established in Genesis 2.

[1] Is it possible that Cain and Abel’s practice of bringing an offering to the Lord was in fact an observance of the Sabbath they had learned from their parents? Even if not, the fact that they knew to worship God through offerings shows that God certainly revealed some of His commandments long before the giving of the Law at Sinai. Moreover, Exodus 16 does seem to indicate that people knew what Sabbath observance was before it was included in the Ten Commandments. I take from all this that the Sabbath is a gift for all people, not just the Israelites.

Sabbath Questions Stated

Hopefully these questions will help us to get the big picture of what the Scriptures teach on this subject:

1. Is the Sabbath a creation ordinance? If so, for who?

2. Is the Sabbath commandment ceremonial or moral (or both), and in what way has Christ fulfilled this law?

3. Does Romans 14:5-6, Galatians 4:10, or Colossians 2:16 teach that the Sabbath commandment is no longer binding on God's people?

4. Exactly what does Hebrews 4 say and how does its message affect the question of Sabbath observance today?

5. What does the historical evidence tell us about how the early church answered this question?


Let me try and make a contribution to the discussion by pursuing question 3:

Does Romans 14:5-6, Galatians 4:10, or Colossians 2:16 teach that the Sabbath commandment is no longer binding on God's people?

I'll quote some men much more knowledgable than I, and then give my opinion at the end.

a. Romans 14:5-6. One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. The one who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord. The one who eats, eats in honor of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God, while the one who abstains, abstains in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God.

Leon Morris gives only a brief statement: "This has often been taken to mean that the weak brother observes the Jewish Sabbath. But Paul does not say this, and it is equally possible that he is referring to feast days and fast days, either those laid down in the Jewish law or those derived from other sources."

But Tom Schreiner has much more to say: "Some commentators have identified the special days of observance with fast days. But this is too limiting, for the general reference to "days" suggests that festival days, new moons, and especially the Sabbath were also intended. Dunn notes rightly that fast days were not greatly controversial in the early church nor were the central in Judaism. Any Jew would inevitably think of the Sabbath, for this was the day that most distinguished Jews from others...Even in Greco-Roman writers the Sabbath was the day that came to mind when they considered the Jewish observance of particular days (see Juvenal, Satire; Tacitus, Histories). That Paul believed that observance of the Sabbath (along with food regulations) was not binding on the church is also evident in Col. 2:16. Sabbath and food regulations are considered to be "shadows: that are no longer in force now that Jesus Christ has come. The Apostolic Fathers point to the same conclusion, for they emphasize that believers keep not the Sabbath but the Lord's Day (he lists several references). They do not argue that the Lord's Day is the Sabbath. Instead, they distinguish the two, claiming that believers observe the former but not the latter."

Finally, Douglas Moo seems to concur with Schreiner, though admitting the problem is difficult: "Pinning down the exact nature of this disagreement over "days" is difficult since Paul does not elaborate. Some expositors trace the problem to the influence of the pagan environment, which might have led some Roman Christians to distinguish "lucky" and "unlucky" days, or to practice days of abstinence in accordance with certain Greco-Roman religious cults. But we have seen good reason to trace the root issue between the "strong" and the "weak" to Jewish concerns about the law. And the observance of the day was, of course, important in the OT and in Judaism. Whether the specific point at issue was the observance of the great Jewish festivals, regular days of fasting, or the Sabbath is difficult to say. But we would expect that the Sabbath, at least, would be involved, since Sabbath observance was, along with food laws, a key Jewish distinctive in the first century, and surfaced as a point of tension elsewhere in the early church (see Gal. 4:10[?]; Col. 2:16)."

Note that both Schreiner and Moo point to Galatians 4:10 and especially Colossians 2:16 as examples of a similar situation to that which the Romans are experiencing. Their understanding of Paul's response there affects their understanding of the passage here.

Galatians 4:10: You observe days and months and seasons and years!

Is Paul rebuking the Galatians for observing the Sabbath? I only have one good exegetical commentary on Galatians, but Timothy George seems to think that Sabbath is included in the word "days".

Colossians 2:16-17: Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath. These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ.

Sabbatarians tend to regard the word "Sabbath" here as referring to other ceremonial sabbaths of the Old Testament, but not the weekly Sabbath.

