Imperishable Inheritance

John Reisinger says in his introduction to Abraham's Four Seeds: God's Promise to Abraham and His Seed:

Let us not make the same mistakes that the Reformers made. They thoroughly reformed the gospel message of justification by faith but failed to reform some other doctrines. They threw out justification by the works of the law, but held on to sanctification by the law. They rejected the Church's authority over your soul, but hung on to the Church's authority over your conscience. They discarded priestcraft and substituted clericalism. They rejected the authority of Church tradition (which taught Papal infallibility) but replaced it with man-made creeds that soon became as authoritative as Scripture. In reality they replaced a two-legged Pope with a paper Pope. They cried sola Scriptura while waving a creed in one hand and a sword in the other.

That is an amazing quote. He also says, "Reformed Baptists are among the leaders in the present day revival of Calvinistic literature." Of course I just love that statement. I'm finding myself comfortable in a tradition that is being rediscovered in academic circles with a position entitled New Covenant Theology (hereafter NCT). Modern theologians who espouse a similar view would include D.A. Carson, Douglass Moo, John Piper, Tom Schreiner, and John Reisinger. What I'm trying to show is that the position of NCT is seeing a large boom in theological circles.

I mention NCT, because I believe many "reformed" churches which include Presbyterian, Reformed Baptists, and reformed theologians in independent/non-denominational churches all espouse a distorted view of the Pauline, and New Testament, conception of the Law. This led John to say that: "They [the reformers] threw out justification by the works of the law, but held on to sanctification by the law." Well, Martin Luther himself proposed a view on the relation of Christians to the Law of Moses:

But we will not have this sort of thing. We would rather not preach again for the rest of our life than to let Moses return and to let Christ be torn out of our hearts. We will not have Moses as ruler or lawgiver any longer. Indeed God himself will not have it either. Moses was an intermediary solely for the Jewish people. It was to them that he gave the law. We must therefore silence the mouths of those factious spirits who say, "Thus says Moses," etc. Here you simply reply: Moses has nothing to do with us. If I were to accept Moses in one commandment, I would have to accept the entire Moses. Thus the consequence would be that if I accept Moses as master, then I must have myself circumcised, wash my clothes in the Jewish way, eat and drink and dress thus and so, and observe all that stuff. So, then, we will neither observe nor accept Moses. Moses is dead. His rule ended when Christ came. He is of no further service.
Martin Luther, How Christians Should Regard Moses (pgs. 164-5)

Even though that it is a very stiff passage, it cuts right through the fluff to get to the root of what he is saying (the New Covenant perspective on Law/Gospel is often labeled "Modified Lutheranism"). I believe that Paul also taught this as well (although in a more poetic form):

Is the Law then contrary to the promises of God? May it never be! For if a law had been given which was able to impart life, then righteousness would indeed have been based on law. But the Scripture has shut up everyone under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed. Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor. For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.
Galatians 3:21-26

But Paul is not antinomian (a word perpetuated by classical covenant theologians who disagree with their view on the Law), but he sees New Covenant believers under the Law of Christ.

For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a slave to all, so that I may win more. To the Jews I became as a Jew, so that I might win Jews; to those who are under the Law, as under the Law though not being myself under the Law, so that I might win those who are under the Law; to those who are without law, as without law, though not being without the law of God but under the law of Christ, so that I might win those who are without law.
1 Corinthians 9:19-21

It's interesting that he says that he himself is not under the Law (vs. 20d). He speaks of those under the Law as being under captivity, and this is a theme he uncovers more in his second letter to the church at Corinth. He says that the Law was a "ministry of death" (2 Cor 3:7), and the "whenever Moses is read, a veil lies over their heart" (2 Cor 3:15). He goes on to expound upon the fact that when someone comes to Christ the Law (veil) passes away, "But whenever a person turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away" (2 Cor 3:16).

I find problem with the hermeneutical principles of classical covenant theologians that proclaim that whatever is not abolished in the New Testament remains in effect of the Old (so then Presby's, why do you correlate baptism with circumcision when it has passed away, but that is not the focus of this article). A proper Pauline conception of the relation of Law and Gospel comes from his view that (1) when he refers to the Law he is referring to the Law in its totality (in other words, there is no civil, ceremonial, and moral distinction in the Law; cf. Rom 7:7), (2) that the Decalogue was the sign of the Old Covenant not to be removed from it, and (3) that God's unchanging moral law is reflected in the commands of Christ and His apostles.

Paul wasn't the only that spoke of this. The author to the Hebrews interprets the prophecy of a new covenant in Jer 31:31-34 and applies to the Church, and the author exegetes the passage from Jeremiah: "When He said, 'A new covenant,' He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear" (Heb 8:13). From this passage, I can see what it means for the New Covenant to have the Law "written on the heart." I believe that Jeremiah is prophesying that the Law will also change in a drastic way (which from my studies so far, I haven't seen such a declaration in the Old Testament).

It should be noted that I'm not Dispensational either classical or progressive. Even though I have a similiar view on the Law/Gospel issue as them that doesn't mean that I am one of them. I do think that the Church is the "New Israel" (Rom 9:6; Eph 2:11ff; Phil 3:3; Gal 6:16), that Gentiles are heirs to the Abrahamic Covenant by faith (Rom 4; Gal 3), and I don't think Israel will be rebuilt nationally in a millennium (although I'm still struggling with how Rom 11:26 works out eschatologically). This is where the distinction comes from New Covenant Theology and dispensationlism (that is, I see no distinction in God's plan for ethnic Israel and the Church, cf. Gal 3:8-9).

I could go on, but I'd rather point you to some article which I believe do a much better job that I could of expounding upon this view of the Law. It should be noted that one is a Reformed Baptist and the other Presbyterian so the view is represented in various reformed circles.

• How Does the Christian Relate to the Law of Moses?
• In Defense of the New Covenant