F. F. Bruce says, however, "The onus probandi [burden of proof] lies on those who argue that the weekly sabbath is not included in this reference. When the sabbath is mentioned in the OT or the NT with no contextual qualification, the weekly sabbath is intended."

As for my opinion on this question, I would say this:

1. The most plain reading of these passages would seem to indicate that the Sabbath is in view.
2. These passages do not prohibit Sabbath observance, but do seem to put it in the category of the "weak brother" who has not recognized that the day was a "shadow" but the "substance" has come.

Nevertheless, my mind is still not settled on the question because while I think the above is most probable, it is possible that the passages above refer only to other Jewish days excluding the weekly Sabbath. I'm also still torn on some of the other questions I put forward at the beginning of this post.

In any case, there is one thing we should definitely learn from the Romans and Colossians passage. Bruce puts it this way: "Sabbatarian controversies among Christians would be laid to rest if serious account were taken of the injunction: "Let no one sit in judgment on you with regard to a sabbath.""

Preach Christ

Brothers,
Reformation and Revival will come to our area when the preachers of God's Word get serious about preaching Christ and Him crucified.

Read this article by CJ Mahaney and adjust accordingly (or just be encouraged)!

"In each sermon let there be a sighting of the hill of Calvary and what was accomplished there by our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ."

-Justin C.

The Sabbath

Okay guys, let's deal with the question of the Sabbath head on (since it came up in the comments of the last post). Let me list some of the propositions of the Sabbatarians and then some of the non-Sabbatarians. Feel free to discuss any of the propositions you want.

Propositions of the Sabbatarians:

1. The Sabbath is a Creation ordinance established for all humanity in Genesis 2:1-3.

2. The Sabbath ordinance was known before it was reiterated as a part of the 10 Commandments. (Exodus 16)

3. Since the Sabbath is a Creation ordinance and a part of the 10 Commandments, it should not be considered a part of the "ceremonial" law fulfilled in Christ.

4. Romans 14:5-6, Galatians 4:10, and Colossians 2:10 are referring to the ceremonial sabbaths of the Mosaic Law (there were many different sabbaths, after all), and do not teach that the 4th Command has been abrogated in some way.

5. Hebrews 4:9 (perhaps the central verse in the debate) either explicitly teaches Sabbatarianism (so Dabney) by using the word sabbatismos for "rest", or implicitly teaches Sabbtarianism (so most modern Sabbatarians) since the "type" (the earthly sabbath) will remain until it finds its fulfillment in the "antitype" (heaven).

6. The Apostles were led by the Spirit of Christ (who is "the Lord if the Sabbath") to change the sabbath from Saturday to Sunday in commemoration of the resurrection of our Lord.


Propositions of the non-Sabbatarians:

1. The Sabbath is not an ordinance established for all humanity. Though God did bless the seventh day and make it holy at Creation, this was only revealed to His people through Moses. The Sabbath command was given only to them.

2. The Sabbath was a "sign" of the Old Covenant which ended with that covenant.

3. Though the other nine commandments are reiterated in the New Testament, the Sabbath command is not. This is posited as evidence that the Sabbath command is a part of the ceremonial law, not the moral law.

4. Romans 14:5-6, Galatians 4:10, and Colossians 2:10 reveal that the Apostle Paul did not regard the Sabbath as binding on Christ's followers, and was not to be placed as an additional burden on Gentile converts.

5. Hebrews 4:9 and its context teach that New Testament believers find their sabbath rest in Christ.

6. There is no evidence from history that the Apostles changed the day of the Sabbath. Rather, the apostles viewed the sabbath as having been fulfilled and established an entirely new kind of day - the Lord's Day - as a day for meeting together to celebrate the resurrection of Christ.


I want to hear your thoughts about these propositions - which do you agree with and why? How does it affect your own Christian conduct and those under your care?

Canceling Services for the Super Bowl?

Is it compromise to cancel Sunday night services for the Super Bowl? Does the idea of getting God's people out into the homes of their neighbors/coworkers this Sunday night sit well with you?

What are your thoughts on canceling church services for the Super Bowl? We're not, but I've heard of others that do, and I've had some thoughts about the positives and negatives of doing so.